Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text
Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Whatever. If fiat is legitimate, that is. I'm not sure what your point
> is. A rose is a rose is a rose. DFSG 3 contains absolutely no
> implication of the existence of any exception to its terms.
You steadfastly want to skip that little word "software". It's the
Debian free *software* guidelines, and if your goal is to be
literalistic, then you can't appeal to the DF *Software* G to argue
about things which are not *Software*.
> > That doesn't make any sense at all. If you want to say "Auxiliary
> > material to the license must be fairly small", that's fine, but making
> > up a byte size, and then going on with other strange controtions is
> > just nuts. These are *guidelines* remember. Most people are still able
> > to tell the difference between "big" and "small".
> Let me guess. You're one of the people who didn't read the thread
> before replying!
Huh? You and I still disagree about the point; if you *must* have a
rigid guideline, then maybe we can work one out, but Anthony is well
within his rights to argue that a qualitative description is
adequate. That question is *not* somehow closed so that people
joining the conversation now can't revisit it.
> It's probably a good idea to avoid shitting on people for making an
> effort to be clear by using a little colloquial grease. Specific
> suggestions for clarification of my existing wording are welcome.
> Contrived objections to my proposals are not.
Why are contrived objections to your proposals not allowed, but
contrived objections to the GFDL are just fine??