(There wasn't a Mail-Followup-To: header in the mail I'm replying to)
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:06:10PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > Then why do you want them put in some special "debian-political" package
> > > > which other packages aren't allowed to recommend?
> > > I didn't say I wanted that. I tossed it out as a wacky suggestion,
> > Actually you said it was a "clever idea". It wasn't particularly clear
> > that you didn't want it taken seriously, and I'm not sure how else you'd
> > like it taken.
> It was an idea for something that might be a reasonable compromise
> position.
I'm not seeing why you're suggesting things that you don't want.
> > "When I elide things, it's usually because I've thought them to be
> > peripheral", was what you said.
> Right, but that's a judgment made quickly, and which might well be
> wrong. If you think something warrants more attention than I've given
> it, then say so by repeating it and saying "I think you didn't give
> this enough attention".
You didn't give it *any* attention.
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20011213191536.B20985@azure.humbug.org.au>
Message-ID: <[🔎] 874rmvtqyu.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20011213225605.B17786@azure.humbug.org.au>
] > > Is that the sort of environment -- where you can't customise that
] > > particular feature of your environment -- really reminscent of the sort
] > > of freedoms we espouse? I don't think it is, personally.
] > I agree. The question is: how much of a deal-breaker is it?
]
] Are you trying to sell me a car?
]
] Taking a moral principle and thinking about what would happen if everyone
] did it is one way of seeing whether it's a good moral to have or not. In
] this case, it seems to me that adding invariant texts to documentation
] is something that takes away our freedom.
]
] By comparison an OS where everything is BSD licensed, or GPLed isn't so
] bad, whereas one with every component licensed differently would be fine
] for most things, but would still suck in some ways.
I can't see any way in which putting random bits of invariant, unremovable,
text into main is compatible with the goals of developing a free operating
system.
Modification is one of the fundamental freedoms, and it's as useful
and necessary for documentation as programs. For licenses and copyright
statements it's just plain not an issue, there's nothing particularly
useful about being able to modify them. But it is useful to be able
to modify manpages and infopages, and it's a distinct nuisance to have
unnecessary political screeds attached to them forever more.
> > Why are you continuing to argue against positions no one's taken? No. One.
> > Is. Disputing. That. Licenses. Need. Not. Be. Able. To. Be. Modified.
> Um, I think I made that clear, but I'll try again.
Look, there is nothing to discuss here. Licenses are special. They're not
documentation, or manifestos. Their exemption is universally supported
and the reasons behind that don't generalise. Everyone else has moved on
from this already.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
"Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
-- Mike Hoye,
see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
Attachment:
pgpbi67_3Uqv9.pgp
Description: PGP signature