On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:08:58PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Anthony Towns <email@example.com> > > "it's about privacy, it's about the freedom to keep things private, > > it's about not fundamental rights" 'til you're blue in the face, and > > even though every word of it's completely true, it's *not relevant*. > You're wrong. It is relevant. It's one of the freedoms we're protecting. No. It's not one of the freedoms we're protecting since we've already let things like the QPL into the distribution. It's one of the things that *you* would *like* to protect. It's not necessarily one of the things I would like to protect. It's not one of the things that Debian is protecting. > > Note that you do _not_ get to assume "privacy is good and moral and a > > right of both individuals and corporations". Justify it in other terms, > Why? Moral judgements can never be justified ex nihil. Nonsense. I can justify every one of the DFSG's existing requirements from nothing but a technical standpoint. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Description: PGP signature