On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 05:02:00PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: > Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 12:22:31PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: > > > Scanning all our packages for such snippets would be a truly > > > gargantuan task. > > > > And yet at the same time you claim that the inclusion of any particular > > such "snippet" was a fully conscious decision made at the time the > > Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines were adopted. > > > > Have you any evidence that this "truly gargantuan task" was undertaken > > back then? > > > > You undermine your own argument. > > > > When we find non-DFSG-free materials in main, we should remove them, or > > request their relicensing. > > Why was this begging the question? > > First (as a comment on a completely tangential portion of the train of > logic you're responding to) Stop. You have already missed the point entirely. This is not tangential. Your thesis contains two contradictory points. Branden has responded to one of them, citing the other, and pointed out the contradiction. That is the entire point of his question. The two points that are in conflict are: 1) These works were intentially included in Debian as a result of conscious choice on the part of developers 2) Identifying these works in order to remove them would be prohibitively expensive in its use of time. In his second paragraph, Branden says this: > > Have you any evidence that this "truly gargantuan task" was undertaken > > back then? Here, he is pointing out that in order for (1) to be true, the works in question must already have been identified appropriately. Third paragraph: > > You undermine your own argument. He points out that this is in direct contradiction with (2). Your argument has now been shown to contain a contradiction. It is therefore invalid. > you say that somehow not doing something > now is a lot of work because it was more work to not do it in the > past. Straw man. He did not say anything remotely like this. If you think he did, quote the relevant text complete with explanation. > If we'd known we were doing it, so we must not have known. Parse error. > Which would be a lot of work. Or something like that. No semantic content. The rest of your mail was gibberish, but I'm guessing it was supposed to claim Branden's argument was not well-formed. I have just formally illustrated that it was. You are proven wrong (twice). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature