Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 02:00:53AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:56:16PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > DD's
> > have universally agreed to uphold the DFSG, not some additional material that's
> > grounded in one interpretation of the DFSG. As a result, I'd bet that many
> > would be surprised when a license is declared non-free because of something
> > that they did not agree to.
>
> This argument applies equally to every interpretation of the DFSG, and
> therefore reduces to "The DFSG cannot be applied to
> anything". Reduction ad absurdum, etc; it's wrong.
Wow Andrew. I thought we'd gotten beyond the reductio ad absurdium phase of our
relationship. I guess not. It's only if you choose to interpret it that way.
For major interpretive decisions not clearly grounded in the DFSG, particularly
for major licenses such as QPL, these questions should be communicated to the
rest of the project. Obviously, these are judgement calls, but then what do
you have against trying to get a stronger consensus by allowing more people to
be aware of the issue at hand?
> > I personally don't think that -legal does a good enough job of communicating
> > with the rest of the project, and I know I'm not the only one.
>
> Right, there's at least two or three of you running around and trying
> to undermine the project. Cut it out. This idiotic attempt to create
> discord is not productive; it's somewhere between trolling and
> deliberate sabotage.
"No, don't ask questions and express opinions! Heaven forbid! You're shattering
my precious worldview!"
> -legal is a fucking mailing list. It's nonsensical to say it "doesn't
> communicate with the rest of the project". Anybody can subscribe and
> follow the discussions, and there are public archives. Anybody who is
> interested should do so. This is not a cabal or a clique, the project
> is not divided into departments, and there is nothing secret about
> it. -legal exists because a fair number of people are not interested
> and wanted to get the discussions away from other mailing lists. These
> people are by definition not interested, and therefore it's stupid to
> complain that they weren't informed; they had the choice, and *they*
> chose not to.
-legal is a relatively high traffic mailing list full of minutia and
long-winded, often difficult posts. It's a very hard list to follow for anyone,
and this makes it prohibitive for many people to contribute. I've certaintly
wasted plenty of time just trying to read the majority of the posts on the list
over the past few weeks, let alone really try to comprehend them in detail.
There is no cabal (although there is a bit of a clique, as most everything in
Debian is) nor would I accuse the list of being one.
But no one can follow everything in Debian, and intra-project communication is
a problem in general, and -legal to the rest of Debian is no exception. If you
don't see this as a problem, then maybe you ought to actually listen to people
who disagree with you, as hard as this may be, and try to figure out why they
do so. You may say this isn't an inclusive clique, but then you accuse me (and
along with me, anyone else who has a dischordant opinion) of trolling.
Contradiction ad absurdium?
- David Nusinow
Reply to: