Re: mass bug filing for unmet dependencies
> >> >On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 01:51:56AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >> >> So you say that non-free software is OK with you as long as you can
> >> >> pretend it's not there? Which part of the policy or SC justifies this
> >> >> theory?
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >If I ignore something as a part of a system when that thing is outside
> >that system, there doesn't need to be any pretending.
> OK, then I have issues with the english language. Let's try again:
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 04:42:00PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> So you say that non-free software is OK with you as long as you can
> ignore it's running on your system? Which part of the policy or SC
> justifies this theory?
No, I've been saying that non-free software can be ignored as long as
it's not a part of our system.
Section 1 of the social contract provides adequate justification for