On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 04:59:17AM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote: > On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 16:57 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > email@example.com wrote: > > >I, OTOH, do not believe that this is an unreasonable interpretation > > >of DFSG 5. Why should you exclude from the Free Software process > > >people that do not have the money to have proper internet access? > > Because this is not discriminating, if they care they can find the > > money, a sponsor or a different way to contribute. > > It is discrimination only if it relates to an intrinsic quality of an > > individual or group, like "you cannot use this software if you are > > black" or "you cannot use this software if you are the military". > > What about "You cannot use this software if you are *in* the military"? > Military service is not an intrinsic quality of a person, and it would > not fail DFSG 6 under your strict interpretation, either, because I am > not prohibiting its use in the military (for example, civilian > employees, defense contractors, etc. may use the software), but merely > by military personnel. But I do not believe that this is a legitimate > argument. It is my opinion that the DFSG should be interpreted loosely, > rather than narrowly, to preserve people's freedoms, even those people I > abhor. > > If it is your opinion that this theoretical clause should be prohibited, > where do you draw the line? What constitutes a group against which we > must not discriminate, and what does not? Do dissidents constitute such > a group? It's my opinion that this argument is stupid, and the conclusion is obvious to anyone who wants to actually resolve anything, as opposed to playing lawyer on a mailing list somewhere.
Description: Digital signature