[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 11:57:43PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> asuffield@debian.org wrote:
> >Here's what I have in mind:
> >
> >http://people.debian.org/~asuffield/licenses/cddl/summary.html
> I especially liked the way you determine which arguments are correct
> and which ones "standard responses"...

The word 'correct' does not appear. A point is considered valid if it
has no valid rebuttals. This is an elementary principle of debate.

I determine whether a point is a standard response by this very simple

If I personally am aware of this point occurring in the context of two
or more distinct licenses, it's a standard response.

This is a reflection of the way the code is organised; they're
symlinks from within the cddl/ tree at the top level to the standard/
tree. It handles points being repeated in multiple discussions,
without having to drag us through all the same stuff every time. An
alternative name, instead of 'standard', is 'the anti-Marco-d'Itri
feature', but I discarded this as being too hard to type. It defeats
people who try to win arguments or simply sabotage debian-legal by
repeatedly raising the same points in different contexts and hoping
that other people get too tired to keep on smacking them down.

Anything that shows up as a duplicate later will also get moved into

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: