Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:13:59PM +0400, olive wrote:
To answer, Patrick remark; a search in this list will show you that I
have considerably discussed and defended my opinion even if I do not
agree with most of the posters.
You have? You elided the bulk of Don's response wholesale, and your
arguments often seem to reduce to poorly-defended assertions of what
you think the DFSG should mean.
And to repeat myself from a response to a previous poster making your
This is just more wedging, trying to abuse the fact that Debian allows
invariant license texts to squeeze in other invariant stuff.
I would suggest anyone engaging in such wedging carefully reevaluate
whether what they're doing is really in the best interests of Debian;
or whether they're just trying to contrive a way to pound Debian into
"agreement" with the FSF.
As I have already said in a previous message let's say we disagree. Any
opinion in contradiction with yours will be "poorly defended". Some of
the DFSG (expecially the patch close) show that the interpretation of
what free is was broader at the beginning than the current
interpretation of the DFSG (I am right to say that if this patch close
didn't exist; you would have said that a software under such license
obviously violates the DFSG?).
I was reading the page "http://www.debian.org/intro/free"; it basically
says that "free software" is about the same as "open source software"
and "free software" is linked to the definition of free given by the GNU
project! This page seems to says that the DFSG is a mean to precize the
definition of Free given by the GNU project. I think this was probably
the case at the beginning of Debian but now this page seems terribly
At last, you complained that the tone of my messages was not good; I
invite you to revise the tone of your answers. "Everyone with a straight
face must disagree with me"; I try to "abuse", etc...