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

Re: documentation x executable code

On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 01:49:16PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> craig wrote:
> > try reading and responding to what i actually wrote, not to your lame
> > straw-man bullshit.
> I didn't understand what you wrote, so I questioned its meaning. What
> do *you* do when you don't understand? Oh yeah, you flame and swear a
> lot, 

fuck you, arsehole.  i'm getting sick of your annoying ad-hominem bullshit.
you don't have any real point, so all you can do is attack the messenger.

> trying to suggest that the person you don't understand is stupid.

no, i only do that when they actually are stupid.  and i tend to give people a
LOT of benefit of the doubt.  some people, unfortunately, just can't help
piling up the evidence until there is no possible doubt left.

> > nothing in the DFSG requires that a free license must allow merging with
> > an incompatible license.  if it did, GPL software would be non-free as it
> > does not allow merging with incompatible licenses.
> Thanks for the re-expression. I think you are claiming that every FDL
> instance could be incompatible with examples of every other licence, even
> other FDL instances, and that's not a DFSG-related problem. Yes, I agree.

> I don't think that was the point being made, though. One problem with
> the FDL is that an invariant section limits the uses of derived works,

the limit is that you can't relicense it, or merge it with incompatible
licenses.  so does the GPL.  so does every other free license.

> > i specifically said "additional invariant sections in the
> > documentation", and i implied that that was OK because some things
> > don't matter, some things are too trivial for sane people to care
> > about.
> So, do you think you are arguing about something you don't care about,
> or are you insane?

no, insane zealotry is always worth fighting against. reducing the
utility of debian for some trivial pedantic point that only Holier
Than Thou fundamentalist fuckwits can see is worth fighting against.
fighting against the in-progress hijacking of debian by lunatics is
worthwhile. arguing against zealots who don't care if they destroy
debian is worthwhile.

you think that the zealots will stop with just the GFDL? or that they'll
be satisfied with kicking most documentation into non-free? they won't.
if they win, they'll move on to the next insanely pedantic and trivial
point, and as soon as they feel confident of numbers they'll make
another proposal to delete the non-free archives again...which, of
course, will mean no GNU Documentation at all available for debian - if
you want docs, go hunt for it yourself and hope that the version of the
docs you find matches the version of the software.

> > > I do wonder if craig only ever adds to software, so as not to
> > > misrepresent the original author by changing or deleting code.
> > documentation is not software. software is not documentation.
> >
> > only a moron thinks that they are the same or that they must be
> > treated exactly the same.
> Documentation can be software and software can be documentation.

only in the very broadest and most useless possible defintion of the

in any useful real world definition, they are two entirely different

> Only a politician tries to boil two subset relationships down to
> simple equivalence. No-one is arguing that the two sets are identical,
> as far as I know, so it's a true-but-misleading claim.

yes, yes, retreat to some idiotic position where can you ignore the
salient point and focus on the simpleton's interpretation and make yet
another worthless ad-hominem attack.

you must have missed it, so for your benefit the salient point was "or that
they must be treated exactly the same".


craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)

Reply to: