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

Re: A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

** On Jun 16, John Goerzen scribbled:
> grendel@vip.net.pl (Marek Habersack) writes:
> > ** On Jun 13, John Goerzen scribbled:
> > 
> > [snip]
> > > > facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd that's
> > > 
> > > Why?  Why does it not make sense to remove the non-free software from
> > > the Debian Project?
> > Because many developers and users think and have written so that it would be
> > harmful from the technical point of view. And that, in turn, would hurt the
> > Debian Project.
> Just because people have written something does not make it so.  I
No, but it's an opinion of many people and what I wrote was a precise
response to your question. You asked 'why?' and I responded. I think that
the opinion of majority is what drives democracy ahead, isn't it? Before you
reply - I *don't* claim that "my side" (as you wrote below) is the majority,
I merely state a basic fact that founds a democratic system.

> don't expect people to take what I write on face value; I see no
> reason why I should automatically accept that everything somebody on
> your side of the argument writes must automatically be correct.
I see no such reason either. But I have seen many reasonable arguments on
"my side" of the debate, but very few on "your side".

> I think and have written that it would not be harmful from the
> technical point of view.  I guess the fact that I think and write this
> automatically makes me correct?
No, and please stop being malicious, ok? You have written that it doesn't
hurt the technical side of Debian, but you haven't prooved it yet (IMO).

> Please.  I'm not correct simply because I had an idea.  Whether or not
I never said that, don't twist my words again, please.

> I am correct depends on more substantial analysis.
Definitely. But so far (IMO) there was no such analysis, only the statements
not supported by indisbutable arguments. Again, it's *IMO*.


Attachment: pgpVEoZ62v74n.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: