On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 07:57:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:11:40 +0000, Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> said: > > > I'm not going to respond to that, other than to point out that it is > > based on the assumption that non-free is important and useful. > > Someone thought it important enough to sp[end time tracking > down the sources, packaging it to follow Debian policy, and follow > and fix bug reports. It is not the case that all those things are true for everything in non-free. It's not even true for everything in main. [No, I'm not going to try to demonstrate anything further than that - merely that there is reasonable justification for dissent from your personal opinion. I will however point out that if non-free contained only angband and tome, I would say we should dump it.] > Yes, I think that not only free programs have cornered the > market for being useful and important (unless you are a zealot, when > this is all moot anyway). Y'see, that's the reason why I'm trying to avoid this part of the discussion. You have implied I meant something other than what I said, and thrown in an assertion that anybody who does not agree with you is a "zealot" (which may be technically correct [One who holds a strong opinion which you do not entertain], but which you imply has negative connotations [which is a pretty narrow reading of the dictionary]). It's exactly like trying to discuss a security hole with an upstream author who calls you a "hacker" all the time (in every respect I can think of). > >> > If there were evidence of the existence of other significant > >> > opinions, sure, we could write them into the ballot. If any > >> > appear, we still can. But there hasn't been, and I don't buy the > >> > silent majority theory, since it's almost impossible to get > >> > Debian developers to shut up at the best of times. > >> > >> If you are unwilling to discuss issues, how can other nascent > >> opinions develop? > > > I don't believe that it is necessary for people to talk to *me* > > before they can form opinions about things. > > So butt out. I've been trying to do exactly that, for the subthreads that go down those lines. You may wish to review your own mails to which I was replying (which were mostly filled with inaccurate assertions about my personal motivation and intent, rather than any kind of discussion of the issues). > >> I like to keep my promise, is all. I am not implying, though, that > >> other people share my opinion, or that they should; nor am I > >> implying that people who want to get rid of non-free software are > >> breaking their promise. This is a subjective issue, and I am > >> stating my take on it. > > shrug> Clauses 1 and 5 of the social contract are in conflict > > anyway. I'm not greatly concerned by moving the line. > > No. They are only in conflict if you have a black and white > world view. Uhh. What? They are clearly in conflict. It is merely the case that this conflict is resolvable, by picking a point somewhere between the two. The SC is *full* of these kind of conflicts; it does not take a hard line on very many things at all. > And, despite not believing in absolutes, I still do not > like moving the line on a whimsy, without even discussiong an > amelioration of the imact on the users. Another random assertion about motivations and intent. I'm not going to respond other than to point that out. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature