Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:20:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
> > > something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
> >
> > Ah, come on craig. A bit of humor is fine during low traffic periods,
> > but you did make a number of mistakes,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:57:23PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> you've said that a few times but failed to actually provide any examples.
I thought I had. I also thought they were obvious enough that
you should spot them.
In your first paragraph, you overstated your case -- you used a
universal quantifier (all) instead of an existential quantifier (some).
That good enough, or you want me to try and imitate Branden?
> at most, i made a few small exaggerations and used a few 'poetic' turns
> of phrase - but AFAIK, no actual mistakes.
Yeah, that.
> > and this as a response falls incredibly flat.
>
> you mean you really think his quibbling over words was worth the time it took
> to read?
About a third of it, maybe.
> it was tediously pedantic and neatly avoided engaging with the substance of
> what i said while giving the illusion of addressing each point.
Yeah. So?
> > If you're not going to acknowledge your mistakes, just leave them be, focus
> > on the important issues, and try and accomplish something positive.
>
> please point them out and i'll evaluate whether they are worth
> 'acknowledging'.
I'm talking about your few small exaggerations and 'poetic' turns of
phrase, then.
> > You could have taken Branden's criticism as constructive, and an
>
> his criticism was not constructive. it was a pedantic time-waster.
> quibbling about words is not useful criticism. paraphrasing and sometimes
> distorting what i said and then declaring "tautology! i win!" really
> isn't a very productive style, either. if he had anything relevant to
> say, he would have engaged with the substance rather than quibbling over
> the precise definitions of words - words which he knows as well as i,
> in the context of the free software dialogue that has been occuring over
> the last decade or so.
So ignore that part. Or say that some of what he wrote was silly.
Or whatever... but put some useful content into your posts.
> anyone in the free software world knows what 'proprietary' means, and
> most people with access to a dictionary do too and can figure out what
> it means in the context of free software. as should have been obvious
> to anyone with more than one or two neurons, i was specifically referring
> to binary-only software that is not free in any sense of the word except
> perhaps dollar cost.
No, that's actually a reasonable point -- there are a lot of different
concepts of what proprietary means. If you go with the FSF meaning,
software which is always available in source form, redistributable to
everyone, and which never costs anything can be proprietary.
Other people prefer to have proprietary only refer to software which is
not redistributable to anyone, which most people can only get in binary
form and that only if they pay money.
There are other definitions.
> 'non-free' means 'non-free according to the DFSG' - the only definition
> that matters to debian developers.
You might think that, but some debian developers also care about the
FSF view of things.
Maybe you are trying to say "the only definition that should be allowed
to matter to debian developers", but I don't think things are that
restricted.
> 'semi-free' or 'almost-free' means software that ALMOST meets the
> criteria of the DFSG but fails on ONLY one or two points - i.e. most
> of the software in the debian non-free archive. the term 'semi-free'
> at least is also defined on the FSF site, although the FSF definition
> wrongly emphasises the "selfish" prohibition of profit as the defining
> criteria when there are often other criteria (such as no use by DoD or
> other government depts, or use only by schools etc).
Yeah, and the FSF definition is a bit more specific than yours.
But this is turning into more of a rant than anything constructive.
> well, if you want to waste your time trying to make yourself look
> "fair and balanced" over garbage like this then go right ahead.
Nah, I'm wasting my time making myself look silly -- most of this is
completely off topic, and I'm coming across as a meddling pain in the ass.
Nevertheless, I think you have some positive points you could make, if
you could get out of ranting mode and into thinking about what you're
saying mode.
One thing, though -- if you've been reading this message as you replied,
you're going to have some nasty comments aimed at me at the top of
your reply. If that's the case, please go back and re-read them
before sending.
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: