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

Re: Another Non-Free Proposal

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:48:45PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:

[Dale Martin wrote:]
> > > > The only benefit anyone can argue is philosophical.  (Well, see
> > > > below for an actual practical benefit.) We have something called
> > > > the DFSG, and we (as an organization, not as individuals
> > > > necessarily) will only support software that conforms to the
> > > > DFSG if we drop non-free.

> > > Oddly enough, the DFSG was originally a part of the social contract.
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:38:09PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Are you questioning the legitimacy of the recent vote?  If so, why?
> Does that look like a question?
> No, I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the recent vote.  The vote has
> identified some logical buckets into which various parts of that work
> fall, and indicates we can update them independently.
> I see no problem with that.


> I am, however, pointing out what I see as a conceptual flaw in the idea
> of using Bruce Perens' writing as *the moral basis* for modifying that
> same writing.
> I do see a problem there.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this observation has to do with the
comment by Dale Martin, which I have restored above, and which prompted
your statement, which I challenged.  I don't see Dale citing anyone as a
moral authority.  Perhaps you could draw me a map?

G. Branden Robinson                |    Damnit, we're all going to die;
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    let's die doing something *useful*!
branden@debian.org                 |    -- Hal Clement, on comments that
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |       space exploration is dangerous

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: