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. Okay. > 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