Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
I'm leaving the attributions in the exact places Branden left them,
for this message. I'm adding people's names in square brackets in
lower case in the places where I'd normally put their attributions.
I'll explain more below.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:43:56AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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:]
Note: although Branden has inserted this text from Dale Martin in
a fashion which makes it appear that I had been quoting it and lost
the attribution, that is not the case.
In the article where I did quote this material, I attributed it to
When Branden went back and clipped it, he overlooked the attribution.
Branden did, however, thoughtfully add "> > > > " to the begining of
Perhaps Branden was confused because Dale lost the attribution on
the became first paragraph of the above referenced message.
> > > > > 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?
Here's the relevant quote, again:
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.
Ok, I make a couple deductive leaps -- you might not follow them.
First, I assume that where he said "will only support" he meant "will
support only". If I don't rephrase it that way, he would be saying that
we're not supporting DFSG software now.
Second, I assume that there is some reason for "we ... will support
only ... DFSG" to be a relevant goal. By context, I assume that this
is because the document in which DFSG appeared says things which might
be interpreted as stating that as our goal.
Is that good enough of a map for you, or do I need to break it down