Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue
On 2004-01-11 18:35:58 +0000 Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:00:27 +0000, MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> said:
Can the GR state anything useful about its implementation?
Why can't it?
I thought GRs were not able to make technical decisions.
Could you point out which package was deleted from Debian that had
active DD's?
elfutils, I think. It was deleted at the DD's request via bug 221761
And thus irrelevant.
I don't see why it's irrelevant to whether or not it's moral to remove
non-free packages, which is where we started. Ability to remove them
was not the question.
Look likely to obscure testing? And you have not looked?
Sounds slanderous to me.
Are you accusing me of defaming non-free packagers just because I said
it is possible? If so, again, I think you are beyond reason. I think
that my downloading non-free software will not convince you, which is
why I do not do so.
Will that ever happen? Will non-free packagers work towards
this?
When there is no need for the non-free packages, the packagers
shall desist.
That didn't answer my second question. I think some packagers are
reluctant to help reduce the need for their non-free packages, so
I
Could you name names and give examples, please? Or is this another
hypothetical?
Well, you seem a possible example. Could you answer the second
question, in your opinion, please?
Slander again. You accuse me of being irrational, attached to
my non0free packages even if a pathway to a free alternativce exists,
and now you want me to defend myself against this accusation that you
have no basis for.
[...]
I suppose I can start a tome-anonymous group to wean people
from their desire to play these games, as a step to reduce the need
for angband and tome, but I, being an avid palyer, have no itch to
scratch in starting such a group.
Readers can draw their own conclusions about whether my theory was
baseless. You accuse me of accusing you, when I only conjectured that
you seemed a possible, from the content of this thread. I take your
reply to mean that you won't work towards a free replacement for your
package tome, so I think my guess was pretty accurate.
I've snipped the old wife-beater chestnut. Using that makes you look
bad.
I am not sure how you would determine when there is no need, but
that's a condition you introduced here. So, do you have a way to
Our social contract introduced the term. And it also uses the
term "require".
"here" or "to this discussion"
determine when there is no need that avoids the problem of people
I do not undertand the construct "no need that avoids the
problem". What exactly is it that you are trying to say here?
I think you broke a phrase in the wrong place. I couldn't see how to
punctuate that run without changing the meaning. I'll try to draw you
a partial phrase tree:
Do you have (a way (to determine when (there is no need)) (that avoids
(the problem of (people (opposed to removing non-free) (on
principle)))))
opposed to removing non-free on principle, or were you trying to
introduce an unsatisfiable condition?
Oh, my requirements for this issue are not unsatisfiable.
But unstated here?
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Reply to: