Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 05:16:59PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Whether such a mirror counts as part of the project might be a grey
> area, so I present:
[a license which makes the software useless to our users]
So what?
> > Anyways, if you're going to stoop to absurdities [...]
>
> This is not an absurdity. This is an attempt to create an example
> which could be accepted at present, but would not be allowed after
> your amendment. In a way, you asked me to do it. Please don't complain
> when I try to satisfy your request. I already said that I think your
> request borders on the absurdly unreasonable.
You claimed that my proposal would have us stop distributing something
we currently distribute. I asked you what.
I'm complaining because what you're proposing is absurd.
> >> I don't know why you've jumped from claims about existing practice
> >> to only current instances of existing practice.
> > Because instances which have never happened do not exist.
> You may not generalise like that.
Why? "Existing" refers to that which exists.
> It's like rolling a normal die three times and concluding that it will
> never show a 6. Just because you have no observation of it does not
> mean it is impossible.
Given that we have more than three packages we distribute, it's a bit
different from drawing a conclusion from three rolls of a die.
In fact, it's not like rolling a die at all. People act from motivations
and goals, not from pure randomness.
>From your above examples, you're asking I not infringe on some rights of
someone to use Debian to distribute "for pay" software. And now you're
asking me to believe that in doing so you're defending existing practice.
> Please explain why existing practice forbids licences which do not
> meet any DFSG.
If you honestly believe that distributing software which our users must
pay for is existing practice, I don't even know where to begin.
If you don't honestly believe that your examples are representative of
existing practice, then I am not comfortable talking with you.
> >>>>> And what is this "substantial change"?
> >>>> Make non-free into part of the debian distribution.
> >>> The social contract only makes the promise about the Debian
> >>> GNU/Linux distribution. It doesn't make that promise about
> >>> auxillary distributions.
> > You're suggesting that the contrib and non-free sections of our
> > archive exist because of an oversight in the social contract?
> Stop putting words in my mouth. I suggest that not making a similar
> claim about "auxiliary distributions" may be an oversight.
If I've misunderstood you, I've misunderstood you so badly that I don't
have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about.
--
Raul
Reply to: