Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
> > > But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been
> > > using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > That's an extremely foggy distinction.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:00:13AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Not at all.
>
> You have not been demonstrating that GFDL documentation does not need
> to be removed as a result of removing non-free.
Which isn't what you said. You said "you haven't been trying to
prove anything to them".
> You have been asserting that GFDL documentation needs to be removed as
> a result of removing non-free.
>
> These two things are in direct conflict.
... and this is a different distinction from the one I said was foggy.
> > > > Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy
> > > > all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no "fallback
> > > > position". In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed documentation,
> > > > but I can't guarantee that that's all.
> >
> > > There is no attempt here to point out the inherent contradiction -
> > > rather, you're trying to suggest that dropping non-free is somehow
> > > responsible for this.
> >
> > I don't understand you here.
>
> Since you seem to be acting in bad faith, I'll just assume that means
> that you can't think of a response. (It's the same as above, for those
> following along)
Ok, but the "above distinction" is an example of bad faith on your part.
You jumped from a claim about me not trying to "prove anything" to
a assertion about "GFDL documentation does not need to be removed".
Since my claim was that GFDL documentation would need to be removed if
your resolution passed there's no need for me to prove the opposite.
> > So, in essence, you seem to be claiming that the above quoted paragraph
> > about GFDL documentation getting dropped from main doesn't provide enough
> > specifics to be refutable if it were false?
> >
> > I don't understand how you could possibly think that.
>
> Because it provides no rationale. Duh.
I provided a rationale -- I claimed that GFDL licensed documentation
does not satisfy all the debian free software guidelines.
> It's just another assertion of a vague "problem" without any detail.
Not if "it" is a reference to my assertion about dropping GFDL licensed
documentation from main.
--
Raul
Reply to: