On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:38:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > 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.
Now you're just changing the subject (from your claim that you were
trying to give examples of how some people have inconsistent opinions,
to word games).
> You jumped from a claim about me not trying to "prove anything" to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
False. [I'm ignoring the rest, as it was grounded on a false premise]
> > > 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.
More nonsensical handwaving. This is clearly unaffected by whether or
not non-free is removed. Handwaving is not rationale.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature