Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:59:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>
> > > > I guess Raul is right, and that the non-free removal GR should indeed
> > > > propose a rationale saying exactly why it is a good idea.
> > >
> > > Hogwash. There is no need for everyone who votes for it to agree on a
> > ^^^^^^^
> > Please refrain from using uncomprehensible words, which may (perhaps)
> > have an offensive meaning (maybe imagined) to non-english speakers.
>
> The word isn't uncomprehensible. This list is carried in English, and
> I cannot predict what English phrase will be uncomprehensible to you.
> Get a good dictionary. Indeed, the dictionary *in Debian* contains
> this word.
Well, from my understanding, hogwash would be the washing water of a
pork, or something such. The main point is that i don't master the
subtelties of the english language enough to clearly appreciate the
degree of offensiveness which is meant by it. And given the degree of
insult i have in the past received by the non-free removal supporters in
the past, Branden and Assufield in the front of it, i would most prefer
that you refrain from vulgarities when you address yourself to me, in
the same way that myself, and i suppose many non native english
speakers, refrain from using those words, because we don't clearly
understand the degree of offensiveness they carry (or not).
And if you don't care about not native english speakers, i seriously
doubt what you have to do with debian, which is clearly a multi national
and multi lingual organisation. Please go create your own, english-only,
pure debian fork or something.
> > And so you know. I would have some respect for the argumentation of
> > Branden, even if i think that you cannot lump all packages in the same
> > case, and a per package handling of this would be more appropriate. But
> > this new argumentation, of separating non-free from the debian archive,
> > even as it is contrary to the social contract i (and you probably)
> > signed in for, is pure sophistry, and a total waste of time for
> > imaginary gain.
>
> The proposal involves an amendment to the social contract, does it
> not? You can't argue against amending the social contract on the
> grounds that the current social contract doesn't allow it.
Yeah, sure. But your words seemed to imply that the social contract
never contained section 5. Revisionism won't help you here, i think.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: