Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC
On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 01:38:15PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >> This would clarify the main point that has been spawning endless attempts
> >> by occasional maintainers to sneak non-free stuff into "main".
> > what "endless attempts" would these be? have there been any incidents in
> > the real world (i.e. outside of your fevered imagination)?
> Oh, let's see, "firmware" in the kernel, GFDL docs, boot sectors, RFCs, and
> that's off the top of my head. Mindi/mondo (which contained, among other
> things, pico). Those enough "incidents" for you?
actually, NONE of them are incidents of maintainers *attempting* to *sneak*
non-free stuff into main.
"attempt" and "sneak" indicate a deliberate and active deception, when all of
the "incidents" you mention are actually cases of either a) insufficient care
and attention being paid to license issues, or b) trusting the upstream
developers (e.g. the kernel). i.e. sloppiness and/or trust rather than deceit.
as for RFCs and other documentation, the jury is still out on whether they can
be included in main. no final decision has been made. you shouldn't pre-empt
that decision by declaring them to be an attempt to sneak non-free stuff in
main. for years (since the start of Debian), they HAVE been considered free
enough to go in main. it's only the loony exteremists who have been trying to
kick out GNU documentation in the last few years to make a stupid point (and,
presumably, to prove that they are Holier Than Stallman).
> > you bigots lost the vote (you didn't even come close) - can't you please
> > just shut up and go away?
> Um, I have nothing against having "non-free", I'm against having non-free
> stuff in "main". Hello?!? Not the same thing.
they're the same old lies, though, and we've heard them over and over again.
the actual "incidents" that have occurred are so trivial that they have to be
sexed-up (to use a currently fashionable term) to make them seem relevant and
interesting....it's hard to get people outraged over trivial and boring
mistakes, so they have to be turned into "sneaky attempts"
> > do you really have to try to continue the
> > "discussion", by any desperate means possible?
obviously you do.
please don't. it's boring.
craig sanders <email@example.com>
The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"