[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Question for candidate Robinson

asuffield@debian.org wrote:

>> With two or three exceptions, all of them are DFSG-revisionists.
>> This pretty much sums up the debian-legal situation.
>Marco subscribes to the notion that the DFSG was originally only meant
>to apply to ELF binaries, and anything else is de jure free. Anybody
>who says different, including anybody who was around at the time, can
>be dismissed as a 'revisionist'.
Bzzz! Wrong. Incidentally I voted against the last two GRs, but this is
not what I was talking about. DFSG-revisionists are the people who in
the last year invented things like the "dissident test" which are not
derived from the DFSG and pretend to use them as a measure of software
freeness for Debian.

>> No, "consensus" is what we had before people like you started trying to
>> change what was the accepted meaning of the DFSG.
>Since all objections have been dismissed, obviously there was
>"consensus", with the exception of the thing currently being
This "consensus" has been formed in the small circle of the DFSG
revisionists when nobody else payed much attention to debian-legal, and
now it's being used to silence dissenting opinions with the argument
that "all objections have been dismissed".

>It's a fairly conventional circular argument; most people on -legal
>have stopped paying any attention.
True. They are the people who caused this, after all. But they do not
represent other developers, so I still have hopes for Debian.

(I appreciate that you define my opinions as "trolling". Since I'm sure
that you understand well the correct meaning of this word, then I must
assume that you have no other arguments than an ad hominem.)


Reply to: