Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 02:17:07PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> >> > the DFSG does not require convenience. it requires freedom. lack of
> >> > convenience DOES NOT equate to non-free.
> >>
> >> True; however, Frank said "it would be more than inconvenient", which
> >> does not say he thinks that the main problem is lack of convenience
> >> here.
> >
> > i guess english is not your native language. "more than inconvenient" is
> > a colloquialism for "extremely bloody inconvenient" or worse. i.e. "more
> > than" is another way of saying "very".
> 
> It's also not my native language, and indeed with "more than" I meant
> "not only extremely bloody, but even something else" (i.e. non-free).

well, then, if you're going to make such a claim then back it up with
reasoning, logic, and evidence. you might think that makes it non-free
but you've provided no reason for anyone to accept your opinion.

an unsupported assertion is worthless.


craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)