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

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:01:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > why are you obsessing with a convenience issue and pretending that
> > it has ANY BEARING AT ALL on freedom issues?  it doesn't.
>         Err, because I do not see this as a matter of mere
>  convenience. If I spend a significant time on the road with my
>  device, and I need the manual when I am away from my laptop, this is
>  not just a geek "hah hah. look at what I got on my phone" thing.

you're still talking about convenience, not freedom.

> Why is being able to distribute this this amy more of "mere
> convenience" than, say, wmbattery? anyone can just cat
> /proc/acpi/BAT0/state, no? At a more extreme end: why do we need gcc?
> or any other compiler? Is it not just a convenience as opposed to
> writing in machine language to the bare metal, like real programmers
> do?

stop trying to muddy the waters with irrelevant distractions that aren't
even vaguely similar analogies, let alone close.

> Any matter of freedom, unless it is related to food, shelter, and
> basic survival, can be couched as a matter of cenvenience; so I am
> very vary of such arguments.

bullshit. "freedom", as used by Debian, is explicitly defined in the
DFSG. the DFSG has a number of clauses detailing what we consider
free and what we don't consider free. convenience is NOT one of those
clauses, and never was. in fact, convenience is implicitly discarded as
a criteria by the existence of the patch clause, which explicitly states
that the major inconvenience of modification-by-patch-only is free.

> > the answer to your disingenuous question is obvious. he gives them
> > the entire document, and the recipient does whatever they want/need
> > to get it onto their PDA. if they physically can't do what they want
> > with it (e.g. because of limitations in the device/medium they're
> > trying to import it to), then that is just an unfortunate reality in
> > a world governed by physical laws rather than wishes and magic.
>         But if it were not for the GFDL, we would not have to make our
>  users face an impossibility, or figure out how to strip things from
>  binary packages in order to get them to install. As a user, seems
>  like a significant obstacle to distribution and use, from my
>  perspective.

every free license has some hoops and hurdles that have to be jumped.
that doesn't make them non-free. you're holding the GFDL up to a
standard of "perfection" far beyond that which is required of any other
license - and why? for some stupidly pedantic political/religious point.
to force the FSF to do your bidding and to prove that you and your
loathsome friends are Holier Than Stallman, True Defenders of the Free
Software Flame or some other self-justifying dreck.

it's all about manipulation and power - you zealot scum are trying to
manipulate Debian into forcing the FSF to do your will, an on-going
effort for the last few years. it isn't going to work - even if you
succeed in forcing Debian to take a moronic stand, the FSF has enough
sense and enough backbone to dismiss it as lunatic frothings at the
mouth. all you will succeed in doing is to discredit Debian and make
Debian irrelevant.

> > if there is a particular process which can shoehorn the document
> > into the limited device, then it's perfectly OK to distribute the
> > document along with with instructions (whether human-executable
> > instructions or a script/program) for doing so. i.e. this meets the
> > requirements of the "patch clause" in the DFSG.
>         But I can no longer distribute the modified copy; I can tell
>  people how to modify their copy, and then build the package, so they
>  can then do the same.
>         In other words, I cannot distribute the modified version , I
>  can only tell people how to modify it for themselves. DOes not quite
>  meet the freedom requirement, in my view.

that qualifies as free according to the DFSG. patch clause.

your "view" is very selective. as is your reading of the DFSG. like
any zealot quoting scripture, you use only the bits that support your
current claim and ignore anything that doesn't.


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

Reply to: