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

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

On 2/13/06, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
> you people never give up, do you? as soon as one bogus claim against
>  the GFDL is disproved, you recycle another one that was demolished
> months, weeks, or only days ago.  repeat ad nauseum.

Another possibility is that you're begging the question.
(Begging the question means: assuming your conclusion
is true in your argument about why the conclusion is true.)

How about we try a different approach:

Let's say that we want GFDL'd documentation to be a part
of main.  (That's going to be true for at least some people in
the project.)

How do we describe what it is that we want?  Do we need
to keep an arbitrary list of licenses, and everything that's
on that list is "OK"?  Do we just want to use the non-free
criteria (everything that we can legally distribute)?

How do we describe what it is we're trying to accomplish

If I might make a suggestion: this description should
start out with a list of what things we consider important,
and what things we consider required.

Having the legal right to do security updates, and to port
the packages to other architectures, for example, are

Also crucial is having a broadly useful system.

We already are sacrificing some things we'd like to have
(the ability to mix and match information between packages)
for the above goals.

If most of Debian wants the GFDL to be acceptable, then
maybe we can come up with some simple concept that
we can all understand which expresses how this better
aligns with our goals (for example: the social contract)
than the way we have been doing things so far.

But I don't think we're going to get there by pretending that
we have accepted the GFDL all along.

If you want the proposal to be treated seriously, you need
to treat the proposal seriously.  If you try passing off
the proposal as "not really a proposal", what's the point?


Reply to: