Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:00:07PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> In linux.debian.vote Sven Luther <email@example.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:24:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >> > Well, the only one who could claim that his views have some representativity
> >> > of the project as a whole is you, everyone else is just expressing his own
> >> > opinion, be he a DD or a guy from NM or some random poster.
> >> Anyone can claim their views are representative of the project, and
> >> everyone -- including myself -- would be wrong to do so.
> >So, why do you denigrate Peter in such a way ? What you said could apply as
> >well to you, no ?
> Why do you believe that remarking that somebody is not a debian
> developer is "denigration"?
> I think aj's post was very appropriate, considering how many
> non-developers like to explain to us what the DFSG "really means".
Well, i and at least 2 other people felt it like that, so if nothing else, the
wording of Anthony's comment sucked.
> >If we where really going to argue this, we could just as well stop shiping
> >debian, since there is no way to actually make use of any of the content we
> >ship without some piece of non-free firmware, the first of it being the
> >non-free bios you use on your system.
> Unpleasant consequences are not a very good way of refuting a logically
> sound argument.
No, but they show the consequences of what you are arguing, and ask the
question of if we really want to go this way, instead of just saying it for
the case that is of interest, and ignore the full consequences of it.