On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:25:20AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:15:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:58:20AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > I would prefer it if you would strike references to "non-free" in the above > > > > and replace them with the term "sourceless", to keep the scope the same as > > > Well, the DFSG clearly state that programs need to have sources to be free. so > > > i don't really see why you are afraid to use the right word for it ? > > It is not the "right" word for it, it is a *different* word, which changes > > the scope of the resolution. The GR I've proposed does not excuse non-free > > firmware in general, it only states that sourceless firmware is permitted. > sourceless firmwares are non-free. By calling them sourceless instead of > non-free, you kind of excuse keeping them in main, and kind of implies that > even if they are lacking source, they still are DFSG free, which is a clear > contradiction with both our principles, common sense, and what debian has > stood for all those years and confirmed in the pre-sarge GRs. > > Whether you consider sourceless firmware to be non-free or not, changing > > "sourceless" to "non-free" is a change of scope. > Indeed, you pass from word nit-picking and duisguising the truth to saying > things squarely as they are. I see that, as usual, your very small brain doesn't afford you the luxury of having a rational discussion about this subject without resorting to insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you. My pity for your mental handicap is stretched to its limits; please find a proxy with better command of social interaction if you have anything further to say to me on this subject, because I won't be reading or replying to your posts from here on. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature