Re: Anton's amendment
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 07:06:50PM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> Alright cas, I've tried to be nice and polite.
no, you've tried to be stupid and disingenuous. and succeeded
spectacularly at the former. too bad you're not smart enough to lie
convincingly.
> You've been throwing insults.
only where appropriate. and far less than your idiocy deserves.
> So get this through your fucking skull, I don't care if it's made of
> pure neutronium or of bogons, or even some mixture.
so fucking what? you say that as if it's relevant - GFDL is free, so
it's NOT RELEVANT.
> The Debian Project has declared that we will be 100% free. Period. End
> of declaration.
apart from declaring your mastery of the bleeding obvious, what exactly is
your "point"?
> It DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER if it is the entire program, a itty bitty
> secondary section, a .c file, or a text file that the license says you
> must distribute with the binaries but which contains a statement and
> which nothing else even references.
then toss out all GPL programs, and pretty nearly everything except public
domain and BSD-licensed works - because they ALL have restrictions on
modifications which are similar to those in the GFDL.
> Get it through your head and actually think about it for five minutes.
>
> Hell, for 5 seconds.
unlike you, i actually HAVE thought about it. my conclusion is based
on evidence, reasoning and logic. yours appears to be based on moronic
dogma.
> Read what the Debian project has ALREADY DECIDED on the matter, then
> give us a reason why a 'secondary section' is somehow special and should
> be exempt from the DFSG.
1. frankly, i don't give a fuck what a vote says - my thoughts are not
determined by what the majority says, i make up my own mind. if i
didn't, i'd have used Microsoft crap like all the rest of the sheep.
similarly, voting doesn't change reality. a billion people could vote that
the earth is flat but it wouldn't make it so.
2. even aside from that, debian has not yet decided whether the GFDL is
non-free or not. that's what this whole stupid fucking argument is all
about. or did you somehow forget what you were supposed to be arguing
about?
face it, you're a moron and shouldn't be wasting the time of your
betters with your facile attempts at debate. your arguments are lame,
your examples are cretinous, and your "analogies" are just fucking
absurd. go find something more suited to your "talents". crayons,
perhaps.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: