Re: GR idea related to ongoing licensing discussions
Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >Maybe relocating, but not on VAC AFAICS and still active on various
> This is not what I claimed.
So if it didn't hinder your participation in debian, it's probably not
the reason you still have no examples of DFSG-1-revisionists.
> >> Can't you come up with anything better than this?
> >Why do I need to? Can you show that those DFSG-1-revisionists exist?
> DFSG revisionists are the people holding one or more of these beliefs,
> which were not usually accepted by developers when I joined the project:
You joined the project when? Before 1999, I think.
> - the DFSG 1.1 just clarifies the meaning of the DSFG 1.0 and does not
> actually imposes new rules about what is acceptable in Debian
DFSG 1.1 didn't exist until 2004, so clearly this view could not be
usually accepted by developers when you joined, so it's a bit of an
unreasonable standard to hold people to.
In any case, surely the revisionists are those who think 1.1 *revised*
the DFSG, rather than those who think the DFSG still mean the same?
> - the dissident test, the desert island test, the moose test, etc are
> implied by the DFSG
> - reasoning schemes like "even if everybody used to agree that the DFSG
> had to be interpreted as X we now believe that it really meant Y != X"
I'm not convinced there are many of those around.
> - various other minor beliefs about what the DFSG means which were not
> commonly accepted by developers some years ago, among them the "every
> restriction is a fee" (possibly for multiple values of "every") which
> you are defending here
I'm defending "non-money payments can be fees" which is a belief about
the DFSG which seems to have been commonly accepted by developers at
least since 1999.
> Analysis of the debian-legal@ archive can show that there are such
> people, therefore DFSG revisionists as previously defined exist.
> QED. HTH.
> (Hopefully even you will be able to understand that this description is
> not rigorous in the mathematical sense, so please refrain from nitpick.)
It's not only not rigorous, if it was written as maths, it would be:
unreasonable + unproven + unfounded + much hand-waving = conclusion.
> >If not, stop trolling.
> Accusing people who oppose your views of "trolling" shows lack of
> dialectic skills.
Just intolerance of people who try to prove by assertion.
Remember: In God We Trust - All Others Bring Data.
Hope that explains,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct