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

Re: Resolving the controversy

Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> writes:

> Le dimanche 23 novembre 2008 à 00:09 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> > You seem to have missed what I said: In order to have *anyone* fix
> > them, they need to be acknowledged as DFSG violations. 
> Would you please stop your lies

Personal attacks (to call my statements “lies” is to assert that I'm
knowingly stating falsehood) are not welcome.

Since you accuse me of knowingly telling falsehood, but don't indicate
what you think is false, I can only guess what it might be.

Perhaps you're implying that bugs can be fixed without necessarily
being acknowledged DFSG violations. My point might be clearer, then,
as “In order to have anyone fix bugs as DFSG violations, they first
need to be acknowledged as DFSG violations”.

If you think I've spoken falsely some other way, please help me by
explaining what you think is false, and how.

> Happily the Debian kernel maintainers haven’t been waiting for you
> to fix such bugs.

Indeed, and I've no wish to impede anyone in efforts to fix bugs. I'm
arguing for interpretation of the social contract such that DFSG
violations are bugs by definition, so they can be fixed as such.

 \     “As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we |
  `\      should be glad to serve others by any invention of ours; and |
_o__)     this we should do freely and generously.” —Benjamin Franklin |
Ben Finney

Reply to: