Re: Resolving the controversy
Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Because you've repeatedly said in this thread that one of your motives in
> discussing this is to ensure that the DFSG declares this a bug so that it
> will be fixed.
I would say not “… so that it will be fixed”, but rather “… so
that it's easier to recognise that such restrictions are bugs”.
In principle bugs can sometimes be fixed even if they are not
explicitly recognised as such; but hopefully I don't need to argue the
strong inverse correlation between being unaware of (or failing to
recognise the severity of) a bug, with that bug ever being resolved.
> This was also the reason for the earlier response that you blew up
> at. I'm trying to explain what the other poster was getting at,
> since you apparently completely missed it.
I'm starting to lose track of the referents you use (it's not clear
which post you're referring to, and which other poster, since I don't
recall blowing up at any response in this discussion), but I hope
we're closer to agreement here now.
\ “I watched the Indy 500, and I was thinking that if they left |
`\ earlier they wouldn't have to go so fast.” —Steven Wright |