On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 08:03:16PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 08:50:42PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > [ I do love the way you just snipped the rhetoric I was following up > to... ]
That's nice. It's an old quote, and people can follow back the thread if they need to go that far. Quotes aren't supposed to give a full history of the discussion; they just give a quick reminder of what's being replied to. > >So you're saying that the DFSG doesn't allow Debian to consider "capture > >a bear to modify or redistribute this work" non-free, since it's not > > OK, you can pick a deilberately ridiculous example. Well done. The No, I can pick an obviously, clearly non-free example that's also obviously not mentioned explicitly in the DFSG. If your argument fails on that case, it's wrong in the general case. That's the purpose of extreme examples. You want Debian to have to have a GR to add "freedom to not capture wildlife" to the DFSG before it can deem this restriction non-free. > FFS, that's not what I was saying. You need to be a DD to propose or > vote on updates to the DFSG. You're clearly not a DD (nor in the NM > queue), therefore you couldn't do either. You could change that if you > cared sufficiently... I'm not proposing any changes to the DFSG here, since the DFSG already says that a free license can not impose arbitrary, onerous restrictions to modification and distribution. That's been Debian's interpretation for a long time. You're the one that's claiming that Debian needs to hold a vote to deem new restrictions non-free (a discussion which we've had: it would cripple Debian's ability to remain free), not me. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
