Steve McIntyre wrote: > Nathaneal Nerode writes: >>Matthew Garrett wrote: >> >>> Debian-legal is the place where one interpretation is given. >>Many interpretations. >> >>> Those who >>> actually end up making the decisions >>RM Anthony Towns, who has espoused interpretations which literally >>*nobody* agreed with, and FTPmaster James Troup, who never makes any >>statements at all? > > *yawn* Nerode talking crap *again*. What's the colour of the sky on > your planet? > > Just because AJ doesn't agree with you, that doesn't give you the > right to insult him right left and centre. Several people are on > record agreeing substantially with his position.
"Substantially" is a weasel-word which means whatever you want it to? AJ's position was that the Social Contract pre-amendment, did not require documentation, data, or "firmware" to be DFSG-free. And that post-amendment it did. So far so good. And that he had *never* had any leeway to allow non-DFSG-free stuff into main, not even temporarily for pragmatic reasons. (*That* is what nobody agreed with.) Except, of course when he stated that he allowed something in for pragmatic reasons, despite agreeing that it wasn't DFSG-free. Huh? > And James has > responded on the silly GR thread: see > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/07/msg00559.html That's not a statement of an interpretation of the DFSG. In fact, it states little other than that he's offended. I apologize for the hyperbole -- he certainly has made statements on some things in the past. > for example. Most of the time I'm prepared to skip over your posts to > the lists, but out and out lies like this deserve being exposed for > what they are. Namely, truth. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
