On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >I see no connection between this paragraph and the real world. Most of > >the people on -legal who participate in the important stuff are also > >critically short of time and tend to skip over useless threads. Most > >of the useless threads are the responsibility of "outsiders" who just > >won't listen, and who would rather argue a point than do anything > >about it (even when action is easier than arguing about it). So if we > >assume the rest of your argument holds true, the most you can say > >about that is that they're a (perhaps unintentional) effort to > >sabotage the work of -legal. > > Simple question: what do you think _is_ the "work of -legal"?
License analysis. > >"Extreme views" here is a meaningless term and an tasteless attempt at > >demagoguery. I've tolerated it this far, but enough is enough; please > >grow some manners. The validity of a viewpoint is not determined by > >how close it comes to some end of an arbitrary scale. > > Manners? From you? Ha! No, from you. I have never knowingly violated my concept of good manners. You just did it twice. > >Why do you *think* we always tend towards the paranoid viewpoint? You > >seem to be arguing at cross-purposes with yourself now; the objection > >is that we classify too much as non-free or non-distributable, and yet > >you argue that our approach is invalid because we might accept > >something as free that we *shouldn't*? > > So, at what point does it end? I've seen people seriously (I assume) > suggesting here in the last few weeks that they variously don't > consider the GPL, the BSD or MIT licenses free. If we're going to be > that paranoid, why bother playing this game any more? If you take that > attitude, we've lost already. Are you just trying to troll? That's so out of the field that I don't know where to start... -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
