Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Whatever. If fiat is legitimate, that is. I'm not sure what your point > is. A rose is a rose is a rose. DFSG 3 contains absolutely no > implication of the existence of any exception to its terms.
You steadfastly want to skip that little word "software". It's the Debian free *software* guidelines, and if your goal is to be literalistic, then you can't appeal to the DF *Software* G to argue about things which are not *Software*. > > That doesn't make any sense at all. If you want to say "Auxiliary > > material to the license must be fairly small", that's fine, but making > > up a byte size, and then going on with other strange controtions is > > just nuts. These are *guidelines* remember. Most people are still able > > to tell the difference between "big" and "small". > > Let me guess. You're one of the people who didn't read the thread > before replying! Huh? You and I still disagree about the point; if you *must* have a rigid guideline, then maybe we can work one out, but Anthony is well within his rights to argue that a qualitative description is adequate. That question is *not* somehow closed so that people joining the conversation now can't revisit it. > It's probably a good idea to avoid shitting on people for making an > effort to be clear by using a little colloquial grease. Specific > suggestions for clarification of my existing wording are welcome. > Contrived objections to my proposals are not. Why are contrived objections to your proposals not allowed, but contrived objections to the GFDL are just fine??
