> > > > > But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, > > > > > you've been using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't > > > > > be dropped.
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > > That's an extremely foggy distinction. > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:00:13AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > Not at all. > > > You have not been demonstrating that GFDL documentation does > > > not need to be removed as a result of removing non-free. > > Which isn't what you said. You said "you haven't been trying to > > prove anything to them". > > > You have been asserting that GFDL documentation needs to be removed as > > > a result of removing non-free. > > > These two things are in direct conflict. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:38:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > ... and this is a different distinction from the one I said was foggy. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:45:27AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Now you're just changing the subject (from your claim that you were > trying to give examples of how some people have inconsistent opinions, > to word games). I never claimed I was trying to give examples OF how some people have inconsistent opinions. I claimed that giving examples TO people who have inconsistent opinions was the only way I knew of for dealing with that situation. > > You jumped from a claim about me not trying to "prove anything" to > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > False. [I'm ignoring the rest, as it was grounded on a false premise] You might also have made other claims, but that claim is clearly illustrated in the first quoted paragraph at the top of this message. > > > > So, in essence, you seem to be claiming that the above quoted paragraph > > > > about GFDL documentation getting dropped from main doesn't provide enough > > > > specifics to be refutable if it were false? > > > > > > > > I don't understand how you could possibly think that. > > > > > > Because it provides no rationale. Duh. > > > > I provided a rationale -- I claimed that GFDL licensed documentation > > does not satisfy all the debian free software guidelines. > > More nonsensical handwaving. > > This is clearly unaffected by whether or not non-free is > removed. Handwaving is not rationale. I agree that "GFDL licensed documentation does not satisfy all the debian free software guidelines" is independent of whether or not non-free is removed. However, it's pretty blatent that if non-free is not removed then "doesn't satisfy DFSG" could go in non-free, and if is removed then "doesn't satisfy DFSG" should also be removed. Unless... Are you suggesting that we will continue to distribute non-DFSG works after your proposal, and that the only change is that we won't distribute them in non-free (and the package maintainers will put some other tag on them, besides "non-free")? Yeah, if you consider that to be the obvious outcome, then I can see how you'd consider my statements to be nonsense. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
