Op wo 23-06-2004, om 18:16 schreef Clint Adams:
> > as "grandfather resolutions" as described, and, by explicitly removing
> > the Social Contract's requirement to have DFSG-free documentation and
> > firmware for sarge/some-period-of-time/whatever, go back to allowing
> > discretion on the part of those who would ordinarily be responsible for
> > release issues and DFSG control.
>
> You're implying here that those things were allowed under a valid
> interpretation of the original SC.
I'm getting sick of that argument.
You're implying here that there's only one possible "valid"
interpretation of the original SC.
Who's to say what's "valid" and what isn't? When I originally read (and
agreed with) the SC, there was nobody to tell me that the way I read it
at the time wasn't considered "valid". There was also nobody who pointed
me at the subtle inconsistency in the way I interpreted the original SC.
Sue me, English isn't my native language.
I read "software" as I have always read it for the conscious part of the
first 24 years of my life, namely, "anything you can run on a computer";
and thus, I didn't consider the SC to apply to "documentation". That's
right: I didn't read "Debian consists of software, which is 100% free";
I read "Debian consists of software and other things, and the software
part is 100% free". Sue me, English isn't my native language.
Telling people that the way they interpreted the Social Contract is not
"valid", and therefore not even worth considering, seems very childish
to me.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
