On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 05:16:59PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > Whether such a mirror counts as part of the project might be a grey > area, so I present:
[a license which makes the software useless to our users] So what? > > Anyways, if you're going to stoop to absurdities [...] > > This is not an absurdity. This is an attempt to create an example > which could be accepted at present, but would not be allowed after > your amendment. In a way, you asked me to do it. Please don't complain > when I try to satisfy your request. I already said that I think your > request borders on the absurdly unreasonable. You claimed that my proposal would have us stop distributing something we currently distribute. I asked you what. I'm complaining because what you're proposing is absurd. > >> I don't know why you've jumped from claims about existing practice > >> to only current instances of existing practice. > > Because instances which have never happened do not exist. > You may not generalise like that. Why? "Existing" refers to that which exists. > It's like rolling a normal die three times and concluding that it will > never show a 6. Just because you have no observation of it does not > mean it is impossible. Given that we have more than three packages we distribute, it's a bit different from drawing a conclusion from three rolls of a die. In fact, it's not like rolling a die at all. People act from motivations and goals, not from pure randomness. >From your above examples, you're asking I not infringe on some rights of someone to use Debian to distribute "for pay" software. And now you're asking me to believe that in doing so you're defending existing practice. > Please explain why existing practice forbids licences which do not > meet any DFSG. If you honestly believe that distributing software which our users must pay for is existing practice, I don't even know where to begin. If you don't honestly believe that your examples are representative of existing practice, then I am not comfortable talking with you. > >>>>> And what is this "substantial change"? > >>>> Make non-free into part of the debian distribution. > >>> The social contract only makes the promise about the Debian > >>> GNU/Linux distribution. It doesn't make that promise about > >>> auxillary distributions. > > You're suggesting that the contrib and non-free sections of our > > archive exist because of an oversight in the social contract? > Stop putting words in my mouth. I suggest that not making a similar > claim about "auxiliary distributions" may be an oversight. If I've misunderstood you, I've misunderstood you so badly that I don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. -- Raul
