> > In case the above is too abstract for you, I'll break it down: > > > > [a] Some people use software from the non-free of our archives. > > [b] That software would cease to be available in future versions of debian. > > [c] Upgrading that software becomes a problem when it's not available. > > [d] Dpkg will under some circumstances uninstall software which can't > > be upgraded. > > [e] Using software which has been removed from the system is a problem > > for some people. > > > > Is that specific enough for you? > > > > Or are you actually claiming that these sorts of problems can't happen?
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:27:49AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > I am claiming that you were not talking about this. > > Here is what you said: > > > > > > > > > It's true that if your resolution passed we would need to > > > > > > > > pass further resolutions to fix the problem you're creating, > > > > > > > > but at present the above paragraph is simply false. > > "we would need to pass further resolutions to fix the problem you're creating" That should have been "problems" -- I don't always hit the keyboard hard enough, and I don't always catch all the resulting typos. > You are now suggesting that you were classifying the sole action of > the resolution (removing non-free) as a "problem" - so the "further > resolutions to fix the problem" would be to undo it. That's oversimplified, but essentially accurate. > In effect, you are saying that if a supermajority of developers > decided that they didn't want do distribute non-free, then this would > be a problem, and they would have to form a supermajority decision to > distribute non-free in order to "fix" it. > > That's nonsense. Counter example -- we might update the guidelines to fix some of the problems which result from dropping all non-free and contrib packages. > I claim that you were not talking about this at all, but were merely > spreading FUD, and are now trying to excuse it. I claim that you're not thinking this through. > > > > > > > Please do not migrate from generating FUD to outright breach of > > > > > > > copyright (specifically rights of attribution). ... > > > Handwaving. This is not a court of law; technicalities are not an excuse. > > > > Copyright is a legal issue. > > > > > You claimed authorship; that means you think there is a > > > legitimate claim of authorship. > > > > You're confused: I have authorship -- I did indeed introduce a proposal > > with those changes. > > > > What I don't have is first authorship -- you introduced your own proposal > > with those changes before I did. > > > > Once again: this is not a copyright issue. You might as well claim that > > because you say "the sky is blue" no one else is allowed to make such > > a claim. > > The same, identical, handwaving. > > Your claim was "I created this, and you copied it". My claim, which I > proceeded to prove, was that the opposite is true. My claim is that this is not a copyright issue. -- Raul
