AJ Towns, doing his best idiot impression, said:
>Well, I'm sorry that you're so blinkered as to think that software cannot
>possibly mean programs, but not documentation,
It could, but (a) that's not the most proper meaning, and (b) it's not the
meaning of the people who wrote the phrase. Did you READ what I wrote?
> or so naive to think
>that just because the line between the two isn't bright and straight,
>that it can't be drawn nevertheless.
And where would you like to draw it? And why would you like to draw it there?
And more important, what would your justification be for treating the two
categories differently? Nobody's come up with one, really.
Look, this has been hashed out a gazillion times and is even in multiple FAQs.
>Well, the conclusion you've come up with seems to be "change the social
>contract", so I don't see how you could've been particularly persuasive
>as far as "changing the way Debian behaves without changing the social
>contract" is concerned.
Quite a number of maintainers have removed non-free materials from their
packages in main. That qualifies as persuasive. Quite a number of people
have come to the conclusion I have. That qualifies as persuasive. The
opposition repeatedly comes from people who haven't thought it through, and
it would be preferable if the same damned arguments which were gone over in
excruciating detail didn't have to be gone over yet again.
> In any event, debian-legal is a list for analysing
>legal matters; the issues that make it unreasonable to drop non-free
>documentation aren't legal issues at all.
OK. What issues "make it unreasonable to drop non-free documentation"?
Why are they *so* important that they're more important than making Debian
"100% Free Software"?
Actually, have you considered adding a disclaimer to Sarge, noting that it is
known *not* to satisfy the Social Contract? If you actually agree with the
debian-legal / Bruce Perens interpretation, that would seem a very reasonable
thing to do. That would certainly satisfy my complaint about
misrepresentation!
If you don't agree with the debian-legal interpretation, what *is* your
interpretation, and why do you think it's better?
>Because that's not what you think.
OK, so now you're claiming to be telepathic? Perhaps I've expressed myself
poorly (not surprsingly), but I'm quite sure that I know what I think better
than you. Could you please stop acting like an idiot?
>You think that the Social Contract
>should be amended so that people who disagree with you are *forced*
>to do what you want.
Did you *ing READ what I wrote? It sure doesn't sound like it.
I want the Social Contract to be amended to eliminate an ambiguity which is
currently present.
When there is an ambiguity of interpretation, there will have to, eventually,
be one interpretation which is considered the "correct" or "current"
interpretation. I think that that was pretty well worked out through months,
or perhaps years, of argument, and it's the one I've taken.
Developers who have a different interpretation most *certainly* should propose
an amendment to clarify the Social Contract to enshrine their interpretation.
If that happened, I would be disappointed, but I would no longer be
frustrated.
Or perhaps you're saying that you prefer to have an ambiguous, confusing
Social Contract? I guess that would be consistent with your statements, but
I have to disagree, and I have to guess that nearly everyone would disagree.
>Because it's clear that the Social Contract *doesn't* say what you think
>it already says; because if it did, there wouldn't be any disagreement
>with you in the first place.
Please stop pretending to be an idiot, since I think you aren't. It's
*unclear* what the Social Contract says. That much is clear. ;-) I believe
my interpretation is essentially correct -- it also agrees with the
interpretation of the people who have thought about it the most.
Other people believe a different interpretation ("software=programs") is
correct, but the more people who hear the evidence, the fewer there are who
think that.
>Now, you can claim that Bruce and -legal are authorities under god if you
>like, but frankly, if you want to overrule the decision of the delegates
>involved, you're the one that needs to propose the GR. Oh, but wait,
>you can't do that because you're not even a developer.
So, you're claiming that "the delegates involved" have total authority. Let's
see:
Leader: Martin Michlmayr
-- Has expressed no opinion, as far as I can tell.
Let's see who's delegated the authority to decide what satifies the Social
Contract: Why, nobody! Isn't that interesting!
Let's see who's delegated the authority to decide what's in Debian:
the FTPmasters, apparently, which includes you.
Let's see who's delegated the authority to decide what's in the stable
releases: You, personally, apparently.
So, I guess you personally get to decide what satisfies the Social Contract.
I can see why you like this interpretation ;-)
>The issue's already resolved by letting the people who do the work make
>the decision. You know, the way Debian always works. You know, the way the
>constitution describes decisions being made by delegates and maintainers.
There's no delegate who's actually formally delegated to interpret the Social
Contract, of course, but I mentioned that already. Maintainers disagree, and
who is to deal with that? Also, sometimes (rarely) maintainers flagrantly
violate the Social Contract, or worse, distribute packages with flagrant
disregard for their licenses. Whose responsibility is it to deal with that?
(looks)
No, that's not delegated either. Hmm.
Now consider this possibility: The issue is "already resolved" by letting the
people who don't do the work make the decision. You know, maintainers who
haven't uploaded their packages in years but refuse to give them up, and
delegates who are very slow to do their delegated jobs but refuse to give
them up. I hope this isn't the case, but about half the time it looks more
like this than like your rosy version.
>And? Plenty of developers who've done more work than you on this cycle or
>others care and have opinions too.
Yeah, and you've gratuitously attacked them too. So?
>RMS has done more for free software than you have, and he
>thinks that GFDL licensed docs are entirely free enough. Again, why do
>you think your opinion matters, let alone enough to trump RMS's?
A large number of people agree with me, including many other FSF developers.
I have explanations which convince people who are willing to listen to
reason. In other words, my opinion is not just my opinion; it has *backing*.
Even I didn't start out with this opinion; I was convinced by cogent
argument.
Contrast RMS, who has apparently decided that it is not the business of anyone
else to attempt to influence him, and that the FSF is his personal fiefdom.
Oh -- and apparently that arguing about FSF license issues is off topic on
all live FSF mailing lists -- I couldn't get the name of a mailing list on
which it was supposed to be on-topic. The only actual GFDL supporters I know
of other than him think that proprietary software is just fine, and do free
software only as "charity" work.
>If you're really the kind of person who thinks his opinion is worth
>anything to anyone else for it's own sake, you're probably going to end
>up disappointed if you ever bother to join Debian, too.
I don't know what you mean by "for it's [sic] own sake". If it's a good,
well-grounded opinion, with lots of rationale and evidence backing it up --
which in this case it is -- it's worth something. I certainly don't think my
opinions are especially valuable when they *aren't*.
Likewise, when you have a good, well-grounded opinion, it's worth something.
Do you? You've come up with non-sequiters, inaccuracies, and insults in this
thread.
