Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
Raul Miller wrote: >> >> >> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software > >> >> This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that >> >> everything in Debian is free. > >> > :%s/and furthermore/and\/or/ > > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> No, trust me, we parsed this one very carefully and took an excessive >> amount >> of time on this in debian-legal. There are two possible interpretations, >> but both come out to an "and". > > That's so bogus I don't know where to start. Start by learning English better? > I'll limit myself to two observations: > > * There's more than two interpretations. Yeah, but some of them are not possible -- they're just plain wrong, because they are based in not understanding English well enough. Your interpretation above is one of the ones which is just plain wrong -- there's no possible interpretation with an "or" in it. > * There are people in Debian. Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context indicates that "Debian" means "the Debian system" or "the Debian distribution". You could interpret it as meaning "the Debian Project", but that would be silly, because it would make the whole Social Contract make no sense whatsoever. (Are you software? Are you free software?) > If you want to supply a reasoned argument, feel free. OK, I'll repeat the *same* explanation for the hundredth time, and I'll put in lots of detail, because you're being silly. First, accept that "Debian" means "The Debian system" here. Second, accept that the statements in the Social Contract are true only to the best of people's knowledge and ability -- the fact that non-free things have gotten in by accident does not materially affect the meaning. >> >> >> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software I think we both know that the words at issue here are "100% Free Software". The sentence can be parsed in only two ways. I can't do sentence diagramming in ASCII very well, so I'll just show the grouping: (1) (Debian) ((will remain) (100% (Free Software))) This means that "100%" of Debian "will remain" Software, and that that software will be "Free". (2) (Debian) ((will remain) ((100% Free) Software))) This means that Debian "will remain" software, and that that software will be "100% Free". Either way, Debian will be Software, and that software will be Free. That's the English language meaning. When I say "I will remain a male human", it doesn't mean "I am human and/or male", it means "I am human and male". Deal with it. (I suppose there might be some subtle difference between interpretations 1 and 2 -- in particular, interpretation 2 might theoretically allow for Debian to be "software" but not "100% software"; maybe only 99% software. It doesn't affect things materially.) -- Make sure your vote will count. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:27:58AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > I think my comment was actually appropriate and to-the-point. I beg to differ, but *shrug* Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> Raul Miller wrote: >> > * There are people in Debian. >> Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context >> indicates that "Debian" means "the Debian system" or "the Debian >> distribution". You could interpret it as meaning "the Debian Project", >> but that would be silly, because it would make the whole Social Contract >> make >> no sense whatsoever. (Are you software? Are you free software?) > > I think you are being too quick to dismiss Raul's comments. He has > pointed out in the past that "Debian" means a lot of different things; > it's a project, an OS, among others. > > So "Debian will remain 100% Free Software" is not entirely clear, > given that Debian is a bunch of people in certain contexts. > Why not spell out the context? Quite right and perfectly reasonable -- spelling out the context is a fine idea. But it's essentially a different topic from the message Raul was replying to, which was explaining that there are only two possible ways to interprent the "...will remain 100% Free Software" part of the sentence, and that his "and/or" interpretation simply wasn't one of them. > Hamish -- Make sure your vote will count. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Raul Miller wrote: > > * There are people in Debian. > Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context > indicates that "Debian" means "the Debian system" or "the Debian > distribution". You could interpret it as meaning "the Debian Project", but > that would be silly, because it would make the whole Social Contract make > no sense whatsoever. (Are you software? Are you free software?) I think you are being too quick to dismiss Raul's comments. He has pointed out in the past that "Debian" means a lot of different things; it's a project, an OS, among others. So "Debian will remain 100% Free Software" is not entirely clear, given that Debian is a bunch of people in certain contexts. Why not spell out the context? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Raul Miller wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >> No, trust me, we parsed this one very carefully and took an excessive > >> amount of time on this in debian-legal. There are two possible > >> interpretations, but both come out to an "and". > > That's so bogus I don't know where to start. > Start by learning English better? I would be *really* grateful if you could limit /this/ discussion to something civil. So either drop your usual insults or drop -vote from your mailbox. Thanks, Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
Michael Banck wrote: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> Raul Miller wrote: >> > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >> >> No, trust me, we parsed this one very carefully and took an excessive >> >> amount of time on this in debian-legal. There are two possible >> >> interpretations, but both come out to an "and". > >> > That's so bogus I don't know where to start. ^^^ >> Start by learning English better? > > I would be *really* grateful if you could limit /this/ discussion to > something civil. > > So either drop your usual insults or drop -vote from your mailbox. I presume this is addressed to Raul, for his insulting statement above? Given that most of the rest of my message was devoted to explaining precisely why his "and/or" interpretation was impossible for someone with sufficient understanding of English, I think my comment was actually appropriate and to-the-point. -- Make sure your vote will count. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > * There are people in Debian. > Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context > indicates that "Debian" means "the Debian system" or "the Debian > distribution". You could interpret it as meaning "the Debian Project", but > that would be silly, because it would make the whole Social Contract make > no sense whatsoever. (Are you software? Are you free software?) Thank you for acknowledging this. Note that you did not say "The Debian System". Instead, you said "Everything in Debian", with no qualifiers on "Debian". Note that just because you consider interpretations silly doesn't mean that other people will agree with you. We just had a GR where people voting one way thought people voting a different way were using a silly interpretation of that exact phrase. > (1) (Debian) ((will remain) (100% (Free Software))) > This means that "100%" of Debian "will remain" Software, and that that > software will be "Free". ... > (2) (Debian) ((will remain) ((100% Free) Software))) > This means that Debian "will remain" software, and that that software will > be "100% Free". ... > (I suppose there might be some subtle difference between interpretations 1 > and 2 -- in particular, interpretation 2 might theoretically allow for > Debian to be "software" but not "100% software"; maybe only 99% software. > It doesn't affect things materially.) To me, that difference calls for the presence of an "or", in sentences which talk about 'Everything in Debian'. Since the paragraph following the "100% Free" subtitle concerns itself with the issues of "how free is free" rather than "how much software is 'Everything in Debian'", I think the distinction is material in this context. -- Raul
Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > OK, while we're proposing changes > > How about "...entirely free software. This includes programs, > documentation, data, and any other works which are part of the Debian > system (except possibly license texts which are distributed only for legal > reasons). We provide the guidelines..." > > This would clarify the main point that has been spawning endless attempts by > occasional maintainers to sneak non-free stuff into "main". Not just "license texts". Any legal texts. Warranty disclaimers, for instance, are not "license texts." Neither are disclaimers of endorsement, which have been discussed many times in threads on or related to documentation licenses. -- G. Branden Robinson| Never attribute to conspiracy that Debian GNU/Linux | which can be adequately explained [EMAIL PROTECTED] | by economics. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > This would clarify the main point that has been spawning endless attempts by > occasional maintainers to sneak non-free stuff into "main". what "endless attempts" would these be? have there been any incidents in the real world (i.e. outside of your fevered imagination)? you bigots lost the vote (you didn't even come close) - can't you please just shut up and go away? do you really have to try to continue the "discussion", by any desperate means possible? craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"
Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 07:59:09AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: [...] > you bigots lost the vote (you didn't even come close) - can't you please just > shut up and go away? do you really have to try to continue the "discussion", > by any desperate means possible? Nathanael is not even in the NM-queue and thus was not eligible to vote, so please don't confuse him with the rest of us bigots, mmkay? ;) Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Raul Miller wrote: > > * There are people in Debian. > Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context > indicates that "Debian" means "the Debian system" or "the Debian > distribution". You could interpret it as meaning "the Debian Project", but > that would be silly, because it would make the whole Social Contract make > no sense whatsoever. (Are you software? Are you free software?) I think you are being too quick to dismiss Raul's comments. He has pointed out in the past that "Debian" means a lot of different things; it's a project, an OS, among others. So "Debian will remain 100% Free Software" is not entirely clear, given that Debian is a bunch of people in certain contexts. Why not spell out the context? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Raul Miller wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >> No, trust me, we parsed this one very carefully and took an excessive > >> amount of time on this in debian-legal. There are two possible > >> interpretations, but both come out to an "and". > > That's so bogus I don't know where to start. > Start by learning English better? I would be *really* grateful if you could limit /this/ discussion to something civil. So either drop your usual insults or drop -vote from your mailbox. Thanks, Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
Michael Banck wrote: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> Raul Miller wrote: >> > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >> >> No, trust me, we parsed this one very carefully and took an excessive >> >> amount of time on this in debian-legal. There are two possible >> >> interpretations, but both come out to an "and". > >> > That's so bogus I don't know where to start. ^^^ >> Start by learning English better? > > I would be *really* grateful if you could limit /this/ discussion to > something civil. > > So either drop your usual insults or drop -vote from your mailbox. I presume this is addressed to Raul, for his insulting statement above? Given that most of the rest of my message was devoted to explaining precisely why his "and/or" interpretation was impossible for someone with sufficient understanding of English, I think my comment was actually appropriate and to-the-point. -- Make sure your vote will count. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> Raul Miller wrote: >> > * There are people in Debian. >> Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context >> indicates that "Debian" means "the Debian system" or "the Debian >> distribution". You could interpret it as meaning "the Debian Project", >> but that would be silly, because it would make the whole Social Contract >> make >> no sense whatsoever. (Are you software? Are you free software?) > > I think you are being too quick to dismiss Raul's comments. He has > pointed out in the past that "Debian" means a lot of different things; > it's a project, an OS, among others. > > So "Debian will remain 100% Free Software" is not entirely clear, > given that Debian is a bunch of people in certain contexts. > Why not spell out the context? Quite right and perfectly reasonable -- spelling out the context is a fine idea. But it's essentially a different topic from the message Raul was replying to, which was explaining that there are only two possible ways to interprent the "...will remain 100% Free Software" part of the sentence, and that his "and/or" interpretation simply wasn't one of them. > Hamish -- Make sure your vote will count. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:27:58AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > I think my comment was actually appropriate and to-the-point. I beg to differ, but *shrug* Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > * There are people in Debian. > Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context > indicates that "Debian" means "the Debian system" or "the Debian > distribution". You could interpret it as meaning "the Debian Project", but > that would be silly, because it would make the whole Social Contract make > no sense whatsoever. (Are you software? Are you free software?) Thank you for acknowledging this. Note that you did not say "The Debian System". Instead, you said "Everything in Debian", with no qualifiers on "Debian". Note that just because you consider interpretations silly doesn't mean that other people will agree with you. We just had a GR where people voting one way thought people voting a different way were using a silly interpretation of that exact phrase. > (1) (Debian) ((will remain) (100% (Free Software))) > This means that "100%" of Debian "will remain" Software, and that that > software will be "Free". ... > (2) (Debian) ((will remain) ((100% Free) Software))) > This means that Debian "will remain" software, and that that software will > be "100% Free". ... > (I suppose there might be some subtle difference between interpretations 1 > and 2 -- in particular, interpretation 2 might theoretically allow for > Debian to be "software" but not "100% software"; maybe only 99% software. > It doesn't affect things materially.) To me, that difference calls for the presence of an "or", in sentences which talk about 'Everything in Debian'. Since the paragraph following the "100% Free" subtitle concerns itself with the issues of "how free is free" rather than "how much software is 'Everything in Debian'", I think the distinction is material in this context. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > OK, while we're proposing changes > > How about "...entirely free software. This includes programs, > documentation, data, and any other works which are part of the Debian > system (except possibly license texts which are distributed only for legal > reasons). We provide the guidelines..." > > This would clarify the main point that has been spawning endless attempts by > occasional maintainers to sneak non-free stuff into "main". Not just "license texts". Any legal texts. Warranty disclaimers, for instance, are not "license texts." Neither are disclaimers of endorsement, which have been discussed many times in threads on or related to documentation licenses. -- G. Branden Robinson| Never attribute to conspiracy that Debian GNU/Linux | which can be adequately explained [EMAIL PROTECTED] | by economics. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > This would clarify the main point that has been spawning endless attempts by > occasional maintainers to sneak non-free stuff into "main". what "endless attempts" would these be? have there been any incidents in the real world (i.e. outside of your fevered imagination)? you bigots lost the vote (you didn't even come close) - can't you please just shut up and go away? do you really have to try to continue the "discussion", by any desperate means possible? craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 07:59:09AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: [...] > you bigots lost the vote (you didn't even come close) - can't you please just > shut up and go away? do you really have to try to continue the "discussion", > by any desperate means possible? Nathanael is not even in the NM-queue and thus was not eligible to vote, so please don't confuse him with the rest of us bigots, mmkay? ;) Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
