On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 10:52:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > You steadfastly want to skip that little word "software". It's the > Debian free *software* guidelines, and if your goal is to be > literalistic, then you can't appeal to the DF *Software* G to argue > about things which are not *Software*.
More ground already covered.
If it's not *Software* then either,
1) We must treat it as such, or;
2) We have no mandate to deal with it at all.
Please review the Social Contract.
> > Let me guess. You're one of the people who didn't read the thread
> > before replying!
>
> Huh? You and I still disagree about the point; if you *must* have a
> rigid guideline, then maybe we can work one out, but Anthony is well
> within his rights to argue that a qualitative description is
> adequate. That question is *not* somehow closed so that people
> joining the conversation now can't revisit it.
And nowhere did I imply thus. I asked him to read the thread, which he
clearly hadn't.
> > It's probably a good idea to avoid shitting on people for making an
> > effort to be clear by using a little colloquial grease. Specific
> > suggestions for clarification of my existing wording are welcome.
> > Contrived objections to my proposals are not.
>
> Why are contrived objections to your proposals not allowed, but
> contrived objections to the GFDL are just fine??
I'm sorry, but I cannot see how see my attempt to eluicidate a point is
in any way analogous to an exigesis of the GNU FDL, which is a software
license.
If Anthony, or you, doesn't like my explanation of point 3), you can
simply ignore it. What's up for consideration is the proposal itself.
I find it endlessly fascinating that, no matter how much trouble one
goes to to distinguish normative pieces of a proposal from descriptive
ones, people manage to conflate the two. Ironically, this is probably
one reason why Invariant Sections under the GNU FDL could be considered
a bad idea.
Please feel free to mentally insert
*********************************************************************
THE INDENTED TEXT IS FOR EXPLANATION PURPOSES ONLY, IT DOES
NOT FORM PART OF THE NORMATIVE CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL; IT IS JUST
PRESENT AS FODDER FOR EXPLANATORY FOOTNOTES IN ANY ADOPTED VERSION OF
THE PROPOSAL. ANTHONY TOWNS, THOMAS BUSHNELL, THIS MEANS YOU!
*********************************************************************
before the indented explanations of each clause of my proposal.
--
G. Branden Robinson |
Debian GNU/Linux | kernel panic -- causal failure
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | universe will now reboot
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgp0TfJUQXIPi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
