[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> With two or three exceptions, all of them are DFSG-revisionists. >> This pretty much sums up the debian-legal situation. >Marco subscribes to the notion that the DFSG was originally only meant >to apply to ELF binaries, and anything else is de jure free. Anybody >who says different, including anybody who was around at the time, can >be dismissed as a 'revisionist'. Bzzz! Wrong. Incidentally I voted against the last two GRs, but this is not what I was talking about. DFSG-revisionists are the people who in the last year invented things like the "dissident test" which are not derived from the DFSG and pretend to use them as a measure of software freeness for Debian.
>> No, "consensus" is what we had before people like you started trying to >> change what was the accepted meaning of the DFSG. >Since all objections have been dismissed, obviously there was >"consensus", with the exception of the thing currently being >dismissed. This "consensus" has been formed in the small circle of the DFSG revisionists when nobody else payed much attention to debian-legal, and now it's being used to silence dissenting opinions with the argument that "all objections have been dismissed". >It's a fairly conventional circular argument; most people on -legal >have stopped paying any attention. True. They are the people who caused this, after all. But they do not represent other developers, so I still have hopes for Debian. (I appreciate that you define my opinions as "trolling". Since I'm sure that you understand well the correct meaning of this word, then I must assume that you have no other arguments than an ad hominem.) -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
