On 4/12/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On 4/11/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Nevertheless, neither of us would be made happy by a detailed > > > repeat of it on -vote. You'd remain unconvinced and I'd be > > > annoyed by the lost time. > > > > Your comment, here, does not agree with the meaning conveyed by your > > April 7 comment: > > > > >>> I keep asking why some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted to > > >>> prohibit all copy-control measures, as that seems to be a crucial > > >>> question in this, and nobody answered yet AFAICT. > > > > You might claim that you're not satisfied with the answers, but > > that's not what you did claim. > > It agrees fine. Your messages are replies, not answers. So much is left > unexplained in that reasoning and there's no suggestion that it has much > to do with the drafting, rather than the interpretation by some FDL-fans.
That's unnecessarily elliptical. Your question, as stated, asks for an explanation for a state of affairs which does not exist. I find it relatively trivial to show that this state of affairs does not exist. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/04/msg00034.html You are never going to get a satisfactory answer for why something exists when it does not exist. The best you can hope for is replies. -- Raul
