[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Maybe relocating, but not on VAC AFAICS and still active on various This is not what I claimed.
>> Can't you come up with anything better than this? >Why do I need to? Can you show that those DFSG-1-revisionists exist? DFSG revisionists are the people holding one or more of these beliefs, which were not usually accepted by developers when I joined the project: - the DFSG 1.1 just clarifies the meaning of the DSFG 1.0 and does not actually imposes new rules about what is acceptable in Debian - the dissident test, the desert island test, the moose test, etc are implied by the DFSG - reasoning schemes like "even if everybody used to agree that the DFSG had to be interpreted as X we now believe that it really meant Y != X" - various other minor beliefs about what the DFSG means which were not commonly accepted by developers some years ago, among them the "every restriction is a fee" (possibly for multiple values of "every") which you are defending here Analysis of the debian-legal@ archive can show that there are such people, therefore DFSG revisionists as previously defined exist. QED. HTH. (Hopefully even you will be able to understand that this description is not rigorous in the mathematical sense, so please refrain from nitpick.) >If not, stop trolling. Accusing people who oppose your views of "trolling" shows lack of dialectic skills. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
