On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 02:06:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Not only did you ignore my Mail-Followup-To header, to which I drew your > attention in the very first line of my reply, but you mailed me a > private copy of your message.
I always use "g" to respond to mailing list posts in mutt. It has worked fine before. I have no idea why would be the exception (even if I hit "r", it should still obey that header). I'm runnting mutt 1.5.4 if it's anything to you. I do not regularly inspect the result of hitting that command because I've not had any reason to doubt its accuracy. > > The corrolary is that 0% of Debian is non-free software. Documentation is > > not software at all. > > I see you have not taken my advice to read the archives of debian-legal. > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00027.html > > "The Social Contract does not say: Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software > and Some Other Things That Aren't Software But Which Are Also Free But > Meet a Different Definition Of Free Than That Which Applies to Software, > Plus Some Other Stuff That Isn't Free By Any Stretch Of The Imagination > But Which We Thought Would Be Nice To Have." Which is an interesting post indeed, though I think that particular quote is taking things to an unwarranted extreme. > > The mere fact that the social contract says that 100% of Debian is Free > > Software does not magically make everything that is part of Debian > > "software". Just saying something is so is begging the question, and I am > > getting tired of that game. > > I'm getting tired of the game that interprets: > > "This food product is 100% fat free." > > as: > > "The stuff that isn't fat in this food product is 100% fat-free, but the > non-fat-free stuff might have fat in it." > > I'm also getting tired of having words put in my mouth. I have at no > time (and neither has any other opponent of different standards of > freedom for documentation within the Debian Project, to my knowledge), > asserted that "documentation *IS* software". Please cease these > fallacious straw man attacks. Then I don't understand. Why do you continue bringing up the "100% Free Software" if not to assert that everything in Debian is Free Software, and thus the DFSG applies? > I'm also getting tired of you not familiarizing yourself with the > voluminous past discussions of this subject. Sifting through two or three years of debian-legal archives on this topic especially is not something that is easily or quickly done/ > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00023.html > > "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." Well, the Social Contract doesn't specifically address it, but I'd say we have a pretty clear idea of what we want to do anyway. > Wow, look at that. December 2001. I wonder if people have talked about > these issues while you weren't paying attention? Quite possible (I've not been on debian-legal the entire time it existed), and thanks for pointing it out, However, there doesn't seem to have been a conclusion reached. For instance, there is this reply: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00024.html But, like Thomas, by this point I think it may be time to agree to disagree. > > If you take Clause 1 of the Social Contract to mean that all software in > > Debian is free, it makes a lot of sense to me, and does not itself remove > > the moral requirement that documentation and other files are free as well. > > Everything we possibly can ensure to be Free in Debian must be Free. Yup, I'd agree with that as a worthy goal. > That means everything except legal notices (copyright notices, license > terms, warranty disclaimers, and the like). That too. > We could do without that stuff as well, except we'd either expose > ourselves to legal liability, or be left only with public domain > materials. Either would mean there wouldn't be a Debian Project for > much longer. Agreed. > I guess at this point you can, if you like, argue that losing the GNU > Emacs Manual, with its inseparable GNU Manifesto, would deal the Project > an equally fatal blow. That is not my argument, and as you are probably aware, I have agreed that the GFDL is not a good license. > > Not that I see that this whole discussion bears any relevance to the > > DFSG/GFDL discussion. > > It's a discussion of the Social Contract, for which the correct forum is > debian-project. Fine, I don't care where the discussion is. > This is not a technical discussion. Please stop grandstanding on > debian-devel. I was not "grandstanding" anywhere, nor did I begin the thread in -devel. I was responding to your post at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200308/msg03193.html, which among other things appeared to assert that everything in Debian is software, and that I am "willing to compromise the freedoms of their fellow developers and our users". That I objected to strongly, as it is most certainly not the case, nor has it ever been for me. -- John