Let's quote you again.
:''I did not accuse anyone of anything. Just mentioned a fact.''
Indeed, you did accuse someone of something:
:1. ''Trisquel GNU/Linux is just one distro taking advantage of other people
work.''
On the frame of #2, you seem to be accusing Trisquel of "leeching" people,
besides detracting the hard work of Rubén and other people involved in the
project, which is a disrespect.
:2. '' ''Trisquel is attacking Free Speech'' in the name of Guidelines for
Free Software Distributions + I would possibly only fund disto being
officially part of GNU.''
I didn't get the meaning of the "+". It appears you are just throwing things
together irresponsibly, irrationally, trying to attack someone, perhaps
because of that "insult" you mistook in the first place (I cross my fingers
for that instead of a tentative of sabotage to this community -- which I
should mention in cases other than yours).
You know, there's something called
"[http://www.argobooks.org/english/the_origin_of_speech.html articulated
language]" which serves to the purpose of correctly communicating intentions,
attributing responsibilities etc.
It seems you do not want to answer for your acts. That '''is''' an
accusation, not an enunciation of a pretense "fact"; you are trying to
establish your subjectivity as a cogency, an obligation to others. That's
called "authoritarianism". '''You''' are the one inclined to censorship, not
Trisquel, and not FSF, which reputation you indirectly attack by this.
Besides, you probably wasn't educated to the values of the Western
Civilization (or anything like that). To accuse someone of a crime (here, an
attack of Free Speech) without proof of it is called "calumny", which is a
crime by itself. A "proof" is both the collection of sufficient indices of
some act and the logical demonstration of why they would make that act to fit
in the law's definition of the alleged crime.
:''If you did not get the point since you wanted to selectively quote me''
[...]
Of course it was selectively. It would be even if I quoted you entirely. The
difference would be the criteria by which I did it. I got the point and
selected the main points of it. That means not quoting what was not necessary
to quote.
:[...] ''I can tell it again: I would rather fund GNOME, TripleA,
Rawtherapee, and Gimp than Trisquel GNU/Linux.''
You say that just before accusing Trisquel of attacking Free Speech. Does it
takes too much to understand you are spelling your will as a prelude to that
accusation?
:''The reason for that is that they need funding too, and they are preferred
software for me I don't want to replace, even if I can. Trisquel, hmm, that I
want to /replace/.''
Hmm, perhaps you should be more respectful and less cheeky.
:''Do you think they are part of Project GNU because of that?'' ["Well,
perhaps you didn't see this:" link to 100% FaiF GNU/Linux distros, in
response to that thing after the "+"]
No, but you are calling me stupid. A GNU/Linux distro is named that way
because that's not all GNU; now, it can be called a GNU distro because
Linux-libre became a GNU project. I suggested the link to you not as a
logical "entimema", but trying to get you to stop detracting Trisquel and its
community. It appears you didn't have that sensibility, though.
Or perhaps you are just ashamed and don't want to recognize it -- thus your
statements:
:''However, I still don't like that views of Debian about Free Software and
licenses are censored.'' [it was an outdated draft!!]
But it doesn't matter if you like them or not. You used them as an argument.
I have no more time to spend with this right now.
