discuss: Debian-free licenses was Re: modifiability of docs: final decision
Subject:
Re: Debian-free licenses was Re: modifiability of docs: final decision
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
10 Mar 2005 08:42:02 -0000
Message-Id: <20050310084159.GF27314@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting doug jensen ####@####.####
> [Rick's] statement infers that no one knows who did it.
This is obviously erroneous -- albeit irrelevant to the question of
interest. (Probably, you have confused infer with _imply_, but it makes
no difference.) I'll return to the latter point, below.
[much snipped]
> So Rick's statement doesn't make any difference, that is not how it
> works.
The pity of this is that all that is _still_ completely irrelevant to
the question: Regardless of who maintains those pages, they still don't
voice the official view of the Debian Project. Why? Because it has no
discernable connection with the governance mechanisms detailed in
Debian's ruling documents.
Summaries of sundry offhand opinions posted to the public debian-legal
mailing list -- which is what the Web pages house -- are nothing
_at all_ like official statements of the project.
If you maintain otherwise, kindly state your reasoning and quit playing
time-wasting games. But I cannot even imagine anything that would
qualify; for some reason, you're simply blowing smoke at us, aren't you?
I really don't know why you would do that, but I really don't appreciate
the time-wastage involved.
> He knows that there is no one person here that can speak for the LDP.
Although we were _not_ speaking of the LDP, which unlike Debian lacks a
formal structure -- making yours a non-sequitur comparison -- I will
immediately deny your premise, nonetheless: Guylhem has spoken
definitively for LDP on numerous occasions.
> Why would he make that statement, if he wasn't trying to confuse the
> issue?
Frankly, you have one hell of a lot of gall talking about "trying to
confuse the issue", given your distract-with-irrelevancies approach and
consistent refusal to address the matter _actually_ under discussion.
