Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > You don't have any kind of authority, as far as I know. > > I didn't say I did. I quoted "like debian-legal tells me it needs to be > done," and noted that debian-legal had in fact said that. A clear > majority at any rate. That's all.
debian-legal is no majority. > >>>there's a successful General Resolution passed on a > >>>relevant topic, > >> > >>That's happened. Do you need another, even more specific, one? If you do, > >>I'll be happy to oblige if I ever get through NM. > > I notice your lack of comment on this. Because I don't owe you a comment on this. > >>>or they're removed from the upstream... > >> > >>Well, that's not happening right now it looks like. :-P > >> > >>Please remove these from 'main' ASAP. Thank you. > >>They can be placed in a package in "non-free" if you wish, as they appear > to > >>have licenses which make them distributable. > >> > >>It would be good to get this done as soon as possible, so that there is a > >>releaseable version of emacs in etch. > > > > > > It is already releasable, thanks. > > Sorry, it's not. Please note that it has an RC bug filed against it. > You do know what "RC" means, right? This bug shall be closed because it is irrelevant, whether it is RC or not. So, there's not point arguing. > >>Alternatively, you could initiate a GR to overrule the Social Contract with > >>respect to these works. > >> > >>Oh, FYI, don't pay too much attention to Michael Edwards. He has > >>misinterpreted the meaning of the "integrity of the work" provisions in > > > > > > We do pay attention to Michael. We even agree with him. > > Sad. 'Cause he's propounding bad legal advice. He's not an extremist at least. I trust him for this reason. .. > > > > I stand that removing those documents will not make Emacs more free > > than it is nowdays. > > Well, you can "stand by" whatever you want, but not having any arguments > to back it up makes it rather unconvincing. I'll repeat that I don't owe you any argument. It is all about common sense, but you don't seem to get it. Extremists and ideologists have never known anything about common sense and _this_ is _proven_. I'm not ready to leave Debian in the hands of ideologists and extremists, partisants of "my way or the highway" and such kind of Free software morality crusaders. I'm all against the dictatorship of minorities. > > You are an extremist, a fundamentalist, with no bits of common sense > > at all. > OK, that's both an ad hominem attack, and was given with no evidence. I'm sad I have to use such words but I don't think there is anything else to say. It is based on your interventions on debian-legal. I don't have to give evidence, you already have. > > You aren't helping anyone, not even the Debian Project. > OK, that's partly an ad hominem attack, but worse, it is provably false. > I am not the only one who gains direct benefit from having a clear, > obvious division -- "main" exclusive of license texts -- between > material satisfying the DFSG and that which doesn't. It is an extreme view of the DFSG, I call this fundamentalism. -- Jérôme Marant
