Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
  • To: Seth Alan Woolley <seth AT positivism.org>
  • Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?
  • Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 17:01:54 -0800 (PST)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Seth Alan Woolley wrote:
<snip>
I mean support as in bugzilla and bugs dealing not with ease of use when
one is unable to comprehend the documentation, but that if there's a
problem with an interaction between their system and our underlying
system or a bug that needs to be fixed that requires a simple patch or
some communication with upstream for proper configuration/distribution.
I also mean the use of our website domain to distribute the z-rejected
grimoire.

In short, our QA for z-rejected packages only extends to bugs in our
spell and fixing those, not bugs in their code/binaries, correct?

<snip>
ethics != religion. Why dismiss an ethical discussion that has impact
upon all our lives as a religious discussion? Religious discussions
deal with the unfalsifiable and unscientific. Most ethical discussions,
particularly those in a non-religious context that deals with actual
ramifications of actions, can be dealt with on game theoretic terms
coherently in a modern sociobiological framework without any appeal to
religious authority, which you seem to dislike.

Ethics are not scientific. You can not prove an ethic, therefore 'in
general' it is akin to a religious argument, IMO. You also cannot
define an ethic that applies to everyone or one that everyone agrees
to, so it is not a fact. No matter how you word it we cannot say,
"This over here is the one true belief, and <insert group here> is it's
prophet".

<snip>
You've essentially ignored (2). Thanks.

He answered 1 and 2. 1 Being that he wants more definition for what
you consider 'QA support', but then you go and ignore his query for
more. 2 he answered with, (paraphrase) "I don't agree with what you
are saying about what software we should, and should not, package."

<snip>
You just did. The TLs didn't weigh in unsupport for it yet, and how do
you expect them to respond so quickly?

So far, it's 2:1 (AFAIK) against:for.

<snip>
That's fine with me, I just think publicly dismissing (2) without a
public reason is not productive to a public discussion.

No disrespect to anybody that disagrees with my question, I just like to
see rationale behind people's lack of agreement. I also want to
reiterate that while I find it an ethical problem, I don't consider it
an ethical transgression great enough to harm any existing relationships
over, just to make that clear. I also don't think that it's important
enough to prevent 1.0, either. I'm just bringing it up for discussion.
It wasn't even a complete proposal, more of a straw-poll and request for
feedback.

Seth

You must have missed my nice e-mail[0] /detailing/ what I saw wrong with
this.

- -sandalle

[0]
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/sm-discuss/2005-November/012838.html

- --
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/ #196285 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDbVYFHXt9dKjv3WERArUGAKDCn6AOJLbPanYzNtiJJjFLZ660XwCeM30y
N+kZgQlNpe31ZtsQxU5CiNU=
=wwc9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page