Re: Re: Debian removed perlreftut

[jryan]

Right, I wasn't arguing that the perlreftut manpage did not have a restrictive license. I'm arguing that the Debian group has lost its mind so far that they are essentially *looking* for things to hang.

perlreftut states that it may be packaged with Perl, and Perl happens to be packaged with Debian. The spirit of the license is still being upheld. However, this doesn't seem to be good enough for the overzelous; ones who seem to care more about licensing issues surrounding software than the software itself.

[Anonymous Monk]

I'm arguing that the Debian group has lost its mind so far that they are essentially *looking* for things to hang.

Yes, just as I'm *looking* for bugs to fix, they're *looking* for licensing problems to fix. Is it so hard to understand that the Debian project has guidelines as to what they will and will not include in their distribution?

Read This.

[jryan]

Is it so hard to understand that I disagree with that philosophy? You're making the connection that "Because X is arguing against Y, he must not be educated about Y". This is incorrect, as well as a logical fallacy. (a post hoc fallacy) I am very well educated on the philosophy of Debian and GNU; its that I think it is harmful.

[Anonymous Monk]

Hmmm...

1. Right, because its obviously much more important to keep Perl licensially pure than to provide a manpage that is helpful to users
2. That is absolutely ridiculous. What good is even the most legally solid piece of software if no one can use it?
3. The spirit of the license is still being upheld
4. this doesn't seem to be good enough for the overzelous; ones who seem to care more about licensing issues surrounding software than the software itself.

And then:

I am very well educated on the philosophy of Debian and GNU

Riiight. And 2 + 2 = 879237 but I assure you, I'm very well educated in mathematics.

Happy trolling.