Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 02:38:53AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> writes:
> >
> > > > > non-free software doesn't need to be discriminated against (and
> > > > > changing the rules & practices relating to non-free software
> > > > > after 4+ years is discrimination), ignoring it is sufficient.
> > > >
> > > > We have always discriminated against non-free software, and
> > > > rightly so.
> > >
> > > we don't actively discriminate against it, we ignore it as much as
> > > possible.
> >
> > That involves discrimination!
>
> yes, go ahead and chop out the line "there is a difference" which makes
> the point. i'll repeat it because you seem to want to ignore it: there
> is a difference between ignoring something (passive discrimination at
> worst), and active discrimination.
Because it's not relevant. You still have to choose what to ignore,
and that choice requires discrimination.
> congratulations! you missed the point entirely.
Congratulations! You missed "dict" entirely.
Reply to: