From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field. Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2016 09:18:16 -0400 Message-ID: <20160813131816.GB13976@jasmine> References: <4e35f009-ba71-f430-65e6-e986365b0c77@uq.edu.au> <87twesd9jw.fsf@elephly.net> <87k2fnz7zl.fsf@gmail.com> <87ziojb6kj.fsf@elephly.net> <87lh02gzeo.fsf@gmail.com> <87vaz6bcr1.fsf@elephly.net> <87vaz5rtzk.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48462) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bYi1b-00023V-6q for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 19:07:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bYi1W-0008HI-Pd for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 19:07:30 -0400 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:43020) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bYi1V-0008Fk-Cj for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 19:07:26 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: David Craven Cc: guix-devel , Alex Kost On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 03:00:42PM +0200, David Craven wrote: > Can you please explain why you don't feel competent? It's written in plain > English, not AES encrypted English, so I have difficulty understanding > why people think they can't read it and form an opinion about it (not this > issue in particular, but more general any issue that comes up), and I don't > just mean you either, but a few people have said this... Personally, after having read it the first time, I wouldn't have expected web browsers to be excluded from a free distribution due to their recommendation of non-free "add-ons". I don't disagree with this interpretation; it simply would not have occurred to me. It requires some imagination and some time thinking about the issues and the particularities of the software we use. So, I think the language of the text and its interpretation are actually not obvious. And in this case, the point of the patch in question can be achieved by another method, so I personally didn't want to spend time interpreting the FSDG when I could spend it on something else.