From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Kost Subject: Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field. Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 19:00:16 +0300 Message-ID: <871t1r8hnz.fsf@gmail.com> 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> <20160813131816.GB13976@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45205) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bYxpj-0005ci-T4 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 12:00:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bYxpg-00013G-QL for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 12:00:19 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]:35577) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bYxpg-00012v-K5 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 12:00:16 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id f65so54941371wmi.0 for ; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 09:00:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160813131816.GB13976@jasmine> (Leo Famulari's message of "Sat, 13 Aug 2016 09:18:16 -0400") 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: Leo Famulari Cc: guix-devel , David Craven Leo Famulari (2016-08-13 16:18 +0300) wrote: > 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. Oof, thanks for this message! I have a similar point. I always find it hard to read and understand such (long and boring) guidelines, licenses, etc. I realize they are important, but I just don't like to spend my time on them. TBH I stopped reading after "These guidelines are not complete" phrase :-) -- Alex