Bug#283717: hasciicam: enhance Description
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:43:29PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: jaromil in <[🔎] 20041201094756.GI17346@dyne.org>
> > in case you are an arrogant person (i don't mean you are, i just don't
> > know you at all) then consider that the GNU FDL license applied to the
> > manual and documentation of hasciicam requires: the Invariant Sections
> > being NAME, SYNOPSIS, DESCRIPTION, AUTHOR
>
> May I suggest to move the package to non-free then?
may i suggest to move the package out of Debian then?
now please you all take a breath and stop thinking like a robot;
try to imagine my position, the position of an author of software which
happens to be included also in Debian.
this is something that you should carefully evaluate in order to
accomply to your blessed mission of distributing free software.
I write free software, HasciiCam is just one, FreeJ is another, MuSE is
another, they are all in Debian even if i never asked you to include
them, still i love free and open source software and of course i let
people do what they can with it.
now you can imagine that I and I am offended by the argument of seeking
"personal gratification" made in this same thread here!
it's obviously not what i seek since i never wanted it to be in Debian,
and you come and insult me in public this way! yes because in my
philosophy doing things for personal gratification is not such a good
behaviour!
i find it an insult: my agenda includes the development of free and open
source software for political reasons and carrying a political message,
i make this well manifest thru my actions, day by day.
this is all what i care of.
and again I and I am offended by someone using small bureaucratic
clauses of the free license actually as an argument AGAINST a programmer
of free software.
oh, is so great to be here with you guys!!!
ok now please be careful:
i'm talking about correctness and respect!
I think many people here is being very arrogant and this is indeed not
the first time i realize that among Debian developers, especially the
youngs and less experienced ones, so i finally come to this small issue
to give evidence to a more general problem here.
To me eyes your behaviour is outrageous and i really hope you don't
threat like that the people around you, in that case you must have very
big problems in your social life!
Instead i think you should really care to threat with more humanity
people that you talk with on the other side of the screen; if it is not
the case then please leave Debian development because yours is not going
to be a good contribution, considered that such a collective project
also requires social skills to be developed.
In fact i do care about Debian and i hope it can get better in future,
so please adopt a better attitude and take care to talk friendly to
upstream authors - don't trick them on the basis of the same free
licenses they adopt because that can be a big drawback for licensing
free software in the eyse of many programmers! - and don't make your
points on the level of conflict, but please SEEK AGREEMENT!
finally, coming back to HasciiCam, i think that there is room for both
definitions as previously stated in the thread, that is a good and
peaceful solution and we should all learn from that spirit.
so here i draw a line in the ground with my finger and say
- - --------------------------------------------------------------
RESPECT IS DUE TO THE DREADLOCK RASTAMAN
do what you want, but give respect to who writes free code and commits
his ideas to the community: that is the most important thing you care
about when you are doing a GNU/Linux distribution.
now please get out of my hut and go playing indian and cowboys in the
garden you kids! :)
peace,
ciao
- --
jaromil, dyne.org rasta coder, http://rastasoft.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Cryptographically signed mail, see http://gnupg.org
iD8DBQFBrepiWLCC1ltubZcRAqXBAJ9MVNTlU4YIu0dDUbSI4ZS2ccE0EgCdG+i+
u9ELjxj6ei62mglfUYwpEeg=
=Pr0q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: