[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.



On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:34:35PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:43PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > > > On 2004-07-21 13:48:58 +0100 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > >Please don't bother writing to me again. [...]
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sven, you need rough consensus that ocaml follows the DFSG. If you 
> > > > > move to kill this discussion now by spamming the list with notices not 
> > > > 
> > > > No, i move to kill Brian's participation in it. He is only sputting
> > > > uniformed bullshit, and is losing my time. I won't have anything to
> > > > do with him anymore, and i question the legitimity of any
> > > > debian-legal conslusion in which he participated.
> > > 
> > > At least Brian is friendly.
> > 
> > Well, sure, but full of bullshit and making extravagant claims, even
> > if the response to those was given a few mails earlier in the
> > thread. He also refuses to do his homework, and thus only
> > participates in lengthening the discussion process and reaching no
> > solution. I don't see why he should participate, since he clearly
> > has no legal clue, refuses to get advice, and ignores the advice i
> > got, refuse to read the mails posted in this thread, or fails to
> > understand them.
> 
> I feel Brian has been a good citizen of debian-legal.  He makes
> reasonable arguments, and does not devolve into ad hominem attacks on
> people who disagree.  The post you referenced about the compiler
> interjecting parts of itself into the result was not an unreasonable
> question to ask.  It may turn out to be inapplicable in this case, but
> it was not an unreasonable question to ask.

Well, the real problem is that i answered about this, and even provided that
link here previously, and he still made that argument. This means he is
clearly not reading the information provided here, so i don't really see what
interest there is in allowing him to continue contributing if he doesn't even
bother to read the material previously posted here. This will only result in
circular arguing, especially if he makes suppositions which are obviously
wrong. And i _DID_ read all the hundreds of mails about chinese dissident
before posting directly here, so he could do the same, could he not ? 

> > In any of these cases, unless he makes his homework before making
> > extravagant claims, he is only loosing everyones time, and delaying
> > the resolution of this issue consequently.
> > 
> > Also he self claimed he has a vested interest in this, and it is not clear
> > that he would accept a minor modification for making the ocaml licence free,
> > since he is after making proprietary modification of the ocaml code base.
> > 
> > And to end it all, it is he who dragged me in this mess.
> 
> He reported a bug based on the consensus of debian-legal.  It was only

Consensus ? I didn't see such, only rambling about chinese dissidents.

> after the bug was reported that we saw you (Sven) and Matthew Garrett
> argue against that consensus (I think those are the only ones.  There
> are an awful lot of messages in the thread).  While Matthew has always

And i did read them _ALL_, which Brian didn't do. 

> given up reasonable arguments trying to elucidate the basis for
> arguments, your arguments have been vituperative and full of derision.

Sure, and it is a measure of my lack of thrust of the consensus that may be
agreed upon here. It is clear that many of the past posts where circular
rambling about desert island and chinese dissidents, and didn't achieve
anything, and then you claim to have consensus to claim the QPL is non-free ?
Let me laugh.

And you may all enjoy all this nonsense that is going on here, but i _DON'T_,
and don't feel happy at all about all the time i have already lost here, but i
fear that with people like Brian it is for nothing, since they don't bother
reading my arguments or discard them, in order to follow they own vested
interest or simply for pleasure.

> > So, if i am going to accept the resolution of debian-legal and go upstream
> > with it, i don't want to see him participating. If he want, he can start
> > another Brian-bullshit only thread with all those of you who want to lose
> > their time and do circular discussion about chinese dissident and Brian's
> > right to do proprietary modification, but i don't want to have anything to do
> > with it, and i don't consider it binding as far as the ocaml package is
> > related.
> 
> You'll have to go somewhere else.  Brian has acquitted himself well on
> this list, and I see no reason to exclude him from it.

Well, not on this thread. Sorry. But then, if you consider that the kind of
bullshit he has been claiming, and the total lack of respect for the opposite
view he shows in not even reading those counter-arguments, is the standard
here, debian-legal has lost all legitimity to have anything to advice about
licencing issues. And i can't take you seriously as long as people like Brian
are allowed to participate in this discussion which such low-quality
contributions.

> > Friendly,
> 
> Please try harder.

And you, do you try to be reasonable ? you only defend Brian because he is a
long timer here, and one of your crow of time-loser who discuss things in
round without even bothering to provide serious advice. What do i gain to
participate here, only hours of lost time. I feel like i will provide my
analysis in the debian copyright file of the ocaml package, and discuss this
directly with the ftp-masters, or the RM. There is absolutely no credibility
left here as long as such bullshit is allowed.

And yes, if i sound pissed, i am. It is now almost one week since this
bullshit started, and we haven't advanced one bit, and you are all so imbued
with your righteouness that you don't even bother reading the licence you are
criticing, nor the comment that don't agree with you.

Friendly, still, 

Sven Luther
> 
> Regards,
> Walter Landry
> wlandry@ucsd.edu



Reply to: