Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 09:56:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> 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
Do you think that we might have advanced more had you actually put up some
reasonable logic as to why our interpretations of various clauses are
incorrect, rather than ranting and frothing about how we're all wasting your
time? I've changed my opinion on the licence several times in this thread,
but interestingly, never because of anything you've said. That is odd,
because you're the person who feels most strongly about the freeness of the
QPL. Perhaps if you spent more time reasoning and less time flying off the
handle, you might make a positive mark on me or other people on this list.
> with your righteouness that you don't even bother reading the licence you are
> criticing, nor the comment that don't agree with you.
You keep saying this, but I believe you have no proof of what you claim. In
fact, the number of rebuttals which have been written to points you've made
would be quite strong evidence that people have read comments that they
don't agree with. As to your claim that nobody has read the licence, well,
it's been quoted and debated in this thread quite heavily, and I doubt that
would be possible if the participants had never read the licence.
What you might mean is "haven't interpreted it the same way as Sven", but
then again, you have a vested interest in interpreting the licence in a
fashion which benefits you, so your interpretation might be considered
suspect. Most other people have no such vested interest in the outcome of
this discussion.
- Matt
Reply to: