Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On 2004-03-08 13:27:55 +0000 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:21:47PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 +0000 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
about the QPLed emacs .el issue with the argument of : "we should be
polite to RMS".
That is a gross misreporting of Brian Thomas Sniffen's advice to you,
Well, was not that what i was told ? [...]
No, it's your (mis?)interpretation of it as far as I can tell.
which was explained in some detail. Some -legal contributors still
helped
you despite your attacks on them ("I have not known a more rude
bunch of
people than the debian developers"), confusion between acts
This not a direct quote, i don't remember saying it exactly like this,
That was a direct quote from you in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200401/msg00104.html
--
"Oh, come on, let's have a good laugh together. I have not known a
more rude bunch of people than the debian developers. I expect
everything from debian, but politeness is not one of those."
You did write it exactly like that, or someone spoofed your email.
but you have not seen Branden and Asufield cover me with mud [...]
over the xfree86 issue on irc, maybe you even have, i don't remember,
maybe you were part of the bullies that day.
I seldom IRC these days. The problems of IRC harassment are being
discussed on -project now, I think.
Sorry, but i asked on advice for how to best present my case upstream,
and was agressed in return. And seriously, but does a "we should stay
polite to RMS" strike you as a serious argument you can bring to
upstream when discussing this issue.
There was a lot more detail beyond that, but you seem to have become
obsessed by that one element. You were actually told to suggest that
upstream should "give the copyright holder [RMS] generous [...]
benefit of the doubt" about their licence's implications. "Please
change the licence [...], because RMS may feel offended" was an
interpretation first posted by you, as far as I can tell. Maybe it's
not a serious argument, but it's your invention rather than something
written by another debian-legal contributor.
Please go work on a free implementation of a package currently in
non-free, and stop loosing our time on this.
Since 1998, I have worked to replace non-free software with free
equivalents, as well as developing new free software and helping to
relicense things as free software. I am not the most prolific, but I
do my part. I think I've earnt the option to challenge your
misreporting.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Reply to: