Re: MaintainerDatabase Copyright
[This is a longer essage than intended. (my painter decided
not to grace us with his presence today.) Any hostility that
may have seeped through should probably be directed at him]
>>"Kai" == Kai Henningsen <email@example.com> writes:
Kai> firstname.lastname@example.org (Ian Murdock) wrote on 08.10.97 in
>> But I don't want people changing the content of what I submitted,
>> and I think that's perfectly reasonable.
Kai> Why? I completely fail to see the point. It sure doesn't sound
Kai> reasonable to me (there's no reason that I can see), but that may
Kai> be because nobody has explained what exactly is the problem here.
Personal preference can also be a reason, espescially on this
issue, which is about preferences and predilections in the first
Kai> email@example.com (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 04.10.97 in
>> >> ps. How would YOU like your email address to be changed to
>> firstname.lastname@example.org? or to user@Yes.We.Spam.com?
Kai> So what? Where's the problem with that, exactly?
Kai> Somehow, I can't see it.
I see. I think we come from viewpoints so different that it
is going to be difficult for us to see each others point of view. (I
can't understand how you could have no problem with this).
I have a problem with impersonation. I have a problem with
data tampering. I have a problem with allowing people to tamper data
and impersonate others at will, and legally. The fact that you can
not see this in no way changes my perception.
>> ;-). Unfortunately, people have a problem with that. (Myself
>> included). We have to try to reach a solution, if at all possible,
>> that reflects not just your viewpoint, but of other peoles as well.
Kai> Well, nobody has yet explained what exactly that problem is, or
Kai> at least I haven't seen any such explanation. All people have
Kai> done is assert that there is a problem; I have absolutely no idea
Kai> what this problem is.
My name is Manoj Srivastava. No more, and no less. Nothing
missing, added, or transposed. My preferred email address is
email@example.com for general mail, and firstname.lastname@example.org for Debian
related mail. Not email@example.com. These are invariants. They
are attributes of a person. There is no reason I can see that other
people should be modifying the data.
Legal dissemination of misinformation, with or without the
intent to impersonate (identity stealing), can't be adequately dealt
with by digital signatures, because human nature is such that most
people do *not* check detached signatures in the first
place. Misinformation can still be spread.
Sure, a licence won't stop it either. But at least the
misinformation shall be illegal. I like it that way. Other people may
have other reasons.
Kai> On the other hand, the people uncomfortable with the restrictions
Kai> have explained their point of view at length.
Yes. All I see is a preference stated for the GPL (which I
think is inappropriate for this data in the forst place). I don't
understand how people can fail to see that the GPL, with it's expose
all sources clause, can even be used ;-)
Kai> As to changeability of the data set, so what? PGP-sign the
Kai> original, so people can verify if they _have_ the original, and
Kai> forget about the "problem".
>> This is quite as high handed as I was being.
Kai> High handed? Somehow I doubt we are actually speaking the same
Kai> language here.
People state they have a problem with distribution of the
information under a licence that allows the data to be modified
(tampered). You fail to see why, but you tell them that you have a
``solution'', and you tell them the problem should be forgotten.
IMO the signing is not good enough, if the licence gives
everyone free rein to modify the data anyway. (How often do you check
the md5sums of debian packages?)
Me thinks that one should understand the problem before
declaring a solution exists and dismissing the problem itself.
Kai> It's hard to find a compromise with a position that's never been
Kai> explained. Only one of the sides in this dispute is that way.
I fail to see how you fail to see our side. Do you need to
understand the reason behind peoples objections in order to work for
a compromise? I will try to compromise, even if I can't fully
comprehend the reasons of the opposing side.
"If one is going to steal, it is considered somewhat sporting to
inform the victims beforehand; for examples see any episodes of the
BATMAN TV series." Robert J Woodhead (trebor@biar.UUCP)
Manoj Srivastava <url:mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
Mobile, Alabama USA <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .