Re: upstreams maintainer conflict, was: wget: remove outdated manual page
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 16 May 1998, Anand Kumria wrote:
>Are you implying that the man page isn't also licensed under the GNU GPL?
I suspect that you aren't paying attention. Nobody is questioning
the legal rights involved here, least of all Mr. Niksic. The only thing
being questioned is what the *right* thing is to do.
>It is completely irrelevant who wrote the initial draft of the man
>page - someone has come along and improved it (and not sufficently
That it has been improved is currently in question. That is
partially at the core of this.
>He has written his own, he has simply not indicated it clearly
>enough. If you do insist on forcing the maintainer to add this
>`against my wishes' nonsense, I think he should also had a section
>indicating your (apparent) lack of understanding of the GNU
>GPL. Citing from this email ought to do it.
Oh, that'd look just great. "This manpage has been included
against the wishes of the upstream author, who didn't fully understand
the significance of the GNU GPL at the time of his earlier release,
and now wishes that he'd released the software under a different
license."
Geez. What an advertisement for GPL. Y'know, GPL has its
problems, but it gets bashed enough as it is without adding this into
it.
>Then obviously you have licensed Wget under the wrong license if your
>regret is the fact that someone might actually bother to take the
>time and interest to improve it.
Have you actually read the manpage in question? Have you read the
info documents? Are you always this incendiary, or do you have some
kind of vested interest here?
>There are licenses which allow this; it is a shame that the FSF assumes
>you have read and understood your rights under the GNU GPL when a
>copyright transfer takes place.
>
>Anand.
Anand. I begin to think that maybe it is you who does not
understand the GPL.
Have you considered that some people, upon reading the GPL, might
not foresee every possible conflict that might arise in the future
involving it? That they might, rather than think upon the letter of
the law, think upon the spirit of the cooperation intended by the law?
There's no law involved here; the man isn't suing us. What's involved
is the quality of a package, something Debian tries to maximize, and
the spirit of cooperation between programmer and packager, something
the GPL was intended to enhance. Here, you use the GPL create
discord, and at the possible expense of the quality of the package.
There's a reason the free software _community_ is named the way it
is. We'll get more done if we just work together on fixing this,
rather than engage in idiotic flamewars over who has what rights.
=============================================================================
Zed Pobre <zed@va.debian.org> | PGP key on servers, fingerprint on finger
=============================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBNV1ag9wPDK/EqFJbAQHzEQf/e/APdgSBegQ2QMoqwXRw7+O+cXSNjyNn
gibQaITTZF5IkM9kBSk92Sc+eCGjIH0g2pbV6mPfYJNYwFbuvj+lBfHd57Owp583
SjLwxUG5PJsUj/iJ/cTw1cp2frloykOCALpofgYBtdfuxG+EkZmLj2swspp9VzP+
QfT/fwEPzry/+UlZR4WD076hpCLmqAyVZAnxQJ1HuN2G+zcH2NJRdtmG4p2UhnDW
JGzEnAm7bo5A5fXs9lN4vYiBwl8EapcjJAzF+MNnvcgKYSPJO6Mz5j38BOts1rVq
SD4X8JrKdlxQbjc8pMlbb7SyfVY1hp7AhVpKjk1gP4A1dy34BapBrQ==
=glcQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: