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

Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move

On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 May 2005 11:19am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Ed Cogburn <edcogburn@hotpop.com> writes:
> > > On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > In fact, looking through the non-free docs section, most of that can go
> > > in right now because they don't require anyone's permission to distribute
> > > since they're in non-free because of the dispute between Debian and FSF
> > > over documentation.
> >
> > Will you pay us for the work and cover legal fees if any should arise?
> Sure.  Because any rational person knows it won't happen.  

Odd.  I'm a rational person, and I don't know that.  Maybe I'm not
really rational.  I feel rational though.  Hmm.

> > Seriously, get some patience and don't inflame the situation
> > please. Things like "most of that" is of zero help in deciding what
> > can go in and what not. We know most of it can, the question is what
> > packages are those in particular. We can't just add all of non-free
> > and say it is mostly OK.
> Yes you can.  That's my point.  Non-free has already been vetted by Debian 
> itself, and we are part of Debian.  Any rational judge will see that, if 
> given evidence by the Debian organization itself (see below).

Ah, there we go with that word again...

> > In one point you are right though:
> >
> > NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE! None of us anyway. With
> > the exception of nvidia* package it seems. That is the only package
> > that users missed so far.
> Right, only the relatively few users of this technically unofficial and mostly 
> unknown-to-the-world official Debian port have noticed you left non-free 
> behind.  So explain to us why you believe any copyright holder of one of 
> these problem packages OUTSIDE OF DEBIAN is going to find out about this, 

Well, first off, you just posted about it on a public list...duh.

> and for some irrational reason bothers to sue amd64.debian.net,
> because it isn't on debian.org (but its contents *is* Debian)?  

And there's that word AGAIN.

> Geez, compared to that, I'd say me getting hit by a meteorite when I
> next leave my apartment is a guaranteed certainty... heck, let me go
> write my will before I go to the grocery store.

Well, we can hope, because then this stupid thread might die.

> All you need is official blessing from Debian proper, in writing, or at least 
> publicly announced on the net, that yes, the AMD64 port on amd64.debian.net 
> is officially part of Debian, and isn't on debian.org only because of 
> technical problems, but will be physically integrated soon (which is all 
> true).  With that, you don't have to worry about any lawsuits.  So please 
> stop with this weird excuse.

And you can categorically state this on what authority?  Can we assume
you're a lawyer in whatever municipality has jurisdiction?  Can you even
tell me what municipality has jurisdiction?  Sheesh, you might have a
decent argument if you constrained yourself to facts instead of

> But you do have the time to re-verify non-free all over again?  So you've 
> wasted a whole week on this

Oh my.  A *whole week*?  I can't believe it.  Compared to how long it
took to release sarge, that's... let's see... er... insignificant.
That's the word I'm looking for.

You know what - I don't give a shit about this subject, but I'm getting
tired of posts like this one.   Chill out.


Kenneth J. Pronovici <pronovic@debian.org>

Attachment: pgpRdUjGqvIYg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: