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 assertions... > 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. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <pronovic@debian.org>
Attachment:
pgpJxlqj9bnL7.pgp
Description: PGP signature