Anthony Towns schrieb am Donnerstag, den 18. Mai 2006: > On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 11:09:30PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > First off, I'm going to completely ignore the FAQ as the FAQ and the > > license both specifies that the FAQ does not have any legal validity. > > Repeating frequently asked questions that have already been answered > isn't terribly useful. This is not the way a DPL should answer, we were asking important questions and its our right to get sane answers. > > > As a final note, did anyone from Debian who usually examines licences > > actually examine this one? > > Yes. I give nothing about an analysis I haven't seen from somebody I dont know. Uploading such a package with such a license without any discussion is a shame for Debian. Some not mentioned ftp-master waved the package (as the only package) through after a few hours, beside that this ftp-master didn't processed NEW for a long time. This all really smells strong and after reading the license carefully and talked with several other people I came to the conclusion that I have to do anything that I can to get this out of debian again. This is not the freedom I'm standing for. And after all thats not the way I wanted a project I'm working in to act, I see this way of acting as a personal affront to me and my Debian work... This really went wrong and I want to have some _good_ explanations or we will have to bear the consequences. Alex
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature