Collaboration that works (Was: mozilla that works)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Gjermund Skogstad wrote:
| Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
|>|>'cause "we" does mean Debian, right?
|>|
|>| Nope. "We" means Skolelinux, not debian. (Period.)
|>
|>Thank you for the clarification.
|>
|>
|>I thought debian-edu@lists.debian.org was for Debian, and
|>linuxiskolen@skolelinux.no was for Skolelinux. (Period.)
|>
|
| I vas just giving a short answer to a question, not trying to define
the theme
| for this list. I must remind you that my original posting was in
respect to
| an technical issue brought up through the need for a new build of
mozilla,
| and was not meant to be a discussion about this lists role or theme.
In thread was about the Java available in Debian woody. It was argued
that the only way was to use unofficial packages, and (in response to
that?) you said that "we" could possibly interpret the legal matters of
the issue differently instead (to avoid using unofficial packages?).
I was simply giving a short comment to yours: To discuss such proposal
with the people on debian-legal@, who quite possibly has dealt with
interpreting those legal papers some times in the past, and I found it
sad if we (whoever that is) unnecessarily repeated some of their
valuable work.
As you said yourself in an ending remark: the collaboration with Debian
was (intended) for the better of both.
| This said I still feel a kind of ehm ... betrayed when debian (or so
it seem)
| apparently tries to hijack a concrete agreement between Skolelinux and a
| vendor. This agreement was set up for Skolelinux and was never
intended for
| debian in the first place. If it is a fact what you refer, that debian
shows
| the nerve to denounce the agreement as unfit for the distribution,
this act
Relax - and let me introduce myself:
My name is Jonas Smedegaard, and unless explicitly stated differently
(typically by using a different email address than dr@jones.dk), I
represent myself in emails and other media.
I am a contributing member of the Debian community, and I am a (small!)
contributing member of the Skolelinux community. I have a (contructive!)
interest in both projects.
Skolelinux is heavily based on Debian. So there's an obvious win for
both Debian and its derivative to make room for the Debian-specific
parts of Skolelinux at Debian: debian-edu@lists.debian.org.
Please pretty please if I am totally out of track with reality with the
above, then point me to the proper definition of the two lists (no,
don't make it up as I just did - give me a pointer to some official
statement somewhere - so we avoid similar fuzz in the future!!!).
As you may have noticed I have attempted to get the purpose of these
lists clarified before.
I find it rather ironic to now be accused of betraying...
| If this should imply that the discussion in question is unwanted on
this list,
Hmm - for this list, yes. That was pretty much my message.
And quite importantly I based such suggestion on the assumption that
"we" were Debian. If, seen in retrospective, you had clarified in your
posting that "we" was that other project related to this one - who had
found a way to circumvent the licensing issues - it would have been more
obvious that Debian possible could not take the same route (and thus my
point of taking the discussion to debian-legal@ would be less relevant).
Best regards,
~ - Jonas
- --
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
~ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFAkL3Mn7DbMsAkQLgRAkwGAJoCCVhljbQO88xm80ZucLHhCzwr7wCeLpkM
vcf3sqlSF5dG20bSgXVKx00=
=hzpr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: