Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> writes:
> JESUS H CHRIST ON A POGO STICK!!!! WHAT is your major malfuction? It's
> not good enough for you to start on your "John Galt's not part of Debian"
> kick, but you now have to start on others?! I have some suggestions for
> the horse you rode in on: I have serious doubts as to whether you're
> physically capable of the acts I'd require of you. Next time I see this
> shit, I'm going to have a long talk with the Tech Comittee and DPL: this
> is out of line and I've a feeling most people know it. Keep slinging your
> stones at me, twit, because everyone else here is too good for the likes
> of you.
You just don't get it. Debian is not your little whipping boy to poke
at and mock from afar. You don't do us even the most basic of minimal
courtesies of introducing yourself, and you antagonize everyone in the
Project, and you have the temerity to say this? Get off your high
horse.
And you're *not* part of Debian. Does that fact bother you?
> Au contraire. Subversion of licenses is fair: look at the OpenSSL debate
> (round 1, a few months ago).
I didn't say it was unfair. I said it was unfriendly. I'm not the
friend of Microsoft; I have no problem subverting their licenses. But
someone who subverts the GPL for the aid of anti-free-software forces
is our enemy.
> >people might subvert the GPL, so that the FSF can fix them, then you
> >should bring such issues up in private with the FSF. Bringing them up
>
> When did Debian get reattached to the FSF? Why should Debian care what
> the FSF thinks (other than as much as Debian should care about any Open
> Source source [pun intended])?
Debian has absolutely no control over the text of the GPL. If you are
our friend, and you think a change to the GPL would improve it, then
you simply have to talk to the FSF, because only the FSF can change
the GPL.
> Neither is netiquette-nazism, but this is the umpteenth message that
> you've sent today on the subject.
Is that Godwin I hear fluttering in the breeze?
Reply to: