Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Nathaneal Nerode writes:
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>>> Debian-legal is the place where one interpretation is given.
>>Many interpretations.
>>
>>> Those who
>>> actually end up making the decisions
>>RM Anthony Towns, who has espoused interpretations which literally
>>*nobody* agreed with, and FTPmaster James Troup, who never makes any
>>statements at all?
>
> *yawn* Nerode talking crap *again*. What's the colour of the sky on
> your planet?
>
> Just because AJ doesn't agree with you, that doesn't give you the
> right to insult him right left and centre. Several people are on
> record agreeing substantially with his position.
"Substantially" is a weasel-word which means whatever you want it to?
AJ's position was that the Social Contract pre-amendment, did not require
documentation, data, or "firmware" to be DFSG-free. And that
post-amendment it did. So far so good. And that he had *never* had any
leeway to allow non-DFSG-free stuff into main, not even temporarily for
pragmatic reasons. (*That* is what nobody agreed with.) Except, of course
when he stated that he allowed something in for pragmatic reasons, despite
agreeing that it wasn't DFSG-free. Huh?
> And James has
> responded on the silly GR thread: see
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/07/msg00559.html
That's not a statement of an interpretation of the DFSG. In fact, it states
little other than that he's offended. I apologize for the hyperbole -- he
certainly has made statements on some things in the past.
> for example. Most of the time I'm prepared to skip over your posts to
> the lists, but out and out lies like this deserve being exposed for
> what they are.
Namely, truth.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: