[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Re: Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free

Thanks for CCing me as i have requested here repeteadle.

>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:10:05PM +0200, luther@debian.org wrote:
>> Yep, and i believe that the Apple licence, the NPL and many other such ones
>> have similar properties. Why are we not picking on them ?
>If I remember correctly, both the APSL and the NPL are non-DFSG-free, and
>I'm not aware of any software in main under these licenses (that isn't dual-
>licensed under some other, free license).  If you know of one, feel free to
>point it out (in a new thread), but it isn't relevant here.

Ok, if this is true (i have not checked) then ok. Still there may be other
reasons to it. What is the mozilla licence ? Is it also dually licenced ? 

>> >so.  That's perfectly fine, and means that they should be approached
>> >differently.  It doesn't make the GPL suggestion any less valid in the
>> >general case, however.
>> Well, it may be valid, but you should at least consider the history of the
>> case before making quick judgement, especially if you claim to know more than
>> the maintainer of the package about it.
>The correct course of action is for d-legal to make a reasonable suggestion,

Thanks, but in all this thread, i have not seen a single reasonable
suggestion, so i have some doubts about this.

>and the maintainer to figure out if it's reasonable in that particular case.

Ok, then why am i threated like if i am stupid by some here ? 

>> And if i feel a bit excited about this, is because the only reason i know
>> about this discussion is the sudden bug report from Brian which was less than
>> tactfull. I wonder if he had not filled it, i would have been expected to
>> remove the package (and all its dependencies) from debian/main a few days
>> before the sarge release.
>I've looked through the bug log, and not seen any messages from Brian which

Look only at the title of his reply. And see the other bug report where he
claimed there was consensus on debian-legal, and said something along the
lines of "why was this package not yet moved to non-free".

>were less than polite.  Your responses are almost categorically rude and
>abrasive, eg. "shut Brian up", "Oh, go bother someone else", "Whatever.".
>Sorry, but you aren't a person who can seriously complain about the tact
>of others.  :)

And see what, i have lost almost half a day going through this, which is
something i would really have gone without. And you didn't see the greating i
had from Branden and assufield and their cronies on irc last time i had the
temerity to post on debian-legal, so excuse me, but my patience for this kind
of thing is rather limited.

>> Well, i have done so, but nobody seem to have read that email, so what do you
>> expect of me ?
>It's certainly not strange for one message out of a large thread to go

Yeah, unless it was a immediate response to Josh and that josh replied to it,
without even trying to respond to those arguments.

>unnoticed.  Repost it, break threads and change the topic to make it visible,
>if necessary.  I don't even know which message you're referring to.  (Your
>constantly hostile tone does make me skip most of your posts, though.)

Yeah, loose lot of time, which could have been better spent doing real work.

And notice that kind posts doesn't bring replies nor attract attention, as i
have noticed.


Sven Luther

Reply to: