Re: Re: Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, luther@debian.org wrote:
> > Thanks for CCing me as i have requested here repeteadle.
>
> If you don't cease the sarcasm, then I'm going to stop discussing with
> you. I have no obligation to subject myself to this.
Well, sorry, but mail writing in lynx is a real pain.
> If you set the Mail-Followup-To header to include your address, then well-
> behaved mailers (including my own, Mutt) will automatically include you in
Well, each time this was mentioned, someone showed up saying that mail folloup
is evil, and quoting some obscure RFCs, so ...
And anyway, i doubt lynx is the best way to set those things, is it not ?
> the CC list. This is the normal means of requesting a CC. Merely asking
> for it, in a discussion involving dozens of people, usually results in
> it being forgotton; you can't reasonably expect everyone to keep track
> of who wants a CC and who does not, and the default policy on Debian
> lists is to not.
Well, same goes for the guy who dropped the bug report from the discussion,
even if he didn't change the title.
> > 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 ?
>
> To my understanding, most of Mozilla is available under at least three
> licenses: the GPL, LGPL and MPL.
>
> See Message-ID: <[🔎] 20040719183036.GT23234@redwald.deadbeast.net>.
Ok.
> > >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.
>
> Yes, you have: dual-license under the GPL. It's a completely reasonable,
Thanks all the same. It is unreasonable, since it is totally opposite to what
upstream is trying to achieve.
> sane suggestion, applicable in the vast majority of cases. It may very
Yep, most of them Qt using stuff or libraries, is it not the case ?
> well not be applicable in this particular case, but it's still a sane and
No, it is not applicable here, i have explained why various times, and it is
not reasonable for me to suggest this to upstream.
> reasonable suggestion in most cases, and fits my explanation of "course of
> action" exactly.
Sure, but totally irrealistic. Unless you want a total clash with upstream,
which will bring further discussion on this topic to a halt. And yes, i know
upstream, i know how upstream thinks about this, and i can assure you that
they have no interest whatsoever in doing day long flamewar on debian-legal.
And for your information. I have now read _EVERY_ mail in this thread to this
time, and it seems you didn't do the same, which i feel a bit discourteous of
you, especially after you (plural and impersonal you) all dragged me into this
mud pit and away from more meaningfull debian work.
> > >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 ?
>
> (Parsing ...)
Qt was originally QPLed, it is now dual licenced with the GPL, therefor ocaml
should be GPLed also.
Now, does that not imply i am too stupid to notice the evident logical lapses
about this, or that i have not a clear knowledge of both upstream's position
and the legal history of the ocaml package ? Ot that i am ignorant of the fact
that the only reason that Qt was dually licences was because of KDE and
linking stuff, and that it does not apply to ocaml, which is a compiler and
not a library, and whose runtime is LGPLed + some exceptions RMS himself
suggested, and which can be found in a similar way in gcc itself ?
You know nothing of the case at hand and make hasty judgement ? This is hardly
a reasonable suggestion.
> You're treated as if you're deliberately rude and uncooperative, which you
> certainly are. If you believe you're being treated poorly, then perhaps
> you should reevaluate the way you're treating us.
Well, sorry, but the way i was dragged into this is a bit rude to me also, and
furthermore past experience here, and the tratment i subsequently got from
branden and assufield and a few others on irc make me very very negatively
disposed on debian-legal.
> > >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".
>
> The replies I see in this bug are:
>
> Subject: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?
> Subject: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
Well, the subject of the second is kinda agressive if you where not aware of
the discussion here, don't you think ? Also have you read :
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00156.html
entitled :
Re: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main; it is licensed under the
QPL, which is non-free.
and stating that :
also sprach Brian M. Carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx>
[2004.07.09.2322 +0200]:
> debian-legal has adjudged the QPL non-free, and the maintainer
> refuses to move this package to non-free;
Which clearly is a misrepresentation, if not an outward lie.
> Neither of these are rude. I'm not going to bother pursuing this any further.
> Brian has a strong track record of being reasonable, and you have a strong
> track record of being rude.
Sure, sure, whatever. I expect you to retract the position about Brian on the
above. And because Brian is one of your crowd, it doesn't make his position
any truer.
> > 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.
>
> If you wish to be consistently insulting, sarcastic and rude to people
Then please demostrate i am wrong to do so. Remember Sylvain legall, which
asked on advice abotu the unicode.txt thingy, and has not gotten any
reasonable course of action during these past 6 month. And each time i have
asked something, in a kind voice, asking for advice on how to handle legal
stuff, seldom have i gotten reasonable response, and the rate of bullshit over
real info is rather low, so ...
> on this list, even those people who have been consistently polite to you
> (despite the abuse they receive from you in return), that's entire your
> choice, but don't be surprised when people decide that they've had enough,
> and stop listening to you.
Sure, then i could do the same, and everyone be happy. But then, i am dragged
in this multi-hundred controversy without prior notice, and you don't
understand that i am passably upset about this, especially as this licence was
discussed and accepted already many years ago, and i get surrealistic
discussion about chinese dissidents and isolated isles, and when i point out
the problems on them, i get no logical response or get ignored ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: