Re: Re: Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
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.
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
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.
> 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>.
> >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,
sane suggestion, applicable in the vast majority of cases. It may very
well not be applicable in this particular case, but it's still a sane and
reasonable suggestion in most cases, and fits my explanation of "course of
action" exactly.
> >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 ...)
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.
> >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
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.
> 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
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.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: