[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

On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther 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.

Please refrain from taking out your mail environment pains on others.

> > 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.

Yes, you've said that repeatedly, and I've acknowledged that repeatedly.
It's irrelevant to the fact that suggesting it to you for evaluation is
completely reasonable.

I'm not arguing this further; it's irrelevant to the freeness or non-freeness
of the QPL, and a waste of my time, since you're impervious to civil, rational
> 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.

Due to your track record with respect to being courteous, I don't particularly
care about your opinion of my behavior--it's like being condemned by a career
burgler for filching a pencil.

> > 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 : 

Nope, not one bit.

>   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.

No, it isn't.  There was a clear consensus at the time to the non-freeness
of the QPL, and the only people I see disagreeing with that now are you
and possibly Matthew Garrett.

> > 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.

I'm sorry to disappoint your expectations, then, but I'm not going to lie
about my experiences with Brian.  (I could "expect" you to retract your
false accusation of Brian misrepresenting the consensus of debian-legal,
but I'm sure I would be similarly disappointed.)

> > 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

You need a demonstration of why being polite, civil and reasonable is the
right thing to do?  I think I'll not waste my time.

(I'm not replying to further responses to this subthread.)

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: