Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:31:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-21 17:44:16 +0100 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 05:34:34PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>Probably, yes. I would tell them that this has worried debian-legal
> >>and it
> >>would be good to rebut or resolve this.
> >Well, and if you get no answer at all, what would you conclude ?
>
> "oooh crap, I guess it's for me to fix this bug"
>
> >Well, it is debian-legal which is worried about the QPL, which
> >ftp-masters
> >have already accepted some 3-5 years back, at least in the ocaml case
> >it was
> >not by equivocation.
>
> This goes back to the problem Branden mentioned, as we can't tell why
> ftpmasters did something.
Well, the problem Branden mentioned was about Qt, nowhere does it mention
ocaml.
> >If now the analysis has shifted, then so be it, but the burden is on
> >debian-legal to provide a analysis of good quality of why this change
> >is
> >deemed necessary, and i have not really seen such an analysis yet.
>
> I hope that we can do this together. I hope that an interim summary is
> posted soon which is more inclusive than your "reproach".
Yes, me too. I will do it tomorrow, but it will be in three separate threads.
One for 3b, one for 6c, and one for the legal issue.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: