Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:43PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > > On 2004-07-21 13:48:58 +0100 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Please don't bother writing to me again. [...]
> > > >
> > > > Sven, you need rough consensus that ocaml follows the DFSG. If you
> > > > move to kill this discussion now by spamming the list with notices not
> > >
> > > No, i move to kill Brian's participation in it. He is only sputting
> > > uniformed bullshit, and is losing my time. I won't have anything to
> > > do with him anymore, and i question the legitimity of any
> > > debian-legal conslusion in which he participated.
> >
> > At least Brian is friendly.
>
> Well, sure, but full of bullshit and making extravagant claims, even
> if the response to those was given a few mails earlier in the
> thread. He also refuses to do his homework, and thus only
> participates in lengthening the discussion process and reaching no
> solution. I don't see why he should participate, since he clearly
> has no legal clue, refuses to get advice, and ignores the advice i
> got, refuse to read the mails posted in this thread, or fails to
> understand them.
I feel Brian has been a good citizen of debian-legal. He makes
reasonable arguments, and does not devolve into ad hominem attacks on
people who disagree. The post you referenced about the compiler
interjecting parts of itself into the result was not an unreasonable
question to ask. It may turn out to be inapplicable in this case, but
it was not an unreasonable question to ask.
> In any of these cases, unless he makes his homework before making
> extravagant claims, he is only loosing everyones time, and delaying
> the resolution of this issue consequently.
>
> Also he self claimed he has a vested interest in this, and it is not clear
> that he would accept a minor modification for making the ocaml licence free,
> since he is after making proprietary modification of the ocaml code base.
>
> And to end it all, it is he who dragged me in this mess.
He reported a bug based on the consensus of debian-legal. It was only
after the bug was reported that we saw you (Sven) and Matthew Garrett
argue against that consensus (I think those are the only ones. There
are an awful lot of messages in the thread). While Matthew has always
given up reasonable arguments trying to elucidate the basis for
arguments, your arguments have been vituperative and full of derision.
> So, if i am going to accept the resolution of debian-legal and go upstream
> with it, i don't want to see him participating. If he want, he can start
> another Brian-bullshit only thread with all those of you who want to lose
> their time and do circular discussion about chinese dissident and Brian's
> right to do proprietary modification, but i don't want to have anything to do
> with it, and i don't consider it binding as far as the ocaml package is
> related.
You'll have to go somewhere else. Brian has acquitted himself well on
this list, and I see no reason to exclude him from it.
> Friendly,
Please try harder.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
Reply to: