Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 07:21:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 09:56:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > And yes, if i sound pissed, i am. It is now almost one week since this
> > bullshit started, and we haven't advanced one bit, and you are all so imbued
>
> Do you think that we might have advanced more had you actually put up some
> reasonable logic as to why our interpretations of various clauses are
Fine, you are asking me for reasonable logic, and never cared to really read
the QPL, and debian-legal have no problem sputting logicless arguments ?
> incorrect, rather than ranting and frothing about how we're all wasting your
> time? I've changed my opinion on the licence several times in this thread,
> but interestingly, never because of anything you've said. That is odd,
Well, if you had analysed it here, instead of running ahead with forth in your
mouth and claiming the QPL is non-free, you would maybe not have had to. Also
this clearly demostrates that you don't read nor care to understand what i
write, but only what your own highly valued opinion says is acceptable to you.
Please show me one mail of this thread where you have really looked at both
the QPL and the DFSG, and have made arguments based on that ? I have seen very
little of them which cannot easily be refuted by a little looking at them
both, and making the effort to understand what is written there.
> because you're the person who feels most strongly about the freeness of the
> QPL. Perhaps if you spent more time reasoning and less time flying off the
> handle, you might make a positive mark on me or other people on this list.
Well, i especially feel strongly about being bullshitted. If you had given me
strong arguments in favor of the QPL being non-free, instead of starting in
clueless unending argument, my respect for the debian-legal deliberation would
have been better, but as it is, ...
Aslo, i see a thrend, you loose time in undending argumentation about hardly
related mathers, and once everyone who disagree has left in boredoom, you
claim consensus, thanks all the same.
> > with your righteouness that you don't even bother reading the licence you are
> > criticing, nor the comment that don't agree with you.
>
> You keep saying this, but I believe you have no proof of what you claim. In
The claims made here, which clearly show that the licence has not been read,
or at least is not at hand when making those claims, are proof enough for it.
> fact, the number of rebuttals which have been written to points you've made
> would be quite strong evidence that people have read comments that they
Well, given the weak argumentation on those rebuttals, it clearly show i am
right. And it only shows that debian-legal is to imbued in their own opinion
of righteouness and a past of non-opposition, that they can't believe they are
speaking bullshit, as probably a vast majority of non debian-legal debian folk
is thinking. I have seen various exterior mention of this in the past week or
so.
> don't agree with. As to your claim that nobody has read the licence, well,
> it's been quoted and debated in this thread quite heavily, and I doubt that
> would be possible if the participants had never read the licence.
Well, read it enough to understand it, i doubt, quickly read over it maybe, or
more probably infered things from others post, which in turn have only glossed
over it. This is my impression about it.
> What you might mean is "haven't interpreted it the same way as Sven", but
Would you stake your claim by going over a court over this justification ? Or
even go as far as getting legal advice over it ? You can't be even bothered to
do this, and sit at your desk in all confort and make legal claims without
either legal background, or real knowledge of it.
> then again, you have a vested interest in interpreting the licence in a
> fashion which benefits you, so your interpretation might be considered
> suspect. Most other people have no such vested interest in the outcome of
> this discussion.
Thanks for turning my words against me. And sure, i have vested interest in
this, i have the users of ocaml in debian in mind, as the social contract asks
me to, and who would condemn me for not ridicouling myself in bringing half
backed claims from a bunch of would-be lawyers who don't even are honest
enough with themselves to make a real analysis of the situation at hand ?
And think it well upon yourself, do you really believe in your claim that all
participant here have read the licence, and tried to understand it enough to
make a valuable contribution ? I doubt that more than a handfull of
debian-legal contributors have made that effort.
Also notice that both trolltech, the FSF and probably other linux entities,
had lawyers pooring over those licences back in the height of the Qt/KDE
controversy, and none of them claimed the QPL was non-free, and now a bunch of
would be lawyers, think they know better ? what is your legal background
anyway ? Who here even has a hint of legal background ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: