Re: The Sv*n L*th*r drinking game
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:35:01PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:06:09PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:49:54AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > Sven Luther writes:
>
> > > > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:02:07AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > >> The procedure: attempt to debate something with Sv*n L*th*r, preferably in a
> > > >> public mailing list. This way others can play along without having to
> > > >> actually engage him in conversation.
>
> > > > So, you are clearly not interested in solving this issue, just in making
> > > > claims that the QPL is non-free, without even bothering to read the document,
> > > > and discardying off hand all interpretations that don't match your own.
>
> > > You are clearly not interested in solving this issue, just in making
>
> > Sure, i am. I even started a fresh thread about them, where i pointed out my
> > reasons why i consider it free, and what i believe are the points under
> > discussion.
>
> I have asked you whether your French lawyer was willing to give Debian
> pro-bono advice stating that a non-nominative request for changes was
> invalid (as opposed to just unenforceable). You did not respond. If it
> was because I forgot to Cc you and you didn't see the message, please
> consider this a repeat of that question.
You probably didi forget it, and no, the person in question will probably not
be able to do this for us.
> I have pointed out that if the choice-of-venue clause is truly void
> under French law, it would be in upstream's interest to remove it to
> make the license easier to understand, you responded with derision.
I will ask upstream about this once they come back from vacations and have
them see if their legal team, even if bad, can offer us some answer. Maybe the
team working on the CECILL licence would also help here. What was the
conclusion of that discussion ? And if we don't agree with its freeness, would
it not be a good thing to contact them before they release other non-DFSG
licences ?
> You are clearly not interested in solving this issue.
You too. Maybe it would be best if i leave debian, and spend my free time
elsewhere, if all you can do is support them against me, because they have
more time to troll on debian-legal. And if you had passed even a tenth of the
time i lost here, then you would have something to say.
I also don't see you participating in the serious thread, but in the ad
hominem attack thread Matthew started against me, thanks all the same.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: