Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:44:03PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:28:37PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Nevertheless, I've refrained from posting further directly on the QPL
> > issue. The consensus of debian-legal seems to be evolving in more
> > clever directions than I would have imagined, and I don't think my
> > absence from that particular issue will hurt anything. If it helps
> > maintain good relations with the package maintainer, I don't really
> > see any immediate harm.
>
> I do. You have useful input to offer. There are no good relations to
Well, the point to this is to obtain a reasonable resolution of the matter,
not talk in rounds and then claim consensus, without offering me any solid
ground to go upstream. The more clever directions Brian mentions are what
should be the standard for debian-legal, and this was obviously not the case.
Brian, maybe i was too harsh, but sorry, i don't really like discussing these
things, and your last post about the ocaml generated code went over the
border, especially as i mentioned the gcc case and RMS's posts in another mail
of this large thread.
> maintain; Sven is abusive to everyone, and there's nothing to be saved
> by your withdrawal. I also don't think useful participants withdrawing
> from discussions at request for reasons that seem like "your arguments
> are more convincing than mine" to be a useful standard to follow. (The
No, the reason is that people who make argument without putting attention to
the matter at hand are a lose for debian-legal, since it weakens the consensus
that will be reached in the end.
> situation might be slightly different when there are potentially significant
> inter-project relations at stake--I felt that RMS requesting that Branden
> withdraw from the GFDL debate (IIRC) was in the same category--but there
> aren't.)
He, i didn't know that, but it makes sense :).
> Of course, if you just don't want to put up with the abuse, that's fine; I've
> mostly stopped reading his posts myself for that reason (among others).
While i was forced to read all your half-backed arguments, thanks all the
same.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: