[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The Sv*n L*th*r drinking game

Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:

>> "Please don't bother writing to me again. Your previous posts have made it
>> clear that you don't even bother reading here anything apart from the posts
>> which interests you, and that you have no problem making half backed claims
>> based on pure speculation."
>> (Sven Luther, http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01122.html)
> And ? how is that insulting ? Anymore insulting that making claims without
> even bothering to read the licence in question, claims that have such a power
> over the fate of a package ? 

But I had read the entire thread, the license, and done other research
on the question.  And I claimed no power; merely made reasoned
arguments and provided evidence for or against the arguments of others..

>> "Brian, i ask you to not [...] to participate in this thread [...]. I will
>> consider any conclusion you have participated in as void and not binding, as
>> you are obviously clueless [...]"
>> (Sven Luther, http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01203.html)
> The mail this was responding too was obviously non-informed, and was following
> up from a few other mails where it was clear Brian had only his interpretation
> in mind, and didn't care to face them with the reality of what is actually
> written in the licence, despite me pointing the problems out to him. This is
> of no use to debian-legal, and only weakens the whole point. 

I see no truth in what you have written here.

> have accpeted the ocaml is non-free consensus without a word, and see it
> removed from debian and all the (30-50 by now) packages that depend on it
> without moving, apart from relying your "let's GPL it" advice to upstream.

I think it would likely end up in non-free, since it's clearly freely
distributable.  It depends on how likely Debian and its mirrors are to
have to send libc or readline to INRIA/Cristal.

> So, i apologize for being upset and harsh, i clearly should have not. Still,
> after reading mail after mail of clueless non-sense, i could sense the anger
> build in me, and was not able to put a stop on it while replying. Again i
> apologize for that, and hope that i have put a stop to it with the last thread
> i started, which hopefully will be void of abuse on both part.

But you're continuing it right here!  You can't apologize for calling
me a clueless idiot in the same message in which you defend calling me
a clueless idiot and expect to be taken seriously with either.


Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: