Re: The Sv*n L*th*r drinking game
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:29:35PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> > 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.
Well, all the arguments given for its non-freeness (threat to chinese
dissident privacy, risk of suing harasment to our users) apply as well for
removing the package from non-free.
> > 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.
Did i call you an idiot ? I don't remember saying so, even at the worse of my
bad feeling to debian-legal, and if i said so i apologize for it again.
Now, i certainly called you clueless, but given the message you had written
about the compiler issue, and the fact that you clearly had no clue about
compiler licencing and such, what was i to say ? Or would you have prefered
that i say that you were not so well informed ?
In any case, let's stop here this stuff that brings nothing, and continue in
the sane thread to work on a nice resolution of this, and you can there show
by act that me calling you clueless was wrong :).
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: