Re: Ranting...

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 06:42:04PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> [050308 18:12]:
> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 05:31:08PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > > * Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> [050308 17:18]:
> > > > Many DDs only want to package their package in peace, and not get dragged info
> > > > a many-thousand -legal flamewar over imagined DFSG non-compliance and bogus
> > > > tests.
> > > 
> > > That also works the other way around: I tend more to believe that most
> > > DDs want to only package their things in peace, and not interfer with
> > > old discussions about long ago tested and found to be good tests.
> > 
> > unless those tests are used to randomly jank their packages from the archive,
> > then they will react, i believe, as i was forced to do.
> 
> I spoke about most DDs. That people not caring about freedom find the
> idea of freedom ridiculous is nothing new.

What has that to do with it ? The fact that dubious tests are used, and that
they can be used to reach wrong or not based-ont-the-DFSG decisions has
nothing to do with freedom or not freedom. And claiming that a consensus has
been reached without even giving the maintainer a chance to get in the
discussion don't help.

And i recuse your accusation that i don't care about freedom, and ask you to
either take it back, or to give real facts proving how you came to this
situation.

> And, for the record, there are already references to the desert island
> test in 2002 (see http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/01/msg00010.html
> for example). And I doubt that will be the youngest version of that... 
> (Though I think before that it was not always the island, but the
>  scientists in the jungle, or things like that...)

Yep, and i reject that analysis in the light of the problematic QPL clause
that got me muddled hip-deep into debian-legal 6 month ago. 

Friendly,

Sven Luther