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

Re: PHP license style



On Sun, 28 May 2006 07:27:04 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:

> Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>
> > On Fri, 26 May 2006 13:41:16 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Wow, that's arrogant, not only reserving the package's filename
> > > (arguably acceptable to ensure integrity) but the names of many
> > > possible derivatives/competitors.
> > 
> > Does this mean that you agree with me that the super-name-change
> > clause of PHP License version 3.01 fails to comply with the DFSG?
> 
> Please don't cut my messages unmarked.

I apologize for any inconvenience my reply could have caused you.
Maybe I composed it improperly.  I'm sorry for that.

But, to be frank, I fail to see the difference with how *you* cut my
message...
For instance, in my message the "MJ Ray wrote" line was not adjacent to
"Wow, that's arrogant" and I don't see any cut mark in your reply...
Hence, I'm puzzled and fail to see where I went wrong.  :-(

> The cut part should have made
> it clear that I view these restrictions as more comedy than problems.

Restrictions on filenames may be seen as useless, as long as they can be
easily worked around with symlinks.  Yet, you call such restrictions
"arrogant".

I think that equivalent restrictions on package names are worse (despite
not impacting on functional aspects): they forbid names for derivative
works.
This can be considered acceptable when forbidding a single name which is
the name of the original work (the DFSG indeed consider this acceptable,
as a compromise).  But when the restriction on package names forbids an
entire infinite class of names, well, I think that it's really too much.

Given all that, I *thought* that your calling smaller restrictions
arrogant could indicate that you see bigger restrictions as
unacceptable and agree with me on the PHP License problem.
Sorry for going too far with my hope/imagination.

> 
> Also, this one was about filenames, not package names.

As I said, as long as they can be easily worked around (with symlinks or
similar measures), restrictions on filenames are less painful than
restrictions on package names, IMHO.

> 
> Finally, please don't send personal messages to me to mailing lists.

Well, while we are trying to discuss in public about a topic, it's no
surprise that someone replies to someone else making questions about
personal opinions.
At least, I saw this many times on this same list and I fail to see the
problem, if there's one at all...
Of course, I would not ask where you were last friday night, or
investigate similar private topics.  But I fail to see any question on
your personal opinion on a topic currently in discussion as a privacy
violation...

Again, sorry for any mistake I made: I didn't mean to annoy you.
I'm simply trying to have a useful discussion in order to improve
Debian.

Hope this explains.


-- 
    :-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
......................................................................
  Francesco Poli                             GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgp4AIVadS8nh.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: