"Nathanael Nerode" <email@example.com> wrote in message firstname.lastname@example.org">news:email@example.com...
<posted & mailed> Steve Langasek wrote:On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:32:50PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:In this case, I see one rather obvious issue (there may be others):Steve Langasek has said, in essence"When A says X, and we have no evidence to the contrary, we believe A".Your objection, in essence seems to be"We should not believe X when we have no evidence that X is true."It seems to me that both of these statements are reasonable, and that neither refutes the other.The latter implies that all packages should have RC bugs on them because we should not believe that any of the licenses and copyrights are what upstream says they are. How is that reasonable?Here was the standard I always used. I assume A is telling the truth -- until I find out that he was wrong about one thing in his package. As in, the clearly copyrighted and misappropriated sound file. Then I stop assuming that he's done the right thing with the other similar files. As in, the other sound files. I think that that was what the bug submitter was doing. If upstream screwed up once, they're likely to have screwed up repeatedly in the same way. (This seems to be the case with legal issues, anyway.)
Very true. It seems like Vorlon is acting odd, as based on past actions, non-distributable files would
be something he is quite concerned about.Steve, is everything fine? I ask only because seeing an RM appearing to not be himself is a little concerning.
Also it looks like Mike Furr is the package maintainer for the package in question, so I'm a little
confused as to why Vorlon is the one who answered the bug.