Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Terry Hancock <hancock@anansispaceworks.com> wrote:
> [...] It's very frustrating to have to
> repeat the same points over and over again, because some people don't
> apparently read them before replying.
Amen.
> I can appreciate of course, that Debian legal folk, having discussed
> this already, and having amongst themselves already reached a consensus,
> find it difficult to have to revisit the same question. [...]
Please check the prejudice in at the door.
> On the other hand, some of the responses on this list have been very
> rude, which does make it difficult to have an intelligent conversation.
> I don't find that hurling insults or airing conspiracy theories is
> particularly helpful.
FWIW, I don't find the finger-jabbing, confrontational style of this:
> However, in respect for your request, I've eliminated all stylistic
> emphasis from this post. IMHO, this makes it harder to read, but I
> trust you are prepared to make the extra effort. [...]
this:
> (Once again, here's the binary/source to TPM/non-TPM analogy that MJ Ray
> insists isn't being used to support parallel distribution... being used
> to support parallel distribution!) [...]
and this:
> Okay, but what part did you not understand? [...]
at all helpful. What responses were rude?
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: