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

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.


> 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. [...]


> (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?

My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: