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

Re: legal questions regarding machine learning models

On Sun, 31 May 2009 16:52:23 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:42:46PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 May 2009 11:37:56 +0200 Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Better yet:  he should recognize that the reason he needs to add all these
> > > acronyms is because his posts are an inappropriate use of this mailing list
> > > and not productive, and stop posting.
> > You're not new to such impolite replies, and I don't think your
> > reputation benefits from them.
> I think it has no negative impact on my reputation with anyone whose
> opinion I value.
> Which most explicitly does not include you.
> You use this mailing list as your own personal soap box for advancing
> positions that have been *rejected* by Debian.

No, I participate in the discussions of this mailing list because I
care about Free Software and the Debian Project.
When an opinion is asked to debian-legal participants about something,
I feel to be allowed to provide my *own* opinion, while explicitly
saying that it's not necessarily *identical* to the (current) official
Debian position.
When I disagree with a decision by the Debian Project or by the FTP
masters, I think I am allowed to express my disagreement.

> That is not acceptable.

Says who?

The description of this mailing states:
"Discussions about legality issues such as copyrights, patents etc.
This list is not moderated; posting is allowed by anyone."

> The purpose of this list is to help Debian developers and upstreams
> understand Debian's policy for the main archive, and as a forum for Debian
> as a whole to work on refining that policy.

Exactly: how can that policy be refined, if absolutely *no* disagreement
with current practice is allowed?

> You don't appear to contribute
> anything to Debian except the crap you spew on this mailing list.

Please search better.
I report bugs, I send patches from time to time, I've recently become
co-maintainer of a package, ...

It's not much, I admit.
But the attitude of people like you has been constantly discouraging me
from getting more involved in the Project.

> You are
> therefore *not* part of Debian.  "IANADD" disclaimers do *not* excuse you
> abusing this list in order to shove your opinions down others' throats, when
> you know damn well that the project does not agree with you.
> So shut up already.

Again this snob attitude: "you are not part of Debian, so shut up".
How open minded...

> > Anyway, if disagreeing with FTP masters and expressing one's own
> > opinion (while *explicitly* clarifying that what is expressed is just
> > one's own opinion, and not necessarily the official Debian position) is
> > an "inappropriate use of this mailing list", then I suggest that the
> > list is shut down as soon as possible and that debian-legal@l.d.o is
> > turned into a forwarder to ftpmaster@d.o ...
> I would be much happier with having debian-legal shut down than with
> continuing a status quo that permits opinionated hangers-on like you to
> repeatedly twist the discussion to suit your personal agenda.

I am being accused of "inappropriate use of this mailing list" and of
"twisting the discussion" by a person whose only contribution to the
present thread consists of two rude ad hominem attacks.
Oh, the irony...

 New location for my website! Update your bookmarks!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgp9n5BFsZUMO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: