Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?
[dropping pkg-boinc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org as I don't think they care about this...]
On Saturday 02 January 2010 10:38:52 am Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 17:11:09 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 03:13:58PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > On Friday 01 January 2010 2:57:18 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
> [...]
> > > > This is a choice of venue clause.
> > > > Choice of venue clauses are controversial and have been discussed to
> > > > death in the past on debian-legal: my personal opinion is that they
> > > > fail to meet the DFSG.
> >
> > > A fight that has been lost many times... choice of venue is fine.
> >
> > Yes. I don't like choice of venue clauses, but the project has decided they
> > are acceptable,
>
> I don't remember seeing such a decision.
> Where was it taken?
> By whom?
>
> Could you please cite some URL?
>
> > and it's not appropriate to inject one's personal dissenting
> > opinions into a license analysis on this list.
>
> This continues to come up from you, again and again.
>
> See for example the following sub-thread:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/05/msg00042.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/05/msg00047.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/05/msg00077.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/06/msg00003.html
>
> I re-iterate: how can policy or practice be refined or discussed, if
> *any* disagreement is banned from Debian mailing lists?
>
> Moreover, in the present case, I think that I honestly stated that the
> DFSG-freeness of choice of venue clauses is controversial and then I
> provided my own personal opinion, *explicitly* labeling it as such.
> I don't remember any clear decision by the Debian Project on this
> matter, otherwise I would have cited it (as I often do with the GR on
> the GFDL, for instance).
The problem with this line of argument is that it sounds very similar to the climate skeptics / intelligent design crowd. The approach seems to be, "continue to inject controversy even when there is community consensus, in hopes of giving the appearance of true division." Sure, it's their right to believe as they wish, and to speak as they wish, but to the community that has moved on it sure is awfully annoying and dilatory. The FUD strategy has a way of getting of people's nerves awfully quickly :)
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
e: skellogg@probonogeek.org
w: http://blog.probonogeek.org
Reply to: