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

Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:00:08 +0200 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:31:55PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > There are two issues with your previous reply:
> > 
> >  * it was not clear that your request for more info also included
> > questions about the particular copyright licenses to be chosen
> YMMV, I guess.

Well, it was not clear to me, at least.
It's obviously possible that I misread your words: I apologize, if this
is the case.

> >  * the reply itself was only sent to debian-project (something that you
> > have just done again...), despite my explicit request to be Cced on
> > replies
> I'm not sure it is correct to call this "issue". You asked the
> *courtesy* of Cc:-ing you on replies. I generally try to be courteous,
> but it's easy to forget about these things when they are not
> automated. I'm sorry, but I forgot (again) to Cc you. I humbly suggest
> that you use headers like Mail-{Followup,Reply}-To in the future. That
> would decrease the chances that someone forget about respecting your Cc
> courtesy requests.

I heard all sorts of things about Mail-{Followup,Reply}-To headers.
Some claim that one of those two headers are the Right Way™ to ask to
be in Cc on replies, and the other one is the Wrong Way™.
Some claim the same with swapped roles for the two headers.
Some claim that neither work as intended, and the request should be
explicit in the message body.

In all this uncertainty, I got used to follow the last strategy
(explicit request in the message body), since my MUA of choice
(Sylpheed) does not handle the above mentioned headers in a practical
automated way.

I am sorry, if this created any problems to you.

> > I am really disappointed by this decision and I hope you will
> > reconsider.
> I'm sorry about your disappointment, but I'm not inclined to reconsider.
> If you feel strongly about this (as you clearly do), I remind you that
> the right path to escalate is not starting a thread against the decision
> on -project and/or -legal, but rather propose to override the decision
> via the appropriate Debian mechanisms.

I suppose you are referring to a GR (as explained in the Debian
Constitution, section 4).
As you probably know, I am not a Debian Developer.
Hence I cannot propose a GR.

I thought that the only things I could do were: either persuading you
to change your mind, or, failing that, pointing the issue out to other
Debian Developers who may feel the same as me.
That's why I started a thread on debian-project and debian-legal...

I hope this clarifies.

 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpyj_8hAZsVt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: