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

Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

MJ Ray writes:

> Look, […]

My reply was specifically to this newsgroup,
a long-needed “request” to shut up, and explicitly *not*
soliciting *your* personal(!) opinion on those licences
either. I do not require the “added value”, and this
newsgroup is spammed enough by the likes of you two.

Besides, linking a bugreport from 2008 when I specifically
asked whether anything had changed as result of the recent,
i.e. last quarter year, discussion, was absolutely ZERO
added value.

Francesco Poli <invernomuto <at> paranoici.org> writes:

> You asked whether it's still acceptable for Debian main: I answered by
> describing what the FTP Masters think

Look, as I said above, that was 2008. Not the recent discussion.
*And* paultag already answered by question, to which you even
REPLIED, so you KNEW your answer would be redundant.

> and what I myself think.

I absolutely am NOT interested in your personal opinion.
Heck, I looked it up: you’re not even a Debian Developer!
If you want to make changes and care about licencing, how
about being constructive and starting on that path, then
working together with ftpmasters on resolving all these
issues? (Again, I personally do not think AGPL, and possibly
even GPL, are fully DFSG free either, and I’ve got a totally
different opinion on firmware, with backing, but when I act
as Debian Developer sponsoring a prospective NM’s packages,
I act with DD hat on, not by using my own opinions.)

> My own opinion was just a side-note.

Yes. What annoys people is that you solicit it in EVERY
THREAD in this newsgroup. Stop that, period.

> I am surprised to see that you are so annoyed by my answer, which
> described the official Debian position on the AfferoGPL

The one from 2008, and in a redundant message, since paultag
already answered my question. *That* is the annoying thing.

It really makes you look bad.

> I thought I could add some more information. You apparently didn't
> appreciate it. Oh, well, that's a pity.

Do not trivialise your response. You’re acting on an agenda, one
that can clearly be seen by you soliciting, unasked for, your
opinion on this-and-that licence in EVERY thread here, disagreeing
on principle. (Hey, that’s my job! ☺)

Anyway: stop annoying people like that and try to be constructive
by changing the official project stance on those problematic
licences from within as an option. But first, “shut up”.

//mirabilos (with backing from other DDs in this group, by private mail)

Reply to: