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

Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 17:12:46 +0000 (UTC) Thorsten Glaser wrote:

> 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.

As I said, I thought that adding a reference to the explanation
provided by the ftp masters could be useful.
I did not know whether you were aware of the existence of that
explanation, hence I did not know my answer would be perceived as

> > 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!

Does it make any difference, when it comes to assessing the validity
of a license analysis?

I mean: would my license analyses become automatically more valid,
if I were a DD?
Would you instantly become interested in my personal opinion, if I were
a DD?
Why? Why not?

> If you want to make changes and care about licencing, how
> about being constructive and starting on that path,

Which path? Becoming a DD?

Why should I become a DD?
So that, once I am a DD, I will feel allowed to treat non-DDs with the
same snobbishness you showed with me?!?

You're definitely *not* encouraging me to become member of the Debian
Project. You are *not* making me feel welcome.

> then
> working together with ftpmasters on resolving all these
> issues?

I *did* try to discuss the AfferoGPL (and also other licenses) with the
ftp masters: http://bugs.debian.org/495721#28
They don't seem to be willing to reply to counter-arguments.

> (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.)

You are going on expressing your own personal opinions on various
topics, while flaming me for having expressed my own personal opinion
on the topic of this thread.

This looks very awkward to me.

> > 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! ☺)

I am not disagreeing "on principle".
I agree with some decisions, I disagree with some other ones.

Are you claiming that you are the *only one* allowed to express

> 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”.

How can I change the project decisions, if I "shut up"?
I cannot telepathically act on the ftp masters' minds...

I am really puzzled.

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

Attachment: pgpaNvOcWfqHJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: