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

Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006

#include <hallo.h>
* Joerg Schilling [Sun, Mar 25 2007, 11:58:39AM]:
> Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@ftbfs.de> wrote:
> > > Read the Debian mailing list archives and you will find some of the related
> > > personal atacks.
> >
> > I asked for references, but you seem not to be able to give me ANY of
> > them, just telling me "look in the archive". So you seem not to be able
> > to give me any concrete pointer. 
> >
> > So whom should i trust now? You? Mr. Bloch?
> >
> > There was a reason why i asked for concrete pointers.
> There is a reason why I do not waste my time with people on a Debian list....

This is not about wasting time, this is simply about you proving things
that you write.

> In January 2006, some people from Debian started with a calumniation campaign
> against me and my projects. They amongst others published unproven claims
> on the license ofthe original software and Mr. Bloch was one of their leaders.

Guess what, I just had some time for bug triage and some minor
complication (at the first glance) with the licensing was among the
candidates. The topic was more complicated than I expected and I had to
correct the initial assessment especially after you set an ultimatum
with an option of legal actions, actually trying to make all
inconvenient statements appear void.

But that story is past, at that time there were simple technical
solutions to make almost everyone happy.

> I asked Mr. Bloch to either prove his claims or to admit that the claims are 
> wrong. Nothing happens except that Mr. Bloch did send personal offenses, some
> in the public and a lot in private mail. Npthing useful happened and at some 
> time, there was no hope for a move.

I guess you talk about the discussion on cdrtools-devel. But which
personal offense do you mean? Which? Do we have your permission to
reveal the whole mail thread to the public?

> About two months later, Don Armstrong started a new discussion that looked as if
> there was a potential for a useful move. The whole discussion started again and
> although the agression and wrong claims have been started by Debian, I explained
> why the claims from Debian are void. I asked Don Armstrong to prove the claims 
> or to admit that they are wrong. Don Armstrong did send a lot of 
> speudo-arguments but did not send any correct quote from GPL, CDDL and the 
> FROSS rules from Bruce Perence that could prove the claims. What he send 
> (claiming to quote) was a funny creation of new sentences made from random
> words of the GPL....
> In the beginning, it looked as if this was not made by intention and I again 
> explained why the claims made by Debian people around Mr. Bloch are wrong.

What? Again, which claims? The first story was about licensing of the
build system. The second was about licensing of the LINKED software
components. They were triggered by TWO separated actions done BY YOU.
You are not that naive to be unable to distinguish them. 

And have I lead the discussion "against" you then? NO. Stop
reinterpreting my role as the scapegoat of the hour.


Reply to: