Re: Worked around (dirty...) How to apply no-debianized kernel patch to debianized kernel-source?
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 12:51:47AM -0400, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 11:33:09PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > However, I'll stop here and not say anything more unless there are
> > specific questions; I think I've put forward my point as best I can and
> > your licensing decisions are as always yours alone.
>
> I don't think you've put any points forward. All you've done is shot down
> what I've said. (1) Your license is wrong, go look at debian-legal.
I really didn't think I said that. If I did, it was unintended and I
apologize.
> (2) the posts you've found are wrong. If you want to be helpful to
> someone I recommend suggesting what you think IS the right thing to
> do, and back up your explanation with URLs of what is the Debian
> concensus.
Hey, I'm not trying to shoot you down at all; I was trying to provide
what I thought was helpful advice, and the example I gave in my last
post was what I was told by a Debian ftpmaster (not on a mailing list so
I can't give a URL, although it's also mentioned in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0305/msg00598.html).
Part of one of the threads that prompted this - and in it you'll see my
*own* frustration with this whole issue - is
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0305/msg00267.html. This thread is
an excellent example of the rock and the hard place I anticipated being
caught between back then: I don't have the diplomatic or the legal
skills to negotiate between debian-legal and authors without offending
one or the other, but due to the packages I maintain I have to try. At
some point I'll probably orphan doc-linux in favour of somebody with
more diplomatic skills.
(If somebody has come up with examples of the extra-permissions riders
Branden suggested in the link above, I'd love to hear about them.)
> I certainly was not expecting to have people tell me that the license
> is wrong and therefore my work seems to suddenly have no use to the debian
> community. If I sound a little pissed off it's because I am.
No no no! Look, that wasn't my intention at all. I didn't say your work
was useless at all. I've just found recently through somewhat bitter
experience that some people are unaware of certain problems with the
GFDL, and I've found that it's easier to mention these things earlier
because I'm coming under pressure myself to do something about it.
You've now said you're happy with the current licence, and that's fine
by me.
> *many more irritated remarks deleted*
>
> This is *not* the way to keep volunteers motivated. Period.
I think you're reading far more animosity and denigration into my posts
than is there; none at all was intended. If I was too terse it's because
this week has been incredibly hectic for me.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: