Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:00:19PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-08 13:27:55 +0000 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:21:47PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 +0000 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
> >>wrote:
> >>>about the QPLed emacs .el issue with the argument of : "we should be
> >>>polite to RMS".
> >>That is a gross misreporting of Brian Thomas Sniffen's advice to you,
> >Well, was not that what i was told ? [...]
>
> No, it's your (mis?)interpretation of it as far as I can tell.
>
> >>which was explained in some detail. Some -legal contributors still
> >>helped
> >>you despite your attacks on them ("I have not known a more rude
> >>bunch of
> >>people than the debian developers"), confusion between acts
> >
> >This not a direct quote, i don't remember saying it exactly like this,
>
> That was a direct quote from you in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200401/msg00104.html
> --
>
> "Oh, come on, let's have a good laugh together. I have not known a
> more rude bunch of people than the debian developers. I expect
> everything from debian, but politeness is not one of those."
>
> You did write it exactly like that, or someone spoofed your email.
Yeah, remember now. Do you want to see the full caps email from branden,
where he all but told me i was not wanted in the debian project when i
was a fresh NM back then ? And i think this is true, i have never been
so insulted in my live since i joined the debian project. But this is in
no way an attack on -legal, as you tried to misinterpret it.
> >but you have not seen Branden and Asufield cover me with mud [...]
> >over the xfree86 issue on irc, maybe you even have, i don't remember,
> >maybe you were part of the bullies that day.
>
> I seldom IRC these days. The problems of IRC harassment are being
> discussed on -project now, I think.
Sorry, no time for this mailing list, already there are three mailing
lists i have no time to really read, altough i am susbcribed to them
(lkml, d-d, d-u-f).
> >Sorry, but i asked on advice for how to best present my case upstream,
> >and was agressed in return. And seriously, but does a "we should stay
> >polite to RMS" strike you as a serious argument you can bring to
> >upstream when discussing this issue.
>
> There was a lot more detail beyond that, but you seem to have become
> obsessed by that one element. You were actually told to suggest that
> upstream should "give the copyright holder [RMS] generous [...]
> benefit of the doubt" about their licence's implications. "Please
> change the licence [...], because RMS may feel offended" was an
> interpretation first posted by you, as far as I can tell. Maybe it's
> not a serious argument, but it's your invention rather than something
> written by another debian-legal contributor.
yeah, well, ok, still, this is hardly an argument that would have been
received favorably by upstream, who would probably feel offended that
they, also being copyright holder of some code, might not get the same
"benefiot of the doubt". And as i well believe that they would be
willing and have the qualification of writing an emacs replacement just
to run said code, i didn't want to go to them with weak argumentation.
But let's stop here this OT thread. I retract that rant against
debian-legal, and let's not speak about it again.
> >Please go work on a free implementation of a package currently in
> >non-free, and stop loosing our time on this.
>
> Since 1998, I have worked to replace non-free software with free
> equivalents, as well as developing new free software and helping to
> relicense things as free software. I am not the most prolific, but I
> do my part. I think I've earnt the option to challenge your
> misreporting.
Ok, fine for you, why you don't do it now then ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: