Re: Question for candidate Robinson
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 01:11:16PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:41:09AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:26:04PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > For anyone still watching, I prepared a concise summary of Sven's behaviour
> > > in d-legal here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01308.html
> > > I will admit it may not be the most conservatively phrased article, but bear
> > > in mind it was written after being one of the butts of Sven's invective for
> > > nearly a week.
> > And compared to my reply :
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01311.html
> > Which is much more constructive than anything *you* posted on that thread :
> Which thread? You started about 6. In the whole discussion, I think I made
> some reasonable contributions, analysing the QPL's effects and debating
> points with other contributors. I don't think that starting new threads,
> re-proposing the same arguments that had been countered previously (with
> "real DFSG analysis", I might add), is particularly constructive.
> Let's quote the other paragraph of that message:
> So, you are clearly not interested in solving this issue, just in making
> claims that the QPL is non-free, without even bothering to read the
> document, and discardying off hand all interpretations that don't match
> your own.
> Considering that by this time I'd quoted about half of the QPL about a
> half-dozen times, your claim that I hadn't read the QPL seems a bit lame.
quoting without understanding and blindly affirming that the quotations proved
you were right.