Re: Question for candidate Robinson
- To: MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Question for candidate Robinson
- From: Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:09:28 +0100
- Message-id: <20050310110928.GC9946@pegasos>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20050308105657.GB16263@suffields.me.uk> <20050308143225.GA5634@pegasos> <email@example.com> <20050308160530.GF5634@pegasos> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20050309233508.GB3883@pegasos> <20050310012603.GH7573@hezmatt.org> <20050310012748.GA7067@pegasos> <email@example.com>
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:49:14AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > and the early reaction of debian-legal when i first joined this disastrous
> > topic was not one to make debian-legal shine [...]
> Probably not. The first reaction of Sven Luther wasn't good either.
> > Clearly many of the debian-legal people
> > take their wish for realities,
> ..and clearly Sven has a mind-reading device.
Go back to that discussion, read the full many 100 thread there, and you will
see that the discussion which was throwed at me didn't even bother to :
1) examine the package in question to see what parts where affected.
2) read the DFSG and base the analysis of the supposed licence problem on
it, and not pre-decided tests which arebiased in some direction.
3) read the actual QPL and the consequences of it.
4) suggest something constructive based on the above, but just claimed :
ocaml is under the QPL. Qt was under the QPL, trolltech dual licenced Qt
with the GPL, thus ocaml should do the same, blah blah blah chinese
dissident, desert island, blah blah blah.
give me any reason to not plainly dismiss this kind of bullshit coming from
the supposedly serious debian-legal folk ?
And notice that i later, after the first anger passed, start a constructive
thread that lead to the satisfactory solution of this imagined problem.
Matthew Palmer in particular, for all crying out loud at abuse and using
ad-hominen methods as those in the mail he cited, demostrated that he was not
reading any counter-argument, but just came back forever which is pre-dessided
conclusion, namely that upstream should dual-licence under the GPL.
If debian-legal is to be thrusted, they must be prepared to have an
argumentation whichis able to convince the maintainer, and not try to force
half-backed assertion down his throat, and thus have him look ridiculous in
his dealing with his upstream.
I don't know if you have legal background, but someof the debian-legal folk
have, and the kind of conclusion reached there would not stand before a judge,
and you perfectly know that, and what good is the debian-legal advice then ?
That said, once i got the discussion on track again, and Matthew out of the
way, we could have a serious discussion, and solve the problem, don't you
agree with that ?