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. Shall I toss "ad hominem" back at you? - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature