Joerg Schilling wrote: > John Goerzen <jgoer...@complete.org> wrote: > >> Joerg Schilling wrote: >> >>> The fork distributed by Debian may however be called dubious: >>> >>> - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be >>> legally distributed. >> If your code was Free Software, then it is perfectly legal for Debian to >> do what it does. > > It seems that you first need to learn what Free Software means and what > constraints the License and the Copyright law enforce. A Free software license > allows you to do many things, it does definitely not allow you what Debian > did. > >> If your code wasn't Free Software, then we wouldn't be using it in the >> first place. > >> ISTR that your code WAS free, but now isn't. > > The code that was taken by Debian for the fork WAS free but now it is no > longer > because Debian did apply changes that are forbidden by law.
When will you enumerate these? Until you do, I can't see your arguments being taken seriously by anyone. By enumerate, I mean at the line-by-line level in the source. I found the rest of your message similarly vague; you said people made mistakes, that Debian attacked you. URLs please? -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
