On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 06:42:04PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050308 18:12]: > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 05:31:08PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > > > * Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050308 17:18]: > > > > Many DDs only want to package their package in peace, and not get > > > > dragged info > > > > a many-thousand -legal flamewar over imagined DFSG non-compliance and > > > > bogus > > > > tests. > > > > > > That also works the other way around: I tend more to believe that most > > > DDs want to only package their things in peace, and not interfer with > > > old discussions about long ago tested and found to be good tests. > > > > unless those tests are used to randomly jank their packages from the > > archive, > > then they will react, i believe, as i was forced to do. > > I spoke about most DDs. That people not caring about freedom find the > idea of freedom ridiculous is nothing new.
What has that to do with it ? The fact that dubious tests are used, and that they can be used to reach wrong or not based-ont-the-DFSG decisions has nothing to do with freedom or not freedom. And claiming that a consensus has been reached without even giving the maintainer a chance to get in the discussion don't help. And i recuse your accusation that i don't care about freedom, and ask you to either take it back, or to give real facts proving how you came to this situation. > And, for the record, there are already references to the desert island > test in 2002 (see http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/01/msg00010.html > for example). And I doubt that will be the youngest version of that... > (Though I think before that it was not always the island, but the > scientists in the jungle, or things like that...) Yep, and i reject that analysis in the light of the problematic QPL clause that got me muddled hip-deep into debian-legal 6 month ago. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
