On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Thanks for CCing me as i have requested here repeteadle.
If you don't cease the sarcasm, then I'm going to stop discussing with you. I have no obligation to subject myself to this. If you set the Mail-Followup-To header to include your address, then well- behaved mailers (including my own, Mutt) will automatically include you in the CC list. This is the normal means of requesting a CC. Merely asking for it, in a discussion involving dozens of people, usually results in it being forgotton; you can't reasonably expect everyone to keep track of who wants a CC and who does not, and the default policy on Debian lists is to not. > Ok, if this is true (i have not checked) then ok. Still there may be other > reasons to it. What is the mozilla licence ? Is it also dually licenced ? To my understanding, most of Mozilla is available under at least three licenses: the GPL, LGPL and MPL. See Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > >The correct course of action is for d-legal to make a reasonable suggestion, > > Thanks, but in all this thread, i have not seen a single reasonable > suggestion, so i have some doubts about this. Yes, you have: dual-license under the GPL. It's a completely reasonable, sane suggestion, applicable in the vast majority of cases. It may very well not be applicable in this particular case, but it's still a sane and reasonable suggestion in most cases, and fits my explanation of "course of action" exactly. > >and the maintainer to figure out if it's reasonable in that particular case. > > Ok, then why am i threated like if i am stupid by some here ? (Parsing ...) You're treated as if you're deliberately rude and uncooperative, which you certainly are. If you believe you're being treated poorly, then perhaps you should reevaluate the way you're treating us. > >I've looked through the bug log, and not seen any messages from Brian which > > Look only at the title of his reply. And see the other bug report where he > claimed there was consensus on debian-legal, and said something along the > lines of "why was this package not yet moved to non-free". The replies I see in this bug are: Subject: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support? Subject: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free Neither of these are rude. I'm not going to bother pursuing this any further. Brian has a strong track record of being reasonable, and you have a strong track record of being rude. > And see what, i have lost almost half a day going through this, which is > something i would really have gone without. And you didn't see the greating i > had from Branden and assufield and their cronies on irc last time i had the > temerity to post on debian-legal, so excuse me, but my patience for this kind > of thing is rather limited. If you wish to be consistently insulting, sarcastic and rude to people on this list, even those people who have been consistently polite to you (despite the abuse they receive from you in return), that's entire your choice, but don't be surprised when people decide that they've had enough, and stop listening to you. -- Glenn Maynard
