On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 05:34:34PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-07-21 13:14:19 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Well, my abrasiveness has been trained by years of participating in > >debian > >mailing list, so you get only yourself to blame. > > Other people succeed in remaining polite after years here, although > there are a few exceptions. Try to be a success, not an exception.
Well, it was not meant that way, i learned much of my email-english and email style on debian lists, abrasiveness seems to be the standard there, and even expected by some. > >Well, serious now, would you go to your upstream with such > >ridicoulous claims > >? > > Probably, yes. I would tell them that this has worried debian-legal > and it would be good to rebut or resolve this. Well, and if you get no answer at all, what would you conclude ? > >I would have nothing against it, but the burden is on dbeian-legal to > >provide > >solid legal foundation for these request, just having a bunch of > >would-be-lawyers make half-backed outrageous requests is not going to > >cut it, > >and threatens the credibility of debian-legal as whole. > > Again, not helpful. If you want to push it, the "burden" is on QPL'rs Well, it is debian-legal which is worried about the QPL, which ftp-masters have already accepted some 3-5 years back, at least in the ocaml case it was not by equivocation. If now the analysis has shifted, then so be it, but the burden is on debian-legal to provide a analysis of good quality of why this change is deemed necessary, and i have not really seen such an analysis yet. Some facts i even agree to, but the analysis is far from enough for me to go upstream with it, and had i not participated, i wonder if i would have gotten something else than chinese dissident rambling. Also, a proposed solution, which is both in understanding of the case at hand, and reasonable would be a nice addition. > to get consensus about why/how this follows the DFSG, if they want > QPL'd works in debian. There are threats to the credibility of this > list, but I don't think discussion is one. The abusive behaviour of > contributors might be, or if we just accepted proof by assertion, that > would be far worse. Well, i have not seen real proof that this is not what we are doing in this case, but then it may be related to some irrelevant noise, i don't know. Friendly, Sven Luther
