On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:31:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-07-21 17:44:16 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 05:34:34PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > >>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 ? > > "oooh crap, I guess it's for me to fix this bug" > > >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. > > This goes back to the problem Branden mentioned, as we can't tell why > ftpmasters did something.
Well, the problem Branden mentioned was about Qt, nowhere does it mention ocaml. > >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. > > I hope that we can do this together. I hope that an interim summary is > posted soon which is more inclusive than your "reproach". Yes, me too. I will do it tomorrow, but it will be in three separate threads. One for 3b, one for 6c, and one for the legal issue. Friendly, Sven Luther
