On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:49:54AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Sven Luther writes: > > > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:02:07AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > >> The procedure: attempt to debate something with Sv*n L*th*r, preferably in > >> a > >> public mailing list. This way others can play along without having to > >> actually engage him in conversation. > > > > So, you are clearly not interested in solving this issue, just in making > > claims that the QPL is non-free, without even bothering to read the > > document, > > and discardying off hand all interpretations that don't match your own. > > You are clearly not interested in solving this issue, just in making
Sure, i am. I even started a fresh thread about them, where i pointed out my reasons why i consider it free, and what i believe are the points under discussion. > claims that the QPL is free, without even bothering to read the > objections, and discarding out of hand all interpretations that don't > match your own. Well, whatever. I have not discarded them, i have responded to them, but when i began spotting more and more cases where interpretations where made which were in full contradiction of what is actually _written_ in the QPL licence, my patience reached some limits. So, if you feel like help solve this issue, please contribute to the new thread, in a reasonable way, as you did previously, and we will solve this issue in a way debian-legal can be proud of. Did i do ad hominen attacks against you, or do you have any reason to complain about my behavior with you ? Friendly, Sven Luther
