On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:06:09PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > 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. I have asked you whether your French lawyer was willing to give Debian pro-bono advice stating that a non-nominative request for changes was invalid (as opposed to just unenforceable). You did not respond. If it was because I forgot to Cc you and you didn't see the message, please consider this a repeat of that question. I have pointed out that if the choice-of-venue clause is truly void under French law, it would be in upstream's interest to remove it to make the license easier to understand, you responded with derision. You are clearly not interested in solving this issue. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
