On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:15:23AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > Also, i have to remember you that my first post here, where i voiced > > arguments > > in contradiction of Josh's summary, was answered by josh, but none of the > > arguments i held there where responded. > > I apologize if I failed to respond to arguments in your initial mail; I
Well, you did a short reply to the mail in question. > can assure you it was not intentional. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to > find the subthread you are referring to. My post may have been : Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> And your reply to it was : Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> And said : debian-legal is currently analyzing the QPL, and working on a license summary. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00157.html for the DRAFT summary, and feel free to offer your comments, suggestions, or statements of whether the draft represents your position. The consensus seems to be that the license is non-free, and the only thing left is to work out the full details of the summary. I am currently writing the second draft, based on the responses to the first. It would certainly be reasonable to wait until the summary is completed before acting on this bug. Also, to the best of my knowledge, programs under only the QPL are rare in Debian. (Incidentally, a quick grep through /usr/share/doc/*/copyright on my system to check that statement turned up mdetect, which appears to be mixing QPLed and GPLed code in the same program.) So, you clearly dismisses my arguments, even if those where weak since it was in early participation to this, and may have missed some argumentation, and was already passably irritated with Brian over this. In particular the " The consensus seems to be that the license is non-free, and the only thing left is to work out the full details of the summary.", Seemed a bit harsh and premature to me, given that you ignored my objections. Friendly, Sven Luther
