On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 01:11:16PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:41:09AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:26:04PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > > For anyone still watching, I prepared a concise summary of Sven's > > > behaviour > > > in d-legal here: > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01308.html > > > I will admit it may not be the most conservatively phrased article, but > > > bear > > > in mind it was written after being one of the butts of Sven's invective > > > for > > > nearly a week. > > > > And compared to my reply : > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01311.html > > > > Which is much more constructive than anything *you* posted on that thread : > > Which thread? You started about 6. In the whole discussion, I think I made > some reasonable contributions, analysing the QPL's effects and debating > points with other contributors. I don't think that starting new threads, > re-proposing the same arguments that had been countered previously (with > "real DFSG analysis", I might add), is particularly constructive. > > Let's quote the other paragraph of that message: > > 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. > > Considering that by this time I'd quoted about half of the QPL about a > half-dozen times, your claim that I hadn't read the QPL seems a bit lame.
quoting without understanding and blindly affirming that the quotations proved you were right. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
