On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 03:44:31AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > 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.
Dear god, it's like arguing with a mildly retarded parrot. I give up. - Matt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
