Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.

2004-07-23 Thread Sven Luther
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 07:21:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 09:56:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > And yes, if i sound pissed, i am. It is now almost one week since this > > bullshit started, and we haven't advanced one bit, and you are all so imbued > > Do you thin

Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.

2004-07-23 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 09:56:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > And yes, if i sound pissed, i am. It is now almost one week since this > bullshit started, and we haven't advanced one bit, and you are all so imbued Do you think that we might have advanced more had you actually put up some reasonable

Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.

2004-07-22 Thread Walter Landry
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:43PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > > On 2004-07-21 13:48:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > >

Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.

2004-07-22 Thread Andrew Saunders
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:32:15 +0100, Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Extraordinarily poorly formatted post] Bugger, bugger, bugger. Sorry about the atrocious layout. I'm sure it's pretty obvious, but just in case not: everything after the first paragraph shouldn't have been there. --

Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.

2004-07-22 Thread Andrew Saunders
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:56:06 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And i can't take you seriously as long as people like Brian are allowed to > participate in this discussion which such low-quality contributions. What's this part all about? If his posts really bother you that much and

Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.

2004-07-22 Thread Sven Luther
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:34:35PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:43PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > > > On 2004-0

Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.

2004-07-22 Thread Sven Luther
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:43PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > On 2004-07-21 13:48:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >Please don't bother writing to me again.

Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.

2004-07-21 Thread Walter Landry
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > On 2004-07-21 13:48:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > >Please don't bother writing to me again. [...] > > > > Sven, you need rough consensus that ocaml follows the DFSG.

Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.

2004-07-21 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Matthew" == Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Well, and ? you distribute something under the BSD, someone use >> it and sells it under a proprietary version, how is this fairer >> ? And how is it fairer as Matthew> Because I can do the same thing too. Everybody

Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.

2004-07-21 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:41:43PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:50:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:31AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:51:46AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > > > I'll get to the other t

Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.

2004-07-21 Thread Sven Luther
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:55:26AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:31AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Given this interpetation, and the fact that any proprietary change must also > > appear in the QPLed version, how can you sustain claims of hoarding ? > > Because the

Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.

2004-07-21 Thread Sven Luther
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:50:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:31AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:51:46AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > > I'll get to the other two in a bit, but for now: you completely failed > > > to address the

Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.

2004-07-21 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:31AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > Given this interpetation, and the fact that any proprietary change must also > appear in the QPLed version, how can you sustain claims of hoarding ? Because the QPL'd version need not be released to wide distribution, which results in

Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.

2004-07-21 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:31AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:51:46AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > I'll get to the other two in a bit, but for now: you completely failed > > to address the non-freeness of 3b: > > Well, in the orginal summary, there was no ment

Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.

2004-07-21 Thread Sven Luther
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-07-21 13:48:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >Please don't bother writing to me again. [...] > > Sven, you need rough consensus that ocaml follows the DFSG. If you > move to kill this discussion now by spammi

Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.

2004-07-21 Thread MJ Ray
On 2004-07-21 13:48:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Please don't bother writing to me again. [...] Sven, you need rough consensus that ocaml follows the DFSG. If you move to kill this discussion now by spamming the list with notices not to contact you (despite your outrage i

Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.

2004-07-21 Thread Sven Luther
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 08:33:19AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Given this interpetation, and the fact that any proprietary change must also > > appear in the QPLed version, how can you sustain claims of hoarding ? > > Because the QPL'd versi

Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.

2004-07-21 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Given this interpetation, and the fact that any proprietary change must also > appear in the QPLed version, how can you sustain claims of hoarding ? Because the QPL'd version doesn't have to be publicly released. INRIA can just give it to one patsy alli