Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > [Snip] > | > |>'cause "we" does mean Debian, right? > | > | Nope. "We" means Skolelinux, not debian. (Period.) > > Thank you for the clarification. > > > I thought [email protected] was for Debian, and > [EMAIL PROTECTED] was for Skolelinux. (Period.) > I vas just giving a short answer to a question, not trying to define the theme for this list. I must remind you that my original posting was in respect to an technical issue brought up through the need for a new build of mozilla, and was not meant to be a discussion about this lists role or theme.
This said I still feel a kind of ehm ... betrayed when debian (or so it seem) apparently tries to hijack a concrete agreement between Skolelinux and a vendor. This agreement was set up for Skolelinux and was never intended for debian in the first place. If it is a fact what you refer, that debian shows the nerve to denounce the agreement as unfit for the distribution, this act goes a long way to show a lack of respect for what's actually written in these documents. The agreement is not unfit for debian, the correct term is that it's not _available_ for debian!!! This is why "We" means Skolelinux, not debian. (I'm not saying that debian would have had any logistical problem getting this sort of agreement with SUN, just that this particular agreement doesn't cover up for debian.) If this should imply that the discussion in question is unwanted on this list, there seems to be a need for evaluating whether or not Skolelinux can survive sharing lists with debian. I must press that Skolelinux is _not_ a localised Norwegian version of debian-edu, and that Skolelinux's international devel-list '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' was merged with 'debian-edu@' for the better of both. In kind regard Gjermund Skogstad
