On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 02:45:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-07-20 01:16:33 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:24:13AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > >>On 2004-07-19 19:07:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>wrote: > >>>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:39:14PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen > >>>wrote: > [...] > >>Hrm, when did Brian claim his was the consensus view? [...] > >Because [...] > > Sorry, I don't think "because" is a valid reply to "When...?"
Ok, i apologize, it seems there are two Brians, and i did some messing up with them. Mmm, this is probably not correct english for what i am saying, but you get my meaning. > >>I doubt they would actively support offensive licensors either, so > >>any such > >>GR would be an interesting choice of the lessor of two evils. > >Offensive licensors, again, the real problem, being that you only > >care for > >licence violating users, and not for the upstream authors right, > >there is no > >licence in this. > > I barely understand your words here, sorry. I care for licence-obeying > users being able to continue using the software legally, even if the > licensor becomes offensive. I'm not particularly worried about licence > violators. See my other thread for this. > >[...] none of the terms will ever come to any > >problematic case in this particular package. > > Imagine the developers you know and love being replaced with Evil > Copyright Trolls and deciding to attack their users. Would the > software still be free? They won't. They own the copyright for live+70 years or so, or at least i was told so earlier, and you can't cede copyrigth in europe. > >If upstream is overreacting in a protective way, let's them do it, > >especially > >if both we and the FSF agreed to it 3-4 years ago when they chose this > >licence. > > When did the FSF agree to the ocaml licence? Well, somce 3-5 years ago, we, the FSF, and other players all agreed that the QPL was a free licence, altough not a GPL compatible one. Upstream choose their licence on the force of that consensus, and now we are pulling the chair on them. > >If we change our stand at whims, what guarantee do upstream have that > >our position will last ? [...] > > I think this thread suggests it is anything but whimsical. No, it doesn't. What other licence may we declare non-free in a few month ? > >Hehe. I am not in the AM queue, so i can be as rude as i want. [...] > > Your AM should still be ashamed of your rudeness. Well, i had no AM back then, but i had the likes of Branden and co to teach me the fine point of debian/english mailing list participation :). Friendly, Sven Luther
