Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "Please don't bother writing to me again. Your previous posts have made it >> clear that you don't even bother reading here anything apart from the posts >> which interests you, and that you have no problem making half backed claims >> based on pure speculation." >> >> (Sven Luther, http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01122.html) > > And ? how is that insulting ? Anymore insulting that making claims without > even bothering to read the licence in question, claims that have such a power > over the fate of a package ?
But I had read the entire thread, the license, and done other research on the question. And I claimed no power; merely made reasoned arguments and provided evidence for or against the arguments of others.. >> "Brian, i ask you to not [...] to participate in this thread [...]. I will >> consider any conclusion you have participated in as void and not binding, as >> you are obviously clueless [...]" >> >> (Sven Luther, http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01203.html) > > The mail this was responding too was obviously non-informed, and was following > up from a few other mails where it was clear Brian had only his interpretation > in mind, and didn't care to face them with the reality of what is actually > written in the licence, despite me pointing the problems out to him. This is > of no use to debian-legal, and only weakens the whole point. I see no truth in what you have written here. > have accpeted the ocaml is non-free consensus without a word, and see it > removed from debian and all the (30-50 by now) packages that depend on it > without moving, apart from relying your "let's GPL it" advice to upstream. I think it would likely end up in non-free, since it's clearly freely distributable. It depends on how likely Debian and its mirrors are to have to send libc or readline to INRIA/Cristal. > So, i apologize for being upset and harsh, i clearly should have not. Still, > after reading mail after mail of clueless non-sense, i could sense the anger > build in me, and was not able to put a stop on it while replying. Again i > apologize for that, and hope that i have put a stop to it with the last thread > i started, which hopefully will be void of abuse on both part. But you're continuing it right here! You can't apologize for calling me a clueless idiot in the same message in which you defend calling me a clueless idiot and expect to be taken seriously with either. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
