Julian Andres Klode wrote:

> That's basically a superset of what I wrote on IRC after the initial
> email happened (basically, I wrote something like: asking upstream for
> permission is stupid, it's their trademark, and as long as nobody wants
> to sue you, everything is fine).
> 
> I don't know why OdyX decided to do this, there was no prior discussion
> of this, and I never supported this, and I am sure most of the others
> did not support this either.

I decided to send out this mail because I felt that it was the right thing 
to do, given the problems enlightened by the Smeegol release, because those 
issues appeared to me as worrying for the packaging of the MeeGo software. I 
tried to make it clear that I was bringing those issues up on my sole name 
and not as a representative of anything (although I reckon that I might have 
failed at that).

Now Steve's mail and yours both put some clearer light on the issue and make 
me understand the various implications better: thank go to both of you for 
that.

But now said mail is out. The responsability of its sending and the 
implications thereof are on my shoulders. Furthermore, I acknowledge that
  1) I should have discussed its content, aim and wording beforehand,
  2) asking for permission when a permission grant is useless is not the 
thing to do.
Now how do I / do we proceed ?

Does anyone (team or person) need a wider apology than this one ? Is a 
coordinated answer from Debian needed to Ibrahim's mail needed/wanted ? I 
can prepare it and make sure it gets proofread first (Steve already agreed 
to do that, but it could be done more publicly).

And for the packaging: it basically stopped because I fell out of time. But 
what would happen if a "libmeegotouch" package lands in NEW ?

Cheers,
OdyX



_______________________________________________
Pkg-meego-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-meego-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-meego-maintainers

Reply via email to