On 5 Jun 2002, at 9:39, Jerome Grimbert wrote:
> > Mel LaVerne makes some magical things to make me read > } > >Isn't it the kind of discussion which could go onto ql-developers > } > >list? > > No, please ! I agree - this seems to be the best place. The licence is there not only for developpers, but also for the users. (...) > And its like the Lernean Hydra, when you think it's calming down, another > point show up... > Camel is a horse designed by a committee. > I'm afraid the licence will be like that camel, > and might be longer than the code itself. I'll try to be Lakoon, and fight the serpent, then and keep it down in size. > If such effort/pinpointing were taken when someone want to get some gazoline > in his car, he would need beforehand a long agreement/disclaimers, > which would regard not only the usage of the gazoline, but also who > is responsible if a tyre breaks, whether or not he can call its insurance > company for repair, at which speed he intends to cruise and whether it will > be a sunny or rainy day, and so on.... > All this may be worth for a wedding, but not for just getting some gaz in > the bus! It has gone a bit over the top sometimes, but I feel that most have expressed a real concern about some aspects, even though I don't agree with the solutions proposed in many cases > Me Too, sometimes. So I'm in a lose-lose situation here. If I don't publish anything for comments, I'll get accused of doing this alone in the corner and having some denoniac scheme to deprive I don't know who of I don't know what. If I publish it here and there is a discussion, I shouldn't because the subject bores many of you. If I publish it here and don't reply to the points raised, I'll be accused of disregarding all opinions. Well, some you can't win! Wolfgang
