discuss: Debian-free licenses was Re: modifiability of docs: final decision
Subject:
Re: Debian-free licenses was Re: modifiability of docs: final decision
From:
doug jensen ####@####.####
Date:
10 Mar 2005 03:15:51 -0000
Message-Id: <20050310031517.GA22960@debian>
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 05:42:19PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting doug jensen ####@####.####
> > As I originally said you have included misinformation in your postings.
>
> Actually, allow me to refresh your memory:
>
> Rick has introduced a FAIRLY HIGH AMOUNT of misinformation to this
> sub-thread. Emma has indicated her intention to use the
> information provided by Rick in the Author Guide, I would
> like to know if that is still the case?
>
> (Emphasis added.)
Yes, my original statement and question was:
Rick has introduced a fairly high amount of misinformation to this
sub-thread. Emma has indicated her intention to use the information
provided by Rick in the Author Guide, I would like to know if that is
still the case?
I still stand by that, and I would still like the question answered, if
Emma or someone that knows would, please.
>
> The "information by Rick" that Emma Jane might choose to incorporate in the
> Author Guide did _not_ encompass who is the editor of
> http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ or its subpages (or of
> http://wiki.debian.net/?DFSGLicenses) -- that being simply not at issue.
> Thus, you seem bogged down in irrelevancies, and thus my strong
> suspicion that you prefer cheap rhetorical tricks to addressing the
> actual subject.
No tricks Rick, but if you can't even answer one simple question, how
can I expect that you will give an honest answer to any other?
You used misinformation to support your claims. If you were willing to
do that at that time, how can I trust that you will be honest about anything
else that I post, when you won't even answer one simple question, that I
think you know is a false statement?
> To further refresh your memory, here is what I wrote that Emma Jane might
> chose to "use in the Author Guide -- wrote very hurriedly, but did so
> because Emma Jane asked me to:
>
> Off the top of my head:
>
> "Debian as a general rule devolves judgements about licensing to the
> maintainers of individual packages. In theory, they apply the Debian
> Free Software Guidelines (link) to such decisions. They are encouraged
> but not required to consult views expressed on the debian-legal mailing
> list (link), but then make up their own minds. Regardless, the upshot
> would be to land your document in either the main or non-free package
> collection, nothing worse."
>
> I realise that's perhaps a little half-assed. One could go into the
> exact nature of Debian governance, but I figure that would be WAY
> outside our scope, here.
Well then the statement by Emma that you were responding to might also
be useful:
A great email, thanks!! (I hope you don't mind me not quoting it.) I
haven't
published the changes to the Author Guide yet. Just let me know what
it
should say with respect to Debian and I'll update it! It's true that I
was
duped by the webmaster. I don't understand where to go for the
"official"
word from Debian. (And I too am a Debian user. Love it, love them, don't
love the stuff to do with licensing documentation it's just too murky
for
the number of hours in a day...if you know what I mean.)
>
> Now, I certainly could be mistaken. Thus my invitation that you
> enlighten us on the _substance_ -- as opposed to trying to count coup on
> irrelevancies. I'd like LDP to have accurate information. If it gets
> that by correcting something I wrote, good!
You are the you that used misinformation to support what you claim to be
substantative. I would like you to admit that, after all you are the
one that had a problem with my claim. If you want to back off and let
Emma or someone that knows answer my question, that would be fine with
me. Or you can give me an indication that you intend to be honest, and
I will continue the discussion that you started. Otherwise, we will
just be a burden to the rest of the list.
>
> > You asked if I was willing to defend that.
>
> Substantiate, not defend. But yes. And we're all still waiting. Thus
Sorry, my mistake.
--
Doug Jensen
