Subject:
Re: Debian-free licenses was Re: modifiability of docs: final decision
From:
doug jensen ####@####.####
Date:
10 Mar 2005 17:52:13 -0000
Message-Id: <20050310175117.GA24249@debian>
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:42:00AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting doug jensen ####@####.####
>
> > [Rick's] statement infers that no one knows who did it.
>
> This is obviously erroneous
Here is your statement, have at it:
1. Although that page and the linked "License Information" page are
maintained by an (unidentified) Debian webmaster,
Rick this might not interest you, but others may like to know since it
seems to be your major objection:
The http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ pages were authored by a Debian
Developer, who I think is highly regarded, I certainly have alot of respect
for him. It's creation was done very openly. Several people provided
feedback at the time, I know at least some were Debian developers. The
current Debian Project Leader has commented about the page, I can't recall
any objections from him. I think in one message he express a desire that
other summaries be added to it. I suppose, things could change with
regard to were the licences are placed and which licenses are presented
there, but I wouldn't think the placement of the licenses would change
very often.
> interest. (Probably, you have confused infer with _imply_, but it makes
> no difference.) I'll return to the latter point, below.
No, I believe I intended what I wrote.
>
> [much snipped]
>
> > So Rick's statement doesn't make any difference, that is not how it
> > works.
>
> The pity of this is that all that is _still_ completely irrelevant to
> the question: Regardless of who maintains those pages, they still don't
> voice the official view of the Debian Project. Why? Because it has no
> discernable connection with the governance mechanisms detailed in
> Debian's ruling documents.
Well, this is what you quoted and asked in the original message in our
discussion, did the subject change when I wasn't looking:
> > Rick has introduced a fairly high amount of misinformation to this
> > sub-thread.
> Care to substantiate that, or is this just a drive-by?
I don't know maybe you decided that my claim is substantiate, I don't
recall that though.
> Summaries of sundry offhand opinions posted to the public debian-legal
> mailing list -- which is what the Web pages house -- are nothing
> _at all_ like official statements of the project.
Well, I don't think your accessment is accurate. However, aren't they
more official then any statements that you would make on this list?
After all the discussion is taking place on the debian-legal mailing
list, which is certainly closer to the Debian project than
####@####.####
>
> If you maintain otherwise, kindly state your reasoning and quit playing
> time-wasting games. But I cannot even imagine anything that would
> qualify; for some reason, you're simply blowing smoke at us, aren't you?
No.
>
> I really don't know why you would do that, but I really don't appreciate
> the time-wastage involved.
Well, look there something we agree on, I don't appreciate you wasting
my time.
>
> > He knows that there is no one person here that can speak for the LDP.
>
> Although we were _not_ speaking of the LDP, which unlike Debian lacks a
> formal structure -- making yours a non-sequitur comparison -- I will
> immediately deny your premise, nonetheless: Guylhem has spoken
> definitively for LDP on numerous occasions.
I think the role in regard to the question at hand is similar. That is,
Guylhem seems to voice his opinion, and tries his best to keep some
sanity, but does he make statements of policy without regard to what has
been discussed? I don't think the Debian Project Leader does that, I
think when he speaks it is as a representative of the group. Not from a
position of domination. Although, I think he can put his DPL hat on and
suggest a sanity check and people will respect his position. I think I
recall something similar may have happen once, but I'm not sure of that.
>
> > Why would he make that statement, if he wasn't trying to confuse the
> > issue?
>
> Frankly, you have one hell of a lot of gall talking about "trying to
> confuse the issue", given your distract-with-irrelevancies approach and
> consistent refusal to address the matter _actually_ under discussion.
I think I am still on the topic of defending (substantiating) my statement.
Those two-hyphen-words can get pretty long can't they?
--
Doug Jensen
