[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: Debian FUD and whining
From:       Joseph Carter <knghtbrd () debian ! org>
Date:       2000-06-18 16:57:33
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 12:23:14PM -0400, Steve Hutton wrote:
> > > First of all, KDE is not illegal. As I mentioned on the kde@kde.org
> > > thread, US and German law both have provisions for something called
> > > "intent".
> > 
> > You completely ignore the very blatant and obvious case of kghostscript
> > which was not written by KDE and therefore KDE has absolutely no right
> > whatsoever to relicense.  I've come to expect ignoring the obvious from
> > you, so welcome to my killfile.
> 
> Ummm...he wrote two paragraphs about it that you snipped from your follow-up.
> How can you "completely ignore" something and write two paragraphs about it
> a the same time?

His two paragraphs essentially dismiss the argument against kghostview as
one Debian people never make (which is funny considering that I did make
it this morning when asked for a concrete example..)  He's also one of the
people who has insisted from the beginning that KDE has ZERO CONFLICTS
with its licenses.  I prove otherwise in a single example it gets
disregarded.  Perhaps "disregard" would have been a better word than
"ignore".  I did read the message.

Fact is, kghostview and every other case like it is pretty much the whole
reason KDE was removed from Debian.  Without an explicit exception, we
can't tell what KDE has permission to use and what they don't.  But that
doesn't matter to him because Debian never makes this argument he says,
despite the fact that it _IS_ our argument.

Let's say I make another example, another easy one...  kmidi.  He'll
disregard that too.  kfloppy?  Nope, still not good enough.

How many more KDE apps do I have to demonstrate license problems with
before it becomes more than "FUD and whining" to him?  The answer is that
I would have to prove every single KDE app has license problems and he
would still not be satisfied that KDE has a license problem.

I said he ignored the kghostview because he did.  He wrote stuff about it
sure, but completely dodged the issue.  He'd make a great politician.  I'm
not interested in a political debate.  There's a much more serious legal
problem here.  That's why I've been here for more than two years now,
hoping to see it fixed even though I don't use the software.

But that's not important because KDE has no license problems, right?  Even
if I could find a dozen of these problems that don't exist in an hour,
there is not and never has been a problem, right?  Sure.  Just listen to
him.  Everything I say is all lies and FUD anyway.  It must be part of the
secret Debian plot to destroy KDE for Richard Stallman.

And if you buy all that crap, you should stick to reading Slashdot.  There
is no conspiracy, I'm not out to destroy KDE or Troll Tech, and there
really is a problem.  A problem I have tried too many times to fix, to be
met crap like that from mosfet from KDE supporters and opposition alike
(though most of it hasn't been that polite.)  You'd think that some people
after this long might come to the conclusion I actually give a damn and
would actually love to see KDE in Debian, whether I'd use it or not.

-- 
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>               GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/)         20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/)   44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3

* knghtbrd can already envision:  "Subject: [INTENT TO PREPARE TO PROPOSE
   FILING OF BUG REPORT] Typos in the policy document"

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]