Comment 12 for bug 6792

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 04:03:29 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#248853: 3270: 5250 emulation code, all rights reserved

--F41/6/O0EvKTfNqT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have reviewed the (very well-written -- kudos to Carey Evans)
copyright file in question.

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 07:31:21PM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 10:35:27 -0400 (EDT)
> Richard A Nelson <email address hidden> wrote:
[...]
> > Sigh... did you not notice from which pool this came ?

Sigh.

"Non-free" means "does not satisfy the DFSG, but is freely
distributable", not "all bets are off".

> Even Non-Free packages must as a minimum be legally distributable by
> the Project to qualify for inclusion in the archive. I'm surprised you
> could be a DD and yet not know this.

After witnessing the nuclear conflagration of clueless rhetoric about
the meaning of the Social Contract, I am sadly not surprised at all.

> > I'm all for constructive criticism; something I can take to upstream
> > - and he has done some work to improve the situation based upon
> > earlier conversations. However, knee-jerk responces (like this) will
> > be simply routed to /dev/null.
>=20
> If you disagree with my analysis of the situation, how about providing
> a coherent rebuttal as opposed to just dismissing my concerns out of
> hand?

Because that would require the package maintainer to think about his
packages's content and licensing instead of protecting Debian's honor
=66rom "non-free flaming bigots".

I suggest you save your heroic defenses of useful software that "offends
the puritans" for situations where the facts are on your side.
Otherwise you merely reinforce the reputation certain self-described
"pragmatists" on the non-free issue are developing for carelessness and
ignorance.

> > If you wish to be helpful, I'll be happy to blast the copyright info
> > to debian-legal for further critique. If you wish to just blather,
> > consider this a *plonk*.

Sadly, the blather in this instance seems to be coming from the package
maintainer.

Rick, I think you owe Andrew an apology.

--=20
G. Branden Robinson | Intellectual property is neither
Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual nor property.
<email address hidden> | Discuss.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Linda Richman

--F41/6/O0EvKTfNqT
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkCl3OEACgkQ6kxmHytGonwuwACdGPhRGqbeaayOtqajTNnby9Mm
4OoAn2XrQNLPA62BkKzaizTgCdk7upuR
=Vrlz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--F41/6/O0EvKTfNqT--