Advogato post for 2000-09-06 17:19:31

mazeone: If I give a copy of whatever to Joe, he is now in compliance, because accepting the copy is legal (he is not forced to assure MY compliance), and the copy contains only GPLd code. You could argue that I would be breaking the license one last time, but what’s another stripe on the tiger? ;-)

bro­ther: It’s not a ma­tter of ­bla­ck he­li­cop­ter­s, at all. It’s a ma­tter of ha­ving a pa­cka­ge (k­de­libs) that De­bian al­ready said has no li­cen­sin­g ­pro­ble­ms, and sti­ll it ne­ver ge­ts in­to De­bian, after man­y ­many mon­ths. Why should I be­lie­ve KDE wi­ll chan­ge thei­r ­min­d­s? After all, agai­n, it was not li­cen­sing that kep­t k­de­libs ou­t! In fac­t, I sti­ll ha­ve not seen any ra­tio­na­l ex­pla­na­tion on why kde­libs was re­mo­ved in the first pla­ce, ex­cept that they we­re wrong about the li­cen­se of so­me­thin­g in it (ge­ttex­t). They we­re wron­g. They knew it. Did they pu­t it ba­ck? Of cour­se no­t.

Be­si­des, did­n’t knew that pos­ting so­me­thing in my dia­r­y wa­s ­ye­lling ;-)

ny­mia: Odds of wha­t? Odd­s of ha­ving fun ­co­din­g? Pro­ba­bl­y. Odds of fin­ding peo­ple to use the co­de? I ­doubt it. Odds of being sue­d? The­re are no­ne wha­tsoe­ve­r. The ­so­lu­tion is so tri­vial (and des­cri­bed be­lo­w) that it makes no sen­se to even whi­ne.

Be­lie­ve it or no­t, I am now to­ta­lly re­la­xe­d. Sin­ce I ­do­n’­t ­gi­ve a damn about the who­le bun­ch an­y­mo­re, they can do­ whate­ver they wan­t, in­clu­ding sueing me, if they rea­lly wan­t ­to. They are dead to me.

Comentarios

Comments powered by Disqus
Contents © 2000-2013 Roberto Alsina
Share