reopen 350624 quit On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 08:41:05PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > More than 10 weeks have passed and nobody was able to name a part > of the CDDL and explain why it should be incompatible with the DFSG.
Sure, comments like "Debian would obviously be anti-social and not trustworthy" don't encourage me to try to have a conversation about this with you; you don't decide what does or doesn't meet Debian's standards anyway, it's Debian itself that does this. It would be a nice bonus if we happened to convince you that the issues with the CDDL are real issues and you reconsidered your licensing as a result; but this bug is about whether Debian can accept CDDL-licensed works in main, not about whether you agree with that decision. > It is obvious that the CDDL is compatible with the DFSG. It's obvious that *you* think it's compatible, but then, you're licensing your software under the CDDL, so I hardly think you're an unbiased party to this discussion. On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 11:14:56PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > I will keep closing the bug unless someone is able to > send a proof for the original claim.... The bug submitter, the package maintainer, and a member of the release team have all disagreed with your assessment that the bug should be closed. Providing "proof" that you accept is not required here; whether you agree with our reasoning or not, you don't have standing to overrule the decisions of the relevant parties within Debian. If you keep closing this bug, I will ask the BTS admins to restrict your access to BTS control functions. Please leave the bug status alone and let the discussion run its course. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
