On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:58:07PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Sure. That's fairly equivalent to (a).
Just in case I wasn't clear, the point was that the fix for past stable releases, and the fix for unstable and the next release, are unrelated; it's reasonable to do entirely different things, as long as the violation is fixed in all cases. Your choices were listing fixes for stable and fixes for unstable side-by-side. > > This seems like "If you remove my work from your current version, I'll > > sue you for your violation in the last version". I hope you can > > understand why I don't believe that arrangement is acceptable--it's > > no different than "if you don't give me $100, I'll sue you for your > > violation in the last version". > > Yes. And? So you think it's acceptable to have a work in main, whose license is "if you're Debian, you're never allowed to remove this work, or I'll sue you for an unrelated, already-fixed[1] past violation"? I don't like throwing around overly loaded words, but I can't find any word short of "extortion" that accurately represents what this seems to be. (FWIW, I did recently criticise Bruce Perens for his use of the same word, but that was due to opening the conversation with it, right in the subject.) > Which bit of "We've been knowingly violating a license for over 2 years, > and so we're the bad guys" is unclear here? Debian has offered to correct it, in a perfectly acceptable and legitimate manner. In my viewpoint, (a) is not wrong in any ethical or moral way (legally, I don't know and would prefer not to guess); coercing Debian maintainers to include a work in future releases against their will and judgement is. [1] assuming that the stable release gets fixed soon, of course -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]