Hi,
While replying to Peter Donald, pohl wrote:
> > >This remains an unsupported claim. Can anyone support it with
> > >relevant text, or is Peter chasing a Ghost here?
> >
> > see above.
>
> Apparently you and I are on opposite sides of a cultural divide here.
> I come from a people who know that repeating a claim does not
> constitute supporting it. We're talking about legal documents here.
> Nothing is more relevant than the text. Anecdotes about a GPL'd
> implementation of javax.servlet don't cut it. "Go talk to foo"
> doesn't cut it either. If that's all you have to say, it's duly
> noted and you can put a lid on it.
Peter, if you read this: Be sure to wear an asbestos suit before
reading on.
Peter Donald is the guy who told us that we could get 10 years
in jail if we lived in Australia. He has also threatened a jBoss
developer that he could go to jail by contributing code to the
jBoss project.
He has never contributed any code to the jBoss project, and he
has never participated in any design or development discussion
on jBoss (except for answering a question about a JMX-like product
that some Apache folks would like us to use).
He deserves credit for having raised a number of possible problems
with jBoss and the GPL, and for a pretty decent discussion of these
problems. The result of this discussion was that there was ONE real
problem.
Since running out of arguments he seems to keep trolling this list,
and now that we about to change to a license that fixes the ONE
real problem he has stepped up his trolling. My guess is that he
wants us to change license, but that he does _not_ want us to
change to the LGPL.
> So far you just keep repeating a Belief(tm). Honestly, I'm not
> surprised that you were flamed.
IMO his problem is that there are no real license problems if we
change to LGPL, and if we are under a license without problems
chances that we change to whatever license he wants are zero.
> Is there any non-Peter person that can respond to these issues?
I hope I am non-Peter, but I try not to respond to trolls, threats
and flames.
Besides, I think that you ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) have already made
it clear that Peters objections are not valid.
Best Regards,
Ole Husgaard.
