[TAG] [lgang] Debian & OPL

[Benjamin A. Okopnik]

On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:31:19PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> (Wouter, apologies for the long CCed e-mail.  This post is relevant to
> the packages you kindly maintain of _Linux Gazette_ issues.  Ben, I
> consider my wording publishable, despite its bluntness, so I'm moving
> from lgang to tag.  If I've erred, my apologies to you, too.)
 
Not a problem in the least, Rick.
 
> To be blunt, there are loons -- well-intentioned loons but loons completely
> devoid of either a sense of perspective or any actual _and necessary_ 
> knowledge of copyright and trademark law.  Many loony opinions get
> incorporated into posts that someone then claims in a summary post is
> what "debian-legal has concluded".

Ah. That would be the "change of wind direction" I mentioned. However -
 
> So, the current LG packages are likely to remain in Debian despite the
> licensing objections of Jeremy Hankins and/or various d-l kooks as long
> as Wouter Verhelst considers them appropriate and the ftpmasters don't 
> consider him severely out of line.

- although our current issue is #135, the latest LG-related package in
Debian appears to be lg-issue113 (and I'm quite chagrined that I'd
missed it for so long, although I don't have a regular habit of tracking
this.) My (perhaps unwarranted) assumption was that the licensing issue
was the reason for this; if it isn't, then I'm at a loss. Perhaps Wouter
could enlighten us? I'd be grateful.


-- 
* Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://LinuxGazette.NET *