[vlc-devel] FSF position on GPLv2 & current App Store terms
remi at remlab.net
Wed Nov 3 09:00:04 CET 2010
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:17:16 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Kempf <jb at videolan.org>
> I am answering to him, because I don't think he can come here and comment
> without making apologies. And I am still waiting for those apologies.
Reading the thread, you're the one owing apologies for gross misbehavior,
>> > With those attitudes, do not wonder why people are moving away from
>> > Open Source development and from the GPL licences...
>> > https://www.ohloh.net/languages/compare?measure=loc_changed
>> Sorry but that is totally gratuitous and off-topic.
> True, but not this part:
>> > If I understand correctly, the FSF new policy is to blow up
>> > communities?
That is gratuitous as well. I don't see any community being split up, let
alone deliberately by the FSF. I only see flaming, which is bad, but far
less severe. And if someone has tried to alienate part of the community, it
>> You decided to provide plenty of PR for MobileVLC, even though you
>> stated that this was a "gray area". You decided to take the risks
>> anyway. I have already stated that I can understand why you did so.
>> But please don't blame other people for what ultimately was
>> consequence of your own actions.
> Clearly not, we push on twitter many things, that are more or less
> around VLC, being it VLC remotes and what not.
There is an expression for statement of this kind: blatant lie.
(all of the above "retweeted" by you)
> Moreover, Gray Area does not mean forbidden, AFAIK.
Gray area means on your own (responsibility), not green light.
> And? A journalist or a so-called activist needs to verify their sources.
> Which they didn't.
Probably. But that is hypocritical. You promoted libvpx while it was still
clearly incompatible, and MobileVLC which still is incompatible.
I am really disappointed by your persistence.
More information about the vlc-devel