We need list rules, was MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
chris.travers at gmail.com
Fri Aug 24 02:43:31 UTC 2007
On 8/23/07, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Quoting Chris Travers (chris.travers at gmail.com):
> > Disagree if you will, but every community I have ever been involved in
> > benefitted *immensely* from list rules.
> ObVious: I did not "disagree", but rather mocked your risible and
> illogical notion that a different subscriber expressing a viewpoint
> constitutes "enforcement of rules" that you have an "issue" with.
> > I suppose if all of these official guidelines are just guidelines and
> > everything *is* allowed, then I have no problem.
> And which part of "In a functional sense, what's allowed on Russ's
> mailing list is whatever Russ is willing to stomach" have you so far
> been unable to grok?
Fair enough. These are the rules I will live by. For what it is worth, I
think hiding behind old posts defining desired behavior on the list for no
reason other than to protect your viewpoint from being questioned is
hypoctitical, damaging to this list as a whole, and possibly damaging to
OSI. Hence my request for some official guidance in these matters. Quite
frankly, your opinion of me matters little.
My rule is generally-- if it is really off-topic, don't reply to everyone on
the list-- divert the thread elsewhere or condemn the thread/discussion line
at some point (not the party you disagree with). Evidently this post
doesn't qualify :-)
I have been convinced that I was wrong about the GPL v3 requiring the
ability to relicense contributed works, and now that I undertand why and the
scope of it, my opposition aside from these lists has been increased. But I
have been convinced because Mathew actually was willing to address my points
and show me *where* my reading was in error. Perhaps you should try it
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss