MS continued attack on OSD #6

Rick Moen rick at
Tue Mar 11 03:28:50 UTC 2008

Quoting B Galliart (bgallia at

> In my case, Microsoft Port 25 blog pointed me to it.  It also appears
> at and

You could and should have mentioned that _earlier_, rather than just
sending us the URL of some odd little PDF and leaving it up to the
entire readership of this mailing list to determine why this is
particularly of significance.  (If you expect people to search the
archives for prior occasions when you might or might not have mentioned
that PDF, you're likely to be disappointed.)

People on this mailing list tend to have limited amounts of time and
effort to devote to it.  Accordingly, your best chance at being taken
seriously is to avoid exaggeration -- e.g., don't pretend that some
college intern's screwup is anything like corporate policy -- and, avoid
time-wasting rhetorical excess, and make very sure you include vital
details like _why_ you consider otherwise apparently motley marketing
fluff on the Internet to merit OSI's time and trouble.

On that particular point:  Yes, the PDF's at least findable, and they
should fix or remove it.  However, in proper perspective, it's not even
particularly prominent.  You seem to have made very much out of rather
little -- assuming you haven't failed to mention something a lot more

> So how many months should be allowed to pass since Jamie Cannon
> claimed it would be addressed until it becomes something that goes
> beyond just some uncredited marketing guy?

Personally, *I* really don't care very much.  It looks trivial
after I removed the dressing in which you recently presented the issue.
However, if you want to help instead of just lobbing polemically
exaggerated "Let's you and him fight" mailing list postings at OSI, you
could try writing to Jamie Cannon.  Suggestion:  Stick to facts, refresh
memories, politely ask for status, omit the accusatory tone, and in
general act like you've dealt with businesses before.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list