[License-discuss] Please be kind

Pamela Chestek pamela.chestek at opensource.org
Sun Feb 23 18:29:04 UTC 2020

This fork of the thread is veering into unnecessary, unilluminating, and
unkind rhetoric, and is the kind of conversation that gives the OSI
license lists a bad reputation. I suggest that it's time for everyone to
drop it.


Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Review Committee
Open Source Initiative

On 2/23/2020 11:17 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 10:30 AM Eric Schultz <eric at wwahammy.com
> <mailto:eric at wwahammy.com>> wrote:
>     I know most of you think Rick is out of line because I know you
>     are good, thoughtful people.  It's not remotely enough to ignore
>     this sidelining in defense of a predator and hope it goes away.
>     Take some community leadership here and speak up at the very least
>     and illustrate what is out of line.
> I will indeed.
>  In this paragraph you are employing one of the classic techniques of
> propaganda: the bandwagon.  "Join the crowd, we are the silent
> majority, our victory is inevitable!"  I won't mention all the
> historical and present individuals and groups that use(d) this
> technique, because I don't want to suggest an equivalence between
> their views and yours.  Nevertheless, when I see a blatant attempt to
> propagandize like this one, I become sharply less trustful of the
> speaker, and I am a pretty unsuspicious person in general.
> Anyone coming into a community and saying something unusual is subject
> to having their motives doubted.  Here's the usual personal (and
> therefore political) anecdote: When I said on these lists that two
> Microsoft licenses were open source and that OSI should certify them,
> I was attacked elsewhere, first for being a paid shill for Microsoft,
> then for being an *unconscious* shill.  Not knowing how to refute the
> second charge, I remained calm, pointed to evidence of my character
> and views, spelled out the facts underlying my opinion, and waited it
> out.  You could have done the same.
> You are also, by the way, employing innuendo and assuming facts not
> yet demonstrated.  Three fallacies in two sentences is pretty
> impressive if you like that sort of thing.  I don't myself, but tastes
> differ.
>     If I was a survivor of RMS' harassment or a survivor of sexual
>     assault or from a marginalized group, I'm pretty sure I'd have
>     left by now. That's not acceptable.
> There are plenty of members of marginalized groups on this list,
> including the largest such group.  I have not noticed any
> departures-in-a-huff, or a minute and a huff either, because Rick Moen
> (who does not suffer fools lightly, as I often do) has said
> something.  But by all means don't let the door hit you on the way out.
> I have done my best to illustrate what is out of line.
> ~~ plonk ~~
> (Note: the .sig below was chosen in the usual way, randomly from my
> list.  The random numbers have been, I think, particularly felicitous
> today.)
> John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan      
>  cowan at ccil.org <mailto:cowan at ccil.org>
> He that would foil me must use such weapons as I do, for I have not
> fed my readers with straw, neither will I be confuted with stubble.
>                         --Thomas Vaughan (1650)
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200223/80330b91/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list