"Matthew C. Weigel" wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 email@greglondon.com wrote:

> What do you call a rant about how hypochritical us poor license-discuss
> folks are, ignoring virtually everything I said?  If you're not out to
> save us, then you're just trying to show how smart you are.  Oops.

I never used the word "poor". I DID use the word hypocrite. 

hypocrite: someone pretending to believe something they don't.

yes, I said it seemed hypocritical to say "OSI supports open-source"
yet it does not support open documentation, which is part and parcel 
of software. I still stand by that statement.

Matthew's version of OSI's commitments:
"OSI supports open-source software through software licenses only.
 OSI does not support open documentation. 
 If you want an open license for documentation,
 please note that open documents are not part 
 of OSI's commitment. Go away."

Whether this is OSI's commitment or not, I don't know.
but this is your assertion of how OSI should operate.

I also find it hypocritical that GPL has 1) a no-modify license, 
2) that it's a document license, but that you reserve that style
of license for GPL only, and you would not allow such a license,
as a stand-alone entity. 

> Which is to say, my agenda is to get on with the OSI's agenda.

Whether OSI would prohibit a no-modify, open document license,
I don't know. But I know you would not allow it if left to you.
I'm not yet convinced that you are in line with OSI's commitment.

>"There's a significant difference between being able to distribute
>pristine source+patches versus pristine documentation+patches.

I see no need to draw a hard line between source and documents.
All you do is exclude things that could otherwise be
for the good of the open software community. 

>My agenda here is to move you out of the way so that more relevant
>things can be discussed, or I can get back to work. 

you can now save yourself the time and effort of replying
and simply get back to work.  consider yourself ignored.
You have nothing to say that is of use to my commitments.

one final note:

rant: to speak or shout in a loud uncontrolled or angry way

I never ranted. 
I never sunk to the level of name-calling.
I have yet to shout or get angry. 
I have not resorted to sarcasm.
I have finally come to the point of dismissing you offhand.

but you sir, are no gentleman.  

Greg London

"When a man assumes a public trust, 
he should consider himself as 
public property."  -Thomas Jefferson
 



