Subject: Re: We need list rules, was MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: "Chris Travers" <chris.travers@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:43:31 -0700
Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:43:31 -0700
On 8/23/07, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>
> Quoting Chris Travers (chris.travers@gmail.com):
>
> > Disagree if you will, but every community I have ever been involved in
> has
> > 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
sometime :-).

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers




On 8/23/07, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
Quoting Chris Travers (chris.travers@gmail.com):

> Disagree if you will, but every community I have ever been involved in has
> 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 sometime :-).

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers