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 20:01:56 -0700
Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:01:56 -0700
Hi all;

My only concern is that things are not approached even-handedly.  I feel
that certain people use this to protect points of view from being
questioned.

Look we got off on the wrong foot in part because I really don't like the
GPL v3.  My feelings towards the FSF as relating to this license and the
process are well documented and there is no reason for me to repeat them
here.

However, when I have asked for people to prove me wrong, some people have
done so.  Michael Tiemann, Matthew Flaschen, and others have engaged me in a
dialog and been willing to show me why I am wrong.  They have convenced me
of some things that I had not considered and I thank them for it.

I am inclined to drop this thread.  It seems that this list often requires a
thick skin, and I can handle that.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers


Hi all;

My only concern is that things are not approached even-handedly.  I feel that certain people use this to protect points of view from being questioned.

Look we got off on the wrong foot in part because I really don't like the GPL v3.  My feelings towards the FSF as relating to this license and the process are well documented and there is no reason for me to repeat them here.

However, when I have asked for people to prove me wrong, some people have done so.  Michael Tiemann, Matthew Flaschen, and others have engaged me in a dialog and been willing to show me why I am wrong.  They have convenced me of some things that I had not considered and I thank them for it.

I am inclined to drop this thread.  It seems that this list often requires a thick skin, and I can handle that.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers