Subject: Re: Terekhov
From: Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:50:43 -0400

 Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:50:43 -0400
Alexandre Terekhov <alexandre.terekhov@yahoo.de> writes:
>Is this a personal attack fallacy?
>To repeat: 
>MPL RC1 drafter(s) should better go back to law school.

To everyone:

I would ask that you please refrain from following up to posts like
this, no matter how provocative they may feel.  I've started a private
discussion with Alexandre and with the other admins of this list.

My goal is to get this resolved without a lot of noise on the list.

(Yes, I had to violate the follow-up rule to post this, but that's a
meta situation.)

Thanks,
-Karl

>----- Urspr√ľngliche Message -----
>Von: Luis Villa <luis@tieguy.org>
>An: "license-discuss@opensource.org" <license-discuss@opensource.org>
>Cc: 
>Gesendet: 18:29 Dienstag, 16.August 2011 
>Betreff: Terekhov [was Re: Which DUAL Licence should I choose.]
>
>Terekhov has been banned from this list[1] and warned on
>license-review [2]. [Disclosure: I've also banned him from the MPL
>mailing list, and he has attacked me personally repeatedly, so take
>with a grain of salt.]
>
>I'm guessing that he's now allowed to post again because he appears to
>have changed his email address, but it seems clear to me from his most
>recent posts that his attitude and behavior have not changed  His lack
>of civility and constructive contribution are highly damaging to
>creating a functional, healthy culture on this list, and I would
>recommend banning his new email address as well as the old.
>
>Luis
>
>[1] http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi/3/15712
>[2] http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:msp:1222:banhcmepbbncmpccmnhd
>
>
>On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 02:04:31PM +0100, Alexandre Terekhov wrote:
>>>
>>> Non-proprietary is known as public domain.
>>>
>>> As long as OSI-listed documents do NOT disclaim copyright ownership,
>>> they are all proprietary licenses. The OSI-blessed choice of
>>> consideration in exchange to license grant does not make the licensees
>>> less proprietary.
>>
>> You are aware you are using terms in ways that conflict with the way most
>> people understand them -- right?
>>
>> --
>> Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
>>