Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:53:14 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:59:59 +1000, Martin Pool <mbp@sourcefrog.net> said:
>
>> For example, at least two people called Hans a troll. An upstream
>> author expressing concern about the way their code is packaged is
>> not trolling (i.e. making random arguments just to provoke flames.)
>
> I find it interesting that you consider a public accusation of
> plagiarism to be merely "expressing concern".
I was intentionally using moderate language because (a) I don't
believe it is strictly plagiarism (as you say), and (b) because I
don't think inflaming the debate by tossing around words like
"plagiarism" (or "troll", "slander", etc) is very helpful. (Had I
thought about it more, I would have realized the second one goes
completely against the behaviour expected on -devel, which is
apparently to be as personal and negative as possible.)
> However, I also find your judgment in this horribly tainted, which
> leads me to place less credence in the rest of your argument,
> sorry.
Well, Hans and Ed seem to have arrived at exactly the outcome I was
arguing for, so I suppose I can't have been completely wrong: despite
that Debian has the legal right to change the code, it should seek
compromise between the author and the distribution's goals.
You need to get past the emotional upset you felt (understandably) at
Debian being accused of plagiarism. (Well, it seems to have been
resolved without your help, so I suppose you can stay upset if you
prefer.)
> Or the blindingly obvious choice: Your blatant spin displays a bias
> so huge that your arguments are no longer credible?
It's a sorry day when wanting Debian to give some consideration to the
opinions of original authors is "huge bias".
--
Martin
Reply to: