[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:54:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.]
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:00:21PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > Even so, I'm amenable to anyone who can come up with names which are less
> > loaded to random fundamentalists, if possible; of course, most of the
> > sources on daemons say that they are, as a rule, without names in the
> > origional Greek usage.
> So?  The Greeks were heretical pagans and some of them were even
> (gasp!) atheists.

*snicker* My sister is a neo-Classisist (with, oddly enough, a degree in
Classics - one of the few things less useful when job hunting than an
English degree). I'm quite familiar with the variety of religious beliefs
in the culture. I was mostly pointing out (after having looked) that it
may not be possible to find *daemon* names, which would be slightly more
apropos (to the geek in me, anyway) than demon names. Very slightly. But
slightly. :)

> It's impossible to not offend fundamentalists.  Once you have done so
> there is no reconciliation and no compromise.  You either subordinate
> yourself to their will or you are condemned as immoral.
> I honestly don't think it's worth the time to try and placate them.

Nor do I. I mean, consider the fact that my personal email is
lucifer@lightbearer.com, and I use it quite extensively (just check the
list archives) - this is not exactly something used by someone big on
placating fundies.

On the flip side, I *don't* use that address, as a general rule, for things

* Submitting resumes
* Contracting work under the house consulting company
* Things where I'm speaking as a Debian Developer
* Work-related tasks

In my perception, there is a difference between "placation" and "tact";
one of the primary points being the amount of effort that goes into it.
Placating requires one to make changes that cost you something appreciable;
tact is simply choice one of a number of otherwise equal options such that
it has a reasonable chance of being less offensive to the target audience.

We have DDs who are, clearly, offended - even if I consider that to be a
rather silly thing, given my own beliefs. And if we didn't have another
option, I'd probably say "tough noogies". But since we *have* had a couple
of other options come up, which have yet to generate any statements of
offense from anyone who's bothered to put it where I could read it, and
those options work just as well in both a practical and a geeky sense, I
have no problem with choosing one of them out of tact.

As may have become clear, my favorite bid so far is for Tolkien names,
since the only opinions on d-l that have been cogently argued, or backed up
with citations, indicate that using the *names* isn't going to get us in
trouble - and because they're already in quite widespread use in the same
basic context we intend to use them for. And Tolkien's estate appears to
have had many opportunities to raise objections, and hasn't ever done so,
to the best of my knowlege.

> > I think the point about the author's potential issue with them (whether or
> > not it's legal, it has many of the same potential problems) may well be
> > enough reason to avoid that one, sadly. Amusing as I find it.
> > 
> > I suppose we could always pull names from Lovecraft; I think the names from
> > his work have long since lost any protection they might have had. Debian
> > Nylarthotep, anyone?
> > 
> > Okay, maybe not.
> Heh, well, I'm pretty sure the names of Lovecraftian gods would be just
> as objectionable to fundies; secondly, some of those names are too
> damned hard to pronounce :); and third, I think Arkham House (publisher)
> continues to *act* like the works of Lovecraft are under copyright, and
> no one yet has had the balls to try an "unauthorized" edition on the
> principle that they have passed into the public domain.

It wasn't a terribly serious suggestion, you'll note. :) The third point
is unfortunate, but mostly for reasons unrelated to this discussion (other
than a proven propensity for ignoring the law in favor of lawsuits, which
does make it a distinctly less prefferable candidate).

> Still, at least a challenge to our usage of Lovecraftian names would be
> rickety on two planks instead of just one, as in the case of Pratchett.

True. I think Tolkien's work is still covered under the ever-expanding
Disney extensions, but then, as I pointed out and d-l backed up, we're
using Disney character names for an even more significant naming scheme -
releases. If we're really worried about being sued over such, I'd be far
more worried about Disney doing it...
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>                                        ,''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter                                       : :' :
                                                                     `. `'

Attachment: pgpwCVRs2bDRF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: