Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> writes:
>
>> Do you? I can think of three packages that the maintainer is acting in an
>> unaccoutable and irresponsible way. You may even think you know which
>> ones: I'm sure the DD responsible knows what I think of them. I know for
>> a fact that it's damn well irresponsible for you to have tried to exclude
>> another today, and you're not being held accountable. In stead, >I< am
>> being held responsible for my pseudonym. Funny kind of world, isn't it,
>> when the pseudonymous one is more responsible than the "properly named"
>> one?
>
>Actually, I have no way of keeping you accountable, because I don't
Yeah, but that isn't stopping you from trying.
>know who you are. There is no way for me to link your bad actions on
>Debian to other situations. For example, if you were to try to get
>hired, nobody would be able to notice that the asshole "John Galt" has
>anything to do with the potential employee in front of them.
You know, I'd say that no employer is going to give two shits about
activity on a mailing list, but your past actions speak of a willingness
to try to give the lie to that statement. The only relevant issue to
employment that I can see from the collected email of a given person is
whether or not they did it on company time.
>I can see why you want potential employers to be unable to link your
>horrid actions here with you.
>
>Again, "exclusion" is hardly going on. I've been the subject of
>enough bigoted discrimination to have a pretty good idea. I said that
>I didn't see the benefits discussing the GPL with someone who was an
>opponent of free software, and Hoffman's writing made it sound as if
That's your major problem. You don't see the point in discussing much of
anything except the other person's character when they disagree with you.
If you wish to not deal with it, fine, but the fract that the first half
of this message was about my obstinate pseudonymity is more than enough
evidence. Speaking of which, I removed Hoffman from the CC list, as I
have a feeling that you won't do anything but dig yourself deeper in this
hole and I won't say anything of interest to them: you see, I didn't
slight them.
>he were such an opponent.
>
>Now, if I changed lists.debian.org so that Hoffman couldn't post, or
>something like that, that would be exclusion. But he's just as able
>to post as before, as are you.
No, you told them not to post. You did everything in your power to
prevent their posting, as we both know that a power trip on the order of
changing lists.debian.org to deny people's posting is probably the worst
thing you could do: it certainly would have provoked me or any number of
other people to petition the DPL to pull the plug on you. As it is, since
you so succinctly put it in terms of you being officially part of Debian,
you're pushing it. You, as a representative of Debian, told someone to
stop posting and accused them of not being a friend of Debian. Words just
fail me.
>Thomas
>
>
--
I can be immature if I want to, because I'm mature enough to make my own
decisions.
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu
Reply to: