Re: LPPL and source-less distribution
On 6/13/05, Michael K. Edwards <email@example.com> wrote:
> I thought I'd done rather well in responding politely to a polite
> inquiry as to whether I might be a Tentacle of Evil. I think of
> myself as representing forthright radicalism within the system, and if
> you think about it you'll realize why the FSF's deceitful (and, in my
> opinion, rather amateurish) misrepresentations of the law annoy me so
I think you are correct in identifying this as the crucial issue.
However, I disagree with you about your characterization of this
For one thing, you've used this kind of language in a number of
contexts -- not simply when someone questions your motives. I
can understand that having yourself be questioned leads to all
sorts of implications about you as a person, but I guess that's
not really what I was concerned about.
I don't see FSF as being deceitful. I see them as honestly
having a difference of opinion from you about the nature of
the legal issues at stake.
Characterizing this difference of opinion as "deceitful" implies
to me that you don't think that people disagreeing with your
opinion are being honest. But that would also mean that you
are not being honest when you appear to be debating these
issues: you'd only be providing the appearance of logical
reasoning, because you would've assumed the question.
I wouldn't mind so much if when you made these kinds of
assertions you provided a reference to some page
which clearly spells out the issues you're talking about.
That way, people inclined to thinking that agreeing or
disagreeing with you is important could see for themselves
what it is that you're trying to say. [I'd probably mind
somewhat, because I'm one of the people who thinks
that agreeing or disagreeing with you on this issue is
important, but presumably I'd also have factual issues that
I could debate if I felt the need.]
I also wouldn't mind so much if you instead simply spelled out
the issue(s) on which you have a difference of opinion.
But, instead, you seem to imply that your opinion has more
weight than those of legal professionals, which is totally at
odds with some of your disclaimers. Granted, this is
merely an implication -- not something you've stated outright --
but you have indicated that you're concerned about
If you want to be dismissed as an unthinking radical, I
guess I can be talked into describing you that way, but
I was under the impression that that was not at all what
you are trying to achieve.