Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 01:15:22AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 8/4/05, Diego Biurrun <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 07:24:33PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > > If a public figure as remarkable as RMS does not choose to gather
> > > sizable donations to his preferred charity in return for his speaking
> > > engagements, then perhaps conference organizers should be prepared for
> > > the eccentric behavior that is occasionally reported.
> > You wouldn't - AGAIN - be saying bad things about somebody in public
> > with nothing more than rumors to back it up, would you?
> It's controversial to say that RMS is occasionally reported to behave
> eccentrically? And that being a conference speaker doesn't
> necessarily stop him?
No. But this is not what you are implying in the paragraph above. You
imply that he takes the liberty to misbehave due to the fact that he
does not get money for his speaking engagements. This is controversial
and what is worse, you have (again) no facts to back it up.
> Try the CODE conference in 2001, reported at
You're not seriously presenting this polemic diatribe as fact here,
> > Not being a native speaker I'll have to admit that there are subtleties
> > in English that escape me. You are directly questioning another person's
> > character with your - unsubstantiated - theories and spreading those
> > claims in public. This is extremely rude and at some point crosses over
> > into the realm of what dict.leo.org translates into English as slander
> > or libel.
> Dude, the guy's a public figure, he advocates public policy positions
> which are intimately tied to his personal fortunes, he participates in
> and condones the repetition of what my research (IANAL) says is a
> false set of claims about how copyright licenses work -- claims whose
> truth or falsity has real consequences -- and if you actually bother
> to _read_ what I wrote you'll see that I never stated more than a
> suspicion based on what public evidence I had dug up so far.
> "Slander" and "libel" are serious accusations and if you don't know
> what they mean it's incautious at best to sling them around.
I _have_ read what you wrote and in contrast to you I have never
misstated your words.
What you are/were doing are serious accusations. For a public figure
like RMS his reputation and integrity are everything and attacking them
is serious indeed. Thus it's not only uncautious but rude to go around
uttering suspicions based on what somebody who once had a quarrel with
RMS implied on a random webpage in a public forum like this mailing list.
In my legislation you cross the border to slander/libel with these
things at some point. But that's not the point. It's serious enough
even without the legal implications so let's drop this particular issue.
> Diego, I don't care whether you get anything out of what I write or
> not. Nor do I think that anyone who gives two shakes about what the
> truth is cares whether _you_ "judge [my] evidence poorly researched";
> they're presumably going to judge for themselves.
Of course they are, but you are quoting me out of context. You were
talking to me directly and I gave you my opinion.
> But I do feel a little down about this particular episode (my cynicism
> got the better of me, in a mild sort of way, thinking about the
> enrichment potential of the rubber-chicken circuit), and I don't
> particularly like being kicked while I'm down. I doubt it impresses
> anyone else, either.
If you can't stand the heat...
Seriously Michael, you have no problem with telling other people off,
even in terms that these people find insulting. You happen to be on the
receiving end right now. Deal with it. If you wish to avoid this in
the future, treat people in a different way.
I don't mean to refuse an outstretched hand, though. I'll go on vacation
tomorrow and would very much like to put this flamefest to an end.