Hal Vaughan wrote:
I am sorry for making an "ad hominem" attack as I was merely looking for intellectual discussion.I have to mention that I've come close, in this case, to an ad hominem attack. While, in most cases, I don't think the person making an argument makes a difference, in the case of something like this I think it plays a part in the discussion. For instance, if Bill Gates is saying it is immoral to give away software for free, we have to be aware of who is saying it. On the other hand, if Billy said, "It's immoral to charge for software, I see the light, and I'm giving my fortune away to charity," (and before anyone mentions his foundation, his father and wife have said it was VERY hard for them to convince Bill to start it), then it gives the argument a certain credibility it never had before.I don't know Lee. I do know he contributes to at least one FOSS project, which I commend him for. If, however, (and I'm not saying this is true, Lee, so it's not intended as a statement or too offend), it turns out that Lee is so chincy he uses coupons when he takes a date out, then that enters into a discussion, since his position on morality may be based solely on his unwillingness to pay for the results of another person's efforts. If he is, for example, a college student who has never held a full time job, and who has benefited from wealthy parents, he may be speaking completely from a theoretical viewpoint, and does not have the world experience to see there is a lot more to this than what he knows. On the other hand, if he has to pay the bills on his own and found out the only things he did really well were programming, or writing, or performing, then I'd say at least he is not only standing by his principles, but is willing to pay the price they require. On the other hand, if he is that college student, or a chincy scrooge, then I'd say he has a right to his opinion (as do we all), but that it is an opinion based on ignorance and lack of willingness or experience in facing the consequences of his beliefs.(Just to be clear, Lee, I am NOT saying you are any of these, I'm just making a point that in a discussion like this, someone's experience makes a lot of difference in the strength of their position.)
Well, I certainly did not questions Lee's dedication to FOSS.I don't think I really did launch an ad hominem but merely poorly worded my rebuttal. I didn't intend to call Lee silly, merely his complaints. There is a difference. But I apologized because he took offense. We all have transgressions and if I had known his position was so dearly held I would have come from a different angle.
I don't really agree with your statement above Hal.We are debating the applicability of ideals to a specific instance and not the ideals themselves. So I don't really care what Lee's or your background is unless it is knowledge of the publication being discussed.
And I think we three are all speculating. <snip>
Thank you. I bought it up because, after seeing the absolutism of his posts, I could only wonder if this situation and all the ramifications had been explored. Life is full of not just grey shades, but myriads of rainbows of color, and whenever I see someone presenting everything in black and white, I always wonder how they can see only one point of view.
thanks for saying this
Lee what is the problem with six weeks? Do you really think that, as in your first post, " withholding that information might put free software projects/communities at risk, if it's something to do with the proprietary world's aggressive actions, for example." this magazine would be the only source that would have such information? This is why I think you are being silly.I'd have to agree that the idea of a six week delay being harmful for those who don't want to pay is harmful. It might be different if the magazine were a publication about security threats and viruses, but even there, most of the people with the most to lose and in danger are more likely to afford to be able to subscribe.Hal
This appears contradictory to me. Did you mean to state it thus? You provide a perfect example of how six weeks could be harmful. I don't have the impression that this instance is such a case. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.3 - Release Date: 3/25/2005