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

Re: non-free and users?

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:53:31PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-19 14:20:47 +0000 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> 
> wrote:
> >I want you to stop this diffamation, and retract your unfunded
> >accusations,
> First, it was offered as comment. Second, justification for why he 
> regards it as unethical was given. Finally, I don't think there was 

Well, slander with argumentation is still slander.

> malice against you personally, or any other developer, as he took 

Well, slander without intentions is still slander.

> pains to point out. I doubt many would consider it defamation, which 
> normally involves malicious presentation of falsehood as fact, as I 

But then, he repeatedly state that my action as non-free packager,
instead of being considered as a gift of my free time and my work to the
world, is instead considered non-ethically. In this he is gravely
offending me, as well as any other non-free packager, and the least
would be excuses for this, and retractation of the accusation.

> understand it. Further, I can't find a successful case being made for 
> describing something as "unethical" being defamation. IANAL, though.

Well, what do you understand as non-ethical. It is a global word where
you put all things in it that are not correct/good/whatever, and it
includes all kind of crimes and such, does it not ?

But then, i am not a english native speaker, i may have misunderstood,
but still i believe the intent is there, that he (and all other remove
non-free defenders here) consider my work as non-free packager, as
inferior and not worthy of mention. 

> I suggest you note your disagreement with his opinion and cease 
> posting to the list about it unless something new develops.

No, i expect that he stops claiming it as non-ethically, and makes

I don't think it is ok to see you being slandered all over this mailing
list, and then be expected to just remain silent on this issue.


Sven Luther

Reply to: