Re: non-free and users?
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:02:41PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-19 18:44:23 +0000 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:53:31PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>
> >>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.
>
> Indeed, it could be, but I think the long thread shows that he really
> does regard it as unethical, in his opinion. Ultimately, most ethics
> are a matter of opinion and not codified.
Sure, and he really is insulting me and all my fellow non-free
maintainer by that. I think he don't realize this, which is why i
stepped forth in this.
> >>malice against you personally, or any other developer, as he took
> >Well, slander without intentions is still slander.
>
> At least in UK law, slander is a type of "malicious falsehood", so
> slander without malice cannot be.
Well, whatever, i am no english native speaker, so please excuse me.
> >[...] 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.
>
> Fine then, say that you are gravely offended and request an apology,
> but do not start throwing accusations of illegal acts around. I do not
> think you are going to take him to court, so I do not understand why
> you call "slander" over the list.
Because my mastery of the subtilities of the english tongue is not so
good ?
> >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. [...]
>
> No, I think he considers it wrong. I am not aware of him commenting on
> technical aspects of your packaging.
Sure, he comes forth, and say that _my_ work is wrong.
The problem is, that all his discussion about ethicalness is based on
some abstract non-free package, and does not take in consideration the
100 or so actual maintainers of non-free package, who don't really care
to be threated as unethically.
Also, the aim of this whole thing is to discredit the people who
advocate that we should not drop non-free, and thus it is similar to an
under the belt kind of thing in a real-world election or something such.
I thus continue in the opinion that he is misbehaving and using
arguments that are slanderous to the non-free maintainers.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: