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

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > The only way I know of to address these sorts of inconsistencies involves
> > examples.

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:06:00AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> If your point is that a significant portion of the enfranchised
> developers are nuts, then I have to point out the futility of trying
> to prove anything to them.

Foggy thinking is intrinsic to being human.  That doesn't make
discussion futile.

> But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been
> using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped.

That's an extremely foggy distinction.

> > Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy
> > all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no "fallback
> > position".  In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed documentation,
> > but I can't guarantee that that's all.

> There is no attempt here to point out the inherent contradiction -
> rather, you're trying to suggest that dropping non-free is somehow
> responsible for this.

I don't understand you here.

> > > (Or spread FUD)
> > 
> > This is the third time I've seen you use the term FUD on this list in
> > reference to my posts.  In no case do you seem to justify your use of
> > the term (What's the fear?  What's the uncertainty?  What's the doubt?)
> Uhh, it's not obvious?
>           <jargon> /fuhd/ An acronym invented by {Gene Amdahl}
>           after he left {IBM} to found his own company: "FUD is the
>           fear, uncertainty, and doubt that {IBM} sales people instill
>           in the minds of potential customers who might be considering
>           [Amdahl] products."  The idea, of course, was to persuade them
>           to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors'
>           equipment.  This implicit coercion was traditionally
>           accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to
>           people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the
>           future of competitors' equipment or software.
> The "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" is that a given position leads to
> an undesireable result. It is distinct from a real argument in that no
> justification or accurate description of the result is ever given,
> merely a suggestion that there will be one, and it will be bad. It is
> characterised by the way that it is impossible for anybody to respond
> (other than simply pointing out that it is FUD) because not enough
> details are given.
> See SCO for a classic example of FUD in practice.

So, in essence, you seem to be claiming that the above quoted paragraph
about GFDL documentation getting dropped from main doesn't provide enough
specifics to be refutable if it were false?

I don't understand how you could possibly think that.


Reply to: