| 1 |
On 25/06/18 17:54, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, M J Everitt wrote: |
| 3 |
>> By contrast, Gentoo is likely to have been cobbled together by a |
| 4 |
>> consensus of unqualified persons, |
| 5 |
> I would wish you would argue about the facts, instead of resorting to |
| 6 |
> an ad-hominem argument. Or, if you believe that you're not qualified |
| 7 |
> for the former, simply abstain from posting. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>> and is quite unlikely to be defended in court, -should- it come to |
| 10 |
>> that (see recent legal case of McHardy et al). |
| 11 |
> See? Apparently all these "large organisations" with their highly |
| 12 |
> qualified lawyers hadn't understood the consequences of the |
| 13 |
> termination clause in section 4 of GPL-2, which is there since 1985. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> (And yes, I am aware that they try to band-aid it by imposing |
| 16 |
> additional restrictions on top of the GPL.) |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Ulrich |
| 19 |
With a lack of mail signature with one's qualifications attached (very |
| 20 |
90s I know..) it is hard to get an accurate grip on any individuals |
| 21 |
particular expertise. I see a hell of a lot of bike-shedding by people |
| 22 |
who definitely *think* they know about a subject, without a clear |
| 23 |
indication of where this comes from. I have no problem with people |
| 24 |
talking with authority (IANAL excepting), but if anyone is actively OR |
| 25 |
passively refusing to disclose their sources, is it really unreasonable |
| 26 |
to ask someone to justify their arguments? We're pretty good in doing |
| 27 |
this in code/GLEPs/etc .. why can't we do it in other just-as technical |
| 28 |
discussions? (I have absolutely no issue with footnoting either, it's a |
| 29 |
very neat, compact way to achieve the required result). |
Archives