On Thursday, 11 September 2014 at 14:14:38 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
Protip: Stop categorising people in a blurry way and making unsound general statements about those categories if you want your points to be understood.
Which unsound general statement? If you are talking about my response to Dicebot it was "mirroring" his own arguments to make him realize where he was going. Basically outlining the consequences of his own rhetorics.
AFAICS, the Boost license is just about opting out of possibly annoying defaults of copyright law. I see no reason to adopt an ideology over this.
I don't understand this statement. I would not touch a code base that is not under PD, Boost, BSD or MIT for very pragmatic reasons. Those pragmatic reasons is that I don't want my freedom to be tied down.
If the community is trying to undermine the license through what might be described as "verbal abuse", then the license is put in doubt. I can then not assume that the next version will be released under the same license. That makes the source code less attractive. This is what Dicebot achieves. The question is, is this what the original authored wanted? And why should Dicebot have the privilege to undermine the license? This is a trust issue.
How has your 'freedom' been 'restricted', if at all?
Look up the word "shunning".
(BTW: freedom becomes a non-trivial concept as soon as more than one entity should be free.)
I don't know what you are talking about. The license grants your freedoms. If a third party try to restrict that freedom using threats or verbal abuse then they are doing something wrong. This ought to be obvious.
I am still perplexed by the whole "valued member" rhetorical element Dicebot uses. He seems to place an unusual emphasis on the need to evaluate other people. I'd frankly suggest he deal with those issues somewhere else.
