On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 10:20:24AM -0500, larry gensch wrote: > Dominick recently wrote: > > > Wrapping up the answers to several posts: > > > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 09:26:45AM +0100, Uwe Pross wrote: > > > Good morning Fvwm Workers, > > > > > > How about making a statement on the fvwm web site instead > > > of a new license? > > > > Strictly speaking, it is no more than a statement, not a license. > > I call it a license and put it in the sources in order to force > > Linux distributors to mention it. I do not want that it can be > > completely ignored. And I will not tinker with the "license" > > until no more than drivel remains. > > But why call it a license in the first place?
For psychological reasons. Statement are generally ignored by people who do not agree with them from the start. > I don't have any problem with people reacting to controversial events, > or even them making their feelings known, whether or not I agree with > them. > If this is no more than a statement, as you claim, then you should > call it an ETHICAL_STATMENT (or DOMINICKS_ETHICAL_STATEMENT if you > wish to split hairs) and declare that you hope that fvwm isn't used to > ... Oh well, this is a big misunderstanding. I do not *hope* that my work is not misused. Actually I *know* that it is misused. I *demand* that is is not. I do not plan to make it a legal issue, but an ethical one. With the whole statement I do not want to express that I am sorry that wars (etc.) happen, but demand that my work is not used to make them happen. Everything less would only be a parody of my motives. > further agendas that you disagree with, such as warmaking, terrorism, > and other things that are Not Healthy For Children And Other Living > Things. Whether or not it is ignored is immaterial. > By calling what you've written a license will make Linux distributors > want to shy away from fvwm. RedHat has already dropped fvwm from its > distribution (for other reasons, I should point out), and I know for a > fact that Debian will not distribute anything that appears to attempt > to dilute the GPL. Are we looking to be dropped by everybody? If > this is your desire, then your message will not be seen by anybody! Anyone who cares to read the statement should be able to verify that it is not a legal license within two minutes. If that is not enough - tough luck. > In addition, I have seen at least one response to your "license" from > a developer that claims that he supports the current conflict. That > developer should have as much right as you to add his own language to > that statement, or provide his own separate statement as a matter of > ballance. And I do not deny this right. Everybody is welcome to do so, and I will not lift a finger to prevent that. I can live perfectly well with different opinions. But I have and claim the right to state my opinion about using the work I created in hundreds of hours of voluntary work, even in a way that some people find annoying. > Dominick, I feel your pain, and even share your frustration at recent > events, but I really feel that what you are doing is not good for > fvwm, nor is it good for the fvwm community. Did I ever say or even suggest that the statement is intended to be good for fvwm? When human lives are at risk, how can I seriously consider by how many people a mere set of bits and bytes is used? > I seriously urge you to reconsider your actions. I have reconsidered them a lot, and I listen to all of the criticism. I have removed all strict requirements from what I had in mind at first. What remains can be ignored, without any legal impact. But I will *not* make it easy to ignore. The statement is not intended as some general bla bla which everybody can agree to without even thinking about it. Bye Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
