On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:43:29 +0530
Sandip Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +++ Kenneth Gonsalves [23/06/08 13:13 +0530]:
> >of opensolaris is to be permitted on this list. Obviously advocacy of
> >anything proprietary is a no no. So what is the stand on advocacy of
> >something that is in the process of being opensourced?
>
> That is an excellent question, Kenneth. My point of view (I am hoping
> others can provide theirs, so that we can reach a consensus):
>
> * We welcome all discussions of FOSS.
> * We can tolerate announcements of FOSS OSes.
> * However, at the end of the day this is a Linux list, so
> advocacy(especially repeated advocacy) of non-Linux OSes dilutes the
> purpose of this list and so it is less than desirable.
> * Commercial intentions for advocacy of any solution - FOSS or not,
> should be made clear.
> * Defending a commercial FOSS solution against misinformation doesn't
> constitute advocacy.
> * We should be very careful against attempts to dilute the interpretation
> of FOSS principles, or any misleading claims which does so.
> * Advocacy of non-FOSS is a no-no to me. Announcements showing progress
> of open sourcing is fine - advocacy is not.
>
> What are other's take on these?
[...]
Thank you for that nice summary. I am far from being a free-software
purist, and am quite willing to accept discussions of projects that are
in the process of being open-sourced, or even ones where people are
trying to convince a project to go open-source.
My initial objection, which seems to have got lost in this discussion of
proprietary vs. open-source, was also about people with a vested interest
in a particular project/company using this list as a vehicle for advocacy
of that project/company. I would have as much of a problem with someone
from Redhat constantly promoting Fedora, or someone from Canonical
always promoting Ubuntu. So, I would add another item to your above list
of what is acceptable:
* In case of grey areas, the proponent of the solution needs to be a
regular list participant on other topics, and also declare any
potential conflicts of interest. A declaration in the signature, as
I apparently missed in Angad's, should suffice, if one has once
made a full declaration on the list.
(Angad, the above is not specifically directed against you. From reading
your replies, I am willing to accept that you have a real difference of
opinion on the subject, and I think that it is best that we let that
particular subject die. The above description was the way that I saw it,
but I can accept that you have a different perspective. I do continue to
believe that the above is unacceptable.)
Regards,
Gora
_______________________________________________
ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi
http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
