Rick: Are you finished sidelining what was a fruitful discussion? I didn't talk about RMS and I'm not here to talk about sexual predators. I didn't even think of RMS when I brought this topic up.
To most of the rest of the list: I know most of you think Rick is out of line because I know you are good, thoughtful people. It's not remotely enough to ignore this sidelining in defense of a predator and hope it goes away. Take some community leadership here and speak up at the very least and illustrate what is out of line. If I was a survivor of RMS' harassment or a survivor of sexual assault or from a marginalized group, I'm pretty sure I'd have left by now. That's not acceptable. Eric On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 8:03 PM Rick Moen <[email protected]> wrote: > Quoting John Cowan ([email protected]): > > > That is true, but not yet applicable. So far we have only seen a request > > to discuss the idea, and we have discussed it. No request to draft a > > license has been forthcoming. > > The commonality lies in spending everyone's time on what, in my opinion, > and that of most regulars who've weighed in, is a particularly bad idea. > The fact that Eric hasn't _technically_ been drafting licence text > distracts from the point that license-discuss time/effort is better not > expended on bad ideas. (Obviously, some others starting with Eric > himself would dispute my assertion of it being a bad idea. I gladly > acknowledge this, just in anyone is unclear.) > > Also, FWIW, I think the distinction about him not yet drafting a licence > is just a bit questionable. He's discussed particular wording for a > Persona non Grata Preamble (not 'Prelude' as I stated upthread, sorry). > At that point, I would suggest we're talking licence wording, even if > carefully constrained to a NO-OP Preamble prepended solely to make an > ideological point. > > (The point is valid that some GNU invariant texts are considerable > annoyances, but we don't have to encourage and help more such things.) > > > > > Very simply, people who have strong emotions about these companies are > > usually against them, whereas people have strong emotions both for and > > against RMS. Using him as an example would just invite even more > > Sturm und Drang. > > My point about that was two-fold. My larger point is that Richard > Stallman, against whom Eric and some other signatories speaking for > LibrePlanet have a very public and very recent grudge, seems like an > excellent advance indicator of the typical uses to which a Persona non > Grata Preamble would be put, in practice. We would expect others to > quickly follow following that model, not so much the Exxon-Mobils and > ex-Monsanto Bayers of this world than the -- oh, I'm not sure who else > would be a recent target of two-minutes hates -- Jörg Schilling, maybe, > or was that all over by the late 2000s? Anyway, the names would > accumulate, gathering dust and reading like the typically grubby and > increasingly antique peeves they mostly would be, I predict, no matter > how prettied-up some were as merely required to make a project more > 'safe and inclusive'.[1] > > My smaller point is that I am disappointed Eric didn't disclose, while > making his proposal for a way to 'discourage and shame morally corrupt > users', that he'd recently spearheaded a major public anti-Stallman > effort for LibrePlanet, but that this inquiry is different and has > nothing to do with that. > > Had I been in Eric's shoes, I'd have said so to avert criticism in > advance, in the knowledge that the first thing attentive readers would > do is look up one's recent writings to look for signs of conflict of > interest or hidden agendas. > > If Eric now wishes to say this was not in any way part of his agenda, > fine, but it's curious he didn't anticipate that suspicion. > > > [1] At some risk of retribution from the gods of irony, I think I'll > advise Eric here about one additional serious problem (among many) in > his Persona non Grata Preamble proposal. His text included: > > These organizations and their employees are not welcome to participate > in PROJECT_NAME community. We intend to reject any issue submissions, > pull requests and support requests.... > > Over time, the primacy in any open source code of the right to fork is > going to make the above text look extremely clueless. Let's say Org A > compiles a no-goodniks list with finger-wagging text such as is quoted > above. Two years later, there's a fork, Org B manages the dominant > fork, and Org A dissolves. Three years further on, it's Org C. Yet, > the Persona non Grata Preamble for the covered code still proclaims to > all comers that no-longer-extant Org A, may its memory be for a > blessing, is firmly devoted to extending a non-welcome mat to a certain > list of evil people. This effect would be amusing if the comedy were > not inadvertent. > > Basically, Eric's conception assumes One True Management speaks for a > codebase. Which is exactly what open source avoids. > > -- > Cheers, "I am not a vegetarian because I love > animals; > Rick Moen I am a vegetarian because I hate plants." > [email protected] -- A. Whitney Brown > McQ! (4x80) > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
