polite expression ...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| henke54 Sep 03, 2007 7:21 AM EDT |
esr quote : >This is not behavior that we, as a community, can live with. Despite my previous determination, I find I'm almost ready to recommend that OSI tell Microsoft to ram its licenses up one of its own orifices, even if they are technically OSD compliant. Because what good is it to conform to the letter of OSD if you're raping its spirit?< polite expression for :" shove it up ur ass"..... ;-P |
| dinotrac Sep 03, 2007 7:38 AM EDT |
The problem with this problem is that Microsoft wins either way. If they submit a perfectly good free software license and it gets rejected, PR is "See, we told you! These are not reasonable people. They don't care about you and they don't care about freedom. They just hate us." And, of course, in a way, they'll be right. Not exactly right. There are perfectly good reasons to despise Microsoft. But...To change the rules when they play by the rules turns you into something you would rather not be: an echo of them. |
| herzeleid Sep 03, 2007 10:06 AM EDT |
> To change the rules when they play by the rules turns you into something you would rather not be: an echo of them. So, unless we lie down and meekly tolerate their ballot-stuffing, arm-twisting and corruption of the ISO process, we're a "echo" of microsoft? Come now, you strain my credulity. |
| azerthoth Sep 03, 2007 10:19 AM EDT |
There is a difference between when they dont play by the rules (OOXML) and when they do (Submission of their own OSS license). Using one to argue the other is false logic. Each topic must stand or fall on its own merits. It is very much like taking a man who has been convicted of drunk driving and saying because he has done that he must also be guilty of beating his wife. |
| herzeleid Sep 03, 2007 10:38 AM EDT |
Ah, I see - there are 2 different processes here. They've shown what they're up to with the ooxml standards debacle, but with their so-called oss licenses, they haven't been quite so blatant. I see your point. But this isn't about sending them to jail. Here is a better analogy: If we find that someone has committed a series of rapes and assaults, we would probably do well to reject their job application at the pre-school. |
| dinotrac Sep 03, 2007 11:05 AM EDT |
>Here is a better analogy: If we find that someone has committed a series of rapes and assaults, we would probably do well to reject their job application at the pre-school. So far as I know, Microsoft has not been accused of committing a series of rapes. Beyond that, developers, while often childish, are not innocent young children who need to be protected from Nasty Men. Last I looked, criminals are allowed to seek employment, buy homes, start families, etc. Besides, not only is the ISO stuff far from over, shared initials are not sufficient to make the OSI arbiter of their problems. Besides, a useful license (which is what we're talking about) is a useful license. If it meets the standards, it becomes available to everybody. How is that a bad thing. Again, it seems like we have a case of people who simply do not trust free and open processes. |
| herzeleid Sep 03, 2007 12:34 PM EDT |
Quoting: dino: So far as I know, Microsoft has not been accused of committing a series of rapes.Not too clear on the concept of analogies, are we? Let's see if I can clarify: Microsoft indeed has a long track record of thuggish behavior which has been well documented elsewhere. If you really don't have any idea what I'm referring to, I'll give you some references. Quoting: dino: Last I looked, criminals are allowed to seek employment, buy homes, start families, etc.Last I looked, convicted felons are under all sorts of restrictions in the areas you mentioned. Hmm, how can I make this clear.. OK, here's a question, since you seem to indicate that you'll bend over backwards to give the offender the benefit of the doubt: Do you have a daughter? If so, would you hire a convicted rapist as her chauffeur? If not, why not, and how do you reconcile that with your statements above? |
| dinotrac Sep 03, 2007 4:08 PM EDT |
>Last I looked, convicted felons are under all sorts of restrictions in the areas you mentioned. Not that I'm aware of. Sex offenders have special restrictions on them, but they are a special case. >Do you have a daughter? If so, would you hire a convicted rapist as her chauffeur? I have three daughters and you question is so moronic I shouldn't even give it the dignity of calling it out for what it is. >If not, why not, and how do you reconcile that with your statements above? There is nothing to reconcile. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 03, 2007 6:00 PM EDT |
I am very pleased to be in complete agreement with Dino here. Microsoft wins. They either get to say, "See? We are cooperating!" or "See? They don't play fair!" It's a win-win for them. Please go watch _A Man For All Seasons_. Specifically the "I would give the Devil the benefit of law" speech. Fantastic, and very applicable to any discussion about Microsoft. Luckily, this discussion is not about physically violent criminals. While emotionally gratifying, I do not believe the analogy works if taken beyond mere posturing. Now, con-artist or late-night infomercial fraud? I think Microsoft is spot on with those. |
| azerthoth Sep 03, 2007 6:09 PM EDT |
Oh geez, a Lawyer, an Anarchist, and a closet Libertarian all in agreement. Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 03, 2007 6:22 PM EDT |
Az, if Ron Paul wins the nomination it just might very well be. In the immortal words of the present oval office resident, "Bring In On!" But your first sentence sounds very much like the opening line of a joke. "A Lawyer, and Anarchist and a Libertarian walk into a bar. Gee, you think the second one would have noticed it!" |
| dinotrac Sep 03, 2007 6:23 PM EDT |
>Oh geez, a Lawyer, an Anarchist, and a closet Libertarian all in agreement. Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? I can only report my present state of apprehension. Against all odds, reason reigns. I await the falling sky. PS: >Please go watch _A Man For All Seasons_. Specifically the "I would give the Devil the benefit of law" speech. Fantastic, and very applicable to any discussion about Microsoft. Wow!!!! Yes, but it's been too long for me. Henry VIII and Herman's Hermits "Henry the 8th" get mixed up for me. Will have to watch that sucker again. Surely it's on DVD? |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 03, 2007 6:28 PM EDT |
> Will have to watch that sucker again. Surely it's on DVD? Pretty sure, let me check... http://www.mininova.org/tor/677317 Yep, that says "DVD rip". |
| herzeleid Sep 03, 2007 6:34 PM EDT |
Quoting: dino: I have three daughters and you question is so moronic I shouldn't even give it the dignity of calling it out for what it is.I sense that you are reacting in anger here - but if you could try to detach yourself and answer my question objectively, I'd at least have some idea what your reasoning is on this matter. Are we never to learn from the behavior of others? Is there no point at which we can classify a chronic offender as unworthy of our complete trust? I still have no idea what your logic is here. |
| jdixon Sep 03, 2007 6:43 PM EDT |
> Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? Probably, especially since I agree, and I'm not a "closet" libertarian. As much as it pains me, Microsoft deserves to be treated exactly the same as any other applicant. |
| dinotrac Sep 03, 2007 6:45 PM EDT |
>I'd at least have some idea what your reasoning is on this matter. If you haven't gotten it yet, you won't. Face it: If Bob, azerthoth and I manage to see the logic, how obtuse can it be? We've, um, been known to argue. |
| dinotrac Sep 03, 2007 6:50 PM EDT |
>As much as it pains me, Microsoft deserves to be treated exactly the same as any other applicant. Would it ease your pain if I restated the case just a scoonch? Microsoft doesn't deserve any kindness. OTOH, we deserve the benefit of a process that is principled and just. We deserve the confidence in leaders who do not try to emulate the worst behaviors in those around them. In short, we are the real benfeciaries, and Microsoft is merely the unwitting proxy. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 03, 2007 6:55 PM EDT |
> Are we never to learn from the behavior of others? Is there no point at which we can classify a chronic offender as unworthy of our complete trust? Who is "we"? I think that needs to be answered first. I already do not trust Microsoft further than I can throw their Redmond campus. The OSI created a definition. If they themselves do not follow that definition, does the definition have any meaning? If I had a time machine, I would go back and suggest that the OSI put a caveat in their definition. Something like, "Under extraordinary circumstances, a license may also be rejected by a majority vote of the OSI board." I am an engineer, not a lawyer, so I'm sure the appropriate wording would be somewhat different. |
| herzeleid Sep 03, 2007 8:30 PM EDT |
Quoting: dino: If you haven't gotten it yet, you won't.You seem to imply, among other things, that I'm alone in my doubts about microsoft's intentions. You know dino, if someone disagrees with you, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are stupid. It could be they see some angles that you don't. In any case, I'm happy to agree to disagree agreeably about this, and just wait and see how these things play out over time. I'd be delighted if you're right BTW. |
| dinotrac Sep 03, 2007 8:45 PM EDT |
>You seem to imply, among other things, that I'm alone in my doubts about microsoft's intentions. I imply nothing of the sort. I state quite clearly that you will not understand my position. Your statement, quoted above, makes that point quite well given that the only thing I've said in this thread that remotely touches on Microsoft's intentions was this: > There are perfectly good reasons to despise Microsoft. Hmmm. Yup, I must really like those guys and trust them without question. |
| gus3 Sep 03, 2007 8:46 PM EDT |
Quoting:Luckily, this discussion is not about physically violent criminals.No, but it is about a company that sends its hired goons into board meetings and legislative committees, disguised as "businessmen" in black suits and ties and even sunglasses, whose sole purpose is to impose Microsoft's version of "law and order" upon the gathering in question. http://www.linux.com/articles/61481 This story is far more common than many realize. |
| dinotrac Sep 03, 2007 8:54 PM EDT |
>No, but it is about a company that sends its hired goons into board meetings and legislative committees, Which company is that? I'm afraid your description doesn't narrow the field very much. |
| herzeleid Sep 03, 2007 9:19 PM EDT |
Quoting: dino: Which company is that? I'm afraid your description doesn't narrow the field very much.Are you being deliberately obtuse, or have you merely been living under a rock for the last month? I'm sure everyone else here knows exactly which company is being referred to. |
| gus3 Sep 03, 2007 9:21 PM EDT |
{Obi-wan}Click the link, dino.{/Obi-wan} |
| dinotrac Sep 03, 2007 9:27 PM EDT |
gus3 - Oh goodness, you must be a babe in the woods. Here's a little hint: Microsoft did not invent these tactics. Perhaps you've heard of the tobacco industry, the alcohol industry, the movie industry, pharmaceuticals, etc,etc,etc,etc,etc. There's a whole big wide wonderful/terrible world out there, chilluns. |
| gus3 Sep 03, 2007 9:37 PM EDT |
Oh yeah, a lot of good those tactics did with tobacco, with all the taxes and the fines and the forced "donations" they had to make for the anti-smoking commercials and cancer treatments and and and... The RIAA and the MPAA are in the process of getting their comeuppances, too. Do you, or have you, educated your children about the dangers of alcohol, tobacco, drugs (even prescriptions)? That's what we're trying to do here, except that the addiction at hand is Microsoft. You made a nice attempt at distraction, but I don't care that Microsoft didn't invent these tactics. That is immaterial to the discussion. Just because someone else did it first, makes it no more "OK" for Microsoft to do it now. |
| azerthoth Sep 03, 2007 9:44 PM EDT |
Isnt it nice how we can be having a dsicussion over license issues and then all kinds of things just pop up. Nice distraction gus. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 03, 2007 9:52 PM EDT |
> That's what we're trying to do here, except that the addiction at hand is Microsoft. No, you're talking about punishing Microsoft because they do things you don't like. Educating others to avoid Microsoft is not the same thing. There is no one contradicting that Microsoft is a corrupt, greedy and destructive organization. The best anyone has said is that _if_ Microsoft submits a license that fits the OSI license definition, _then_ that license must, by definition, receive approval. Otherwise, the definition is worthless. Microsoft has already tarnished the ISO, shall we help them do it to the OSI as well? |
| gus3 Sep 03, 2007 10:30 PM EDT |
Azerthoth:Quoting:Isnt it nice how we can be having a dsicussion over license issues and then all kinds of things just pop up.I was responding to an earlier point, by saying that such a comparison was not as far off the mark as the earlier commenter indicated, and I provided a link to buttress my stance. Bob_Robertson: Quoting:There is no one contradicting that Microsoft is a corrupt, greedy and destructive organization.Don't forget convicted monopolist, and Bill Gates is a convicted perjurer. Quoting:The best anyone has said is that _if_ Microsoft submits a license that fits the OSI license definition, _then_ that license must, by definition, receive approval.If Microsoft is a destructive organization, as you say, why is the OSI required to allow Microsoft to play them for puppets and fools, and ultimately discredit and destroy them? Microsoft's whole purpose in this fiasco is the elimination of competition coming from FOSS. Anyone thinking Microsoft now wants to "play nice" is only being naive. To say that their actions with the ISO and the OSI are unrelated, or acting from different purposes, strains my credulity at best. Say what you will about ESR, and some (or all) of it may be true, but I think he points out the larger picture well in this case. |
| jdixon Sep 04, 2007 2:33 AM EDT |
> Would it ease your pain if I restated the case just a scoonch? Not really, Dino. This is the immature, childish part of me that wants to see Microsoft treated the way they've treated so many others. The mature, responsible part realizes that we're winning (at least in part) because we're better than that. But that doesn't shut down that small inner voice. :( |
| dinotrac Sep 04, 2007 3:25 AM EDT |
>You made a nice attempt at distraction, but I don't care that Microsoft didn't invent these tactics. That is immaterial to the discussion. Just because someone else did it first, makes it no more "OK" for Microsoft to do it now. Oh please. You are the distracted one. The question is whether or not the OSI should follow its own policies and principles, not whether Microsoft is a heavy-handed lout of a company. Should we disdain the GPL and GNU software because RMS can be total jerk? Hardly. |
| dinotrac Sep 04, 2007 3:26 AM EDT |
>Bill Gates is a convicted perjurer. I think you're wrong about that. Care to provide some evidence? |
| dinotrac Sep 04, 2007 3:31 AM EDT |
> If Microsoft is a destructive organization, as you say, why is the OSI required to allow Microsoft to play them for puppets and fools, and ultimately discredit and destroy them? How can you possibly discredit puppets and fools? If the folks at OSI are puppets and fools, this whole conversation is pointless because OSI itself is pointless. If they are not puppets and fools, this whole conversation is pointless because OSI will do the right thing. Personally, my little fantasy has ESR passing out pieces from his gun collection with instructions that no Redmondite is to get within earshot of the process until it's done. Hmmm...Knowing ESR, that might not be so far into the realm of fantasy. ;0) |
| tracyanne Sep 04, 2007 3:51 AM EDT |
Quoting:polite expression for :" shove it up ur ass"..... ;-P And what has the poor donkey ever done to deserve such treatment? |
| dinotrac Sep 04, 2007 4:18 AM EDT |
>And what has the poor donkey ever done to deserve such treatment? You ever been around a donkey? |
| theboomboomcars Sep 04, 2007 5:30 AM EDT |
It seems to me that the worst thing that could happen from MS getting a license approved by the OSI, is that they may release opensource software. But if the OSI denies a perfectly legitimate license because MS submitted it then MS wins. If MS gets a license approved and then proceeds to claim they are an opensource company to try to get people from switching to open programs, without releasing anything under their license, then they will get burned bad. There is a big difference between saying "We have an OSI approved license" and "We have these opensource programs". As long as the license guarantees freedom, who cares who submitted it? |
| dinotrac Sep 04, 2007 5:48 AM EDT |
boomboom - By Jove, I think he's got it! As Bob pointed out earlier, it's a win-win for Microsoft. They simply cannot lose in this proposition. The same is not true for OSI. They win if they follow their principles and procedures. They lose if they don't. |
| henke54 Sep 04, 2007 8:17 AM EDT |
>And what has the poor donkey ever done to deserve such treatment? @tracyanne : ...i know...the word 'ass' is sometimes 'inappropriate language' ....but it seems... the word 'linux' also ... :-P --> http://ut2004.titaninternet.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=22... |
| gus3 Sep 04, 2007 9:21 AM EDT |
@dino:Quoting:>Bill Gates is a convicted perjurer.Sorry, it was Jim Allchin, not Bill Gates. During the MS antitrust trial, Allchin provided video evidence, which turned out to have been fouled. He was fined for this by the judge. |
| dinotrac Sep 04, 2007 9:50 AM EDT |
> He was fined for this by the judge. Allchin may have been fined, but he was not convicted of perjury, which is a criminal offense unto itself. |
| jdixon Sep 04, 2007 10:41 AM EDT |
> ...but he was not convicted of perjury, which is a criminal offense unto itself. Can be, Dino, can be. As I recall, our esteemed former President was convicted of civil perjury, not criminal perjury. So it apparently can be either a civil or criminal offense. I don't remember the details of the Allchin testimony, so I can't say exactly what transpired. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 04, 2007 10:51 AM EDT |
I think there is far, far too little prosecution for perjury. There is the 5th if one does not wish to answer, but if one does answer then answer the truth. |
| dinotrac Sep 04, 2007 10:56 AM EDT |
>As I recall, our esteemed former President was convicted of civil perjury, not criminal perjury. I think you're confusing the underlying action with the act of perjury itself. While true that perjury in a civil case is very rarely prosecuted, it is a criminal act, just like perjury in a criminal case. Perjury is a crime against the state -- it is, essentially, an attack on the court. It is prosecuted by the state...ummm... prosecutors. |
| jdixon Sep 04, 2007 11:27 AM EDT |
> While true that perjury in a civil case is very rarely prosecuted, it is a criminal act, just like perjury in a criminal case. I yield to the voice of experience. :) All I know is the press and the court made a big deal of the fact that it was a civil decision and not a criminal one in Clinton's case. |
| dinotrac Sep 04, 2007 11:33 AM EDT |
>All I know is the press and the court made a big deal of the fact that it was a civil decision and not a criminal one in Clinton's case. I could be wrong, but I'll bet the press was talking about the nature of the case from which the perjury stemmed, and not the perjury itself. It's entirely possible that nobody considers perjury in a civil case to be as serious as perjury in a criminal case, but that's a question of severity, not nature. |
| jdixon Sep 04, 2007 12:06 PM EDT |
> ...but I'll bet the press was talking about the nature of the case from which the perjury stemmed, and not the perjury itself. Probably, but if so they were being purposely vague on the matter. Which shouldn't really surprise me any, given the noted media biases. Hmm, a Google search indicates that he was actually convicted for contempt of court for (presumably) giving false information under oath. His law license in Arkansas was suspended as a result. Whether that qualifies as perjury or not could probably be debated. Unfortunately, real information (as opposed to opinion) is sparse among the results. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!