----- "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> But for example, I'm not sure Ian Jackson's interpretation of the CoC
> may be all that healthy, especially if (as I suspect) one could
> probably look for times when Stallman has spoken, perhaps even at a
> Debian event, where RMS would have run afoul of Ian's interpretation
> of the CoC. When the CoC is used as a cudgel to supress conversation
> about opinions about morality, I'm going to gently suggest that this
> is not particularly healthy. But hey, if that's where Debian wants
> to go, it has the right as a community to decide to go there.
One incident springs to my mind. Long ago, when Qt was closed source,
Richard loudly took issue with the fact that SuSE distributed GPL
code linked against the library. I pointed out that the FSF had
distributed versions of Emacs that were linked against Motif on
Solaris and, therefore, that the FSF seemed to interpret the GPL in
whatever way fit their purposes at a given time. I also pointed out
that this was doubly true since Qt shipped with SuSE for free on the
same disk whereas Motif was a for-pay (and expensive) add on for
Solaris (system library exception).
Richard's carefully reasoned response was to scream "SHUT UP! SHUT UP!
SHUT UP!" at me. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have complied with the
CoC. Unfortunately we didn't have one back then so I couldn't demand
an apology.
--
Please respect the privacy of this mailing list. Some posts may be declassified
3 years after posting as per http://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002
Archive: file://master.debian.org/~debian/archive/debian-private/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the web form at <http://db.debian.org/>.
|
|
