Comment Re:Jeez (Score 1) 242
"But that isn't true--you cannot have a piece of open source software (i.e., something that meets the definition of open source) "
Hmm this maybe a semantic issue and as I am not up on
all the correct definitions I'll concede as stated you maybe right.
How about even with this license some people may produce
freely availalbe code that may be used folks on the Net.
"It's clear that you feel uncomfortable with when I restate your position in the way I did"
Well as it does not come close to reflecting what I feel my postions is I do have some issues with it. Particularly
calling my conviction into question and stating I believe
as OSS developers are relgious zealot whose opinions
I reject out of hand.
"You just don't recognize that such a suggestion is pretty much the same as if you said "guys, why don't you consider giving up on this OSS stuff altogether and just develop proprietary software"
Wow an excellent use of the logical fallacy of the false delimma allow me to compliment you.
The IETF also has rules/guiding principle and such, so you
are saying OSS's rules should trump those?
I'm not saying they are correct or that your principles are
any less worthy just that you entire argument could
be turned on its head and used to support an IETF postion.
Please note I have never said OSS developer should write
this software using this license just that they should examine
the whole pciture before rejecting it. Your argument
was this the licenses are complety incompatible and thats a
legal fact. Maybe you are the worlds greatest IP lawyer
I don't know but I found that claimto be an exaggeration.
I seriously doubt the IETF is trying to tell OSS developers
anything. They are trying to navigate amoung a disperate
set of vendors and interest to create an Internet that works.
In additon they have all the political BS and stupidity that
happens anytime you get a group of people together.
I am sure they are aware there is a cost to not having OSS
folks working on software that supports their protocols.
Hmm this maybe a semantic issue and as I am not up on
all the correct definitions I'll concede as stated you maybe right.
How about even with this license some people may produce
freely availalbe code that may be used folks on the Net.
"It's clear that you feel uncomfortable with when I restate your position in the way I did"
Well as it does not come close to reflecting what I feel my postions is I do have some issues with it. Particularly
calling my conviction into question and stating I believe
as OSS developers are relgious zealot whose opinions
I reject out of hand.
"You just don't recognize that such a suggestion is pretty much the same as if you said "guys, why don't you consider giving up on this OSS stuff altogether and just develop proprietary software"
Wow an excellent use of the logical fallacy of the false delimma allow me to compliment you.
The IETF also has rules/guiding principle and such, so you
are saying OSS's rules should trump those?
I'm not saying they are correct or that your principles are
any less worthy just that you entire argument could
be turned on its head and used to support an IETF postion.
Please note I have never said OSS developer should write
this software using this license just that they should examine
the whole pciture before rejecting it. Your argument
was this the licenses are complety incompatible and thats a
legal fact. Maybe you are the worlds greatest IP lawyer
I don't know but I found that claimto be an exaggeration.
I seriously doubt the IETF is trying to tell OSS developers
anything. They are trying to navigate amoung a disperate
set of vendors and interest to create an Internet that works.
In additon they have all the political BS and stupidity that
happens anytime you get a group of people together.
I am sure they are aware there is a cost to not having OSS
folks working on software that supports their protocols.
