Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included
On 5 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> writes:
>
> > Okay, "you". No sweat off my nose if you wish to exclude me.
>
> Well, I ask because again your motives for posting are unclear.
>
> For all I know, you're Theo de Raadt, and you're deliberately trying
> to drive a wedge between the FSF and Debian out of hatred for
> everything GPL and everything that is not OpenBSD.
Theo De Raadt may be an even bigger asshole than me, but I seriously doubt
that he even cares about the FSF or Debian--he strikes me as one who cares
only about his code. I must postface this by saying that I have limited
knowlege of TDR--All I have read by him is the website about the Net/Open
split and his postings on bugtraq.
> The last time I asked what your motives were, you acted insulted and
> shocked that someone would doubt your motives. But I don't know
> *what* your motives claim to be.
Put yourself in my shoes: would you particularly agree that your motives
affect the truth or falsity of your statements? As for my motives, they
are my own. There are archives if you really want to know what they
are, and you are more than welcome to form your own opinion of me.
> There are plenty of people here, like, say, Manoj, who disagree with
> me a lot. But it's very clear from everything Manoj writes that he
> *does* care that the GPL is effective, he wants Debian to succeed, and
> he is committed to the Free Software movement and he does use the GPL
> on at least some of what he writes. His commitment to Debian is
> manifest, dare I say it, amazing. So while I might disagree with him
> about this or that, it would never occur to me to doubt his motives.
So? Where in boolean math is there room for motive? Motivated AND? If
this and that are true and they share the same motives, the result is
true...
> But you haven't contributed anything but sniping. Not just to Debian,
> but indeed you haven't contributed anything to anything.
My contributions don't matter. What should matter is my
message. Actually, that is one good reason I use a pseudonym: if you
really are put off my pseudonym into pigeonholing what I have to say, I
really am not that interested in including you in my audience. Please
killfile me if you wish to base the truth of what I say on my pseudonym, I
insist.
> Who is John Galt? Well, in the novel he's a fool, if you one actually
> manages to plow through enough bad prose to get there. On the Debian
> lists? He's a cipher, a zero, a nothing.
And I have no issues with it. If what I have to say is worth merit, it
should stand on those merits, not on a name. The hilarious thing about
all of this is that you could substitute my real name in for my pseudonym
anywhere in here and it'd still fit, save that AFAIK my real name doesn't
appear in print...
> There's somebody behind this John Galt who I'd be happy to meet; for
> all I know, he's a brilliant guy who's done great things for free
> software and is a fan of Debian and wants us to succeed. But John
> Galt isn't any of those things.
Probably not, I'm just a sysadmin that wouldn't even rate the chair space
anywhere save where I am...
> Thomas
>
--
Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a
damn.
email galt@inconnu.isu.edu
Reply to: