Shlomi Fish wrote: >Hi Oded! > >I love it that people decide the victim is the one responsible. > I have not examined all the evidence, but even judging from just what you said my opinion is that you are in the wrong (and like any human, I'm sure you are at least just a tiny bit biased in your favor) - if not morally and ethicly, then at least in your attitude.
><snip> > >Granted, the post to >bitkeeper-users was off-topic, and may have been trollish. I did not know >it was off-topic at the time. > Hmm.. sounds familiar ;-) > Furthermore, I believed I did Larry a favour >by opening the bitkeeper-license mailing list. > That may be, time would tell - but I don't consider opening a mailing list for discussions on the licensing policies of other people's software, w/o getting said persons' premission first, to be done in good faith, and I don't fault Larry for not taking to it gracefully. >flame-bait and irrational Larry McVoy is. (if you want I can send you a very >insulting letter he sent me). > No thank you. You are talking about the life's work and mind creation of a person as its a commodity and property of the community in general, when its obvious that the author does not see it that way - I too would have been very sensitive and highly flamable on a subject like this. >I am trying to free BK or outcompete it >(preferably the first option). > You are talking about taking control of another person's creation w/o that persons agreement (!!) most people would call that outright theft - I do not understand how can you not understand Larrry's reaction to that. >And I now decided that I am pro BK not against it, > Good for you. >3. Removing the data without my explicit permission is something I >consider a malicious misplacement of information. > The storage space was not yours in the first place - you have nothing to complain about. it would have been wrong to use your "intelectual property" w/o your premission, but as they only deleted it, I see nothing wrong here. it would be nice of them to give you a fair warning, but that's all. Wait a second - am I smelling a whiff of double standards here ? I don't agree with Larry McVoy's licensing policy or the use requirements he forces on BK users, which is the only reason why my company is not using BitKeeper today, but after all its his software to do with which he peleases - and that IMHO is the real cause behind the free software movement: that you are free to release your software under which license that you choose and be judge by its merits (and licensing policy) alone. You may use BitKeeper according to its terms of use, or you may choose not to, you may write your own SCM software suit or PR another, you may even talk harshly about Larry McVoys licensing policy. but you may not, ever, activly take steps to undermine a person's control or ownership of the software he or she has written. Once Larry McVoy said that he will not GPL BitKeeper, then thats it. end of discussion. -- Oded ::.. Every journalist has a novel in him, which is an excellent place for it. ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
