On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 14:38:26 +0200, JB wrote: >>It is beneficial to OOo to be included in a book on free software that will > be widely distributed to the public thus increasing awareness and usage of > OOo. Isn't that beneficial? > > Indeed. That is not the point in having a problem with UCE. > >>I do not see any problem and you have not explained what the problem is. The > problem I see is that you are against authors making a living from their > work. I suppose you want all music and art to be free as well. >>>> What is UCE? Unsolicited Commercial E-mail >>>>Why do you have a problem with authors earning a living form there hard > work which will help promote the use of OOo? > > I don't see that he does. He has a problem with UCE. This is a USERS mailing > list, intended for asking questions to solve problems you have with using > OOo. Advertising ANYTHING on this list in wrong in principle, and should not > be tolerated. > > JB
I can understand GRS's concern here. It certainly was a solicitation, no matter how well-meant, and so many devote effort for free it is easy to see how it would be offensive. That's a shame, because we can assume the notice was well-meant, and people on the same side of the open-source fence should find a way to work together. One middle ground position is to relegate all solicitations to the sig. That way it's out of the flow of the convo (and, for that matter, of the subject field as well), and should be confined to the standard 3 line limit. That's not necessary, of course, if the PTB decide that outright solicitations are allowed. Not all solicitations, after all, are bad. We just need to be careful how they're done. Paul -- Using OOo 2.0 on Win XP sp2. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
