> From: Twayne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 7:28 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Re: Re: telephone # > >> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Twayne wrote: >> >>> IMO OOo is indeed akin to "public domain" in many aspects of the >>> license and protection afforded to it. >> >> GNU LGPL has a clearly defined set of rights and obligations >> associated with it. Violation of those rights is both a breach of >> license and a breach of copyright law. >> >> Public Domain has no rights or obligations associated with it. As >> such, there is no way to violate it. >> >> By conflating the two, you are impugning upon the moral rights of the >> GNU LGPL creator, and as such violating copyright law. > <snip> >> jonathon > >> You do of course see the comedic quality of your response, don't >> you? I have no idea who you are, who you think you are, or even who >> you really are, nor do I care, but come on, your pompousity is only >> outdone by your attempts to redirect comments into areas that were >> and are foreign to the post from the beginning. That's one of the >> oldest troller tricks in the books. Your educational abilities >> leave a LOT to be desired and indicate a rather myopic view of the >> world around you. I don't mean to be as confrontational as you are >> likely taking it, but you can show off your knowledge all you want >> and quote all the rules & regs you want, but a response such as this >> one is not going to sway me in the least. I consider myself pretty >> open minded and open to new information but all you've done is spout >> what you want to convey to others about what you know, rather than >> any serious response to anything. I just can't give anything like >> that any kind of credibility. So if you're looking for me to >> "debate" you point by point, forget it. I only let trollers suck me >> in just long enough to piss them off as a rule and then I forget >> about them. I reiterate, I said what I mean, and I meant what I >> said. If that bugs you, then so be it. And that said, there is no >> further point to further communications with you. Your comments are >> pointless and completely off the mark w/r to helping the OP and in >> fact completely disregard the OP, the ONLY person you should be >> concerned with here, and then only from a useful information >> standpoint. >> >> I've said all I have to say to you; from here on I'll not be >> bothering with your tripe. Enjoy and flame at will. >> >> Love yourself lots, >> >> Twayne > > Twayne, > Please do not be confrontational. Neither Jonathon nor I were trying > to attack you or degrade you.
You'll find that, historically, I only return in kind. If there is a confrontation here you are creating it and working at it too, I might add. > > While neither Sun Microsystem nor Open Office Org are responsible for > what user post here, most people expect to receive accurate > information from this forum---even if the information is not related > to the question asked. As with any forum. But you do not control my opinions any more than I would control yours even if I thought it was the right thing to do. > > I suspect that you have not had much contact with FLOSS programmers. > For most FLOSS programmers the nature of the license is very > significant. The Free Software Foundation has fought for more than > two decades to get the world and especially the legal community to > take FLOSS and FLOSS licenses seriously. The Debian organization's > "Social Contract" is a very serious effort to further define what > FLOSS is. Fine. Let them have at it; it's their right. But: It's of no more than a passing interest to me because of the ambiguous name or I still wouldn't be aware of what it was. Only curiousity made me check to see what it was about. Perhaps their difficulty is well earned; I don't know. Or maybe not. I don't care in the sense that my opinion isn't biased on it yet and I would hesitate to express an opinion one way or the other right now. So now I suppose you see that as confrontational too and I'm demeaning the works of a lot of good programmers. Feel that way if you must; I've expressed my opinion and there is nothing to "debate" over it here. You and your close friend have closed any doors IMO that could result in any relevant debate. > > Many developers have left projects because they were NOT happy with > certain provision of the license that was being used. I don't know what to make of that para, and can only figure that it adds to the attempts to create a feeling in me that isn't my own. Very often that's the right move to make when someone seriously disagrees with an internal biblical rule. I left a job once in fact, because they expected me to manage by fear; it was just something I would not do. It was not my management style. It really torqued their jaws when I ended up the following week working in the building right next door to them. The HR head got so torqued off he keyed my car. I had him arrested, and he paid for the paint repairs. Now, what does the above have to do with anything here? Nothing. But I have managed to spew out an event of rancor I experienced. IMO that's what both of you are trying to do. You don't win friends and influence people with tactics such as have been put forth here. > > While you may consider it to be trivial or feel that a little > miss-information is harmless, there are a whole lot of people that > don't agree with you and even more important is that the group > includes most of the developers that create software such as open > office. IIRC the subject WAS Open Office and some poor soul who appeared to have paid for OOo since he posed in Open Office Questions, was insisting he get a phone number. I responded to that, someone mentioned something and I mentioned I probably could have phrased it better, and then you and your close friend here take off of whatever this whole sideline of posting is supposed to be about. > > There is no need for any "debate" here. You provided incorrect > information in answer to question asked. At least two of us... Pretty > much assuming that you knew FLOSS was not public domain, tried to > correct the misrepresentation of FLOSS that you provided. While I > can't speak for Jonathan, I suspect that he assumed no malice or > intent to mislead on your part. I know that I certainly did not > think that you were intending ignore or suggest to others that they > ignore a FLOSS license. The OP did NOT ask anything about floss. He asked for a telephone number. That was Shay Owens. But somehow, even though Shay Owens never posted back to this thread, didn't add more details, and was absent from the rest of it, how you and your buddy decided you wanted to run it into a "confuse with facts" diatribe is beyond me. If somehow you knew other facts that weren't brought out in thread then you are guilty of assuming way too much and not adhering to the content of the thread you were posting into. I've run into egotists like you guys before so your tactics aren't exactly unknown to me. > > I am saddened by your tone with Jonathan particularly because Jonathan > is a significant contributor to this forum and is NOT known to hostile > to anyone. YOU are the one bringing Jonathan into this with an eye toward his competence or the quality of his contributions to this thread. Being a significant contrubutor to a group is great, but it's irrelevant to the topic that was at hand. Looking back I don't see all that many posts by him, or you, but ... that means nothing because I'm not going to bother searching; it's entirely possible his contributions ARE great, and yours too. But again that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. When one acts like a dummy, they usually get treated like a dummy. But that says nothing about their ability to contribute nor the value of their contributions. YOU are the one brought up the value of contributions, not me. So, other than some egotists trip, I've no idea what's behind your words here. > > bill Sorry As I said, I've no interest in debating it further. Each of you, instead of coming to me, should have simply posted your own responses to the open question. Especially if you disagreed. Thusly it would have been straightened out to probably your and his satisfaction. You say there is no need for any "debate" here, yet you did "debate", in a way that provided the questioner absolutely no substantive information. I've no intention of debating it with you either, especially since you're using the same 'distract with facts' routine attempt. As for hostility, well, that's like porn; one knows it when they see it lol. Now, think about this one: Who brought the word "hostile" into this thread? And who worked hard to make it into a confrontation? I didn't; in fact I stated that my intent wasn't to be confrontational. But I have a feeling you aren't even aware of the beginning of this thread, are you? I suppose you mean well but I have a feeling you're writing to save face, not to pass anything useful on to me. If you want to be useful, as I said before, address the questioner and answer his question. Neither of you did that IIRC, and that is another point I am not going to "debate"; it's a simple fact. Heck, with a decent resonse to the questioner, you might even have swayed my opinion some. But you'll never accomplish it with your current methodology. So, from here on, why don't you go back to answering questions where you can, and I'll do the same. I harbor no animosity toward anyone so that's not an issue unless you decide to make it one. If this pisses you off and you want to ignore me, that's fine, too. No one is indispensable so the loss won't be that great. I wonder if Shay ever received any information that he was able to use and understand? I am unlikely to respond to your further posts on this thread so any further attempts to goad me into debating anything with you will fail. -- Regards, Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it. -Tolstoy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
