Hi,
I haven't finished reading this yet. However, here is an article from Groklaw analysing a pro-swpat position. It looks interesting.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040821092613988
Éibhear
-- Éibhear Ó hAnluain IFSO Ireland.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 23 Aug 2004, at 11:16, Éibhear wrote:
I haven't finished reading this yet. However, here is an article from Groklaw analysing a pro-swpat position. It looks interesting.
Ouch, in the article the author commits what I believe to be one of the cardinal sins of the FOSS side of this fight, here is the comment I posted:
- ----- Why not have patent laws exempt FOSS?
This is a terrible idea, and dangerously divisive. Patents are a threat to all software developers, both FOSS and proprietary. This suggestion drives a wedge between the two, and basically amounts to FOSS developers throwing non-FOSS developers to the wolves.
Software patents are a threat to all software developers, and all software developers must remain united against them if they are to be stopped.
United we stand, divided we fall - and your suggestion can only divide us. - -----
Ian,
Sorry to lecture, but this bugs the living doodoo out of me...
This is a terrible idea...
When you want someone to listen to your opinion, telling them they have "terrible idea(s)" usually isn't a good way to start. How would you respond to someone that started a conversation with you like that? This kind of offensive (as in "going on the") communication is a massive issue for the Free Software and Open Source movements, in my opinion. Wouldn't something like "I don't think this is a good idea" have been a much nicer way of kicking your feedback off? Or is "nice" passé now, cos Richard Stallman and Eric Raymond don't do it?
adam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 23 Aug 2004, at 11:20, adam beecher wrote:
Ian, Sorry to lecture, but this bugs the living doodoo out of me...
This is a terrible idea...
When you want someone to listen to your opinion, telling them they have "terrible idea(s)" usually isn't a good way to start.
That is why I didn't, I said *this* is a terrible idea, not that he has terrible ideas in general.
How would you respond to someone that started a conversation with you like that?
Depends on whether what they were saying made sense or not. If I think something is a terrible idea then I will say so. I was criticising his idea, not him. If he is too thin-skinned to understand the difference, then he should probably refrain from expressing his opinions in public forums.
In this case I assume that he can give as good as he gets, he certainly doesn't hold back in his criticism of John Gray.
This kind of offensive (as in "going on the") communication is a massive issue for the Free Software and Open Source movements, in my opinion. Wouldn't something like "I don't think this is a good idea" have been a much nicer way of kicking your feedback off? Or is "nice" passé now, cos Richard Stallman and Eric Raymond don't do it?
I tailor my response to what I am responding to. If I thought "I don't think this is a good idea" adequately conveyed my strength of feeling on this issue then that is what I would have said. In this case he is advocating an idea which IMHO seriously hurts the anti-patent cause, and I do not apologise for criticising it in the strongest terms.
Ian.
All of which is great, but the fact remains that your attitude (in the case of the Groklaw response) isn't conducive to reasonable discussion. If you're just looking to rant without a response, then fair enough; but if you're looking for someone to respond to you, that's not how to go about it.
This doesn't just apply to the F/S and/or O/S movements, it applies to everything. Where would we be if it was considered ok to run up to someone after they made a speech and tell them it was "terrible" in front of everyone? Would you do that? I wouldn't, because it's rude.
Of course many F/S or O/S advocates aren't in fact look for reasonable debate, they're looking for a fight. I'm not talking about you in particular here, but in general about my perception of the movement. It's kinda pathetic.
adam
___________________________ BEECHER.NET - ICT Services http://beecher.net/
-----Original Message----- From: Ian Clarke [mailto:ian@locut.us] Sent: 23 August 2004 11:37 To: adam beecher Cc: 'FSF Europe public discussion list for Ireland' Subject: Re: [Fsfe-ie] Groklaw on patents in Europe.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 23 Aug 2004, at 11:20, adam beecher wrote:
Ian, Sorry to lecture, but this bugs the living doodoo out of me...
This is a terrible idea...
When you want someone to listen to your opinion, telling them they have "terrible idea(s)" usually isn't a good way to start.
That is why I didn't, I said *this* is a terrible idea, not that he has terrible ideas in general.
How would you respond to someone that started a conversation with you like that?
Depends on whether what they were saying made sense or not. If I think something is a terrible idea then I will say so. I was criticising his idea, not him. If he is too thin-skinned to understand the difference, then he should probably refrain from expressing his opinions in public forums.
In this case I assume that he can give as good as he gets, he certainly doesn't hold back in his criticism of John Gray.
This kind of offensive (as in "going on the") communication is a massive
issue for
the Free Software and Open Source movements, in my opinion.
Wouldn't
something like "I don't think this is a good idea" have been a much nicer way of kicking your feedback off? Or is "nice" passé now, cos Richard Stallman and Eric Raymond don't do it?
I tailor my response to what I am responding to. If I thought "I don't think this is a good idea" adequately conveyed my strength of feeling on this issue then that is what I would have said. In this case he is advocating an idea which IMHO seriously hurts the anti-patent cause, and I do not apologise for criticising it in the strongest terms.
Ian. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFBKci1QtgxRWSmsqwRAgz+AJ4/y5CxBgaA3cjxAnvMLCyzTpqxigCdE4JI RlSXk96FnBCf72dntL2cXPE= =vGp2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 23 Aug 2004, at 11:49, adam beecher wrote:
All of which is great, but the fact remains that your attitude (in the case of the Groklaw response) isn't conducive to reasonable discussion. If you're just looking to rant without a response, then fair enough; but if you're looking for someone to respond to you, that's not how to go about it.
I like the fact that people say what they think in the FOSS movement without pussyfooting around.
If you don't like that, then don't do it, but don't go around lecturing others on how they should and shouldn't express their opinions - that is far more offensive than anything you have accused me of doing.
Ian.
I like the fact that people say what they think in the FOSS movement without pussyfooting around.
There's a difference between pussyfooting and politeness. When those involved in the movement recognise that, it'll /move/ a lot faster.
If you don't like that, then don't do it, but don't go around lecturing others on how they should and shouldn't express their opinions - that is far more offensive than anything you have accused me of doing.
You can give it but you can't take it, eh? Poor baby.
adam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 23 Aug 2004, at 12:41, adam beecher wrote:
I like the fact that people say what they think in the FOSS movement without pussyfooting around.
There's a difference between pussyfooting and politeness. When those involved in the movement recognise that, it'll /move/ a lot faster.
Well, given the rapid decline in your conduct during this conversation I suggest that you are poorly qualified to lecture anyone on politeness.
If you don't like that, then don't do it, but don't go around lecturing others on how they should and shouldn't express their opinions - that is far more offensive than anything you have accused me of doing.
You can give it but you can't take it, eh? Poor baby.
Is this were you lecture us on maturity?
Anyway, since you have abandoned rational debate and have resorted to childish insults, I will rest my case and will leave it to others to judge which of us is the baby.
Ian.
There's a difference between pussyfooting and politeness.
When those
involved in the movement recognise that, it'll /move/ a lot faster.
Well, given the rapid decline in your conduct during this conversation I suggest that you are poorly qualified to lecture anyone on politeness.
What "declined" in that sentence precisely?
You can give it but you can't take it, eh? Poor baby.
Is this were you lecture us on maturity?
Anyway, since you have abandoned rational debate and have resorted to childish insults, I will rest my case and will leave it to others to judge which of us is the baby.
Humour Ian. Another attribute lacking in the movement.
adam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 23 Aug 2004, at 13:00, adam beecher wrote:
Anyway, since you have abandoned rational debate and have resorted to childish insults, I will rest my case and will leave it to others to judge which of us is the baby.
Humour Ian. Another attribute lacking in the movement.
For someone that presumes to lecture me on how I should conduct online debates, you seem rather ignorant of some of the basics. For example, if you are trying to be funny, use smilies.
Since this conversation is now completely off-topic, and out of respect for other participants in this mailing list, I suggest that it be continued off-list, if at all.
Ian.
Hi,
adam beecher wrote:
Humour Ian. Another attribute lacking in the movement.
I heard a good one the other day:
Q. Do you know how to wind up some one who likes to argue ?
A. Agree with him :)
Any way, I blame Éibhear ... he started this thread :)
-- Adam M
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 23 Aug 2004, at 13:19, Adam Moran wrote:
Hi, adam beecher wrote:
Humour Ian. Another attribute lacking in the movement.
I heard a good one the other day:
Q. Do you know how to wind up some one who likes to argue ?
A. Agree with him :)
Rubbish.
:-)
Ian.