Re: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement ofBitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

Re: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement ofBitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[Dan Davis]

To all who read this list.  I respect someone's ideology and I respect
a person's need to support his family.  I like Opensource, Linux, etc.,
but I have to work in a Microsoft world at this "present time" 
to support my family.  I have learned to respect people's right to disagree.  
Not everyone will agree with the other's conclusions and there have 
been a number of good points raised on both sides.  Please pause 
and consider them.  If you must disagree, please do it in a respectful 
and business like manner.  When you don't, you are only damaging 
your own argument.  Thanks.


Dan Davis, Sys Dev/Eng, CNA
Physical Facilities
Ohio State University
614-688-3271  Work
614-292-6751  Fax
davis.37@osu.edu

"Preparation creates confidence.  
Process leads to sound execution.  
Regimen aims effort toward perfection.  
Excellence matters."  Orel Hershiser

>>> John Jasen <jjasen1@umbc.edu> 03/07/02 05:01PM >>>
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, michael bernstein wrote:

> Get over the money issue though.  There are a lot of
> people who could benefit from bitkeeper being opensourced, so why not go
> and do it?

rent. food. clothing. basic necessities and whatnot.

Just a thought.

> Serve others, not yourself.

I begin to smell the exuberance of youthful ideology.

Does anyone have a can of Lysol I can borrow?

BK belongs to bitmover. They can do whatever they want with it. Deal.

--
-- John E. Jasen (jjasen1@umbc.edu)
-- In theory, theory and practise are the same. In practise, they aren't.

_______________________________________________
Opensource mailing list
Opensource@mail.cis.ohio-state.edu 
http://mail.cis.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/opensource

Re: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement ofBitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[David Schwartz]

On Tue, 05 Mar 2002 17:54:12 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:

>Colin Walters wrote:

>>You apparently missed the fact that the the petition was not against the
>>*use* of proprietary software at all.  In fact, we explicitly mentioned
>>that everyone is free to make that choice individually.  What the
>>petition is against is the *advocacy* of the proprietary BitKeeper
>>software by the kernel maintainers.

>How do they have any business telling me what to advocate?

	There is no difference between advocating something and advocating 
advocating something. So if you ask how they have any business telling you 
what to advocate, you ask how they have any business engaging in any advocacy 
at all.

	So what's your position? Do you believe that only you have the right to 
advocate?

>That doesn't sound like free speech nor free thought to me.

	So when someone says something you don't agree with, that's not free speech? 
If someone expresses a thought you don't agree with, that's not free thought? 
Nobody is trying to compel you to do anything, they're just advocating what 
they believe in and explaining the reasons why.

	DS

Re: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement ofBitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[michael bernstein]

I totally and utterly agree with you.  They have every right to ignore 
the petition, but those we signed it were acting out their right of 
freedom of speech.  I know all the people who signed it, and none of 
them likely would force ANYTHING on anyone.  Rather then looking at this 
as an ultimatum, look at it as a request.  Negative responses only lead 
to more negatives responses back, and nothing EVER comes out of flame 
wars, ever.  Except worthless air being wasted by the likes of some.

cheers,

Michael Bernstein
bernstein.46@osu.edu



On Tuesday, March 5, 2002, at 09:23 PM, Karl wrote:

>    A petition is a statement from a group of people who feel affected by
> what you do, they are then requesting that you do something different. 
> That
> IS freedom of speech. Your decision to follow it or ignore it IS your
> freedom. To try and crush out their desire to make petitions is IMHO
> CENSORSHIP... I doubt many share my opinion (and yes it is just that) 
> but I
> throw it out as food for thought.
>
> Karl
>
> PS though it may sound sarcastic, it isn't actually meant to.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensource mailing list
> Opensource@mail.cis.ohio-state.edu
> http://mail.cis.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/opensource
>

RE: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement ofBitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[Karl]

>How do they have any business telling me what to advocate?

>That doesn't sound like free speech nor free thought to me.

>	Jeff


   A petition is a statement from a group of people who feel affected by
what you do, they are then requesting that you do something different. That
IS freedom of speech. Your decision to follow it or ignore it IS your
freedom. To try and crush out their desire to make petitions is IMHO
CENSORSHIP... I doubt many share my opinion (and yes it is just that) but I
throw it out as food for thought.

Karl

PS though it may sound sarcastic, it isn't actually meant to.

Re: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement ofBitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[Jeff V. Merkey]

Jeff Garzik wrote:


SCORE:

Jeff Garzik                  100 points

Ohio State Nazis       -10 points

Zig Heil !

Jeff


> Colin Walters wrote:
> > You apparently missed the fact that the the petition was not against the
> > *use* of proprietary software at all.  In fact, we explicitly mentioned
> > that everyone is free to make that choice individually.  What the
> > petition is against is the *advocacy* of the proprietary BitKeeper
> > software by the kernel maintainers.
>
> How do they have any business telling me what to advocate?
>
> That doesn't sound like free speech nor free thought to me.
>
>         Jeff
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik      |
> Building 1024    |
> MandrakeSoft     | Choose life.

Re: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement ofBitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[William Lee Irwin III]

Colin Walters wrote:
>> You apparently missed the fact that the the petition was not against the
>> *use* of proprietary software at all.  In fact, we explicitly mentioned
>> that everyone is free to make that choice individually.  What the
>> petition is against is the *advocacy* of the proprietary BitKeeper
>> software by the kernel maintainers.

On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 05:54:12PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> How do they have any business telling me what to advocate?
> That doesn't sound like free speech nor free thought to me.


This doesn't sound like kernel hacking to me.
May we now resume our reguarly scheduled kernel programming?

...my .procmailrc overfloweth, as does /dev/null...

Bill

Re: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement ofBitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[Colin Walters]

On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 17:54, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Colin Walters wrote:
> > You apparently missed the fact that the the petition was not against the
> > *use* of proprietary software at all.  In fact, we explicitly mentioned
> > that everyone is free to make that choice individually.  What the
> > petition is against is the *advocacy* of the proprietary BitKeeper
> > software by the kernel maintainers.
> 
> How do they have any business telling me what to advocate?
> 
> That doesn't sound like free speech nor free thought to me.

The nature of a petition is that it's a request.  We (obviously) can't
force the kernel maintainers not to use BitKeeper, and I personally
wouldn't if I could.

So, the kernel maintainers can ignore the petition if they want to.  The
whole point of the petition is to let them know that there are people
who aren't happy with their choices.

Re: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement ofBitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[Jeff Garzik]

Colin Walters wrote:
> You apparently missed the fact that the the petition was not against the
> *use* of proprietary software at all.  In fact, we explicitly mentioned
> that everyone is free to make that choice individually.  What the
> petition is against is the *advocacy* of the proprietary BitKeeper
> software by the kernel maintainers.

How do they have any business telling me what to advocate?

That doesn't sound like free speech nor free thought to me.

	Jeff



-- 
Jeff Garzik      |
Building 1024    |
MandrakeSoft     | Choose life.