[NCLUG] Trolling was: "red hat - the new redmond?" comment from mainstream online media

John L. Bass jbass at dmsd.com
Sat Sep 7 18:09:04 MDT 2002


	On Saturday 07 September 2002 15:26, Mark Fassler wrote:

	>   With Linux and the GPL, you have FREEDOM.
	>   You.  Can.  Use.  A.  Different.  Distribution.  Or.  Window.  Manager.
	>   You have the freedom to do so.

	NOT my point. U and others r changing the subject. I already conceded the 
	point about the GPL in my first mail. The point was that the GPL paradigm per 
	se does NOT prevent market abuse or leveraging. I did not claim that RH is 
	doing anything illegal; just using the rules of the game to unfairly push its 
	own agenda. They have the right to do so; I have the right to stay as far 
	clear of them as I can.

We do not consider the changes in open source products made by RedHat,
Debian, or any other distribution team as "market abuse or leveraging".
We do not consider RedHat promoting is distributions inside the rules
of GPL to be in anyway "unfairly pushing it's own agenda" - if anything
RedHat should be commended for reaching critical market share which
has lead directly to adoption by major hardware vendors, and *WE* strongly
hope major closed source software vendors as well to make Linux a
major usable desktop system with widely available applications support.

So far, you have been openly bashing RedHat, and the users that support
it, without a single fair criticism. You may not like successful teams
like RedHat ... that is YOUR freedom in both the US, and under GPL.
You do not however have the right to slander those teams with unsubstantiated
claims of market abuse or unfairly using GPL in a way which violates
the core terms.

	*Please* offer proof of market abuse.

Being sucessful is not proof of market abuse.

	*Please* offer proof that they have violated GPL in any way.

So far, you acknowledge they have not violated GPL, then assert
that somehow they have.

	*Please* offer proof that they have been unfair.

The only thing unfair in this is the sour grapes and whining by KDE
and YOU. Either YOU and the KDE accept the rules of the game allowing
the fair and expected use under the GPL, or go create another much more
restrictive license that violates the very core theology behind GPL. The
KDE team does not have the right, moral or legal, to embrace GPL then
bitch like hurt wounded children when the game *IS* played by the rules
and the KDE teams changes it mind and decides it doesn't like the rules.

	The general myopia that sees objective criticism of RH is "trolling" is sad. 
	We should be able to have a spirited discussion/disagreement without throwing 
	the "troll" word around. 

Your criticsm is neither objective or rational. Directly insulting
a significant portiion of this list that use and support RedHat and
it's direct derivatives (like KRUD), and that are clear and vocal
supporters for ALL the freedoms that are offered by GPL isn't taken
lightly.  Your use of words like apologist and myopia, making open
and veiled assertions that RedHat is somehow evil by virtue of their
success, and describing those who strongly disagree with your position
as apologist and having myopia, asserting that the GPl is flawed is
hardly anthing other than pure trolling flamebait in this forum.

Go complain in the KDE lists, where your views are shared.

	Anyway, I'll end my contributions to this thread here.

Normal actions of a child that only wish to whine and be hurt when
their views of the world are not accepted.

If you strongly believe the GPL rules are flawed, then lets have
that discussion without the reputation bashing of RedHat and all
those that strongly like and support their product (including the
changes they make in many many of the packages released - INCLUDING
KDE).

So far you have not presented one arguement that RedHat has violated
the core tenants of GPL, or has legally or morally done anything
wrong by accepted standards in the open source community. We do hear
from you, and the KDE team, that you do not like GPL standards, and
wish to change the rules of the game at this late date. Rule changes
which fundamentally fly in the face of every open source license. Rules
which mandate total control by the developer, prior approval of any and
all changes, rules which allow the developer to only allow distribution
by the developers "friends".

I'm sorry, but those are not the rules the open source community has
accepted. Not in GPL, not in BSD, not in MIT ... what you are asking
for is anything *but* open source ... they are the very rules that
existed prior to the BSD/MIT license ... and that is nothing more than
selective proprietary licensing. GPL expects and allows non-cooperative
competitive development without concurrence with ANYBODY.

	Best wishes
	Idris

	-- 
	Dr. Idris S Hamid
	Department of Philosophy
	Colorado State University
	Fort Collins, CO 80523

Have fun,
John Bass



More information about the NCLUG mailing list