GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) [LWN.net]

GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)

Posted Jan 25, 2007 21:27 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
Parent article: GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)

""
A piece he posted to Groklaw laying out his objections to the update was removed by Groklaw's maintainer, who wrote, "I am sorry, Linus, but I had to remove your comment because you violated our comments policy by swearing so much."
"""

I'm glad they featured this. It demonstrates Miss Jones' peculiar form of censorship. She scans the post for anything that anyone could possibly consider offensive, and removes it if she thinks anyone might possibly agree.

One has to wonder is she is actually doing crochet when she indulges herself that way.

Her recent behavior almost makes one feel sorry for poor Maureen O'Gara, whose career Pamela destroyed a while back, as you may recall.

Almost. Maureen is as bad as Pamela, and my sympathy can only be spread so thin...

(Log in to post comments)

GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)

Posted Jan 25, 2007 22:35 UTC (Thu) by johnkarp (subscriber, #39285) [Link]

I don't see what you are trying to accomplish with your post. I think
GPL2/3 discussion is important, and I think it deserves at least the
quality of discussion I've seen you contribute before, and that lwn.net
normally gets.

(I have nothing against vitriolic/scathing writing per se, and in fact
enjoy it from time to time, but I still like to see substance behind it.
An individual removing swearing posted by others from their personal
website (and leaving the rest) seems like a pretty flimsy pretext for a
rant to me.)

GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)

Posted Jan 26, 2007 10:40 UTC (Fri) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]

I don't see what you are trying to accomplish with your post.

It's called "trolling", although the particular troll you responded to seems awfully close to "defamation of character". Its zeal may have overwhelmed its sense of self-preservation.

Linus comments

Posted Jan 26, 2007 15:06 UTC (Fri) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link]

Linus' comments with profanity were deleted, but the ones that he reposted without profanity stayed. It appears that she's trying to keep the debate civil. Imperfectly, perhaps, but it's her website, and I have every reason to believe she's a reasonable person.

GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)

Posted Jan 25, 2007 22:38 UTC (Thu) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]

>One has to wonder is she is actually doing crochet when she indulges herself that way.

So nice of you to cast aspersions on an ancient art form to provide yourself a smug dismissal of anybody that tries to maintain a civil, mature conversation online.

I guess some people can't stand it when someone actually insists that people stretch their minds enough to avoid orc-speech. The civility that Pam enforces on Groklaw is a welcome relief to me and a great number of others that grow weary of the endless stream of tedious, unthinking profanity that provides a cheap substitute for persuasive eloquence.

>whose career Pamela destroyed a while back, as you may recall.

I think it was more a case of Ms. O'Gara stepping way over the line, and getting properly smacked for it.

GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)

Posted Jan 26, 2007 1:09 UTC (Fri) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link]

I disagree with PJ about the GPLv3 and I think she's gone way over board on her anti Novell thing.

But still it's her own website and she can do whatever she wants with it. She's been up front that she deletes comments.

MoG destroyed her own career through her constant lying and hatefulness.

GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)

Posted Jan 26, 2007 1:54 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]

"""
MoG destroyed her own career through her constant lying and hatefulness.
"""

I used to think as you do.

But now I wonder if Miss Jones is not cleverer than any of us realize.

The woman scares me. She is not what she seems.

And I find myself wondering... like Maureen did... just who *is* Pamela Jones?

GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)

Posted Jan 26, 2007 2:30 UTC (Fri) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link]

You sound a little obsessed. Didn't MoG stalk PJ or something? Perhaps you need to take a break from her.

PJ goes overboard once in a great while but always seems to be transparent in her arguments, unlike the usual entities that she comments upon.

I think it is really cool that she has been able to maintain her privacy -- good for her.

GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)

Posted Jan 26, 2007 2:40 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]

"""
You sound a little obsessed.
"""

No. I fell for Little Miss Innocent's "I can't stand profanity!" stance for years.

She goes overboard uncomfortably often.

And there is something very, very opaque about her.

Not obsessed. Just disenchanted and curious...

-Steve

GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)

Posted Jan 26, 2007 8:19 UTC (Fri) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link]

Hooray speculative attacks on character!

So, GPL3?

GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)

Posted Feb 1, 2007 16:01 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

So when PJ was on-side about SCO she was a saint; now she's chosen the "wrong" side in the GPL debate, she's at best a batty old woman, at worst an career-wrecking censorious harridan.

Riiiight. I'm now going to make the same mode of argument against you that you made against her: You're a misogynistic horse's arse.

Not very useful, is it?

"Maureen O'Gara, whose career Pamela destroyed"

As I recall, Ms O'Gara destroyed her own career by getting so cross with PJ that she published her contact details and invited her readers to harrass her in person.

Have you *seriously* just equivocated 'deleting a comment with a clear explanation of why' with 'trying to summon a lynch mob'?

"She scans the post for anything that anyone could possibly consider offensive, and removes it if she thinks anyone might possibly agree."

Right, so enforcing a stated comments policy without exception or favour is "censorship"?

Of course it isn't. Her site; her rules; she doesn't owe anyone a platform, not even Linus (or RMS); and someone who prides themselves on their objectivity is hardly likely to endanger that by exempting famous names from a stated comments policy.

Come back with some examples of where she has explicitly refused to enforce the same comments policy, and you might have a point. Until then... see above, with particular reference to equine hindquarters.