Hiding behind weasel words? [LWN.net]

Hiding behind weasel words?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 13:04 UTC (Wed) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026)
In reply to: Godwin's Law by smoogen
Parent article: Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

I didn't claim that you compared ALL people who argue in favor of the GPLv3 draft to mass murderers. Since all the accused have actually done is post comments in a public discussion group, SOME is plenty. The implications of being "taken to a Gulag for some serious Reeducation in good old Stalin/Mao ways" are quite clear regardless of whatever weasel words you care to deploy by way of excusing yourself.

to post comments

Hiding behind weasel words?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 16:22 UTC (Wed) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] (4 responses)

My words were mean spirited and did not help the talk. I thought they were funny at the time, but I should have realized that its humour was gallows at best, and horrible at worst. I would apologize, but it would just be more weasel words.

I used to love Free Software in its earliest sense, but I am sick and tired that EVERY time someone disagrees that the GPLv3 is what they want for their software, a large gang-press comes to re-educate them and drown out any possible dissent.

What's a gang-press?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 18:43 UTC (Wed) by robilad (guest, #27163) [Link] (2 responses)

I haven't heard that term before.

What makes you feel your dissent is being drowned out? Afaict, you've tried to label people you disagreed with as evil, so you got replies disagreeing with that.

Do you consider labelling people who disagree with you as dissent? I'm curious.

I enjoyed reading Ted Tso's mail today on LKML that goes into the linkage issues between the kernel and the glibc, for example, and came back with the idea that his dissent is based on technical issues. I also read Linus' 'fed up with the FSF' piece, and came back with the idea that his dissent is based on personal issues between him and the FSF, and philosophical considerations on what should be in the GPL.

I think that as long as he and his supporters, as well the other side, can keep their own personal issues out of it, they can manage to get to a workable compromise with each other. You'll have to find some mutual respect, though, or you all won't get that.

I don't think that's very likely for the next few weeks, though, as it's in both leaders' and their followers' nature to try to prove to the other guys that they are more clever first. So I expect to see this fun 'public debate on GPLv3' to continue for a while, while the real fixing will be done behind the scenes between OSDL, FSF and similar entities, anyway, in the usual 'undemocratic', 'intrasparent' way such things are done.

I'd guess that after the fixes are in, the undemocratic process will be just fine. :)

What's a gang-press?

Posted Sep 28, 2006 15:12 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (1 responses)

My guess is that "gang-press" was supposed to be "press gang". This was a military "recruiting" tactic of the past which allowed the Royal Navy, for instance, to round up people on the streets and "press" them into service.

What's a gang-press?

Posted Sep 28, 2006 15:47 UTC (Thu) by robilad (guest, #27163) [Link]

Ah! Thank you for the explanation.

Fair enough

Posted Sep 28, 2006 1:42 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link]

I commend your ability to admit that. There is nothing wrong with stating that you believe advocates of the GPLv3 draft are too aggressive but without knowning which particular comments you are thinking of that is hard to evaluate.