Meeks on OpenOffice.org

Instead, for reasons known to him and his boss at Novell, he decided instead to make a big fuss by claiming it should be core code and then refusing to follow the well-established process for upstreaming core code. That policy may be ripe for debate, but this issue is one Kohei has navigated into rather than around or away from. Since I am from Sun I suspect corporate politics, but your mileage may differ.

Moreover, that is NOT what s/he said. Let the author reply and defend his/her words, that are in essence quite nasty.

I do not intend to take time to read what constitutes a really free system, partially due to the implicit constrains I alluded to above. However, the core reason is I tend to distrust some of the voices making those claims.

For now, let me state that in principle we may agree more than we disagree. Debian principles are, in their words, those nearest to aligning with my own. Moreover, pertaining to having doubts about RMS, I have many. I think he has an authoritarian bent I distrust, I think free software issues have become too personalized around his view. Moreover, I have used tools he rejects that at times are superior to his, <i>e.g.</i> xemacs.

I thought xemacs group wanted to be merged back into emacs proper. It is my understanding that RMS made a short sighted decision to reject their request. In the longer term his obstinance harms free software. But he was against selling documentation for free software <i>à la</i> many O'Reilly books. He obvious changed his view there. So perhaps there is hope he can be induced to become more reasonable.

Recently Moglen's suggestion that it was time for new blood leading FSF, is idea I can subscribe. RMS may not see that as a necessity. Thus, in the interim, I purposely say and write linux, never GNU/Linux.

Despite our agreements, there is too much in your initial comment and your response I cannot accept.

No you cannot now take the money assertion out. It was a major part of your statement. Moreover, I think its purpose was to mislead the reader.

Now on to my other points, I think many of the loudest voices for this abstract concept of freedom are the very ones that do a disservice to the real ideals of freedom. My suspicion too is that many are part of the problems I describe below.

Why are the loudest voices and quickest responders on the Debian help forums those that spew abuse? The example I know of personally was what my son encountered. He was helped but by others that did not have the need to demonstrate their inherent superiority. Who are these stalwart, pretenders for the ideals of freedom that is cloaked in abuse and nastiness?

These defenders of truth have won an odd victory, but not for freedom. My son underrates himself, because computers and surrounding issues are not his professional goals. He has run a Debian server, been involved in cryptography (security issues), he has written documentation, he has helped others on forums. Indeed he really set up the Debian desktop I used and got the dual monitor system to work. Nonetheless, I suspect the nastiness left some scar tissue.

A portion of the consequences may be that many users may be taught to appreciate the features in MS Vista OS, that he finds very well designed. Be assured he will transmit that message. I could say more, but I hear the voices " ... good riddance ... who needs someone like him? ... etc." However, I wonder how many of those voices have been invited into projects and actually contributed?

Then there were the screaming about how those millions that went into Ubuntu would have been better spent going directly to Debian. Anyone that believes that probably is tempted by the exclusive penny stock investments that arrive in their email boxes. Debian is a great server, but ...

Yes RMS may be a hypocrite about not allowing total access, however, in essence is that any less free than the attribution in the BSD licenses?

I would have given more credence to your citation had you used it upon your first writing, now it is just a bit too convenient with others making the same claims. Both a bit too late and too minimal for the initial assertion, sorry.

I have not read enough to argue either cogently or with belief on the details of the licensing, hence, I know not what side I would take. In my defense, I would say I have too many other tasks that I am not attended to due in part to my lack of language skills. [I am a slow reader, etc.] As a result I pick up on hints on the veracity I assign to some voices that take part in the arguments. As a result I may conclude, perhaps too quickly, that from some no matter what ever the content I distrust the source.

As a example when a few Debian package managers were paid for their efforts, the volume of the outraged outcry embedded a bias against those that I thought attempted to be too pure. I think true freedom for some is taken as a license to run amoke. Take some of the Debian participants that populate some of their help forums, to a too common a degree many are there to belittle those that ask help. I have seen similar behaviour elsewhere where those that bemoaned the fact that so few were adopting lInux they were so quick to harass an individual that made an honest mistake and started wtih a distribution much too difficult for a beginner. Another RTFM, with absolutely no aid or even a link to that mythical font of knowledge. So perhaps your are right that this license is not as free as many think it should be, however, on average have they been a good, ethical player?

We all make mistakes, but I sense the words written and so far not supported are too extreme to jump to a quick defense. Let the author speak, please.