Re: Linux Fan anger

tony_at_aplawrence.com
Date: 10/31/03 

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:04:42 +0000 (UTC)

Joe Dunning <joe@blahblah.invalid> wrote:

>Tony, please attempt to be a little consistent. It was you that stated
>that only lawyers could hold opinions on the GPL. It looks like you are
>the one that is confused.

Joe, you are misrepresenting what I said. You drag things out of context
and construct strawmen from your gleanings.

>Well, I don't speak for others, but you have made it very clear that you
>think you are not qualified to hold an opinion on the validity of the
>GPL. I'm not going to say that any opinion is worthless simply because
>you are not a lawyer.

I never said such an opinion was worthless.

I am simply not interested in hearing the opinions of unqualified people
in this area. What does it gain me to listen to your blabberings
about the legailty of the GPL? You aren't a lawyer. Likewise,
in spite of your nagging insistence that I MUST have an opinion
wrt the legality, I am at a complete loss: umm, I think it
is legal because.. I HAVE NO FRICKING IDEA!

Do you get it yet? I HAVE NO IDEA. I have very little knowledge
of law, and can't think of a single thing I could offer of value
in this regard. I HAVE NO OPINION.

My bet is that you have no real opinion either. I have asked
you several times to express it if you do, and to give some
background as to why I should listen to it. I should amend my
insistence that I would only be interested in the opinions of
a lawyer: if you told me that you had, as a hobby, been interested
in copyright law etc. for some time and actually did know a bit
about it, I'd listen to your opinion, though I'd surely salt
it liberally. But if you, like me, know nothing about copyright
and license law, why on earth should I wast my time thinking
about anything you said in that vein?

Do you get it Joe? I don't say you have no right to an opinion,
simply that I would have no reason to pay any attention to
it.

>>
>>So, boopy, just why is it that you want the opinions of someone
>>who took exactly ONE pre-law course more than 30 years ago?

>As I said before, I am trying to understand why someone would play the
>role of SCO-apologist. Why people are not more critical of the company
>that may be destroying your livelihood (this is from a posting you made
>a long time ago). I'm just trying to understand, that's all.

I AM critical - just not in the manner that you want me to be. I think
they have made a very stupid mistake that could hurt a lot of people,
including me. But that does NOT mean that they have no right to
take this action. It also doesn't mean that our mutual customers
need to be punished.

You know, you seem to be one of those people who can only see
fairness if it benefits you. If it hurts you, it must be wrong.
That's not how the world works: sometimes we get the shitty end
of the stick and as crappy as that is, we have to live with it.

SCO has a right to pursue what they see as a wrong by IBM. I
see that as dumb, harmful, and as something that will come back to
bite them. They obviously have a different opinion.

--
tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

Quantcast