20 Dec
2005
20 Dec
'05
3:48 p.m.
Rumor has it that der Mouse may have mentioned these words:
It is.
I see the argument that it's OK to think less of a person due to his
personal preference of software release no less ridiculous than to think
less of a person due to their personal preference of religion.
'Nuff Said.
Regards,
Roger Merchberger
--
Roger Merchberger | A new truth in advertising slogan
SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers | for MicroSoft: "We're not the oxy...
zmerch at 30below.com | ...in oxymoron!"
But it's
his, to do with and to distribute as he pleases.
Everybody keeps saying this as though it somehow makes it all OK. As I remarked in a response to Cameron Kaiser,
Just because he has a right to do something does not mean it is a good
thing for him to do. (My usual example is farting in a crowded
elevator.)
However, what if said 'farter' had a heart condition that was detrimental
to one's health (including the possibility of death) if he/she *did not
fart* to relieve the pressure?
Yes, this exists, yes, *I've Had It*, and yes, despite the fact that I was
exceptionally apologetic, no-one seemed to believe my "excuse" of
"doctor's
orders."
And - Dave's software and his personal choice to do with as he pleases has
absolutely nothing to do with the release of methane in tight spaces.
[...],
and after Dave said he would release the source when he was
good and ready to (his right, I might add, and even though he
doesn't have to justify why he wants it that way, he did),
His *right*, feh.
The SOB who
does the work gets to choose what he does with it.
Certainly. And everyone else gets to think more or less of him for it.
As far as I can recall, the only thing I said that was critical of Dave
was that his distribution policy took him down a few notches in my
eyes. (Well, before he got mad about it, at least; since then I have
criticized the way he reacted too.)