Re: [tlug] [OT] Say _no_ to the Microsoft Office format as an ISO standard

["david.blomberg@example.com" <david.blomberg@example.com>]

On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 22:06 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> david.blomberg@example.com writes:
> 
>  > No it is the golden rule (I am not religious but do believe in the
>  > golden rule).  I do not "demand anything". All I say is, I gave the code
>  > away if you use it I expect you to do the same.
actually the rule is from Matthew 7:12
Whatsoever you would that man should do to you do you even so to them
(might be a word of 2 off)
I studied the Bible/Ministerial/Psychology at Bible college-It was
enough I am now an atheist. Went to a real college and got a degree in
Computer Science.
Back to my point; the implication is reciprocal expectation.

As for turning the other cheek; well I prefer my Grandmothers saying:
fool me once, shame on you
fool me twice, shame on me
fool me 3 times, what kind a fool am I.  
> 
> But that is *not* the golden rule I learned.  The golden rule I
> learned was addressed to *me*, and governs how *I* do unto others; it
> has nothing to say about what I may expect *others* to do unto me.
this may be the dividing point, but from a social point I think it is
better said "what I expect other to do to me" the little word "may" is
just too Gandhi-ish. 
> 
> This is precisely the BSD license philosophy:
> 
>     "I would like you to give me your code, so I will give you mine."
> 
>     "And then?"
> 
>     "Just take it; the rest is up to you."
> 
> I don't think that Stallman would agree that the GNU philosophy is
> based on the golden rule, either as I learned it or as you phrased it
> above.  I think that rather he would say, "Human beings *like* to
> share with other members of their community. 
sound like him but luckily the GPL is kept from being a total communist
viewpoint and fits more in the socialist way due to many who keep
telling him "NO don't do that". the like part is particularly his and
very funny from where I sit.  seems like the 5-95 rule applies to people
who want to share.
> My personal opinion is that the BSD philosophy is (unsurprisingly,
> since it's a West Coast philosophy) is more modern, more adapted to
> the world we actually live in than the GNU philosophy (which is, after
> all, an East Coast philosophy).
Mid-westerners don't get a philosophy? ;)
>   Note that the BSDers are not
> Pollyannas, more optimistic about human nature than the GNUbies.
> Rather, they're more optimistic about the invisible hand.
Maybe I just deal with too many hucksters.  My viewpoint is that people
(business esp) will do the minimum requirement and no more.  As for
Stallman he may have done a lot of good for those of us that use GPL
style-If he had his way the license would be much different and extreme.
(Okay I will say it he is as far left as you can get)  Luckily there are
too many Linus Torvalds and the rest to keep him in line.
> 
>  > (we are talking about end products here not libraries right--I think I
>  > would only release libraries under LGPL in which case fine use them as
>  > the base and keep what you want)
> 
> I'm glad to hear that about your preferences.  However, that is not
> the FSF line; the FSF line is that the LGPL is the *lesser* GPL, and
> should be used *only* where there is already permissively licensed
> competition.  Thus GNU readline is GPLed.  I think that the same is
> true of many GNOME libraries (ISTR that librsvg is, although some,
> like libxml2, are permissively licensed).
I try to stick to LGPL libs. For this I do think Stallman is out of
whack on this stance.