Re: Documentation Standards was Re: [ox-en] UserLinux
- From: "Benj. Mako Hill" <mako debian.org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:15:45 +0100
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 02:43:20PM -0500, Russell McOrmond wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
Call that a limitations in the terms (you wouldn't be the first) but
allusions to George Bush may get you shock points but (IMHO) they aren't
going to win you any arguments.
It's like mailing lists have now created a new "Hitler" reference to
make to end conversations, or at least any meaningful dialog.
It's called Godwin's law. Here's the jargon file entry:
Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread
is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever
argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the
existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However
there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any _intentional_
triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects
will be unsuccessful.
In the case of Richard Stallman he may have a rough way of saying
things, but once you get past that exterior you can read what he is
saying. There isn't a disconnect between what he is saying and what
he does, even if you sometimes have to hold your nose about the way
he says things. I think his opposition to the term "open source" or
the use of the term Linux to mean more than the kernel are examples
of those rough edges.
Yes, but I disagree with RMS on a number of these issues and so do
many *many* developers. Debian has had major disagreements with RMS
that put larger relationships into question. So has Linux.
For example, I think that "Open Source" as defined by the OSI is
actually a dying concept. Many "Open Source" companies are dead or
dying and the people that are talking about "Open Source" are
increasingly talking about "Free Software" -- they're just using the
wrong term. To me, open source is just a word and what matters to me
is *what* we are talking about, not the word we are using. (Of course,
I do see RMS's points as well and use "free software" in my own
speech.)
Suggesting, as has been done in this thread, that those who
subscribe to the vision of software as codified in a contract like
the GNU General Public License do so because they didn't think it
through is also insulting. It may have been unaware of the
implications when I first releases software under the GNU GPL in
1992, but I have given this idea a LOT of thought since then.
You also have people who don't live in the United States, and don't
subscribe to the American dream. I know I'm not a subscriber to
that "made in Hollywood" dream. (Nor am I a subscriber of the "made
in Bollywood" dreams either, even if they are closer to my own
dreams ;-)
Or people that *do* live in the United States (although I haven't been
there in a while) and who don't subscribe to those dreams. :)
Regards,
Mako
--
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako debian.org
http://mako.yukidoke.org/