[linux-elitists] Re: My Anti-Qmail Page
Sat Nov 5 12:08:36 PST 2005
Quoting Shlomi Fish (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> It does. If the author has a bad attitude, then there's no hope of
> convincing him to rememdy the way he handles his software. But you are
> right that this paragraph could use some work.
> Any suggestions for a better paragraph?
I see what you're trying to get at. Problem is, it comes across as
irrelevant personal attack when you try to make the point. That is
an inevitable rhetorical side-effect, and has nothing to do with the
merit of your underlying point.
You mean something like:
Because the licence effectively permits only the author (Daniel J.
Bernstein) to maintain the software, his consistently, mulishly
unpleasant and hostile attitude tends to become an obstacle, as
it would not if the software were licensed differently.
Some may still dismiss your page as (in part) a personal slam, but at
least that _attempts_ to qualify the claim, as to why his personal
qualities are significant to the package -- contrary to people's
intuition about the general rule -- rather than the package rising
or falling on its own merits.
> > Also, much as I was annoyed at the idiocy of Dan making legal
> > threats at me over my "libeling" his software, I object to your
> > using that sort of rhetoric. It's both irrelevant to the issue at
> > hand and unseemly.
It _was_ pretty amusing. I wasn't laughing at the time because
six years of family litigation when I was very young taught me that
lawsuits are no joke, so I get very annoyed when people threaten them
casually -- more so when they then flake out (DJB case) or claim it was
just a "misunderstanding".
> Thanks for your commentary!
No problem. As Miracle Max said, "Have fun storming the castle!"
More information about the linux-elitists