[Sussex] Distros

[Steve Dobson]

Chris

On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 02:04:17PM +0100, Chris Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 5 April, 2005 13:15, Steve Dobson said:
> > the community.  SCO v. IBM has shown me the error of that thinking.
> 
> I still say there is little point drawing any conclusions from SCO vs IBM
> other than SCO are idiots ;)

I disagree, IBM has shown us much on how to defend against such case.  Just
because SCO is so poor at putting its side of the argument doesn't mean that
there aren't lessons to be learnt for the next one, that is better prepared.
 
> > I would suggest that you do look very closely at the issues between the
> > two camps, and work out where your allegiance lie.
> 
> That actually could also be the problem. Why should I ally myself with one
> camp?

A good question, I hope I can provide a good answer.

>       I have already made it quite clear I am a pragmatist first and
> foremost, thus allying myself with either camp would be silly. I will
> always pick the best solution, not the purest one or the cheapest one. All
> factors are weighed.

I am not suggesting that you always go for on camp and only pick from there.
I see no reason why you can't be pragmatic but still support on group because
they are closest you your own personal ideals.
 
> > If everyone wanted to play fair it wouldn't matter.  But not everyone does
> > want to play fair, and therefore we need rules that force everyone to play
> > fair in case they decided to turn in the future.
> 
> the only rules we need are the clauses in software licenses and they
> should not be imposed on anyone who doesn't want them.

To me the clauses are the rules written down in legallise.  If you want
the software then you have to accept the rules (clauses) too.  So I think
we agree on this point.

I once heard that the law was not that for the lawabiding, but for the 
criminals.  That is what I am trying to say - poorly it seams.

Steve