On 2002.07.18 10:53 Richard Rauch wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Karl O . Pinc wrote:
> 
> > This time I'm taking your personal reply and making it public.  I hope
> > you don't mind.
> 
> "This time?"  What previous time did I write to you?
> 
> (And, I do mind.  The topic has wasted altogether too much bandwidth on
> the public list.  Further, I try to take more care in a public post than
> in a private post.)

My mistake.  I mis-attributed your message. I apologize.

> For the rest, I have disagreements with what you say.  But, as with my
> previous message, I don't think that they contribute anything useful to
> to
> this forum.

Ok.  So I'll go away.

>  The only thing I will say is: I suspect that Perry has a
> thick enough skin to take your original comments in stride.  But you
> missed the point entirely: Had you read the lists, you would probably
> have
> worked out that he doesn't need to ask someone to explain the licenses to
> him.  To be a little more blunt, it's a good idea to read lists before
> you
> post.  The NetBSD lists have archives, so you don't need to wait a few
> weeks to see what they're like.  "Fame" has nothing to do with it.

I'll read the lists before I post if either I have reason to believe
that the question has been answered on the list, or when there is no
description of the list and it's necessary to determine if the
question is topical.  I don't feel netiquette requires I familiarize
myself with the background of the various regular contributors. 
Had Perry responded to my post by telling me it was off-topic, I'd
have disappeared.  He did not.  He derided the subject matter.
Flamage ensued, during which I have attempted to keep civil while
defending my position.  You miss the gist of my response to Perry,
which is that whether or not you use a license and which license you
chose, does matter.  I did not articulate this in a straightforward
fashion, but rather used the same casual backhanded humor with which
Perry responded to me.  I believe response in kind is fair and
appropriate, so long as no harm is meant, and that the specific point
was clear.  I've tried to remain polite and respectful in my
subsequent responses and see no violation of netiquette in refuting
attacks on my argument, particularly when they are less than polite
and respectful.  Not when the subject is on-topic.

The list did get, and respond to, my point.  That giving away code,
without license, and without warning of bugs which you have good
reason to believe the code contains, subjects you liability in civil
court.  Or maybe that's just what I wished I'd have said at the time,
when what I really said was "You use the BSD license for a reason, why
don't you figure out what it is?", believing that the only reason the
BSD license exists is to disclaim liability.  The general response of
the list has been disbelief.  That there's no reason, or no reason any
longer, for the BSD license to exist, other than the hassle involved
in not using it.  That having no license is as good as the BSD
license.  I don't buy it.

The list has barely responded to my original post.

You are right.  Little useful has come of this.  I'd like to thank
those people who sat quietly by while we wasted your bandwidth and
your time.

Karl <kop@meme.com>