Re: [gentoo-dev] Ethical Policy

["David Herbert" <mail@dsherbert.freeserve.co.uk>]

My issue is not about the 'relative merits and requirements of various
licenses' as such, although that does play a part.  Here's the point.
Microsoft plan is total world domination, they want the open internet
standards to be replaced by their own closed standards, etc, etc... this is
all in their long term business plan which they publish on their website
(investor relations link http://www.microsoft.com/msft/) so at least they're
honest about it.  Red Hat, SUSE and the rest are honest about their
positions as businesses, and I have no problem with any of them.

Where I have a problem is with the totally dishonest implication that
gentoo.org is making. Gentoo.org is implying that they are somehow
different, but it now quite clear that you are not.  I think that if you
were a .org in sprit rather then just a domain name, you would be proud and
happy to answer my ethical concerns, but instead you are mearly brushing
away and dismissing them, which is exactly what I'd expect of Microsoft, I
just never expected it from a Linux .org organization.  I'm also surprised
that apparently so many people are helping you, giving you there own time
and effort without questioning who you are.

The reason I got interested in gentoo.org in the first place was for the
very reason that you were a .org.  There are lots of other Linux  .com
companies springing up and very few .orgs.  I pleasantly surprised to find
another .org and wanted to support you, I am now of course sawly
dissapointed and will take your suggestion to go for debian, I think you are
right, I will be happier there.

Regards,
David Herbert

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tod M. Neidt" <tod@gentoo.org>
To: <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Ethical Policy


> On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 12:09, David Herbert wrote:
>
> > ends.  Gentoo 'appears' to have strong connections to IBM, which to me
> > contradicts their .org status.  These are some of many reasons why I
think
> > that if gentoo want to be a .org they need to explain who they are,
hence
> > the need for a social contract.
> >
>
> I think you might be confused by the existence of the gentoo.com domain
> name.  Please review this entire thread
>
> http://lists.gentoo.org/pipermail/gentoo-dev/2001-September/006795.html
>
> There can also be found threads in the archives debating the relative
> merits and requirements of various licenses.
>
> Unless drobbins feels the need to clarify his position to you, I'm
> afraid the information provided to you will have to suffice.  If this is
> not sufficient, I have formed the impression (rightly or wrongly) that
> you would probably be more comfortable using and contributing to Debian.
>
> Best of Luck,
>
> tod
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
>