RE: license discussions

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Bradford
> Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 1:47 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [forum] license discussions
> 
> > I and the XFree86
> > board will not stand by and let their generosity be abused by those 
> > who (a) want to tell volunteers what to do (including 
> forcing them to 
> > be public servants!)
> 
> Is that 'public servants' reference in reference to Mark 
> Vojkovich's reply to my post with subject 'Mission statement 
> and 1.1 license issues'?

Public service is not a new issue to XFree96.

The project is about developers, code and what serves them.  Although the
end result serves the public, any decision to serve the public is made by
individual developers and is never imposed.

Any impression that a vendor consortium will be a public servant will almost
certainly change with time.  We've been there before.  He who does not learn
from history is doomed to repeat it.

Rich



> 
> I assume it is, because that, and my response to it are the 
> only instances on the list where I can find the phrase 
> 'public servant'
> used in a post.
> 
> If so, may I ask why you are posting what I consider to be 
> misleading information, because I explicitly stated in my 
> response that:
> 
> > I am _not_ suggesting that anybody become a public servant 
> who doesn't 
> > want to
> 
> So, just who do you think does "want to tell volunteers what 
> to do (including forcing them to be public servants!)".
> 
> Also, what do you mean by 'forcing' volunteers?  Do you 
> consider something to be 'forced' just because it is in the 
> mission statement?
> Nobody is _forced_ to volunteer in the first place.
> 
> John.
> _______________________________________________
> Forum mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum
> 
>