Re: license discussions

On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 07:47:18PM +0100, John Bradford wrote:
>> 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'?
>
>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.

Bad assumption.  The notion that volunteers have some implied duty
to provide a public support service, whether it be to individuals,
companies, or other organisations, is nothing new.  Look over the
archives of the various lists.

The volunteer contributors, developers and supporters of XFree86
give generously of their time and expertise to the extent that they
desire.  That's what "volunteer" means.  The XFree86 mission statement
makes it clear that it is a volunteer-driven project.  Nobody who
reads the mission statement should walk away confused about this.

Your issue seems to be whether users (undefined) should rely on a
the work of a project that doesn't define its existence in terms
of serving its users.  The answer to that is to remember what
"volunteer" means, and consider how dishonest it would be for a
volunteer-driven organisation to set false expectations.

Have you ever considered why, as you yourself stated, goals like this
are usually unwritten?

>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.

Company-sponsored individuals and organisations trying to impose
their will on a volunteer project doesn't count as "forcing"
volunteers?  Few would volunteer under such a scenario.  It looks
like the point of the continued harrasement of volunteers here is
precisely to the volunteers away.  Thanks for clarifying that.

David