Re: Licensing, again

Re: Licensing, again

[Carroll, Andrew]

Markus, you, nor anyone on the list is my service personnel.  I offer my
apologies to all of you if you think I treated you that way.  I also
offer my condolences if you put yourself in that position.  "That's your
problem man!"

>From my point of view you and Ludovic were rude to me and as I explained
to him, I explain to you.  I don't deserve it.

It will be interesting to see how far you will go to cover up your
condescending attitude and tone.  No matter how you sugar coat it;
whether it be under the pretense of an experiment, or some story from
your journal or if you hide behind an excuse like being treated like
service personnel then you're still being condescending.

When you offer an apology for that then you'll be ready to graduate to
bigger and better things.


Andrew

Re: Licensing, again

[Pascal Obry]

Sorry Andrew but with this attitude you probably won't get any more help
on this forum. That is the first time I see somebody asking for help,
getting it and reacting this way just because a link as to be clicked to
get the definite answer!

I'm 100% in agreement with Ludovic and Markus.

Good luck!

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.net
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: Licensing, again

[Georg Bauhaus]

Pascal Obry wrote:
> Sorry Andrew but with this attitude you probably won't get any more help
> on this forum. That is the first time I see somebody asking for help,
> getting it and reacting this way just because a link as to be clicked to
> get the definite answer!

The bare instruction "See X" can be a bit brief,
all the more when the content at the end of the link X is only suitable
for a short exegesis that does in the end show there are compilers
that may meet peoples needs, and insofar have the "correct" license for
specific uses. But summarizing this fact in the unadorned
"See X" gives information far from obvious in this case! The absence of
any hint to a causal connection doesn't help either, in my view.

A few more words from your reusable repertoire of polite boilerplate text
can help prevent the unintended consequence of an instruction being
characterized as condescending. It can be condescending when the connection
between question Y and answer "See X" is *not* immediately obvious
in any way (I think this is the case in this thread).
  You're being treated as slightly stupid, or not-knowing-yet, if your
mind can't unveil the implicit logical details of the connection between
*general* "See X" and a *specific*, complex, and context dependent question.

Compare:
Would you be content with  "See Ch. 3 of the RM" when someone asks
a specific question about enumeration types?

One very useful detail is a textual *label* attached to a pointer to a
*specific* passage of text.
In Ada (culture), we are told, you try to avoid being implicit and overly
brief, don't you ;-)
 Imagine a classroom situation, someone asks, 'Why?',
and the the teacher answers 'See X' invariably. That'd be a caricature
of a teacher in my book, even when from some formal point of view he or she
might be correct. 

If, at a help desk, they just gave you a thick book they may be logically
correct, but they wouldn't, uh, help; what they do in fact is explain just
briefly, routinely, and without straining their muscles,  how this book
of instructions will best answer the question, if only saying
that "this book does answer your question about Y in section X." etc.
Note the specifics.

Maybe this is an exaggerated analogy featuring the couple Joe and Mary:

 MARY (in the kitchen): Joe? Do you know where Y is?
 JOE (in the dinging room): Yes. Somewhere in the house.
 MARY (rushing towards the dinging room, angry): _____

Joe may be correct, but he could easily have done better.
Fill in the blanks, or change Joe's answer. :-)



-- Georg 

Re: Licensing, again

[Ludovic Brenta]

"Carroll, Andrew" <andrew.carroll@okstate.edu> writes:

> Markus, you, nor anyone on the list is my service personnel.  I offer my
> apologies to all of you if you think I treated you that way.  I also
> offer my condolences if you put yourself in that position.  "That's your
> problem man!"
>
>>From my point of view you and Ludovic were rude to me and as I explained
> to him, I explain to you.  I don't deserve it.
>
> It will be interesting to see how far you will go to cover up your
> condescending attitude and tone.  No matter how you sugar coat it;
> whether it be under the pretense of an experiment, or some story from
> your journal or if you hide behind an excuse like being treated like
> service personnel then you're still being condescending.
>
> When you offer an apology for that then you'll be ready to graduate to
> bigger and better things.

OK, I apologise for being rude to you in my *second* post, which I
should not have written.  I was angry and frustrated that you
dismissed the useful, complete and detailed answers I pointed you to
in my *first* post by calling that "a little wiki-link".  Several
people have put in a lot of effort to write that "little wiki" and it
is just not right of you to ignore that and refuse to follow the
links.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Licensing, again

[M E Leypold]

First and foremost my apologies to all: This is really OT. Still I
think I don't want to let this thread stand in public as if Andrew had
scared me away :-).

Hi Andrew,

"Carroll, Andrew" <andrew.carroll@okstate.edu> writes:

> From my point of view you and Ludovic were rude to me and as I
> explained to him, I explain to you.  I don't deserve it.

I've been going back to your post on which I then "butted in" as you
said, and found

> >Also, see
> >http://www.ada-france.org/debian/debian-ada-policy.html#How-the-Ada->co
> mpiler-for-Etch-was-chosen again, I really mean it when I say "see this
> >page".

> You can keep your little wiki-link.  It took you more characters to type
> the links and all that elementary babble about really reading things
> than it would have to just answer my question.

I, personally, think you just overstepped the line there and deserved
my answer to that.

I won't pretend you were "rude". My message to you was essentially
about wether you really think that attitude will help you to get more
answers in future. Since you refused advice and really started to
throw around accusations (a rather childish reaction in my opinion), I
do not think I could help you there. As I said, I'm still working on
the right code to get that message across to some kinds of usenet
posters.

> When you offer an apology for that then you'll be ready to graduate to
> bigger and better things.

Overall I think you take all this much too serious. This is not a game
of a sort you have to win by forcing others to apologize to
you. Furthermore if it were so, your moves would be extraordinarily
inept. Allow me to demonstrate:


 <demonstration>

> It will be interesting to see how far you will go to cover up your
> condescending attitude and tone.  No matter how you sugar coat it;
> whether it be under the pretense of an experiment, or some story from
> your journal or if you hide behind an excuse like being treated like
> service personnel then you're still being condescending.

Yes, I'm condescending. So what?

 </demonstration>


My suggestion would be, that you calm down and we just forget that
episode. Note that I have not insisted on an apology from you and
still don't, also to make it possible to you just to forget this whole
thing. Everyone can slip up now and then :-) (so can I, I'm no angel
myself).

I'm sure that after a number of reasonable posts nobody will remember
all this and I'm confident that most will still read you posts and
answer your questions. I personally will welcome your contributions to
c.l.a.

If on the other side you still think you have an issue with me, I'm
willing to discuss it, but I suggest you write me by personal e-mail
and spare c.l.a.

Regards -- Markus

Re: Licensing, again

[Carroll, Andrew]

Markus,

You can try to sign off this thread but of course you won't because
winning the conversation is of more importance to you than actually
taking the time to get to a resolution.  That's probably why your
attempts at "the right code" never work; because YOU miss the point not
them.

Case in point:  This wasn't your thread in the first place.  Stop trying
to be the hero.  It's best to just leave it alone; which is what I've
been trying to tell you for quite some time now.  Besides, just trying
to win the conversation shows how much you LACK insight, not how much
you provide it.  

Case 2 in point:  You said "Don't be so modest. You _deserve_ an answer,
even if it costs me_my valuable_ time."  You'd trade valuable time just
to save face?  That doesn't sound like a hero.

>I freely admit to being an idiot for ever having taken that up, and
>taking it up again doesn't make it better: Obviously some insights
>don't come easier to the recipient if at all when force fed to him.
Insights?  Don't flatter yourself.  I'm sure if you shut your mouth and
listen more you would make some progress and actually come up with
something insightful.  It's okay little buddy, keep trying, you'll get
it some day.

Regardless, I'm glad you are giving in.  Good luck to you, you'll need
it!

Now on to bigger and better things.

Ludovic wrote:
>OK, I apologise for being rude to you in my *second* post, which I
>should not have written. I was angry and frustrated that you
>dismissed the useful, complete and detailed answers I pointed you to
>in my *first* post by calling that "a little wiki-link". Several
>people have put in a lot of effort to write that "little wiki" and it
>is just not right of you to ignore that and refuse to follow the
>links.

Your information in the 3 July 2006 posting was understood and a great
answer.  I did not mean to imply that the wiki is useless.  I think
George's post on July 8th better explains my feelings than anything.  I
read the link when you posted it, the second time and it wasn't the wiki
or the link but the way you came across.  I apologize for my rude
response and implying that the wiki was useless.  

In my work I am required to explain things, not just provide a link and
as such I had the expectation that I would get something other than a
link back.  My oversight is that c.l.a. is not my work place and I
cannot expect the same things; even if they are explicitly stated.
Unfortunately, Ludovic, with respect to our interaction / relationship,
other people piped in when they really shouldn't have.  

Lastly I apologize to everyone on the list (other than Markus, of
course) that I've drawn this out and also for implying the wiki was
worthless.  This will be my last post on this thread, regardless of what
everyone replies.  

Andrew

Re: Licensing, again

[Carroll, Andrew]

>>>Also, see
>>>http://www.ada-france.org/debian/debian-ada-policy.html#How-the-Ada->
co
>>>mpiler-for-Etch-was-chosen again, I really mean it when I say "see
this
>>>page".
>
>> You can keep your little wiki-link.  It took you more characters to
type
>> the links and all that elementary babble about really reading things
>> than it would have to just answer my question.
>
>I, personally, think you just overstepped the line there and deserved
>my answer to that.
I was just giving back the same attitude that I got.  I don't see an
apology from him to c.l.a. so I guess being rude is common here and NO
ONE has to apologize.  We can all just be rude to each other eh?

>
>Yes, I'm condescending. So what?
>
It means that your research on "the right code" is a figment of your
attitude and not based on any fact.

It shows that you are willing to continue this discussion for your own
personal satisfaction and your intent is to mock people.  Is that why
you are on c.l.a?  So you can give people "the right code" and mock
them?

Please, don't answer that, you'll be wasting all our time.


Andrew

Re: Licensing, again

[M E Leypold]

"Carroll, Andrew" <andrew.carroll@okstate.edu> writes:

> >>>Also, see
> >>>http://www.ada-france.org/debian/debian-ada-policy.html#How-the-Ada->
> co
> >>>mpiler-for-Etch-was-chosen again, I really mean it when I say "see
> this
> >>>page".
> >
> >> You can keep your little wiki-link.  It took you more characters to
> type
> >> the links and all that elementary babble about really reading things
> >> than it would have to just answer my question.
> >
> >I, personally, think you just overstepped the line there and deserved
> >my answer to that.
> I was just giving back the same attitude that I got.  I don't see an
> apology from him to c.l.a. so I guess being rude is common here and NO
> ONE has to apologize.  We can all just be rude to each other eh?
> 
> >
> >Yes, I'm condescending. So what?
> >
> It means that your research on "the right code" is a figment of your
> attitude and not based on any fact.
> 
> It shows that you are willing to continue this discussion for your own
> personal satisfaction and your intent is to mock people.  Is that why
> you are on c.l.a?  So you can give people "the right code" and mock
> them?
> 
> Please, don't answer that, you'll be wasting all our time.


Dearest Andrew,

Don't be so modest. You _deserve_ an answer, even if it costs me
_my valuable_ time.

I freely admit to being an idiot for ever having taken that up, and
taking it up again doesn't make it better: Obviously some insights
don't come easier to the recipient if at all when force fed to him.

As my last answer before signing off from this thread forever, let me
just quote the the part of my mail you so conveniently snipped away:

| Overall I think you take all this much too serious. 

<...>

| My suggestion would be, that you calm down and we just forget that
| episode.

<...>

| If on the other side you still think you have an issue with me, I'm
| willing to discuss it, but I suggest you write me by personal e-mail
| and spare c.l.a.

I think that (and your answer to that) says enough.

In the meantime I've come to see even the entertainment value of this
thread as rather low. As a sparring partner you're sadly lacking in
style and are indeed far from being a master of witful repartee. So
it's really time to quit now.

Still amused -- Markus


PS:

   You were also writing:

    > I was just giving back the same attitude that I got.  I don't
    > see an apology from him to c.l.a. so I guess being rude is
    > common here (...)

   From the context I conclude the "him" must be meaning Ludovic. I
   note, and would like to point out to you that Ludovic actually
   apologized to you (a thing I'd never have done in that
   case). Perhaps you should (apart from learning how to ask
   questions) also learn how to read usenet.

   

Re: Licensing, again

[Simon Wright]

M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes:

> "Carroll, Andrew" <andrew.carroll@okstate.edu> writes:

>    You were also writing:
>
>     > I was just giving back the same attitude that I got.  I don't
>     > see an apology from him to c.l.a. so I guess being rude is
>     > common here (...)
>
>    From the context I conclude the "him" must be meaning Ludovic. I
>    note, and would like to point out to you that Ludovic actually
>    apologized to you (a thing I'd never have done in that
>    case). Perhaps you should (apart from learning how to ask
>    questions) also learn how to read usenet.

I've stopped reading Mr Carroll's postings, but from what I remember
his newsreader doesn't do threading. So it's a case of needing to find
the right tool for the job.

Re: Licensing, again

[Carroll, Andrew]

------------------------------
From: M E Leypold
	<development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>
Subject: Re: Licensing, again

> Well, that is your problem then, man. (Shaking my head). You obviously
> don't want an answer. Let me tell you: The Debian policy documents for
> choosing the compilers now and in future are exemplary (at least
> compared with the usual non documentation of open source stuff goes
> :-)). 
>
> And don't expect people to "explain" something to you if you're to
> conceited to read some text elsewhere which explains what you want to
> know. After all under these circumstance one wouldn't expect you to
> read the explanation written in c.l.a, or would you?
>
> Regards -- Markus
------------------------------

So you're going to try and butt in and make it your problem because
you're the ultimate authority on all matters and subjects; especially
what Ludovic thinks and what I want.  Talk about conceited.  

After all, YOU would expect me to read the explanation in c.l.a. but I
do not revolve around what YOU want.  Not to mention that the wiki-link
was not presented as a FAQ link before I asked the question nor was it
presented as an FAQ in the response to my question.  For that matter
Ludovic wasn't even the person to say that the wiki IS the FAQ.

Andrew

Re: Licensing, again

[Ludovic Brenta]

Carroll, Andrew writes:
> After all, YOU would expect me to read the explanation in c.l.a. but I
> do not revolve around what YOU want.  Not to mention that the wiki-link
> was not presented as a FAQ link before I asked the question nor was it
> presented as an FAQ in the response to my question.  For that matter
> Ludovic wasn't even the person to say that the wiki IS the FAQ.

The reason why it is a FAQ is because we've been discussing this
licensing issue to death for a couple of weeks now.  Nobody here can
be held responsible if you missed these threads entirely.  I saw a
post from you two weeks ago, where you said you were having a hard
time catching up.  Fine: I was nice enough not to blame you for
missing the recent discussion, and instead I pointed you to full,
documented answers.  If now you refuse to read them, "this is your
problem, man".  Just like Markus said.

I feel you owe us both an apology.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Licensing, again

[Simon Wright]

*plonk*

Re: Licensing, again

[M E Leypold]

"Carroll, Andrew" <andrew.carroll@okstate.edu> writes:

> ------------------------------
> From: M E Leypold
> 	<development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>
> Subject: Re: Licensing, again
> 
> > Well, that is your problem then, man. (Shaking my head). You obviously
> > don't want an answer. Let me tell you: The Debian policy documents for
> > choosing the compilers now and in future are exemplary (at least
> > compared with the usual non documentation of open source stuff goes
> > :-)). 
> >
> > And don't expect people to "explain" something to you if you're to
> > conceited to read some text elsewhere which explains what you want to
> > know. After all under these circumstance one wouldn't expect you to
> > read the explanation written in c.l.a, or would you?
> >
> > Regards -- Markus
> ------------------------------
> 
> So you're going to try and butt in and make it your problem because
> you're the ultimate authority on all matters and subjects; especially

Yes. :-)

> what Ludovic thinks and what I want.  Talk about conceited.  
> 
> After all, YOU would expect me to read the explanation in c.l.a. but I
> do not revolve around what YOU want.  Not to mention that the wiki-link
> was not presented as a FAQ link before I asked the question nor was it
> presented as an FAQ in the response to my question.  For that matter
> Ludovic wasn't even the person to say that the wiki IS the FAQ.

Stupid flame war. Never mind, but just to further your understanding: 

I'm now not going back the thread to find out what happened. But my
distinct impression was, that you had a question and got offered a
link. Instead of reading it, you flamed the person that wanted you to
help.

Now even seeing this happen, pisses me off sometimes. After all this
is a public forum and I can "make it my problem". From there I had
three messages for you:

 1) You were (in my eyes) rude and should consider this.

 2) Probably you hadn't appreciated the value of the link. I found it
    rather valuable, you should try to read it.

 3) A general lesson on communication in usenet: Usually you don't get
    any answers (any more) if you look as if couldn't be bothered
    either to do basic research before asking or (that being your
    case) to follow references to sources given as answers to your
    questions.

    After all, all the helpful people on usenet are not paid for
    helping you.

I'm not surprised that you refused in a sense all three messages. I'd
be sorry if this were a matter of keeping your face (by not admitting
a mistake in public), perhaps the general note of my message didn't
make that easy. I wish you more luck in you further inquiries.

Regards -- Markus

RE: Licensing, again

[Carroll, Andrew]

>------------------------------
>From: "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
>Subject: Licensing, again
>
[snip]
>> > See http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Installing
>
>Read that page. I really mean it. Have you read that page? Really?
>
>Also, see
>http://www.ada-france.org/debian/debian-ada-policy.html#How-the-Ada->co
mpiler-for-Etch-was-chosen again, I really mean it when I say "see this
>page".

You can keep your little wiki-link.  It took you more characters to type
the links and all that elementary babble about really reading things
than it would have to just answer my question.

Andrew

Re: Licensing, again

[M E Leypold]

"Carroll, Andrew" <andrew.carroll@okstate.edu> writes:

> >------------------------------
> >From: "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
> >Subject: Licensing, again
> >
> [snip]
> >> > See http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Installing
> >
> >Read that page. I really mean it. Have you read that page? Really?
> >
> >Also, see
> >http://www.ada-france.org/debian/debian-ada-policy.html#How-the-Ada->co
> mpiler-for-Etch-was-chosen again, I really mean it when I say "see this
> >page".
> 
> You can keep your little wiki-link.  It took you more characters to type
> the links and all that elementary babble about really reading things
> than it would have to just answer my question.

Well, that is your problem then, man. (Shaking my head). You obviously
don't want an answer. Let me tell you: The Debian policy documents for
choosing the compilers now and in future are exemplary (at least
compared with the usual non documentation of open source stuff goes
:-)). 

And don't expect people to "explain" something to you if you're to
conceited to read some text elsewhere which explains what you want to
know. After all under these circumstance one wouldn't expect you to
read the explanation written in c.l.a, or would you?

Regards -- Markus

Re: Licensing, again

[Martin Krischik]

Carroll, Andrew wrote:
> >------------------------------
> >From: "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
> >Subject: Licensing, again
> >
> [snip]
> >> > See http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Installing
> >
> >Read that page. I really mean it. Have you read that page? Really?
> >
> >Also, see
> >http://www.ada-france.org/debian/debian-ada-policy.html#How-the-Ada->co
> mpiler-for-Etch-was-chosen again, I really mean it when I say "see this
> >page".
>
> You can keep your little wiki-link.  It took you more characters to type
> the links and all that elementary babble about really reading things
> than it would have to just answer my question.

1st: Nobody types links. They are just copied.

2nd and more important: You are not the only one to ask theese
questions. That is why most news groups have FAQs. And some of them
post them every month in the vain hope that there are read.

We here have - among others -
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming. Quite often I create a
new article on the wiki and then post a link as answer. Because I know
I will need that answer again next month - or next school term - for
some other Ada beginner which will ask the same question again.

Don't get me wrong: I don't mind answering. And I know that beginners
often don't even know what search term they need to get the right
answer. It had been the same for me.

Martin

Re: Licensing, again

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <1151992938.363421.274110@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "Martin Krischik" <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:

> 1st: Nobody types links. They are just copied.

I copy links because I am accessing my character cell newsreader
from a graphics workstation.  But that is not necessarily true
for all.

Re: Licensing, again

[brian.b.mcguinness]

Martin Krischik wrote:
>
> We here have - among others -
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming. Quite often I create a
> new article on the wiki and then post a link as answer. Because I know
> I will need that answer again next month - or next school term - for
> some other Ada beginner which will ask the same question again.

I have found this wikibook to be a very useful reference, and I
appreciate your work in making it available.

--- Brian

RE: comp.lang.ada Digest, Vol 28, Issue 50

[Carroll, Andrew]

>------------------------------
>From: "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
>Subject: Re: Ada2005 Compiler
>
>Carroll, Andrew wrote :
>> How did all the messages about licensing issues come up on this list
>> anyway?
>
>Because AdaCore changed the licensing of libraries to the pure GPL.
>
>> Is it only an issue of the libraries involved?  Is there a project
>> underway to make an open source compiler specifically for Ada2005
that
>> does not have ties to anyone and has the correct "open source"
>> licensing?
>
>What is "correct" open source licensing? Libraries licensed under the
>GPL are "open source" all right, as per the OSI definition. 

Well, you seem to know more about it than I do so maybe you can tell me
what the "correct" open source licensing is/should be.  It sounds to me,
from the posts about the licensing, is that the licensing changed and
the new licensing does not meet many people's needs.  Hence the question
about developing a compiler that does meet the people's needs;
specifically the open source community.

>
[snip]
>See http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Installing
>
>-- 
>Ludovic Brenta.
>------------------------------


Andrew

Licensing, again

[Ludovic Brenta]

Carroll, Andrew wrote :
> Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> >What is "correct" open source licensing? Libraries licensed under the
> >GPL are "open source" all right, as per the OSI definition.
>
> Well, you seem to know more about it than I do so maybe you can tell me
> what the "correct" open source licensing is/should be.  It sounds to me,
> from the posts about the licensing, is that the licensing changed and
> the new licensing does not meet many people's needs.  Hence the question
> about developing a compiler that does meet the people's needs;
> specifically the open source community.
>
> >
> [snip]
> > See http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Installing

Read that page. I really mean it. Have you read that page? Really?

Also, see
http://www.ada-france.org/debian/debian-ada-policy.html#How-the-Ada-compiler-for-Etch-was-chosen

again, I really mean it when I say "see this page".

The recent discussion did not apply to libgnat but to the other
libraries from AdaCore: AWS, ASIS-for-GNAT, GLADE, XML/Ada, and above
all, GtkAda. The arguments, for or against, are the same.

You also seem to have an implicit definition of "people's needs" which
I think you should explain better.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.