Civility in the Marketplace of Ideas [was: Public Domain Python]

[Pat McCann]

hzhu at users.sourceforge.net (Huaiyu Zhu) writes:

> Hi, Pat McCann,
> 
> I'm not sure if this is your real name.  But since I was wondering why there
> has been a persistent thread attacking RMS in confusing ways, I did a little
> review of pipermail archive.  Your first post came up on Aug 14, as a follow
> up to "some comments for Python 3000 - my requests"

Well, pat my can; I've been found out.  It's not my real name.  I might
even have posted here under a different name shortly before then.  I was
drawn here by news that the Python license (which was an important
influence in leading me to purchasing "Learning Python") was changing.
I'll admit to knowing more about licensing than about Python.  I plan
to know more about each, but licensing is currently my main interest.

I've been trying to prepare myself for organizing an effort to
popularize the use of a license similar to the new Python license, other 
just-don't-sue-me licenses, and transfers to the PD.  I'm slowly working
on the web site, but I'll probably not be willing to do all the nasty 
organizational work and offensive and defensive propaganda that I'd have
to do as the real me for all future employers and associates to have
easy access to in Internet archives.  I'm no RMS.

> [snip]
> 
> I don't quite see how this relates to Python.  But from that time on, you
> just kept on picking every thread relating to licence and patent and trade
> marks and make unsubstantiated attacks on RMS, FSF, and GPL.

Yeah, except that I've substantiated them frequently.  Are you implying
that I shouldn't comment on other people's comments about licensing-
related issues, or that I should filter my thoughts to avoid comments
on RMS, FSF, and GPL?  My personal attack on RMS have only concerned his
actions as propagandist for copyleft.  I have several other arrows in my
quiver which I've held back as being too personal (all from public
sources; I've never communicated with him).  I don't want to hurt the man;
I just want more people to understand that what he says and writes is often
deceptive.  Sometimes because of the unavoidable ambiguity of language,
sometimes because he takes advantage of the same, and sometimes because
he is simply deceptive (which I can infer only because he clearly
recommended deception (and implied that the Ends Justifies the Means) 
in an archived mailing-list message previously referred to by URL.

The snipped quote was, I thought, a suggestion for improving the syntax
of Python which I thought could probably coexist with the current syntax.
It seemed on-topic to me, but I guess I have to admit that I didn't really
expect to be accepted and was hoping one of the clever people that read 
here would consider it when designing the next scripting language.

> To alleviate my suspicion, (and that of many other who would certainly be
> aroused), would you please tell us a little bit about what you do with
> this "your language", and why you like it?  I would appreciate it very much,
> and would apologize if my suspicion turned out to be unfounded.

You don't say what your suspicion is, which makes it harder to
alleviate.  First, you are unfair in implying that I said Python was "my
language".  I said "I'd just like my languages to..." which implies no
such thing.  Do you suspect that I'm not a Python coder?  IIRC, I've
said that I'm a beginner.  (I keep "Learning Python" on my toilet tank,
but it is not often read.)  About the only thing I've done with it so
far is to debug "linbot".  IIRC, I've already said why I like Python,
but it mainly has to do with its readability (indentation replacing
grouping tokens), its good-looking OO support, and, of course, its (old)
license.  And while there are things to like about Perl (I've only read
books and toyed with that too), it's much harder to read and offers too
many ways to do one thing for my taste.


Now that I've tried to satisfy your curiosity, maybe you'll care to
return the favor.  Why do you care?  Or was that supposed to be a
complaint hidden in face-saving language which doesn't need to be
defended because it doesn't make any important points overtly?
(You should know that some people find such "polite" writing to be quite
impolite because the insulted can't, with certainty, complain that
anything insulting was said, let alone defend himself against it. In
this case, it makes little difference, since I see no need to defend
myself against anything I am able to infer from your post.)