Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:31:13 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Dan MacMillan" <flowers@users.sourceforge.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: [OT] Sapir-Whorfian Advertising Clause (was Advertising clause in license) Message-ID: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNAEIGEPAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <FGEIJLCPFDNMGDOKNBABIEPODFAA.flowers@users.sourceforge.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dan MacMillan [mailto:flowers@users.sourceforge.net] > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 1:04 AM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Danny MacMillan > Cc: Nell Weems; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: RE: [OT] Sapir-Whorfian Advertising Clause (was Advertising > clause in license) > > > > From: Ted Mittelstaedt > > > From: Danny MacMillan > > > > > > Be that as it may, the term "advertising clause" seems strictly > > > definitive, as it pertains to a clause that refers to advertising. > > > That much at least seems obvious from what Nell fgrep'd for. I > > > don't disagree with the substance of your point, but it is counter- > > > productive to redefine language to suit one's political agenda. > > > > No it is not. People find it productive to redefine language to > > suit their political agenda all the time. > > > > The original term out of the license was not "advertising clause". The > > original term, right out of the license, was "acknowledgement" > > I can only refer you to the license itself, which contains both > "advertising" and "acknowledgement": > > 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software > must display the following acknowledgement: following ACKNOWLEDGEMENT In this context, the required text is labeled as an acknowledgement, not as advertising. > This product includes software developed by the University of > California, Berkeley and its contributors. > > > The GPL crowd found themselves sounding like a bunch of ungrateful > > spoiled brats when they originally tried telling people the BSD license > > was bad because it "had a clause that required you to acknowledge the > > copyright holders" > > > > So, they did a bit of creative doublespeak and came up with the > > slur "advertising clause" > > > > Since advertising is associated with commercial activities, this > > carried an instant negative connotation in the free software > > community. The GPL bigots didn't even have to explain what an > advertising > > clause was, the mere presense of the word "advertising" was > enough to set > > people against the acknowledgement clause. > > > > Notice how just changing the term back to the real term "acknowledgement > > clause" removes the negative connotation and lets the truth of > > what it really is show through? > > > > You are very naieve if you think that words and phrases don't carry > > negative connotations, or by chance are you in the habit of using > > terms like "nigger", Danny boy? > > > > The very name FreeBSD was defined to suit a political agenda. While > > you may not like living in a world that uses language as a weapon, > > that's the kind of world most people live in, and you better get > > used to operating in it. > > > > Ted > > You're bringing a lot of baggage to this discussion. > We are both guilty of that. And why may I ask are the additional issues "baggage"? Most people do like to understand things, you know. It is not really possible to understand complex issues by boiling them down to nothing, after all. Your statement is along the lines of "Now children, this is grownup talk that you won't understand, go away and play" > As long as people focus on what the words are instead of what they > mean they will always be easy prey to the next group of "bigots" > that walk through the door. That was my sole point. > Yes, this is a valid point. I understand it and I think most educated people on this list understand it. I thought Nell understood it which is why I figured it was worth correcting her or him. That is why I REQUESTED that the initial poster not use a derogatory term. They are of course free to use whatever term they want - but they deserve to know at least that it is derogatory. I did not think the initial poster was asking for a lesson in semantics along with my request - you however chose to argue the request. > Let's consider language as a weapon for a moment. You paint your- > self as a knee-jerk reactionary by using emotionally charged > pejoratives like "GPL bigots" and "Linux bigots". Whoah, there. I use the term GPL bigots because there ARE GPL bigots. I did not say at any point that ALL GPL advocates are bigots. The same is true of use of the term Linux bigots. Not all who are Linux advocates are bigots, and not all who are GPL advocates are bigots. To put it in mathematical terms, the set of GPL bigots is a subset ot GPL advocates. I would not tarnish the set of GPL advocates with the ugly actions of their bigoted subset. Why are you seeming to want me to do so? And as for painting myself, no I'm not doing that. YOU are attempting to label me as a knee-jerk reactionary. I personally don't think you have succeeded in doing so. > You further > marginalize yourself through the use of dismissive diminutives > like "Danny boy". Your prior post argued: "it is counter-productive to redefine language to suit one's political agenda." But guess what, you are taking offence in my use of the term "danny boy" through your label of it as a dismissive diminutive. As my intent was to get you to take offence - in order to shake you up out of your mental rut - I have succeeded in doing so. Therefore, redefining you with the label "danny boy" worked, thus you yourself have served as the proof against your assertion that redefining language is counter-productive. Quite obviously it is productive as it worked for me, on you. > These are tactics that may be effective if your > goal is to ridicule someone, but not if you want to communicate. > By employing them, you make it easy for outside observers to > pigeonhole you into a mental category and discount your arguments > and your point of view, regardless of their essential merit. Anyone reading who isn't possessed of at least a 10th grade education level will undoubtedly jump to this conclusion. I have no problem with this. I don't waste time trying to educate those who do cannot grasp meaning from a sentence. > That > portrays neither you nor FreeBSD in a positive light. > How exactly is FreeBSD portrayed negatively by what -I- say? You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth here. In one instance you claim that redefining words is counterproductive because it doesen't work. Now you are arguing that something can be negatively impacted by my redefinition of words? > To the other list readers, I apologize for the increasingly > irrelevant diversion. This is the last word you will hear from > me on the subject. > Now your appointing yourself judge of what the rest of the list thinks is irrelevant. But, I do at least thank you for allowing me the last word. Just admit that language has power and that it's a mistake to misuse that power, by doing stuff like using derogatory terms like "advertising clause" You already said in your first point that you didn't disagree with this, although that is somewhat suspect in light of your following post. It's easy enough to just come all the way in the door and admit what is obvious to everyone else. In summary: "advertising clause" with respect to the BSD license is a deragotory term coined by GPL and Linux bigots.*** Do not use it. Instead use the correct term: "acknowledgement clause" because that is what it is. ***In case you didn't know, a GPL bigot is someone who believes that the GPL license is superior to all other licenses, including the BSD license. A Linux bigot is the same - they believe that Linux is superior to all other OS's including FreeBSD. And also, the biggest GPL bigot on the planet - RMS - is NOT particularly a fan of Linux. Ted
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNAEIGEPAA.tedm>