Jester is a fairly common handle. And quite frankly, the connections you make to get from "Joker" to "Kung-Fu" to "Sensei" are ones that only a stalker would make, not a simple copycat. It's not like it's a stretch to make the "Sensei" title appropriate to the role he's trying to fill. If you try hard enough, you can prove anything - including a conspiracy to emulate you in strange and mysterious ways.
Just accept it for what it is - a similar site, with similar goals. The implementation may be better or worse in different ways, but the existence of such a site doesn't require any malicious intent toward yours.
"Seems Mac users aren't used to freedom, seeing how giddy they have become..."
Mind you, it's good to know that you didn't intend to judge all Mac users - it just hadn't been clear, since the only qualification was in the final sentence. I do apologize for misjudging you.
How can you berate someone for grouping Linux users into one "community" in the same post that you group all Mac users together?
That being said, how "underhanded" is the APSL? The main point of concern seems to be that Apple will pull the license entirely if some code is the subject of a suit, while if you actually _read_ the license it only states that "Affected" code could be pulled - nothing about anulling the license. I certainly grant that provisions need to made to allow for a post-Apple world, and it needs to distinguish between use and distribution of code in the event of an infringement case, but I don't see anything in the license that indicates that Apple's trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. They haven't hidden any of the terms of the license in fine print, or obfuscated it in any way. The worst thing they're guilty of appears to be not approaching the "Open Source"-style release of their code in a style fitting some people's rather rigid ideals.
Certainly the more negative comments about Apple don't reflect the original criticism by Bruce Perens, which seems to have been more of an attempt at good criticism than a condemnation (of Apple, anyway). While I don't agree with the whole thing (I do think the "infringement" clause was read a little loosely, for instance), it would certainly be nice if comments on both sides of the argument would stick to the issues and avoid attacks on groups that are based more on what platform they use than their personal morals.
Slashdot Mirror
Jester is a fairly common handle. And quite frankly, the connections you make to get from "Joker" to "Kung-Fu" to "Sensei" are ones that only a stalker would make, not a simple copycat. It's not like it's a stretch to make the "Sensei" title appropriate to the role he's trying to fill. If you try hard enough, you can prove anything - including a conspiracy to emulate you in strange and mysterious ways.
Just accept it for what it is - a similar site, with similar goals. The implementation may be better or worse in different ways, but the existence of such a site doesn't require any malicious intent toward yours.
I did.
"Seems Mac users aren't used to freedom, seeing how giddy they have become..."
Mind you, it's good to know that you didn't intend to judge all Mac users - it just hadn't been clear, since the only qualification was in the final sentence. I do apologize for misjudging you.
How can you berate someone for grouping Linux users into one "community" in the same post that you group all Mac users together?
That being said, how "underhanded" is the APSL? The main point of concern seems to be that Apple will pull the license entirely if some code is the subject of a suit, while if you actually _read_ the license it only states that "Affected" code could be pulled - nothing about anulling the license. I certainly grant that provisions need to made to allow for a post-Apple world, and it needs to distinguish between use and distribution of code in the event of an infringement case, but I don't see anything in the license that indicates that Apple's trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. They haven't hidden any of the terms of the license in fine print, or obfuscated it in any way. The worst thing they're guilty of appears to be not approaching the "Open Source"-style release of their code in a style fitting some people's rather rigid ideals.
Certainly the more negative comments about Apple don't reflect the original criticism by Bruce Perens, which seems to have been more of an attempt at good criticism than a condemnation (of Apple, anyway). While I don't agree with the whole thing (I do think the "infringement" clause was read a little loosely, for instance), it would certainly be nice if comments on both sides of the argument would stick to the issues and avoid attacks on groups that are based more on what platform they use than their personal morals.