Re: Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.

[Joey Pabalinas]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 02:34:07PM -0500, \0xDynamite wrote:
> >> You confuse the issue.  My definition included "intended for the
> >> public".  But it isn't clear that open source code is intended for the
> >> public -- it is intended for those who code or wish to.
> 
> > Well, then I have to repeat myself: Signed-off source code (in form of
> > patches) in a well-known programming language for a (nowadays)
> > well-known GPLv2 licensed project mailed on "everyone can subscribe"
> > mailinglists, (thus) to be found in several $SEARCH_ENGINE-indexed
> > mailinglist archives, if accepted to be found in lots of publicly
> > accessible git repos can be not intended to be published?
> 
> You did it again.  You changed words.  I said intended for the public,
> and you ended your sentence with "intended to be published".
> 
> Like it or not, both the law and English grammar have ambiguities.
> People put up with them because they share a common intuition (in a
> lot of cases) of what each other means.
> 
> If you share a birthday card with your personal love note inscribed
> and the birthday girl sends it around to everyone at the party, have
> you been violated?  She might argue:  how did you expect it to remain
> private if you knew there were several people invited to the birthday
> party?

English does have oddities, agreed.  However, open source code is
definitely intended for the public as well.

If I post an ad targeted at dog owners in my local town hall, it
doesn't mean it's not intended for the public. Even though it is
only for dog owners (or those who wish to be), it is still
available freely to the general public.

-- 
Cheers,
Joey Pabalinas

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature