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

[\\0xDynamite]

>> 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.

I think your wording is a bit sloppy.  As an engineer, I might publish
my designs, but do I intend them for the general public?  Only if I'm
in some kind of teacher-mode where I hope the public can learn from my
designs.  However, RMS started GNU with the idea of a COMMUNITY -- a
particular community:  one of fellow coders.

If others learn from the code by its nature as open source, that
doesn't mean the license implies that it is INTENDED for the public,
just that it was OPEN to it.  It is the same difference between
*marketing* your business and just "setting up shop" with an open
door.  Once you've marketed the business, you've created an implied
contract of "intent to deliver".

Subtle, but significant, difference.

Mark