[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?
    On 22/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <> wrote:
    > On Jun 21, 2007, "Jesper Juhl" <> wrote:
    > > On 21/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <> wrote:
    > > [snip]
    > >>
    > >> BTW, I should probably have made clear that, as usual, I was speaking
    > >> my own mind, not speaking on behalf of FSFLA or Red Hat, with whom I'm
    > >> associated, and certainly not on behalf of FSF, with whom I'm not
    > >> associated. Just in case this wasn't clear yet ;-)
    > > Given your signature below, no, that's not at all clear :
    > Do you assume I speak for the GNU project and for University of
    > Campinas as well, just because my signature implies that I am somehow
    > associated with them?
    My point was that your signature does indicate your affiliation with a
    lot of different organizations/companies, so unless you explicitly
    state that you are not speaking on behalf of them it's easy to assume
    you do.

    > >> FSF Latin America Board Member
    > > If you don't speak for the FSF then adverticing the fact that you are
    > > a FSF board member seems a little odd.
    > What's odd is your assuming that I'm an FSF board member. Especially
    > when there's a URL just next to it that explains what FSFLA is, and
    > how it's not the FSF, but rather one of four members of the network of
    > FSFs.

    Quoting from that web page: "FSF Latin America is a sister
    organization of Free Software Foundation (FSF)"

    So when your signature states that you are a "FSF Latin America Board
    Member" and FSFLA is a "sister organization of Free Software
    Foundation (FSF)" that, at least to me, implies some association with
    the FSF.

    > > I also fail to see (or at least wonder at) how a board member of the
    > > FSF can state that he's not associated with the FSF... hmm, the mind
    > > boggles..
    > Yeah, it's really hard to clarify broken assumptions and jumping to
    > conclusions.
    See above.

    > >> Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{,}
    > > Same thing for the RedHat bit here, along with posting from a
    > > email addr.
    > Why would this convey the impression that I'm speaking on behalf of
    > Red Hat, tell me. It doesn't even say I'm president, CEO, PR manager,
    > press contact or any such thing...
    No, it does not, but it's easy to mistake a post by someone posting
    from a company email and including that company in their signature for
    speaking for that company.

    > If I posted from my ISP e-mail address, would you assume I was
    > speaking for the ISP?
    Of course not. The email is just one more thing, that
    added together with the signature could lead people to believe you are
    speaking on their behalf.

    You were the one who brought up the " I should probably have made
    clear that, as usual, I was speaking my own mind, not speaking on
    behalf of ..." bit. I'm simply replying to you that indeed it is not
    clear for whom you speak with all that info in your signature and the
    email address you post from.

    Especially the FSF association seems likely given that most of your
    emails seem heavily influenced by the FSF cool aid.

    Jesper Juhl <>
    Don't top-post
    Plain text mails only, please
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-06-22 01:23    [W:0.025 / U:7.668 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site