Re: Listmaster request: Blacklist [e-mail]

[Christoph Hellwig]

Hi Adam,

There is a reason why I set the Mail-Followup-To header, so please include me
when replying to my mails.

> 	If Christoph Hellwig is referring to procmail filters that
> just filter his personal incoming mail, fine.  If he wants to create
> a modified linux-kernel-without-whatever-Christoph-dislikes feed, that
> people can switch to, I have no problem with that either.
> 
> 	If Christoph Hellwig controls and is referring to procmail
> filters that the public e-mail distribution of the linux-kernel
> mailing list, then I think he is doing far more to demotivate Linux
> development.

That particular procmail filter is mine, and not public.  The request
for blcklisting is for exactly that one, public lkml as was written
rather clearly in my mail that you full-quoted in your response.

> 	Far more off-topic and what I consider unfair flamage has come
> from those arguing against Richard Stallman (for example, the most
> recent posting in that thread begins "Now please just understand that
> people are not entitled to agree with you or follow your advice.").
> If I have searched marc.theaimslist.com correctly, Stallman has made
> four of the 74 posts in the "Bitkeeper outrage{,m}, old and new"
> thread, and they've been been pretty short and concise.

Sorry, Adam - if it was just that one thread I couldn;t care less, but
please check your inboxes for posts from Richard to lkml that actually
were technical instead of forcing his questionable ideas of "freedom"
to the linux devlopers.  He has so far posted only offtopic to this
list, and that's what pisses me off.  He doesn't try to contribute
to the fursther development of the kernel but instead tries to abuse
it as forum for his political opinion.

> 	In comparison, we've gotten more and longer posts advocating a
> proprietary business model and various copyright restrictions from a
> person whose software is much less important to Linux development

I don't like those flames either - but there's a small difference:
LArry actually takes part in technical discussions (although BK
advert^H^H^H^H^Hexplnation has taken a little overhand lately), he
has never started a thread just to tell anyone about his business
modell, and he doesn't try to force us into his nbusiness modell
(Or have you ever heard him complaining about RHJ not following
his oftware license?)

> 	I can abide by using filtering linux-kernel in some cases, but
> I think this proposal is one-sided in a way that will harm the future
> development directions of Linux.  What will be banned next?  Other
> people expressing agreement with Richard Stallman (but statements of
> agreement with Larry McVoy will be more tolerated of course)?
> Discussion of EXPORT_GPLONLY?  Notifications of GPL violations?  I
> think this kind of one-sidedness would be in the back of people's
> minds and would influence future Linux devlopment in a negative way.

GPL violation only make sense if they affect code in the mainline kernel,
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is certainbly ontopic here as it's a part of the kernel
- FSF propaganda is not.

> 	In the real world, censorship generally does not come about by
> some plot that the Dr. Doom and his evil henchmen developed in their
> headquarters embedded into the side of a volcano.  It comes about by
> people well intentioned people making bad trade-offs.

I explained it a few times, but people still don't want to get it.
This is fsckin' not about censorship but about banning people who
aren't capable by themselves to find the appropinquate forum.  No one
tries to hinder him posting his opinion to gnu-ethics, linuxtoday (*)
or slashdot.  I just think such a request is the last thing we can do
about people ignoring the technical list spirit again and again.

	Christoph

(*) not sure whether he wouldn't only post to gnulinuxtoday, though..