[TAG] (forw) Re: when is an open source license open source?

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Ashlee Vance (ashlee.vance at theregister.co.uk):

> Yep, I meant the front page of RHX, since that's what we were talking
> about.  I was digging through the cache images, but can't seem to find
> a shot where they have the old open source claims up. You didn't take
> a screen shot by chance did you?

Nope.  I don't really "do" screen shots.  Sometimes I mirror Web pages
(e.g., when I think them likely to disappear), but not in this case.

> Not sure where the rest of your comments are coming from. I was just
> surprised by your pro RHX comments scattered over the site, as it seemed
> like they did very little to me. Just trying to get your perspective. Could
> care less whether you find the time to police Red Hat.

Er, to the best of my recollection, I posted _one_ followup right below
my earlier critical comment[1], to ensure that I credited them for fixing
the problem I had complained about -- because in fact they had fixed 
all of the ones I'd cited.  If one cluebats companies into doing the
right thing, it's only fair to say nice things when they get around to
complying -- and also smart tactics, so that you retain the reputation 
for being fair and not just yet another Internet flamer.

The fact that I hadn't noticed some _additional_ Web pages needing
fixing doesn't change that basic logic.

[1] It's possible that I posted a followup under both of my two critical
comments on the site -- which, again, is the smart thing to do when
you've asked a company to go out of its way to fix a misstatement, and
it complies.  I'd go chase down how many times I said "thank you for
doing the right thing", if I weren't already excessively busy and likely
to have a very long day.  (I'm also again a bit surprised that you
cannot bother to include URLs when you say things like "your pro RHX
comments scattered over the site".)