On 2011-11-17 22:39, Mark Kirchner wrote: > Am 17.11.2011 21:31, schrieb Robert J. Hansen: >> No: *you* would call them intolerant and freedom-of-choice-denying. >> Please be careful about making universal statements about what the >> world in general would say: the world generally does not conform to >> our expectations. > > Yes, you're right, it is my personal opinion which could only backed by > anecdotal evidence - if at all. Anyways, I'm still quite confident that > quite a lot of people would feel that way.
For what it's worth, I don't feel that it would be "intolerant and freedom-of-choice-denying" at all if Symantec were to say "in the PGP forums you should not advocate other alternatives" because "the PGP forums" are their turf. gnupg-users is GnuPG-the-project's turf so we follow the rules GnuPG has chosen to adapt. It seems to work out well: GnuPG-the-project doesn't bother Symantec, and Symantec doesn't bother GnuPG. Everyone's happy! -- PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA -- Leader, n.: A short strip of nonfunctioning material. -- Of all the things the problem that wasn't his was, being not his problem wasn't one of them. -- No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
