The whole discussion was pointless, since the foundation members obviously didn't have any intention of pursuing necessary actions or the fortitude to take a firm stance. As such, all they did was waste the time of everybody involved. Sorry, but don't bother writing a warning if you have no intention of holding the line or negotiating a compromise.
I agree, the second email sounds like the fellow is trying to backpedal while still saving face. I think he is waiting for Dusty (the complainant) to list demands.
As someone who's been lifted from many, many times I feel I should be outraged by this... but I'm not. Given that the linux people aren't using the logo any more, why not just charge the tutoring people X amount for the logo and drop it?
I imagine that 'Dr. Elias' is not entirely stupid, and would realise that paying for the logo is certainly likely to cost less than having to reprint office stationery, get new decals for the car, etc.
The problem is that the Linux folks haven't indicated that they'd be willing to discuss a payment option. Sure, C&Ds are often just a beginning negotiating tactic - but only when the other side expects it. Otherwise, it's just scary. The fact that the guy wrote back looks to be like "hey, I'm a good guy, but I can't possibly afford to change my logo, and I'll use the irritant language to look tough so that you pretty please don't call me on not being able to afford to change the logo on everything".
Now, the Linux folks aren't in the business of licensing their logo, so it's probably suboptimal to try to figure out how to do a licensing agreement.
I am amused by the tutor's use of the construction "would have went with" in his response. Someone who charges money for his English instruction should probably proofread his email (or learn grammar).
As I become a little less young, I begin to realize that perfect grammar matters less than I used to believe. And if someone would judge me for beginning this sentence with "And", then I probably wouldn't want to associate myself with them anyway.
I agree with your point completely: just because you're fastidious about grammar doesn't mean you can accomplish anything worthwhile. And anyway, most of the 'grammatical rules' that are widely propounded are just a form of mythology: maxims received uncritically and held up as a sign of (supposed) education.
On the other hand, written expression is like the programming interface for the world most of us live in: from the money we make to the business relationships we form to the thoughts we develop, written expression is almost always an essential means to reaching the goal. Those who can't be bothered to adhere to arbitrary grammatical conventions often find the grander and more abstract challenges of life inscrutable.
The Romans had an expression: "Qualis oratio, talis vir", as is the speech, so is the man. (Seneca, Epistulae Morales 19.114.1, attributes the expressions to the Greeks: "Hoc quod audire vulgo soles, quod apud Graecos in proverbium cessit: talis hominibus fuit oratio qualis vita.")
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/sen/seneca.ep19.shtml
Despite the Latin slogan, I'm reluctant to reach a conclusion about the tutoring proprietor based on his use of language. Maybe he had a rhetorical reason for lapsing into grammatically half-baked jargon: he's suggesting he's too stupid or careless to be guilty of a premeditated logo theft. I don't know.
But...
Can you really write "If someONE would judge..., I wouldn't want to associate with THEM..." without cringing? I've been guilty of worse, I readily admit, but is it too fastidious and pointless to balk at such a construction?
I understood what he meant, but I now also think he's an idiot that can't write.
You are free to use whatever English you want, but others are free to make inferences about who you are from that writing. It's best to write well (and "follow the rules"), so you have the best possible chance of not being viewed negatively.
So is the anti-intellectual retort that technically correct writing doesn't matter since people can manage to make sense of variously tortured constructions. People can figure out many aesthetically brain-dead web pages too, but I don't see a lot of critical comments of the critics of those counseling forebearance since the website can be used no matter how difficult it is.
At the very least, correct grammar reduces the friction of transmitting your ideas to other people.
Elitism is not the issue. The reality is how most people respond to things without thinking. They see bad writing, they think negatively of the author. (If they see good writing, they think positively.) You can use their response to your advantage, or you can be "non-elitist" and have your writing ignored.
I am not trying to be an advocate for either side, I am just explaining the facts.
He's a damn TUTOR! Most people get by knowing little math, but if you paid me money to teach it to your child, you would be foolish to overlook evidence that I didn't know it myself.
Looking at the tutoring company's website (which is home to a surprisingly awful rendition of the logo in question), it appears that this guy has degrees in science; maybe he doesn't tutor English?
will the tutoring company satisfy GPL requirement if it includes a dozen pages of GPL license on each of its tutoring materials (vehicles, documents, advertising, website and any other media)?
Trademarks aren't necessarily the same issue as copyright, but in this case, it does seem like leaving them alone would be best, since they (Arch) assert that they haven't used it since 2007. What with asking the community to intervene, however, it's likely too late for that.
