Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions.

Posted Mar 21, 2011 15:41 UTC (Mon) by jubal (subscriber, #67202)
In reply to: Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. by FlorianMueller
Parent article: Has Bionic stepped over the GPL line?

Mr. Mueller,

Could you state explicitely, that you're have not been and are not currently being paid 1) by any of the companies being Google's competitors and 2) to work on PR stuff related to Google Android? Just to make things clear once and for all.

Thank you in advance,

Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions.

Posted Mar 21, 2011 16:06 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (5 responses)

I don't know who you are and who you work for, so you're not being nearly as transparent as I am by using my real name here. And you're off-topic. On my blog and in discussions like I express exclusively my own beliefs, and that's all I have to say about that. Now let's get back to the actual issues. Conspiracy theories are weak and pointless, especially when they're baseless like in this case.

Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions.

Posted Mar 21, 2011 16:19 UTC (Mon) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link]

Thank you for answering my question in such a clear and concise manner.

Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions.

Posted Mar 21, 2011 18:41 UTC (Mon) by jonquark (guest, #45554) [Link]

I don't think whether you are paid to campaign on this issue (or against Android in general) is off-topic. Could you just confirm that you are receiving no remuneration in connection with consultation/lobbying on Android or against Google.

If you think it's relevant despite me expressing no other opinion on this issue so far: my full legal name is Jonathan Levell. My homepage is http://www.coralbark.net/ . I am employed by IBM as a software engineer (writing closed-source middleware unconnected to this issue) but I write this comment purely in a personal capacity. I am not authorised to speak on this issue (or pretty much any other ;) by my employer and certainly do not represent them here.

A short (clear) comment from you would be both on-topic and illuminating.

Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions.

Posted Mar 21, 2011 21:28 UTC (Mon) by mdakin (guest, #42701) [Link]

But you did not answer his question.

Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions.

Posted Mar 21, 2011 23:37 UTC (Mon) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link]

I don't know who you are and who you work for, so you're not being nearly as transparent as I am by using my real name here.

You've not disclosed any conflicts of interest. Jubal has been more transparent in this discussion.

And you're off-topic.

Because you link incessantly to your blog, you are in fact inserting yourself and your opinions in the discussion. Your conflicts of interest are therefore relevant.

Now let's get back to the actual issues. Conspiracy theories are weak and pointless, especially when they're baseless like in this case.

The actual issue is still your failure to disclose conflicts of interest, or the lack of conflicts of interest.

Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions.

Posted Mar 22, 2011 3:55 UTC (Tue) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

Florian - thanks for that comment. I'm bookmarking it, to remind myself (and perhaps others) where you stand on disclosures of conflicts of interest. (Hint: "off-topic" won't cut it with an editor of a scholarly journal, a respectable newspaper, or, for that matter, LWN.net. With scholarly journals, in particular, failure to disclose conflicts of interest is viewed as a serious ethical breach.)

Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions.

Posted Mar 22, 2011 12:01 UTC (Tue) by michel (subscriber, #10186) [Link]

Pretty funny how Mr. Mueller disappeared from here right after that non-answer while prior to that he pretty much immediately answered any post with his name in it. Of course, that could be a coincidence but it amuses me.

I'd say we pose the same question immediately any time he shows back up here with his comments. If it makes him disappear, I for think that it would improve the overall quality of the conversation. But if not, perhaps we'll actually get that answer at some point.