Message 01684 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01623 Message: 65/129 L14 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: Documentation Standards was Re: [ox-en] UserLinux

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:

Call that a limitations in the terms (you wouldn't be the first) but
allusions to George Bush may get you shock points but (IMHO) they aren't
going to win you any arguments.

  It's like mailing lists have now created a new "Hitler" reference to 
make to end conversations, or at least any meaningful dialog.

  In the case of George Bush there are many of us who believe there is a 
disconnect between what he says and what the executive branch is doing.  
Where there is a call to improving US homeland security, actions are taken 
which will actually greatly harm homeland security.  It is not how he is 
saying things, but what he is saying -- you know the meaning of the words 
he uses, compare them with the actions and come up lacking.

  In the case of Richard Stallman he may have a rough way of saying 
things, but once you get past that exterior you can read what he is 
saying.  There isn't a disconnect between what he is saying and what he 
does, even if you sometimes have to hold your nose about the way he says 
things.  I think his opposition to the term "open source" or the use of 
the term Linux to mean more than the kernel are examples of those rough 

  Suggesting, as has been done in this thread, that those who subscribe to
the vision of software as codified in a contract like the GNU General
Public License do so because they didn't think it through is also
insulting.  It may have been unaware of the implications when I first
releases software under the GNU GPL in 1992, but I have given this idea a
LOT of thought since then.

  See the following for humor value to see how out-of-touch with
Copyright law I was then ;-)

The whole talk af freedom is freedom within the confines of the
American dream.

What do you mean by "the whole talk of freedom is freedom?" Freedom in
terms of free software is broadly defined and *explicitly* apolitical
(too much so in many opinions). You have people on the far left, far
right, and all kinds of spaces in between working together on this.

  You also have people who don't live in the United States, and don't
subscribe to the American dream.  I know I'm not a subscriber to that
"made in Hollywood" dream.  (Nor am I a subscriber of the "made in
Bollywood" dreams either, even if they are closer to my own dreams ;-)

 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <> 
 Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
 electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
 politicians should be bought.  --


Thread: oxenT01623 Message: 65/129 L14 [In index]
Message 01684 [Homepage] [Navigation]