MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-19 |
| FROM | vin
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] Re: NYLXS, NYFairUse
|
Posted to hangout, bcc to Jay, RMS (although Richard should not have been
bothered with this to begin with), Seth. Brett also added, see next
paragraph. As to others whom Jay is cc'ing this to, I have no idea who they
are, or why they are being cc'd. I'm bcc'ing instead of cc'ing, as I don't
reveal other people's email addresses should they not want to have them
revealed. I've been raked over the coals on this once before, and I'll
endeavor to make sure it never happens again.
I just was about to send this out, when I realized I was not bcc'ing it to
Brett. I checked, and my original email going out was bcc'd to Brett, but I
may have mistakenly left Brett out in a followup. If I did, it was a
mistake. And if I did, the contents of anything missing is within this
email, so on receipt of this email, Brett, you have everything.
This email/response is about 5 levels deep with my current response. I
suggest anyone reading this to turn on colors on threads for some coherence.
See about 3 paragraphs down for my latest response.
Vin.
On Tuesday 18 February 2003 18:04, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, vin wrote:
> > I'm going to refrain from posting this to hangout, as I'm sure there will
> > be responses, and I don't have time right now to answer them, I'm on my
> > way out the door. I'm going to assume that since you are blocked from
> > hangout, your response did not get through to hangout. But it will be
> > discussed among board members. Whether Ruben took unilateral action or
> > not in blocking you and Brett, I am not aware of the details. But I do
> > know that when this issue cropped up, blocking was discussed among the
> > board. So to assume that Ruben is unilaterally blocking you may not be
> > correct. It is possible that it was a board decision either to block or
> > to continue blocking. I'd have to check my logs, and I may not have the
> > info on that detail.
> >
> > The fact that NYLXS.org is being cybersquatted on has angered quite a few
> > members, not just Ruben.
> >
> > See rest of comments below, I don't have time right now to respond to
> > everything, I'll do the best I can with the limited time I have.
> >
> > Vin.
>
> Vin, I am not in this note going to respond to everything you say, but I
> will respond to your accusation that we are the agressors. We are not.
> Ruben has for months attacked NYFU in public on important mailing lists.
> Please look at DMCA-discuss. We have not until last week answered any of
> Ruben's attacks and Ruben's gross lies.
>
> As for "cybersquatting", no, if I were Brett, I would never hand back the
> domain, not to Ruben certainly, and not to NYLXS until NYLXS apologized and
> meant it. As of right now Ruben Safir owns NYLXS.com, and as far as I can
> tell, Ruben it as he pleeases. When that is corrected, and NYLXS gets its
> house in order, you might try asking politely for any domains you want from
> whomever you want.
>
> oo--JS.
Up until now, you had my full attention, and full benefit of doubt. But
trying to add me as a villain is going to backfire on my attempts to resolve
this issue, if a resolution is really what you want. I know it is what I
want, and my intentions are nothing less than honorable. But for you
specific quote of "accusation that we are the aggressors", I have stated, as
can be seen below, that both sides are guilty of slinging mud. I include an
excerpt here, and it is also below:
> > NYFU may have never attacked Ruben, but your posts on Newsforge, NYLUG,
> > and possibly other places that don't come to mind right now have not been
> > innocent. Neither have Ruben's. There is bad blood on both sides.
Specifically, the attacks when a schedule or event or whatever is announced
on a mailing list and/or website for either NYFairUse ala Ruben, or NYFairUse
ala Brett, and the other side responds with "not legitimate", "radical"
"diminish" "damage" (off the top of my head, same or similar words used, not
verbatim). Both sides have used this type of terminology. May not be
verbatim, but it is very close. Both sides. I'm not going to bother looking
for the quotes. They can be found if one looks. I've been working on this
for 5 or 6 hours now, and I've got to get it out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK. At your request, I've looked at DMCA-discuss list, here:
http://lists.anti-dmca.org/pipermail/dmca_discuss/
Specifically, I've looked at all of July, August, September, October,
November, December 2002, January, February 2003. I have looked using Author
as the "view by", and I have read every post attributed to Ruben Safir where
his name is written in black type to the right of the subject. Every one
that is listed. Every one. This is what I have found:
The following words have been used by Ruben to refer to tactics, not Jay, and
not NYFairUse, but to a specific individual who may not be a member of any
group, and may not even be in the area: stupid
The following term has been used to refer either to the same person, or to
someone who posted at about the same time as the stupid remark above: troll.
The following term has been used by either Ruben reacting to someone else's
post, or by someone reacting to Ruben's post, and no other derogatory term
was included either in the original post, or the response: offended.
The following term was used by Ruben in reference to the domain issue:
cybersquatted.
The following information was used that has no reference to any current
issue, but got me laughing. Hopefully others will be curious enough to read
what it is all about, and therefore they will wade through the posts
themselves: 140MB bitmap of a cow.
There is also a civilized discussion/post, over who wrote some content,
located here:
http://lists.anti-dmca.org/pipermail/dmca_discuss/2002-November/003754.html
There is also something on public domain vs. copyright, and someone else's
misunderstanding of copyright, that has nothing to do with this discussion,
but is relevant to who is an author of content on one or both NYFairUse web
sites. It is in the 11/02 log.
There are at a minimum two, probably three, and possibly more requests from
Ruben to be taken off of the DMCA-discuss list. I believe the requests
spanned at least two months of archives, possibly longer. I wasn't counting
as I was reading them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is the archive of DMCA-discuss missing posts? Have posts been removed? From
what I have read, I can't see anything that can be characterized as an
attack, as vitriolic responses, or anything of the sort, on Ruben's behalf.
In fact, this is so completely tame that I don't even remember it being this
tame.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As to the blocking issue. I don't know if it was initiated by Ruben, or by
the board or exactly when, but at this point, it no longer matters. I can
accurately say that a vote was taken by board members, and it is officially a
board decision to maintain the block.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As to the mailing list, NYLXS server, and related, this is only an internal
issue among members. But let me shed some light on this. While NYLXS and
the mailing list may be housed on Ruben's servers (and I believe this is
wrong, as the NYLXS server is NYLXS property if I am not mistaken, when a
component failed on the server while I was there, the server was replaced,
and I believe NYLXS funds were used for the purchase. If this is correct,
the NYLXS server is property of NYLXS.), the mail list is on the mrbrklyn
server. Whether this server is Ruben's property, or NYLXS's property, I
can't say, as I haven't checked the NYLXS books. If funds are being used to
maintain or repair the server, at a minimum, the server partially belongs to
NYLXS. If funds from NYLXS were used to buy the server, then NYLXS owns the
server. If NYLXS funds were used at all, a professional accountant is
maintaining the NYLXS organization books, and this can be verified. And
again this is really an internal issue. Ruben is not being compensated for
his time administering the servers. From everything that is running on them,
and from my experience, I know that a lot of his time is going into this. So
whether the boxes were paid for by Ruben or by NYLXS is really moot. Ruben
is expending time and energy keeping them running. He's free to administer
them, and share resources as he sees fit, as long as the boxes are
administered in a manner consistent with the best interests of the
organization. When it is my turn to administer them, I would expect exactly
the same privilege in return for my time and energy.
As to the list administrator, at this point in time, it is Ruben. For quite
some time, it has been other members' suggestions that in order to take some
load off of Ruben, someone else should administer the list. He has indicated
that he would appreciate someone taking over the administration. No one has
stepped forward yet. I would do it myself, but the site would go down in
minutes to hours because I don't know php, I don't know Perl, I don't know
MySQL, I don't know Sendmail, are you getting the picture? I am in the
process of learning all of the aforementioned. I'll be experimenting with a
mail server in the next few weeks, and am learning on the other areas as
well. When I'm comfortable with running a mailing list, I'll step forward to
administer the box for at least a year.
A change in list administrator would not change the fact that you are blocked
from the list by board decision. Someone on the NYLXS board would have to
put forth a motion to allow you back on, someone else would have to second
it, and then a vote in your favor would have to be the end result. Even
Ruben is powerless to change this unilaterally, and if he did, he would be
brought up on charges by the membership, and if found guilty, he would be
disciplined according to the charter of the organization.
Whatever your belief of how NYLXS has been run in the past, it may not have
been accurate then, and is no longer accurate now. NYLXS is now
incorporated as a non-profit, and has been for a while. From the point of
incorporation, the organization no longer belongs to Ruben. If the
organization were to be dissolved, and if it was set up according to how it
was being discussed, and how it is required to be set up as a non-profit
membership organization, the members (who are up to date in their dues) would
receive what is left after the dissolution. Not Ruben. The members. As to
the NYLXS domain, upon incorporation, ownership of NYLXS domain, regardless
of the registration, belongs to NYLXS. The trademark on NYLXS belongs to
NYLXS, not Ruben.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As to the domain issue. A board vote was taken on this issue, among other
issues. NYLXS has the intention of defending its rights on the NYLXS domains
and on the NYLXS trademark. Due to prior use as seen in numerous archived
postings, and due what appears to be Ruben as the organizer and scheduler of
NYFairUse during its first year, NYFairUse can, and in all probability will
be pursued by Ruben if a negotiated settlement cannot be reached.
Specifically on NYLXS's trademark and the NYLXS.org domain, there's a
anti-cybersquatting law that went into effect that covers exactly this issue.
I don't know if the penalty is fixed at $10,000 or not, it may be higher,
but I've seen decisions that have come down in favor of trademark holders and
against Cybersquatters, irrespective of any arbitration decisions to the
contrary. In addition to the $10,000 penalty, in the cases I've seen,
attorneys' fees have also been awarded to the trademark holder. NYLXS's
trademark is on solid footing.
My reading of the NYFairUse issue is that Ruben is standing on solid footing
for the rights to the domain, and the name in general. Prior to the 7/17/02
Commerce Committee hearing, this was a non-issue. Once NYFairUse (among
other groups including NYLXS and LXNY and Seth's group, I forgot the name,
RealMeasures?) received some press, apparently the value of NYFairUse
recognition increased, and the mess that exists today is the result.
Simply deciding to break away from NYFairUse does not legitimize a separate
NYFairUse organization. Who is correct in who has rights to NYFairUse? What
would an objective person look at? Would it be the resulting actions after a
group received press? Or would it be the archives of who was present and who
was active at its inception, who kept the organization going in the early
days, weeks, months, and year? I have done an abbreviated read through the
archives that have been provided to me, and through my 25,000+ message
mailbox on my own computer. So far, the only things I have found support
Ruben's position.
Since most of the archives I have read through have been provided by Ruben,
I'll ask you again, if you have any information on NYFairUse, regarding its
founding, regarding who stuck it out or participated or in any way
contributed to NYFairUse during its first year, or any other relevant
information, please allow me to read it. It can only help justify your
and/or Brett's position, at least in my eyes, and in my suggestions to help
resolve this.
There are some other individuals who are present during various meetings in
NYFairUse's first year. I'd definitely like to hear their views on this as
well, and especially if they have any archived emails from the first year.
Only from the people present then, and who are not biased by one side or the
other at this point in time (someone who is not a member or participant in
NYLXS or NYFairUse, or NYFU, or whatever other organizations where
impartiality could be questioned.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since both NYFairUse ala Ruben, and NYFairUse ala Brett appear to want to
issue schedules, actions, whatever, on mailing lists, and since the opposing
viewpoint views these posts as baiting (which they really aren't on either
side) can both sides come up with a mutually agreed upon
notice/disclaimer/whatever, to post as a response instead of tearing into
each other in front of Newsforge, Slashdot, Yahoo, Microsoft, and the World?
I think something along the lines of:
Please be aware that due to circumstances that are in the process of being
resolved, there are two groups, both interested in Fair Use issues, that are
pursuing interests in this area. The other organization can be found here:
(and whomever is rebutting the announcement inserts their appropriate link
here).
Is this possible? Can both sides agree to post a sentence or two similar to
above so that any actions/schedules/other announcements don't turn into a
flame war every single time? The above couple of sentences can be massaged,
can be hashed out as appropriate, but both sides need to agree to use the
same response, without embellishments. Any further info, meetings
announcements, whatever, can be posted in a separate additional post, without
tearing into the other side. Isn't this reasonable?
Vin.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > On Tuesday 18 February 2003 15:55, you wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, vin wrote:
> > > > I've been spending some time going over the hangout archive.
> > > > Unfortunately, I've had my plug pulled by my isp, so I've been at a
> > > > disadvantage on keeping up to speed on relevant issues.
> > > >
> > > > 1. I'm glad to see the log-in of the archive. I've urged that this
> > > > be done more than once. If the archive can be spidered by google and
> > > > other search engines, and manually by spammers, we are never going to
> > > > stop getting spam. Spammers searching for and using mail lists is a
> > > > well known tactic on their part. Glad to see someone has finally
> > > > decided to take my advice on this, as the spam I get is out of
> > > > control. Also, as the recent Newsforge/Stanco bruhaha has brought
> > > > to other peoples' attention, and as has been apparent to me from the
> > > > beginning, it cannot be denied that NYLXS has attracted the attention
> > > > of microsoft. Anyone familiar with the OS/2 wars knows that
> > > > microsoft is a veteran at grass roots tactics. Letting them into the
> > > > archive, and into strategy on the part of NYLXS is ludicrous. They
> > > > in all probability will be able to get access to hangout mail through
> > > > other means. No reason to make it easy for them. I also brought this
> > > > up previously.
> > > >
> > > > 2. I've been trying to see both sides of the cybersquatting argument,
> > > > but I just can't see it. I've been witness and involved in some
> > > > major disagreements, and it has been my experience that it is always
> > > > best to step back, give everyone the benefit of the doubt, try and
> > > > see everyone's differing views of the issues, and try to resolve the
> > > > issues by either involving neutral third parties, or by some way of
> > > > compromising and settling the issues. This is my take on things:
> > >
> > > There are not two sides here. Brett and I kept NYLXS on the Net when
> > > Ruben was throwing away the Net connection every week or so last
> > > summer. No "cybersquatting" at all, but service cheerfully and
> > > silently provided without asking for anything in return.
> >
> > Had this ended when NYLXS web site was back up at NYLXS.com, and had the
> > NYLXS.org been turned over at that time, then you may have some
> > justification, and thanks are in order. But refusing to turn over the
> > domain is plain and simple cybersquatting at this point. I can't
> > possibly see a reasonable justification for refusing to turn over
> > NYLXS.org to the membership of NYLXS.org. If your or Brett's beef is
> > with Ruben, NYLXS is a separate entity now. It should be signed over to
> > NYLXS organization immediately. If you or Brett still have problems with
> > this because Ruben is President, although this is not a valid reason,
> > then it should be turned over immediately after the next election, when
> > NYLXS will have a different President. Doing this will put
> > you/Brett/whomever in a better light. This is incredibly unjustified,
> > and only shows how unreasonable someone can be.
> >
> > > But I now ask for something in return from NYLXS: Please do not accuse
> > > me and do not accuse Brett of doing something wrong here. We helped
> > > NYLXS. We have never hurt, nor tried to hurt, NYLXS.
> >
> > Wrong. From my perspective, you damaged NYLXS reputation by your posting
> > on Newsforge. While attempting to set the record straight from your
> > point of view may have been justified in your opinion, and I agreed that
> > NYLXS was not all encompassing, your tear into Ruben and NYLXS in the
> > same post was unjustified, elevated the argument to a very public
> > position, and elevated the division in front of Microsoft, in front of
> > Newsforge, in front of Yahoo news, and in front of other sites that I
> > can't immediately recall.
> >
> > Also, your responses on NYLUG and attacks on Ruben is also damaging to
> > NYLXS and its members, as NYLXS is included in some of your posts.
> > Although I am not on many other mailing lists, I am on NYLUG (although
> > I've had no internet access for about 5 weeks) so I'm guessing that
> > there are other posts of yours that are damaging to NYLXS and its
> > membership. I'm not on Gnubies, but apparently you have been posting
> > there as well, I'd like to see your posts there as well.
> >
> > > > 2a) NYLXS is a registered trademark of the NYLXS organization.
> > > >
> > > > 2b) due to prior use by NYLXS, and Ruben, the only individual who can
> > > > dispute the registration of the trademark is Ruben. As Ruben has
> > > > already made clear, the NYLXS trademark, use of NYLXS, the NYLXS web
> > > > site, and anything connected to NYLXS belongs to the organization.
> > > > This should be documented. I believe a simple statement by the board
> > > > during a meeting attended by the majority of board members (or
> > > > whatever the procedures are required by the Charter), and agreed to
> > > > by Ruben, and recorded, should be sufficient. If there are not
> > > > enough members for the quorum due to the inclement weather, an
> > > > alternate means of accomplishing this should be implemented, such as
> > > > doing it on the list, then each board member affirming their vote or
> > > > decision or statement in person at the next meeting they attend.
> > > >
> > > > 2c) From what I've been reading from the archive, NYFairUse can only
> > > > be registered as a trademark, if that is decided, by Ruben, or by
> > > > Ruben passing this right to NYLXS should NYLXS desire to do this.
> > > > How do I reach this conclusion? From the archive, it is abundantly
> > > > clear that Ruben has prior use in his corner. Anyone else attempting
> > > > to register NYFairUse as a trademark can in all probability be
> > > > challenged by Ruben on prior use grounds. Of course, I am not a
> > > > lawyer, so the standard disclaimer applies.
> > >
> > > Yes. But Ruben is not sole founder, not president, and he stopped
> > > working with NYFU in September 2002. There is no question of
> > > "leadership" here, unless you believe that NYFU was and is a formal
> > > dictatorship. It never was and is not today, and when Ruben left,
> > > though we were dismayed by his action, we carried on, and have since he
> > > left done much. We regret the time we are now spending on explaining
> > > to and trying to explain to NYLXS the simple inarguable facts of the
> > > case. If Ruben would allow us to send emails to hangout-at-nylxs.com this
> > > "dispute", it hardly deserves the name, might be resolved more easily.
> > > If I may presume some here: NYLXS is claimed to be an organization
> > > whose government is responsible to the members. Seemingly the
> > > hangout-at-nylxs.com list is NYLXS's discussion list. But Ruben has thrown
> > > me off the list and months ago he threw Brett off the list. Of course,
> > > if the list is Ruben's I have no objection. As far as I can tell, the
> > > list is his, as is, apparently, the box on which NYLXS runs its
> > > website, its member and student accounts, etc.. If NYLXS is really an
> > > membership organization, perhaps the members would like to invite me,
> > > and whoever else from NYFU would like to come, to speak before the
> > > members and explain the facts of the case.
> >
> > See above, and this has been discussed by the board previously. After a
> > board meeting, I asked Brett via email, and via phone, to contact me so I
> > could get his point of view on the issues. This was many months ago.
> > Excuse after excuse, and no word from Brett. If his position is strong,
> > why avoid talking to NYLXS membership?
> >
> > > We are trying on our side to avoid publication of material which once
> > > out would diminish Ruben's stature, in the eyes of those who do not
> > > know Ruben. So a meeting where we can explain, and Ruben can explain,
> > > might be useful to all. We have no wish whatsoever to reduce Ruben's
> > > effectiveness as a leader, advocate, and teacher.
> > >
> > > We just want Ruben to stop claiming to work with a group he left in
> > > September 2002.
> >
> > From my understanding, NYFairUse ala Brett is meeting under a
> > schedule/place determined by whomever is representing Brett's or your
> > side. NYFairUse ala Ruben is meeting under a shedule/place determined by
> > Ruben and/or others. As prior to 7/17/02, the only official meeting
> > place (and whether it is official or not, I'm not getting into an
> > argument on that) that I am aware of for NYFairUse is the Rose, I am
> > unaware of other meeting places for NYFairUse. So for Ruben to stop
> > claiming he is working for NYFairUse may be correct in your view of which
> > group is legitimate or not, but in Ruben's view, he never left NYFairUse,
> > you and Brett did. Whether this accurate or not, I'll leave that for a
> > neutral party to decide. I have no interest in working for or being a
> > part of NYFairUse anymore, so it is not my concern what happens to
> > NYFairUse, although I hope both NYFairUse and NYLXS both survive, both
> > bury the hatchet, and both grow, as gnu/linux needs as much represenation
> > as it can get.
> >
> > > > 2c) I have asked on several occasions for Brett to call me and talk
> > > > to me about this issue not to resolve the issue, but just to get his
> > > > views. On each occasion, including in voice conversations, there was
> > > > some reason or excuse on his part, as to why he could not speak to me
> > > > at that time. On each occasion, he has indicated that he would call
> > > > me at a later time or date to discuss the issue. He never has
> > > > followed up on his promise. I don't like arguing any point by not
> > > > having a full understanding of everything, and not having all the
> > > > facts. But all the facts I have now support Ruben Safir, and NYLXS,
> > > > and do not support Brett, or anyone else arguing Brett's point of
> > > > view. This is where this particular issue stands at this time.
> > > >
> > > > Brett and others may feel they have rights to the NYFairUse mark.
> > > > Whether this is true or not, it is a non-issue of the NYLXS.org
> > > > domain. Cybersquatting on NYLXS.org for exerting some pressure on the
> > > > NYFairUse domain/group use is extortion in my opinion, and if
> > > > cybersquatting to get under someone's skin is the reason, this is so
> > > > unbelievably childish I can't believe it. Can someone really be that
> > > > childish? Is there any other reason other than either extortion or
> > > > childishness? Again, just my opinion.
> > > >
> > > > From what I've seen in the archive, Ruben was the organizer of
> > > > NYFairUse meetings and direction going back to at least August '01.
> > > > I have not seen any mention of Brett at any of these early meetings.
> > > > There are others listed at these early meetings who it appears are
> > > > not involved with either organization at this point in time, and have
> > > > not been involved going back to 7/17/02. I would like to hear their
> > > > view on this issue.
> > > >
> > > > I met Jay for the first time at an installfest at the headquarters of
> > > > a company that was advertised as a gnu/linux hardware company, which
> > > > went public, lost their shirts, and then declared that they weren't a
> > > > gnu/linux company anymore. I forget the name, but I'm sure everyone
> > > > knows which company I'm talking about. My impression of Jay was at
> > > > that time, and continued to be, that Jay is a nice guy, has a great
> > > > personality, and is a fun guy to be around. He is also very
> > > > effective in advocacy because of this.> I don't know what happened
> > > > between Ruben and Jay, but what I'm seeing of Jay's writings
> > > > concerning this issue, I'm having trouble comprehending.
> > >
> > > Have you looked at
> > >
> > > http://www.nyfairuse.org
> > >
> > > ?
> >
> > I don't have time, but I will later tonight or tomorrow.
> >
> > > The following actions Ruben has taken no part in, and he has, in
> > > public, viciously attacked us for doing them:
> > >
> > > The campaign against the proposed FCC Broadcast Flag Mandate.
> > >
> > > The campaign to correct the proposed bad policy of the W3C on patents,
> > > a campaign started by the Free Softwrae Foundation.
> > >
> > > The campaign to identify and boycott all Palladium hardware, hardware
> > > which is today being placed in home and business computer without the
> > > buyers being told.
> >
> > In Ruben's view, NYFairUse has been hijacked. Critisizing others for
> > representing themselves to be NYFairUse representatives is justified, in
> > his view. The split that occured when some people went down to
> > Washington to meet with Commerce should not have occured from Ruben's
> > view, and I agree with that. What the reasons were for going or not
> > going, I'll have to review that. But the split at that point should not
> > have occured.
> >
> > Is this split what started everything?
> >
> > > To repeat: The issue is not whether Ruben was a founder of NYFU. The
> > > issue is not whether Ruben was and is important in the Movement. The
> > > issue is not any agreement or disagreement with Ruben over principles,
> > > strategy, or tactics of the struggle. The issue is that when the
> > > working members of NYFU tried to continue working together with Ruben,
> > > Ruben refused to work with NYFU.
> >
> > These are the issues as you define them, and I'm sure Ruben would
> > disagree with you on this point. Whether other objective parties would
> > agree or disagree would be relevant. I'll have to reread your paragraph
> > above when I come back.
> >
> > > > I'm open to receiving any documentation to dispell any conclusions
> > > > I've reached on this matter, and I am still open to talking to Brett,
> > > > or anyone who believes that Brett should have the rights to NYLXS.org
> > > > for reasons other than extortion/leverage or childishness, and for
> > > > the NYFairUse founding issue. As others have stated, if they
> > > > believed that NYFairUse was not representing their voice, they were
> > > > free to break from the founder of NYFairUse. But hijacking the group
> > > > is not legitimate in my opinion. If anyone has further info to
> > > > change my opinion on this, I am open to receiving it, and I am
> > > > specifically asking for it. It will not be the first time I have
> > > > done a complete 180 degree turn after receiving more information or a
> > > > differing point of view.
> > >
> > > Vin, will you support a meeting of NYLXS with some members of NYFU? I
> > > am pretty sure that NYFU would agree, but I am not here speaking
> > > officially for NYFU
> >
> > I'll support anything that resolves this. As you stated, I am not
> > speaking officially for NYLXS either. I am open to a meeting, a
> > sit-down, whatever. This would have to be hashed out better prior to the
> > meeting, as I don't know if this can be resolved between just reps of
> > your NYFairUse group and NYLXS and if Ruben's NYFairUse group wants any
> > say. We may have to have some neutral parties present, an agenda agreed
> > upon, and any other suggestions?
> >
> > Also, although NYFairUse and NYLXS have shared resources and members in
> > the past, currently, I believe it would be safe to say that current NYLXS
> > membership do not want anything to do with NYFairUse because of this
> > problem. I may be wrong, or they may just not want to have anything to do
> > with your/Brett's version of NYFairUse. But NYLXS and NYFairUse are two
> > separate entities, and the discussion of NYFairUse has nothing to do with
> > Cybersquatting on NYLXS.org.
> >
> > > > From my perspective, each group has the expertise and drive to
> > > > succeed on their own. There should be no reason for one group to
> > > > have to rely on the name or reputation of another group.
> > > > Badmouthing, from both sides, is damaging the reputation and standing
> > > > of individuals from both sides, and the reputation and standing of
> > > > organizations that have shown that on a shoestring, they have been
> > > > able to get things done. Neither side is without fault on this.
> > >
> > > No. This is wrong. NYFU has never attacked Ruben. We just asked that
> > > he stop claiming to be NYFU.
> >
> > NYFU may have never attacked Ruben, but your posts on Newsforge, NYLUG,
> > and possibly other places that don't come to mind right now have not been
> > innocent. Neither have Ruben's. There is bad blood on both sides. This
> > is too bad. I thought you guys were friends. I was shocked to see what
> > was going on recently and not so recently. You guys got together to do
> > something good, and you let it fall apart. This is really too bad.
> >
> > > > For the good of gnu/linux, this bickering must stop. This division
> > > > is only helping microsoft. Let us please resolve this. I am open to
> > > > listening to anyone and everyone to come to some conclusion on this.
> > > > Until this issue is resolved, it appears that there are two groups
> > > > vying for the NYFairUse mark. I would suggest that as each group
> > > > posts meeting or action information, that the competing group refrain
> > > > from trashing the other. A simple, one line statement stating that
> > > > your particular group is or is not meeting on such and such date, and
> > > > is instead meeting at such and such date is sufficient. Attempting
> > > > to destroy each other in multi paragraph rants is counter-productive
> > > > to both groups. You are attempting to grow your membership, not
> > > > alienate possible future members. This would be a good test to see
> > > > how reasonable each side can be. Take the high ground. Resolving
> > > > the NYFairUse issue will not happen on a mailing list. It will
> > > > either be resolved by sitting down and agreeing to disagree and each
> > > > side compromising, or it will be resolved through other formal
> > > > channels. Airing you shit in public is not working.
> > >
> > > Yes. And NYFU has never attacked Ruben. And NYFU refused to answer
> > > Ruben's vicious attacks for months because we hoped that Ruben would
> > > just stop. But Ruben still attacks us. The day Ruben stops attacking
> > > NYFU, stops attacking members of NYFU, stops attacking the work of
> > > NYFU, there will be no more public discussion of these matters from our
> > > side.
> >
> > Again, you and Ruben have two different views of who NYFairUse is. So
> > from your perspective, NYFairUse has never attacked Ruben. But from
> > Ruben's perspective, NYFairUse is in his corner, and you and/or Brett may
> > be attacking him (and of course he is returning the favor in spades if
> > you consider his responses in public as attacks).
> >
> > > > Vin.
> > >
> > > Vin, please ask NYLXS to not take actions in the name of New Yorkers
> > > for Fair Use. If your position is that NYLXS is NYFU, or that NYFU is
> > > a part of NYLXS, well, I do not see how anything cna be resolved. Note
> > > that as far as I know most of the workers of NYFU are not members of
> > > NYLXS, so it is hard to see how NYLXS and NYFU could be the same
> > > organization. Certainly no one at NYFU accepts that NYFU is a part of
> > > NYLXS.
> >
> > I have never taken that position. NYLXS and NYFairUse are two separate
> > entities in their own right. Neither one should be confused with the
> > other. As to the membership of NYFairUse sharing membership of NYLXS,
> > that would depend on whether one agrees with your view of who NYFairUse
> > is, or Ruben's view of who NYFairUse is. Since this is getting to be
> > less and less important to me, this is no longer an issue for me. You
> > can resolve this with Ruben, or you can't. But Cybersquatting on NYLXS
> > has no justification.
> >
> > > Vin, thank you for writing to us.
> > >
> > > oo--JS.
> >
> > This won't be forwarded to RMS or hangout at this time (nor was my
> > original email). Jay, you are the only one who will be getting this
> > response, but if I can make it to the NYLXS meeting, it will be
> > discussed. It may be posted at a later date. If it is, I'll notify you.
> >
> > Vin.
> >
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
