|FROM ||Abdele Darius Sabre
|SUBJECT ||Re: [hangout] Re: [nylug-talk] Hardrives, Bios and Linux
|From owner-hangout-desteny-at-mrbrklyn.com Sun Nov 4 20:49:07 2001
Received: (from mdom-at-localhost)
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id fA51n1L08501
for hangout-desteny; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 20:49:01 -0500
Received: from web14912.mail.yahoo.com (web14912.mail.yahoo.com [220.127.116.11])
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with SMTP id fA51mdm08487
for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 20:48:39 -0500
Received: from [18.104.22.168] by web14912.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 04 Nov 2001 17:49:00 PST
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 17:49:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Abdele Darius Sabre
Subject: Re: [hangout] Re: [nylug-talk] Hardrives, Bios and Linux
To: Derek Vadala
Cc: nylug-talk-at-nylug.org, hangout-at-nylxs.com, fairuse-at-mrbrklyn.com,
spacey-nylug-at-lenin.nu, joev_nylug-at-mindspring.com, tconrad-at-edisonschools.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Reply-To: Abdele Darius Sabre
List: New Yorkers Linux Scene
Admin: To unsubscribe send unsubscribename-at-domian.com to hangout-request-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com
> Re-read what you wrote.
Thank you. I did re-read it.
>Your saying that people
> don't have a right to use
> Linux unless they lobby for it's political ideals.
I re-read what I wrote. I do not believe I expressed
what you said. I do say that people who use linux
without supporting the political conditions which made
it's development possible are like thieves and are
> That's no different
> that charging for a software license as far as I see
Charging for the software is not an issue. You can
charge for the software. That is perfectly fine and
it is encouraged by Linux International. Linux
software IS licensed under copyright and the user has
obligations. This is true. I say even more, that
Linux users who are against Linux politcally are
hypocrites and thieves. People who work with Linux
should just ignor them, and refuse them support.
That is what I am saying.
> It's an illusion
> of freedom.
No your not correct. Freedom is not an illusion on the
freedom which allowed for the development of Linux is
real and threatened.
> And, I think a lot of people would
> disagree with that
>You're also using an analogy that Bill Gates
> has used to describe
> software piracy in the past-- thief stealing hard
> work yada yada.
I never mentioned Bill Gates. Do you want to discuss
Bill Gates as well?
> > Also, I do not see how you make this point from
> > discussion of Alan Cox, or how you mean it be what
> > said it means. You are jumping around on points
> > everywhere.
> We were talking about withholding security fixes
> (which are tehcnically
> not actionable under DMCA) as an attempt to force
> people to become
> politically active and support a certain political
> ideal. This is no
> different than being a professional lobbyist group
> except that code is
> being used instead of cash.
That is not really true, but you have a valid pont.
It does not address the question of how you relate all
this back to Alan Cox, however, the GPL, as it is
created does indeed use the code and the license to
assure political freedom. And the code should be used
to assure that freedom it that is possible.
> > I also agree with Ruben. Anyone who would outlaw
> > Linux or deny the political freedom represents
> > denies the basic human rights needed for a
> > society.
> I don't recall anyone even suggesting this.
Efforts have been mde to outlaw Linux outright. In
addition, the ability to reverse engineer and own
information, both of which is fundemental to many
things, but also Linux, is outlawed by the DMCA.
If you speak saying that you desire to outlaw the
basic principles that Linux stands requires, you do
this by strenously objecting to Alan pushing the
community to do what it should be. You were then said
to be talking like a Pinko anti-American Commie who
hates Capitalism. For all the reasons I explained, I
agree with this view.
> simply saying that people
> should have both the right not to care, and the
> right to be secure at the
> same time.
This is not even remotely what you were saying. But
if you want to say this now, I will accept this and
then remind you that when Alan Cox put 2 years of
intense labor as an investment into the Linux kernel,
and when the community is ungrateful and squanders the
political freedom to assure that this investment
remains free for his use, and everyones use, then he
is perfectly correct to use whatever leverage he can
to push people to defeat the DMCA and SCSSS and
whatever else rolls around Congress. Cox is morally
correct, legally correct, and politically correct to
use the development or anything else to defeat people
who would end Linux, our civil rights and our economic
Even people who use Linux and urge others to not to
participate in the needed normal political process
required to protect these basic civil rights. And
these civil rights are not just Linux issues, but also
destroy educational, libraries, and the basis of our
political freedom. The DMCA is like a poll-tax.
> > > But what do I know, I'm apparently a
> > Yes
> > You are.
> I think you and Ruben really need to do some reading
> and realize that a
> lot of Linux users are socialists and communists.
> And, if you can't see
> the socialist aspects of Linux and GPL, then you're
> missing the whole
> point. These McCarthyisms are borderline facsist.
Yes, facists alway ask you to write Congress to
protect your freedom of property, and speech. It is
the fist page of the Little Ayatola handbook of
> Derek Vadala, derek-at-cynicism.com,
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
New Yorker Linux Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....