MESSAGE
| DATE | 2006-05-24 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [Balug-talk] [rick@linuxmafia.com: Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Its a sorry day for The Linux?Journal]
|
>
> But I notice that you did that anyway, so I'm hauling out my analytical
> bat, one more time.
>
That is all good and well, and Richard defended Linus pretty much as you
are about to do, BUT, Time-Warner, a lawyer named Mutterperl, repeated
exactly those words ie: Linus Tovalds said DRM is compatable with the Linux
Operating system, and then handed out as evidence copies of Linus's quote to
every member of the Copyright Offices committee.
For me, it is not a matter of being correct, or incorrect (in this case).
What matters to me is the real world outcome. I don't know 10 people in the
world who has the analystic skills of a Rick Moen (or a Richard Stallman).
And certainly none of them are making public policy (or for that matter
major economic decisions either).
I'll read the rest of this, but don't miss understand where I'm coming from.
It's not to pick a fight or split hairs. My goal is to do my best to publicize
and to get people to understand the impact of technology on their freedom. This
is not something that they grasp easily, but I keep at it because I want my children,
all 6 of them, to live in freedom. And frankly, my biggest objection with those
in the Open Source movement, both self-proclaimed, by association, or members of
OSI, is that they seem to be not only politically tone deaf, but also incapable of
articulating and enumerating their own self-interests, let alone to figuring out a
stratergy to achieve truly universal acceptance by the public of Free Software
standards as a requirment of politcal and economic freedom from this moment and into the future.
such as the public has come to accept in pevious generations the need for libraries and universal
education.
In truth, while Free Software has made substantial penetrations in the last 2-4 years, especially
in server markets, from the most important aspect of digital systems, the place between the eyes and
hands and the data people need, propiatory systems, especially Microsoft systems, are more entrenched
than ever. And it is not looking good. Technical successes like OGG Vorbis, mean NOTHING when not
supported be a groundswell of demand for free computer systems, free media, and penetration into
virtical software markets.
I don;t see in any way how OSI, and the resulting "marketing spin" has helped us along at all. And
If lumping Linus and OSI is a crude unfair generalization that doesn't stand up to scrutanty,
well, lynch the CEO of Brooklyn. Because to me, such analysis misses the point, and we are ALL
missing the boat.
Linus said that DRM is OK with Open Source software, and their are 500 some odd members of Congress
that will tell you that straight up when you want into the Rayond building at Capital Hill. If
their understanding is wrong, it is going to take more than a detailed analysis of the technical
merits of his email messages on this topic to make this clear. Instead, it will take a clear, plain
English, politically calculated statement of "I am Linus, and I'm here to tell you that DRM is THEFT
and that DRM is incompatable with Free Software, the Linux Kernal and a danger to a free people."
Linus and other people who support and use the phrase "Open Source" may not like having to carry Gods Law
from Mount Siani, but so be it, because Moses hated and was dragged into it agaist his will as well.
Ruben
> _Not only_ is Torvalds, to repeat, not a logical candidate when you're
> casting about for people who speak for open source -- since he's never
> _been_ that, and since there's a blindingly obvious organisation of
> _other_ people who EXPLICITLY are that (leading the natural suspicion
> that you're grasping at straws if you avoid citing them)...
>
> ...but also Torvalds didn't even say what you claim he did.
>
> Really, Ruben, _next_ time I see you take swipes at someone for this sort
> of thing, you'd better make double-sure you've got your facts right,
> because I'm going to remind you of _this_ debacle every time, and keep
> doing it until you clean up your act.
>
> Ready? OK, here we go:
> http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2003042401126OSKNLL
> Quoting:
>
> [L]ike the software patent issue, I also don't necessarily like DRM
> myself, but I still ended up feeling the same: I'm an "Oppenheimer",
> and I refuse to play politics with Linux, and I think you can use
> Linux for whatever you want to - which very much includes things I
> don't necessarily personally approve of.
>
> I.e., it's _not_ that Torvalds likes DRM in any way.
>
> I've had some private discussions with various people about this
> already, and I do realize that a lot of people want to use the kernel
> in some way to just make DRM go away, at least as far as Linux is
> concerned. Either by some policy decision or by extending the GPL to
> just not allow it.
>
> In some ways the discussion was very similar to some of the software
> patent related GPL-NG discussions from a year or so ago: "we don't
> like it, and we should change the license to make it not work somehow".
>
> I.e., it's that Torvalds refuses to consider changing the existing
> licence to attempt to prohibit usage that he or anyone else disapproves
> of. This is _exactly_ consistent with the identical answer he's always
> given to various pinheads who want to make it illegal to use Linux in
> military operations, etc. He says (paraphrasing): "No, sorry, won't
> happen. It's under GPLv2, which puts no restrictions whatsoever on
> permitted uses. Live with it, or write your own damned kernel."
>
> And you called that advocating DRM?
>
> You're wrong. Very. Demonstrably. And you thus owe Torvalds a nice,
> big, public apology (even though he's staggeringly unlikely to have
> noticed, that being beside the point). And you owe the _rest_ of us a
> great deal more care to stick to fair commentary, particularly when you
> dare to impugn people's motives.
>
>
> > In my opinion....
>
> Ruben: Facts first. Opinions after.
>
>
> And the pity of it is, I think I can guess why you leapt to such a
> stunningly wrong conclusion: I'll bet you went solely by the Slashdot
> (et alii) sound bite, the introductory lines the very _top_ of
> Torvalds's LKML post, _before_ he says what he's talking about (as
> quoted above):
>
> Ok, there's no way to do this gracefully, so I won't even try. I'm
> going to just hunker down for some really impressive extended
> flaming, and my asbestos underwear is firmly in place, and extremely
> uncomfortable.
>
> I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux!
>
> There, I've said it. I'm out of the closet. So bring it on...
> [...]
>
> Hundreds of blithering adolescents read no further, and like idiots went
> straight for the dumbass flamebait. Did _you_ bother to read any
> further? If so, it sure doesn't show.
>
> _______________________________________________
> balug-talk mailing list
> balug-talk-at-lists.balug.org
> http://lists.balug.org/listinfo.cgi/balug-talk-balug.org
--
__________________________
Brooklyn Linux Solutions
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://fairuse.nylxs.com
"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn....
|
|
