From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270820AbTG0P3U (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:29:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270822AbTG0P3U (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:29:20 -0400 Received: from khms.westfalen.de ([62.153.201.243]:41937 "EHLO khms.westfalen.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270820AbTG0P3T (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:29:19 -0400 Date: 27 Jul 2003 11:21:00 +0200 From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <8qeXeYJmw-B@khms.westfalen.de> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Switching to the OSL License, in a dual way. X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.12d.kh12 R/C435 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding? References: X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail. X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org lgcdutra@terra.com.br (Leandro Guimar+es Faria Corsetti Dutra) wrote on 24.07.03 in : > On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:42:30 +0000, Dean McEwan wrote: > > > After recently reading Mr. Stallman's online *BLURB* at > > www.stallman.org, specifically the diary entry on June 28th 2003, I > > am disturbed > > Yes, that entry is disgusting. Furthermore, I think one can > has good philosophical reasons to totally reject these views. I don't think there are solid philosophical reasons to reject them. I do think, however, that it is impractical to implement all of them. It's not that he's completely wrong (though there are certainly details there that aren't quite right), it's that many of the preconditions that would make these things not particularly nice, but tolerable, are next to impossible to ascertain - and thus, if these things are just plain allowed, it's hard to prove that a particular occurrence really did (or did not) follow the rules. And as the ones *not* following the rules are stuff we particularly want to prevent ... well, in practice this meens some of the stuff that *does* follow those rules must necessarily also be banned. Which means that absolute statements here are not really very helpful. (Then again, rms is rather famous for making unhelpful public statements.) It's much more interesting to look at current borderline stuff and ask if the line should be moved a bit, and in what direction. But then, it seems traditional in the US that only absolute statements can be made about anything involving sexual ethics, and that "compromise" isn't part of anybody's vocabulary. MfG Kai