[SATLUG] 1984, Robots, the Military and Technology

toddwbucy toddwbucy at grandecom.net
Fri Mar 21 14:28:14 CDT 2008


On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 14:09 -0500, Jeremy Mann wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 2:01 PM, toddwbucy <toddwbucy at grandecom.net> wrote:
> >
> >  The problem with this is that those lists don't represent SATLUG as a
> >  community they represent other communities which we as individuals may
> >  or may not participate in.
> 
> And that's a problem? Last time I checked this is a LUG mailing list,
> "L"inux "U"users "G"roup.
> 
> > I personally do not fear the diversity of
> >  thought within SATLUG I find it refreshing.  The point therefore is that
> >  we discuss our divergent opinions within the market place of ideas be
> >  they tech related or political, social, economic, or philosophical. As I
> >  noted earlier the currently accepted definitions of Free Software and
> >  Open Source software Illustrate how these ideas intersect with the
> >  technology and are therefore relevant to the SATLUG community.
> 
> So what you're saying is that its ok for me to post a message asking
> what the right head bolt torque specs are for my 883? There's a Harley
> FORUM that can give me this information, why should I even consider
> putting it on Satlug?
> 
Well you could if you wanted to as far as I am concerned, but I wouldn't
gaurantee your sucess in doing so.  But again let me highlight the
inherent philosophical, economic, social, and yes political implications
of the following Definitions.
 
Free software is software which gaurantees the following freedoms to
those that choose to use it:
  * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
      * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
        needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition
        for this. 
      * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
        (freedom 2). 
      * The freedom to improve the program, and release your
        improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits
        (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for
        this. 
      * http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
      * 
Open Source Definition summarized from The Open Source Initiative:

Ken Coar of the Open Source Initiative notes that in order for software
to be open its license must (1) allow for the free redistribution of the
software, (2) the source code of the program must be available to the
end user, (3) “the license must allow modifications and derived works,
and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the
license of the original software,” (4) any work that is derived from the
original source code, that is to bear the same name as the original,
must maintain the integrity of the authors original and subsequent work,
however this does not preclude derivative work which bears another name,
(5) must not discriminate against persons or groups, (6) not
discriminate against fields of endeavor (i.e. business, government, or
religious), (7) the rights attached to the program must apply to all to
whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an
additional license by those parties, (8) the rights attached to the
program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular
software distribution. If the program is extracted from that
distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's
license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have
the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the
original software distribution, (9) the license must not place
restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the
licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all
other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source
software, and (10) no provision of the license may be predicated on any
individual technology  style of interface.
 Extract from upcoming paper

Given that Linux is very much a part of the F/OSS community it seems
relevant to me to discuss some of the implication of these definitions
and that many of these implications may from time to time reach out
beyond the realm of that which might be considered Linux or F/OSS
specific.
Furthermore I understand the desire to keep some of this info relegated
to an arena which might not affect one's employment.  Those of you who
participate on this list from the job may be liable if such opinions
which are voiced offend an employer.  I certainly do not want to
inadvertently cost someone their job or discomfort at work.
An OT list however would greatly alleviate any concerns as you do not
have to check that list in the process of doing your job.  Furthermore a
OT list is something that can be enforced by all of us.  Maybe the
reason it didn't work last time was because no one stood up(or more
fairly not enough) and said anything when someone violated the
established norm. admittedly I was not a member at the time but it seems
to me that this is a reasonable hypothesis. 

Todd



More information about the SATLUG mailing list