Re: [freenet-chat] Re: p2p = child-endangerment

[Rob Cakebread]

> Here's my reason: the alternative (censorship) is worse.  I would rather
> let my children explore the Internet than a walled-off subset thereof.
> Pixels and sonic vibrations are not harmful.  The ideas they convey may
> be confusing to children, which is why my wife and I are here with them.
> They're certainly too young to be left unsupervised!

The alternative is not censorship of the net, filters etc. The alternative is 
to supervise children. I hate to break it to you but they already are viewing
a walled-off subset of the Internet because you are standing behind
them. I doubt you'll ever have to tell them, "Don't you dare go
to www.double-anal.com!" (I didn't check, but a buck says that
is a real site).

You're offering a different picture now. You said ' I let my kids have 
unrestricted access to the Internet'. Now you're saying you supervise
them, and good for you. You're the only filter that works.

Watching over their shoulder isn't exactly un-restricted. Even if my parents 
had said, "Go ahead, look at whatever you want", I'd have been too
embarassed to explore where I wanted.

By the way, I can't believe there are rooms full of people getting paid to go 
to porn sites and add the address to a list in filtering software. It is so 
laughable to think they are even coming close to making a list of 'all' porn 
sites.

Any parent who buys that software and thinks they don't have to still
watch their kids are real geniuses.

> Of course, as I said earlier, this specific issue hasn't come up yet,
> because my 5- and 7-year-olds have shown no inclination to seek erotic
> material on the Internet yet.


I doubt very seriously they'll show that inclination while you're watching 
them use the Internet, even when they are 13, 16, whatever.
You're an adult and I doubt you'd surf your 'erotic material' in front
of your relatives, adult peers etc.


> > > Later, I'm sure he'll use the Internet to look at pictures of nude or
> > > scantily clad women (or even men).  I don't see a problem with that.
> >
> > Later? So now you define an age range.
>
> Whenever he is ready to search for erotic material, I'm sure he will find
> it.  (He already knows how to use Google.)  I'm guessing he will be about
> 12 at the time, but it might happen sooner.  (My 7-year-old is mildly
> autistic, so his development is not at the rate of a "normal" child.)

Again, porn: Whips, chains, gay dogs doing dwarves, horses doing monkeys.
Not vanilla. 

> My 5-year-old is more "normal", so he may actually be the first one to
> bring this issue to my immediate attention.

I doubt your kid is going to say 'Hey pop, where's all the sophisticated
erotic literature and imagery? I'm ready!'. 


> > They do have a natural hormone-driven desire
> > to have sex. Giving them porn will just increase the rate of child
> > pregnancy and children with STDs.
>
> Nitpick #2: please define 'porn'.  David offered a definition that I've
> never heard before.  In this message, I'm switching to the phrase "erotic
> material" to more clearly state what I'm talking about.

See above. Horses doing monkies, anything goes.

> I'll also give an example: .  I consider that
> one of the best sites on the entire World Wide Web.

Sounds boring. Thanks, but I like the nasty dirty stuff.

> I see no basis for your argument.  If anything, I'd expect to see the
> opposite -- giving them access to erotic material (especially of the
> more educational variety) is likely to lead to higher self-esteem and a
> greater awareness of the nature of sex and its consequences.  I'd expect
> an increase in masturbation, and a decrease in the guilt associated with
> it by our society.
>
> Pregnancy and STDs would require a partner, which is not something
> they're going to find by watching movies and masturbating!

I think kids have plenty of wank material just from watching tv, peeking
up the teachers skirt, watching the washing machine, the dirty 
magazines they find etc. Do they really needed unrestricted access
to porn?

The number of young girls getting pregnant is going up and up. The age
is going down. Sexual disease in children is on the rise.

Maybe its the hormones in milk. Maybe its Pamela Anderson on
Bay Watch.

Giving them full, unrestricted access to porn wouldn't affect those numbers?


> > > For that matter, have you forgotten what the girls looked like when you
> > > were in school?  (Or were you unfortunate enough to have been forced to
> > > attend a school that only admitted students of one sex?)  Some of the
> > > girls I went to school with were quite arousing even fully clothed.
> >
> > And how would you like your child hanging out with a child he/she found
> > arousing and they watched porno movies together?
>
> I expect that by the time my sons start dating, they'll keep their
> activities largely secret from me.  If they tell me they went to see a
> movie, I'd probably assume it was something a bit more mainstream.
>
> My wife and

Re: [freenet-chat] Re: p2p = child-endangerment

[Greg Wooledge]

Rob Cakebread ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> On Tuesday 31 July 2001 03:26 pm, you [Greg Wooledge] wrote:

>> [...]

> I had sexual desires when I was 10. Before that, I dont't remember.
> Babies masturbate, so don't tell me children don't have sexual desires.

Very well, based on your and David's statements, I retract that part.

> > > What parent out there can come
> > > up with a good reason to give their kid access to porn?

OK, nitpick #1: giving them access to porn is not the same as giving them
porn.

Here's my reason: the alternative (censorship) is worse.  I would rather
let my children explore the Internet than a walled-off subset thereof.
Pixels and sonic vibrations are not harmful.  The ideas they convey may
be confusing to children, which is why my wife and I are here with them.
They're certainly too young to be left unsupervised!

Of course, as I said earlier, this specific issue hasn't come up yet,
because my 5- and 7-year-olds have shown no inclination to seek erotic
material on the Internet yet.

> > Later, I'm sure he'll use the Internet to look at pictures of nude or
> > scantily clad women (or even men).  I don't see a problem with that.

> Later? So now you define an age range. 

Whenever he is ready to search for erotic material, I'm sure he will find
it.  (He already knows how to use Google.)  I'm guessing he will be about
12 at the time, but it might happen sooner.  (My 7-year-old is mildly
autistic, so his development is not at the rate of a "normal" child.)

My 5-year-old is more "normal", so he may actually be the first one to
bring this issue to my immediate attention.

> They do have a natural hormone-driven desire
> to have sex. Giving them porn will just increase the rate of child
> pregnancy and children with STDs.

Nitpick #2: please define 'porn'.  David offered a definition that I've
never heard before.  In this message, I'm switching to the phrase "erotic
material" to more clearly state what I'm talking about.

I'll also give an example: .  I consider that
one of the best sites on the entire World Wide Web.

I see no basis for your argument.  If anything, I'd expect to see the
opposite -- giving them access to erotic material (especially of the
more educational variety) is likely to lead to higher self-esteem and a
greater awareness of the nature of sex and its consequences.  I'd expect
an increase in masturbation, and a decrease in the guilt associated with
it by our society.

Pregnancy and STDs would require a partner, which is not something
they're going to find by watching movies and masturbating!

> > For that matter, have you forgotten what the girls looked like when you
> > were in school?  (Or were you unfortunate enough to have been forced to
> > attend a school that only admitted students of one sex?)  Some of the
> > girls I went to school with were quite arousing even fully clothed.

> And how would you like your child hanging out with a child he/she found
> arousing and they watched porno movies together?

I expect that by the time my sons start dating, they'll keep their
activities largely secret from me.  If they tell me they went to see a
movie, I'd probably assume it was something a bit more mainstream.

My wife and I never watched erotic movies together while we were dating;
if one of my sons were to find a young woman willing to do that, I'd
quite frankly be a bit envious.  I think the odds of that occurring are
a bit low, however, given what I know of young (high-school-aged) women.
Maybe I'm mistaken and there are hordes of sexually open young women out
there eager to watch erotic movies with young men -- but I was never
fortunate enough to meet any of them.

(I'm assuming my sons will be heterosexual.  So far they've both shown
signs of being attracted to girls.)

> Your children need to see Jenna Jaimeson get gang banged by two
> guys and a girl while 7 others wait their turn in line to learn 'interaction 
> with members of the opposite sex'... ?

Wow, your taste in erotic material is vastly different from mine,
it seems!

Perhaps something from http://www.bluedoor.com/ would be a bit more
suitable for the rest of us.

-- 
Greg Wooledge  |   "Truth belongs to everybody."
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  |- The Red Hot Chili Peppers
http://wooledge.org/~greg/ |

 PGP signature

Re: [freenet-chat] Re: p2p = child-endangerment

[Rob Cakebread]

On Tuesday 31 July 2001 03:26 pm, you wrote:
> (Apologies if this is too hetero-centric.  Feel free to translate it into
> politically correct terms for your own peace of mind if that's necessary.)
>
> Rob Cakebread ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Tuesday 31 July 2001 08:56 am, you wrote:
> > > Check your premises. *Why* is it a problem for kids to have access to
> > > porn?
> >
> >  Because porn promotes sexual desire.
>
> And why is that bad?
>
> > Kids have more than enough of
> > that without us giving them pornography.
>
> Kids have no sexual desire to speak of.  Teenagers are not kids.  Please
> define the age range you're talking about.

Ok, how about 'child'? I consider teenagers kids, but consult your local
laws for what age 'child' in 'child-endangerment' law means.
I had sexual desires when I was 10. Before that, I dont't remember.
Babies masturbate, so don't tell me children don't have sexual desires.

> > What parent out there can come
> > up with a good reason to give their kid access to porn?
>
> I'm a parent.  I let my kids have unrestricted access to the Internet.
> My older son is 7, and he uses his freedom to look at web sites that
> feature toys (Legos mostly) and monster movies (King Kong, Godzilla).
> He also likes Cartoon Network, and their web site.

You didn't answer my question. 

> Later, I'm sure he'll use the Internet to look at pictures of nude or
> scantily clad women (or even men).  I don't see a problem with that.
>
> (My 5-year-old does not show quite as much interest in the Internet yet.)


Later? So now you define an age range. 


> >  I don't know about you, but I want to have sex when I when I see porno.
>
> I want to have sex even when I *don't* see porno.  Usually this desire
> springs from seeing my wife, but even that isn't strictly necessary.
>
> > >Why do assume parents should  "protect" their children from sex?
> >
> >  Because sex can be dangerous and result in a painful death.
>
> Hence the need for sex education.  Driving a car can be dangerous and can
> result in a painful death, too -- I certainly wouldn't let my children
> drive a car without teaching them how!

Giving kids pornography is sex education? Kids don't have a natural
urge to drive a car. They do have a natural hormone-driven desire
to have sex. Giving them porn will just increase the rate of child
pregnancy and children with STDs.

> >  That is why parents should protect their children from sex. That's why
> > virtually every country has laws protecting children from sex.
>
> Pornography is *not* the same as sex, any more than watching "Jaws" is the
> same as being attacked by a shark.


I didn't say pornography was sex so your analogy means nothing. Watching 
pornos does make kids want to have sex. Why encourage them?


> You can't "protect your kids from sex".  Instead, you teach them how to
> be responsible and safe.  Abstinence is one way to achieve this goal, but
> it's a temporary solution.  In the long term, a monogamous relationship,
> combined with contraceptives, is a better approach.


Giving them pornography won't promote abstinence, teach them to be
responsible and safe, or promote monogomy.


> >  I think kids have enough trouble concentrating on what they should be
> > doing (school, growing up) without having free access to porn.
>
> In my experience growing up (with partial access to porn [magazines]
> but no Internet) I found that having access to porn did *not* interfere
> with my school work at all.  I was valedictorian, despite having seen
> a few pictures of breasts and vaginas (and later, the real items).

You didn't have free access to porn. You had partial, and without your 
parent's consent, I imagine. A world of difference when your parents 
aren't the ones giving you pornography. 

>
> >  And please don't suggest we bombard kids with porn and then tell them
> > "Don't do that till you are old enough."
>
> If you want to prevent your children from being bombarded by sexually
> titillating imagery, you'll have to raise them outside the USA.  Have
> you taken a good look at commercial television lately?  Or billboards
> on the side of the road in urban areas?
>

I didn't say sexually titillating, I said PORN.


> For that matter, have you forgotten what the girls looked like when you
> were in school?  (Or were you unfortunate enough to have been forced to
> attend a school that only admitted students of one sex?)  Some of the
> girls I went to school with were quite arousing even fully clothed.

And how would you like your child hanging out with a child he/she found
arousing and they watched porno movies together?

> Part of the education of any young man or woman is interaction with
> members of the opposite sex.  People need to learn to live with their
> sexuality, and channel their emotions and needs into non-destructive
> channels.  At first this means masturbation. 


Your children need to see Jenna Jaimeson get gang banged by two
guys and a girl while 7 others

Re: [freenet-chat] Re: p2p = child-endangerment

[David McNab]

From: "Greg Wooledge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>>  Because porn promotes sexual desire.
>And why is that bad?
>> Kids have more than enough of
>> that without us giving them pornography.

>Kids have no sexual desire to speak of.

I must tender a correction to that.
Pre-pubescent children are immensely sexual.
The only difference is that, in the absence of gender-differentiating
hormones, they don't tend to focus their sexuality on skin-skin, especially
genital-genital contact.

Getting born is the one of the biggest fucks of one's whole life - getting
it on with Mom in a pretty big way.
If anyone has ever seen a birthing mother in action, they would recognise
the similarity between birthing dynamics and those of sex and orgasm.

Kids with all their boundless energy are getting it on with everyone and
everything, it's just that they're not specifically using their cocks and
cunts to do so. Perhaps that's why some people find kids hard to handle.

>Teenagers are not kids.  Please
>define the age range you're talking about.

Part of puberty and its changes is the way one's sexuality starts to focus
on the genitals, and gives rise to the powerful desire to unite oneself with
others *largely via the genitals*.

Perhaps it's beneficial for children to see erotic material virtually from
day one.
Such as in Aldous Huxley's visionary novel Brave New World.
Maybe kids should be taught the tender dynamics of erotic interaction in
school, even as early as kindergarten.
"Oh, Johnny, try to be more gentle with Mary's clitoris... it's a really
sensitive part of her - take a breath, and stroke it gently with your
tongue, tease it and kiss it ahh, that's better, Johnny".

So much of society's ills can be attributed to the tensions of sexual
repression.

As for porn, a discinction must be drawn between porn and erotica.
Erotica is material that elicits sexual feelings.
Porn is (usually erotic) material which communicates untruthful messages and
thus disempowers a sector of society, and typecasts it into an undignified
or powerless role.

Using that definition, much or most of mainstream media is pornographic.

Kids are going to be exposed to porn at some stage. As the river flows down
to the sea.

IMO, the right approach to take is openness and guidance.
Teach the kids to discriminate between wholesome erotica and pornographic
erotica.
Teach them to discriminate between wholesome media and pornographic media.

Teach them that they are powerful beings with their own capacity to
discriminate, choose, experience, learn and grow.

David




___
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat

Re: [freenet-chat] Re: p2p = child-endangerment

[Greg Wooledge]

(Apologies if this is too hetero-centric.  Feel free to translate it into
politically correct terms for your own peace of mind if that's necessary.)

Rob Cakebread ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> On Tuesday 31 July 2001 08:56 am, you wrote:

> > Check your premises. *Why* is it a problem for kids to have access to
> > porn?

>  Because porn promotes sexual desire.

And why is that bad?

> Kids have more than enough of
> that without us giving them pornography.

Kids have no sexual desire to speak of.  Teenagers are not kids.  Please
define the age range you're talking about.

> What parent out there can come
> up with a good reason to give their kid access to porn?

I'm a parent.  I let my kids have unrestricted access to the Internet.
My older son is 7, and he uses his freedom to look at web sites that
feature toys (Legos mostly) and monster movies (King Kong, Godzilla).
He also likes Cartoon Network, and their web site.

Later, I'm sure he'll use the Internet to look at pictures of nude or
scantily clad women (or even men).  I don't see a problem with that.

(My 5-year-old does not show quite as much interest in the Internet yet.)

>  I don't know about you, but I want to have sex when I when I see porno.

I want to have sex even when I *don't* see porno.  Usually this desire
springs from seeing my wife, but even that isn't strictly necessary.

> >Why do assume parents should  "protect" their children from sex?
> 
>  Because sex can be dangerous and result in a painful death.

Hence the need for sex education.  Driving a car can be dangerous and can
result in a painful death, too -- I certainly wouldn't let my children
drive a car without teaching them how!

>  That is why parents should protect their children from sex. That's why
> virtually every country has laws protecting children from sex.

Pornography is *not* the same as sex, any more than watching "Jaws" is the
same as being attacked by a shark.

You can't "protect your kids from sex".  Instead, you teach them how to
be responsible and safe.  Abstinence is one way to achieve this goal, but
it's a temporary solution.  In the long term, a monogamous relationship,
combined with contraceptives, is a better approach.

>  I think kids have enough trouble concentrating on what they should be doing
> (school, growing up) without having free access to porn.

In my experience growing up (with partial access to porn [magazines]
but no Internet) I found that having access to porn did *not* interfere
with my school work at all.  I was valedictorian, despite having seen
a few pictures of breasts and vaginas (and later, the real items).

>  And please don't suggest we bombard kids with porn and then tell them
> "Don't do that till you are old enough."

If you want to prevent your children from being bombarded by sexually
titillating imagery, you'll have to raise them outside the USA.  Have
you taken a good look at commercial television lately?  Or billboards
on the side of the road in urban areas?

For that matter, have you forgotten what the girls looked like when you
were in school?  (Or were you unfortunate enough to have been forced to
attend a school that only admitted students of one sex?)  Some of the
girls I went to school with were quite arousing even fully clothed.

Part of the education of any young man or woman is interaction with
members of the opposite sex.  People need to learn to live with their
sexuality, and channel their emotions and needs into non-destructive
channels.  At first this means masturbation.  Later, we hope, it will
mean safe(r) sexual practices, leading to a stable long-term relationship.
By "protecting kids from sex" (by which I assume you mean suppressing
all that could possibly arouse them until they reach some arbitrary age,
then suddenly removing the blinders), all you do is prevent them from
undergoing a normal, gradual emotional growth.

-- 
Greg Wooledge  |   "Truth belongs to everybody."
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  |- The Red Hot Chili Peppers
http://wooledge.org/~greg/ |

 PGP signature

Re: [freenet-chat] Re: p2p = child-endangerment

[Mr. Smith]

> Check your premises. *Why* is it a problem for kids
> to have access to
> porn? How do you know our society wouldn't be better
> off if everybody grew
> up watching porn instead of horror movies? Why do
> assume parents should
> "protect" their children from sex?

I frequently wonder about this myself.  Even given our
sometimes puritanical roots, it seems self-evident
that sex is a fairly major factor of our existence. 
Given that children are basically sponges that absorb
information at rates that make most adults seem
shamefully slow, I fail to see how obsfucation and
misinformation will really help them to prepare for
what will inevitably be a significant part of their
lives.

At least I'll get to raise my kids not to be such
censor prone prudes.

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

___
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat

Re: [freenet-chat] p2p = child-endangerment

[Mr. Smith]

--- Greg Wooledge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lobbyist: "Hello, Senator.  I'd like to talk about
> piracy."
> 
> Senator: "You mean people who copy music and movies
> without paying for
> them?"
> 
> Lobbyist: "Yes, that's right.  We can't prosecute
> these people because
> of loopholes in the copyright laws.  So we'd like
> you to pass some more
> laws that protect our business interests."
> 
> Senator: "But what about free speech?"
> 
> Lobbyist: "May I remind you that the media companies
> constitute XX% of
> this country's gross national product, as well as
> YY% of our exports?
> And did you forget about all the help we gave you in
> your last campaign?"
> 
> Senator: "Well gosh, that's right."

My statement wasn't geared at their intent, more at
the physical restrictions that would cause any
interference to be impractical.  Short of outlawing
encryption, there is no way to eliminate peer to peer
file sharing.  As much as our politicians sell out to
the entertainment industry, there's no way something
like that would come to pass without being challenged
immediately and successfully by half the lawyers in
the nation.

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

___
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat

Re: [freenet-chat] Porn on Freenet

[Mr. Smith]

--- Todd Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm still struggling to get my Freenet node up and
> running, but now I'm 
> having second thoughts. I visited a Freenet node
> last week via the web, and 
> I looked at some "keys" (I think) and a bunch of
> porn was prominently 
> listed.
> 
> I would hate to be the poor fool who has an example
> made of him for some 
> Senate hearing.

"Those who give up a little freedom to obtain safety
deserve neither freedom nor safety."  --Benjamin
Franklin

Not only is the chance of persecution by our
government unlikely in the extreme, but pray tell what
gross violation of your rights would you be willing to
make a stand for?

While I recognize that it's all well and good to say
you'll fight authority and quite another to be
imprisoned at the expense of your job and your
family's welfare, there are some fights that must be
fought.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I contribute
to the EFF and ACLU for the express purpose of making
sure that our government continues to grant rights,
not revoke them.

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

___
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat

Re: [freenet-chat] Re: p2p = child-endangerment

[Travis Bemann]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 11:56:36AM -0400, Aaron Guy Davies wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, philipp wrote:
> 
> > Of course it is a problem, when children receive porn vids instead of
> > britney spears songs And of course it is a problem, if children
> > are able to see sex&violence at the TV. But come on, guys, we all know
> > the solution to this kind of problems isn´t called "V-Chip" or any law
> > that forbids the usage of P2P apps. We need PARENTS who actually
> > deserve this term = parents who take care of their kids. A V-Chip
> > can´t do this. Laws neither.
> 
> Check your premises. *Why* is it a problem for kids to have access to
> porn? How do you know our society wouldn't be better off if everybody grew
> up watching porn instead of horror movies? Why do assume parents should
> "protect" their children from sex?

For political reasons.  First, totally sexually repressed people make
much better soldiers and cannon fodder than non-sexually repressed
people.  Second, puritanicality is necessitated by many different
organized religions, and the reason is to perpetuate the traditional
patriarchical nuclear family, rather than not being married and just
having "nonproductive" sex with one's SO, etc.  The reason for the
patriarchical nuclear family is that it first promotes widespread
sexual repression (because the only reason to have sex is for
reproduction, within the framework of the patriarchical nuclear
family), and because the "normal" patriarchical nuclear family is a
very highly authoritarian construct, and therefore helps perpetuate
authoritarian ideologies, and also, especially traditionally,
perpetruates a male-dominated society (you know, the whole husband
goes to work and wife is just a "homemaker" thing...).  There are
other reasons to be against port, mainly due to the fact that plain
old girl-posing-for-guys porn is highly misogynistic, but I don't
think that this is why most politicians think "PORN == EVIL EVIL
EVIL".

-- 
Yes, I know my enemies.
They're the teachers who tell me to fight me.
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance,
hypocrisy, brutality, the elite.
All of which are American dreams.

  - Rage Against The Machine
 PGP signature

[freenet-chat] RE: open source trademark

[Josh]

Thank you for the reply. I'm glad to know that open source is not a
trademark, therefore I will submit my license per your instructions, and if
you guys approve it (if), then I will return to using the "open source"
words.

 -Original Message-
From:   Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:   Tuesday, July 31, 2001 12:54 PM
To: Josh
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: open source trademark

Josh writes:
 > Hello, I'm a developer in need of a custom open source license. It came
to
 > my attention that "open source" is a registered trademark of your
 > organization.

We've given up on that idea.  It's not a defendable trademark.  We do
maintain a certification mark, "OSI Certified Open Source", which we
apply to any software using an approved license.

 > I've designed a global file system. As such, it cannot succeed if there
are
 > a dozen flavors of the same basic design floating around. It's essential
 > that I maintain a degree of management over my design, yet as an open
 > standard it must be "open" source.

Best thing to do then is establish your own certification trademark,
and deny its use to anyone who is not interoperable.

 > I am patent pending, just so somebody else can't patent it.

All you have to do is publish the ideas in print.

 > Yet I intend to release the design royalty free, and open source.
 > Therefore I wrote my own version of the GNU license
 > (www.mercuryfs.net/license.htm. It's not ready for prime time, but
 > it's all I got at the moment.

If you're asking us to approve it, the procedure is given at
http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html

--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok |
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | #exclude 
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   |


___
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat

[freenet-chat] Re: open source trademark

[Russell Nelson]

Josh writes:
 > Hello, I'm a developer in need of a custom open source license. It came to
 > my attention that "open source" is a registered trademark of your
 > organization.

We've given up on that idea.  It's not a defendable trademark.  We do
maintain a certification mark, "OSI Certified Open Source", which we
apply to any software using an approved license.

 > I've designed a global file system. As such, it cannot succeed if there are
 > a dozen flavors of the same basic design floating around. It's essential
 > that I maintain a degree of management over my design, yet as an open
 > standard it must be "open" source.

Best thing to do then is establish your own certification trademark,
and deny its use to anyone who is not interoperable.

 > I am patent pending, just so somebody else can't patent it.

All you have to do is publish the ideas in print.

 > Yet I intend to release the design royalty free, and open source.
 > Therefore I wrote my own version of the GNU license
 > (www.mercuryfs.net/license.htm. It's not ready for prime time, but
 > it's all I got at the moment.

If you're asking us to approve it, the procedure is given at
http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html

-- 
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | 
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | #exclude 
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | 

___
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat

Re: [freenet-chat] RE: Porn on Freenet

[Don Marti]

Chad,

> I am writing a paper for school on the legal consequences of running a
> freenet not.  It looks at: contributory liability, vicarious liability, fair
> use, the DMCA etc. .  I have a rough draft, it is kind of long so I wouldn't
> post it here but if anyone would like to look at it give me an email.

Yes, please.  Maybe I could get it published in Linux Journal.

-- 
Don Marti  What do we want?  Free Dmitry!  When do we want it?  Now! 
http://zgp.org/~dmarti  Free Dmitry: http://eff.org/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Free the web, burn all GIFs: http://burnallgifs.org/

___
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat

Re: [freenet-chat] Re: p2p = child-endangerment

[Rob Cakebread]

On Tuesday 31 July 2001 08:56 am, you wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, philipp wrote:
> > Of course it is a problem, when children receive porn vids instead of
> > britney spears songs And of course it is a problem, if children
> > are able to see sex&violence at the TV. But come on, guys, we all know
> > the solution to this kind of problems isn´t called "V-Chip" or any law
> > that forbids the usage of P2P apps. We need PARENTS who actually
> > deserve this term = parents who take care of their kids. A V-Chip
> > can´t do this. Laws neither.


> Check your premises. *Why* is it a problem for kids to have access to
> porn?

 Because porn promotes sexual desire. Kids have more than enough of
that without us giving them pornography. What parent out there can come
up with a good reason to give their kid access to porn?

> How do you know our society wouldn't be better off if everybody grew
> up watching porn instead of horror movies? 

 I don't know about you, but I want to have sex when I when I see porno.
I have never had the desire to go out and kill when watching a horror movie.
Sure, there are whacko kids who will be more inclined to kill after watching
horror movies, but they are psychologically disturbed and they will kill 
anyways. Kids who watch porno aren't abnormal in feeling sexual desire.

>Why do assume parents should  "protect" their children from sex?

 Because sex can be dangerous and result in a painful death. If adults don't
control themselves by taking basic precautions against STDs, why should we
expect a 12 year old to? There are sexual diseases that can't be prevented
by condoms (genital warts) and can't be cured. Teach your kid about that.

 That is why parents should protect their children from sex. That's why
virtually every country has laws protecting children from sex.

 I think kids have enough trouble concentrating on what they should be doing
(school, growing up) without having free access to porn.

 And please don't suggest we bombard kids with porn and then tell them
"Don't do that till you are old enough."

 No, I don't think sex or porn is 'bad', or that we should have V-chips or 
other filtering. It is a parents responsibility to monitor what their kids 
are doing. 

p2p != child-endangerment
Lazy stupid parents = child-endangerment


___
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat

Re: [freenet-chat] Re: p2p = child-endangerment

[Aaron Guy Davies]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, philipp wrote:

> Of course it is a problem, when children receive porn vids instead of
> britney spears songs And of course it is a problem, if children
> are able to see sex&violence at the TV. But come on, guys, we all know
> the solution to this kind of problems isn´t called "V-Chip" or any law
> that forbids the usage of P2P apps. We need PARENTS who actually
> deserve this term = parents who take care of their kids. A V-Chip
> can´t do this. Laws neither.

Check your premises. *Why* is it a problem for kids to have access to
porn? How do you know our society wouldn't be better off if everybody grew
up watching porn instead of horror movies? Why do assume parents should
"protect" their children from sex?
-- 
____
   /  )  /  )
  /--/ __.  __  /  / __. , __o  _  _
 /  (_(_/|_/ (_(_) / / <_  /__/_(_/|_\/ <__http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat

[freenet-chat] RE: Porn on Freenet

[Chad Phillips]

>For example, there are a lot of points in the DMCA that would protect
>node operators in the US, provided that they comply with orders to block
>certain files

I am writing a paper for school on the legal consequences of running a
freenet not.  It looks at: contributory liability, vicarious liability, fair
use, the DMCA etc. .  I have a rough draft, it is kind of long so I wouldn't
post it here but if anyone would like to look at it give me an email.

thanks
chad


___
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat

Re: [freenet-chat] Re: p2p = child-endangerment

[David McNab]

From: "Daniel Åborg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Your ideas are obviously aimed at ruining the foundations of our
> society...

Quite often, old buildings are not viable for renovation, since they have
decayed to the very root.
In such cases, the Architect must tear down the whole building and start
afresh with a new design.

> and must be crushed. Prepare to be terminated.

Not without a bloody fight, brother! :)

> You are obviously insane. Do you not realize that if we were actually
> to deal with the root of the problem, people would have to take
> responsibility for things. There would be no one to blame for the
> symptoms of their lack of doing so apart from themselves. For christs
> sake, they would even have to consider the effects of their actions!

IT'S
ABOUT
FUCKING
TIME!

David


> * On 31 Jul 2001 10:30 CEST, philipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Of course it is a problem, when children receive porn vids instead
> > of britney spears songs And of course it is a problem, if
> > children are able to see sex&violence at the TV. But come on, guys,
> > we all know the solution to this kind of problems isn´t called
> > "V-Chip" or any law that forbids the usage of P2P apps. We need
> > PARENTS who actually deserve this term = parents who take care of
> > their kids. A V-Chip can´t do this. Laws neither.
>
> You are obviously insane. Do you not realize that if we were actually
> to deal with the root of the problem, people would have to take
> responsibility for things. There would be no one to blame for the
> symptoms of their lack of doing so apart from themselves. For christs
> sake, they would even have to consider the effects of their actions!
> Your ideas are obviously aimed at ruining the foundations of our
> society and must be crushed. Prepare to be terminated.
>
> Daniel
>
> --
> Daniel Åborg  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ___
> Chat mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
>


___
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat

Re: [freenet-chat] Re: p2p = child-endangerment

[Daniel Åborg]

* On 31 Jul 2001 10:30 CEST, philipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Of course it is a problem, when children receive porn vids instead
> of britney spears songs And of course it is a problem, if
> children are able to see sex&violence at the TV. But come on, guys,
> we all know the solution to this kind of problems isn´t called
> "V-Chip" or any law that forbids the usage of P2P apps. We need
> PARENTS who actually deserve this term = parents who take care of
> their kids. A V-Chip can´t do this. Laws neither.

You are obviously insane. Do you not realize that if we were actually
to deal with the root of the problem, people would have to take
responsibility for things. There would be no one to blame for the
symptoms of their lack of doing so apart from themselves. For christs
sake, they would even have to consider the effects of their actions!
Your ideas are obviously aimed at ruining the foundations of our
society and must be crushed. Prepare to be terminated.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Åborg  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

___
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat

[freenet-chat] about chat list reading

[ana santos]

31 july 01 
Of course "Family"very councern with  her children mentali.e.helthy
,harmoniousely etc, developed is better and suitable. centeredin the
relation :Grate!,,fantastic..!!! But we must all be awere to
reality : even thouse so called "Goo Famyies"if you approache yourselves and
attentively observes their dayly reality ,I`l not be surprised about your
disgusted feelings-it rally stinks. Thatìs the point:´sof any help
discussions on who`´sculpable -guilt ? from where it comes...that´´s croker
sheet. someone sad"every famylie is an insane asylum"  reporting his own  .
So let´s get out of this hell1 as a sujestion, each one try do tell
Essential  from assessory (my english is far from good ,sorry)I meant to say
distinguishing what is essentialfromwhat is not really important,-in frentsh
you`l say "acessoir"  so  to conclude all of us are to be blaimed,with
course  few exceptions. no more shall we rely in governments
legislations.,all the so called politically correcct counshes  -insted lets
search our counshesness .
:wetheryou make legislation to protect our children,etc,stars in obscurity a
dispositive to pass quoting a chater "your ckack"
everione must start thinking with his her own equipment  -for this  we must
develop our equipment,by oberving very attentively what is happenning just
by our side and prossigue I know I have difficulties on shuting up.
ana
ps:it is up to us stopping planet`´sdistruction  life destruction in the
earth ,It´s a big lie going to other planets.


___
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat

[freenet-chat] Re: p2p = child-endangerment

[philipp]

I had a look at the papers you´re talking about.
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/porn.html

Well, basically I can see two Reps (Waxman and Largent) trying to get some attention. 
Maybe there are elections in the states soon? :D

It´s interesting, that they didn´t mention freenet...Are they afraid of it!? Maybe 
this report is just another approach to actually BOOST the usage of "cheap" 
(=non-encrpyted) P2P apps like Aimster until it becomes such a big issue that they can 
ban it with a new law. (means ISP are forced to ban people using these apps)

Of course it is a problem, when children receive porn vids instead of britney spears 
songs And of course it is a problem, if children are able to see sex&violence at 
the TV. But come on, guys, we all know the solution to this kind of problems isn´t 
called "V-Chip" or any law that forbids the usage of P2P apps. We need PARENTS who 
actually deserve this term = parents who take care of their kids. A V-Chip can´t do 
this. Laws neither.


Phil


___
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat