Re: [SLUG] Linux user's group?

[Robert Collins]

On Sat, 2006-03-25 at 08:42 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Friday 24 March 2006 21:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The discussion we've had so far went like this:
> >
> >  * RTFM
> >  * Please don't use that term, it's inappropriate
> >  * It is not inappropriate
> >  * Yes, it is, and here's why: [...]
> >  * 
> 
> And in the meltdown everyone seems to ignore the  or  usage. 
> It's 
> not the WORD it is the context. eg
> 
> What you seek is http://here where it says bla, also http://there where they 
> say blabla and a whole pile at http://overthere but you'll need to RFM.

Right! Thats an entirely appropriate use of RTFM, and one few if any
users would have a problem with.

The problem I have with these mega threads is well described in the link
to the mailing thread patterns blog post of Joey Hess's, and I hope that
everyone in this thread will read it :). And then categorise the posters
in this thread and other recent mega ones according to its
heuristics ;).

Which is enough for me on this thread.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Linux user's group?

[Robert Collins]

Speaking as a community member not a committee member anymore - as of
Friday night :)

On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 10:04 +1200, Bret Comstock Waldow wrote:
> I will use the "Royal you" in writing this.  It's not referring just to 
> Visser, Martin, but to all the readers.
> 
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:40, Visser, Martin wrote:
> > Huh? When did this thread become a debate on the definition of Free or
> > Open Source Software?
> 
> 
> When this group decided to advertise itself as a Linux user's group.  Linux 
> is 
> GPL, not Open Source.  Open Source allows restriction, GPL works decidedly 
> against restriction - they are aligned by accident in some ways, and 
> diametrically opposed in others.
...

SLUG has been a Linux users group for a long time now, since the time
when a Linux user was always a software developer. Its one of the groups
that are most passionate about software freedoms that I know.

I think you are 'drawing a long bow' here in your [paraphrased] claim
that setting societal guidelines is equivalent to not supporting the
spirit of the GPL. Rather than argue with you about whether you are
right or wrong I'd like to invite you to think about a few key things
here...

Linus happily uses proprietary products routinely: MacOSX most recently
and BitKeeper most famously. Citing Linus as a shining example of what
gives the GPL its philosophical strength is ironic at best. Richard
Stallman by contrast does not use any proprietary software at all.

Secondly, licences such as Microsofts 'Code Sharing' thing which is what
I think you are referring to your email are emphatically *not* Open
Source licences. http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php provides
the definition for open source, and it *specifically* allows you to
modify any open source program and create new programs from it - such
action requires the ability to use the code shipped. 

Thirdly, the GPL is not as cut-and-dried 'free' as you seem to think it.
The GPL provides *specific* freedoms and benefits in exchange for other
*specific* freedoms or benefits. For example: The freedom to create a
'binary only download' of a cool tool is curtailed by the GPL [to an
extent. There are loopholes the size of 18-wheeler road-trains.] But in
exchange we get a software commons where anyone shipping binaries is
compelled to contribute to the commons. BSD licence advocates say that
this exchange is unhealthy for a number of reasons, one being that web
services can be considered an end-run around it, and  another that its
unhealthy to solve a social problem by technical means.


Lastly, and this is the most important point: a society which wishes to
encourage a specific culture - say one of support and guidance between
members *MUST* have a mechanism to deal with rogues (i.e. [0]). It *is*
possible for a single person to provide an incredibly disruptive
influence on a much larger society [1], and societies in the pre-net era
had defense mechanisms. I think its entirely appropriate that there be
such defense mechanisms for the SLUG culture which IMO is still one of
the most fantastically supportive free software groups around. [I say
that with considerable pride to have been chosen by the SLUG members to
be a committee member two years running.] One challenge for SLUG is to
make those defense mechanisms as low-impact on the members as possible,
else the society becomes a less pleasant place to be and may be just as
harmful as leaving the rogue in place [2]. Individual defenses suh as
killfiles are clearly insufficient [3, 4, 5]. Right now we are failing
on that, and I'm going to do a talk at the April meeting [if the new
committee are interested in me doing that - are you? I think I am in
town for that meeting] about this. It seems to be a bit of a common
theme at the moment in a number of on-net societies and I'd like use to
learn from and think about the ramifications this is raising. (I've
picked on debian-devel as a source for these references because it
happens to be dealing with an extreme case of a rogue at the moment, and
the patterns of behaviour and the thought going into it is
enlightening). There are other examples to be had, and I suspect its
rather iceberg like - many more examples are private and not made public
than ever reach archived mailing lists.

Rob

[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/08/msg5.html
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/03/msg00620.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/03/msg00734.html
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/03/msg00841.html
[4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/03/msg00667.html
[5]
http://www.kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/thread_patterns-2005-10-27-00-53.html

-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Linux user's group?

[Robert Collins]

On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 02:02 -0800, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
> Greetings!
> 
> My thoughts below:
> 
> --- Bret Comstock Waldow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And I have no problem with this group/mailing list
> > enforcing rules for 
> > posting,
> 
> ... we (in ilugc), call it merely guidelines:
> 
> http://www.chennailug.org/wiki/List_Guidelines
> 
> If you read through them, you will see that most of
> them have been updated with the experiences we have
> had with newbies.
> 
> > And I see this group wants to take the Linux
> > namespace, at least in Sydney.  
> > After reading the messages about who gets to say
> > RTFM, I began to wonder if 
> > this group is actually interested in upholding the
> > philosophy that comes with 
> > that name.
> 
> IMHO, I don't like to spoon-feed solutions to newbies.
> If they do their homework, make an effort to "learn",
> and then they say that they got stuck at some
> instance, I'd like to "help" them.
> 
> One of the best things I like about FLOSS is the
> documentation. You can simply follow the README,
> INSTALL and doc files, step-by-step.
> 
> Cheers guyz,
> 
> SK

I think there is a balance in all of this. Telling a new user who has no
idea that comprehensive documentation is available on their system to
read said documentation [without specifying where to find it] for an
unspecified keyword in an unfamiliar context is unlikely to produce an
effective learning experience. 

Conversely telling someone like me who has been around a while [have I
reached old fart yet ? What is the cutoff age for that?] whats going on
in excruciating detail when there is a good manual I was unaware of is
less efficient - I am very happy to receive nothing more than a pointer
- "Foo bar standard and requirements under the topic 'synchronisation
points'" is a -good- answer for me.

I dont think RTFM is harmful per se, but it is neither sufficient -
manuals are often large, narrower context is needed - nor necessary -
unless the person asking has sufficient background to to take no more
than a few bits of information and research from there a more involved
answer is often necessary to ensure the context for the real answer is
useful.

I think its likely that there is a huge dropoff in the number of
questions from users of a system as they gain familiarity, and at the
same time for each user the questions will become more esoteric *from
their perspective*.

My suggestion is that an RTFM style response be reserved for:
 * Questions from people who have been around a while and thus know
about the various documentation options and have the context to take an
arbitrary manual and get a satisfactory answer.
 
and that for people one does not recognize, or who do not claim such
experience when they ask the question an answer with enough context to
solve the problem PLUS guide them to where they might have found the
answer themselves will be maximally useful in both the short and long
term. As people become more familiar you can then assume they have been
given many such references to information sources and types, and had
time to internalise the various concepts needed to understand an answer.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Linux user's group?

[O Plameras]

James Purser wrote:



This is my last post to you on this matter. In keeping with the
traditions of Usenet (as you wish we would) I shall now call you a nazi
and invoke Godwins law.
 



This is a joke ?  I  do not know where you got that idea unless you're 
out of your mind.


O Plameras
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Linux user's group?

[O Plameras]

James Purser wrote:


This is my last post to you on this matter. In keeping with the
traditions of Usenet (as you wish we would) I shall now call you a nazi
and invoke Godwins law.
 

This is a joke ?  I  do not know where you got that idea unless you're 
out of your mind.


O Plameras
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Linux user's group?

[James Purser]

On Sat, 2006-03-25 at 15:21 +1100, O Plameras wrote:
> 2. USENET accepted it even before Linux and still accepts it.
> Linux inherits the traditions and legacies of USENET.

Good for usenet. Usenet also accepts naked pictures, stories about sex
and illegal software, should the SLUG list do this as well?

> 5.  Wikipedia and over 5million articles say RTFM is OK.

You have personally checked all 5 million articles?

> 6.  Other people on this list don't mind RTM.

Good for them.

> 7. Linux is promoting open and unhindered discussions
> including the use of validated and accepted tools over
> the years. RTFM is validated and accepted tool originally
> used in USENET and other lists services.

Mate, Linux is a kernel. The community that has built up around the
kernel are a collection of hard core coders. The SLUG list has to cater
for a wide range of people, from complete novices and up.

> > * Yes, it is, and here's why: [...]
> >  
> >
> 1. RTFM word itself is rude.

In the context it was used, yes it was.

> 2. Because J. Waugh speaks for others

I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself, and in fact have done, as
have others.

> 4. Slug Committee sides with J. Waugh

If you don't like this, stand for the committee and ask the membership
to make a choice. Participatory democracy is a wonderful thing.

> 5. Other people on this list don't like RTFM.
> 6.  Three posters made abusive language.
> 
> > * 
> >
> >This isn't censorship. There haven't been (many) personal attacks until much
> >later in the thread. This isn't fascism. 
> >

Frankly much of what you have written seems either designed to provoke a
reaction (troll type behaviour) or further a vendetta you seem to have
against Jeff and others on this list. But then again, that is also
standard Usenet behaviour so at least you are being consistent.

> Behavioural standards are developed over many years. RTFM had a rough
> time but this is in the past. As pointed out RTFM has become an accepted 
> tool
> not only in the original USENET groups but it is now used by technical and
> professional groups including other list groups that are truly open and
> freedom loving. I sometimes here people say the word RTFM in functions
> and gatherings of the non-technical nature. This shows that we continously
> evolve as social beings and not rigid minded societies.

Let me reiterate a point that has been made over and over again. SLUG is
not Usenet. Much as Australian society as changed dramatically from the
original protestant english culture at the foundation of the colony of
New South Wales. SLUG has evolved to match its own unique requirements.
Whoa societal evolution in action, who'd a thunk it.

> The behavioural standards favoured by GPL loving people is much toward
> the open, accepting of diverse attitudes and opinions, tolerant, and not
> hindering and restricting especially when the point under discussion is a
> validated and accepted tool of the trades.
> 
> If you are not one of them, you are just a pretend GPL loving person.

This is something you seem to share with our MIT friend. GPL is not a
religion, nor is it a document on which to base one's life philosophy.
It's a software license and as such as as much impact as the law gives
it.

This is my last post to you on this matter. In keeping with the
traditions of Usenet (as you wish we would) I shall now call you a nazi
and invoke Godwins law.
-- 
James Purser
Producer/Presenter - Linux Australia Update
http://k-sit.com - My Blog
http://la-pod.k-sit.com - Linux Australia Update Podcast,Blog and Forums
Skype: purserj1977
SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Linux user's group?

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

O Plameras wrote:



Oscar, I no longer wish to read any emails from you to this
list. I am therefore taking steps so that I don't have to.
If anyone else feels this way I encourage them to do the same.

I will also be taking the same steps for Bret Comstock Waldow.

Regards,
Erik
-- 
+---+
  Erik de Castro Lopo
+---+
"There is no reason why anyone would want a computer in their home"
Ken Olson, DEC, 1977
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Linux user's group?

[O Plameras]

Jeff Waugh wrote:





The discussion we've had so far went like this:

* RTFM
* Please don't use that term, it's inappropriate
* It is not inappropriate
 


some why's given from the postings, as I can summarise them:

1. RTFM was used in the appropriate context. The target person
   appears to me seasoned Linux/Unix user. (Ref slug-archives)
   Reference to www.openssl.org  was posted.
2. USENET accepted it even before Linux and still accepts it.
   Linux inherits the traditions and legacies of USENET.
3.  Technical and professional groups use it.
4.  At no time did the poster made any abusive language.
5.  Wikipedia and over 5million articles say RTFM is OK.
6.  Other people on this list don't mind RTM.
7.  Linux is GPL and SLUG promotes Linux (and all ideals that it stands 
for).

7. Linux is promoting open and unhindered discussions
   including the use of validated and accepted tools over
   the years. RTFM is validated and accepted tool originally
   used in USENET and other lists services.


* Yes, it is, and here's why: [...]
 


1. RTFM word itself is rude.
2. Because J. Waugh speaks for others
3. On this list RTFM is ugly.
4. Slug Committee sides with J. Waugh
5. Other people on this list don't like RTFM.
6.  Three posters made abusive language.


* 

This isn't censorship. There haven't been (many) personal attacks until much
later in the thread. This isn't fascism. 


Fascism is controlling what should groups of people (as against individuals)
do, think, behave, say, etc by individuals and it followers. Originally, 
surfaced

in Italy under the infamous Benito Mussolini. Then it also surfaced in Nazi
Germany but I don't know (I don't read history too much) who imitated or
copied from whom.


If people can't accept behavioural
standards in a group like this (especially after arguing about it and having
to hear other people supporting it), perhaps they should find another group.
 


Behavioural standards are developed over many years. RTFM had a rough
time but this is in the past. As pointed out RTFM has become an accepted 
tool

not only in the original USENET groups but it is now used by technical and
professional groups including other list groups that are truly open and
freedom loving. I sometimes here people say the word RTFM in functions
and gatherings of the non-technical nature. This shows that we continously
evolve as social beings and not rigid minded societies.

The behavioural standards favoured by GPL loving people is much toward
the open, accepting of diverse attitudes and opinions, tolerant, and not
hindering and restricting especially when the point under discussion is a
validated and accepted tool of the trades.

If you are not one of them, you are just a pretend GPL loving person.

O Plameras


--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Linux user's group?

[Bret Comstock Waldow]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:43, James Purser wrote:

> 

"useless" and "drivel", eh?  Thanks for that opinion.

When I last lived in Sydney, I shared a house with several other fellows.  We 
got on well for several months, although this one who arrived after me had 
rather poor manners - he was the center of his universe.

And then I found out he and another fellow were using speed - 
methamphetamines.

At the same time there were several stories in the news about how drive-by 
shootings among some drug gangs had caught some bystanders as well.

Why were those gangs shooting at each other?  Money.  If it wasn't for the 
money to be had, they wouldn't be competing for the market.

So, those two people in that house were paying others to shoot at each other, 
and hit bystanders instead.  No money, no shooting.

Just because they only thought of themselves, that doesn't change the effect.  
The link is real.  No money, no shooting.

Why do you think MS is still around?  They are convicted now in several 
countries of cheating and breaking the law.  Do you think they do it out of 
altruism?

It's the money.  If people don't give them money, they will go away.

If MS goes away, there will be a HUGE effect on Linux, and the Unixes, and 
Apple, etc.

And if people took into account the effect of their spending on their 
neighbors in their community, there would be a huge effect on Linux, the 
Unixes, and Apple, etc.  I won't pay money to criminals - they just keep 
coming back.

So, it's "useless", and "drivel", eh?  Nasty words.  How do you reckon so?

Since you passed that judgement on me, perhaps you'd care to justify those 
words?  In public, where you wrote them.  If you've thought it through, and 
are correct, it should be easy to write it down where we can all decide what 
we think of your argument ourselves.

Regards anyway,
Bret


pgp5vqtqdXrx0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Linux user's group?

[Bret Comstock Waldow]

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:25, Jeff Waugh wrote:

> This isn't censorship.

I'm surprised you don't think telling people what they can and can't say is 
censorship.

Telling people what they can and can't say is censorship.  It isn't censorship 
because you do or don't have a "good" motivation, it's censorship because it 
involves telling others what not to say.

Doing it under the mantle of a Linux User's Group associates Linux with that 
censorship.  And you are claiming you are doing this for the sake of the LUG.  
That caught my attention - is that attempted censorship really in line with 
Linux's intent?

In the news here is a report of a student commiting suicide because she was 
hounded with txt messages from bullies - do you mean to suggest all the 
messages saying "don't say RTFM" aren't intended to have some effect?

Telling people not to say something is, at least attempted, censorship.  The 
word means what it means.

I don't question the positivity of your desire to help newbies, and I can 
understand wanting to promote a particular atmosphere to foster that.

You are claiming that you represent Linux, that you promote it (this is a 
LUG), and you are also using that as the basis for a claim that you can tell 
people what they can and can't say.  You have your arguments, having to do 
with your ideas about how newbies should and shouldn't be supported.

You say you are doing this because it helps promote Linux with newbies.

I'm not so certain that the end justifies the means, here.  I can think of 
many ways to deal with comforting newbies that don't include telling others 
what they can and can't say.  Perhaps you can't, but I'm not sure that's 
really a good reason to tell other people how to represent themselves.

Perhaps if you are uncomfortable with what someone else says it should be on 
you to do the extra work of balancing that to achieve the outcome you want.  
Then it's all voluntary, on your part and on the (hypothetical) newbie's if 
they want you to balance things for them.  If you want something, maybe you 
should be the one that changes what he's doing?  That's not what you are 
proposing, though.

That's what I'm curious about.  I like it when people back what they say, so I 
notice such things, and I think about them.

I see Linux as being about removing limits, not imposing them.  Linux is about 
volunteers., about the freedom to do things, try things, change things  I 
don't see your choice as promoting Linux.  I do see it being about imposing 
the consequences of your limits on others.

I have no problem using RTFM in a conversation, even with a newbie, even with 
my parents (who I support remotely - my father didn't finish High School, and 
he's beginning to diagnose Linux problems on his own).

I can handle RTFM, and explaining RTFM, in a way that makes people laugh, even 
when someone else has said it.  You can't do that?  Instead of telling others 
they can't say something?

Are you sure?

Regards,
Bret


pgp22sznHTO2p.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Linux user's group?

[jam]

On Friday 24 March 2006 21:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The discussion we've had so far went like this:
>
>  * RTFM
>  * Please don't use that term, it's inappropriate
>  * It is not inappropriate
>  * Yes, it is, and here's why: [...]
>  * 

And in the meltdown everyone seems to ignore the  or  usage. It's 
not the WORD it is the context. eg

What you seek is http://here where it says bla, also http://there where they 
say blabla and a whole pile at http://overthere but you'll need to RFM.

James 
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Linux user's group?

[Ken Foskey]

On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 10:04 +1200, Bret Comstock Waldow wrote:

> When this group decided to advertise itself as a Linux user's group.  Linux 
> is 
> GPL, not Open Source.  Open Source allows restriction, GPL works decidedly 
> against restriction - they are aligned by accident in some ways, and 
> diametrically opposed in others.

While I understand the difference I don't want to confuse others and I
definitely would hate SLUG to start down this track.  SLUG, in my mind,
is about supporting Open Source software, regardless of license.

We support SSH queries all the time, and guess what it is BSD license.
Often these queries are about connecting to and from other platforms
than Linux.

I am happy to educate Programmers on the subtle difference but seriously
a Linux user should not have care about the subtleties of licensing.

-- 
Ken Foskey
FOSS developer

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Linux user's group?

[Jeff Waugh]

> Linux came in on the GPL Free Software side - not the Open Source side -
> that's the philosophy and the license chosen.  Linus was not bamboozled
> into this - he's smart and made his choice consciously - and he chose Free
> Software.  He's the founder and the copyright holder - perhaps we know his
> philosophy about Linux from this?

So, you're a little confused by what all of these things mean, and the
motivations of the people involved, and you're trying to apply them to the
current discussion in a philosophical manner which really doesn't fit.

Linus is a very pragmatic guy. The GPL did what he wanted. He's not exactly
the biggest defender of the FSF/RMS moral angle of Free Software. His bio is
called "Just for Fun", because that's what he cares about. All of this is on
the record, well-known stuff.

So how does this apply to SLUG and the accusations of 'censorship' and so
on? I don't think it does. Historically, SLUG members and participants (at
least those who actually go to SLUG meetings) have held the moral values of
Free Software high, but regarded Free Software and Open Source to be two
sides of the same coin. While this is important stuff, I don't think it has
any relevance to any "please just be nice" guidelines for our mailing lists.

The discussion we've had so far went like this:

 * RTFM
 * Please don't use that term, it's inappropriate
 * It is not inappropriate
 * Yes, it is, and here's why: [...]
 * 

This isn't censorship. There haven't been (many) personal attacks until much
later in the thread. This isn't fascism. If people can't accept behavioural
standards in a group like this (especially after arguing about it and having
to hear other people supporting it), perhaps they should find another group.

- Jeff

-- 
GUADEC 2006: Vilanova i la Geltrú, Spainhttp://2006.guadec.org/
 
   "Oh my god, if I get killed, Meryl Streep will get an award playing my
  life and I would be really pissed off." - Susan Sarandon
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Linux user's group?

[Tom Massey]

On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 21:46 +1200, Bret Comstock Waldow wrote:

> To be about Linux means to be about Free Software.  If you aren't, leave the 
> name for another group that is - maybe they're willing to back it up.

Linus isn't really a Free Software guy, from what I've read. He's more
Open Source, pragmatic, but seems to prefer to avoid such politics.
So ... the guy who wrote the Linux kernel isn't about Linux?

RMS didn't code the Linux kernel (He certainly did a lot to create the
environment in which it could be coded, and this should be recognised) -
but Linux != Free Software movement.

Tom

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Linux user's group?

[Sridhar Dhanapalan]

On Friday 24 March 2006 20:46, Bret Comstock Waldow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> Linux is a copyrighted term.  There are licenses and laws that define how
> 'Linux' can be used, and they apply.

"Linux" is a trademark (although I believe it is now a generic term in 
Australia). AFAIK, you can't copyright a single word.

It has become fashionable in some quarters to collectively refer to trademark, 
copyright and patent law as "Intellectual Property" (often abbreviated as 
"IP"). They do so in the hope that muddying the waters surrounding these very 
distinct concepts will confuse ordinary citizens into accepting whatever they 
would like to foist upon us, such as DRM and spurious patents. Unfortunately, 
from what I can see it appears to be working quite well.


-- 
Sridhar Dhanapalan  [Yama | http://www.pclinuxonline.com/]
  {GnuPG/OpenPGP: http://dhanapalan.webhop.net/yama.asc
   0x049D38B4 : A7A9 8A02 78CB AB1B FCE4 EEC6 2DD9 249B 049D 38B4}

"To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, 
you just need to work on it. I know which one I'll trust. How about you?"
- Scott Granneman, senior consultant for Bryan Consulting Inc.,
SecurityFocus, 2003-10-06


pgpmYwuqI5NyR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Linux user's group?

[James Purser]

On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 21:46 +1200, Bret Comstock Waldow wrote:
> Linux is a copyrighted term.

Quick correction. Linux the kernel is held under copyright. Linux the
name/brand has been declared a generic term in this country and hence
available for anyone to use.

> So what does it mean, that this is a Linux User's Group, and not some other 
> sort of User's Group?

This is a group for Users of Linux who reside or have resided in Sydney.
It also caters to people who happen to use other Free/Open Operating
Systems/Software and  This is not a socio-political experiment in
thought control as you seem to think.

> 
> I'm focused on one aspect particularly, which I realized while considering 
> the 
> RTFM discussion.  Some people have no problem with it.  Others do.  The ones 
> who do aren't just refraining from saying it themselves - they want to impose 
> their view on the others.
> 

No, what we are trying to say is don't be a dick. The whole point behind
the original objection was that the term was unhelpful and rude. There
are much better ways to say "I couldn't be bothered so sod off" without
causing offence or potentially alienating a new community member.

> They aren't just deciding for themselves, they are taking it on themselves to 
> decide for others, and their justification at the root for taking away 
> other's choice includes that this is THE Sydney Linux User's Group.  ("We 
> advocate Linux and spread it's message, and to do this we need to...etc.")

At the moment, this is the only Sydney Linux User Group. There are no
others that I know of.



> Linux is GPL Free Software - it is, read the license.  This group didn't 
> write 
> it, doesn't own it, but you're taking on the name - should you?  Are you 
> really about Linux?

Please explain where the great Linus has come down from on high and
declared in a booming finnish accent "You must not impose rules on one
another, in any circumstances at all if you wish to use my kernel!"
while showering the faithful with code.

I'm sorry, but the rest of your email sounded like a letter to the
heretics, declaring us unclean because we do not adhere to your
particular brand of Free Software Love.

As you can see, I have taken the time to reply to you in full. I have
sent this email only to the list as you have asked. That is because I
believe in helping people. In your case I'm not sure exactly what sort
of help is needed but I am willing to supply it.
-- 
James Purser
Producer/Presenter - Linux Australia Update
http://k-sit.com - My Blog
http://la-pod.k-sit.com - Linux Australia Update Podcast,Blog and Forums
Skype: purserj1977
SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Linux user's group?

[Shakthi Kannan]

Greetings!

My thoughts below:

--- Bret Comstock Waldow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I have no problem with this group/mailing list
> enforcing rules for 
> posting,

... we (in ilugc), call it merely guidelines:

http://www.chennailug.org/wiki/List_Guidelines

If you read through them, you will see that most of
them have been updated with the experiences we have
had with newbies.

> And I see this group wants to take the Linux
> namespace, at least in Sydney.  
> After reading the messages about who gets to say
> RTFM, I began to wonder if 
> this group is actually interested in upholding the
> philosophy that comes with 
> that name.

IMHO, I don't like to spoon-feed solutions to newbies.
If they do their homework, make an effort to "learn",
and then they say that they got stuck at some
instance, I'd like to "help" them.

One of the best things I like about FLOSS is the
documentation. You can simply follow the README,
INSTALL and doc files, step-by-step.

Cheers guyz,

SK

--
Shakthi Kannan, MS
Software Engineer, Hexaware Technologies
[E]: cyborg4k at yahoo dot com   [M]: (91) 98407-87007
[W]: http://www.shakthimaan.com  [L]: Chennai, India

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Linux user's group?

[Bret Comstock Waldow]

Again, I write in the "Royal you".

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:21, tuxta2 wrote:

> If being a Free Software group means no rules at all, cause rules are
> not in the right spirit, does that make it okay for me to start sending
> links to porn sites I like?

The society we choose to create and live in takes the authority to impose 
behaviors to ensure a peace-freedom balance.  Hopefully.  This is not the 
purview of a non-governmental Linux User's Group.  A short way of saying it 
is "no one asked you to" (no offense, it's just true).

You can find ridiculous extremes in any direction without them necessarily 
being appropriate.  Just because the words are strung together, that doesn't 
give the thought relevance.

And I have no problem with this group/mailing list enforcing rules for 
posting, although as a separate issue, if they didn't enforce them equally or 
in some other way didn't do what they said they were I know I'd think less of 
'them'.  My questions look elsewhere, however.

Society imposes rules.  But this is about an agreement.  You (this group) said 
the group is about Linux.  Linux is the only software family in this group's 
name.  This group didn't say it's a Software Hobby Group, or an Alternatives 
to Windows Software Group, or a Unix Clone Software Group.  It says it's a 
Linux User's Group.  The group says this publically.

Linux is a copyrighted term.  There are licenses and laws that define how 
'Linux' can be used, and they apply.

So what does it mean, that this is a Linux User's Group, and not some other 
sort of User's Group?

I'm focused on one aspect particularly, which I realized while considering the 
RTFM discussion.  Some people have no problem with it.  Others do.  The ones 
who do aren't just refraining from saying it themselves - they want to impose 
their view on the others.

They aren't just deciding for themselves, they are taking it on themselves to 
decide for others, and their justification at the root for taking away 
other's choice includes that this is THE Sydney Linux User's Group.  ("We 
advocate Linux and spread it's message, and to do this we need to...etc.")

Microsoft hasn't monopolized the software industry at the point of a gun - 
they did it at the point of a namespace.  Their approach has been to get as 
many people as possible to think conmputer==Windows.  And they twisted arms 
(economically) illegally to do it - that's where some aspects of the 
anti-competitive court convictions come in.  They were (are?) willing to hurt 
other people in order to make things come out their way (bankruptcy hurts, 
loss of the only chance in a limited lifetime to realize a dream hurts, 
family pain and fighting over money problems damages marriages - the harm is 
real - and Microsoft lied and cheated to do it).

To control namespace, to control discourse, is to control minds.  Microsoft 
has real money in the bank for anyone who wants to scoff at this.

And I see this group wants to take the Linux namespace, at least in Sydney.  
After reading the messages about who gets to say RTFM, I began to wonder if 
this group is actually interested in upholding the philosophy that comes with 
that name.

Linux is GPL Free Software - it is, read the license.  This group didn't write 
it, doesn't own it, but you're taking on the name - should you?  Are you 
really about Linux?

To be about Linux means to be about Free Software.  If you aren't, leave the 
name for another group that is - maybe they're willing to back it up.

And maybe you think you are?  Are you?  If this is about free beer, it's not 
about Linux.

If you're going to impose sanctions on people, I think you'd better have your 
own house quite in order.  I think that.

So I'm asking, I want to hear people's thoughts - is this really about GPL 
Free Software Linux?  It's not what you say it is, it's what the copyright 
holder says it is - that is certain.  Free Software is against the censorship 
of software - is censoring people consonant with that?  If you change the 
name to (say) Helpful Newbie Software Group, I could accept the argument that 
it would be.  But you're appropriating the Linux colors for your flag.

You are trading on the Linux name and meaning.

So, is the THE Sydney Linux User's Group?  Do you advocate what Linux stands 
for?  Or should the name be something else?

I am writing this to the list.  Reply to the list, please, out where everyone 
can see it.

Regards,
Bret


pgpwnu31xyhsX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Linux user's group?

[tuxta2]

I agree to a point! But .
If being a Free Software group means no rules at all, cause rules are 
not in the right spirit, does that make it okay for me to start sending 
links to porn sites I like? or attaching pictures of atrocities? How 
about I start making sexist or racial comments? I'm free to do so aren't 
I? You don't have the right to censor me because I like pictures of 
people after terrible car accidents and want to share them.
I really don't believe Linux or Free Software promotes anarchy. The Gpl 
has rules, basically it says you can share and be a nice person, BUT you 
are not allowed to be a bad person and hurt other people. That to me is 
a very big rule.
RMS's vision was to change society for the better. To build a community 
and help your neighbour. Its about fellowship, about removing ourself s 
from the dog eat dog attitude and begin a brotherhood and sisterhood 
(perhaps siblinghood) for the benefit of all people.


Freedom does not mean anarchy! Do as ye will will harm to none.

Although the RTFM debate spurred on this discussion, a whole lot more 
has surfaced. I'm going to see if I can contact someone from the FSF and 
see what their view point is. I'm not in this discussion out of anger or 
passion, it has actual got me thinking about my core beliefs.

I would like this to be a logical discussion rather than a heated argument.

another 2c

Tuxta

Bret Comstock Waldow wrote:

I will use the "Royal you" in writing this.  It's not referring just to 
Visser, Martin, but to all the readers.


On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:40, Visser, Martin wrote:
 


Huh? When did this thread become a debate on the definition of Free or
Open Source Software?
   




When this group decided to advertise itself as a Linux user's group.  Linux is 
GPL, not Open Source.  Open Source allows restriction, GPL works decidedly 
against restriction - they are aligned by accident in some ways, and 
diametrically opposed in others.


Linux came in on the GPL Free Software side - not the Open Source side - 
that's the philosophy and the license chosen.  Linus was not bamboozled into 
this - he's smart and made his choice consciously - and he chose Free 
Software.  He's the founder and the copyright holder - perhaps we know his 
philosophy about Linux from this?


Open Source is an industry initiative, and allows restrictive licenses that 
allow reading the code, but not using it except at the company's terms.  GPL 
Free Software explicitly prevents all restriction, except the reverse 
restriction that you can't use Free Software unless you make it free to 
everyone.


Pretending they are the same does not make them the same - and doesn't provide 
an excuse for conflating them, either.  Misappropriation of Free Software is 
just as unethical and illegal as software published under any other license - 
or your laws and your courts are dishonest and meaningless.


So, since this group advertises itself as a Linux user's group - and Linux is 
completely Free Software, not Open Source (Linux being the kernel, although 
many surrounding packages are also GPL), I wondered if telling people they 
can't say certain things is really in the spirit of Linux.


Copyright law holds that code is speech.  It is an expression of thought, like 
a poem.  The person that says it naturally owns it.  I can't publish your 
writing over my name - I didn't say it, you did.  I can't decide how it's 
used - it's yours.


And I can't use code you wrote - unless you say I can, by granting me a 
license.


Open Source software allows censorship of ideas - you can read the code, but 
may not be granted a license to use it (that is, say it yourself in your own 
pursuits).


Free Software at it's core intends to make sure everyone can use code 
published under it's license, and no one can say "no, you can't use those 
ideas unless you  (pay me and behave in certain ways, usually)".


Free Software is deliberately opposed to Open Source - read their philosophy.

So, as this group calls itself a Linux user's group, I was curious about how 
they hold the idea of Free Software, and how they support it or don't.


Curtailing speech is consonant with Open Source (restrictive licenses welcome) 
but is it in line with Free Software (restrictive licenses not allowed)?


If the group is actually promoting Linux, then they are promoting Free 
Software - as that's what Linux is and is about.  Ask Linus.


If the group couldn't care less about the philosophy of Linux (which is Free 
Software, not Open Source), should it promote itself as a Linux User's Group?  
Perhaps it should be an Open Source Software Group, or a Cheap or No Cost 
Software Group.


Do you have a claim to the term 'Linux' if you don't actually hold to the Free 
Software philosophy?  Are you flying under false colors, using someone else's 
image as your own?


And is telling people they can't say certain things consonant with Free 
Software - with the approach, with the philosophy?

Re: [SLUG] Linux user's group?

[Ken Wilson]

Bret Comstock Waldow wrote:
 snip
And is telling people they can't say certain things consonant with Free 
Software - with the approach, with the philosophy?


You can have group rules that limit people's behavior in participation in the 
group, but are you really a Linux user's group philosophically - do you walk 
the talk?  Is this about Free Software, because Linux is about Free Software 
- it says so in no uncertain legal terms.



Regards,
Bret

free speach does not give one the right to abuse people. There are 
limits to freedom of speach to protect other peoples rights.
Infinite freedom to one person impinges on another person, so there will 
be limits on peoples behaviour in SLUG without affecting SLUGs credibility.

Ken
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html