Bret Comstock Waldow wrote:
They didn't write the software they are using as the basis for their
organization and their claim to authority. (Well, maybe some of them did -
but then they GPL'd it.) I hadn't thought this through myself, but I'll have
it in mind from now on.
Hi Bret,
I completely agree with your interpretations on the inherent rights
along with the obligations that go with FOSS.
I spent several hours going through the postings in SLUG archives since
March, 2003.
At one stage in the past I have expressed such sentiments in this lists
when making comments to one or several
of J Waugh's posts. So, I'm not surprised at all that this attitude is
making it's ugly head known once again.
I am also a developer of GPL'd software. And so are many participants
of SLUG who are true proponents
of OPEN-NESS and are against CENSORSHIP of validated and accepted tools.
These tools are used not only
in USENET and similar lists but in the general community of technical
and professional community.
I also say here that if SLUG Committee upholds this censorship, then
this Committee should drop the
word LINUX altogether from this Organization's name in accordance with
the stipulations and rules of LINUX.
Currently I am one of the developers of the GPL'd software below. But
this does not mean that only FOSS
developers can claim to be part of FOSS community. Participants who
contributed to Linux User Groups in
any ways whether by posting, responding to postings, making
presentations, etc. can equally claim to be part of
FOSS community.
https://developer.berlios.de/projects/chits
http://www.chits.info
My FOSS namesake is sumakwell
(https://developer.berlios.de/sendmessage.php?touser=26274)
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
