On the radio here in Detroit, AM 950, today. One of the newscasters reported on the FBI going into AOL and other major ISP's and forcing them to install special software, code named "Carnivore". Sound familiar? I have not been able to find where the reporter got his "additional" information, but he referenced the following article here,
"Ashcroft: Toughen Anti-Terror Laws"
His comments continued, stating that congress is considering legislation to change our digital privacy rights. The newscaster's closing comment was that, although this will raise concerns by privacy groups, this is a necessary step in order to combat terrorism.
(Sorry, I still haven't caught the reporter's name, but will post it as soon as I hear his commentary again. It replays approx. every 30 minutes or so.)
to make a GPL license clone that specifically allows useage of Microsoft's tools. Call it the MSCGPL (okay, shorten the acronym first). Then, we can dual license GPL software under this license, without violating MS's license.
IHSIANAL, so I won't. However, how (legally) difficult is this?
Why does our community respond with good wisdom and well spoken responses when our Intellectual Freedom is at risk (e.g. GPL violations, patents, file sharing restrictions), but so poorly when those shared Ideals are stomped on with FUD from Microsoft Corporate? Isn't this MS Corporate rhetoric the equivalent of a DoS attack on the public via the media? Or is this something more nefarious, like a diversionary attack on the Free Software community to keep us from realizing how simple it is even today to do with Free Software what Microsoft hopes to accomplish with.NET in 3 years?
Though I agree wholeheartedly we should not reply directly to Balmer's troll (read: MS Corporate Strategy), I believe it is our right to use the publicity to issue an unexpected response. That is, send a reply to all the major publications with the subject title "Linux luminaries respond to Balmer's Cancer attack", then never mention Balmer or Microsoft anywhere in the text. Just use it to explain two or three of the top reasons someone might choose the GPL or another Free Software license, or use it to announce the "Best of" break-throughs in recent software releases that *anyone* and *everyone* has the freedom to use and modify. Do this consistently and soon even the public will realize MS Corporate is sinking and desperately grasping for someone to drag to the bottom with them.
I remember several years ago (1995) when I first got into Linux at college, the Linux crowd was dominated by people who wrote with deep insight, strong resolve and a few basic common goals. Though the community has now expanded greatly in numbers, can we not create our own "Declaration of Independence from Corporate FUD"? If this is really a "community", why can't we choose a wise and well spoken group of representatives to respond and take advantage of the publicity this type of media attention gaurantees the Linux community? And, when real points *ARE* made, then their job is not to defend why those aren't true, but to place them on the great, publically available *Things to do to improve Linux and Free Software*.
Because this is the Internet and we have the freedom to do so, we could even post such responses prior to their release, in an effort to accomplish something many of our current politicians fail miserably: staying connected to all those represented, not just those on their doorstep. Slashdot discussions may be one help the "luminaries" could use to stay connected to the community by providing them with direct feedback from those they represent, and possibly direct (well, electronic) interaction.
Hmmm... the idea of a virtual State has merit. "No paper ballots here" could be our State Moto.
Slashdot Mirror
On the radio here in Detroit, AM 950, today. One of the newscasters reported on the FBI going into AOL and other major ISP's and forcing them to install special software, code named "Carnivore". Sound familiar? I have not been able to find where the reporter got his "additional" information, but he referenced the following article here,
"Ashcroft: Toughen Anti-Terror Laws"
His comments continued, stating that congress is considering legislation to change our digital privacy rights. The newscaster's closing comment was that, although this will raise concerns by privacy groups, this is a necessary step in order to combat terrorism.
(Sorry, I still haven't caught the reporter's name, but will post it as soon as I hear his commentary again. It replays approx. every 30 minutes or so.)
to make a GPL license clone that specifically allows useage of Microsoft's tools. Call it the MSCGPL (okay, shorten the acronym first). Then, we can dual license GPL software under this license, without violating MS's license.
IHSIANAL, so I won't. However, how (legally) difficult is this?
Signed,
Wondering Why
Why does our community respond with good wisdom and well spoken responses when our Intellectual Freedom is at risk (e.g. GPL violations, patents, file sharing restrictions), but so poorly when those shared Ideals are stomped on with FUD from Microsoft Corporate? Isn't this MS Corporate rhetoric the equivalent of a DoS attack on the public via the media? Or is this something more nefarious, like a diversionary attack on the Free Software community to keep us from realizing how simple it is even today to do with Free Software what Microsoft hopes to accomplish with .NET in 3 years?
Though I agree wholeheartedly we should not reply directly to Balmer's troll (read: MS Corporate Strategy), I believe it is our right to use the publicity to issue an unexpected response. That is, send a reply to all the major publications with the subject title "Linux luminaries respond to Balmer's Cancer attack", then never mention Balmer or Microsoft anywhere in the text. Just use it to explain two or three of the top reasons someone might choose the GPL or another Free Software license, or use it to announce the "Best of" break-throughs in recent software releases that *anyone* and *everyone* has the freedom to use and modify. Do this consistently and soon even the public will realize MS Corporate is sinking and desperately grasping for someone to drag to the bottom with them.
I remember several years ago (1995) when I first got into Linux at college, the Linux crowd was dominated by people who wrote with deep insight, strong resolve and a few basic common goals. Though the community has now expanded greatly in numbers, can we not create our own "Declaration of Independence from Corporate FUD"? If this is really a "community", why can't we choose a wise and well spoken group of representatives to respond and take advantage of the publicity this type of media attention gaurantees the Linux community? And, when real points *ARE* made, then their job is not to defend why those aren't true, but to place them on the great, publically available *Things to do to improve Linux and Free Software*.
Because this is the Internet and we have the freedom to do so, we could even post such responses prior to their release, in an effort to accomplish something many of our current politicians fail miserably: staying connected to all those represented, not just those on their doorstep. Slashdot discussions may be one help the "luminaries" could use to stay connected to the community by providing them with direct feedback from those they represent, and possibly direct (well, electronic) interaction.
Hmmm... the idea of a virtual State has merit. "No paper ballots here" could be our State Moto.