[plug] The clarion voice of sanity in a slashmob of chaos.

[Mr Shayne]

In PJ's defence, Linux Insider where involved in a rotten scandal where
a journalist from them published muckracking crap about her religious
beliefs, posted photos of her house, and generally treated her immodestly
in a way few would wish on our enemies, let alone her friends.

So if she someone dislikes Linux insider, then yes, I think thats
understandable in her case.

--
Freedom's just another word for something new to regulate

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, simon wrote:

> Senectus . (senectus at gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> > PJ speaks out about the latest mob-mentality derived, inappropriate
> > and unfortunate net-crucifixion.
> >
> > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050816092029989
> >
>
> "But what about Linux Insider? All they ever seem to report is antiLinux news.
> If I owned the Linux trademark, I'd want to make them stop, if I could. "
>
> Thats it. The FOSS crowd have collectively gone insane.
>
> If Linux Insider choose to publish antiLinux news, the historical FOSS stance
> would be to listen to it, and learn from it. Suddenly we're trying to shut
> people up.
>
> When did the community change from 'it works for me, I scratched an itch,
> YMMV' to 'we have to subvert trademark law to protect our product from people
> who might want to say bad things about it - because expanding the linux
> userbase is all important, and we dont need bad press'.
>
> "What if Microsoft decided that the ultimate purpose of its Linux Lab (note
> the name) is to put out a version of Windows, Windows apps running on a
> twisted, poorly functioning pseudo Linux kernel, and they decide to call it
> Windows Linux?"
>
> Then theyd have a bad product. Many people have released, and will continue to
> release, shoddy products based on linux with or without this trademark
> protection. The only difference now is that people will have to pay. Show me
> the clause in the GPL that says your product must maintain a certain level of
> quality. If that were the case, most FOSS projects would disappear and the
> linux kernel would never have existed.
>
> Unless ofcourse the idea is that LMI will look at every product to be branded
> 'linux' and only award licenses to those they think are up to scratch. In that
> case, Im not just scared, Im very very scared. Perhaps they will only deny
> licenses to those they dont like or think are uberevil (MS and SCO)???? Read
> the GPL again, and find me the clause about restricting usage only to people
> we like.
>
> The whole plan is so full of holes I dont know where to begin. I understand
> the intent, but the execution needs to be taken out back and shot like a
> whimpering dog.
>
> Above all, its too damn late. Linus should have thought about this 12 years
> ago. Everybody in the community sang out about the mp3 patents when suddenly
> license fees were demanded after many years of open-slather usage of the mp3
> codecs. Linus stated his position on the Linux name a decade ago, which
> amounted to 'do what you want with it but play nice'. Amazing how people are
> so accepting of locally-produced hypocrisy, and yet so condemning of anyone
> else who might try to pull the same trick.
>
> --
> =================
> Simon Scott
> simon at plumtek.com
> mob: 0409113359
> =================
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG discussion list: plug at plug.org.au
> http://www.plug.org.au/mailman/listinfo/plug
> Committee e-mail: committee at plug.linux.org.au
>