[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.] On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:00:21PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > Even so, I'm amenable to anyone who can come up with names which are less > loaded to random fundamentalists, if possible; of course, most of the > sources on daemons say that they are, as a rule, without names in the > origional Greek usage. So? The Greeks were heretical pagans and some of them were even (gasp!) atheists. It's impossible to not offend fundamentalists. Once you have done so there is no reconciliation and no compromise. You either subordinate yourself to their will or you are condemned as immoral. I honestly don't think it's worth the time to try and placate them. > I think the point about the author's potential issue with them (whether or > not it's legal, it has many of the same potential problems) may well be > enough reason to avoid that one, sadly. Amusing as I find it. > > I suppose we could always pull names from Lovecraft; I think the names from > his work have long since lost any protection they might have had. Debian > Nylarthotep, anyone? > > Okay, maybe not. Heh, well, I'm pretty sure the names of Lovecraftian gods would be just as objectionable to fundies; secondly, some of those names are too damned hard to pronounce :); and third, I think Arkham House (publisher) continues to *act* like the works of Lovecraft are under copyright, and no one yet has had the balls to try an "unauthorized" edition on the principle that they have passed into the public domain. Still, at least a challenge to our usage of Lovecraftian names would be rickety on two planks instead of just one, as in the case of Pratchett. -- G. Branden Robinson | Q: How does a Unix guru have sex? Debian GNU/Linux | A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount; branden@debian.org | fsck;more;yes;fsck;fsck;fsck; http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | umount;sleep
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature