[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Social Contract



Mumia W wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:

Mumia W wrote:

Mike McCarty wrote:

Greg Folkert wrote:


[snip]


That's it! You've quite certainly identified yourself as a member of the
Right Wing. You associate all attempts of people to resist the power of


I am not a Right Winger. I am not any sort of Socialist. The terms
"Left Wing" and "Right Wing" originate in the French Legislature,

 > [...]

You know we're talking about contemporary American politics.

Well, that's really the context in which I replied. The Right Wing
today in the USA are Socialists. I am not. If you are aware of
US politics then I generally dislike the policies of the Democrats
and the Republicans, because both of them support Socialism. The
Libertarian party comes closest to being my "party of choice", though
I have some differences with it, too.

In any case, I don't see why my political differences with you
or others in this e-mail list should ban me from the list, as
you seem to advocate.

[If you] HATE the GPL so much, why are you using SO MUCH GPL'd software? Or
licenses similar to the GPL, such as the Mozilla License that
Thunderbird is released under.


BTW, I do not "HATE" the GPL. It is a license, no more, no less.
It's one I chose not to use.


Yes, you chose to use the GPL. You had a contract. It required Linux. I presume that, to fulfill the contract, you installed Linux and began using its software.

No, I do not use the GPL. To use the GPL would mean that I release
my software under its terms. None of the software I have written
has been released under the terms of the GPL. I certainly do use
software which has been written and released under the terms of
the GPL. But the GPL is not an EULA. It has no effect on someone
who merely uses software. It does have effect on persons modifying
or distributing software which was released under its terms. Since
I do neither of these, I am not bound by its terms.

A little while ago, you said that an employee who uses software licensed to an employer is under the software developer's EULA. Your tendency for hypocrisy notwithstanding, this applies to you also.

No, I did not say that. You are misrepresenting what I said. I'm not
going to argue to defend positions I haven't taken.

You're using GPLed software. You accepted the license agreement. You're under the GPL.

No, I am not, because the GPL is not an EULA. Please actually read the
GPL and take the time to understand what it means. Then I'll respond
to you.

[snip]

I use it because I got a contract, and was requested to use Linux.
That's why it's on my machine.


So, you're a Linux user for money, but you are otherwise against
everything that Linux, the GPL and Debian stand for. Get out of here.


Linux is a kernel. Kernels do not stand for or against anything.
They are software. Using or not using an OS kernel is not a political

 > stance.

There you go again--demonstrating typical right wing hypocrisy and lying. You *just said* an hour ago that the GPL and the DFSG were part of a social agenda, and you objected to both on the *political* grounds that they attempt to change the social order.

I am not lying. What on Earth are you going on and on about?
I said I do not support the the "Social Contract" because I do not
agree with all its aims. Yes, both the GPL and the DFSG are a part of
an agenda, which I do not completely agree with. I also state that
chosing a kernel is not a politcal stance. The kernel is not
the GPL. The kernel is not the DFSG. I don't use the GPL nor do
I support its use. I do not use the DFSG, nor do I support its
use. I do use the Linux kernel, and I do maintain (though I do
not use) a Debian system. I also recommend Debian to people
who wish to use a Linux distro, as I deem it has somewhat
better QA procedures and is relatively easy to configure.

BTW, I *do* support your right to release your software under
the GPL, if that is what you choose to do. I would recommend
against it, but I would support your right to do so.

When I load any piece of software on one of my machines,
I do so based on various considerations, some technical, some economic,


Well we know that your involvement with Linux is entirely mercenary. Get out of here. You are diametrically opposed to what Debian stands for, what OSS is, and what free software offers society in the long run.

What, may I ask, is reprehesible about being involved with a
piece of software because someone pays me for that? Everyone who
has a job of any sort does the things that his employer requests
him to do. If your employer asked you to install and use Linux on
your work machines, would you refuse to do so because that would
prositute Linux for mercenary uses? But you *would* install and
use Windows XP for money?

What kind of reaoning is this?

Or have I missed your point, somehow?

When I worked for a certain company, we all were requested to
use VAX/VMS, which I did. When the company decided to switch
to Apollos, we used the Apollo OS. Then HPUX. Later we used
Solaris.

Was that some sort of mercenary prostitution of those OS?

Linux, like any other kernel/OS, is a means for loading and
using applications, and interfacing to hardware. I try use the
one which is most appropriate for any given task. When an
employer pays me, I use the one which the employer deems to
be most appropriate for my job assignments. So does anyone
else who uses computers for a living.

Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!



Reply to: