The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: next approach: new non-free/contrib policy

On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Mark Baker wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> 
> > Nothing in what I said either explicitly or implicitly declared the above
> > statement to have any relevance. Gene splicers don't make up the "whole
> > world" either, but software that can't be used by Gene splicers is not
> > considered to be Free Software
> 
> Yes it would. If the national gene splicers association ruled that it's
> members weren't allowed to use some program, it doesn't stop the program
> being free software. Only if the author of the software doesn't allow gene
> splicers to use it is it non-free.
> 
> Similarly, if the US government ruled that it's citizens weren't allowed
> to use some program, how does that stop the program being free? The author
> is very happy for Americans to use it.
> 
I see your point. However, the "National Gene Splicers Association" is not
the empowering body for copyright law, while the US Government is. (Also
please don't confuse the US population with the US Government, as some in
this discussion have been tempted to do. We, the people of the United
States, are currently living under the yoke of an oppressive government.
The fact that we live in a police state governed by the rich and powerful
should not be held against me or others who are unwitting/unwilling
participants.) {sorry for the soap box}

My point was based on the fact that copyright law is determined in the US
by the courts and their interpretation of such restrictive laws that the
congress may see fit to pass. In other countries (like France) these
copyright issues are determined in much the same fashion, although the
process may vary from place to place. The fact that these governments
"determine" which rights are valid in a copyright and with aren't, makes
those determinations impact the copyright with more force than the
author's intent. Just as the author can't validate the use of the software
for "illegal" purposes with a carefully crafted copyright, so also, no
copyright has any validity outside the legal definitions of the country
that "enforces" the copyright laws. It is, as a result, impossible for
software that violates a patent, or violates a federal law, to sidestep
that issue with a non-restrictive copyright/license. The author does not
have the legal power to transform this code into "Free Software", no
matter how much he/she may wish to do so.

Luck,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-_-                                          _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .