Tonight's MerriLUG meeting.

[Bill Sconce]

On Fri, 20 May 2005 08:06:02 -0400
Jim Kuzdrall <gnhlug at intrel.com> wrote:

> On Thursday 19 May 2005 11:03 pm, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
> > Just wanted to send out a quick note, thanking everyone who showed up
> > for this evening's meeting.  James Turner, as previously mentioned,
> > was on hand to give a wide-ranging talk about many topics, from the
> > LinuxWorld/O'Gara debacle, to journalistic integrity, to licensing,
> > and onward.  Lively discussion followed -- which made Ben's absence
> > felt even moreso.  Regardless, thanks are due to James for making
> > this evening an informative and enjoyable one -- fun was had by all.
> 
>     The meeting was indeed a delight.  James Turner's talk was 
> informative, well-delivered, and contemplative.

I concur.  Let me add my thanks, which I hope someone can pass along
to James, for coming to speak to us.  And for enduring the heckling,
which comes cocked and loaded for Ben at every meeting - it has to
go SOMEWHERE...  :)

Particularly enlightening was the GPL discussion.  It's interesting
how deeply the FUD manages to get into even our own thinking.

LWN happened to post just yesterday (it was waiting when I got home
from the meeting) an item about another case of GPL "journalism":
    http://lwn.net/Articles/136700/
This one was in something called TechNewsWorld.  (We're a LOT more
knowledgeable about tech "journalism" thanks to James's presentation
now, aren't we?)  It's an example of how quickly heat gets applied
to GPL debates.  And how even GPL supporters get led astray in
responding to the FUD.  Quoting from TechNewsWorld:

    "Accordingly, if a programmer simply clicks on a button to
    download even the smallest packet of code and thereby agrees
    to the GPL, then the GPL may require the entire software
    program, which incorporates the GPL-code, to be made available
    as open source under the GPL. This is true regardless of
    whether the programmer or employer ever intended others to
    be able to see, read, view and modify their software. Thus,
    a single click of the mouse may render otherwise proprietary
    software available to all."
    
There were excellent debunks in the LWN thread. And, gratifyingly,
TechNewsWorld yanked the original later yesterday.  (Maybe they
learned something about journalism from the O'Gara flap!  LinuxWorld
is dead;  long live James and LinuxToday!)


>     In James' reference to the Linux-Intellectual Property connection, 
> the articles I mentioned can be found in "Technology Review" June 2005: 
> "The People Own Ideas!" by Lawrence Lessig P48, "The Creators Own 
> Ideas!" by Richard A. Epstein P58, and "How Linux Could Overthrow 
> Microsoft" by Charles Ferguson P64.
> 
>     For those who are not familiar with the magazine, Technology Review
> is "MIT's Magazine of Innovation".  Significantly, it is aimed more at 
> managers and business executives than at technologist - and certainly 
> not at geeks.

Geez.  And I thot I wuz interested.  :)

Seriously, I just called Borders - they do put Technology Review on the
shelves, although the June issue hasn't arrived yet.

-Bill