Tonight's MerriLUG meeting.

[Jeff Smith]

--- Bill Sconce <sconce at in-spec-inc.com> wrote:
> 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:
> 
> Particularly enlightening was the GPL discussion.  It's
> interesting
> how deeply the FUD manages to get into even our own
> thinking.

Equally important in my mind was two things:
1.  The need to be certain you understand both what you
think you heard  the other person say and what they said. 
Especially any definitions (the word "free" meaning
different things in different contexts).

2.  Licenses accomplish goals.  If the goals are different,
expect different licenses.  BSD vs GPL example:  which is
better?  It depends on your goals.  Even proprietary
licenses achieve (or attempt to achieve) goals.  Of course,
as always, he who writes the code chooses the license.


> 
> 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!)
> 

Note that when responding to these kind of articles:
1.  Decide if it's even worthwhile (I often don't respond
to the MOG/Dvorak school of inflammmatory journalism - let
my silence explain what I think of their articles).
2.  When responding, be polite, factual, and even-handed. 
one other point James brought up was how to be "objective."
 It's more than quoting both sides.  It's placing them in
context.  "While a minority of 1, with no training in the
field, believes X, but the majority of 2,000 with training
in the field believe  Y" is a better context than "some
believe X, and some believe Y."

> 
> >     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.
> 

I know I got my copy in the mail on Mon, but then I
subscribe.

jeff