We will need a mighty large t-shirt to put that on on :-) On a slightly more serious note, Linux is gnu under the GPL license, so he is obviously has the point there, It does matter a lot that Linux, the kernel, is under the GPL, that guarantees freedom. Ask me if i see it necessary to change the name, i will say no, not now that is is established and known. Besides very few LUGs actually use the notion GNU/Linux as opposed to simply Linux and stand behind all OS Software. I can go for a slogan containing the GNU/Linux notation, but would care not to change the name. The less someone can convince me otherwise.
Cheers Szemir On May 24, 2005 10:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Shawn, > That's an interesting analogy. I'll have to remember that one. Thanks for > the summary. > > I think Mr. Stallman has a point but we can do better. I propose changing > from "Calgary Linux User's Group" to: > > Calgary Shareware/Charityware/Freeware/Copyleft/public domain/BSD > licence/Artistic Licence/The Artistic License Version 2.0/Apache licence > 1.1/Apache licence 2.0/Academic Public Licence/Open Source Licence > (OSL)/Free World Licence/Mozilla Public Licence/PHP licence/Sun Community > Source License/OpenOffice.org license(s)/CeCILL/Erlang Public License > (eddieware)/AT&T licence for KetKit software/putty licence/minix 2.0 > licence/GPL/LGPL/GNU/Linux User's Group > > Any objections? > > > > http://www.topology.org/soft/lice.html > http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html > > > Note: Other than the first 2 lines of this message the rest is full of > sarcasm > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Shawn > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 2:23 AM > To: CLUG General > Subject: [clug-talk] Stallman Presentation Overview > > > Hi all. > > I thought it might be good to give a quick "review" of the presentation for > those that could not make it.... > > I thought his talk on software patents was pretty good. He was able to > help put things in perspective for me, and dug deeper into the issues > involved with software patents. His analogy helped clue it in for me... > I'll paraphrase for you (just cuz I can't remember the exact wording.. > <grins>) > > Imagine it is a few hundred years ago, and it was possible to get a patent > on a musical note, a series of notes, or a particular rhythm. Now imagine > you are a composer trying to come up with a new masterpiece. You could > take the time to learn about all the musical patents that are out there, > and purposely try to write your masterpiece so as not to be affected by > them. BUT, some patents might not be available to you at the time of your > research yet still affect your work. So now it becomes very very difficult > to create a musical composition without getting affected by a patent. Did > you use a C note? oops, that's patented. Did you use a triplet? oops, > that's patented too. > > So, the alternatives are to either purchase a license for each of the > patents that the composition is affected by. But this is financially > prohibitive - especially if there is more than one. The only other real > option is to create a new style of music, using new notes and rhythms - but > then people probably wouldn't think of it as music and want to listen to > it. Beethoven and Mozart would be crippled when it comes to composing > music. The patent holders (usually big companies) tell them that they > aren't smart enough if they can't create something original. > > THIS is the problem with software patents. Software, like music, is > created from ideas. These ideas trigger other ideas, and so on, until a > product is developed. By allowing software patents, we are being prevented > from building on these ideas to come up with the next generation > application or system. > > The patent issue is even more complicated, but that's another discussion... > :) > > With regards to Richard Stallman himself, I have had my suspicions > confirmed. He IS as eccentric as he seems, and very opinionated with > regards to certain issues (as he probably should be, given the position he > is in...). > > I spoke with him briefly to say thank you on behalf of all the CLUG members > that were present (there were about 15 or 20 of us that I saw...). Mr > Stallman suggested we could thank him by changing the name of our group to > "Calgary GNU/Linux User's Group". To avoid any clash of opinions, I > suggested that I would post this issue to the group. Comments? > > Overall, the presentation was pretty good. The venue was great (theater > type classroom at UofC), and the sound system probably wasn't needed but > was appreciated. I was disappointed that CUUG did not mention CLUG's > efforts in promoting the event, but I'm sure I've missed out on thanking a > few people at our meetings. The door prize was a wireless NIC (I think), > which seemed somewhat inadequate for the event and the numbers attending. > That, and there was only the one prize - with the numbers attending, it > seems there should have been a couple more. > > That said, I would like to thank CUUG for organizing this event, and the > CLUG members who helped promote it and/or attended it. > > Shawn > > (PS. The opinions stated above are my own, and should not be taken as > CLUG's official stance....) > > _______________________________________________ > clug-talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca > Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) > **Please remove these lines when replying > > _______________________________________________ > clug-talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca > Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) > **Please remove these lines when replying _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
