[ale] Are our Ethernet drivers in danger?

[Darin Lang]

Ben,
I am glad you were offended. You should have been. It shows you have some
integrity. But the fact is you are going into agreemnent with microsoft's
PR. You are still. You are performing the dance exactly as you are supposed
to. 

Here is the the problem M$ has with GPL:
    It's free. Free from constraints, free from ownership, free. It
recognizes no master. If it belongs to anyone it belongs to everyone. That
does not mean you have to give it away for free.  If you don't see the
beauty in that, then that's too, too bad for you.

Corporations are not at liberty to think that way. It is very against the
grain of corporate america which seeks, prizes and defends proprietary
ownership of everything. It's highest form and the direction in which it
always  strives: Monopoly. The only people that benfit from a company are
those at the top, whose lives and fortunes are built at the expense of those
at the bottom. You yourself are making someone else rich if you work for a
company. You are being sold for at least twice (and in the case of M$ 5
times) what they bought you for. You and I are at the bottom. If you think
corporate america gives a crap about you, you are seriously deluded. And
since I don't think that is the case, I can only be amazed at you for
selling yourself into slavery and then insisting that it is a good thing.

Darin Lang

on 7/4/01 12:19 AM, Benjamin Scherrey at scherrey at innoverse.com wrote:

> Darin,
> 
> You insult me and I'm offended by your implications. You know, the most
> potent lies start with a grain of truth. Microsoft's attack on Open Source is
> an example of this. Everything that I stated in my email is a supportable
> fact. It doesn't mean its the way I would like things to be. Lighten up on
> the rhetoric and you might learn something. I did, in fact, use the term
> Microsoft uses to demonstrate how terms of the license will be used to attack
> it. I also described the use of that term as pejorative. Goto
> http://www.m-w.com and look up "pejorative" before you presume too much. I
> think you might find yourself one apology further in debt.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Ben Scherrey
> 
> On Tuesday 03 July 2001 11:32 pm, Darin Lang wrote:
>> Interesting that you use the word "virus of sorts" Spoken like a true
>> Microsoftian. That is their PR term. That is their PR game. You are playing
>> along very well. Be sure to save this post for your resume when you switch
>> to NT.
>> 
>> Long Live Microsoft!
>> 
>> on 7/3/01 10:02 PM, Benjamin Scherrey at scherrey at innoverse.com wrote:
>>> Joe's comments are correct. Releasing code developed using tax dollars,
>>> outside of special circumstances such as the examples Joe gives, under
>>> any kind of restrictive license is illegal. The GPL is an extremely
>>> restrictive license and does act, in a sense, as a virus of sorts even
>>> though that is a very pejorative term. That is, in fact, the stated
>>> intent of its creator who espouses the elimination of intellectual
>>> property rights which goes against the Constitution of the United States
>>> of America. The GPL is certainly a valid license, and I fully support the
>>> rights of private authors to utilize it, but it is not legal under the
>>> conditions of intellectual property developed at taxpayer expense.
> 

--
To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.