Re: political action?

[Gary Preckshot <garrell@inreach.com>]

"der.hans" wrote:
>And you're looking at him through a scope based on your reply :).

A friend of mine and I wrote a network operating system. Immediately we were
besieged by people wanting their favorite this or that include in the OS. We
refused on the basis that what they wanted was at a level higher than the OS.

The problem with a political action HOWTO is that it contaminates the LDP with
concerns that are not at its level. It's as much a design issue as anything. The
design of the LDP has the objective of documenting Linux and the problems
involved in getting Linux to run on various hardware platforms. As soon as you
get everything but the kitchen sink in LDP, you lose focus. Like Bill Gates and
his attempt to make a web browser an integral part of Windoze. I'm looking not at
our political action proposer but at the effect his submission would have on the
purpose of LDP. I admit it's through a scope, but that scope is design purity.
The discussion we've been having about SGML is exclusively about design and how
to make LDP more accessible to new authors who would prefer never to have contact
with SGML. This has nothing to do with politics and shouldn't have.


>> Linux is an enabler. It enables all sorts of people to use
>> computers for whatever they want, be it political action or
>> pornography. What the LDP is for is for documenting hardware

>Aren't those two the same at the US-national level[1]? ;-)

At the national level all they have is a hammer, and everything is a nail.

>Why can't a political HOWTO be technical? I'd love to see info on
obtaining business licenses making sure you're doing everything legal
added to the consultants HOWTO. The same type of info could be in a
political HOWTO. Links to FSF and similar orgs would be handy. As would be
sites that are dedicated to law and technology.

It doesn't have anything to do with Linux documentation. This is called the LDP,
you know.

>BTW, FSF is political. It's taken a stand on UCITA,

1) They aren't using the equivalent of LDP to do it.
2) UCITA strikes at the very basis of FSF. It's equivalent to Linux being
outlawed. As a matter of fact, assuming they could find someone to sue, Linux may
also be subject to UCITA.

>He doesn't have to be supporting any particular political action (which is
what I suggested in email directly to him :).

He wants to use the resources of LDP, which is more the issue. The LDP isn't
about political action. If it publishes a HOWTO about political action, the IRS
may suddenly take an interest. Up to now, LDP probably hasn't even considered
it's tax exempt status. But if LDP is perceived as an advocacy organization,
contributions of money, effort, and equipment are no longer tax exempt. Also, if
someone uses the political HOWTO to promote something our sponsors see as
inimical to their interests, they won't be pleased.

>And if UCITA makes it backwardly legal to sue people and jail them due to
Open Software they've written?

Deal with it like the FSF has. Keep it separate from the LDP, and if necessary,
spin it off into a separate entity so that tax questions don't impact the LDP.

Gary



--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org