peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/23/89)
> operating system with freely redistributable source code. The GNU > ! Project is led by Richard Stallman. Note that use of these groups to > ! discuss topics considered contrary to GNU aims and political > ! philosophy are considered off-limits (e.g., porting of GNU code to > ! Apple machines, usefulness of intellectual property laws). OK, everyone who didn't like sci.skeptic... have at it. This is rather heavy-handed censorship. If Stallman wants a playpen, I think he should use the existing mechanisms: i.e., moderation or mailing lists. I realise that, strictly speaking, gnu.* is not part of UseNet. Still, this is not a good thing. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "A char, a short int, and Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | an int bit-field were walking Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | through the forest..."
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (07/23/89)
In article <5202@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: [quoting something or other, probably from gnu.gcc] >> operating system with freely redistributable source code. The GNU >> ! Project is led by Richard Stallman. Note that use of these groups to >> ! discuss topics considered contrary to GNU aims and political >> ! philosophy are considered off-limits (e.g., porting of GNU code to >> ! Apple machines, usefulness of intellectual property laws). > >OK, everyone who didn't like sci.skeptic... have at it. This is rather >heavy-handed censorship. If Stallman wants a playpen, I think he should >use the existing mechanisms: i.e., moderation or mailing lists. > >I realise that, strictly speaking, gnu.* is not part of UseNet. Still, >this is not a good thing. You're kidding, right? "Strictly speaking, gnu.* is not part of UseNet." But, this fact notwithstanding, they should abide by the Spirit of UseNet, i.e., whatever Peter da Silva thinks UseNet should be. Of course the real UseNet abides by no such rules, but gnu.* should. Right. Whether you agree with Stallman that Apple Computer Corp and their look and feel lawsuit are completely un-American and a threat to the world of computers as we know it, the GNU project does have a right to distribute their mailing lists as they see fit.
sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) (07/23/89)
Peter da Silva (peter@ficc.uu.net) writes:
)) operating system with freely redistributable source code. The GNU
)) ! Project is led by Richard Stallman. Note that use of these groups to
)) ! discuss topics considered contrary to GNU aims and political
)) ! philosophy are considered off-limits (e.g., porting of GNU code to
)) ! Apple machines, usefulness of intellectual property laws).
)
)OK, everyone who didn't like sci.skeptic... have at it. This is rather
)heavy-handed censorship. If Stallman wants a playpen, I think he should
)use the existing mechanisms: i.e., moderation or mailing lists.
Maybe that is how GNU people are. See my signature. The guy who said
it posted a quite brute parody of the GNU manifesto to eunet.general,
and that was his comments to the flames he got. I was one the few to
appreciate it. He told that he tried to post it to some GNU group,
but that the moderator refused the article.
--
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
"Apparently being a gnu adept and having a good sense of humor
are disjunct qualities." - Mart van Stiphoutpeter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/23/89)
In article <1641@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu>, charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) writes: > In article <5202@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > [quoting something or other, probably from gnu.gcc] You could try reading the references line. Or the title. This is from the gnu.* charter as described in the regular "Changes to Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies" posting. [see <5202@ficc.uu.net> for the rest of it] > You're kidding, right? Wrong. > "Strictly speaking, gnu.* is not part of UseNet." Right. gnu.* just happens to use the same transport medium, machines, news- readers, etc... it rides on the back of Usenet. But strictly speaking it isn't part of it. > But, this fact notwithstanding, they should abide by the > Spirit of UseNet, Yes, I think so. These groups have all the signs of being newsgroups. Not mailing lists... newsgroups. Not a local group, but a global newsgroup. > i.e., whatever Peter da Silva thinks UseNet should be. Well, a quick check shows that I'm not one of the folks that publishes the guidelines. I did run the vote for comp.unix.i386. I do try to develop new guidelines (for example, the use of Single Transferrable Votes to determine newsgroup names), but I don't pretend to any special authority. > Of course the real UseNet abides by no such rules, Let's see... group creation guidelines. Rules for interacting with the Usenet community. Uh, huh. Even *alt* doesn't allow private rantzines. > Whether you agree with Stallman that Apple Computer Corp and their > look and feel lawsuit are completely un-American and a threat to > the world of computers as we know it, I agree, Apple's activities are reprehensible. Stallman's goals are most laudable. His ways and means, however, are only slightly less distressing than Apple's. If he's not sufficiently confident about the rightness of them, he should change them rather than trying to squash any dissenting voice. This change (yes, change) in the gnu.* charter is an example. > the GNU project does have a > right to distribute their mailing lists as they see fit. They're not mailing lists. They are distributed as newsgroups, listed in the alternate newsgroup posting, and show up all over the country wherever people are liberal or careless in their sys files. There is no attempt made to monitor or to control distribution. Mailing lists, on the other hand, are distributed privately, listed as mailing lists, and only show up where explicitly invited. Basically, I think this change is a bad thing. I think it should be discussed in an orderly fashion (i.e. without flaming... you think you can do that?). Perhaps gnu.*, alt.*, and so on should further divorce themselves from UseNet proper. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "filling a PEZ dispenser - Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | it's not just a skill, it's Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | an ART." -- brodie@moocow.UUCP
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (07/24/89)
In article <5202@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> operating system with freely redistributable source code. The GNU >> ! Project is led by Richard Stallman. Note that use of these groups to >> ! discuss topics considered contrary to GNU aims and political >> ! philosophy are considered off-limits (e.g., porting of GNU code to >> ! Apple machines, usefulness of intellectual property laws). >OK, everyone who didn't like sci.skeptic... have at it. This is rather >heavy-handed censorship. If Stallman wants a playpen, I think he should >use the existing mechanisms: i.e., moderation or mailing lists. > >I realise that, strictly speaking, gnu.* is not part of UseNet. Still, >this is not a good thing. These were originally mailing lists run off prep.ai.mit.edu. Since the number of readers was getting rather high, the prep folks asked the various people getting the mailing lists if they would work together to create a PRIVATE distribution to save load on prep. With the great help of people at Ohio State, this was done, and tut.cis.ohio-state.edu became a bi-directional gateway for gnu.*. Those of you who choose NOT to receive the gnu newsgroups have no more claim to yell "censorship" than you do to complain about the way UNM runs the unm.* newsgroups. They are there for whoever wants to get them. Everyone who gets them tacitly has agreed to abide by the same restrictions the mailing lists originally had. If you don't like that, don't get the newsgroups. That simple. Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day, mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man. Telephone: +1 505 292 0001 / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!
karl@dinosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (07/24/89)
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu writes:
These were originally mailing lists run off prep.ai.mit.edu. Since
the number of readers was getting rather high, the prep folks asked
the various people getting the mailing lists if they would work
together to create a PRIVATE distribution to save load on prep. With
the great help of people at Ohio State, this was done, and
tut.cis.ohio-state.edu became a bi-directional gateway for gnu.*
This is not too close to what happened, really...
The gnu.* newsgroups are considered to be, even now, echoes of the
still-existing mailing lists. Every gnu.* group, with the exceptions
of gnu.config and gnu.test, has a mailing list equivalent. The GNU
folks did not ask that a newsgroup hierarchy be created; rather, Bob
Sutterfield got inspired in the shower one morning, irritated by the
volume of GNU mail in his personal mailbox, and decided that turning
it into news would be a Good Thing. It was, I understand, with some
difficulty that the GNU folks ultimately accepted the idea In The
Large. RMS still gets all things GNUish as mail, not news.
There is also still some argument going on about continuing the
gateway, because of the _large_ number of misguided, flammable, and
generally distracting postings which manage to creep into all corners
of gnu.*. Where the GNU lists were once strictly technical, "tight,"
and highly informative, now they are cluttered with nonsense that ends
up in the wrong newsgroup (especially bug reports in the higher-level
group), random queries show up everywhere (notwithstanding comments in
almost everything GNUish that gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu is the address for
generic requests), and flame wars show up from time to time, e.g.,
gnu.gcc a couple of months back and I suppose gnu.emacs right now
(though I haven't seen gnu.emacs since early last week).
It has been suggested that a gnu.something-or-other be created in
order to provide a home to the flame wars. This will probably happen,
but it will be most unfortunate; this will encourage the Dark Side of
the character of Usenet, specifically the approval of flaming.
Whenever Usenet grows up (which is to say, never), flaming will stop.
Until then (which is to say, forever), foolish people will post
inappropriate verbage in inappropriate newsgroups at inappropriate
times, ignoring the charter, background, and intent of the gnu.*
hierarchy.
--Karltytso@athena.mit.edu (Theodore Y. Tso) (07/24/89)
In article <5205@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >They're not mailing lists. > >They are distributed as newsgroups, listed in the alternate newsgroup >posting, and show up all over the country wherever people are liberal or >careless in their sys files. There is no attempt made to monitor or to >control distribution. Like the inet distribution, they are mailing lists which happen to be gatewayed into newsgroups. However, they are still considered mailing lists. This gatewaying was done just for the convenience of people who want to be on the mailing list but find that it is more convenient to read it via a newsreader. >Basically, I think this change is a bad thing. I think it should be discussed >in an orderly fashion (i.e. without flaming... you think you can do that?). >Perhaps gnu.*, alt.*, and so on should further divorce themselves from UseNet >proper. gnu.all and alt.all aren't part of UseNet at all. How can they "further divorce" themselves? Just because some people decided to set up some newsgroups that use the same news software as UseNet does _not_ mean that they are obligated to follow whatever nebulous rules that you might think are imposed on Usenet. In fact, they are perfectly free to set up their own rules, if they please. And it's not true that carelessness will cause them to appear on a site. You have to explicitly put gnu or alt in your sys file. Anybody who puts "all" in their sys file is more than careless; they're criminally stupid and deserve no sympathy. :-) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Theodore Ts'o bloom-beacon!mit-athena!tytso 3 Ames St., Cambridge, MA 02139 tytso@athena.mit.edu Everybody's playing the game, but nobody's rules are the same!
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (07/24/89)
In article <5205@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) says of the gnu.* groups: > They're not mailing lists. > > They are distributed as newsgroups, listed in the alternate newsgroup > posting, and show up all over the country wherever people are liberal or > careless in their sys files. There is no attempt made to monitor or to > control distribution. As other posters have made very clear, they are the GNU project mailing lists, which for the convenience of the rest of us, not for any benefit to the GNU people, are being distributed using the news software. > Basically, I think this change is a bad thing. I think it should be > discussed in an orderly fashion (i.e. without flaming ... you think you > can do that?). I took my cue from you. In the article that started this <5202@ficc.uu.net> you wrote: > OK, everyone who didn't like sci.skeptic ... have at it. This is rather > heavy-handed censorship. If Stallman wants a playpen, I think ... You don't call this flaming? What I said was very mild by comparison. I won't bother to respond point by point to your point by point critique of my last posting, which would get us up to about 200 lines. I do think the guidelines for UseNet are a good thing. However most of them are constantly ignored, just like your postings in this thread ignore the postings in news.announce.newusers especially "A Primer on How to Work With the USENET Community" and "Dear Emily Postnews."
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/24/89)
In article <237@unmvax.unm.edu>, mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: > Everyone who gets them tacitly has agreed to abide by the same > restrictions the mailing lists originally had. "Hey, you want to get gnu.*" "Dunno, any good?" "Sure, everyone gets them" "OK" Newsgroups don't look like mailing lists, and the gnu groups in particular are widely distributed to people who have no more "tacitly agreed" to any restrictions than the (fictional but typical) conversation above. If they're to be seen as mailing lists, somone at the root has to monitor and control their distribution. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "...helping make the world Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | a quote-free zone..." Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | -- hjm@cernvax.cern.ch
wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) (07/24/89)
In article <5202@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > > operating system with freely redistributable source code. The GNU > > ! Project is led by Richard Stallman. Note that use of these groups to > > ! discuss topics considered contrary to GNU aims and political > > ! philosophy are considered off-limits (e.g., porting of GNU code to > > ! Apple machines, usefulness of intellectual property laws). > > OK, everyone who didn't like sci.skeptic... have at it. gee. as if we dont have enough flame wars already, you want to start another... > This is rather > heavy-handed censorship. If Stallman wants a playpen, I think he should > use the existing mechanisms: i.e., moderation or mailing lists. umm... most of the gnu.* network _is_ directed into the gnu mailing lists. i dont have any numbers, but i would assume that the mailing lists are very _large_. when you have that large of a mailing list it is more efficient to have a separate hierarchy. > I realise that, strictly speaking, gnu.* is not part of UseNet. Still, > this is not a good thing. yes, you got it. gnu.* is _not_ part of the "regular" usenet. what are you going to complain about next? that the biz.* groups are commercial? that you dont get my local groups? that you dont like the way that the people in nebraska run our ugn.* network? i dont agree with a lot of things that Richard Stallman does and says, but that is irrelevant. the gnu.* groups were set up by the FSF, for FSF uses and i think it is 100% ok for them to put whatever restrictions on their groups that they want. if they change things to the point that i dont like it (which they havent), i will just stop getting the gnu.* groups. *sigh*. -wayne
karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (07/24/89)
peter@ficc.uu.net writes: > But, this fact notwithstanding, they should abide by the > Spirit of UseNet, Yes, I think so. These groups have all the signs of being newsgroups. Not mailing lists... newsgroups. Not a local group, but a global newsgroup. I suggest that this outlook has managed to avoid occasional forays by RMS himself into the attempts to get people to post things to The Right Places, especially bug reports to bug-related groups. The reasoning given typically revolves around the right set of people seeing the right type of mail; the gnu mailing lists are no small items even now, and sending bug reports to the info-* lists is rude and foolish. I don't pretend to any special authority. ... Let's see... group creation guidelines. Rules for interacting with the Usenet community. Uh, huh. I don't have to pretend; I am. There is exactly one group creation guideline: Matching a new newsgroup with a mailing list. That's it. Note carefully the correlation to mailing lists. I didn't ask anyone if they thought it was a good idea to newgroup gnu.bash.bug; I just did it, because Len informed us that Brian Fox was releasing bash to beta test, hence bug-bash was coming to life. I didn't need anyone's permission, because I, as sysadmin of tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (with Bob), *am* permission to do so. Len, Bob, and I do these things. No one else does. Even *alt* doesn't allow private rantzines. gnu.* != alt.*. Thank goodness for small favors. This is not to say that I am especially fond of the politics that are constantly finding their way into the gnu.* groups; I have at times unsubscribed from the entire gnu.* set out of frustration with what happens there. But insofar as the groups have a specified purpose for existence, we who run them can do as we see fit. This change (yes, change) in the gnu.* charter... Peter, this is silly. From the first paragraph in the alternative hierarchies article (the part that _didn't_ change this month): "gnu.all" is a set of newsgroups that are gated bi-directionally with the DoD/NSF Internet mailing lists concerned with the GNU Project of the Free Software Foundation. The fact that they are gatewayed with the lists indicates (rather clearly to me, apparently not so to others; I suppose that is why the textual change was made) that the groups are to be run like the lists. The additional text this month is nothing more than a restatement of the original text. That is, it could have as easily been stated as (originally), "the lists/groups have a purpose." Now (with additional text), "violation of that purpose is considered very impolite." I think the second, additional part is kind of QED, hence redundant. They're not mailing lists. They are distributed as newsgroups, listed in the alternate newsgroup posting, and show up all over the country wherever people are liberal or careless in their sys files. There is no attempt made to monitor or to control distribution. If it's not in your sys file, you don't get it; things land in junk at worst. People who are careless with their news software installation deserve no sympathy. And it has been a while since Bob last sent out a Dist: gnu sendsys, but it has been done from time to time. We are in fact quite interested in the extent of their distribution. It is perhaps unfortunate that Brian Reid's arbitron stats tell us so much about distribution; it has rather hindered our desire to put up with the trouble of using sendsys more often. (Len studiously forwards relevant stuff from the aggregate stats article to Bob and myself as well as a couple of other folks.) The fact that you don't _see_ monitoring or control indicates nothing more than that the monitoring and control are being done well enough that it doesn't intrude on you. -- I think that everyone's brains get scrambled one way or another. --Killashandra Ree
fritz@unocss.UUCP (Tim Russell) (07/24/89)
karl@dinosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: >Whenever Usenet grows up (which is to say, never), flaming will stop. >Until then (which is to say, forever), foolish people will post >inappropriate verbage in inappropriate newsgroups at inappropriate >times, ignoring the charter, background, and intent of the gnu.* >hierarchy. Yes, foolish people like rms, who last week posted an article about the lawsuit and asking people to boycott Apple *in gnu.emacs*! I guess he thinks that no discussion of it should be allowed by anyone other than him. If he wants to enforce this, he can moderate the gnu.* lists. However, the day that I see that gnu.* has gone moderated and that rms is still posting about Apple is the day that I remove all Gnu software from my machine. Instantly. Someone said, and I agree, that what Apple is doing is wrong. Definitely. And Stallman has a very good goal. However, his tactics for getting there are only slightly less reprehensible (to me) than Apple's. -- ---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- Tim Russell, Computer Operator | Internet: russell@zeus.unl.edu Campus Computing | Bitnet: russell@unoma1 University of Nebraska at Omaha | UUCP: uunet!zeus.unl.edu!russell
bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (07/24/89)
In article <5205@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: In article <1641@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu>, charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) writes: "Strictly speaking, gnu.* is not part of UseNet." Right. gnu.* just happens to use the same transport medium, machines, news-readers, etc... it rides on the back of Usenet. But strictly speaking it isn't part of it. Your statement is mostly correct, but though there's no :-) here it seems there's some sarcasm intended. gnu.* uses existing, convenient, and widely-available technology, that's often also used for the Usenet. "Riding on the back of" something implies an additional burden. Since gnu.* is disjoint from and unrelated to the Usenet, it can't be a burden on the Usenet. If we're going to speak strictly, we ought to speak accurately. If [Stallman]'s not sufficiently confident about the rightness of [his ways and means], he should change them rather than trying to squash any dissenting voice. You're welcome to discuss any alternative ways and means you like. But gnu.* is an inappropriate place for such (hypothetically) neutral discussions, just as it's an inappropriate place for discussions that promote things that will actively hinder GNU. Stallman's not trying to squash anyone's voice, he's just trying to keep the channel clear to get work done on GNU. If you have a project, you're welcome to create a mailing list for your coworkers. You're even welcome to create a newsgroup and gateway it with that mailing list, and offer that newsgroup to anyone who wants it. (That's exactly what happened with info-gnu-*/gnu.*.) That done, would you feel accomodating towards people who are hostile toward your project, yet want to use your project's mailing lists/newsgroups to encourage your downfall? I doubt it... In fact, you'd probably be a little bewildered as to why those folks might have gone to the effort of connecting themselves to your discussion forums in the first place; and if they weren't connected, you'd wonder why they worry about the content of the discussion carried there. Perhaps gnu.*, alt.*, and so on should further divorce themselves from UseNet proper. How can there be a divorce if there was never a marriage?
" Maynard) (07/25/89)
I'm not getting into the Great Richard Stallman: Censor? Debate. However, I couldn't pass this up: In article <KARL.89Jul24093639@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: >This is not to say that I am especially fond of the politics that are >constantly finding their way into the gnu.* groups; [...] Read the _Gnu Manifesto_ lately? If you sow politics, so shall ye reap, and that is one of the most highly political documents I've ever read. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can uucp: uunet!nuchat! (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- internet: jay@splut.conmicro.com | "He's T*d, Jim."-Richard "Bones" Sexton
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/25/89)
Is it too late to make a public apology? I completely misunderstood the status of gnu.*, and I promise to bone up on the guidelines. As extenuating circumstances, I would like to point out that what this document describes are more than just alternative newsgroup hierarchies, and that perhaps a title like "Alternative News Networks" would be more appropriate. At least one, inet, doesn't even have a seperate hierarchy. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "...helping make the world Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | a quote-free zone..." Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | -- hjm@cernvax.cern.ch
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/25/89)
In article <2786@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: > >Read the _Gnu Manifesto_ lately? If you sow politics, so shall ye reap, >and that is one of the most highly political documents I've ever read. > Well, it does make for highly entertaining and very amusing reading. -- Ross M. Greenberg UNIX TODAY! 594 Third Avenue New York New York 10016 Review Editor Voice:(212)-889-6431 BBS:(212)-889-6438 uunet!utoday!greenber BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212
jay@banzai.UUCP (Jay Schuster) (07/25/89)
What's the difference between a charter for the gnu hierarchy and that used by soc.women, say? I am told that I can't post discussions about abortion in soc.women (not that I would want to). Now I am told that I shouldn't discuss politics in the technical gnu newsgroups. It doesn't seem to me that you can complain about one without also complaining about the other. -- Jay Schuster uunet!uvm-gen!banzai!jay, attmail!banzai!jay The People's Computer Company `Revolutionary Programming'
Horne-Scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) (07/26/89)
In article <5202@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc (Peter da Silva) writes: > > operating system with freely redistributable source code. The GNU > > ! Project is led by Richard Stallman. Note that use of these groups to > > ! discuss topics considered contrary to GNU aims and political > > ! philosophy are considered off-limits (e.g., porting of GNU code to > > ! Apple machines, usefulness of intellectual property laws). > > OK, everyone who didn't like sci.skeptic... have at it. This is rather > heavy-handed censorship. If Stallman wants a playpen, I think he should > use the existing mechanisms: i.e., moderation or mailing lists. Not at all. As we don't want a discussion of baseball in `comp.lang.apl', so we shouldn't want articles about porting GNU code to Apples posted to the GNU groups. However, whether discussion of the usefulness of intellectual-property laws is appropriate in the GNU groups would depend upon the newsgroup(s) used. I'd see nothing wrong with such a discussion in `gnu.philosophy', for instance, even though I support the GNU philosophy. --Scott Scott Horne Hacker-in-Chief, Yale CS Dept Facility horne@cs.Yale.edu ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne Home: 203 789-0877 SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520 Work: 203 432-1260 Summer residence: 175 Dwight St, New Haven, CT Dare I speak for the amorphous gallimaufry of intellectual thought called Yale?
mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) (07/27/89)
[From Usenet document "Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies":] > operating system with freely redistributable source code. The GNU > ! Project is led by Richard Stallman. Note that use of these groups to > ! discuss topics considered contrary to GNU aims and political > ! philosophy are considered off-limits (e.g., porting of GNU code to > ! Apple machines, usefulness of intellectual property laws). I question the appropriateness of the use of publicly-funded educational and government networks (both on the Internet mailing list side and the gnu.* Usenet side) for organized private political advocacy. To my point of view, this is no different than the Republican or Democratic party sponsoring *and controlling* a newsgroup or mailing list, or the use of newsgroups/mailing lists for private commercial purposes. There is nothing wrong with use of the publicly-funded networks for open discussion of any issue, including political and philosophical issues, but I believe that use of them as a private forum for political advocacy, where opposing viewpoints are suppressed, is contrary to the charter and purpose of those networks and should be considered a gross abuse of privilege. If the "off-limits" material mentioned above is actually suppressed in gnu.misc.discuss (i.e., the charter above is not mere posturing), I propose to make a policy inquiry as to whether the gnu groups may permissibly be carried on federal and other publicly-funded networks (such as the DDN/NSF Internet and regionals, and state educational networks) given the action and intentions of the groups' sponsor. (For those who may read this and wonder why I -- a known libertarian and freedom-of-expression activist -- seem to be taking a position against free expression on the net, it is because the government-funded networks occupy a special place in the community: they are funded by tax revenues and organizational user fees paid by organizations that are tax-funded. It is important that these networks, like the physical facilities of public institutions, not subsidize the private political, commercial, or religious advocacy of various private groups (such as FSF). It is no different than if, for example, the State of California decided to lend its printing presses for free to Operation Rescue to print up an anti-abortion pamphlet.) I would have no objection to FSF sponsoring newsgroups/mailing lists on publicly-funded networks that were merely open forums for the discussion of FSF software, goals, or philosophy. But by stating that contrary political viewpoints or taboo subjects will be "off-limits", FSF has crossed from sponsorship to private advocacy, and that is wrong. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@tis.llnl.gov / uunet!tis.llnl.gov!mcb
dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) (07/27/89)
In article <323@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: >There is nothing wrong with use of the publicly-funded networks for >open discussion of any issue, including political and philosophical >issues, but I believe that use of them as a private forum for >political advocacy, where opposing viewpoints are suppressed, is >contrary to the charter and purpose of those networks and should be >considered a gross abuse of privilege. I'm in favor of freedom and the free market myself, but I still disagree with the above criticism. I don't know what will and will not be suppressed in gnu.* newsgroups, but it doesn't matter. Criticism can still be expressed in talk.politics.misc, which is where political discussion usually goes. As I understand it, the intent of the gnu hierarchy is to facilitate technical, not political, discussion. On Usenet at least, nothing can be truly suppressed; it can only be moved to a more appropriate newsgroup. -- Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> UUCP: ...!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
dtynan@altos86.Altos.COM (Dermot Tynan) (07/27/89)
You know, this thread would be amusing if it weren't for the serious
undertones.
Take a look! This is article 100 of 100 on this subject! The main
reason RMS doesn't want certain discussions in GNU.*, is because of the
very, very low SNR (this article is no exception), and very very high
bandwidth. If you follow gnu.*. you'd know that RMS also doesn't
appreciate discussion of GCC for VMS either. This has nothing (read my
lips -- NOTHING) to do with any perceived hatred for DEC (FSF just received
money from OSF). The reason is, it has nothing to do with the main GNU
effort. Try posting articles about MS-DOS in comp.arch, and see how far
your cries of 'freedom of expression' get you! There are over 512 different
newsgroups (at least here at Altos, anyway). Surely there are better
places to discuss the GNU political manifesto, than gnu.gcc???
We've been through this discussion a thousand times, in a hundred different
newsgroups. Nothing has changed. Want to guess how many mail messages
Dr. Tanenbaum gets, from new users who want to know if Minix is in the
public domain? With something as intricate as the GNU copyleft, the
subject of whether or not code produced by GCC can be distributed for
profit, should get the award for most discussed. Every time it comes
up, someone at FSF patiently tries to dispell any misconceptions, and
once again, gnu.gcc gets down to business, until the following week,
when someone has at it again. Is it any wonder that RMS is opposed to
political or non-technical discussion? Give it a rest!!
- Der
--
dtynan@altos86.Altos.COM (408) 946-6700 x4237
Dermot Tynan, Altos Computer Systems, San Jose, CA 95134
"Far and few, far and few, are the lands where the Jumblies live..."mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) (07/27/89)
In article <323@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: >I would have no objection to FSF sponsoring newsgroups/mailing lists >on publicly-funded networks that were merely open forums for the discussion >of FSF software, goals, or philosophy. But by stating that contrary >political viewpoints or taboo subjects will be "off-limits", FSF has >crossed from sponsorship to private advocacy, and that is wrong. I couldn't agree more. Mart van Stiphout Eindhoven University of Technology Email: mart@euteal.ele.tue.nl ------------------------------- It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (07/28/89)
In article <323@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: >I question the appropriateness of the use of publicly-funded educational >and government networks (both on the Internet mailing list side and >the gnu.* Usenet side) for organized private political advocacy. Good. Then one thinks you should be in alignment with attempts by RMS and others to discourage political discussion in gnu.emacs and gnu.gcc. These groups are technical; they are devoted to answering questions about, and maintaining, software that is in wide use throughout "publicly funded educational and government networks". Their purpose is not to discuss software property rights or lawsuits. To be consistent, RMS and others should also desist from pro-GNU political flaming, attacks on Apple, etc., on groups other than gnu.misc.discuss. I hope Apple loses that lawsuit too, but if the gnu groups continue to be dominated by Apple-trashing and suppression of people who want to defend the "other side", FSF might suffer considerably. RMS's statement comparing Apple to the Chinese government shooting students was an extremely foolish one, for example. Talk about funding and free rides seems foolish in this case. FSF has saved the government and universities quite a bit of money by providing GNU Emacs to people who would otherwise pay Unipress or CCA hundreds of dollars for it, and has advanced academic computer science considerably by providing a high-quality compiler that students actually get to study the design of. Newsgroup names are keywords only. To say "do not discuss topic X in newsgroup Y" is only censorship if there is no other available forum for such discussion. There are plenty. -- -- Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) (07/28/89)
In article <8427@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > In <323@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: > >There is nothing wrong with use of the publicly-funded networks for > >open discussion of any issue, including political and philosophical > >issues, but I believe that use of them as a private forum for > >political advocacy, where opposing viewpoints are suppressed, is > >contrary to the charter and purpose of those networks and should be > >considered a gross abuse of privilege. > > I'm in favor of freedom and the free market myself, but I still > disagree with the above criticism. I don't know what will and will not > be suppressed in gnu.* newsgroups, but it doesn't matter. Criticism > can still be expressed in talk.politics.misc, which is where political > discussion usually goes. As I understand it, the intent of the gnu > hierarchy is to facilitate technical, not political, discussion. Precisely so. I have no objection to a complete bar of politics and philosophy from the gnu technical groups. But the charter as previously quoted doesn't say "No politics in the gnu groups"; it says, in effect, "No politics except OUR politics in the gnu groups", and that is not acceptable on a publicly subsidized network. Presumably gnu.misc.discuss was formed to siphon the political and philosophical debates out of gnu.gcc, and that is fine, as long as it is done in an evenhanded, nonexclusive manner. From what I have seen so far in gnu.misc.discuss, this seems to be true. If it becomes otherwise, then I think we have a problem. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@tis.llnl.gov / uunet!tis.llnl.gov!mcb
mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) (07/28/89)
In article <3450@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: > In <323@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: > >I question the appropriateness of the use of publicly-funded educational > >and government networks (both on the Internet mailing list side and > >the gnu.* Usenet side) for organized private political advocacy. > > Good. Then one thinks you should be in alignment with attempts by RMS > and others to discourage political discussion in gnu.emacs and > gnu.gcc. These groups are technical; they are devoted to answering > questions about, and maintaining, software that is in wide use throughout > "publicly funded educational and government networks". Their purpose > is not to discuss software property rights or lawsuits. Agreed. I never posted political or philosophical articles to gnu.gcc, even during the height of the FSF-vs-Apple discussion a few weeks back. Gnu.misc.discuss is a different story, however. > To be consistent, RMS and others should also desist from pro-GNU > political flaming, attacks on Apple, etc., on groups other than > gnu.misc.discuss. I hope Apple loses that lawsuit too, but if the gnu > groups continue to be dominated by Apple-trashing and suppression of > people who want to defend the "other side", FSF might suffer > considerably. RMS's statement comparing Apple to the Chinese > government shooting students was an extremely foolish one, for > example. This is exactly what I was getting at. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@tis.llnl.gov / uunet!tis.llnl.gov!mcb
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (07/28/89)
In <325@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes:
MCB> Precisely so. I have no objection to a complete bar of politics and
MCB> philosophy from the gnu technical groups. But the charter as
MCB> previously quoted doesn't say "No politics in the gnu groups"; it
MCB> says, in effect, "No politics except OUR politics in the gnu groups",
MCB> and that is not acceptable on a publicly subsidized network.
This has got be at least the fifth statement I have seen to this
effect and it is completely wrong. I have reread the charter for
gnu.misc.discuss a few times to see if perhaps I was missing something
in it but I still do not see where it says anywhere, implicitly or
explicitly, that only the viewpoints of the FSF will be tolerated in
gnu.misc.discuss.
Now if by "OUR politics" you mean literally "politics relating to the
FSF either pro or con" rather than just "politics which support GNU",
then I don't see what your problem is. Of course those are the only
politics that should be discussed there -- why should gnu control, for
example, be discussed in a group about GNU software?
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (07/28/89)
What is all this stuff I keep reading about gnu.* being a publicly subsidized network? Or any usenet group, for that matter? There are government sites on USENET true, and many of them use grant money to support the cost of getting and propagating news, but that does not mean that this is a publicly subsidized network. It is a network with publicly subsidized *sites* on it, but there's a whale of a difference. Each site decides to carry whatever newsgroups it wants, for its own purposes. Each site decides to forward whatever newsgroups it wants to forward. Each decision is private, made at that site. If grant-funded sites feel there is material going through them that doesn't match how they should be doing things, that's their problem. And while it would be a smaller network without the cooperation of some publicly-funded sites, the "network" as a whole doesn't have enough of an existence to be called "publicly funded." It is a privately owned, privately operated network that contains, as members, some publicly funded sites. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
" Maynard) (07/28/89)
In article <TALE.89Jul27185524@imagine.pawl.rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu writes: >why should gnu control, for >example, be discussed in a group about GNU software? That's what we're objecting to: gnu control _is_ being used, since the statement as posted had to do with positions that Comrade Stallman doesn't like, and controlling what's being done with GNU in that regard. Oh, you meant _gun_ control? Never mind... :-) -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can uucp: uunet!nuchat! (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- internet: jay@splut.conmicro.com | "He's T*d, Jim."-Richard "Bones" Sexton
nate@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess) (07/28/89)
In article <1643@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu>, charlie@mica (Charlie Geyer) writes: >In article <5205@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) says of >the gnu.* groups: >> They're not mailing lists. >> They are distributed as newsgroups, listed in the alternate newsgroup >> posting, and show up all over the country wherever people are liberal or >> careless in their sys files. There is no attempt made to monitor or to >> control distribution. >As other posters have made very clear, they are the GNU project mailing >lists, which for the convenience of the rest of us, not for any benefit >to the GNU people, are being distributed using the news software. Charlie is quite correct, here. I couldn't get gnu.* through the feeds that I had setup at the beginning of the year; I had to go out of my way to find out who had gnu.* feeds, and ask them to supply me with those groups. I don't know of any attempts to "monitor" their distribution, but they do seem to be "controlled" in the same way the alt.* groups are -- you don't get them unless you ask for them. --woodstock -- "What I like is when you're looking and thinking and looking and thinking...and suddenly you wake up." - Hobbes woodstock@hobbes.intel.com ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!nate
jeff@aiai.uucp (Jeff Dalton) (07/29/89)
In article <323@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: >I would have no objection to FSF sponsoring newsgroups/mailing lists >on publicly-funded networks that were merely open forums for the discussion >of FSF software, goals, or philosophy. But by stating that contrary >political viewpoints or taboo subjects will be "off-limits", FSF has >crossed from sponsorship to private advocacy, and that is wrong. What do you think about moderated newsgroups in general? Are they never acceptable? Acceptable only if the filter applied to articles isn't political, or what? It may be that you have a reasonable position here, but I'm not sure what it is. However, I think you should also consider the following. No one has said topics contrary to GNU aims and political philosophy are considered off limits on Usenet, only that they shouldn't go in *this* newsgroup. The whole point of newsgroups is to classify articles by topic. So, to me, political categories that don't prevent the articles from being posted in other groups are not objectionable.
ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Raymond Dunn) (07/29/89)
In article <3712@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >What is all this stuff I keep reading about gnu.* being a publicly >subsidized network? Or any usenet group, for that matter? What is all this stuff I keep reading about gnu.* being a privately subsidized network? Or any usenet group, for that matter? >There are government sites on USENET true, and many of them use >grant money to support the cost of getting and propagating news, but >that does not mean that this is a publicly subsidized network. > >It is a network with publicly subsidized *sites* on it, but there's a >whale of a difference. There are commercial sites on USENET true, and many of them use private money to support the cost of getting and propagating news, but that does not mean that this is a privately subsidized network. It is a network with privately subsidized *sites* on it, but there's a whale of a difference. >If grant-funded sites feel there is material going through them that >doesn't match how they should be doing things, that's their problem. If commercially-funded sites feel there is material going through them that doesn't match how they should be doing things, that's their problem. >And while it would be a smaller network without the cooperation of >some publicly-funded sites, the "network" as a whole doesn't have enough >of an existence to be called "publicly funded." It is a privately owned, >privately operated network that contains, as members, some publicly >funded sites. And while it would be a smaller network without the cooperation of some commercial sites, the "network" as a whole doesn't have enough of an existence to be called "privately funded." It is a publicly owned, publicly operated network that contains, as members, some privately funded sites. 1/2 (:-) -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ..!uunet!philmtl!ray Philips Electronics Ltd. | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext: 2347 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | FAX : (514) 744-6455 St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | TLX : 05-824090
mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) (07/29/89)
In article <TALE.89Jul27185524@imagine.pawl.rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu writes: > In <325@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: > MCB> Precisely so. I have no objection to a complete bar of politics and > MCB> philosophy from the gnu technical groups. But the charter as > MCB> previously quoted doesn't say "No politics in the gnu groups"; it > MCB> says, in effect, "No politics except OUR politics in the gnu groups", > MCB> and that is not acceptable on a publicly subsidized network. > > This has got be at least the fifth statement I have seen to this > effect and it is completely wrong. I have reread the charter for > gnu.misc.discuss a few times to see if perhaps I was missing something > in it but I still do not see where it says anywhere, implicitly or > explicitly, that only the viewpoints of the FSF will be tolerated in > gnu.misc.discuss. You didn't begin reading at the beginning at the thread. This has nothing to do with the charter for gnu.misc.discuss, but rather the change to the document "Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies" that is periodically posted along with the half-dozen other guides to Usenet. I am informed that the addtional sentence was written by either Len Tower or Richard Stallman. It was quoted in my original article and I will re-quote it below, since others seem to have overlooked this as well: [From Usenet document "Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies":] > operating system with freely redistributable source code. The GNU > ! Project is led by Richard Stallman. Note that use of these groups to > ! discuss topics considered contrary to GNU aims and political > ! philosophy are considered off-limits (e.g., porting of GNU code to > ! Apple machines, usefulness of intellectual property laws). In other words, it is all right for RMS and others to post political messages about the Apple boycott and against intellectual property law, and other things in line with FSF/GNU "aims and political philosophy", but contrary views (porting GNU to Apples, opinions in favor of intellectual property law) are "off-limits". -- Michael C. Berch mcb@tis.llnl.gov / uunet!tis.llnl.gov!mcb
fritz@unocss.UUCP (Tim Russell) (07/29/89)
mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: >Precisely so. I have no objection to a complete bar of politics and >philosophy from the gnu technical groups. But the charter as >previously quoted doesn't say "No politics in the gnu groups"; it >says, in effect, "No politics except OUR politics in the gnu groups", >and that is not acceptable on a publicly subsidized network. Yep. As near as I can tell, rms's wonderful message asking people to boycott Apple was posted AFTER this change in the A.N.H. documentation. This to me is definitely a Bad Thing, and was the moving force behind my angered posting. Gnu.misc.discuss is definitely to me a Good Thing, /as long as rms now keeps his boycott messages out of the other gnu groups/. If he doesn't, we're back to square one. The problem with carrying gnu on government networks is not the discussion, it's the fact that rms would like the discussion to contain HIS side only. I really hate this topic, because by arguing against some of rms's methods I come out looking like I'm sympathetic to Apple, and I most emphatically am not. I think they've gotten /way/ too big for their britches. -- ---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- Tim Russell, Computer Operator | Internet: russell@zeus.unl.edu Campus Computing | Bitnet: russell@unoma1 University of Nebraska at Omaha | UUCP: uunet!zeus.unl.edu!russell
bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (08/02/89)
I'm finally beginning to catch up on gnu.misc.discuss, and a few points ought to be made. As ever, I don't speak for FSF (like almost everyone else here), but I may have a few useful insights (like almost everyone else here seems to think they do too.:-). In article <323@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: [From Usenet document "Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies":] Note that use of these groups to discuss topics considered contrary to GNU aims and political philosophy are considered off-limits (e.g., porting of GNU code to Apple machines, usefulness of intellectual property laws). I question the appropriateness of the use of publicly-funded educational and government networks for organized private political advocacy. That's a fair question, but I think the preponderance of internet mailing list and newsgroup experience leans toward the "don't worry about it" side. There are lots of private mailing lists providing havens for people holding similar views on issues. The "off-limits" phrase probably refers to social acceptability in a forum, not anything that anyone can actually enforce. Gentle (!) persuasion is about all that's possible, just as on the Usenet. If the "off-limits" material mentioned above is actually suppressed in gnu.misc.discuss (i.e., the charter above is not mere posturing), The charter was the first article posted in the newsgroup, <BOB.89Jul25144028@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu>. The only suppression encouraged is that of flaming, tit-for-tat, etc., which would only be the civilized thing to do. I propose to make a policy inquiry as to whether the gnu groups may permissibly be carried on federal and other publicly-funded networks (such as the DDN/NSF Internet and regionals, and state educational networks) given the action and intentions of the groups' sponsor. My understanding of the policy of the NSF sponsors (like Dr. Steven Wolff) has been not to make a policy, on the grounds that if a policy must be made, hardly anyone will like all its implications. But by stating that contrary political viewpoints or taboo subjects will be "off-limits", FSF has crossed from sponsorship to private advocacy, and that is wrong. The authorship of the text in question (from "Alternative Newsgroup Heirarchies") is in question. It apparently did not come from FSF. Therefore, until its origin is clear, please don't attribute such statements to FSF. Still, origin has nothing to do with the appropriateness of private advocacy, which is an entirely different issue. In article <4439@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: From article <12348@altos86.Altos.COM>, by dtynan@altos86.Altos.COM (Dermot Tynan): ... Is it any wonder that RMS is opposed to political or non-technical discussion? Not only RMS, but most of the people working on GNU software and following the GNU mailing lists/newsgroups, are tired of the volume that political discussions generate. It's not a political opposition as much as practical issue. People's mailboxes are full. If the intent is really only to prohibit these sorts of discussions, the statement in "Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies" is inappropriately worded and ought to be changed. Such a change is under way. In article <325@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: But the charter as previously quoted doesn't say "No politics in the gnu groups"; it says, in effect, "No politics except OUR politics in the gnu groups", and that is not acceptable on a publicly subsidized network. That's not the charter, it's an abbreviated commentary. The aforementioned article in gnu.misc.discuss is the charter of gnu.misc.discuss. The charters of the rest of the groups can be found in emacs/etc/MAILINGLISTS. Presumably gnu.misc.discuss was formed to siphon the political and philosophical debates out of gnu.gcc, and that is fine, as long as it is done in an evenhanded, nonexclusive manner. From what I have seen so far in gnu.misc.discuss, this seems to be true. If it becomes otherwise, then I think we have a problem. There are no technical means in place for such filtering. As with any other unmoderated newsgroup in gnu.* or the Usenet or anywhere else, the only mechanisms are social persuasion. In article <TALE.89Jul27185524@imagine.pawl.rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: I have reread the charter for gnu.misc.discuss a few times to see if perhaps I was missing something in it... A good thing to do! :-) ...but I still do not see where it says anywhere, implicitly or explicitly, that only the viewpoints of the FSF will be tolerated in gnu.misc.discuss. Indeed so. ...why should gnu control, for example, be discussed in a group about GNU software? You meant "gun control", right? :-) In article <330@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: You didn't begin reading at the beginning at the thread. This has nothing to do with the charter for gnu.misc.discuss, but rather the change to the document "Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies" that is periodically posted along with the half-dozen other guides to Usenet. ANH is not authoritative, and should not be referred to as a charter. The gnu.* charters/MAILINGLISTS descriptions should be taken as authoritative. I am informed... By whom? ...that the addtional sentence was written by either Len Tower or Richard Stallman. Since Len asked me whether I wrote it, I suspect he didn't. So far, all of us who might be expected to have had anything to do with it haven't been able to find out where it came from. Spaf is away at a conference or on vacation (or perhaps he has "turned aside" - I Kings 18:27 :-), so he hasn't yet told us its origin, and we're all still in the dark. In article <1168@unocss.UUCP> fritz@unocss.UUCP (Tim Russell) writes: As near as I can tell, rms's wonderful message asking people to boycott Apple was posted AFTER this change in the A.N.H. documentation. This to me is definitely a Bad Thing, and was the moving force behind my angered posting. 1) RMS has held such positions for years, and has been posting such messages for almost as long. 2) RMS almost certainly doesn't read the groups in which ANH appears, so any connection between his statements and ANH would be inferred by the reader. 3) As near as I can tell, RMS didn't write any part of ANH. Again, these are my opinions only. I have no connection with FSF. I don't speak for RMS, Len Tower, or any of FSF, and I'll accept their correction if they decide to offer it. But I thought I'd offer a glimpse of things from my point of view.
allbery@nc386.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) (08/02/89)
I suspect that whoever worded the description of gnu.all either gave a very bad copy of what he/she was told, or disagreed with it. In either case, as a reader of the mailing lists (gnu.all doesn't reach ncoast too much -- yet) it has been rather obvious that RMS and others object to *any* political discussion in gnu.all, whether for or against. They are technical newsgroups, not discussion groups; people read them to find out about GNU software, not to read RMS's latest philosphical proclamation or people's responses to it. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@NCoast.ORG uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu * This message brought to you courtesy the "Watcher" for the 4th NCoast * "ncoast #4 regenerates into ncoast #5 on 8/6/89!" -- the Watcher (aka nc386)
mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) (08/02/89)
In article <1989Aug2.015456.4171@nc386.uucp> allbery@nc386.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: > I suspect that whoever worded the description of gnu.all either gave a very > bad copy of what he/she was told, or disagreed with it. In either case, as a > reader of the mailing lists (gnu.all doesn't reach ncoast too much -- yet) it > has been rather obvious that RMS and others object to *any* political > discussion in gnu.all, whether for or against. [...] HORSES**T. During the discussion of porting GNU code to A/UX in June and early July RMS repeatedly posted patently political articles to gnu.gcc (via the mailing list). The subjects related to the Apple boycott/protest, general Apple-bashing (one particularly unfortunate article compared Apple's actions to those of the Chinese army in Tiananmen Square), and various diatribes on the subject of intellectual property theory and "software hoarding". I'm sorry I didn't save them all or I would repost them below for your edification. Perhaps someone who did could be so kind as to count and summarize... -- Michael C. Berch mcb@tis.llnl.gov / uunet!tis.llnl.gov!mcb
fritz@unocss.UUCP (Tim Russell) (08/02/89)
allbery@nc386.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: |it has been rather obvious that RMS and others object to *any* political |discussion in gnu.all, whether for or against. They are technical newsgroups, |not discussion groups; people read them to find out about GNU software, not to |read RMS's latest philosphical proclamation or people's responses to it. Not true, Brandon. I point you to gnu.emacs, subject "Boycott Apple!" posted by RMS not long ago. This post had absolutely nothing to do with Gnu Emacs. The entire content of the article talked about the lawsuit and asked people to boycott Apple. It was posted after the Altgroups change document. Here's the first part of it: >From: rms@ai.mit.edu >Newsgroups: gnu.emacs >Subject: Boycott apple! >Message-ID: <8907202252.AA02288@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> >Date: 20 Jul 89 22:52:28 GMT >Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu >Distribution: gnu >Organization: GNUs Not Usenet >Lines: 27 > >The FSF does not include support for A/UX in the Emacs distribution >because we are boycotting Apple for their "look and feel" lawsuit. >We will continue to boycott them until they either lose or drop the suit. >If they win the suit, the boycott will continue as long as we do. [...] RMS seems to be against political discussions in the gnu hierarchy only when it runs contrary to the FSF's beliefs. -- ---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- Tim Russell, Computer Operator | Internet: russell@zeus.unl.edu Campus Computing | Bitnet: russell@unoma1 University of Nebraska at Omaha | UUCP: uunet!zeus.unl.edu!russell
bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (08/03/89)
In article <3712@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
What is all this stuff I keep reading about gnu.* being a publicly
subsidized network? ... It is a network with publicly subsidized
*sites* on it, but there's a whale of a difference.
I think the reference to public funding was in relation to the use of
the (largely government-funded) Internet to transport bits between
some sites that carry gnu.*, not the funding for the sites themselves.
So far, this entire "news thing" exists on the NSFnet (and others)
because the Powers That Be consider it too interesting an application,
and too much trouble to shut down. Instituting regulatory policy
would involve too much bureaucracy and would negatively impact too
much other more "legitimate" network use. I suspect that as long as
the network isn't being flagrantly abused, it will continue in its
current laissez-faire state, which is indeed a Good Thing.
Think of it this way: if someone raises the issue of the
marginally-acceptable mostly-technical newsgroups, the press will
start asking questions, and some US Senator's wife will find herself
reading choice excerpts of alt.sex.bondage into the Congressional
Record at some subcommittee hearing, as examples of the sort of
traffic that's been allowed to flow on the wires thus far and why it
shouldn't be permitted any more. Come to think of it, that might be a
fun sight to see anyway :-) :-)bob@cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (08/03/89)
Date: Thu Aug 3 00:39:36 1989 From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) To: bob@cis.ohio-state.edu Subject: Re: Changes to Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies Why did you excerpt only the top of my posting? Apparently, because I didn't read the rest carefully enough. I went on to say that this network has publicly funded sites, and some publicly funded links, but that doesn't make it a publicly funded network, just a private network that has some publicly funded sites on it that talk over publicly funded links. Hmmm... upon somewhat closer examination, it seems you're right. I saw more of the emphasis on sites, which (in my eye) obscured (what I thought was) the more important topic of links. My apologies.