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
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (07/27/89)
From article <12348@altos86.Altos.COM>, by dtynan@altos86.Altos.COM (Dermot Tynan): >... 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 that is really the motive, all political discussions should be off-limits, whether or not they are "contrary to GNU aims and political philosophy". >... We've been through this discussion a thousand times, in a >hundred different newsgroups. I don't believe there is any truth to this. The subject was "Appropriatness of "gnu.*" for private advocacy". I have not seen it discussed previously, even once. >... Is it any wonder that RMS is opposed to >political or non-technical discussion? Give it a rest!! 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. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
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
geoff@tom.harvard.edu (Geoff Clemm) (07/28/89)
In article <4439@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes:
...
If that is really the motive, all political discussions should be
off-limits, whether or not they are "contrary to GNU aims and political
philosophy".
The point that is missed here (and by so many other posters)
is that none of the gnu groups are political
discussion groups (except for the newly created gnu.misc.discuss) --
they are technical discussion groups.
Why then is an occasional posting of FSF politics relevant ?
Because FSF politics determines what they will or will not do technically.
Rather than have 100's of questions about "is FSF interested in it
if I create program xyz", they occasionally post information (yes, politics)
that allow the people to answer the question themselves.
Why are other people's politics not relevant ?
Because this DOES NOT affect what FSF will or will not do technically,
and therefore may be of interest to the poster, but not to the
technical readership.
With this in mind, the only purpose for non-FSF political postings (other
than simple rudeness) would be an attempt to change FSF's politics and
therefore indirectly affect the technical contents. It has been demonstrated
over and over ad nauseam that the FSF view is internally consistent, leaving
non-FSF political posting as either "I disagree with your axioms" or the
equivalent of a rude noise (with an unfortunate preponderance of the latter).
Geoffrey Clemmmcb@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
ned@pebbles.cad.mcc.com (CME Ned Nowotny) (07/28/89)
In article <GEOFF.89Jul27140729@tom.harvard.edu> geoff@tom.harvard.edu (Geoff Clemm) writes: >With this in mind, the only purpose for non-FSF political postings (other >than simple rudeness) would be an attempt to change FSF's politics and >therefore indirectly affect the technical contents. It has been demonstrated >over and over ad nauseam that the FSF view is internally consistent, leaving >non-FSF political posting as either "I disagree with your axioms" or the >equivalent of a rude noise (with an unfortunate preponderance of the latter). > However, internal consistentcy does not imply correctness. It is precisely because some of us who are otherwise supportive of the FSF disagree with some aspects of the FSF policy that we welcome discussion of the FSF license and the manifesto. Perhaps FSF will be persuaded, perhaps we will, but informed discussion is beneficial to both sides. In any case, I welcome the creation of gnu.misc.discuss. Finally, there is now an appropriate forum which is at least somewhat sure of being regularly followed by members of the FSF board. For what it is worth: 1) Comments that direct potential users of FSF software to discuss the consequences of the general license with an attorney imply somewhat less freedom than I would hope for from the FSF. 2) Calling a binding copyright a "copyleft" is little more that newspeak and once again calls into question the FSF use of other common English words (e.g. "free"). A license that clearly requires users of FSF software to provide FSF source code utilized within an otherwise proprietary product on demand for reasonable costs of distribution would be acceptable to almost everyone. It is the "guilt by association" implied in the current license that gives me reservations. While I do not expect a change of heart by RMS, Len, et al., I do believe it is a topic worth discussing. Ned Nowotny, MCC CAD Program, Box 200195, Austin, TX 78720 Ph: (512) 338-3715 ARPA: ned@mcc.com UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cadillac!ned ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "We have ways to make you scream." - Intel advertisement in the June 1989 DDJ.
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"))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.
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
jeff@aiai.uucp (Jeff Dalton) (07/29/89)
In article <4439@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: >>... We've been through this discussion a thousand times, in a >>hundred different newsgroups. >I don't believe there is any truth to this. The subject was >"Appropriatness of "gnu.*" for private advocacy". I have not >seen it discussed previously, even once. Well, I have certainly seen a discussion of GNU newsgroup "censorship" before, probably on info-gcc. There were the very same questions about whether FSF could restrict discussion given who paid for Usenet and the Internet, etc. Some details have changed, but that's about it. The only interesting difference is that the discussion is now in gnu.misc.discuss, which looks like it might be the right place for discussions of this sort (while it should be clear that the technical groups are not). -- Jeff
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (07/29/89)
In article <1960@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM> ned@pebbles.cad.mcc.com (CME Ned Nowotny) writes:
2) Calling a binding copyright a "copyleft" is little more that newspeak
and once again calls into question the FSF use of other common English
words (e.g. "free").
Not really. A copyright typically says "you can't do anything but
this...". The copyleft says "you can do anything but this...". As my
thesis advisor said many years ago, if you coin a term, you get to
define what it means. And the FSF usage of "free software" is no
stranger than the western hemisphere's use of "the free world."
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])|(70441.205@compuserve.com)|
(Russell.Nelson@f360.n260.z1.fidonet.org)
Now if we can only convince GEnie to provide an Internet mail gateway...jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (07/31/89)
In article <1960@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM> ned%cad@MCC.COM (CME Ned Nowotny) writes: >However, internal consistentcy does not imply correctness. Correctness? Do you really expect FSF (or anyone) to prove their politics is correct? Arguments that some policy is good or right can go only so far. >It is the "guilt by association" implied in the current license that >gives me reservations. I find it difficult to understand just what it is that bothers people about this. Maybe if I did understand it I'd agree with it, I don't know. Is the General Public License felt to be illegal, immoral, deceptive, inconsistent, or what? Why don't people say "well, the FSF restrictions are too strict for what I want to do so I can't use their software and will have to use something else" and leave it at that? I could see the point of saying there might be a better way to further the FSF's goals than the methods they're using, or of saying that one disagrees with their goals. But there seems to be an undercurrent of ill feeling as if the FSF were cheating in some fashion, that their methods are illegal, immoral, or deceptive in some way. >2) Calling a binding copyright a "copyleft" is little more that newspeak > and once again calls into question the FSF use of other common English > words (e.g. "free"). 1. "Copyleft" is just a silly pun. Some people like such puns, others don't. It's not part of some plan to subvert the English language. 2. Every time I've gotten FSF software, I have not had to pay anything for the software. So it was free, in a perfectly straightforward sense of "free". Now, it's understandable that one might also want "free" to mean "no restrictions on use", but it shouldn't be surprising that the FSF doesn't mean "free" in this sense. Just as some people put use restrictions on software so that they can make money, the FSF puts restrictions on software in order to further their goal of software sharing. The FSF has decided that having certain restrictions is a better than making their software public domain as a way to further that goal.
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)
jym@APPLE.COM (08/03/89)
Somehow I missed the original article, but these lines really jumped out at me: > I question the appropriateness of the use of publically-funded > educational and government networks for organized private pol- > itical advocacy. . . . I propose to make a policy inquiry as to > whether the gnu groups may permissibly be carried on federal and > other publicly-funded networks . . . Welcome to America. See Figure 1 . . . uh, I mean, Amendment 1. I can't quite tell from the excerpt, but you seem to be looking for some sort of official censorship. Be aware that it is illegal for the government to censor political advocacy. It's that gosh-durned Bill of Rights, you see. Of course, those same rights that allow you to (for example) start up your own alternative newgroup to flame at gnu. Have fun. ::::.-----.:::::<_Jym_>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::/ | \::::.-----.:::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer ::::::::::::::::: ::/ | \::/ o o \::::::::::::: jym@nli.com :::::::::::::::: ::\ /|\ /::\ \___/ /::::::::: Natural Languages, Inc. :::::::: :::\ / | \ /::::`-----':::::::::: Berserkeley, California :::::::: ::::`-----':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) (08/04/89)
In article <8908021802.AA00397@nlp9> jym@nli.com (Jym Dyer) writes: > Somehow I missed the original article, but these lines really > jumped out at me: > > > I question the appropriateness of the use of publically-funded > > educational and government networks for organized private pol- > > itical advocacy. . . . I propose to make a policy inquiry as to > > whether the gnu groups may permissibly be carried on federal and > > other publicly-funded networks . . . > > Welcome to America. See Figure 1 . . . uh, I mean, Amendment 1. > > I can't quite tell from the excerpt, but you seem to be looking > for some sort of official censorship. Be aware that it is > illegal for the government to censor political advocacy. It's > that gosh-durned Bill of Rights, you see. [Mr. Dyer apparently did not have a chance to see the rest of the original article which explained why I believe that publicly-funded forums must not be used to sponsor exclusive, viewpoint-controlled advocacy.] I am a freedom of expression advocate and activist; I am a strong proponent of unbridled First Amendment rights. Of course it is illegal for the government to censor political advocacy; it is equally illegal for the government to sponsor and fund political advocacy (as well as religious and commercial advocacy). To do so would be an improper use of public funds to favor a particular group. You might want to read up on some constitutional law in this regard. The example I gave was the state of California lending its printing presses to Operation Rescue to print up anti-abortion pamphlets. Do you agree that that would be improper? If so, can you see the analogy to the public subsidy of network mailing lists/newsgroups where only one point of view is permitted and others are suppressed? Appended is a copy of the original article, [I mailed a copy of the original article to Mr. Dyer] and I think you'll see what I mean. Allowing private political/commercial/religious advocacy to be sponsored by the government is wrong because it abridges the rights of those who pay taxes (which are mandatory and coercively collected) but do not want them used for advocacy purposes; an even greater danger is that when private advocacy is sponsored and funded by the government there is the risk that the positions advocated are deemed "official" and enjoy special status not accorded to contrary views. If you are an ACLU member (I am) you might want to ask them for more information on this issue. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@tis.llnl.gov / uunet!tis.llnl.gov!mcb