Re: On licensing discussions

--- In [email protected], "Jeffrey R. Broido" 
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Mike,
> 
> Well, I guess this comes down to two venerable principles of 
> jurisprudence, neither of which applies, mind you, outside of our 
> legal systems:
> 
>         1) The principle of free speech and
>         2) The principle of presumption of innocence.

Two excellent principles, which can be tempered within a 'semi-
public' forum. For instance, Jay could (arguably not unreasonably) 
have taken a different view, and simply said 'I'm not going to assume 
innocence in the case of people claiming to be running IBM licensed 
code. Accordingly all discussion of such is banned, we will only 
dicsuss 'retro' OSes, and Linux'.

> My claim is that these two principles, voluntarily adhered to in 
> these semi-private forums, can happily co-exist.  For when someone 
> is asked about his or her license status, there is no presumption 
of 
> guilt; it is not an accusation if simply asked.  And I submit again 
> that there are good reasons to ask.  For one thing, the person 
> asking the question might, indeed, have an answer but might be 
> unwilling to aid and abet someone using software in violation of 
> their license terms, if any.  For another, simply asking, I 
> maintain, adds weight to the argument that Hercules-390 does not 
> exist for the purpose of abetting piracy.

You have good points - I'm not by any means in complete disagreement 
on this matter. The counterpoints are amplifications of those already 
stated: OK, lets say we ask posters about their licensing. They reply 
saying they are licensed, perhaps giving some justification for this 
statement. Are they lying? Who knows. Easy to do. Now the can of 
worms is opened - someone asks for clarification. Someone else opines 
that can't be a valid license. PDW points to the ADCD web page. 
Wheeeeee.... now we're off to the races. As has happened too often 
already.

It's turned from a simple question to an inquisition. An inquisition 
we have no business carrying out, and no tools to carry out. Who 
knows the details of all the possibilities - quirks of law in all 
corners of the globe, details of every customer and business partner 
license, IBM internal rules & procedures in evry country they operate?

The other facet to this, on the 'abetting piracy' point, is that, by 
permitting question and cross-examination on this, we are, in effect, 
setting ourselves up (or allowing some to set themselves up) as 
volunteer ad-hoc policemen. A task we are, as above, singularly ill-
qualified to perform, and *trying* to be gatekeepers may leave us 
*more* liable as contributers to infringement, not less. By analogy 
with Jays 'I'm not qualified to read a patent' stance.  

Flogging a dead horse, I submit. All Jay is saying is, if you need 
license information before responding to a poster, don't bother 
responding. If you *really* want to discuss a posters licensing 
arrangements, post *here* and perhaps encourage (via e-mail) the 
poster to respond here.

One thing might be helpful; on the Herc homepage, and the Yahoo group 
homepage, there could be a disclaimer strongly encouraging posters to 
affirm they are licensed, when asking licensed OS questions. A sort 
of 'don't ask, but please DO tell' policy! :-)

The main group is a technical group. Licensing & advocacy issues 
belong here. Such structured division of discussive effort is as old 
as usenet, probably older. Much precedent for pushing flame-prone 
topics off to an 'advocacy' group. There's a difference between free 
speech and anarchy.
 
> In any case, adherence to principle 2), for me and quite a number 
of 
> others, apparently, is overshadowed by our repugnace over the issue 
> of censorship.  And while I believe that certain rules of common 
> decency should be adhered to when posting, I do not believe that we 
> should be told what we can and cannot say in these semi-public, 
semi-
> private forums.

There we differ. Slightly. In emphasis. See my comments about on-
topic/off-topic. Being firm about what's off-topic, especially when 
it's an issue proven to generate more heat than light, is good 
management, not censorship. You're free to speak about licensing 
issues as long and loud as you like - *here*.

> But, as I say, Hercules-390 is not a court of law and I will 
> respectfully abide by Jay's ruling even if I don't care for it any 
> more than I cared for Phil Payne's banning, this despite the fact 
> that Payne and I had locked horns with gusto on many an occasion 
> here, in Hercules-390 and IBM-MAIN.  I certainly don't miss what I 
> think of as Phil Payne's FUD-spreading in Hercules-390, his tone 
nor 
> his apparent motives.  I do miss his presence, again due to 
> principle 1).

I am in two minds about Payne. He made no constructive contribution 
whatever to Hercules discussion. The responses he provoked (mea 
culpa) diverted time, energy, and bandwidth from Herc - to that 
extent he was positively detrimental. OTOH, banning is extreme - I 
share your distaste for that - but probably, in this case, justified. 
Hmmmm IS he in fact banned? I thought he was just put on hand-
moderation, and quit...

Mike



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
hercules-advocacy-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/dpFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hercules-advocacy/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 hercules-advocacy-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/