On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Ed Carp wrote:
> David Schwartz (email@example.com) writes:
No he didn't. I did.
> > > Unfortunately, the law being "unjust and evil" (IYHO) doesn't stop it
> > > being the law. Breaking it still has unpleasant consequences for the
> > > culprit. If you make using Linux illegal in that country, you're just
> > > surrendering that chunk of Linux's potential audience/market - for what?
> And it being the law, is that always right? Is that your final appeal? To
> the law? If the revolutionaries in the US Revolutionary War had that kind of
> attitude, we in the US would be, as Patrick Henry said, "totally disarmed,
> and [...] a British guard [...] stationed in every house..."
If you want to start an anti-government revolution in China, the US and
France, go ahead. You probably won't get very far, though: modern
governments are rather well armed.
> > Suppose Scotland banned the ext2 file system. Would you advocate that it be
> > removed from the Linux kernel?
> > Or, put another way, should Linux be dumbed down to make it legal in the
> > most restrictive possible environment? Or should Linux follow it's natural
> > development path?
> > IMO, it would be the greatest possible victory for totalitarian and
> > restrictive regimes if they got to dictate to the entire rest of the planet
> > what features everyone else's software would come with.
> Is it right to surrender freedom for market share?
That depends on the "freedom".
> Is that what we are being asked to do?
No, just provide a version of the Linux kernel which is legal for use in
other countries - i.e. keep the encryption as a seperate component, rather
than welding it in MS-style.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:14 EST