On 5/31/06, Sidney Cammeresi <sac at cheesecake.org> wrote: > On Wed, 31 May 2006 at 16.08.50 -0500, Mike Miller wrote: > > Corporations are very predictable and easy to control, but > > they don't work by "honesty" or "trust" and they don't understand those > > concepts any better than a tiger or snake understands them. Corporations > > work by a profit motive and they will obey laws if it pays them to obey > > them. Legislators know how this works. If they made a law that gave > > money to corporations without getting what they requested in return, those > > legislators were either stunningly incompetent or they did it > > intentionally. > > Why is the morality of corporations on-topic for a Linux mailing list? Well, to respond to your literal question with one situation where that is on-topic, how about the morality of corporations who receive income based on their use of a Linux distro or the Linux mark, itself? I am assuming that, if not TCLUG, some other LUGs are incororated, so there's another valid instance. I won't pedantically explain how this topic arose, but as you're indicating, it is not on-topic regarding Linux. The entire thread is not on-topic regarding Linux. However, it is not off-topic, either. Considering the GPL model on which Linux is based, and the relation to public/community-ownership afforded by that license, this discussion asks some interesting questions that cannot be otherwise asked of a product that is licensed under the GPL. Additionally, considering this topic is being discussed on an Internet mailing list, and is populated by generally technically-savvy individuals, we should be able to discuss this topic in a more educated fashion than politicians or your aunt Edna. On a totally different line, last month's Linux Journal had a great article by Doc Searls on Linux and 'net neutrality, and another by "Maddog" Hall on the Linux mark. Both worth reading if you come upon them. One interesting point made by Searls, in a quote from Craig Burton, in a `99 LJ article, paraphrased: the `net is a sphere, where any two points are directly visible, line-of-sight. No point interferes with the access to another point. Obviously, the technical reality is different, but Internet-access-as-utility makes the technical reality a technicality. The Internet-access-as-content-provider, a-la AOL/CompuServ/Prodigy of old, re-creates multiple small spheres, and adds gatekeepers between spheres. My problem with the FUD being propogated by all parties involved in this debate is this: it is not clear whether the network providers are talking about adding *more* service as additional layers, or reducing current service. The cynical among us will state (with historical accuracy) that this is irrelevant, as the result is the same. But if all the Telcos want is QoS implemented, with a fee to get a chunk of that, by all means. If they want to implement QoS *and* block all VoIP in non-QoS space, they can take a hike. Again, cynics may join me in guessing the end result will be the latter without legislation. This is all still policy-speak and politic-speak, which is vague, non-specific, and never reflects reality, and I've rambled enough now.