[iSN-Citizens] Potential eServer (logo?) Nation

["jt" <jt@xxxxxx>]

The reality is that I'm typing this in, and have no intention of pressing
<Send>...  Is that weird, or what?!?  Then again, it's also "a man's
perogative to change his mind"...

"Hate" to end these "Halloween Letters" 2003 (see ESR) [written yesterday]
on a down note, so just hope all y'all have a great, safe and fun Halloween!
<small smile>

| -----Original Message-----

| (Then again, you may have already dropped off the list, and these
| posts were
| a waste of time.. both mine and the reader's..

Im(ns?)ho, the idea of a "benevolent dicator" is not one-a those things
where you can "have yer cake, and eat it too".  People are always looking
for the win-win, which is good.. but "benevolent dicator" is mutually
exclusive.  See this, throughout History, and can see it again today with
the RMS=EFF, ESR=OSI, Linus Torvalds=Linux, and bin Laden=terrorist murderer
kinds of movements.  (And NO, there is absolutely NO comparison intended of
the latter with the first 3, other than they are all leaders of /very/ large
and /powerful/ groups.)

These kinds-a groups can have a LOTTA short-term success, but eventually
their success IS short-lived.  In History class, studied many movements that
were successful for centuries or millenia, even.  But unless the principles
of the movement are continually tested.. and change with the times.. without
"throwing the baby out with the bath water"....

..well, the movements end up accomplishing what is /the opposite/ of the
fundamental principles.

[For example, see SCO/IBM legal battles:
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/legalissues/story/0
,10801,86587,00.html?nas=OS-86587
and one can see the *results* of EFF's GPL.  After about two decades of "the
best minds" putting together a license agreement it's not clear, even in the
courts and legal profession, *precisely where the legal rights of the GPL
end and copyright begin*.  It appears that the EFF owns the rights to
enforce the GPL.  But this is a group that says:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
"When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference
between material objects and information: information can be copied and
shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be."

And this "philosophy" says (could take the time to find all the exact quotes
I've read in past on this site) that if information can be stored on a hard
drive it should, by definition, be the property of the public domain.

I notice a conflict-of-interest.  And I do not agree that "Thus, any opinion
about ``intellectual property'' is almost surely foolish."  Although the GNU
opinions most certainly are, imv.

How does such-a thing happen???  Because one-a the "hidden" principles of of
GNU conflicts with it's stated goals.  "The idea that laws decide what is
right or wrong is mistaken in general. Laws are, at their best, an attempt
to achieve justice;..."  So what GNU ends up doing is creating a license (a
legal document) to try to achieve RMS' personal view of social justice.  And
another big part of this "hidden" principle is the glorification of RMS,
probably moreso than actually achieving the desired results.  Same thing
with Dr. Lessig.  http://www.lessig.org/blog/ (a great mind, but...) Rather
than *getting the results* obtainable by /limiting/ the term of patent and
copyright, Dr. Lessig's entire set of views is shaped on the idea that IP
needs eliminated, no matter what he says IS his view, this apparently in
order to "balance out" the opinions of those that favor IP...  Anyhoo, my
point being:]

So I don't fully believe, a-TALL, that the iSeries Nation (tm) Freedom
Council should act as a benevolent dictator for the all the rest of the
eCitizens.  And I don't believe, all that much, that their opinions are more
/valuable/ than anyone else's, but that they have a whole LOTTA experience
to offer in this regard.

So I believe they are, perhaps, in the best /position/ to decide whether
they can wear two hats and whether there should /be/ two hats:  One to serve
the existing iNation, and a second (IF they have any interest in such-a
thing) to wear when participating in any eNation that may (or may not)
develop.  Again, that would be on an assumption that IBM would wish to
continue the iNation, which I believe would be an excellent idea for many
reasons, but is certainly a call only IBM can make (and, perhaps, be
influenced by the iFreedom Council).  And on assumption there would be an
eNation, which I don't assume.

jmv