begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ BearItAll ] on Tuesday 15 August 2006 08:21 \__
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Open source project adds "no military use" clause to the GPL
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | That's intriguing enough, but the really interesting thing about GPU is
>>> | the license its developers have given it. They call it a "no military
>>> | use" modified version of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/08/14/1438204
>>
>> I don't like that. To me its All or None. Everyone has to have access
>> without distinction of class or politics. Are they to deny access to
>> terrorist groups, if they are, how might they manage to do that.
>
>
> It took me a couple of minutes to find it, but have a look:
>
> Linux robots elicit human responses
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| U.S. soldiers in Iraq are forming emotional ties to Linux-powered
>| robots, according to Reuters. iRobot's robots -- used for tasks such
>| as explosives defusing and cave exploration -- are being given nicknames
>| and winning loyalty, to the extent that soldiers request repairs for
>| their favorites, Reuters says.
> `----
>
> http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS4082958224.html
>
> This is fairly recent. And, by the way, I suspect that some terrorists (the
> smarter ones) use Linux for privacy. They proabably won't be around to
> comment on splendid usability and stability, will they? I still suspect that
> the US uses Windows to get access to locally-stored files. The German and
> French government seems to concur. I wrote about this yesterday, in case you
> are interested < http://tinyurl.com/g2wtk >.
>
>
>> Incidentally, I don't believe these people have the authority to deny
>> access to anyone anyway, including the millitary.
>>
>> The Ham radio bit was pants, Hammers aren't going to advertise to each
>> other, there wouldn't be any point to that. Aren't most of them annonimous
>> anyway.
>
>
> I never used Ham Radio (I have it installed though; SUSE has everything), so
> I can't comment. *frown* Are you suggesting that GPL forbids some forms of
> publicity? I must be misinterpreting this completely. But it reminds me of a
> thread I have been involved in this morning...
>
> [wp-hackers] Credit Links
>
> http://comox.textdrive.com/pipermail/wp-hackers/2006-August/007826.html
I have an amateur licence. Licences are issued by your government, and
you're absolutely not anonymous, it's a requirement of all ham licences
around the world that you announce the callsign of your station, that
callsign is issued by the government or a government agency, and follows
the ITU-R rules for radio callsigns.
One of the other rules for amateur radio is that it is amateur, ie., if
you want a commercial licence, then you can jolly well go and get one!
There are good reasons - commercial licences in the main require the
purchase of type-approved equipment, whereas radio hams are rather
uniquely allowed to build and modify their own equipment, hence an
unusually high degree of technical competence is required.
There are plenty of other radio services which require no technical
competence, including CB (seems to be fairly moribund here), and PMR
services of various kinds. For those, no callsign is required, but
they're restricted to EIRP (radiated power), so unlikely to be able
to maintain a contact over more than a few miles, certainly nothing
international, for the most part.
Having some ham software on your PC does not entitle you to transmit
using it, although you're quite welcome to listen/decode transmissions.
If you want to transmit, you need a licence.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
After your lover has gone you will still have PEANUT BUTTER!
|
|
