Re: [d@DCC] RE: Your Visit to SCO, the GPL, and FLOSS law/public policy.

From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
To: General Discussion <discuss (at) digital-copyright.ca>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:19:39 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Chris Brand wrote:

> Careful here, Russell. If they're unknown and unaccountable, how can you
> say that they are "most likely" extremely lax ? "possibly", I'd be ok with.

  You grant me that a non-free software company is less likely to "get
caught" if you break the rules, which is what my comment was based on.  
The business community tends to stick with their primary mandate of making
money, and doing things of a questionably legal nature that they are
unlikely to get caught for seems to have become part of this.  The gamble
of getting caught and the estimated penalty which tend to be minor is just
factored into the cost of doing business.

  I realize this isn't careful of me to be saying this, and a
misinterpretation of my words may suggest an insult to those companies
that obey both the intent and the letter of legitimate business practises.  
I do think I can be granted that moving from "possibly" to "most likely"
is justified given the extremely few cases prosecuted (the
enron/worldcom's of the world) relative to what most of us recognize to be
the reality.


  Yes, this is also a political statement on my part that I recognize some
people will disagree with.

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
 electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
 politicians should be bought.  -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/

--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca