<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.12.1">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Tue, 2007-13-02 at 22:11 -0500, Eric Dunbar wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > > Is it ethical for</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > > the maintainers of a more-or-less formally associated repository to</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > > expose users in these situations to political risk?</FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > I distinguish between political persecutions and intellectual property</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > right prosecutions.</FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> What is your point supposed to be here, Eric? That it's not OK to break</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> intellectual "property" (an entirely intellectually "bankrupt" piece of</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> terminology!) but that it is OK to expose Ubuntu users to political</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> persecution? Or am I badly misreading you?</FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<PRE>
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">Flame bait or just bad reading?</FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
No. Now that you've clarified it, my first impression was right. You do think dubious claims concerning intellectual "property" are more important than people's actual freedoms and lives. I tend to think the reverse. This is not going to be resolved in an Internet mailing list so I'll be letting it drop.
</BODY>
</HTML>