Who Bought Linux.Net? 165
So Fred VanKampen (who has to hold the record for most money made by reselling two domain names) e-mailed us to say that the Domain Name for 'Linux.Net' has been sold. He won't say to whom, but it supposedly will be announced at LinuxWorld next week. Of course we have no idea what he got for the entry, but the rumors were that he made several million when he sold Linux.com to
VA Linux. Hopefully he'll take me for a ride in his yacht. ;)
I know who it was purchased by... (Score:3)
Going to Linux.net will forward to www.microsoft.com/windows2000/
Gates will smile as he makes Linux.net his browser's startup page. Ballmer will break out in hysterical laugh as it is announced.
The battle lines are drawn...
Re:Call me a socialist.. (Score:1)
Re:OK, you're a socialist (Score:1)
Re:whois is worthless (Score:1)
You're correct (Score:1)
Re:OK, you're a socialist (Score:1)
This is not a zero-sum game.
Repeating what some objectivist told you? A free market in general might not be a zero-sum game, BUT THIS IS. If anything is a zero-sum game, speculation is. Do you not know what "zero-sum" means? It means nothing new is produced, only shuffled around. WHAT NEW WAS PRODUCED? Rent, interest, speculation, charity, theft - all are zero-sum.
Re:Call me a socialist.. (Score:1)
For a definition, I'll take a snippet from Webster's Unabridged, 1913:
1. Exertion of strength or faculties; physical or intellectual effort directed to an end
But you must keep in mind that one may acquire wealth by a combination of work in addition to e.g. usury or theft - so even a worker can be an exploiter, insofar as he obtains more than he has worked for.
Re:Before everyone starts (Score:1)
Re:Before everyone starts (Score:1)
I believe that yeah the guy got the domain at a time when other more profitable domains would certainly have been available
...And yeah can make some money out of it and give himself a pat on the back
...But I realy think he should give a substancial amount of the money to the linux community or start/invest a company that is pro open source linux.
What would you do if he donated to free software? (Score:2)
It seems to be that out of all the contention over the sale of linux.com and linux.net, the most rational response has been that Fred should donate at least part of the money to free software.
Where would you suggest that he send money, and why? What would you have done with the money? Maybe it even makes material sense since he'd be taxed on it anyway.
I'll pass your comments on to him the next time I see him before he leaves the U.S. He's not feeling very well.
And finally, like a few people have mentioned, get a clue about his contributions by grepping some source code. 'rgrep -i kempen
I've seen his name in SunOS 5.7 config files. He's got the source code of every revision of unix and most other types of OS's ever, and has just installed BSD on his "new" PDP in his office in Holland.
The point is that foolz who bust their asses to make the best software the world can handle, should be able to eventually be very comfortable. Just like when you get a degree and graduate. Fred coordinated live production testing of Linux's NET2 among European universities while he was developing it. Ever wonder how come suddenly Linux broke out of almost total obscurity around kernel 1.0.9 and 1.2.13 and hit the ground running, knocking commercial competitors down left and right? You don't come by this kind of community-oriented obsessive talent every day. If you haven't coded your own underground open-standard OS's (plural), for years without pay, on its own merit, while in production testing, and innovating on the world's collective established body of work along the way, and helping build companies to publish and reward the work of others, bite your tongue. Without these things, Linux would not exist.
And all this insane materialism in the world of free software has done to him is that now he bought his first car since forever, and one of those really expensive Mavica digital cameras! He's a true classic Dutch gentleman with impeccable manners and a tremendous sense of humor under any situation, who buys dinner for his friends at the local grill.
Yes, he went on to more commercial stuff after school (he originally had a degree in accounting), but you really should understand the economics of the land of Holland first. Although he and I might still have some discrepancies on the ethics of using Microsoft software anywhere for any reason, it's essentially roughly *similar* to what many other free software heavyweight contenders have done after their initial university-subsidized nirvana. Linus, the celebrity engineers of VA, etc, all ride atop a cloud of extreme commercialism and secrecy.
We're in a world that's still trying to figure out how to put down its bombs...material means are still developing.
That material/practical/profit part of our community, as it develops into its own industry, is a LONG TERM work in progress.
So is Fred's professional direction, so make some more specific and productive suggestions about post-sale proceeds. I think you guys will be pleasantly flabbergasted at what's already cooking inside his goofy head. (uh, that was supposed to sound like a good thing.)
Now see what you Slashdottian hotheads have done? You guys done worked me up to where I'm making runon sentences! I have a pseudo-intellectually verbose nature which suits Slashdot just fine, as long as we keep from being self-righteous and stick with the Good of the Code.
Re:And who decides when squatting is good? You? Me (Score:1)
Re:Problems for the future (Score:1)
And about a site covering multiple subjects, I'm not saying everything should be organised into extremely specialised categories. Their could be general TLDs too.
What about andover.net (Score:5)
"The Linux Network" says a lot more than "Andover Net", besides, look at their index page [andover.net] and see that they are calling themselves "The Leading Linux Desination" so it's a fit.
Don't be too surprised if I'm right!
Re:OK, you're a socialist (Score:1)
Speculation is a zero-sum game? Ridiculous. I get something. I hold on to it. Be it land, or Hershey bars or domain names, it is paid for at the time of my acquisition at the market value. Now that the demand is higher, I can either continue to hold it for myself, or I can sale it to someone else that is willing to pay me for it. What if this fellow had registered dogturds.com? I suppose there are different things that we would call him, but the one that comes immediately to my mind isn't speculator. Unless and until someone else decides they want that domain name, it is only worth what he paid for it. Even that is questionable. But he has a choice, just like you and me, to either register it or not.
Let's look at an example, {begin shameless plug for a friend} linuxempire.net [linuxempire.net] is a nice site.
But it's value is only what someone else is willing to give for it. Would my friend be accused of being a squatter if some startup Linux distributor wanted to call their distro LinuxEmpire and offered him a million bucks or so for the domain name? I don't think so.
Diggs
Re:OK, you're a socialist (Score:1)
Speculation is a zero-sum game? Ridiculous. I get something. I hold on to it. Be it land, or Hershey bars or domain names, it is paid for at the time of my acquisition at the market value. Now that the demand is higher, I can either continue to hold it for myself, or I can sale it to someone else that is willing to pay me for it. What if this fellow had registered dogturds.com? I suppose there are different things that we would call him, but the one that comes immediately to my mind isn't speculator. Unless and until someone else decides they want that domain name, it is only worth what he paid for it. Even that is questionable. But he has a choice, just like you and me, to either register it or not.
Let's look at an example, {begin shameless plug for a friend} linuxempire.net [linuxempire.net] is a nice site.
But it's value is only what someone else is willing to give for it. Would my friend be accused of being a squatter if some startup Linux distributor wanted to call their distro LinuxEmpire and offered him a million bucks or so for the domain name? I don't think so.
Diggs
Re:OK, you're a socialist (Score:1)
Diggs
hey! (Score:1)
mixed feelings (Score:2)
-mark
Re:OK, you're a socialist (Score:1)
I get something. I hold on to it. Be it land, or Hershey bars or domain names, it is paid for at the time of my acquisition at the market value. Now that the demand is higher, I can either continue to hold it for myself, or I can sale it to someone else that is willing to pay me for it.
I never said you couldn't do it, only that it was zero-sum. And it is. Nothing new is created, unlike trading money for labor, where the labor did not previously exist. Don't you see how you've just proved my argument? You buy it, and sell it, and nothing is produced by you. If VA had bought it themselves for $75, the rest of the world would not have been without $3million dollars in some product produced by this fellow (as he produced no product). That makes it zero-sum.
Why do we praise linux squaters & not others? (Score:3)
Re:OK, you're a socialist (Score:1)
The $2 million originally came from... what? Thin air?
It was there for VA to use as they desired. Now it's there for the fellow to use.
Zero-sum means nothing was created. He created an Internet domain name, where that domain name did not previously exist. And obviously it had some value, or VA would not have come up with the money (whether it was $2 million or $200) to buy it.
Your definition of labor apparently differs from mine. Mental labor counts, too. Not just manual labor.
Diggs
Re:OK, you're a socialist (Score:1)
Ha! The domain name already existed. Actually, the domain name doesn't "exist", in any physical sense, at all. What this fellow did was buy rights to choose to what IP the DNS name would resolve. The rights were for sale, he bought them, and sold them for more than his original buying price. That makes it zero-sum, whether or not it was right, commendable, wise, ethical, or anything else. If your only basis for defending it is that it is not zero-sum, your defense fails.
The reason it's called DNS speculation is that in practice it works very much the same as speculation in land (even though the DNS situation was set up artificially, and the land one not). Surely you agree that speculation in land is zero-sum?
Your definition of labor apparently differs from mine. Mental labor counts, too. Not just manual labor.
The first time you falsely characterized my use of the word "labor" (or "work") as referring only to manual labor, I gave you the benefit of the doubt; I assumed you simply misinterpreted my previous statements, and corrected you. But it appears your false characterization (at least this later one) was a deliberate straw-man. I won't repeat what I've already said [slashdot.org]; suffice to say if you are unwilling to take what I explicitly state as my position you do both of us a disservice by replying, and make meaningful discussion futile.
SeriousDomains.com (Score:2)
Re:Call me a socialist.. (Score:1)
Profits he makes by buying low and selling high are not made through work - at least, not his work. They are made through exploitation of the work of the employees of the company in which he invests.
Would that exploitation include the fact that he is helping to keep those workers employed? He is helping to keep them fed, clothed and sheltered.
For a definition, I'll take a snippet from Webster's Unabridged, 1913: 1. Exertion of strength or faculties; physical or intellectual effort directed to an end (Emphasis is mine)
He is surely working for his money.
Diggs
OK, Troll, start reeling me in... (Score:1)
And are you, King AC, the one that decides what is useful? How about if he buys the names and then refuses to sale them to anyone.
I suppose that if you bought them and put up a lame ass web site, that would be OK. Maybe one of those WaReZ sites that pop up all the rest of the places you registered when you try to leave.
Yeah, that's really useful.
Diggs
Well, this is certainly exciting news. (Score:1)
Maybe you should have waited to post this after we find out who bought it.
Hey, didn't MS place a bid on linux.com? Maybe it's them
~~~~~~~~~
auntfloyd
Re:OK, you're a socialist (Score:1)
You aren't going to change my mind about the original /. post. The fellow that originally bought linux.com had every right to sale it for whatever he could get for it.
Diggs
Before everyone starts (Score:5)
I don't think is the same thing that (for exampl) domainbank does. So go easy onhim.
Re:OK, you're a socialist (Score:1)
I don't think so. You still seem not to even understand my position.
You aren't going to change my mind about the original
I never contested that he had the right to do it; my only claim was that it should not be condoned (on the basis that it is not work (physical or intellectual) and thus exploitation (of those who do work)). If all you assert is that he has the right, we've not disagreed!
But if you insist that this fellow is a productive worker (in the capacity of his DNS speculation), I must ask (only) that you tell me what was produced by him, ie what existed not before his effort but after, that he traded with VA. Your inability to name this product, even under the pretense of making peace, I must take as concession (assuming the best). It seems clear to me, and is surely clear to you, that such a product does not exist, and rather than admit this you would bow out of the conversation altogether. (No insult is intended by this; I honestly believe this conclusion is very well-warranted.)
Simple "squatting or not" test. (Score:5)
If the answer is "yes", then they are not squatting. The domain is theirs to do with as they please.
I don't know the people involved, so I have no opinion on this.
Re:Before everyone starts (Score:1)
But cybersquatting for a good cause. No complaints, save from the envy of the shitloads of money he is getting. :) Maybe he should donate some of that money to FSF or EFF?
And in this case, the answer is no. (Score:2)
My -assumption- is that he -does- have such permission (as will the party to whom it is sold), but for VanKampen, rather than Linus, to retain the proceeds from the sale of the domain name may do serious damage to Linus' trademark rights - as a requirement for protecting those rights is control over the name. Linus cannot claim to control the use of the name if VanKampen is entitled to control the proceeds of the sale of a domain name that he cannot legally use without permission from Linus. VanKampen can only be holding linux.net as an implicit or explicit licensee of Linus, not as a rightful owner.
Michael's Theorem (Score:5)
Corollary #1: Slashdot is now a business page. Expect deals like this to be praised without question.
Corollary #2: Prepare for a massive cultural shift this year. The technically inclined will be moving on to something else very soon.
:Michael
Re:Simple "squatting or not" test. (Score:1)
It sucks that you have to pay up front now... back in the day you could think up a good domain and register it for free and park it at hypermart [hypermart.net] until you decided what to do with it. And if you end up not using the domain? Oh well, the final notice comes and goes and netsol would take it back.
can you say .. (Score:1)
VanKampen == Fred van Kempen? (Score:1)
Resale value of domains (Score:2)
The web site at domain X should be consistent with the domain name, at least for generic names. People surf to a generic domain, like linux.com, either because they hope the site will have good resources for things in that category, or because the domain is easy to find. They do not expect or want the message "This site is for sale" or anything to that effect.
People who buy generic domains with the intent of resale have the duty, at least to provide links to sites that provide the sort of information their domain name implies. This is not to say that they should be forced to, just that it is the right thing to do, and that the more useful their domain is, even just as a set of links, the more desirable the domain becomes. Without content, any domain becomes less desirable.
Re:Call me a socialist.. (Score:1)
Buying something and selling it as-bought is NOT LABOR. It's not manual labor, NOR IS IT INTELLECTUAL LABOR.
Would that exploitation include the fact that he is helping to keep those workers employed? He is helping to keep them fed, clothed and sheltered.
Is the lord any less an exploiter for feeding his serfs? Dead slaves produce no labor. But though the lord or master or investor will pay wages (in whatever amount will gain him the most profit) to those he exploits, the masters are no less exploiters unless they take only the product of their own labor, and no one else's (at which point, they cease to be investors, or masters, or lords, but are instead workers).
When a farmer labors, the product of that labor is his harvest. When an author labors, the product of that labor is his text. To what end is investing directed? To what end, besides being granted (by government) title over the product of another's labor? WHAT IS PRODUCED?
(Now I must again point out, that there is some effort involved in investing, but it is much like the effort involved in burglary and maraudary, in that the effort itself does not bring about the product, but merely takes it from the hands of another whose effort actually produced it. You must show some product that is created through the investor's effort; it must be different than the lord producing (a word I use in disgust, in this context) the harvest of his serfs through the effort of oppressing their ability to flee and to take [most of] their own harvest.)
Re:OK, you're a socialist (Score:1)
He created an internet address. It did not exist before he registered it. He traded it to VA for cash. Someone else may have thought of it, but since they did not register it and have DNS point to them, it effectively did not exist.
The example I used way back about Stephen King was meant to show that the words Mr. King uses exist in someone else's head before hand, but until they are put on paper, the book does not exist.
There is no concession and no insult intended here. It is just a disagreement.
Diggs
Re:OK, you're a socialist (Score:1)
If your argument is instead that "intellectual property" (so-called) is the equivalent of speculation, and therefore speculation and "intellectual property" must be either both just or unjust together, I commend your reasoning. However, the conclusion from there should be that "intellectual property" is unjust, not that speculation is just, for reasons stated previously. (If you believe that opposition to "intellectual property" is equivalent to the position that intellectual effort is not labor, you are simply mistaken. I hold only that creation of "intellectual property" should be payed, like any other labor, indeed like most forms of intellectual labor, exactly once, in whatever amount it is able to secure through free trade.)
Re:Before everyone starts (Score:1)
FvK improved Linux' networking code to a production level quality.
Perhaps you would not be reading this message from a Linux server because Linux's networking code would be *far* different and who knows *how different*.
Re:OK, you're a socialist (Score:1)
A DNS name must exist. The IP address equals that name. Without the name, us humans would be telling others to go to http://111.112.113.114/index.html or whatever. We remember names much better than long strings of numbers. The only reason this was ever an issue was because this guy bought and paid for a DNS record (name) that others wanted, and then sold it to one of those people (for a stack of $$$).
If your point is only to show that DNS speculation is not deserving of that title, "speculation", I find this discussion silly.
Not my point at all. DNS speculation, land speculation, pork futures speculation. It's all the same. You puts up your money, You takes your chances.
It seems obvious to me that all the essential characteristics of speculation exist in DNS speculation, and that is why it has been so named.
Agreed.
But if you agree that speculation is unjust and only disagree in the above, although I feel you are mistaken, I also feel the point is minor and that we are largely of the same mind.
I do not agree that speculation is unjust.
If your argument is instead that "intellectual property" (so-called) is the equivalent of speculation, and therefore speculation and "intellectual property" must be either both just or unjust together, I commend your reasoning.
That is what I have been trying to say. Apparently my choice of words have been poor. My examples could have been better, but I thought that using someone that made money from a few words strung together in some DNS record was roughly equivalent to a novel writer putting common words together and making money from that effort.
However, the conclusion from there should be that "intellectual property" is unjust, not that speculation is just, for reasons stated previously.
Again, I must disagree. I will try to define intellectual property (or at least what I think it is). It is words and notes put together to make a song. It is words strung together to make a book or a magazine article. It is a painting.
(If you believe that opposition to "intellectual property" is equivalent to the position that intellectual effort is not labor, you are simply mistaken.
That was not my intention. See above.
I hold only that creation of "intellectual property" should be payed, like any other labor, indeed like most forms of intellectual labor, exactly once, in whatever amount it is able to secure through free trade.)
You had me ready to insert a big, bold Agreed! here. Then I re-read the exactly once part and you lost me. I guess you could say that, considering that a contract that calls for payments over many years could be considered being paid "exactly once", but I get antsy when "always", "never" and "exactly" get thrown around.
You know what? I think it comes down to this one question. Is it OK for the fellow to register the DNS name and then sale it to someone else? I think it is.
Diggs
Re:OK, you're a socialist (Score:1)
A DNS name must exist.
My point was that DNS speculation is true speculation. You agree, so forget it.
Again, I must disagree. I will try to define intellectual property (or at least what I think it is). It is words and notes put together to make a song. It is words strung together to make a book or a magazine article. It is a painting.
That is not what "intellectual property" means. "Intellectual property" means privilege to exclusive use over a certain piece of information. Not to be payed for a magazine article, but to restrict others' use over the information in the article (and be payed to lift the restriction). In other words, it is the scarcity economics of property applied to information through a forced government monopoly, even though information is not a scarce resource. That is what people mean by "intellectual property", in a legal sense, in a sense that one might "oppose" it.
Some people refer to information as "intellectual property", but that is bad practice. Information is not "intellectual property" unless someone has been granted government privilege over it.
You know what? I think it comes down to this one question. Is it OK for the fellow to register the DNS name and then sale it to someone else?
You cloud the question with such vague language as "OK". I might agree with you, depending on how you define "OK", but it's sure that speculation (DNS or otherwise) is exploitive, either way. Is it OK for me to ask someone to work in my factory under sub-humane conditions, when he has the option of simply choosing not to work in such a factory if he does not like those conditions? Again, it depends on what is meant by "OK". (And, even rephrased, that is not the question the discussion comes down to, but the question the discussion seeks to answer. Like the factory question, it is hardly so simple as one might imagine.)
(ac) I hold only that creation of "intellectual property" should be payed, like any other labor, indeed like most forms of intellectual labor, exactly once, in whatever amount it is able to secure through free trade.)
(diggs) You had me ready to insert a big, bold Agreed! here. Then I re-read the exactly once part and you lost me. I guess you could say that, considering that a contract that calls for payments over many years could be considered being paid "exactly once", but I get antsy when "always", "never" and "exactly" get thrown around.
Perhaps I was not clear enough. A person can be payed in any way to create information, but there is no need to pay to USE information that one already has, and that any attempt to force such payment is simple extortion.
My examples could have been better, but I thought that using someone that made money from a few words strung together in some DNS record was roughly equivalent to a novel writer putting common words together and making money from that effort.
In one sense it is the same: in that the novel writer would claim ownership, or privilege to exclusive use over those words, you are correct (he could not). In another sense it is different: that the DNS speculator has generated any productive labor, you are incorrect (he has not). The speculator does exert some labor, but it is an unproductive labor, one he could not sell, or not sell at anywhere near the scale he now sells.
The creation of information will be payed whether or not the government can offer an exclusive monopoly over it, because it is productive labor. We know this for two reasons: first because it is intuitive, as clearly creation of information is valuable; and second because historically it is true, when there has been no "intellectual property" intellectual labor has still been payed (and similarly, even currently there is intellectual labor that produces information that cannot be made into "intellectual property", and it is still payed).
Speculation [of land, as an example] is not payable without monopoly privilege, for the same two reasons: first that it is intuitive, that nobody would pay anyone anything significant to speculate for him if he had the option of speculating himself instead; second that historically nobody did the above, e.g. in the US land rush, nobody bought land from speculators when there was equivalent land next to it to speculate. (There are objections to this that you could make, but please think long about them before you reply, because they all fail under scrutiny, and I will show why. You know as well as I that speculation is not productive labor, in fact that the defining trait of speculation is that the product exists beforehand and is not improved before resale.)
By the way, I responded below [slashdot.org] in reference to the question of what it means to work or labor (in case you had not noticed).
My final word on this subject (Score:1)
Let me take you back in time - to when you posted the comment that made me post a reply.
{A+C post} Call me a socialist... but I don't see how anyone can support a person making money through any means other than work. Now this fellow has obtained millions of dollars without having to work at all for it, and will probably continue to use that money to exploit people who do work, "earning" more money, still without having to work. That may be unavoidable, but it's odious to condone it, even if one admits the futility of trying to prevent it.
That is what got me going. That is what caused me to put pen to paper, so to speak. Your idea that "making money without having to work" is an odious thing. As I replied then, and as I believe now, that is wrong.
I tried at that time to show you that there are many different types of work. It looks like I did not do a very good job, as you chided me many times about your definition of work. Heck, there was even one that I missed until you pointed it out above.
Well, guess what? It doesn't matter if what he did is work or not. You have shown that you think speculation is wrong and should not be condoned. I think it is right.
It doesn't matter if your definition of "OK" is different than mine. It is absolutely OK for someone to ask you to work in deplorable conditions for only a tiny compensation. You can say NO. If enough people say no, then that someone has a choice - do the work himself or make the conditions (and/or the compensation) better.
Later in this discussion (I'm tired of quoting - look it up yourself if you don't believe me) you said that the products of labor belong to the laborers. Agreed. But what you seem to dislike is those laborers trading that product for a paycheck and then the one signing the paycheck reselling that product for a higher amount of money.
Geez O. Pete, if the laborers don't like their compensation, quit. If the conditions are that freakin' bad - Duh! - quit. Start up their own business and undercut that evil guy that dared to employ them in the first place.
We strayed WAY off the original point. You tried to convince me that what's his name getting a couple million dollars took those millions out of circulation. (see #153 [slashdot.org] and #154 [slashdot.org]) I tried to end this politely (#158 [slashdot.org]) but you drew me back in. In #159 [slashdot.org] you said that you never contested his right to do it. Well, I never said you did. What I replied to was your calling it odious and mocking his "earning". I said I thought he had the right and indeed was right to have done it. A clever chap (or lucky, but then we sometimes make our own luck), in the right place at the right time. More power to him.
Diggs
Re:My final word on this subject (Score:1)
Your idea that "making money without having to work" is an odious thing. As I replied then, and as I believe now, that is wrong.
Well I'm glad, at least, that you finally admit speculation is not labor. It was, IMHO, your previous insistence on the opposite that caused this discussion to be drawn out so long without advancing. But oh well, that's past..
You tried to convince me that what's his name getting a couple million dollars took those millions out of circulation.
That's not at all what I said. A thief who steals money doesn't take it out of circulation forever, he simply takes it without immediately putting something into circulation in its place. That's what zero-sum means. That's why theft is zero-sum. You agree that theft is zero-sum? If the thief continues to trade his plunder, thus putting it into circulation, he will [it is supposed] be taking something equal out of circulation at that time, thus still leaving the world in a zero-sum state. Only labor is not zero-sum. If speculation, interest, profit, charity, and rent are not zero-sum, then theft is not zero-sum. Whether or not you support them, profit and speculation *are* zero-sum, and it has nothing to do with whether they are circulated.
It doesn't matter if your definition of "OK" is different than mine.
Of course it doesn't. All that's important is that I know what it is you mean by the word "OK". But I don't, so you might as well be speaking Greek. (For instance, you might mean "just" or "fair", in which case I disagree. You might mean "within his rights", in which case I agree. You might mean "not a problem" or "not meriting a solution", in which case I disagree, etc.)
It is absolutely OK for someone to ask you to work in deplorable conditions for only a tiny compensation. You can say NO.
Of course you can. You can say "NO", and starve. But here the definition of "OK" becomes the most important, as I ask you (perhaps not expecting an answer), do you support unions? (It seems, for the sake of consistency, you must this question in the negative - after all, offering the job is "OK".) But OK or not, it's certainly exploitive, isn't it? I mean, the workers *are* given a choice, if they do not want to be exploited, to instead starve themselves and their families to death, but that makes it no less exploitive, does it?
If the conditions are that freakin' bad - Duh! - quit.
Even if I could quit without starving, how would it follow that I shouldn't oppose the person who created those conditions? (Besides, if you don't like being a slave, KILL YOURSELF. Duh! It's not possible to quit and live.)
In summary, you have not shown otherwise, and have apparently conceded, that speculation is not labor, and that speculation is zero-sum (and thus exploitive). You have made the claim that people have a right to speculate, and I have not contested it. On the basis of the former, though, I have shown that speculation is harmful to the working class, and that the working class should oppose it, and work towards ending it. Any person who becomes wealthy through speculation is an enemy of the working class, regardless of whether he is within his rights or whether his behavior is "OK".
(I posted this because it seemed to me you might not entirely understand my position, and also because of your implied attack on unions which I felt superficial and fallacious. If you read this and do not feel the need to respond, please acknowledge that you've read it, just to ease my curiosity. Thanks.)
! My final word on this subject (Score:1)
Well I'm glad, at least, that you finally admit speculation is not labor.
This is a matter of semantics. I think it is work. Obviously not by your definition, but work indeed.
You may not have said that the $2 million was taken out of circulation, but you did say If VA had bought it themselves for $75, the rest of the world would not have been without $3million dollars (#153 [slashdot.org]).
Whether or not theft is zero-sum is not germaine to this argu, err, discussion. Speculation != theft.
OK means, well, just that. I have never had an indepth discussion about what OK means, so I never really gave it much thought. (It reminds me of President Clinton's evasiveness and asking what is is). I know I have to choose carefully here, so bear with me. OK means alright. It means within his rights. Fair means fair and Just means just. OK doesn't come into my play there.
{Diggs}It is absolutely OK for someone to ask you to work in deplorable conditions for only a tiny compensation. You can say NO.
{A+C}Of course you can. You can say "NO", and starve
It's not either/or. If you don't like the job you have now, you can quit. That does not mean you will starve. It means you will find another source of income. I just left one job and took another. I didn't starve between them.
I did support unions. To a point. Now I think they have outlived their usefulness and become their own problem. The problem I have with unions is when they demand guaranteed jobs and guaranteed incomes. It is not conducive to good work habits knowing that you are not subject to punishment or termination. Do you ever wonder why automobiles cost what they cost today? It's not because the materials have gone up in price so much. It's mostly due to the high cost of the factory workers salaries (and benefits packages). Now, don't get me wrong here. The workers should get everything they can. I know I did when I went looking for a replacement job for the one I left. I have a problem with the unions being in the pocket of politicians. The fact that the factories can't replace a striking worker with someone else willing to work for less is repulsive to me. If there is no one that wants to do the job for the compensation offered, the compensation will increase. Forcing the factory to pay more than market value only raises the end cost to you and me. It's called trickle down economics. There is nothing else. When the cost of the employees goes up, the cost of the car goes up so the selling price goes up so I need more money to buy it, so I want more money, so my product's price goes up... It's a vicious cycle. If the government was not in this cycle, it would level out on it's own.
Even if I could quit without starving, how would it follow that I shouldn't oppose the person who created those conditions?
It would not. Oppose away. Get the rest of the community to oppose. As I said, if no one is willing to do the job for the compensation offered....
you have not shown otherwise, and have apparently conceded, that speculation is not labor
Nope. No concession from here.
I have shown that speculation is harmful to the working class, and that the working class should oppose it, and work towards ending it. Any person who becomes wealthy through speculation is an enemy of the working class, regardless of whether he is within his rights or whether his behavior is "OK".
Speculation is not harmful to "the working class." When I make contributions to my 401K account, I am speculating. I am part of the working class. Any person that becomes wealthy through speculation is living the American Dream(tm).
Diggs
Re:VanKampen == Fred van Kempen? (Score:1)
Why all the debate? (Score:2)
I dont understand what all the fuss is. We here at the Leasing Impregnated Nuns with Unmarred Xylophones network are very excited about our upcoming IPO. There is a huge untapped market in pregnant nuns and their clean xylophones. We've already been drowned in orders!
So, please, make sure you grab some of our stock when we begin our IPO. (symbol INUX) You won't regret it!
Well... (Score:1)
Re:Pathetic Attempt at Capitalism (Score:1)
Yes you can. See ml.org.
--
Re:Before everyone starts (Score:2)
Ethical squatting: Buying a domain so that unscrupulous types can't get it before the right people can.
Evil squatting: Buying a domain that you know people will want and then selling it back to them for thousands or millions of dollars.
Buying a domain that you know people will want and then selling it back to them for thousands or millions of dollars and then telling them that you're doing them a favor by selling it to them? Don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining.
Honestly if he was out to do a good deed, he would've sold it to them for the same ammount he spent registering and retaining the domain name. Kinda like what that guy who renewed the hotmail.com domain when Microsoft was caught, once again, with their pants down. So they send him a thank you check, he auctions it, doubles the auction price with his own money, and gives it all to charity. THAT is a good, ethical thing to do.
I don't care what the squatter's credentials are, or who he diddn't sell to. He's still a rich scumbag who got rich by being a squatter.
Re:mixed feelings (Score:1)
Re:If Torvalds controls *linux*.*, does he get a c (Score:2)
Bah, I know him, he isnt a nic guy at all (Score:2)
Re:! My final word on this subject (Score:1)
This is a matter of semantics. I think it is work. Obviously not by your definition, but work indeed.
Back on this? Well tell me, what is produced? I presented an argument against speculation being labor, and you simply ignored it. Isn't the defining trait of speculation that nothing is produced? Is theft productive labor? Is speculation any more productive than theft? If so, what is produced? (Btw, if you are saying that speculation is labor, but unproductive labor, like the labor a thief exerts when carrying TV's to his van, I have already agreed [slashdot.org]. When I say "speculation is not labor" or "theft is not labor", I probably should say, more accurately, "speculation is not productive labor" or "theft is not productive labor". But you'll know what I mean herein.)
You may not have said that the $2 million was taken out of circulation, but you did say "If VA had bought it themselves for $75, the rest of the world would not have been without $3million dollars (#153)."
Which is true. If a thief steals $3million, he may go ahead and make trades for it, and at some point in the future have instead $3million worth of goods and services, but those are still taken out of the world and sucked into the void that is his non-productive self. That's what zero-sum is. And for reasons stated countless times previously, speculation is exactly as zero-sum as theft. If, on the other hand, he produces $3million worth of e.g. candy bars, and then trades them for $3million, the rest of the world is NOT $3million poorer -- it is even -- and at the same time he is $3million richer. That is the difference between zero-sum and production.
Whether or not theft is zero-sum is not germaine to this argu, err, discussion. Speculation != theft.
Whether or not SPECULATION is zero-sum seems to be important to you. I have shown that it is zero-sum. Your denial of this at this point is astounding. It seems that, to you, nothing is zero-sum, not even theft. (!?)
OK means, well, just that. I have never had an indepth discussion about what OK means, so I never really gave it much thought. (It reminds me of President Clinton's evasiveness and asking what is is).
I HAVE to know what you mean. I gave three possibilities of what you could mean, with differing potential responses on my part to each. Surely you see the need for me to know what you mean by a word. It's like the word "good", in that something can be good on more than one level, and can be good on some level and bad on another at the same time. (By the way, when Clinton asked what was meant by "is", I believe he intended to discover whether it referred to the current tense, as would be proper English, or the past tense, as was intuitive in context.)
OK means [...] within his rights.
Then I've never contested that it was "OK".
I did support unions.
Well, with that definition of "OK", supporting unions would not be inconsistent on your part.
When the cost of the employees goes up, the cost of the car goes up so the selling price goes up so I need more money to buy it, so I want more money, so my product's price goes up... It's a vicious cycle.
Perhaps the way to end the cycle is to not let any of the money generated through the production of cars go to anyone who doesn't produce them (ie the so-called "owners" of the factories). (ie, make labor the only currency -- you would then, in order to obtain a car, work exactly as much as a factory worker must work in order to produce a single car (or 1/100 as much as 10 factory workers work to produce 10 cars -- you get the idea).)
{ac} you have not shown otherwise, and have apparently conceded, that speculation is not labor
{diggs} Nope. No concession from here.
WHAT IS PRODUCED??
Speculation is not harmful to "the working class." When I make contributions to my 401K account, I am speculating.
Of course that is harmful, though harmful on a very small scale. It would be much to your benefit if nobody could make money except from trading their labor for another's labor. You may take some excess labor in interest, but trade your labor for far less than its worth to allow some capitalist to take far more excess labor from you than you take - so you come out below even. If you steal less than is stolen from you you don't create an overall harm to society, but that's not to say theft isn't harmful; and so it is with profit. You do agree that a person who consumes labor without producing it, or consumes more than he produces, would have a negative effect on society and on those who do produce, right?
I don't know. Up is down, big is small... What can you say to a person who just won't accept simple logic and fact? How can you possibly say that speculation is productive (ie not zero-sum)? What does it mean to be zero-sum? Can't you answer the question, of what is produced? You won't even admit that theft is zero-sum... Well if theft is productive, what is produced?
Supporters of capitalism, at least the educated ones (e.g. economists), don't support it on the basis that speculation, profit, interest or etc are labor. There is capitalism, and the labor theory of value (among others), and the people who know what those are agree that they are not the same thing. You're saying capitalism *IS* the labor theory of value, and I just don't know what to say. It is truly as if you were to say big is small, right is left, etc. It's like arguing with a creationist.. Can't you even admit that theft is not productive?
(NOTE: I've asked "what is produced?" about five times here, as well as about five times previously to this post. The question is meant to be answered as to speculation in general, not DNS speculation, because your (IMHO absurd) claim that the DNS name does not exist previously to its being registered would make mean it is not speculation. But you have made claims regarding speculation in general, and you must back those up or abandon them. Reverting to the (IMHO mistaken, but unimportant) idea that DNS speculation is not really speculation ignores the larger issue in favor of a detail that is irrelevant until the larger is settled. What is produced through the speculation of (e.g.) Hershey bars [slashdot.org]?)
Re:What about andover.net (Score:1)
--
Re:What about andover.net (Score:1)
--
Re:Resale value of domains (Score:1)
Re:Resale value of domains (Score:1)
Re:correct me if i'm wrong... (Score:2)
Re:Before everyone starts (Score:1)
that Fred is more involved in Linux and open
source than just another "domain squatter" who
happens to own the linux.net domain...
he is not One Of The Bad Guys! (tm)
try grepping his name in the Linux source
tree and you'll see his name popping in several
places...
I remember seeing his name quite often when i
was trying to get a ppp connection working,
back in those days when the world didn't know anything about the penguin and you could only
get things working on your Linux box if you
figured it out yourself, or happened to have
a friend with a little more Linux experience...
Ricardo.
This is a symptom of an obsolete naming system... (Score:1)
Re:SeriousDomains.com (Score:2)
One person selling something to someone else because of the name is fine.. someone else really wants it. However, having a *business* based on making money *solely* off someone elses trademark is bad.
The good domain names are long gone, but... (Score:1)
Re:I buy stock and don't "use" it for anything. (Score:1)
When you want to buy a car and you don't like the price you will get it from another dealer for a lower price.
You don't have this option with domain names.
BTW what does pinko mean in this context?
I bet this one cost a lot... (Score:1)
Re:Before everyone starts (Score:2)
Re:And in this case, the answer is no. (Score:2)
> laudable, that role is not his to play. Linus owns the
> trademark rights to "Linux" - as long as the linux.net
> domain is going to be used in relation to the Linus
> OS, VanKampen cannot use the domain name without
> permission from Linus.
I believe the "cannot use... without permission from Linus" statement should rather read "can use the domain name for Linux-related purposes unless Linus decides otherwise".
All proper use of "Linux" in domain names seems to be okay without the need for explicit permissions. Try it by registering, say, "linuxhackerz.com" to see if the registrar demands proof of Linus' acceptance. He must take action against improper use, however, or he'll lose his trademark.
IP address (Score:1)
Reseaux IP European Network
Co-ordination Centre
Singel 258
Amsterdam, NL-1016 AB
http://www.ripe.net/nicdb.html
+31 20 535 4444
Fax- - +31 20 535 4445
http://www.ripe.net/nicdb.html
this is what ripe.net gave out for 193.79.73.114
inetnum: 193.79.73.0 - 193.79.73.255
netname: CDONE
descr: NetOne/CDOne Internet Facilities
country: NL
admin-c: MC2488
tech-c: TJ1177-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by: NLNET-MNT
mnt-lower: NLNET-MNT
changed: andre@NL.net 19960115
changed: ripe-dbm@ripe.net 19990706
changed: ton@NL.UU.NET 19991023
source: RIPE
don't know if that helps any?
Re:You've got something better in mind? (Score:2)
First problem: For a $50 registration fee, by registering "diamond.com" you've just required InterNIC to put up a redirecting web server for a year. That'll run a lot more than $50.
Second problem: If this were allowed, how many people do you think would register "microsoft.com" and other well-hated sites in an attempt to bury the original site in a sea of alternate registrant links?
Third problem: You're thinking too web-centric. "diamond.com" may have a web server, or it may be the central domain for 10,000 net-connected computers at Diamond Multimedia's offices. You're going to conscript that domain and make a change costing Diamond thousands of dollars, just because someone else paid $50 for a cool domain name? What about email addresses? Where does mail to root@diamond.com get sent? What happens when someone else registers hotmail.com? What happens when some non-HTTP protocol becomes the most important thing on the net, or when diamond.com turns out to be running more FTP than web traffic, or when it's the domain name for some chat server or something else that needs a unique IP?
Fourth problem: What about preexisting links? For $50, you say I can register microsoft.com, require the site to change into a redirection page, and thus break every existing http://*.microsoft.com/* link? Sweet.
Well, there's more, but you get the picture. Anyone have any more ideas?
Frankly, I'd be fine with allowing companies to override previous registrants of existing trademarks (but even then, what if the domain name is a trademark for different companies in different industries?), but that's about as much as I'd stretch it. If you had your heart set on anonymouscoward.com, and whois tells you that Cybernet2000 has already registered it (damn!), then you'd better either suck it up and pay what they want, or get a new domain name.
In this article's particular case, I'd have been OK with it if Linus had decided to enforce his trademark and prohibit anyone else from "squatting"... but it's *his* choice. The original linux.net owner is an old time kernel developer, did a good job selling linux.com, and if Linus doesn't have a problem with his getting rich off the domain names then certainly nobody else has a right to.
I might have thought at one time that selling the linux* domain names would be a good way for Linus to make money himself while coding free software... but of course now that he's slated to become a bajillionaire over the next decade on Transmeta stock options that's not really necessary.
Re:Well, it goes something like this: (Score:1)
Anyway, the all important differences that invalidate your analogy are:
Finally, not only did the domain name not have a prior owner, also was there no existing company that "obviously" would have a right to it.
--
Yup, it's gigawalt allright... (Score:1)
Registrant:
Linux/PRO Intl Support Network (LINUX3-DOM)
Hoefbladhof 27
2215DV VOORHOUT
NL
Domain Name: LINUX.NET
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone
Contact: Van Kempen, Fred N (FNV)
waltje@INFOMAGIC.NL +31 (35) 6980059
(FAX) (520) 526-957 (FAX) +31 (35) 6980215
free speech is not all or nothing. (Score:2)
In life nothing is black and white unless it's a cartoon in a newspaper. I'm not sure exactly what is meant by an "ethical squatter" but I can comment on the linux.com sale. Linus owns the trademark, he can permit it be used as he sees fit as long as he indicates it is occuring with his permission. He risks losing it if he let's it used without taking any action (like Xerox and Frisbee) but as long as he acknowledges that it has occured all is well.
did interchain.net bought linux.net? (Score:1)
Re:Pathetic Attempt at Capitalism (Score:1)
Domain resellers suck! (Score:1)
Btw. I like the story about the guy who bought www.micosoft.com (The missing r) and made it redirect to some sort of porn-site. Microsoft wanted him to release that domain, and offered him quite a lot of money.
A deal with Linus? (Score:1)
Then later: D'oh!
Re:Well, it goes something like this: (Score:1)
It doesn't, and I don't see why it should.
--
A few twists to domain names (Score:1)
Back then they were all owned by the US goverments National Science Foundation. I suspect that the law still counts them as US property that is licensed to the users (which they can transfer). Now if I sign a long term lease with the US goverment for a house in Miami (they did end up with a few) and I release it for more, I'm obligated to refund all but %25 becuase there are federal laws that say the most proffit you can make while dealing with the goverment is 25%.
If this guy had a problem with domain name hording, he could send a check for a large sum of money to the NSF via a congress-critter. That would end domain name squatting real qucik.
Call me a socialist.. (Score:1)
correct me if i'm wrong... (Score:3)
didn't he also say that he registered the name to prevent this kind of profiteering?
perhaps the money raised by Fred VanKampen should go into some foundation.
Re:mixed feelings (Score:1)
~luge
How do you get praised for all kinds of scams? (Score:4)
Well, it goes something like this: (Score:3)
Buying my domain (Score:2)
Prakash
Problems for the future (Score:2)
I'd personally be happy if the 3letter TLDs would have a lot more granularity instead of just "commercial", "network" and "organisation" (and some others...) How about "OS:Linux:Development"? Would make searching way simpler too :)
Re:SeriousDomains.com (Score:1)
The difference is that this sale has been approved by Andover.net staff, so feel free to cheer for all the money Mr. Van Kampen will make from it.
No those SeriousDomains.com guys, boy, they're just evil, see, because Linus doesn't approve. And if Linus doesn't like it, then his disciples, the Slashdot crowd, won't either. Simple, eh?
~~~~~~~~~
auntfloyd
Re:mixed feelings (Score:1)
I guess I'm just jealous because I didn't have the cashish to buy all these great domains back in '93 when i thought about it.
-mark
Re:Before everyone starts (Score:1)
Granted, if I had the Linux.com domain name, I would have sold it for as much as possible as well. Of course, in doing so, I'd expect to be called a squatter...
Money for what? (Score:2)
Another thing I fail to see is why someone is allowed to sell "linux" domain names while TM on "Linux" belongs to Linus? Why his lawyers won't do the same thing that etoys lawers did? Why someone should make big bucks on Linux, giving absolutely nothing to Linux and just getting in the way of people who really do something?
You've got something better in mind? (Score:2)
Re:Well, it goes something like this: (Score:2)
Re:mixed feelings (Score:1)
about the signature... my computer CAN talk!
Check out the festival [ed.ac.uk] speech synthesis engine. It rocks!
Re:Before everyone starts (about money and greed) (Score:2)
Obviously the guy had some ethical principles or he'd had taken the highest offer for the domains he squatted. Nevertheless good old greed got the better of him. Or more likely, the millions of US$'s for the lesser offers were enough to satisfy his greed while allowing him to still look at his old geek friends in the eye, and himself in the mirror.
I'm very surprised that Linus let this thing go through in the first place because it's about first level domains with his trademark on the line as a trading article.
Let's face it - money corrupts ideals. I'm afraid we can already see it starting in the "Distro Wars" threads here and in other discussions everywhere. Whenever I see mindless drivel claiming that one distro or another is "crap" I begin wondering whether that guy is just a pitiful speculator/investor in "another camp". This explanation used to only apply to the Microsoft defenders in the past, but unfortunately this behaviour can only worsen as companies such as Caldera, SuSE and TurboLinux launch their IPO's. Unlike Red Hat, these companies are not going to "GPL everything" and I suspect that the ensuing competition based on proprietary components will leave its mark.
Folks, we need LSB and distro-neutrality not "distro-hate". We must also discourage companies from relying on prorietary and exclusionary features, esp. where basic operations and interoperability is concerned.
Oops, I admit straying off topic towards the end although it's still all about money, ethics and greed. Please moderate gently.
If it was legal I'd put _here_ a link to J J Cale's "Money talks"...
Remember .Store and .Corp (Score:1)
My auction NOT "auction stopped by Linus" (Score:2)
I'm not sure that it is possible to have an independent committee, anymore. People have to make a living, and in their workday they will be involved with companies that have a stake in things going one way or another. Not to say that people can't be objective, but we're all human. There are clearly a lot of power shifts going on, and a lot of shifting influences, with a lot at stake. There also seems to be a naivete or unwillingness to look at things with the same independent thought we used to see here.
For example, it is clear that some people view any purchase of domain names whatsoever, for purposes other than building a single site, to be unacceptable. Other people believe that it is okay to see trends and buy and sell domain names like any other assets. It's okay to agree to disagree. But does a philosophical difference, or should a philosophical difference prevent the use and development and sale of those names for Linux businesses? I don't think so.
In the trademark situation, the fundamental issue should be whether or not a name or a site using that name (porn, Microsoft lovefest, etc.) violates or denigrates the mark. A name which has in no way done either, should not be dismissed, nor should it be removed from the market by all intents and purposes, because you're worried it might be misused, or because you don't like the person (or assume you won't like the person, since you don't know the person), in my example. I have no doubt that LinuxStinks.com would have been allowed to continue to exist. And when a user community was built up for that, would have been allowed to be sold, too. So what is the difference? The difference is that I was an unknown, and suspect because I was unknown. In our self-righteous rantings about other things and other sectors here, we call that bigotry.
Suppose that Somebody is in charge of the GoldPan, a phenomenally successful way to extract gold from them thar hills. Suppose Somebody lets all their friends and even lots of strangers try their hand at using the GoldPan and even shows them great ways to use it. Several people create neat little accessories that make it even more efficient. Everybody gets very excited about the GoldPan and all the opportunities on the them thar hills. Then, one day, on the new ship in from Afar, Stranger arrives and buys a vein that Everybody had ignored until then, and sets up several camps along the vein and says "All welcome. Come and try your hand at my vein. Use this neat GoldPan that everybody's using. But nobody's ever used it on this vein. Everybody seemed disinterested in this vein, but I think this vein holds great promise. But I'm not going to hog it all to myself. Come buy your stake."
Now does that threaten the quality of the Goldpan? No. Does it irritate Everybody who's been working different veins with the GoldPan? Some, naturally. Is it worse because the Stranger's from Afar? Is it because we're shocked that we've made open invitations to come join us in these hills, but we deep down thought nobody else would come? Or is it because we thought they would come ask permission to buy that valley before they bought their stake, because certainly nobody else would have run down and tried to stake the same claim, if they thought it might disappear. Or is it because it is really not worth anything, and we should save this guy from Afar from his own stupidity. Or is it just plain and simple we don't think anybody from Afar should have such a big stake in one vein, even if we didn't pay any attention to it before and even if they did put up the money for it. Is it because we didn't want it in the first place, and took no measures to purchase it, but now that somebody owns it, it irritates us that he wants to offer parts of it for sale? Maybe yes, yes and yes. But is it wrong? Some say yes, some say no. Should the guy be run out of town on a rail? That's what was done in the old west... or maybe found slashed in a dark alley.
Is one of the big threats that somebody might actually see value in one of those camps on that vein and spend money on it? Or is it that it was almost free for the taking only a little while ago, but now this guys got it and I wish I had gotten it, or better yet nobody got it because then we'd only have to worry about what we were working on before this guy came along? Or is it because we had this open invitation to come one and come all, but then somebody actually took us up on it, but it isn't anybody I know?
Bottom line is I staked out lots of camps in one vein of the corporate valley. I was selling domain names with Linux in them. I've encounted resentment and righteous puffery because I was an unknown, and because some people don't trust the unknown, and measures have been exclusionary because of philosophical differences. LinuxInfrastructures.com, and LinuxRollouts.com and LinusInnovation.com and LinuxBenchmarking, and most of our other Linux domain names have to do with the corporate service sector, which we've been players in, for 14 years. To say that offering domain names for sale will dilute the Linux marketplace as some have claimed is absolutely absurd. There are literally thousands of domain names for sale. To say that LinuxInfrastructures or any of my names suggest ownership of the mark is also ludicrous. To say that buying parts of a vein and then selling off some of my stakes (or at least offering them for sale) to help finance my expansion is inappropriate is also absurd. Just like an incubator in a research park, there are lots of little niches in the vein I've staked out. There are even more business incubators out there in a lot more Linux valleys and a lot more Linux veins, and all of them have a lot more money and a lot more everything then we have right now. But there are a lot of businesses out there who don't have much imagination, and if you've been a consultant for very long you know that, ten times over. Sometimes you need to build an opportunity and paint a picture until somebody gets it. And that creative image making and position staking is not only worth something, but it's an entire industry, with lots of Manhattan advertising agencies and corporate identity makers charging millions for it. And there are still thousands of domain names out there. Hundreds of thousands. It's almost the same kind of mis-enlightenment that the guy in the patent office in the early 1900's had, when he said "Everything that's ever going to be invented has already been invented." Let's get with it. Is this open source, open invitation, or not. Are legitimate business uses of Linux derivative names, including creating domain names for specific mindshare positions and then selling them like any worthy business asset, to be allowed or not?
To say that using Linux to get money is an isolated behavior for domain speculators (as in "now the use of "linux" in this case has really been a question of blocking somebody ELSE from using the term and using it to get money.") is a limited view. Linux in the name is critical to being a player, any player, in this industry. As reported in an earlier post, LinuxCare's filing says "If we fail to adequately promote and maintain our brand name or are unable to continue using "Linux" as part of our brand name, our business may be adversely affected." Yeah. Ditto.
So we're back to Is it okay to squash and block because of a philosophical difference when no wrongdoing or damage to the mark is proven? Open-minded objectivity is going to be key here. What happened to me does not, from where I'm sitting, feel like open minded, open source anything . And objective analysts in this forum, and even Linus Torvalds himself, would not support, I believe, the way I was actually treated. (see what really happened. [seriousdomains.com]). And while you're at it, think about this. If you had spent a lot of your hard-earned money (very very hard earned, for you get rich quick illusionists) to buy domain names that included Linux (as many, many, many people have), and if there were precedent after precedent of hundreds of sites and uses out there with Linux in the name, would you be blindsided and incredulous that some Threaten Now, Talk Never lawyer would call and suggest that you not sell the names or even remove any references to the names? Is this a free country? Is this still America? Is this an Open Community -- come one, come all? See the Penguines Parody [seriousdomains.com] if you have any sense of humor at all. Otherwise, the issues here and violations here are not very funny, and not very Linux-esque, or even American, for my open-minded, level-headed, non-hypocritical colleagues, who've been quietly supportive in private emails to me.
Re:If Torvalds controls *linux*.*, does he get a c (Score:2)
Anybody here old enough to like Westerns or remember Louis L'Amour or even US history? You know the founding rancher who's a good guy and owns a big ranch, and builds this town, but then these new power guys come in.. the big guys, and they have a guy over here, running foreman for the Big Rancher, and everybody has to answer to the Foreman now. And there's a couple guys who work for the new Big Rancher who now owns the town, and hates nesters. New rancher comes in. Water is found. Now Big Rancher wants more of the water holes. Boys, what are we going to do with this no good. Let's call them "nesters" and kill them -- Call them "nesters" in front of everyboy over at the saloon. (These guys are so easy.) Just stir up a mob. Don't even talk to the new guy or get to know him/her. Just kill him. He has no right to that water hole. We were here first. We want it all. But don't tell anybody. What difference does it make that they filed on the land, and own title. They've got no right. Next thing you know they'll be runnin' sheep and we only like cattle around here. We never saw it before and got along fine without it, but now that we know it's there, let's kill them, and take the water hole. Now, while we've got the mob going, let's look around the town and see who else we need to get to tow the line. Perfect timing. You wanna play? Fine, but you have to deal with The Boss. Boss wouldn't like that. Well, he never complained before. Yep. But he's not running things anymore, we are, and we say what goes....
So what kind of town is this going to be, and who is going to run things? You want a town that's owned, or do you want free commerce for all. Hard work. Hard life. But a good stake not threatened by power mongers.. there's a possibility of working the land and making something good come out of it. Given a chance, and some room to play. How about it boys. What's it going to be? You snookered, or you read up the laws of the land? You cowards and lackeys or are you individualists?
Re:Before everyone starts (Score:4)
Also, the seller has been involved with Linux for a *long* time. He was the second maintainer of the Linux networking code, after Ross Biro (who wrote the first implmentation) and before Alan Cox. According to whois, he registered this domain in 1994, which was right around the time that he was the Linux networking maintainer.
I really don't think this counts as cyber-squatting.
Re:OK, you're a socialist (Score:2)
(Writing books *IS* work, of course, as there is product. Speculation is not, as there is none. Speculation of US land was just as bad (actually, far worse) than that of DNS names. The products of labor belong to laborers, regardless of who claims to "own" the land on which they work. Likewise with the means of production in general. The opposite position, that someone should be able to make money without working (ie be in such a situation where he could be a rock rather than a person and it would not affect his income - certainly you could not call that working, yet this state could be brought about easily by a sufficiently wealthy investor), is ridiculous.)
What did this fellow ever produce? The answer is nothing, and so should be his income for it.
(And just because most might do the same does not mean we should support it when one does.)
stop with the sob story, rob (Score:2)
go buy your own boat.
--