On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 02:45, Greg Swallow wrote: > On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 07:43:19 +0100 Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: > > ... But to me what you described is called moral harassment... > > Might be harassment, but it is the reality we run into every today. > > More to point, Windows and/or Mac OS do not delivery with such content > and, if Red Hat/Fedora wants business to seriously consider their > product, it should do the same. Else businesses will continue to buy > Windows and Mac OS and keep Linux in the closet. > > Just as I will be doing this morning. I am considering one final > hardware purchase to try to get nVidia running correctly on my boxes; > one RHE WS3 and one FC2. If it will or does not work, I will drop Linux > completely for our workstations and move these boxes out as servers. No > GUI no problem. > > My employees do not need Linux at all. They are willing to go along with > the change just to save me money. In turn, I am willing to spend money > to protect them from any absurd legal dispute. That is why I am making a > decision based on such a case 'history.' > > > ...I would hate to work there... > > You don't even have a chance of being interviewed. > > > Thanks for your support, </lurk mode> OK - at the risk of going *way* off topic, there are a couple of things that are being said that clearly show people misunderstand what the US Government owns, what harassment in the workplace is about and what free speech is. Just a couple of points: 1) The US Government does not own everything these systems run on. Companies own their own property. 2) Moral Harassment, as Rui defines it, is not harassment under the law in the US. We do not have the right to act indecently in situations where it imposes on the rights of others to not view our acts. Put another way, what you do in your bedroom is pretty much your business, but you don't have the right to do "your business" where others would have no choice but to watch you. 3) That Mandrake would remove certain things for fear (even misplaced fear) of copyright infringement is their choice. That's true even if it's a mis-informed, poor choice. 4) Free speech does *not* protect you from the willful display of inappropriate conduct in the workplace - by anyone's definition of inappropriate. Free speech protects you *only* from persecution by the Government, and then there are some well-known limitations (like shouting "Fire!" in the theatre when there is no fire). An example of that occurred on American Airlines over the last few days: A would-be passenger was refused boarding on a flight because he was wearing a T-Shirt depicting a bare breast. He cited Free Speech as his right to wear such a shirt on the flight. He sued and immediately lost. Why? In reality, Free Speech *might* protect him from being arrested for wearing the shirt in public. But American Airlines is a *private* company and they can deny you boarding their airplanes for things like this if they want to. Their only obligation at that point is to simply refund your money and send you on your way somewhere else. You, of course, have the right to not fly American Airlines if you don't like this policy and fly Hooter's Air instead. ...Without the fear, BTW, of being arrested. Privacy rights, freedom of choice, free speech, free economy - all protected. In short, I think Mr. Swallow and others have it right. Now that we know, if you use FC in the workplace and know one or more screen savers would be inappropriate there, simply disable those screen savers. I'd also be sure to let others in the workplace know so they are able to do the same. ..OK - I'm going back to my corner. Flame away if you like. Cheers, Chris -- =============================== "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." -- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
