The US constitution is designed to say what the government can't do, or atleast that's the impression I've been given. The Australian constitution on the other hand is a list of things that the government is allowed to do. So if it's not in the constitution the governement can't do it. There are some parralells to the US bill of rights though, burried right in the middle of the constitution is a little clause about religion. I think would could probably do with a debate about whether some of the rights granted in legislation properly belong in the constitution though.

Licenses..

They're at it again... Over at Technocrat they're hasling galeon over using the GPL with the MPL. First of all, the authors can do whatever they like, and can link against whatever they like. They aren't bound by their own license terms and can make exceptions to the GPL at will, so if galeon links against mozilla then the authors are implicitly making an exception for that library. Second of all - What the hell is going through these people's minds? The point of the FSF was to set up a free software community, but by hasling people over the minutia of licensing terms stallman is destroying the free software comminity by breaking it up into little license enclaves and stopping code reuse. Isn't that what Stallman is supposedly fighting against? To me all these debates prove is that the GPL is a garbage bin of Stallmans contradictory beleifs and needs to be replaced with something more consistent with the stated aims of the FSF.