Linux-Advocacy Digest #24, Volume #26 Sat, 8 Apr 00 09:13:41 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Damien)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Damien)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: Netscape 6.0 Linux version ("Alex Meaden")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Damien)
Re: Linux bugs!!! (Grega Bremec)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! ("Leonard F. Agius")
Re: Be vs. Linux ("ax")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 08:43:24 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 06:00:26 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 21:43:45 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > |
> | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 19:56:54 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > | > |
> | > | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | > | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 09:36:05 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > | > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | > | > | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > | > | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 08:46:37 GMT, in
alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > | > | > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > | >
> | > | > | > I have an innate right to my property. I can manipulate my
> | property
> | > | > | > however I wish. And if one way I want to manipulate my
property
> | is to
> | > | > | > place a sequence of ones and zeros on it that somehow
resembles
> | the
> | > | > | > sequence of ones and zeros on another of my properties, then
that
> | is
> | > | > | > fully within my rights. And if I then want to distribute that
> | > | > | > sequence of ones and zeros, that is also completely within my
> | rights.
> | > | > | > I have an innate right to what I do with my property, why are
you
> | > | > | > trying to limit my innate rights?
> | > | > |
> | > | > | All of your innate rights are intact, but your innate rights do
not
> | > | > | superpcede the innate rights of another. Your property is
yours to
> | do
> | > | with
> | > | > | as you wish, but their property is not. The law is very clear
in
> | this
> | > | > | regard.
> | > | >
> | > | > Yet if you have a copyright on the the string of ones and zeros,
you
> | > | > would try to prevent me for taking the actions outlined above.
None
> | > | > of your property is involved, instead the law give you the
privilege
> | > | > to limit what I do with my property.
> | > |
> | > | Use Occam's razor. The obvious explanation for this is that the law
has
> | it
> | > | figured out correctly; that means you must be wrong. My property is
> | > | involved, because my rights to same are infringed by your action. I
> | never
> | > | gave you permission to use my copyrighted bit sequence for any
purpose.
> | >
> | > So tell me what property of yours is involved.
> |
> | YOU said that I have a copyright on a string of ones and zeros. The
> | properties involved are my rights with regard to the bit string that I
have
> | a copyright on.
>
> Re-read what you wrote and tell me it's a coherent argument. (With a
> straight face.) Rights are not properties.
Look up property in the dictionary. A legal dictionary if you have one, but
a decent English language dictionary will do just fine. This is from
dictionary.com:
prop·er·ty (prpr-t)
n., pl. prop·er·ties. Abbr. prop.
Something owned; a possession.
A piece of real estate: my country property.
Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title:
properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
Possessions considered as a group.
The right of ownership; title.
So, property is (among other things) the right of ownership. Copyrights
and trademarks are properties too. You can learn a lot more when you don't
take so much for granted, can't you?
>All the properties involved in the above case were my own. You property
was not
> involved, your rights were not violated.
I have a copyright on a bit sequence. The copyright is my property. I have
the right to copy that bit string, whereas you do not. So keep your hands
off that bit string, because the right to copy it is entirely mine. If your
want to copy it you need to get my permission first. Otherwise, you'll have
to come up with your own bit sequence.
fmc
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 08 Apr 2000 08:50:14 GMT
On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 07:57:19 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| At first their customer support staff has no trouble handling problems with
| the new line, but as time goes on the variety of new issues goes up over
| time, not down as they expected. They soon discover the reason: their own
| customers are creating the problems by changing source sode and
| recompiling their GPL'd applications. Some of them are even making changes
| to the Linux kernel itself.
The solution then is to not offer tech support to your customers who
are changing the source code. That's a ridiculous thing to do and a
ridiculous thing for developers to expect.
| The owner looked at the engineer straight in the eye and said, "I'm not
| interested in what that GPL has to say. As far as anyone is concerned we're
| just sharing free programs with our customers, What right does the GPL have
| to control what we put on our hard drives? It's not their property, is it?
They don't. They have privileges granted by the government via
copyright law.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 08 Apr 2000 08:53:57 GMT
On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 08:09:55 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 05:52:42 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > |
| > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 22:37:50 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | > |
| > | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| > | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 21:15:26 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > | > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | > | > I've already pointed this out, several times I might add. But let
| me
| > | > | > summarize. Because copyright laws limits what I can do with
| > | > | > my property, it is an infringement on my rights.
| > | > |
| > | > | I know you've pointed it out, but you haven't offered anything to
| > | > | substantiate your argument, except to say that it's an infringem,ent
| on
| > | your
| > | > | rights. This is getting to be tiresome.
| > | >
| > | > You claim an innate right to limit what I do with my property. What
| > | > would you accept as evidence that that is a *bad* thing?
| > |
| > | I'm sorry, but you'll have to do your own homework here, or get someone
| at
| > | MIT to help you. All I'll say is that I claim no innate right to
| interfer
| > | with your property, and that you likewise have none with regard to mine.
| >
| > Yet you claim the right to limit what strings of ones and zeros I put
| > one my property. You're being contradictory.
|
| I claimed no such right; when did I say that? Please provide a reference.
| Also, please make at least a cursory effort to come up with more
| interesting things to say. You're boring me to distraction.
That's exactly what a copyright is. You copyright a certain bit
string and then you can prevent me from arranging my property in a way
that reflects that bit string. Tada! You've just limited my rights
to do what I please with my property.
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 08:55:11 GMT
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 04:56:53 GMT,
> fmc, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >> >
> >> >35 USC 271, Infringement of patent
> >> >
> >> >§271. Infringement of patent
> >> >
> >> >"Except as otherwise provided in this title [35 USC §§1 et seq.],
whoever
> >> >without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented
> >> >invention, within the United States or imports into the United States
any
> >> >patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes
the
> >> >patent. "
> >> >
> >> >fmc
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> I stand corrected,
> >>
> >> However, this would imply that those people who used the Barnes and
Noble
> >> "violation" of Amazon's "one click" patent, were as liable for patent
> >> infringement as B&N.
> >>
> >
> >If they can be considered users, that is. IMO, Barnes and Noble is the
only
> >user of the invention. They are using it to service cutomers who visit
> >their site. Anyone who buys from their site is being served, much as
they
> >would if they took their purchase to the checkout line at the brick and
> >mortar B&N (The B&M B&N). You wouldn't consider them to be users of the
> >cash register, would you?
>
>
> If they were the ones poking the buttons, sure, which is exactly what they
> are doing in the one click example.
> (of course, the Cash registers, if patented, are presumably legit copies
> since noone is suing B&N for patent infringement for them.)
>
> The section of Title 35 you quoted made no such distinction as "being
served"
> it said uses.
>
If Amazon suggested suing B&N's customers, their lawyers would stop them
before it came to a filing, even if they could be defined as users, and
technically might be violating Amazon's rights. They'd gain nothing by
suing them except the ire of B&N customers, most of whom are also Amazon
customers.
fmc
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Richardson
> >> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> >> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> >> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
>
------------------------------
From: "Alex Meaden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.windows98,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.windows.x.kde,hk.comp.pc,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: Netscape 6.0 Linux version
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 09:51:53 +0100
1. This is a *plain-text* newsgroup.
2. That has nothing to do with Windows 98.
3. This is spam.
<blatant spam deleted>
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 09:17:35 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 08:09:55 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 05:52:42 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > |
> | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 22:37:50 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > | > |
> | > | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | > | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 21:15:26 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > | > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> | > | > | > I've already pointed this out, several times I might add. But
let
> | me
> | > | > | > summarize. Because copyright laws limits what I can do with
> | > | > | > my property, it is an infringement on my rights.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | I know you've pointed it out, but you haven't offered anything
to
> | > | > | substantiate your argument, except to say that it's an
infringem,ent
> | on
> | > | your
> | > | > | rights. This is getting to be tiresome.
> | > | >
> | > | > You claim an innate right to limit what I do with my property.
What
> | > | > would you accept as evidence that that is a *bad* thing?
> | > |
> | > | I'm sorry, but you'll have to do your own homework here, or get
someone
> | at
> | > | MIT to help you. All I'll say is that I claim no innate right to
> | interfer
> | > | with your property, and that you likewise have none with regard to
mine.
> | >
> | > Yet you claim the right to limit what strings of ones and zeros I put
> | > one my property. You're being contradictory.
> |
> | I claimed no such right; when did I say that? Please provide a
reference.
> | Also, please make at least a cursory effort to come up with more
> | interesting things to say. You're boring me to distraction.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 08 Apr 2000 09:24:04 GMT
On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 08:43:24 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 06:00:26 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > |
| > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 21:43:45 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | > |
| > | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| > | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 19:56:54 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > | > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| > | > | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > | > | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 09:36:05 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > | > | > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| > | > | > | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > | > | > | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 08:46:37 GMT, in
| alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > | > | > | > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | > I have an innate right to my property. I can manipulate my
| > | property
| > | > | > | > however I wish. And if one way I want to manipulate my
| property
| > | is to
| > | > | > | > place a sequence of ones and zeros on it that somehow
| resembles
| > | the
| > | > | > | > sequence of ones and zeros on another of my properties, then
| that
| > | is
| > | > | > | > fully within my rights. And if I then want to distribute that
| > | > | > | > sequence of ones and zeros, that is also completely within my
| > | rights.
| > | > | > | > I have an innate right to what I do with my property, why are
| you
| > | > | > | > trying to limit my innate rights?
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | All of your innate rights are intact, but your innate rights do
| not
| > | > | > | superpcede the innate rights of another. Your property is
| yours to
| > | do
| > | > | with
| > | > | > | as you wish, but their property is not. The law is very clear
| in
| > | this
| > | > | > | regard.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Yet if you have a copyright on the the string of ones and zeros,
| you
| > | > | > would try to prevent me for taking the actions outlined above.
| None
| > | > | > of your property is involved, instead the law give you the
| privilege
| > | > | > to limit what I do with my property.
| > | > |
| > | > | Use Occam's razor. The obvious explanation for this is that the law
| has
| > | it
| > | > | figured out correctly; that means you must be wrong. My property is
| > | > | involved, because my rights to same are infringed by your action. I
| > | never
| > | > | gave you permission to use my copyrighted bit sequence for any
| purpose.
| > | >
| > | > So tell me what property of yours is involved.
| > |
| > | YOU said that I have a copyright on a string of ones and zeros. The
| > | properties involved are my rights with regard to the bit string that I
| have
| > | a copyright on.
| >
| > Re-read what you wrote and tell me it's a coherent argument. (With a
| > straight face.) Rights are not properties.
|
| Look up property in the dictionary. A legal dictionary if you have one, but
| a decent English language dictionary will do just fine. This is from
| dictionary.com:
|
| prop·er·ty (prpr-t)
| n., pl. prop·er·ties. Abbr. prop.
|
| Something owned; a possession.
| A piece of real estate: my country property.
| Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title:
| properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
| Possessions considered as a group.
| The right of ownership; title.
|
| So, property is (among other things) the right of ownership. Copyrights
| and trademarks are properties too. You can learn a lot more when you don't
| take so much for granted, can't you?
Well I quickly found two law dictionaries http://dictionary.law.com/
and http://www.duhaime.org/dict-p.htm, both of which indicated that
there were two types of property. Real property, which is immovable
like land or an apartment building and chattel which seemed decidedly
physical to me. But hey, IANAL, nor do I play one on TV. And it's
irrelevant because I had been trying to discuss something outside the
realm of law for the entirety of this monstrous thread.
I suppose I could have been more precise and suggested that none of
your physical property is involved. But then you would have made the
case that physical property and intellectual "property" are
analogous. So let's discuss that instead.
You can't take, or have taken from you, intellectual "property". You
can make copies of it. But that in no way affects the original, nor
does it affect the owners of the original.
Some would say that people who create intellectual "property" have a
right to profit from it. True or not, this is irrelevant. I have
more of a right to do things that in no way affect them, then they
have a right to whatever sort of profit they think they deserve for
creating intellectual "property".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Subject: Re: Linux bugs!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 09:50:09 GMT
On 2 Apr 2000 16:26:15 GMT,
Sitaram Chamarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
had somehow managed to commit the following:
>On Sat, 01 Apr 2000 20:49:13 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> ...while operating as a non-root user!
> ^^^^^^^^
[snip]
>1. the original pcmcia-cs version that came with RH 4.2 (or was
> it 4.1 - it's so long ago I can't remember): pop a card in,
> and pop it out again before cardmgr has finished doing its
> insertion event handling (like within 2 or 3 seconds). Even
> Ctrl-Alt-Del wouldn't work!
>
cardmgr, AFAIK, depends on invoking cardctl, wich is a SUID program. I
guess this concludes this entry's qualification for the contest as a
non-successful.
>2. The Maestro 2E sound card on my NEC laptop requires special
> drivers (either from opensound.com or from Zach Brown at RH).
> In either case, this sound module insists on being LIFO'd - if
> you insmod it, then rmmod something that was insmod-ed earlier
> (like by popping out a pcmcia card), the machine would hang.
> You have to remove the maestro module before you attempt to
> rmmod any previously loaded one!
>
Ordinary users can't insmod and rmmod. Ditto.
--
Grega Bremec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gbsoftware.webjump.com/
------------------------------
From: "Leonard F. Agius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 11:27:36 GMT
Jeremy Crabtree wrote:
> Keith T. Williams allegedly wrote:
> >
> >Leonard F. Agius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >>
> >> Matt Gaia wrote:
> >>
> ><SNIP>
> >> Edit an autoexec.bat file because of a lock up from a new anti-virus
> >program?
> >> Use System Configuration Utility to keep something from starting with
> >Windows?
> >> NO WAY. They'd rather turn their computer off and never use it again.
> >>
> >> If control of personal computing gets returned to the "techno geek/techno
> >> nerd", that will be "all she wrote" for the continued acceptance of the
> >PC. The
> >> general public, as a whole, wants PC to turn into another household
> >appliance,
> >> and anything more technical than that turns them off and keeps their
> >dollars in
> >> their wallets. Keep in mind that, at least in the USA, most people never
> >read
> >> their cars owners manual. Same mentality with computers. Put the key in
> >and
> >
> >There's a manual with cars?
>
> As a matter of fact, yes. I have actually read parts of mine.
> (on an as-needed basis, looking for oil capacity, how much refrigerant I can
> put into the AC etc.)
>
We must be a rare breed, then. I read my owners manual, and actually bought the
shop manual to the car, as well. I may not do all the work on it myself, but the
more Iknow about my car, the less likely any service shop will try pull the wool
over my eyes.
>
> --
> "The UNIX philosophy is to provide some scraps of metal and an enormous
> roll of duct tape. With those -- and possibly some scraps of your own
> -- you can conquer the world." -- G. Sumner Hayes
--
Fight SPAM!!! Remove the _nospam from the above address to send e-mail.
The opinions expressed are my own.
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Be vs. Linux
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 11:50:29 GMT
"Opinionated" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ax wrote:
>
> > One message from a linux stock message board implies that RHAT (Red Hat)
> > does not own its OS, but BEOS (Be) owns its OS.
>
> As has been mentioned over and over and over again, Linux != Redhat and
> Redhat != Linux. Again, Redhat merely packages Linux with other GPL
> programs to make a distribution that can be installed on a computer, and
> allows you to run a Linux Operating System and Applications. The same as
> SuSE, Debian, Mandrake, Corel, etc. RedHat certainly has no monopoly on
> Linux distributions.
>
So, Red Hat has no control of the goods they distribute. Good or bad?
> The only thing I can think of that might approach propriety about the
Linux
> kernel is that Linus Torvalds has the final say as to what constitutes a
> Linux kernel release AFAIK. However, even Linus doesn't own the kernel.
>
Personally, I'd ratter Linus own at least something.
Whatever, history will examine or even testify Linus' choice.
> > This is confusing. I
> > thought Be OS is free.
>
> BeOS is a proprietary OS system owned by one company.......The OS is sold
> for profit. It is not Open Source Software and does is not software
> released under the GPL. BeOS does give away some versions of their
software
> currently, but note that, unlike GPL'd software, their is no sources
> provided on their kernel. < Please correct me if I'm wrong here>.
>
I see. Be is not really free.
It may be interesting to watch how the market reacts to Be and
Linux companies.
> > How can the Be own anything from the free Be OS?
> > What is Be's business model?
>
> Similar to M$ (and hopefully much more ethical). Unlike M$, their
software
> has quality.
>
> > Is it similar to Linux business model?
>
> Nope. I suggest you go to www.gnu.org and read the terms of the GPL. You
> might find that a business model dealing with Linux is profitable by
> distribution media, and support services. You can make money selling
> software that runs on Linux too, but you have to be careful with what you
> program as to how it relates to the GPL/LGPL (I'm deliberately vague
> here....read the GPL/LPGL for specific info).
>
Any information on how to escape GPL?
>
>
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
