Linux-Advocacy Digest #562, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 06:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Ciaran)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Osugi Sakae)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: I am trying to do an unbiased comparison of operating systems (Aravind Sadagopan)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Microsoft's new ".NET" (Aravind Sadagopan)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: I am trying to do an unbiased comparison of operating systems (Woofbert)
Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right? (Arthur Frain)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Stefaan A Eeckels)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 03:51:19 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting Daniel Johnson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> On 3 Jul 2000 11:50:27 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> [...]
> >> >Novell says it is impossible with the win2k scheme. If they can't
> >> >do it I doubt if I could either.
> >>
> >> What Daniel means by this, I think, is that you can invent your own
> [...]
> >Bingo!
> >
> >> IOW, he doesn't think they need to document wire protocols because they
> >> allow you to invent your own protocol instead of using theirs.
> >
> >My God, someone was listening!
> >
> >> The
> >> various shenanigans they use to make this frustrating to do in practice
> >> are just "legitimate capitalism" if they really even exist at all,
> >
> >Well, nobody has actually *mentioned* any such "shenanigans" until
> >just now.
> >
> >What "shenanigans" have you in mind, then, Bob?
> [...]
> >To alleviate your problem, what you must do is somehow prevent
> >anyone else from using MS products.
> >
> >This seems a little harsh.
>
> You're a troll, Daniel. Did anybody ever tell you that?
And here I thought he was merely droll.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> [A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 07:48:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The world thinks of free as something that can be disposed of or
>copied at will with no cost or redistribution. If that something is
>an object that creates no damage or ill towards another individual,
>then there is nothing wrong with free redistribution.
>
>GPL doesn't permit that free redistribution without giving the source
>of your efforts of a developer away.
It is called free software, not free program, nor free executable code.
Software means source software, to quite a few people.
The developer is free to freely give his source away.
>Is the GPL free? Sure, it is free in the GPL sense... Is the GPL free?
>Only if you are not a developer, the GPL might be considered to be free,
Progress. I'll take it.
I thought that any and all notions that GPLed software be considered
free were lies and examples of dishonest people? Are you lying above,
or being dishonest? Or, where you possibly wrong in your earlier
stance?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 08:11:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Analogies that use physical things (that is, where the use of that
>physical thing denies use of that physical thing to the owner) will
>never work. The use of virtual things do not deny the use of the
>virtual thing to the owner.
You say that like it was true or something. It is not true.
A credit card is the ultimate in virtual money. The use of it by
someone other than me, does in fact deprive me of the use of the same
virtual thing. Also, mere `use' is not the only aspect that can be
deprived. See my other posting for a more complete list, the first
time this was brought up.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 08:03:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Your counter-example is fallacious. An example of a GPL-like parking
>lot is that it is marked 'free parking', but that means that it is
>'free' to park there. However, a GPL-parking lot requires that you
>pay to leave the lot with your car.
A pretty good analogy, but I think I can provide a better one. A GPL
packing lot would be one where it prohibited someone parking an RV
next to the exit and collecting money from the people on the way out.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
From: Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 01:14:46 -0700
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8kblh1$vfc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Hey, If the shoe fits.... Yes, you are a troll. Claiming that
Linux
>lags
>> because one APPLICATION crashes without sending an error
message is
>just
>> plain STUPID! The fact that you continue to try to stand
behind that
>> STUPID claim means that you are either a toll or stupid. Take
your
>pick.
>
>And if you bother to read other posts you will see I am not
claiming
>Linux lags behind Windows simply because of one application
crashing,
>but because of a whole number of reasons.
>
>> You do not discuss that actual points made. The fact is in
many ways
>> Linux is FAR superior to W2K. Do you have a choice of
desktops???? Or
>> are you stuck with the desktop and GUI that comes with w2k if
you like
>> it or *NOT*???? Can you run WITHOUT a GUI if it meets your
needs???
>> No??? how out dated!
>
>Calm down, there's no need to get so excited.
>
>Windows has one desktop which can be replaced - I've seen other
choices.
>True, there are far fewer than Linux, but then, why are a lot
of these
>desktops there? Are they there because someone decided that it
would be
>cool to offer all these desktops - or for a far more obvious
reason:
>there was no open source desktop available so a whole bunch of
them came
>into being. There's no overall coordinator, so chaos ensued.
Now we have
>KDE and Gnome as the biggest desktops with a whole bunch of
others
>which are fairly primitive in what they do.
>
>I realise someone will quite rightly say "but desktop XYZ does
what I
>want it to do for me" and "how dare you suggest that every
desktop
>should be IJKL!". Then I will hear "it's about choice,
something you
>don't get on Windows".
>
>However, I don't think all these desktops came about because of
offering
>the user choice. They came about due to a lack of control and a
lack of
>standards. The fact that the side effect is to offer a choice
is merely
>an accident.
So what. Choice is still there. And it still a good thing. What
is it with you and this chaos and lack of standards thing
anyway ? Im a Win32 programmer and when I hear the words "Chaos"
and "lack of standards" I generally think of the Win32 API and
its general incoherence.
Of course KDE and Gnome are not as mature as Win32, they are
still getting together. But from my reading of the Bonobo and
KParts stuff they seem coherent and cool. They guys designing
them have taken the best bits from what MS have done and chucked
the rest away or improved it. They start with advantange, in
that they have no backward compatability issues to worry about.
Cheers,
Ciaran
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 01:24:43 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>Doesn't matter. There is always going to be this gap. You see,
companies
>make peripherals and people buy them. The companies make money
on them.
>Free software just gets pushed to the back - after all you get
nothing out
>of it except kudos.
>
>Pete
>
Quick question for Pete:
When was the last time you paid for a driver? Companies do not
write drivers for their products in order to make money selling
those drivers. They come free with the hardware. What operating
system they make drivers for is a function of the marketplace.
One day, if 90% of the planet is using Linux, then hardware
companies will make sure to provide Linux drivers for their
hardware. And guess what? They will still provide the drivers for
free.
So what are you ranting on about free software for?
I humbly suggest that you either grow a brain or go back to
Windows. Your choice of course.
--
Osugi Sakae
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 08:19:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Your statement begs the issue of free software. You continue
>to describe what you think but don't define it. Since software,
>by default, isn't free, it is your job to prove it.
So that we may see what such a proof should look like, please prove an
instance of free love for us.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 08:16:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A simple counter-example against the GPL being free has already been
>given.
You say that like a single counter example that shows that a
particular definition of the word free doesn't fit would be sufficient
to prove that no other definition could fit. Do you expect the rest
of us to actually believe this? Or were you hoping that we would no
notice?
------------------------------
From: Aravind Sadagopan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: I am trying to do an unbiased comparison of operating systems
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 04:36:40 +0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nice compilation of facts ,buddy..we need more of these info to convice people to use
Linux
Keep up the great work
Aravind
Jeff Silverman wrote:
> And now that you are all finished laughing at me....
>
> I am running about 120 computers in an electrical engineering department at a major
>university.
> Some of the professors want Windows/2000 and others want Linux and still others want
>SunOS. I am
> trying to compare the operating systems I currently use and see if I can develop
>selection
> criteria. With that in mind, I have created a page,
> http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs/OS_comparison.html which has the operating
>systems of
> interest and their characteristics. In some cases, the chart is probably wrong and
>in many cases, I
> don't know the answer.
>
> I would like you to please take a look at the page and send me comments and
>corrections
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). These are high powered people, so any answer has got
>to have a
> reference to the original source of the information, so that its correctness and
>authoritativeness
> can be assessed.
>
> I have to admit to a certain bias against Windows/2000, I have installed three of
>them so far, and
> none of them are working very well.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Jeff
>
> --
> Jeff Silverman
> See my website: http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 08:43:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Which public GPL-only companies have showed significant profit?
I realized a 28,000x gain on my stock. I'm pleased with its
performance.
>:-).
:-)
------------------------------
From: Aravind Sadagopan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft's new ".NET"
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 04:43:47 +0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The .Net concept has not even been copied well..This fact is evident from the way
MS is loading up the term with all sorts of words to describe it and makes sure
nobody gets the
point. I have read Ballmers note on M$ site and hope he understands what he means
out of it.
Its a extended Napster concept with proprietary (open source!!) protocols with
tons of embedded
ActiveX controls to make sure no one in the world understands whats going on and
M$ hopes to
make a fortune out of it..
RealCea wrote:
> Might as well put Microsoft on your right hand or forehead.
>
> I cannot believe those guys. Did you know that Microsoft's ".NET" project is
> nearly identical to a Netscape project in 1995 that was never finished
> (probably due to Microsoft) called Costellation. Back then they were just
> developing Windows 98. They are just a bunch of "has beens". Shove everyone in
> the market around and steal other peoples ideas. Isn't that the worst type of
> monopoly this country has ever seen? Innovation my ASS!! Whats up with the
> crappy BIOs/IRQ architecture? You'd think they would develop something beyond
> 1970 technology there. All I see is a lucky man who got his OS (MS-DOS) on all
> of IBM's PC's. And that was not even developed by him!!!
>
> P.S. Internet Explorer was originally developed by Spry, Inc.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 08:52:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
phil hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 03 Jul 2000 12:43:23 +0100, Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Another aspect is the HavenCo plan. (In case you don't know, HavenCo
>is a secure Internet host located in a WW2 naval bunker located off the
>east anglian coast, the bunker claims to be an independent country the
>"Principality of Sealand"). HavenCo will let people host anything[1] on
>their site.
>
>[1] with the exception of child pornography
Actually, add to this spam. They understand the first actual Internet
law, though shalt not spam. I'd call this the Vixie law.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 08:46:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>copying of software does not diminish the availability of software.
You say that like it were true or something, it is not.
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: I am trying to do an unbiased comparison of operating systems
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:02:17 GMT
In article <8kbltu$e5e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff Silverman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And now that you are all finished laughing at me....
>
> I am running about 120 computers in an electrical engineering
> department at a major university. Some of the professors want
> Windows/2000 and others want Linux and still others want SunOS. I am
> trying to compare the operating systems I currently use and see if I
> can develop selection criteria. With that in mind, I have created a
> page, http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs/OS_comparison.html
> which has the operating systems of interest and their
> characteristics. In some cases, the chart is probably wrong and in
> many cases, I don't know the answer.
>
> I would like you to please take a look at the page and send me
> comments and corrections ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). These are
> high powered people, so any answer has got to have a reference to the
> original source of the information, so that its correctness and
> authoritativeness can be assessed.
>
>
> I have to admit to a certain bias against Windows/2000, I have
> installed three of them so far, and none of them are working very
> well.
In the real world, there will always be many different flavors of
computer operating systems. Given that most people will be unhappy with
whichever single sytsem you select, is there any reason why a university
computing lab should standardize on one system?
Your lab assistants may whine at having to maintain all those different
systems, but let me tell you, any modern software publishing company
would much rather see someone with experience on a wide range of
computers than on just one.
--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>, Datadroid, Infernosoft
Putting the No in Innovation. www.infernosoft.com/woofbert/index.html
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
"It doesn't matter what I think." -- "Dr." Laura
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 16:27:17 -0700
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right?
Doug Begley wrote:
> There are the mysteries of
> what to do when an app stops. "Stop the process", of course, but how?
>From a GUI, KDE has ktop, which is a process monitor that'll
let you kill any running process. I like qps better - you can
find it on the net in various places.
Gnome probably has a similar tool. Of course it's always good
to know how to run ps or top (man ps, man top) from the CLI,
and use the kill and killall commands.
I thought it was a great post - anyone considering switching
to Linux should read it carefully. The only thing I'd add is
that if you *don't* have specific requirements, like certain
CAD or audio apps, most of your other software needs will
be met, usually with a choice of applications.
Arthur
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:08:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Calling the GPL 'free' is a lie. Almost everyone who is calling the
>GPL free, also give exceptions to show how it isn't free. The lie is
>obvious.
It is like saying this painting is pretty. We can say that while
simultaneously pointing how how ugly some part of it are, because we
understand the art of it. Some aspect of ugliness doesn't mean we
think the work is ugly. The reverse is also true. An ugly work, can
have some aspects of beauty. Overall revulsion doesn't mean that our
thinking is so narrow as to not to be able to see something beautiful
in such a work. This is what we mean when we say the world is not as
simplistic as you would have us believe. The point is entirely lost
on you. I know.
Your philosophy of freeness is more akin to mass. You think is is one
dimentional, and measurable. Actually, I think your view it more like
existence. It either exists and is obvious to all, or it doesn't.
Actually, the later would explain why you use the term lie all the
time.
Hint, find twenty classical works on freedom, and see if they always
talk about the exact single thing, with no possibility of
interpretation or value judgements. After you find them, list them
here, so that we may see that your right.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:15:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Actions of animate and inanimate objects are merged, fused and
>confused when people have serious mental illnesses.
>
>I suspect that we are dealing with bona-fide crazy people.
John, we're all crazy, didn't you know that. That's why it is called
gnu.misc.discuss. It is where the crazy people hang out.
Cool, I've been called crazy twice.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:20:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting John Dyson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 06 Jul 2000
>You, sir, (and I use the term lightly) are an entirely dishonest,
>unethical, unreasoning, ignorant, insulting, and annoying troll, with no
>desire to converse in a forthright and productive manner. Your every
>conjecture has been unsupported, your premise contrived and meaningless,
>and your methods scurrilous and duplicitous. You have not apparently
>made even a token effort to discuss these issues intelligently or with
>any integrity whatsoever. You are, as far as anyone reading your posts
>here could possibly determine, entirely without integrity to begin with.
This is classical Dyson. To know him, is to love him. He has far
more charm and humor than most usenet posters.
Ok, I confess, actually Dyson is an AI experiment I've been working
on. And just think, my AI professor said I would never get very
far. I've created a 4000 post flame war, and no one caught on he was a
program. Is the turing test still unawarded, I want to go claim my
prize now.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:35:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Quoting John Dyson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 05 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>>> The GPL is yet another commercial license (with source code available)
>>> in sheeps clothing :-).
>> I think that is a very adequate and agreeable way of putting it. I will
>> point out, however, that there is no monetary cost for a GPL license, so
>> your statement that it isn't "free" isn't very clear to me.
>
>Actually ... there can be monetary cost involved in the purchase of GPL
>licensed code; it just so happens that most of it is free of cost.
[ rubbing eyes] Wait a minute, did you just say that most of the GPLed
software is free? That's my line, dammit, stick to your own side.
Your side was that it wasn't free, and that calling it free was
dishonest and a lie, remember now.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:55:03 +0200
In article <8k9ecm$cro$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I mostly agree with Max, err at least I think so, but I wouldn't wish
> the above sentence on anyone. The only place I disagree with him is
> where he calls John a troll. I think John's point is legitimate, on
> topic, and not a deliberate lie just to goad people. I wouldn't
> classify it as trolling.
But, as I have argued before, he'd have a better chance to convince
people if he didn't insist on his personal definition of "free".
The consensus is pretty much that the GPL, being a license, does
limit certain uses of GPLed code.
It also seems that "freedom" hardly ever means "absolute freedom",
and selecting a particular issue as removing "freedom" has to be
a personal choice, and a valid one too.
Given the additional (cost) ambiguity the word "free" carries, and
the observation that most people think of gratis software when free
software is mentioned, I really don't think the issue (calling GPLed
software "free") is worth all the electrons.
I will continue to assume that those who choose to use GPLed software
do so with full knowledge of the costs and benefits. Those who use
GPLed software without bothering to find out if it is compatible with
their expectations don't warrant any consideration.
--
Stefaan
--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:50:15 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm glad you've put your arguments together in one post.
> No-one has proven the software encumbered by the GPL is free.
In matters of philosophy, proof is impossible. When talking
about freedom, especially when relating it to a new concept
(software), one can only offer definitions.
Discussion is only productive if people operate within the
same reference framework. If I've defined litterature to
exclude trashy novels, and you've defined it to include
trashy novels, we'll never reach an agreement on the statement
"Trashy novels are litterature".
> God doesn't create all software 'free', and that 'free' attribute is taken
> away from people.
Irrelevant.
> Software is 'free' only after the creator and owner
> give it away by licensing it for free and (no,very weak)-strings attached
> use and reuse.
OK. This is your definition of "free software", or "freedom as
applied to software". You should of course be clearer in your
use of English, and say:
"Software is only free (as in "freedom") when the owner of the
Intellectual Property it represents licenses it without cost,
and does not subject its use (defined as running the program on
one or many computers) and re-use (defined as making derivative
works in the Copyright Act sense, and distributing these derivative
works under any form or license, with or without cost, with or
without source code, and for any legal purpose, commercial, personal
or other."
The sentence above corresponds to the best of my knowledge
to your vague:
| "give it away by licensing it for free and (no)-strings
| attached use and reuse"
"However, you may not claim this software as your own, and
the software may not be used in the production of weapons of mass
destruction, legal or illegal drugs, pornography, tobacco
products, and popcorn."
And this is one definition of "(very weak)", that seemed to
make sense to me. I tossed in the popcorn to show how eminently
arbitrary such a list of "(very weak)-strings" is.
> GPL redistribution encumberancs are not 'very weak', because
>
> 1) The encumberances of the original source/binaries
> that cover only the domain of the original creation of the owner.
>
> 2) The encumberances of the original source/binaries
> that also cover the contributions of other people who add code, which
> might be (are often) more significant than the code of the original
> owner.
>
> Item (1) above is probably okay to allow the GPL to be called 'free',
> since the original code bearer is only encumbering his/her own work.
> Item (2) is the killer that really disqualifies the GPL from being free.
By your definition, (1) is already enough to disqualify GPLed
software, because in your arbitrary list of things one cannot do
with the software is limiting its (re-)distribution by requiring
the redistribution of matching source code.
But, this is _your_ definition. There's no way you can force
people to accept your definition. You can only hope to convince
them, and, oh surprise, calling them liars, ill-informed, or
childish is _not_ the way to do this.
--
Stefaan
--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
