Linux-Advocacy Digest #565, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mark Wooding)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Why use Linux? (Paul E. Larson)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:34:53 -0400
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 8 Jul 2000
>> 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.
> It slipped my mind entirely that this wasn't an explicit requirement,
> but isn't it a fact that all open source software is essentially "free"
> in this regard? I think "it just so happens" is understating the case.
>
> You might pay for distribution, or maintenance, or something, but you're
> not paying for the license, AFAIK, because open source and for-profit
> licensing don't make any sense at all together. For-profit licensing
> requires secret code.
You're not paying for the licence, but you may be paying for the software
covered by the licence. In essence, the difference is minimal.
Strictly speaking, I could write a GPLed program and sell it to you for
US$1M. Now, you can't stop me from giving it away to someone else, but
let's say that it's something that I won't have further use for.
You can then turn around and resell it to four people for US$300k
each.
Again, you can't stop them from giving it away (nor can they stop you
from later giving it away), but at this point, a total of five people
have the source code -- and that's *Just Fine*; the terms of the GPL
have been satisfied, without the source code ever becoming available to
the general public.
(In fact, this was one of the flaws of the early NPL -- either the .8
or .9 draft; it required that you submit all changes back, not just
flowing down the distribution pipeline.)
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:36:26 -0400
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Frankly, I tend to like something like GPL-free (to qualify the
>> term 'free' -- coining the term),
>
> I think GPL-free is a fine term. I think it is likely to convey what
> one wants to convey, and it is mostly unambiguous. It can be used in
> more contexts than the simpler term free can be used.
>
> Another term, is to just call it GPLed software. This doesn't have
> the loaded term free next to it, and is yet more preferable to even
> more people I suspect.
Agreement!
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:38:23 -0400
On 10 Jul 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In gnu.misc.discuss, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think GPL-free is a fine term. I think it is likely to convey what
>> one wants to convey, and it is mostly unambiguous. It can be used in
>> more contexts than the simpler term free can be used.
> I think FSF-free is slightly better, since it more obviously includes
> BSD-licensed software, public domain software, and all the other types
> that are defined by the FSF as being free. GPL-free may to some folks
> imply GPL-compatible or some other more restrictive set.
Hmmmm... I think, honestly, that GPL-compatible is what the FSF *wants*
to have by 'free'; I know they've written an analysis of licences, but
they hurt their own statements that the MPL is 'free' by recommending
against the use of the licence.
>> Another term, is to just call it GPLed software. This doesn't have the
>> loaded term free next to it, and is yet more preferable to even more
>> people I suspect.
> This too doesn't include BSD-licensed software.
However "open source" does.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:41:35 -0400
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
> 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.
Except that it is true.
It's up to you to explain how my downloading of a file from tucows reduces
its availability. It's *still there*.
(Consider that refutation, Mr Stump.)
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:43:41 -0400
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
> 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.
(Except that Mr Stump has forgotten that he's trying to argue that GPL
software isn't *just* free of cost ['free beer'] -- it's free as in 'free
speech' and 'free from slavery', which are not what the GPL provides.)
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:45:38 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> I'm having trouble sorting out the difference between opinion and what
> seems (to me!) to be observably true.
>
> I guess I am ascribing what you call is my opinion to fact.
And this is all I was saying in my previous post.
> Advocacy groups are generally speaking areas you can expect a fight in. I
> don't come looking for a fight, but I'll give you one if I hear certain
> things.
>
Yeah, that's kind of the way I approach now too.
> And I thought I was perfect! 8)
>
> OK, I will give considerable thought to qualifying my statements a bit more
> carefully.
Very good. I've went through various stages in my Linux lifetime. I
went through the initial feeling of freedom (first tried Debian 1.3.1
which had come free with my then-favorite magazine boot- now
MaximumPC). Then I went through the few months of feeling like telling
the world that Windows is nothing compared to Linux (because to me, that
is true). Then I came to the realization that this was just my opinion
(this was also a time of self-awareness for me in other areas of life).
Then I started to turn to the person you've been conversing with here.
I'm a hell of a lot more open minded than I was about a year and a half
ago. I realize that Linux isn't the be-all end-all any more than
Windows is. No one system can do it all, and when I realized that I
started fiddling with more OSes (when time permits) and learning a lot
more. I think it's all a part of growing up. I don't believe in
growing older. Growing older implies losing the ability to have fun.
Growing up implies simply learning to accept things as they exist, and
learning to apply subtle pressure when your first urge is to throw
yourself into the fray. My wife keeps telling me that men never grow up
(she says this because of things like my tendency to watch cartoons and
wrestle with my younger relatives). Yet, she understand after this
weekend. She insisted on going to Valley Fair (a fairly cool amusement
park in Minnesota). The entire time she was running from ride to ride,
laughing and jumping up and down at every moment. She was acting like a
big kid, and that's a good thing. We grow up, but we don't grow older
(in our mind and heart). I realize this has very little to do with
where our conversation started, but I just thought it was a cool story
that can be applied in this situation.
> On my second degree, we used a PDP11 running UNIX. That's where I first
> came across some of the ideas in UNIX (the directory structure) and some of
> my hatred of the shells! Later, working for Digital, I grew to like DCL
> (VMS) with all its peculiarities.
>
> To date I've only tried Linux (with KDE) and BeOS.
>
> My feeling about KDE is that it has a way to go as yet. My interest in KDE
> is that Borland are porting my favourite package, Delphi, to Linux as
> something codenamed Kylix. I'll be able to port things in Object Pascal and
> C++ to both Windows and KDE in one development package. My 3D scene editor
> running on both Windows and Linux!
>
KDE does have a way to go yet, as do most GUI environments on Linux.
KDE and GNOME are just barely beyond the newborn stage, and are now at
what I would consider adolescent stage. You can start to see what they
will become when they are all grown up, but they still have a lot of
growing to do. Right now, either if pretty usable to me, but my
requirements aren't that of the average home user.
> BeOS is a fairly nice package but it lacks hardware support, even more so
> than Linux.
>
And it's really too bad. BeOS is probably one of the pinacles of
operating system development (in my opinion). The filesystem acts as a
database with meta-data tags (a very cool feature that I would love to
see in other OSes). It has extremely fine-tuned SMP support, heavily
multi-threaded and just all around easy to work with. Yet it still
gives you access to a command line for those that enjoy it (which I
do). I think BeOS accomplished what most operating systems are still
trying to do. No, it's not perfect, but it is beautifully fit for
consumer systems. It's just too bad that it doesn't have the hardware
support and software support of third parties. And, unfortunately, it
seems that Be Inc. has given up on it altogether. They are still
selling it, but they have moved thier focus to embedded systems and
small time consumer devices, rather than continuing development on BeOS
for x86 and PPC. Too bad, it's a good system that maybe just came at
the wrong time.
> Linux (maybe I mean X?) the OS itself I feel has a way to go to making
> things easier for the user. I just installed XFree86 4.0.1 (support for my
> Voodoo 5 card) and it took a while to get that to work.
>
> On other machines - Mekon8 (hey, my own design BIOS for the 6809!)
> supporting FLEX9, RSX11, VAX/VMS (OpenVMS), Digital UNIX, Archimedes RISC
> OS and then all the Windows flavours (3.1 [eeeyuk], 95, 98, 98 SE, ME and
> 2000).
>
> As for the various distributions of Linux: Slackware (eek! guaranteed to
> terrify most Windows users!), RedHat and finally Mandrake.
> I've yet to try Mac.
>
> I became Windows centric as a career choice - you can see where the market
> is going here in the UK. Digital was moving heavily into Windows, and I
> descovered writing GUI's was a passion for me. I tried MOTIF first but that
> never seemed to get started. The Windows upstart crept in (cheaper machines
> after all) and I never looked back. I dropped RISC OS at home because the
> ARM chip at the time did not support floating point, something kinda
> cruicial to my interest in ray tracing (hence POVray).
>
> On the Archimedes I very nearly produced a commercial package in
> cooperating with a maths genius who rewrote Rayshade in ARM machine code.
> It was my 3D scene editor plus his ray tracer. Unfortunately, I could never
> agree a contract, the Archimedes started its nosedive, so nothing ever
> materialised.
>
> Pete
I was forced to be Windows centric to get to the position I am in now.
I hated every minute of it. Windows just does not make sense to me. I
know how to make it work, and I know how to get it usuable for others
(apparently I knew better than my last boss, Network Admin that didn't
even understand how to set up an NT server), but I was never comfortable
with it. It was knowledge I was forced to use to better my carreer.
Now, I can finally use the knowledge that I actually enjoy using. I've
always leaned towards Unix, ever since my discovery of it. It seems
cleaner to me, and "feels" better. It's like the difference between
being in a stuffy room on a hot day (Windows) and being out on a small
hill in a cool evening breeze (Unix). See, I know that this is going to
be taken wrong by somebody. I know that it looks like I'm attacking
Windows, but honestly, don't we all know someone that would rather be in
that hot and stuffy room? I do. So, once again it is simply an
opinion. My opinion is Unix is better for me. I don't know what's
better for another person until I know that person well enough to sort
of map his/her habits to the computer.
It seems our conversation is about to end here. It was nice chatting
with someone that was willing to actually have a decent conversation,
rather than the usual diatribe of self-righteous crap I see happening on
nearly every thread. See ya around!
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Wooding)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 15:21:49 GMT
[John Dyson] wrote:
[In response to the example of Kerberos]
> It does show a lack of understanding. The argument is also weak...
> Please refer to the triumph of the (really free) XFree86 over the
> unfortunate attempt by the X consortium.
But the non-copyleft nature of XFree86 is being taken advantage of
frequently. We're being given servers derived from XFree86 with
proprietary hardware drivers in them. This is convenient for users of
some bits of graphics hardware. But this is an insidious process: the
convenience of having a driver *now* overcomes most users' desire for
free software, and it's slowly becoming `acceptable' for X hardware
drivers to be hoarded, and if this continues, it will be all but
impossible to run a free-software operating system on modern client
hardware.
If XFree86 were copylefted, for example with the GPL, this couldn't
happen.
-- [mdw]
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:33:04 -0400
Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> It was the Sun, 09 Jul 2000 09:47:27 -0700...
> ...and Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Programs allegedly not available for Linux]
> > > > Um, Yahoo Messenger. Um, ICQ. LOL.
> > >
> > > Nope. ICQ and Yahoo compatible agents are available.
> >
> > The Yahoo Messenger is Java Messenger, which sucks. The ICQ is Java
> > ICQ, which I know nothing about except that it is not updated much and
> > lacks a number of features in the regular version.
>
> Nonsense. We've got dozens of non-official Linux clients for ICQ, Yahoo
> Messaging, AIM and such. Some of them are better than their official
> counterparts.
>
> You should try GnomeICU one day.
Which clients do you recommend for each one?
>
> mawa
> --
> Only the Objectivists have an answer to all our problems, and it's
> wrong. -- Hans Huettel
--
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.
------------------------------
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 11:39:55 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8jqg8j$22k4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <Kr185.4271$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > >I don't know enough of the details of SMTP, POP and IMAP to
> > >know how this works; it does nto seem like an example
> > >of using a standard protocol to interoperate. It seems like
> > >three protocols.
> >
> > If you don't understand the issues, why continue the discussion?
>
> Hey, you brought up these protocols. If you meant to end
> the discussion by doing so, then I must offer a different
> strategy:
>
> Just ask to end the discussion.
>
> > SMTP is the transport protocol that handles delivery to
> > the destination host where it is stored for access by the
> > user.
>
> "the"? You mean its the one Unix uses, right?
>
> I would not be very surprised to learn that Exchange
> has another one.
>
> You mean SMTP the *most popular* one, and thus
> everyone ought to use it, right? Sort of like Windows? :D
>
> > POP and IMAP are network user access protocols that
> > allow reading the stored messages on demand. POP simply copies
> > the messages over to the user's program, usually all at once.
> > IMAP allows the messages to remain stored on the server and
> > accessed from different remote locations. You can also
> > use other protocols simultaneously, and all of these have
> > had protocol revisions which can co-exist. Where is the
> > 'very limiting' part of this?
>
> I suspect the devil is in the details, really.
>
> > >Proprietary protocols are not necessarily *better*; but they exist
> > >and pretending they don't doesn't make them go away.
> >
> > It is irrelevant that they exist if they don't interoperate except
> > that they reduce the value of the ones that do. It is like a building
> > with a private phone network that doesn't interconnect with the
> > public lines. If enough places used such things that you couldn't
> > contact the people you want, your own phone would become useless.
>
> It's true that these protocols don't miraculously solve the
> problem of interoperability; no protocol can do so unless
> it is forced down the throats of everyone.
These standards are described by IEEE.
The Standards are usually decided upon AFTER a sufficient time
(usually over a year) of taking responses from an officially
issued "Request for Comments"
The Unix community doesn't unanimously jump on the bandwagon
until AFTER some standards organization has defined the standards.
>
> Unix *has* been able to do a certain amount of htis, because
> it has dominated the Internet and it *refuses* to interoperate
> with anything. So everyone else has learned to use some of
> Unix's protocols.
Conforming to PUBLICLY PUBLISHED STANDARDS is "refus[ing]
to interoperate with anything" ??!?!?!?!
This must be a new definition of "refuse" that nobody else has
ever heard of before.
You're fucked up1
You're so fucked up, you don't even know you're fucked up!
And that's what's really fucked up.
--
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.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:40:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>This is why:
>
>=== script output ===
>
>Mon Jul 10 13:42:15 SAST 2000
> 1:42pm up 28 days, 1:23, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.14, 0.29
>USER LINE LOGIN-TIME FROM
>nicc tty2 Jun 12 14:13
>nicc :0 Jul 5 15:07
>
To bad you and many others filto realize that uptime counts are virtually
meaningless! The main machine at my place of employment has a MAXIMUM up time
of 7 days. Every 7 days we IPL the machine regardless of anything. What does
that fact tell you?
Paul
--
"Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie."
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:41:16 -0400
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >No. He's talking about GAME-MACHINE hardware.
>
> I'm talking about much more than game machine hardware.
spin, spin troll
>
> Pete
--
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.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 10:45:36 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>The GPL encourages bad design?
>>
>>This is a theoretical case, but assume that a good standard actually
>>is implementated with GPL'd reference code. The GPL prevents
>>it being used in a vast number of circumstances, so those instances
>>are forced to invent something that that not only is not as
>>good, but is unlikely to interoperate correctly with the copy
>>that you use.
>
>The GPL would only prevent it being used in one single circumstance:
>profiteering.
The GPL prevents code from being combined with any non-GPL'd code
and has nothing to do with profiteering. That is, just
about everywhere except for those who share the need to impose
restrictions.
>You certainly make the case for GPLing all reference code
>for interoperability standards, but I doubt that wouldn't seem extreme
>to the market at this point in time.
Huh? I'm trying to make a case for reference code without
restrictions that prevent it from being used. If the
original BSD TCP/IP code had been so restricted I don't
think the internet as we know it, with correctly interoperating
components from many vendors, would exist.
>>>I don't think so. Corporations that
>>>want to profiteer on IP encourage bad design.
>>
>>Perhaps, but the way to avoid that is to make the reference
>>code usable by all, in any combination with anything else,
>>not to prevent use of the well-tested base code.
>
>No, the way to avoid that is to avoid profiteers. Since they don't
>generally get into a position you can avoid them, that usually requires
>legal action. Soon the Supreme Court may make a decision that this will
>finally be possible in the software markets.
I think it is much better to encourage competition, as happened
in the TCP arena. Give everyone access to the same base code
and don't worry about what they do with it.
>>>The GPL does not
>>>contradict commercial development, distribution, or sale of software.
>>
>>Yes it does. Where is the GPL'd component that incorporates
>>DES encryption or RSA, etc. No GPL'd code can be included in
>>any software that requires non-GPL'd code.
>
>So don't GPL your code, nobody's forcing you to. Just because no GPL
>code can be included in any software that "requires non-GPL'd code" (I'm
>not sure what that means) does not mean that GPL contradicts commercial
>development, distribution, or sale of software.
How can you say that? Do you believe that *no* existing code
with restrictions other than the GPL is useful or needed?
>In fact it sounds like
>it only contradicts commercial development, distribution, and sale of
>non-GPL software, and while that may not be the same as promoting the
>development/sale of GPL software, it does seem to have a similar effect.
No, it makes the inclusion of GPL code impossible. I don't see how
you get 'promoting' out of that...
>>And since they can't be combined, anything that requires components
>>that are commercially owned cannot have any GPL'd parts.
>
>A very common mistake, this is. Software can be combined in a variety
>of ways that don't require combining source code. If you want to make
>up an imaginary or potential case where this becomes difficult, feel
>free, but I don't care how difficult the job is if your work is
>predicated on keeping intellectual property secret, your job should be
>difficult, because intellectual property shouldn't be secret.
Secret isn't the point. The components you need may already
be copyrighted or patented by others.
>>Just
>>like things that are less restricted than the GPL. Neither one
>>makes any sense from the perspective of potential users of this
>>prohibited code.
>
>It is the "commercial" code which is "prohibited". Open source software
>is not prohibited at all, unless you're a profiteer.
No, the GPL prohibits combining with any non-GPL licence. It has
nothing to do with being commercial or making profit. It is just
a restriction that prevents many useful developments.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
