Linux-Advocacy Digest #572, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Why use Linux? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Why use Linux? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Why use Linux? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Mathias Grimmberger)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon? (TNT)
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:53:47 GMT
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:34:20 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have already said that there are some valid purposes for a port scan.
>However, can you imagine a non-illicit purpose of *this* port scan. Given
>that fact that I had already been using that IP address for more than
>24-hours before the scan started--as well as the fact that the scan
>continued for nearly half a day.
Yikes I am never on for that long. Can't happen with the wife and tree
kids all sharing the dialup. As soon as I get the DSL line it will be
different, but for now I hop on and off as needed. I have flat fee
calling so it doesn't matter.
>The better way to knock at the door is to just try to connect to the one or
>two services of interest and not scan my ports for 11 hours, 27 minutes, and
>4 seconds. An even better way to knock at the door would be to send me an
>email to ask me if I am offering any network server for public access.
I don't think I have ever been on for that long in my entire life.
First off I live on the ocean with above ground phone lines which are
noisy and unreliable.
Secondly Earthlink disconnects unless traffic is going on.
Third I have a timeout on the dialer for 1 hour in case I forget, or
pass out, whichever comes first :)
At this point I am getting a little nervous and have set ZoneAlarm for
paranoid settings.
>
>Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8k9n09$il4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> : make you feel that it is alright for someone without your permission to
>come
>> : by and check all your exterior doors and windows to see if any were left
>> : unlocked. Would you not consider that to be a hostile or at least
>> : unfriendly act?
>>
>> This analogy is flawed by the fact that it assumes illicit activity is
>> the only valid reason to make a scan. With portscanning that is not true
>> at all. What if I want to find out, "Hey, do these guys have a webserver,
>> or an FTP site, or something like that on one of their machines?", and
>> I'm not doing it for ilicit reasons, but just becasue I want to visit
>> their site if they have one? The notion that such actions should be
>> immediately suspect is unfair. It's like saying that knocking on
>> someone's door and saying, "helooo - anyone home?" is unethical because
>> it *might* be something a burglar would do.
>>
>> Things I have portscanned for before, that I don't consider illicit:
>>
>> 1 - Accidentaly deleted a bookmark link, knew the site in question tended
>> to run their websites on ports other than port 80, but I couldn't remember
>> which one - so I make a quickie script that portscans, and when it finds
>> a port that answers, it does a HTTP GET command to see if it responds
>> like a webserver or not. Used this to find which nonstandard port the
>> webserver was on.
>>
>> 2 - Had a legitimate account on a machine, but they weren't running
>telnet.
>> portscanned to figure out which alternate technique was set up (rsh,
>> ssh, etc.)
>
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 16:55:32 -0400
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (You meant to say ... "a licence which can be coopted by it.")
No, of course not. The original software under its original license
is just as available as before. Distributing the combined work under
the GPL in no way affects how the original can be distributed.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:52:49 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I'm not against porting such apps, I just haven't heard of any such apps
> > being ported.
>
> Many of those apps have been ported many times in the past already.
OK. Have they been ported to Linux?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:51:47 -0500
"Paul E. Larson" wrote:
> To bad you and many others filto realize that uptime counts are virtually
> meaningless!
Depends on the application. For Pa & Ma to read their e-mail, a few minutes
every day or two is all the uptime you need. For a Web site, a mail server, a
multi-user system, et many ceteras, 7/24 is exactly good enough. (Lots of
systems fall somewhere in between.)
> 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?
It tells me that:
a) your employer doesn't need 7x24 uptime, or
b) your employer should be running something more reliable, or
c) your employer should replace his/her IT staff.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:53:55 -0500
"Paul E. Larson" wrote:
> We have at work a Windows95 PC that has been running
> without reboot since the sub-department was formed 5-6 months ago. It is a
> meaningless statistic, since all the 486 does is act as a Netware print
> server.
I thought W95 was supposed to have a built-in 49 day drop-dead timer.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:55:25 -0500
"Paul E. Larson" wrote:
> Nope, what I am saying is that uptime bragging is meaningless and worthless
> unless taken in context.
Yes and no. "Yes", for obvious reasons. "No", because even without context it's
nice to know you have a system that *can* stay up for k days at a time.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:55:18 GMT
I remember using some software MNP 5 program to get extra baud. At the
time I was running a BBS using USR Courier modems that screamed with
the HST protocal at 14.4k.
I do remember acoustic couplers at 300 baud though and for a green
screen they were usable.
We have all become quite spoiled :)
DP
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:51:05 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What about usng a 300 baud modem to connect a dumb terminal with a timeshare
>system? -- Or worse than that, using a 150 baud link between a teletype and
>the cpu using the teletype's paper punch tape to as your primary data
>storage device?
>
>When I first got a 14.4K modem it felt sooo nice, but you were lucky to get
>a 9600K connection at that time. More often than not the other computers
>were limited to 2400 Kbaud.
>
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 14.4k?
>>
>> Ouch!!!!
>>
>> I thought I was doing bad a 28.8k...
>>
>> DP
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 05:05:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Bernie "sitting behind a 14.4k modem line" Meyer
>>
>
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:54:18 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> As I have said elsewhere, the history of computer industry has seen many of
> these apps ported and reported many times.
And when will they be ported to Linux?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 17:01:02 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> The thread is about whether the 'free' term is deceptive. The
> fact that there *is* a thread with people on both sides is
> enough to prove that point - the content of the argument is
> almost irrelevant.
No, the fact that some people claim that the GPL is deceptive doesn't
mean that it is decptive, any more than claiming that your brain is
green and crunchy at the core makes that so.
If there were a bunch of people posting "Oh my God! How could I have
been so stupid! Those GPL bastards lied to me! They lied!" you might
have a point, but there are no such people. There are only the vocal
but misguided few who claim to be posting on their behalf.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:54:26 GMT
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've always maintained what is obvious: Netcraft JUST counts domains and
> doesn't discriminate between a linux/apache domain of "joesmomma.com" vs
> W2K/IIS for dell.com - to Netcraft, they mean the same. So, all this Apache
> dominates the web is for those that think PURE number counts mean
> EVERYTHING. Bullshit I say. Someone finally proved it out for me.
Bwahahaha, I just knew that this would turn up in cola. It is not
surprising that it comes from you. No offense meant.
> The companies that matter,
Sorry. I don't understand. Why do only the Fortune 500 matter to the
WWW? What has size to do with relevance anyway?
Imagine a WWW where only the Fortune 500 had a web site. It would be
unbelievably boring. Noone would care about it.
In fact the WWW would not exist at all in such a scenario and the
Internet would still be exclusively universities. Maybe that would
actually be better than what we have got today... :-)
> those top companies, you know, money making ones?
Making money is not all that counts. It is important to companies, but
to the WWW? Sorry, but being exclusively concerned about making money
sounds - hmm, uhh, quite boring.
And how much of that money is made through the web sites surveyed? What
do you mean, the study doesn't say?
> Companies that are concerned about their image, product, availability,
> uptime, performance and all that matters cause their name/image on-line
> matters - they are NOT using apache and MOST DEFINATLEY not using Linux!
[M-x snip]
You seem to be saying that anyone not in the Fortune 500 doesn't give a
damn about image, product, ... I don't think this is correct.
Alternatively the sky on your planet may just be a different color from
the one here.
Some thoughts about this survey:
1.) It is US only (AFAIK the Fortune 500 are only US companies). May be
news to you: there is actually a whole world outside the US.
2.) It actually surveyed the "brochure sites" (their term) of those
companies. Hmm, wouldn't their e-commerce sites be somewhat more
important? If those companies actually have one.
3.) Selection of software at big companies has at least as much to do
with company politics as with technical merit. Anyone who worked for a
large company knows this (hehehe, I remember when it was decreed that
SNI should run all the mail servers on Exchange but the admins actually
concerned sabotaged the plan to kill their trusty Unix servers, same
where I work now - no Exchange for us even though Exchange is the
offical party line :-).
4.) It probably left out quite a lot of hosting companies - whose
servers probably get way more hits than that of some boring Fortune 500
company (most of them are boring, aren't they?).
A meaningful survey would check servers that *actually* generate revenue
and the servers with the most hits (revenue or not). It would include
information about uptimes, total cost of ownership (blech) and so on.
The survey you cite just says that the Fortune 500 "brochure sites" run
this and that web server. Not more, not less.
IOW, totally useless for anything besides advocacy purposes. And of
course showing it to PHBs.
MGri
--
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eat flaming death, evil Micro$oft mongrels!
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 17:03:16 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> This doesn't work if many people worked on the GPL code. Under
> those circumstances, the logistics of finding and contacting all the
> copyright holders makes it in practice impossible to ask for such
> permission. It doesn't matter how likely the copyright holders are
> to give special permission if you can't reach them.
Why not just use the original single-author version?
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 17:06:39 -0400
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By this definition, any software for which you can buy a license
> is free software, since it grants you freedoms beyond current
> copyright law, as soon as you agree to some restrictions (as
> everyone understands) like "you must pay me $399 first, and not
> give it to anyone else".
No. As several of us have said, you need to evaluate what the license
permits you to do and what the license restricts you from doing. Then
you can decide whether the permissions outweigh the restrictions
enough so that the word free can reasonably be applied. That's a value
judgement, with plenty of room for differences of opinion. But it's
hardly likely to stretch to a license like the one you describe.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:10:06 GMT
On 8 Jul 2000 04:25:04 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>: On 7 Jul 2000 22:35:38 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: >For another take, "Misadventures of a Linux Newbie from the Mac World":
>: >
>: > http://www.linuxnewbie.org/articles/macnewbie.html
>
>: ...which speaks of mounting filesystems manually with all the
>: gory command line options...
>
>: You can't even do that as a normal user. Nevermind the fact that
>: even Slackware sets you up with pre-canned mount configurations
>: for removable devices.
>
>What I liked was that he recognized that there were (at least) two
>aesthetics involved. The first piece was a little too sure of right and
>wrong.
The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. NeXTstep
demonstrated that a LONG time ago. Now guess what the
next MacOS will be (bastardized NeXTstep).
>
>: It's not a well informed piece.
>
>: BTW, VPC with Redhat bundled is going for $50 after rebate.
>
>He mentioned that the PPC Linux were running a year behind x86 in
>features. That might account for some of it.
I can't imagine the PPC Linuxen being that far behind. Besides,
what he was describing in terms of mount points isn't even true
for a 1995 era Slackware I don't think. (the memory is a bit
foggy on it however)
Besides, most stuff is just a recompile away with device driver
code being a bit more involved (however, I saw an Alpha developer
dibbling with bttv over 18mos ago).
Either way, there is still VPC for the squeamish and I severely
doubt that there are no re-paritioners available for MacOS such
that one would have wipe one's HFS partitions in order to install
Linux (another one of his gems).
--
Free Software: While some whine that it is not really 'free',
others are freely exploiting it's potential to make them money
with or without releasing the source to their own software.
Naysayers are more their own enemy than potentially viral licences.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 17:12:08 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> The software developer is harmed by the presence of GPL software even if he
> doesn't choose to use it because, by existing, the GPL software has made it
> harder for non-GPL software of similar functionality to spread, leaving the
> developer with fewer choices. Pretending the GPL software doesn't exist
> won't lead to the same situation that he would be in if it really never
> existed, since in that situation there would be more alternatives.
No one has an inherent claim on anyone else's money for something
they feel like doing. The goal of the GPL is exactly as you say,
to encourage the spread of free software and by doing so to cause
difficulty for developers of non-free software. If that means that
those developers can not be paid in the way in which they are
accustomed, too bad for them. They will need to find another way to
earn money.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (TNT)
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:12:31 GMT
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:44:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
<8kb6qm$3u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>What good would taking it to Earthlink do since it was not involved with
>this incident?
I think Earthlink uses Level 3 Communications' dialup network in New York.
Hope you already have reported to Level 3, as this case may involves IP
spoofing which I think is more serious than just a portscan.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:13:52 GMT
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:52:49 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm not against porting such apps, I just haven't heard of any such apps
>> > being ported.
>>
>> Many of those apps have been ported many times in the past already.
>
>OK. Have they been ported to Linux?
They have been ported to OSes with much leaner APIs that would
have required lots of extra work on the part of the porting teams.
[deletia]
Pretty much if Heavy Gear II can make it over, some edutainment
title that is user input bound should not be a problem.
--
Free Software: While some whine that it is not really 'free',
others are freely exploiting it's potential to make them money
with or without releasing the source to their own software.
Naysayers are more their own enemy than potentially viral licences.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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 21:09:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
>> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Care to prove it? (Hint: you can't.) From www.m-w.com, I find that:
>> Thanks for the reference...
>
>>> * 1free7[a-b] don't apply.
>> 7a1 and 7b seem to apply fairly well. 10 usually applies.
>
> 7a(1) : not obstructed or impeded : CLEAR
> b : not hampered or restricted in its normal operation
>
>I'm not sure why you think that either of these apply.
I am am not sure why you don't think they apply.
>7b is definitely not true about GPLed software -- because part of the
>normal operation is extension and redistribution, and there are
>significant restrictions on that operation.
You seem to think that reusing GPLed code in proprietary projects is
the normal use of GPLed code, it is not. Hint, take a servey of
10,000 people and ask them what they normally do with GPLed software.
You'll gain a clearer picture of what normal operations for GPLed
software is. You seem to think you understand what normal is, when it
is clear to us that you do not.
For me, I compile up software with gcc, I test gcc, I sometimes
contribute patches to gcc, I edit software with emacs, and I run
emacs, gcc and netscape with linux, these are my normal operations
with GPLed software. Call me weird or not typical if you want, but
you first must prove it.
>>> * 1free10 often applies, but is the 'free beer' sense.
>> Sounds like you agree with me on 10. If 10 often applies, then why is
>> it a lie to call GPLed software, free software, when you even agree it
>> often is.
>
>Because the claim is that 'free software does not mean free beer, but
>free speech'.
I never claimed that 1free10 didn't apply to GPLed software. I never
said that we must reject all notions of 1free10. The point remains,
1free10 usually applies. It isn't a lie to say that GPLed software is
at times 1free10.
>It's not the desired claim -- and it doesn't help your assertion that
>GPLed software is 'free' (as in liberty) software.
You must misunderstand my assertion. Claiming my point something that
it is not, and then defeating it is useless.
Not that you know what my point is, address it.
>>> * 1free12[a-b] doesn't apply.
>> I think 12 b also applies nicely.
>
> 12 b : not restricted by or conforming to conventional forms <free
> skating>
>
>Still doesn't seem to apply.
Before rms addressed what he thought was a problem by coming up with
the GPL, not many software packages in the world used terms as
infectious as the GPL. The GPL was for its time, unconventional. PD
was conventional for some software, use and enjoy and give me $10, was
by then conventional as well. Straight proprietary software was
conventional. An infectious clause as seen in the GPL was
unconventional.
>Sure, the permissions granted by the licence aren't 'conventional',
Ok, we are agree, it isn't conventional.
>but the language used to grant such permissions pretty much
>is.
Prove that this matters. That is like saying motion in free skating
is pretty much the same, and the skates are pretty much the same, and
then saying that the use of free in the phrase free skating hence is
wrong.
>Worse, it still doesn't apply to the 'liberty' claimed by GPLists.
Again, you must not understand my point. You cannot counter my point
without understanding it.
>>> * 1free14 *might* apply, except that it refers to animates and not
>>> inanimates.
>> free is perfectly good slag use of 14. Also, I question your
>> assertion. Look up slavery, 2 fits just fine, and it isn't limited to
>> persons. Please prove that slavery can only be applied to persons.
>
> free : 14 : not allowing slavery
> slavery : 2 : submission to a dominating influence
>
>I'd suggest that it's up to you to prove that nonanimates can be
>described with an animate sense (in other words, prove that a tool can
>be 'enslaved').
A typical proprietary license to me when applied to PD software (or
other software that one can get via ftp for free from the net), is a
dominating influence. There I have proved the use of the term is
appropriate. Now you prove it isn't. Prove that the application has
no influence, prove that the influence is inconsequential.
>>> * 1free15 definitely *does not* apply to GPLed code.
>> There are no limitations on who can use GPLed software. 15 certainly
>> does apply. Some people may choose that GPLed isn't right for them,
>> but they do so of their own choice. Also, most people `use' without
>> modification. For these people, GPLed software is in fact open to a
>> fairly wide audience.
>
> 15 : open to all comers
>
>The code isn't open to all comers at all.
It is. All that choose to use it, can use it. Some may choose not
to. That is like saying that russian roulette isn't open to all
comers just because you don't want to play, or don't like the outcome.
It is not open if we single you out before hand and say, you, you
cannot play.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:15:05 GMT
On 9 Jul 2000 04:03:48 GMT, void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 01:24:26 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Actually, it's simpler than that. In the other post, it seems like his
>>friend tried using a SCSI drive on an iMac _without_ a SCSI-USB
>>converter.
>
>He had the proper converter.
Would you expect a random PCI SCSI card to work in a G4 Mac?
--
Free Software: While some whine that it is not really 'free',
others are freely exploiting it's potential to make them money
with or without releasing the source to their own software.
Naysayers are more their own enemy than potentially viral licences.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
