Linux-Advocacy Digest #588, Volume #27 Tue, 11 Jul 00 06:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux code going down hill (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Running Linsux on a Compaq? Good luck!!! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Russ Allbery)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm
ready! I'm not ready.)) (Steve Mading)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:02:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
22:00:06 -0400
>On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
>>>> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> And the inconsistancy of the GPL, is that some people call the
>>>>> GPL 'free', and then apply constraints, rules and regulations to
>>>>> the redistributions... This makes GPL inconsistant with free
>>>>> software.
>>>> Are you a free man? Do you have any constraints placed upon you? Are
>>>> there any rules and regulations that you must obey?
>>> Is software now a legal person?
>>> It's amazing that you can't tell the difference between a tool and a
>>> person.
>> Please explain what the above has to do with it.
>
>Persons cannot be enslaved. Tools aren't persons, and therefore cannot be
>enslaved. The same applies to software, since software is merely a tool.
>
>Surely you can understand *that* difference, right?
All right, without the trolling:
Mike, for the argument 'does a free man not have restrictions' to be
understood , one has to assume that software can metaphorically be
placed in the role of a sentient, animate, person. Austin's very clumsy
reply was meant to question whether this is valid. He is apparently
unaware that one can substitute anything for anything else in a
metaphor, as that is what a metaphor is.
Austin; obviously software can't be enslaved, except metaphorically.
And that, of course, is precisely the connotation that is being used.
Can an animal be enslaved? Can an animal be free?
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:03:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Mike Stump from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
21:27:05 GMT
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Mr Stumped proves once again that he can't tell the difference
>>between a tool and a person. (Hint: animates can be enslaved, tools
>>-- inanimates -- cannot.)
>
>Prove it. The dictionary you cited didn't restrict the term slavery
>to only applying to humans or animates, it merely said:
>
> Main Entry: slavery
> Function: noun
> Date: 1551
> 2 : submission to a dominating influence
>
>Pretty clear to me. Cite a reference, other than yourself, or someone
>particitating in this thread that says the term cannot be used in
>this context.
Logical arguments cannot reasonably rest purely on dictionary
definitions. Surely you people are smart enough to realize that.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:04:40 -0400
Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> > I don't believe AIX has been ported to the AS/400, has it?
> > [I might be uninformed...who knows]
> >
>
> No, I don't think AIX has been ported to AS/400, but you could run Linux.
> Actually, I'm not sure what the current status of Linux is for AS/400, but
> IBM has committed to get it working.
I remember when I used to work at a stock broker's office.
I made the comment "there used to be a saying `You can buy an
IBM, but IBM still owns it'" One of the (pro-IBM) VP's said..
"yeah...I remember when I went out looking for a used AS/400.
Found a business that was going bankrupt, and the DP manager
said, Yeah, I can sell it to you...but it won't do any good.
.....and that is when I found out that IBM's *LICENSE* just to
run the OS was about $500,000 / year."
>
> Gary
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:07:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
>On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
>> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Mr Stumped proves once again that he can't tell the difference
>>> between a tool and a person. (Hint: animates can be enslaved, tools
>>> -- inanimates -- cannot.)
>> Prove it. The dictionary you cited didn't restrict the term slavery
>> to only applying to humans or animates, it merely said:
>
>Actually, you're the one making the extraordinary claim, Stump. Convince
>the world that code can be enslaved, or that by the alleged enslavement of
>code, developers are thereby enslaved.
>
>(Hint: you can't. The language doesn't support meaningful sentences
>that attempt to do so, which is different than supporting sentences
>that pretend to do so. [...]
The fact that the language does not support stating "free software" is
merely an illustration of your inability to comprehend what is meant by
the phrase. Consider it a metaphor, if you wish, but it is a valid
concept. Software which can be used by the greatest number of people in
the greatest number of ways, despite restrictions required to maximize
the use of that software freely, is "free software". It has been
liberated from the shackles of enslavement to robber barrons. So to
speak. Assuming your grasp of the language can handle it.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Running Linsux on a Compaq? Good luck!!!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:07:23 -0400
Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> It was the Sun, 09 Jul 2000 19:16:12 -0400...
> ...and Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Hint: The Linux port of Corel Office runs on an *emulator layer*, and
> > > > > it's crap.
> > > >
> > > > Wine is an emulation layer?
> > >
> > > Correction: An API translation layer. (A thick one.)
> >
> > Does wine have to translate API's instead of just running them?
> > This might be more of a performance hit than I thought.
>
> How do you "run an API"?
>
> Wine is an implementation of the Win32 API. But it needs to emulate
> the Windows loader to be able to open and resolve Windows EXEs, DLLs
> and such. It also needs to translate GDI into the X11 protocol. Stuff
> like that.
What the hell does GDI stand for, anyway?
>
> mawa
> --
> MEIN HERZ FÄLLT IN EIN LOCH
--
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]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:09:04 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 14:54:08 GMT, Jim Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>On Tue, 4 Jul 2000 11:10:02 GMT, Jim Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >>>Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>>>Windo's is weal made.
> >>>
> >>>Good one Tim. You mean it makes you come out in a rash?
> >>>You must admit, this troll does have his moments.
> >>
> >>I mean its made good, not like LIE-nux that is maid by commy's and
> >>their all stoppid hippy's that cant' make a hole OS.
> >
> >Ah, a response from Tim Palmer. Does this mean I've arrived?
> >I'd say that Windows was more of a "hole OS" than Linux. Linux
> >holes tend to get plugged very quickly.
>
> ...but LIE-nux has more hoals to plug.
damn, you're dense.
> >
> >jim
> >--
> >http://madeira.physiol.ucl.ac.uk/people/jim/
> > "Revenge is an integral part of forgiving and forgetting" -The BOFH
--
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: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 11 Jul 2000 02:19:01 -0700
In gnu.misc.discuss, T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoting Russ Allbery from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 09 Jul 2000 23:10:01
>> Yes, it does, because it's based on copyright law, and copyright law
>> makes that distinction.
> That would be copyright law making the distinction then, not the GPL.
> And that is a very important distinction, I think.
Fair enough.
> Because, unlike secret source commercial code, it is only copyright law
> which requires that you agree to the license.
For the time being at least, I believe that's true of commercial code as
well. I don't believe there is any special statutory power given to
shrink wrap licenses at this time, although there's an effort underway to
do that precisely because it looks like copyright law may not be enough to
support them. I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, though, and that's very
much a legal question.
> Commercial software licenses have a very different character, and are
> not "based on" copyright law, but merely your agreement when you buy it
> to agree to its stipulations.
This is unclear.
> Users don't need to agree to it other than its the only way they can get
> the trade secrets which are the source code, because everyone who has
> the trade secrets is bound by license not to give them or sell them to
> anyone else.
I'm fairly certain that your use of "trade secret" in this context is
legally incorrect, at least from the formal definition of a trade secret,
but again that's based on my understanding of how trade secrets work
(largely derived from the various Church of Scientology struggles over
this issue) so I could well be incorrect. But I don't think the program
that you receive from MS is properly a trade secret, given that they're
not keeping it secret. The *source code* may be, but note that the source
code isn't part of the license and isn't an issue at all with proprietary
software. You're not being given it in the first place.
> The user of a binary compiled from open source doesn't need to agree to
> a license,
This is somewhat unclear as well, actually, but that's a longer argument.
(It's interesting to read the various open source licenses and figure out
what they say about how the program can be *used*.)
> because they aren't copying it in any way that isn't allowed by fair use
> or essential steps exemptions in copyright law.
Wait, hold on, you're going a little too fast. The essential steps
provision applies exactly the same to proprietary software as it does to
open source software. That provision says that when you're in possession
of a legal copy of a computer program, you can perform any additional
copying that's required as an essential step to make use of the copy that
you have (namely load it into memory and perform other similar sorts of
"internal" copies).
The fundamental difference between proprietary and open source software
isn't at this level. The difference lies in what's required to get a
legal copy of the program in the first place.
> Could you be more specific?
Kerberos, under the hood, isn't actually that complex as far as large
software packages go. It's certainly not that hard to reimplement from
the protocol descriptions. MS's Kerberos implementation is not
bug-compatible with MIT's, has some very substantial differences at the
core level with how it interacts with their server software (such as all
the Active Directory tie-in's), and otherwise does not behave like a
derivative of MIT's work. It's quite possible that MS programmers looked
at the MIT code in the process of writing their own, but it's also quite
possible that they didn't (out of legal paranoia).
> Well, there you have a point, I'll admit. But if we're talking
> copyright law, then it is common to view the work in order to see how
> derivative it is. And software "developers" that make their profits on
> secret source don't generally like a lot of people examining their code,
> which makes it a might hard to consider, let alone determine, just how
> derivative the code is.
Certainly true. (It's quite possible that there are various commercial
packages that do contain GPL'd code and have successfully hidden this
fact.)
> I mean, there's no new algorithms, right, but the source doesn't have to
> be cut-and-past to be considered "use of the underlying work".
Correct. However, it's *not* clear whether simply looking at the other
work makes your work a derivative work. It's rather hazy legal territory,
as far as I understand, and open to interpretation.
> You're right that the GPL can't draw the line. You're wrong to think
> that this means that copyright law can draw that line very easily or
> simply.
I'm not arguing that. I'm just pointing out that MS is a company that
pays a great deal of attention to legal issues (and takes advantage of
them) and was aware going in that their Kerberos implementation was going
to undergo quite a bit of scrutiny in that department. I don't like MS's
management either, but they're not stupid, not about things like this.
> "Derivative work" is a concept that only makes sense when everybody can
> view the work itself, such as literature, artistic images, and source
> code. So if your source code isn't "published" (open), there's no
> reason to assume that a work that could be derivative, isn't derivative,
> as I've said.
Well, yes, there is. Innocent until proven guilty, which is a rather
fundamental assumption underlying our entire legal system (even the civil
court system; the plaintiff still bears the fundamental burden of proof in
most situations).
> If MS was known for not being sloppy, Windows would work well, and they
> wouldn't have held on to those incriminating emails.
Purging e-mail is remarkably difficult, and MS *isn't* sloppy. If MS were
sloppy, they wouldn't be where they are today. They're very large, and
they're driven by marketing and sales goals rather than strong
engineering, but that is not the same thing. Just because MS's software
isn't up to the reliability standards that many of us would like to see
doesn't mean that the company isn't good at what it does. MS is *very*
good at what it does; it's just that producing high-quality,
high-reliability software isn't what the company was constructed to do.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:21:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
> The term "virtual thing" is an oxymoron.
>
>Not really.
Ironically, "not really" is something of an oxymoron, as well, but not
in the same way. "Virtual object" is an oxymoron, and 'object' is the
closest to the concept of 'thing' which I can think of to match the
context. An object is a thing, a virtual object is not a thing (it
might be considered a representation of a thing, but it is not the
thing, though the representation itself may be a thing, but is not an
object). You follow?
>> "Virtual" is superfluous;
>
>Use "digital" if you prefer.
I prefer not to use superfluous concepts. Virtual and digital would
both be superfluous. Software is not a digital object; it is
intellectual property, which is a "thing" only in the abstract.
>> something is a thing (having direct physical effect), or it is not.
>
>You do understand that software *does* have a direct physical effect,
>don't you?
Direct? No. Software has no direct physical effects. Running software
changes electrical signals inside a computer, and these can be amplified
to produce physical effect, but the software itself has no impact on the
real world until some"body" reads it, and decides to act based on what
they read, and that's an indirect effect.
>All software does, even if it's just taking up bits on a
>disk.
Has physical characteristics? The software? No. The term software the
way we've been describing, which is the intellectual property, does not
take up bits on a disk. It is only in the mind of the author; all else
is just a *copy* of the intellectual property, not the software itself.
>Because software is 'virtual' or 'digital', it has *different*
>properties than most other physical things, but software is a blend of
>conceptual and physical.
Well, I would think of that as something like the GPL itself. When you
blend conceptual with anything else, physical or not, the result is
entirely conceptual. Software is conceptual. The physical
manifestations you're thinking of are referred to as "source code" or
"object code", which are representations of the software, but are not
really the software itself, in the context we've been discussing.
>Gimme a break -- I *am* a software developer, and I'll tell you now
>that the software that I create *is* a thing -- but it isn't
>constrained by the same restrictions as purely physical things.
If it isn't restrained by physical things, then it isn't a physical
thing, and so is not an object, what I meant by "thing". You cannot
"create" things; it violates the laws of physics. The only thing you
can invoke into being through nothing but intellectual effort is
intellectual property, which the law treats as something like a thing.
Since you are involved in creating this stuff, you would, with no doubt,
consider it to be rather "real" and substantial in existence. But it
isn't. You are an author; your code has no more physical impact than
the words of a reporter writing for the New York Times. People reading
their words, or computers running your programs, may go on to take
physical actions based on those instructions, but that doesn't give
physical reality to the reporter's "free speech" intellectual property,
beyond its representation as black splotches on a newsprint page, nor
your "software", whether you consider it free or want to bind it.
Metaphorically.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 03:29:13 -0500
root wrote:
> I still say Windows sucks.
I say, your Linux experience is likely to go sour on you if you keep
loggin in as root.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:27:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 200
>> It is not "free" in that it dissallows others to restrict
>> the freedoms that they themselves have exploited. That is
>> liberty versus anarchy that devolves into despotism.
>
>It disallows that, and it also disallows much else.
>For example, some say it disallows combining code under the GPL with
>original code under other licenses.
They would be factually incorrect. There are reasons to decide not to
combine GPL code with code under other licenses, but the GPL does not in
any way disallow it. In fact, it makes explicit allowances for it,
although these may not be enough to convince some to decide to combine
GPL and non-GPL code.
>That is another form of despotism.
Your statement is another form of dishonesty.
>> [deletia]
>>
>> You support developers that trade security for a minor bit of
>> convenience so your motivation to attack the GPL is quite clear.
>
>I have no idea what you are talking about.
>And I am hardly attacking the GPL. You don't see me saying "the GPL
>should be forbidden", do you?
Calling something despotism is not an attack? Both of these statements
(all three sentences, in fact) seem disingenuous on casual reading.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready!
I'm ready! I'm not ready.))
Date: 11 Jul 2000 09:21:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Quoting Jonadab the Unsightly One from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 04
: [...]
:>Intuitive? What does that even mean? It means it
:>does what you'd expect, right? But then we should
:>call Perl intuitive, and that makes no sense whatever.
:>(I like Perl, BTW; that isn't my point.)
: <G> Intuitive means, I have it on good authority (my own), "familiar".
Nah - It means easily guessed. Something that is intuative is
something that, even if you don't already have experience with it,
you can figure it out pretty easily because your first guess is
mostly correct. Once you are already familiar with it, the word
"intuative" isn't really meaningful. It refers to learning curve
at first exposure. (In that regard I disagree strongly with MS's
claims the Windows GUI is intuative - it isn't, it's just that its
really hard to find someone who hasn't already learned in the basics.)
Just because training in something is widespread doesn't mean it
is intuative. After all, driving a car is very complex and hardly
intuative at all, yet everyone has informal "training" in it as
children watching their parents, so we don't notice how hard it is
to do. Why, for example, does the key go into the side of the
steering wheel? That's not something you'd ever guess if you
hadn't seen it before. How do you keep the car aimed correctly
when you are sitting off to one side of it instead of in the
middle (your center isn't the car's center and so you have to
learn to project your path at a skewed angle in your mind.) Why is
the long flat pedal the 'go faster' one and the wide one is the "go
slower" one? It's not something you'd ever guess without knowing.
(automatic transmission on the hump) Why do you pull the shifter
back to go into drive, and push it forward to go into reverse?
When do you and don't you need to push that little button on the
shifter to make it move? Exactly how much pressure do you put on
the big long pedal to maintain the same speed (answer: depends on
how fast you are going, but the scale is not linear.) So far I
haven't even begun talking about the really hard stuff, like how
slippery skidding works, or the traffic laws that you have to
remember. Anyway, my point is that intuative does not mean
already-learned (as in the example of the complex act of driving a
car), but simple-to-learn.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:33:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Russ Allbery from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 10 Jul 2000 00:19:17
-0700
>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.
But the obvious marketting contradiction which provides that "X"-free
means that it doesn't have X, makes these silly musings. "Free" is as
much an approximation as anyone except someone who wants to combine GPL
code with non-GPL code ever needs to care about, so I don't see anything
wrong is calling GPL "free software". Then again, I'd probably call BSD
and MPL and all the other open source licenses "free software", as well,
though admittedly they don't have the connotation that RMS intends.
If you can't stand that idea, perhaps "freedom software" is good enough
to satisfy the proponents, and semantically defensible enough to quite
the opponents.
>> 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.
Yea. Free software is any open source, freedom software is GNU/GPL, and
GPL software is anything that is GPL, whether it is GNU or not. How's
that? Are we agreed?
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
