Linux-Advocacy Digest #591, Volume #27 Tue, 11 Jul 00 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: A cute linux song (Gary Hallock)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Nik Simpson")
Re: * User-friendly software.. (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Mikey)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mark Wooding)
Re: OFFICIAL (Jeff Hall)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Why use Linux? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Why use Linux? (Phill)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:25:14 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A cute linux song
Tim Palmer wrote:
NOTHING 13 times
I suppose this is Tim Palmers lame attempt at a DoS attack.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:33:17 -0400
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8kefcs$3p2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > so, your reply to these articles is something to do with google needing
such
> > a huge cluster of boxes and your unsupported claim of zero downtime
since
> > inception?
> >
>
> The reason that theyve had zero downtime since their linux cluster
> approach is because of "redundancy". I dont expect you to know what
> that means.
And if you couldn't get zero downtime out of a 6000 node load balanced
cluster, it would be pretty sad ;-)
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:33:51 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: * User-friendly software..
Tim Palmer wrote:
> On Monday, 10 Jul 2000 17:42:59 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >begin 644 logo2.gif
> >M1TE&.#=A( @ +,/ ( " (" @( @ " @,# P(" @/\ #_
> >M /__ __\ _P#______RP ( @ ,$;/#)2:N]..O-N_]@*(ZD" #3
> >MF9[HT[KON[:J"J.T;<]XOKH25E & ]9DM6+/<CQ2DE"B4A?+69G5H>^FQ?ZT
> >MR&QI3"Z;*8FT.EU>K]L)=)S,GM3']T>>E-^/^G-V;H.$@(6'AW)N9XR-CH\D
> >#$0 [
> >end
> >
> >FTP Now 2.0: Powerful FTP software allow you to easily download and upload files
>and resume if errors occur. With the friendly interface, it is suitable for both
>beginners and experts!
> >
> >* Windows 95/98/NT/2000 supported
> >* Recover a broken download
> >
> >It was registered to the download.com, winsite, Myfolder.net, and etc...
>
> Does it run on Lie-nux? Didant think so. Lie-nux couldent run a program like that
>becoz it would take
> up to much resorces and LIE-nux neads 'em coz its so fucking slow.
>
Obviously you have never heard of gftp. Iy provides a very nice GUI for ftp, handles
resuming after errors, and will compare local and remote directories and highlight
files that are
missing or different. But then why do I bother trying to have an intelligent
conversation with an idiot like you who?
Gary
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:45:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (void) wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:11:36 -0400, Rick
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >Hmmm.. then DOS was not (is not) a real OS, huh? in order to be a REAL
> >OS you have to have pre-emtive multitasking huh?, Well, if I dont have a
> >REAL OS on my mac, whats controlling it?
>
> Jedi answered this well.
>
> Allow me to take back my hasty statement. MacOS is a real OS; so is
> DOS, to a lesser extent. What I should have said is this: any OS that
> pretends to be "state-of-the-art" includes preemptive multitasking.
If being "state of the art" is more important to you than getting your
work done, then pat yourself on the back.
It's called buzzword compliance.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:17:47 -0500
Through your entire post you seem to say that I am defending Microsoft.
I know that the software is crap. I won't use Windows on my systems (or
my companies network) because of that fact. But it is possible to set
it up in such a way that it doesn't crash constantly. Now, if you want
to continue to rant and tell me what a fucking idiot MS supporter I am,
feel free. Just because I don't say MS sucks at every third word in my
posts doesn't mean I think they don't suck. It is possible to be
subtle. God, I really get sick of this. Anybody in the Linux camp that
sees someone that doesn't just scream what absolute crap shit MS is is
duped as a fucking MS supporting lackey. Great, pull the other one.
I have avoided MS software for the last five years. I've used it when I
have to. Believe it or not, I have been able to make it run on a couple
of machines without difficulty. Those machines were by far not the
"normal" MS behavior, but it happened. Am I supposed to deny that
happened at all just to support my personal belief that Linux is
better? Well, I won't. I don't lie just to serve my views up. I tell
the truth. If it hurts that bad, don't read it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:28:09 -0500
Andres Soolo wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > a long way to make this happen. Then it brings up the age old paranoia
> > that people have about how machines will take over the world if we allow
> > them to *think*, but I think we could find ways around that. Make the
> That's exactly why the Asimov's robots needed the Three Laws of Robotics :-)
>
> > towards. I think that it is the only way to make sure that computers
> > are truly *intuitive* to novice users. Make it something that can be
> No more intuitive--that won't be the goal by then. Useful.
> Would you say `intuitive' of a normal person?
>
Yes, but the goal that would take us to that point would be making the
machines more intuitive. This is why we need the interfaces and
intelligence I was talking about. Beyond that point it would change to
usefulness, but until we hit that point, we are still aiming for
something intuitive (as this is what is constantly bandied about
nowadays).
> > own they would start working against humanity, he took the unique
> > approach of the computers using their political power to do so.
> I'd guess properly programmed computer *not depending on a specific
> subset fo humans* wouldn't. Remember, hate is a human emotion and
> the desire to multiply is only inherent to biological organisms.
> (And, well, memes, but for cardinally different reasons.)
Well, it wasn't hate that drove the computers in this story, it was
desire to further their own goals (like most political figures). The
computers were trying to "create god" and they were also trying to find
a way to make themselves totally independent of humans. Also, any
sentient being (as computers that truly *THINK* would be would want to
multiply. These machines (in the Hyperion stories) actually had that
desire. Whether we actually build machines to do that or not is up to
us and time I guess :).
>
> --
> Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Often statistics are used as a drunken man uses
> lampposts -- for support rather than illumination.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:33:42 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> This is stuff of Science Fiction for now.
Yes, but like I said this is my idea for where we should be heading. It
isn't where we are capable of being tomorrow, but where computing needs
to go to get to that *perfect* computer. Of course, the whole thing is
simply my opinion of where I would like to see computers go.
>
> I think my idea is more mundane. What I'd like to see is a mobile phone
> that works with a home land line system (so you get the best of both
> worlds), a PDA and have an internet connection (that costs little or
> nothing to use).
>
> They aren't here yet, but it looks like they're coming.
>
> Of course, the OS would be neither Windows/WinCE or Linux! Probably EPOC
> 32.
Reading this I think you may have missed my point. I'm talking about
ideal situations, not bundling technologies that are already here (like
I said, lose all the baggage we already have and start from scratch).
Or maybe you just have a less fantastical view of where computers should
head:).
> I've been reading a lot of Peter F Hamilton: Mindstar Rising, A Quantum
> Murder, The Nano Flower. Basically a lot about bioware implants, cores
> that contain complete personalities etc.
>
> Also by Greg Bear: Slant - artificial thinkers.
Greg Bear is another of my favorites, although he doesn't delve quite as
deeply into the technology behind things (like the computers
themselves). I still think he's a killer author of good sci-fi
stories. The other you mention I haven't ever read, may check him out
sometime.
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:45:25 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So Pete, when you say Linux lags behind Windows, I can't help but
> > laugh. Linux is so incredibly versitile that to compare it to a
> > toy OS like Win9X is simply ludicrous to me. Perhaps Windows is
> > better for you, as it is for many people. But when you claim that
> > Linux is somehow inferior to Windows, be aware that you are referring
> > to yourself only. There are very few computer-literate people who
> > would agree with you.
>
> Ah but there are a few, they're here in COLA. They've asked me to modify
> my statement, so it becomes:
>
> Linux lags behind Windows in some hardware products and
Unless, of course, you are running Win2K. Hewlitt Packard is *still*
pissed off at MickeySoft on the driver issue.
> Linux desktop lags behind Windows.
I'm running Gnome and (IMHO) my desktop is better than any Windows GUI
could provide. I can bounce from
4 different desktops, run WordPerfect, monitor my network, play Quake,
e-mail, websurf, check newsgroups, do program development, and not have
to re-boot 3 times a day. The only use my Windows workstation provides
is Visual Studio.
As far as the Linux desktop lagging, it's a matter of taste.
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
Best comment in source code /*Drunk...fix later*/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Wooding)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 11 Jul 2000 14:11:00 GMT
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You do realize that X exists almost entirely because of funding from
> the vendors that released it in commercial forms, don't you?
Yes. And indeed I don't believe that the base X distribution should be
copyleft. I'm just considering that maybe the XFree86 code should.
-- [mdw]
------------------------------
From: Jeff Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OFFICIAL
Date: 11 Jul 2000 10:20:40 EDT
TimL wrote:
> Ok it's official(for me).
> Windows 2000 is a piece of SHIT!
> I have a linux box and a Windows 2000 box.
> My Linux box has been up and running for 13 days. I run memory
> hog Mozilla from time to time on both. On Linux I always get all my
> memory back, moreover, I can always see where ALL my memory is
> with GNOME System Monitor or if all else fails "PS -Al". Right now
> my Win2000 box shows a MEM usage of 244 MB and I have NOTHING
> open and task manager gives NO indication of where all that memory
> is spent. From a multi-billion $$ corporation that gets $300 for each
> (legit :-) ) copy of this shit this is ridiculous.
> Incidentally our network director gave a presentation the other day.
> He has chosen a mix of Windows and Unix servers(i.e. I don't know
> his bias) but claims MS has said they reccommend NT 4.0 be rebooted
> every 4.6 days(probably generous) and Windows2000 every 30 days.
> Hey Windows2000 may have all the moola but it ain't got all the smarts.
>
> /TimL
This is a feature. A lot of inferior operating systems (non-Microsoft)
will reuse memory, and therefore results in memory fragmentation and
generally old, stale, tired memory. Microsoft Windows 2000, however, has
the new MUO (tm) api which allows an application to reserve fresh memory
every time. With Memory-Used-Once, users can be guaranteed of
high-availability and low Total Cost of Ownership.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:15:02 -0400
[snippage it's Max & I all the way down]
>> If that's the intended meaning, you should look to both the LGPL and the
>> MPL as being far less restrictive than the GPL. Neither of these permit
>> the portion of software that is open source to be closed source in
>> distribution; software that *uses* them can be.
> That's useless to the consumer, even detrimental, though it might
> provide more liberty for the developer. Open source licenses which
> promote closed source software distribution can hardly be considered
> less restrictive than the alternative, as far as I am concerned, though
> it may pare down the ways a developer of closed source software can
> profiteer off of open source software.
You're coming from this with a different philosophical mindset which
has made several assumptions that are not necessarily supportable. I'm
honestly not sure that your having access to source code is all that
beneficial. One of the things that I always bring up toward the utility
of software is that there is no open-source equivalent of Quicken or
Money. Why? Because hackers aren't the general population and don't
often write programs that they won't use. Being so strongly technically
based, they don't know how to think like the *real* users of software.
Access to source code is beneficial for developers and corporate
entities who can afford to hire developers to work on the source code.
It's a complete wash for the end-user.
> [...]
>>> You can quantify and qualify "restrictions" how you like; AFAIK (and
>>> I'm not necessarily studied on this, but I've read about it, and I'm
>>> pretty bright) these other licenses have more restrictions on what
>>> whoever recieves the code can do with it.
>> They do not. They often have *different* restrictions, but not necessarily
>> more restrictions.
> You didn't understand what I said. You can quantify the number of
> restrictions however you like (clauses, acts restricted, number of
> products which would be restricted; whatever). The sum total of
> restriction on the person who receives the code is less than the
> alternative, even if the sum total of restrictions on the person who
> supplied the code were greater.
The MPL and the LGPL have fewer quantitative restrictions (and those
restrictions are qualitatively less) than the GPL.
>>> Like "you can't produce derivative works" and such. I can't see how
>>> anyone could call Mozilla less restrictive than GPL.
>> It *is* less restrictive and differently restrictive. You are permitted to
>> produce derivative works -- and those derivatives do not need to be wholly
>> open source. That's less of a restriction. You do have to provide credit
>> for the original source, which is a different restriction.
> Its not less restrictive on the person who relieves the software; only
> on the person who produces the software.
This is not true.
>> I'm not sure where you get the concept of 'you can't produce derivative
>> works' -- because none of the licences that I've mentioned suggest
>> anything of the like.
> I am not limiting my memory to licenses you've mentioned, but I'm not
> clear in my memory of individual clauses, either. Not being a
> programmer, they don't mean much to me.
If you can't produce derivative works, it's not open source. This is a
fundamental feature of open source licencing and the open source
definition (www.opensource.org).
>> I also happen to have been one of a few dozen people that
>> actively participated in criticism on the NPL/MPL when it was being
>> created.
> Yet even after clearly asking, you couldn't bother to explain in more
> complete terms than a couple of acronyms what the NPL or MPL
> specifically call for which is instrumentally different from GPL so as
> to be included in your example. This is the "trolling" I was talking
> about. Quit begging the questions and just answer them, OK?
I have answered. You apparently haven't understood.
The MPL does not place restrictions on other licences. Its restrictions can
be summarised as:
* Derivatives can be made, but the original code and the
modifications to the original code must be made available to those
who obtain the binaries.
* This is different than the GPL in that the boundaries for
applicability are at the file/module level.
* Derivatives must credit the original contribution in some way visible
to end-users.
-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: Why use Linux?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:19:30 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The truly sad part is that the client suffered and was most likely
> paying $200/hr for an incompetent programmer.
>
> It's amazing what goes on in Computer Rooms these days :(
>
> DP
No, the truly sad part is that they fired the guy that did all of the
screw-ups, and he was the guy that got hired back (paid 4 times as much
as before, now as an outside consultant) to "clean" the code. The one
bright spot is that since he was an outside consultant he no longer had
to listen to the users whine about wanting new features (what got him in
trouble in the first place). Pretty scary huh?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:29:38 -0500
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Nik Simpson wrote:
> > >
> > > "Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Yep, and I'm going to assume that this is done via some magnificent
> > > > survey that does one of two things.
> > > >
> > > I would suspect it was done by querying the web servers at tithe Fortune
> 500
> > > companies concerned, it's not hard to do. If you question the results it
> > > would be easy to try and disprove them.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nik Simpson
> >
> >
> > Well, if you read my post you would see <snip blah blah>
>
> Funny you would take Nik to task for not reading your post when YOU did not
> read the ORIGINAL articles before choosing to critisize and charge them with
> fraud! How shallow...
Thanks ass, I appreciate the time you took out of your busy schedule to
once again tell me that I am a complete idiot.
You know, I really don't give a shit whether you think I read it or
not. If a Windows magazine says Windows is better than Linux, I
probably won't believe it, if a Linux magazine says Linux is better than
Windows, I probably won't bevlieve it, if an independant, completely
unbiased source says one is better than the other I might believe them.
The fact is, I say, I don't care what others are using. I use what
works for me. How does that prove that I didn't read the original
article? All I said was I don't care what someone else uses, I use what
works for me.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:32:11 -0500
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> ENT used Netcraft's own What is it running engine to query the Fortune 500 -
> ironic in a way eh?
>
> "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:_upa5.3256$by4.1138@client...
> >
> > "Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Yep, and I'm going to assume that this is done via some magnificent
> > > survey that does one of two things.
> > >
> > I would suspect it was done by querying the web servers at tithe Fortune
> 500
> > companies concerned, it's not hard to do. If you question the results it
> > would be easy to try and disprove them.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nik Simpson
> >
> >
Let's see. You say this proves that netcraft numbers are shit, then you
say that they used netcraft's number in the article. Yep, you're right,
I'm an idiot.
I don't give a fuck what they used. If a Windows source states
something, they can still bias the data in thier favor. Just like a
Linux source can. That was all I was saying. Tell me I'm a fucking
idiot. I don't care. I know what I said and why.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Phill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:52:12 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Windows will crash at the login prompt if you let it sit for a month.
>
> Rubbish! We have a file server here running Windows 98 SE. It rarely
> crashes, and we rarely reboot it. I think its been rebooted three or
> four times in the last one and a half years, and that only to fix a
> hardware problem!
Win98 SE fixed the above problem. Bit of a poor show that this was ever
an issue.
If it's just a file server then it should NOT crash, not even sometimes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:37:50 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10 Jul 2000, Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> 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.
>
> But it *has* relicensed the code under the GPL for the whole work --
> which means that the licence is coopted.
Like the BSDL license is coopted when a proprietary version is sold?
--
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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:39:37 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10 Jul 2000, Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> [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?
>
> ...which may not be available on any site.
And your point is...?
--
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] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 11 Jul 2000 10:08:44 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>> That is better said "the GPL prohibits combining with any non-GPL or
>>> GPL-compatible licence" (which means that it can be overridden by the
>>> GPL's clauses).
>> That doesn't sound like it would be very GPL-compatible. What license
>> says 'this license can be over-ridden by any other license'? All
>> licenses over-ride licenses of additional sources of a derived work, if
>> they are compatible licenses. If they don't, they are non-compatible.
>
>Actually, look at the MPL (www.mozilla.org). When you combine two sets
>of code under different and compatible licences, they are distributed
>under three licences: the compilation licence and each original
>licence. The GPL doesn't preserve the integrity and restrictions of the
>original licence when it takes over other software.
The perl approach seems to be the only way to permit the GPL
to have its way with your code and still avoid the inherent
restrictions. Perl is released under two licenses and it
is apparently left as an exercise for the distributor to
determine which one applies at any particular time. It is
just sad that the GPL forces such contortions on people who
really want their work to be usable in any context.
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
******************************
