Linux-Advocacy Digest #595, Volume #27 Tue, 11 Jul 00 14:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The MEDIA this year! (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux code going down hill (abraxas)
Re: Linux code going down hill ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (abraxas)
Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linux Hardware Compatibility Lists - Re: Linux lags behind Windows (R.E.Ballard
( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [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 16:49:10 GMT
In article <Hsya5.11866$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8kdc0h$7ki$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > WOW! 2 biased magazine articles! typical Drestin. Never an impatial
> > source!
> >
>
> Argue the facts - disprove the numbers - THEN you'll have something.
The
This will be fun!
Fact 1: Drestin claims "Netcraft numbers are full of it" (taken to mean
false) see Message-ID: <5Bma5.9335$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fact 2: Drestin posts 2 articles to prove his point. Message-ID:
<5Bma5.9335$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ultimate source of ALL of this data is Netcraft. The same netcraft you
shout
> about for apache numbers - same place. So, if you believe there are
lies
> here, disprove them or do you mean to suggest that you now believe
Netcraft
> is not impartial and lying? wow...
Fact 3: the articles are Based on Netcraft!
So If "netcraft is full of it" then The articals based on Netcraft
numbers are "full of it" Then the conclution Drestin draws from articals
that are "full of it" because they are based on Netcraft which is "full
of it, are "full of it"
Thus: Drestin's claim that "Netcraft numbers are full of it" is "full of
it".
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The MEDIA this year!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:53:19 GMT
In article <8k6ne3$upg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <8jkc31$oh9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > By the way, if you've never seen video streaming through Linux, you
> > are in for a treat.
>
> This is a curious statement. If you could point me toward a Linux
> utility for streaming video over a company intranet (multicasting, not
> unicasting) from any major format (MPEG, *.avi, etc.), I would be
> eternally grateful.
Actually, the IRC-II chat also supports multimedia, including MPEG
or MPEG-II streaming video. You have to configure the feed and let
people know how to connect, but it's pretty much standard IRC.
RealNetworks also offers a server for Linux.
Linux supports a number of MPEG players including KDE and GNOME
versions. Viewing DVD requires DeCSS decryption software which takes
the raw dvd file as it's input and puts out MPEG as it's output.
I'm not sure what the current state of the lawsuit is, but the decss
driver is available from a site in Norway. I don't remember the link.
Legally you cannot take either DVD or MPEG copyrighted feeds and relay
them through IRC-II (or any other relay). Licenses to do this must
be negotiated with the RIAA or MPAA.
> Terry Slack
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: 11 Jul 2000 17:06:22 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You realize they still suck at being anything but Mainframes, don't you?
> ;-)
>
>
Depends, methinks. Classical mainframe computing: ASCII blah blah blah...
perhaps.
But I have to admit, the baby S/390s look quite nice.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:57:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:04:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Oh, pleeeze. How long does it take to compile a set of utilities?
>
> Too long, especially if you want to have somr control over where the
> packages go as opposed to spraying them haphazardly all over your
> system. I've worked on distribution building, and it's time consuming.
> Especially if you have to start with things as basic as top and
> tcp-wrappers.
>
> >rdist the whole batch for new systems. I don't use most the stuff
> >that comes with Linux anyway, since there are usually newer versions
> >out.
>
> When newer versions come out for Linux, you can grab a binary or
src.rpm.
> With BSD, and most Linux distributions, you can even do a remote
upgrade.
Ick, platform specific packaging utilities always suck. If anything,
they eliminate your control, and you often have to put the software
where whoever packaged it thought it should go.
The only way to go is to compile and install all but the essential OS
under a common directory and rdist the whole batch out. You can upgrade
hundreds of systems in no time. If you're really stuck on using one,
you can get the exact same binary distributions in Sun's packaging
format. All these "linux advantages" were available for SunOS and other
platforms long before Linux even existed.
>
> > Are you really going to tell the boss that the reason the
> >web server is dumping connections and customers are leaving is
> >because you didn't want to compile top?
>
> I'd abstain from using something spartan enough not to contain top
unless
> there was a reason why I needed it.
>
That's pretty silly.
>
> >> Reality check: The Linux kernel is modular and the default
> >> installation comes with modular support for just about everything.
> >> You usually only need to compile modules.
> >>
> >> The only time I've done a kernel recompile was when the distributor
> >> was too silly to include modular support for sound, and that was a
> >> few years ago.
> >
> >So, you're saying I add a new SCSI device that has no kernel support
> >and add it in without recompiling and rebooting?
>
> No, I am not. If you have *modular* support for the SCSI device, then
you'll
> have no problems.
I'm talking brand new never before heard of by any of the code in the
running kernel.
>
> > How about re-loading
> >patched drivers without bringing the system down?
>
> Sure. Can do, as long as the patch doesn't require kernel mods.
How many device drivers don't run in the kernel?
>
> >> I can't believe people actually pay for that ! Seriously, I find
the
> >free
> >> alternatives better.
> >
> >Because it's the standard and
>
> No it's not. It's just a proprietary software package.
>
> BTW, a lot of legacy software uses *Motif*, but not CDE. And motif is
dying ...
>
> > It provides
> >a common GUI desktop which is what the Unix's need to knock NT
> >out of the desktop dominance.
>
> Unix needs a common desktop, but NOT CDE. KDE/QT are vastly superior,
both in
> ease of use and in terms of toolkit design. CDE hasn't done very well
at winning
> the desktop market, huh ? And now , the desktop UNIX users are
flocking to
> KDE/QT and GNOME/GTK, while Motif/CDE are rapidly heading towards
well-deserved
> obsolescence. Not only can't Motif beat NT, it can't beat QT or GTK,
despite
> TOG's desperate attempt to get people to use it ( by giving it away )
>
> UNIX needs to step out of the C ghetto, and QT is taking the required
steps and
> providing a true OO GUI API, while Motif is stuck in the callback
paradigm. (
> BTW, GTK has similar functionality to QT. The C++ implementation has
similar
> type safety and signal/slot behaviour to QT )
IBM, Sun, Compaq have gone to the CDE standard which breaks down a huge
chunck of the Unix boxes around the world. What's the percentage for QT
or GTK? Is there even a standard and certification process for it?
>
> >isn't a whole lot of differance. There's also a lot of inconsistent
> >problems that everyone here claims are "installation problems.
> >Apparently, EVERY linux box I've ever used is installed wrong. Are
> >the install scripts THAT bad?
>
> Dunno, I haven't noticed.
>
> I think a lot of it has to do with the fact thast Linux gets it 90%
right,
> then the admin doesn't bother with the other 10%. Solaris gets it
10%, and
> the admin had better fix some of the remaining 90% tif he values his
job.
Like what. 90% is installing top?
>
> >I also hit problems with buying the "linux" version of server
> >software. With no centeralized version control, exactly what has it
> >been tested under, and if patches are required, whose patches?
>
> This information is usually provided on the box. Most of the software
just
> links against libc, so you typically only need to check the libc and
kernel
> version. Upgrading kernels is extremely unlikely to break software,
and libc
> has "centralised version control".
Completely untrue. Applications depend on many things besides libc and
the kernel. Just take a look at the recommended patches for running
Oracle under Solaris. A whole lot more sub-systems than that are
involved.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 11 Jul 2000 17:10:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "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 ;-)
>
And its a defacto victory, such architecture is simply not possible with
any version of windows.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:10:36 GMT
On 11 Jul 2000 03:54:13 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>: On 10 Jul 2000 22:57:49 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: >When I was thinking of aesthetics I wasn't thinking about simple
>: >ease-of-use. Mac people like a unified GUI, for one thing. UNIX people
>: >like choice. Things like that seem hard to combine.
>
>: As long as the application developer is able to run amok this
>: sort of 'aesthetic' is rather an illusion. It's rather similar
>: to the Mac's PMT which depends on all developers playing nice
>: in order for the feature in question to be fully realized.
>
>That's just the thing. It is less an illusion on the Mac because the
>culture supports a common set of GUI values. Things like the single menu
>bar at the top of the screen (or the 1-button mouse) are (usually)
>praised, while variant interfaces like KAI's tools are (usually)
>criticized. Heck, there has been a bit of a cultural rift of late as the
>Mac community decides how much of NeXT it can accept. Contrast that to
>the UNIX (especially Linux) environment in which novelty is more highly
>valued.
>
>The original essay explains how Linux is not Mac ... and to that extent it
>is correct. The flaw (IMO) of the original article is that it did not
>come to grips with what open source is on its own (open source) terms.
No, the original essay was just plain erroneous.
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:16:41 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:45:02 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
That is just a very lame copout to avoid the fact that what
the MacOS does wrong is a very well understood problem domain
and has been successfully solved since before MacOS existed
and has been solved adequately well on hardware (including the
overhead inherent in including a GUI) that MacOS itself has been
deployed on for over ten years now.
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Hardware Compatibility Lists - Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:14:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )) wrote in
<8k61rh$ha8$1
> >@nnrp1.deja.com>:
> >
> >>A REAL soundblaster 16 card, or a proprietary chip which came with
> >>a special set of drivers so that it would be soundblaster compatible
> >>for Windows programs.
> >
> >It's a Creative SB16 Value card.
This card should work. You will probably have to set the I/O and
IRC manually, but it should be pretty trivial (usually the defaults
work fine). I believe the settings are IO=220 and IRC=5, but check
the manual to be sure.
> IIRC you said elsewhere this was a Plug and Play card.
> There's your trouble; Linux PnP support isn't mature.
Actually, Microsoft considers PnP a trade secret and has threatened
terrible things to any company that violates or discloses PnP
technology. Furthermore, Microsoft considers it's PnP to be
exclusively for use on Microsoft Windows operating systems, which
means that Vendors who port to Linux can also be punished.
The main reason that Linux supports ANY PnP was because Red Hat
was able to legally obtain information from Adaptec who decided that
since Microsoft had broken an agreement to promotes SCSI over EIDE,
the fundamental premise of the NDA was no longer valid. They provided
a number of technical details that help to identify devices.
Unfortunately, knowing the device identifier is helpful, but next to
useless if you don't have the appropriate driver settings for that
identifier. In some cases, you don't even know which I/O and IRQ
combinations are valid.
Notice that PnP does not provide chip information but rather a
Manufacturer's model number. This means that two logically identical
boards (some chipsets, same I/O ports, same IRQs, same PCI protocol)
appear as two radically different devices. Even if you know every
detail about one device, until you map the new board to the known
device, you appear to have no valid driver.
This is often a problem with NE2000 clone cards. There are about 40
cards that are software-identical (same API and PCI/ISA protocol)
with the Netware NE-2000 card, but because Linux must know that
a card is an NE-2000 machine, many newer card models are
"unidentified".
> I had much the same issue with my ISAPnP modem.
Usually with an ISA PnP modem, you have more flexibility as to
IRQ and I/O settings. The early RS/232 chips built into the
motherboard and hardware configured to specific I/O and IRQ pairings.
Modern ISAPnP modems allow use of most of the 16 interrupts (as opposed
to only IRQ3 or IRQ4) which means that more ISA modems can be
installed). Linux actually supports these configurations, but it
doesn't autodetect them (unless you choose a standard BOCA-Board
combination.
> (Beats the crap out of ending up with a LoseModem of course.)
>
> PCI cards don't have such issues, because you really can't have PCI
> without plug and play.
Even with PnP, the PCI cards can be difficult.
> The 2.4.0-test2 kernel has true ISAPnP support, but I haven't tried
> to set it up yet.
> >>> AHA152x unsupported?
> >>
> >>Adaptec 1540 chips are no problem, and 1520 chips should be O.K.
too.
> >>You do need to make sure that your terminators are configured
> >>correctly (Windows may be setting them on set-up, on some cards,
Linux
> >>needs to be told to terminate).
> >
> >aha152x=0x340,11,7,1 is telling the driver the port address, the IRQ,
the
> >SCSI host and I'm not sure what the '1' means. Somehow the auto
detect
> >wasn't even getting this far.
>
> Comments from the Linux 2.2.16 source, drivers/scsi/aha152x.c:
>
> CONFIGURATION ARGUMENTS:
>
> IOPORT base io address (0x340/0x140)
> IRQ interrupt level (9-12;
default 11)
> SCSI_ID scsi id of controller (0-7; default
7)
> RECONNECT allow targets to disconnect from the bus (0/1; default
1 [on])
> PARITY enable parity checking (0/1; default
1 [on])
> SYNCHRONOUS enable synchronous transfers (0/1; default
0 [off])
> (NOT WORKING YET)
> DELAY: bus reset delay (default 100)
> EXT_TRANS: enable extended translation (0/1: default
0 [off])
> (see NOTES below)
>
> So that '1' allows targets to disconnect.
>
> It looks like aha152x=0x340 would probably have been sufficient.
>
> BTW, you never mentioned any ISAPnP issues with this card.
> I assume it's a jumper-configured ISA card?
> That's why you had to set those parameters manually.
> If the Windows driver configures itself, then either there's
> some possibly-undocumented way of querying the card for
> its settings, or the Windows driver is probing the
> possible I/O addresses.
I believe the 1540 card does support query, but the 1520 card
requires manual configuration.
One of the problems with SCSI is that there are a number of
options, many of which provide better performance at the cost
of compatibility with slower and older devices.
> --
> --------------===============<[ Ray Chason
]>===============--------------
> PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
> Delenda est Windoze
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:22:59 GMT
On 10 Jul 2000 23:39:13 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Why do you think removing the freedom to build works that are
>>>also derivatives of other licenses is in any way increasing
>>>freedom?
>>
>> Rights granted remain consistent and equal and rights are
>> encouraged to remain more widely enjoyed rather than
>> continually more narrowly enjoyed.
>
>No, the restrictions only narrow the scope of what can be
>done.
...in how those that exploit Free Software can deprive
their end users of the same rights that they themselves
enjoyed. IOW: equality.
>
>>[deletia]
>>
>> As far as the GPL being "less free" than the BSDL or even PD,
>> there is one thing that is being forgotten. Traditional US
>> copyright law acknowledges a sort of ultimate GPL on the
>> common pool of invention.
>
>Yow, you mean you can't combine anything you know with anything
>anyone else knows?
...not without eventually giving up ownership of it.
That is the full implication of 'intellectual property' not
just the bit that corporate interests would have you aware of.
Snow White should rightfully be Public Domain now. It will
eventually be so in theory. However, the next Sonny Bono will
likely extend the copyright term yet again.
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:24:41 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:11:45 -0400, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> As far as the GPL being "less free" than the BSDL or even PD,
>> there is one thing that is being forgotten. Traditional US
>> copyright law acknowledges a sort of ultimate GPL on the
>> common pool of invention. IOW, all software should ultimately
>> be GPL/PD software if copyright is adequately applied to
>> software. The public interest in the disclosure of the means
>> to recreate an invention, and the acknowledgement that all
>> invention is ultimately unoriginal and derivative of common
>> knowledge both lead to the requirement that the monopoly on
>> intellectual property distribution should end in the full
>> disclosure of it, eventually.
>
>*snort* *giggle*
>
>You're thinking patents, Jeeedi. The legal 'requirement' you speak of
Not at all. They are governed by the same legal theory,
and the same ultimate law and legal justification.
[deletia]
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 11 Jul 2000 17:25:48 GMT
In article <8kfioi$qlf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The copyright law, in
>principle, grants you no right, except the ones given by the license
>itself. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Wrong. The right to copy and adapt the copy of a computer program
you own as necessary to archive and use. (17 USC 117) The right to
redistribute a copy that you own. (17 USC 109) The right to reverse
engineer a program, including making any necessary intermediate copies.
(Found by courts to be a fair use under 17 USC 107) The right to
make copies of unprotected expression, such as portions needed for
interoperatbility. (17 USC 102b)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:28:15 GMT
On 10 Jul 2000 23:04:57 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Yes, that's what I said. The GPL, in it's attempt to control the
>>>whole of a derived work, even the parts where the author of
>>>the GPL'd portion made no contribution, restricts these
>>>potentially useful works from being distributed. Even in
>>
>> No it doesn't. It just ensures that those that are exploiting
>> the common pool of software aren't doing so with the intent
>> to restrict the subsequent liberties of others.
>
>That is just one of many ways that GPL'd software can't be
>used.
>
>>>the case where the combined portion is much less restricted
>>>than the GPL'd portion.
>>
>> Freedom in general is preserved rather than allowing for
>> a single robber baron to be free to take advantage of
>> everyone. That is a serious problem with software. It's
>> marginal production cost tends towards zero and and
>> software tends to end up being an essential facility of
>> some sort. This is especially true of software that people
>> are motivated to hide from you (in terms of source).
>
>But why is it a problem? Who is it that has capitalized on
>some free software and become so rich that you hate them?
You betray your own simplistic biases here. The whole 'problem'
is so much some notion of 'prohibition on profit' but rather
the prevention of as many competitive barriers as possible and
ensuring that common facilities remain commonly controlled.
There are real buisessmen, rather than armchair philosophers
that are quite effectively exploiting L/GPL code for profit
and using it to make their own intellectual property not
necessarily infected by the L/GPL.
[deletia]
While you are whining, the 'real men' are laughing all the
way to the bank.
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:31:47 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:46:57 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
>>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> [...]
>>> The GPL would only prevent it being used in one single circumstance:
>>> profiteering.[...]
>
>>Uh.... suppose the BSD TCP stack was GPL.
This is a false strawman.
Free Software doesn't have to use the GPL in particular in order
to be copylefted. Infact, the vast majority of software of that
kind is licenced under the LGPL.
>>
>>Now, suppose MS ported it to windows 3.11 and called it, say,
>>winsock.dll.
Nope, they would merely have to release their modified version
of the sockets library under the same licence that they got
bsd sockets under.
[deletia]
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
