Linux-Advocacy Digest #610, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 03:13:06 EDT
Contents:
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! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why use Linux? (TNT)
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: Student run Linux server. (JoeX1029)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 01:29:53 +0200
In article <8kfi56$q64$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels) wrote:
>> In article <8kcs5n$qn8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels) wrote:
>> >
>> >> If anything is religious, it's people arguing that their
>> >> interpretation of "free" is the only one.
>> >
>> > And what else has the FSF been doing the last 25 years or so?
>> > Oh, they concede the existence of something called "free as in free
>> > beer", but they claim sole ownership of the definition of "free
>> > as in free speech" to signify only what they say when applied to
>> > software.
>> We were, if IIRC, not discussing the activities of the FSF, but
>> whether there is something dishonest about calling a GPLed program
>> "free".
>
> I just saw fit that if you gonna call people "religious", we all
> keep in mind who got the religion bug ;-)
We're not discussing personalities.
>
>> It would seem obvious to me that the author of a license
>> would think it superior to anything else. But don't forget that
>> the FSF publicly acknowledges that other licenses are also
>> "free". This is an entirely reasonable and balanced viewpoint.
>
> Oh, but they only accept that when those licenses match their DEFINITION
> of "free as in free speech".
Now it would be fairly confusing if they accepted licenses that
are only "free as in free beer", would it not?
> RMS and the FSF are adamant in refusing
> others the right to have a different one regarding software,
They accept that licenses that impose different restrictions, like
the advertising BSDL, BSDL, etc are also free licenses. They
believe that the GPL's restrictions are the best (obviously).
They are not interested in "free as in free beer" licenses.
> and RMS
> in particular will go to great lengths (say, interrupting you every time
> you say the word free) if you use another one.
We are not discussing personalities. In any case, he will not stop
you from calling the BSDL free. He's not interested in discussing
the merits of gratis binaries, as the availability of source code
is the cornerstone of his reasoning. Care to mention other meanings
of "free" WRT software?
>> > Just go to a RMS speech and try to tell him that IYHO SCSL software
>> > is "free as in free speech" software. See what happens.
>> I don't know SCSL, but I know that RMS publicly acknowledges other
>> licenses to be free. Whether SCSL (whatever it is) makes the grade
>> is neither here nor there.
>
> Sun Community Source License. And "making the grade" is, as many have
> said, a judgement of value. I was just reminding that if someone is
> religious, it's not precisely Mr. Dyson here ;-)
If RMS were to insist that his definition is the only possible honest
one, as Mr Dyson does, I would
a) lower my opinion as to his intelligence and integrity
b) rebuke him.
As far as I can see, he only argues that his is the _best_ one.
>
>> That would be a typical NDL (Non-Disclosure License). Yes, it would
>> give more freedom than a license to use the binary on a single
>> computer and not disassemble or reverse engineer it.
>> But if it doesn't grant me the right to modify it, so that the
>> program really fits my needs, I'd never pay a buck for it.
>> I think you might find a lot of support for refusing the
>> label "free" for your license, but it remains a value judgement.
>
> So, basically, you are saying that it is not dishonest, or unreasonable,
> to call such software free? Then the term "free" lacks any meaning!
It seems fairly obvious that it lacks a well-defined meaning, and
can, and has been, applied to mean a great many different concepts.
All human languages are imprecise.
> A label that is so inclusive as to allow "reasonably" everything to
> be labeled, is useless.
I did not say it was reasonable. I said it remains a value judgement.
--
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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:57:17 +0200
In article <8kfltj$t7v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels) wrote:
>> IE5 is free in the "free of charge" meaning.
>
> The conditions for redistribution of binaries of IE5 are less
> restrictive than for emacs binaries. The sets of freedoms given
> to IE5 licensors and emacs licensors are not stricts subsets either
> way.
Arguably, that's because Microsoft used IE as a tool to
squash a competitor. It's not a very representative
example.
>
> Technically, that means the "freeness" of both things can not be
> ordered.
When one gives away a piece of software on the cover-CD
of any PC magazine on the planet, there aren't any restrictions
on the copying of the binary (apart from the fact that you
are forbidden to sell it, which in itself is quite a significant
restriction). I still don't have a problem calling IE5 gratis,
and only gratis (taking into consideration that something given
away by a commercial entity is always paid for by the products
that are sold, even gratis might not apply).
>
> [snip a bit]
>
>> >
>> > And that discourages development of BSDL software.
>> It discourages the development of BSDL software based on existing
>> GLPed software. If, in your judgement, that means the license
>> cannot be called "free", then OK with me. Just don't present that
>> as an evidence that everyone has to accept.
>
> But the catch is, just what do you mean by "based on existing GPLed
> software"?
>
> According to some, it means "linked to GPL code", and the result of
> it is (again, according to some) that your original code is now GPLed.
It would be amazing if this were to be legally correct, and Hyman has
offered some good arguments indicating that using an API does not
mean that your code becomes a derived work of the library. This is also
my feeling.
But as this is perceived as a loophole in the GPL, it is not amazing
that some would like it to be otherwise. I must say that I am puzzled
by RMS's attitude (I don't know him), because the GPL is, IMHO, a very
astute concept I'd have thought he would not take such a silly stance
on derived works. But it really only matters if (as John pretends) the
FSF is some kind of cult, and RMS a cult leader. I think that's a
ridiculous assumption.
>
> This opens a huge can of worms in many ways, since the linking may be
> done by someone other than the copyright holder!
Yes. It seems that the link-edited copy that has been loaded in memory
is a derivative work of both the program, and any library that is called,
and even the OS. As this is a transient phenomenon, and never distributed,
none of the distribution provisions of the GPL apply. I see as many worms
there as on a dry day in the Namib desert.
>> > You are also not allowed to create, say, a BSDL program that uses a
>> > GPL library, can you?
>> Of course you can. When the CPL was created, there was no dynamic
>> linking to speak of, and
>
> and? ;-)
Sorry. Forgot to end my sentence.
and the GPL never took the possibility into consideration. The GPL also
didn't take the dominance of Windows into consideration, but rather tried
to stop UNIX vendors from including GNU utilities without including the
source, or to hijack GNU utilities as they did with the UNIX equivalents.
Until Linux came along, a binary-only distribution for UNIX was only
lucrative for the supplier of the machine (like Plexus' version of
the office automation package Uniplex) or for systems that sold based
on availability on all major platforms (like Oracle). In the early
days of the GPL, the uniformity was (at least in my experience) more
important than the ability to modify the programs. When running a multi-
vendor UNIX shop, the GNU utilities made it possible to have an
indentical environment on all platforms (and screw those damn vendors
that unbundled the compiler, a totally un-UNIXy thing to do :-).
>
> According to RMS dynamic and static linking are the same.
And according to me they're not. And rms isn't the pope, and
even if he were, I don't believe the pope is infallible.
>> >> It discourages derivative works that are not
>> >> licensed under a compatible license.
>> >
>> No, because the requirement to distribute source code is a very
>> big hurdle for most companies interested in selling packaged
>> software (software that has to earn its keep by selling in huge
>> quantities). GPLed software is an excellent basis/component of
>> custom systems. The general purpose improvements and bug fixes
>> are returned to the community (so the core doesn't need to be
>> modified when moving to a new release), and the custom bits can
>> remain proprietary (no distribution requirement).
>
> Unless those custom bits need to link to the GPL bits.
> In fact, I have seen people serioualy state in debian-legal
> that using something like stdin and stdout of a GPLed program makes
> your own code GPL (Raul Miller, IIRC, on a thread about gcc frontends?).
Unless the program produces something that is under the GPL (like
bison's early versions, IIRC), then this is patent nonsense.
>
> If there could be a nicely defined border for what you can and can't do
> with GPLed software, this would not happen. IMHO, it happens because
> the GPL is a mess.
No, it happens because the copyright law is a very poor fit for
software.
>> Obviously, if people feel very strongly that the GPL presents
>> intolerable restrictions, they will be motivated to write a
>> "truly free" alternative, not?
>
> Usually people are not that militant, unless they get religious.
Hence it is not a problem. In most cases, the GPLed version
doesn't pose any problems.
>> >
>> > It is. Free in this day and age, applied to a thing, means with no
>> > charge. Things can not be free in the freedom sense, because things
>> > have no rights.
>>
>> That's a nonsensical argument used by people who want to avoid
>> the issue.
>
> If I wanted to avoid the issue, I wouldn't bother posting ;-)
No, but you borrowed the concept from one Austin Ziegler, and
he's been using it to stonewall.
>> The abbreviating "free software" is just as accurate as "free speech".
Oops ion
>> The latter means "freedom to say, with certain restrictions, what
>> you want". The former means "freedom to obtain, modify...etc".
>> It's a perfectly acceptable (if not totally unambiguous) figure of
>> speech.
>
> There are significant problems with that usage.
>
> For one thing, there is a difference between applying "free" to an
> abstraction, or to a concrete thing.
>
> "free speech" is applied to an abstraction. If I said "Mr. Doe will
> give a free speech wednesday night", would you say I mean "free as in
> free speech"? No, because it's applied to a concrete entity.
So do the same for software. When you mean gratis, and it's not
inferrable from the context, add "of cost". Similar for libre.
If speaking in this forum, assume that "free" means "as defined
in the GPL". Don't get uptight about the fact that hillbilly farmers
from Putsonderwater in South Africa might not understand that
GPL-free is different from BSDL-free or MPL-free or Microsoft-free
(with due apologies to the farmers from Putsonderwater).
> The GPL advocates apply free randomly to the abstraction of software,
> and to concrete software products "here you have a CD of free
> software". That is IMHO, ugly.
No, it's caused by the ambiguity of the word "free" in current
English usage. French (and Spanish, and Dutch, and
Italian etc) do not have this problem, because they don't use
the same word for these concepts (libre/gratuit, vrij/gratis etc),
or have less mixing of the words in different contexts.
"Free software" was patterned after "free speech", mutatis mutandis.
Certainly gets a lot of attention (following the old politician's
rule "good or bad, as long as they talk about me").
One of the mutandis is that software that's licensed under the
BSDL, GPL etc can be put on a CD, and free speech cannot. Unless
one is particularly dense, or obnoxious, these ambiguities cause
no problems (unless one is an answer 'bot :-).
>> > The GPL is anything but clear, but that's just MHO.
>> Obviously. I had no problem understanding it.
>
> You must be very smart. Ok, quick, take the GPL, search for "and so
> on". Now tell me, what parts of a linux distribution fit that?
All, but it's irrelevant as Linux is GPLed, and commercial samplers
included on the CDs (like SuSE does) are clearly labelled as such.
> What parts of Solaris fit that?
Everything that's included on your Solaris 8 CD. I can't see the
problem, as the license uses a very vague term, and hence cannot
claim to exclude specific items. I suppose this was done on purpose.
> Can a binary be distributable for one OS and not for another because of
> that?
Yes.
> Can software be free if its binaries can only be distributed for
> certain operating systems?
Why not? Unless, of course, you define "free software" as having
to be distributable for all OSes. Some programs don't make sense
on certain OSes, so what's the problem?
>
> As a golden star question: doesn't that violate the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines?
As these only apply to Debian, it doesn't matter one jot.
You have to understand that there's no single correct definition
of "free" WRT to software, as there is no single definition of
"free" WRT to speech.
>> Granted, but if you were the first to name an object or concept,
>> and a bunch of johnny-come-latelies demand that you change the
>> name you coined because it doesn't fit their world view, I
>> guess you would do as RMS does: see if their interpretation
>> prevails in common usage.
>
> I don't see RMS do that, really.
He's certainly not defending his viewpoint against Dyson in this
forum, for one. And he's not accepted to change the FSF's name
to NSFSF either ;-)
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:00:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 11 Jul 2000
[...]
>>It seems reasonable to assume that no software would exist if it *had*
>>to be GPL'd. Nevertheless, indications are strong that someday, almost
>>all software will be voluntarily GPL'd.
>
>Do you mean after all patents expire?
Patents don't cover the same IP as copyright. I have not yet begun to
consider the concept of patents, but would be happy to do so in another
thread. I don't think expiration is an issue. Like true (non-software)
applications of copyright, patents are specifically granted so that the
invention doesn't have to be kept a trade secret. The patent agreement
need only be with the author of a software program. If he GPLs it, the
anyone using the program can benefit from the patented technology.
But I said I'd discuss this in another thread. Suffice to say the
answer is "no".
>>Once a preponderance of
>>developers are using GPL code, then even if reference implementations do
>>get GPL'd, it won't make a difference. Because by that point, nobody
>>would consider taking the open source reference implementation and
>>trying to make profit on owning it to begin with.
>
>If that ever really happens I think we will miss the developments
>from companies like Cisco and Sun.
When that does happen (and it truly seems inevitable), we will no longer
need the developments from companies like Cisco and Sun, having found
much more efficient methods of producing developments.
--
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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:07:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] () from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11
>On 11 Jul 2000 14:11:00 GMT, Mark Wooding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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?
>
> Actually, X exists because it was a research project at MIT.
>
> XFree86 primarily exists due to it's gratis-ware userbase.
>
> Commercial and proprietary implementations are actually quite anemic.
> This goes the same for OpenGL as well.
I would have to concur. As a commercial development, X is an abysmal
failure, in the context of today's software producers and developments.
Like many public intellectual works, it is a relic of the space age that
was not effected for, and does not well support, commercial
exploitation.
>>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.
>
> Depending on how you structure the thing, copyleft may or
> may not be a burden on commercial development. The notion
> that free software is necessarily a burden on commercial
> development is just FUD spread by those with incompatible
> motives.
It is necessarily a burden on commercial exploitation, and many are
naively convinced that this is the same thing. Thus the "FUD".
> Infact, it is the common and well established condition that
> common facilities are not able to be 'assimilated' by any
> random party and that has not slowed the industry down one
> bit.
I stand behind free software as a principle for that very reason. Not
because it reflects the more obvious examples, like the public well (or
"the air supply") or free speech. But because it reflects the less
obvious examples, like the Internet (where this is the case and does
impede capital development), and the public attention (media,
billboards, telemarketing, and other now blindly accepted intrusions on
my time or attention which the corporate mystique makes acceptable.)
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 12 Jul 2000 01:13:08 -0500
In article <Bb1a5.2493$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> They have no choice but to enforce the law.
>
>I think you are being a shade optimistic. But lets say you
>are right.
>
>Why do you prefer, then, giving the Congress the choices, they
>being the people who wrote the law that says you can't have
>a Internet browsing in a sufficiently popular desktop OS?
The appropriate time to change the rules might have been
before AT&T was constrained from marketing unix commercially
or IBM was constrained from its bundling practices. After
these precedents handed the desktop over to Microsoft it
hardly seems right to allow them to ignore the same rules.
>[snip]
>> >You're kidding yourself if you think the price of Windows will
>> >go *down* because of all this. There isn't a reason in
>> >the world for MS to do that.
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Hmmm. If you really think MS is charitable like this, why don't
>you support them?
The price is not so relevant as the quality.
>[snip]
>> >There are a *lot* of people who like their computers pre-assembled;
>> >it's really the rule, not the exception.
>>
>> But they don't have to be pre-assembled the way a single
>> OS vendor dictates.
>
>No, they don't.
>
>There is, in fact, a wide variety of different computers you can buy;
>they do not all contain the same software, either.
This is a direct and recent result of the legal action against MS.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (TNT)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 06:18:26 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 03:49:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
<8kgmob$sq7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Phill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>>> 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!
>Just out of interest --- wasn't Win98SE released less than a year and a half
>ago?
That's right. It was release last June, so "the last one and a half years" is
just a make up.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:25:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 11 Jul 2000
[...]
>The inability to combine code with any existing code not restricted
>in exactly the same way has to be a burden on development.
Were you to have said "is a burden", you would merely be contradicting
Jedi. But in saying it "has to be", you seem to be indicated a
statement of factual principle which I don't think you've demonstrated.
"Could be", certainly. "Is", most of the moderates would agree with.
But "has to be?" If you cannot exploit the work of others, then you
cannot produce anything yourself? This doesn't hold up, even if we were
to assume most of your previous arguments, which I personally can't do.
>The
>notion that such restrictions are not a problem or that they
>are necessary to prevent some imagined threat is FUD spread by
>those with a peculiar political agenda.
They have the purpose and effect of reducing developer's ability to
exploit other's work with impunity. That is the particular political
agenda, whether you find it peculiar or not. We don't believe they are
"necessary to prevent some imagined threat", because GPL software isn't
threatened. It is commercial software exploitation which is threatened,
because you can't maintain exorbitant profits through profiteering when
your product isn't limited in supply artificially or through natural
causes. Commercial software developers software is limited in supply
only by their license; if they were to go poof, we wouldn't be
restricted in our use of their code, so we're only paying them to allow
us to continue using it. Any "development" they produce is intended
merely to provide an excuse for having to buy yet another license or
remove some alternative method which would demolish our need for their
code, not to improve their product or its value. Who needs to improve
the value of something you're making 1000% profit on already?
GPL restrictions are only a problem for software *exploiters*; they
don't cause any severe burden on software *developers*, and they cause
no burden whatsoever on end users. No wonder you guys are scared. You
must be exploiters. And the GPL is actively and intentionally hostile
to you. Unapologetically.
>> Infact, it is the common and well established condition that
>> common facilities are not able to be 'assimilated' by any
>> random party and that has not slowed the industry down one
>> bit.
>
>This part is true enough, and there is no need for the common
>code to assert any restrictions on derivatives to remain
>free itself.
True only from the perspective of a software exploiter. Software
developers recognize that the concept of "derivative works" is not
strictly set either in code or law. Another smoke-and-mirrors trick to
dupe the masses into accepting predatory end-user licenses, in that you
can sell them code, and then sell it to them again, or prevent someone
else from implementing an alternative. Another scam shut down by GPL.
>> 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.
>
>And what possible motivation can someone claiming to produce free
>software in trying to assert control over libraries done by
>others, or in restricting the ways that this supposedly free
>work can be redistributed?
Read the FSF web page, I'm sure it explains it. But if you go in there
with all of your current false assumptions and inaccurate conclusions,
without any thought of attempting to give a reasoned hearing to the
case, it isn't going to do you any good at all. You don't have to
assume what they're saying is true. Just don't assume its not true,
until you've read the whole thing, and thought about it a while, and
compared what you see around you to the representations made by both
sides. If you still feel that there isn't possibly a motivation for the
library clauses, you can present arguments to refute it or just give up,
because you can't figure it out. Its not a bad thing to be stumped by a
concept outside your grasp. Its only a bad thing when you deny that
you're stumped.
--
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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:35:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 11 Jul 2000
[...]
>It is not necessary to modify or distribute the re-used
>code for RMS to consider your work a derivative.
It is not necessary to modify or distribute the re-used code for the
U.S. Government Patent and Trademark Office to consider your work a
derivative, either. RMS is just a bit more stringent in applying that
point to ensure he maintains control of his intellectual work.
[...]
>But what is the point of preventing derivative works?
Promoting innovation! Come up with your own works!
Pity someone try to promote something besides exorbitant profits;
they're called a tyrant or a communist and a liar, just because they
aren't motivated by pure enough greed. Enlightened self interest is why
your position doesn't make sense: if you want to encourage a lot of
software to be written, write software and give it away, then write
more. Don't write one piece and then sell it over and over again, and
encourage others to do the same. You don't end up with a lot of
software that way.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: Student run Linux server.
Date: 12 Jul 2000 06:37:06 GMT
My school (which runs on AIX 4.0:-) has a "tech lab" filled with NT and 98
boxes. Students are given access to FrontPage and are allowed to create
webpages. Try letting the kids create web pages about learning Linux, as they
learn they help others to learn (when given access to a box I always find out
as much as I can and try to teach to others). Set up 5 person groups (learning
usually happens better in small groups) and have them do a site in say, vi or
vim and then right perl or csh scripts automate processes. Or have the kids
(with help) create a database in SQL. Remember to show them the GUI but also
make sure they're comfortable with the cmd line. Hope this helps
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
