Linux-Advocacy Digest #617, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why use Linux? (TNT)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Windows98 (Paul Colclough)
Re: Windows98 (Paul Colclough)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
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! (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 15:50:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:14:02 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> >No, it's something much simpler, a hypothesis.
>
> No, it is an artificially created set of conditions meant
> to yeild a particular conclusion. It is a post-factum
> argument meant not to really illustrate anything but to give
> the false impression of the validity of a particular argument.
Wow.
> If there existed some libsockets package, the most likley
> copylefted licence to be associated with such a package
> would specifically be designed to NOT create the artificial
> situation you describe.
Which is why the GPL would be a very bad license for such software.
QED.
> >> 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.
> >
> >So, what? I am making a hypothetical case.
>
> You're a lying dishonest ass, that's so what.
You could make a very compelling case for such a statement if
you could show where I lied.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (TNT)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:07:19 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:08:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote
in <8khn39$con$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "1$worth" <"1$worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote:
>> See, Trolls like Pete avoid the questions. I just don't believe
>anything
>> he says.
>
>Rubbish! The web server running on the machine indicates it was started
>on the 17th May.
Web server on a Win98 machine?!? And almost never crash for the last one and
a half year?? That should be a world record!?!
>The comment that Windows 98 crashes after a month I found ludicrous,
So did I, 'cause I've never seen or heard from a reliable source that Win98
machine can stay up up to a month. It always crashes long before that. Of
course, I only count working ones, not ones just sit there and do nothing.
>and sure enough, I have a system nearby that's been up and running over
>a month now.
Which one is that? The "file server" or the "web server" one? Please be
consistent with what you say, if you want somebody to believe you.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 11:06:02 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> X wouldn't exist at all if it had to be GPL'd. Nor would most
>>>> of the things that use it.
>>> 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.
>>
>>I don't think you're right. If, instead, you say 'almost all software
>>will be open sourced,' I can agree. I can't agree that they will be
>>GPLed.
>
>If almost all software is open source, then there's no reason for it not
>to be GPLd.
But it isn't and can't be because of existing restrictions, including
patents which preclude the possibility of GPL'd re-implementation.
>And since the GPL does, indeed, have the effect of
>extending the GPL, it stands to reason that unless specifically
>prevented from doing so, software will be practically all open source
>(because its copyrighted) and GPL (because its software, not
>literature).
No, the GPL does not have any such effect. It is simply a restriction
against distributing non-GPL derivatives. It does not magically
create anything at all. The net effect can only be a reduction
in the available choices.
>Last years literature is still literature. Last years
>source is useless bytes. Which means there will always be a huge market
>for production, distribution, and maintenance of (but no market
>whatsoever for ownership of) software.
That doesn't follow. Software is developed until someone gets
it right and thereafter the same version can be used forever.
(Never mind the fact that not much has been done right so
far...).
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 08:40:29 -0700
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10 Jul 2000 15:20:27 -0700, Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I have a dual boot system, Win98 and Mandrake 7.1. Last night, I
> >decided to restore my Windows registry from a master backup to improve
> >the sludgy performance that I've been seeing lately. According to the
> >online help that came with my NEC computer, this would simply require
> >a few reloads of applications. Like an idiot, I chose to believe
> >it...
>
> I assume you mean some sort of restore disk which in most cases simply
> images a default install onto your hard drive. Any hardware you added
> yourself woudln't be part of the image.
Actually, the backup image is stored somewhere on the harddrive. No
CD is necessary. Of course I know that my NIC wasn't part of the
original image. My point is that Win9x is not easy to use for the
everyday person. I don't consider myself to be an expert, but I am
more capable than most Windows users. The whole reason I decided to
reinstall the registry is bacause Windows was running like a dog after
several hardware/software installs. Linux would never begin to fall
over like this because I added drivers and 3rd-party software.
> Say for example you had added an ATA66 card into your system and a new
> hard drive. Ghosting an old version of Linux with out drivers would
> fail too.
Maybe you didn't read the problem correctly. Windows failed to boot
because I had upgraded to IE 5 (the only version currently supported
in terms of security). Previously, I had added the NIC prior to the
IE upgrade, so I didn't have a problem. Even if I had never restored
the registry to begin with, and I had simply added the NIC after the
IE upgrade, it still would have failed. You're trying to convince me
that Linux would do the same? I hardly think so. There are probably
ways to munge Linux with obscure drivers, but this isn't one of them.
This leads to another point. In order to be able to boot windows, I
booted into Linux and edited my system.ini file to change the default
shell from explorer to another shell I could boot into. Do you think
the average user would know how to do this? Whatever happened to not
having to edit any text files in Windows? This simply shows that
Windows is _not_ easy to use for a novice. It's more like a tar baby.
It looks innocent enough at first, but as soon as you begin sticking
your hands in it, you realize what an incredible mess it actually is.
The funny thing is that I never have been someone that hated Win9x. I
really didn't have that many problems with it, and I saw it as a messy
but simple-to-use solution for most. After this experience, my
opinion has dramatically changed. I'll be ridding myself of Microsoft
as soon as I am able to do so.
Aaron
--
Aaron J. Ginn Motorola SPS
Phone: (480) 814-4463 SemiCustom Solutions
Fax: (480) 814-4058 1300 N. Alma School Rd.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chandler, AZ 85226
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:10:27 +0200
Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
> > Nope. Just vastly more often than any other platform.
>
> You clearly haven't worked with any systems like HP Unix boxes, or Sun
> workstations. The only time I've _ever_ had a part not work in a Sun
> box was due to bad hardware. Whereas I've seen people have all kinds of
> problems with Mac equipment.
So if I plug in a USB mouse, it just works?
> --
^there is a space " " missing here.
Lars T.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:14:37 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:43:54 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > >> >I mean, they aren't even the same *CLASS* of bus! SCSI is a
>> > >> >*PARALLEL* bus, while USB is a *SERIAL* bus (hence the name:
>> > >> >Universal SERIAL Bus).
>> > >>
>> > >> There are USB SCSI adapters. Pretty common on the Mac
>> > >> marketplace.
>> > >
>> > >Where in the original article did he specify he had a converter?
>> >
>> > Should he need to?
>>
>> Around here, where we get wintrolls insisting that the Mac doesn't
>> have plug-and-play because it won't magically work with hardware that
>> doesn't have any Mac drivers, it would probably be a good idea for
>> people to mention such things.
>
>OTOH, we get Mac advocates claiming Windows doesn't have PnP because it
>doesn't work perfectly with non-PnP hardware.....
...that it's SPECIFICALLY meant to work with.
WinDOS is the market leader. Everyone is pandering to them.
Everyone is targetting their platform for drivers. Yet,
despite of this there can still be great difficulty.
--
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] (Paul Colclough)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 12 Jul 2000 15:09:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Also so my other reply to this group.
>
>I guess I don't see the point in having all of those directories there.
>The only one that will actually run is the latest version you
>installed. And what is the point of having it scattered all over the
>place? When you upgrade a program, don't you want just the new copy?
Yes, but removing the old version (minus config files) is not too much of a
hassle normally, unless of course it's got no uninstall program or
installed a lot of files so takes a good while to remove them.
>Also, in your other post you make it sound like you really want every
>program installing into its own directory. I know it's really difficult
Not really, I really just wanted to know every program that was installed
and where about it was installed. Most dist's install a *LOT* of utilities,
most of which I have no idea what they do, and probably will never use
them.
Tim's post was very informative though, so should most of the problems of
finding programs even when I don't know the command line to use to run them
(eg. when executable name is different than package name - which is usually
the norm).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colclough)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 12 Jul 2000 15:11:17 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Kelley) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>There is a way to do this with both of the major packaging systems
>(deb and rpm). The X package utils don't offer you any more than the
>text mode one.
>
>1. To see what package owns a file, and get the package description:
Thanks Tim, that's very informative. Will most likely give me everything I
need.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:05:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul
2000
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> [...]
> >> >Believe it or not, they would not be able to include winsock.dll
as
> >> >part of windows 3.11[1].
> >>
> >> Yes they could. They'd just have to release Win3.11 as GPL open
source.
> >> What's the problem?
> >
> >Well,let's just say "be extremely unlikely to include" instead of
> >"not be able to include". Makes no difference, really.
>
> All the difference in the world. They have a choice, they don't have
a
> choice.
A choice between "don't do it" and "do it and die" is no choice.
> Its that simple. If your argument is based on that they would
> be convinced not to, then you'll have to explain why they don't want
to
> release it as open source to begin with. And the answer to that is
> because you can't exact exorbitant profits on code that you can't make
> artificially limited through trade secret licensing.
Of course, for a publicly traded company, such a behaviour is perfectly
ethical. After all, their main concern is shareholder profit.
> >> >No non-GPL application could EVER link to
> >> >winsock.dll.
> >> >No BSD application would be able to link to winsock.dll.
> >>
> >> I think this might lie on the library issue, and that gets too
contrary
> >> when dealing with commercial software. No BSD application, AFAIK,
ever
> >> has linked with winsock.dll, and I wouldn't expect it would come up
very
> >> often.
> >
> >Why is that important?
>
> To prevent something that doesn't happen is to do nothing.
>
> >> It would force Microsoft to GPL windows or not use TCP/IP, fine.
> >
> >And then we would probably end where we were before TCP/IP became
> >the defacto standard, paying $10K for a bridge between netA and netB,
> >both proprietary.
>
> And here is where you go from thought experiment to second guessing
the
> market and prognosticating.
Well, it's not much of a extrapolation. After all, we have been there
before. TCP/IP used not to be the standard, and that is what we had.
[snip your speculation, too ;-]
> Window's didn't invent the Internet. Did anybody ever mention that
> before?
Of course they didn't. They made it popular, though. They made it "big".
> >This is a very clear example where the non-GPL'd nature of a
> >software implementation has been wildly more succesful than a GPLed
> >one would have been, because the GPL version would not have been free
> >enough.
>
> This is a routine example of your making assumptions and begging the
> question.
Ok, I am guessing that a GPL implementation would not have been so
popular because it would not have been free enough. I think it's
not much of a guess, but sure, it's a guess.
> You can't take the behavior of the software as it worked with
> non-GPL, and then assume that it will play the same role in the course
> of events as if it was GPL. Microsoft already had a networking
> strategy: MSN over NetBIOS! It sucked! So rather than them being
able
> to implement TCP/IP, they would have lost their desktop monopoly in
> Windows and DOS, because they couldn't maintain the monopoly against
the
> Internet, nor could they maintain their monopoly with open source
code.
> Either way, I don't see a problem. :-)
Or they would have fixed MSN over netbios. Who knows? It's not as if
that was impossible :-)
> >> >What would the internet be, then?
> >>
> >> Ummm. Useful for more than debating points of logic on Usenet and
> >> downloading porn?
> >
> >More likely: totally proprietary, running something other than
TCP/IP,
> >much smaller, and we would all be using something else (ARPANET?),
> >just 1000 of us, all from universities.
>
> Minus the universities (they're just too smart for that), you've
> described exactly what I did: MSN over NetBIOS. That's what *you*
would
> have as the Internet.
Erm, no. That is what someone who says the GPL is better for standard
implementations would have.
> Me? I'd have the Internet, connecting points all
> over the globe with open access and not a banner ad to be seen for
> miles.
Well, me too. I just think that could never have happened, practically.
> >If for you that's "useful", fine with me.
>
> For me, you on MSN is useful, yes. Have fun.
Ouch. You know, I am starting to feel misunderstood.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:19:19 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:20:00 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] () from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11
> [...]
>> 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.
>
>Are you willing to consider, Jedi, being what I know to be a very bright
>and reasonable person, that the MacOS doesn't do this *wrong*, for its
>purposes? Anyone who has ever been interrupted repetitively in the
Nope.
QNX is a great counterexample: genuine realtime OS.
The difference here being control and the ability to actually
garauntee and verify the results you are seeking. A "lets all
play nice" design philosophy just doesn't do that.
The same goes for UI design. If it's good enough to be a part
of some "one true UI", it should be encoded into the enviroment
such that potentially malicious or stupid individuals can't muck
it up.
>middle by a dialog box popping and re-popping in front of them because a
>background applications somehow thinks its vitally important, knows that
>requiring the foreground application (the one the operator of the
>computer has designated as most important, because that's the one
>they're using) to yield, rather than to provide pre-emptive
>multi-tasking might be considered a bit more appropriate for a desktop
>computer almost exclusively used as a client platform.
>
>MacOS just "successfully solved" how to run multi-tasking in a different
>way. It isn't necessarily inferior if it is more appropriate to their
>requirements.
[deletia]
What the MacOS does was an engineering tradeoff for a more
austere time and partially an issue of legacy support. One
doesn't need CMT in order to suddenly pollute the user's
display with messages or to assign them some heightened
priority. Infact, a system with a real executive of some sort
in control would be far more effective in delivering this sort
of thing.
--
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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:10:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >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.
>
> So not being able to do something at all (redistribute binaries of IE5
> by someone with an end user license) is less restrictive than being
able
> to do something under certain conditions (redistribute emacs binaries,
> but only under GPL)?
Is that so? I thought you could give copies of IE5. Bad example, then.
> >Technically, that means the "freeness" of both things can not be
> >ordered.
>
> We already knew that.
>
> [...]
> >> > 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"?
>
> That's not "the catch". That's the law.
Oh, the law seems to mean different things to different people. That's
a catch.
> >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.
> >
> >This opens a huge can of worms in many ways, since the linking may be
> >done by someone other than the copyright holder!
>
> This is tilting at windmills. The library linking issue might not
seem
> to make intuitive sense to you, but it does make sense to many other
> people. Perhaps you're missing something.
Or perhaps you are. Consider progA using libB. libB is public
domain. progA is proprietary.
Then I write libC, GPL. Binary compatible to libB.
I link progA to libC (after all, it's just a matter of copying a file).
Now progA is GPL? How can that be?
> If I wrote a program which used libraries, and there are many
> essentially equivalent (for my purposes) libraries available, but the
> *only one* that my code will work with is a GPL library, then it is
> safe, and indeed proper, to reasonably believe that my software is
> "based on" (and thus a derivative intellectual work) of that GPL
> library. Does this make it incredibly hard for non-GPL software to
> co-exist with GPL software? You belched; that's the intent. But it
is
> perfectly valid and legal, and quite a bit more ethical than the
> exploitation which some feel make it necessary. But "incredibly hard"
> is not a refusal to allow, and you can't accuse the anti-profiteers
from
> exploitation when they exact exorbitant prices for their raw
materials.
Assume in the example above that libB is buggy and libC is not.
Now it fits the criteria you describe. Is now progA a derived
work of libC? That breaks causality. Thus, your argument must be
broken somewhere.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:23:34 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:15:43 -0400, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>> If there existed some libsockets package, the most likley
>>>> copylefted licence to be associated with such a package
>>>> would specifically be designed to NOT create the artificial
>>>> situation you describe.
>>> Explain readline.
>> An exception.
>
>Except that the FSF doesn't want to be an exception.
At this point, it doesn't matter what the FSF wants.
That's the beauty of Free Software.
[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] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:28:52 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:38:54 -0400, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Masterfully summarized, Jedi. I now officially claim that people who
>> think Free Software isn't Free are people who think freedom for some
>> people is Freedom, and that makes them as bad as Hitler.
>
>And you were complaining about those of us who are rationally opposed to
>the lies behind the GPL as being trolls?
The one's telling lies are your cabal.
You lie when you claim that to make restrictions on freedom such
that all entities share the same level of freedom is somehow not
free.
You lie when you claim that Free Software is actually incompatible
with the construction of software where the author can use any
licence he pleases, keep the software secret and even make obscene
profits on it.
[deletia]
You also are quite dishonest when you try to claim that there is
not a significant number of users who aren't programmers yet would
benefit from commonly owned interoperability standards.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:15:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
> >> 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.
> >
> >Well, go tell that to Debian legal. They specifically say that
original
> >Qt code can not be combined with GPL code, and they say it's because
of
> >the GPL.
> >
> >I do not believe that to be true, but they do. That's why I said
"some
> >say".
>
> So why didn't you say "Debian's contention is that the reason they
won't
> combine Qt code with GPL is because they don't think the value exceeds
> the cost"?
Because that's not what I meant? The Debian position is that doing
that is illegal, not expensive.
> That would be both more factually correct and more
> intellectually honest.
Whatever.
> I feel like I'm a Microsoft troll, arguing that OEM's freely agreed to
> pre-load monopoly lock-in agreements, so Microsoft is blameless.
That should give you pause.
> If you want to back off of "it isn't free", I'll agree that GPL can be
> said to disallow combining under certain circumstances, just as
freedom
> is mitigated under certain circumstances of necessity or conflict
(like
> my right to freedom of speech doesn't outweigh Microsoft's right to
> property, so I can't legally publish the Windows source to Usenet,
even
> if I had it in my hands). But if you want to control our use of
> metaphor, I'm going to have to hold your feet to the fire on this
issue.
So, your opinion on what the GPL allows changes based on what I say?
What kind of opinion is that?
> >> >That is another form of despotism.
> >>
> >> Your statement is another form of dishonesty.
> >
> >Well, I was not stating my opinion, but other's, in particular,
> >Debian's.
>
> The fact you did not state that, could then be a form of dishonesty.
I said "some say". It's not only Debian's position. It just isn't my
position.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
