Linux-Advocacy Digest #633, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Isaac)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 01:49:40 GMT
On 12 Jul 2000 17:39:19 -0700, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In gnu.misc.discuss, Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Actually it might just mean that the lawyer doesn't think he's risking a
>> Rule 11 sanction for signing an entirely unsupportable claim. It might
>> even mean that the lawyer would be willing to argue that existing law
>> should be changed or reinterpreted to support the claim.
>
>Yes, but having heard statements from the FSF legal counsel in the past, I
>don't believe this would be the case. The main FSF legal counsel that
Fair enough. I'm really just pointing out the outer boundary.
>I've seen cited in the past is Eben Moglen, Professor of Law and Legal
>History at Columbia Law School. In general, given the way he expresses
>himself, I would expect his legal opinions (as opposed to his personal
>opinions) to be well-grounded in the law and not driven by the desires of
>the FSF or his beliefs as to what the law *should* be like.
>
Sounds good. But what's been attributed to him on this subject? All I
remember seeing is an statement from the FSF concerning what they would
sue about. I seem to also recall some statement that their position was
supported by their/an attorney, but I don't remember any statement from a
lawyer pointing to or hinting at a well grounded legal theory. I'd much
rather discuss that then the "subterfuge", "phantom distribution", or
API copyright theories that seem to be favored explanations.
I think it's fair to make a distinction between what a lawyer says and
what a client says his lawyer will support. The FSF has strong and
understandable motivation to suggest that a program is a derivative
work of the library it links to.
Isaac
------------------------------
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 22:36:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>>> Because the protocol itself was left for vendor specification, it would
>>> not have mattered at all that the protocol's reference implementation
>>> was -- except that the few Unix vendors who have expressed any support
>>> for it at all wouldn't have bothered to express the minimal support
>>> that they have. I don't think they would have bothered doing a clean
>>> room implementation.
>> Unix vendors are rapidly learning that they have no need to keep their
>> source code secret. Again, you argue historical reality, which was
>> valid at the time.
>
>It's still valid. If the choice for an unproven technology is (a)
>incorporate code that will force you to reveal everything about your
>own competitive advantage, (b) do a clean room implementation, or (c)
>don't bother -- vendors, by and large, will choose (c).
Followed by (c1), where they go out of business for not providing any
value to the consumer.
>Once that technology is proven, then they will likely choose (b) or
>maybe even (d) license a clean room implementation.
>
>Technologies need critical mass, and if vendors choose (c) en masse,
>then the technology will wither on the vine.
If vendors choose (c), the vendors are what's going to wither on the
vine.
[...]
>I haven't suggested that vendors in general don't use reference
>implementations. I have suggested that when a technology is new,
>vendors won't do anything but support reusable reference
>implementations.
And I say that's too bad for them. They're going to have to work for my
money. They need my business more than I need their implementation.
>> Would [the GPLing of reference implementations] inhibit development
>> of protocols?
>
>Yes, it would -- at least *open* protocols.
There are no other kind, as far as I am concerned. And it will only
inhibit such development until we get rid of the profiteers. Then we
won't tolerate whining that its too hard to do a simple protocol
implementation from scratch. Geez. I can't believe anyone is using
that as an argument. What FUD.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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 22:37:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting John S. Dyson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000 10:46:23
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>>Anyone, with common sense understands what is going on.
>>
>> Anyone with common sense should know your prognostications are just
>> about as good as anyone else's that doesn't have a clue but thinks
>> they're well informed. Unfortunately, common sense isn't up to the
>> challenge, but at least we have your general ignorance to remind us.
>>
>Well, your ignorance shows that your guesses about 'swimming in
>money' haven't come true yet? The big cash infusion has already
>happened, and still waiting shows some delay. Prices might
>increase a little for a while, but the key here is timing at
>the peak, and then the subsequent time value of money. The
>investment community is now aware of the conversion schemes
>like GPL only firms.
You're clueless, John. And I've already more specifically critiqued
your inability to give valid business advice.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
