Linux-Advocacy Digest #635, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Russ Allbery)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Re: C# is a copy of java
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
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] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 13 Jul 2000 02:21:44 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:09:09 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>That doesn't mean that PMT is
>magically superior to CMT. Quite the opposite in fact. It means CMT
>*is* superior, as I've stated, because it, rather than being a simple
>archaic approach, requires cooperation from app vendors, which *does*
>require a mandate to be implemented, given the differing perspective of
>the vendor and the end user versus the ultra-geek that knows what a
>real-time OS is. It also contributes (without either guaranteeing or
>prohibiting the alternative) to allowing the operator to have control
>over which applications get priority, without having to actually
>implement a priority system, by simply assuming (and it is a valid
>assumption almost all the time on a desktop client system) that whatever
>program the user is working in is the one that should have priority.
You still haven't answered me: if this is the case, why is MacOS the
only shipping CMT desktop OS, and why is Apple phasing it out in favor
of a PMT operating system?
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
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 22:42:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] () from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12
[...]
>>You bet your ass, buckaroo. I'm gonna be SWIMMIN' in GRAVY. Woo-hoo!!!
>
> Besides "dont modify me or else you will have to release your
> changes" does not necessarily conflict with the old model of
> software development and marketing.
>
> Not everyone that likes Free Software or will defend the semantics
> of it's political rhetoric believe in any sort of "all GPL Utopia".
>
> To claim so is simply weak rhetoric meant to distract from the
> actual argument.
Well, I don't claim that universally, but I know its certainly my
personal feelings on the matter. But then again, it may have slipped
some people's minds when I pointed out how I'll be "swimmin in gravy" in
an all-GPL utopia: I'm not a programmer. I make my living explaining
technology to other people. Believe me, I'm not worried that open
source is going to hurt my business. ;-)
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 02:36:23 GMT
In article <8kgahp$sea$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Lee Hollaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Until RMS becomes the federal court judge hearing your copyright
>case, it makes little difference what he considers a derivative work.
Only true if you like lawsuits.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:51:04 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 04:49:24 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 04:03:38 +1000, Christopher Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> What hardware would that be these days?
> >> >
> >> >Try some el cheapo kwung-how hardware, and you'll soon find out.
> >>
> >> That's "el cheapo".
> >>
> >> That's not non-pnp.
> >
> >The two often go hand in hand, which was my point.
>
> This is merely supposition on your part.
This is hard, cold experience on my part.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:53:35 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting Christopher Smith from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Quoting Christopher Smith from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
> >> [...]
> >> >OTOH, we get Mac advocates claiming Windows doesn't have PnP because
it
> >> >doesn't work perfectly with non-PnP hardware.....
> >>
> >> Yes, but you also get PC advocates who claim that Window's proprietary
> >> version of PnP has trouble with PnP hardware, as well as non-PnP
> >> hardware.
> >
> >Please detail how Windows' PnP is "proprietry".
>
> That's a good one. LOL.
I didn't think you could.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:54:59 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting Christopher Smith from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >IRQs are a pretty simple issue. If you have cards that cannot share
IRQs,
> >then they must each have a unique one. If you have more cards than IRQs,
> >you're stuffed.
>
> Ooh, thanks. A shame I didn't learn that back in 1986. Duh.
>
> [...I've read the whole message, but you don't seem to have anything
> that is any more useful to contribute, so...]
Max, you spend hours every day adding nothing useful to discussions, why
should this be any different ?
------------------------------
From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 19:41:08 -0700
In gnu.misc.discuss, Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
Very good point. I've not heard precisely what their counsel has said
either and would be curious. (On the other hand, if they're considering
any lawsuits, it may not in their best interests to fully disclose that at
this point.)
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
------------------------------
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 22:56:04 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
[...]
>> If almost all software is open source, then there's no reason for it not
>> to be GPLd.
>
>There's plenty of reasons to avoid the GPL, even if almost all software
>is open source. Your assumption that there isn't a reason is false.
Did it occur to you that if your statement is true, I might like to know
a bit more detail? I didn't make any assumption; I stated a conjecture.
You contradicted, but did not truly dispute it. Elaborate, or don't
bother saying anything to begin with. You won't be affected by my
ignorance if you don't want to be.
[...]
>When you say this, you demonstrate that you haven't the faintest clue
>about the realities of software development.
Thank you. I try.
>There will *always* be a
>market for ownership of software, since it is *that* which provides the
>vast majority of the funds for the production and maintenance of
>software. For your delusional fantasy to become anything close to
>reality, then software will have to *stop* being a competitive
>advantage. Which won't happen.
You're just begging the question. Since ownership is required for
capitalism, capitalism is required for software. How much capital do
you need to improve a product that's already written? Answer: as much
as you can get, and if that ain't jack, then that ain't jack.
I didn't even realize, I guess because I must be just plain immune to
it, that this is a FUD tactic. You are honestly trying to scare people
into avoiding GPL by saying "if you buy that, no software worth buying
will be available". An entirely ludicrous statement, and it has nothing
to do with the "realities of software development". It is the reality
of a free market. If software is worth buying, it will be available.
As long as there's a free market. And right now there ain't, but its
the only market you've ever seen for software, so you *assume* it is the
only one which could exist.
Software will sell for whatever its value is, and will be capitalized as
much as desired by the market, in whatever way the market can manage to
find to do so. And it will. Trade secrets in the guise of software, on
the other hand, will also be presented for its true value. Since it is
worthless if any alternative is available that isn't a trade secret, it
will be worthless. Might sound scary to you. Might work as good FUD
for the less cluefull. But it sounds like heaven to me.
--
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: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:02:35 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting Christopher Smith from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >No, there is not. CMT has no place and absolutely zero advantages on any
> >general purpose machine where the operating system developer does not
have
> >absolute and total control over every instruction that is ever executed
on
> >it.
>
> What the hell does the operating system developer have to do with it?
How else can you guarantee the programs are going to co-operate unless the
developers of all of them, and the OS, have collaborated ?
> You're not saying "cooperation between applications is impossible" are
> you?
It's close enough to impossible when you're talking about hundreds of
different developers creating hundreds of different applications (ie in the
context of a general purpose system). How is the developer of application X
supposed to know how often to yield to given acceptable performance when
it's being run with apps A, B and Q ? Ditto for those developers. CMT on
such a system is just A Bad Idea.
The Mac probably has one of the best CMT schedulers around and it *still*
sucks rocks at basic multitasking. This is not the fault of the OS, past
the fact it's using an inferior scheduling method, but the fault of the
applications.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:39:12 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bravo! Bravo!
One other thing I sometimes suggest to these kinds of people is: "If you
have discovered that Linux is lacking ----- which you really think it needs,
why don't you develop it. If don't know how to program, then becoe the
project coordinater and locate others that agree with you and together
develop it." If they come back with something like, "Why should I do that?
I don't with Windows!" I counter along the line of "if every one had that
attitude, Linux would not even exist."
Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > >Oh yeah, your Voodoo 5 is now supported. Get XFree86 4.0.1.
> >
> > Yes I know.
> >
> > I also got the Windows 2000 drivers. I installed it, it worked.
> >
> > I installed XFree86 4.0.1 and, it took a while to get working. Using the
> > config program generated a duff XF86Config file, I had to make some
small
> > changes to make it work.
> >
> > With Windows 2000, dead easy.
> >
> > With Linux, a little effort to get working beta quality software.
> >
> > Hmm...
> >
> > ...this means...
> >
> > ...Linux lags behind Windows (for the Voodoo 5 driver!).
> >
> > >What's wrong with minimalist desktops? :)
> >
> > They're a bit lacking.
> >
> > Pete
>
>
> Pete,
>
> It's becoming a little tiresome listening to this same tune over and
> over. Why exactly do you think that Linux lags behind Windows on the
> desktop. What are some of the specific areas where you feel this
> way. Is it simply because Linux doesn't support every piece of PC
> hardware on the planet? Is it because you don't have Word/Excel? I
> want specifics, not hand-waving dismissals.
>
> I'll give you specific reasons why I feel that Linux is a better
> desktop for me than Windows, and why I feel that Windows lags behind
> Linux on the desktop. They are:
>
> 1) Stability - I don't think there's any dispute here, even from you.
>
> 2) Security - Multi-user OSes keep me from doing nasty things to the
> system, not to mention give me a measure of security from viruses
> that is lacking on Win9x.
>
> 3) Choice - You seem to feel that choice in desktops is a bad thing.
> I, OTOH, feel it allows the user to express himself and craft his
> machine to fit his needs. If resources are limited, I can run a
> minimalist desktop like fvwm which you berate as 'lacking'. If I
> have unlimited RAM and a 1 GHz Athlon, and I want to dazzle my
> friends, I can run a pig like E. I can lop the GUI altogether if I
> want. There's nothing 'lacking' here.
>
> 4) Free - This is a big one. I don't have to rely on one company for
> everything. Linux is affordable and I can take a single CD and
> give it to as many of my friends as I want without fear of being
> called a pirate.
>
>
> I could give you a lot of specifics as well, including better
> devlopment tools/environment, the aforementioned virtual desktops,
> integration with Solaris which I use at work, and so on. These are
> things that are important to me, no one else. Linux gives me these,
> Windows doesn't. Linux is a superior desktop to Windows, for _me_.
>
> Why don't you just say what you mean: Linux doesn't have the things
> _you_ want in a desktop right now. Everyone here will agree with you
> and say "Cool. Wait a while." When you continue to throw out
> duragatory terms like 'lacking' or 'lagging' or 'inferior', you just
> piss people off. Most people use and develop for Linux because they
> _want_ to, not because they want to make a buck, although some do.
> When you disparage a labor of love, people take offense.
>
> Just my $0.02,
> 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]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:49:17 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Pete Goodwin wrote:
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8kiii4$1vi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > >Please read the finding in the DOJ vs Microsoft case.
> > >
> > > Oh I know some of the details of that case.
> > >
> > > However... people don't buy OS's if they're _that_ bad. Could it be
that
> > > Microsoft actually got some it _right_?
> > >
> > > I would have preferred if they weren't so aggressive, or so determined
to
> > > make sure they win, but without that, do you really think they were
> > > creating something so terrible?
> > >
> > > Pete
> >
> > Was that before or after they put DRI and DrDos out of business
> > by making sure that win3.1 would NOT run on it no matter what.
> > Encrypted code and all.
> >
> > JIM
>
>
> Not to mention when they stole STAC's compression scheme. ;)
>
> These things matter to a lot of people. The end doesn't always
> justify the means. In fact, with Win9x, I'd argue that the end isn't
> even _good_.
You have made one mistake in your analysis. It seem as though you think
that Microsoft software was the end. But in effect, the software was more
of the means to the end of making Little Billy and associates so rich. If
software was the ends, it would have been a hell of a lot better designed
and written.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:03:24 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I agree, I see C++ as with just C with a few nice addons. But knowing the
difference is handy when you have program in an environment that support C
but not C++ or if you have to port to one of them.
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Nitpicking time. That sample is not C it is C++. ;-)
> >
>
> While there is religious debate on each side, I don't really care to
> make a distinction. People will flame about this, but seriously, who
> cares. C++ is just C with some more features like classes and templates,
> and that's how I use it. I am more productive than the C purists that
> have to re-invent the object/class wheel for each project (think GTK),
> and my code is more efficient than the C++ purists that objectify
> everything regardless if a modular approach makes more sense.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 02:49:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> 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.
Below we can see that Austin is loosing by his propensity for foul
language and insults.
>Max, you don't know the first fucking thing you're talking about.
>
>If you haven't recognised it yet, the -exploiters- are not those who
>wish to make derivative works. They are the distributers.
Disagree. Quite a few of us work for distributors. I do, and always
have. It is their need to better the product and improve it, address
customer concerns and the like that improves the software, in my
experience. I'd say this accounted for at least 70% of the
development I saw for g++.
Does anyone else share your opinion, preferable someone that actually
makes money with GPLed software.
------------------------------
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 23:01:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But it isn't and can't be because of existing restrictions, including
>patents which preclude the possibility of GPL'd re-implementation.
Do you have some more specific description of how patents preclude GPL
implementation? AFAIK: ALL patents are inherently "open source" to
begin with, after all. Having to license a patent in order to prepare
derivative works of GPL software is a requirement for the developer to
deal with, and does not inhibit or affect GPL itself. No specific
patents are *necessary* for any specific piece of general purpose
software. No requirement that all software become GPL before patents
expire has been indicated. These are all AFAIK. Feel free to correct
me; please do not feel free to contradict me unless you also present
some reasoning or information.
>>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.
Yea, OK. If you say so. Fine.
[...]
--
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 23:07:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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.
>
>Theoretically they don't, but in practice they do and with
>the serious problem of prohibiting clean-room reimplementations.
No, you misunderstand. They *don't*. It is not a "practical" issue.
It is a legal issue.
>Copyright law only applies if the specific thing is copied.
Copyright law applies if the thing is a work of authorship fixed in
tangible form.
>Patents apply even if the second implementor knows nothing
>about the first.
Patents apply if the thing is a process or invention.
>But this is the thread about the problems of the GPL, and the
>correct place for it.
So you've lost too much ground already, and need to defuse the
discussion, is that it? Threads are for convenience sake, dude. All
you've accomplished is making this one even less attractive to those who
might want to join in.
>>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.
>
>Obtaining a patent involves time and expense. The purpose of
>doing it is unlikely to be so you can give away the result.
So?
[...]
>OK, then describe how you would be able to use any GPL'd code
>in a product that works with GIF files.
Anybody producing GPL code would have to pay for a license from the
patent holder, I would assume. I'll bet it would make GIF get replaced
real fast if that was the only reason you had to charge for a product
that works with GIF files, huh? Sounds like a good thing to me.
Patents are to spur development. If they don't spur development, they
shouldn't be used. They are not there to trap the unwary (even if they
sometimes do); they are there to "encourage the development of the
useful arts and sciences".
Again, the key is that you're supposed to make a profit off of a patent.
Not that you're supposed to profiteer off of a patent.
>>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.
>
>Such as?
Make something up, because it doesn't matter. Its for the market to
figure out the most efficient method of producing goods, not me.
--
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
******************************
