Linux-Advocacy Digest #647, Volume #27 Thu, 13 Jul 00 13:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Why use Linux?
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: ## NEW ## MULTITOOL for Linux ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. ("Louis van den Hurk")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux code going down hill (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
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! (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: 13 Jul 2000 08:15:10 -0700
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> It's getting a little tiresome for me repeating the same thing over and
> over again... doesn't any ever read what I post?
All I've read is the fact that Linux doesn't support your particular
hardware so you think LInux lags behind Windows. Why don't you give
me some specifics. I pointed out to you why Linux is a better desktop
for me. All you seem to do is rant about how 'Linux lags behind
Windows!'
A list of these alleged 'lackings' would be nice.
> > 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.
>
> Because Linux is supposed to be better than Windows, yet I find areas
> that definately need improvement. It's got nothing to do with what I
> want, but with what I find on Linux.
Better at what? What is you definition of better? What do you need
your desktop to do that Linux doesn't. I know you had some issue with
3-D sound. Fine. That's one example of an area where Linux doesn't
meet your needs. It hardly makes it an inferior desktop.
I need a desktop that will allow me to easily integrate with my
Solaris bix at work over our VPN. Windows is a kludge for this kind
of thing. Linux is ideal for it. Thus, Windows lags behind Linux for
me.
> I mean, if it is claimed to support hardware, and I find myself doing
> extra work to make it happen, what does that tell me? If it works
> without any problems on Windows, that tells me Linux is still behind
> Windows.
I've never had any problems with my hardware. Of course, I don't feel
the need to always go out and buy the latest and greatest sound and
video cards either. In fact, Mandrake recognizes all my hardware
better than Windows does. I set up DSL on both last November. It was
a 5-minute job in Linux; 30 in Windows. So it seems we have different
experiences with hardware.
I'm sorry you don't seem to like Linux. Why don't you just stick to
Windows and stop trying to convince all of us that we need to improve
something that doesn't really need improving. I'm not sure what
you're trying to accomplish here. I suspect you're just a troll. If
that's the case, I guess you hooked me. Oh well.
--
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] ()
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 15:40:31 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:51:04 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[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.
I've had the cheapest possible components available be
perfectly PNP. "el cheapo" has little to do with it and
you're simply full of it.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:45:02 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:00:41 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> and GM, Ford, and Chrysler all sell cars that won't rust if you keep
>> them in the garage.
>>
>> So, like, what's your point?
>
>Because as well as running a web server, it's acting as a file server
...evem an Atari 520ST can stay up for weeks if you don't stress it...
[deletia]
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:47:05 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 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.
Actually, that's just a means towards Gates' REAL goal.
Utter and complete control of:
ALL television stations
ALL newspapers
ALL works of art (Back in the 1980's, he went around the world
attempting
to buy the digital reproduction rights to EVERYTHING in the
Louvre, Hermitage, NY Museum of Modern Art, etc.)
ALL financial transactions
The guy is a megalomaniac who makes Hitler look like a mere
toddler with a bad attitude.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.sucks,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.best,alt.os.linux.dailup,alt.os.linux.mandrake,be.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: ## NEW ## MULTITOOL for Linux
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:48:28 -0400
Doc Shipley wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > CyberSurfer wrote:
> > >
> > > The one and only Multitool for Linux.
> > >
> > > Download here....
> > >
> > > http://www.euronet.nl/users/next/tuxlife
> >
> > I would sooner die than allow a single line of Microsoft Code to
> > be installed on a Linux machine....
>
> Well, it looks like you could run this crap all day long without
> violating that. I downloaded the "MultiTool" code and looked thru the
> source - flag # 1, when did MS EVER release source code?? - and nowhere
> in the source does M$ claim ownership. At worst it's a trojan, at best
> it's just a troll's joke.
Good to know.
The thought of M$ writing code for linux is scary.
>
> --
> Doc Shipley
> Network Stuff
> Austin, Earth
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Louis van den Hurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Uptime 6 months and counting.
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:42:11 +0200
You can bring down NT with a badly burned CD ... happened to me once .. put
the cd in, NT crashed on that one.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 30 Jun 2000 11:13:58 -0700, Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> >
> >> On 30 Jun 2000 01:06:30 -0700, robert3@# <robert3@#> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > My server and other "mission critical" hosts have been up and
running now
> >> >>> > for more than six months!
> >> >
> >> >Unix systems are supposed to be up for long times. Not like those
window
> >> >joke things.
> >>
> >> Our solaris and irix boxes don't go down for any reason short
> >> of a power outtage.
> >
> >
> >My Solaris workstation crashed on me for the first time ever a couple
> >of weeks ago. I was running some very questionable beta CAD software
> >used for IC design. I've lost Openwindows before, but this was a
> >full-blown kernel panic. Never seen one before. It was ugly!
> >
> >That workstation hadn't been rebooted in over a year, and then it was
> >only because of a hardware upgrade. You have to try _really_ hard to
> >break Solaris.
>
> ...mebbe. Certainly you have to try _really_ hard when compared
> to what effort it takes to bring down NT in a similar enviroment.
>
> --
>
> |||
> / | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 13 Jul 2000 10:54:28 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I thought everyone involved in the discussion would already
>>know the history of the RIPEM case, and would be aware of
>>all the extra work the Linux and *BSD volunteers have had
>>to do to avoid the restrictions of each other's licenses.
>
>Thanks for the help, Clyde.
These things are not difficult to find.
>>>at all these days, and since all software is based on the work of others
>>>as well as the author, all software being GPL is a good thing.
>>
>>No it isn't. Having a choice as a good thing. The only way
>>someone can 'profiteer' on unrestricted software is to add
>>enough value that many people choose to their version instead
>>of the freely available version in spite of the cost and they
>>have to keep doing it in competition with others adding
>>to the free base.
>
>Why do you call software I have to agree to a trade secret license to
>use "unrestricted"?
I'm not. I am calling the work that someone wrote and made
available to everyone unrestricted. Regardless of any
additional restricted components someone else may add to
a derived work, that original base is still available
to you and everyone else.
>Yes, yes, I know, you're talking about non-GPL open
>stuff. But what you aren't getting is that this is no different in
>character from commercial trade secret licenses; it is merely a less
>restrictive one. It is by no means unrestrictive, because it does not
>*remove* the restrictions that copyright law already puts in place.
No software can remove someone else's restrictions and I
don't understand why anyone thinks it would be good for
this to be possible. All the GPL restriction can do is
prevent distribution of any derived work that involves
code with different restrictions. I also don't understand
why anyone thinks this situation is good either. It simply
means that for free components to exist that end up as
derived works with other components, all GPL'd code must
be re-implemented under a less restricted license. Or the
free component won't exist at all.
>I am not arguing against non-GPL open source. I am arguing against
>non-GPL software. Between commercial and open, obviously I'd prefer
>open. But that isn't "free enough" for RSM, and it isn't free enough
>for me, either.
It isn't free at all - it is just restricted.
>If GPL is "too free" for some developers, then don't
>use GPL. Sooner or later, you will find more efficient business models;
>you will have to, the market will demand it. But it won't be a
>precipitous change. Its going to take many years.
The inability to combine GPL code with anything else will make
this take much longer and perhaps make it completely impossible.
>But once a typical
>user can function equitably on a personal computer with open source
>software, then the need for end-user licensing will be gone, because
>people will no longer need to accept licensing restrictions to gain
>access to software, and they will no longer be willing to do so.
You are assuming that GPL versions of everything that people
want will eventually be written. Even if this is possible,
which isn't true if any patented technology is involved, it
is unlikely. Some programming tasks are just too mind-numbingly
boring to be done without expecting a payoff.
>Then
>all open source might as well be GPL, because the copyright law already
>prevents what you feel sure will kill your ability to profit from your
>work. The only thing that can stop people from paying someone to "sell
>them software" is when the people don't want software. They'll always
>want it, so programmers will remain employed.
Huh? I never pay anyone to sell me software that doesn't require
licensing. Why would anyone?
>Will you be able to make billions of dollars on software any more than
>on books or magazines or documentaries? No. Does that stop books and
>magazines and documentaries from being produced? No.
Most people can't 'produce' their own book from an electronic
copy as cheap as they can buy them even if the copyright
allowed it - yet. Audio is just coming around in this
respect.
> [...]
>> In my opinion, the existence of the Ciscos
>>forming the internet backbone greatly enhances your ability
>>to use your own TCP copy rather than taking anything away.
>
>Except Cisco's don't form the internet backbone, and the certainly don't
>enhance my ability to use TCP. But your argument disassembles the very
>basis of the Internet to begin with, so I won't bother trying to explain
>it.
Do you think the internet would exist if not for the hardware
vendor's ability to make a profit? Do you think it would
have an open protocol if not for the availability of the
code base with essentially no restrictions on derivatives?
>>Or, look at Sun who made proprietary versions but contributed
>>back NFS. How were you harmed by that? Had the base code
>>been GPL'd, those companies probably could not have started
>>up and we'd all be running OSI or SNA now, under the control
>>of a single large company who could afford to write everything
>>from scratch.
>
>Why do all of your examples require these massive assumptions about what
>a market which doesn't exist would "probably" do?
We know what it has done and what we like about it.
>I do not *need* to
>second-guess the market. Don't ANY of you people understand free
>enterprise?
Not as well as Microsoft...
>No, you don't. Because you assume that the reason the market is there
>is to give you an opportunity to make money.
Free software doesn't have much to to with either a market or
making money.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:57:42 GMT
In article <8jlt92$o04$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It seems Linux is really going down hill do the lack of
> proper source control and testing. I have been trying out the
> latest release of Redhat,
How latest. There are alpha products based on the newest 2.4 kernel
that have not yet been released in CD-ROM form. Is this what your
talking about?
Are you talking about standard CD-ROM distribution published by
the distributor (as opposed to some cheap-bytes CD you picked up
at a local computer show?).
> and the clear command core dumps on me,
> the "xterm" terminal definition is wrong, man pages are
> consistenly wrong, and various include files do not support the
> standards.
> Code that compiled on earlier releases, now bombs
> trying to include stdio.h! Is this code being worked on by a
> bunch of kids that failed software engineering class?
No, it being worked on by engineers, system administrators, web site
managers, and anyone else with a vested interest in the success of
that particular piece of code. Sure, there may be a few students,
guys like Bill Joy, a student at Berkely University, who wrote a
number of TCP/IP utilities, a text editor with a full-screen front
end, and several other useful utilities. After he graduated he
teamed up with a guy named Scott McNealy and formed a little
company. May you've heard of it - Sun Microsystems?
> I'm convinced Solaris x86 is the way to go for a
> generalized PC OS now.
For 10 years Sun sat back and did NOTHING to help the UNIX on PC
movement. Actually, to be fair, many of Sun's employees and customers
did make significant contributions to the Linux kernel as volunteer
contributors contributing to the GPL source code pool. This was just
Sun giving back a little of what it had been given. Sun has benefitted
from Open Source code since the very beginning.
> The code is mature, tested, and doesn't
> have every hack with a C book messing it up.
Actually, there's a very rigid control structure behind open source.
Just because any idiot can add a source code patch doesn't mean that
every source code patch that comes in from every idiot automatically
gets installed into the code. Code fork do occaisionally pop up, but
usually they are versioning delays or modules rather than major
differences in core products.
In fact, Sun and Linux often use much of the same Open Source source
code.
> It's also free and the source code is available.
Does this mean free to EVERYONE? Or just to developers, students, and
home users?
> Why bother with Linux anymore?
Sun has the same problem with Solaris that IBM had with OS/2. It isn't
that Solaris isn't a good product, it's just that no one wants to put
Sun (or IBM) into the position of being the "Next Microsoft". Even the
BSD variants didn't manage to manage the code forks. The General
Public License of Linux actually REDUCES the number, frequency, and
duration of code forks.
Most of the hardware drivers used in Solaris are adaptations of Linux
drivers. Sun did have an Intel platform but dropped it when they
realized that they couldn't support 10^20 configuration combinations.
I have little doubt that Sun, HP, IBM, and all of the other UNIX
vendors will be competing to win a share of the Linux market, by
supporting the same utilities and applications available to Linux.
But asking 30-90 million Linux users to suddenly drop Linux and switch
to Solaris would take some engineering that I don't thing Sun can
muster, combined with cooperation from OEMs that Sun hasn't ever been
willing to seek.
No one controls Linux and that's it's biggest advantage. When Red Hat
failed to agressively go after the desktop market, Mandrake popped up
and filled in the hole. When Mandrake and SuSE didn't support
installation without repartitioning, Corel made a release that
installed on an MS-DOS file. When Corel didn't install very
politely, SuSE and Mandrake filled in the hole.
Linux has done for the Computer industry what standards did
for the automotive industry. When you get into a car, you
pretty much have the same controls in the same locations. You
may need to know the difference between a 5-speed transmission
and an automatic in terms of operation, but for the most part,
you can walk into a car rental agency and get pretty much any
car from an economy GEO all the way to a Lincoln Town Car and
be pretty certain that you will be able to drive the car.
Notice that it didn't take a monopoly to do this. The car makers
simply adopted a set of standards which were eventually formalized
and used to standardize the industry. It was the buyers, the War
efforts of World War 1 and World War 2, corporate customers needing
fleets of cars, trucks, and vans, and dealers that eventually
drove the industry into voluntary standardization.
The internals change quite significantly. I could take my Rambler
American apart and put it back together with some box-end wrenches.
My Mazda RX-7 required a computer programmer, computer aided
diagnostics, and custom tools just to change the spark plugs
and give it a "tune-up".
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:59:17 GMT
Jedi said there was no likelyhood or necessity of libraries being GPL.
I then wrote:
> >> >There are libraries under the GPL: libreadline, libgdbm, for
example,
> >>
> >> That only means there are exceptions to the norm.
> >
> >So, what? You know, the old latin proverb doesn't say that the
exception
> >proves the rule, but that the exception TESTS the rule. Meaning that
> >if the exception is real, the rule is not universal.
>
> I never claimed it was actually. You're the one using
> rhetoric that requires such broad assumptions.
You say that there is no likelyhood of libraries being GPL, despite,
say, REALITY, and I am the one that's making bad rethoric? Excuse
me while I puke.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:03:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >> That only means there are exceptions to the norm.
> >
> >So, what? You know, the old latin proverb doesn't say that the
exception
> >proves the rule, but that the exception TESTS the rule. Meaning that
> >if the exception is real, the rule is not universal.
>
> ...which is meant to indicate that no rules are universal, and so you
> cannot use one exception to indicate that a rule doesn't exist.
Excuse me, but romans were not idiots. If that was the goal, then
everyone could postulate anything as a rule, and whenever it fails,
it wouldn't matter.
Romans cared much more about logic than that,
Usually, it means that the exception either was not an exception because
of some hidden fact, or that the rule should be changed to account for
it.
For example: if 1/x can not be derived at 0, that meant that the rule
"all functions can be derived" was not a good rule, and that it had
to be changed, or discarded.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:10:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >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.
>
> There is no causality requirements in intellectual property;
Ha! How can I derive my work from a work that does not exist at the
time I created my work? That's nonsense.
> prior art
> is the closest you get. "Derivative work" simply doesn't have the
> physical analogy in relationship that you expect from being a software
> developer. In many ways "derivative" in IP might even mean simply
> "similar".
No, derived work does not mean similar, on IP or anywhere else.
IANAL, but neither are you.
Even if derived could mean similar, then causality must hold, or
it would be possible to infringe a copyright of a non-created work.
That is science fiction, right next to time travel.
--
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: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:28:52 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:59:17 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Jedi said there was no likelyhood or necessity of libraries being GPL.
...a claim rather well supported by the fact that the one
trying to undermine it infact works on a large generalized
framework that is not, which itself exploits many facilities
that are themselves not.
Otherwise, KDE would be restricted to the GPL rather than the LGPL.
[deletia]
You continue to make claims contrary to your own immediate experience.
--
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: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:20:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip] I won't debate with you anymore.
> >Honestly, I was in it for fun. People like you make me doubt it's
worth
> >the trouble.
>
> Why is that? Is free inquiry a bit too scary for you?
No, it's the part where you asked me to die, bozo, and that you deleted
in your response. I need not take shit from you.
Now, what have you done for this "free software community" you seem
to like so much? What have you done to pull your own weight?
--
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
******************************
