Linux-Advocacy Digest #774, Volume #27 Wed, 19 Jul 00 09:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("David Brown")
Re: Star Office to be open sourced ("T Bluck.")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Larry Smith")
Re: Linux, easy to use?
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... (Donovan Rebbechi)
FREE Thru 7/21 - Huge LINUXWORLD EXPO Aug. 14-17 In San Jose, Calif. (Mark S. Bilk)
Userland NFS going strong ... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux, easy to use?
Re: I just don't buy it ("Adam Warner")
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (phil hunt)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Isaac)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Isaac)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Isaac)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Tore Lund)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:40:42 +0200
Stuart Fox wrote in message <8l42ul$ohj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>Well, most NT Admins I know agree that
>SP2 was terrible, SP3 was OK, SP4 was better, SP5 was better still & SP6 is
>best once the initials bugs were ironed out...
>
SP2 was terrible, SP3 was quite good, but things went downhill after that.
SP4 was a rush job to cover some Y2K problems, and introduced some new
features and almost as many bugs as the original NT. SP5, 6 and 6a exist
mainly to fix the bugs introduced in SP4. Now SP6a is pretty much as stable
as SP3, at the expense of having problems running older Win16 and DOS
software that runs fine under SP3. In my company, we rely on several older
software packages so I insist that all machines run NT 4.0 + SP3, no more
and no less.
------------------------------
From: "T Bluck." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:40:09 +0000
In article <8l3kot$9f9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Linus Torvalds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>phil hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>MS Word has been getting *worse* since about 1995. The guy who came up
>>with that stupid paper clip wants to be shot. What *were* they thinking of?
>
>What?
>
>I love that thing!
>
>Not that I've actually ever _used_ it, but every time I see it dancing
>around in somebodys corner going "boink boink" and looking stupid and
>cute at the same time I _want_ it.
>
>Never mind the _rest_ of Word. Which I could (and can) do quite well
>without, thank you very much. But that dancing paperclip needs to be
>ported to Linux. Pronto!
>
> Linus
How about a talking penguin, you could shut it up for a
while by throwing it a fish...
All The Best.
--
Tim Bluck. TB565 http://www.planet-tharg.demon.co.uk
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:26:13 -0400
JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >Letting the market create winners and losers isn't "perfect" but it's the
>> >best thing man has come up with so far. Insert the government into the
>> >equation, who's sole misguided solution is to strip the OS of any extra
>> >applications and give the consumer "less" for the same or more money
>isn't a
>> >logical answer.
>>
>> Lets say we do nothing -- That gives us a M$ monopoly over society --
>since
>> the computer and the information controlled with it will, in the future
>> determine how government and business and society work.
>I like the way the word "monopoly" gets used to define everything here.
>"Monopoly over Society?" What the hell is that?
>Here's what you do - don't buy the software.
Hey there is hope for you. This is what the anti-trust action is all about.
Not being forced to buy M$ software.
>> Get over it. M$ is not going to be allowed to control the future. It is
>going
>> to be broken up. Get use to the idea.
>Wrong - there's a slim chance they won't get to control their own future,
>there was never a chance that anyone would be controlling "The Future".
You're right. Because M$ is going to be STOPPED.
>> >Microsoft won't lose anything in the deal, as a matter of fact they will
>> >probably increase their revenue because of it.
>>
>> So? M$ will probably need it to pay all the civil suits that are going t
>> come.
>Which ones are those?
Read the news. There are billions at stake and M$ is going to lose every one
of them.
>> >Where in history has the government been successful at running a
>business?
>> >Now they want to help the poor stupid ignorant consumer get the most for
>his
>> >buck in computer software. People just weren't making the correct choices
>on
>> >their own.
>>
>> You have a phony issue here. Government has been very suscessful in some
>> business -- usually the ones that free-enterprise couldn't figure out how
>to
>> handle. In any event, the government is not proposing to run M$. They
>are
>> just getting ready to make sure M$ doesn't run everyone else -- any
>longer.
>Which business has the U.S. government been successfull at running?
Try the REA for starters. They brought electricity and telephone service to
90% of rural America and never cost the taxpayer one penny. -- But it
doesn't matter, the government is not going to run M$. M$ will still do that.
-- You really need to change this line of thinking before I get the idea your
head is up there in the dark -- The government will just make sure M$ plays
fair now.
I guess that must be a very scary thing for M$. Eh?
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:12:29 -0400
JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8l35h4$a6m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : The statement above has absolutely no facts to debate. Instead of
>reciting
>> : the anti-MS "evil Microsoft" line try laying down some proven incidents
>of
>> : wrongdoing on Microsoft's part.
>>
>> Why bother repeating the effort of the court case? Go read
>> Judge Jackson's findings of fact. This task has already been
>> done.
>Very few facts can be found there.
Are you for real? Its "factual" enough that now M$ is hanging on thread
praying and paying that US Supreme Court will not make them into pieces. ---
Its over and you need to get a life.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: 19 Jul 2000 12:02:41 GMT
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:30:15 -0700, Pan wrote:
>Indeed. And Perl tk, which is also phenomenal for rapidly scripting
>widgets. What it took me several weeks to learn how to do in c/gtk
>(possibly because I currently suck at both c and c++), I picked up in
>Perl in about 5 minutes.
Perl Tk is OK for small apps but it doesn't scale upwards that nicely,
largely due to it's callback-oriented nature.
OTOH, I recently played with Python QT and it's really nice. IMO, GTK
and QT are clear winners in the toolkit stakes.
>I haven't even messed around with tcl yet, but why bother when perl and
>python are so easy? Let's not pretend that vb is as multipurpose as
>perl,
Perl is good as a shell script replacement, and the fact that its
implementation of POSIX is fairly good ( and complete ) can also prove
useful for other tasks ( such as network applicatioons ). But it
lacks real OO ( it doesn't have any privacy )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: 19 Jul 2000 12:05:06 GMT
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:56:26 +0200, David Brown wrote:
>Kdevelop and glade are under development - they are not yet suitable for
>people who are used to being able to quickly write small applications with
>Delphi. They are getting there, but they are not yet ready.
Neither is Delphi (-;
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Larry Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 08:07:04 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> There is no discussion of anything else, and I think you have heard too
> many scare-stories. Government bureaucracy is never attractive to a
> reasonable person. But so long as it remains bureaucracy and does not
> progress to tyranny, a result unlikely given our system of checks and
> balances (where the court can over-rule attempts by Congress to inhibit
> liberty, and the Congress can write new laws to save the citizens from
> unfortunate applications of jurisprudence), it is unreasonable to oppose
> it prima facia.
Yes, this worked quite well at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Not some local sheriff
but the feds and, in the case of Waco, the US Attorney General. All still
have their jobs. Given the same electron microscope examination, a large
percentage of US corporations would fail these tests in many of the same
ways that Microsoft purportedly did. Where's the interest in them? Further,
I've yet to see any serious examples of industry stifling caused by
Microsoft. On the other hand, there are countless examples of whinny
"competitors" that couldn't or wouldn't, many of whom have spent large
amounts of money in Washington DC. Imagine that.
> --
> 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! =-----
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 19 Jul 2000 08:17:46 -0400
On 1 Jul 2000 00:10:11 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>
>:> Some Windows apps use ctrl-ins / shift-ins.
>
>: True, where CTRL-C and CTRL-V are usually inappropriate, like terminals.
>
>Eh??? Control-characters are infinitely more appropriate for a terminal
>interface than the special ins/del keys, because ctrl-c and ctrl-v are
>ASCII characters, so they have identical codes on all terminals. ins/del
>might not even *exist* in some terminal's codes, and even when they do,
>they'll be different for different terminals. (Not a problem if you have
>a Unix-like termcap or terminfo config, but Windows is not such an animal.)
That's really the whole point of using ins/del. ^C and ^V might have
special meanings to the program that is using the terminal right now,
and if your X11 terminal emulator was trapping those characters for cut
and paste (instead of sending them to the pseudoterminal), you wouldn't
be able to (for example) see what line you're on (^C) or do a "Page Down"
(^V) in pico.
--
Microsoft Windows. The problem for your problem.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: 19 Jul 2000 12:20:44 GMT
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:46:34 -0400, MH wrote:
>VB is much more than a scripting language. Are we going to compare what
>tcl\tk offers linux to what VB offers windows? Please. What planet are you
>people on?
I'm not a big fan of Tcl/Tk. Try Python or Perl. Perl has a lot of
functionality that is simply not available in VB. VB is OK for rapid
GUI building, but lousy for text processing.
Now that Qt and GTK have Python bindings, python is a pretty solid GUI
language. IIRC, VB doesn't have anything comparable to QT's signal/socket
design -- it is still stuck in the event/callback paradigm.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To:
gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.os.linux.mandrake,alt.os.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: FREE Thru 7/21 - Huge LINUXWORLD EXPO Aug. 14-17 In San Jose, Calif.
Date: 19 Jul 2000 12:20:56 GMT
LinuxWorld Conference & Expo
Expo: August 15 - 17, 2000
Conference: August 14 - 17, 2000
San Jose Convention Center, San Jose California (Silicon Valley)
http://www.linuxworldexpo.com
Register by July 21 -- only two more days! -- for free
Exhibits badge for admission to all exhibits, keynote and
feature presentations, birds of a feather sessions and
various other events (except conferences and tutorials),
August 15-17. (After July 21, this registration is $25.)
Register on the web with Netscape, IE, or fax, or by phone
if you don't have those facilities:
http://www.linuxworldexpo.com/show_reginfo.html
This show was very big last year, and this time they have
165 exhibitors, with 40 more on hold because the entire
San Jose Convention Center will already be filled!
Partial list of speakers, panelists, etc, at free events:
Linus Torvalds
Jeremy Allison, Samba
Eric S. Raymond, Internet Developer and Writer
Miguel de Icaza, GNOME;
Volker Wiegand, CEO, SuSE, Inc.
Ransom Love, President and CEO, Caldera Systems
Bob Young, Chairman, Red Hat
Cliff Miller, CEO, TurboLinux
Bodo Bauer, TurboLinux
Larry Augustin, Founder, President, CEO, VA Linux Systems
Scott Draeker, Loki Entertainment
Jon "maddog" Hall, Executive Director, Linux International
Robert LeBlanc, Vice President, IBM Software Strategy
Bruce Perens
Jay Sulzberger;
Patricia Lambs, CEO, Linuxcare
Nick Petreley, Contributing Editor for LinuxWorld and InfoWorld
Conferences and tutorials run August 14-17, and cost from
$145 to $795 for various plans; see the website.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Userland NFS going strong ...
Date: 19 Jul 2000 12:24:33 GMT
Hi. Thanks to everyone who followed up to my troll subject line and
helped with my NFS woes. I've had userland NFS running for 6 days
with absolutely no problems, so at this stage, I'm ready to claim
"victory" in my battle to get it working.
Cheers,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 19 Jul 2000 08:28:08 -0400
On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 21:18:15 -0400, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Steve Mading wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Eh??? Control-characters are infinitely more appropriate for a terminal
>> interface than the special ins/del keys, because ctrl-c and ctrl-v are
>> ASCII characters, so they have identical codes on all terminals. ins/del
>> might not even *exist* in some terminal's codes, and even when they do,
>> they'll be different for different terminals. (Not a problem if you have
>> a Unix-like termcap or terminfo config, but Windows is not such an animal.)
>>
>>
>
>Except that Ctrl-C has been used for decades to kill a program or process.
>Does Windows use Ctrl-C for this ? I'd try it but I don't feel like
>rebooting just to test it.
When you're in a DOS box, Ctrl-C SOMETIMES aborts a program. However,
sometimes it does nothing, and other times it crashes the DOS box
or brings down the whole system. Try interrupting the link stage
of a build with DJGPP sometime. I used to crash DOS all the time
trying to do this. Ctrl-C _NEVER_ "kills" a program under DOS, in
the Unix sense of the word. It is NOT the DOS equivalent to sending
a Unix process the INT signal.
In Windows, when a DOS box is not in the foreground (the Windows
kernel actually differentiates between foreground and background
processes), Ctrl-C copies selected objects to the Clipboard.
>Gary
>
>
--
Microsoft Windows: The ONLY OS with a built-in BOFH.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just don't buy it
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:30:26 +1200
Hi Paul,
<good, persuasive argument snipped>
> Think about it, if you are diligent and professional computer users, then
> you will see many benefits of sharing document space in a properly managed
> environment.
OK what you say may be good for all the computer novices out there but what
about those who can set up their own server, connect it to the Internet, and
have all their documents available at will? I would much rather create a
system I could trust and have full control over, with the added benefit of
it being completely free.
To me everything you have said can be done right now if someone has the
knowledge to set up and secure their own private server (or if they pay
someone to implement such a solution for them, still eliminating the need to
pay ongoing subscription fees). Using a secure web interface you could
access your own private search engine and virtually anything else.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 01:38:38 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 18 Jul 2000 16:41:13 GMT, Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes in comp.sys.sun.misc:
>|If Unix is an open technology, then how come we must call GNU/Linux a
>|Unix-like OS rather than an actual version of Unix?
>
>Because no one has done the work to make a Linux distribution conform
>completely to the Unix specifications & arranged for it to be tested and
>certified. (Since the Unix specifications cover more than the kernel,
>each distribution would have to certified seperately I believe.)
It's irrelevant, anyway; Unices are advertising themselves as
"Linux-compatible", not the other way round!
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 19 Jul 2000 12:33:00 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:15:11 +0200, David Brown wrote:
>
>language for small programs, and is very good for teaching (although there
I have to take exception to this. Basic is a horrendous language for
teaching. Microsoft's attempts to patch up the original flaws of the
language does mitigate the situation somewhat, but the fact remains
that it is an abomination in terms of design.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:26:21 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 02:24:05 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I think the issue lies in this right here. Copyright infringement
>involves copying the *intellectual property*. Now, with "normal" IP,
This definition is very sloppy. Copyright does not protect the idea
or concept it only protects the specific expression of the idea or
concept. Perhaps patents can come closer to protecting the property
as you discuss.
If an algorithm or functionality is expressed by a program, that
underlying intellectual property can be freely duplicated as long as
the particular expression in the program is not copied.
>the situation might be misleading, since books and music don't have any
>functional operation. The user can obtain a copy of the source code,
>the "covered work". But he does not obtain the *intellectual property*,
>since he has no ownership of that work.
>
>>without any violation so the copied material
>>isn't really the issue here unless someone copies a
>>static-linked binary - and even then it seems odd
>>since the user has the right to obtain and use this
>>himself.[...]
>
>How close is the actual source in the non-GPL library to the original
>library? According to my reasoning, the fgmp library is a derivative
>work of mp, regardless of the "interface copyright" issue. It does, I
Your reasoning is completely wrong. You don't seem to have any idea of
what constitutes a derivative work under the law. If this idea were correct,
all of those gnu clones of ls, cp, tr, and similar utilities would be
derivative works that couldn't be distributed without the permission
of the original copyright holder.
An argument based on a bad definition of derivative works is unlikely to
be persuasive.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:41:19 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:37:12 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I consider whether library linking constitutes derivative work a matter
>of fact; it may be in dispute, but is not a question of "mere" legal
>distinction. The common conception, based on literary copyright, of
>what causes a work to be derivative seems to mislead people concerning
>software.
>
I think you are confusing the legal term "matter of fact" with the lay
term. Of course what the law is or isn't is a "fact". But when
lawyers say something is a matter of law, they mean that all of the
concerns about what did or did not happen are settled and not in dispute
by either side. The only matter unsettled is whether those facts mean
that the plaintiff or the the defendant wins.
I'm beginning to understand why during my past discussions of patent law
the practitioners were so insistent that correct definitions be used
for terms like "obvious." I doubt you can even have an informed opinion
with misconceptions about the definitions of "derivative works" and
"matter of law." You are not guaranteed to be wrong of course, but if you
are right it would be by mere coincidence.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 19 Jul 2000 12:41:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I think the issue lies in this right here. Copyright infringement
>involves copying the *intellectual property*.
Could you clarify what you mean by "the intellectual property"? Most
people use it as a collective term for copyright, trademark, patent,
and trade secrets, rather than something that a work may possess.
> Now, with "normal" IP,
>the situation might be misleading, since books and music don't have any
>functional operation.
Copyright infringement involves copying or otherwise improperly using
the expression of a copyrighted work, to the extent that that expression
is protectable by copyright. The methods used by a computer program
are not protected by copyright (but might be by patent), just their
expression. This is codified in 17 USC 102(b). House Report 97-1476,
which accompanied the passage of the Copyright Act of 1976, makes this
clear --
Some concern has been expressed lest copyright in computer programs
should extend protection to the methodology or processes adopted by
the programmer, rather than merely to the "writing" expressing his
ideas. Section 102(b) is intended, among other things, to make clear
that the expression adopted by the programmer is the copyrightable
element in a computer program, and that the actual processes or
methods embodied in the program are not within the scope of the
copyright law.
So it's not that books are different because they don't have something
functional, it's that the functional part of a computer program, as
opposed to the expression that causes that function, isn't protected
by copyright. And if there is only a single way to express a function,
then that expression isn't protected by copyright.
> The user can obtain a copy of the source code,
>the "covered work". But he does not obtain the *intellectual property*,
>since he has no ownership of that work.
What he has is ownership of a copy of the source code. What he doesn't
have is ownership of the copyright of the source code. "Ownership of a
copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is
distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is
embodied." 17 USC 202.
The discussion just gets muddied when you introduce terms like "covered
work" and "intellectual property", rather than the terms used in the
law you are discussing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:46:39 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:37:15 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Actually, I thought it was because the BIOS was considered protected by
>trade secret, rather than copyright. Clean room replication of
>protected works is not sufficient to pass a legal challenge, whether the
>IP is patent or copyright.
>
This assertion is false. While it is true for patented matter it is assuredly
not true for copyright protected software. Given the centrality of this
assertion to your argument, I think we can dispense with your argument.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:17:05 +0200
Phillip Lord wrote:
>
> Linus> Never mind the _rest_ of Word. Which I could (and can) do
> Linus> quite well without, thank you very much. But that dancing
> Linus> paperclip needs to be ported to Linux. Pronto!
>
> If you do that I shall wipe linux from my hard drive
> install FreeBSD...
That's a good idea, though not for the reason you mention.
I suspect this is a case of NIH. It's good to see that Linus, at least,
is above that.
--
Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 19 Jul 2000 12:58:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>You can't be serious. For example, when the first PC BIOS were cloned,
>>it was done using cleanroom, why? Because the final state was not enough to
>>show that the clone was not a derived work.
>
>Actually, I thought it was because the BIOS was considered protected by
>trade secret, rather than copyright. Clean room replication of
>protected works is not sufficient to pass a legal challenge, whether the
>IP is patent or copyright.
Again, you think wrong. The listings of the BIOS were included in a
technical manual you could buy from IBM, but they did have a copyright
notice.
Independent creation is not a defense to patent infringement. But a
clean-room implementation was found not to infringe copyright by the
Second Circuit in _Computer Associates v. Altai_. (In fact, the room
wasn't as "clean" as that used to create the clone BIOS, but there
was still no infringement.) Copyright protects expression, not function.
If you create a functional description of a computer program, you have
not infringed its copyright. (And no, it's not a derivative work.)
And if you implement that functional description using your own, original
expression, you haven't infringed the copyright of the first work.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
