Linux-Advocacy Digest #775, Volume #27 Wed, 19 Jul 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... ("1$Worth")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 08:59:22 -0400
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> Max:
>>> So the program is based on the intellectual property of the
>>> library, and therefore is a derivative work.
>> Again, maybe in your special world derivative works can be based on
>> things that have not yet been written, but not under United States
>> copyright law.
> Look, I've been through this with Roger, and compared to him, you aren't
> even close to defusing my argument. My "special world" is the real
> world, and unless you can explain or evidence quite precisely why my
> position is not accurate, consistent, or practical, then I'm afraid this
> is going to be a rather tiresome exchange.
Lee has consistently pointed out why your position is inaccurate,
impractical. You have, however, been consistent -- consistently wrong.
Once again:
* libA is written at time 0. It is public domain.
* progB is written at time 1.
* libC is written at time 2. It is API-compatible with libA, but it
fixes bugs in libA. It is GPLed.
At time 3, someone runs progB with libC on their system instead of
libA. Your position is that progB is a derivative work of libC -- which
is neither logical nor correct. Lee has explained this in relation to
other things, and Hyman has even pointed out that the courts have ruled
in such a way that it *isn't* the case.
libC is actually libA + libA', where libA' is the derivative work of
libA -- the differences between libA and libC. Again, this is according
to Lee, who has consistently cited sections of the US Code. That's the
only derivative work involved here.
Even if progB can be considered a derivative of libA, it cannot be
considered a derivative of libC -- the order of creation denies that
possibility in the *real world* you claim to be so fond of.
> If you think the law doesn't make sense, and can only be divined by
> special priests with non-intuitive views, then you don't understand
> enough about the law. The precedents haven't been written; that is a
> valid observation. So now what? You assume an argument from ignorance
> is valid? I don't think so.
Max ... Lee has said that he *teaches* copyright law. I think that
you're the one who doesn't have a firm grasp on the law, and I'm
beginning to question your grasp on reality.
>>> Perhaps the idea of literary property will illustrate the point
>>> sufficiently. Consider Star Wars, the original movie. It was, in
>>> fact, the fourth story in a series which at that time existed only
>>> in someone's imagination. Does that mean that George Lucas has no
>>> copyright on it, if he should hire someone to write Episode III for
>>> him?
>> Is this a trick question, or are you just clueless?
> Is that an answer, or an admission of guilt?
In other words, it was a clueless question by you, Max. (Hint: when
someone is hired to write a story, they are usually signing over the
copyright under the arrangement.) IP doesn't *property* until it's
fixed in a tangible form, as Lee makes clear in his next paragraph.
>> Assuming this is not a trick question, based somehow on you referring
>> to common-law copyright on a work before 1978, the answer is quite
>> simple -- George Lucas had no Federal copyright on a story that was
>> only in his imagination, either under the 1909 or 1976 Copyright Acts.
>> Under the 1909 Copyright Act, effective until the end of 1977, you had
>> to publish the work with notice and register the work for Federal copyright.
>> If it's just in your imagination, it's not published.
>>
>> Under the 1976 Act, you had to fix the work in a tangible medium of
>> expression for Federal copyright to subsist (17 USC 102(a)). Again,
>> in one's imagination is not fixation in a tangible medium of expression.
> Ah, but the real question is not whether 'in your imagination' is
> 'fixed', as that is merely an idea, and ideas can't be copyrighted. The
> real question is what *is* "fixed".
Are you stupid or just clueless, Max? Is the program in a tangible medium
of expression? Then it's fixed. Even if the program won't run, it's still
covered by copyright law.
One more time for the slow: copyright law says nothing about
functionality, only expression.
> Does writing a program that requires a library which has not yet been
> coded but must, by definition, already be "worked out", not 'fix' the
> intellectual property of the library, if only in the tangible medium
> of the program?
No. By saying that the library must do a, b, c, with the interfaces a',
b', and c' -- you have set an API. The expression of a library is fixed
when the library is written. This would be rather like saying that "to
be a Star Wars story, it has to have the following characteristics..."
The 'rules' for writing a Star Wars story are established, but they do
not *fix* the universe of all possible Star Wars stories in any way.
(If libC provides functionality d, e, and f with interfaces d', e', and
f' in addition to a', b', and c' -- then it's not even necessarily
constrained by the API requirements set forth by progB.)
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:05:12 +0200
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was the Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:51:57 GMT...
> ...and Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Preemptive multitasking can, if decently implemented, do everything
> > > CMT does, and it is more stable because it protects you from buggy
> > > programs.
> >
> > Not by itself it can't.
> >
> > You left out the other half of the PM/PM duo: protected memory.
>
> Of course protected memory makes it better, but the issue here is not
> about processes crashing or stepping on each other's toes, but
> simply about processes hanging.
>
> Even a process with perfect memory management can hang -- for example
> if it does a wait for an unavailable I/O resource that doesn't time
> out.
And PMT doesn't do anything about it. The difference is, with CMT the
process may (but bot necessarily) block all other processes. With PMT it
will just stop doing its job, it can not block any processes, but may
suck up processor cycles. In both cases it may block resources, and thus
disturb or block operation of other processes.
On a desktop system with a user in front of it (and that's what we are
talking about), the user will notice if a process "hangs", if it's of
the blocking type on a CMT system *much* sooner, because - well, the
whole machine "hangs". Kill and restart process. No real difference.
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:05:15 +0200
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, I know. But at least it assigns the app, not the scheduler, the
> > ability to make that determination. An app is not aware of what else is
> > running, necessarily. That doesn't mean it has to be ignorant.
> > Something more adaptive than a scheduler, but more controlled than a
> > daisy-chain, might be called for.
> >
>
> WRONG. With CMT, it is not the app that needs the cpu now that determines
> when to get control, it is the OTHER app that currently has control that
> determines when to give up control. In other words, it is the wrong app that
> has the power. Can't you see that? With PMT it is precisely the opposite,
> assuming the app that needs control has a higher prioriy - which it will if it
> is a user interface request that causes to app to need to gain control.
WRONG. It is *not* precisely the opposite with PMT, it's the scheduler
that decides - if if that sucks you're in trouble. Take the Amiga for
example, priority based PMT - but high priority tasks block lower
priorities. Works great most of the time.
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:09:07 +0100
mlw wrote:
[snip]
> I don't hate people in expensive cars! I just think they are stupid. Why
> pay a lot of money for something that is unnecessary. Don't get me
> wrong, I can afford it, but I can't justify it in my view of life.
We spend the majority of our lives stuck in front of a computer screen
probably wishing for the faster processor, the fastest SCSI RAID array,
the new 21inch monitor and an increase in the copious amounts of RAM we
already have. The things most of us create out of the streams of bytes
we help generate may appear to other people to be unnecessary, our
wishes for better hardware and tools may be equated to the wish for an
expensive car in the eyes of the car buyer. As we don't wish to appear
stupid, maybe a generalization that *we* can't justify is not sufficient
enough to label other peoples views totally without merit. In other
words: us geeks in computing high towers should not throw stones...
> I think the same go things like VB. VB, Delphi, et al are OK for little
> programs which require very little skill.
So you are saying that every program in VB and Delphi has been written
by people of no skill? Or that these programs never require skill? Or
did you not intent the second wild generalization?
>As such, that is a great
> application for them. IMHO RAD tools are for those people who don't like
> to develop software. They are for people that take no joy in the process
> of making cool things.
So in other words: people who realise the power in
component/object/technologyX reuse have no joy (and probably) skill
either? You would prefer to re-invent the wheel in every design? I'd
prefer to solve the NEXT great problem. Think about your statement. If
you have used almost any kernel routine or Xwindow library are you not
guilty of your same reasoning to an extent?
> personally, like the car metaphor, I took a 1987 Pontiac Firebird, and
> built a new engine from the ground up. Swapped out the engine and the
> car is stupidly fast. When it comes to software, I'm the same way. I
> hate "run of the mill." I prefer not to work on projects that are based
> on things like VB or Delphi. I like coding where bits count, and cpu
> cycles are important.
Fair enough. I get the feeling you've have some very poor experiences
with VB developers!
p.s: I don't have an expensive car and I don't use Delphi or VB.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 19 Jul 2000 13:10:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>>>Apparently the fact is that what, precisely, is meant by the concept
>>>"intellectual property". The "work of authorship fixed in tangible
>>>form" might work as a definition, but as a meaning it is lacking in
>>>context and purpose.
>
> [...]
>>If you'd like a little meaning for it, read the rest of Title 17, the
>>Congressional Reports accompanying its enactment, the court cases
>>interpreting it, and the various commentators on copyright law.
>
>You're trolling, Lee. Do you have a point, or do you just want to get
>on the record as assuming I'm wrong without refuting my statements?
I think I made it in the part that you conveniently snipped. And that
point was that not only would "work of authorship fixed in a tangible
form" "might work as a definition", it's the only one that does since
that's what the statute requires. (The snipped part was a quote of
17 USC 101(a).)
>>"Intellectual property" is a general term that includes copyrights,
>>patents, trade secrets, and trademarks which are valuable and can
>>be sold or licensed. Each type of intellectual property has its
>>own laws and rules, in most cases established in the United States
>>by Congress.
>
>I'm wondering when we're going to get to the point where you present
>some new information or consideration.
If by new information, you mean something that I created out of whole
cloth, like you do, then no. I'll just continue to quote the statutes
and the information supporting them.
>>It would be far better if your ideas had support in the statutes and
>>the court decisions interpreting and applying them.
>
>They do. I haven't seen you refute them with any citations. A mere
>word in a certain ill-considered context is hardly sufficient. The word
>"use" in the basic statute, for instance, was applied without any idea
>or consideration of functional works such as software. It could not
>possibly have been within "Congress' intentions" to apply to half the
>software-related issues which it is, commonly. Particularly by Usenet
>posters.
I have no idea what "basic statute" you are talking about. Can you be
a bit more specific, such as citing the title and section, like I have
in these discussions.
You do have a copy of the copyright statute that you are referring to
when you're making your arguments, don't you?
> Likewise, a naked revelation that a derivative work cannot
>precede the original does not enable anyone to make a mockery of
>copyright law. Provide a court decision, interpretation, or application
>which we might examine, and we will consider whether my ideas have
>sufficient support to convince you or to satisfy me in precedent,
>statute, and opinion. This argument from ignorance doesn't suffice.
How about the definition of "derivative work", given here a number of
times, that says that they are "based upon one or more preexisting works"?
>Why does it annoy some people so much that I think you can actually make
>sense of the world with reason and observation? My descriptions of IP
>don't contradict any facts I'm aware of. And there is nothing I would
>prefer to having more facts presented so that I might test the mettle
>of, modify, or refine my explanation of my position as appropriate. I
>don't care if I'm *right*. I just want to be correct.
Probably because it doesn't appear that you have bothered the read the
actual statutes, the material accompanying their passage, the courts
decisions interpreting them, the commentators discussing them?
Instead, you want to create your own intellectual property rules out
of thin air. Congress gets to do that, you don't if you are talking
about the real world.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:13:02 -0400
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> It would be far better if your ideas had support in the statutes and
>> the court decisions interpreting and applying them.
> They do.
Not.
> I haven't seen you refute them with any citations.
Which merely means that you haven't been reading.
> A mere word in a certain ill-considered context is hardly sufficient.
> The word "use" in the basic statute, for instance, was applied
> without any idea or consideration of functional works such as
> software.
This is correct. Until such time as there is law (statute or court
decision) which *does* recognise functional works as distinct from
literate works *and makes functionality part of the definition of
'tangible form'* for copyright purposes ...
> It could not possibly have been within "Congress' intentions" to
> apply to half the software-related issues which it is, commonly.
...this statement is false. The DMCA doesn't even recognise
functionality, although it does prohibit reverse engineering of
copyright security mechanisms.
> Likewise, a naked revelation that a derivative work cannot precede
> the original does not enable anyone to make a mockery of copyright
> law.
So you're finally admitting that in the case of:
Time
+0 libA is written and released as public domain. It contains bugs.
+1 progB is written to use libA. It's proprietary.
+2 libC is written as libA + libA' (bugfixes) and is released under
the GPL.
progB is NOT a derivative of libC and cannot be in any way?
[...]
> This argument from ignorance doesn't suffice.
Then why do you practice it?
> My descriptions of IP don't contradict any facts I'm aware of.
Then you simply haven't been paying attention.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:25:11 +1000
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l3nn6$70b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Christopher Smith wrote in message <8l2m12$ci4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
> >>
> >> Huh?? You really are a terrible reader. My quote of the article
> >> clearly indicates what BASIC was intended to be useful for: training
> >> beginners how to program.
> >
> >And this stops it being useful.........how ?
> >
>
> It does not stop BASIC from being useful - it works OK as a general
purpose
> language for small programs, and is very good for teaching (although there
> are better languages for beginners).
Personally I'd consider it a not too crash hot learning language. I know
sometimes when I use VB something comes over me and I write the most
horrible code imaginable - I'm often embarassed to admit it's mine :).
However, VB is fantastic for quick & dirty apps, or for anything where
performance (or lack thereof) is mostly irrelevant.
> But there are a great many tasks for
> which it is not really suitable.
Outside of a few performance critical areas, these would be ?
> As an analogy, consider learning to ride a
> bike. As a child, you probably had a small bike with 1 or maybe 3 gears.
> Its fine for learning, but you grow out of it. Sure, as an adult you
could
> probably still use it, though it would be uncomfortable and slow, and
> unsuitable for long distances. But for casual use, you would buy a bigger
> bike with more flexibility (gears, luggage rack over the back wheel,
lights,
> etc.). For specialists uses, you would use a mountain bike, a racer, a
bmx,
> or whatever.
IMHO that is an unfair comparison. VB covers a lot of ground - from basic
beginner's stuff to more complex and advanced apps.
> The main reason Basic is so popular on Windoze is that a certain
meglomaniac
> thinks he is one of the world's greatest programmers, yet has not
progressed
> beyond Basic - if it is good enough for him, it is good enough to ram down
> the throats of everyone else.
I sincerely doubt that's the reason. I also doubt BG thinks he's one of the
world's greatest programmers. Indeed, most every time I've read anything or
heard a speech by BG he mostly comes across as a (relatively speaking,
compared to most other people in similar positions) fairly realistic and
unassuming individual, who just happens to play extremely hardball business
and believe that the only way to win is to totally destroy your opponents.
VB is so popular in Windows because it's so ridiculously easy to write
programs in it, and because the code is extremely easy to read.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher 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 23:30:21 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39752de5$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >I like the way the word "monopoly" gets used to define everything here.
> >"Monopoly over Society?" What the hell is that?
>
> >Here's what you do - don't buy the software.
>
> Hey there is hope for you. This is what the anti-trust action is all
about.
> Not being forced to buy M$ software.
Given the only reason people are "forced" (and I use the term very loosely)
to buy MS software is because everyone else also uses it. Please explain
how anything the DOJ does is going to change that.
> >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.
Not a thing will change. Why anyone thinks otherwise defies belief.
> >Which ones are those?
>
> Read the news. There are billions at stake and M$ is going to lose every
one
> of them.
On what grounds ?
[chomp]
------------------------------
From: "Christopher 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 23:31:01 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39752aad$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8l35h4$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
ieces. ---
> Its over and you need to get a life.
Pfft. It's a long document containing largely a *single* judge's
_opinions_, and very few facts.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
