Linux-Advocacy Digest #780, Volume #27 Wed, 19 Jul 00 13:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm
ready! I'm not ready.))
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (WesTralia)
Re: openhack ("Rich C")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Craig Kelley)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: If Microsoft starts renting apps ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready!
I'm ready! I'm not ready.))
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:24:33 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:39:56 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Jonadab the Unsightly One in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Yes, that is the focus of my argument, though it applies equally well to
>>> the Macintosh. Neither is intuitive; the Mac is just a lot easier. (It
>>> also relies on the mouse far too much for my convenience,
>>
>>Heck, *Windows* relies too much on the mouse for my convenience.
>>I would prefer if *everything* that could be done with the
>>mouse also had a keyboard equivalent. It ain't so.
>
>I would actually disagree with you there. Much of it is not as easy to
>do as it should be, and there are obvious exceptions for "how do you
>drag something without a pointer" preclude certain things which frankly
>aren't possible with a keyboard. But in the vast majority of cases, you
Simply control the graphics cursor without the mouse.
The Atari ST did this quite nicely. Either Windows or X
should be able to do the same even with a small addon...
[deletia]
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: WesTralia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:24:15 -0500
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8l10dm$5q4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <JYNc5.21905$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes... and I think VB is closer to universal than C++ or Perl which
> > most
> > > "good" programmers could figure out. I mean, "IF this THEN that ELSE
> > > theotherthing kinda stuff is what VB proudly touts, no semicolons, and
> > > brackets all over the place. Just write the code and get the job done.
> > I
> > > like that...
> >
> > What about
> >
> > IF x THEN
> > IF y THEN
> > ELSE
> > ENDIF
> > ELSE
> > ENDIF
> >
> > Does VB cope with nested IF THEN ELSE? How does it know which IF the
> > ELSE applies to? Is it terminated by the ENDIF?
>
> of course. What you wrote is perfectly valid. I think it's pefectly obvious
> which ELSE belongs to which IF and which ENDIF terminates which IF. It reads
> easier:
>
> IF x THEN
> IF y THEN
> do something
> ELSE
> another choice
> END IF
> ELSE
> completely different choice
> END IF
>
> (I used tabs above, I hope OE formats it right)
>
> The IFs, ELSE's and ENDIF's are pushed and popped off a stack.
>
Drestinnnnnnn.... you've been busy reading some big comp sci books,
haven't you? You are tossing around words like 'pushed', 'popped',
and 'stack' like a pro!
I do see it took you a full day to reply with your new upgraded
lingo. See what a little research can do for you!
-wt
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: openhack
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:03:17 -0400
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> My god, and actual bit of real advocacy? I must have died in the night,
> and this is the afterlife. What other explaination could there possibly
> be?
>
Yeah, well, don't get too used to it. ;o)
--
Rich C.
"Because light travels faster than sound, many people appear to be
intelligent, until you hear them speak."
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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 12:30:41 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8l4a6f$qgh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > <[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.
> >
> >
>
> Enough facts for Microsoft to be convicted of breaking numerous laws.
>
>
> It only takes one judge, btw.
It takes more than one judge. That's the beauty of the legal system.
MS was on the path to being railroaded by this judge from day one which was
his first mistake. The findings of fact are the culmination of his
railroading activity. No Microsoft evidence was looked at during his
"finding of fact" where he merely re-wrote the DOJ's opening statements. It
will all be thrown out.
------------------------------
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 16:35:47 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:00:02 +0200, David Brown wrote:
>
>I would not consider Visual Basic for teaching, but there are a lot of other
>Basics that are much better. Call me old fashioned, but I think a BBC Micro
>with BBC Basic is still one of the best educational systems available.
I've used some of the old basics and they were horrendous. They encourage
bad practices such as the use of GOTOs, and writing directly to memory.
They're not really "structured". They are certainly not "object oriented".
Some better choices:
Pascal, Java, , or if you don't want to compile, python. Some of the
less well known languages are also probably quite good but I haven't
tried them.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 Jul 2000 10:33:55 -0600
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The fact is Windows is still unstable. If that hurts your feelings
> > that's your problem.
> >
>
> No, you see, the FACT is that Windows 2000 IS stable. Very stable. As stable
> as any other OS you could care to name. NT4 and W9x and before were not
> models in stability (NT4 post-SP4 was very good and at SP6 levels almost as
> good as W2K) - but W2K is a different beast. It's rewriting was FOCUSED on
> reliability and stability BEFORE ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION. They've
> accomplished that goal. How do I know? I do not see W2K boxes crashing. I
> see W2K servers with uptimes of: "how long has it had power." There are test
> boxes running RC1 still up and running at MS today running the same 100% cpu
> load as they were back in November. There are two Final version copies of
> W2K Pro and Server running at ZDLabs that haven't been rebooted or crashed
> since December. Up and still running. That's how I know.
Kudos to Microsoft then.
Welcome to the club.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:44:41 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...]
> >In what concrete form did it exist? You can't violate IP that is inside
> >a person's head.
>
> It existed in the concrete form of the program which was dependant on
> that library existing, perhaps.
In such a case, the library would be IP of the author of the program,
and it doesn't matter.
> Or rough descriptions of the libraries
> functionality, written on the back of a napkin.
Who says those exist? Please don't introduce extraneous elements.
> Perhaps even discussed
> verbally; I'm not sure where the court draws the line on the "concrete
> form" requirement. I do know that you can steal a person's idea without
> copying their work verbatim.
And stealing an idea is not necessarily a violation of copyright, of
course.
> [...]
> >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.
The cloned BIOS is not a replication of the original BIOS, only a
funtional equivalent.
> >> The convolutions you appeared to attempt in order to
> >> make something derivative in an apparently non-intuitive way were not
> >> easy to follow, but the intent was clear. If you think its important,
> >> you could try describing it again and I'll see what I can do.
> >
> >It was a 7 line example involving only three elements. Why was it so
> >hard?
>
> Honestly? Because you used progA and libB and libC, which made keeping
> track of the elements more trouble than it was worth, as I was already
> aware of the intent of your example from both your argument and your
> declaration of the result. Had you used progA and libA, it might have
> been a tad easier, but even these don't scan well, particularly in the
> narrative form you used. Next time, I would suggest using Program A and
> Library #1 and #2. If your example remains as basic as it was
> presented, though, referencing the program as 'A' is redundant. It is
> merely "the Program".
Good programers leave room for expansion. Anyway, this would show
you have a very serious reading disability. Keeping track of three
objects regardless of their names is something anyone over 10 should
manage effortlessly.
> [...]
> >> Because only the end states are relevant, and I took your word for the
> >> end conditions.
> >
> >I disagree.
>
> I believe you are mistaken in this case. In literary copyright
> infringement, it might get more intricate, due to the subtlety of human
> languages. Given the functional and precise nature of computer
> languages, however, I don't think one could consider using different
> code with the exact same result as in any way different. Not if those
> results are in truth exactly the same.
That's obviously false, and shown in a simple way: each electronic
calculator has code in it. Each calculator produces the same results.
Each calculator is a functional equivalent of another. Are all
calculators infringing the copyright of ENIAC?
> >> But you were arguing that "derivative" cannot mean "similar" in some
> >> contexts.
> >
> >No, I did not. I actually said that similar doesn't mean derivative,
> >which is not the same thing (and was what you said).
>
> No, that is not what I said. I said that derivative can, in some
> contexts, effectively mean "similar"; that whether or not something is
> similar can, indeed, warrant a claim of infringement. Perhaps you
> over-generalized the contexts I was considering. Perhaps you did it
> with intent to misrepresent my argument, as you've done again here.
Perhaps you are just weaseling. Ok, I'll take your word for it. It's not
all that important anyway.
> >> Obviously being similar and being created later are not
> >> sufficient for a work to be considered derivative, or much modern
> >> culture would not be available.
> >
> >Then similarity is not enough for a work to be considered derivative.
> >That's good. I agree.
>
> I never intended to mean otherwise; that would be an unreasonable
> assumption, after all.
Ok.
> >> The fact that it was created later is a feature of sequential
> >> experience, not any mandate of copyright law. Your attempt to link
> >> without being derivative is a gedanken experiment which highlights
> >> this point.
> >
> >It is if you a priori accept that the final result is a derivative work.
> >That's shoddy logic.
>
> Equal, no doubt, to your assumption that the final result is not a
> derivative work.
Well, the copyright law at least says that something can only be a
derived
work of a preexistent thing. I say here the thing is not preexistent.
So,
I AM giving some backing to my statement, while you don't.
> [...]
> >> Based on your badgering, I've gone back and re-analyzed your example.
> >> And it is precisely as I expected, and as I have described.
> >
> >Would you be so kind as to explain it to me?
>
> You wrote a program using the functionality of a library.
Yes.
> You then used
> an identical library (of dubious distinction, in fact, as far as IP is
> concerned) in the distribution.
There is a long standing tradition of binary compatible libraries being
separate IP works, dating almost to the invention of shared libraries.
Besides, you miss a big point: this linker "you" is not the same as
the program writer "you".
> That makes the program a derivative of
> the library.
So, the mere act of renaming a file changes the status as derivative
works of things over which I have no copyright? That's a big thing
to say.
> You then suggested that if the original library was buggy,
> then the second library is derivative even without being distributed
> together,
I never said the second library is derivative of anything. Please
avoid introducing extraneous elements in the example.
> but you did not explain how you managed to get the program to
> work to begin with if the library was buggy.
Who said it worked?
> >> >Ha!. Go back in the thread, read the example, refute it and come
> >> >back. Calling me ignorant won´t do it, you know.
> >>
> >> I won't refute it, I have no need to.
> >
> >Well, you need to, if you want me to accept that the end result is a
> >program that is a derived work of the library it links to. Until you do,
> >you are just saying things.
>
> What is the distinction in your mind between the program and the
> library?
The library is a work that is totally separate from the program.
They have different authors, they have separate source codes, are
separate binaries, have different licenses. They are very different
things.
> There is no concise or clear-cut definition between whatever
> functionality your program provides, and the functionality that your
> program is merely re-packaging from the library.
So?
> Since your program's
> operation is dependant on the library's intellectual property, your
> program is a derivative work.
Then all programs that run in windows are derivative works of windows,
and since the license for windows doesn't allow the creation of
derivative
works, illegal. Neat.
> If you don't want to except this, I'm not
> strongly inclined to argue the point, as it seems passingly obvious to
> me.
Obvious? Anything but. let's take a simple case, called libc. That is
not
the libC of the example, but a library that is standard on all unix
systems.
All programs link to it. So all programs are derived works of it,
according to you. But there are hundreds of libc implementations.
Of which one are the programs derivative?
> >> You merely expressed incredulity
> >> at your program now being considered derivative of a library which
> >> didn't exist at the time you wrote the library,
> >
> >Are you sure you read the example? It would be "at the time you wrote
> >the program", if you did.
>
> It is quite illustrative to realize that it makes no difference
> whatsoever.
It does: if you say "at the time you wrote the library" it's stupid.
Of course the library doesn't exist when you write the library. That's
why it's called writing.
> If a library was written in order to support a single
> program, that library is a derivative work of the program.
That was never said in the example, please abstain from introducing
extraneous assumptions.
> Any other programs using that library are likewise derivative works of that
> program.
That was never said in the example, please abstain from introducing
extraneous assumptions.
> The containers into which you pour IP are irrelevant for consideration
> of the nature and use of the IP itself.
Nice, and unrelated to the argument.
> >> but was only available
> >> afterwards. I agree that it was derivative,
> >
> >I don't believe it was derivative. Who are you agreeing with?
>
> Whomever else might consider it derivative. RMS, certainly, and
> potentially the courts.
Strange wording.
> >> and understand why you are incredulous. Nevertheless, the case
> >> still stands. You aren't ignorant, precisely, you're merely
> >> missing some points about what it means to have
> >> one piece of software be considered a derivative work of another.
> >> It is not surprising, as software IP is a tenuous concept, and the term
> >> 'software' applies to both abstract and corporeal things.
> >
> >Smoke and mirrors. You just try to wave the example away by saying "it's
> >derivative" over and over again.
>
> I was explaining why it is not necessarily a simple matter to understand
> how and why it is derivative. Aren't you paying any attention at all?
Then say "it's not a simple matter to know", not "it's derivative".
One is a statement of lack of knowledge, the other an assertion of
the possession of the same knowledge. They are mutually exclusive.
> >> Perhaps if you think of it as "deriving functionality from" rather than
> >> "deriving its creation from" it might make more sense to you. If a
> >> program derives all of its functionality from a certain library, then
> >> the program's IP is "a derivative work" of that library, even if the
> >> library wasn't written down until after the program was written down.
> >
> >That is, IMHO, nonsense. I can't derive any functionality from a library
> >that doesn't exist when I code, because unexistant libraries have no
> >functionality.
>
> Then how are you coding your program to use something that has no
> functionality?
With a text editor and a compiler.
> You seem to know what is going to be in the library.
No. I seem to know what interface the library will expose. Very
different things.
> Are you sure that "writing software" and "coding software" are entirely
> and completely identical in all aspects?
I know of no difference between them. Do you?
> I would submit that you wrote
> the library, because you must have, even if you hadn't coded it yet.
I *may* need to write *a* library. Not necessarily *the* library.
> Because unless you had an idea of what the library is going to do (a
> pretty explicit one, in fact), then you couldn't have written a program
> that calls it.
What you said assumes a lot of things needlessly.
I can write a program like this:
#include <header.h>
main()
{
do_something(0);
}
where do_something is a function defined in header.h, implemented in
*some*
library, and have no idea of what the do_something actually does. That's
the basis, for example, for plugins: specified interfaces for unknown
functionality.
> >If what you say could happen, I could turn, say, a motif program into
> >a illegal program by changing the lesstif license to something very
> >proprietary and claiming such a program to be a derived work of
> >lesstif. That would create such a insecurity about the right to
> >redistribute software it would kill the software industry.
>
> I doubt anyone would take your action so seriously. There is a lot
> about software as IP which would "kill the software industry" if treated
> reasonably. It is only the trade secret licenses, generally, which
> prevent this from occurring for the most part.
What trade secret would prevent me from, (according to your
bizarre concepts), GPL'ing the Wine implementation
of GDI.exe and declaring all windows software derived
works of my version?
> Again, you give away your intent to try to outfox licenses and copyright
> by confessing that you are merely "claiming" such a program to be
> derivative.
Of course I can only claim, I am not a court.
> Changing a license is not changing the intellectual work
> itself, so any claim of derivation is empty to begin with. Your program
> would be lesstif, plain and simple.
but those programs linked to lesstif would be (in your own words),
derived works of lesstif. Where did I waive my right over derived
works of lesstif?
> [...]
> >> >And whose IP am I trying to capitalize on? Is this some sort of
> >> >abstract accusation?
> >>
> >> The author of libB, in your example, for the most part.
> >
> >Read the example. Know the libB license.
>
> Since libB was cited as public domain, then you are legally entitled to
> capitalize on that IP which someone else wrote. The situation remains
> unchanged.
libB is public domain, I can take the IP as my own, so I am
capitalizing on my own IP. That's why I asked whose IP.
> >> Later, libC.
> >> Because libC cannot be considered binary compatible to libB, despite
> >> your claim, if libB is buggy and libC is not.
> >
> >Don't try to fudge technical terms, because it will not work.
> >Two libraries can be binary compatible without being functionally
> >equivalent. They could even do completely different things.
>
> So the term was entirely meaningless?
Not everything you ignore is meaningless.
It means what it means, not what you want it to mean, and it
is not meaningless.
Binary compatible means that, to the linker, both libraries expose
the same interface. Nothing related to functionality AT ALL.
> Or was your illustration showing
> they were functionally equivalent at supporting your program incomplete?
Nope.
> Would you consider whether the bugs affect the functionality of the
> program to be important in making the determination of whether the
> program is derivative?
No. You claimed it is. Want me to search for the quote?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: If Microsoft starts renting apps
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:27:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> I know I'll get booed, but what the hell:
>
> Cause the whore is a pro, and probably knows how to do things that
your
> friend providing free sex doesn't. Of course, these are the things
that
> cause heart-attacks and strokes (hmmm, I drew the analogy to Windows
> even better than I thought I could). And let's not forget the great
> array of diseases provided by the whore.
You neglected to mention that this particular whore is also old,
overweight, has had more facelifts than one of the Gabor sisters, can
only do one thing at a time, demands that you use only the most
expensive hotel rooms, and then routinely loses consciousness while
servicing you.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [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 16:43:15 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:30:41 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8l4a6f$qgh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > <[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.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Enough facts for Microsoft to be convicted of breaking numerous laws.
>>
>>
>> It only takes one judge, btw.
>
>It takes more than one judge. That's the beauty of the legal system.
It seems you misunderstand the law just as much.
Findings of fact are the least likely thing to be
overturned. If a judge overrules Jackson it will
more than likely be in his application of the
law to the situation: not to whether or not M$
actually meets the legal criteria for being a
Monopoly and abusing that position.
>MS was on the path to being railroaded by this judge from day one which was
>his first mistake. The findings of fact are the culmination of his
>railroading activity. No Microsoft evidence was looked at during his
>"finding of fact" where he merely re-wrote the DOJ's opening statements. It
>will all be thrown out.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
