Linux-Advocacy Digest #253, Volume #28 Sat, 5 Aug 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: LINUX, OF COURSE!! (Cihl)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:53:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[snip]
>> >Last I checked, the protocols he was talking about where
>> >the ones for *email*; their entire purpose is, well, email.
>>
>> Based on this response, I suspect you might not be seeing something
>> about how you use the word "interoperability" and how you use the word
>> "email". There's definitely either a missing link or a conflict of some
>> type.
>
>I confess I don't see it.
>
>It seems to me that "email" and "interoperability" are at least
>conceptually separate; you can, for instance, have email entirely
>contained in a single computer, never touching any other
>computer, network, protocol, or anything.
>
>Way back in the day of minis and mainframes, that was
>pretty common.
>
>> Unless you're just lying. I've been fooled before.
>
>Poor fellow. Don't you know the standard MS-bashers Guide
>To WinTrolls?
>
>Allow me to quote:
>
>"If a WinTroll won't agree with you, this is called 'lying'."
>
>:D
Forgive me for not simply trying to be as much of an idiot as you are
yourself. Could you manage to stop being moronically passive-aggressive
long enough to explain whether you are openly admitting you are lying,
or just proving you have no intention of engaging in any productive
discussion?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX, OF COURSE!!
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 22:56:29 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> Linux Mandrake detected my SB16 but it failed to install or work.
> >> Linux Mandrake detected my ESS Allegro but indicated there were no
> >> drivers. The poster was saying ALL sound cards were supported - not
> >> true!
> >
> >Yes they are. Look harder. Have you tried ALSA? Even the Yamaha
> >soundcards are supported now.
>
> Ah, I see. I will take a look at ALSA. Why isn't this included in Mandrake
> I wonder?
Search me. It really isn't included in any distribution, except SuSE
6.4. ALSA has MUCH better drivers than OSS in almost every case.
> >Petey GoodWindows is a troll! Na, na, nana, na. And i am not. I speak
> >the Truth (like in Star Wars).
>
> My name is Pete Goodwin. I am not a troll. Feel free to insult all you
> like, it won't make the slightest bit of difference. It only go to show how
> low and simple your mind is.
Look! see? You can do it! My mind is "low and simple" now.
Well, let's see. You're supporting Windows. This is an OS which
crashes all the time, slows down by the hour when you use it, and is
just plain awful to use for everybody.
This particular OS is made by a company which is constantly trying to
take over the world, stomps every bit of competition with their
constant illegal practices, forces consumers to conform to their
"standards", and their standards alone, and steals technology
painstakingly created by their still-existing competitors to
consequently stab them in the back with it. This sound more like the
MAFIA to me!
Look Pete, you're supporting the Mafia! You're a fscking Gangster!
You're probably like one of those guys from the movies.
"Yah, Bwoss! Shure, Bwoss! I'w do it ight awoy Bwoss!"
> --
> Pete Goodwin
> ---
> Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
> My success requires me to suck Bill's cock.
--
You have changed the signature included in your e-mail.
For these changes to take effect, you must restart your computer!
Do you wish to restart your computer now?
[YES] [NO]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:55:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Ah, good. Then we can lay this to rest. Since I don't feel like
>digging into Deja to try to prove you said such a thing, permit
>me to retract my claim and apologize:
>
>I'm sorry I said you said MS had broken other people's dialers.
[...]
Now if only you understood why that is not even close to good enough....
The willingness to admit you are lying does not excuse lying, Mr.
Johnson. Trolling is a matter of being dishonest, not merely being
incorrect.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:57:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >I disagree. He's not showing any "constant and menacing
>> >predaction on all interoperability with Microsoft systems".
>> [...]
>>
>> Then you are ignorant of the industry, or are lying.
>
>You seem to feel that accusing me of lying is an answer to
>anything I may say. I don't think that'll work, even among
>those who think I am a liar. (And You Know Who You Are. :D )
Somehow you seem to have stumbled on to the idea that if you lie so
often that it become obvious you lie routinely, it somehow makes you
impervious to argument because you don't lie every single time.
>In fact, he isn't showing it because it is mere invective,
>essentially meaningless and therefore impossible to
>demonstrate.
Which is to say "because you do not wish to believe it." You seem
rather caught up in proving that you can deny the obvious and show your
superior intellect by supporting a ludicrous position through trolling.
>"Predation on all interoperability" is, in particular, a
>nasty sounding phrase that does not say anything
>much.
It apparently says precisely what I meant it to say. Perhaps next time
you might try something less boring as a denial of reality.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 19:02:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sat, 29 Jul 2000, Isaac wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 01:38:00 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> < Isaac said>
>>>> So netscape and photoshop are derivative of any plug-in some clown
>>>> decides to write at some time in the future right? I don't think
>>>> you've thought through all of the consequences of your position.
>>>> It leads to things the FSF could never desire.
>>> You've completely switched contexts and expect your presumptions to
>>> follow? Hang on a sec'. Plug ins are not to applications as programs
>>> are to libraries. I don't think you've though through all the
>>> consequences of that position.
>> There are no significant (relevant) differences between libraries and
>> plug-ins. Yes Netscape will run without a plug-in being present, but
>> people write code that load libraries dynamically and run without
>> whatever services the library offers if if the library is
>> unavailable. Doesn't that sound suspiciously like plug-ins.
>
>It's also worth reminding Max that Adobe Acrobat Reader is a stand-
>alone program, but it can also run as a plug-in to either of the major
>browsers, which further confuses the issue for his purposes.
I make no claim that any current software is legal or not, or derivative
or not, based on my understanding. Merely that if examined without
assumptions this may indeed be the case.
I generally don't get confused by reality. Only by inappropriate or
false representations of reality. On that note, how precisely does
whether Adobe runs as a stand alone program or a plug in (and are you
sure that this isn't two different programs which both use the same
library for rendering "pdf" files?) confuse anything for 'my purposes'?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 19:00:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 01:38:00 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>< Isaac said>
>>>So netscape and photoshop are derivative of any plug-in some clown decides
>>>to write at some time in the future right? I don't think you've thought
>>>through all of the consequences of your position. It leads to things
>>>the FSF could never desire.
>>
>>You've completely switched contexts and expect your presumptions to
>>follow? Hang on a sec'. Plug ins are not to applications as programs
>>are to libraries. I don't think you've though through all the
>>consequences of that position.
>>
>There are no significant (relevant) differences between libraries and
>plug-ins.
Would that be according to you, RMS, or the court?
>Yes Netscape will run without a plug-in being present, but
>people write code that load libraries dynamically and run without whatever
>services the library offers if if the library is unavailable. Doesn't that
>sound suspiciously like plug-ins.
Personally, I would, for reasons you are trying to indicate, accept a
supposition that all Netscape plug-ins are derivative of Netscape. Why
you would think this makes Netscape derivative of plug-ins is not really
important; it may well be the case if the browser "derives" a great deal
of its value from the plug-ins. I am simply not willing to assume that
this is the case, and don't see why it is an issue.
>Except for you, there doesn't seem to be any real disagreement about
>plug-ins vs libraries. RMS seems to agree with this as well. He applies
>the same (mis)interpretation of the law to allow the GPL to restrict the
>writing of both libraries and plug-ins in situations where the one of
>either the program or libary/plug-in involves a license incompatible with
>the GPL.
>
>But you've indicated that my position has consequences that I haven't
>forseen. Please feel free to point out some. I suspect that what's
>really the truth is that it exposes a weakness in your position. You
>don't want to accept the ramifications of plug-ins and libraries being
>essentially the same.
Hardly; I'm very comfortable with the ramifications, but the "library"
in the case of a plug-in would be Netscape. The consequences I was
mimicking your warning by mentioning are, in fact, that there is no
reason to consider something a "library" or a "program" or an
"application" or a "plug-in". There's just software, and more software.
It is the idea that plug-ins and libraries are not essentially, but are
*literally* the same (just as are programs); they are all just text
included in a compilation known as 'my PC'.
>>If somebody says that it is, then I guess it must be. But assuming it
>>is because its software and software is copyrighted and copyrighted
>>things are works seems like a tenuous link, to me. What precisely is a
>>"work", in copyright terms. And is it the same as in software terms?
>>If your answer is "yes", is it because you know that software is
>>copyrighted, and they both use the word "work", so you assume the term
>>'work' must be the same?
>>
>Only works can be copyrighted. Works are defined in the statute. There
>is only one rather expansive defintion. You know this. The statute's
>been posted ot this thread a couple of times.. The definition of work
>shouldn't still be an issue.
This is over-indulgance in simplistic thinking, I'm afraid. No, "works"
wasn't defined in the statute. What constitutes a work is *described*,
but there is no inclusive OR exclusive definition of what a "work" is to
begin with. Merely the fact that it provides a single unit of
copyrighted materials.
>>If you are considering things like compiling, you've definitely missed
>>my point. But at least you did get near it. No, whether a library's
>>source code will compile is not necessarily (but could be, you are quite
>>correct) what makes it a "work". Compiling is not publishing. Selling
>>is publishing.
>>
>I was dealing with your question of completeness and trying to establish
>that it was really irrelevant. Compiling shows completeness which should
>deal with questions about that, but completeness is not necessary.
Perhaps if you at least *occasionally* considered that all of these
concepts of copyright have got to be valid for non-software as much as
software, you might realize why you're not making any sense at all.
>Perhaps it is most likely that someone will publish only when a job is
>complete, but a work need not be a complete job to be published. My only
>point was to show the value of releasing software that does not run.
>Libraries do not "run". They require some code to call their functions.
And so the question of derivative works, and the idea that "times arrow"
has anything to do with it, is once again re-enforced in your thinking
without being questioned.
>Publishing is not required in order to establish copyright.
Copyright is not required in order to publish something, either.
>The only thing
>required (sigh) is to put a creative work (of one of the statute enumerated
>types) into a fixed form of expression, and presto... the work is copyrighted.
>You cannot read the copyright statute and avoid realizing this.
[...]
>Have you even considered the possibility that you are completely wrong
>about what copyright law says?
Yes, I have. I wanted to answer "of course", but I realize it might not
be apparent that I always consider the possibility that I am entirely
wrong. My position is not based on conviction, but on desperation.
>I can understand hard headedness when
>we're talking about what you want the law to be, but when people who
>teach this stuff suggest that you are wrong about what the law actully
>says, and give pointers to where the correct answers can be found it
>would seem to be worth a look to see what they are talking about.
That somebody "teaches this stuff" is not any kind of guarantee that
they actually understand it, I'm afraid. They might know it quite well,
and this is common when knowledge is derived from classical education,
but unfortunately this appears to lead to a lot of assumptions that what
they learned is valid for the reasons they learned that it was valid.
>Most of your misconceptions can be put to rest with about 20 minutes of
>reading the statute and a few cases. Come back when you've done so.
>I'm not going to respond to you any further on this issue unless I see
>some hint that you have done some homework. Your arguments from
>"first principles" when you don't know the basics don't cut it.
I've spent many hours investigating a great deal of these and related
issues. Your attempt to thwart inquiry with mandate is not impressive
or productive, I'm afraid.
>But you're showing promise. I didn't see any of that nebulous "copyright
>protects IP" stuff that you espoused earlier. About 1000 more years of
>posting and you might take out some time to read the law.
This impression you have about my arguments being "from first
principles" is in error. It is from "derived principles". That these
are principles I derived myself, and are presenting in my own words, is
an honest and observant statement. The fact that they are incorrect and
can be assumed to be incorrect without consideration is incorrect.
Perhaps you could cite one of the many cases which are supposed to
disagree, and explain why it makes my understanding that IP is
*conceptual* property that is directly protected, not just "a law
against copying" which hinges on whether something is "expressed" rather
than "a work", untenable or in conflict with previous decisions, might
be helpful.
If you wish to place the burden on my shoulders, I'll ask what your
opinion of the gap of several years between VCR taping being illegal,
and it being "made" legal, means in terms of what is or is not protected
or "a work" or "copying" or whatever point you want to quibble on.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 19:06:09 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Leslie Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>You can copy the underlying concepts to your heart's content without
>>>infringing copyright. If not how could there be gnu clones of programs
>>>like ls, tr, etc.
>>
>>Yea, and how could there then be four different publishers making Star
>>Wars books?
>
>There could, as far as copyright laws are concerned if each
>could prove nothing had been copied. However I suspect the
>name is a trademark so only one would have the right to
>it, but that is a very different issue.
No its not, and your confabulating. It is all the characters,
plot-lines, and dialog of Star Wars which would prevent any
non-authorized publisher from producing Star Wars novels, regardless
(but certainly not independently, as you suggest) of whether 'Star Wars'
is used explicitly.
In truth, there are at least four different publishers producing written
Star Wars materials. It isn't this bogus 'copying' issue which confuses
you so much which allows this; it is the fact that all have the
permission (license) of the owner of the intellectual property embodied
by the literal aspects of Star Wars.
What are your thoughts on "plagiarism" versus "infringement" and the
distinction or commonality between them?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
