Linux-Advocacy Digest #262, Volume #28 Sun, 6 Aug 00 11:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: background in fvwm?? (Byron A Jeff)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Graham Murray)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown (mlw)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Byron A Jeff)
Subject: Re: background in fvwm??
Date: 6 Aug 2000 09:02:10 -0400
In article <R79j5.20732$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alan Murrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-Greetings, once again!
Posted and mailed to Alan...
-
-I like using a basic X setup, with fvwm as my window manager (it's fast,
-light, and serves its purpose well). However, I would still like to have
-a background image, and have noticed a few screenshots of peoples'
-desktops using fvwm with background images, and was wondering if that was
-possible without the use of a desktop (such as gnome, or KDE -- i.e., with
-*just* the fvwm window manager).
Alan,
in this instance it really isn't a function of the window manager. There are
two apps that come to mind that can help you. The first is xsetroot. It
sets colors and images in the background window. The other is xv. I use
xv to cycle my background images. The command:
/usr/bin/X11/xv -root -rmode 2 -quit backimage.jpg
puts the image in the background in reverse mirrored tile format and
immediately quits.
By running this command every tem minutes and using a different image I
get different backrounds during the day.
Hope this helps,
BAJ
------------------------------
From: Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 06 Aug 2000 12:52:24 +0000
In gnu.misc.discuss, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
IMHO the situation can be even more complicated. Take RealPlayer,
Netscape and Internet Explorer. Realplayer is a standalone application
and can run happily as such, but it is also a plugin for Netscape and
IE. So, are Netscape and IE derivatives of Realplayer? Or is
Realplayer a derivative of both Netscape and IE? Or, do you treat the
plugin as a separate product and say that it is a derivative of both
Realplayer and Netscape or IE (as appropriate)?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 6 Aug 2000 13:22:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I still haven't heard anyone consider the concept of compilations of
>literary works versus PC software. Particularly considering that the
>user has generally agreed to licensing terms (which an end user need not
>do to comply with copyright law), I would think the concept that a
>personal computer's software is always an "original work" of the
>administrator/operator, to some extent, would be more prevalent.
I'm not sure I know what your point is. (I'm not sure you know what
your point is either.)
If you have shown some creativity in your selection of the computer
software for your personal computer, then you have created what copyright
law calls a "compilation" --
A "compilation" is a work formed by the collection and assembling
of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated,
or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole
constitutes an original work of authorship.
17 USC 101.
But so what?
The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to
the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished
from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply
any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such
work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope,
duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in
the preexisting material.
17 USC 103(b).
Note that just because you have a compilation copyright, that doesn't affect
the copyrights (including who owns them) in the underlying works one bit.
So, assuming you have registered your copyright in the compilation consisting
of the programs and files you have selected to put on your personal computer,
you could sue somebody for infringement if you could show that there was
some creativity that went into the selection and that the person had access
to your personal computer and copied your selection of programs and files.
And then you would have to show how you were damaged.
So it probably isn't discussed more because it just doesn't make much
difference to anything ...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 6 Aug 2000 13:35:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Graham Murray
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>In gnu.misc.discuss, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
>IMHO the situation can be even more complicated. Take RealPlayer,
>Netscape and Internet Explorer. Realplayer is a standalone application
>and can run happily as such, but it is also a plugin for Netscape and
>IE. So, are Netscape and IE derivatives of Realplayer? Or is
>Realplayer a derivative of both Netscape and IE? Or, do you treat the
>plugin as a separate product and say that it is a derivative of both
>Realplayer and Netscape or IE (as appropriate)?
Or the situation is really quite simple -- the plug-in (or library or
program that uses a library) is not a "derivative work" at all. (The
term in copyright law, at least in the United States, is "derivative
work", not "derived from" or "derivative", and I'm assuming that that
is what you mean.)
A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which
a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a
"derivative work".
17 USC 101.
So rewriting a computer program in another programming language creates a
derivative work. Combining a computer program with a library creates what
copyright law calls a "compilation", which is different from a derivative
work.
A "compilation" is a work formed by the collection and assembling of
preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or
arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes
an original work of authorship.
17 USC 101.
In either case--
The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to
the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished
from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply
any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such
work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope,
duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in
the preexisting material.
17 USC 103(b).
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 10:09:50 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
Isn't it Jesica Hahn, and Tammy Fay Baker?
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
I'm glad we disagree, it gives us a fantastic opportunity to be totally
honest.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 10:31:26 -0400
On Sun, 6 Aug 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> Max has done some amazing things ... but this one takes the cake
>> (literally!). Not only has he changed his original position, but he's
>> pretending that he and I have switched positions; he is the one who was
>> arguing that recipes weren't functional pieces of work, and that the
>> list of ingredients was copyrightable.
> I'm afraid you must be confused. I have never held either position.
And Max tells another lie.
>> I'm not exactly surprised by this level of dishonesty from Max on this
>> one, though.
> Perhaps it might come as a surprise to you that frequent insistence that
> others are being dishonest is an essentially self-defeating position.
If it weren't so true, you might have a point. Your credibility when it
comes to programming, cooking, copyright, and just about anything else ...
is, oh, let's just say that on /. you'd likely be moderated to -2 for being
an idiot.
>>>>> You seem to think the "ingredients no, description yes" is something
>>>>> more than a rule of thumb, as if putting "and" and "take" into an
>>>>> ingredients list is a magical transformation.
>> This is where he demonstrates his continuing lack of knowledge about
>> copyright -- I had previously stated that when you have the
>> instructions and the ingredients in the same text, and the ingredients
>> were not listed separately, then the whole is copyrightable. If the
>> ingredients are listed separately, then only the instructions are
>> copyrightable.
> You don't seem to be able to recognize that the instructions are always
> copyrightable, and whether there are ingredients within the instructions
> is irrelevant.
I never said that they *weren't*. My discussion, Oh Master of Copyright
Knowledge, has been about the list of ingredients. It helps if you pay
attention.
>>>> Actually, when ingredients are listed separately from the instructions,
>>>> then they're not copyrightable. The reason for this is that there is
>>>> only ONE way to express this list.
>>> Actually , when ingredients are part of instructions, only the
>>> instructions (which is to say, everything including the ingredients) is
>>> copyrightable AFAIK, because it is an intellectual work.
>> Max, of course, doesn't get it -- this is a badly phrased version of
>> what I had said in the first place. He's not asking the reason *why*
>> it's not a copyrightable work... (It's an intellectual work, but it's
>> representable in only a fixed number of meaningful ways.)
> I had to keep this, or I'd suffer more accusations of dishonesty, I'm
> sure, but I must admit I don't know what your prattling on about.
You don't *know* *anything*, as you've amply demonstrated over the last
several weeks. Lists of ingredients aren't copyrightable because ...
That's the question you should be asking, because it might finally get
some spark into that pea-brain of yours.
Lists of ingredients aren't copyrightable because there are only a few
ways of expressing them; there's no *creativity* involved. (Of course,
if one chose to express them in calligraphy, then the calligraphic
expression could be protected as artistic, but the ingredient list
itself wouldn't be.)
>>> Are you saying that there is only one way to describe one pound of
>>> flour? Which is to say that calling it two half pounds, because that
>>> is the way it is packaged, or 16 dry ounces, an equivalent, are right
>>> out?
>> Which is to say that there is no meaningful difference between the
>> possible representations of one pound. I could call it 0.001 ton or
>> approximately 400 grams, and I still mean one pound. It's a measurement
>> and an ingredient. No matter what your chosen measure is, you're still
>> representing the same actual amount -- which goes back to the real
>> reason why this work, which may be an intellectual work, *isn't* a
>> copyrightable work.
> You're confabulating. There is no such thing, as far as I am concerned,
> as a reason why something *isn't* copyrightable.
As far as you're concerned means jack. Especially when you've demonstrated
that you don't know anything about
> The law defines what is copyrightable. It may provide exceptions, but
> that isn't the same as exclusions.
Not necessarily true. By defining what *is* copyrightable, one is also
defining what *isn't* copyrightable. More to the point, there are a few
exclusions in law (whether statute or case law) as Lee Hollaar and
Isaac have pointed out.
> A list of ingredients is not copyrightable because it is not a work
> of authorship.
False. There may be authorship involved; it is not copyrightable
because there are only a fixed number of ways it can be expressed,
leaving no room for creativity or originality in doing so.
> A set of instructions is a work of authorship; the choice of whether
> to use "four half pounds of lightly sifted flour" or "two pounds of
> flour" is, indeed, properly copyrightable.
Actually, they're not. Those two items are still part of an ingredient
list.
> The measurements required for the recipe, the 'ingredients', are not
> protected, however. Even if you include the measurements only in the
> instructions, another chef can use the exact same set of ingredients
> if he produces a unique and distinct set of instructions for them.
Correct, for once. Because the ingredients themselves aren't
copyrightable.
[Snip Max's pretense at honesty. He wouldn't know it if it bit him in the
ass.]
-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
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 10:46:31 -0400
On Sun, 6 Aug 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;=20
>> "T. Max Devlin" escribi=F3:
>>> Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>> 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.
>> Plugins are usually implemented as dynamically loaded libraries.
>> So, in most cases plugins ARE libraries, therefore plugins are
>> like libraries to applications in a trivial way.
> No, plug-ins are programs; the application under them are libraries.
> Both are often predominantly implemented as "libraries" of course, but
> that is the point of the issue. You seek to make distinctions where
> none exists; software is source code; how you use it is not definitive.
Inexcusable stupidity. Plug-ins are sometimes helper programs (e.g.,
Acrobat Reader), but they are most often libraries intended to play
back or modify a particular form of media in the context of the host
application. The application is NOT the library, it is the consumer of
the services of the library-as-plugin.
In particular, a Photoshop/GIMP plugin is intended to provide an image
manipulation technique. It cannot be used independently of a host
application (just like a library) and could be used by several
different host applications (Photoshop/GIMP plugins can also be used in
a program called IrfanView, as well as likely every OTHER image
manipulation program out there). This obviously means that the programs
which use the plug-in cannot be derivatives of it (as you've claimed),
because they merely provide a particular framework. It also means that
the plug-ins aren't derivative of any particular program, either --
they are written to conform to an API.
> [...]
>>>> Works need not be complete.
>>> You say that as if its true.
>> You say that as if it is not?
> Its not.
Another clueless fuckup by Max. Either that, or it's a lie.
> If a work is not complete according to the intent of the author or
> the anticipated satisfaction of the consumer than it is not a "work",
> but a work-in-progress.
Irrelevant. Works in progress are still protected by copyright. Have
you not been paying attention to Lee Hollaar's posts at all? The moment
something original is fixed in a reproducible form (e.g., on paper, in
computer memory, on disk, etc.) it's protected by copyright.
> That all modern software is a work in progress, never complete
> because a new version is substantively dissimilar, is yet another
> point of conflict, not justification, of software copyright.
Further irrelevancy.
>>>> A library is a work.
>>> If somebody says that it is, then I guess it must be.
>> Why wouldn't a library be a work? At least those who say it is
>> can point to a bazillion copyrighted libraries, who are considered
>> works already.
> No, I'm afraid that wouldn't do it. A work is complete when it is
> licensed for production.
This is an ignorant falsehood (like much *else* that Max expounds!). A
work's completeness is not relevant to copyright protection. Period.
Further, if I write a library and licence it to Roberto for use in his
own products, then it is *even by your own definition* a complete work.
The fact is that it's complete when I choose to call it complete[1]; at
that point, I'll typically licence it and/or distribute it.
> Once its been paid for by a consumer, the situation is rather
> self-evident in most cases. But each case must stand alone;
> similarity to complete works is not sufficient cause to consider a
> work complete.
Continued irrelevancies; Max hasn't the first clue and continues to
demonstrate it.
>>> 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 quit=
e
>>> correct) what makes it a "work". Compiling is not publishing. Selling
>>> is publishing.
>> Actually, distributing, not selling, is publishing.
> No, selling is publishing. You most obviously have to distribute in
> order to sell, but whether you do it before or after the transaction is
> irrelevant. Selling is publishing, clear and simple.
Incorrect. If I choose to place something on a website, then I have
published that something. It doesn't matter that I've not charged for
it (I haven't sold it); I've still published it. Publishing is
distribution, not selling. Selling may be involved in the consumption
of a published work, but it has little relation to publishing. (Yes,
one typically licences/sells certain rights to publishers, but this
merely puts one's work into a particular distribution pipeline known as
the publishing industry.)
-f
[1] Barring contractual obligations, of course.
--=20
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 smach=
t
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
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 10:52:39 -0400
On Sun, 6 Aug 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 19:00:02 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> All that's needed to conclude that Netscape is derivative of a given
>> plug-in is to accept the premise that plug-ins are (or at least can
>> be) libraries.
> And this is the premise I don't buy. It seems that in the matter of PC
> software, at least, a plug in is to an application as a program is to a
> library.
You have this precisely backwards. It's plugin:application and
library:program, NOT plugin:application and program:library. Your 'not
buying' the premise is also irrelevant; Isaac merely stated a fact: a
plug-in can be and often is written as a shared library. It is possible
for a plug-in to be accessed from outside of the context of Netscape,
so long as one calls it in the proper manner.
>> You don't accept the final premise, but I don't see any need to push
>> you over the last hurdle. It wouldn't be necessary for someone with
>> who is familiar with the technical details of plug-ins and libraries
>> to accept that there problem with the argument lies elsewhere.
> I'm not sure at all what you meant to say, perhaps merely because of a
> couple small grammatically errors.
Isaac didn't make any errors here.
> Nevertheless, I would insist that knowledge of technical details is,
> must be, considered irrelevant; source code is protected as a
> literary work of authorship, not a work of engineering design.
Correct. And this is *precisely* why each program and library is a
protected work on its own, without necessarily having derivation from
the other. If the linking is done only in memory on the consumer
machine, then this is a private copy that is already permissible under
copyright law.
>> The conclusion is of course absurd, but that is of course the entire
>> point. Your premise is the problem, but because you are ignorant of
>> the technical details of the other premise you don't have to accept
>> that.
> My premise is that there is no real distinction vis-a-vis copyright law
> between library and program. As Lee is fond of pointing out, "copyright
> law does not protect functionality".
Your conclusion from that premise, however, is faulty.
-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
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 10:55:14 -0400
On 6 Aug 2000, Graham Murray wrote:
> In gnu.misc.discuss, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 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.
> IMHO the situation can be even more complicated. Take RealPlayer,
> Netscape and Internet Explorer. Realplayer is a standalone application
> and can run happily as such, but it is also a plugin for Netscape and
> IE. So, are Netscape and IE derivatives of Realplayer? Or is
> Realplayer a derivative of both Netscape and IE? Or, do you treat the
> plugin as a separate product and say that it is a derivative of both
> Realplayer and Netscape or IE (as appropriate)?
Don't confuse poor Max, Graham.
-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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
