Linux-Advocacy Digest #347, Volume #28 Fri, 11 Aug 00 02:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Gutenberg ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Joseph)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Joseph)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company ("JS/PL")
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Marty)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating (Christopher Browne)
Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform (Mr Jama)
Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?) ("KLH")
Re: Linux as an investment ("Mike")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Pat McCann)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:47:13 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Except for the wee problem that Gutenberg's innovations weren't worth
> > jack. The inventor of the *book* is the one who revolutionized writing.
> > Prior to him, Gutenberg's innnovation was used to print the Same Old
> > Shit; illuminated bibles and indulgences. Once you change the context
> > that way, it's hard to see Gutenberg as an "extraordinary innovator".
>
> Before the moveable type printing press book and scrolls before them had
> existed going back into several thousand year B.P. as well as the
> precursors of the printing press; however, book were in general hand copied.
> Which would introduce generational errors with every copy. It was a error
> prone, slow and costly job to duplicate books. If a section of a certain
> plate got worn, the entire plate would have to be replaced. Books were rare
> and expensive. Except for a lettered few the public was illiterate.
>
> There were some printed books predating the moveable type press but in those
> cases the plates for the entire pages had to be carved or graven at a time.
> A one thousand page book would need one thousand unique plates that would
> not be reusable for other works. This was a little faster but not enough to
> make books cheap enough for them to be other that rare oddities of the rich
> and powerful.
>
> Then thanks to the development of the moveable type press, with plates
> replace with frames holding type together and being able to build a page out
> of individual type elements as needed and being able to cast more of them if
> a page requires more than is currently available. If the type element of a
> certain letter on a page is getting to worn, take it out of the frame
> replace it with a fresh one and toss the old one into the bucket of lead to
> be melted for casting more type when it is needed. Finally it was possible
> to mass produce books and it was a revolution.
>
> Books as a result have become a commodity and has lead us to the point that
> many today take literacy for granted.
>
> > And this example is especially instructive if you realize that modern
> > computers are now also largely used to do the Same Old Shit that could
> > be done with paper
>
> Yep, you are right. We sure could control unmanned space probes with paper
> and pencil. Who can't remember all the great photorealistic 3D images the
> were made from paper and pencil? And then there are all the special effect
> in the movies and on T.V. that were made with paper without the need for
> physical models. Then there are the mathematical models that take millions
> or billions of calculations that were done easy as pie with just paper.
>
> If you can not see the errors in your article then you are no prometheus,
> antemetheus would be a better account name for you.
No...he really is prometheus...unfortunately, he burned down his own
library.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 21:57:17 -0700
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
JS/PL wrote:
> "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > JS/PL wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > JS/PL wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If I remember correctly, the links were posted as supporting
> opinion
> > > > that
> > > > > > Windows2K is extremely reliable. Posted because I was accused of
> > having
> > > > no
> > > > > > credibility when I said it myself.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have no credibility . How could anyone credibly say W2K is a
> > reliable
> > > > OS -
> > > > > W2K is too new and hasn't be in service long enough to prove itself.
> > > > Hotmail
> > > > > still runs FreeBSD. That's why W2K deployment has been put on hold
> > for
> > > > many
> > > > > firms. It's still hard to get drivers for W2K. Get real.
> > > >
> > > > Who cares what Hotmail runs? Whats's the point of changing the server?
> > It's
> > > > just a company MS has purchased like 100's of others. There are
> > employees
> > > > and hardware in place and I'd be real surprised if the service ever
> > turns a
> > > > profit. Why sink dolloars retraining and purchasing un neccessary
> > hardware
> > > > and software when the Hotmail doesn't make dime one.
> > >
> > > Because it's a fucking admission that their OWN product (which, whaddya
> > > know, doesn't cost MS a dime) is incapable of handling the task.
> >
> > Well after looking into the matter further I've come across this little
> gem,
> > read it and weep:
> > "HotMail has commenced its much awaited migration to a Microsoft operating
> > system. Some Windows 2000 machines have recently been moved into the load
> > balancing pool, with currently between 90-95% of requests being served by
> > the established FreeBSD/Apache platform, and 5-10% from Windows 2000. The
> > Hotmail site infrastructure is enormous, and even if everything runs
> > smoothly, a migration will likely take several weeks."
> > http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
You didn't know MS made a boast they were going to roll HotMail over to
Windows2000. I'm not surprised.
Let me highlight the text for you.."and if everything runs smoothly, a
migration will likely take several weeks" "IF EVERYTHING RUNS SMOOTHLY". What
IF it does not? Windows2000 is unproven so WHO knows? Not the OS creator but
you DO?!?
As of TODAY MS itself, has NOT yet made the commitment to use NT (ever) and
they haven't used Windows2000. How can Windows2000 be proven? It is NOT and
MS is even unsure IF THE PROCESS RUNS SMOOTHLY.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:05:49 -0700
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
JS/PL wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I believe Amazon.com was running their site with final release
> > > version of Advanced Server a few weeks before the product was
> > > available to the general public.
> >
> > Well, now Amazon is running Stronghold/2.4.2 Apache/1.3.6 C2NetEU/2412
> > (Unix) on Compaq Tru64 UNIX
> >
> > > Lets see...who else is running it...
> > > Oh Stratus http://www.stratus.com/news/2000/2000417ov.htm
> > >
> > > You better go tell them Windows2000 hasn't been proven yet because
> > > they are guaranteeing 99.999% unterupted computing on their servers
> > > running Windows2000
> >
> > "The Stratus ftServer family delivers 99.999% hardware availability in
> > baseline configurations."
> >
> > Please note "hardware availability." Not software. They'd been insane to
> > make claims about another company's product like that.
>
> They would be insane? You mean to say they invented and built every peice of
> harware in their server so they wouldn't haver to be insane, or are they in
> fact using someone elses products to build the server and guranteeing those
> products?
> Plus this is a direct copy and paste from their site:
>
> "Stratus, maker of the world's most reliable servers, is responding to this
> need by extending its unsurpassed uptime to Microsoft® Windows® 2000
> environments."
When Windows2000 site is crashes, you can be 99.9999% sure it's not due to the
hardware. A site can still crash and crash often but it will not be the fault
of the hardware.
"The Stratus ftServer family delivers 99.999% hardware availability in
baseline configurations."
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:15:50 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS/PL wrote:
>
> > "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > JS/PL wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > JS/PL wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If I remember correctly, the links were posted as supporting
> > opinion
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > Windows2K is extremely reliable. Posted because I was accused
of
> > > having
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > credibility when I said it myself.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have no credibility . How could anyone credibly say W2K is
a
> > > reliable
> > > > > OS -
> > > > > > W2K is too new and hasn't be in service long enough to prove
itself.
> > > > > Hotmail
> > > > > > still runs FreeBSD. That's why W2K deployment has been put on
hold
> > > for
> > > > > many
> > > > > > firms. It's still hard to get drivers for W2K. Get real.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who cares what Hotmail runs? Whats's the point of changing the
server?
> > > It's
> > > > > just a company MS has purchased like 100's of others. There are
> > > employees
> > > > > and hardware in place and I'd be real surprised if the service
ever
> > > turns a
> > > > > profit. Why sink dolloars retraining and purchasing un neccessary
> > > hardware
> > > > > and software when the Hotmail doesn't make dime one.
> > > >
> > > > Because it's a fucking admission that their OWN product (which,
whaddya
> > > > know, doesn't cost MS a dime) is incapable of handling the task.
> > >
> > > Well after looking into the matter further I've come across this
little
> > gem,
> > > read it and weep:
> > > "HotMail has commenced its much awaited migration to a Microsoft
operating
> > > system. Some Windows 2000 machines have recently been moved into the
load
> > > balancing pool, with currently between 90-95% of requests being served
by
> > > the established FreeBSD/Apache platform, and 5-10% from Windows 2000.
The
> > > Hotmail site infrastructure is enormous, and even if everything runs
> > > smoothly, a migration will likely take several weeks."
> > > http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
>
> You didn't know MS made a boast they were going to roll HotMail over to
> Windows2000. I'm not surprised.
>
> Let me highlight the text for you.."and if everything runs smoothly, a
> migration will likely take several weeks" "IF EVERYTHING RUNS SMOOTHLY".
What
> IF it does not? Windows2000 is unproven so WHO knows? Not the OS creator
but
> you DO?!?
>
> As of TODAY MS itself, has NOT yet made the commitment to use NT (ever)
and
> they haven't used Windows2000. How can Windows2000 be proven? It is NOT
and
> MS is even unsure IF THE PROCESS RUNS SMOOTHLY.
Come on, all the nitpicking of words is unnecessary, your sounding like a
resident of csma.
All the Windows bashing on earth by this small group won't change fate. Get
over it, you can view the real world kicking and screaming but it doesn't
change reality. Windows is proven to be extrememly stable, get over it.
Hotmail will soon be running on a Microsoft server like the other 20% of the
entire internet. Mince words all you like, unfortunately time still moves
forward while you live in denial.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 05:31:38 GMT
JS/PL wrote:
>
> Hotmail will soon be running on a Microsoft server like the other 20% of the
> entire internet.
Put your money where your mouth is. Set a date for this alleged changeover
and we'll wager on it. Any takers? Anyone at all?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 05:41:05 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Donovan Rebbechi would say:
>On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 16:33:43 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>>Not necissarily. The sad thing is (in this case it's sad) if enough
>>people bitch about anything in the Linux world, it eventually does get
>>listened to.
>
>Not by the volunteers, it doesn't. Because volunteers don't like being
>bossed around by users ( even though they're willing to listen, they
>don't take orders )
Yes, indeed. This is a _spectacularly_ important point.
Volunteers do _what they feel like doing._
If you scream at volunteers that "they _MUST_" do this or that,
several outcomes can result:
a) You'll get ignored.
b) They'll scream back.
c) They'll _QUIT_.
Note that none of these options involve achieving the result you
were screaming for them to do.
In order to get a volunteer to do what you want them to do, you must
_persuade_ them that _they_ should want to do the thing. That
requires a persuasive idea rather than an iron will.
>>clone and it will happen. In fact, Corel is doing it already, and I'm
>>sure there are others thinking about it.
>
>Corel is a company. They're doing it because they have guessed that
>there are going to be a lot of idiots who want "Free Windows" and they
>know that the volunteers won't write it.
In their case, they're not volunteers. They see that if they provide
some of these things, they'll receive money. The difference between
receipt and denial of funds... results in certain developments...
>>way (and a corporation can hire people to make Linux a Windows clone
>>without having to code themselves) to do it,
>
>As long as they don't hire away the good developers, that's just fine.
>It doesn't appear as though Corel have hired away anyone important.
I don't know of any real notables that Corel have hired. Indeed, they
have _lost_ some minor notables; they _had_ some people on the ARM
project that have gone to VA Linux Systems.
>>Us that 'know better' shouldn't just sit at the sidelines saying nothing
>>because "they can't hurt us" but should speak up when we see them say
>>something that sounds ridiculous to us. It's only right that we do.
>
>Well speaking for myself, I don't mind if some idiot wants a windows clone,
>but I'd squeal if I thought that KDE, GNOME, Redhat and Debian started
>going in that direction. If a newcomer wants to make their own
>"stupid Linux" distribution, that's fine by me, as long as they don't
>ruin it for the rest of us.
People that do sufficiently stupid things will be ignored by those
that have more clue.
>> As long as the base system isn't
>>warped, I'll be happy. I just want to be sure that I make plenty of
>>noise about it so that if it is warped nobody can say, "Well you should
>>have said something earlier".
>
>I don't think Redhat, Debian, KDE or GNOME are going to "warp" the
>base any time soon.
There was an interesting email on the kernel mailing list the other
day concerning an extra filesystem "accidentally" slipping in during
the 2.4 freeze that could lead one to believe that there's a fair
bit of politicking... (The language was _quite_ profane, and one
of the more dramatic harangues that I've ever read...)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #138. "The passageways to and within my
domain will be well-lit with fluorescent lighting. Regrettably, the
spooky atmosphere will be lost, but my security patrols will be more
effective." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mr Jama)
Subject: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform
Date: 11 Aug 2000 05:56:36 GMT
Greetings. This is not a troll. I am looking for serious help here.
I am responsible for the technical architecture for the Internet site of a
relatively major company (billions in income). It is my opinion that NT
provides the most cost-effective solution for our requirements. First off, I
think NT is as scalable as Unix. And even if it weren't, out user base is
relatively small. We're not launching Amazon.com here. We have a small number
of clients (thousands) that spend lots (millions).
Anyways, I'm being told by our IT outsourcer that I don't know what I'm talking
about, that Unix is far more secure than NT as an Internet platform, and that
Unix is far more scalable. He's very adamant about this.
Hey, I'm happy to be wrong. But I want some facts to prove it. He claims that
Unix has about 2 security problems identified per month, whereas NT averages
about 12. He also claims that NT takes 2+ weeks to post patches whereas Unix
vendors typically take 2 days after a problem is identified.
What do you guys think? Is NT really less secure than Unix for the Internet?
What about browsers? Is this guy just a Unix weenie, or does he have a point?
P.S> Unix platform in particular that we use is Solaris.
Thanks,
feel free to email responses.
Jama
------------------------------
From: "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:57:25 -0700
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mike Marion wrote:
> >
> > Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, but look at who bought them out. Two "Windows Rocks!" sites
merge
> > > and I don't think we will see a big shift in focus.
> >
> > No kidding... Middle of the front page now: "Prepare your PC for Windows
> > ME." the article says that ME won't be in stores until 9/14 but "it's
> > never too early to begin thinking about and planning for installing the
> > new operating system on your computer." This "Oh geez, MS is going to
> > release something new soon.. we must install it the moment it hits the
> > shelves!" crap makes me want to puke.
>
> Reason # 3,467 for dumping Windows on my systems: I got sick of the *you
> suck if you don't buy everything we put out the first day it's
> available* cram it down your throat and tell you you like it bullshit.
It is also a similar reason why I despise the entertainment industry.
Best Regards,
Kevin Holmes
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux as an investment
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 06:00:35 GMT
"R. Spinks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm thinking that Linuz will be a good financial investment in the long
> term. Microsoft has proved very profitable for many, why not Linux? Does
> anyone have suggestions as who is likely to be profitable as an
> investment in Linux? I've heard Red Hat is public, but I don't know much
> more than that. Suggestions?
Why not Linux? I dunno.... maybe, profits?
Let's look at four Linux plays:
VA Linux Systems (LNUX): Down from 320, it closed at 38 15/16 today.
EPS: -2.01
Red Hat (RHAT): Down from 151 5/16, it closed at 19 3/8 today. EPS: -0.42
Caldera (CALD): Down from 33, it closed at 6 1/8 today. EPS: -0.79
Corel (CORL): Down from 44 1/2, it closed at 2 15/16 today. EPS: -0.19
There's not much compelling here from an investment perspective. The
companies are all losing money, and their core product is available for
free. Red Hat in particular hopes to boost their support business to pay for
the software, but have not been able to achieve that so far. Their largest
source of revenue is selling CDs ($70 retail), that come with limited
support. Their web site, which they hope to transform into a portal, is not
generating much of their revenue yet.
VA Linux is trying to sell servers running Linux. In that space, they
compete with conventional PC vendors Dell and Compaq, as well as various
server vendors. They specifically target the server market, where the
machines are made to fit into rack mount multi-server systems. Toward that
end, they probably stand a better chance of survival than the software
vendors, who are left competing with free downloads. Still, VA Linux is
competing with some very strong competitors, and their future is not at all
guaranteed.
I've heard of some profitable Linux/open source companies out there, but I'm
not aware of any that are public, and let's face it: the problem with open
source as an investment is that it's hard to make any money selling your
software when it can be downloaded at no charge.
By way of comparison: in their most recent quarter, Microsoft reported EPS
of $0.43 per share ($2.385B total). Dell reported earnings of $0.64
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.software.licensing
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 Aug 2000 23:00:30 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac) writes:
> On 10 Aug 2000 16:27:03 -0700, Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >It appears that the statute's use of "preexisting" might have been
> >unnecessary or even erroneous, but it's there. But I don't see that it
> >matters much in this discussion. A work is not subject to copyright
> >until it is fixed in a tangible medium and at that time all parts
> >must be preexistant obviously. If any of those parts is a work in
>
> All parts of what must be preexistant? You don't make clear what these
> parts are you are talking about.
All parts of the work, of course. Like the parts that you are "deriving"
from (eg, a library) and the parts that you are adding (the only thing
that you get copyright on, BTW). The work as a whole does not receive
copyright until the work as a whole is fixed in a tangible medium,
necessarily from preexisting parts. If they don't preexist, you have
nothing to fix.
> >itself, then the whole is derivative work, as I read the USC. (My
> >definition would be different, but that's another subject.)
> >
> A derivative work must be derivative based on something. I don't
> see any mention of that something anywhere in your discussion.
> What did I miss?
I probably omit too many details, like explaining "as I read the USC"
with a quote from the USC-17-101: "A 'derivative work' is a work based
upon one or more preexisting works...". Sorry if my composition skills
are not swift enough to craft crystal-clear, bullet-proof arguments. It
would take me a week per post. I think I made the point that all of a
work's parts (divide it any way you please) must be preexistent before
it can be fixed in a tangible medium, and if any these parts is a work
in itself then it meets the definition from USC just quoted.
I guess the point here what that we needn't get hung up about the
meaning of "preexisting" in the definition of "derivative". If the
use of an partial application with a library or a plugin is to be
considered as a single whole work (not something I would do), both
parts preexist at time of fixing the whole work and we need not say
either component is a derivative of the other as I recall people
worrying about. The whole WOULD BE a derivative of the parts,
obviously (if they indeed form a whole which I reject).
> >One shouldn't read those definitions real closely and without
> >considering other things, because doing so would lead to
> >inconsistencies. (Reading USC17 over-literally would have it imply that
> >any joint work is a derivative work, which I'm sure would not be a
> >useful (or common) inference even if it's a logical one.)
> >
> I've read the definition in the statute dozens of times but I can't
> get this meaning. Perhaps that is because you introduced the term
> joint works without defining it. You seem to be simply substituting
> one term for another.
I assumed y'all were familiar with "joint work" from Section 101. The
parenthetical point is not worth my time to explain my reasoning nor
your time to comprehend it. Take the first, general, point. Remember
that for law writers to be fully clear on each point would require an
order of magnitude more effort and words. Courts are used to reading
between the lines in statutes and regs. We should be too.
> >(I'm not sure USC17 should have even used the concept of "derivative".
> >I'd think it good enough to just worry about joint works and
> >compilations. I'd think they should be treated the same, though I'm not
> >sure if they are. And one can't prepare or distribute a derivative
>
> There are legitimate reasons for treating compilations differently.
> The parts of a derivative work are indivisible with the each party
> having legal rights. The parts of a compilation are divisible.
> Because of this, it was necessary to say some things specifically about
> compilations that don't apply to derivative works. At least for this
> reason distinct terms were necessary.
I guess I should ask YOU what parts YOU'RE talking about in that second
sentence. I don't get any part that sentence. Something indivisible
doesn't HAVE parts, does it? And what's that stuff about rights mean?
I disagree with the third sentence. Compilations may be nothing more
than an organization of URLs in a creative way (says a lawyer's
dictionary). That certainly is not divisible in your sense. If you
meant "may be divisible", so may derivations.
As Section 101 defines terms, I agree you can't just throw one out. But
I just think they've got a poor organization of concepts. Maybe it
should replace "derivative" with "union" which is, like a collection,
is a compilation, but one in which multiple parts are copyrighted by
distinct parties. It shouldn't be necessary to write of modifications
or the time-directed derivation of one thing from another; just that
multiple things were compiled (possibly with some omissions) keeping
copyrights separate on the things compiled and on the compilation
itself. (This obviously requires a whole lot more thought.)
> >Implications of the above theory:
> >
>
> You reach a result I agree with, but you deconstruct the law and
> rearrange it to your liking before doing so. I don't really see
> why such an argument would be convincing when the question is about
> how the law views dynamic libraries.
I've seen that criticism used on people before, but I don't understand
it. Deconstruct and rearrange? If that is something I do wrong by
habit, I would like to learn what not to do. Please explain.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
