Linux-Advocacy Digest #522, Volume #28 Sun, 20 Aug 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linux Presidential Candidates? (Don Grbac)
Re: Best graphisc hardware support from linux.
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Pat McCann)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Pat McCann)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 22:24:34 GMT
In article <8nplbe$q3l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8npfnh$d1u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Courageous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > > It is not illegal to be a monopoly. What *is* illegal is to
> > > > > > "monopolize". It *is* Microsoft's fault that they have engaged
> > > > > > in anticompetive practices, specifically forbidden in law. For
> > > > > > that, they have earned a spanking.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which is totally irrelevant to the fact it ain't Microsoft's
> > > > > fault no-one has come up with a compelling alternative.
> > > >
> > > > It's quite relevant. For example, when higher-ups at M$ viewed
> > > > Netscape and Java as a threat to their existence, they began
> > > > stomping around in anticompetitive ways, precisely because they
> > > > feared that the competition would trounce them if they did not.
> > >
> > > Both cases in which they specifically targetted a competitor they
> > > viewed as a threat.
> > >
> > > Which compelling alternative(s) to Windows did they similarly
> > > "target" ?
> >
> > Killing off middleware platforms _is_ targeting alternatives to Windows;
> > it reinforces the applications barrier to entry.
>
> This is going back before the middleware buzzword was invented.
Doesn't matter what label you give it. Java was middleware from the
beginning, and Netscape had the intention of turing its browser into
middleware. Microsoft knew this, and didn't like it.
> > But if you want something more direct, you should read about Microsoft's
> > response to OS/2. First, Microsoft offered IBM a lower price on Windows
> > if in return for a promise to not advertise any other OS. IBM refused,
> > and began an aggressive campaign to promote OS/2. IBM also acquired
> > Lotus and announced plans to pre-install SmartSuite.
> >
> > Microsoft's response?
> >
> > "122. The IBM PC Company had begun negotiations with Microsoft for a
> > Windows 95 license in late March 1995. For the first two months, the
> > negotiations had progressed smoothly and at an expected pace. After IBM
> > announced its intention to acquire Lotus, though, the Microsoft
> > negotiators began canceling meetings with their IBM counterparts,
> > failing to return telephone calls, and delaying the return of marked-up
> > license drafts that they received from IBM. Then, on July 20, 1995, just
> > three days after IBM announced its intention to pre-install SmartSuite
> > on its PCs, a Microsoft executive informed his counterpart at the IBM PC
> > Company that Microsoft was terminating further negotiations with IBM for
> > a license to Windows 95. Microsoft also refused to release to the PC
> > Company the Windows 95 "golden master" code. The PC Company needed the
> > code for its product planning and development, and IBM executives knew
> > that Microsoft had released it to IBM's OEM competitors on July 17.
> > Microsoft's purported reason for halting the negotiations was that it
> > wanted first to resolve an ongoing audit of IBM's past royalty payments
> > to Microsoft for several different operating systems."
> >
> > Microsoft later offered to reopen negotiations for a Windows 95 license
> > and end the audit, in exchange for $25 million -- or IBM's de-emphasis
> > of its own products and promotion of Microsoft's.
>
> So IBM don't have the balls to do "the right thing" and that's Microsoft's
> fault ?
>
> If OS/2 really was a compelling alternative, then the correct response the
> Microsoft threatening not to give them Windows 95 would have been to laugh
> in their face.
Catch-22. Microsoft used its market power to prevent IBM from turning
OS/2 into a viable alternative by making it impossible for IBM to
promote it.
Is it really possible that you don't see how how Microsoft's actions are
immoral and illegal?
> > There's lots more. Go read the Findings of Fact.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 08:39:05 +1000
"david raoul derbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:QKYn5.30$v3.305@uchinews...
> In article <8npjf7$g70$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > So when were Microsoft ruled to have a monopoly ?
> >>
> >> Are you serious?
> >>
> >> "34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys
> >> monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for
> >> Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable.
> >> Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high
barrier
> >> to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's
> >> customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows."
> >>
> >> Of course, as has been pointed out, just having a monopoly is perfectly
> >> legal. Microsoft's illegal _use_ of that monopoly is detailed in the
> >> rest of the document.
> >
> >So if Microsoft were only then ruled a monopoly, why should their acts
> >before that point in time be judged as if they were a monopoly ?
>
> Good grief!!
>
> Do you expect the judge to rule *today* that Microsoft's *future* actions
> are guilty of monopoly behavior?! What else can the judge rule on but
> *past* actions??! Or is it your position that a murderer only becomes a
> murderer once the judge has passed judgment?!
*sigh*.
When you have comitted a murder is a simple black and white difference.
When a company becomes a monopoly *is not*. If a company is doing things
that are only illegal when they're a monopoly, but they don't know that at
that time they _are_ a monopoly, why should they be held accountable as such
?
> Let's take a less charged example. By your spelling you seem to be
> British, so let's use football (what Americans call soccer.)
Australian. Close enough ;).
> Suppose a player commits an egregious foul, and draws a yellow card.
> Sometime later he commits a second foul, which normally would result
> in his being shown a second yellow card. Now we all know that a
> second yellow card = red card = ejection. But to follow on the logic
> of the previous poster, the second yellow card should actually be
> a first yellow card, since the referee cannot say anything about
> *past* conduct, only *present* conduct. Right? The player was only
> ruled a bad guy for *this* infraction; that other foul is in the past.
Erm, no that's not really accurate at all. If you had said the first player
had comitted some foul and not been pulled up for it, then comitted another
and be penalised for the cumulative of the two fouls, then you'd be pretty
much spot on.
> This seems to be the sense of your argument, which, frankly, I find
> completely ridiculous.
No, because you are using examples where the rule breaking is black and
white. You need to think of one where the conditions are smilar shades of
grey to monopoly rulings.
> Wow. I am no longer interested in arguing with this poster. It's
> hopeless.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 08:43:09 +1000
"Courageous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > More to the point, a split is in the best interest of the
government --
> > > i.e., The People of the United States of America.
> >
> > Probably it is. I have no doubt the market would (will ? :) be better
off.
> > However, I sincerely doubt (and cannot fathom how) it will (would)
change a
> > thing.
>
> The applications group would then be utterly free to make applications
> for any and all operating systems without regard to what Bill, et al.
> had to say about it.
The applications group are utterly free to make such ports now. The simple
fact is the only one that would have a chance of surviving (presently) is
the Mac port. Linux just ain't ready to have something like Office ported
to it (which GUI do you choose - KDE ? GNOME ? CDE ? Other(tm) ?) and most
current Linux users wouldn't buy Office on principle, in any event. Then
there's the reliance of Office on Win32/MFC.
Chairman Bill is interested in making money. If he seriously thought the
potential return on a port of Office to a given platform exceeded its cost,
it'd be there.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 08:46:40 +1000
"Courageous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Microsoft has taken every action in its power to try to prevent
> > > alternatives from becoming compelling.
> >
> > As does everyone else - 'tis but common sense.
>
> Certain forms of "common sense" are against the law.
> These things are against the law, because We, The People,
> have decided it's not in our best interests when a
> company gets large enough that it can dictate the
> shape of its own market by using its powers to eliminate
> competitors rather than to produce superior product.
One might note that the two main players in this particular case, Office and
IE, *are* superior products, in pretty much everyone's opinion.
> Until We, The People, have changed our mind, these
> are the facts. Microsoft corporation has violated the
> will of The People and our law. Punishment to follow.
The problem is that the point that We, The People (I probably shouldn't say
that since I'm not a 'Merkin :) decide a company is Too Big(tm) is not a
specific number, but a fairly arbitrary judgement.
------------------------------
From: Don Grbac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Presidential Candidates?
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 18:35:57 -0400
James Stutts wrote:
> Don Grbac wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
> <snip>
>
> >This is an example of doctors gouging insurance companies. The government
> had nothing to do with it.
> >A single-payer health system run by the government would solve this
> gouging. (Some doctors will grind
> >their teeth when they read this).
>
> Not just doctors. Do you really want a large portion of our economy
> nationalized? You do realize what that
> means? Why do you think the federal government can, or even should do this?
> Nowhere in the Constitution
> does the federal government have any granted power to provide you, Don, full
> service medical care.
First of all, I have full service medical care. I am concerned about those who
don't because their lack of care ultimately raises the cost for the rest of us
as they get emergency treatments for things that often can be prevented.
People are a large portion of our economy also. When they are sick, they can't
produce. If they can't hold a job due to sickness, they can't be consumers (no
money). Although most Americans (USA) do have jobs and health care, the ones
who don't certainly have a negative effect on the (potential) economy. The
number of uninsured is not trivial; we are talking millions. All this ignores
the morality aspects of the discussion.
We are the richest nation in the world. It is easily within our capability to
insure the uninsured without raising taxes. If a person has no insurance, for
whatever reason, they should be on Medicare automatically. It is also within
our capabilities to train the unemployed for productive work turning them into
taxpayers. Should we do this? I'd love to see a ballot referendum asking this
question. I think you would be surprised at the tally. Morally, there is no
question it is the right think to do.
The Constitution gives the Congress power to pass laws as needed. The
Constitution does not say National Health Care is expressly forbidden. (Are
you going to say Medicare is unconstitutional?)
Don
Ps. My apologies to this Linux group for carrying on this discussion.
--
[Continued Democracy requires Quality Public Education]
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best graphisc hardware support from linux.
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 15:30:13 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8npe5e$8hj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What more can I say?
> Linux probably has the widest support for graphics hardware as any other
> system.
I can't say that for sure, but I will say this. The last time I set up a
workstation with a new video card, I had to download new Windows drivers for
is since the drivers that came with it was a little buggy. Linux on the
other had worked with the video card taking full advantage of the features
of that card downloading anything, the standard kernel is all I needed for
console mode. X already had full support in the form of the standard
accelerated X server.
> Just my little bit of advocacy for today
For an example of support of this kind with no longer state of the art
hardware see my article that I posted the other day "A Linux victory" here
in COLA.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 20 Aug 2000 15:38:03 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) writes:
> This issue has been flogged to death here. TMax has his theory, I
> have mine. I feel that mine is better-supported by the copyright
> act, the legislative material that explains it, and the court
> decisions that interpret it, and have posted that material as
> appropriate. Anybody who wants to see it again can look at some
> archive for those postings.
>
> But I see no reason to continue this discussion. TMax can believe
> whatever he wants. He hasn't said anything that convinces me.
I've only been here a couple of weeks so I don't know all that's passed
and I have to admit that I haven't even tried to wrap my head around
your "function" sub-discussion, but the only thing I've gotten out of
Lee's recent posts is that he is more concerned about comparing his
debating skills with Max's. Maybe there is something useful in the
archives, but I'd say it was long past time for Lee to drop out.
It seems to me that he jumps on statements that he takes over-literally
and makes statements that, while true in their clever wording, are sure
to be (and are) misunderstood by Max. Looks like a game to me.
I hope some time in the future we can benefit from Lee's knowledge and
skills when some topic comes around upon which he wants to do more than
engage in Usenet sport.
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 22:43:41 GMT
In article <8npm0s$nlp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you expect the judge to rule *today* that Microsoft's *future*
> > actions are guilty of monopoly behavior?! What else can the judge
> > rule on but *past* actions??! Or is it your position that a
> > murderer only becomes a murderer once the judge has passed
> > judgment?!
>
> *sigh*.
>
> When you have comitted a murder is a simple black and white
> difference. When a company becomes a monopoly *is not*. If a company
> is doing things that are only illegal when they're a monopoly, but
> they don't know that at that time they _are_ a monopoly, why should
> they be held accountable as such ?
Companies that abuse monopoly power typically are quite aware they have
it; their actions are consistent with the knowledge that their customers
can't go elsewhere.
But the issue is really irrelevant. The goal of antitrust isn't to
punish anyone, it's to keep markets free and competitive. That's why the
government wants to break up MS, rather than throw Gates in jail.
[snip]
> > This seems to be the sense of your argument, which, frankly, I find
> > completely ridiculous.
>
> No, because you are using examples where the rule breaking is black
> and white. You need to think of one where the conditions are smilar
> shades of grey to monopoly rulings.
The rule breaking is pretty damn black a white here. Microsoft has
restrained trade, which is illegal. Only an monopoly is capable of
effectively restraining trade, so if you go around doing it, you know
you're a monopoly.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 22:25:17 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately those supposed "facts" will all be negated due to the
> illegal manor in which the trial was conducted ?
What sort of illegalities do you fantasize happened?
It was a fair trial, and nobody (especially Microsoft) has come up with
any scenarios that have a resonable chance of changing the outcome.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 22:48:26 GMT
In article <8npmf2$k8t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Courageous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Microsoft has taken every action in its power to try to prevent
> > > > alternatives from becoming compelling.
> > >
> > > As does everyone else - 'tis but common sense.
> >
> > Certain forms of "common sense" are against the law. These things
> > are against the law, because We, The People, have decided it's not
> > in our best interests when a company gets large enough that it can
> > dictate the shape of its own market by using its powers to
> > eliminate competitors rather than to produce superior product.
>
> One might note that the two main players in this particular case,
> Office and IE, *are* superior products, in pretty much everyone's
> opinion.
Again, that's true _now_. Microsoft has made it unprofitable for
competitors to bother, so there is no serious competition.
> > Until We, The People, have changed our mind, these are the facts.
> > Microsoft corporation has violated the will of The People and our
> > law. Punishment to follow.
>
> The problem is that the point that We, The People (I probably
> shouldn't say that since I'm not a 'Merkin :) decide a company is Too
> Big(tm) is not a specific number, but a fairly arbitrary judgement.
It might not be quantitative, but in many cases it's quite a clear
issues.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 20 Aug 2000 22:49:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> >You can decide who to believe.
>>
>> Yes, the one who wants to apply reason, or Lee Hollaar, who wants to
>> misrepresent and convolute things as much as necessary to ignore my
>> comments.
>
>If it makes you feel any better, _I_ knew what you meant.
So, what did you think he meant besides what he said -- the copies
made in RAM are not copies in the copyright sense? Or that copies
made in RAM do not ever infringe?
Both are wrong, as the case I cited makes quite clear.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 20 Aug 2000 15:52:13 -0700
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Pat McCann in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
> >Of course they are (copies of) works. The question was whether the mere
> >running of them forms a new work (which would be a derivative).
>
> If you accept the theory that statute models the reality of intellectual
> property, then it would not form a new work. Copies created in RAM are
> not 'copies' in the copyright sense. I remember your "the superset is
> the derivative work" idea from earlier. It seems to have some merit,
> but I think you're taking about "compilations", which are sort of a
> "weak" form of IP, actually.
Replace "models" with "IS". I don't understand the rest, except that
I'm not talking (or taking :^) about compilations.
> >I guess the question could be expanded to as whether the mere creation
> >of B's work (partial-program) matching the library's API creates a
> >third (derivative) work. That seems preposterous for the same reason.
>
> Not a third, a second. I recall the reason you used to justify the
> "complete work" theory is that a derivative must 'contain' some part of
> the original work. But the program *does* contain 'some part'; the
> function calls themselves.
No. I got them function calls from a public domain program with the same
API. (Not that I think it matters.) In fact, the PD library and my
program were written before your library. Does creation of your library
then make my program a derivative of yours (even years later)?
> The program *in its own right* is derivative
> if it requires a library to function. If which library it uses is left
> as an exercise for the operator, *and* there is a public API
> specification of some sort, then any beef the library author may have is
> with the operator.
So now it's the operator that chooses when my code is a derivative and
thus under GPL? That's a good one.
> If both of those conditions are not meant, however,
> it seems to me that responsibility for the infringement would resolve to
> the author of the program, who couldn't be bothered to write his own
> code to provide whatever functionality is essential to his product.
I can see how you might feel that way morally or something like that,
but let's please limit this to a discussion of regular law.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 18:13:59 -0500
"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > One might note that the two main players in this particular case,
> > Office and IE, *are* superior products, in pretty much everyone's
> > opinion.
>
> Again, that's true _now_. Microsoft has made it unprofitable for
> competitors to bother, so there is no serious competition.
There certainly are competitors. Corel's WordPerfect is still being sold,
and enhanced. Lotus seems to have given up trying to make SmartSuite
competitive, but they are pushing it into new markets such as Rental and
Leasing.
One thing you fail to keep in mind though is that software is unlike most
other products, cars, stereo's, whatever. Those products are mechanical,
and they break down and fail after time, forcing users to buy new ones.
Software doesn't do this, so companies need to continually come up with new
ways to get customers to buy new versions, and that's typically to enhance
the product and make it better.
Whether MS has competition from other companies or not, it is still in
competition with all the copies of the software it sold before.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 20 Aug 2000 23:00:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) writes:
>
>> This issue has been flogged to death here. TMax has his theory, I
>> have mine. I feel that mine is better-supported by the copyright
>> act, the legislative material that explains it, and the court
>> decisions that interpret it, and have posted that material as
>> appropriate. Anybody who wants to see it again can look at some
>> archive for those postings.
>>
>> But I see no reason to continue this discussion. TMax can believe
>> whatever he wants. He hasn't said anything that convinces me.
>
>I've only been here a couple of weeks so I don't know all that's passed
>and I have to admit that I haven't even tried to wrap my head around
>your "function" sub-discussion, but the only thing I've gotten out of
>Lee's recent posts is that he is more concerned about comparing his
>debating skills with Max's. Maybe there is something useful in the
>archives, but I'd say it was long past time for Lee to drop out.
All you have to do is skip anything I write. Then you can learn TMax's
version of copyright law, instead of what the courts have actually said.
But if nobody wants to hear what the courts have said on the subject,
or what's in the statute, then I won't waste my time looking it up and
posting it.
>It seems to me that he jumps on statements that he takes over-literally
>and makes statements that, while true in their clever wording, are sure
>to be (and are) misunderstood by Max. Looks like a game to me.
I correct obvious misstatements of the law by TMax, so that people will
know that something he says does not match what the courts have said
or what is in the copyright act. Too often, things that are wrong but
unrebutted become the "truth" to some people.
>I hope some time in the future we can benefit from Lee's knowledge and
>skills when some topic comes around upon which he wants to do more than
>engage in Usenet sport.
Heaven forbit that somebody on Usenet post the actual text of a case
or the law, that counters somebody's opinion.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
