Linux-Advocacy Digest #578, Volume #28 Tue, 22 Aug 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! ("Ostracus")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:40:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Pat McCann in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> That 'thrashing around' as the treatise. Feel free to go over it and
>> ask questions or make productive comments. Once you feel you have a
>> strong grasp of the argument, you may feel free to post it on a web site
>> or comp.software.licensing in your own words. Those are not my
>> ambitions at the moment. I'm still working on the "do you understand it
>> well enough to discuss it" part, which I consider a pre-requisite to
>> even consider publishing it more formally.
>
>The writing down of "it" is a great help (to all but extreme Geniuses)
>in ariving at an understanding of "it". It is also a great help to
>those whom you want to bounce ideas off in the tuning of one's
>understanding. Part of the reason I understand your theories so poorly
>is that I've never recognized a complete and supported presentation of
>them to wrap my brain around. Trying to extract meaning from what I've
>seen here in the last two weeks is not something I'm willing to devote
>sufficient time to. Trying to discuss a small side-topic has been hard
>enough.
Well, god-damn. I don't think I've ever heard a more veiled compliment
in my life. :-) Thanks, I think. And my apologies, for sure. You
seem to have hit it right on the money. Usenet is my "proof of
concept", and many of my "crazy ideas" or 'unique perspectives' are
related by correlations and ideas I've barely begun to understand
myself.
>BTW, you found my mention of "mandatory licensing" (as an example of
>limitation or exception to the Constitution's "exclusive right" by law
>makers) preposterous and asked me for proof in law. I gave you such
>proof (the law used the term "compulsory licensing" and you seem to have
>ignored it.
No, I didn't think it was cogent. ;-)
Just because the law uses the term 'compulsory licensing' doesn't mean
that 'mandatory licensing' is considered a legitimate 'exclusive right'
in the context of our discussion, you see.
>Have you modified your theory so that it has room for
>legislatures and courts which create law that doesn't match your
>concepts of right and wrong (whatever you call it)?
That is my theory. That a concept of right and wrong (or more
distinctly and less provocatively, a system of ethics) *must* have room
to account for any laws. Not that it *will* account for any specific
laws; if you're asking whether I base my ethics entirely on what is the
law, the answer is "no".
[...]
>Could it possibly
>BE that they have allowed unlicensed dynamic linking (as they have
>"running") even though it is counter to your (or even the law's)
>concept of "derivative" or of right and wrong (whatever you call it)?
Yes, it could, but I didn't see it in the reference you made to
"compulsory licensing", but with that further context, I'd like you to
represent your reference, if you don't mind. Sorry if I'm showing any
pigheadedness; I appreciate your candor.
>I'm not asking if you think it IS (you've told us), but will you at
>least admit that it COULD BE that they have allowed it (by 117)?
Not by 117, no. Not in the way that the FSF is considering, and not in
the way I am considering.
The reason is that the "non-infringement" character of 117, I believe,
addresses the 'utilizer'. Now, the developer can 'utilize' the code
*while he develops*, without infringement (not that its an issue, being
open source), but distributing his derivative work is a separate thing
entirely. The 'utilizer' does, again, have the right to use the library
to support the program. But that does not address the infringement
associated with *distributing* the program, which does not fall to the
'utilizer' in that context. Do you see what I'm saying? 117 protects
the *end user* from infringement. During the development, the program
writer is the *end user*. But once he is done the act of creation (of a
derivative work), 117 no longer protects him from a claim of
infringement for the derivative work itself.
>> The courts seem to be well aware that if someone doesn't sue, it cannot
>> be considered infringement. Why do you think judges are always so
>> careful to relate every single point of their decision to specific
>> precedential cases?
>
>If "it" is not considered, then I agree "it" cannot be considered
>infringement (or non-infringement or anything else). So what?
No, it meant it couldn't be *known to be* infringement or not. It can
still be *considered*, one way or the other, by producers, consumers,
lawyers, and observers.
>Courts use precedent because that is their own private law. It is their
>law mostly to create a stable system. A system in which courts made
>some pre-emptive judgements concerning new legislation and regulations
>could work quite well I think, but we'll never know. The courts could
>select what they want to "correct" or they could rely on "petitions"
>instead of waiting till people have bet their fortunes on uncertain law
>or spent their fortunes getting their cases through the current system.
I think the way we've got it is the right way. It is the *only* way, in
fact, to provide fair legal decisions. It doesn't do much for Usenet
debates, though.
>> Maybe some day I'll have the time and the reason to attempt to produce
>> an actual scholarly text on the matter. As it is, I think your somewhat
>> qualified acceptance of the argument will have to suffice, for now.
>
>I in no way accepted your argument. I only implied that I thought that
>I might understand what your argument is to some small degree.
And every time you've shown any understanding, you've been accurate,
consistent, and practical in your statements and your response, for the
most part. This leads me (at least) to the inexorable conclusion that,
if you understood my argument fully, you would agree with it fully.
Because the only thing it has to say for itself is that it is accurate,
consistent, and practical, to the best of my abilities. The fact that
it is my theory is, admittedly, not a point in its favor. But be that
as it may, it is cohesive, I hope, if not complete.
>> As a half-way point, you might consider Professor Litman's treatise
>> "Copyright Non-compliance (or Why we can't 'Just say yes' to licensing)"
>> at http://www.msen.com/~litman/no.htm
>
>I will. Good of you to mention it. That's what I came here for.
>
>> Sorry; I don't use any nonsensical or ambiguous words. I apologize for
>> forgetting that you cannot say the same. (And I apologize further for
>> what appears to be a blatant ad hominem attack, but is meant as a
>> reminder that it is you ambiguous definition of ethics which is a
>> problem, not the fact that mine is less so.)
>
>There is no need to apologize for your forgetfulness there. I am not
>so foolish as to claim I don't use any nonsensical or ambiguous words.
And I am so foolish, is that what you're saying? :-)
No offense, even if a tiny bit might have been intended. I make my
living sorting out whether words are nonsense, ambiguous, or accurate,
consistent, and practical. You'd be surprised at the number that fit
better in the first two categories within even the most technical and
decisive information.
>Apologies that come pre-attached to something that needs an apology are
>meanless apologies. Save them for when you are contrite or at least
>wait a decent interval before pretending contrition.
You made me know I was going to be contrite; I could see it coming. I
won't apologize, again, then, but I will thank you, again. This is a
sterling post, and you shame me with your incisiveness.
>I agree that the problem is that your readers don't understand what you
>write. I'll remind you that the greater burden is on the writer if he
>is trying to do more than practice typing.
I have been getting lazy, haven't I? But I have *so* much I want to
say, and I already spend all my time on Usenet. *Obviously* I should
stop, and produce some cogent articles, as you suggest. That's what my
therapist says, too. Maybe tomorrow.
>BTW, I didn't say you used nonsensical words. I said you used ambiguous
>words nonsensically. Your word usage might sometimes make sense to you,
>but they sometimes don't make sense to others, especially when they
>commonly carry different meanings to various people at various times.
There is little I can do to correct the lack of precision in the general
use of various words except use them unambiguously, and this I do to a
fault.
>When you criticize my use of "moral", when I indicate that I expect you
>to guess what I mean by that ambiguous term (since it was so obvious),
>by throwing around more ambiguous terms without explanation you are
>not helping the discussion.
Um... try harder? (I know its useless advice, but my therapist says it
all the time, so I figure its a good thing to say.) And to be precise,
I don't believe I criticized your use of 'moral'; I corrected it. If I
don't know where you're starting from, though, I don't know which
concepts I can assume, and which I have to explain. Many times,
unfortunately, the default is to assume the poster is a know-it-all who
understands all the terms in *some* context at least, and they're going
to get defensive if you differ from that context, so its actually safer
to let them assume you're using the context that they are until it
becomes an issue.
>> As a conceptual framework goes, I think being sensible and unambiguous
>> about the difference between morals and ethics works very well, whether
>> you wish to adopt it or not. Sorry if I was being "unconventional"
>> again in using it to make my point.
>
>Your just-posted discussion WAS helpful, as it helps inform discussions
>with people who use philosophical jargon in forums where it it ambigous.
>(It obviously doesn't remove their ambiguity, but it at least should
>keep me mindful of the POSSIBLE meaning of their users.)
Yes, and that particular one, I have to say I'm a bit reticent about.
It is even more unconventional than most of my other "jargon rebuilds",
and tends to incite more problems when I make it explicit than it
usually does when I keep it private. Again, it *is* in fact, consistent
with all of the discussions of "morals versus ethics" that I've become
aware of, but it is the one which, strangely, has the least amount of
acceptance among those most familiar with the issues. In contrast, my
're-definition' of things of a technical nature are often understood,
and even adopted, by some very experienced specialists. Perhaps it is
due to the *truly* abstract nature of the concepts.
I make an absolute and hard division between morals and ethics. To
simplify it in terms that 'popular wisdom' would accept, morals is *why*
you do something, and ethics is what you do. And I am entirely
unconcerned with *why* anyone does anything, as it is irrelevant, and
even counter-productive, for examining, and judging, what they do.
>I'm going to resist the imulse to address the rationality of your
>superiority claims, except to claim that your rationality is unreliable
>if you think religion should be presumed to have nothing to do with
>ethics or that your preferences affect public discourse.
I'm not sure where you got the post-modern spin on that last part, but I
will repeat that religion has nothing to do with ethics. Ethics are, in
fact, generated separate from religious dogma, if not religious social
structures. This can be demonstrated by the fact that ethics can be
derived from secular principles even more efficiently (indeed,
ultimately this is the only way to explore ethics) than from religious
ones. Most civilized people have been indoctrinated by their culture to
believe that their ethics derives from their religious "faith", and this
is the great (and only, IMHO) disservice of religion.
Religion has no claim to special knowledge about *ethics*. Of morals,
well, that's inside your head, and, again, I don't care at all about
that. Only what comes out of it, and that has nothing to do with
morals, and everything to do with ethics.
>Using the two words distinctively, as you probably think you do, doesn't
>mean that you are using them unambiguously unless you know that your
>readers have adopted (or at least will understand) your usage. You
>might think "it" is unambiguous writing, but others might find "it" to
>be ambiguous reading. There are good reasons for conventions. By being
>"unconventional", you point may be found to be very dull.
I understand the point, but beside the fact that you're belaboring it,
your contradicting it, at least from my perspective. I *know* I use the
two words distinctively, and you are probably right that lacking the
knowledge that I do so (as if anyone doesn't recognize they are two
different words) the reader cannot interpret them unambiguously. But to
define my terms each time I use them is pedantic, and only invites
trolling and retrolling on the fact that some people cannot handle my
audacity in proclaiming that I can define terms. I don't help the
situation, I realize, by insisting that I don't merely have as much
right to do so as anybody, but far more right, because it is something I
do studiously and conscientiously, and in some ways, professionally. I
have a set of criteria and a framework model for how to most usefully
clarify ambiguous terminology. I explain how it works, if necessary,
and admit it isn't mystical or even arbitrarily correct! But it does
result in accurate, consistent, and practical terminology which is more
universal than any one specific discussion or usage.
Now, without explaining all of that five times a week on Usenet, I'd
just as soon recognize that whether someone else thinks my words are
ambiguous because they don't understand them is simply a measure of how
much they have to learn, about the subject, the words, and what I have
to say on the matter. I do appreciate your criticism, truly. Try to
appreciate my position, and ask questions, rather than make accusations.
Apparently, I'm beginning to get defensive. ;-)
>Expect me to ignore further discussion of morals vs. ethics. Feel free
>to continue your typing practice, though.
Sorry, no can do. I expect you to contribute to further discussions.
Don't disappoint me, or I'll get ambiguous all over your ass.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 23 Aug 2000 01:56:53 GMT
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:54:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>You're forgetting that Roberto, and the KDE people use QT because it is
>>FREE SOFTWARE.
>
> No.
>
> You are forgetting what the licence was when they started.
>
> They used QT because it was GRATIS and convenient.
The license was still free when they started.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Ostracus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:57:35 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:16:40 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>Ostracus escribió:
>>>
>>> In article <8npd61$92c4b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nigel Feltham"
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [deletia]
>>>
>>> So the fact that QT is available for the windows platform is only useful to
>>> those who purchase the professional edition. I would bet even money that
>>> most of the authors of "free" software will not "pony up" the money.
>>
>>You can port the free edition to win32. It should not be a terribly huge
>>project. My personal guess is 2 guys two weeks.
>>
>>> GTK is "free" on both platforms.
>>
>>So would Qt if someone ported it :-)
>
> ...and when you port QT to Be or Win32 or MacOS who owns the result?
>
> There is infact a Be porting project for QT, it just can't seem to attract
> any developers.
>
>
> --
> Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
>
> That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
> |||
> / | \
>
>
{ My reply to Roberto is going to ride shotgun on jedi's post, because I don't
have Roberto' original post.}
"
>>You can port the free edition to win32. It should not be a terribly huge
>>project. My personal guess is 2 guys two weeks.
"
The problem I see with this is twofold. I don't think that TT would appreciate
an "end run" on their revenue model. Yes some of it comes from commercial
development on the Unix side. But some also comes from the Windows side as well.
A fact re-enforced in that QT for windows is ONLY on the professional edition. A
free port would dry up that particular revenue stream. As Jedi pointed out, who
would "legally" own any port to other platforms?
--
There was once a young man who, in his youth, professed his desire become a
great writer.
When asked to define "great" he said, "I want to write stuff that the whole
world will read, stuff that people will react to on a truly emotional level,
stuff that will make them scream, cry, howl in pain and anger!"
He now works for Microsoft, writing error messages.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 23 Aug 2000 02:01:45 GMT
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:52:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> True. Howver, most libraries are not licenced such and instead
> are licenced LGPL which gets rid of the viral nature of GPL
> for most developers while adding the benefit of being gratis
> as well.
Two problems:
(a) Any reusable code can be implemented as a library. In fact GPLd
programs may use their own static libraries internally.
For example, I can't make getopt into a shared lib and use it.
(b) There are some fairly important libraries that are GPL.
> ...which would be relevant if more than a statistically insignificant
> number of libraries were so licenced.
Some important ones are "so licensed". Notably readline and gdbm.
> Furthermore, a commercial effort can be quite effectively dual licenced
> allowing for a free version under the GPL that wouldn't serve to give
> profiteers the ability of exploiting Troll's work to Troll's disadvantage.
The dual licensing is also awkward.
> Even putting version 1.0 under the GPL would be step in the right
I agree that releasing an old version under the GPL-proper ( not the LGPL )
would be a nice idea ( though in practice, I doubt it would make much
difference )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
