Linux-Advocacy Digest #655, Volume #32 Mon, 5 Mar 01 13:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("JS PL")
Re: Hijacking the IP stack (Roberto Alsina)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Roberto Alsina)
Re: GPL Like patents. (mlw)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Brent R)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Brent R)
Re: GPL Like patents. (mlw)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Brent R)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <js@plcom>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:20:19 -0500
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JS PL <js@plcom> wrote:
> >
> >"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> In engineering they teach a rule of thumb that one quantity being
> >> over ten times the next largest means than the smaller can be
> >> ignored because the larger totally dominates the input.
> >
> >That's what Apple was probably saying just before the PC hit the market.
> >It's why they gambled and made the worst decision in their history, not
> >allowing clones.
> >
> Apple has less than 9% of the market therefore they cannot have a
> significant effect on it.
What's the cutoff point for having an effect on the market Einstein?
>
> >> Your fantasy of "it can't be a monopoly if it is not 100%' was not
> >> true for Standard Oil either, it did not save them from a breakup
> >> either.
> >
> >Completely different barrier to entry with software, therefore that's a
piss
> >poor anology.
> >
> The "barrier" which software companies use is depending on government
> force of law to back theirs instead of just depending on the cost of
> building production facilities, yes.
>
> The voluntary production of code by the Open Source community
> represents an investment that even IBM's Lou Gerstner says that they
> could not match.
>
> That is a pretty big barrier when one of the largest companies in
> the world cannot afford table stakes.
>
> Don't try to claim a low barrier because an individual niche can be
> entered by small companies. That does not address the larger issue.
> Because it is the combination of lots of little barriers which exist
> for every app and utility which looms large enough to keep the likes
> of IBM from attempting it.
>
> >>
> >> The percentage does not make a monopoly, that is just market share.
> >>
> >> Having a large market share can happen by good business pactices,
it
> >> is the abusing it by acting anticompetitively which breaks the
Sherman
> >> Act.
> >
> >Except for government granted monopolies you don't get a large market
share
> >unless you meet the demands of your customer.
> What do you think their "copyright wrapped in a trade secret
> license" scam depends on if not law enforcement everywhere ?
>
> That Bill Gates and his father perverted the two into a scam which
> has proved so successful is a sign of how little government
> agencies, both law enforcement and judicial, understand that thieves
> are thieves even when they pervert laws to aid their scam.
>
> > That's why Linux will never convert more than 3 in 1000 Windows users.
Even
> >if it IS supposedly free. That's also another reason no one likes it.
It's
> >touted as being free, but it's generally not.
> >
> >
> Touted only by M$ shills. The rest of the world is learning that
> the "free" associated with Linux is "freedom" not "no cost".
In what sense does using Linux provide more "freedom" than Windows? It was
touted as being free until a hanfull of companies put the disk into retail
stores for about the same price as what the Windows OS adds to a new PC.
($50.00 range) This idea that it's now about "freedom" instead of being free
of charge came about only lately. Linux offers no more freedom than Windows
(it offers LESS freedom), it offers much less choice in hardware devices due
to the fact that most new hardware is released with windows drivers and
Linux drivers come along either later, or MUCH later, or never. Linux
certainly does not offer as much freedom of choice in compatible software!
> Almost all high-school kids have some exposure to Linux and when they
> see that their company is sending a fortune to Redmond while their
> classmates get along well on Linux more will join the fold to keep
> that money within their own company.
The cost of the software is a drop in the bucket. Fully deductible too! Not
too many (if any) companies go out of business because the $50 - $200 or
even $4000 cost of their Windows OS was too hard to bear.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hijacking the IP stack
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 14:23:38 -0300
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:980di7$r112e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> <snip>
>> >> > > I thought the BSD licence allowed any use, but insisted that you
>> >> > > don't
>> >> > > claim you write the code if you nicked it. M$ seem to claim they
>> > wrote
>> >> > > it (which is wrong, if indeed they did not)
>> >> >
>> >> > The BSD licenses was changed a few years ago to remove the
> advertising
>> >> > clause. You no longer have to give them credit if you use their
> code.
>> >>
>> >> I know they don't require a credit, but I beleive they do require you
>> >> don't claim to have written what you have not. How this works
>> >> practically however is anyone's guess!
>> >
>> > They "require" no such thing.
>>
>> This is a typical example of BSD style license:
>
> That only applies to source code.
Actually, the license for binaries is the exact same.
> The original BSD license required that
> you embed the copyright in the executable, and in many cases actually
> display it when the program runs.
That license is not in use anymore. That is the "original BSD". BSDL these
days is "BSD without the advertisement clause".
> That requirement was removed about 2
> years ago. Many BSD "style" licenses may still contain that, but the
> actual BSD license no longer does.
Yes.
But anyway, as for the original issue, regardless of license, it is illegal
to change the copyright owner's name from a published work. if it weren't,
copyright law would make no sense whatsoever.
The only time you *can* do that is if the owner puts his work in the public
domain, when there is no license involved, and no copyright owner.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 14:30:03 -0300
JS PL wrote:
>> Touted only by M$ shills. The rest of the world is learning that
>> the "free" associated with Linux is "freedom" not "no cost".
>
> In what sense does using Linux provide more "freedom" than Windows? It was
> touted as being free until a hanfull of companies put the disk into retail
> stores for about the same price as what the Windows OS adds to a new PC.
> ($50.00 range)
How about the $2 range? http://www.cheapbytes.com
> This idea that it's now about "freedom" instead of being
> free of charge came about only lately.
Actually, the FSF was selling tapes of free sofware in the 80s. So, "only
lately" goes a way back.
> Linux offers no more freedom than
> Windows (it offers LESS freedom), it offers much less choice in hardware
> devices due to the fact that most new hardware is released with windows
> drivers and Linux drivers come along either later, or MUCH later, or
> never. Linux certainly does not offer as much freedom of choice in
> compatible software!
Linux doesn't prevent you from running windows alongside.
And, if you really prefer windows, Linux doesn't prevent you from doing it
and leaving us alone, either ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 12:41:31 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > But you do care if you release GPL'd code. You are insisting that any
> > > code that is used in combination with yours in a way that might be
> > > considered a derived work (and the FSF considers linking a library
> > > to make all the linked code a derived work) must also be licensed
> > > according to your choice, not the author(s) of the other compnents.
> >
> > Yes I do. If the people who wish to create a "derived work" and want to
> use my
> > code in a way I do not wish them too, then use someone else's code.
> Absolutely,
> > you have the freedom not to use it.
>
> So, if I write 10 million lines of code, and use 1 function from your code,
> you have the right to dictate what I do with 9,999,900 other lines of code
> that never even touch your code or could be considered a derived work of
> your code?
Yup. Don't like it? Don't use my code, but you are exaggerating the impact.
There are very reasonable ways of using GPL software.
If you want to modify a library, modify the library and release your
modifications. You can still use the library without releasing all your 10
million lines of code.
If you want to modify a program, well, you either have to find a way to isolate
the GPL components to a stand-alone module, or find a way to compensate the
authors for the use of their code.
Listen, this is not unreasonable at all. If someone didn't publish the source,
you wouldn't have it in the first place, so get over it.
>
> I think it's entirely reasonable to say that if you derive some code from
> someone elses, that you publish your derived code. I think it's entirely
> unreasonable to demand that they also publish non-derived code simply
> because they are linked together in the same program.
You are exaggerating what the GPL is and you know it. If you don't know it, you
haven't read it.
>
> And don't go on about the LGPL, this is officially discouraged by Stallman
> and the FSF, and only considered a necessary evil to further the cause of
> the FSF, it goes against the official policy of the FSF.
That is just stupid thing to say or think. They made LGPL available for a
reason. Use it if you want, but don't be an idiot and say it is not an option.
>
> > You misunderstand again. This has nothing to do with competition, it has
> to do
> > with compensation and rights. Freedom is all about rights, you do
> understand
> > that without rights there is no freedom.
>
> The GPL essentially states: Introducing one iota of GPL'd code into the
> general code pool, makes all of that code GPL'd.
No it does not.
>
> You are saying "If you want to enter my home, you must live by my rules".
> Or even better. "If you want to live in my country, you must declare me as
> supreme dictator with complete power over your life. If you don't like
> that, move to some other country".
Please, enough drama. The GPL is not that all encompassing.
>
> It strikes me as completely hypocritical that GPL advocates find nothing
> wrong with the GPL, saying that if you don't agree with it, go elsewhere.
> Yet when discussing MS's licenses, the same argument doesn't hold.
> Suddenly, their monopoly prohibits you from using any other software. Well,
> I hate to break this to you, if the FSF and Stallman get their way, and all
> code becomes GPL'd, you won't have a choice either.
Have you actually read the GPL? Give it a careful read.
> That's not what you're asking if you slap the GPL on your code. You're not
> only asking for what you claim, but you're also asking that any code that
> isn't based on your code also be given to you, simply because it exists in
> the same code base.
Then don't use the code base. It is that simple. If I didn't release the
source, that would be your only option, so suck it up. I make something
available for free. If you use it, you must use it by the rules provided. If
you don't want to deal with the rules, go do it yourself.
Jeez, what is the issue here? If I didn't release the code you wouldn't have
it. If I release the code as GPL you complain you its too restrictive. Too bad.
Don't use it. Write your own.
--
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
consistency.
-- Albert Einstein
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 17:40:13 GMT
Jasper wrote:
>
> I think Linux is for people who are good with computers but are not
> good enough to develop software. It gives them an avenue to express
> their limited talents. It has been my experience that these are the
> type of people who are attracted to Linux - many are young people who
> lack the experience and stamina to develop real applications.
My experiences would agree with your conclusions. Though I am NOT saying
that this is true in all cases, but most of the people who use Linux I
know use it because it's a current IT buzzword, and they think that
using *nix automatically make you a computing genius. These people
almost invariably cannot write more than a calculator program in C not
because they lack the either the talent or creativity to write anything
useful, but they have been caught up in "following the crowd".
Now this is certainly not all Linux users, but I am relatively young and
the people I know are also around my age (early/mid 20's), so there are
a lot of kids who need to feel like they know what's going on, so they
use Linux. I've met people who booted into Linux and bragged about it
incessantly, yet did not know how or what memory addressing is, or even
the fundamentals of programming (PERL is NOT programming!). They sure as
hell don't know what CB\M, VMS, Mosaic, DrDOS, etc. was/is. They didn't
even know the fundamentals of computing, yet they can boot into Linux so
they are now computing experts (BTW I'm not claiming to be a computer
expert at all).
Of course I've known Windows users who knew dangerously little about the
machines they were using... but they don't, in general, go around
bragging about how smart they are with computing. But I've also known
brilliant and talented techwise people who primarily use Windows. Deal
with it.
If you go to freshmeat.net you'll see what I mean, a ton of semi-useful
applications, that could work usefully in concurrency with 20 others,
but on their own they just take up space. I suppose I could dive into
the source code and consolidate into one big app, but I have a life off
of this box, so I don't really want to waste all that time.
I do feel that what you said was a bit of a generalization. There are
talented and not-so-talented people who use both OSes, deal with it.
My personal opinion is that they are different tools for different jobs.
I use Windows for recreational use, I use Linux for serious work (where
I need it's better stability).
> However the really talented people write applications for use by those
> people who have no real interest in computers but need them in order
> to compete economically or simply remain employable. Or just to have
> a bit of fun when it rains outside. These are the people who become
> overnight millionaires. Windows is a playground for those gifted
> enough to exploit it.
Let's not be overly kind to Windows here. All in all, I can't trust
Windows not to crash when I'm doing something that requires major IO.
> I'd say in about a decade even the most powerful computers in the
> world will be able to administer themselves. Much in the way the
> desktops of today do. Simple economics will dictate that this becomes
> so. As is the case with the robotic assembly lines of today - why pay
> someone when you can get a machine to do to it for free?
Although I somewhat agree with you, I'm not sure that is a good thing.
The more platform-writers write platforms that administer themselves,
the more potential there is for problems developing that the platform
developers did not foresee. Most problems I have with Windows have to do
with the OS behaving in a way that the designers did not foresee, so I
have to perform some surgery.
The ultimate solution would to have the OS partially administer itself
and partially require attention from the user. One of Window's problems
is that it doesn't encourage people to look under it's hood more. I
kindof realize why that is, if Windows actually encourage the average
user to edit the registry, the tech support resulting would be a
nightmare. Still, their should be more resources available.
> If the computers a decade from now are not running Windows they will
> be running a Windows like operating system. I'd be surprised if we
> don't have the first ever desktop PC's being sold without a keyboard
> and mouse by 2010. I wonder how the CLI is going to fit into this
> scenario.
I'm not so sure about that. Just because an OS has a GUI doesn't make it
"Windows like".
> On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:01:50 -0500, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 17:41:49 GMT
pip wrote:
>
> Jasper wrote:
> > [snip crap]
>
> Now if you want a real example of a Wintroll then this is one of them.
So instead of trying to refute an intelligent post you just call him
names? Talk about being a troll...
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 12:52:01 -0500
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Encourage development by protecting the results of investment.
> > Make public inventions so that industry can prosper.
>
> How about providing for free code so that *anyone* can prosper? The
> GPL doesn't allow that because it is predjudiced against certain
> classes of developers (intentionally).
Ahh, and how would you prosper? By taking code you didn't write and don't own,
and charging money for it and NOT properly compensating the original authors.
GPL prevents this, and rightfully so. If you want to use GPL code in this way,
you are welcome to contact the copyright holders and negotiate a deal where you
are allowed to use their code without the GPL status.
If the code is not released, you would not have it, so just deal.
[ BSD drivel snipped]
>
> > GPL is a great mechanism for providing the original spirit of patents, which I
> > think was a great idea. Someone can implement a GPL program. You are free to
> > use it. If you want to build upon it, you have a choice: you can contribute
> > back to GPL or pay the authors.
> >
> > GPL provides a mechanism to properly compensate the community for the product
> > of the community, i.e. contribute your modifications.
>
> Once a GPL project gets large enough it becomes impossible to pay the
> developers and/or get their consent because you can't find them and/or
> they are unwilling. The GPL is pretty much only used to enfoce the
> community payback of free code. This has the effect of DRIVING AWAY a
> certain class of developer, which has the opposite effect that you are
> claiming above. There are fewer people sharing code.
And here is the genius of GPL. If a project is so large the the original
developers could not be found and compensated, too bad. The big GPL projects
are so big that we are talking about man-decades worth of work. Why should you
be able to take that, it is not yours.
That is the biggest and most important statement in this whole debate. What
right do you have to complain that you can't take what isn't yours.
> > People argue that this is a form or communism, I think it is the strongest form
> > of capitalism. GPL code represents a capital investment. (either time and/or
> > money) If you wish to use GPL code, you MUST compensate the copyright owner. By
> > releasing something GPL, the copyright owner has agreed that adequate
> > compensation can consist sharing changes, OR (and this is the important part)
> > you can negotiate another licensing scheme with the copyright owner.
> >
> > You are free not to use GPL if you don't want too.
> > You are free not to use GPL software if you don't want too.
> >
> > However:
> >
> > Don't expect any sympathy if you want to use GPL software, for free, and then
> > charge for your changes. Why should you be able to capitalize on the work of
> > others without sharing in the cost? Anything less WOULD be communism.
>
> Personally, I would take it as a compliment.
Complements do not improve the GPL nor compensate developers.
>
> I like the GPL and can understand why some would use it, but I will
> never release my own original works under it. I'll send patches to
> GPL projects because I respect the original author's intent. It's not
> they holy war that some make it out to be.
>
> I view many cases of commercial software as much worse than the GPL
> (like the SMB code in Windows, for instance). I'd rather have an open
> reference that I could use than their closed market-share-ware.
I agree.
--
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
consistency.
-- Albert Einstein
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 17:51:39 GMT
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> pip wrote:
> >
> > Donn Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > I start freaking out. There's something I can't stand about Windows,
> > > but I can't figure it out. I have to have a command line, and when I
> > > can't have a command line, I can feel my brain cells start to stagnate.
> > > I suffer from sensory deprivation. Windows just seems devoid of all
> > > intellectual activities.
> >
> > start->run "command"
>
> OK, everyone knows this one. It's not a command shell. I'm speaking of
> a full-featured command-line shell with filename completion, complete
> with CLI tools, like awk, sed and grep. Does start->run do this? No.
> It's kinda hard to work with a command line without virtual consoles.
> Windows doesn't have a true command line - it just has a DOS prompt.
> Linux is more flexible, in that it's really easy to open multiple VC's
> and switch between them. The DOS box command line is kinda hard to work
> with, seeing as to how the default window manager on Windows (Internet
> Explorer) doesn't allow you to work with virtual workspaces. You're
> forced to work within the confines of the crippled environment Windows
> gives you. Windows is stifling in that it forces you to program and/or
> interact with a GUI 99% of the time.
Ok let me repeat myself again: you can get all those programs for
Windows so it's a weak argument. You can even run them in a console
shell with the Unix flags and all. Awk, sed, and grep are all available.
Not that a Unix shell will work to it's a full ability on a Windows
system. Piping needs to write out a temp file before the next command is
performed on the output and also file permissions on Windows BASH (for
example) are pretty meaningless. But I would never use Windows on a
multi-user environment anyway.
> And after all this, why even bother working with a crippled system with
> an outrageous license like Windows?
Because Windows has better apps.
"The OS with the most apps wins" - Dr. Tom
> Of course, I will admit Windows has its good points. For example, all
> the companies in the world support Windows, because it is so numerous in
> quantity, and is so mainstream. Also, maybe the user interface is nice
> at helping completely computer illiterate people use the computer. But
> other than that, it's a crippled system. There are even better
> alternatives for computer newbies, such as BeOS and Mac OS-X.
If you say so.
> -----= 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! =-----
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 14:51:45 -0300
mlw wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > But you do care if you release GPL'd code. You are insisting that
>> > > any code that is used in combination with yours in a way that might
>> > > be considered a derived work (and the FSF considers linking a library
>> > > to make all the linked code a derived work) must also be licensed
>> > > according to your choice, not the author(s) of the other compnents.
>> >
>> > Yes I do. If the people who wish to create a "derived work" and want to
>> use my
>> > code in a way I do not wish them too, then use someone else's code.
>> Absolutely,
>> > you have the freedom not to use it.
>>
>> So, if I write 10 million lines of code, and use 1 function from your
>> code, you have the right to dictate what I do with 9,999,900 other lines
>> of code that never even touch your code or could be considered a derived
>> work of your code?
>
> Yup. Don't like it? Don't use my code, but you are exaggerating the
> impact. There are very reasonable ways of using GPL software.
>
> If you want to modify a library, modify the library and release your
> modifications. You can still use the library without releasing all your 10
> million lines of code.
Actually, that's what RMS says.
He says, if the library is GPLd, that you must, if you ever distribute
those 10 million LOCs, distribute them under the GPL.
Further, he has told me, that if a non-identical clone of that library
exists under another license, and even if you did all development using the
clone, as long as your 10 MLOC try to use any functionality that is not in
the clone, (say, calling a database as shared when the clone doesn't
support sharing), your 10MLOC should be distributed under the GPL.
Further, he has told me that if an identycal clone exists of that library,
which is licensed under a really free license, but that clone uses the
original GPL'd library to provide the functionality (check the BSD readline
hack) through what is usually considered a non-contaminating interface
(pipes), the 10MLOC should be under the GPL.
Scared already?
> If you want to modify a program, well, you either have to find a way to
> isolate the GPL components to a stand-alone module, or find a way to
> compensate the authors for the use of their code.
Not enough for RMS. I expect that to be enough for the law, but you will
surely get flamed by the FSF sycophants.
> Listen, this is not unreasonable at all. If someone didn't publish the
> source, you wouldn't have it in the first place, so get over it.
You apparently are not familiar with what GPL advocates claim are the GPL's
limits.
>> I think it's entirely reasonable to say that if you derive some code from
>> someone elses, that you publish your derived code. I think it's entirely
>> unreasonable to demand that they also publish non-derived code simply
>> because they are linked together in the same program.
>
> You are exaggerating what the GPL is and you know it. If you don't know
> it, you haven't read it.
You, my friend, obviously have never dealt with RMS. May God make it so you
never do.
>> And don't go on about the LGPL, this is officially discouraged by
>> Stallman and the FSF, and only considered a necessary evil to further the
>> cause of the FSF, it goes against the official policy of the FSF.
>
> That is just stupid thing to say or think. They made LGPL available for a
> reason. Use it if you want, but don't be an idiot and say it is not an
> option.
They renamed it the "Lesser GPL". They discourage from its use except on
very narrow circunstances.
>> > You misunderstand again. This has nothing to do with competition, it
>> > has
>> to do
>> > with compensation and rights. Freedom is all about rights, you do
>> understand
>> > that without rights there is no freedom.
>>
>> The GPL essentially states: Introducing one iota of GPL'd code into the
>> general code pool, makes all of that code GPL'd.
>
> No it does not.
Actually, that's what RMS says it does. Just ask him. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> You are saying "If you want to enter my home, you must live by my rules".
>> Or even better. "If you want to live in my country, you must declare me
>> as
>> supreme dictator with complete power over your life. If you don't like
>> that, move to some other country".
>
> Please, enough drama. The GPL is not that all encompassing.
If it's not, it's not for lack of trying. Just ask RMS.
>> It strikes me as completely hypocritical that GPL advocates find nothing
>> wrong with the GPL, saying that if you don't agree with it, go elsewhere.
>> Yet when discussing MS's licenses, the same argument doesn't hold.
>> Suddenly, their monopoly prohibits you from using any other software.
>> Well, I hate to break this to you, if the FSF and Stallman get their way,
>> and all code becomes GPL'd, you won't have a choice either.
>
> Have you actually read the GPL? Give it a careful read.
Have you read what the GPL author intents the GPL to do?
It's a scary read. you can find it at www.gnu.org.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
