Linux-Advocacy Digest #671, Volume #32 Tue, 6 Mar 01 09:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: GPL Like patents. (mlw)
Re: The GPL if you are curious. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: GPL Like patents. (mlw)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Linux growth underscores threat to Microsoft ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: The GPL if you are curious. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Ian Davey)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Chad Myers")
Re: why open source software is better (Florian Weimer)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (chrisv)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (chrisv)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Jay Maynard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 08:14:48 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > What RMS says and what the law demands can be different.
>
> While that is partially true, there is something called "The spirit of the
> intent". RMS is the author of the GPL, therefore whatever his intent is the
> spirit in which the document was written. Whether or not that is legal is a
> different story, but if that spirit is legal, then the GPL can be
> interpreted within the context of that.
>
> Further, it can't be claimed that this spirit is not known, the FSF's web
> site is littered with white papers discussing that spirit and there are many
> high profile articles and official statements from RMS discussing that. In
> most courts of law, merely posting a notice in a newspaper is enough to
> declare intent, thousands of public articles and documents would be more
> than enough to back up the case. Further, RMS publicly accepts emails from
> people to discuss the intent and spirit of the document.
>
> Good faith goes a long way in a court of law, and disagreeing with the
> intent and spirit and still agreeing to the terms and not follwing them
> simply because you don't agree is not something that a judge will sit
> lightly with.
A debate about law vs what happens in a court of law are far beyond the scope
of this group. BTW What someone says about a contract is not binding. Think
used car salesman, if it isn't in the contract you don't have it. Same goes for
GPL, if it isn't explicitly limited by the contract, it isn't limited.
[snip]
> Which means that if you distribute the work with GPL'd code, even if it
> could be "reasonably considered independant and seperate works", then you
> must license it as GPL'd.
This is an invalid interpretation. I don't agree. In section 2, it clearly
states what is derived work. Your interpretation of "one iota" is incorrect. If
you statically incorporate GPL code into your program, then you do make a
derived work, however, if you do not, and simply link to a shared library, then
everything is fine. I think that is quite fair.
>
> > Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your
> > rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise
> the
> > right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based
> on
> > the Program.
>
> IOW: "We don't want to own it, we just want to control it".
Exactly, the GPL provides a mechanism for developers to share code while still
remaining in full control of it. That is perfectly reasonable. If you don't
like that, don't use it.
>
> > In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
> with the
> > Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or
> > distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this
> > License.
>
> This means that if it's a seperate application that falls under the
> "reasonably seperate work" clause, then merely shipping on the same CD is
> not enough to force it to be GPL'd.
Exactly.
A commercial software company can hack a GPL library, distribute it as a shared
library, release the changes made by them and distribute it as a package on
their CD and still not need to be GPL. I think that is very fair.
>
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> > This section makes it VERY clear that the doom and gloom people are
> claiming
> > GPL will do is utter non-sense.
>
> Well, that's easy to say when you don't define exactly what the "doom and
> gloom" is that you are refuting.
Your "one iota" bit.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The GPL if you are curious.
Date: 6 Mar 2001 13:19:39 GMT
On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 07:34:16 -0500, mlw wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> I more or less agree with this sentiment, though where interpretation is
>> possible, I would also consider a quote from RMS as an authoritative
>> source on the *intended* meaning.
>
>This is something I really dislike. Mainly because it treated as authoritative
>when it is not.
>
>RMS is a smart guy. Like many smart guys, what he says usually has meaning the
>spreads across multiple sentences, even paragraphs. When he is quoted, you
>seldom see more than a sentence or two.
Quotes can be abused, so it's appropriate to provide a cite so the full
context is available.
>More over, what RMS says is not authoritative because he is many things, but a
>legal document he is not.
He is authoritative on the intended meaning of documents he authors.
This is true for anyone, not just RMS.
Basically, he "knows what he thinks he means", even if he is not an
authoritative source on the legal implications of his license.
Moreover, while not authoritative on the law, I'd imagine he'd be pretty
knowledgeable on law *as it applies to the GPL*, and would have enlisted some
sort of legal counsel to assist in writing/editing legal documents.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 08:36:27 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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.
>
> Actually, RMS would like to make it so that the act of calling into a
> syscall is enough to make a program a derived work, thus if your kernel is
> GPL, any program you distribute to run under it must also be GPL.
I have heard people say that, but I have yet to see a quote. If he actually
said it, he disagrees with GPL.
>
> > 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.
>
> That's only if you're using library code that is LGPL'd, something which the
> FSF strongly discourages.
OK we are getting somewhere.
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't consider extracting one function out of a program and including it
> in mine to be "modifying the program". The original program is intact and
> unmodified, I'm merely reusing the code. Of course, that's still covered
> under the license.
Yes, here we go this is the fundamental place where I agree with the GPL. What
right do you have to take someone's work and incorporate it into your program?
None, nada, zip, and you shouldn't. This is EXACTLY what the GPL is for. One
function or set of functions can be the core of an entire package, and you
could be stealing from an author. Think compression, the one compressor
function is important.
If you don't like the GPL, DON'T USE GPL CODE. Take the function out of
Microsoft 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.
>
> Not a problem. The problem I have is when someone says "Nay nay, i've got
> code, and you can only use it if you agree to be my willing slave, but the
> code is free as in speech".
It is not about "willing slave" it is about "using" not "stealing." You are
free to use my GPL code in the manner in which I have shared it. You can't
incorporate my code into your code, UNLESS you make your code GPL or compensate
me for my efforts.
> It's not. You are requiring that they give up
> their rights to their own code in order to make use of the "free" code.
No, the GPL defines HOW they can use the code, and what the compensation is. If
the compenation is not what they wish to pay, i.e. release their code as GPL,
then they are free not to use it.
> That's extortion, and not "free as in speech". Imagine if the US government
> said "You can say anything you like, so long as you only speak in public
> where everyone records your every word". That's not free speech, that's big
> brother.
Cute analogy, no relevence, of course, but cute.
>
> > > 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.
>
> That is precisely what the GPL is.
Read the GPL carefully, especially section 2.
>
> > > 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 made it available because it was the only way they could get people to
> use GPL'd compilers. If they have their way, LGPL will go away.
who is "They" and do you have a URL?
>
> > > 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.
>
> Yes, it does.
Read the limitations at the bottom of section 2 of the GPL.
>
> > > 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.
>
> In a manner of speaking, it is.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Yes, I've read it, completely, many times.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Sorry, but saying "Accept my terms or bugger off" is *NOT* freedom.
It is, because when it is my code, I say how it is used. Freedom is a matter of
perspective. Just because you can't legally walk into a jewelry store and take
a ring without paying, does not mean you are not free, it means that the
jewelry store owner's freedom is protected.
>
> > 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.
>
> No, I don't claim that the GPL is too restrictive. I complain that it is
> falsely, and fraudulantely claimed to be "free".
Free as in freedom, not free as in beer.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:35:40 -0300
mlw wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> > Any debate about GPL must be centered around the actual license. Not
>> > what you think, or what you think you have heard Stallman say.
>>
>> Excuse me but it's not what I think he said, it's what he told me. I am
>> not defending precisely my opinion here, as should be clear if you
>> bothered reading what I bothered writing, but the position of the FSF, as
>> expressed to me, among others, by RMS.
>
> What RMS says is not as important as the agreement with which you use the
> software. In a court of law, RMS on the stand saying "I intend it to
> mean...." does not out weigh the weight of actual contract.
Let's look at it the other way around: Are you willing to litigate this
difference of opinion?
> The most important phrases are:
> "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable
> sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
> reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then
> this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
> distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same
> sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the
> distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose
> permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to
> each and every part regardless of who wrote it. "
>
> This means that as long as you keep your code separate from the GPL code,
<RMS>
Code linked to a library and using the functionality of that library is not
separate code.
</RMS>
> you do not need to release your code as GPL. It is very clear. It is only
> when you extend a GPL work, or embed your code into GPL work, it MUST be
> GPL. This is a perfectly reasonable approach.
<RMS>
When your huge app links into my tiny GPLd library, your code is extending
my library. Your code must be GPL-compatible.
</RMS>
>
> "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
> with the
> Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or
> distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this
> License. "
>
> This means you can ship GPL licensed code with your non-GPL code.
<RMS>
Linked code is not merely aggregated.
</RMS>
> "Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
> your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
> exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective
> works based on the Program. "
>
> It is not the intent to limit your rights.
>
> I don't see what all the fuss is about. I don't understand how people can
> be so confused.
<RMS>
Indeed it is all very clear, I don't see why you can't understand it.
</RMS>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 14:37:09 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
>wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey) writes:
>>>
>>> But in that case how would I describe British aborigines?
>>
>>Pommies?
>
> That describes the modern British, not the original inhabitants :-)
You asked about "British aborigines". Aren't the original inhabitants
of what's left of the British Empire "pommies"?
Of course, there are the Celts, Picts, and other assorted tribes
that used to roam England, Scotland and Wales...
;-)
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth underscores threat to Microsoft
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:45:50 -0000
> > >"Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has acknowledged that
> > >Linux has become its No. 1 threat, and
> > >the IDC numbers underscore that position.
> > >Although the figures show that Windows shipments
> > >increased 20 percent, Linux outpaced it with a 24
> > >percent increase."
> > >
> > >What's weird about it is that, with Windows at
> > >41%, and Linux at 27%, 68% of the server market is
> > >running on PC OS's (more if you count Netware).
>
> um no.
>
> With Linux at 27% and "other Unix" at whatever it was,
> it shows that Unix oses have a healthy share. I expect
> the Unix figure to increase, if anything.
>
Don't forget that 41% windows + 27% linux doesn't really mean 68% use
of PC's - what percentage of those linux machines run on non-PC hardware
(like Sun/SGI hardware, IBM mainframes, PPC).
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The GPL if you are curious.
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:49:14 -0300
mlw wrote:
> There has been much speculation on what rights and restrictions the GPL
> gives and requires from you.
Indeed. And you seem to have missed most of it.
> I submit that the GPL is a very fair and reasonable document, unlike what
> many Winvocates seem to insist.
You don't even know who you are arguing with!
Calling John Dyson or me winvocates is stupid.
> Forget what people say. Forget what you
> have heard. Read it for yourself at:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Read it and weep. If you understand it, of course.
> Just remember, no rights are limited unless they are explicitly limited,
> and no right is granted (above the rights you enjoy as a citizen) which is
> not explicitly granted and legal.
There are a lot of rights specifically limited you seem to be too blind to
see.
> The GPL is not the bull shit people make it out to be, it is a very sound
> and progressive licensing scheme that makes sense.
The GPL is pretty much bullshit. It is a very poorly drafted, vague
document that is more of a political statement than a recipe on how to
handle distribution of software.
Obvious example: you are not required to distribute source of a part of the
work, if that part is "...normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system...".
Is the windowing system a major part of the operating system? Is libc? Is
Internet explorer a major part of windows?
Who knows? The GPL is poorly drafted, so it's not specified. You have to go
by opinion. Are you willing to be sued on that opinion? Then you have to be
conservative. Then you don't link. Then your reinvent the wheel. Because
the GPL makes you do it.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:52:00 -0300
mlw wrote:
> No, the GPL defines HOW they can use the code, and what the compensation
> is. If the compenation is not what they wish to pay, i.e. release their
> code as GPL, then they are free not to use it.
For someone that tries to lecture on the true meaning of the GPL, you seem
to have not read it. Use of the code is not covered by the GPL.
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 13:55:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey) writes:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A
> Eeckels) wrote:
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey) writes:
>>>>
>>>> But in that case how would I describe British aborigines?
>>>
>>>Pommies?
>>
>> That describes the modern British, not the original inhabitants :-)
>
>You asked about "British aborigines". Aren't the original inhabitants
>of what's left of the British Empire "pommies"?
>
>Of course, there are the Celts, Picts, and other assorted tribes
>that used to roam England, Scotland and Wales...
>
>;-)
It's the Celts, Picts etc. that I was talking about. They were the original
inhabitants (aborigines).
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:54:15 -0300
mlw wrote:
>> Which means that if you distribute the work with GPL'd code, even if it
>> could be "reasonably considered independant and seperate works", then you
>> must license it as GPL'd.
>
> This is an invalid interpretation. I don't agree. In section 2, it clearly
> states what is derived work.
The point is not "derived work" that is not defined by the GPL anyway, but
by copyright law. The GPL speaks of "a larger work".
Read the GPL, as you said.
> Your interpretation of "one iota" is incorrect. If you statically
> incorporate GPL code into your program, then
> you do make a derived work, however, if you do not, and simply link to a
> shared library, then everything is fine. I think that is quite fair.
The GPL says nothing about linking, either statically or dynamically. What
part of the GPL are you using to draw this line?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 13:42:52 GMT
"Stuart Krivis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:24:37 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >I have shown nothing but concern. In fact, the only reason I still
> >post to this thread is because I'm concerned that there are thousands
> >of people out there happily using SSH1 and are completely unaware
> >that it is "fundamentally flawed".
>
> So why don't you attempt to constructively alert them to these "flaws?"
I did, and have, but have been called names and insulted by the immature
flops that run the show.
-c
------------------------------
From: Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: 06 Mar 2001 14:44:42 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt) writes:
> Solaris will probably stay on in the short to medium term. In the
> long term, Sun might replace it with Linux in order to save the
> costs of developing their own kernel. Frankly, it doesn't bother
> me much one way or the other, it's only a kernel.
I think the times are over when you could take a stock Linux kernel
and integrate it into your OS distribution. Nowadays, a considerable
amount of work is needed to extract a working, secure, compatible,
and well-performing kernel out of the publicly available sources,
especially if you're targeting a minority platform. Some past
design decisions have considerably increased the complexity of the
kernel, and I've started to doubt that the current concept of kernel
development can deal with the problems which will certainly arise in
the not-too-distant future.
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 14:00:13 GMT
"Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Othertimes, people'd come in wanting to buy Red-hat linux, and I'd point 'em
>to the book-section. (Linux Bible series). They'd ask "Why not get the full
>version?.." I'd tell em "Why? This is still a full installation, for half of
>the retail box, and you get this thick 'manual' with it.."
>
>The expressions are always priceless..
What's their expression like when they find out your store has, like,
ZERO Linux apps for sale, while there's THOUSANDS of Windows apps on
the shelves?
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:00:50 -0300
chrisv wrote:
> "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Othertimes, people'd come in wanting to buy Red-hat linux, and I'd point
>>'em to the book-section. (Linux Bible series). They'd ask "Why not get the
>>full version?.." I'd tell em "Why? This is still a full installation, for
>>half of the retail box, and you get this thick 'manual' with it.."
>>
>>The expressions are always priceless..
>
> What's their expression like when they find out your store has, like,
> ZERO Linux apps for sale, while there's THOUSANDS of Windows apps on
> the shelves?
Weird. Do you always value your things based on how much money you can
spend on them?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 14:07:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>Done several Linux installs, on about 25 different hardware configurations,
>including laptops, custom builds, Dell machines, and dreaded laptops.
>Never had hardware problems with supported hardware.
That's funny, I've had problems with the majority of the machines I've
tried it on! Examples: Voodoo3 not supported. Adaptec (!) SCSI card
not supported.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: 6 Mar 2001 14:07:33 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:38:24 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>They have not. The GPL even stipulates that it's not concerned
>with the price, only with the continued availability of the
>source code, and all the derivative works of the source code,
>if these are distributed.
Meaningless. Since there's nothing preventing someone from buying a copy and
turning around and giving it away for free, the market is effectively
destroyed.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
