Linux-Advocacy Digest #688, Volume #32 Wed, 7 Mar 01 14:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: What does IQ measure? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: GPL Like patents. ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Austin Ziegler)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Michael Livshin)
Re: I am looking for a newsreader ("Gerrit Knol")
Re: What does IQ measure? (Brock Hannibal)
Re: Linux on it's way back to (Gert Elstermann)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Jay Maynard)
Re: Do Windows developers settle? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: I am looking for a newsreader ("spicerun")
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
Help: Linux 6.0 install on laptop (Robert)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux destroys video card! (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: 7 Mar 2001 16:10:28 GMT
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 06:43:45 -0800, Brock Hannibal wrote:
>Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> The kind of person that works slowly but precisely and creatively scores
>> poorly in IQ tests.
>
>Give some examples of highly intelligent people like this.
I'd give myself as an example. But then, I didn't score poorly on the IQ
test I took. I suppose some speedier types may have scored slightly higher.
It may be possible that there are people who are statistical anomolies
(for example, maybe someone with a learning disability takes twice as
long, but produces accurate answers) and anyone who believes a single
number to be a comprehensive measure of man needs to have his IQ tested(-;
However, it probably does as good a job as you could hope for given that
the output of the test is a single three digit number.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 16:09:52 +0000
mlw wrote:
> I have spread no FUD or propaganda.
No? Really? </sarcasm>
> I don't like the BSD license because someone can co-opt my code and limit my
> access to changes. I think this is wrong, and that is why I would only release
> code as GPL.
As is your right, but it limits usage of your code to places where all the
other authors feel able to use the GPL as well. In a complex project, the
number of different licenses can get quite large, and the interactions
between them quite complex. Anything the slightest bit controversial means
that software licensed that way is not used, just to be on the safe side.
And what is it with you GPL people anyway? Why do you object so much to
other people incorporating it as a part of what they are doing? Commercial
projects and the people who work on them are not universally evil, you know.
> I have not read the readline license, if it is different that the GPL license
> located at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html then it is outside of this
> discussion.
No, I read the license immediately prior to posting and readline is GPL.
Not LGPL, or anything else. It is *entirely* germaine to this disucssion.
> Again, not knowing where readline is different, I would say that the following
> line protects you: "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."
And as I said in my message, big whoop-te-doo. They're not trying to force
all third party libraries to use the GPL. This is kind of lucky, since they
*can't* do this, much as RMS would like to...
> Make it a separate library, and everything should be OK. If you want to
> INCORPORATE readline into your code, well, then you are in violation.
What is your opinion on the case where you have some code that can detect
whether the library is available and use it if so, but otherwise use an
alternative (much simpler) mechanism?
> If you don't like it, don't use readline.
That is what we are doing currently. Not using readline. Kind-of lucky
since we've got a better solution (for systems with GUIs anyway.)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The guy who sells me my audio hardware explained that a computer will never
produce the same level of sound quality that a stereo will b/c stereo have
transistors and sound cards don't. --Matthew Garson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:16:16 -0500
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Tim Hanson wrote:
> Austin Ziegler wrote:
>> On 6 Mar 2001, Steve Mading wrote:
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>: No. They only have the right to distribute it with strings
>>>: attached. The software must be redistributed under their license. If
>>>: the software is library software, the GPL requires work that so much
>>>: as links dynamically to it to be released under the GPL (or so RMS
>>>: says. Whether such a draconian condition is enforceable remains to
>>>: be seen)
>>> You are deliberately not mentioning the existence of the LGPL, which does
>>> NOT have that requirement. Sure, a library released under GPL would
>>> have that requirement, but this doesn't matter given that libraries
>>> are typically released under LGPL not GPL.
>> Not necessarily true, Mr Mading. First, there are a number of GPLed
>> Java classes out there. In Java, *everything* is a library. How does
>> RMS's interpretation of library foolishness square with this? Second,
>> there is at least one significant library under the GPL and not the
>> LGPL. Third, RMS himself has been arguing recently that libraries
>> should be under the GPL and not the LGPL -- and has renamed the LGPL
>> from the "Library GPL" to the "Lesser GPL" in accordance with this
>> change of mind.
> So? He doesn't rule the software business. He didn't change his mind;
> he's never liked the LGPL. His isn't the last word on it, either.
*sigh* In my second response to Mr Mading, I point out that Stallman
can and will change the terms of the LGPL and people won't have a lot
of choice about the matter because they've released the code with the
phrase "LGPL version 1 or later..." because they assume that the FSF
will keep the spirit in mind.
If it doesn't, then people will probably abandon the FSF, but the
possibility is there, and it will affect the licensing of the existing
code significantly.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: Michael Livshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: 07 Mar 2001 18:24:59 +0200
"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And what is it with you GPL people anyway? Why do you object so much to
> other people incorporating it as a part of what they are doing? Commercial
> projects and the people who work on them are not universally evil,
> you know.
[ I wouldn't exactly define myself as a "GPL person", but I'll try to
answer anyway. ]
for a real GPL person, a project that is outside the free software
pool simply doesn't exist. the purpose of the GPL is to enlarge the
pool of free software.
if you are not into ideology and just want to be nice to the world,
use the X license for your code, or put it in the public domain,
whatever. that would certainly result in better adoption for your
code. the GPL is not optimized for that.
anybody who insists that GPL Is Good For You (tm) and GPL Is Simply
Better (tm) is either lying or doesn't understand what he is talking
about.
--
(only legal replies to this address are accepted)
All ITS machines now have hardware for a new machine instruction --
SETS
Set to Self.
Please update your programs.
------------------------------
From: "Gerrit Knol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I am looking for a newsreader
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 16:28:23 GMT
In artikel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, krabbelde "Brad Sims"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> de volgende volstrekt absurde nonsens neer:
> Knode is ok but I want something like Xnews, that I can run on my linux
> partition (SuSE 7.0, KDE 2.1). I have tried krn and did not like it
> either.
>
>
I think Xnews is also available for linux, otherwise pan is great.
--
Ash nazg durbatulūk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulūk
agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
Ik wil het gewoon maar even kwijt ;-)))
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:15:25 -0800
From: Brock Hannibal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
On 7 Mar 2001, Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 06:43:45 -0800, Brock Hannibal wrote:
> >Edward Rosten wrote:
> >>
>
> >> The kind of person that works slowly but precisely and creatively scores
> >> poorly in IQ tests.
> >
> >Give some examples of highly intelligent people like this.
>
> I'd give myself as an example. But then, I didn't score poorly on the IQ
> test I took. I suppose some speedier types may have scored slightly higher.
>
> It may be possible that there are people who are statistical anomolies
> (for example, maybe someone with a learning disability takes twice as
> long, but produces accurate answers) and anyone who believes a single
> number to be a comprehensive measure of man needs to have his IQ tested(-;
Yes, IQ tests don't test for pleasing good looks, pleasing personality,
emotional empathy, athletic ability, singing voice mellifluosness, or
the ability to do tricks with a Duncan Yo-Yo.
> However, it probably does as good a job as you could hope for given that
> the output of the test is a single three digit number.
It does a good job at testing cognitive abilities. Those cognitive
abilities correlate well with some things and not at all with other
things.
--
Brock
"One thing counts in this life: Get them to sign
on the line which is dotted...A. Always. B. Be.
C. Closing. Always Be Closing."
http://www.swingout.net/
------------------------------
From: Gert Elstermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux on it's way back to
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 18:15:49 +0100
CR Lyttle wrote:
> You forget ........... revolution. ...
> .... Let everyone else play by *our* rules.
People - listen to the signals!
You have been warned!
------------------------------
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: 7 Mar 2001 17:21:53 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 05:59:41 GMT, Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That's what annoys me about this continual GPL debate. There is a ready
>solution for those who don't want to release their work under the GPL:
>Don't use or link to GPLed code in your program. That's pretty
>straightforward, I would think.
As far as it goes. However, it also shows the intellectual poverty of the
GPV approach: "We want to maximize software reuse!"...but then use terms
that make software reuse impossible for many folks. "We want to maximize
freedom!"...and limit it in important ways. "Down with software
hoarding!"...and they hoard it themselves by adopting viral terms that many
others simply cannot. "It's about free speech!"...and they adopt license
terms that are incompatible with many other licenses that also are about
free speech.
It all adds up to "my way or the highway". It's communism in the guise of
freedom, an inherent contradiction. (Before you claim I'm full of prunes,
then answer me one simple question: Why does the GNU Manifesto read so much
like the Communist Manifesto?)
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do Windows developers settle?
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 17:38:22 +0000
> It's not as easy to install as Cygwin, but (in reality) is anything
> worthwhile ever easy (especially in Windows)? I would agree that the
> Unix is a much better platform for development (but not for other
> things).
I think cygwin has a /windir/c/whatever
it also recognises c:\foo
-Ed
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: 7 Mar 2001 17:45:29 GMT
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:16:16 -0500, Austin Ziegler wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Tim Hanson wrote:
>> Austin Ziegler wrote:
I would think that putting further restrictions in future versions would
be ineffective, because
(a) most probably someone has already licensed the code under a less
encumbered version
(b) if the license explicitly allows version (X) or later, then you
could still license it under an earlier version (???)
However, after RMS's rant about LGPL, I wouldn't hand over copyrights
of anything to the FSF
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I am looking for a newsreader
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 11:32:31 -0600
In article <984vd0$k00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> Tyr pan (like me :-)
>
> It's still beat, but as long as you're careful, it's OK.
>
> If you have a large number of threads in a group, let it finish loaing
> and threading before you tell it to do something else.
>
> -Ed
>
I'd recommend upgrading to Pan 0.9.4 like I'm running. It doesn't crash
as much although you are right about letting it finish loading &
threading. The best improvement is that 0.9.4 version has fixed the
memory leaks and I can see a big improvement in Pan's uptime. The only
notable minus I've found in upgrading is that you've got to delete your
old .pan/data directory and reload it with 0.9.4.
Regards.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:32:03 -0300
mlw wrote:
> Paul Colquhoun wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 09:58:44 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> |Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> |>
>> |> 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?
>> |
>> |Reasonable question:
>> |
>> |Answer:
>> |The first paragraph after (c) in section 2 states:
>> |>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> |(1) These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. (2)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. (3) 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.
>> |<<<<<<<<<<<<
>> |
>> |(1) Limits the GPL to a single modified work.
>> |(2) Indicates that if you keep the GPL code separate from yours and your
>> |code is not merely an extension, yours need not be GPL.
>> |(3) Indicates that if you incorporate GPL code INTO your work, you must
>> |make it GPL.
>> |
>> |In the simplest terms, if you dynamically link to GPL code it can be
>> |"reasonably considered independent."
>> |
>> |If you statically link code into your program, then your program
>> |contains GPL code. If you dynamically link to GPL code then your program
>> |does not contain GPL code.
>>
>> If your code depends on the GPL code, and won't run without it, how
>> independent can it be?
>
> My code won't run without a hard disk or RAM or even a processor, does
> that mean it is not independent of these things?
Your code will happily run without any specific model or version or kind of
CPU/RAM/HD, and it can run without any one of them. It may take more work,
of course.
> Given some of the wild and outrageous interpretations by RMS, I am in
> violation of the GPL for a GPL library I have postgres. Since Postgres is
> not GPL, and my library is, he says I am in violation for writing GPL code
> for a non-GPL application. Now, no where does it say that I can't do this,
> and I bet I could win a court case against this interpretation, but who
> needs that crap.
Postgres is under a GPL-compatible license. You can consider your copy to
be dually-licensed under the GPL. This is why the GPL only says things
should be distributed "under the terms of this license" and not "under this
license".
That's another old argument ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:35:45 -0300
mlw wrote:
> This is exhausting. I can't take it anymore. I will concede that there are
> many aspects of the GPL which can be interpreted in different ways
> depending on your background and point of view. As for RMS, that link you
> gave seems like he is way out there when it comes to the interpretation.
>
> OK, lets just assume we are not going to agree on meaning, because really,
> it will take a court of law to really define the difference between what
> people think it means, including RMS himself, and what it means legally.
>
> I was using a very "dry" interpretation with some help from a contract
> lawyer. I'm pretty sure I could win, but you are right in that one should
> not have to risk litigation.
>
> OK, we have bitched long enough, how do we fix it?
We start educating people not to take the GPL lightly (seems you just
passed the threshold, it's working ;-). Then we stop writing code and
releasing it under the GPL (I'm way more successful at stopping writing so
far ;-).
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert)
Subject: Help: Linux 6.0 install on laptop
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 18:37:47 GMT
I purchased a copy of "Red Hat Linux 6.0 - Unleashed" and have been
unable to install this O/S on my laptop even though I've successfully
installed it on my desktop. I've followed all of the possible
installation instructions from the book. Part of the problem is that
I have to use a swappable CD and Floppy drive on my laptop and cannot
use both simultaneously. The instructions in the book indicate that I
can install directly from the CD using the 'linux ks' or 'expert'
commands. Neither of these worked for me.
My system information is:
Current O/S - Win 98
Intel celeron processor
128mb ram
1gb partition set up for Linux
I would appreciate any and all assistance/advice.
Thank you,
Robert Kendall
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:41:04 -0300
Tim Hanson wrote:
> That's what annoys me about this continual GPL debate. There is a ready
> solution for those who don't want to release their work under the GPL:
> Don't use or link to GPLed code in your program. That's pretty
> straightforward, I would think.
There's a related issue: we who have been burnt by believing what we were
told about the GPL, and those burnt because they thought they knew what the
GPL meant, should warn those who are young and naļve.
I sure wish someone had told me in 1996 what I now know about the GPL. It
would have saved me a lot of grief.
You know, an ounce of prevention, and so on.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux destroys video card!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 07 Mar 2001 18:40:45 GMT
On 7 Mar 2001 14:08:47 GMT, Henry_Barta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is a linux advocacy group, so I'd thought I'd create a thread about
>> how great it was.
>
>> I had a bit of a crisis yesterday, my trusty Riva128 died. There was no
>> output to the scren at all.
>
> I think I still have you beat. I operated my firewall for 4
> weeks after the hard drive failed. I shut it down to put a
> spare drive. Barring loss of power, it sppeared to be ready
> to run indefinitely. (Running Linux, of course. I don't think
> that any Win based system would tolerate excessive hard drive
> failures and keep running.)
Ha, thats nothing, my Linux router is so clever it doesn't even need a
hard drive :)
Terry
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
