Linux-Advocacy Digest #771, Volume #32 Mon, 12 Mar 01 08:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Giuliano Colla)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Giuliano Colla)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Ian Davey)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Middle Aged Fat Asses (Charlie Ebert)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:11:15 GMT
"." wrote:
>
> > How can you tell that a compiler is better if you don't examine the
> > machine language produced?
> >
> > How can you tell which way rearranging your source code will be more
> > efficient if you don't examine the resulting machine code?
> >
> > How can you tell that a high level language is better than another if
> > you don't look at the resulting machine code?
> >
> > You're clutching at straws, or you have a point I'm missing?
>
> Although I mostly agree with your point of view, I would have to say that
> there's nothing to stop him profiling the resulting executables. He wont
> know for sure that one compiler is better than the other, but he can make
> an educated guess about it.
You're right, of course, but it's the difference between
working by trial and errors, and knowing for sure.
If we're speaking of getting the best result with minimal
effort, it turns out that understanding machine language is
more time/cost effective than moving in the dark. Sometimes
benchmark data happen to be biased, and you don't know.
--
Giuliano Colla
Before activating the tongue, make sure that the brain is
connected (anonymous)
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:13:43 GMT
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:43:08 GMT, Giuliano Colla
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >LShaping wrote:
>
> >> And so can buying a better compiler, and so can rearranging your
> >> source code, and so can using a better high level language.
> >
> > How can you tell that a compiler is better if you don't examine the
> > machine language produced?
>
> Why, you ask the salesman of course!
>
It's so simple! Why didn't think of it at first? :-)
> > How can you tell which way rearranging your source code will be more
> > efficient if you don't examine the resulting machine code?
>
> You try things at random until it seems to go faster. Then you whine
> about your 60-hour work weeks and "not having enough time".
>
See above!
> > How can you tell that a high level language is better than another if
> > you don't look at the resulting machine code?
>
> Ask the salesman again!
See above!
--
Giuliano Colla
Before activating the tongue, make sure that the brain is
connected (anonymous)
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:25:49 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:43:00
> [...]
> >> I would be very surprised if it "works well", quite frankly.
> >
> >It pop up a floating message saying "cable is unplugged" (which also happens
> >if the computer/hub on the other side was disconnected or turned off).
> >There is no way you can mistake that for hardware or driver failure.
>
> I couldn't, maybe; you couldn't. The computer, it isn't so smart as you
> or I.
>
I have some feeling that a loose connector, a defective
cable, a switched off hub would produce the same floating
dialog. If you try to figure out more than you know, you're
looking for troubles, and for more assistance calls than
necessary. If you just tell what's unmistakably happening,
i.e. that you can't connect to the network, the guy will
scratch his head and try to understand why. If you tell him
that the cable is disconnected, once he's verified it's
plugged in, he will lift the phone and ask for assistance.
--
Giuliano Colla
Before activating the tongue, make sure that the brain is
connected (anonymous)
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:35:57 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said . in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:57:09 +1300;
> >> >> I've met a lot of bright programmers who actually knew sod all about the
> >> >> COMPUTER. They get taught some logic, and a language, and they start
> >> >> programming. I don't believe it makes them BAD programmers, just
> >> >> ignorant of some important aspects.
> >> >
> >> >But that ignorance leads them to do ... stupid things...which makes
> >> >them "not nearly as good programmers as they would be if their
> >> >ignorance was removed by learning about *the computer*"
> >>
> >> Both of you have completely missed the point.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Then we have done it by misunderstanding you, so why don't you try and
> >explain the point better?
> >
> >It's hard to explain OUR point more clearly - knowing low level languages
> >improves your ability to use high level languages.
> >
> >
> >Perhaps your point is that you don't have the time to learn about lower
> >levels? You want to get on and get the app working and out the door?
> >That's bad programming from two separate points of view.
>
> No; his point isn't about programming apps. Its about automating apps.
> LShaping is a fan, as I am, of desktop automation. Its almost
> programming, sort of like scripting, but requires less arcane and
> otherwise useless knowledge to accomplish, and is far more valuable to
> the non-expert user.
>
But he must realize that in order to provide that, the work
of an army of programmers with a good knowledge of the high
level language they're using, and of the low level code
resulting, is required.
--
Giuliano Colla
Before activating the tongue, make sure that the brain is
connected (anonymous)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:38:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Really meanning. "I'll share with you if and only if you'll share with
>me". In less pleasant words "I won't share with you if won't share with me".
>
>But that isn't even the principle. Copyleft has "I won't share (this)
>with you if you won't share (everthing of yours that uses it) with
>the world".
But even that statement is misleading, you only have to share if you take the
original code, modify it *and* release it. So you can take the code, share it
with as many people as you like, or modify it for your own use without having
to give anything back. It's only if you then want to release something based
on that work that anything needs to be shared, and even then you can comply
merely by releasing the source code with the binaries. By, for instance,
supplying it on the same CD as the binaries you sell to your customers.
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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:40:37 -0300
David Utidjian wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> [some snippage]
>
>> This is so-typical GPL advocacy.
>>
>> Q: If someone just took the BSDL code and relicensed it, why would anyone
>> prefer it over the original BSDL version?
>>
>> A: They wouldn't. Before relicensing it, the code would have to be
>> IMPROVED. This step is never mentioned by GPL advocates.
>>
>> This is where it gets interesting. Either you have
>>
>> a ) commercial software that's technically better than free software, and
>> the proprietary version DESERVES being preferred, and people will PREFER
>> paying for it, and there is no harm done,
>>
>> or
>>
>> b) commercial software that is not better than free software, and people
>> will PREFER using the free version, and there is no harm done.
>>
>> Your choice.
>>
>> Of course if reality is a), the GPL simply prevents the creation of
>> better software for users. They get bad software in the name of freedom,
>> even if they WANT better software that is not free.
>
> Ummmm... I don't quite see how this prevents a commercial software
> company from creating better "non-free" software.
It doesn't. However, the GPL makes it harder for the company to provide
such better non-free software. Thus, the GPL is slowing the improvement of
software in that case, one of the alternatives I gave.
> It prevents a company
> or individual from taking the "free" software and improving it AND
> distributing it as "non-free" software. It does NOT prevent the company
> or individual from taking "free" software improving it AND NOT
> distributing it.
What companies do inside themselves is of no relevance to us because we
won't see it. The GPL advocates always speak about the freedoms of the
users. Obviously in that case the GPL makes no difference. The GPL is
neutral. That's the other alternative I gave.
>> So, the GPL is either a force slowing down the improvement of software,
>> or it is neutral. In either case, the only reason for the GPL's existence
>> is politics.
>
> I disagree... I think you are making the assumption that no one will
> want to improve and develope "free" software. By evidence of a lot of
> really good "free" software that is being rapidly developed and
> improved... I would say the evidence is that GPL does NOT slow down the
> improvement of "free" software... nor make it neutral. I might even
> argue that it actually accellerates the development of "non-free"
> software... if and only if, the "non-free" software can be seen as an
> improvement over the "free" software.
Bzzt. The GPL would have a positive benefit compared with my proposed
alternative in this case, if the GPL made free software develop faster than
free software under the BSD license. I see no evidence of that.
> In the case of "bad" "non-free" software there is NOTHING the users can
> do to improve that software... except take their dollars elsewhere. That
> won't improve the "non-free" software very much.
It should improve the alternative non-free software where their money is
going. And in the case of non-free software based on BSDL software, they
can do the same thing as with GPLd software: go and work on it.
> In the case of "bad" "free" software the user CAN improve it themselves
> OR they can give their dollars to someone who will. That WILL improve
> the "free" software.
Even in the case of the most closed software imaginable, they can do the
latter.
>> That is not necessarily bad, itsjust never said.
>
> I think it is never said because it is misunderstanding of how it works
> at best... definitely flawed... and fallacious at worst.
Or you just didn't understand my argument at all.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Middle Aged Fat Asses
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:44:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Hanson wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>
>> Why is is that everytime the subject of Linux comes up in an
>> office, about 25 middle aged fat asses fly into the conversation
>> to profess the advocacy of using Windows powered boxes.
>
>You threaten office gurudom. Every MAFAM who is otherwise unproductive
>because he surfs the net all day at his desk is redeemed because he
>knows how to Unlock Windows, do Mail Merges, install a new printer, and
>all those dopey things the totally clueless ask him to do. By
>mentioning Linux you threaten his hegemony as office computer guru.
>
>> Windows boxes are so easy to install. I tried to install Linux
>> and it was SOO DIFFICULT! Every PC crashes, so why pick the OS
>> which is hardest to install! Oh my!
>
>He's just repeating what he heard on the Win2000 website last night. As
>to the reality? He doesn't have a clue. Humor him.
>
>> They are so concerned about install and setup they forgot the
>> REASON this BECAME IMPORTANT! It BECAME IMPORTANT BECAUSE,,,,
>> MIDDDLE AGGGED FATTTASS MAN ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME HERE,,,,
>> IT BECAME IMPORTANT BECAUSE WINDOWS IS AN UNRELIABLE PEICE
>> OF SHIT OPERATING SYSTEM WHICH ISN'T CAPABLE OF UPTIMES EXCEEDING
>> A WEEK! IT'S THE FUCKING OPERATING SYSTEM WHICH HAS MADE THIS
>> RE-INSTALLATION ISSUE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO YOU!
>>
>> The next concern MIDDLE AGED FAT ASS MAN has is that Linux
>> doesn't have Microsoft Office. MAFAM can't use a computer unless
>> it has his favorite! MAFAM, use Star Office or Gnome or KDE office.
>> Use Evolution! Do not rely on MAFAM products from Micro-crash anymore.
>
>It's taken him two years just to learn this piece of junk. You're
>taking his reason to come to work every day.
>
>> There must be a device which uses centrifical force or some other means
>> which will transfer MAFAM's brain from this lower extremeties back
>> up to his cranium where it belongs.
>
>Good luck. It moved down there during the Windows 3.1 rollout and
>hasn't been heard from since.
>
>> MAFAM also has this terrible difficulty in understanding why it's important
>> to know LINUX is ready for business when you refer to the largest
>> super computer clusters being built from Linux. MAFAM thinks that's
>> GEEK BRAINS STUFF and that doesn't APPLY TO MAFAM WORLD!
>
>He doesn't care. His only business is monkey business, and has been for
>years.
>
>> Nothing in MAFAM's world needs to have GEEK BRAINS stuff as long as
>> you have a GOOD PLAN!
>>
>> MAFAM lives by the GOOD PLAN philosophy.
>>
>> See you all on the wide track MAFAM'S!
>>
>> Charlie
>
>--
>What is worth doing is worth the trouble of asking somebody to do.
MAFAM is indeed unskilled labor.
So those of you who think your MAFAM yet using Linux were indeed wrong.
MAFAM is definitely WINTROLL ONLY, so quit turning yourselves into me.
Thanks for your honesty however.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:49:18 -0300
Rob S. Wolfram wrote:
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> What RMS or even the GPL itself says in regard to what is a derivative
>>> is pretty much irrelevant. This must be defined by copyright law
>>> itself, since the GPL puts no restrictions on use,
>>
>>Oh, but there's a catch there. The GPL SAYS it puts no restrictions to
>>use. Ask RMS about "user-does-the-linking", and he will come up with
>>something that looks suspiciously similar to a restriction in use:
>>
>>I asked RMS if a program developed to use the intergace of GDBM (GPLd
>>library) and compiled against a binary compatible do-nothing library would
>>be legal.
>>
>>Consider that in this case I, the developer, don't even need to own a copy
>>of the GDBM lib. Since I have never licensed it under the GPL, I can NOT
>>violate the GPL :-)
>>
>>However, he told me that when the user receives the binary of my program
>>and installs it on his system, and then the system links it to the GDBM
>>library, there is a violation of the GPL.
>
> The GPL talks about distributing code. If you would distribute your
> binary with your BCDN library, then (legally) you intend it to be used
> with that library and even if RMS would dance tango with the devil it
> would still not be a violation of the GPL whether the user links against
> a GPL library or not.
> If, however, your BCDN library is just a stub during compile time, and
> you distribute a factually incomplete binary with the sole purpose of
> being linked against a GPL library (because that's the only binary
> compatible library "in the wild") then I'd say there's no legal
> difference with distributing it along with the GPLed library, so yes,
> I'd say that it would constitute a violation of the GPL.
And who is violating the GPL? Consider that to violate the GPL one first
has to accept it, of course.
> So the factual solution is to also publish the stub and tell people that
> they can link against either library (however I'd say this is already a
> gray area, because the two linked versions do not have the same
> functionality).
The GPL doesn't mention functionality anywhere. Copyright law is based on
books and mentions functionality nowhere.
>>I was honestly sick of the argument so I didn't push it further, but since
>>the developer never licensed GDBM, the GPL violator must be the user.
>>Since the user is not making copies, distributing, etc, he must be
>>violating it by use, which the GPL specifically says he can't do.
>
> I'd say that if a developer distributes code that can *only* be linked
> against the GDBM, she has legally licensed the GDBM.
Uh? That's beyond shrinkwrap licenses :-)
How can someone license something he doesn't have a copy of?
And how can someone violate a license that doesn't cover anything he
licensed?
Are we now saying that the FSF pushes interface copyrights? I thought the
boycotted Apple over that ;-)
Writing a program that uses the GDBM API is trivial reading the docs of the
GDBM from a web page (it's five silly functions, and it's almost identical
to the NDBM API)
> But that's just
> MHO. The view of a judge would be extremelly welcome here.
> Where exactly does one start to violate the GPL in your opinion given
> non-free (FSF-wise) binary A and GPLed library B that A links against:
One point would be what do you mean 'that links against library B' ?
Is a source package that uses B's API?
Is a binary that dlopens a file and uses B's API on it?
Is a binary that links dynamically to whatever may have B's API and is
installed with a certain name?
Is a binary that uses sun RPC with exactly B's API to call a server
implemented using B?
Is a binary calling a CORBA component with a IDL based on B's API and a
component implemented using B?
All these are different things. And the GPL doesn't even mention linking!
> a. distributing A without B
> b. distributing A and B on physically separate media
> c. distributing A and B as separate binaries on the same media
> d. distributing separate A.o and B.a and a script to statically link the
> code of B.a in A's excuable
> e. distributing A with B statically linked
I think the question is unanswerable because the GPL is so far behind what
can be done that it doesn't address anything today.
I think the viral part of the GPL is just obsolete.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:54:04 -0300
Steve Mading wrote:
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : However, he told me that when the user receives the binary of my program
> : and installs it on his system, and then the system links it to the GDBM
> : library, there is a violation of the GPL.
>
> Then he's talking out of his ass. This cannot be enforced becaues YOU
> didn't do any violating, and in fact the above situation could happen
> without your knowing it. You can't be held liable for actions that
> others do.
I kinda agree with you. Except that he says (if I understood right!) that
the *user* would be the one violating the GPL. That's why I say he
introduces a use limitation despite the GPL saying there's none.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:45:01 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:43:00
> > [...]
> > >> I would be very surprised if it "works well", quite frankly.
> > >
> > >It pop up a floating message saying "cable is unplugged" (which also
happens
> > >if the computer/hub on the other side was disconnected or turned off).
> > >There is no way you can mistake that for hardware or driver failure.
> >
> > I couldn't, maybe; you couldn't. The computer, it isn't so smart as you
> > or I.
> >
>
> I have some feeling that a loose connector, a defective
> cable, a switched off hub would produce the same floating
> dialog. If you try to figure out more than you know, you're
> looking for troubles, and for more assistance calls than
> necessary. If you just tell what's unmistakably happening,
> i.e. that you can't connect to the network, the guy will
> scratch his head and try to understand why. If you tell him
> that the cable is disconnected, once he's verified it's
> plugged in, he will lift the phone and ask for assistance.
And the first thing that a person with some clue would do, is to find
whatever the other side of the cable is connected to a working computer/hub.
Then replce the cable.
Network not working is a *broad* subject, which can range from hardware to
software to configuration to low bandwidth to whatever.
Cable unplugged minimize this to three places, your network adapter, the
cable, the connection on the other side.
Windows can't support something that is not in the hardware, and if the
hardware doesn't know where it's disconnected, how do you expect windows to
know?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:49:21 +0200
"Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pat McCann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Really meanning. "I'll share with you if and only if you'll share with
> >me". In less pleasant words "I won't share with you if won't share with
me".
> >
> >But that isn't even the principle. Copyleft has "I won't share (this)
> >with you if you won't share (everthing of yours that uses it) with
> >the world".
>
> But even that statement is misleading, you only have to share if you take
the
> original code, modify it *and* release it. So you can take the code, share
it
> with as many people as you like, or modify it for your own use without
having
> to give anything back. It's only if you then want to release something
based
> on that work that anything needs to be shared, and even then you can
comply
> merely by releasing the source code with the binaries. By, for instance,
> supplying it on the same CD as the binaries you sell to your customers.
Nope, at least not with GPL.
2)
...
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or
in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be
licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
this License.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:51:00 +0200
"phil hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:43 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >The US is a democracy. A particular form of democracy, known as a
> >Republic;
>
> Actually, it's the other way round: a democracy is a type of republic.
Repulic is a country without a king.
Democracy has very little to do with republic, and wise versa.
Nazi germany was a republic.
England is not a republic country, but is democratic.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:52:08 +0200
"phil hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 11 Mar 2001 04:25:40 -0500, Stuart Krivis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:44 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>enjoy his freedom. Had society insisted that all software be GPL since
> >>before TCP was developed, the Internet would work just fine, save a
> >>re-arrangement in the specifics of the business model used by the
> >>earliest developers. Claims that the modern world wouldn't exist but
> >>for BSD sound rather like Mr. Ballard's routine claims that the Internet
> >
> >I feel that TCP/IP would not have been used as widely if it had been
> >under a more restrictive license. One could argue that it was the
> >widespread use of BSD software that made the Internet possible.
>
> My understanding is that a lot of the net's infrastructure is
> BSD-licensed. (TCP/IP stack, BIND, Apache, sendmail, etc). Are there
> any common infrastructure programs that are GPL licensed?
GNUtella? FreeNet?
I don't think that you can actually create a GPL infrastructure.
Commercial OS makers won't have it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:57:31 +0200
"phil hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 11 Mar 2001 04:25:40 -0500, Stuart Krivis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:44 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>enjoy his freedom. Had society insisted that all software be GPL since
> >>before TCP was developed, the Internet would work just fine, save a
> >>re-arrangement in the specifics of the business model used by the
> >>earliest developers. Claims that the modern world wouldn't exist but
> >>for BSD sound rather like Mr. Ballard's routine claims that the Internet
> >
> >I feel that TCP/IP would not have been used as widely if it had been
> >under a more restrictive license. One could argue that it was the
> >widespread use of BSD software that made the Internet possible.
>
> My understanding is that a lot of the net's infrastructure is
> BSD-licensed. (TCP/IP stack, BIND, Apache, sendmail, etc). Are there
> any common infrastructure programs that are GPL licensed?
Now, if a lot of .net infrasturcute was BSD-licensed...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
