Linux-Advocacy Digest #779, Volume #32 Mon, 12 Mar 01 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: You're stealing my money (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: You're stealing my money (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: You're stealing my money (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Linux Joke (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (John S. Dyson)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:22:29 GMT
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> phil hunt wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Linux is really an infrastructure program at this point, as so many
> servers run it. GCC (and associated tools, including CVS) is critical
> infrastructure, just one step removed from the infrastructure that users
> use directly.
But note that Linux specifically defines the kernel module interface
as *not* creating derived works of things on either side of it, so it
is not reasonable to consider it the same as GPL'd code with no
such mechanism to allow non-GPL extensions.
> Others, arguably of less importance, but still interesting:
>
> Exim
> Mailman
> MySQL
> Jabber
> Lynx
> Mozilla (dual license)
> Samba
> VNC
> Perl (dual license)
Note that the dual-licensed works also specifically allow non-GPL
extensions and avoid the strict isolation enforced by the GPL alone.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: You're stealing my money
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:22:52 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> (I'm still glad I have Chris blocked)
> I'll reply through Tim, if you don't mind...
>
> The use of your quotes for reply or critique is considered
> fair use. If we were using your quotes for profit or
> otherwise, then recompense would be due.
>
> "some of my words may convey incorrect opinions"
> -Chris Ahlstrom
>
> Ain't that the truth!
>
> -Chad
How would he know? He has me blocked!
At least I'm upfront about my fallibility.
Anyway, nice to see these guys have a sense
of humor... at least, a sense of humor
similar to that of a Politburo benchwarmer.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: You're stealing my money
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:24:35 GMT
Giuliano Colla wrote:
>
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > It has come to my attention that, in spite of the simple
> > terms of the EULA below (in the signature line), that
> > certain people, in replying to my messages, are quoting
> > my words. Please remember that these words are my
> > intellectual property, and I have the right of due
> > recompense for your usage of my words, notwithstanding
> > that quoting the message can be construed as not
> > making a copy, but merely a quote; and notwithstanding
> > that some of my words may convey incorrect opinions that
> > may be construed as analogous to bugs; however, I insist
> > that the copying of any of my words be accompanied by
> > a transmittal of funds to my account in the amount
> > of US$ 49.99 per message quoted.
> >
> > Please note that my lawyers will be monitoring
> > for compliance using a newsgroup filter.
> >
> > Have a nice day.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > --
> > [ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
>
> This quotation is for educational purposes only. :-)
Oh, okay. In that case you need pay only the educational
price of my words, US$ 19.99, Giuliano!
Chris
--
[ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: You're stealing my money
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:29:43 GMT
Tim Hanson wrote:
>
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > It has come to my attention that, in spite of the simple
> > terms of the EULA below (in the signature line), that
> > certain people, in replying to my messages, are quoting
> > my words. Please remember that these words are my
> > intellectual property, and I have the right of due
> > recompense for your usage of my words, notwithstanding
> > that quoting the message can be construed as not
> > making a copy, but merely a quote; and notwithstanding
> > that some of my words may convey incorrect opinions that
> > may be construed as analogous to bugs; however, I insist
> > that the copying of any of my words be accompanied by
> > a transmittal of funds to my account in the amount
> > of US$ 49.99 per message quoted.
> >
> > Please note that my lawyers will be monitoring
> > for compliance using a newsgroup filter.
> >
> > Have a nice day.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > --
> > [ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
>
> So? Sue me.
No need to. My friends at INET MOSCOW have already deducted
the payment.
JUST JOKING. Those Ukranian dudes already got my card
charged for $20.49 for service from INET MOSCOW.
Damned NT operating system holes. And Chad makes
a big deal about some little flaw in ssh. Yeesh!
Chris
--
[ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[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 18:31:10 -0800
Les Mikesell wrote:
> But note that Linux specifically defines the kernel module interface
> as *not* creating derived works of things on either side of it
Not exactly accurate, but close enough for this discussion.
> Note that the dual-licensed works also specifically allow non-GPL
> extensions and avoid the strict isolation enforced by the GPL alone.
All of this is true, but doesn't change the fact that the these works
are GPL licensed. It is not unheard of for there to be specific
exceptions to GPL made on a case-by-case basis, even by FSF.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:44:20 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 08 Mar 2001
> 00:12:41 GMT;
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >>
> >> IMO the reason why Linux boxes tend to get compromised is because the
> >> "admins" are often not professionals.
> >
> >The situation is a little better for RedHatters. RH 7 makes it a
> >little easier not to run those nasty exploitable services like
> >wu-ftp and the r* commands. I got hacked when I had that crap
> >running; learned better.
>
> Well, you simply *must* fill us in on *every last detail*, please!
Just a brief. I got digital cable, and finished installing the
access on NT (which Comcast didn't support at that time, but asking
for NT support did get me a static IP). I knew a little about insecurity,
so I didn't leave my machine on much.
A few days later I got Linux networking running on the cable.
I still didn't leave the machine on. In the meantime, bought a friend's
PC to use as a Linux server. I worked pretty hard at learning
how to build firewalls using ipchains. Thought I was set.
Started leaving the computer on. One day I heard the hard drive
thrashing. It was thrashing so bad the computer wouldn't
respond. I took the damn thing off line, and explored. The system
log was about 25 Mb in size! It was filled with DENY entries
from various IPs and on incrementing ports.
This crap kept on happening, and starting happening the instant I
powered up. One day I telnetted in from work and found "wzap"
in /var/log.
Reinstalled from scratch, rebuilt the firewall, and then disabled
all those freaking services: ftp, telnet, rsh, portmap, etc.
Once someone took down the firewall (I think), but other than
that, no problems. However, I had a nice server box that was
offering no services.
Finally bought a cheap router, and now the server can offer
the "fundamentally flawed" [according to Chad "The Cad" Myers]
ssh service with no problems, as far as I can detect. I'd rather
have a Linux firewall (the logging is much better), but at
least I got my server back.
There are no words to describe the dismay of knowing you can't
use your machine because it gets hacked as soon as you turn it
on. But I've learned quite a bit, so it was worth the pain.
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:44:21 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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.
> > >
> > I agree:
>
> Woah. Hold on a minute there.
>
> GPL isn't used to license protocols. That is beyond its scope. GPL
> licenses programs, ie implementations of a protocol. You could invent a
> protocol and write an implementation of it under the GPL, but anyone
> else could write an implementation in a different license.
>
That is correct. It isn't the protocol specification that made TCP popular.
In fact, for many years everyone expected OSI protocols to replace
TCP. What made TCP nearly universally used was instead the fact
that anyone could use the existing, well tested code base in any product
to get something that works without having to write an implementation
from scratch. If you disagree, dig out the first TCP implementation
that Microsoft supplied, and the first Linux version and try to do
something useful with them to see what life would be like if everyone
had been prohibited from reusing working code. (These two weren't
prohibited from using bsd code, but chose to make their own mistakes
and after years of pain for their users finally got it mostly right).
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:57:21 GMT
"Barry Margolin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:oycr6.31$wM6.29513@burlma1-snr2...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >You don't see anything wrong with that? I do on many counts. First, in
> >typical GNU-speak, it isn't sharing at all; it's trading of valuable
> >intellectual property rights (as is done by the "evil" corprorations).
>
> He's using the products of his talents to promote his agenda (sharable
> software). What's so evil about that? He's not asking for anything in
> return personally.
If you put it in terms of his political agenda instead of lies about the
freedom of the code it is a lot more straightforward.
> Other producers of software request that you send them cash to use their
> code.
Or not. I haven't seen that request from the BSD authors, the perl author,
or the X authors. Nor any demands to follow their agenda, or take away
the choices of others.
> RMS doesn't ask anything from you if you just run his programs, but
> if you incorporate it into your own software and redistribute it, you have
> to perpetuate his notion of free software.
Which actually means restricted software.
> And if you say that's not really free, you're seeing it from the wrong
> perspective.
No, you are seeing the real situation.
> It's not possible for software to be totally free for both
> the end-user and the redistributor -- in order to give full freedom to the
> end-users (i.e. the ability to modify the software and share it with their
> friends), the redistributor has to provide them in the license.
No, there is no need to take away other people's choices in order to
provide code that remains freely available.
> The GPL's
> beneficiary is the end-users, so freedom is viewed from their perspective.
Yet the dual-licensed perl is much more free.
> >And if I'm inclined to use a liberal license on my work, I'll see the
> >copyleft principle as "I'll won't share (this) with you unless you'll
> >agree to create a conservatively licensed derivative (of it)." That
> >results in a loss of developers.
>
> Loss relative to what? Some developers agree to abide by the GPL, so
> they're added to the ranks. Other developers disagree with it, so they
> continue to work on their own stuff. Where's the loss?
What is the loss from isolationism in any situation?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 05:28:02 +0200
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> phil hunt wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Linux is really an infrastructure program at this point, as so many
> servers run it
On linux license it says that the GPL does not include "normal system
calls".
Remove this from the license, can you imagine linux being as successful?
Beside, I think he meant things like protocls, not programs.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: 13 Mar 2001 02:52:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Someone wrote:
>> >
>> > I was with you up until the last sentence. How are you using the term
>> > "free" here (in the sense of cost or freedom)? And if they are using
>> > the term incorrectly, in which sense do you perceive them as using it?
>> >
>> By advocating the non-fact that 'GPL' is a free license, it competes against
>> much more free licenses. ...
>
> If you think it's worthwhile to discuss other people's use of "free",
> please do us a favor and answer the other part of the quoted question
> by telling us what you mean by "free" when you use it your way?
>
There are MANY MANY reasonable definitions of the term free, but there
are the licensing exceptions that can make it unreasonable to call a
given piece of software 'free.' I will admit that there are varying
degrees of software 'freeness', but when software is *STRONGLY* claimed
to be free, it should certainly be 'free.' *A 'better' kind of 'free',
must AT LEAST BE FREE.*
One VERY REASONABLE common sense aspect of free code:
Free code is code that I can be assured that if I have a copy, that
I can give that code to someone else. More often than not, if you give
someone a piece of code, and call it 'free', they'll feel okay about
passing that code on to someone else. You or Your friend who passes that
so-called 'free' code on to someone else could easily have violated
the GPL. A license claimed to be of 'free' code wouldn't place any
restrictions on the copying of that code. In this specific case (as I
remember), there is no real problem with BSD licensed code in this
regard.
Partial explanation:
Note that reasoning that the restrictions against the freeness of code
(for example, the GPL restrictions), might have some sort of moral or
ethical basis... (For example, there might be some kind of restriction
against giving the code to Communists, Republicans or Jews.) Any such
restriction, or any restriction beyond the minimum to comply with the
law and giving credit where credit is due, makes software less free.
When a redistribution rule can DENY the permission to give a piece of
software to someone else, unless a certain activity takes place, then
the software is NO LONGER FREE.
By making the claim that software is 'free', and the restrictions
that make the permission to give the software away aren't mentioned
everytime the term 'free' is used, then it is probably best not to
use the term 'free.' Except in the cases where the term 'free' is clearly
explained it is misleading, if not deceptive in the case of knowingly do
so, to call GPLed works 'free.'
In reality, the BSD crews don't make any serious claims about their
code being free (excluding the unfortunate naming of FreeBSD.) This is
*interesting* since by a reasonable defintion of unrestricted
redistribution, BSDL licensed code is quite a bit freer.
Alas, with licenses (read the ASIDE BELOW) like the GPL, you must carefully
read it, and make sure that you have complied with the redistribution
restrictions. If the license was a license of free software, the
redistribution encumberances would not even be an issue, and the common
sense notion of 'free' would allow the simple-minded act of giving your
friend a binary copy of the code (with NO consideration of source
location or distribution.) Note that software being 'free' or not is
somewhat source code agnostic...
An aside ---------
Note that the fact that GPL places restrictions above and beyond what is
'common sense' free software, it does wake people up to the desirability
(and due to licenses like the GPL, the NECESSITY) to carefully review
licenses, EVEN in the cases of the software being claimed to be 'free.'
John
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 04:04:53 GMT
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> > But note that Linux specifically defines the kernel module interface
> > as *not* creating derived works of things on either side of it
>
> Not exactly accurate, but close enough for this discussion.
>
> > Note that the dual-licensed works also specifically allow non-GPL
> > extensions and avoid the strict isolation enforced by the GPL alone.
>
> All of this is true, but doesn't change the fact that the these works
> are GPL licensed. It is not unheard of for there to be specific
> exceptions to GPL made on a case-by-case basis, even by FSF.
It does indeed change the fact that they are GPL licensed when
things do not contain the restrictions of the GPL. The perl artistic
license is not an 'exception' to the GPL, it is an equally valid
alternative. The ability to also distribute under the GPL simply
removes the otherwise pervasive problem of combining anything
else with GPL'd code. It makes no sense at all to point to code
as examples of the success of the GPL when that code does not
have the restrictiveness that is the main attribute of the GPL.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
