Linux-Advocacy Digest #784, Volume #32 Tue, 13 Mar 01 09:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your (Bloody
Viking)
Re: KDE or GNOME? ("Adam Warner")
Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your computer")
(Bloody Viking)
Re: Computing Power to Peak SOON! (WAS: Moore's Law, continued...) (Bloody Viking)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Stuart Krivis)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Stuart Krivis)
Re: Linux Joke (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux is like Pizza (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: There is money in Linux (Klaus-Georg Adams)
Re: No problem with multiple GUI's (Karel Jansens)
Re: Terms for MAFAM people.... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Terms for MAFAM people.... (Jakob Kosowski)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Roberto Alsina)
Re: There is money in Linux (Edward Rosten)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (-kn)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Rob S. Wolfram)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[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 19:39:23 +0100
Ketil Z Malde wrote:
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>> 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.
>
> Really? That sounds really weird when you're living in a democratic
> monarchy.
>
I don't know of any "democratic monarchies" (both terms are mutually
exclusive). There are however quite a lot of constitutional monarchies,
where the monarch rules the country, controlled by the legislative
power. The latter may be founded on democratically elected
representatives.
> > Repulic is a country without a king.
>
> I'd say a republic in the modern sense of the word is a state where
> the head of state - normally called president - is an elected
> official. As opposed to a hereditary or otherwise unrevokable title,
> which could give you the typical European monarchies (democratic, with
> the head of state being mostly a figure head) or dictatorships (not
> democratic) and everything in between.
>
> > Democracy has very little to do with republic, and vice versa.
>
> I don't agree - the Roman republic was heavily inspired by the Greek
> democracies.
>
You _really_ should read up on the Roman institutions and the workings
of the Greek democracies before making such a statement.
Actually, if you had read up, you probably wouldn't have made it to
begin with.
> > Nazi germany was a republic.
>
> And a democracy. NSDAP was elected, you know. Now, the party was
> using methods that weren't exactly democratic...
>
Hitler came to power within the political framework of a republic (a
non-operational republic, but still...). Nazi-Germany then became a
totalitarian state, in which the head of state decides... well,
everything. The fact that many totalitarian states carry the title of
"republic" or "Democracy" in their name has essentially as much meaning
as "Windows is a stable operating system".
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your
Date: 13 Mar 2001 11:31:50 GMT
Nigel Feltham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Linux has changed a lot in those past years hasn't it - I recently
: reinstalled my 1994
: vintage copy of slackware on an old laptop out of curiosity and was amazed
: at the
: differences :-
: No loadable modules (only a 1.0 series kernel),
: only 2 window managers (fvwm and twm),
: display limited to 640x480 (I was using a 1997 laptop so no suitable display
: drivers - no framebuffer either in those days),
: Tricky configuration (remember configxf86 - not up to xf86config standards),
: limited diskspace (no LBA support so limited to 500mb on IDE drives),
: Limited applications
: No ELF binaries (not introduced until 1.2 kernel).
: On the plus side it is still more reliable than Win9x (and win3.1 - the
: only MS gui available at
: the time).
That must be one ancient Slackware distro. 3.0 had the 2.0.0 kernel, which had
loadable modules.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:32:56 +1300
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bob Hauck"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 11:08:44 GMT, Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>Having just tried out KDE 2.1 it is extremely polished and beautiful.
> More importantly (to me), they seem to have fixed quite a few bugs.
> Konqueror renders more sites correctly, the Java support works, and the
> Network view works. There's still a problem with password changing on
> Caldera 2.4, but there's a simple workaround for that. It just
> generally feels more "finished" than 2.0.1.
Mozilla 0.8 appears to do a much better job of rendering fonts. For
example compare http://www.securityfocus.com. With Mozilla 0.8 the fonts
are a good size and a pleasure to read. With Konqueror (from KDE 2.1) the text is
illegible on my box.
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your
computer")
Date: 13 Mar 2001 11:33:44 GMT
green ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: or BSOD on it is now safe to ... screen.
Anyone have a .bmp of a BSOD? That would be a funny wrap-up screen.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computing Power to Peak SOON! (WAS: Moore's Law, continued...)
Date: 13 Mar 2001 11:36:56 GMT
Scott Gardner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Another interesting use for Everclear--As you may know, dogs like the
: taste of automobile antifreeze, and will drink it, given the chance.
: Antifreeze (the ethylene glycol, to be more specific) does horrible
: damage to the dog's liver in a very short amount of time. It was
: discovered that the same bonding sites in the liver that absorb
: ethylene glycol also absorb regular ethyl alcohol (of which Everclear
: is a particularly pure example). So, an efficient and effective
: treatment for antifreeze ingestion is to set the dog up on an IV drip
: of Everclear, and pretty much keep the dog drunk out of its mind for a
: few hours. This will keep the liver busy absorbing the ethyl alcohol,
: and the ethylene glycol will pass out of the dog's system without
: being absorbed by the liver. Funny to watch, too!
Or, put the Everclear in the antifreeze so the dog won't drink the antifreeze
in the first place. Booze as a glycol antidote isn't all that great.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: 13 Mar 2001 06:37:59 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 16:09:52 +0000, Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
It's certainly his option as an author to decide which license he
prefers.
What gets me is that so many people think that the GPL is the One True
License and attempt to evangelize.
It's up to the individual to figure out which license (s)he is
comfortable with. I just hope that all the people who have gone with the
GPL actually understood all the ramifications of doing so.
The GPL, unfortunately, encourages a closed body of code. It's open
within the limits of the GPL, but is also closed in by the GPL.
--
Stuart Krivis
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: 13 Mar 2001 06:43:08 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 11:13:10 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I don't see any interpretation that can make your point. Are you saying that
>Applix running in memory with GPL code makes Applix GPL? If I call a GPL code
>module from Applix, does that mean Applix must become GPL?
If Applix _requires_ that GPL code in order to work, then Applix should
be GPL.
--
Stuart Krivis
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:14:45 GMT
J Sloan wrote:
>
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 04:42:10 GMT, J Sloan wrote:
> > >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >It's not exactly useless - it's great for making RH 7 programs.
> >
> > It's alpha software. I wouldn't use it for anything.
>
> Whatever. you scream "alpha" but in fact it is fully
> functional, fully supported, and works wonderfully.
I couldn't get nmap to compile -- got an error about a
redefinition of inet_aton. Haven't tried it using the
old compiler, kgcc. I loaded a binary RPM instead.
But I was able to get the whole vim/gvim text editor
package to compile under gcc-2.96. Since this text editor
is also supported under Windoze, using GTK, I finally
have a product that works on all my machines.
Bye bye CodeWright!
Anyway, does anyone have a link to the full story on
this compiler crap? I'd like to know which way to
go with the STL.
Chris
--
[ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is like Pizza
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:05:06 +0100
Adam Warner wrote:
>
> I'm just waiting for the top ten reasons why Linux is better than Pizza
> :-)
>
Well, you certainly can sink your teeth into both of them.
But then it depends quite heavily on the pizza, I guess...
Peter
--
The social dynamics of the net are a direct consequence of the fact
that nobody has yet developed a Remote Strangulation Protocol.
Larry Wall
------------------------------
From: Klaus-Georg Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is money in Linux
Date: 13 Mar 2001 13:28:31 +0100
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> That would be quite a trick, since they didn't IPO until 1994, and
> they were founded in 1975.
>
> Additionally, their stock price was over $100 on IPO, and has since
> split 8 times, giving them an adjusted price (relevant to their IPO
> price/shares) of over $800 if they had never had any splits.
Assuming your figures $100 initially and 8 splits) are correct (which
I don't have a reason to doubt) I reach quite a different adjusted
price: 25600$.
Note: 100 * 8 != 100 * (2^8)
--
kga
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No problem with multiple GUI's
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:57:34 +0000
Please copy and paste the following sentence after every one of your
replies:
**
I don't care.
**
This should conclude my participation in this subthread.
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
>
> > > If you create a GUI application, can you be sure everyone out there will
> > > have all the libraries installed for the toolkit you chose?
> > >
> > If I were to write a non-commercial GUI application, I might include a
> > readme file that told any prospective user what libraries (s)he had to
> > have installed. Other than that I really couldn't care less.
>
> Which is pretty piss poor.
>
> > If I were to write a commercial GUI based application, I'd make sure the
> > installer checks for the necessary libraries and installed them if
> > needed.
> >
> > Spot the difference.
>
> Yep, the non-commercial one sucks big time.
>
> > > So for one application you would choose Gtk, for another Qt? You really
> > > have that much time to waste do you?
> >
> > If he has, what's it to you?
>
> Nothing at all.
>
> However, I don't plan to waste my time on learning multiple toolkits, so
> I'll pick one and live with it.
>
> > > We went through all this before. I find it irritating that Netscape has
> > > one file save dialog that forgets the filename when you change directory,
> > > GNOME apps have yet another one, and KDE apps have yet anther one!
> > >
> > > What is this, the Yet-Another-GUI-Toolkit platform?
> >
> > If the dialogs are more important to you than the application, get
> > consistent applications. If you can't find any, pay someone to write
> > them. If you don't have the money, learn to program and write one
> > yourself.
>
> The dialogs were just an example of what I was talking about.
>
> As for getting consistant applications, if I pick only KDE applications,
> the number shrinks down very rapidly. Also, some are still Beta test
> quality (as are some components of KDE 2.1).
>
> > > I do use Windows but I may find I cannot use it for a number of reasons.
> > > I am looking to see if Linux is an alternative. It's nearly there, but if
> > > everyone's reaction to my criticisms are like yours, it'll stagnate where
> > > it is.
> >
> > You don't seem to get the point that your "criticisms" are diametrically
> > opposed to what the people who develop for/in linux consider as its
> > important features. And you are not important enough to make a dent in
> > their opinions.
>
> I see, so something that doesn't work properly isn't considered an
> important feature?
>
> As for not being important enough, consider this - lots of people try it,
> find it doesn't work, then move onto something that does work. They don't
> bother to yell about it, I do.
>
> > So you're pissed off with Windows; it crashes too much; the figgin'
> > companies charge too much for software. But hey! there's this neat thing
> > called linux; I better try that one out. And then you find out this
> > linux thing is not the same as Windows, and you start bitching about it,
> > hiding yourself behind the facade of "linux has to become more
> > user-friendly if it hopes to succeed".
>
> That's your interpretation according to your blinkered view of the world.
>
> > Guess what, Pete? Linux already _is_ successful, but for you
> > "succcessful" only means "it does what little Pete wants it to do".
>
> It's successful as a server system. As a desktop system, it hasn't even
> started. I'd hardly call that "what little Pete wants it to do".
>
> > Leave it or live with it, Pete. Those are the only options you've got,
> > because nobody is listening to your whining.
>
> You are the only one who is not listening to my "whining" as you put it.
> The rest of us understand the reality of the situation and are voting
> with our feet: Windows.
>
> --
> ---
> Pete Goodwin
> All your no fly zone are belong to us
> My opinions are my own
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Terms for MAFAM people....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:43:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Paolo Ciambotti wrote:
>
>Understand me, Charlie. If you want to get better, you have to keep
>taking the medication. Even if you think you're cured, you must continue
>your dosage or you won't get well. You do want to be "out" when Linux
>achieves world domination, don't you?
>
>> Charlie
>
>Paolo
I just wish you MAFAM would quit turning yourselves in!
Your definitely not Linux MAFAM. Your not bright enough.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:16:43 -0300
Adam Warner wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bob Hauck"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 11:08:44 GMT, Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Having just tried out KDE 2.1 it is extremely polished and beautiful.
>
>> More importantly (to me), they seem to have fixed quite a few bugs.
>> Konqueror renders more sites correctly, the Java support works, and the
>> Network view works. There's still a problem with password changing on
>> Caldera 2.4, but there's a simple workaround for that. It just
>> generally feels more "finished" than 2.0.1.
>
> Mozilla 0.8 appears to do a much better job of rendering fonts. For
> example compare http://www.securityfocus.com. With Mozilla 0.8 the fonts
> are a good size and a pleasure to read. With Konqueror (from KDE 2.1) the
> text is illegible on my box.
If they are too small, you should check the configuration. Konqueror lets
you set a minimum font size.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[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 10:19:08 -0300
Jeffrey Siegal wrote:
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> On linux license it says that the GPL does not include "normal system
>> calls".
>
> There are *always* limits to the GPL. Emacs does not require that all
> files you edit be licensed under the GPL, GCC does not require that all
> programs you compile be licensed under the GPL, etc.
Those limits are included in the license itself. The kernel's exception is
an exception to the GPL itself. In fact, it's wrong to say the kernel is
released under the GPL, because it's released under a "GPL+exception"
license. A more liberal one.
> The very existance
> of the LGPL illustrates that even the FSF's use of the GPL has an
> essential element of pragamtism: What license should be used on a
> particular piece of software should be decided based on a judgement
> about which is going to do the most good from the point of view of the
> community.
Actually, it should be chosen according to what furthers the goals of the
FSF. If it agrees with the good of whatever the concept of community you
may have is an accident.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Jakob Kosowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Terms for MAFAM people....
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:23:17 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> I just wish you MAFAM would quit turning yourselves in!
>
> Your definitely not Linux MAFAM. Your not bright enough.
>
> Charlie
>
*plonk*
--
Linux NEVER crashes unless you really fuck up.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:25:20 -0300
Paul Colquhoun wrote:
> Can you give this example? I can't think of a case where giving somebody a
> copy of GPL'd source code would breach the GPL.
I am not saying it's a good example, but it's an example of the claim: KDE.
I wrote code under the GPL, and I was told by RMS that even though every
line I wrote was GPLd, it was illegal to distribute.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is money in Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:32:05 +0000
> > I think the thing that has you confused is that Linux companies
> > are not "giving away" tech support, consulting, and custom
> > engineering services, and they are not "giving away" Linux
> > systems, as I can assure you after looking at the latest quote
> > from the vendor. Perhaps you were given some bogus info, but
> > you should have been able to figure that much out.
>
> Yet I get to hear about the odd Linux company whose stock is slipping and
> sliding downwards.
You also hear about bookstores and book companies seling plenty of books
on the subject. Does that count as real money?
-Ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous |u98ejr
Hackenthorpe rock, which is over three trillion years |@
old? |eng.ox
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies |.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: -kn <[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: 13 Mar 2001 15:17:12 +0200
>>>>> "GreyCloud" == GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|| mention the stupid Versay(sp?) treaty.
||
||
||
| BTW, does anyone have or know where to see this treaty?? I'm curious.
search "Treaty of Versailles" in your favorite search engine.
--
n
++k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: 13 Mar 2001 13:38:16 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rob S. Wolfram wrote:
>> 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.
It depends on whether the you can be legally assumed to have accepted
the GPL by writng code that can only be linked against that code.
Example. If I would write some library and publish my API, but in my
license I would forbid deveopers from Argentina to use my code because I
don't like Mr. Zorregieta and I don't want him to become the
father-in-law of the next Dutch king ;-) (no pun intended, the example
is *ment* to be silly, I couldn't care less who'll be the next Dutch
king and/or queen ;-)) and some Argentinian KDE developer <G> writes
code to be linked against my non-Argentinian lib by using my description
of the API, than anyone who would use such program would violate my
license. There is, however, a clear cause and effect relation by the
distribution of the code by said developer.
The GPL is not as clear because it does not prohibit use (however RMS
dislikes that in certain situations) but it does prohibit "distribution"
that would cause specific use. I'd say the analogy holds quite a bit.
>> 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 think it does, that's what "intellectual property" is based upon. Fact
is, your program linked against the fully functional GDBM lib is not the
same as your program linked against a do-nothing stub.
>Are we now saying that the FSF pushes interface copyrights? I thought the
>boycotted Apple over that ;-)
I dunno. I'd say the word of a judge would be welcome. BTW, I am not a
member of, nor speak in behalve of the FSF. I'm just a supporter of
their cause.
>> 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?
Case a., b. and c. are dynamic links (no RPC or CORBA, those are
obvious). Cases d. and e. are statically linked.
>> 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 we both agree that case e. violates the GPL, right? You dispute
case a. Can you tell me where on the scale the violation starts and why
you think that's where it starts?
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
NT and security should not be mentioned in the same
sentence without negation.
-- Joe Zeff in a.s.r.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: 13 Mar 2001 07:07:57 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Sorry, can't comment. I have no idea how RMI works.
>It is a generic protocol that serializes java objects and allows a
>remote machine to invoke their methods. Same class, same code,
>generic protocol for remote access vs. local - same results. How
>can one be a derivative and one not?
Running local vs remote is not enough to determine if code is "derived".
E.g. communicating via a named pipe with another process does not make
the other process "derived".
Given your explanation above I can see no legal difference between this
and using a CORBA object. I'd say this does not cause code to be
derived.
>> How do the two processes communicate? Via RPC-like constructs? Then I'd
>> say the two processes are not the same program.
>
>Windows has a mechanism for marshelling COM objects so they can
>be run in or out of the calling process. I don't completely understand
>the details, nor do I see how they could affect the decision of whether
>the two parts are derived from each other.
Simple. The "same address-space" argument. Your process does a JMP to
another part of memory and starts executing code. If this code is part
of library whether being called via dlopen() or just by being an
integral part of your program (in case of a static link) makes no real
difference IMHO, the final executed code is one integral part.
If you have some communication protocol between two seperate processes,
I'd say the code of one process is not derived from the other.
>Who is responsible for an infraction in this case? Assume a perl script
>causes perl to link in both GPL'd readline() and a proprietary database
>client library? The script obviously isn't derived from the language
>code or the libraries - it is just a controlling script. Perl isn't derived
>from any of the things it could possibly be told to dynamically link
>(which includes just about everything that can be built as a shared library)
>and it certainly can't be a derivative of something that might not even have
>been written before perl itself).
This is a nice circumvention, because perl is dually licences with both
the GPL and the Artistic license. So anyone who distributes a
"PerlReadline" module can consider perl GPLed, and someone who
distributes "PerlmodEvilLicense" can consider Perl to be "Artistic"
licensed. I think someone who would distribute both simultaniously would
violate the GPL.
I'm not too sure though that someone who distributes such a script, i.e.
a script that can only be executed when GPLed code and GPL-incompatible
code are linked into one executable, is not in violation of the GPL. I'd
say this is one of the areas where a judges descision would be welcome.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
Linux represents a best-of-breed UNIX, that is trusted in mission
critical applications, and - due to it's open source code - has a
long term credibility which exceeds many other competitive OS's.
-- Vinod Valloppillil, Microsoft Engineer
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
