Linux-Advocacy Digest #787, Volume #32 Tue, 13 Mar 01 13:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Tim Hanson)
Re: Linux Joke (Tim Hanson)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux Joke (Bob Hauck)
Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your computer")
(The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Dividing OS to groups. (Tim Hanson)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[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 17:11:39 GMT
Pat McCann wrote:
>
> Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The main complaint of the anti-GPL crowd seems to be that they
> > want free software to be a one-way street - they want to be
> > parasites of free software rather than participants in it.
>
> That starts, continues, and ends in error.
>
> The Start - Our main complaint has nothing to do with streets, but with
> signage. We think that the pro-GPL crowd is misleading open source
> software developers into using the GPL without sufficient understanding
> of the issues on the part of the developers and often (but by no means
> always) on the part of the pro-GPL crowd.
I don't know what's to be misunderstood here. The short answer is that
if one uses GPL code, his/her code must be GPL also. Compare that to
the average commercial click-through EULA and you'll see a big
difference.
> The Kernel - No, we want free software to be a two-way street, but we
> don't set up roadblocks on one side when there's insufficient traffic
> on the other.
Rhetoric alert. "Our side favors two way streets (which means your side
must favor one-way streets, how terrible). Not only that, your side
sets up roadblocks (which means our side must remove roadblocks, goodie
for us). We have the white hats here!" Please. If we're going to
discuss this, can you cut the crap?
Pontification follows:
> Free software should be about the (often unbalanced)
> two-way gifting of copyrights and not about the (often unbalanced)
> two-way trading of copyrights, which is what copyleft is about.
> ("You
Okay, so you're here to tell us how the world should work, right?
Right on schedule, here comes the slurring, hostile, one-phrase
description of what the GPL is all about:
> may not derive from my code unless I may derive from yours.")
Put on your white hat again, here comes some more rhetoric:
> We think
Oh we do, do we? Who is "we?" Is it the human race? Perhaps it's
freedom loving people everywhere, or maybe it's a bunch of programmers
who don't like the GPL, or maybe it's just you.
> it is better for everyone if people are allowed to be parasites as they
> see fit rather than wasting their time recoding from scratch. Etc.,
> etc. We prefer not to deal in the trading of intellectual property
> rights. It seems so commercial and proprietary, if you know what I mean.
Great. So now those nasty pro-GPLers are commercial and proprietary,
those bad people!
> The Unfair Insult - Our arugments contain nothing that depends on any
> desire to be parasites and not participants. We could just as well be
> pure parasites or pure paticipants and have made the same statements.
> It is very unfair of you to ascribe motives for which you have supplied
> no evidence and which are irrelevent in any case.
Pot <--> Kettle
> In closing, our main complaint about the GPL might be that its use has
> made so many projects ones in which we don't WANT to participate,
> leaving us generally frustrated and discouraged.
"Ours?" Here we have it folks, the chosen representative of all that's
right about BSD licensing, educating the rest of us right here on
c.o.l.a. I feel so honored.
Oooo! I'm getting dizzy. Stop the spinning!!
--
"Life may have no meaning -- or even worse, it may have a meaning of
which I disapprove."
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:16:53 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> "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
It's unfortunate, but it's a fact of life. That's what a DMZ is all
about. Keep your network inside, and the internet outside. If you have
to offer services, do so with a computer that won't cramp you if it gets
hacked.
--
Equal bytes for women.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:20:22 GMT
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:32:56 +1300, Adam Warner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bob Hauck"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> More importantly (to me), they seem to have fixed quite a few bugs.
>> Konqueror renders more sites correctly, the Java support works,
>Mozilla 0.8 appears to do a much better job of rendering fonts. For
>example compare http://www.securityfocus.com.
Some of the links are a little small with the default settings. If I
crank up the minimum font size a bit they are fine. For some reason
(maybe because of frames or the page asking for specific fonts) the font
enlarge button doesn't make any difference on that page.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:25:24 GMT
On 13 Mar 2001 01:16:42 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Great, so it's only useless to C++ developers. That includes me -- all
>my real work is in C++.
That's a generic reason to avoid C++...binary incompatibility due to
different name mangling schemes. You get to work extra hard if you want
to use libraries compiled by one C++ compiler with another C++ compiler.
Unless you use templates heavily...then you can just put everything into
the headers and wait until tomorrow for it to compile.
I actually don't dislike C++ that much, but using a language that's
changing at warp speed is always a challenge. Maybe things will settle
down now, since there is a standard and all.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your
computer")
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:25:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bloody Viking
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 13 Mar 2001 11:33:44 GMT
<98l0io$7om$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>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.
Somebody coded up a screensaver that has a number of computer crashes,
among them the BSOD (both variants), Mac crash, PPC crash (I think),
Amiga GURU meditation, and a SCO Unix or Xenix panic.
These aren't .bmps, admittedly (a BSOD isn't graphical anyway; it's
text-based), but might be close enough.
:-)
>
>--
>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.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 36d:15h:56m actually running Linux.
It's a conspiracy of one.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Dividing OS to groups.
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:52:06 GMT
"." wrote:
>
> > I think you forgot AS/400 there.... and what was the os on atari's??
>
> Atari ST's ran TOS (The Operating System...). The graphical environment
> manager was called GEM. You can see they put a lot of thought into
> original naming =)
Tramail Operating System, from the Tramail brothers, principally Jack.
Jack Tramail was the push behind Commodore who went to Atari.
> 'Fraid I don't know about the earlier Ataris, like the XL... but they had
> a BASIC interpreter in rom, similar to the C64.
For the Commodore, BASIC was the interface to the operating system.
Atari had a real operating system with a command line, but it was hidden
for the consumer version by a menu structure. The Atari OS was a little
piece of genius produced by Optimized Systems Software and Bill
Wilkinson, who wrote the monthly Atari column for Compute! magazine.
OSS also wrote the BASIC interpreter, and published the source code as a
Compute! book.
For nostalgia, check out the faq:
http://www.landfield.com/faqs/atari-8-bit/faq/
There are other links, and some of them even work!
http://pmwww.cs.vu.nl/home/ipoorten/Atari.8bit.Homepage/resources.html
--
Equal bytes for women.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:55:27 GMT
Said Stuart Krivis in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 11 Mar 2001 04:25:40
>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.
Of course; and one can argue it until everybody is simply nauseous, and
it won't mean a thing. Had BSDL not allowed re-proprietizing of code,
perhaps vendors which wished to interoperate with TCP/IP would have had
to actually write software to do it, instead of just profiteering off of
somebody else's work.
I feel I must reject any argument, on the face of it, which attempts to
declare that without profiteering, some facet of modern technology
'would not have been possible'. Such a position is self-defeating.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:55:28 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 12 Mar 2001
>"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.
A self-fulfilling prophecy. The issue is not one for the producers, but
the consumers, to decide. Let's say that Microsoft is miraculously
relieved of the burden of justice, and successfully deploys their ".NET"
scam to the same level of 'success' as their OS monopoly. One would
imagine that a great deal of infrastructure would become available under
GPL. The BSD license might have been quite peachy keen under the old
rules, when software "producers" weren't considered to have a license to
steal. But if it weren't for that BSDL, nobody could profiteer on
Internet software. You can believe that this means "the Internet would
not exist if TCP/IP was GPL", but I believe it means it would have
worked a lot better, and we wouldn't have anywhere near as much problems
with Microsoft and other profiteers.
Believe me, nobody would rather live in a world where we didn't need the
GPL more than GPL advocates. But so long as "commercial OS makers won't
have it", we need it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:55:29 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 12 Mar 2001
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:98ihni$eu2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > 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...
>
>It doesn't have to be, it was submitted to the ECMA for standardization,
>which means it's publicly available.
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:55:30 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 11 Mar 2001
>On 11 Mar 2001, Stuart Krivis wrote:
>> Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
>> T. Maxine Devlin:
>>> 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.
>
>TMax doesn't like to believe this, Mr Krivis.
Well, that's one way of putting it. Another way would be that whether
you or anyone else believes it or not is meaningless. As is the issue;
had the code been GPL, the world would be a different place, but there's
no reason to assume the Internet wouldn't be here, if not much improved.
Still, the GPL wasn't necessary, wasn't available, wasn't an issue,
until after software "producers" started profiteering on the BSD code at
issue.
>Indeed, TMax is under the
>impression that the Kerberos problem[1] was a code-availability problem and
>not a specification problem.
I would like to know what makes you think I am under this "impression",
since frankly I don't know what it means. Please explain.
> He also believes that software development is
>easy, no matter that he's never done anything like that.
Actually, I've done quite a bit "like that"; I've never done software
development, though. Programming, I've done; project management, system
development, interface specifications, and much else, as well.
"Software development" is a might big field; some of it is easy, and
some isn't. But I frankly have no idea what that has to do with this
issue, which is how easy it is to profiteer on someone else's work, not
how easy it is to develop software.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:55:31 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 12 Mar 2001
21:29:40 +0000;
>> > 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.
We're not talking about the protocols, but the software which implements
the protocols. The "stack", as it were. The reference implementation,
available to anyone for any reason (including, unfortunately, both
honest development and profiteering) was often incorporated verbatim.
Every once in a while, somebody does a "custom implementation", but it
always remains proprietary, as well.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:55:32 GMT
Said phil hunt in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:25:08
>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.
Yes, as I said; a republic is a form of democracy. ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:55:33 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 10 Mar 2001 20:09:43 -0500;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:51:54 -0500;
>> >"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:97nmcd$sgt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > Nothing, except such sharing doesn't make software 'free'. The problem
>> >> > with the GPL isn't the license, but the people who use it and use the
>> >> > term 'free' misleadingly in describing it.
>> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >>
>> >> in what way?
>> >>
>> >Think of it like this: GPL is free sort of like our Income Tax is 'voluntary.'
>In fact,
>> >our Income Tax isn't 'voluntary', and GPL isn't free. Another common misusage (by
>> >almost all parties in the US) is that the US is a Democracy, which technically it
>isn't.
>> >In fact, the misusage of the term 'Democracy' has often caused confusion.
>> >
>> >If GPL is a license of free software, then you wouldn't have multiple rules and
>redistribution
>> >encumberances.
>>
>> Says you.
>>
>Says the license :-). The license has multiple rules and redistribution encumberances
>and is therefore incompatible with being free. Nothing wrong with GPL, something
>wrong
>with calling it free :-).
You seem to have missed my point. You are simply incorrect in saying
"if GPL is a license of free software, then you wouldn't have...". It
doesn't make any difference whether there actually are "multiple rules"
and such.
There's a whole bunch of rules called "laws" which encumber every
citizen of this country. I suppose there's something wrong, then, in
calling it "free"?
>Alas, you choose to make a quagmire of obvious definitions, just like any other
>slimeball
>like (Clinton? :-)).
Alas, you show your true colors as someone not seriously interested or
capable of debate.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:55:34 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 10 Mar 2001 20:08:10 -0500;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said John S. Dyson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 1 Mar 2001 20:09:09
>> >"phil hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> What's wrong with the principle "I'll share with you if you share
>> >> with me"?
>> >>
>> >Nothing, except such sharing doesn't make software 'free'. The problem with the
>> >GPL isn't the license, but the people who use it and use the term 'free'
>misleadingly
>> >in describing it.
>>
>> Not this again. Its *such* a pathetic argument.
>>
>> If you are not willing to understand and take responsibility for your
>> freedom, John, it is nobody's fault but your own. Cross-posting to
>> misc.int-property doesn't make it a new argument.
>>
>I added no additional groups, thank you very much.
I didn't say you did, and was not inferring I really cared; merely
observing that being cross-posted into that group doesn't make it a new
argument (which is to say, an argument which hasn't already been
thrashed to death).
>Apparently, you aren't
>tracking things very well. Please take responsibility for your claims about
>crossposting and other things, because you are so very wrong.
You are wrong in your inference. No harm done, but I wish you'd get
back to the topic.
>Take note that
>these facts are there for everyone to see: I have added no groups to the
>discussion, and don't normally do so.
>
>Alas, you cannot refute the fact that GPL'ed code isn't free. :-).
Alas, I have no need to refute lies; they refute themselves.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:55:35 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:50:27 -0500;
>
>"phil hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 20:08:10 -0500, JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Alas, you cannot refute the fact that GPL'ed code isn't free. :-).
>>
>> Nor can you refute the fact that you don't own the English language,
>> and are therefore not the sole arbiter of the meaning of "free",
>>
>The GPL usage of the term free is so perverted, that perhaps it would
>be good for the FSF to trademark it :-).
Actually; its your usage which is perverted. The FSF's usage is
perfectly in keeping with established usage. For some reason, this
bothers you, I guess.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:55:36 GMT
Said Pat McCann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 12 Mar 2001 02:27:33 -0800;
>> >"phil hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> >>
>> >> What's wrong with the principle "I'll share with you if you share
>> >> with me"?
>
>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".
>
>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).
The GPL is anti-competitive, I agree. But it is sharing, *real*
sharing. Not "sharing for a fee". The only people who have a problem
with the GPL are people who don't want to share. It isn't the
intellectual property rights, but the value of them, which is the issue.
>Second it reminds me of my nasty little brother who wouldn't let me and
>my friends play with his ball unless he could play with us. Third, it's
>often a lousy deal, sharing one-to-many instead of one-to-one. Doing
>the math, it's trading on the part of the GNU licensor and mostly
>gifting on the part of the licensee. I could go on.
So we're to assume you won't GPL any code. Fine. Is there some reason
we should believe that you'd ever have any code of value which might
cause us to care?
>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.
Yes, that may well be true. And given that we might miss those
developers, or the works they create, if they were forced to use the
GPL, we'll still be better off than without the GPL. Better to be a
free pauper than a rich man in chains.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
