Linux-Advocacy Digest #788, Volume #32 Tue, 13 Mar 01 13:13:06 EST
Contents:
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: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (T. Max Devlin)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (T. Max Devlin)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (T. Max Devlin)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (T. Max Devlin)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (T. Max Devlin)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Middle Aged Fat Asses (Tim Hanson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 17:55:37 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 12 Mar 2001
>"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.
So, what's the problem? You're selling the binaries, not the license to
use them.
--
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 17:55:38 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 13 Mar 2001
>"Stefaan A Eeckels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <98ih6r$egm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Yep. The license is $0.00, the charge for the media is $75 + shipping
>> (with apologies to Sun).
>
>What Sun has to do with it?
>It has its own OSI approved license.
>Beside, what prevents me from taking the binaries/source and put them on an
>FTP?
>There would be immediate decline in the money the producer will be making.
A "decline"? No, that's not possible. Perhaps not as much of an
increase?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:55:39 GMT
Said Peter Seebach in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 08 Mar 2001 21:56:17
>In article <988tq6$i1e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>: On 7 Mar 2001 23:56:51 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>: The only rules that need to be attached are those that prevent people from
>>: taking code released freely and making it no longer available at all to
>>: anyone under the terms it was originally released. Fortunately, it is not
>>: necessary to write such rules into the license; they are inherent in the
>>: body of law that licenses are a part of. BSD-licensed code can NEVER be made
>>: non-free, even though the BSDL contains no explicit provisions to guarantee
>>: that.
>
>>BSD socket code was put into Windows, a non-free (in both senses of
>>the word) product.
>
>Are you saying that BSD socket code thereby became non-free? Can you point
>me at the historic moment when FreeBSD and NetBSD were required to stop giving
>away copies of BSD socket code?
The BSD socket code in Windows became non-free, and that's the only one
that matters at this point.
The reason RMS seems so reactionary and extremist to you BSDL fans is
because you guys are still foolish enough to think that your interests
are not contrary to Microsoft's.
>>Originally it had been giving credit to BSD
>>in some verbiage, but it dropped that now that the newer BSD liceses
>>no longer require mentioning where you got your code from. This is
>>an example of making some BSD licensed code non-free.
>
>No, it isn't. It's an example of making some non-free code which is almost
>entirely derived from free code. The original code is just as free as it
>ever was.
Now we've reduced the argument to epistemological discussion of
identity. "The code". The only code that matters is the one that is
non-free; if there are a million free alternatives, the end user can
still get locked in to the single non-free code, so how free the
"original code" is is meaningless.
>>It's true
>>to say that the GPL goes too far by requiring all derivative code to
>>be released, but the BSD doesn't go far enough, because it doesn't
>>even require that its own code be released, even if unmodified.
>
>Except that, if something has been "released under the BSD license", it
>*IS* released. I don't see what the problem is. I can get socket code,
>free, and I can use it however I want. My ability to do this is unaffected
>by whether or not Microsoft *also* has this freedom.
You really think so? Then you don't know Microsoft very 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: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:55:40 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 8 Mar 2001 18:04:11 -0500;
>"Jay Maynard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 8 Mar 2001 21:32:54 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >BSD socket code was put into Windows, a non-free (in both senses of
>> >the word) product. Originally it had been giving credit to BSD
>> >in some verbiage, but it dropped that now that the newer BSD liceses
>> >no longer require mentioning where you got your code from. This is
>> >an example of making some BSD licensed code non-free.
>>
>> Baloney.
>>
>> Horse exhaust.
>>
>> Not even close to the truth.
>>
>> If they made the BSD socket code non-free, then we wouldn't be able to use
>> it now. If that's the case, my NetBSD IRC server has some explaining to do.
>>
>> The original code can NEVER be made non-free. It is now and forever
>> available.
>>
>Apparently, the GPL crew are just selfish, and want everyone to give all of their
>work away.
No, we want you to sell your work, not sell licenses to benefit from
your work.
>Who cares if Microsoft has added some of their own stuff to the
>BSD code and hasn't given it to the GPL crowd?
Anyone who can imagine just how much software you can actually develop
with a few billion dollars which otherwise just line's Microsoft's
executive washrooms.
>The BSD code is certainly still free :-). Microsoft cant take that away.
Apparently, you've been asleep for the last twenty years. Microsoft has
indeed taken that code away from millions of people, though they may not
have managed to take it from you.
>Alas,
>the GPL crowd is also against free code (yet uses the term incorrectly.)
The GPL crowd is more concerned with the recipient of the code than the
developer. Its only the developers that seem to have trouble grasping
why "free" is quite precisely the correct term. Not just that, but its
"free as in free speech, not necessarily free as in free beer".
Alas, the anti-GPL crowd just wants free beer, and seems unwilling to
shoulder the responsibility inherent in free speech.
--
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: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:55:41 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:36:23 -0500;
>"David Masterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > The BSD code is certainly still free :-). Microsoft cant take that
>> > away. Alas, the GPL crowd is also against free code (yet uses the
>> > term incorrectly.)
>>
>> 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. There are numerous cases of the GPL 'souring'
>corporate legal divisions against free code, by the 'GPL-being-free' groups
>exploitation by misuse of the term.
It seems to me that this is merely the intended result of the GPL, and
thus the appropriate use of the term "free".
>Non-facts as espoused by GPL-being-free crowd:
>Untruth1) Free software causes chaos.
The BSD license on TCP/IP allows Microsoft to monopolize.
>Untruth2) GPL software is free software.
GPL software can always be obtained free of charge.
>Untruth3) One recipient of free software can make future copies
> of software received by others non-free.
One profiteer of BSD software can make future *licenses* of all future
software more restrictive ("non-free"); this cannot happen with GPL,
which is the entire point.
>Untruth4) LGPL is a 'lesser' license.
Correct; LGPL is a "library" license.
>In the sense of free software,
> the library GPL is a freer and superior license to the GPL.
More free beer, less free speech. Superior for developers; inferior for
users.
>The ONLY really honest benefit for the GPL-being-free crew calling the
>GPL 'free' is that it causes people to have to more carefully review licenses.
It seems beyond reason to presume that you would make such a statement
if you weren't aware of the illegitimate nature of your argument.
>Before, free meant that the code was 'free.' Now, it means that the code can
>be 'freely' used and/or redistributed if you follow alot of constraints. Of course,
>that becomes true of commercial software :-)... Commercial software is free
>to use and reuse if you follow the rules :-).
How ludicrously self-refuting.
>When I moved back into commercial software, from the free software world,
>and started back with a commercial perspective of software, the GPL becomes
>yet another commercial license, with significant constraints. When making the
>assumption that the GPL software is free, then it is indeed quite difficult to
>judge the license as being very good.
That's pretty much the point. I suppose that is why you go on with this
silly ranting about how "GPL-is-not-free". It is a fact, not an
assumption, that GPL software is free. You cannot change that nature,
as you can other, less free, software using other open source licenses.
--
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: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:55:42 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 9 Mar 2001 02:45:11 -0500;
>
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:989a88$6ra$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Agreed, we should keep the GPL license to file formats & protocols, not to
>> code itself. (Yes, I know that GPL is only for code, so change it.)
>> If you had to reveal your file formats & protocols, a lot of problems would
>> go away.
>>
>I might not fully agree with you, but I agree with the essense of what you say... It
>seems like the GPL crowd over emphasizes the act of coding as being the product
>of a developer. It is the innovation that makes a good, special developer.
>
>Interoperable standards are much more important for mutual benefit... ( Standards
>are much more important for the 'greater good' of society than silly source code.
>Of course, GPL doesn't guarantee 'source code' or binaries, or global sharing to
>anyone anyway :-)).
>
>By trying to cheapen 'programming', the GPL tends to weaken the already weak position
>of programmers in the marketplace, and tries to guarantee the access to code by the
>marketeers. There is only room for a few of the 'GPL consulting companies', and
>having
>been involved in Silicon valley, I have some stories to tell about the rather
>non-software
>quality based competition methodologies used. Such strategies make those 'support
>organizations' actually have no better behavior than they so-called great satan of
>software :-).
>
>John
>
I just have to say that I think that was absolutely the most obviously
self-serving arguments I've ever heard on the matter.
--
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: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:55:44 GMT
Said Pat McCann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 08 Mar 2001 17:26:59 -0800;
[...]
>I claim that one does not have the freedom to publish modifications of
>copyleft software. I claim that M$ is not free to use "readline" in
>M$Office if M$ has to publish the source of their billion dollar
>software to use it. I claim that if you hav to agree to someone's terms
>before you may do something, you are not free to do it. But others may
>define "free" to void my claims.)
I think that you definitely provide the best presentation of the
arguments here, Pat. In the interest of furthering discussion as well
as argument, I'll admit that I'm beginning to see a certain sense to
what has always previously been nonsensical, that GPL software should
not be called "free".
But in the end it really does resolve to 'free beer' versus 'free
speech'.
But this is the crux of the matter, and why GPL software is *more free*
than any other, most specifically because it is 'free beer' to everyone
*except* commercial developers; for them its only free as in free
speech. And you can't sell free speech, but you can sell free beer.
That confusing thought is oddly reflected by your own description of "if
you have to agree to someone's terms before you may do something, you
are not free to do it." Because that describes pretty much the reason
BSD software isn't free for the users, whether it is for developers or
not. GPL is more free because it has the minimum set of terms,
guaranteed.
--
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: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:55:45 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 10 Mar 2001 01:28:38 -0500;
>"Arthur H. Gold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jay Maynard wrote:
>> >
>> > This is in no way analogous to the GPV's putative guarantees of freedom, as
>> > the freedoms the GPV claims to guarantee are already guaranteed by law. The
>> > additional restrictions in the GPV are designed for one purpose, and one
>> > purpose only: to infect as much software as possible in order to bring about
>> > RMS' communist utopia.
>> Ah yes. When in doubt, call 'em a commie!
>> (Hey, it worked for RMN -- _how_ many people died as a
>> result?)
>>
>I don't agree with Jay's extension of GPL into communism, but his claims are
>essentially
>true.
He wasn't entirely over the top until he got to that point, I think.
>GPL is unnecessary
Opinions differ. I think you underestimate its importance; do you
really think Linux would be where it is were it under the BSDL?
>and secondly, the original claims that the license is somehow
>'free' is misleading to the point to being dishonest or a lie.
Certainly, if anyone ever said that. It is the *software*, not the
license, which is "free", as in "free speech"; the license may or may
not be free as in free beer, but that's not what you find 'dishonest',
is it?
>This makes the predominant
>advocates who claim that GPL is 'free', and know the limitations of GPL, LIARS.
When it doubt, call 'em liars, eh?
>One cannot get around the fact that the people who advocate GPL as 'free' redefine the
>word, or use absurdly specific versions of the word without qualification.
No, just "free as in free speech". Most people get it. Those that
don't insist its "a lie".
>The deal is
>that the usage is INTENTIONALLY misleading when the usage isn't immediately qualified.
Its somehow the FSF's fault you didn't read their web site?
>The manifesto and other documents that carefully redefine the term 'free' might be
>okay,
>but there is no clarification that the usage as redefined in those documents is
>'eccentric'
>at best.
That's because its not. Now quite acting like a goofball declaring it
is.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Middle Aged Fat Asses
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 18:04:06 GMT
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> I think I know what you're on about. My teacher at school, who took
> Computer Studies, thought he was the absolute genius because he new Microsoft
> Word 97 in and out, but, he knew sweet-bugger-all about computers and
> operating systems, that was shown in the fact that when he set-up Novell
> Netware 5, he gave EVERY STUDENT ADMINISTRATION PRIVILEGES! I know what you
> are talking about Charlie, however, I would not restrict the comment to just
> "middle aged fat ass men", this is what happens to most lusers, who master one
> aspect of a computer, may be using Word, or using the start menu, and in their
> eyes, that gives them the title of "Computer Genius" or "System
> Administrator", which they are clearly not, then when they try Linux/UNIX or
> some other operating system, they realise that computing is more than that one
> aspect they mastered, but instead of accepting they don't have all the answers
> and going away and learning Linux, they post on COLA declaring that Linux is
> too hard, or some other anecdotal garbage to make they feel better again, as
> they cannot handle the fact, that they over estimated their abilities.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
Especially troubling about this going on about MAFAMs is that I happen
to be one!
> 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.
> >
> > 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!
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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!
> >
> > 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
--
Equal bytes for women.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
