Linux-Advocacy Digest #805, Volume #32 Wed, 14 Mar 01 17:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: What does IQ measure? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: The Linux office, a possible future..... (.)
Re: What does IQ measure? (WesTralia)
Re: .Net to run on Linux (Tim Hanson)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Peter Seebach)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jay Maynard)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Brock Hannibal)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: .Net to run on Linux (Bob Hauck)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:40:19 -0500
"." wrote:
>
> > No one can answer that question
>
> I know. This was my only point. I hate it when people state something
> as absolute truth.
Humans require oxygen for respiration.
This is an absolute truth.
There is no substitute.
For example, even though it has the same valence structure as oxygen,
you can not substitute the oxygen in a person's respiratory processes
with sulfur.
THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
>
> > because no one has ever seen an alien
> > and there is no evidence that aliens exist. So, if you recognize
> > things like a head, a skull and a body, it's a pretty damn good bet the
> > critter is native to earth, and you'd be well served to understand what
> > happened to it lest the same thing happen to you. Oh, and the creature
> > is dead and that's the truth.
>
> I agree, if I found a mangled body, even something I had never seen
> before, I would most likely jump to the assumption that it was dead, or
> badly hurt and dying.
>
> But just because I see something, and all my prior experience suggests
> only one particular explanation (perhaps even all prior experience of the
> human race), doesn't automatically make it THE TRUTH. To believe
> otherwise is arrogant.
>
> This is my stance. Nothing will change it.
> I prefer to believe humans are not infallible, based on all evidence
> provided by said creatures. If others want to think to themselves that
> we cannot possibly be wrong, it can be on their own head.
>
> For the record, I still don't claim the IQ test means nothing, only that
> we can't be sure of it.
Would you bet your life on IQ tests?
Before you answer that, remember that IQ test are a MORE reliable
indicator of cognitive intelligence, than say, traffic lights are
of whether traffic perpendicular to your line of travel will stop
or not....and you DO bet your life on that indicator every time you
drive through an intersection.
>
> I wont be adding any more to this thread. I've already had to repeat
> myself too many times, and I'm sure others are getting as bored with it
> as I am.
Translation: The cowardly one who won't even put a name to his words
recognizes that his ass is getting soundly whipped to such a degree
that the skin is starting to shred.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:40:05 -0800
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> If the best implentation of a spec was GPL, it wouldn't be incorporated into
> commercial products, which sucks.
That really depends whether you think that "commercial" (really
source-unavailable, non-modifyable, non-redistributable) products being
successful is a good thing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: The Linux office, a possible future.....
Date: 14 Mar 2001 20:42:50 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <98jkh5$6hk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> > Where? I see it not?
>>
>> Thats because you are quite obviously blind.
> Or it doesn't exist.
>> > Everywhere I look, I see Windows, Windows and yet more Windows.
>>
>> Neat. You must work in a windows dominated market. I work with information
>technlogy
>> and suchness. It is dominated by unix.
> Funny I work in IT and all I see is Windows. Even in the job market, it's
> Windows all the way.
>> > Don't I? In Digital we had one of the biggest private networks in the
>> > world. 20,000 - 50,000 nodes at least, and still growing when I left.
>>
>> Thats a medium sized network in todays world.
> What company has in excess of 50,000 nodes?
Most large ISPs and cable companies. Do you realize how many nodes a nationwide
cable modem company has? Do you understand what it takes to pull of DHCP on
that kind of scale?
I didnt think so.
You simply dont know what youre talking about, pete. Time to admit it and move on.
=====.
------------------------------
From: WesTralia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:53:48 -0600
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> "." wrote:
> >
> > > No one can answer that question
> >
> > I know. This was my only point. I hate it when people state something
> > as absolute truth.
>
> Humans require oxygen for respiration.
>
> This is an absolute truth.
> There is no substitute.
>
Oh not so fast. I can perform the respiration function with a
full intake of helium. How long I live is another matter.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: .Net to run on Linux
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:59:18 GMT
J Sloan wrote:
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Given microsoft's track record, one would have to be
> > > quite gullible to expect solid support from microsoft for
> > > a non microsoft platform. If .net were actually to become
> > > popular, ms would use it as a weapon against non ms
> > > operating systems, just as they use ms office now.
> > >
> > > They might well release some partial support for non
> > > ms operating systems, but they will counsel users to
> > > "migrate to windows" for best results, and they will of
> > > course also be poised to pull the rug out from under
> > > your platform of choice the moment it will benefit them
> > > to do so.
>
> > What does the word open standard says to you?
>
> > You don't like MS implentation
> > on Linux, *make your own*.
>
> The whole point is, do we even want to start down that road,
> i.e. following ms and letting them call the shots? Better to
> ignore .net and let nature take it's course, rather than lending
> the energy and momentum of the Linux to the microsoft cause.
There's no choice to this. Microsoft's strategy is as it has always
been, a strategy of monopoly maintenence. That is what they do; that is
what they've always done. They will use areas where they have a
monopoly, which is now the desktop client, internet client, and office
productivity, to gain a monopoly at the server.
Windows XP and Office XP are about that. The "loads of cool new
features" consist for the most part of cosmetic changes and cursory
acknowledgement to consumer howling about stability, plus a host of
mechanisms to hamstring the hardware manufacturers, make people pay more
money and to do it more often, and most importantly to get them
accustomed to using the .net services. As much as Windows 98 was a tool
to force Internet Explorer on people, so is XP a tool to force .net down
our throats.
ISPs will be force fed .net. New agreements and joint marketing
ventures will require a minimum .net content, like they were forced to
use, for example, a minimum number of IE exclusive features during the
browser wars. In time ISPs controlled by Microsoft will begin accepting
logins only from .net enabled users, or forced to go through an
extensive work around, ala Kerberos.
This is what is in store. Microsoft wouldn't have put it out there if
they didn't have a plan and the means to make people use it, and to make
ISPs and content providers (and the servers they use) support it. Once
they have the client wrapped up they can begin to dump Unix on their own
schedule.
> Yes, the Linux community will no doubt create something that
> will talk to .net, but to make it anything more than just another
> peripheral capability would be a grave mistake. It will never
> be the main focus.
>
> jjs
--
Banectomy, n.:
The removal of bruises on a banana.
-- Rich Hall, "Sniglets"
------------------------------
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
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: 14 Mar 2001 21:05:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sam Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>True enough. But if the authors/owners of the original code wanted future
>changes to the code to also be freely available, why shouldn't they?
No reason they shouldn't, but a big reason they shouldn't claim that their
code is "free" in the sense of "unrestricted", ala "free speech".
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
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: 14 Mar 2001 21:11:04 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:17:57 -0800, Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If the *word* "free", or the *name* "free software" is that important to
>you, I just don't know what to say. You can't hyjack a word, reserve it
>for uses you approve of, and then accuse RMS of doing the same. It is
>just senseless.
The word "freedom" represents a basic concept that is probably the most
important to the human condition of any. RMS' perversion of it is abhorrent
because it cheapens and dilutes it, thereby making it easier to forget what
it *really* means and therefore easier to lose.
>Long ago, RMS used the term "free software" to describe a concept. At
>this point is a really just a name for that concept, like "green
>energy."
It's been a misnomer ever since he redefined the word. I've been arguing
against it for over a decade.
>Get over it.
I refuse to get over freedom, or to condone those who would destroy it in
order to save it.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:33:15 -0800
From: Brock Hannibal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, WesTralia wrote:
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> >
> > "." wrote:
> > >
> > > > No one can answer that question
> > >
> > > I know. This was my only point. I hate it when people state something
> > > as absolute truth.
> >
> > Humans require oxygen for respiration.
> >
> > This is an absolute truth.
> > There is no substitute.
> >
>
> Oh not so fast. I can perform the respiration function with a
> full intake of helium. How long I live is another matter.
One definition of respiration is a single complete act of breathing,
so, yes, using that definition you're correct.
Another definition of respiration is the physical and chemical processes
whereby an organism takes in oxygen to its cells and tissues and gets
rid of the carbon dioxide that builds up due to energy production.
"Humans require oxygen for respiration" would be an accurate but
somewhat redundant statement if you were to use the second definition,
since the definition itself includes oxygen. So Aaron is also correct.
--
Brock
"One thing counts in this life: Get them to sign
on the line which is dotted...A. Always. B. Be.
C. Closing. Always Be Closing."
http://www.swingout.net/
------------------------------
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:03:15 +0200
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > If the best implentation of a spec was GPL, it wouldn't be incorporated
into
> > commercial products, which sucks.
>
> That really depends whether you think that "commercial" (really
> source-unavailable, non-modifyable, non-redistributable) products being
> successful is a good thing.
Non-redistributable.
But I should've said other products as well.
BSD wouldn't be able to use this code, frex.
Nor would any other non-GPLed OS/code.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: .Net to run on Linux
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:41:47 GMT
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:52:11 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you program in Java for windows, you rarely write for windows, you
> write for the Java platform.
Unless you use platform-specific extensions. Which MS cunningly
designed their J++ variant to encourage.
>Same with .NET applications.
>Beside, what do you mean, win32 DLL? The Win32 API?
I think he means Windows-isms like COM, ActiveX, ADO, etc. Our resident
technical evangalist Erik Funkenbush claims that easy access to those is
one advantage of .NET over Java. If that's true, one would suppose they
would be used and would compromise portability.
>I would think that Office XP might be not .NET based, but the next one will
>be, and a lot of applications are going to be written for .NET platform.
How many of those do you suppose will be truly portable?
See, .NET faces the same obstacles to "write once run anywhere" that
Java does. The MS answer to that seems to be to just ignore the
problems, since most users have Win32 anyway. Therefore, I suspect that
most .NET applications will not be very portable and the whole scheme is
_not_ truly designed for platform independence.
Remember, in Redmond "portability" means portable to all variants of
Windows.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:53:01 -0800
Jay Maynard wrote:
> >Get over it.
>
> I refuse to get over freedom, or to condone those who would destroy it in
> order to save it.
I never said you should get over freedom. What you should get over is
the use of the coined phrase "free software" as a name for a
well-defined, and (by those willing to take a bit of time to learn)
well-understood concept in software licensing. Though realistically I
doubt you will let go of this particular obsession, so I'll just go back
to ignoring your repetitive and altogether boring rants. Little things
affect little minds, I guess.
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:00:31 -0500
"Austin Ziegler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I've even heard some folks argue that 'syndicates' or groups of users
> could get together and hire the developer(s) to fix the problem(s).
> Great, if you can find enough other users to work with it -- where you
> already KNOW your supplier and have something of a "known" user base.
>
Certainly SLEAZY GNU-support organizations even have a strategy of hiring
away internal people to force a profitable external support of a GPLed or free
product. (I have existance proof of that behavior, but will NOT publically mention
the name of such a prominent organization.)
By such predatory practices, there is a little bit of a support monopoly, and HUGE
support fees (even relative to the 'evil empire'.)
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:55:01 +0100
In article <98o9c9$sr4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> "Stefaan A Eeckels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <98nt9s$hoc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > "Stefaan A Eeckels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <98nnun$dc8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I have not checked the TCP spec, so I can't comment on it, but I would
> say
>> > that an unambiguous spec is very much like writing the algortim.
>>
>> And? An algorithm is not a program. If a spec isn't sufficiently
>> complete and unambiguous to allow independent, competent developers
>> to produce code that produces the required results, the spec is
>> just not good enough.
>
> Yeah, that is what I'm saying.
> An algorithm is one step above a program, btw.
>
>> >> Reference implementations are fine, but should not be the
>> >> only implementation.
>> >
>> > I agree, but since BSD seems to be the best one around, I like its
> license.
>> > If the best implentation of a spec was GPL, it wouldn't be incorporated
> into
>> > commercial products, which sucks.
>>
>> Why does it suck? Is there some virtue in having one's code
>> used by as many commercial systems as possible? Why do you
>> want to kill the market for TCP/IP stacks ;-)
>
> Code reuse? Someone wrote it, and decided that they don't want to money of
> it, and then made sure that no one else could use it in a commercial
> product, therefor limiting the scope of his code use.
> I think that sucks.
> I'm not talking about TCP/IP, I'm talking about other things.
>
>> > The company that makes the software may be unable to invest time/money
> in
>> > writing the implentation themselves,
>>
>> Oh dear, how dreadful. Maybe they shouldn't be in that business
>> if they can't hack it. These people don't have a God-given right
>> to be in the software business, you know.
>
> I don't agree with you on this.
Oh, they _do_ have a God-given right to be in the software
business.
> If a good implentation is already there,
> supposedly free, then it should be be possible to incorporate it into other
> products without changing their license.
That's your definition.
> GPV is a good term for GPL.
Why? GPL stands for General Public License. It's a license.
Calling it GPV is a purely emotional reaction, based on a
personal (and arguably erroneous) perception of the GPL.
Using GPV indicates that you don't consider it to be a
license, which is a misrepresentation of the same nature
you're (without ground) accusing the author of the GPL of.
> A much better license would say, do whatever you want with the code, but if
> you make changes to the code, you must give it back.
> Even LGPL isn't that free.
> If I'm working on code released under OSI licenses for fun, I would release
> the code back under the same terms. (If it ever gets to release state, that
> is. Most doesn't, I lose interest when the challange is gone)
> Because that is right & fair, I won't work on GPL software for fun. I don't
> like being unable to use the code with any other license.
Have you ever considered that this is a very childish attitude?
And that it's based on gross ignorance of what other OSI-certified
free licenses prohibit you from doing? Take, for example, Jay's QPL
(as you've rallied his GPV camp, it seems).
In his own words (quoting from the Hercules FAQ):
"In essence this allows free use and distribution of the program
for personal and commercial use. You may not distribute modified
copies of the program, but you may distribute your own patches
along with the program, provided that you also grant the maintainer
permission to include those patches in future versions of the
program. You may not copy any portion of the source code for use
in any other program."
This seems draconian compared to the restrictions of the GPL. You
have to grant the right to "the maintainer, whomever that might
be" to include your patches in Hercules (or not), obviously
under the same license as the rest of Hercules (clause 3b, if
I understand it correctly, but it could also mean I only have
to grant the maintainer a license if I use the QPL for my
patches; the wording is confusing). Clause 4c at least is
unambiguous; I have to use the QPL if I distribute binaries
(virus alert!).
Clause 5 gracefully allows me to use the program.
When I read point 6 of the QPL (see the URL below), I understand
that if I develop anything that "links" with Hercules I must provide
the source code to my stuff free of charge (but I can charge 5 bucks
for the CD). In addition, I have to explicitely license recipients
to use and re-distribute my stuff as they please (it's not clear I
am allowed impose any conditions, not even the "as patches" as the
QPL itself does). And finally, I am obliged to send Jay a copy of
whatever I developed when he asks for it, even if I developed it for
my personal use only. Fortunately, it seems that nothing "links"
to Hercules, but "runs under it", as it's an emulator. As a statement
of intent it's nice, though:
6a) No binary without the source, and no fee for the source.
6b) Recipients must get a license to use and re-distribute,
both the source and binaries, but it's not sure they have
to do this under the QPL (probably not, or the QPL would
be viral). Looks like no rights for me.
6c) The maintainer has the right to ask me for anything I
develop that links to the QPLed software, even if I never
distributed it. This is the real clincher, IMHO.
> I don't see anything good in GPL, and even LGPL isn't nice, sometimes.
Now please, go and read the QPL
(http://www.conmicro.cx/hercules/herclic.html)
and tell me if you think "it's nice", and if you find "anything
good" in it.
>> > or will have to spend that money and leave other things, which
>> > would make the product a better one.
>>
>> That's their problem. If you can't develop a decent product,
>> you shouldn't be in business.
>
> If you call something free, I should be able to take it and do whatever I
> want with it.
Where did you get that misconception? Please name one other
instance where your freedom means "doing whatever you want".
> Check the subject of this post.
I did. It seems to have been coined by a lad with a
personality flaw who likes to insult people.
> It's not GPL vs. other OSI approved argument, it's an argument against GPL
> being free.
You have decided that the restrictions the GPL imposes on the
people who want to derive code from GPLed works mean that it
cannot use the moniker "free". Who died and left you in charge
of the English language?
>
>> > And there is no gurantee that the implentation would be as good as the
>> > GPLed one.
>>
>> Which then will convince their potential customers to use the
>> better product, and thus ensure that more software comes with
>> source code included.
>
> Indeed, but it also ensure the survival of GPV.
You say that as if it's a given that this is A Bad Thing(tm).
There's a lot that can be said about rms, but _not_ that
he's not upfront about his intentions, so you can't accuse
him of deviously wanting to replace all closed source software
by free software.
> I don't like being force to do things I don't want to.
Then don't use GPLed code. Where did you get the delusion
rms is holding a gun to your head while chanting "Use
GPLed code or you're dead"?
> For this reason, I don't think GPL is free.
It's your choice to use GPLed code as a basis or component
of your product/program/system and uphold the license.
No-one forces you to do anything you don't like; it seems
more that you resent not being able to do as you please.
If that's the norm for refusing the use of the word
"freedom", then _nothing_ is free.
>> Note that this is just as legimate a goal
>> as "I want my software to run in as many boxes as possible", or
>> "I want to reduce my development costs by using free software
>> so I can better compete with idiots who're stupid enough to
>> do the work themselves".
>
> It's a legimate goal, yes, but that is not what the arguement
> is about, it's about GPL being called free, which it isn't.
The point could be made that through persuing a goal that's
immoral, or illegal, the GPL would forfeit the right to use
the word "free". I'm merely signalling that the goal it
persues is arguably less self-serving than the (stated or
perceived) goals of some other "free licenses".
You're free to consider the GPL whatever you want. You're
free to consider that the GPL's terms don't warrant it to
be called a "free license". Nobody will deny you those
rights. Considering
1. that in no known situation the words freedom and free
mean a total absence of restrictions,
2. the word "free" to have a large number of often
contradictory meanings,
3. that other people have the same rights as I declared
you to have in the paragraph above,
your insisting that the GPL cannot be called free is, to
say the least, presumptious.
Good day, sir.
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:03:58 -0500
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> > My opinion is
> > that as a linguist, he easily understood the deceptive nature of the GPL
> > and realized that it was unsuitable by itself
>
> Frankly, I don't believe that very many people -- aside from a few
> anti-GPL zealots -- really care about the "deceptive nature" of the GPL
> or of the term "free software."
>
Your claim that I might be anti-GPL, and that is the reason why I don't like calling
it free is wrong.
I don't like GPLed code being called free, BECAUSE IT IS NOT FREE. My opinion of GPL
changed about 1+yrs ago, from disgust (confusing it with free), to acceptance
(as commercial.)
John
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
