Linux-Advocacy Digest #807, Volume #32 Wed, 14 Mar 01 19:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jay Maynard)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Byron A Jeff)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Peter Seebach)
Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses! ("Masha Ku' Inanna")
Re: WOW - This is Interesting (Donn Miller)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Microsoft announces support for Linux! ("Edwin")
Screen shots of linux software ? (peter)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: WOW - This is Interesting (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Edward Rosten)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
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: What does IQ measure? (Brock Hannibal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 22:37:28 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:28:26 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No-one claims "free" is "unrestricted", and free speech isn't
>unrestricted either. For example, in my country I will be
>prosecuted if I deny or minimize the Holocaust.
This is enough restriction that I do not consider your country as having
true freedom of speech. The only restrictions on speech that I consider not
interfering with freedom are those designed to prevent actual harm to
others. Restrictions on historical discussion do not qualify, for if we fail
to learn from the mistakes of history, we will be doomed to repeat them - if
we're lucky. If not, we'll have to endure something even worse.
>Claiming that the only valid use of "free" is when it
>means "unrestricted" shows poor knowledge of English ;-)
Making this claim shows poor understanding of freedom...but then it's par
for you. I have never claimed freedom requires a total absence of
restrictions, despite your numerous claims to the contrary. I only claim
that freedom requires the minimum restrictions designed to prevent people
from harming others without their consent. Before you bring up such things
as speed limits yet again, I'll point out that I do not consider the US
completely free, either, merely the most free of any country I can think of.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Byron A Jeff)
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: 14 Mar 2001 17:39:58 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>mlw wrote:
>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.
Actually in this discussion commercial project and the folks working on them
are in fact the anthesis of open source.
Here's why. Commercial projects in order to be profitiable must accomplish
two things: value add and barrier to entry. Secondary to that is time to
market and costs. Open software helps tremendously in the last two aspects
because it eliminates the costs of the infrasturcture.
But to accomplish the value add often requires additions/modifications to
the infrastructure. But the barrier to entry compels the project not to make
that value add available openly because it destroys the barrier to entry.
In short why should I buy a product from you when I can just as easily
download it from your website/FTP server because you have to release any
modifications that was made to the infrastructure.
And that compulsion not to release modifications is what irks the GPL
crowd. BSD relieves the corporate entity from such release. And most times
you'll find that BSD modifications are well hidden.
BAJ
------------------------------
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 22:41:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No-one claims "free" is "unrestricted", and free speech isn't
>unrestricted either.
The restrictions are:
1. Always very narrow, if you really have free speech.
2. Not called "more free" than not having them.
>For example, in my country I will be
>prosecuted if I deny or minimize the Holocaust.
Yes. And, no matter how wrong such a denial is, this is a *failure* of
your country to allow free speech. Free speech includes the right to be
wrong.
>Claiming that the only valid use of "free" is when it
>means "unrestricted" shows poor knowledge of English ;-)
Well, I'm willing to grant that a case could be made for the GPL being
somewhere vaguely in the realm of "free" software. It's certainly, however,
not "more free" than BSDL, any more than the speech of people who are
forbidden to deny the Holocaust is "more free" than the speech of people who
are allowed to be as stupid and incorrect as they want.
-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: "Masha Ku' Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses!
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:49:30 -0500
You know, the really scary thing about Charlie's enthusiasm is that it feels
so much like the "You GOTTA be saved, Jesus LOVES you!.." enthusiasm of some
religious sects.
Or is "Linus loves you," more accurate?
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snipped a whole load of Inquisition-level fervor>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:49:44 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WOW - This is Interesting
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
> >
> > FreeBSD seems to be my next web platform !!!
Notice the conspicuous absence of Windows 2000, NT, or 9x. Hmmm, I
suppose Windows would be somewhere near the bottom. ;-) Wait a second,
it has to because Windows 2000 users are more likely to use bad HW or
3rd party drivers than FreeBSD users, correct?
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
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 23:33:49 +0100
In article <7PRr6.248$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Free software obviously means that it can be passed on to other people with
> no restrictions.
No. You're obviously not a native English speaker, or you
wouldn't labour under this misapprehension ;-)
--
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: "Edwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft announces support for Linux!
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:07:05 -0600
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Edwin wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Those boneheads finally did it!
> > >
> > > They are announcing support for Linux.
> > >
> > > http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/03/13/010313hnnonms.xml
> > >
> > > Charlie
> >
> > So Microsoft has a way to dominate the computer market, even if you
don't
> > use an OS from them, and a way to migrate people to Windows? I'm
> > literally weeping with joy. :-P
> >
> > Edwin
>
> Why?
I was being sarcastic.
Edwin
------------------------------
From: peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Screen shots of linux software ?
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:00:18 GMT
I'm looking for screen shots of inventory tracking software, GUI, web
based, or other, it doesn't matter,
Thanks,
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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 23:19:56 GMT
On 14 Mar 2001 22:37:28 GMT, Jay Maynard wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:28:26 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>as speed limits yet again, I'll point out that I do not consider the US
>completely free, either, merely the most free of any country I can think of.
I find this claim a little hard to swallow (look at the drug laws, for
instance). However, the US is certainly one of the better ones. (in
terms of "freedom")
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: WOW - This is Interesting
Date: 14 Mar 2001 23:23:52 GMT
On 14 Mar 2001 15:18:28 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
>Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Well, considering that many Linux boxes were recently rebooted to get
>the new 2.4 kernel... :)
Speaking of Linux reliability, there's this great command I discovered:
uptime: display time since last power outage. (-;
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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 23:32:10 GMT
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:13:39 -0800, Jeffrey Siegal wrote:
>Craig Kelley wrote:
>> Many people misunderstand the license and think that it means "if you
>> modify my code and distribute it, you must give me the changes".
>
>That's an horrific misunderstanding. There is all kinds of material
>available at http://www.fsf.org and elsewhere which can easily correct
>that.
U I think at the very least a lot of people write GPL software
without really knowing what they're getting themselves into. What
if you want to factor out some code nto a ibrary ? You're then
saddled with a GPL library, and writing a GPL library is insanity.
Hence licensing any code that *might* become a library is insanity
(unless you're happy with the idea of releasing GPL'd libraries --
most people are not).
In my case, the vast majority of code "might" become library code.
Hence even if I want to release code that is "gauranteed to stay free",
I release it under the LGPL.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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 23:35:09 GMT
On 14 Mar 2001 14:20:10 GMT, Nick Condon wrote:
>Les Mikesell wrote:
>I couldn't have happened that way around. Perl was originally released
>under the Artistic license only, and the dual licensing thing came about
>later, IIRC, after RMS had a chat with Larry Wall.
>
Perl on Linux is infected with the GPV, in particular it links against
gdbm.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:32:30 +0000
> > > Why the focus on the wrong part of the conversation?
> >
> > I'm not. You claimed that linux was bad because applications could
> > bypass the printer drivers. Other people have stated windows progs that
> > allow this, but you ignored them. I've pointed out an example that you
> > have esay access to you.
>
> It seems strange to me that any OS allows applications their own drivers.
> It would appear to be duplication of effort. Can you not see that?
It can lead to duplication. But this is not specific to Linux. Even
windows allows it.
> As for being to bypass Windows printer drivers, yes I'm aware you can do
> that, but _none_ of the applications I use do.
I've named one that does that you have. Other posters have named apps
thay use which do. Just because you don't doesn't mean everyone else
doesn't.
How do you propose to stop apps having their own printer drivers?
> > I assume that you do concede my point since you are squirming.
>
> I concede nothing because you point is not germane to the topic at hand,
> which has been down a rathole.
I believe the topic was a Linux Oopsie. I think I have successfully
pointed out why it is not the fault of Linux.
> > Now, building on this point, why is Linux bad for letting other apps
> > bypass the printer drivers?
>
> How about, how is Linux good by allowing each application its own driver
> for whatever hardware there is?
It doesn't. Only for drivers that don't require hardware access, since
it would be insecure otherwise.
> > And one final point: try file->print (or equivalent) under most Linux
> > apps. Guess what happens. Hint: it prints.
>
> And look what happened when I tried the same with The Gimp! It printed
> alright, but it didn't print what I expected.
Now look at all the other apps and tell me what happens. GIMP being
stupid doesn't imply that everything else is.
StarOffice fow windows can be quite buggy at times. By your argument,
not only would that be windows' fault, but it would b=mean that every
other windows app was buggy too.
-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: "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 18:46:38 -0500
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD wrote:
> > Remember, free software will be (by default) given away freely.
>
> It is really impossible to have a reaonsable discussion when you insist
> in using words so carelessly and ambiguously. "Free software" has no
> clear meaning unless you accept the one defined by the FSF, or define
> your own. And "given away freely" is also poorly defined.
>
It is really impossible to have a reasonable discussion when you insist
on using words with differing, inconsistant definitions. The term 'free' as used
in causual speech and regular discourse associated with the GPL doesn't
carry with it the limitations as associated with the definition in the GPL
documentation.
So, the error is in the 'very' specific, odd, eccentric definition of free as
associated with numerous GPL documentation.
So, with nonsense extension of the language, it indeed makes it difficult
and CONFUSING to communicate. I suggest that you coin a previous nonsense
word so that the term 'free' isn't oddly used by the GPL advocates.
john
------------------------------
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 18:48:02 -0500
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD wrote:
> > Free software obviously means that it can be passed on to other people with
> > no restrictions.
>
> That's "public domain" software. Since there is already a well-defined
> term for that concept, there is no need for another one. Therefore, it
> was perfectly reasonable to coin the term "free software" to mean some
> another just as real but slightly different -- in the sense of being
> slightly less anarchistic -- variety of freedom.
>
There are other sorts of software, often licensed under very ree terms, that
allow for the simple, free copying. GPL provides very limited copying
terms (even of binaries.)
Reducing the argument to the absurd 'public domain' is being somewhat
dishonest.
GPL doesn't allow that.
John
------------------------------
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 18:49:51 -0500
"Jay Maynard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:28:26 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >No-one claims "free" is "unrestricted", and free speech isn't
> >unrestricted either. For example, in my country I will be
> >prosecuted if I deny or minimize the Holocaust.
>
> This is enough restriction that I do not consider your country as having
> true freedom of speech. The only restrictions on speech that I consider not
> interfering with freedom are those designed to prevent actual harm to
> others. Restrictions on historical discussion do not qualify, for if we fail
> to learn from the mistakes of history, we will be doomed to repeat them - if
> we're lucky. If not, we'll have to endure something even worse.
>
Remember, free speech is the same as writing software. You have the same
right to write software as to make speech. Alas, some software GPL advocates
tend to bring in the straw issue that confuses software LICENSING with the
right to execute speech.
The GPL advocates seem to have a severe logic consistancy problem, and perhaps
shows why they are so confused about the term 'free.'
John
------------------------------
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 18:53:11 -0500
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> > free speech isn't
> > unrestricted either. For example, in my country I will be
> > prosecuted if I deny or minimize the Holocaust.
>
> And in my country we would say that you do not have a right of free
> speech.
>
The free speech is the same as writing software, and has nothing to do with
licensing software.
Get a grip!!!
John
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:55:24 -0500
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Craig Kelley wrote:
> > Not in my experience. Once most people understand what the GPL truely
> > means, they tend to avoid it.
>
> I don't know what "most people" means, nor do I believe you have any
> evidence to support this claim.
>
> There certainly is no shortage of people, and a significant number of
> major corportations, using and contributing to GPL software.
>
That doesnt' justify caling the GPL 'free.' A failing of GPL-being-free zealots is
that
there is an assumption that for each device in a society to be 'free', it is
sufficient for
it to be 'good.' Alas, that is not true. Such errors in thinking are indiciative of
schizophrenic
thinking.
John
------------------------------
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 18:56:25 -0500
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 14 Mar 2001 22:37:28 GMT, Jay Maynard wrote:
> >On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:28:26 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >as speed limits yet again, I'll point out that I do not consider the US
> >completely free, either, merely the most free of any country I can think of.
>
> I find this claim a little hard to swallow (look at the drug laws, for
> instance). However, the US is certainly one of the better ones. (in
> terms of "freedom")
>
In the US, you are freer to be independent. This doesn't make it 'better', but it
is 'freer.'
John
------------------------------
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 18:57:40 -0500
"Stefaan A Eeckels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <3aafdd1b$0$48744$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach) writes:
> > 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".
>
> No-one claims "free" is "unrestricted", and free speech isn't
> unrestricted either. For example, in my country I will be
> prosecuted if I deny or minimize the Holocaust.
>
> Claiming that the only valid use of "free" is when it
> means "unrestricted" shows poor knowledge of English ;-)
>
Claiming that because something might be 'good' makes it 'free' shows
defective critical thinking.
John
------------------------------
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 15:52:55 -0800
JD wrote:
> > > Free software obviously means that it can be passed on to other people with
> > > no restrictions.
> >
> > That's "public domain" software. Since there is already a well-defined
> > term for that concept, there is no need for another one. Therefore, it
> > was perfectly reasonable to coin the term "free software" to mean some
> > another just as real but slightly different -- in the sense of being
> > slightly less anarchistic -- variety of freedom.
> >
> There are other sorts of software, often licensed under very ree terms, that
> allow for the simple, free copying. GPL provides very limited copying
> terms (even of binaries.)
If the software can be passed on with *no* restrictions on either the
passer or the recipient, then it is public domain software. If there
are some restrictions, then we're into the realm of GPL and other
licenses. The restrictions might be different, they might offend you
less, but they're still restrictions. The underlying issue here is
really a value judgement about what elements of "free" are more
important than others.
------------------------------
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 19:04:34 -0500
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD wrote:
> > > > Free software obviously means that it can be passed on to other people with
> > > > no restrictions.
> > >
> > > That's "public domain" software. Since there is already a well-defined
> > > term for that concept, there is no need for another one. Therefore, it
> > > was perfectly reasonable to coin the term "free software" to mean some
> > > another just as real but slightly different -- in the sense of being
> > > slightly less anarchistic -- variety of freedom.
> > >
> > There are other sorts of software, often licensed under very ree terms, that
> > allow for the simple, free copying. GPL provides very limited copying
> > terms (even of binaries.)
>
> If the software can be passed on with *no* restrictions on either the
> passer or the recipient, then it is public domain software.
>
Note that it is TRUE that if you have a copy of BSDL'ed software, you can pass
it on with NO restrictions. There might be some limitations as to other use,
but you can freely redistribute it. READ CAREFULLY WHAT I WROTE ABOVE.
Of course, with GPLed software, you aren't necessarily free to do so.
John
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:04:33 -0800
From: Brock Hannibal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> No...respiration is NOT the process of inhaling and exhaling.
Actually one dictionary definition IS this.
> respiration is the process of re-oxygenating blood.
Plants don't have blood yet they respirate. Respiration is the more
general process of exchanging oxygen for Carbon Dioxide in the fluids or
cells.
> Inhaling and exhaling is merely an activity which supports respiration.
More than one definition of respiration.
Once again, much flamage can ensue when people use differing meanings
for the same word.
--
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/B
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
