Linux-Advocacy Digest #809, Volume #32 Wed, 14 Mar 01 22:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Sam Holden)
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 (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 ("JD")
Re: Linux Joke (J Sloan)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: .Net to run on Linux (J Sloan)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (David Masterson)
Re: .Net to run on Linux (J Sloan)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Linux Joke (Michael Vester)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Bob Hauck)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Screen shots of linux software ? (peter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam Holden)
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: 15 Mar 2001 02:01:10 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:10:03 -0500,
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 14 Mar 2001, Sam Holden wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 05:38:10 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> "Sam Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> Of course the original authors have the right to prevent others from
>>> being able to use the code in many ways that would be useful
>>> to others, as the GPL restrictions do. I don't think anyone questions
>>> that right. The question is, why does anyone else consider this to be
>>> a good thing and how can they mention it in the same sentence with
>>> freedom or sharing?
>> Because they look at it from the users point of view, not the developers
>> point of view. I'm not going to argue the case again - there have been enough
>> posts and www.gnu.org has enough explanation of the rationale behind the GPL.
>
>It's a weak argument, though. Users[1] want software that works. They
>don't want to muck around with the internals of software. They MIGHT
>benefit from the source availability by being able to hire someone to
>do the work for them, but that assumes that (1) they know someone to
>hire, (2) they know how to specify the fixes required, and (3) they can
>afford such hire in the first place. If not, they're entirely dependent
>upon the goodwill of the developers out there.
That's your view. Because of it you won't agree with the GPL, since it is
based on an opposing view. The GPL is based on the idea that non-free
software is bad. This is the difference between the 'free software' (a FSF
term which they define explecitely so please don't argue about the word
free yet again) movement and the 'open source' (another well defined term,
please don't argue about the differnt meaning of the word open) movement.
This is not a sly hidden view - it is out in the open and in fact something
that is 'preached' by the FSF. You don't agree, which is fine. At least say
that and stop arguing about whether you agree with the definition of free
they are using.
Personally my definition of free (in the sense of software) is software
for which I can obtain and 'own' a copy of the code for my own personal use,
at little or no cost. This is not the definition that the FSF uses, it is
not the definition that you use. When I used the word 'own' I'm taking some
liberties with English so I better define it a little more precisely. Take
'own' to mean: can't be taken away because the author changes their mind,
can be used in any way I like as long as I don't distribute, a copy can
be given to others and they will 'own' that copy in the same way, and also
that I can distribute derived code under the same conditions as the original
(whatever they were).
So to me the GPL is free. Notice my definition of free actually has a cost
component - thus I don't consider software free if the only way I obtain a
copy is by paying someone lots of money - even if I can then do all those
things (including giving it to others).
Your definition of free is obviously different. Hopefully you don't have
a problem with people having different views.
>> If you think that non-free software is OK, then you will not agree with
>> the GPL and it's rationale. Since that is the basis of it.
>
>Not "non-free" -- because that presumes that GPLed code *is* free, and
>that ain't the case (and never WILL be the case). There ARE reasons to
>use the GPL and GPLed code, but there are reasons for using any number
>of other licences. Specifically, the FSF believes that per-user or
>per-copy licensing is bad -- and sometimes they're right. But sometimes
>it's an economic model that's far more sustainable than mere goodwill.
Your missing the point because you decided to yet again bring up a
'GPLed code is not free' argument for no apparent reason. Obviously you
should take non-free as the definition given by the FSF for this instance.
If you consider that code licensed under a non-free license other than the GPL
(or it's derivates) to be OK, then you won't agree with the GPL and it's
rational.
Is that better? Can you understand the underlying point now? Or would you
like to play yet more word games?
--
Sam
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
--Isaac Asimov
------------------------------
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 18:04:34 -0800
JD wrote:
> > > while the BSD only tells you not to take credit.
> >
> > Also incorrect. Again, RTFL.
> >
> Read it carefully.
I have.
> Any schmuck can give BSDLed code away.
Yes, subject to certain restrictions, which you happen not to find
objectionable.
------------------------------
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 21:12:30 -0500
"Sam Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:10:03 -0500,
> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 14 Mar 2001, Sam Holden wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 05:38:10 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> "Sam Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>> Of course the original authors have the right to prevent others from
> >>> being able to use the code in many ways that would be useful
> >>> to others, as the GPL restrictions do. I don't think anyone questions
> >>> that right. The question is, why does anyone else consider this to be
> >>> a good thing and how can they mention it in the same sentence with
> >>> freedom or sharing?
> >> Because they look at it from the users point of view, not the developers
> >> point of view. I'm not going to argue the case again - there have been enough
> >> posts and www.gnu.org has enough explanation of the rationale behind the GPL.
> >
> >It's a weak argument, though. Users[1] want software that works. They
> >don't want to muck around with the internals of software. They MIGHT
> >benefit from the source availability by being able to hire someone to
> >do the work for them, but that assumes that (1) they know someone to
> >hire, (2) they know how to specify the fixes required, and (3) they can
> >afford such hire in the first place. If not, they're entirely dependent
> >upon the goodwill of the developers out there.
>
> That's your view. Because of it you won't agree with the GPL, since it is
> based on an opposing view. The GPL is based on the idea that non-free
> software is bad.
>
Since GPLed software isn't free (as admitted by others, like Jeffery, who admit
to it's restrctions), then the GPL doesn't fix the issue of free software. GPLed
software is just alot more unfree software :-).
We can define a term 'free' as being 'unfree', and we'd be doing something similar to
what you and RMS are doing by misapplying the term.
Please don't confuse 'good' (or your idea of it) with 'free.' THEY ARE NOT THE SAME
THING.
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 18:08:23 -0800
JD wrote:
> > You can *not* redistribute BSDLed code with NO restrictions.
> >
> > My god, man, just RTFL!
> >
> They are trivial, and don't stop anyone conditioned on other access.
They're trivial to you because you don't consider them important. I
do. I don't focus on the concept of "conditioned on other access" as
you do, because I don't consider that issue important *within the
context of the type of community that GPL is used to create*.
> > The difference is that those restrictions, for whatever reason, don't
> > bother you, while the GPL's restrictions, at least in some contexts, do
> > both you.
> >
> The GPL restrictions make it unfree. You admit to the restrictions, ergo, it
> isn't free.
I agree that anything other than public domain software, BSDL included,
has restrictions. If you want to call that "not free", go right ahead.
When trying to applying simple names to a complex and subtle issue such
as software licensing, it is necesary to use a domain-specific
definition which is carries greater detail and precision than such terms
when used in casual conversion. I don't consider arguing about such
assigned names and definitions to be interesting.
------------------------------
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 21:15:56 -0500
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD wrote:
> > > > while the BSD only tells you not to take credit.
> > >
> > > Also incorrect. Again, RTFL.
> > >
> > Read it carefully.
>
> I have.
>
> > Any schmuck can give BSDLed code away.
>
> Yes, subject to certain restrictions, which you happen not to find
> objectionable.
>
The BSDL BY DEFAULT allows redistribution. The GPL requires certain steps be
followed.
In essense, you can always rescend the ability to redistribute, and BSDL doesn't affect
that. GPL BY DEFAULT doesn't give you the ability.
So, you still misunderstand the fact that the GPL is a restrictive license, while the
BSDL
is a free-oriented license. (It is sort of like the legal prior-restraint issue.)
Alas, at least you have admitted that the GPL isn't free. Thank you!!! The BSDL being
free hasn't ever really been an issue with me, because people don't generally lie
about it
like the GPL-being-free advocates do.
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 21:17:00 -0500
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD wrote:
> > > You can *not* redistribute BSDLed code with NO restrictions.
> > >
> > > My god, man, just RTFL!
> > >
> > They are trivial, and don't stop anyone conditioned on other access.
>
> They're trivial to you because you don't consider them important. I
> do. I don't focus on the concept of "conditioned on other access" as
> you do, because I don't consider that issue important *within the
> context of the type of community that GPL is used to create*.
>
My goal has been met: you have admitted to constraints with the GPL, and as such
admit that it isn't free.
Thank you.
John
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:16:45 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:00:45 GMT, J Sloan wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> >It is of course fully supported by the vendor, Red Hat.
>
> Ah-huh. Feel free to take your chances with RH's "support". The
> problem is that they are not IMO ging to be capable of fixing
> nontrivial bugs.
They've proven capable of fixing all bugs so far.
> Why didn't they fix gcc so that it would compile
> the kernel, or fix the kernel so gcc would compile it ?
Uh, they did.
Linux version 2.4.3-pre4 (root@jyro) (gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat
Linux 7.0)) #2 Mon Mar 12 21:03:02 PST 2001
The gcc-2.96-compiled kernel is running fine here on an amd
K6 450, a quad pentium pro, 2 pentium II 300s, a pentium II 400,
and a celeron 600. Uptime is about 20 days on the 2.4.2 kernels,
and about 2 days on the brand new 2.4.3-pre4 kernels. There are
a variety of workloads, from heavy apachebench testing, to firewall,
mail, dns, web servers, to quake 3 gaming boxes.
The gcc-2.96-compiled kernel is solid.
> But it's still not a Cygnus product, and Redhat saying it's a
> "real" release does not make it so. It is a CVS snapshot
> which is deceptively marketed as a production release.
Isn't it deceptive of you to call it a "snapshot"?
The snapshot was used as a starting point; many patches
were then applied to bring it up to production release quality.
jjs
------------------------------
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 18:17:19 -0800
JD wrote:
> My goal has been met: you have admitted to constraints with the GPL, and as such
> admit that it isn't free.
I have never claimed that the GPL doesn't have restrictions on
redistribution, nor would anyone who has even half a clue. Those
restrictions are the whole idea of a copyleft. They're deliberate and
obvious.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:19:37 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <IYWq6.15469$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > > Why the focus on the wrong part of the conversation?
> >
> > Because there is no other part. The only thing going wrong on your
> > system is that your printer driver is not doing the expected conversion,
> > because it is being told not to.
>
> There was another part, but you are choosing to ignore it.
Well yes, there was your long misinterpretation of the events
but I see no reason to dwell on that.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: .Net to run on Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:21:22 GMT
Your honesty is refreshing.
However, my response is, "Resistance is not futile".
We will not be assimilated.
jjs
Tim Hanson wrote:
> 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"
------------------------------
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 21:28:50 -0500
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD wrote:
> > My goal has been met: you have admitted to constraints with the GPL, and as such
> > admit that it isn't free.
>
> I have never claimed that the GPL doesn't have restrictions on
> redistribution, nor would anyone who has even half a clue. Those
> restrictions are the whole idea of a copyleft. They're deliberate and
> obvious.
>
And "GOOD" != "FREE". The mistake made by the GPL-being-free crowd (the honest
ones) is that they appear to make this mistake. It has taken me a few years to
understand
that. That is engrained into the culture of the US, and probably other countries.
However,
a potentially freer country (like the US), might NOT be better. (I happen to think
that it is,
but not necessarily because it is free.) (Note that this is one of those dangerous
analogies
and not meant to start comparing software with people again :-)).
The dishonest ones will continue to use the claims about GPL software being free, and
there is little that can be done, except to challenge and avoid hiring liars. Perhaps
that'll
keep the GPL consulting firms with access to employees.
When RMS called NPR a week or so ago, he really sounded wierded out. I had hoped that
he would have represented a more 'reasonable' view of things. However, his dilusions
have
become a religion, partially based upon a lie. There is REALLY some good in the GPL,
but
the part that is associated with the lie is only destructive.
John
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:17:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
From: David Masterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
Is that the same country where you can be prosecuted for slander?
--
David Masterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Rational Software (but I don't speak for them)
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: .Net to run on Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:27:51 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
>
> No, it will.
No, I meant the main focus of Linux.
You're talking about the main focus of microsoft,
which is of little interest to the Unix and alternative
OS communities.
> MS is going to release all their new products for .NET, a lot of other
> people are going to do the same.
> You are going to make Linux unable to run those, when it can be done
> (reliatively) simply?
I think you lost the thread, where does it say that J Sloan
will "make linux unable to run those"?
> .NET has its advantages, why deprive Linux from them?
As I mentioned, Linux will doubtless be able to talk to
.net, but it is just another peripheral capability.
Can you imagine how foolish one would have to be to
place any importance on something controlled solely
by an entity whose admitted goal is to move the user
from his platform of choice to ms windows?
jjs
------------------------------
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 21:34:56 -0500
"David Masterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> Is that the same country where you can be prosecuted for slander?
>
There is no place where there is really the right of absolute free speech
guaranteed against slander (or government.) Speech is like writing software,
and not like licensing software.
When comparing speech and software, you might consider that licensing the
text of a speech is similar to licensing software. I suspect that you can pretty
much write any software that you want, if you have free speech (modulo national
security issues.)
John
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:16:35 -0700
J Sloan wrote:
>
> GreyCloud wrote:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 04:42:10 GMT, J Sloan wrote:
> > > > >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >It's not exactly useless - it's great for making RH 7 programs.
> > > >
> > > > It's alpha software. I wouldn't use it for anything.
> > >
> > > Whatever. you scream "alpha" but in fact it is fully
> > > functional, fully supported, and works wonderfully.
> > >
> > > > Yes, and Redhat haven't helped by releasing the CVS snapshot
> > > > (2.96 ? No such release. 2.96 was the code name for the CVS
> > > > snapshot that Redhat pretended was a legitimate release)
> > >
> > > Cygnus was a division of RHAT last time I checked.
> > >
> > > jjs
> > >
> > Oh, Its alpha all-right! Even Sun microsystems won't give it as freeware on
> > their site.
> > Its still 2.95.2!
>
> Say, is it true Sun finally includes traceroute with solaris?
No
>
> How about top?
No. My Slowlaris at work is quite featureless compared to Linux.
>
> Alpha means "unsupported, unreleased, missing features,
> buggy, not quite beta, do not use in production environment"
>
An open source definition. Microsoft has another expression for what you
describe, "production release."
> OTOH gcc 2.96 is fully supported, full featured, and production
> quality. The only real gripe is that if you use gcc 2.96 to compile
> C++ programs, they aren't binary compatible with programs
> compiled with earlier releases of gcc.
>
> boo freaking hoo.
>
> So when your program is good to go, make a source rpm.
>
> Problem solved.
>
> jjs
What's the big deal supporting various versions of source code over
different compiler releases? Did it in the dos days with just batch
commands and include directives. It is prudent to do so with all compiler
releases. Linux can make it automatic except for a bit of initial effort.
Are there programmers out there blindly upgrading their compilers.
committing their entire code base to it without being able to roll it all
back? Do losedos advocate programmers know how to "test" new compilers?
Is there a need for a source code configuration management section in Mr.
Paperclip(tm)?
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:39:01 GMT
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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."
I think it is the other way around. After understanding the deceptive
nature, people become anti-GPL.
> > Anyone who takes a little bit of time to look into the issue can easily
> > determine what the terms of the GPL are, and what the FSF means by the
> > term "free software" which it coined. It may not be the same term that
> > some other people would use, but so bit it. It's just a name.
>
> Not true.
Yes, I think the people who did RIPEM were very surprised
that they were not permitted to distribute unrestricted code
that contained calls to the gpm library and had to rewrite
the work-alike fgpm because of the legal threats.
> Many people misunderstand the license and think that it means "if you
> modify my code and distribute it, you must give me the changes". It
> doesn't mean that at all, it means "If you use my code in any sort of
> development effort, no matter how disparate, and distribute it, you
> must make *all* your code GPL-compatible licensed as well". See the
> difference?
Much worse than that: you can't share your effort of combining
existing freely available code into larger works if any
(but not all) of the parts are under the GPL. That is, since
it is impossible to change the copyright on other existing code
not already encumbered by the GPL, you cannot redistribute
it at all, even though all of previous components are freely
available and you do not wish to add additional restrictions
on your work.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:43:43 GMT
On 14 Mar 2001 23:32:10 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Er, ah, if you wrote the code, what's to keep you from relicensing it as
you see fit? Nothing, as long as you didn't do something silly like
turn the copyright over to the FSF. Troll Tech does this with Qt. If
you want to make a proprietary product then they will license you the
code under an appropriate license. Otherwise you can use it under GPL.
The presumably won't let you use a BSD license because they want to be
compensated when someone makes a proprietary product based on their
code. If you don't care about that, then use the BSD license or
something similar.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
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 18:44:36 -0800
David Masterson wrote:
> > And in my country we would say that you do not have a right of free
> > speech.
>
> Is that the same country where you can be prosecuted for slander?
Yes, it is. Slander requires proof of damages; it is not the speech
which is forbidden, but the causing of injury. I suspect this is not
the case for the holocaust speech laws.
------------------------------
From: peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Screen shots of linux software ?
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:29:32 GMT
I don't have a working linux system up right now, so I can't test
anything out...
But thanks for the link,
Peter
>> I'm looking for screen shots of inventory tracking software, GUI, web
>> based, or other, it doesn't matter,
>> Thanks,
>> Peter
>
>Try freshmeat.net with keywords such as inventory. Eg you obtain a link
>such as:
>
>http://www.cccsoftware.org/
>
>In this case you can then head over to the site and actually try out the
>package instead of just looking at a screenshot!
>
>Freshmeat sometimes has screenshots. But many of the sites themselves
>will.
>
>Regards,
>Adam
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
