Linux-Advocacy Digest #810, Volume #32 Wed, 14 Mar 01 23:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: .Net to run on Linux ("Interconnect")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Sam Holden)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Sometimes, when i run Windows ("matt")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Sam Holden)
Re: No problem with multiple GUI's (Salvador Peralta)
Re: .Net to run on Linux (Michael Vester)
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: Screen shots of linux software ? ("Adam Warner")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 21:50:42 -0500
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9XVr6.17887$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "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.
>
That is nearly exactly what happened to me. I have come around and now see that
it is a commercial agnositc, non-free license, with some 'tricks' to encourage a
certain behavior. (GPL is commercial antagonistic as soon as there are assumptions
about it being 'free', mostly caused by deception.)
Another fallacy on the part of the GPL crowd is some kind of reverence for source
code... Source code doesn't make a piece of software 'free' either. Source code is
cool,
but not sufficient.
If one is honest to begin with, then the possibility of a destroyed relationship is
much less...
In our superficial society, too many people lie about their position until it causes
damage. The lies about the GPL being free HAVE caused alot of damage.
John
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:45:41 GMT
"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. I don't
> believe that they are ignorant. They have a reasonable, working
> understanding of what GPL means. In my experience working with
> corporate clients on free software issues, it doesn't take more than
> five minutes to convey a such a reasonable working knowledge.
What is your best estimate of the percentage of people working
with GPL'd code who know whether code that dynamically
links to a shared library not included in the distribution becomes
a 'derived work' under control of that library's copyright?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 21:54:19 -0500
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:p1Wr6.17891$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "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. I don't
> > believe that they are ignorant. They have a reasonable, working
> > understanding of what GPL means. In my experience working with
> > corporate clients on free software issues, it doesn't take more than
> > five minutes to convey a such a reasonable working knowledge.
>
> What is your best estimate of the percentage of people working
> with GPL'd code who know whether code that dynamically
> links to a shared library not included in the distribution becomes
> a 'derived work' under control of that library's copyright?
>
Jumping in:
I'll estimate that the number of people who don't understand the
side-effect of GPL are similar (within a few percent, highly correlated)
to those who think that the GPL is a license of free software.
You'll find similar misunderstandings with respect to the GPL very closely
associated to the mistaken understanding that the GPL is 'free'.
John
------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[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 13:54:42 +1100
Will .NET cost me money?
How much?
Will it be a constant upgrade cycle?
How much will the dev tools cost?
What will their upgrade cycle and associated costs be?
Will .NET attempt to RAILROAD users to MS specific API's? so called
*extensions* or *innovation*.
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:98ocna$2vs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
>
> MS wants all the new application to be build against .NET
> If Linux can run .NET applications, then MS has broken the application
> barrier. (Bye, Bye, wine, I'm no longer an alcoholist :-) )
> You could run Office XP (or its viewers) on Linux, now, isn't that nice?
>
> > 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.
> 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?
> .NET has its advantages, why deprive Linux from them?
>
>
------------------------------
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 02:54:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:12:30 -0500, JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Sam Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> 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 :-).
Free does not mean unrestricted. You can keep you delusion, it doesn't bother
me.
>
>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.
That's your opinion. You can have your strange view of the English language
and only have one definition of free if you like. Almost everyone else will
stick to the myriad of uses that the word has in English - and do what is
routinely done in all fields and use the jargon definition for the field
of the discussion. In that case 'free software' has been defined a long time
ago, and the usage is agreedupon by the vast majority.
Just like 'freeware' which is a well understood term, doesn't mean
unrestricted ware. And 'Free eduction' does not mean unrestricted
education. And 'free energy level' does not mean unrestricted energy level.
And 'free wind' does not mean unrestricted wind. And 'free translation' does
not mean unrestricted translation. And 'free time' does not mean
unrestricted time.
English is more flexible than you give it credit for.
>
>Please don't confuse 'good' (or your idea of it) with 'free.' THEY ARE NOT THE SAME
>THING.
I don't. I think that gelato is good - never free though...
--
Sam
Vi is still around because they got it right the first time and
nothing better has come along. (Emacs is just a bloated vi clone! :))
--Scott McMahan in `any editor for perl?'<news:5n459g$1ie$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
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 22:03:18 -0500
"Sam Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:12:30 -0500, JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Sam Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> 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 :-).
>
> Free does not mean unrestricted. You can keep you delusion, it doesn't bother
> me.
>
Free certainly doesn't mean highly restricted and encumbered like the GPL. You can\
keep to your deliusion, it doesn't bother me. Perhaps, it saddens me a little, but
those who will not be helped, cannot be :-(.
Calling the GPL is now a proven lie, and you can continue -- but you know in your
heart that you'd be a liar.
John
------------------------------
Reply-To: "matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when i run Windows
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 23:01:42 -0500
just sometimes? are you using windows 3.1 or something?
"Bobert Big Bollocks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It crashes :)
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[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 19:00:44 -0800
Les Mikesell wrote:
> What is your best estimate of the percentage of people working
> with GPL'd code who know whether code that dynamically
> links to a shared library not included in the distribution becomes
> a 'derived work' under control of that library's copyright?
In reality, zero, because nobody really *knows* the answer to that. (I
don't believe it to be the case, but that's just my opinion.)
If you are speaking in terms terms of the spirit of the GPL, I think
most people (at least 70%) working with GPL code understand that all the
components linked into a GPLed program must be made available under
GPL. When I give a five minute orientation to the GNU licenses, that's
the easilest way to explain the difference between GPL and LGPL (which
is a common question).
------------------------------
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 19:07:07 -0800
JD wrote:
> Since GPLed software isn't free (as admitted by others, like Jeffery, who admit
> to it's restrctions)
This misrepresents my position.
I said that the "GPL isn't free" because the GPL is a license, not a
piece of software.
Whether or not GPLed software is considered "free software" or not
depends entirely on how you define the term "free software." The
conversational English word "free" is not precise enough for this to be
unambiguously true or false without a domain-specific definition.
------------------------------
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 03:13:17 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:03:18 -0500, JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Sam Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:12:30 -0500, JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Sam Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> 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 :-).
>>
>> Free does not mean unrestricted. You can keep you delusion, it doesn't bother
>> me.
>>
>Free certainly doesn't mean highly restricted and encumbered like the GPL. You can\
>keep to your deliusion, it doesn't bother me. Perhaps, it saddens me a little, but
>those who will not be helped, cannot be :-(.
I don't consider the GPL highly restricted and encumbered. I have a copy of
some GPL'd software. I can run it however I like. I can modify it however I
like for my own use. I can copy the tarball I downloaded and give it to
a friend. I can make my changed publically available under the same
license as the original.
Just like I can with the BSD and the other free software licenses.
Anyway you can stay saddened and not try to help those who can not be
helped and I won't have to skip so much news due to the volume...
>
>Calling the GPL is now a proven lie, and you can continue -- but you know in your
>heart that you'd be a liar.
I don't actually. You haven't convinced me because instead of arguing a
rational point, you got hung up on word play. So I will continue to call the
GPL free and I will continue to believe I am being honest.
--
Sam
Basically, avoid comments. If your code needs a comment to be
understood, it would be better to rewrite it so it's easier to
understand. --Rob Pike in Notes on Programming in C, 1989
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No problem with multiple GUI's
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:22:54 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Goodwin quoth:
> In article <98mim6$cme$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> Switching from distribution to distribution is a waste of time.
>> Spending your time learning how to use the tools is not.
>
> I'm not terrible interested in "learning to use the tools".
As I said, you don't get it.
> I want to
> be productive now and get on with what I want, not tinker around the
> innards of the engine, trying to make it do what the machine could do
> on Windows with hardly any effort on my part.
linux's tools enable one to do things with little effort that are very
difficult to do on windows. The fact that I learned the system better,
faster, is simply an added attraction.
> Except for Mandrake. They push the header files all over the place.
> When I tried some of the KDE sample code, I had to rewrite the build
> files to get around Mandrake.
Yes, that is a valid critique.
>> Which explains why Mandrake is the fastest growing linux distribution
>> and why it has accounted for 20-30% of all distribution sales since
>> December. Mandrake might be a poor choice for someone who has been
>> using Debian or Slackware since 1994 ( then again I know plenty of
>> admins who have been using linux for a long time who love mandrake,
>> and I am one of them )
>
> Are you using Mandrake, or are you just reading their stats?
I've been using Mandrake probably since before you even heard of Linux,
Pete. My first distribution was debian in 1995-96.
> "Operator error"? I think not. More like "Installation script error".
Most people don't like owning up to their mistakes. Like not
installing certain fonts, looking for help files that one never
bothered to install on the machine, etc. Or even not bothering to take
the time during installation to verify what packages are being added.
It is then easy to go back and say "The installer did it."
--
Salvador Peralta -o)
Programmer/Analyst, Webmaster / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[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 20:09:48 -0700
Interconnect wrote:
>
> Will .NET cost me money?
Yes
> How much?
Lots
> Will it be a constant upgrade cycle?
As if there would be any other way.
> How much will the dev tools cost?
Your mean the subscription to use the tools.
> What will their upgrade cycle and associated costs be?
Plenty.
> Will .NET attempt to RAILROAD users to MS specific API's? so called
> *extensions* or *innovation*.
>
Time sensitive components requiring serialized, periodic updates to stay
active. If you stop paying Microsodt, your app will stop too.
> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:98ocna$2vs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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.
> >
> > MS wants all the new application to be build against .NET
> > If Linux can run .NET applications, then MS has broken the application
> > barrier. (Bye, Bye, wine, I'm no longer an alcoholist :-) )
> > You could run Office XP (or its viewers) on Linux, now, isn't that nice?
> >
> > > 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.
> > 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?
> > .NET has its advantages, why deprive Linux from them?
> >
> >
--
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: "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 22:28:04 -0500
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD wrote:
> > Since GPLed software isn't free (as admitted by others, like Jeffery, who admit
> > to it's restrctions)
>
> This misrepresents my position.
>
> I said that the "GPL isn't free" because the GPL is a license, not a
> piece of software.
>
> Whether or not GPLed software is considered "free software" or not
> depends entirely on how you define the term "free software." The
> conversational English word "free" is not precise enough for this to be
> unambiguously true or false without a domain-specific definition.
>
Free software is common sense free, and GPL'ed software is certainly not
common sense free. It has restrictions, and even you claim that BSDLed software
isn't free.
BSDLed software is free to redistribute, unless you give away your rights. GPLed
software isn't free to redistribute unless you follow the rules.
Thank You for being honest when you were: The GPL has restrictions by default
on redistribution. Therefore, it isn't free.
If you admit that the GPL isn't free, then you are honest. If you claim that it is
free, then you are obviously not honest. (It is really clear, especially understanding
that the GPL doesn't allow redistribution UNLESS you follow certain procedures.)
You apparently understand the issues, and claiming that it is free is a lie in your
case,
and is not due to ignorance.
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 22:35:34 -0500
"Sam Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:03:18 -0500, JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Sam Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:12:30 -0500, JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Sam Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >>
> >> >> 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 :-).
> >>
> >> Free does not mean unrestricted. You can keep you delusion, it doesn't bother
> >> me.
> >>
> >Free certainly doesn't mean highly restricted and encumbered like the GPL. You can\
> >keep to your deliusion, it doesn't bother me. Perhaps, it saddens me a little, but
> >those who will not be helped, cannot be :-(.
>
> I don't consider the GPL highly restricted and encumbered.
>
What YOU consider isn't important. The fact is that it is restricted and encumbered.
Even
the license makes the claim that you cannot redistribute the code without following
certain
procedures.
By default, you can give away BSDLed code UNLESS you do something wrong. I only claim
that the BSDL is 'free' for rhetorical purposes, but is certainly an example of a
license for
free software (at least MUCH freer than GPLed encumberware :-)).
You know that it is restricted and encumbred, and the magnitude of the restrictions
isnt' very important beyond the default inability to redistribute without following
certain rules.
Given that the code IS restricted and encumbered (no matter your opinion, the license
says so), then claiming that it is free is a lie. If it always let you give code away
unless
you did something wrong (e.g. claim that it is yours), then the code might be free.
GPL is just not free, and ignoring the incorrect claims that it 'IS', the description
of the
license doesn't show that it is free. It clearly restricts the code distribution. :-).
If you 'accept' the entire GPL (and not just the blind assertions), then you know that
it isn't free, and thank you for admitting it :-).
Kindly Hint:
Don't respond, unless you answer EVERY point with honesty and integrity. A response
that disagrees will likely show some lack of integrity (without you being VERY
careful.)
John
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Screen shots of linux software ?
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:34:09 +1300
Hi peter,
> I don't have a working linux system up right now, so I can't test
> anything out...
>
> But thanks for the link,
Well the link I posted was a web-based inventory system which allowed you
to try the system out using your browser, i.e.:
http://www.cccsoftware.org/demo/index.php
http://www.cccsoftware.org/demo/store/index.php
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
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 03:40:23 GMT
"Stefaan A Eeckels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Wouldn't that be a good thing? ;)
> >
> > Have you used any of the alternatives? Or tried to get more than a few
> > releases of the GPL-flavored Linux version to interoperate correctly
> > with anything else?
>
> I have Linux interoperating nicely with Solaris 2.6 & 8, HP-UX 11.0 and
> AIX 4.3.3. As a matter of fact, HP-UX has some serious problems with
> Solaris NFS.
Some versions worked, some worked if you find and apply patches,
some, especially the early 2.x kernel implementations don't. I once tried
using an early 2.x as a replacement for a Sun box whose drive died
as the server with a CVS repository for a bunch of other machines but
the lock directories consistantly failed to be removed.
> The goal is not to have only one implementation, but one good spec.
Doesn't that depend on how much the implementations and the spec
differ? This is something like the difference between theory and
practice. In theory there isn't any difference - in practice there is.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 03:40:24 GMT
"Sam Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 06:31:58 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >I think we are at about the point in the argument where it is
> >time to present some evidence that the restrictions are required
> >or even useful. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary in
> >terms of code that remains freely available without the GPL.
>
> g++. MCC would not have released a free C++ front end Except that the
> GPL on gcc forced them to.
Why is it a good thing to force people to do something against
their will?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
