Linux-Advocacy Digest #821, Volume #32 Thu, 15 Mar 01 15:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: .Net to run on Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: There is money in Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: .Net to run on Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: .Net to run on Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (T. Max Devlin)
Re: GPL Like patents. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: GPL Like patents. (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: .Net to run on Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:15:52 -0600
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In this week's CT (issue #6) one of Microsoft's execs has written an
> in-depth article explaining just this (sorry it is not online, I just
> checked). He gave quite an interesting over view, and although he
> mentioned them only in passing, was remarkably frank about the current
> weaknesses in the Win API. However I think a few snags remain that will
> allow MS to continue its deplorable business tactics:
>
> 1. He specifically mentioned that VC++ will remain able to compile to
> binary code directly while using the .NET framework. In other words MS's
> primary development environment will be able to bypass the CLR.
Kindof. Visual C++ has Managed and Unmanaged code. Managed code targets
the CLR, Unmanaged is regular assembly. You can combine managed and
unmanaged code in the same executeable, removing the need for a native
interface.
This isn't the nasty thing you think it is, but rather a way for developers
to do things like access hardware through device drivers while still writing
the vast majority in managed code. Such applications seldom need binary
compatibility across platforms because they tend to be turnkey, and run only
on specific hardware.
> 2. I believe it was Bill himself who said that MS will never relinquish
> their proprietary data, even though they will wrap it in XML.
What proprietary data might that be?
> 3. As Ayende said, in order to qualify as a standard .NET must be
> implemented on more than one platform.
No, in order to qualify as a standard, it must be adopted by a standards
body.
> I know nothing of the workings of
> the relevant standards bodies, so maybe somebody can enlighten me on
> this: must .NET be implemented only at the protocol level in order to
> qualify? In other words, although .NET based objects may be accesible to
> all, as long as Microsoft makes the content meaningless to competitors
> (see point 2 above), they will maintain their hold on the applications
> barrier. I have the nagging feeling they will do to SOAP/XML what they
> have done to HTTP/HTML: add vendor specific content to drive off
> competitors, although they implement both standards.
Microsoft has not added any vendor specific extensions to HTTP. And HTML is
one of those languages that has thried *DUE* to vendor extensions. Usually
the extensions make it into the next standard, or at least a variation of
them.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is money in Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:18:29 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > Yet I get to hear about the odd Linux company whose stock is
slipping
> > and
> > > > sliding downwards.
> > >
> > > So is Microsofts stocks.... they around $56 / share now... back when
they
> > > started it was about $45 / share.
> > > That was in 1982.
> >
> > That would be quite a trick, since they didn't IPO until 1994, and they
were
> > founded in 1975.
>
>
> IPO = initial PUBLIC offering.
>
> It doesn't mean that the stock wasn't in existance before then. In fact,
> to incorporate, you MUST issue stock. Are you claiming that Microsoft
didn't
> incorporate until 1994?
The OP has already admitted he was thinking about another company.
> > Additionally, their stock price was over $100 on IPO, and has since
split 8
> > times, giving them an adjusted price (relevant to their IPO
price/shares) of
> > over $800 if they had never had any splits.
>
> Split 8 times, or have had 3 separate 2 for 1 splits which compound into
> what is effectively an 8:1 split.
No, there were 8 seperate 2 for 1 splits.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: .Net to run on Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:17:07 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:16:59
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On the server side only. MS realizes they have to support .NET for
>> Unix servers for .NET to have any chance at all at success since *nix
>> is still 3/4 of the web server market. You be sure only one client
>> will be supported.
>
>And if they don't supply a client, someone else will make it.
Yea, sure. Right. You're still pretty naive, Ayende, though you are
learning.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:17:06 GMT
Said Perry Pip in alt.destroy.microsoft on 14 Mar 2001 13:54:44 GMT;
>On 13 Mar 2001 01:23:55 GMT,
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 12 Mar 2001 17:02:48 GMT, Perry Pip wrote:
>>>On 5 Mar 2001 19:36:41 GMT,
>>>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>can't take constructive criticism that's your problem. What I brought
>>>up is whether the OS includes documention or if it costs extra. This
>>>is certainly relevant to OS pricing?? Yet you snipped what I said as
>>
>>oops, I didn't understand what you meant.
>>
>>Yes, it should be considered, but you need to consider the
>>two complete packages
>
>Yes.
>
>>and assess which is the most valuable to
>>the user.
>
>What is most valuable to the user is determined by other factors, not
>the products themselves. In particular, third parties that
>overwhelming support Windows and barely support Linux if at all. These
>include not only OEM's, Hardware manufacturers and software vendors,
>but contractors, consultants, and even friends. Basically, everyone
>supports Windows because everyone uses it. Few support Linux well
>becuase few use it. Linux can't get more third party support because
>few use it, and few use it becuase it gets littly third party
>support. A 'catch 22' as it's called, and this is what is meant by
>'barriers to entry'. Because these barriers exist, Microsoft is able
>to fix prices for a product that is in many ways of much lower
>quality.
Minor correction: because Microsoft willfully encourages, and even
spends millions to implement, these barriers to entry is what gives them
the ability to maintain prices above competitive levels.
Some clarification on nomenclature is in order, though, I think. When
you say "fix prices", Perry, it sounds like you're accusing MS of "price
fixing". They don't "fix prices", they maintain them above competitive
levels. And by "competitive levels", we mean *what Microsoft themselves
could charge* if they did not raise those barriers so high that none
could provide price pressure in the common market.
[...]
>>I'm afraid I don't have time to continue an intelligent discussion
>>with you, or a somewhat less intelligent discussion with Max
>>right now.
>
>When you make a controversial statement of Usenet, you should make
>time to defend it:) Your acknowledgement that Microsoft has a monopoly
>is in direct contradiction with your claim that Microsoft is unable to
>fix prices and that barriers to entry don't exist. The legal
>definition of a monopoly is the ability to fix prices. Thus your
>statement was self contradicting. Additionally in order for a monopoly
>to exist, barriers to entry must exist (otheriwise competiton would
>drive prices). So your denial that barriers exist is also in
>contradiction to your acknowledgement of monopoly.
I think your use of the term 'fix prices' actually supports Donovan's
point, Perry. Every vendor does "fix prices" in the way you mean
(though without the creation or maintenance of barriers to entry).
That's not the same as 'price fixing' (which is using price itself as a
barrier to entry; something MS obviously does not have to do, as neither
a $3000 ultra-professional OS, nor a free downloaded one, is capable of
replacing Win32), and its not the same as "controlling prices" (which is
maintenance of prices above competitive levels).
Donovan's point is, I think, that Microsoft doesn't obviously fix
prices; they don't necessarily use price at all to compete or even
maintain the monopoly. (I'd have a hard time supporting such an
argument, but it is at least rational, if not reasonable.) That simply
isn't how MS happens to do things, though it would be within their power
as a monopoly if they so chose (but at sacrifice of more valuable
barriers). But overall you are correct; Donovan's position is
self-contradicting, in that denial of the maintenance of prices above
competitive levels is denial of monopoly power, and MS has never failed
to exhibit monopoly power whenever and wherever possible.
Microsoft obviously charges much more than their software would be worth
competitively; it is in the nature of monopoly.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: .Net to run on Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:17:08 GMT
Said 2 + 2 in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:54:06 -0500;
>All it means is that software on the Windows platform can call apps
>(services) on another platform.
Oh, so *that's* how they plan to use .NET to kill other OSes; I was
wondering. Obviously, once they 'front end' every other OS, they can
just play their typical games making them suck, until the only OS to run
.NET on is whatever MS is monopolizing.
>It has nothing to do with .NET running on another OS.
Nothing has anything to do with .NET "running on" any OS. It has to do
with .NET running at all.
>The breakup order specifies that Microsoft will DIVEST the Windows OS.
No, it specifies they will divest everything but the OS. ;-)
>The .NET platform is a middleware "OS" kept by Microsoft. However, it has
>many purposes and was in development long before the case.
>
>For one thing, it replaces the Win32 framework.
Win32 "framework" is a middleware "OS" kept by Microsoft. However, like
.NET, it only has one purpose, to monopolize, and that never changes, so
whatever it is, it sucks, big time.
>.NET is best understood as the next generation of Microsoft's COM. You would
>need to understand their emphasis on component based software to understand
>it.
ITYM "you would have to buy into their lame bullshit to be stupid enough
to go along with it."
>A big emphasis is to get beyond the "dumb terminal" era of the internet with
>the integrated client.
You mean like Unix did, back in the 80s, when it invented client/server
computing and the Internet?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:17:10 GMT
Said David Masterson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 13 Mar 2001
>>>>>> "T" == T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I feel I must reject any argument, on the face of it, which attempts
>> to declare that without profiteering, some facet of modern
>> technology 'would not have been possible'. Such a position is
>> self-defeating.
>
>Really!?! Are we not all "profiteers" at heart?
No, not at all; most people are decent and honest.
>Its just that the
>term "profit" has different meanings for different people. Profitting
>from your work would seem to be anything but 'self defeating'.
Indeed, but you'll notice that the term "profit" is not the same as
"profiteer".
>I think a strong case could be made for saying that, if there was not
>a strong case for "profit" (in the monetary sense) from the work done
>on many projects, then the investment money necessary to fund the
>development of those projects would not have been forthcoming. While
>the development of such a project may still have been 'possible', it
>would have taken _*considerably*_ longer for the project to come to
>fruitition.
It was done; you have no right to demand any particular level of profit
in perpetuity simply because you were the one who did it first, no. You
have the right to a reasonable profit for having done it, and the level
of profit floats with the number of competitors who have also done it.
This provides the efficiencies of production provided by the capitalist
free market system. Profiteering, however, is qualitatively different,
and is far more akin to extortion that making a profit on honest work or
invested capital.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:17:12 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 13 Mar 2001
14:24:36 -0500;
>On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said phil hunt in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:25:08
>>> T. Maxine:
>>>> The US is a democracy. A particular form of democracy, known as a
>>>> Republic;
>>> Actually, it's the other way round: a democracy is a type of republic.
>> Yes, as I said; a republic is a form of democracy. ;-)
>
>False, maxie.
Quibbling, Austin, with the enthusiasm of one who is not just a pedant,
but a bore. Epistemological posturing aside, our republic is a form of
democracy, whether all are or not.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:17:13 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 14 Mar 2001 05:44:02
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >But that isn't even the principle. Copyleft has "I won't share (this)
>> >with you if you won't share (everthing of yours that uses it) with
>> >the world".
>> >
>> >You don't see anything wrong with that? I do on many counts. First, in
>> >typical GNU-speak, it isn't sharing at all; it's trading of valuable
>> >intellectual property rights (as is done by the "evil" corprorations).
>>
>> The GPL is anti-competitive, I agree. But it is sharing, *real*
>> sharing.
>
>Real sharing with restrictions...
Yea; you have to share. Some restriction.
>> Not "sharing for a fee".
>
>Instead of a fee, it demands political concessions. You are restricted
>from sharing unless you allow them to control your behaviour.
No, unless you're willing to share yourself. You obviously aren't
willing to share. I can understand that; it takes a lot of confidence
to be so sure in your ability to actually provide something worth buying
without any "leverage". In an ideal world, as I've said before, I'd
agree with you that authors should be able to directly profit on the
ownership of their work, so they don't have to try to "add value" to
their own product just to make a profit. But the problem is, we don't
live an ideal world, and despite your claims to the contrary, consumers
are far more hampered by the constant profiteering then they would be by
an inhibition of development caused by the GPL.
>>The only people who have a problem
>> with the GPL are people who don't want to share.
>
>Or people who thing others should make their own choices.
When it has been proven quite clearly that those choices cause a great
deal of problems for everyone, yea.
>> It isn't the
>> intellectual property rights, but the value of them, which is the issue.
>
>Will you trade away your ability to make your own decisions for
>a bit of code?
Certainly not; that's why I support the GPL so strongly.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:17:11 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:13:57
[...]
>> Had BSDL not allowed re-proprietizing of code,
>> perhaps vendors which wished to interoperate with TCP/IP would have had
>> to actually write software to do it, instead of just profiteering off of
>> somebody else's work.
>
>This isn't a figment of someone's imagination here. There were other
>competing protocols that could have been used. TCP is the one
>that anyone was allowed to use. And they did.
I never said it was a figment of your imagination that IP is popular,
Les. Just that your arguments second-guessing why it was ultimately
widely implemented (indeed to the exclusion of almost all others) was
because of any one specific thing, let alone the particular one specific
thing you'd like to attribute it to.
The fact is, the entire argument is bogus; completely meaningless. It
might make a cool "parallel universe" story, but it doesn't mean a darn
thing otherwise.
>> I feel I must reject any argument, on the face of it, which attempts to
>> declare that without profiteering, some facet of modern technology
>> 'would not have been possible'. Such a position is self-defeating.
>
>How so? Overwhelm me with your examples of advancing
>technology that exists in spite of the fact that everyone who
>produces it loses money.
You make my argument for me, I'm afraid, but pointlessly and
prejudicially insisting that "everyone who produces it loses money."
Everyone who produces anything has to spend money; your argument is that
if they hadn't gotten IP for free, but had to actually spend money
developing their own implementation of the protocol, they wouldn't have
used it. This is idealistic, if not simply bogus. And there is every
reason for consumers to believe that "having" to actually spend money
developing software is not an extraordinary expense to expect the people
you pay for software to undertake.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:17:14 GMT
Said Jay Maynard in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 13 Mar 2001 19:33:51 GMT;
>On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:55:41 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>One profiteer of BSD software can make future *licenses* of all future
>>software more restrictive ("non-free"); this cannot happen with GPL,
>>which is the entire point.
>
>Pure unadulterated horse exhaust.
>
>If this were the case, M$, or Sun, or any one of a thousand other companies,
>could prohibit further development and distribution of BSD. A visit to
>www.netbsd.org will demonstrate this to be utterly false.
Perhaps you should wait for someone to support your "if" before you
unilaterally declare your "then" to prove the point.
>There is *NOTHING* that M$ can do that will prohibit me from running NetBSD,
>now or ever.
Quite true, in a rhetorical and useless sort of way. Theory aside, you
haven't any way of even imagining how prohibited you have been.
>>That's pretty much the point. I suppose that is why you go on with this
>>silly ranting about how "GPL-is-not-free". It is a fact, not an
>>assumption, that GPL software is free. You cannot change that nature,
>>as you can other, less free, software using other open source licenses.
>
>More unadulterated horse exhaust. You *CANNOT* change the fact that BSD is
>now and will forever be free, free to acquire, free to run, free to
>redistribute. Neither can anyone else.
Nor can you change the fact that Microsoft Windows is not, and never
will be, and supposedly "earns" a large portion of its BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS in capital extracted from helpless victims on code which it cut
and paste from BSD.
Thanks for all your freaking help, man. No wonder the RMS wrote the
GPL.
>If people wouldn't repeat this utter falsehood, I wouldn't be compelled to
>keep pointing out its falsity.
Perhaps if you had some way to explain why it is a falsehood, other than
your naked and otherwise unsupported contention. You sound just like
Microsoft, insisting it can't possibly have a monopoly because there's
no law against running Linux.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:17:16 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 13 Mar 2001
>Rob S. Wolfram wrote:
>
>>>> How do the two processes communicate? Via RPC-like constructs? Then I'd
>>>> say the two processes are not the same program.
>>>
>>>Windows has a mechanism for marshelling COM objects so they can
>>>be run in or out of the calling process. I don't completely understand
>>>the details, nor do I see how they could affect the decision of whether
>>>the two parts are derived from each other.
>>
>> Simple. The "same address-space" argument.
>
>Sorry, I can't find any reference to "same address-space" in the GPL ;-)
>
>>Your process does a JMP to
>> another part of memory and starts executing code. If this code is part
>> of library whether being called via dlopen() or just by being an
>> integral part of your program (in case of a static link) makes no real
>> difference IMHO, the final executed code is one integral part.
>> If you have some communication protocol between two seperate processes,
>> I'd say the code of one process is not derived from the other.
>
>What about GPLd programs in a single-memory-space multitasking environment?
>Are they illegal to port to such a system? Are all the Linux/Amiga ports
>illegal?
That's the point, Roberto; you have to get existential to have the
problems you seem to think make some sort of strong argument against the
GPL, simply because you are prevented from doing things 'the easy way'
by your own prior use of it.
>They *are* running in the same address space as any proprietary program in
>the system. Or is it just illegal to use non-GPLd software in such a
>system? Wouldn't that be a use restriction, outside the GPL's scope?
The fact is, half your arguments against GPL in this manner wouldn't
pass first muster in copyright court. This is why the essential problem
with BSDL such as Les advocates is actually the closing of code *based
on* other code, not closing of some putative "original version". We all
know the way it works in the real world: the defining point of copyright
for commercial purposes is not where you can prove infringement, but
where you can get a preliminary injunction. And when the code is
closed, that point is too far for any honest victim to support, and when
the code is open, that point is too close for any profiteer to bear.
Which is why the defining point of GPL is the guarantee that all derived
code will likewise remain open. If you can't stomach that, its somewhat
understandable. But it is a fact that it has been a problem, or the GPL
wouldn't have the support it does. Regardless of how many people may
not fully appreciate the ramifications of the GPL, there are enough who
fully comprehend the 'problem' you guys are referring to, and reasonably
understand it to be a preferable situation to commercial profiteering of
closed source software.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:17:17 GMT
Said Rob S. Wolfram in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 13 Mar 2001 13:38:16
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Rob S. Wolfram wrote:
>>> The GPL talks about distributing code. If you would distribute your
>>> binary with your BCDN library, then (legally) you intend it to be used
>>> with that library and even if RMS would dance tango with the devil it
>>> would still not be a violation of the GPL whether the user links against
>>> a GPL library or not.
>>> If, however, your BCDN library is just a stub during compile time, and
>>> you distribute a factually incomplete binary with the sole purpose of
>>> being linked against a GPL library (because that's the only binary
>>> compatible library "in the wild") then I'd say there's no legal
>>> difference with distributing it along with the GPLed library, so yes,
>>> I'd say that it would constitute a violation of the GPL.
>>
>>And who is violating the GPL? Consider that to violate the GPL one first
>>has to accept it, of course.
>
>It depends on whether the you can be legally assumed to have accepted
>the GPL by writng code that can only be linked against that code.
[...]
>>> So the factual solution is to also publish the stub and tell people that
>>> they can link against either library (however I'd say this is already a
>>> gray area, because the two linked versions do not have the same
>>> functionality).
>>
>>The GPL doesn't mention functionality anywhere. Copyright law is based on
>>books and mentions functionality nowhere.
>
>I think it does, that's what "intellectual property" is based upon. Fact
>is, your program linked against the fully functional GDBM lib is not the
>same as your program linked against a do-nothing stub.
>
>>Are we now saying that the FSF pushes interface copyrights? I thought the
>>boycotted Apple over that ;-)
>
>I dunno. I'd say the word of a judge would be welcome. BTW, I am not a
>member of, nor speak in behalve of the FSF. I'm just a supporter of
>their cause.
Actually, Roberto makes a good point, here, as you seemed to support
with your opening line. How could a program infringe if it only used
the API of a library? The API is not protected. This would seem to
indicate the point at which RMS' opinion becomes fractured through
extremism.
It seems to me that his more severe opinions of how restrictive the GPL
is certainly wouldn't stand up in any court. And if the defendant kept
their source code a trade secret, there would be insufficient evidence
to support an injunction, resulting in legal consideration only of the
copyright protection, which doesn't extend to APIs, whether a program
author uses dynamic or static links, or even if the only library
supporting the API is GPL. I would suppose this is the true explanation
of the LGPL; they needed a license that would be legally supportable.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
