Linux-Advocacy Digest #842, Volume #32 Sat, 17 Mar 01 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Dividing OS to groups. (J Sloan)
Re: Good place for server racks, etc ? (J Sloan)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (J Sloan)
Re: anti-ms favicon.ico file (J Sloan)
Re: Linux Joke (J Sloan)
Memory needed to run linux / X windows ??? (peter)
Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses! (Steve Chaney)
Re: GPL Like patents. (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: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Dividing OS to groups.
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 04:12:36 GMT
Peter Hayes wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 22:58:43 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Where does BeOS belong?
>
> Unix, isn't it?
No, it's not Unix, for sure, though it may have a few
unixy features. It's pretty much a one-off OS, I'd
throw it in with amiga, macos classic, etc.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Good place for server racks, etc ?
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 04:17:25 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> peter wrote:
> >
> > Can someone direct me to some good sites that carry server racks and
> > also; rack mountable computers and computer cases.
> >
> > I'm looking for a rack mount system that has four sides, so I mount
> > four computer and four people can access them at the same time.
> >
>
> http://www.google.com/ is your friend.
>
Yep it's my friend too - anything I need to find out
these days, I just type a phrase into google and
BAM!
Immediately there's a list of highly relevant links.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 04:23:02 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:28:07
> >In article <TSOr6.244276$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> > Bearing in mind Windows is _not_ absolutely useless, your comments are
> >> > worthless.
> >>
> >> You are right...All the best games run in Windows.
> >
> >And quite a lot of good software that easily outstrips what is
> >(laughingly) available on Linux.
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. No, its mostly the games, Pete. ;-)
Even so, I find more than enough games to run on Linux.
Far too many for me to even check out, let alone play with
any regularity.
Currently I play quake 3 arena, unreal tournament, sof
on Linux, and I need to cut back as is -
Looking forward to tribes 2 though...
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: anti-ms favicon.ico file
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 04:26:30 GMT
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> It was the Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:31:47 +1300...
> ...and Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [favicon.ico]
> > By the way Dan, Konqueror now supports these icons!
>
> An unwise decision. Supporting this kind of Microsoft frippery is
> exactly what makes people think that KDE are trying to clone Windows.
"frippery", how interesting....
I haven't seen that word since I read "til we have faces"...
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 04:33:00 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> Bsiasically, I trust the gcc maintainers to maintain gcc more than I trust
> RedHat to do the same. In other words, I trust gcc's "real" release more
> than I trust the unauthorised RedHat version.
What's "authorized" about the what you call the "real" gcc?
I mean, really, if one wanted to play that game, they could
claim that only a "real" compiler like the Sun Pro C compiler
counts, and all this silly gnu stuff is toys.
But back to the question of what is a "real" compiler:
Does red hat's gcc exist solely on the imaginary plane?
I don't think so, it works far too well be to be anything
but totally in phase with my world. I've been compiling
kernels and srpms like mad with it, and nary a problem.
The kernels have been run like tops, and the compiled
srpm packages have been running perfectly as well.
jjs
------------------------------
From: peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Memory needed to run linux / X windows ???
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 04:20:33 GMT
Right now I only have 32 megs of memory in the machine I'm building
for Linux. I would like to run X windows, will this be enough ? I'll
be using a cyrix p166 and a 4 meg trident card. As for what I will be
doing with this linux machine, I don't know yet, probably learning
about linux. Maybe I'll try some programming, who knows. I was going
to use Red Hat or Mandrake.
Eventually I'll turn this machine into a firewall/proxy/web server and
replace it with a faster machine, but for now it has to do.
peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Chaney)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,soc.singles,alt.bonehead.jackie-tokeman
Subject: Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses!
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 04:55:24 GMT
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 17:10:36 GMT, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 15 Mar 2001 01:10:08
>-0700;
>>"Masha Ku' Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>>windows is a pretty cool system. easy to install and easy to use. i like
>>it just fine.
>> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>>
>>men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
>>more even than death
>>- bertrand russell
>
>When I recently changed my .sig, I received several lame comments about
>how I wasn't following my own advice, using such a sig while flaming
>trollers rather callously. But that's nothing compared to "Jackie"
>here; one must presume he hasn't even managed to read his own sig, let
>alone understand what it says and its applicability to his own comments.
You do realize he got kicked out of high school, right?
-- Steve
===============================
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove the "-" to email me)
This site is just TOO COOL for a counter! http://www.self-acceptance.org
"As long as an enemy is judged solely by his
appearance, his victory is assured." - Outer Limits
STOP SMOKING NOW!!! ASK ME HOW!!! http://www.geocities.com/brenduh52/
The alt.bonehead.jim-dutton FAQ @ http://www.best.com/~paladin/jjd-faq.shtml
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:01:49 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 15 Mar 2001
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 13 Mar 2001
[...]
>>>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.
>
>No, Max, you don't get it. I am not prevented from doing anything, because,
>for one thing, I have no Amiga. The point is, the FSF distributes GPLd
>software that runs on the Amiga. They would seem to be saying that such
>distribution is legal.
>
>However, on the other hand they seem to claim that programs running in the
>same address space are derived works, making those same programs derived
>works of proprietary software (on the Amiga?).
The FSF doesn't say a word about "same address space"; AFAIK, that was a
random Usenet poster who brought that up. And this stuff which you
repeated is precisely what I was talking about when I commented that you
"need to existential" to even present your arguments, talking about same
address space of a computer you don't have.
>I see there a contradiction in the FSF position. I see it is a strong
>argument to ask which one of the seemingly contradictory interpretations of
>the GPL is the one the FSF actually supports. Get it?
I see you imagining a contradiction, and saying it is, for no apparent
reason, a "strong argument". I get it, yeah.
>It's A, or not A, or inconsistency. The FSF should choose.
I see a contradiction, as well, in the term "software" and copyright
law, too, as well as the latter's application to the former. Perhaps
you simply need to deal with the fact that you can't base your software
on GPL code without GPLing it. Your choice.
--
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: misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:02:06 GMT
Said Jeffrey Siegal in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 14 Mar 2001
>Craig Kelley wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> Tell that to Apple.
>
>They know already.
>
>> One of the reasons Darwin is BSD-based is because they could change it
>> and sell it. They have also back-ported several items into FreeBSD;
>> this is a win-win situation that free software can promote.
>
>In other words, they understood GPL and made a conscious decision not to
>use it. No problem with that.
>
>> The cost of entry is too high, in my opinion. Thanks for the
>> invitation, though (seriously). I have nothing but respect for those
>> who choose to use the GPL knowing all the ramifications of that
>> choice.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>> Linus could demand all sorts of license changes if he hadn't modified
>> his terms into a non-GPL form.
>
>This is a highly questionable assertion. There is a perfectly
>reasonable basis to believe that the loading of applications programs
>(which I'm assuming is what you are talking about, not drivers) is not a
>combination which is relevant from the point of view of GPL.
>
>> > > Microsoft was half correct in their recent appeal for avoiding the GPL
>> > > with government funds; by the same logic, we shouldn't use commercial
>> > > software with government funds either -- just absolutly *free*
>> > > software that anyone can use.
>> >
>> > If what you mean is "public domain", then say so -- that's the term for
>> > it. There is no reason to use the imprecise word "free" here at all.
>>
>> Public domain means there is no copyright; while it may seem the same,
>> it is technically different.
>
>I'm aware of that. What is the real, effective difference between
>software without a copyright and "absolutely *free*" software? The
>entire purpose of copyright is to create restrictions on copying,
>distribution, etc. If there are no restrictions at all, then the whole
>issue of copyright really is moot.
I think this line of questioning is very important, as it shows the
abstract nature of the underlying arguments. First, there is a
technical difference, it seems, between public domain and something
"without a copyright". For one thing, the latter (software, or any work
of authorship, without a copyright) is not possible, presently. As a
legal abstraction, it existed up until the mid 80s, I think, when the
Berne Convention was adopted almost globally. Secondly, the entire
purpose of copyright is not to "create restrictions on copying", really;
that is the *mechanism*.
The *purpose*, clearly indicated in the US Constitution, is to ensure
development of the "sciences and useful arts" by supporting an author's
"exclusive right to profit" from his work. I think we can all agree
that little deserves the full application of the phrase "sciences and
useful arts" as much as software, particularly given the 'fine arts', as
they would have been called, weren't necessarily included for
protection. I suppose that the legislature and the courts found that
any line between 'fine' and 'useful' arts is entirely subjective and
arbitrary, and refused to embed any such distinction in copyright law.
So "public domain" is a particular type of copyright protection;
effectively similar to 'no protection', but not at all the same as 'no
copyright', because you can claim full protection on a work *derived*
from public domain, as if it were a new work, but cannot claim any
protection on the public domain work itself, as you could if there were
"no copyright".
So copyright isn't meant to restrict copying, so much as to restrict
copying from preventing an author from exercising his exclusive right to
profit. Note that the authors "right to profit" doesn't actually
provide any particular level of profitability, though. I think that's
where the GPL discussion comes down to; "GPL isn't free" zealots seem to
believe they have a *right* to profit on what they received for free.
But the exclusive right to profit from a work accrues to the author,
according to copyright law; anti-GPL advocates would prefer the author
did not insist on that right, however, as the BSDL and other "open" as
well as "trade secret" licenses allow them to extract profit from some
other author's efforts. Some claim, with some reason, that software
development demands and requires this. Which accounts for the lack of
remorse by those who advocate the GPL's virus-like behavior in
"contaminating" commercially exploitable software, when possible. If
software development demands the reliance on other author's work, then
it's best if it's all GPL, as that's the only way of ensuring it *stays*
open for all author's use and contribution.
--
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: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:02:08 GMT
Said David Masterson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 15 Mar 2001
>>>>>> "T" == T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> [...] 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.
>
>I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the level of profit floats
>with the number of competitors" -- the level of profit is inversely
>proportional to the number of competitors (ie. the more competitors,
>the less profit)? Once the GPL kicks in on a product (after the
>first copy is delivered), though, it looks like the number of
>competitors (theoretically) goes to infinity (and your profit after
>the first copy goes to zero).
"Theoretically", the number of competitors was always close to infinity,
and has gotten only "theoretically" larger. Your costs have gone close
to zero (others will distribute your code without any cost to you), so
why *shouldn't* your profits go to zero? What, this is some sort of
magic incantation? Hell, no, its just code. Its worth about as much,
and cost about as much, as the words I'm typing now, depending on the
context.
>So, in a totally GPL'ed environment, you're saying that the first
>person (or group) pays for the solution -- everyone else gets it for
>"free" (in the monetary sense)?
Yup. Its methodology is a lot like "science" or "art", in that respect.
Software as intellectual pursuit, rather than as commercial
exploitation. Diamond drills, not diamond rings. MASSIVELY efficient,
if your goal is to have high quality low cost software for everybody who
wants it. Very scary, if your goal is to profiteer on ownership of
code.
>Some solutions can be quite expensive
>to create and yet be quite useful to a large number of people. In a
>perfect world, all of those people would step up and invest the
>resources to have the solution built thereby spreading the cost
>amongst all who benefit. However, this is the real world where most
>people are more likely to sit back and wait for someone else to do the
>work (the only question is who will chicken out first in the waiting
>game).
Yes, and the real world uses a *free market*, not profiteering, to sort
out how to most efficiently encourage production. You're saying that
without the ability to profiteer, no production will occur. I'm saying
that, though they may look incredibly small to you, the ability to
profit on distribution, implementation, maintenance, and development of
code and documentation is more than sufficient to ensure efficient
production.
>At what point does a copyright owner become a profiteer? Or are they
>all profiteers simply because they charge what the market will bear
>(if it didn't bear it, they'd be out of business)?
Yes, that is the question, isn't it. Effectively the same question the
circuit judges were asking the gov't attorneys during the oral arguments
for the Microsoft appeal. I will admit I don't have a plain and clear
answer which doesn't rest on anti-trust grounds. Still, isn't any
profiteer simply selling at "what the market will bear", since if they
weren't, they wouldn't be? I think the issue becomes whether you are
making profit because the supply is limited, or by limiting the supply.
And it is no coincidence that this is why the issue revolves around
whether open software is "free", either as a commodity or an expression
of ideas. If it is non-GPL, it can be used in a closed-source piece of
software, which raises what the market will bear by limiting the supply
of software which can substitute should the demand be greater than the
producer is willing to meet, for fear of reducing the scarcity of that
which he profiteers on.
So a working guideline may well be that a software developer crosses the
line between profit and profiteering when he doesn't provide open access
to his source code. If all software were open source, there would be no
need for GPL. Once all software is open source, there will be no need
for the GPL. This is why all of the attempts to make abstract the
"restrictions" of the GPL which supposedly make it "not free software"
(always and without exception mistaking 'free' for beer, rather than
speech) are empty posturing: it is the nature, not the number, of the
restrictions which is relevant. And that nature is that all software
developed *upon* GPL software must be GPL in order to ensure it remains
open. Free as in speech, not free as in beer.
--
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: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:02:09 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 16 Mar 2001 06:02:39
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
>
>Ummm, sorry, but it is in the real world that code freely available
>for any use is the model that has helped us the most, assuming
>you consider the almost universal ability to communicate via
>tcp to be a good thing. The alternatives you imagine are the
>ones that didn't happen.
You put the lie to your own position by recognizing your interpretation
of history as "[BSD is] the model that has helped us *the most*"
[emphasis added]. More than software that didn't exist?
Like I said; you are attempting to insist that because IP was popular
and you can come up with an arbitrary reason, your reason is the reason
IP was popular. Its a fatally flawed, meaningless argument. It also
ignores that the exact same characteristic which you trumpet for BSDL
directly allowed and even encouraged Microsoft's "business model".
While you *claim* that in an alternate reality, IP reference code being
GPL would have prevented the Internet from being available as it is
today (at least), this alternative you imagine is one that didn't
happen. Though were others imagining it, they would remark that IP was
popular because of its open standard protocol, not because of its easily
proprietized reference code, and GPL would have encouraged development
greatly, not only by preventing Microsoft itself, but anyone else, from
merely profiteering on the existing code. Those who profit from
value-add would be ahead due to their community development, while those
who wished to profit from ownership of code would have been forced to
accept the entirely appropriate expense of having to develop their own
code. The protocols were still more than available to them, and the
rapid development and adoption of the reference code itself (rather than
some indeterminate derivative of it in a badly implemented but
proprietary copy and paste job, such as Microsoft's original work) would
provide a very attractive *market*, in fact, if you suppose that there's
a free market for proprietary software to begin with. Personally, I
don't see why there would be, other than the chance to profiteer.
>> >> 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.
>
>That's a rather long-winded way of saying "I can't think of a single
>example that supports my unrealistic claim", isn't it?
Actually, it was "I can't think of a single example, and you haven't
provided any, of your unrealistic claim".
>And you still miss the point. The problem of not being able to
>reuse a reference code base is not just the cost of the continual
>reimplementations. The real problem is that they are almost guaranteed
>to have interoperability troubles and no matter how much it is in the
>interest of one vendor to correct a problem in another's code
>that keeps them from working together, they have no way
>to share fixes with each other.
You say that as if closed proprietary code somehow minimizes the chance
of interoperability troubles, and quite frankly that's a ludicrous idea.
They only have "no way to share fixes" because they've closed their
code! So how is allowing them to take previously open code and
incorporate it in their closed code supposed to help the situation?
--
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: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:02:10 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 15 Mar 2001
>On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Oh, maxine, you just don't get it, do you? You made a statement about all
>republics -- NOT one.
Wow, did I really? I suppose I disagreed with some text book somewhere,
then? Apparently, you just don't get it, do you, Austin?
--
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: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:02:11 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 16 Mar 2001 08:00:22 -0500;
>"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> FM wrote:
>>
>> >I think one important question to ask is, what makes GPL software
>> >free, where proprietary/commercial software isn't? It seems to me
>> >that a lot of arguments being thrown around here are of the variety
>> >that "no one forces you to use the software" which is somewhat odd -
>> >no license can affect my or your freedom in that regard.
>>
>> True. The difference is, you are *not* required to accept the GPL if you're
>> just going to use the software. The GPL only applies to people who want to
>> distribute the software (or a derived work).
>>
>But remember: FREE software is software that you can give to a friend, and choose
>to give any part of it, without any restrictions. (Modulo taking ownership for
>something
>that you didn't do yourself -- ie. STEAL.)
What a bogus argument. To wit:
But remember: FREE software is software that you can get from a friend,
and they cannot put any restrictions on your ability to choose to use
any part of it without any restrictions. (Modulo not give it away
equally FREE to anyone else.)
>GPLed software doesn't allow redistribution UNLESS you follow certain rules.
Freedom doesn't allow liberty UNLESS you follow certain rules. Called
laws. One of which is copyright. On which GPL is based, which results,
uniquely, in FREE software.
>Free software
>allows redistribution, unless you rescend your own right to redistribute.
That would be "free beer", not "free software". You don't have a right
to redistribute, therefore it cannot be rescinded.
--
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
******************************
