Linux-Advocacy Digest #862, Volume #32 Sun, 18 Mar 01 03:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
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: the truth about linux ("Masha Ku' Inanna")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and misleading claims about GPL software being
free ("JD")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses! ("Masha Ku' Inanna")
Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: GPL not being free doesn't mean that the license is invalid. (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie! (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 08:18:08 +0200
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:30:36 +0200,
> Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> >"JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:Pjws6.356$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> >> Of course, there is. GPL doesn't solve that problem, partially because
> >embrace
> >> and extend is a standards/specification issue. Implementation is only
a
> >small
> >> part of the problem. Microsoft can easily rewrite an incompatible
TCP/IP,
> >without
> >> copying any code from GPL or BSDLed works. Kerberos was an example of
a
> >> specification issue also. No source code required...
> >
> >What scares me is something like :
> >This specification is released under the GPL, the specification is to be
> >treated as the source code, an implentation, whatever as a source code or
> >any other form, should be considered as the compiled result.
> >
>
>
> got any examples of someone saying this?
Not *yet*, but I've examples of people GPLing data, and saying that anything
you do with it you must give back.
ftp://www.freedb.org/pub/freedb/COPYING
ftp://www.freedb.org/pub/freedb/README
<Qoute>
For purposes of interpreting the GPL in connection with this work: The
database is distributed in the form of plain text files. These
will generally be processed into to another form. The text form should
be considered "source code" and the other form should be considered a
"compiled program".
</Qoute>
------------------------------
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 01:39:18 -0500
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> If you call that a proof, you have a funny definition of logic.
>
There was no proof in the text that you quoted. Please look elsewhere,
and criticize what was written (not HOW it was written.)
Paraphrasing part of the discussion, and sufficient to demonstrate the
fallacy about the GPL license being a license of free software.
Basically, free software has weak (no) limitations on use and redistribution,
and the GPL has strong limitations on redistribution. In fact, by default, you
have to read the text of the GPL 'checklist' to make sure that you comply. Even an
average user can easily have problems complying the the restrictions
associated with the GPL. The restrictions with the GPL are more likely to
impact a commercial user, but this shows that the restrictions are effectively
discriminatory (a desirable, but non-necessary aspect of free software.)
With free software licenses, a USER has NO limitations that the license restricts
the redistributing of code, in whole or in part. With free software licenses,
a user can give up some of their freedom to redistribute (e.g. mention the
code in advertising), but that was certainly a voluntary act. A normal user
will not 'advertise' the code before giving it to their friend. Of course,
with free software, a user can give software away in whole or in part, and
requires no additional work or research to be shared, even given modified
works. Additionally, Note that software distributions sometimes do modify
themselves as a result of user activities during running (e.g. databases, datafiles, or
runtime interpreted operations.) This is, of course, not a major issue, but
is an issue nonetheless.
The above paragraph, and understanding the GPL (redistribution restrictions and
requirements) is certainly sufficient to demonstrate the GPL is not free. RMS talks
so much about 'sharing' in his docs, and the license actually doesn't allow
'sharing' of binaries (the user's tools) UNLESS the user complies with a checklist.
Given the
'sharing' is one of the important effects of the GPL, it is inconsistant
even with a major goal. Free software doesn't have that problem.
If you respect the text of the GPL license, and the fact that free software allows
both free use and redistribution, then it is clear that GPLed only
works aren't free. (Parallel licenses might free the software, but that is
a different, straw argument.)
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 01:41:23 -0500
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 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.)
>
> That's your definition of free software.
>
RMS also uses it as a justification of the GPL (give it to your friend.)
Software that can just be used includes Microsoft software. The major key to
free software is that it can be given to other people, with no cost, additional
licensing, bookeeping, research, etc.
John
------------------------------
From: "Masha Ku' Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the truth about linux
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 01:43:32 -0500
> > Here are some humorous snippets from a site located at
http://members.aol.com/erichuf/Linux.html
> >
> > Finally! somebody willing to tell the truth!
>
> Nah, just another silly troll....
>
> jjs
>
Remarkably, this ridiculous article sounds like any of the scores of
irritatingly patronizing religious tract-booklets out there, that tell you
the "truth" of any thing else OTHER than their point of view.
But I've been thinking, since I read it..
One thing that I have always wondered about the pro Linux vs the pro MS
people is that one of the main arguements is that "in order for Linux to
improve, it should be given X functionality, just like Windows has.."
Or that "Linux needs to be more Windows-like" to ever succeed.
Why?
Isn't the main strength of Linux precisely that it is NOT Windows?
Granted, there is a good deal of "configuration" possible through very
flexible text-based config files, and that for many this approach is
intimidating. But how difficult is it, in reality, when you've only been
exposed to one way to handle things in a prior OS?
Most Linux/UNIX installs are meant to be done once, and total re-installs
are not meant to be the solution to a loused-up install. But this is
generally par for the course for that "other" OS. The GUI is a tool, like
anything else in Linux/UNIX. The GUI in Windows is a necessity, because it
is the only way to interact with the lower levels of the OS. You can screw
up quite a few things with Linux and still not resort to a complete
reinstall of the OS.
You cannot say the same with a considerable degree of certainty under
Windows.
Case in point: In my use, I have needed to reinstall Windows for grotesquely
dumb reasons. Disable the wrong service or delete the wrong registry key, it
generally results in a completely unuseable desktop. If you cannot interact
with the very service/program that you mis-configured to fix the problem,
and if the GUI is impossible to work with to get results done, as a result
of you screwing up, in effect, the OS has locked you out of fixing it. Time
to reinstall.
Even if things are loused up greatly with the UNIX environment, booting into
single-user mode and a few edits to the appropriate files is generally all
it takes.
I admit, I do not know UNIX like I would like to. My most current platform
is Windows. But the more I use UNIX the more I see a subtle elegance to it.
Whenever I cripple my Windows box through something stupid I do on my part,
and am forced to reinstall, I find myself wishing that Windows were more
UNIX like, not vice-versa --- not for UNIX to be more Windows like because I
know that it is not considered a "fix" to resort to reinstalling the OS.
That is a sign of capitualiation, a reboot, or a reinstall. IT should not
have to be accepted as a normal way to fix problems with the OS. It is an
extreme method of fixing things, when everything you've done has failed and
you have not other recourse.
I do not wish for the UNIX environment to be more "Windows-like". I would
not ever wish for that to happen. I would rather learn something more
in-depth about my OS so that when something breaks with it, I can fix it,
and not rely on expensive tech-support through phone-based menus, rude
staff, and generally advice along the lines of the same "reinstall the
program and/or OS" to fix things -- the ubiquitous "recovery CD."
More than anything I'd love to see Windows grow more UNIX like, in
flexibility, stability, useability, reliability and raw ability.
Were UNIX to be more Windows like and less UNIX-ish, that would destroy the
very thing that makes it so elegant.
At best, we'd be left with a Windows clone that is remarkably stable.
Or at worst, were UNIX to be more Windows like, would that not mean that
UNIX would have to crash at random times, lock up when you sneeze too hard,
and require bigger/better/more hardware to support the newest version,
alienate users of version 4.6d because your current release is version 4.6g,
expose you to incredibly security risks that script-kiddies have a field day
exploiting AND all the while tell you in commercials that "the best is yet
to come.." with a pencil-necked twit at the helm of a single company that
markets the whole notion that "it's cool to be fooled" with a smile?
------------------------------
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 misleading claims about GPL software
being free
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 01:56:23 -0500
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Allowable restrictions for free software:
> >> >1) Credits.
> >> >2) Hold harmless.
> >> >3) Legal requirements for export.
> >>
> >> These are your subjective restrictions for determining when software is
> >> free.
> >>
> >Any more restrictions take away the freeness of the software.
>
> As do these. I am not allowed to redistribute BSDLed software without
> retaining the copyright notice. So I cannot freely redistribute it. So
> it is not free software.
>
That *might* be true, but the copyright notice of any owned software needs
to be carried somewhere. It is certainly true that defacing the ownership statement
of software probably implies criminal conversion, and the copyright law/precedent
supports the notion that software can have copyright statements embedded somewhere.
I do claim that free software can be owned, but freely licensed. If someone
claims that isn't true, yet have called the GPL 'free', then they lie (again.)
Given the fact that free software can be owned, but must be licensed with
a license that allows it to be free, then the fact that copyright law (and the
mechanism that supports the license) allows identification of the ownership,
IT IS NOT inconsistant that someone cannot deface the copyright statements
on free software. (Gawd, thats contorted!!! It is late, I'll try again.)
1) A copyright claim/statement is useful for the ownership claim, and isn't really
a part of the license.
2) A license that allows free use and redistribution indicates the freeness of the
software. The license is the actual right to use/redistribute based upon the
copyright
(ownership) claim.
3) By allowing the defacement of the copyright and license statement, then the license
becomes suspect, without careful parallel documentation.
So, it isn't true that simply requiring the copyright and/or license to be left intact
makes software unfree. In fact, modifying the copyright and/or license can make
ownership and license issues more confusing than they already are!!! So, in order
to SUPPORT the freeness of a piece of software, it should be required that the
copyright
and license (wherever they are) be maintained and modified only as allowed.
This thought process has actually shown that I have probably done wrong on some
of the BSDLed code that I have worked on (by adding my name to an existant copyright.)
I should have added another entire copyright with my free (unrestrictive) license
terms.
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:12:24 -0500
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Note that it is TRUE that if you have a copy of BSDL'ed software, you can pass
> >it on with NO restrictions. There might be some limitations as to other use,
> >but you can freely redistribute it.
>
> That is a blatant and deceitful lie. You are *not* allowed to
> redistribute the software *unless* you either retain the copyright
> notice, list of conditions and disclaimer (when redistributing source)
> or have your program produce these (when distributing binaries).
>
Please look at the FreeBSD source code, and you'll notice that each file
contains the copyright notice, and as such can be given to a friend. Your
claim ends up being circular if you think that removing a copyright from
a piece of code is legal to begin with. If we start talking about felonies
and misdemeanors, then all bets are off to begin with..
I suggest that your claim about a lie is overstated. Perhaps it is you who are
trying to hard to find something that isn't there (like a lie?)
My statement still stands: YOU CAN PASS BSDL'ed code to a friend, with no
restrictions upon that activity. If you have a usable program under the BSDL,
it is safe to give to a friend. If you have a modified usable program under the
BSDL, it is safe to give to a friend. (That is, unless the copyright message has
been removed from it, but that is not allowed under the copyright law itself.)
Under the GPL, the above isn't true, there are specific and SUBSTANTIAL redistribution
restrictions ABOVE AND BEYOND THE COPYRIGHT LAW ITSELF.
Are you starting to reduce the argument to the absurd and claim that our discussion
isn't predicated upon International Copyright Law and other civil laws? Perhaps the
lies associated with the GPL indicate a more severe problem than what I have been
seeing, even with you?
Everything that I argue is predicated upon ethics, morality and the law. If we start
violating all reasonable rules, then it appears that you might be farther gone than
I had realized? I thought that you might be disagreeing with me, but civil and
law abiding? Lets not weasel into discussions like: What if an atomic bomb is
dropped, and the source code is lost? :-) Okay?
John
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 07:03:15 GMT
Adam Warner wrote:
> Pete do the honourable thing, shut the **** up, and submit a bug report.
I've submitted a bug report, and as long as people bill Linux distros as
"Windows killer", no, I won't shut up.
> I'm currently using Pan 0.9.6 CVS. It's getting close to a 1.0 release
> and there's still bugs to iron out. Some of the bugs I have submitted
> have been fixed in less than a _day_.
KDE 2.1 is listed as a _stable_ release. That doesn't mean all bugs are
out, but you'd think major ones like crashing or taking out the desktop
would not be there!
> And you think you've helped the cause of anti-Linux advocacy by posting
> about a crash in a ***0.4*** release of an application? Get a clue.
If KDE are supplying beta test software with a _stable_ release, what's the
point?
--
Pete
Running on SuSE 7.1, Linux 2.4, KDE 2.1
All your fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: "Masha Ku' Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses!
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:11:51 -0500
<snip>
> Everyone needs to come to the realization that both the GUI and the CLI
have a
> place. In fact the ultimate interface, a seamless merger between the two
> where at any point one can mix and match and flow between the two, doesn't
> really yet exists.
>
> But GUI only users need to understand that just because they have issues
with
> CLI or have no desire to use it doesn't mean that CLI isn't important and
> therefore should be deprecated.
>
> Forcing one or the other isn't the answer. At minimum a peaceful
coexistance
> and at best a seamless merger is required.
Remember AmigaDOS?
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 07:04:09 GMT
Adam Warner wrote:
> Even though I have never used knode to post a message, help tells me that
> the project home page is knode.sourceforge.net. There is a place to submit
> bug reports and a mailing list. The FAQ may also answer some queries.
I submitted a bug report to bugs.kde.org
--
Pete
Running on SuSE 7.1, Linux 2.4, KDE 2.1
All your fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: GPL not being free doesn't mean that the license is invalid.
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 07:10:04 GMT
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 01:03:43 -0500, JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|>
|> JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> >
|> >"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|> >> Are you not free because you cannot consider someone else's property
|> >> your own?
|> >>
|> >Further nonsense straw claims (not made by me, but sound like GPL
|> >arguments) elided.
|> >
|> >I haven't been making the silly claims that compare my freedom with
|> >software being free.
|> >
|> >Every author has the right to control the disposition of their work
|> >(within the constraints of the law.) It doesn't make any sense that
|> >when constraints beyond the minimum are imposed, to call software
|> >'free.' It is quite silly, in fact to call something 'free', and then
|> >impose restraints beyond the minimum.
|>
|> As people have told you in length in another thread, there is already a
|> name for software that has no constraints beyond the minimum: public
|> domain software.
|>
|That is self evident, but there is software that maintains ownership title,
|yet allows free use and redistribution... That is called free software...
|GPL isn't free software.
|
|If we can agree that free software can allow the maintenance of title
|to the software by the author, then we can agree. If you claim that restrictions
|are necessary for software to be 'free software', then we'll never agree because
|of a basic logical inconsistancy.
|
|I claim that free software can allow 'ownership' by an individual who
|allows free redistribution and usage. Some free software might allow
|some MINIMAL restrictions on free redistribution and/or usage... The
|test of free software is that if an average user can simply give a copy
|or a partial copy to a friend (or other entity on a non-discriminatory basis)
|without any checking for the limitations and still comply. An average user
|cannot necessarily represent that an entire distribution has been unmodified,
|is complete, the lineage or version, or many other factors. BSDL is very close
|and probably meets that criteria for free. GPL doesn't meet that criteria.
So, you are saying that this "average user" can *FORGET* that they have modified and
recompiled some of the sorce code for their distribution?
Besides, if a friend asks for a copy of a distribution (do you mean a Linux
distribution,
like RedHat, or is this just me reading to much into your posting?) the normal
response would be to give them a copy of the original CD (or loan/give it to them).
When workmates ask me for a copy of RedHat, that's what I do. What I *wouldn't* do
is burn a copy of my installed software for them.
Also, you do realise that you are not *required* to pass along the sorce code at the
same
time as you pass along the compiled binary. You *are* required to supply the source
code
on request (or point them to where you got it from, in the case of friend to friend
small-scale copying).
|The reason for the above definition is very logical and straightforward: Free
|software can be freely redistributed (or used), in part or as a whole. This is
|especially
|critical for those who are not license savvy, and the issue of modified code
|is sometimes a problem, because software distributions do get partially modified
|upon installation, use or other situations. The issue of source code lineage
I have yet to see installation or use that modifies the source code to an application.
Care to provide an example?
|(either physical or virtual access) can become difficult under enough circumstances
|to make GPL non-free based upon that fact alone.
|
|One reason why I provide the 'share with a friend' notion as an example
|of GPL's restrictiveness is because Stallman does, and it shows that he
|is inconsistant in that goal of being able to share. Share with a friend isn't
|a sufficient criteria, but is certainly necessary.
|
|The notion or claim that the GPL is free has been clearly refuted in other threads
|(with some help by you), and the goal has been met.
The source code (concidered an an anthopmorphic entity) is certainly free. Nobody
can lock it up in a commercial/restricted access application.
The users are somewhat restricted in what they can do with it.
I certainly concider laws that prevent somebody locking me in their back room and
forcing me to work at slave labour as laws that *increase* my fredom, despite the
restrictions they put on other peoples behaviour.
|Kindly suggestion: Please don't insult me by talking about public domain
|software... You have been disagreeable, but only slightly dishonest in some
|of your claims, and reducing an argument to the absurd only increases your
|apparent dishonesty. Disagreeable is acceptable, but dishonest or misleading
|is a bad thing. That problem seems to be common in the GPL-being-free
|circles, but you don't have to lower yourself to it.
|
|I am having fun this weekend, only spending a few minutes on this stuff, but
|I'll be back soon!!! :-).
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 07:05:00 GMT
Marion wrote:
> Dont talk about every fart of your misconfigured OS, looser ! Go play
> around with an abacus, boring idiot. Blame yourself and have a nice
> DOS 6.2 installation which fits all your needs, you neutered bastard.
> You're not worth any reasonable OS.
If taking the default results in a neutered OS (your words, not mine), then
what does that say about Linux?
--
Pete
Running on SuSE 7.1, Linux 2.4, KDE 2.1
All your fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 07:05:25 GMT
"cat wrote:
>> Astonishing. You got KNode crashing ? How did you manage this ? ...
>
> Knode dumps more core than an apple butter cook-off. At least in kwm 1x
> under redhat.
This is KDE 2.1 with KNode 0.4
--
Pete
Running on SuSE 7.1, Linux 2.4, KDE 2.1
All your fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:19:53 -0500
"Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:54:19 -0500;
> > > >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.
> > >
> > > And I'd estimate that the number of people who claim GPL isn't "free
> > > software" are similar to those who want to charge money for licenses of
> > > work based on free software.
> > >
> > That is strictly not true, because most people who really don't like the GPL,
>
> Oh they don't, do they? Specifically what class of people did you count
> in your "most" qualifier? What methodology did you use in counting
> them, and where is your research published and peer reviewed? You _do_
> have some basis for this statement, beyond your own previous rhetoric,
> don't you?
>
Okay, your right... People just don't like the GPL because it is a bad license then?
:-).
Look, those who don't like the GPL will have one of two reasons (perhaps more):
1) The license is bad.
2) The people associated with it are untrustworthy, and have caused problems
due to their misleading information.
Which one do you prefer? I have found that in serious discussions, that when carefully
questioned, the problems with the GPL have been because of the disappointing
restrictions
associated with it. There would be NO disappointment if there were no restrictions or
if
they didn't believe that the license was a license of free software from the beginning.
So, your claim that reason (2) above isn't true, and people really claim that they
don't
like the GPL, then it means that the license itself is bad for them.
If you want a peer reviewed paper about the defects in the GPL, you MIGHT not like
the answers.
John
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 07:11:02 GMT
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> Pete, I find it rather ammusing that a developer (which you claim you
> are), is quite willing to dish out the shyte, yet, never make ANY effort
> to fix the
> problem.
I am a developer, and I've been one a long time now.
If the Linux crowd can't take criticism, but love to dish it out for
Windows, then I'll call you a hypocrit.
> Personally, I have very little programming skills, however, if I
> was in your position I would have tracked the problem down (by looking at
> the crash
> log), the search through the source code and mend the problem.
I don't see it as my function to fix other people's software.
> But of
> course,
> that would require a little grey matter and selflessness on your part.
I repeat, I don't see it as my function to fix other people's software.
> Oh, and by the way, Knode is not the only news reader available for Linux,
> I have been using Netscape Communicator 4.76 for a while now (and just
> recently, I now have
> a Sun Blade 100), and have had no problems. No crashes, lock-ups, etc,
> so, what you are saying, I would take with a truck of salt, because
> obviously, you have no intention of actually using Linux as and OS, but to
> complain about something you can actually fix!
I used Netscape for a long time. It crashes too much, and with Netscape 6
it took a real nosedive with reliability. I tried using the newsreader in
Netscape but after it corrupted its news database for the umpteenth time I
switched to XNews on Windows.
On KDE I found KNode to be nice, pleasant newsreader.
As for your last comment, I am using Linux right now, and as for being able
to fix the problem, you think all developers have the time to do that sort
of thing? Or that I'm some kind of wizard that I can just walk in and
figure it all out?!?
--
Pete
Running on SuSE 7.1, Linux 2.4, KDE 2.1
All your fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
