Linux-Advocacy Digest #870, Volume #32 Sun, 18 Mar 01 15:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (mlw)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (GreyCloud)
Yet more XBox bogification... ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: the truth about linux ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses! (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)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 14:52:15 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Well, they are claiming ther are backdoors without any real evidence.
> That
> > > means they're believing what they hear, rather than what they know to be
> > > fact.
> >
> > How can one be sure with closed source software? One has to depend on
> various
> > news reports, because one can not inspect the source.
>
> You've never heard of a disassembler? It's not uncommon for people to
> disassemble huge parts of OS's to prove such things. The license agreement
> isn't valid if it's used to cover up illegal behavior, so the no-disassembly
> clause would not be an issue.
So, your trying to tell me that the German Army should disassemble various
American closed source software to validate that there are no back-doors?
Have you EVER disassembled anything in your life? Do you grasp how huge a task
that is?
Disassembly is usually manageable if you want to figure out some small aspect
of a program. On the OS level that is man decades of work.
Well written, commented, source code is hard enough to follow.
Disassembly is not an option unless you can target a specific portion of the
program.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 11:47:52 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> GreyCloud wrote:
> >
> > J Sloan wrote:
> > >
> > > Dave Martel wrote:
> > >
> > > > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17679.html>
> > > >
> > > > German armed forces ban MS software, citing NSA snooping
> > > > By: John Lettice
> > > > Posted: 17/03/2001 at 18:59 GMT
> > > >
> > > > The German foreign office and Bundeswehr are pulling the
> > > > plugs on Microsoft software, citing security concerns,
> > > > according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel.
> > > > Spiegel claims that German security authorities suspect that
> > > > the US National Security Agency (NSA) has 'back door'
> > > > access to Microsoft source code, and can therefore easily
> > > > read the Federal Republic's deepest secrets.
> > > >
> > > > "The Bundeswehr will no longer use American software ... on
> > > > computers used in sensitive areas..."
> > >
> > > This makes me quite proud of my German ancestry.
> > >
> > > j
> > To all... no one is safe from NSA's equipment! Go ahead and encrypt
> > ... you can't hide anything from those guys. They are a very scary
> > organization!
>
> That's what THEY WANT you to think.
>
> The truth is less fearsome.
I used to work for them. I know. They make their own chips for their
own computer designs. Believe me, even if you shred a document they
have ways to put it back together again. Their custom computers can
decrypt any message that uses current encryption schemes and do it in 3
seconds, where it would take a Pentium III several thousand years to
do. But they also rely on more proven tactics to get information...
spying, electronic eavesdropping or outright theft! If one is on their
target list your screwed. Then if you think that your are secure in
your office and think you are free to discuss in private they will hear
you using their technology. Believe me, no one can hide from them once
they are on your trail. Before they hired me I had to go thru a two
week battery of psyhcological testing. They are very thourough. I saw
one gal run out of these tests only after 2 hours crying. Its a very
deep and probing test and its scary. Back in the 60's and early 70's it
used to be called No Such Agency. Harry Truman started the agency back
in the late 40's.
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> K: Truth in advertising:
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
> Special Interest Sierra Club,
> Anarchist Members of the ACLU
> Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
> The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
> Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Yet more XBox bogification...
Date: 18 Mar 2001 19:53:03 GMT
[crossposted]
Look, I have no particular hatred of Microsoft,
but this is bullshit.
First, we have this:
http://boards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=3550576
http://www.mikekraus.de/lol.jpg
Then we have this:
http://xbox.ign.com/news/32476.html
Now, is there any mention of it on xbox.com?
http://www.xbox.com:/News/
Golly gee whiz, no.
I'll defend WindowsNT where it's warranted, and I'll
attempt to debunk statements that I think are untrue,
but this sort of crap is inexcusable, and it looks like
Microsoft is resorting to lying yet again, merely to boost
sales. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the truth about linux
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 15:06:08 -0500
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> Paul Colquhoun wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 01:43:32 -0500, Masha Ku' Inanna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > |
> > |> > 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?
> >
> > I agree wholeheartedly.
> >
> > I also note that most of the "it has to be more like Windows to succeed"
> > claims come from the Windows side of the fence.
> >
> > "Come over to the Dark Side." "Become like us, and you will succeed."
> >
> > I hope Linux resists the call and succedds on it own terms.
> >
> > --
> > 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.
>
> I agree also. Even the MSCEs at microsoft newsgroups answer peoples
> questions concerning increasing sluggishness over time and increasing
> frequency of lock-ups and BSODs and are told to re-install the o/s. Or
> they are told to boot into dos and type in "scanreg /fix" and then
> "scanreg /opt" to fix the screwed up registry. How the registry messes
> itself up I don't know, but it doesn't sound like a good design to me.
> The MSCEs also recommend defragging the hard drive once a week and fix
> the registry as well.
> I've never had to defrag under Solaris and I don't have a registry to
> fix.
^^^
You mis-spelled "get broken"
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,soc.singles,alt.bonehead.jackie-tokeman
Subject: Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 20:07:13 GMT
Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 17 Mar 2001 07:27:32
-0700;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:04:29
>> -0700;
>> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Said Masha Ku' Inanna in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 14 Mar 2001
>> >> 17:49:30 -0500;
>> >> >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?
>> >>
>> >> I think the most accurate would be "Linux doesn't care what you love, as
>> >> it has no intention of preventing you from having it."
>> >
>> >ljba
>>
>> Does anyone have a translation? Something tells me I'll find it
>> amusing.
>
>let's just be acquaintances
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
OK, so I was wrong.
--
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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 20:07:13 GMT
Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 17 Mar 2001 13:08:50
>in a.d. 2101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote:
[...]
>> Gnome's answer to the bloated useless, costly windows
>
>define 'costly'
More trouble than its worth.
>> with it's lousy office suite!
>
>office is a pretty cool product. i like it just fine.
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
>p.s. are you a big fat ugly person?
Says it all.
--
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 20:07:14 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 17 Mar 2001 18:43:49
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >> Well, the crux is that those who want to give something away don't want
>> >> to restrict the way it can be shared. They merely wish to insist that
>> >> it *is* shared, openly and completely, by everyone.
>> >>
>> >The GPL simply doesn't guarantee the goal as stated by your last
>sentence.
>>
>> Indeed, it does; that's why you have a problem with it.
>
>Please quote the part that you think says that anything must be shared.
The whole thing. C'mon, Les; I know you're not that stupid. You aren't
actually confusing the effect with the text, are you?
>The version I read only speaks of requirements that must be
>met before it can be shared at all - requirements that prohibit
>many things from being shared.
Only theoretically. Regardless, the GPL only concerns what is covered
by the GPL, obviously, so the issue is what is done with what *is*
shared, not with what *isn't* shared. The only "requirements" are that
it be shared completely, if it is shared.
--
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
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 20:07:15 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:02:20 -0500;
>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> 2. You can *use* GPLed software in anyway you see fit. It doesn't even
>> prohibit Muamar Ghadaffi of creating an atom bomb. The way you
>> redistribute it though, is restricted. It is restricted in a sense that
>> it prohibits you to prohibit me from restributing your modifications to
>> my software. It *is* a restriction though. So if you think that BSD
>> licensed software is "free software" dispite its restrictions, I cannot
>> see how you would like to prevent GPLed software being named "free
>> software", because it *does guarantee* freedom of use.
>>
>GPL only lets you use it in limited ways. Please note that redistribution
>is a form of 'use.'
No, it isn't. Its a form of copying. Unless you wish to overthrow
copyright law.
--
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,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 20:07:16 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 17 Mar 2001
>>>>> 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.
>>> Craig Kelley wrote:
>>>> Public domain means there is no copyright; while it may seem the same,
>>>> it is technically different.
>> Said Jeffrey Siegal in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 14 Mar 2001
>>> 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.
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> 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".
>
>No, there isn't. The two mean exactly the same thing.
No, not exactly. They *can* mean the same thing, of course, since one
is a description ("without a copyright") and the other a characteristic
("public domain"). But something which is "without a copyright" is
impossible, according to current laws, while public domain, obviously,
is covered (in fact, defined) by those laws.
>> 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.
>
>Meaninless tripe. (Hint: I can write something and release it into the
>public domain. From that point forward, it is "without a copyright.")
If it were without a copyright, you couldn't own it, and therefore
couldn't release it into the public domain. It is "without copyright
restrictions". Yes, the difference is small. Whether its meaningless
tripe depends on your premise, which you haven't furthered at all so
far.
>> 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".
>
>Meaningless tripe.
>
>> 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.
>
>Complete lie. You keep repeating it despite the fact you've been told
>otherwise. Keep believing it, Maxie, but it'll never be true.
Whether something is true has nothing to do with whether I believe it,
Austin. And, just in case you aren't really nothing more than an
obnoxious bore, you can call me "Max".
--
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 20:07:17 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 17 Mar 2001 06:21:56
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >Why is it a good thing to force people to do something against
>> >their will?
>>
>> Because it maintains freedom.
>
>I guess logic isn't a requirement here....
The statement is perfectly logical. The ability to handle complex
abstractions is, unfortunately, a requirement, though.
--
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 20:07:19 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 17 Mar 2001
08:58:50 -0500;
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 15 Mar 2001
>>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Ian Davey wrote:
>>>> JD:
>>>>> 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.)
>>>> So a newspaper isn't free speech because it has restrictions on how
>>>> it can be reproduced?
>>> You're the one who just added 'free speech.' Free speech is the ACT of
>>> writing something. Free speech doesn't refer to reproduction of the
>>> created speech.
>> Likewise, free software refers to the ACT of *using software*. Not the
>> act of publishing software. Restrictions against redistributing
>> software cannot prevent that software from being free any more than
>> copyright can prevent speech from being free. It can, however, and
>> does, prevent books from being free (well, that, and the fact you have
>> to print them).
>
>from <http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>
>
> "Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand
> the concept, you should think of "free speech", not "free beer."
>
> "Free software" refers to the users' freedom to run, copy,
> distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely,
> it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
>
> * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
> * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
> needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition
> for this.
> * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
> (freedom 2).
> * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
> to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3).
> Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
>
>No where in here does it say that the running of a program is free
>speech.
So?
>It's one of the 'freedoms' sought by the FSF, but it's not
>free speech.
Ever heard of an analogy?
>(I also believe that, except for how one has obtained a
>copy of the program being run, there's no copyright issue there. That
>is, MS doesn't REALLY have a right to say how I may use Word, but they
>do have a right to restrict how I obtain a copy of Word.) But the FSF's
>"freedom 2" is precisely predicated around redistribution restrictions,
>and such restrictions have that implication -- to the FSF.
>
>(I don't -disagree- in principle with the 'freedoms' listed above
>individually. I -do- disagree with the conclusions that RMS has reached
>by combining them all, and I -strongly- disagree with the means by
>which RMS pretends to meet these goals, and he's definitely over the
>edge when he starts talking the economics of the situation.)
Fine. You've a right to your opinion.
>>> Let me restate that: "software" free speech is centred around the act
>>> of writing software. The GPL neither helps nor hinders free speech; it
>>> places restrictions on those who would reuse the originally written
>>> software -- restrictions that may be good, but neither help nor reduce
>>> the 'freeness' of the software. The REAL threats to free speech are
>>> things like the DMCA.
>> You are incorrect that the restrictions placed by the GPL "neither help
>> nor reduce the 'freeness' of the software". We aren't talking about
>> "software free speech", we are talking about "free software", which is
>> related, but only conceptually.
>
>Actually, I'm quite correct. Freedom 2 itself is contravened by the GPL.
"Contravened"? Not at all. Freedom 2 gives you the right to distribute
the software to help you neighbor. The fact that the GPL makes it
impractical or impossible to make a profit on it without providing a
value add, well, that doesn't mean you can't distribute the software to
help your neighbor.
--
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 20:07:21 GMT
Said Pat McCann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 17 Mar 2001 04:41:52 -0800;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:54:56 -0500;
>> >
>> >You have probably noticed that alot of GPL advocacy is based upon hatred. [...]
>>
>> You've probably noticed that these guys aren't just trolls, they're sock
>> puppets.
>>
>> --
>> T. Max Devlin
>> *** The best way to convince another is
>> to state your case moderately and
>> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
>That's a good example of the uselessness of a quote in a signature.
>Even the quoter doesn't take it to heart.
>
> *** We have better ways now. - P. T. Barnum ***
Apparently, you didn't read it.
--
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
******************************
