Linux-Advocacy Digest #872, Volume #32 Sun, 18 Mar 01 16:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Scientist and Engineers Rail at PC Industry (GreyCloud)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: GPL not being free doesn't mean that the license is invalid. ("JD")
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? (Eugenio Mastroviti)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("JD")
Re: The Linux office, a possible future..... (Eugenio Mastroviti)
Re: GPL not being free doesn't mean that the license is invalid. (Pat McCann)
Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie! (mlw)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Graham Murray)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Graham Murray)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 15:30:13 -0500
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> "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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
True.
The key all comes down to psychology.
One, they canNOT sift through and evaluate EVERY communication which
takes place.
Two...wanna really screw them up... take a stream of random-data...
change the seed at frequent, random intervals. Send it out.
Let them go nuts trying to decrypt it.
> 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.
Yeah, i'm familiar with that.
But the key to intimidation is getting people to *believe* in an
all-seeing entity which, in reality, is not even close to omniscient.
Basically, they can study you if they decide to study you.
Big deal. There are 290 Million people in the US alone. You've
gotta do something fairly obvious to attract their attention.
>
> > --
> > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > Unix Systems Engineer
> > DNRC Minister of all I survey
> > ICQ # 3056642
> >
--
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: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Scientist and Engineers Rail at PC Industry
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 12:28:04 -0800
Charles Lyttle wrote:
>
> Thats the idea. But do you think it might be worthwhile to have a formal
> survey done? You know, the way big budget movies do for their trailers?
> I would suspect it would be best done without a Windows meachine
> present. Just give the customers a token gift or payment for trying out
> some tasks on various Linux machines. Gage how long it takes them to
> open and edit a document, log onto a web site, do some ergonomic checks,
> etc.
The latest thing we were doing was an invite to create a dual-boot
system for the users. They would bring in their computers and we would
install the distro that they would like to try out. Most e-mailed back
and wanted to know how to re-claim hard drive space for Linux use. As
far as a formal survey, I have no experience or ideas as to go about
that. Some of the users were hung up on the lack of games and removed
linux. You can't make everybody happy I suppose. Maybe Sega will
produce some linux games in the future, if they manage to hang on.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 15:31:46 -0500
mlw wrote:
>
> 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.
Especially when you realize that a dissassembly doesn't have ANY
labels...variable, subroutines, jump destinations, etc. are all
unnamed.
>
> --
> I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
> ------------------------
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
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: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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.
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 15:39:22 -0500
"Paul Colquhoun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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?
>
Of course -- I forget versions of software very quickly, because the tools that I use
aren't the *important* work product.
>
> 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).
>
Of course, someone can just FTP down a few files also. RedHat (or FreeBSD) type
distributions are large, but alot of software isn't very big. Some kinds of software
might consist of a 100 or so files, but I certainly don't carry around my distro
media all of the time, and if a friend needs something, then I want to give it NOW.
Otherwise, if that friend has to wait, he will be in a similar situation as commercial
software.
>
> 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 issue of a 'CDROM' is a subset of Free or GPL software. The GPL basically
requires some
sort of lineage be reproduced, and that isn't always possible. Computer geeks can
often
deal with those issues, but even I forget where I download things. I suspect that
unless someone maintains a careful log, the 'lineage' of a software distro is often
hard to reproduce. CDROM distributions are a SMALL subset of free software.
Whether or not I forget the lineage of a given download, I always know that I am
reliably
getting LEGAL software. I have a STRONG policy of not stealing software or converting
software by illegally 'giving' it to a friend. The RMS complaint about 'helping your
friend'
by 'giving them a copy of your commercial software', the real answer is to BUY your
friend the software... His suggestion that it is wrong not to give it to your friend
is
incorrect, and doesn't really provide all of the available choices in the proper (and
legal)
way.
>
> I have yet to see installation or use that modifies the source code to an
>application.
> Care to provide an example?
>
The installation doesn't necessarily do so, but the end user can (easily) do so.
Simple
example: replace defective object modules in a library. An end-user (esp in the
free software world) is quite likely to make such changes... Many end-users of a
given
software product are computer savvy, but the end-user isn't making the maintenance
of their installation into a saleable product.
I almost never REMEMBER every change that I have made to any given piece of software,
without careful documentation. When requiring lots of additional bookkeeping, the
GPL again demonstrates its' lack of freeness.
>
> The source code (concidered an an anthopmorphic entity) is certainly free. Nobody
> can lock it up in a commercial/restricted access application.
>
It is silly to make the claim that software of any sort has human-like characterists.
This
is part of a insanity (or at least over-eager imagination) problem associated with the
GPL-being-free advocates. You are discussing a 'feeling', but that won't resolve any
arguments, because everyones 'feeling' is pretty much equally valid for themselves.
The error in the GPL license being claimed to be a license of free software is that the
obvious freeness with being able to give it to your friend is somewhat (in some cases
SEVERELY) restricted by the GPL.
>
> The users are somewhat restricted in what they can do with it.
>
Bingo: In the only realizable sense of software being free (in the sense of free use
and
redistribution), the GPL isn't free. The users are actually significantly restricted
as to what
they can do with it, because even NORMAL users can easily, mistakenly trigger the
more complex requirements of the GPL. Conversely, in normal, day-to-day activities,
the advertising clause of the old BSDL wouldn't likely be triggered by an end user who
wants to only share his original, modified or partial distribution with his/her
friend.)
(PS, you went on to create a straw argument about personal freedom, and as such really
applies to free software in the sense of the relative restrictiveness of the GPL and
the
lack of freeness associated with that.)
Thank you.
John
------------------------------
From: Eugenio Mastroviti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 20:35:46 +0000
Nick Condon wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> >I use it on mine and I am very happy with it -
> >fortunately tho I also like to tinker with computers cuz tinkering is
> >currently still by necessity a large part of the "Linux" experience.
> >This is should imo be an option and not a necessity. I think that this
> >was the point of the author of that article. There is too much
> > complexity in a Linux installation.
>
> Computers are complex things. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to
> you. Or trying to sell you something.
I'd hate to be flamed, so I'll point out first I'm a Linux/Solaris sysadmin
with quite a few years' worth of experience...
I currently use SuSE 7.1 at home and RH 6.2/7.0 at work, I don't find any
difficulty in setting up a new Linux box, even one to be used as a desktop
machine - StarOffice works as fine as Office, there's plenty of file
managers which are pretty easy to use for GUI-bound secretaries and
bean-counters, and *once you've set everything up* scanners, USB
peripherals and all the plethora of other office hardware crap work just
fine (better with SuSE than with RedHat, I have to say - and I'm talking
the boss into accepting a limited test installation on a few desktops).
That said, Windows is (or at least *feels*) easier to set up initially. The
problem with Windows is the same problem I've found with English - which is
not my native language: English is an extremely easy language to speak
*badly*. Speaking English really, really well is close to impossible.
Windows 95/98/ME is very easy to fire up and install, much easier than
*any* flavor of Linux. Take a newbie user with close to no experience of
computers, give him/her a WinCrap CD (plus some software) and a Linux
distro (any one will do) and measure how long it takes him/her to be at
least marginally productive.
The sad truth is that he/she will be *marginally* productive faster with
WinCrap. I said marginally, mind you - they'll be plagued by bugs for all
of their lives, software will die on them and Windows will do unreasonable
things at least three times a day. Still, they'll start working in 5 hours,
and I maintain that it'll take 3 or 4 times as long (and much more manuals
poring) to achieve the same basic results with Linux. Granted, if they
stick to Linux they'll be infinitely more productive in a month or
so, but they don't have a month.
And again, to prevent flames: I'm not advocating Linux to become more
Windows-like, I'm simply pointing out the problem, and saying that it will
still be a long time before Linux can be a general-purpose Windows
alternative on the desktop. The reason why it has become, for example, in
my workplace is that it was simply easier, having already three Unix/Linux
sysadmins, to use our knowledge to set up and maintain Linux desktops than
having to put up with a crappy NT network that kept dying on us for no
apparent reason.
> Bringing up a Linux installation is *easier* than doing it in Windows.
This is simply not true. Again, it is from my and your point of view (a
*really working* Win installation is not simply harder, it's
impossible...). It is not from Joe User's point of view. His Windows
installation will probably crash on him repeatedly, but there's a good
chance that his Linux install won't start up at all, and that's it. He'll
never, ever be bothered with regedit, and the system will work all the
same... after a fashion. But if you don't learn the counter-intuitive
syntax of vi and you don't read a plethora of Howto's, chances are Linux
won't work, period.
Eugenio Mastroviti
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 15:43:53 -0500
"-kn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> .-
> |||| Thanks for all your freaking help, man. No wonder the RMS wrote the GPL.
> ||| RMS committed the GPV well before M$ became the behemoth it is today.
> || "Committed the GPV". Christ; why not just put up a banner in your sig that
> || says "ignore what this putz says; he wouldn't know an argument if you handed
> || to him."
> |
> | Only to an unreasoning zealot. Others will at least listen.
> |
> | Now, how about answering the argument? What possible connection can M$'s
> | monopolistic tactics have had on RMS' creation of the GPV when they happened
> | AFTER HE DID IT?!
> `
>
> are you trying to say that the rms' creation of the GPL is the reason of
> Microsoft monopolistic tactics?
>
Jay doesn't make that claim, but there are some GPL advocates on this newsgroup
who make that claim (along with alot of other dreamed-up stuff.)
John
------------------------------
From: Eugenio Mastroviti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux office, a possible future.....
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 20:39:04 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ME.co.uk says...
> > We all know Pete is, err, honesty-challenged.
>
> Prove it! Where have I lied!
>
> > The IT job market here in the
> > UK is broadly the same as elsewhere in the world. "Internet" skills are
> > number 1, followed by Java, followed by C/C++.
>
> Really? Then why are the job adverts crammed full with Windows jobs:
> Internet/Java/C/C++?
>
> > All strong Unix catageories.
>
> And as strong on Windows.
>
Umm... you in the UK, Pete? And "all you see is Windows"?
I'd say you're honesty-challenged as well as reality-impaired
Eugenio
------------------------------
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.
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Mar 2001 12:48:38 -0800
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[ 70 lines of useless quoting ]
> Out of curiosity, in regards to the GPL, does anyone know of anyone
> being taken to court for violating the GPL?
Please take care to trim you quotes a bit more.
I've read that FSF/Stallman are quite proud that threatening letters
from them and their lawyers and the occasional sit-down thrash-out
have resulted in surrenders by the licensees before court. I don't
know about settlements, possibly because the lawyers insistance on
confidentuality (though if a suit gets started, the fact that it
was settled (not the terms) will be in a public record, I guess).
Most companies that can afford to defend themselves in court don't
touch GPLed software (except for some simple running of it), but
the small number who have is probably increasing. It seems that
very few are trying to violate it's terms or "spirit".
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie!
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 15:59:09 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
>
> > He said he did:
> >
> > "rpm -i *.rpm"
> >
> > And got no errors. Given the context of the thread, one should conclude
> > that he would be making an honest attempt at displaying the problem, which
> > would require some diligence toward accuracy of the steps taken and the
> > results observed. Since we know that what he said he did could not have
> > produced the results he claims, we can safely conclude: He is either an
> > idiot or a lying.
>
> I did what I said, and I got no errors.
>
> Maybe you're the one who's lying.
>
> If I'm lying, how come I using KDE 2.1 _right now_?
Unless you explicitly removed the previous version of KDE you should not have
been able to install the new version without a -U.
How do you explain that?
My only problem is that what you say could not have happened as you say it has.
You may be running 2.1, I don't care, but the events, as related, are
impossible in the context in which you say they happened. Thus I do not trust,
either by intent or by inaccuracies, what you said happened.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Graham Murray <[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: 18 Mar 2001 17:26:33 +0000
In gnu.misc.discuss, "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Free software obviously means that it can be passed on to other people with
> no restrictions.
That is not at all obvious. Mention of often made of free speech and
free beer, but what about the concept of free as in "free man"? Is it
not possible the freedom may be (at least in part) an attribute of the
software rather than just being a freedom granted to the recipient of
the software? In other words, like a free man, it may be passed
around and shared but (in the same way as a free man can change
employers but not be enslaved by them) it must retain its freedom.
------------------------------
From: Graham Murray <[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: 18 Mar 2001 18:51:28 +0000
In gnu.misc.discuss, "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.)
What restrictions does the GPL impose on a *user* (average, commercial
or otherwise)? The only impact that the GPL has on a user (as opposed
to a developer) is that, unlike most commercial licences, it allows
the software to be shared with others subject to the provision that
the recipients must have the same rights (under the GPL) as the person
doing the distributing or sharing. How is this discriminatory against
commercial users?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
