Linux-Advocacy Digest #964, Volume #32 Wed, 21 Mar 01 09:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism ("Shades")
Re: Seeking Comparison of Solaris & Linux (mlw)
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism (Ian Pulsford)
Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie! (mlw)
Re: What is user friendly? ("Shades")
Re: What is user friendly? ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism (Stephen Cornell)
Re: More FUD from Ballmer ("cat cola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism (Terry Porter)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Germany Denies Microsoft Ban (mlw)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism (Stephen Cornell)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 07:18:16 -0500
> If I couldn't, I wouldn't do it. Doh!
>
> And, yes, I've told a CEO of a company that anyone who gets themselves
> entrenched into the monopoly is, to quote, "a nimrod". And I got away
> with it, so to speak, because he paid me to provide my professional
> opinion, of which this was merely a small portion.
>
MY initial point was sometimes though a director level or CEO doesn't
exactly like the way things are presented to them. I have seen where some
people blew it because they acted more angry about a company even thinking
of MS but the anger clouded the message. Ok we can argue all day about it,
I was simply saying sometimes the message gets lost.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Seeking Comparison of Solaris & Linux
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 07:24:27 -0500
J Sloan wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
>
> > From an OS point of view, Solaris is head and shoulders better than Linux, but
> > Linux makes it up by running on cheap hardware. Linux is improving as time goes
> > on, and while it is pretty good right now, make no mistake Solaris is a better
> > kernel.
>
> That's an interesting point of view.
>
> I had solaris (SPARC) on the desktop for 18 months, and
> I admin both Linux and Solaris - I'm just curious about
> what makes you say Solaris is "head and shoulders"
> above Linux.
>
> Agreed, Solaris boxes stay up for many many months
> of heavy service - but then again, so do Linux boxes.
>
> I don't see any big performance gain for solaris, although
> some will trot out the 64 processor e10k as an example
> of solaris scalability - OK, Solaris scales well, but it's not
> all that efficient. On simlar hardware, Linux will definitely
> give a good account of itself against Solaris, especially
> in daily tasks such as web serving, mail/dns serving, etc.
>
> So, I guess what I'm asking, is "where's the beef"?
The Solaris kernel is much better at SMP than is Linux. While Linux is better
than it was in 2.2, the 2.4 is still not as reentrant as the Solaris kernel, so
when it comes to concurrent I/O, Solaris works better. On a database server
where table spaces are separated across different block devices on different
physical controllers, an SMP machine running Solaris can see huge performance
increases, where as Linux 2.2 would be pitiful, and 2.4 may be better, but
neither even close.
Again, don't get me wrong, I like Linux, I use it all the time and it is what I
run on my work machine everyday. That does not mean I'm going to be irrational
about the realities.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:30:04 +1000
Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "WesTralia"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Demanding technical roles? X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD
> > {TLC;RETAIL} (Win98; U)
> >
> > Since when did Wintendo98 become demanding?
> >
> Well,
>
> I must admit I sometimes think Aaron is a bit over the top, but being a
> Mozilla user myself, I have heard him mention a few peculiarities of that
> platform. So at least I am willing to believe that he modified the user
> agent string (and given that some websites just plain won't load unless
> you have IE or NS4.x, that's understandable). This is only a trivial
> patch to the Mozilla source anyway.
> Also I can just imagine Aaron being the sort of person that takes a
> perverse pleasure in provoking this sort of reaction.
>
For someone who claims to be a Unix Systems Engineer who is hired by
fortune 500 companies for thousands of dollars a week he has fuck all to
do except hang out in usenet groups: 9570 postings since Jan 1, 2001.
IanP
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie!
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 07:39:04 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
> > really now, just "rpm -U *.rpm"
> >
> > Again, that will not work without any warning messages either. You will get a
> > few "xxx conflicts with...." warning messages. At least try what you claim to
> > have done, before you post. Jeez.
>
> I see, you want me to undo all the changes I have made on a _working_
> system just to detail exactly what I did for you.
You are telling us you performed a procedure, something simple. You start with:
"rpm -i *.rpm" and claim you got no error messages, and tell use Linux is not
ready for prime time because you got no error messages and it didn't work.
This whole thread started because you claimed knode crashed on you on KDE 2.1.
First you said it was the version of KDE that came with SuSE. When it was
pointed out that SuSE does not ship with KDE 2.1 you claim to have installed it
with "rpm -i *.rpm." and received no error messages. When it is pointed out
that this is impossible, you claim you must have run "rpm -U *.rpm" and
received no error messages. Again, when it is pointed out the you will receive
error messages you try to turn it around on me for asking you to repeat what
you did? I did no such thing.
Sorry I don't buy it. Nothing you have said in this entire thread lends any
credibility to your story. You claim to be a software engineer, I have no
reason to doubt this, but I, and most of the people I know, would remember
what was done to install a package and what the warning messages were, and if
we were to complain about it, be able to support it.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 07:37:26 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Shades in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 20 Mar 2001 15:46:41 -0500;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> >Hmm... too bad Sun/HP and CERTAINLY SGI doesn't have the business
acumen to
> >> >make it happen. Otherwise I would agree with you.
> >>
> >> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! And what large manufacturer of technology do *you*
> >> run, Mr. "Business Accumen"?
> >
> >I don't but you don't need to be President of the US to know if he is
doing
> >a sucky job.
>
> The US isn't as profitable as either Sun or HP. ;-)
>
I don't know, that is a pretty big tax surplus...
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 07:45:26 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nik Simpson wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Craig Oshima wrote:
> > > > Most users (including hackers) do not use hundreds of other
programs. A
> > > > dozen is probably more than most people ever use. However, the fact
> > that
> > > > the average cost of any given commercial application is 100 USD or
more
> > is a
> > > > good reason to cheer on Linux.
> > >
> > > Regardless...
> > >
> > > A Linux user has a FULLY FUNCTIONAL system within 1 hour of booting
> > > the installation disk.
> > >
> > > For a Windows user, getting even basic functionality takes close
> > > to a DAY.
> > >
> >
> > I guess I must be the exception that proves the rule, I just installed a
new
> > desktop for myself at work, went from a blank 20GB hard drive to
W2K+Office
> > and a couple of other apps fully installed in about 1.5hours, a good
portion
> > of which was formatting the filesystem on the 20GB drive. I can well
believe
> > that Aaron takes a day to setup a Windows box, but that's more of a
comment
> > on Aaron than on Windows.
>
> And after 1.5 hours, you had exactly how many applications installed?
>
Exactly the ones I needed, Office, a graphics editor, browser, mail,
database, perl, UNIX emulator etc. etc.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: 21 Mar 2001 12:46:42 +0000
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Care to discuss the quantum dynamic behavior of charge carriers
> in semiconductors (not only silicon, but other more esoteric materials
> such as gallium arsenide) ???
Hmmm, can't resist this. Okay, what's the difference between a
conductor and a semiconductor? What can you tell me about the difference
between `hole' and `electron' states? What determines their effective mass?
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: "cat < nonsense > cola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More FUD from Ballmer
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 08:07:46 -0500
> From the article...
>
> When asked what he thought of IBM's huge investment in Linux,
> Ballmer said, "It will have an impact, but Linux is a toy. By IBM
> (stock: IBM) supporting Linux well then it is not a toy. But does
> that mean IBM and Linux will carry the day? No way.
>
> What the heck does that mean? Is the CEO of Microsoft capable of
> expressing a coherent thought?
You've not listened to Mr. Ballmer much, have you?
To answer your question: NO.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 21 Mar 2001 13:08:33 GMT
On 21 Mar 2001 12:46:42 +0000, Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Care to discuss the quantum dynamic behavior of charge carriers
>> in semiconductors (not only silicon, but other more esoteric materials
>> such as gallium arsenide) ???
>
I'll bite, mind you answers may be wrong :)
>Hmmm, can't resist this. Okay, what's the difference between a
>conductor and a semiconductor?
A conductor, allows current flow in both directions, whereas a semi-conductor
only allows current flow in one direction.
> What can you tell me about the difference
>between `hole' and `electron' states?
A 'hole' simply means there is a requirement for an electron, whereas an
electron indicates the material has a surplus of electrons?
> What determines their effective mass?
I can't proffer a guess here:(
>
>--
>Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
>University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
Terry
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 08:13:23 -0500
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Pat McCann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 19 Mar 2001 16:13:42 -0800;
>> Consider how one may reverse-engineer copyrighted software without
>> infringing the copyright. The reverse-engineered software is the
>> specification which contains ideas from which a new copyrighted work
>> may be authored.
>>
>> You might even have to have one team translate the spec into "ideas"
>> and another translate the ideas into code to do the "cleanroom" thing.
> One minor point to add: if there is anything in the original code which
> *must* be copied verbatim in order to provide the necessary
> functionality, it can be copied verbatim without infringement. This
> even extends to when the "necessary functionality" is limited merely to
> being compatible or able to substitute for the original, or when it is
> the only efficient (even though there may be other, less efficient) way
> of doing things.
A correction to that minor point: this applies if and only if the code
fragment is obvious and/or the only way to accomplish something and/or is
well-known. The exception to this is when it's patented.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 08:16:40 -0500
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 20 Mar 2001 06:09:16
> [...]
>> You are reading that backwards. It doesn't say anything about
>> causing software to be shared. It talks about restrictions on
>> how it can be shared, and if it isn't 100% GPL'd then it can't
>> be shared at all, and no user is going to get it.
> And you are putting that backwards. If it can't be shared at all, then
> it can't be "partially" shared.
This is true inasmuch as GPL+proprietary isn't shareable. This is false
inasmuch as Les is referring to the GPL's inability to work with other
open source licences. I've even given you a serious thought experiment
about it, Max -- which you've dismissed. The FACT is that all of the
component parts can be shared without restriction. It's just the
combination that cannot be shared because of the GPL's restrictions.
> That's not a restriction on "how" it can be shared, but merely
> whether it can be shared. And GPL software can *always* be shared.
This is a false statement.
> It cannot be combined with things that aren't GPL: WE KNOW THAT AND
> WE DON'T FIND IT ABHORENT NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU PRETEND IT'S A
> PROBLEM.
Nice to know that you've become the Spokesperson.
> Its only a problem for developers who don't like the GPL, and that's
> FINE by those who do like the GPL. It makes the *other* software
> less shareable, not the GPL software.
This is a false statement.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 08:18:24 -0500
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> I've not yet heard a definition of "free software" that doesn't include
>> software released in the public domain or under the MIT/X Consortium
>> license.
> Well, now you have. My personal definition of "free software" ("free as
> in speech, not free as in beer") is limited to GPL code. Public domain
> software is free as in beer, but not free as in speech, as it can be
> combined with proprietary code and wrapped in a trade secret license.
> Doesn't sound like that software is very "free" in the metaphorical
> sense.
>
> I will admit, I was under the impression that the FSF agreed with the
> metaphorical sense and used it exclusively for "free software". But it
> has been years since I read anything on that site. This isn't a
> religion, and RMS is not the Pope, so you're just going to have to deal
> with it.
Wow. RMS is a zealot. You go further than he does and you deny being a
zealot? Amazing.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Germany Denies Microsoft Ban
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 08:23:33 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > >
> > > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > hahahaha - silly penguinistas - I TOLD you it was a lie... but you
> > > choose to
> > > > > believe your own fud machines... hehe
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.wirednews.com/news/politics/0%2C1283%2C42502%2C00.html
> > > >
> > > > Did you actually read the article you posted?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >
> > > > Andy Mueller-Maguhn, a leader of Berlin's Chaos Computer Club and also
> > > Europe's
> > > > representative on the board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
> > > and
> > > > Numbers (ICANN), said he believed the German government was probably in
> > > > damage-control mode. In other words: He thinks the report in Der Spiegel
> > > is
> > > > probably accurate.
> > >
> > > Gee, the Chaos Club? A linux lovers/ms-haters hang out. Uhhuh...real
> > > objective...
> >
> > I would say that:
> > Europe's representative on the board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned
> > Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> >
> > Has some clout.
>
> So, suddenly some computer-club dork who happens to have got lucky
> with some lofty, yet weightless title is a cryptography, OS, government
> and military leader who can make expert comments about what the
> German military thinks or doesn't think?
I know nothing about the "Berlin's Chaos Computer Club" therefore I can not
regard it as either a pro or a con. I suspect that it could be a literal
translation issue, if it were stated as "Berlin's Society for Chaos Computing"
we may view it differently. Who knows, like I said, I don't know what it is, so
I refuse to jump to any conclusions about what it means. However, as a
representative to ICANN, he must have had some qualifications to get that
position, and to operate in that position must have some contacts.
The U.S.A. is not the world. We shouldn't measure what other countries do by
what we do, which is pretty f%^$#ked up sometimes. Just because the word "club"
has a derogatory meaning here, we need not assume it does elsewhere. I have
worked with a lot of different nationalities and learned that a lot of
impressive credentials can sound silly in a literal translation.
A Norwegian "Civil engineer" is completely different from an american "Civil
engineer." The Norwegian version is more like an american "Professional
Engineer." That translation, however, would not be a literal one.
>
> ROFL.
>
> > You on the other hand, are quickly proving that you don't.
Grow up.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 08:23:45 -0500
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 20 Mar 2001 06:39:29
>> You are really confused. People share software because they want
>> to, not because they are forced to. The GPL cannot force people
>> to share. All it does is restrict what can be shared and how it
>> may be done.
> I'm getting sick of your squirming, Les. You're not making any sense at
> all, but simply building yourself a cute little non-falsifiable premise
> so you can declare unilateral victory. Believe me, you could go on like
> this for years and not manage to confuse me. The GPL doesn't restrict
> what can be shared nor how it may be done. It only prevents lack of
> sharing. This is the "restriction" you keep harping about, and it
> frankly isn't a restriction at all.
The only reason you can't be confused by others is because you're
already in a demented state. The GPL *does* *explicitly* restrict both
what and how things may be shared -- or have you forgotten to read the
GPL just like you've forgotten to read FSF.org?
>>> What is *says* is just the beginning. And where it goes you don't want
>>> to go (for reasons I'm not entirely sure of); those who like the GPL,
>>> however, do like where it goes, for reasons I am entirely aware of and
>>> agree with.
>> Where it goes it to make demands of what other people do with their
>> own work, or to attempt to control other existing works.
> You are really confused. People share software because they want
> to, not because they are forced to. The GPL cannot make demands of
> what other people do with their own work, nor attempt to control any
> existing works.
This is a false statement.
>> I don't want
>> to go there because I consider that a very uncivilized thing to do, and
>> clearly unnecessary in terms of encouraging additionaly sharing.
> Clearly, you're wrong, or the GPL would not be gaining in popularity.
I'm not sure that it is. There are many more open source licences now
than there used to be -- and each has its own package and/or
following. Momentum isn't the same as popularity.
>>>> Yes, it is a shame that the GPL prevented the free distribution of code
>>>> that the original author (as I recall, GNUtar evolved from something
>>>> called pdtar, where pd=public domain) wanted to be freely available.
>>> It is freely available. It remains freely available, as it would
>>> regardless of whether you successfully managed to profiteer on its
>>> availability by incorporating it in a non-free (if open source) product.
>> What are you talking about? I wanted to give the code away to
>> anyone who wanted it. I said that before and don't understand
>> why you keep ignoring it.
> Because it doesn't matter what your intentions were. What about the
> people you gave it away to. Could *they* incorporate in a proprietary
> product and wrap it in a trade secret?
This demonstrates that you have lost touch with reality: one's
intentions DO matter. And the answer is that no, his code wouldn't have
been incorporable into a proprietary product -- it was STILL partially
GPLed code. Only the code and changes that he had made to the non-GPLed
portion of the code would have been potentially incorporable, depending
on the licences involved.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: 21 Mar 2001 13:24:25 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter) writes:
> I'll bite, mind you answers may be wrong :)
Actually, the aim is to test whether Mr. Kulkis knows what he's
talking about (since he's thrown down the gauntlet). For that reason,
I'll refrain from commenting on your answers until he's given his.
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 08:28:12 -0500
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 19 Mar 2001
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 19 Mar 2001
>>> [...]
>>>> The effects are the same; the wording is different. Get a clue, Maxine.
>>> Are you honestly trying to tell us the only problem you have with the
>>> GPL is in the wording? Get for real, Austin; nobody's buying it.
>> Hey, if you're going to be so stupid as to not take me at my word ...
>> that's your call. My issues are (1) the preamble, and (2) the idiotic
>> supporters (illustrated nicely by you) who insist upon describing GPLed
>> software as something it isn't ("free"). Once the restrictions are
>> exposed clearly and not hidden in bullshit politics, the GPL is Just
>> Another Licence.
> Hah. I know of no other license with a viral nature, and that's why I
> call it "free" (and why it is free). So apparently I was right in my
> initial assessment: your complaint about the wording is merely a ruse
> for your bashing of the GPL.
Then you haven't been paying attention. There are other viral licences
(cf QPL -- or the MPL to a lesser degree). What's clear is that you're
an idiot as well as a liar.
>> Well, the GPL *is* Just Another Licence, it's just that its supporters
>> tend to try to pretend that it isn't. It's that dishonesty which is a
>> problem.
> Well, this is certainly a new tack, for me anyway.
Not a new tack: it's the same one I've been using every time. You just
haven't seen fit to listen.
>> Of course, you probably will reject that -- it doesn't fit into your
>> world-view.
> When things don't fit into my world-view, my world-view always expands
> to accommodate them.
This is demonstrably false.
> The GPL is certainly Nothing But A License.
It's Just Another Licence. Once you strip the preamble from it. Right
now, it's Just Another Licence with Political Bullshit Attached.
> But claiming that it is no different than any other and saying that
> it is different is dishonest; that doesn't make any sense, I'm
> afraid, regardless of how I might stretch my world-view to try to
> make sense of it.
Most commercial licences require that you give something -- or some
things -- up in exchange for the right to use[1] the software. So does
the GPL.
-f
[1] Use in the terms of the licence. This may range from end-use to
programming with to distribution.
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 08:31:12 -0500
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> But, why would you want the terms, if you didn't agree with the text of
> the preamble? And has anybody else (with more ability and knowledge
> than I in this matter) actually said this is incompatible with the GPL?
> Somehow, that seems like a very dubious proposition, on the face of it.
Because the GPL isn't *that* bad as a licence -- IF:
1) it isn't promoted as free [it isn't, it's a licence]; and
2) it's stripped of the political bullshit.
The fact of the matter is that the GPL has a clause in it -- the No
Further Restrictions Clause, as I call it -- which prevents the
combination of GPLed software that has any restrictions in addition to
or in competition with the GPL itself.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
