Linux-Advocacy Digest #303, Volume #33 Tue, 3 Apr 01 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows? ("Mike")
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Democratic Republics (Was: Communism, etc.) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Software registration (Rex Ballard)
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows? ("Johnny Lee")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[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: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 22:21:22 -0700
Isaac wrote:
> My belief is that the FSF has no choice but to hold that untenable
> position. The alternative is that any of their code can be compiled
> as libraries and plugins which can then be used with proprietary
> closed source programs.
The other alternative is to impose usage-based restrictions. The FSF
opposes those for philosophical reasons, but that's what hard choices
are about. They must pick one or the other.
> The FSF's interpretation has a couple of very unfortunate consequences.
> The first is the logical implication that any OS vendor has
> the right to control distribution of program written for their OS.
> Microsoft should according to the FSF's position be able to tell
> Oracle or Netscape not to use Microsoft's dll's or OS system calls
> in their software. Fortunately, this just isn't the law.
Yes it is, in terms of copyright law (but possibly not antitrust law),
because software licenses can dictate terms of use. Putting aside
antitrust law (and shrinkwrap issues) , Microsoft could put a term into
its EULA that the user may not use the operating system to run any
programs which Microsoft has either not approved or has listed as
forbidden.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows?
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 05:25:22 GMT
"2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9aaslu$vq3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
...
> This being the case, then the open source movement, already having an OS,
> needs a framework and execution engine of its own.
>
> My view is that Microsoft would be making big mistake by not porting .NET
> framework to Linux.
>
> Linux and the open source movement has a lot of talent and access to much
of
> the .NET language work since it was an effort that involved many
> contributions, none of which surrendered intellectual property rights.
...
Last I looked, there were open standards for .NET. IIRC, .NET had been
submitted to a European standards body, and the specification was freely
available and downloadable. The thing I was looking for was C#, so I didn't
spend much time on the other specs, and I could be mistaken.
If I'm not mistaken, though, it wouldn't be Microsoft that's making the
mistake you allude to.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 3 Apr 2001 05:26:11 GMT
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 04:17:30 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Toby A Inkster Esq" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In our last episode, Andy Walker wrote:
>>
>> :Linux can't crash at random every five minutes.
>>
>> It can is you write your own "crash daemon" and run it under root.
>
>Isn't that what X is? Only, you don't have to run it as root!
X runs as root. As for "crash daemon", the only "crashes" I get are
during power outages.
But you wouldn't know, because you don't use Linux.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 3 Apr 2001 05:30:48 GMT
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 02:41:13 GMT, Isaac wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 22:28:43 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 02 Apr 2001 20:17:48 GMT;
>It wouldn't take luck. It would simply be a matter of properly
>implementing an api already intended to accept future plug-ins. It's
>not magic, it's science you simply don't understand.
Which is hardly surprising -- Max doesn't do (or even know very much about)
software development: he merely holds very strong opinions about it, as
well as a completely unjustified delusion of superiority.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Democratic Republics (Was: Communism, etc.)
Date: 3 Apr 2001 05:35:51 GMT
On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 21:19:11 -0400, Scott Erb wrote:
>You are free to think so. These are readings being used by thousands of
>teachers across America every day, these are the readings that are
>informing the minds of American citizens and tomorrow's leaders (and
>today's leaders, most of these readings have been around awhile).
>You're simply out of the loop.
I don't suppose you've heard, but according to Kulkis, these "teachers" are
part of a nationwide conspiracy on part of the NEA who are working with
the KGB. (sarcasm alert) And the above observation PROVES it !!!
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Software registration
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 05:52:55 GMT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============27140F3BD98FAD70664B4430
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
mlw wrote:
>
> With Microsoft's new required licensing, I have some thoughts...
>
> There are many laws, in the U.S., which govern warrantees and support.
The "Gotcha" here is the right of Microsoft to license terms of use.
They have the right to determine the terms of fair use. For example,
when you buy a CD-ROM, you only have a license for personal use. If
you decide to become a DJ, or you start playing it at your restaurant,
you are in violation of the license. You can easily get the
appropriate
license, this usually involves a group like ASCAP, BMI, or RIAA.
The only thing Microsoft is not allowed to do is deny the right to
"fair
use" (copying from CD to hard disk, and from hard disk to RAM). But
even this is subject to Microsoft's terms.
> I know
> of none which require "registration" they allow for "proof of purchase" and
> specifically exclude many conditional requirements, i.e. they may say you need
> to register, but legally they may not be allowed to require it.
No pass. If Microsoft decides that you must register yourself as a
user
as a condition of their copyright license, then you must legally and
accurately
register yourself. There are similar requirement for those who
exhibit movies,
for those use music in commercial ventures such as night-clubs,
restaurants,
or even web sites. Legally, the publisher has the right to detailed
accounting
of who you are, how often you play the song, how loudly, and how many
people were listening. Normally, this would be impractical for
personal CD or Cassette players, but could become a very real
requirement for MP3 players.
The RIAA has the right to require that your player keep a play list
which
will be uploaded at the earliest possible time. The remaining
question would
be how much you are willing to play in terms of a "flat fee" for "Top
40" vs
"Montovani's greatest hits".
> So if everyone registers Microsoft software as:
>
> USER: William Gates
> Company: Screw-you.com
If Microsoft has not previously been paid the full license fee, and
you
are expected to provide any compensation, you could be guilty of fraud
as well as copyright violation. Keep in mind that the penalties for
copyright infringement can be up to 5 years imprisonment and/or
$250,000
fine. Microsoft may settle in civil court for much less, and it's a
very good idea to accept the settlement. Some corporations have paid
as much as half their earnings or 20% of their payroll to Microsoft as
a result of "License Audits".
Microsoft collected over $30 million from IBM simply because IBM
didn't ship
(and therefore pay for) Windows 3.1 with about 1 million OS/2
machines. Unfortunately, lack of proof that the software WASN'T
installed gave Microsoft cause to demand payment for ALL of the
uninstalled copies.
> I would think there is nothing Microsoft can do about it.
Actually, there IS something Microsoft can do about it. They can
revoke
your copyright license. You may not even be entitled to a refund.
They have
defined their terms of use within the EULA or similar agreement. If
you don't agree, you can return the entire machine to the manufacturer
and purchase
a machine that does not run Microsoft Windows. You can remove Windows
entirely
from your machine (you won't get a refund, but you won't be liable for
license violation either). What you cannot do is continue using
Microsoft's
software while violating their license terms.
The legal exception would be if Microsoft were to tell you that you
not only could not return the computer, but you would be liable for
the full amount and would be legally unable to make even "fair use"
copies under ANY license terms.
Bottom line:
If you don't like the draconian license terms, don't accept delivery
of their software. Use Linux, use FreeBSD, use FORTH, use JAVA, use
Windows 95, use MS-DOS, use almost anything BUT Windows XP.
This has a particularly critical impact on Corporate users and
customers
who may find that the terms and security holes have created a system
which
is no longer appropriate to corporate use.
> This will accomplish a couple things.
> (1) You can remain anonymous.
Actually, no you can't. If Microsoft decides that license compliance
includes such details as:
The Tax ID number or social security of the purchasing entity.
The Social Security number of the end user.
The serial number of the hard drive.
The MAC address of the ethernet device.
and a Valid credit card on which additional charges can be levied.
Then you must either provide the required information or forfeit your
right to use it. This isn't news. The precedent rulings have been
established since 1977 when the revised copyright act went into
effect.
Obviously, your negotiating leverage is extremely limited if you only
use Microsoft products and your company MUST have Microsoft products
for it's continued survival.
Microsoft may succeed in doing what 20 years of court actions,
lawsuits,
antitrust trials, settlements, and court orders have failed to do.
They
may actually CREATE the market for their competition.
Consider the choice. Use Microsoft and forfeit your most strategic
information, your most valued employees, your customer lists, patents,
copyrights, and have "Big Brother" watching your every corporate move
---
Or use Linux and UNIX, have numerous competitive providers, all
aggressively
competing to serve you better than any of the others. Enjoy not only
one
of the most secured systems, but also the knowledge that your own
people can
audit both existing and new code for security issues.
You can pay Microsoft recurring monthly payments for the mere right to
load it a few more times, or you can pay Linux providers for services
that include upgrades, help desk support, and liability insurance.
What you DON'T pay for is the right
to copy and distribute the Open Source software. What you DON'T pay
for is the right to call a 1-900 number at $3.00 per minute to be told
to reboot your box, reinstall your software, or reformat your hard
drive and reinstall everything.
But if you DO have to reinstall "the works", at least a distributor
has made it
easy for you to install everything with a minimum of labor investment.
> (2) If a sufficiently large number of people use bogus names and companies, it
> will render the database useless for marketing purposes, and keep Microshaft
> from exploiting its customers in yet another way by selling their information.
This very much depends on what your are doing. If to many bogus
connections
are coming in from a corporate subnet, Microsoft could stage a license
audit
and charge for NEW activations, collecting for both the bogus
registrations
and for the new "Kosher" registrations.
If too many of those bogus connections are coming from a single
subnet,
you could lose you access to the internet. Microsoft could even
demand
that your ISP (especially Cable Modem or DSL customers) stop issuing
DHCP addresses or risk having the entire subnet blocked from all
Microsoft
sites including MSNBC, CNBC, MSN, and Microsoft.com as well as
carpoint, expedia, and all of the other companies in which Microsoft
holds equity interests
(rumored to be over 2000).
Ironically, the ISPs might prefer to have you run Linux, because this
would prevent Microsoft from using the combination of it's demographic
details collected from your XP registration and it's activity tracking
via Verisign and Microsoft networks. This combination of information,
coupled with Microsoft's massive cash reserves could be used to crash
the
stock price of any company Microsoft chose to target, then purchase it
for
for as little as 1% of it's true value. Microsoft could then use
these
new alliances to drive other competitors in these new markets out of
business. This may seem far-fetched, but look at how Microsoft has
managed to take control of the software market - not only for Windows,
but also for the Mac. Microsoft drove out all competitors, forcing
OEMS to install inferior products purchased at premium prices.
Microsoft also narrows to a single company when it enters other
markets
as well. And they use control of one company (often holding only a
fraction
more stock than the CEO) to leverage new ventures. For example, the
investment in PrimeStar gave Microsoft control of DirectTV AND the
satellite
feeds used by nearly all hotels and cable companies. This assured
Microsoft's
GE partnership (MSNBC, CNBC, et al) slots which could be used to set
and focus
the public agenda. Bill Clinton became the target the minute it was
necessary
to "top" the story of the richest man in the world lying to a federal
court
judge and being caught in the act. When David Boies started showing
pictures
of the dead bodies, MSNBC decided to leak the existence of an
illegally taped
conversation between a frustrated ex-lover and a disgruntled
secretary. The
means used to break the story was leaking the news on a discussion
group, then
putting a link to the discussion group (by then filled with about 40
responses
and requests for more information) on their home page.
Microsoft can put an illegal immigrant, floating on an inner-tube in
the
front pages and as the lead stories of every major paper on earth to
make
sure that their conviction by a federal court judge ends up on page 7,
right
after the girl in the string bikini.
> I can not understand why one of the most profitable software companies ever, is
> so paranoid about loosing money.
Keep in mind that Microsoft has had not exactly been batting 1000.
Windows NT 3.51 was a disaster. Windows NT 4.0 was a disappointment,
and both Windows 98 and Windows ME were severe disappointments. The
OEMs
purchased the only products Microsoft allowed them to buy. Judge
Jackson
stayed the behavioral remedies until all appeals were exhausted
(hoping for
a direct line to the Supreme Court). This left OEMs without the
ability
to install competitive products or legacy products more compatible
with Linux.
> Requiring registration would never work on any
> product, unless you had no other choice.
Actually, it does work. ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, and numerous movie studios
have been doing it for years. For some situations, it's completely
appropriate. You do it when you rent movies at blockbuster videos.
On the other hand, your video player doesn't have the ability to
send the titles of every television program you've watched in the
last year to you boss, wife, parents, children, and clergy. Your
VCR doesn't send copies of your checkbook and visa card history to
your ex-wife, creditors, realtors, and possibly a web site for
blackmailers, "lost relatives", and credit card thieves.
> Microsoft proves, once again, they enjoy a monopoly position
> and must be broken up as a company, perhaps even eliminated.
Agreed.
> --
> I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
> ------------------------
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.open4success.com
==============27140F3BD98FAD70664B4430
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="rballard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Rex Ballard
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="rballard.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Ballard;Rex
tel;cell:908-723-4008
tel;work:973-723-4008
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fn:Rex Ballard
end:vcard
==============27140F3BD98FAD70664B4430==
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a
tosser, and lies about free software)
Date: 3 Apr 2001 05:53:03 GMT
On 2 Apr 2001 06:44:22 GMT, Rob S. Wolfram wrote:
>Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>GPLed software *can* be distributed to you, only not in a fashion that
>you or someone else in the distribution line can prevent any freedom of
>use of that software. I see no reason why all those wonderful
>combinations cannot be GPLed as a whole.
I have two problems with this assertion:
(*) I don't see how using a free library in proprietary code prevents
freedom of use of that library. It only limits freedom of use of
the proprietary software you wrote. This is why the GPL is often
called the "GPV".
(*) The GPL most certainly prevents use of library code, unless you are
prepared to accept a very narrow definition of the intended use of
the library (ie to develop GPL programs, not "to develop programs")
The GPL as a license for libraries is not about freedom at all, in
fact it's probably the most draconian license I've seen, and that
includes the EULAs for proprietary libraries.
>>Everyone who could not obtain that program was prevented from
>>using it. You can play all the word games you want, but they could
>>not use it as a direct result of the GPL.
>
>As a direct result of the GPL *AND* the fact that you were unwilling to
>GPL the resulting program.
GPLing the resulting program is unacceptable if the resulting program in
question is a library. I don't want to force users of my library to
pay homage to the holy GNU or any other sacred animal.
>It's not only the GPL that prevents this, it's the GPL *in combination
>with* the unwillingness of the programmer to GPL the result that really
>prevents this.
>The GPL was carefully crafted to prevent "embrace and extend" by less
>honest parties,
Unfortunately, the GPL when applied to libraries or anything that has any
chance of becoming library code has the unfortunate consequence that it
infects any software that links to it.
The LGPL protects against embrace and extend without suffering from this
major shortcoming.
IMO, the biggest problem with the way the GPL / LGPL work is that developers
have the mistaken impression that the LGPL is "only for libraries", and
until you get burnt by the GPL (or come close to getting burnt), you will
make the mistake of releasing code that gets refactored into a library as
GPL code, and writing a GPL library is a silly move unless you are one of
those GNU nuts who wants everything to be GPLd.
I have personally come very close to inadvertantly getting stuck with the
GPL on a library (there were a few people working on the project, some of
who'd quit the job, and any of them could have vetoed the effort to
re-license) It seems I am not the only one who was either tricked
into GPLing something that shouldn't have been GPLd, due to infecting
myself with the virus, or was otherwise burnt. It's interesting to note
that a lot of the people speaking out against the GPL are developers who
got burnt by it.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Johnny Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows?
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 05:54:40 GMT
"pete@-" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9aaslu$vq3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "2 says...
>
> >This being the case, then the open source movement, already having an OS,
> >needs a framework and execution engine of its own.
> >
>
> No they don't. Java is here.
>
> Why reinvet the wheel?
>
> What is it that you need that Java and corba and RMI and XML do not
> give you?
Speed (Java). Wide compatibility between vendors (CORBA). Lack of solid
development tooks (XML), and working standards (schemas).
.Net can give you all these. Of course, it only runs with Windows. The
point being that all these "standards" hasn't yielded the runaway success
that any companies are screaming after.
>
> the .net and c-hash is a desparate attempt by billy to keep control
> inside him, and it failing miserbly.
.Net failing? It hasn't even came out yet. It's like the Wintrolls
screaming OSX is failing while it was still on beta.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
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: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 05:48:11 GMT
On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 22:21:22 -0700, Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Isaac wrote:
>> My belief is that the FSF has no choice but to hold that untenable
>> position. The alternative is that any of their code can be compiled
>> as libraries and plugins which can then be used with proprietary
>> closed source programs.
>
>The other alternative is to impose usage-based restrictions. The FSF
>opposes those for philosophical reasons, but that's what hard choices
>are about. They must pick one or the other.
Usage based restriction would work, but relying on them would leave the
problem that all currently existing GPL'd code could still be used against
the FSF's wishes. To avoid that problem, the FSF must claim that some
funky combination of copyright law and the current GPL already imply the
desired result.
It seems to me there is no satifactory choice at all.
>> Microsoft should according to the FSF's position be able to tell
>> Oracle or Netscape not to use Microsoft's dll's or OS system calls
>> in their software. Fortunately, this just isn't the law.
>
>Yes it is, in terms of copyright law (but possibly not antitrust law),
>because software licenses can dictate terms of use. Putting aside
>antitrust law (and shrinkwrap issues) , Microsoft could put a term into
>its EULA that the user may not use the operating system to run any
>programs which Microsoft has either not approved or has listed as
>forbidden.
I don't believe such a EULA term would be enforceable. Even ignoring
the issues we're putting aside, I think if Microsoft attempted such a
restriction, they would be in the same position as a game console
manufacturer trying to make it illegal to play 3rd party games.
Those kinds of restrictions haven't worked, and probably won't
work here.
I also think EULA's are somewhat independent of copyright law so
I'm not sure that a EULA restriction can be argued to prove
anything concerning copyright law. EULA's contain lots of
restrictions that exceed the exclusive rights of copyright
holders.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 3 Apr 2001 06:06:17 GMT
On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 06:40:45 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:07:14
>>> This is an obligation on the distributor of the GPLed
>>> code, nothing more. If he can't meet this obligation, then he can't
>>> distribute the GPLed code.
>>
>>That alone is enough to make the 'free' label a clear deception,
>
>No, freedom always comes with obligations.
When you're willing to accept encumbered software as "free", you are
opening floodgates, and it becomes difficult to see what software is
not "free" by the same argument. For example, you can link to win32
without encumbering your license with a Microsoft EULA. I believe the
Win32 stuff can be obtained free of cost. So is it "free software" ?
Even if software is pay-ware, it could be "free", because "freedom"
(the freedom to release products that link against the library under
any license) comes with obligations (read the EULA ... )
It might be true that freedom comes with obligations, but all this says
is that freedom is usually limited either forcefully or voluntarily
(meaning certain freedoms are not excercised) or that it is not unusual for
there to be restrictions on freedom for either the good of a single
party, or for some alleged "greater good". In either case, it's important
not to confuse limitations on freedom with freedom itself.
The fact that a restriction on freedom is intended to serve a "greater
good" does not in any way alter the fact that it is indeed a restriction.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
