Linux-Advocacy Digest #314, Volume #33 Tue, 3 Apr 01 08:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Software registration (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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 11:50:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 09:25:39 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 04:24:44
>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>>> >Err, no. Software doesn't 'run' or perform anything. It is a set of
>>> >instructions that a CPU follows just like a cook may follow a cookbook.
>>>
>>> Well, see, the problem is you have a CPU, an inanimate object, *doing*
>>> things, but then you say that software cannot. CPU's don't "follow"
>>> instructions "just like a cook may follow a cookbook". That's a
>>> ridiculous idea, and I know you know way more about software than to
>>> think it holds up. Care to try again?
>>
>>No, that was pretty close.
>
>Are you trying to tell me you accept this ridiculous idea? A CPU is a
>cook, and software a recipe? Where on earth did you come up with that?
>I mean, it makes perfect sense as a technical analogy, to explain to
>people "how computers/software work". But as a legal abstraction to
>base copyright protection on? That's crazy!
Well, compared to the current "code is a book, but it's not covered by
first amendment rights, and the CPU is a reader that has no right to
fair use", I think it's damn good!
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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 11:55:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 06:40:45 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:07:14
>>"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> > Exactly how do you imagine a separate library that existed before
>>> > the GPL'd component would become 'derived from' this GPL'd
>>> > component if they happen to be linked together at some future date?
>>>
>>> It does not.
>>
>>Then by what claim can the FSF say that separately distributing a
>> 'user-does-the-link' kit where the usr obtains his own copy
>>of the GPL'd material is in any way a violation?
>
>Linking by definition cannot make a piece of software derivative. It is
>in being literally "based on" the other work. Unfortunately, software
>has a functional nature, as well as artistic integrity, so being "based
>on" becomes problematic. The FSF believe that it includes writing a
>program which calls code in a library. This makes the program
>derivative of the library, because the only reason anyone has for
>obtaining this software, in general, is because of its functionality.
>Therefore, to allow the author of the program to potentially profit from
>the functionality of the library is contrary to the purpose of
>copyright.
>
>The software becomes derivative when it is written, not when it finally
Here Max, is where you should graciously exit, stage left, because you
have no idea what you are talking about. There are very simple ways to
write the program so that it will work with multiple alternative libraries,
without any libraries on degraded mode, and to write it so that it may work
with any library that is conceivable in the future.
That would make the program derivative of something that DOESN'T exist when
the program is written, breaking causality.
I know you have said in the past that causality doesn't matter. Ask a lawyer.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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 11:57:29 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
The major problem is that the FSF already opted against usage-based
restrictions where it matters most: in the licenses' text.
That's one of the few things in the GPL that are written clearly ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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 12:01:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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;
>>On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 19:34:48 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Jeffrey Siegal in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 01 Apr 2001
>>>>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>>>> but using this trick he has convinced himself
>>>>> that time travel has a bearing on copyright law.
>>>>
>>>>Never mind. Sorry for barging in.
>>>
>>>No, please, barge in more often. I didn't mean to offend you, I was
>>>just explaining the confusion. Believe me, this is not an exclusive
>>>conversation; if it were only me and Les, neither of us would bother,
>>>for sure.
>>
>>I think your characterization of the argument as being about time travel
>>is a gross misrepresentation.
>
>It was a relatively flippant closing remark. All by itself it would
>have to be wrong to be "grossly misrepresentative", and its not. Les'
>thought experiment requires somebody to go into the past and write
>software which existed but was somehow not written.
>
>>The real point is that since the statute
>>defines derivative works as being based on one or more pre-existing works,
>>a program by definition cannot be derivative of a given library if it exists
>>before the library is even written.
>
>Other than very painfully extended special cases, the idea, as I
>remarked, is ludicrous.
It is technically simple, and it is done all the time.
It can't be ludicrous, because it's happening, and will continue to happen.
Technical ignorance is not a defense against reality.
>>Apparently you don't believe it to be possible to write such a program,
>>but most others know better. For example I can write a program that can
>>use currently existing gimp plug-ins. Assuming I write my program
>>correctly, it could also use gpl'd plug-ins that have yet to be written.
>
>Well, you might get lucky, but if your goal is to support an interface
>(gimp plug-ins) that has only ever existed previously in a GPL product,
>writing such a product would certainly bring up the question of whether
>your work is derivative of the GPL work.
It will not be derivative for several reasons:
a) Because if it would, then GNU grep is a derivative work of AT&T grep.
b) It is not derivative if it's based on a published spec. The spec is
published. This has been done to death a bazillion times.
c) It's common practice. If that's infringing on a license, then every
programmer has infringed on everyone's license.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Software registration
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 08:06:46 -0400
Pretty interesting reply, I'll have to read up about some of the points you
write.
Rex Ballard wrote:
>
> 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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
