Linux-Advocacy Digest #355, Volume #33 Wed, 4 Apr 01 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor (Plato)
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: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor (Knowledge Seeker)
Re: Baseball (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Darwinian Evolution and open software (Ronald Landheer)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised ("Gary Hallock")
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) (Rob S. Wolfram)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:54:16 +0200
"Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> With your logic that SSH = telnet + encryption, I can say that a car and
plane
> are exactly the same thing; isn't a plane a car with wings?
http://a432.g.akamaitech.net/7/432/622/10000229993214/abcnews.go.com/media/T
ech/images/ho_moller_skycar_h.jpg
------------------------------
From: Plato <|@|.|>
Crossposted-To:
24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.development.system,43
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:08:15 -0500
Knowledge Seeker wrote:
>
> I am looking for a full-featured yet easy to use text editor to
http://www.notetab.com/download.htm
> There seem to be a plethora of choices that might work:
> UltraEdit
> TextPad
> EditPlus
> WinEdit
> Multi-Edit
> Zeus
> CRiSP
>
> Right now I am leaning to UltraEdit but I have not done a true
> rigorous evaluation. I would definitely like to hear from anybody
> that has done a true objective comparative evaluation of these
> products (or others that I have not listed).
--
bootdisk.com
------------------------------
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: 4 Apr 2001 19:10:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:10:30 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 Apr 2001 12:01:40
> [...]
>>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.
>Please provide a couple examples of programs which were written to use
>libraries which did not yet exist. I do not believe "it" is done all
>the time, though I do know for a fact that you and other's have
>misconstrued what "it" is.
FTE. Text editor. With no modification to the original sources, just
a little dynamic linking magic (could be done at runtime if you want)
it now uses Qt or KDElibs (2.0b5 or later).
Proof image: http://www.conectiva.com.ar/ralsina/
Other: Gimp plugins. You can use them with a BeOS image editor.
Yet the BeOS plugins were written before BeOS (and all its libraries)
were released.
Any windows program: they can use the DLL replacements in wine.
Any Motif program: they can use LessTif.
Those are SIMPLE examples. There are way more general ones.
>>>>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.
>
>I think you confuse derivative in a metaphorical sense (West Side Story
>is derivative of Romeo and Juliet) and derivative in a legal sense (Jim
>Carrey's Grinch is derivative of the character in the book by Dr.
>Suesse.) They are related, but only an unreasonable person would
>suggest that they are precisely the same.
In what sense were you using derivative 11 lines above?
>The more direct-foward expression of that argument is that all
>Windows-based programs would be derivative of Windows, should MS attempt
>to claim ownership and start taking people to court. I agree completely
>with the example; according to the current understanding of copyright
>and software, IF the FSF's theory is valid, then MS could, in fact, do
>this. As well as a lot of other things they *could* do, but wouldn't,
>because they'd be back in front of a judge for Sherman Act violations,
>again.
>
>>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.
>
>How could the published spec be known to be correct enough to be useful
>if the software providing that functionality has never been envisioned?
It's called "follow the spec". I have done it myself. I read a man page
and wrote a library based on that.
>A book is 'written' when its author puts words to paper. But there is
>no paper in software. Is not documented an API spec essentially not the
>same thing as writing the software?
Too many "not"s there :-)
Writing and documenting an API is not the same as implementing it.
> I'm not suggesting its not easier,
>but is the artistry in the API, or in the code?
I'd say they are two works.
>A programmer, always
>anxious to get defensive, will usually say "both", I would expect. But
>then we've got two different works, and we know an API cannot be covered
>by copyright.
Actually, the specific document describing the API, can.
>I'm interested in hearing what you have to say about the gedanken
>experiment I posted in another message about the author of the third
>book of a trilogy.
Missed it.
>>c) It's common practice. If that's infringing on a license, then every
>> programmer has infringed on everyone's license.
>
>As I've said what I thought was often enough before. 'Yea, so?'
So, we would all be in jail already. I dare say that if this had any legal
basis someone would have used it.
--
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: 4 Apr 2001 19:15:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:40 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 Apr 2001 11:55:08
>>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.
>
>In any such situation, as far as I know, any of those *alternative*
>libraries being GPL would not require that your program be GPL. If I am
>mistaken, please explain why, without invectives designed to broadside
>the FSF. That's just begging the question.
Well, you can't just say "the program is derivative of all libraries
it uses", and then say that despite it being derivative, that doesn't
make the GPL apply to the program!
You are abandoning your argument because you don't like where it leads!
>>That would make the program derivative of something that DOESN'T exist when
>>the program is written, breaking causality.
>
>"Exist" would unfortunately have to be defined in that sentence.
I won't define when something exists. I will define that a library that
was not specified, written, published, or documented doesn't yet exist.
I will also say that a program can not be a derivative work of a library
if the program's author has not seen that library, even if the library
did exist.
> I am
>by nature suspicious of such sentences. If it simply works with a GPL
>library, it is not necessarily derivative. If the only library it will
>work with is GPL, it is GPL.
And precisely what is the reasoning for such a distinction?
>If a publishing house hires two authors to create works for hire which
>constitute the first two books of a trilogy because they have purchased
>(in the applicable sense) from another author a book which is the third
>part of a trilogy which he didn't write the first two books for, which
>books are derivative of the other? Does this gedanken experiment have
>any bearing on your metaphysical substances?
Actually, none is derivative of any other unless they use the same
expression of the idea. In the copyright sense, that is.
--
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: 4 Apr 2001 19:16:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:41 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 12:53:34 GMT;
>>On 3 Apr 2001 11:55:08 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>That would make the program derivative of something that DOESN'T exist when
>>>the program is written, breaking causality.
>>
>>Breaking causality is a little strong. But the principle Max argues
>>would allow me to write a plug-in for Netscape and then to sue Netscape
>>to stop distribution of their browser that is now capable of calling my
>>new plug-in.
>
>No, but it would allow Netscape to sue you, if they wanted to.
Over what? Over writting a program that agrees to a spec?
Are you saying they would sue over an API copyright?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Knowledge Seeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:20:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Knowledge Seeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I am looking for a full-featured yet easy to use text editor to
>replace Notepad. Ideally, I would like a tool that is cross-platform
>or has versions for Win98 and Linux. The main platform requirement
>would be Win98 and the nice-to-have platform is Linux.
>
>There seem to be a plethora of choices that might work:
>UltraEdit
>TextPad
>EditPlus
>WinEdit
>Multi-Edit
>Zeus
>CRiSP
and SlickEdit
>
>Right now I am leaning to UltraEdit but I have not done a true
>rigorous evaluation. I would definitely like to hear from anybody
>that has done a true objective comparative evaluation of these
>products (or others that I have not listed).
>
>My actual requirements are:
>
>Must haves:
>1. Syntax highlighting (with color and or font) for HTML and Java
>2. Robust cut and paste including row, AND column AND block
>capabilities
>3. Split and join functions based on margin or specified column
>4. Ability to intelligently remove prefix characters (i.e. ">") and
>re-format text to new margins keeping paragraphs intact (i.e. fixing
>forwarded email text)
>5. Ability to edit multiple files side-by-side
>6. Ability to compare files and synchronize multiple similar files
>flagging differences
>7. Robust search and replace capabilities (ideally supporting
>regular expressions)
>8. Line numbering
>9. Column numbering
>10. Auto-completion (based on customizable template)of common
>programming statements
>11. Ability to preview HTML pages (including Java applets) easily
>12. HTML toolbar (I know I should know all the tags but I just cannot
>remember them all)
>13. Can be used as a replacement for Notepad (so it must be
>relatively quick and have a small footprint)
>14. Highlights URL and e-mail addresses and launches browser or email
>client in a separate window when clicked
>15. Ability to change case for entire selected text
>16. Auto indent based on user-defined templates for each programming
>language
>17. Auto alignment (I.e. if I want a set of lines with the "=" sign
>or decimal point or comma aligned on multiple rows)
>18. Undo capability
19. Free tech support support that is actually active, accurate, and
rapid via email at least
>
>Nice to haves:
>1. Syntax highlighting for Perl, C/C++, and SQL. Also, extensibility
>for other programming languages based on easily customized syntax
>files.
>2. Ability to use FTP
>3. Spell checker
>4. Ability to compile from within the editor
>5. Keystroke save/execute (i.e. macro capability)
6. Free tech support support that is actually active and accurate via
phone
--
eCommerce Knowledge Seeker
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Baseball
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 19:17:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tom Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 04 Apr 2001 06:13:48 GMT
<wYyy6.683$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9ae1tr$f9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Rugby is more than a sport, its a religion, LOL!
>>
>> New Zealanders love their sport. In fact, if you look at what happens
>when
>> the all blacks win, the economy picks up, however, when they loose the
>> economy slows down, so maybe the US need a decent rugby, soccer and
>cricket
>> team to help fix up the sagging economy.
>
>Newly-unemployed dot-com workers forced to play rugby for a living would
>make for entertaining television, that's for sure.
Does the XFL count? :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OK, so it's still American football...
EAC code #191 58d:20h:50m actually running Linux.
>>> Make Signatures Fast! <<<
------------------------------
From: Ronald Landheer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Darwinian Evolution and open software
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 20:59:02 +0000
Hello all,
As the writer of the original post with this subject, I came over from
sci.bio.evolution for the same discussion. Hence, I will also introduce
myself, before I start responding to any posts.
The name is Ronald Landheer, I'm a Dutch Phytopathologist working in
France, and a freelance programmer and teacher of the language C. I've
written a whole bunch of software and just released some to OpenSource
(under GLPL & GPL).
As a Biologist working in genetics at the moment, I'm familiar with the
theories of evolution (and discuss them with a whole bunch of people,
but not on NNTP all that often).
As a freelance programmer, I'm familiar with OpenSource software and a
great supporter of it.
Personally, I don't think it makes sense to make all too many references
to biological principles in computer science (nor vice versa), and I
don't think the principles of natural selection apply on OpenSource
software, which IMHO has much more to do with freedom of software and
it's creators than with selection of that software through environmental
factors. Hence, I think it would be better to use the term "maturation"
in stead - but as everybody's using the word "evolution" I'll just stick
with saying it's a misconception..
Greetz!
Ronald
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:23:43 +0000
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS PL" <jspl@jsplom>
wrote:
> And the fact remains. Microsoft has money, I don't. Waaaaaa!!! mommy,
> waaaahhhhh! Billy's gonna take all my stuff if I use his free mail
> service waaaaaaa!!!
Such an intelligent response! The fact is that MS can afford to write
things into their license agreement that clearly should not stand up in
court. The mere threat of a lawsuit, even though the winner should be
obvious, is enough to scare off many people and companies. Lawsuits are
very expensive. MS must know that it won't stand up in court. But that's
not their objective. Their objective is to scare people into submission.
I really find it incredible that MS would consider such a license with
the recent history. Just shows how arrogant MS has become.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
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: 4 Apr 2001 10:30:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 2 Apr 2001 06:44:22 GMT, Rob S. Wolfram wrote:
>>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".
E.g., patching a grave bug in the Windows 2000 tcp/ip stack.
>(*) 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")
Nope, it prevents unrestricted *distribution* of your program (if based
on GPLed libraries).
> 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.
I agree here.
>>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.
Agreed. Use the LGPL instead. Don't use GPL components for a library.
>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.
Again, 100% agreement here.
>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.
Be careful, the LGPL explicitely defines a library and what you can do
with it (see sections 0, 5 and 6). I don't think it is possible to LGPL
a program that uses a closed library (i.e., the other way around).
>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.
Rehashing an earlier statement: I would be very much in favour of a
license that would work like the GPL on a file level. So if you
*statically* link your "FGPL" program to a library or statically link a
program to your "FGPL" library, the GPV should trigger, because the
result is a binary containing code of both.
If the interaction does not result in a single binary (dynamic linking
and the like), only the files containing "FGPL" code should be
distributed under its conditions, the rest should be distributed the way
its author prevers.
Such a license would have the benefits of the GPL, i.e. that each
incarnation of the software can be freely used by the user (i.e.
patching bugs) but does not limit distribution with other software
because of some political goal.
I understand (from reading this froup) that the MPL is such a license,
but I haven't studied it yet. It is a lot of legalese ;-) (and IANAL)
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
The idea that people know what they want is wrong. They need to
be pulled through the Web.
-- Laura Jennings, Vice President, Microsoft Network
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
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: 4 Apr 2001 16:47:16 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
>
>Does that mean you don't recognize any existing intellectual property
>rights that have not been assigned under the GPL, or you don't
>think anyone needs any of that? Do you understand way there
>cannot be a new GPL'd gif-writing program?
Because of a Unisys patent.
>Or DVD-decoding program?
Because of some stupid US-only law. $DEITY forbid other WIPO countries
to also implement article 11 of the WIPO 1996 treaty.
>> As a direct result of the GPL *AND* the fact that you were unwilling to
>> GPL the resulting program.
>
>Perhaps you have forgotten: the program consisted of 3 pre-existing
>components. The two other than GNUtar were freely redistributable
>but under non-GPL terms. I did not want to add any additional restrictions
>to the part I added but could not change the terms on the other components.
>Only the GPL prevented redistribution.
Case in point: if you cannot change the distribution restrictions to
GPL, then the license is just as restrictive as the GPL. So it is not
only the GPL who is to blame for your being unable to distribute the
combination.
>> Because you don't have it? Of course not! As far as such a user is
>> concerned such program does not exist.
>Of course they exist. People put them together all the time and are
>prohibited from sharing them by the GPL.
Still, sharing is sharing and using is using. Different viewpoints.
This comes down to the circular argument. You keep hammering on the
distribution. If someone would sell me his product for big bucks under
the BSDL and I couldn't get it from anywhere else, this would still be
very legal and the software would be just as free. The license talks
about how I can *redistribute* the stuff, not about how I can get it. So
can you please explain to me why not being able to get the software
makes the software non-free?
>> 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.
>
>It is impossible for the programmer to change the terms on the
>other existing components they use. The GPL makes it impossible
>to share this work even in the case where the potential recipients
>already have the right to use the other necessary parts or where those
>parts are more free than the GPL'd work.
See above.
> so of course the problem isn't with software
>they have.
That's exactly the scope of software that I'm talking about when I refer
to "using".
>> I'd say that their freedom to use the
>> software as they please does qualify it as "free software".
>And I say that not being allowed to have modifications of it distributed
>to them qualifies it as the opposite of free.
That's your prerogative. Your viewpoint differs from mine. Big deal. The
only thing I object to is that one would claim that I or someone sharing
my view on the subject is purposly deceiving others.
I feel sympathetic to people who got burned by thinking they have
unlimited possibilities with reusing GPLed code, and I *do* think that
the distribution rules of the GPL are too restrictive. I also do think
that the distribution rules of the BSDL are too unrestrictive, because
it does enable "embrace & extend". From different viewpoint I call both
free software.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it.
-- Donald Knuth
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
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: 4 Apr 2001 16:53:43 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 2 Apr 2001, Rob S. Wolfram wrote:
>> Extension yes, distribution, no. Distribution is part of the process of
>> selling or sharing, not using. Do you have anything to convince me of
>> the opposite?
>The GPL itself implies this by restricting distribution.
Come again? How do the GPL distribution restrictions make the act of
distributing part of the process of using?
>Extension,
>by the way, is often worthless if one can't distribute the results of
>said extension.
I think you know as well as I do that "free" software is often modified
in-house for better suiting ones need, without these modification ever
getting distributed to the large. Is extension also worthless in these
situations?
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it.
-- Donald Knuth
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
