Linux-Advocacy Digest #400, Volume #33 Thu, 5 Apr 01 20:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Too expensive, too invasive (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Baseball (".")
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised ("fmc")
Re: Baseball (".")
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised ("tony roth")
Re: Baseball (Mike)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Full Monty Python (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Too expensive, too invasive
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:03:32 GMT
On Thu 05 Apr 2001 05:02, Richard Thrippleton wrote:
[Snip]
> Sounds tempting. I don't particularly want to run the KDE desktop,
> but would it be possible to just compile KDE support libraries for
> Konqueror to use, without subverting my system to the will of KDE?
>
> Richard
>
There's a very strong possibility that you can, although I wouldn't know
exactly how to go about it. However, KDE can't do any harm to your system
if you compile it with --prefix=/opt/kde, so it might be worth it to just
compile and install everything the support, libs, and base packages. Be
warned, base and libs are the 1st and 3rd largest packages (respectively)
in all of KDE, and the compile of those 3 packages takes about 3 hours or
so total on my 300MHz box. *curses the name of Bjarne Strousoup*
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Baseball
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:04:33 +1200
> > Hockey's an even more stupid sport than rugby... half the fans go
> > specifically to watch the violence, and couldn't care less who wins.
>
> And this changes the motivations of those who watch for other reasons
> (i.e. the truly athletic competition on the ice) how, exactly?
I never said it did, but it can have a serious effect on the attitudes of
the players, if large numbers of their fans are standing up yelling for
blood all the time.
> Just ice skating itself is a difficult enough skill for most people...
Yes, but moving a mouse is too difficult a skill for some dipshits. The
fact that some sheep can skate while others have to watch because the drool
on their shoelaces would freeze them to the ice doesn't make it interesting.
> And full-contacts sports are extremely difficult for most poeple to
> even survive.
Life is extremely difficult for most people to survive.
> Combine the two, and you have a sport in which the best are truly
> world class ATHLETES in the fullest sense of the word.
No, they're hockey players. Just because YOU admire the game doesn't
necessarily mean there's a hell of a lot more skill in the game than in any
other. Every game would emphasize different skills, and hockey players I'm
sure would suck at many things that weren't hockey.
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:06:25 GMT
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 21:17:48 GMT, fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > [-SNIP-]
> >
> >To clear up any confusion, you should take Chuck Mead's advice and "Go
read
> >it and see for yourself." There's a section that deals with "MICROSOFT'S
> >RIGHT TO USE FEEDBACK OR SUGGESTIONS YOU SUBMIT", but that's a far cry
from
> >giving them carte blanche as the Mead article suggests.
> >
> >
>
> Oh, I read it all right. This discussion and Mead's article was
> based on the license that existed until just last night (April 4th,
> 2001).
>
> You seem to have trouble understanding that Microsoft just changed
> their license under pressure from privacy rights groups, users, and the
> press. This just happened today (or last night). See:
>
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-5508903.html?tag=mn_hd
>
>
> Notice the "Revised April 4, 2001" notice at the bottom of:
>
> http://www.passport.com/Consumer/TermsOfUse.asp?PPlcid=1033
Now that's interesting. All that happened on April 4, yet on April 5 you
posted the following:
"I think you are either confused or stupid. Possibly both. I don't know
what
you read, but it wasn't this: --- LICENSE TO MICROSOFT..."
Of course you never mentioned that the license had been changed, so what you
said on April 5 was incorrect and misleading. Al least Mead can claim that
what he posted was accurate at some point in the past.
fm
------------------------------
From: "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:10:20 +1200
> why don't you do something to make unix as easy to use as windows while
> retaining the former's stability and put microsoft out of business?
Windows isn't easy to use, it's pretty damned painful and stressful. To
have excel GPF because you typed numbers into a cell, and lose your most
recent work, is frustrating and inexplicable. Especially when you can load
it up a second time and do exactly the same thing, but this time it wont
crash.
Every time I use linux, it does what I would expect it to do. THAT'S ease
of use.
------------------------------
From: "tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:12:41 -0700
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Please re read the agreement it does not say anything about owning the
content of everything you do over any of its services only "comments or
suggestions" about the service are! Simply put any of my email or data
which uses there equipment is mine and only mine unless I submit it as a
comment or suggestion to microsoft directly!
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> ******************************************************
> By Chuck Mead on Monday April 02 2001 @ 11:55PM EDT
> http://www.moongroup.com/stories.php?story=01/04/02/0156291
>
------------------------------
From: Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:16:12 -0700
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> why don't you do something to make unix as easy to use as windows while
>> retaining the former's stability and put microsoft out of business?
>
>Windows isn't easy to use, it's pretty damned painful and stressful. To
>have excel GPF because you typed numbers into a cell, and lose your most
>recent work, is frustrating and inexplicable. Especially when you can load
>it up a second time and do exactly the same thing, but this time it wont
>crash.
>
>Every time I use linux, it does what I would expect it to do. THAT'S ease
>of use.
WHERE ARE THE LINUX BILLIONAIRES?????
Mike
See P-P-P-P-P-PAT THE MOVIE! http://www.pat-acceptance.org/PAT.html
Download P-P-P-P-P-PAT THE MOVIE! http://www.pat-acceptance.org/Pat.exe
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:21:55 GMT
Said fmc in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 05 Apr 2001 15:48:37 GMT;
>
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> ******************************************************
>> By Chuck Mead on Monday April 02 2001 @ 11:55PM EDT
>> http://www.moongroup.com/stories.php?story=01/04/02/0156291
>>
>> Microsoft should be feared and despised!
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>> After taking the time to read the Microsoft Passport Web Site Terms of Use
>> and Notices I have had a belly full of them. The potential damage they can
>> do with this license is staggering. I encourage everyone to take the time
>to read it,
>> particularly the section entitled "LICENSE TO MICROSOFT". If you've ever
>> had any doubts about the nature of that company reading that section
>should
>> put them to rest for good and all!
>>
>> I don't know how many times I've heard Microsoft described as "evil" by
>> Linux zealots and open source supporters (which I am both) and thought,
>> "They're losing it... Microsoft is just a company!" but now I'm forced
>> to agree with them. This license is heinous, and more, it's frightening
>> because I know that some people won't read it and will lose the rights
>> to their own data/content without knowing. Add that to the fact that
>> the license is clearly attempting to gain the rights to *ALL CONTENT
>> WHICH PASSES OVER ANY SERVICE THEY PROVIDE*. For example... this
>> article could be copied by someone and sent to someone else who uses
>> the hotmail email service. According to the license Microsoft would then
>> own the rights to this article! Unbelieveable you say? Go read it and see
>> for yourself.
>
>If what you're talking about is the Hotmail/Passport license, I've read it,
>and all you grant them is limited "publication" rights they need to fulfill
>your request.
Apparently, you missed the news. They changed the license (last week, I
believe) and staked a claim to every bit of intellectual property, in
perpetuity and without restriction, that goes through hotmail.
>By sending an email you're giving MS/Hotmail a piece of
>unsolicited intellectual property, with the expectation that they'll act as
>an intermediary and forward it to its destination. Well, they really can't
>do anything with it without your permission, because it's still your
>intellectual property. That's what those publication rights are for -
>you're granting them a license for a specific purpose.
That's a senseless metaphysical description of copyright as it applies
here. No, Microsoft does not need any right to your intellectual
property in order to carry an email containing "it" through their
servers.
>To assume anything beyond that leads to improbable scenarios; for instance,
>does Microsoft own the book, movie, and television rights to a novel that an
>author Hotmails to his publisher? I don't think so.
They do, though, and the data is already on their servers. What are you
going to do about it, should they not really care what you think? I've
been told they relented immediately when challenged, indicating all
sorts of things that I won't second-guess about at this point. But the
same thing came up on Yahoo recently, and although they changed their
license, they actually kept in the nasty bits. They don't want your
.jpg and .mp3 files, no. But any text is all theirs. Copyright, trade
secret, proprietary data. They take it all, as their license stands
RIGHT NOW. (I just checked ten minutes ago. I figured MS will soon
have its sock puppets insisting the whole incident never really
happened. But smoke screens aside, it appears to be a major major
problem that cannot be waved away by saying it doesn't make sense.)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:23:21 GMT
Said Rob Barris in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:14:22
GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 15:48:37 GMT, fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> ******************************************************
>> >> By Chuck Mead on Monday April 02 2001 @ 11:55PM EDT
>> >> http://www.moongroup.com/stories.php?story=01/04/02/0156291
>> >>
>> >> Microsoft should be feared and despised!
>> >> ----------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> After taking the time to read the Microsoft Passport Web Site Terms of
>> >> Use
>> >> and Notices I have had a belly full of them. The potential damage they
>> >> can
>> >> do with this license is staggering. I encourage everyone to take the
>> >> time
>> >to read it,
>> >> particularly the section entitled "LICENSE TO MICROSOFT". If you've
>> >> ever
>> >> had any doubts about the nature of that company reading that section
>> >should
>> >> put them to rest for good and all!
>> >>
>> >> I don't know how many times I've heard Microsoft described as "evil"
>> >> by
>> >> Linux zealots and open source supporters (which I am both) and
>> >> thought,
>> >> "They're losing it... Microsoft is just a company!" but now I'm forced
>> >> to agree with them. This license is heinous, and more, it's
>> >> frightening
>> >> because I know that some people won't read it and will lose the rights
>> >> to their own data/content without knowing. Add that to the fact that
>> >> the license is clearly attempting to gain the rights to *ALL CONTENT
>> >> WHICH PASSES OVER ANY SERVICE THEY PROVIDE*. For example... this
>> >> article could be copied by someone and sent to someone else who uses
>> >> the hotmail email service. According to the license Microsoft would
>> >> then
>> >> own the rights to this article! Unbelieveable you say? Go read it and
>> >> see
>> >> for yourself.
>> >
>> >If what you're talking about is the Hotmail/Passport license, I've read
>> >it,
>> >and all you grant them is limited "publication" rights they need to
>> >fulfill
>> >your request. By sending an email you're giving MS/Hotmail a piece of
>> >unsolicited intellectual property, with the expectation that they'll act
>> >as
>> >an intermediary and forward it to its destination. Well, they really
>> >can't
>> >do anything with it without your permission, because it's still your
>> >intellectual property. That's what those publication rights are for -
>> >you're granting them a license for a specific purpose.
>> >
>> >To assume anything beyond that leads to improbable scenarios; for
>> >instance,
>> >does Microsoft own the book, movie, and television rights to a novel
>> >that an
>> >author Hotmails to his publisher? I don't think so.
>> >
>> > fm
>> >
>>
>> I think you are either confused or stupid. Possibly both. I don't know
>> what
>> you read, but it wasn't this:
>>
>
>The terms were changed.
>
>http://slashdot.org/articles/01/04/05/051221.shtml
>
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-5508903.html?tag=mn_hd
>
>http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,42811,00.html
Yahoo terms are still a problem:
"With respect to Content other than photos, graphics, audio or video you
submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of
the Service other than Yahoo! Clubs or Yahoo! Groups, the perpetual,
irrevocable and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute,
reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and
publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate
such Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later
developed."
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:13 GMT
Sorry; forgot the url.
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Said Rob Barris in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:14:22
GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 15:48:37 GMT, fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> ******************************************************
>> >> By Chuck Mead on Monday April 02 2001 @ 11:55PM EDT
>> >> http://www.moongroup.com/stories.php?story=01/04/02/0156291
>> >>
>> >> Microsoft should be feared and despised!
>> >> ----------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> After taking the time to read the Microsoft Passport Web Site Terms of
>> >> Use
>> >> and Notices I have had a belly full of them. The potential damage they
>> >> can
>> >> do with this license is staggering. I encourage everyone to take the
>> >> time
>> >to read it,
>> >> particularly the section entitled "LICENSE TO MICROSOFT". If you've
>> >> ever
>> >> had any doubts about the nature of that company reading that section
>> >should
>> >> put them to rest for good and all!
>> >>
>> >> I don't know how many times I've heard Microsoft described as "evil"
>> >> by
>> >> Linux zealots and open source supporters (which I am both) and
>> >> thought,
>> >> "They're losing it... Microsoft is just a company!" but now I'm forced
>> >> to agree with them. This license is heinous, and more, it's
>> >> frightening
>> >> because I know that some people won't read it and will lose the rights
>> >> to their own data/content without knowing. Add that to the fact that
>> >> the license is clearly attempting to gain the rights to *ALL CONTENT
>> >> WHICH PASSES OVER ANY SERVICE THEY PROVIDE*. For example... this
>> >> article could be copied by someone and sent to someone else who uses
>> >> the hotmail email service. According to the license Microsoft would
>> >> then
>> >> own the rights to this article! Unbelieveable you say? Go read it and
>> >> see
>> >> for yourself.
>> >
>> >If what you're talking about is the Hotmail/Passport license, I've read
>> >it,
>> >and all you grant them is limited "publication" rights they need to
>> >fulfill
>> >your request. By sending an email you're giving MS/Hotmail a piece of
>> >unsolicited intellectual property, with the expectation that they'll act
>> >as
>> >an intermediary and forward it to its destination. Well, they really
>> >can't
>> >do anything with it without your permission, because it's still your
>> >intellectual property. That's what those publication rights are for -
>> >you're granting them a license for a specific purpose.
>> >
>> >To assume anything beyond that leads to improbable scenarios; for
>> >instance,
>> >does Microsoft own the book, movie, and television rights to a novel
>> >that an
>> >author Hotmails to his publisher? I don't think so.
>> >
>> > fm
>> >
>>
>> I think you are either confused or stupid. Possibly both. I don't know
>> what
>> you read, but it wasn't this:
>>
>
>The terms were changed.
>
>http://slashdot.org/articles/01/04/05/051221.shtml
>
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-5508903.html?tag=mn_hd
>
>http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,42811,00.html
Yahoo terms are still a problem:
"With respect to Content other than photos, graphics, audio or video you
submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of
the Service other than Yahoo! Clubs or Yahoo! Groups, the perpetual,
irrevocable and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute,
reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and
publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate
such Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later
developed."
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:14 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in alt.destroy.microsoft on 5 Apr 2001 14:33:05 GMT;
>Roger Perkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"Except when you feel it's right" isn't in the Bible.
>
>No kidding? ;-)
>
>> The correct quote is "tho shalt not commit murder".
>
>Well, I am working back from the spanish version, which is simply
>"No matarás".
>
>We would have to go to the original to decide which one is closer,
>wouldn't we?
Well, the Catholics say that its "thou shalt not kill". The "commit
murder" phrasing is *definitely* revisionist.
>> And are you saying you wouldn't move to the
>>defense of a friend who was attacked?
>
>I am not a christian, so I am not morally bound by commandments.
>I would defend a friend. However, I would not kill a burglar. I would
>not kill a trespasser, unless he tried to kill me. I would not kill
>with a machinegun someone who was beating my friend with his fists.
>
>And if I killed someone, I would hate myself for it.
There comes a point, I think, where you are simply telling yourself this
in order to justify your moral perspective. You would like to think you
would "hate yourself" if you killed someone. Whether you would or not
remains to be seen, and so your contention becomes an unfalsifiable
claim, unless you actually kill someone to find out. (I'm not
recommending any moralistic experiments here, but I hope you'll see my
point.)
But you should be aware, Roberto, not that I don't admire your
sentiments and believe them to be Right, your belief is quite possibly
just self-delusion. Seems odd, doesn't it, since whether it is or is
not is meaningless, unless you kill someone? A rather effective
mechanism, this morality thing, eh?
If you're a healthy person, you'd get over it. That wouldn't make you
want to do it again. But you wouldn't have to scare yourself to
convince yourself of that. (Unless you did, of course, want to do it
again. I'd imagine it must be a memorable experience.)
>> That makes you pretty spineless and self-centered, if you ask me.
>
>Since that's all in your mind, you can keep it there.
>
>>Rogerto you show a good intelligence.
>
>You seem to be confusing me with you, at least in the name.
I noticed he's done that a lot. I think its just a typo; very common
for Roger because his fingers "know" to type the word "Roger", even when
his brain wants the similar but distinct "Roberto".
I noticed myself putting "r's" at the end of the word "serve" last
night, over and over again. Just because my fingers are used to typing
"server".
[...]
>Well, I have an open mind. However, I have beliefs, and I have opinions.
>Many confuse disagreement with closemindedness. Hopefully you will not.
Wow. I'd like to engrave that on some people's foreheads. Well said.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Full Monty Python
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:17 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 05 Apr 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 04 Apr 2001
>> >Tom Wilson wrote:
>> [...]
>> >When I first heard what the term 'full monty' means...'python'
>> >just comes along in the same vein... (snicker)
>>
>> You are so hopelessly provincial, Aaron. I'll bet "The full monty"
>> means "all the way", "the whole keilbasa".
>
>spot the projection.
Guffaw.
>> And you're snickering like a school-boy at the word "kielbasa".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:19 GMT
Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:06:51
-0600;
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Maybe Microsoft will go the full monty and deliver a stable OS for once?
>
>why don't you do something to make unix as easy to use as windows while
>retaining the former's stability and put microsoft out of business?
Your result does not logically follow from your premise, I'm afraid.
What does ease of use have to do with illegal monopolization?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:21 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 5 Apr 2001
>On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 04 Apr 2001 05:28:09
>>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> 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?
>>> Analogies are always flawed, but CPUs just read instructions and execute
>>> them, and the software is that set of instructions.
>> Analogies are for explaining technical concepts. There are no analogies
>> in legal concepts. Perhaps this is why you are more confused than you
>> realize concerning copyright on software.
>
>Like nearly everything else Maxie says, this is utter horseshit.
>Analogies are used to explain relationship between two things in a way
>that the listener might understand.
>
>m-w.com:
>
> analogy2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things
> otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such
> resemblance
>
>Indeed, just as a cook -- especially a neophyte cook -- will perform
>the instructions in a recipe, so a computer will perform the
>instructions in software.
Thanks for the *technical* analogy of how software works. Now what does
it have to do with the *legal* reality? Simply because your *technical*
analogy is explanatory, does that mean that the *same relationship*
holds for *all* analogies for software, even those used to try to
understand (but not define; copyright is defined by laws, not analogies)
things which are *legal*, and *not in any way* technical?
>>>> As for how the art of juggling is supposed to relate to the putative art
>>>> (some say science, some pretend both) of software programming is not
>>>> clear to me at the moment.
>>> The transfer of control is the similar point. A program transfering
>>> control to a library function is no more 'derived' from that library
>>> than a juggler is derived from a different juggler because he might
>>> on occasion transfer control of a ball to him.
>> It is NOT whether it transfers control: a program is *written* as
>> derivative, or it is not derivative.
>
>This, like so much else that Maxie says, is false. You haven't progressed,
>Maxine, you've reverted to complete ignorance.
Get an argument or take a hike, putz.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
