Linux-Advocacy Digest #404, Volume #33 Thu, 5 Apr 01 20:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Chad Everett)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: Microsoft Refunds?? ("Joseph Ogiba")
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Baseball (".")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Baseball (".")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (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: 5 Apr 2001 23:41:34 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:26 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 5 Apr 2001 15:20:41
>>On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:08:14 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 Apr 2001 19:16:22
>>>>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?
>>>
>>>No, over writing a program that implements that spec as a necessary part
>>>of its functionality.
>>
>>The plugin implements an interface. That interface is publicly accessible,
>>you can read the exac definition of the interface without signing any
>>agreements.
>
>That's metaphysics. When I say "implements that spec" and use say
>"implements an interface", those are metaphysics, non-comprehensible
>terms, to copyright. Something infringes because of a right to profit,
>not because of any metaphysical properties.
Well, if you don't care what the person is actually doing, how is
anything you say meaningful in any way?
>>If you say that implementing the interface is a copyright violation,
>>the copyright of WHAT is being violated?
>
>Are you only now figuring out that 'intellectual property' is an
>abstraction, and is not actually bound into physical substance?
Each violation of copyright is the violation of the copyright of a
specific work. What work's copyright is being violated?
>Nothing
>needs to be copied to violate copyright. That's what 99% of the
>copyright law is all about.
That has no connection to what you are replying to. I specifically
asked WHAT copyright was violated. I did not claim or stop claiming
anything was copied.
>Perhaps we need a new clause to explain this to software developers,
>because their technical education seems to force them to think in terms
>of metaphysical manipulations of things. Something like "A software
>author has the right to dictate whether anyone ever makes any money on
>the very existence of his code in any way now or in the future, and has
>no right to keep secret any code he writes which relates functionally to
>any other code owned by someone else."
If the copyright law said anything like that, a library (and I mean
one of those with books) would be violating copyright.
You see, your theory is incredibly stupid, because it would
forbid a bazillion things that are commonly accepted practice
in the field where copyright has its roots: books. Like, say,
cliff's notes.
>>>>Are you saying they would sue over an API copyright?
>>>
>>>No, it is not API copyright, though the difference is amazingly subtle.
>>
>>Or the difference is only in your mind? ;-)
>
>Your ability to grasp abstractions is simply staggering, Roberto.
Whoa, my ability to grasp abstractions is "so surprisingly impressive
as to stun or overwhelm" you? Thanks! I am sure yours will be just
as good if you study at nights!
> In
>case you weren't aware, 'API', 'copyright', and 'intellectual property'
>are all also entirely mental concepts. So when someone suggests there's
>a difference between two things that you can't see, it's rather insipid
>to proclaim it isn't there because you can't see it.
Well, let's see. you have a very flimsy grasp on anything software
related, and apparently a not much better one of copyright law,
you say there is a difference, show no indication of what the
difference is, and I should just accept it?
I am not gullible, Max. You have to work harder than that.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
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: 5 Apr 2001 18:33:27 -0500
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:12:41 -0700, tony roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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!
>
>
Some of you people are real idiots. This thread was about the Microsoft
license as it stood until early this morning. Under pressure from privacy
rights advocates, users, and the press, Microsoft has changed
the license and the Microsoft URL referenced in these threads has been
altered to contain the new revised license. Look at the bottom of the
Microsoft webpage for the revision date. The license that has been the topic
of this thread contained everything that we have been discussing. You think
Microsoft would have changed it without pressure from users and the press?
Don't think so.
Here is the original license and topic of this thread. Read it:
"LICENSE TO MICROSOFT"
By posting messages, uploading files, inputting data, submitting any
feedback or suggestions, or engaging in any other form of communication
with or through the Passport Web Site, you warrant and represent that
you own or otherwise control the rights necessary to do so and you are
granting Microsoft and its affiliated companies permission to:
1. Use, modify, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly
perform, reproduce, publish, sublicense, create derivative works from,
transfer, or sell any such communication.
2. Sublicense to third parties the unrestricted right to exercise any of
the foregoing rights granted with respect to the communication.
3. Publish your name in connection with any such communication.
The foregoing grants shall include the right to exploit any proprietary
rights in such communication, including but not limited to rights under
copyright, trademark, service mark or patent laws under any relevant
jurisdiction. No compensation will be paid with respect to Microsoft's
use of the materials contained within such communication. Microsoft is
under no obligation to post or use any materials you may provide and may
remove such materials at any time in Microsoft's sole discretion."
------------------------------
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: 5 Apr 2001 23:44:43 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:28 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 5 Apr 2001 15:23:04
>>On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:08:24 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 4 Apr 2001
>>>13:59:53 -0400;
>>>>On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, T. Max Devlin 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.
>>>>
>>>>thinkDB 2 for the Palm. Adobe PhotoShop. The GIMP. Oh, gee. Just about
>>>>anything that supports a plug-in interface. (Hint: plug-ins are
>>>>libraries.)
>>>
>>>No, they are not libraries. They are plug-ins.
>>
>>What do you claim is the difference between one and the other?
>>Technically there is none.
>>
>>Any program can link to a plugin and access its functionality,
>>even if the main application for which the plugin was developed
>>is not present.
>
>And any library can link to a program to 'use' some of its code, as
>well.
Heck, no. That makes no sense, in general.
> I have never claimed there is a difference, but Austin was.
>"(Hint: plug-ins are libraries)".
I can't parse that. "plugins are libraries" means there is no difference
, not that there is a difference.
> Clue: no, they aren't; they're plug-ins.
What's the difference that makes a plugin not a library?
You just said three lines above there is no difference!
You can't claim there is no difference between two things,
yet they are different!
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:46:22 GMT
"T. Max Devlin"
> Well, the Catholics say that its "thou shalt not kill". The "commit
> murder" phrasing is *definitely* revisionist.
"*Definitely* revisionist", huh? LOL!!!
Do you know what it is in the original hebrew in which it was written. Is
it "kill" or is it "murder"? It is "murder".
The hebrew is "xcr" ( phoneticlly raw-tsakh) which means to "murder",
"slay", "assassinate".
------------------------------
From: "Joseph Ogiba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Refunds??
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:47:47 GMT
purchase a separately packaged expansion drive (which doesn't have
> Linux
> on it), and optionally pay a modest installation charge.
>
> The price is only about $200 less than the price of a Windows machine,
> and
> you have to install your on Linux distribution. Most of these systems
> have been certified to be Linux compatible.
>
> GreyCloud wrote:
> >
> > http://www.linuxmall.com/refund/
> >
> > This site seems to have a lot of interesting web sites in reference to
> > Microsoft refunds. Still looking into the others. Zork.net doesn't
> > seem to exist from this end.
>
> --
> Rex Ballard
> It Architect
> http://www.open4success.com
Bullshit! Are YOU telling me a PC is $200 less without Windows ? PC Mall has
a Compaq 566Mhz PC with Windows for $349. So minus your bullshit number it
will cost only $149 . Yeah right. Linux diehards are so lame they can't even
slap a computer together to run Linux .They have to cry about the whole
friggen planet not having Linux pre-installs.Poor baby ...you know Linux but
don't have a clue about hardware.
------------------------------
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 23:48:30 GMT
Said Mike in alt.destroy.microsoft on 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?????
They're all over the place.
Consider the "market price" of a PC OS. Let's say, fifty bucks. Now,
that's just an EULA. A developer's license (yea, you see where I'm
going with this) with source code and unlimited right to produce
derivative property, that would probably cost no less than a few
thousand bucks. But that's per computer; the right to distribute the OS
or put it on any number (that's ANY NUMBER, one to one million, if you
have, sell, or touch that many PCs) of computers.
There are several million Linux billionaires, the way I see it.
--
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 23:49:20 GMT
Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:44:45
>aaron wrote:
>> Anonymous wrote:
>> >
>> > "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?
>>
>> It's been so for well over a DECADE, jackie.
>
>so you're saying that in 1991 there was a unix system as easy to use as
>windows is today?
To someone who knows how to use it, Unix is easy to use. To someone who
does not know how to use it, Windows is hard to use.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
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: 5 Apr 2001 23:55:57 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:32 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 5 Apr 2001 15:10:06
>>On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:08:26 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 Apr 2001 19:10:39
>>>>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).
>>>
>>>It was written before Qt or KDElibs were?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>So there were no libraries which existed at the time that did what Qt
>and KDElibs now do, but this program somehow was written to be able to
>use such a library, though it didn't exist?
Precisely.
>>> Perhaps you misunderstand (as
>>>I seem to have suspected) what "it" is. A program that was written that
>>>*requires* a library that has never been written.
>>
>>Mind you, this "requires" stuff is new. We have been saying "uses".
>
>Most of the time it is quibbling to make the point, but "uses" is a
>rather generic term, like "use", and its expected you need to be able to
>change it into some other word, in theory, simply for it to make any
>sense at all. But, yes, I had always assumed that when you said a
>program "uses" a library, it means it is required for some function of
>that software to be operational.
Well, that's why I say you should not discuss software issues.
Uses and requires are very different things.
>>> If any *other*
>>>libraries are already available, the case is flawed; the GPL library
>>>linking stipulation already indicates that the situation involves
>>>libraries which are only available GPL.
>>
>>Where?
>
>A priori. If there are multiple libraries a program can use
>interchangeably and only one is GPL, the FSF does not claim protection.
Since when the FSF defines the law? If you are saying the FSF's
position is correct: why is it correct? On what part of the law
do you base that position?
>>Well, you seem to be the one who made the stupid mistake that using is
>>requiring.
>
>When a builder tells me he's using wood to build my house, it would seem
>reasonable to presume that means if the concrete disappears, the house
>would, too. Whether that makes wood "required" is a potential category
>error.
If your house is made of wood, making the concrete disappear shouldn't
make the house disappear. That makes no sense.
Analogy: "I am using bronze pipes in your house". Will the house
disappear when the bronze pipes disappear? Of course not.
>>>"Libraries which did not yet exist" means there were no libraries that
>>>performed that function before the existence of that library.
>>
>>There was no library performing the task of the gimp charcolize plugin
>>before the gimp charcolize plugin was written. So it matches your
>>new requirements.
>
>And the software was not later modified to add the function which this
>new library now supports and provides?
No.
> What makes you think this particular program is infringing, anyway?
I don't think it does. It's just an example of a program using a library
that didn't exist when the program was created. You know, what you claim
doesn't exist?
And you are the one saying that if the program depends functionally on the
library, then the program is a derivative work of the library. Well,
apply that to this example.
>>>If it works, your case is absolutely waterproof. Go get 'em.
>>
>>What case?
>
>Intellectual property is not a metaphysical substance. It does not
>exist until its existence is proven in court, nor does it lack any
>properties until those properties are disproven in court.
Intellectual property indeed exists before any court cares about it.
Read the Berne convention.
>As soon as you write a program that uses a GPL library and you start
>distributing in contradiction to the FSF's interpretation of the GPL,
>then you will have a case.
Been there, done that. No case.
>>>I've been told by several programmers that this is a preposterous
>>>expectation for a program of any complexity or size.
>>
>>It is a preposterous expectation for a program with a complex
>>API. That's not the same as "any program", and not even "any
>>complex program"
>
>I have no idea what you're chattering about, or why.
Of course you don't. However, what I wrote is perfectly clear
for anyone with an adequate comprehension of software development.
>>>>Writing and documenting an API is not the same as implementing it.
>>>
>>>I don't understand what you mean by "implementing" it. How can you
>>>document what you haven't implemented?
>>
>>It's called a specification for an undeveloped product.
>>Those are often the best specs.
>
>If those are the best specs, how is the product undeveloped, now that
>you have them?
Because there is a time and a cost to turn a spec into a product.
>>> Are you guessing, or is the real
>>>work the development, and the implementation just the engineering scut
>>>work?
>>
>>Both are work.
>
>"Work" doesn't qualify for copyright protection.
Then why did you ask?
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>You defend API copyright?
>>
>>No. Do you?
>
>I don't understand how you can say they are two works, then. I realize
>that the text of the description of the API is a copyrightable work.
>That's text, its readable; anything like that is a work. But that isn't
>the work we're talking about. We're talking about the "spec" you
>mentioned, and the source code that implements it. If they are two
>different works, and the "spec" is analytically identical to "the API",
>then isn't that API copyright, if the spec is a work covered by
>copyright?
It depends, really. If the spec is simply the interface definitions
used in the software, I would say it's part of the software.
If the spec is a separately published work, then it could not
be copyrightable, except of course that in some cases you would
need a license to access the expression of that non-copyrightable
work, which makes the difference moot.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Baseball
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:00:03 +1200
> >Every time I use linux, it does what I would expect it to do. THAT'S
ease
> >of use.
>
> WHERE ARE THE LINUX BILLIONAIRES?????
I don't know, where do they keep the monkeys that can type?
Apparently, they let them ask irrelevant questions on newsgroups.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 6 Apr 2001 00:01:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin"
>
>> Well, the Catholics say that its "thou shalt not kill". The "commit
>> murder" phrasing is *definitely* revisionist.
>
>"*Definitely* revisionist", huh? LOL!!!
>
>Do you know what it is in the original hebrew in which it was written. Is
>it "kill" or is it "murder"? It is "murder".
>
>The hebrew is "xcr" ( phoneticlly raw-tsakh) which means to "murder",
>"slay", "assassinate".
Slay: To put to death with a weapon, or by violence; hence, to
kill; to put an end to; to destroy.
Kill intentionally and with premeditation
Murder: unlawful premeditated killing of a human being
Notice how murder actually means "to kill unlawfully", but slay doesn't
imply unlawfullness. As far as I can see, by providing those two synonims
you cleared nothing, since they mean both things.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:05:12 +1200
> >so you're saying that in 1991 there was a unix system as easy to use as
> >windows is today?
>
> To someone who knows how to use it, Unix is easy to use. To someone who
> does not know how to use it, Windows is hard to use.
But Max, I have spent my entire two years with a computer using windows, and
I have also spent five seconds watching linux boot. I know windows is easy,
because I can use it, and I am a fucking peasant. Linux is hard, because it
sometimes comes up in text mode, and I have to think about what I'm doing.
------------------------------
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: 6 Apr 2001 00:06:04 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:35 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>What part of copyright law says anything about being "useful"? Or
>>that the covered program must work at all?
>
>The one that makes it part of the laws of the United States of America,
>where epistemological arguments are not allowed to make an individuals
>rights disappear in a puff of smoke.
>
>If it isn't useful or doesn't work, it is not valuable to anybody, hence
>cannot be bought and sold, hence cannot be intellectual property.
Excuse me, but you are making that up.
What is the "usefulness", of "Satisfaction"? how does it "work"?
Yet it is intellectual property, and can be bought and sold.
Everything I write is my intellectual property, unless it's a derivative
work of someone else's. No ifs or buts. THAT is the law.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
