Linux-Advocacy Digest #444, Volume #33 Sun, 8 Apr 01 03:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Chad Everett)
Re: MS and ISP's (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 Apr 2001 00:59:53 -0500
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 10:33:47 -0700, Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Goldhammer quoth:
>
>... snip...
>
>What you have shown is that it's pretty easy to decontextualize and
>misreperesent, or outright contrive statements by three of the most
>influential thinkers of the 19th century in a flippant way and make
>yourself look like an arrogant boob in the process.
>
Freud was a very influentual thinker too. His theories are no longer
taken seriously. They also have not withstood the test of time.
Being an influential thinker of the 19th century doesn't mean we
have to revere them today.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS and ISP's
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:16:06 GMT
Said 667 Neighbor of the Beast in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 07 Apr
2001 12:04:11 -0700;
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 23:54:52 -0400, JS PL <jspl@jsplom> wrote:
>> >"667 Neighbor of the Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > But suppose microsoft actually did give away their OS and server software,
>> > SO WHAT!! Who's business is it?
>>
>> There are laws on the books against "dumping" in order to drive your
>> competition out of business. Which was exactly what MS was trying to do
>> to Netscape.
>>
>Yes not only that but it is totally illegal to offer SW for free or at
>steep discount if you promise to, say, convert 75% of your users to
>IE, if you promise to only support IE, if you promise to put
>IE-specific stuff on your web page, etc. That is an exclusive
>agreement, and they are all illegal.
No, Bob, they're not. They're anti-competitive. What that means is
that if they are successful, they are illegal because they prove
monopoly power. If they are unsuccessful, they're just stupid. But
they're not illegal.
--
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: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:17:43 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:26:21 -0500;
[...]
>Analogies often happen when someone forgets that they are most often
>fraught with enormous flaws. When dealing with incredibly stupid people
>like Tmax, and the oft-indoctorinated, just say 'NO' to analogies.
I thought it worth reposting that, simply for how well it indicts JD's
rationality. And lack of spell-check.
--
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: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:20:22 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 06 Apr 2001 04:44:52
[...]
>It doesn't matter how useful they are, the only point of the GPL is
>to keep most people from obtaining them.
Because most people don't understand the danger of proprietary software;
they think there's actually a *reason* to spend hundreds and thousands
and millions of dollars a year on something they already have!
>A few people can build
>their own versions or hire consultants to do it - most can't.
And you're relying on that fact, rather than the possibility you can do
it _well_, to pay for your retirement.
--
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: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:31:11 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 5 Apr 2001 23:41:34
[...]
>>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?
Your question is not intelligible. Please rephrase it.
>>>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?
Other than spouting tautologies, was that supposed to mean anything to
me?
>>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.
You misunderstand, I think, what I was replying to. There is no
copyright being violated in cases of API infringement, because there is
no such thing as API infringement. Does that answer your question?
>>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.
They are, strictly speaking. They get a special exemption, essentially.
But you'll notice Stephen King's newest thriller isn't available in a
library, so nobody cares. Buy a new best seller, donate it to a
library, and precisely how are you acting any different the being on
Napster?
>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.
No, it is your theory that is "stupid", for that very reason; because
you believe my theory would result in these inconsistences, and it
doesn't. At least no any more than the standard theory does (I'm
careful, after all, not to create a theory that makes impossible what I
know to exist.)
Your theory, in case you're interested, requires the conception of
"copyright" as a metaphysical substance. If you would like me to
explain how, then you should ask questions, and I'll explain it.
>>>>>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!
Maybe you should look up the word "sarcasm", you would understand how
thoroughly you just got flamed.
>> 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,
No, I'm sorry, I did not say that.
>and apparently a not much better one of copyright law,
I did say that, but only in the same vein as the above.
>you say there is a difference,
Indeed, there must be, or both the GPL and the monopoly would be
completely comprehensible to you.
>show no indication of what the
>difference is,
I'm sorry if you missed it, but you have to pay attention. The
difference is that your conception of software is metaphysically based.
>and I should just accept it?
Certainly not. You should question it, you should probe it, you should
explore it. You should get your head out of your ass.
>I am not gullible, Max. You have to work harder than that.
Sorry, that's as hard as I'm willing to work until you start paying me.
--
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: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:36:07 GMT
Said Graham Murray in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 06 Apr 2001 22:38:49
+0000;
>In gnu.misc.discuss, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Nothing needs to be copied to violate copyright. That's what 99% of
>> the copyright law is all about.
>
>If this is true does it not indicate a fundamental flaw in copyright
>law?
Only if you suppose copyright law is the definition of a metaphysical
substance, rather than a simple book-keeping mechanism.
>Going back to first principles, what is copyright if not "the
>right to control copying"?
Going back to first principles, copyright is the effort by the
government to promote the development of the sciences and useful arts by
securing for authors the exclusive right to profit from their works.
It's in the Constitution.
>So copyright law has no right (pun
>intended) to concern itself with anything other than copying.
No, it has no right to concern itself with anything, other than to
promote the development of the sciences and useful arts. Preventing
others from literally copying an author's work was appropriate and
effective, back when copying actually cost money. These days, it is
increasingly flawed in its approach.
>If it is
>true that 99% of copyright law is "off-topic" then is it not in urgent
>need of reform to bring it back "on-topic"?
It isn't "off-topic". That's the point. It is "on-topic", and 99% of it
has _nothing_ to do with literal copying! Doesn't that tell you
anything?
Abandon your metaphysical conception of copyright. It is not intuitive,
it is merely the way you've been taught to think.
--
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: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:39:53 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 5 Apr 2001 23:44:43
[...]
>Heck, no. That makes no sense, in general.
This response is meaningless, as it purposefully avoided addressing the
intent of the very text which it supposedly responded to.
>> 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.
Look, Roberto; you're being a pig-headed asshole. *I* didn't say
"plugins are libraries". The person I was *responding to* was, and my
response was "plug-ins are not libararies; they are plug-ins". Would
you get a fucking grip, please?
--
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: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:43:40 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 5 Apr 2001 23:55:57
GMT;
>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.
You obviously misunderstood the question. No, you cannot write a
program which requires a library which does not yet exist.
>>>> 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.
No, they are not, in this context. The only way you could possibly
believe they are is if you purposefully misunderstood the premise.
>>>> 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?
They define licenses, which are legal constructs. They do not define
laws, despite your contention that they do.
(You see how obstructive one can be if one is actually trying to
inhibit, rather than promote, communication?)
>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?
Get a real argument, then get back to me.
--
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: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:48:18 GMT
Said Stefaan A Eeckels in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 7 Apr 2001
18:25:28 +0200;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Said Stefaan A Eeckels in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 5 Apr 2001
>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [...]
>>>How can source code that doesn't contain a single line of
>>>a library be a derivative work of the library, unless you
>>>accept API copyrights (which no-one, including the FSF,
>>>accepts)?
>>
>> There is a difference between infringement and plagiarism. A
>> "derivative work" could be derivative through either means. You speak
>> of plagiarism, not infringement, in your example.
>
>Nonsense. I've written source code that's not plagiarism,
>and happens, for the sake of the argument, to contain the
>single word "readline(..)". Does this make the _source_
>code a derivative work of libreadline.so?
No, nor does it prove it is not. Don't you understand even the
slightest bit about the real world outside of "I am a programmer and
therefore am god"? Programming details don't matter for *shit*; this is
a legal issue, not a technical issue, that we are supposedly discussing.
>Does the fact that all 'C' code contain constructions
>such as "for (i=0; i<10; i++)" make each and every 'C'
>program a derivative work of "The 'C' Programming Language"?
Technically, it is possible. Legally, you'd have a tough court case on
your hands, but if you've got the lawyers, hey, go to it.
Are you beginning to understand the point of copyright, at all?
Copyright is not metaphysical; it is book-keeping.
>For your education, I'll quote the definition of
>"derivative work" as given in US Title 17, Chapter 1,
>section 101:
>
>| A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more
>| preexisting works,[...]
Yup; that's enough for me. All software which requires GPL libraries
are derivative, until you prove different in court, because they are
"based upon" those libraries. Case closed.
--
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: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:54:33 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 Apr 2001 00:06:04
GMT;
>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.
It is an abstraction, yes. I would even go so far as to point out that
it is a conceptual extension of current copyright law. What's your
point?
>What is the "usefulness", of "Satisfaction"? how does it "work"?
Ask the guy who's paying for it; the customer is always right, in these
things.
>Yet it is intellectual property, and can be bought and sold.
Only because the law pretends that it exists, and because the customer
is willing to buy it. If *either* condition does not apply, then the
whole case goes in the toilet.
>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.
Quite true. And nothing you write is valuable, unless the *expression*,
not just the *ideas* (engineering; programming) are valuable, according
to that same law. Copyright is not a guarantee that something is
valuable, nor a way to guarantee that something is worth money, nor an
excuse to profiteer on it if it turns out that it is. It is merely a
guarantee that if it is worth money, the author gets a cut. No
guarantees that he'll get rich, just that nobody else profits unless he
does.
--
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: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:55:32 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 06 Apr 2001 05:07:37
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >> Any program that "uses" a library (regardless of the mechanism or
>> >> semantics) but does not require that library in order to be "useful" in
>> >> operation does not infringe, IMHO.
>> >
>> >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.
>
>Then I guess you won't have any trouble quoting that section before
>going on with any more nonsense.
Who said it was a section?
>> >Aside from this fantasy having nothing to do with the law, if the
>> >operator must 'have' this component, then it becomes a use issue.
>> >That is, you have a copy of the library under its own terms and
>> >anything dynamically linking to it does not make a copy but uses
>> >the existing copy which you have the right to use.
>>
>> Fuck that. Metaphysical hogwash.
>
>Is that the technical term?
Fine. Good bye. You should have just responded, rather than sniping.
--
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: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:56:11 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 6 Apr 2001
>In other words, bozo, you're full of shit. [...]
Whatever.
--
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
******************************
