Linux-Advocacy Digest #200, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 00:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (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]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:08:44 GMT
On Fri, 04 May 2001 01:33:17 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 3 May 2001 14:46:51 +1200, Matthew Gardiner
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Do you have ANY IT experience?
>> >
>> >Matthew Gardiner
>>
>> You would be amazed if I told you where I was in 1979, but I won't. I
>> will say that I was 19yo so at least you have a clue as to how long I
>> have been involved in I/T.
>
>For someone who is over 40 years old, you sure are a stupid git.
>
>I know 25-year olds who have more sense than you.
That's nice!
What happened to you?
Looks like nothing rubbed off.
Flatfish
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:09:47 GMT
On 4 May 2001 19:24:39 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>>>>In the DAW world the WDM drivers have reduced the Sound Card latency
>>>>to 2ms or less which allows real time input monitoring including
>>>>effects etc.
>
>>>What's the latency of an mmap()ped sound buffer, really? A lot less than
>>>2ms, that much is sure...
>
>>What the hell does all that stuff mean?
>
>[ Note: I have a nagging suspicion that you were writing that in a mocking
> tone of voice. Oh well, on the off chance that you weren't: ]
>
>Sound latency is the time your sound sample spends in the sound driver
>between the moment the app submits it and the moment it gets played.
>Generally, large buffers in the drivers (or on the actual hardware) are
>good --- playing back an MP3, for example, it's nice to have half a second
>or so buffered and ready to go for those times when your CPU is needed
>for heavy real work, and the MP3 decoder might not get cycles quite as
>easily as normally.
>On the other hand, pulling the trigger in Quake, and hearing the "Swoosh"
>of the rocket launcher half a second later is not really appropriate. So
>for anything interactive, you want the sound latency to be low. Of course,
>that means that you have to give the sound driver new data all the time;
>The shorter the latency, the harder for the app (and OS) to guarantee that
>data won't run out at any point. Also, when taken to extremes, the overhead
>of calling the driver hundreds if not thousands of times a second can become
>significant.
>
>Linux' sound drivers can be mmap-ed. This means that the actual buffer from
>which the sound card is playing back appears as memory in the app's address
>space. This allows the app to use fairly large buffers, and still be able
>to insert that "swoosh" in a place where it will get played back right away.
>It's very hard to talk about quantitative values for the latency in that
>case.
>I would have expected Window's sound system to provide similar functionality;
>However, it appears as if there are at least 2, probably 3 different APIs
>aimed at low-latency sound reproduction, and none of them works satisfactorily
>across a wide range of hardware. Oh well :)
>
>Bernie
Excellent explanation Bernie!
Excellent!!
Flatfish
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:07 GMT
Said Bill Vermillion in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max
>Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Said jim in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 00:27:03
>>+1200; [...]
>>
>>>I think VI and all the useless other editors are an excuse for sad
>>>little 40-50 yr old UNIX fat tards like yourself to keep whatever
>>>"knowledge" you have and NOT share it with anyone - problem is,
>>>with a click of a mouse your Gramma can send an email to her
>>>friend - and guess what - UNIX didn't do it! A smelly Finn didn't
>>>do it! It took a man that is richer than your dreams - it took
>>>a man that would tell you who was BOSS! Oh, and btw I use plain
>>>text, html and the next best thing!
>
>>It seems you are more envious of Unix user's knowledge than you are
>>Gates' fortune. At least that indicates a healthy personality. Now if
>>you work on your mental maturity, you won't be so stupid, either.
>
>>Hint: VI and all those other editors are not "useless", once you know
>>how to use them. And, yes, Unix that can be set up by anyone (no Finn
>>or rich megalomaniac necessary) to automate common tasks.
>
>Anyone here remember [as I do] when Gates thought the future of
>computing was in Unix.
But the future of the PC was MS crapware.
>He then licensed Unix from AT&T and at that
>time only AT&T could call it Unix, so Microsoft's implementation
>was named Xenix.
Xenix had two main purposes:
A) If anyone wanted Unix on a PC, he could monopolize with Xenix just as
he monopolized with DOS.
B) To suck enough as a Unix on a PC that they didn't have to work that
hard and could get away with easy, crapware, DOS.
>Then he had an 'office suite'. Multimate, Multiplan, and Multi???
>Then IBM knocked on the door and things changed.
Office didn't happen until after Win3.1, and the major drive to
monopolize apps entirely by force-bundling the lot wasn't until after
Win95. Previously, the app space was only monopolized by directly
killing off competition with Windows (Lotus, Wordperfect, dBase).
Multimate was Ashton-Tate's (dBase) word processor, IIRC. MS's office
suite was Word, Excel (more directly from Visicalc than derivative of
multiplan, which could do a lot of stuff that Excel still can't), and
whatever the shoved in with it (PowerPoint was bought, Access was
replaced internally with FoxPro, which they bought, and then there's
always MS Publisher, which they bought, as well.)
--
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.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:10 GMT
Said Steve Marcus in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001 05:22:09
-0700;
>Followups set.
>
>This crap has nothing to do with misc.int-property. Trim your
>headers.
What on earth makes you say that? Are you unfamiliar with the GPL, and
the "miscellaneous" intellectual property issues it causes?
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:15 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 May 2001 14:15:16
>On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:38 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:08:24
>>>On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:48 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>I'm sure. No, it has not been done in practice; it is impossible in
>>>>practice to write a program which requires a library that doesn't yet
>>>>exist in any way.
>>>
>>>What can I say? It *is* possible, and I can prove it by example.
>>
>>What commercial grade product have you produced using this insane
>>method, then?
>
>When did commercial grade enter the picture?
Again, we are talking software that people would be willing to pay for,
or the entire issue of copyright goes "poof".
>But if you really need that, I produced a image archiving system for a
>newspaper, without access to the database used by the newspaper.
>I did have another database that implemented the same API, though.
And you're still going to refuse to see why that small distinction is a
big one, are you?
[...remainder of Roberto missing the point again deleted as
unproductive...]
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:18 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001
>On Fri, 4 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
>>> On Thu, 3 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 21:08:02
>>>>> It has been done, IN PRACTICE. That you, who has never exercised the
>>>>> craft claim that what has already been done is impossible, is quite
>>>>> irritating.
>>>> I'm sure. No, it has not been done in practice; it is impossible in
>>>> practice to write a program which requires a library that doesn't yet
>>>> exist in any way.
>>> For the nth time, this is false.
>> For the nth+1 time, your contention is flawed.
>
>You believe it's flawed; you don't have enough education or information
>or smarts to be able to prove it.
No, I just don't have any magical powers with which to prove it to you,
and you don't have the brains to figure it out for yourself.
>You're left with merely trying to
>claim that something is flawed. Stop lying.
What a shmuck.
>>> The program may not be *functional*,
>>> but you can definitely write such a program. [...]
>> Find a non-programmer who calls a random bunch of characters that do not
>> perform function "a program". Why would you even bother writing a
>> program that is not functional? Just trying to 'cheat' copyright law,
>> without actually getting into any trouble?
>
>You elided the reasons both here and in another post. Try reading for
>comprehension, for once.
Try not being a trollboy. What have I 'elided'? The many examples of
people missing my point and failing to understand anything outside their
limited perspective without getting entirely confounded?
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:20 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001
>On Thu, 3 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
>>> On Wed, 2 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:06:41
>>>>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> A program which *requires* a library cannot be written until the library
>>>>>> has been sufficiently designed (whether this is coding or documentation
>>>>>> of the API is meaningless, which is the point you guys keep tripping
>>>>>> over) to *base* the program on the functionality provided by the
>>>>>> library. Thus, a program is derivative, in a legal copyright sense, of
>>>>>> the library, and no time travel is required to make it so.
>>>>> No, a program that *requires* a library cannot be written until the
>>>>> library's API are known, nothing more is required.
>>>> In theory. Not in practice. How many times do we have to go through
>>>> this: YOU ARE JUST BEING IDEALISTIC.
>>> In practice, not in theory. You've been told this several dozen times
>>> now, and it's obvious that you're a fuckup without a clue. We don't
>>> need any more demonstrations, Maxie.
>> And as has occurred in the past, repeating that 'I've been told several
>> times' is still just trying to squirm out of the fact that what I've
>> been told has simply missed the point, and you're looking more and more
>> like a trolling asshole by failing to grasp that. Not to mention the
>> grade-school attempts to annoy me by mangling my name. If I were in
>> sixth grade, I would be SO mad at you.
>
>Maxie, it doesn't miss the point -- it drives to the heart of your
>ignorance, yet you manage to remain ignorant.
Please explain. Rationally. I'm presuming, based on your snot-nosed
attitude, that you think you are capable of this. I have yet to see any
evidence of this, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
How is a library that has already been implemented the same as one that
hasn't, that all these programmers are so incapable of understanding the
difference?
>> Guffaw.
>
>This translates into "I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm
>going to keep making a fool of myself by pretending that people who
>actually deal with this stuff every day know less than I do."
Guffaw.
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:22 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001
Answer one post reasonably, or I'm going to stop wasting my time with
you.
--
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.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:31 GMT
Now I'm re-crossposting it. If you don't understand what the GPL has to
do with intellectual property, maybe someone else in that group won't be
as limited.
Said Steve Marcus in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001 05:19:07
>Trim your headers and stop sending this spam to
>misc.int-property.
>
>Steve
>--
>The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
>because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
>should not be construed as either. This posting does not
>represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
>view.
>
>
>
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:09:38
>> >On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:55 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:59:37
>> >>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:27:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> This mean that I can implement this as a C array, linked list, binary tree,
>> >>>>>>> hell, I could implement it as a database object, and anyone using this
>> >>>>>>> wouldn't have a clue how I do it.
>> >>>>>> Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application is
>> >>>>>> not working as expected. Right?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Wrong. An API defines access to a service -- and if that service isn't
>> >>>>>working right, then you go to the provider of that service to get it
>> >>>>>fixed. The details of implementation aren't important to the user of
>> >>>>>the API. (In general; there are cases when the implementation may be
>> >>>>>discussed between supplier and customer, but this has more to do with
>> >>>>>performance requirements than anything else.)
>> >>>>
>> >>>>In the real world, an application program ROUTINELY needs to know more
>> >>>>about a function than the API documentation itself can provide.
>> >>>
>> >>>You know this because of your extensive programming eperience, right?
>> >>
>> >>No, I know it because people who have extensive programming experience,
>> >>who's opinions I trust, and who understand my point correctly, say it is
>> >>so.
>> >
>> >Let's see, we should agree we are wrong because you say other say we are
>> >wrong?
>>
>> No, you should recognize you are mistaken because I can provide an
>> comprehensible and reasonable explanation of your error. But you're
>> just too insecure and defensive; it scares you so much you won't even
>> try, and so are forced to insist I am 'clueless' and not making sense,
>> even though my reasoning is consistent with the current unrefuted legal
>> position of the FSF.
>>
>> >>>Ok: I *do* have an extensive programming experience, and if such a need
>> >>>arised, the API needs to be fixed, not the implementation.
>> >>
>> >>Whichever. I've already told you that you can switch the terms
>> >>"program" and "library" in the phrase "a program is derivative of the
>> >>library".
>> >
>> >No, I can not, because it makes no sense.
>>
>> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>>
>> --
>> T. Max Devlin
>> *** The best way to convince another is
>> to state your case moderately and
>> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:33 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 May 2001 14:16:53
>On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:40 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:09:38
>>>On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:55 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:59:37
>>>>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:27:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> This mean that I can implement this as a C array, linked list, binary tree,
>>>>>>>>> hell, I could implement it as a database object, and anyone using this
>>>>>>>>> wouldn't have a clue how I do it.
>>>>>>>> Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application is
>>>>>>>> not working as expected. Right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wrong. An API defines access to a service -- and if that service isn't
>>>>>>>working right, then you go to the provider of that service to get it
>>>>>>>fixed. The details of implementation aren't important to the user of
>>>>>>>the API. (In general; there are cases when the implementation may be
>>>>>>>discussed between supplier and customer, but this has more to do with
>>>>>>>performance requirements than anything else.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In the real world, an application program ROUTINELY needs to know more
>>>>>>about a function than the API documentation itself can provide.
>>>>>
>>>>>You know this because of your extensive programming eperience, right?
>>>>
>>>>No, I know it because people who have extensive programming experience,
>>>>who's opinions I trust, and who understand my point correctly, say it is
>>>>so.
>>>
>>>Let's see, we should agree we are wrong because you say other say we are
>>>wrong?
>>
>>No, you should recognize you are mistaken because I can provide an
>>comprehensible and reasonable explanation of your error.
>
>If what you wrote so far is that "comprehensible and reasonable explanation",
>I disagree about it being comprehensible, reasonable, or an explanation.
This conclusively proves you didn't understand it, then. Since,
regardless of how many trolls might claim otherwise, I am a reasonable
person, that means I have failed to communicate, or you are
unreasonable. Even odds at this point, as far as I'm concerned, but I
will admit that it is a difficult concept to explain, and I haven't done
an excellent job. Then again, maybe I've done a fantastic job, and
you're just unreasonable, and too defensive and limited in your thinking
to be able to grasp my point.
So the test, then, is whether you ask questions (indicating I haven't
been clear), or you act like an asshole (indicating you are
unreasonable.) Will you be a Les, or an Austin?
>>>>>Ok: I *do* have an extensive programming experience, and if such a need
>>>>>arised, the API needs to be fixed, not the implementation.
>>>>
>>>>Whichever. I've already told you that you can switch the terms
>>>>"program" and "library" in the phrase "a program is derivative of the
>>>>library".
>>>
>>>No, I can not, because it makes no sense.
>>
>>Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>
>I suppose that's yet another reasonable, comprehensible explanation.
Indeed, if you understand it, you will find it both reasonable and
incomprehensible. If you do not, it is either because it was not
communicative, or you are unreasonable. Even odds, again, though I
would think that laughing at your comment should be rather
communicative. It certainly seems reasonable, given your comment and
the lengths that you, Les, and Austin go to try to insult me (rather
ineffectively, BTW) rather than show any ability to comprehend. Whether
it is comprehensible, BTW, isn't exclusively determined by whether it is
comprehensible to YOU. After all, you might well be unreasonable, for
all I know, and would then find everything I say incomprehensible,
simply because I am reasonable and you are not.
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:35 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001
>On Fri, 4 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
>> 12:28:48 -0400;
>>> On Thu, 3 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:59:37
>>>>> Ok: I *do* have an extensive programming experience, and if such a need
>>>>> arised, the API needs to be fixed, not the implementation.
>>>> Whichever. I've already told you that you can switch the terms
>>>> "program" and "library" in the phrase "a program is derivative of the
>>>> library".
>>> Neither statement is necessarily true.
>> Nothing is necessarily anything; a library is not necessarily a library
>> (it could be an application with an API), and a program is not
>> necessarily a program (it could be a 'plug in').
>>
>> But after you get over that and start figuring out how to use language
>> correctly, you'll find that this doesn't prevent anything from actually
>> being true.
>
>Here's some Kaopectate -- you need it, or you need to at least stop
>your rectal-cranial inversion.
You could have just skipped that paragraph and gotten to the real
worlds; you'd be less of an asshole that way. HTH.
>A library *may* be derived from a program (e.g., a program could be
>turned into a library),
We're already running into problems, I'm afraid. That a program 'could
be turned into' a library is not what is meant by a library may be
derived from a program.
>or a program may be derived from a library
>(e.g., a program could be a mere shell for a library).
Again, you are using a sort of "bog-standard" definition of
"derivative". Normally, that would be fine, but we're discussing
copyright here, and 'derived' has a more abstract meaning.
>This does not
>mean that derivation is necessarily a given because of an API
>relationship.
>
>Not that you'll understand that any more than you've understood
>anything else factual.
I understood all of it, surprise surprise. Also the last couple years
of people like you (more concerned with insults than reason). Oddly
enough, my point still stands, and the FSF's position concerning
copyright and the GPL is still valid and unrefuted in court.
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:36 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001 05:25:22
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >>In the real world, an application program ROUTINELY needs to know more
>> >>about a function than the API documentation itself can provide.
>> >
>> >You know this because of your extensive programming eperience, right?
>>
>> No, I know it because people who have extensive programming experience,
>> who's opinions I trust, and who understand my point correctly, say it is
>> so.
>
>Don't hire them to do any programming for you. Real programmers
>consider the published interface to be a contract between the things
>on either side and everything else is allowed to change - and almost
>certainly will over time.
Yet through all that, they're not stupid enough to think they are
omniscient or omnipotent as programmers. The very fact that 'everything
on either side is allowed to change' would be very re-assuring, if we
didn't all know that upgrading a library occasionally breaks an app.
Whether it was because the 'contract' was violated or what is, frankly,
quibbling by programmers and has no impact at all on either users or
copyright.
>> >Ok: I *do* have an extensive programming experience, and if such a need
>> >arised, the API needs to be fixed, not the implementation.
>>
>> Whichever. I've already told you that you can switch the terms
>> "program" and "library" in the phrase "a program is derivative of the
>> library".
>
>The GPL does not allow for any non-GPL'd part, making no distinction
>about between component types.
Yet when I point out that neither does copyright, you seem to miss the
point. Why is that?
--
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
******************************
