Linux-Advocacy Digest #263, Volume #34 Sun, 6 May 01 17:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (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: Shared library hell (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux disgusts me (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux disgusts me (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:38 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>> >> It is still a DOS program, if unorthodox (known as a "DOS extender")
>> >> when in protected or enhanced mode.
>> >
>> >I suppose you could say that, but it's really a semantic
>> >question.
>>
>> All questions are semantic; nice squirming. Yes, you not only COULD say
>> it like that, if you don't you're mistaken. Guffaw.
>
>No, some questions are substantial.
If this were so, you would not be able to troll, Daniel. So obviously
your words are self-refuting. Any question is semantical, and any troll
can deny it is "substantial", with mere rhetoric.
>We could be disagreeing
>about Windows; I could be saying (for instance) that it
>is the same as any ordinary DOS program, even today.
>
>We do seem to actualy disagree about whether any
>DOS services are entirely replaced by Windows,
>for instance. That's not a semantic difference.
Of course it is. What is "Windows", but whatever Microsoft applies the
label to? If a cognizant engineer were to say, "well, you know, that's
really more just part of DOS", do you think it would matter? (Hint:
when the engineers DID in fact say that, in internal emails provided as
court evidence during Microsoft's conviction, the answer was "no".)
>> >It's not a DOS program like other DOS programs
>> >except when in real mode. And it doesn't have real mode
>> >anymore. :D
>>
>> Define "like other DOS programs".
>
>Programs that use DOS services to do their
>thing. You know, programs written to *DOS's*
>API.
DOS doesn't really have an API; its hardly anything more than a
bootloader and a shell; DOS applications generally work directly through
the BIOS, don't they? These days, it includes a bunch of DOS extenders
in order to support Win32 so it can run Windows programs (just like NT
does, but not quite like NT does) but claiming Win32 is DOS is really
begging the question, I think. If you call the libraries that support
Win32 part of "an operating system", then clearly they are part of DOS,
not 'Windows', though.
>[snip]
>> >Well, it's not *just* a "DOS extender" it replaces major DOS
>> >services.
>>
>> No, it just extends them.
>
>Not so. The new filesystem code does nto extend
>DOS's; it replaces it entirely.
There is no concrete difference between these kinds of terms, which are
largely metaphoric to begin with. Whether DOS "is" the code of DOS or
the specification of DOS or the product DOS is an epistemological
conundrum, unless you're smart enough to look to the market, rather than
the developer, for your definitions of functionality and branding.
>> >You can say that it is DOS that provides the memory
>> >management, disk access, multitasking, program loading,
>> >and other "OS traits", but it still won't be true of current
>> >version of Windows.
>>
>> You can say that DOS is the OS, or you could lie. That pretty much sums
>> it up.
>
>Oh, I don't know. It's not that clear cut. DOS doesn't do
>very much in a modern Windows system, but what it
>does do *is* OS-like.
Thus, it is still in Windows, and is still the OS that Windows runs on
top of. There is no other relationship that is possible for these two
products.
>So is what Windows does.
All Windows itself inherently does is monopolize; everything else is
about it is debatable, and would dissolve into epistemological bickering
unless you simply ignore whatever Microsoft has to say on the subject.
>I'm inclined to say that "Windows 95" is an OS,
>and trying to split hairs between the DOS part
>and the Windows 4.0 part is not worthwhile.
You're inclined to defend criminal behavior, as well. So now you're not
only unethical and do not believe you or Microsoft are bound by any law,
you say that enforcing the law is merely "trying to split hairs". You
really don't have a very well developed philosophy, do you? I know that
ignorance (lack of knowledge) is bliss, but I don't understand the
attraction you have for stupidity (absence of wisdom).
--
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:39 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>> >MS did not exclude anyone from developing on
>> >Windows. They *encouraged* it.
>>
>> They encouraged it in IBM by refusing to license Windows development
>> tools to them unless they agreed that they would not use anything
>> developed with them in any OS/2 product. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! <*SPANK*>
>
>I think you are trying to hard to force the facts to fit;
>your grammar has broken down.
I know that you are trolling, and my grammar is fine, thanks. Sorry you
couldn't follow the pronouns; try reading it over again, slowly, until
you figure it out.
>On the face of it, this does not seem to contradict
>what I said; MS appears to be demanding that IBM
>used Windows development tools to make
>Windows software.
To make *only* (note the exclusionary nature; exclusive contracts and
restraint of trade; this activity is part of why MS was convicted of
violating section 1 of the Sherman Act last year) Windows software. A
rather telling difference, eh? Splitting hairs, no doubt, like the
difference between self-defense and mass murder.
>But frankly its hard to tell, what with the way
>you wrote it. "in IBM"? It sounds positively
>uncomfortable.
If you can't keep up, feel free to not.
*ZZZZZZZ*
--
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:40 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 12:34:15 -0400;
>> >> [...]
>> >> >I don't care what the problem is. I prefer an OS that works well
>without
>> >all
>> >> >the hours of configuration.
>> >>
>> >> I prefer an OS that works consistently without all the hours of
>> >> reconfiguration.
>> >
>> >So do I, that's probably why I mainly use WINNT. And I assume it's why
>you
>> >ONLY use Win95. Because only a complete ass would use an OS that they
>> >*don't* prefer.
>>
>> No, NT is just as bad. Worse, in some ways.
>
>Sure it is, that's why everyone is running one or the other, and 3/1000 are
>running Linux.
Why would NT being bad be a reason for everyone to be running it? Or
WinDOS? It seems to me the reason why everyone is running it is the
monopolization. Doh!
--
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:41 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>> [...]
>> >But I have some reservations about the process.[...]
>>
>> You don't appear competent to have an opinion on the matter, actually.
>
>That's never stopped me before! :D
It really should, Daniel. It's possible to engage in entertaining and
engaging conversation without playing a troll, you know. Grow up.
--
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:42 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001 16:32:37
[...]
>On user side, maybe, I really didn't deal with printing on linux on the user
>side.
>I'm talking on the *developer*'s side here.
>There is no abstraction on linux of the printer. [...]
Yes there is. It is a very accurate, consistent, and practical
abstraction, too. A printer (any device on Unix, with few exceptions)
is a file. Deal with it. Its worked well for decades, and is far more
consistent, reliable, and compatible than monopoly crapware.
--
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:43 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > > Brad Silverberg:"What the guy is upposed to do is feel uncomfortable
>and
>> > > when he has bugs, suspect the problem is DR-DOS and then go out and
>buy
>> > > MS-DOS or decide not to take the risk for the other machines he has to
>> > > buy for in the office."
>> >
>> > They didn't actually do it, though. Windows 3.x ran on DR-DOS.
>> >
>> They did do it. The AARD code was active in the betas.
>
>C'mon. Even you don't take this line of "argument"
>seriously, do you?
BZZZZZ Troll Meter Overload. Microsoft took it seriously enough to pay
somewhere between 250 million and 2 billion dollars to avoid the matter
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:44 GMT
Said Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 12:58:41 -0400;
[...]
>Once again. what is it going to take with you? Internal memos have been
>posted. Quotes from M$ execs have been posted. All describing a way to
>sabotage DR-DOS. The code was active in the betas. It threw up bogus
>error messages. The messages were meant to scare of beta testers, as
>stated in the memos. But -YOU- dont believe it.
Rick, you don't seem to understand how trolls work. Take a break, man;
the only way to frustrate him is to fail to respond.
--
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:45 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>> >The horrible memory model was the biggest
>> >thing. Only DOS and clones thereof had it;
>> >Windows could not succeed until it busted out
>> >of it.
>>
>> Now THAT could only possibly be the work of someone who is BOTH a troll
>> AND a sock puppet!
>
>I'm glad we've got that straghtened out!
Most people would be annoyed at being recognized as dishonest. Not you,
though; you're too immature for that.
[...]
>I would if I could, but in all honesty, I don't seem to be able to do
>those things. I have to settle for resisting that stuff you put out,
>and frustrating you. :D
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Yea, right. Like that's going to happen. Take
a number, buddy; you couldn't frustrate me if your life depended on it.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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, 06 May 2001 20:21:46 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 May 2001 15:17:52
>On Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:15 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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".
>
>Bollocks. Good software can be a derivative work of bad software,
>so copyright of bad software is quite important.
I had thought that, according to you, no software can be "derivative" of
any other software, but can only contain copies of other software. I
can't see what that has to do with "good" or "bad", and those things
don't have anything to do with software's commercial value. Or so it
would seem from the commercial software world which you are defending.
>>>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?
>
>What small distinction?
The distinction between your awareness of the API, and the library's
existence.
>> [...remainder of Roberto missing the point again deleted as
>>unproductive...]
>
>Fine by me. Now, if you also applied that to your product!
It's been very productive for me, thanks. You've helped me clarify a
rather large number of arguments concerning software copyright.
--
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
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:47 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 May 2001 15:45:43
>On Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:16 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 20:36:46
>>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>
>>>This kind of snippet can and is used in programs that real people use.
>>
>>And such a program would be derivative of the snippet, in a copyright
>>sense. NOT because the program "contains a copy of" the snippet; a
>>literal copy is not necessary to violate copyright. Because the program
>>is, in the copyright sense, derivative.
>
>Nonsense. Copyright protects an expression of the idea, not the idea.
Yes, that is the kind of metaphorical description that makes copyright
law "nonsense" in the hands of the naive. Copyright protects the bottom
line, whether authors get paid, not any 'expression of ideas'.
>If the expression is not copied, the work is not derivative.
This is untrue, demonstrably. If the work is derivative of the
expression, it is derivative. It is not derivative if it is derivative
of the idea, is what I think you are trying to say. Obviously, I
haven't said it any better, because of the conflicted use of the term
'derivative'.
The facts are: a derivative work does not need to contain a copy of the
original to be derivative in the copyright sense. Whether any
derivative work is "derivative in the copyright sense" is up to a judge
to determine. So far, no judge has determined, and lawyer's and
amateur's speculation on both sides is on-going. But it is absolutely
true that a derivative work does not need to contain a copy of the
original expression in order to be derivative of that expression. It is
also true that a work which copies the idea, but not the expression, is
not derivative. On this last statement, I believe you are resting your
case.
As for my perspective, I believe it means that writing another library
for that API is not derivative of the library, but writing a program
which uses the library (and only that library, regardless of how many
other libraries support the same API) is derivative of the library.
This position is coincident with the FSF's, and remains unrefuted.
>What you want is a patent, that protects the idea in every conceivable
>expression.
No, patents do not protect ideas any more than copyright does. Nor does
patent prevent commercial use of someone else's idea, in any way but the
way in which the idea was expressed in the patent.
What YOU want is patent, where whether something is infringing is a
concrete physically determinable absolute (or so you would hope; in the
real world, alas, it is not.) Infringement in copyright doesn't require
plagiarism (literal copying) and is therefor too metaphorically
variable, too ephemeral and cerebral, for you to grasp. The only way to
infringe a patent is to use the patented process or invention;
copyrighted material can be "used" in a much greater variety of ways,
and so what constitutes infringement is itself much more complex.
--
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
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:48 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 17:06:51
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Yes, you have FINALLY gotten to the BEGINNING of the argument you jumped
>> in trolling on. The point of the discussion, ultimately, is the fact
>> that the courts have not made any decisions either way, and so under
>> current law, the FSF's interpretation of the GPL stands, until someone
>> has the balls enough to refute it in front of a judge.
>
>More accurately, their unreasonable threat stands until disproven in
>court.
How could it POSSIBLY be unreasonable? It does not prevent you from
using the code in any way, it only prevents you from making a profit on
it through profiteering. How is it a threat for them to point out in
advance that they refuse to grant license to commercial exploitation of
their code. Its THEIR code! You now are expecting to be able to STEAL
it from them and claim their defense is unreasonable threats?
>The fact that no one has taken on the challenge says more about
>the value of the covered works than the validity of the threat.
Actually, its just simple proof that your posturing about some fatal
flaw or anti-consumer effect of GPL is hogwash.
--
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
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:49 GMT
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 17:20:59 GMT;
>On Sun, 06 May 2001 17:06:51 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>More accurately, their unreasonable threat stands until disproven in
>>court. The fact that no one has taken on the challenge says more about
>>the value of the covered works than the validity of the threat.
>
>I think there are lots of explanations for why no one is particularly
>interested in being sued over this issue. The validity of the threat
>is only one factor. As long as the FSF's position is not so weak that
>it is not credible that they wouldn't sue, the position is strong
>enough to deter most. Even an extremely weak threat would be enough
>to stop people who are working on projects in their free time with no
>particular intention to make money.
>
>My point is that while the lack of law suits is probably not a convincing
>arguement for the the FSF's position, it is even weaker evidence that
>the code is of limited value.
>
>While it's true that the FSF's position hasn't been tested in court,
>the position is not so far removed from some precedent that suggests
>their position is wrong.
Thank you, Isaac. It's nice to have some help once in a while. ;-)
--
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, 06 May 2001 20:21:50 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001 12:15:23
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:Pg3J6.9817$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > >An API is not complete without the documentation of what its function
>> does.
>> >
>> > You mean the library won't work if a programmer makes a function call
>> > unless the function is documented?
>>
>> He means that the program must be expected to break when you upgrade
>> the library to the next version if you use anything beyond what is
>> documented. If you link statically that might not be a problem.
>
>Not the library is expected to break if what is uses have been changed or
>remove.
>Otherwise, it can go on happily with any number of updates.
"Can" != "will".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Shared library hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:23:54 GMT
Perry Pip wrote:
> And where is the functionality of LD_PRELOAD and LD_LIBRARY_PATH under
> windows?? Those in a wrapper script will fix any linking problem.
Simple. You put the DLL in the application directory. Hey presto, it loads.
No need to update any system environment variables.
The only snag on Windows 9x is only _one_ module can load with any one
name. I don't think that's true of Windows 2000.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:26:12 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> It is a trivial fix, with practically zero risk.
Curious. If it is so trivial, why is not the default on various distros?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:24:55 GMT
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> No, not NT4. *That* one is clearly not as fast as XFree4
What about Windows 2000?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:26:49 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> >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?
> >
> >Because copyright allows you to obtain the right to use two different
> >things separately, under different terms, and use them together as
> >is the case when you obtain a program that uses functions from
> >a dynamic library or source code that you link yourself to a library
> >which you are allowed to use. The FSF wants to claim that your
> >right to use one component is somehow affected by the other. Unless
> >you copy something that you don't already have the right to copy there
> >is no basis in copyright law to support that claim.
>
> You're switching who and what you are referring to with "use" too often
> for me to make sense of that. If you base your work of authorship on
> someone else's work of authorship, it is *derivative*. Is that somehow
> *too* simple for you to understand?
Not too simple, just untrue in the programming case. Code calling
functions
from another library is not a derivative of that library any more than a
playlist
is a derivative of the songs mentioned. In order to use the code or play
the
songs you must separately obtain the copy and rights to library or songs.
Each
item is covered by it's own copyright and unaffected by each other. If you
need rights to more than one component you obtain them separately to
be allowed to use the combination. If you copied the library function
into your program it would be a copyright violation equivalent to
singing someone else's song. If you call the separately obtained copy
of the library function it is equivalent to playing a song that you
purchased and have the right to play.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
