Linux-Advocacy Digest #369, Volume #34 Wed, 9 May 01 16:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft "Windows for Linux" ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
Re: The _one_ thing that pisses me off about Linux ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Pesky lack of support (kosh)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
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: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
Subject: Re: Microsoft "Windows for Linux"
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 21:08:25 +0200
"Robert Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:HEfK6.28541$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> -cross posted to comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine-
>
> Microsoft should consider producing "Windows for Linux". It could be their
> own version of Wine, but it would be nearly 100% compatible with the
latest
> version of Windows. Microsoft could require that users have a retail copy
of
> Windows to make this work.
>
> It's a win-win situation. Linux users could run nearly all of the
available
> Windows applications, and Microsoft would still make money selling Windows
> licenses.
Why not just release the Office version for Linux they almost certainly has
created somewhere deep inside the Redmond compound? (just as it was rumoured
that they had ported several programs to OS/2 but held it back due to
marketing policies).
Mikkel
------------------------------
From: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The _one_ thing that pisses me off about Linux
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 21:11:34 +0200
All the guy asked for was a note saying "Optimized for x86" or equivalent,
so that he could be spared a 7 hour long DL over a slow modem ...
Mikkel
"Mad.Scientist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:#Xb8lsy1AHA.239@cpmsnbbsa07...
> I can understand your frustration, but remember that x86 makes up the vast
> majority of computers, and when most people compile programs, they are
doing
> so on an x86. And remember that a very large segment of the Linux
community
> is consistent of converts from M$, such as I. So that's why x86 rules the
> market.
>
> "Richard Thrippleton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > First, let's get one thing straight; I'm not a wintroll. I don't
> > even run windows on any machine I own. I am a committed a Linux advocate
> > (and evangelist). But I am gonna rant (and there is foam coming out of
my
> > mouth). What pisses me off about quite a significant amount of Linux
> > software is the ridiculous x86 bias, ridiculous to the point of
ignorance
> > of the existance of other CPUs.
> > On many occasions, I have wasted much bandwidth and time
> > obtaining sourcecode to some killer app, only to find that it will only
> > compile on x86, and there is f***all warning in previous documentation.
> > There seems to be some kind of arrogant view that Linux is only run on
> > x86 (I use PPC). Some lamer has put in an ASM hack; that's fine, but
would
> > it really be too much trouble to put in a C substitute, or at least some
> > >warning< next to that big hunk of megabytes large source code?? I
> > have to use a modem half the year and this isn't helping!
> > All I want is fair warning that they haven't taken into account CPUs
> > other than their own. So those of you who know (or are) developers,
> _please_
> > bang some heads and let people know that there are people who do not use
> > x86s. Oh, and let them know that some people have their ints ordered the
> > _right_ way round :>
> >
> > Richard
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 21:05:17 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:nheK6.12794$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9db8ge$klc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > The question is where to position the tradeoff between a stable
> > > system's need to control access to the hardware and DOS programs'
> > > need to access hardware directly. Win9x doesn't bother trying.
> > > DOSEMU tries but lets you override it with configuration settings.
> >
> > I think that they didn't want to let it happen, if you can open up
> hardware
> > access one way, you can open it in other ways too.
> > How does linux handle it, btw?
>
> It provides bios emulation for normal system functions, but also allows
> you to specify memory and port ranges that it can access directly so
> dos device drivers or programs that talk directly to hardware can work.
> That gives them the same opportunity to crash the system that they would
> have under dos or win9x. I'm not sure if it provides any locking for
> multiple instances or not - I doubt if it does.
Actually, my question was how Linux deal with the security hole this
creates.
Since DOSEMU can give an application a direct hardware access, so can other
stuff, right?
Off topic:
I once tried to write directly to a floppy, and accidently initializing it.
(IE, threated it like an array and put 0 everywhere)
The source code for the program was on this disk, and I never bothered to
recreate it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 21:06:02 +0200
"JS PL" <hi everybody!> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I thought they relied on some mythical "monopoly" status that has been
> granted to them by the King of Fantasy Land.
> You mean to say they have to actually market the products to customers?
And
> they use tried and true marketing glitz and catchy monikers to do it?
No, that is T. Max opinion, not GreyCloud.
GreyCloud is more reasonable.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 21:12:29 +0200
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 09 May 2001 06:27:30 GMT, Greg Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <9d84g7$r4u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >Just for grins I fired up WMP7 running under Win2k on my PII-450 with
> >256MB memory. According to the task manager it sucks up less than 5
> >percent of the cpu and uses 3.5 MB of system memory when minimized.
> >When not minimized it uses about 20 percent of the CPU and 5.5MB of
> >memory. It changes tracks just fine for me...
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ....and what kind of stats can you give us when you downloaded and ran
> WinAmp 8 ?
0 CPU use, 0 bytes of RAM used.
WinAmp 8 doesn't exist.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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!
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:20:05 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yes, I got it. Like is said; it may be "like an API", only it isn't.
> Not everything you can metaphysically imagine works "just like" an API
> is an API. In fact, none of them are, except APIs. Your logic would
> simply call any technical specification 'an API'. That's bogus. Get
> it?
Hmmm.
What, in your view, is an API then?
In Win32 an API?
Is POSIX?
Is the Macintosh Toolbox?
Why are thse APIs and that int 21h
foolishness not an API?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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!
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:20:06 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001
> >> No, Judge Jackson says there are quotes from MS executives to support
> >> this.
> >
> >Jackson isn't here to argue about it. I daresay Jackson
> >thinks the quotes support *his* conclusions, rather
> >than Ricks.
>
> Ricks "interpretation" WAS Jackson's. Doh!
Jackson didn't preside over the Caldera case.
He may, I suppose, share Ricks, um, opinions- but
I don't think he's said so publicly.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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!
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:25:22 GMT
"Macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <BceK6.12212$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Until now, they've never got far enough to deal with
> > the problems Microsoft has had.
> >
> > They have been unable to product the 'next
> > generation' product, or unwilling to commit
> > to it, or unable to get developers on board.
>
> I guess I imagined the switch from 68xxx to PPC 7 years ago. Seems to me
> that that's a far greater backward compatibility issue than a service
> pack like Win98 or WinXP should ever have.
I keep forgetting that the memory of Usenet lasts
about 5 seconds. :D
I am refering to their software. At one point, the
context even made that clear.
Sure, switching to the PPC was a good thing, but
they were very careful not to change the software
while doing it. Not any more than they had to.
------------------------------
From: kosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pesky lack of support
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 13:25:03 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nigel Feltham wrote:
> kosh wrote:
>
>> A newgroup is not the best plaec for these questions. However the simple
>> quation is don't worry if the bios can't see it all since linux doesn't
>> care what the bios does. Install from a CD and make a /boot partition in
>> the first 50 megs or so. Then partition the rest as desired. I have have
>> a 40 gig disk in one box that the bios swears is only 8 gigs but linux
>> sees the entire thing with no problem.
>>
>
> How would you use a 40GB drive as a dual-boot Linux (mandrake 7.2) and
> Windows (98SE) drive on a machine with this problem - the reason I ask is
> that my 6.4gb drive seems small now ( I am trying to get into 3d rendering
> and video editing) and I don't know if my BIOS can handle large drives (
> AMD K6-2 cpu in a VIA chipset AGPx2 motherboard with UltraDMA33 support).
>
I know of no way you can dual boot that. Windows uses the bios to find out
the drive information and as such it can only see what the bios tells it.
Linux has no such limitation so it is immune to that. However W2K should
also be able to see the entire drive so you can probably dual W2K and Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:30:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Edward Rosten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 08 May 2001 21:59:53 +0100
<9d9j70$85p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>How do you handle those printers in Linux? Output PS? I'm interested,
>>>not attacking.
>>
>> FILE * fp = fopen("/dev/lpt1", "w");
>>
>> if everything's set up correctly.
>
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
>
>{... printf()...} | lpr would be a better bet
That is a bit of a philosophical issue -- but yes, that would work. :-)
Or one can use
FILE * fp = popen("lpr", "w");
if one really needs to write to a file, rather than to stdout and
use shellscripting techniques. One could also create a temp file
and { sprintf(buf,"lpr %s", tempFileName); system(buf);
unlink(tempFileName); }. A bit bodgy, that one.
(I was under the impression that /dev/lpt1 goes through the spooler?
Certainly I wouldn't want to write directly to /dev/par1 unless
I knew *exactly* what I was doing. There's also the issue of
slightly different names between Linux, FreeBSD, HP-UX, Solaris,
SCO Unix, and others -- so mea culpa.)
>
>
>> This also assumes the app developer has an intimate understanding of
>> PostScript -- not guaranteed by any means. Windows makes it easy,
>> unless something goes wrong.
>
>You are missing 2 crucial points. First, an intimate understanding is not
>required to do useful stuff.
True; almost anyone could do "/Times-Roman findfont 10 scalefont setfont
320 200 moveto (blahblah) show". :-) (Note that a short explanation
of the Forth-like / RPN stack employed in PostScript may be in order.
Some other primitives such as "stroke", "lineto", "setgray", "arc",
and "fill" would allow for some pretty good graphs. There are some
issues with kerning, however.)
>Secondly, windows makes it easier _ONLY_ if
>you want to do wysiwyg printing from a GUI app. As soon as you want to
>print from a command line app, it is much harder.
Unless the command line app understands Win32 -- an issue for POSIX,
as I understand it; the two simply can't live together in the same app
for some extremely bizarre reason. (I'll have to play with that when
I get a spare moment or two.) However, a Win32 console app can handle
it fine -- they're just not all that standard, from a non-Windows
standpoint.
Of course, one can split the app into a POSIX launcher and a Win32
printout workhorse, or a Win32 launcher/printout and a POSIX workhorse.
To me, that's excessive engineering for what should be a
very simple problem. (Windows? Simple? Whatever I'm smoking,
I hope it's good.... :-) )
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random Windows yuckiness here
EAC code #191 9d:15h:09m actually running Linux.
Linux. When Microsoft isn't enough anymore.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[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!
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 21:31:19 +0100
<snip>
This argument has gone sidewary from the origional and I'm about to try
to argue against stuff that I agree with. To set it back on track:
The GDI and PS have various advantages and disadvantages, ie there is
nothing wrong with each per se.
One problem with the GDI interface is that there is no way of extracting
an intermediate device independent file format and then later printing
that on an arbitraty windows machine with a printer. This is a shame
because a suitable file format exists (WMF) and IIRC windows machines are
capable of recieving remote GDI commands for printers because they are
able to use printers on remote computers with remote drivers.
Another disadvantage is the excessive complexity for applications that
want to do only very basic printing (however for complex stuff, this
becomes much less of an issue)
The primary advantage with the GDI is that it is tied in to the windows
display model which makes WYSIWYG programs easier to write.
The advantage of the UNIX print system[1] is that you can extract a
device independent file which you can print on any other UNIX system. The
disadvantage is that there is no direct link between X and PS making
WYSIWYG programming rather harder. However, these points are being
addresses and there are now toolkits to address this functionality, but
they are not yet universal.
Another advatage of the UNIX print system is that it allows arbitrary
print filters to be put on the input and output of each print queue,
which I have found gives more flexibility than is avaliable under windows.
Also _basic_ printing from UNIX apps is easier---all you need is a
knowledge of printf() and about 6 different PS commands. To do basic
printing under Windows, rather more overhead is required.
The final point is this:
For a program which can generate screen graphics, print and make things
to embed in documents, you need to know GDI stuff (display and printing)
and OLE stuff, for embedding. Under UNIX, you need X for display and PS
for embedding and printing. Either way, you only get 2 out of 3 unified.
I think this just about sums it up.
On a personal note, I prefer the UNIX way, because I do a lot of basic
printing. I also often generate images on faster computers and embed them
in to documents written on my computer, or print them from my computer.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:15:23 GMT
On Wed, 09 May 2001 14:59:33 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The value would HAVE to be the value to the given consumer, if he
>couldn't obtain illicit copies, or there is simply no ethical support
>for the law. Which means a Napster user would have to rip several dozen
>albums to get even close to the legal threshold of $1000. But you know,
Even if you were correct, you're ignoring the provision of the law
that criminalizes making 10 copies without regard to value.
>
>>You were simply wrong about there being no criminal statutes concerning
>>infringement.
>
>No, I was simply mistaken. There are no criminal statutes concerning
>non-commercial infringement. Or at least that was the intent of the
>$1000 threshold. Unfortunately, the explicit figure gives the wrong
>spin, having been codified before almost infinite replication of a song
>at almost zero cost was feasible.
Mistaken means wrong. And you continue to compound your error to the
point where it's clear you can't even read. Willfully making 10
illegal copies of a song is a criminal violation regardless of the
value of the song. Does that appear to be set at a level that
targets a commercial enterprise?
>
>I have never been even the tiniest bit concerned about 'usenet
>credibility'. Only real credibility. You seem to be under the
>impression that I'm not owning up to my mistakes. This is untrue. I am
>merely interpreting the law as I understand it. I see no reason to
>quibble about some mythical pirate who gives out ten copies of a CD from
>the goodness of his heart. The intent was to curtail commercial
Even though the statute clearly suggests otherwise?
>infringement (actually, plagiarism: piracy) WITHOUT criminalizing
>private copying. That much seems clear. If you'd like to argue the
The statute was deliberately modified by Congress after authorities
were unable to prosecute a student who was allowing non commercial
copying of software from his computer at college. To suggest that
the current statute doesn't target non commercial copying shows
both an ignorance of the history of the statute (which is understandable)
and an inability to comprehend plain and clear words which is not
so understandable.
>point, I suggest you do so directly, rather than trying to site me as an
>authority somehow in danger of losing credibility.
I didn't suggest you were losing credibility as an authority. You
are losing credibility as a poster with rudimentary reading skills.
Isaac
------------------------------
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: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:35:11 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 06:34:05
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >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. [...]
>>
>> Okay, I can live with that. Code calling functions from a library are
>> not a derivative of the library. That doesn't prevent the program from
>> being derivative of the library, according to the FSF's position. You
>> disagree with that position, and you have made the position very
>> comprehensible. I certainly consider it a reasonable position, when you
>> state it like that. I still consider it mistaken, based on a
>> metaphysical concept of copyright which denies the reality of the
>> conflict between software and copyright which makes it a defensible (and
>> thus legally correct) position. Just because no literal copying is
>> going on does not prevent infringement from occurring.
>
>You are free to believe anything you like but if you want someone to
>agree it would help to find any evidence that copyright law covers
>any case where nothing is copied, or any other case where a program
>using a library automatically becomes a derivative of that library
>even though it did not include it in the distribution. Considering
>that nearly every program requires at least the host system libraries
>it would seem that the case would have come up a long time ago
>if the system vendor had a chance of controlling competing application
>vendors or getting royalties from them.
It still annoys you that you cannot demonstrate anything but imaginary
flaws in the FSF position, doesn't it?
As soon as you drag them into court and prove them wrong, Les, you'll
have a point. Until then, you're just pissing into the wind. If they
were a profit-seeking organization, I'd be as disturbed about it as you
are, but they're not. It doesn't change the rules of copyright, of
course, but it certainly changes the rules of suing for copyright
violation. And that, of course, is the point. You want to blame
someone, blame the RIPEM boys who rolled over so quickly; they should
have stood up for their 'rights'. That way, the court would be able to
set your thinking straight, by pointing out that they have no "rights"
to use GPL software without being bound by that agreement.
--
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: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:35:12 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 05:23:57
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 21:06:14
>
>> >The rules of copyright have always involved copying something, not
>> >necessarily literally, but something recognizable as a translation or
>> >derivative.
>>
>> Hence the name, "copyright", I would imagine.
>>
>> >If nothing but the API is involved on either side (as a
>> >correct program should be written), then no copying is involved.
>>
>> I find something recognizably being copied here, whether you do or not.
>
>Name it. [...]
The exclusive right to profit from an author's work.
--
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: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:35:12 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 05:31:17
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >Okay, that makes more sense, I guess.
>> >Can you patent an API?
>> >(Why do I bother asking, you can patent *anyting* in US of A?)
>>
>> Its the "API", not the patent, which is a floating abstraction, Ayende.
>
>The API is the least abstract part of the program. It is specifically
>what the components *must* use to correctly interoperate. [...]
Oh, yea. Real concrete. Not abstract at all. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
--
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: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:35:13 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 05:46:10
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>No, my point is, and always has been, that if I get my own copy of readline
>and either agree to the GPL not to redistribute it, or don't bother agreeing
>to the GPL because I'm not forced to as I obtain my copy, it is still my
>copy to use any way I want (i.e. any way not prohibited by license terms
>that I have agreed to.) Assuming I agree to the GPL terms for this copy
>of readline, it gives explicit rights to use it. Now, for any program
>that
>dynamically links to this copy of the readline library on my computer or
>that I statically link myself, I am exercising my right to use my copy of
>this library whether I or someone else wrote the calling code.
> I don't
>understand how you are confusing this with programs that simply call this
>library's functions. [...]
I don't understand why you are confusing an API which only has a GPL
library to support it, and an API that has multiple libraries that
support it, and the rather crucial difference it makes in the verb "use"
as it pertains to developing a software product you intend to distribute
to others. If I am not mistaken, readline is the second, not the first,
and so it does not illustrate the issue the FSF raises, nor does the FSF
claim infringement against programs using that API.
You may feel that this is a comprehensible refutation of their position,
but I see it as little more than begging the question.
The issue is the development, Les, not the end user. End users don't
need licenses for things to begin with; copyright licenses are strictly
a developer issue. If you don't want to agree to the GPL agreement,
then don't use GPL libraries on your development system. 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
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:35:14 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 06:20:46
[...]
>It is unlike anything mentioned in the law or covered by any case I
>have heard of.
Not surprising. The GPL is unlike any other license, and software is
unlike any other 'product'. Go figure!
>> >> 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 was profiteering involved in the RIPEM situation? The FSF simply
>> >made it more difficult for someone else to provide unrestricted code.
>>
>> RIPEM simply tried to use a loophole.
>
>They tried to provide unrestricted code complimentary to the GPL library
>users have already been given the right to use. That is hardly a loophole.
They slapped together a probably-disfunctional knock-off to 'get around'
the restrictions *after the fact*. Sounds like a loophole to me; real
compliance would have meant they needed to re-write their program from
scratch. A stupid idea, of course, since both libraries *ostensibly*
support exactly the same API. That's never been proven, of course, and
I don't think anyone is actually using the RIPEM library. Thus, again,
the 'loophole' claim. Had it not been a loophole, they would have at
least been able to distribute the RIPEM library with their product,
don't you think?
--
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
******************************
