Linux-Advocacy Digest #396, Volume #34 Thu, 10 May 01 15:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Greg Cox)
Re: No More Linux! ("Dave Martel")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: where's the linux performance? (Greg Copeland)
Re: No More Linux! ("Dave Martel")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Microsoft "Windows for Linux" (John Thompson)
Re: Caldera CEO agrees with MS ("Edward Rosten")
Re: where's the linux performance? (Greg Copeland)
Re: No More Linux! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: No More Linux! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: where's the linux performance? (Greg Copeland)
Re: No More Linux! ("Dave Martel")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Caldera CEO agrees with MS ("Dave Martel")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 20:17:23 +0100
> Hey moron! Go back and look where I provided the many definitions of
> "nurse". The numero uno definition is:
Uh, you provide your own definition. The rest of us will use the
definition that the dictionary uses to avoid confusion.
I'm not going to continue argue with someone like you.
see you in another thread.
-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: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 20:18:14 +0100
>> poppycock from stem to stern.
>
> Fair enough, I see I'm wasting my time explaining it to you.
I know what you're saying and you're wrong. A GIMP oopsie has nothing to
do with Linux.
-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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 14:23:33 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>
> Aaron> chrisv wrote:
> >>
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Because stupid bigots like to rationalize their hatred of gays by
> >> >> blaming them for AIDS.
> >> >
> >> >No. I merely refuse to associate with people who are so fucking suicidal.
> >>
> >> Again, the false logic from Kookis. Homosexual != suicidal.
> >> Homosexuality != unprotected anal sex. Idiot.
>
> Aaron> Does "protection" ever break?
> Aaron> a) no
> Aaron> B) YES
>
> Is there a single documented case of HIV transmission during
> condom protected sex. No.
Mostly because the gays are so promiscous that nobody has ever
been able to determine which incident caused the infection.
However, we DO know that
A) condoms break
B) the AIDS virus is small enough to get through LATEX (this is
why anti-AIDS lubricants were invented)
>
> Aaron> DOH!
>
> Aaron> The life expectancy of a male homosexual is 20 YEARS SHORTER than
> Aaron> that of a male heterosexual.
>
> No, this is a falsehood, based on a fraud's lies (Paul Cameron).
>
No...this is a truth from the US Center for Disease Control
> Aaron> What does this tell you?
>
> Nothing, as it is false.
Wrong again, closet-boy.
>
> Note that female homosexuals have very low incidence of HIV.
Which does nothing to lower my disgust for male homosexual activity.
>
> --
> Andrew Hall
> (Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Greg Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 18:25:43 GMT
In article <9defd0$o2k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> > > If this is it, then I may say that seems pretty
> > > unfair to DOS. :D
> > >
> > It certainly *is* an API, albeit a quite primitive one.
> > Nonetheless, all basic stuff for an DOS-API is there.
> > It just happens that it is more geared towards assembly language.
>
Of course it's an API. It's the official interface provided by the OS
for applications to request services from it. How more basic can you
get?
> I think that this is mainly because at the time, most to all of MS
> applications were written in assembly.
Actually, most of Microsoft's applications were written in C and
compiled into a custom p-code. They then profiled the app and, where
needed to up the performence, either replaced entire procedures with
assembly or did in-line assembly.
>
> > But this is part of DOS´s heritage, beeing basically a rewrite of CP/M
> > with the odd part of Unix thrown in.
> > In CP/M for example most things were called via RST´s, which is the same
> > thing for an 8080 than the INTx for the 80x86. Note that the INT of 80x86
> > has *nothing* to do with *hardware* - interrupt, these two a only closely
> > related.
>
> *only* *closely* related?
> Strange choice of words, isn't it?
>
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No More Linux!
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:14:52 +0700
In article <wCzK6.168$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> FreeBSD is a bit more technical in many areas than Linux, but it seems a
> lot more logically laid out and and easier to find things. The FreeBSD
> Handbook is a marvelous place to find information, compared to the three
> billion How-To's of linux.
>
>
>
To be honest, I don't see much difference between FreeBSD and
Slackware. I've been up all night exploring the applications and getting
the OS configured the way I want, and have yet to crack the manual.
True there's a lot of differences between the linux distro's and that
makes for some inconsistencies, but that goes hand-in-hand with having
choices. :)
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 20:27:22 +0100
>> It certainly *is* an API, albeit a quite primitive one. Nonetheless,
>> all basic stuff for an DOS-API is there. It just happens that it is
>> more geared towards assembly language.
>
> I think that this is mainly because at the time, most to all of MS
> applications were written in assembly.
Probably most of all applications. Back then there was a relatively
small instruction set and not many resources. That said, you could do all
the intXX stuff from C and QuickBasic (I don't think Qbasic shipped with
this functionality). I did quite a lot of mouse stuff from int 31 (? its
been a long time) from the QuickBasic int() and int86() functions.
In conclusion, I don't think it was so much of a bad choice since you can
use an assembler API quite easily from C (the hooks aren't hard to
write), but you couldn't use an API for a HLL without some difficulty.
>> But this is part of DOS´s heritage, beeing basically a rewrite of CP/M
>> with the odd part of Unix thrown in. In CP/M for example most things
>> were called via RST´s, which is the same thing for an 8080 than the
>> INTx for the 80x86. Note that the INT of 80x86 has *nothing* to do with
>> *hardware* - interrupt, these two a only closely related.
>
> *only* *closely* related?
> Strange choice of words, isn't it?
Well, sort of. The hardware interrupt requires a pin on the CPU to be
pulled low (well, its low on the ISA bus, so its probably low on the CPU
as well). The software interrupt uses most of the same hardware, but it
is triggered by a software command. So software interrupts are
deterministic, hardware ones are not.
-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
------------------------------
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 May 2001 13:28:07 -0500
pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> honest? Not to want to labour this very minor point but:
> a) You can choose not to install FastStart when you install office
> b) You can remove FastStart in either the conventional way or just
> deleting it from startup (I think that the "office bar" may have an
> option.
No one said anything other. Seems paranoia may have hold of you.
>
> This is hardly a secret underworld cache - you are just splitting hairs.
> One could argue that this cache IS a good thing for most office workers.
> You could equally argue that you should leave caching up to the Linux
> VMM. Either way - the goal is to improve performance and by your own
> admission it does so. I really can't see a huge problem. I don't like it
> myself - but then I like to know what stuff is being started up. The
> only valid point it that _most people don't know_ what it is or how to
> disable it.
>
Actually, I think it's an excellent idea. No one, that I've read here,
said anything else. Rather, the only point made at this time is that it
does not make for an even comparision, which is exactly my point. As for
you saying that you don't like it yourself seems pretty odd. Who doesn't
want their huge slow loading applications to load in a more timely manner.
Your statement seems rather odd.
> > MS decided that because of extreme bloat and lengthy loadtimes office
> > had to be partially preloaded. That way it seemed "snappier" than it´s
> > competition.
>
> ...and the competition could do the same. Either way, real men use Vi :)
Actually, they can't. Not to the same degree. You seem to be forgetting
that, as usual, the OS has explicit application support which other
applications may not be able to take advantage of. Granted, there are
some other avenues that can be pursued, but anyone else, other than Microsoft
is going to make the average consumer pay an especially high price for doing
this. Why? Well, it's rather obvious. Since MS has tied so much of the OS
to Office, a common set of DLL's are in use. If a third party comes in and
preloads a large set of DLL's, it's more than likely that other applications
will not make use of these. So, the consumer winds up paying a much higher
memory price. For Microsoft to do this, it makes since on so many levels.
For someone else to do this, they are screwed. This is all for one simple
reason. Microsoft is a monopoly which is able to leverage this fact to
squeeze additional performance out of it's own applications and OS. This,
to me, is a clear indication that MS's OS and MS Applications need their
hands slapped with public sharing made readily available. This in turn,
would make a good idea universally better for everyone (save Microsoft),
specifically meaning the consumer.
--
Greg Copeland, Principal Consultant
Copeland Computer Consulting
==================================================
PGP/GPG Key at http://www.keyserver.net
DE5E 6F1D 0B51 6758 A5D7 7DFE D785 A386 BD11 4FCD
==================================================
------------------------------
From: "Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No More Linux!
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:16:39 +0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2001 02:56:40 +0700, "Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>I decided to become a FreeBSD snob instead. <g>
>
>
> Talk to me I'm listening :)
>
> What will FreeBSD do for me (as a desktop non programmer user) that
> Linux can't?
It has a neater logo.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 10 May 2001 20:30:12 +0100
>>What, in your view, is an API then?
>
> Documentation on the function calls used by a library.
If you look at the name of API (ie application program interface) then
the INT system on DOS is definitely an interface used by application
functions.
So where does the assembler INT instruction become an API?
How about when its used from the QuickBasic int() function?
-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: John Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
Subject: Re: Microsoft "Windows for Linux"
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:12:17 -0500
Robert Kent wrote:
> Is there any chance that IBM could make the source to OS/2 Warp available to
> the open source community? Would Microsoft stop them?
Although it would be wonderful if they did, I doubt it will ever
happen as OS/2 has too much licensed technology in it. Not only
from Microsoft, but also Adobe and other companies.
--
-John ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Caldera CEO agrees with MS
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 20:33:19 +0100
In article <X%zK6.173$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2717264,00.html
>
> Ransom Love (his real name, ISYN) says he agrees with MS that the GPL is
> not appropriate for Commerical software, and is considering alternate
> licenses such as the BSDL.
It all depends. If you want to make money of someone else's code, then
the BSDL is better, since you can close source it.
If you want to make money by selling stuff, how is the BSDL better. In
this case, it is about equivalent.
-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
------------------------------
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 May 2001 13:33:48 -0500
Peter Köhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> pip wrote:
> >
> > honest? Not to want to labour this very minor point but:
> > a) You can choose not to install FastStart when you install office
> > b) You can remove FastStart in either the conventional way or just
> > deleting it from startup (I think that the "office bar" may have an
> > option.
> >
> > This is hardly a secret underworld cache - you are just splitting hairs.
> > One could argue that this cache IS a good thing for most office workers.
> > You could equally argue that you should leave caching up to the Linux
> > VMM. Either way - the goal is to improve performance and by your own
> > admission it does so. I really can't see a huge problem. I don't like it
> > myself - but then I like to know what stuff is being started up. The
> > only valid point it that _most people don't know_ what it is or how to
> > disable it.
> >
>
> Well, may be you can turn it off during install, I wouldn´t know because
> I´ve never installed this stuff myself, only all the installs I´ve seen
> so far had this bloody "FastStart" enabled, so it is either well hidden
> inside the install or not very well described.
> In addition, the only advantage of it is the faster startup of Office,
> hardly a Good Thing(tm) compared to the loss of memory even when you
> don´t need it.
I disagree with this. If someone is installing Office, chances are they are
going to be using it a lot. This I'm sure isn't true for everyone, however,
the average office user, that is, the average computer user, using Office,
will more than likely spend a significant amount of time in at least one of
the Office applications. In these cases, it is saving time. You need to
remember that for stability reasons, it's generally not a good idea to run
more than one, maybe two applications at one time because you'll cause it
to crash faster. Because of this, users tend to load one application, do
whatever they needed to do, then exit. Repeat. So, a given application
may be loaded 10 times in a day. That adds up. Of course, the better
solution would be to make Windows more stable, but this route is cheaper
and gives the illusion of having a better product. Which would you spend
your money on. It's a given if you ask me.
[snip]
> > ...and the competition could do the same. Either way, real men use Vi :)
> >
> Sure, every installed program in windows should do that. The RAM-makers
> would enjoy that.
[snip]
--
Greg Copeland, Principal Consultant
Copeland Computer Consulting
==================================================
PGP/GPG Key at http://www.keyserver.net
DE5E 6F1D 0B51 6758 A5D7 7DFE D785 A386 BD11 4FCD
==================================================
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No More Linux!
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 20:36:11 +0100
> I just installed Cygwin, and I love it! I love using XEmacs and gcc on
> Windows. The best part is that I can compile most GNU software that I
> normally use on FreeBSD on Windows. The bad part is that text entry
> fields in both Explorer and Netscape don't obey emacs conventions. Like
> for example, when I hit control-A to go to the beginning of a line, all
> my text gets hi-lighted instead.
If you're going to use all the UNIX tools, then why not use UNIX. That
way, you can get a better window manager (or a window manager at all,
for that matter).
> Actually, I've been posting here for a few months now, and during the
> whole period, I had been running FreeBSD instead of Linux! I'm a sham,
> a phony, a fake.
It's all UNIX, so its all good.
Unix is one. Be one with UNIX.
-Pitr
-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: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No More Linux!
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 20:37:56 +0100
> I don't know of any people that have used FreeBSD and Windows that would
> complain too much about it, unlike Linux.
Well, most of us here complain about windows.
-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
------------------------------
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 May 2001 13:41:05 -0500
pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greg Copeland wrote:
> >
> > I have a buddy that is a Java nut whom told me that some of the fastest
> > JVM's are on Linux.
>
> Erm - he can dream on!
No need to. Look around at a number of benchmarks which include a number
of JVM's which run under Linux. Linux has both, some of the slowest and
some of the fastest JVMs around. This is pretty well accepted.
>
> >Keep in mind he's a windows guy, mostly. Likewise,
> > I have seen lots of benchmarks that show this to be true.
>
> really?
I invite you to look around before passing judgement based solely on
opinion.
>
> >It seems that
> > not all JVMs are created equal. I would guess that the OS has little
> > to nothing to do with the performance of a JVM, rather, the bulk of the
> > responsibility squarely falls on the JVM implementor's shoulders.
>
> ..and the OS does have a fundamental role as in all programs!
That is simply NOT true at ALL. It heavily depends on the nature of the
application more than any single factor. It will depend on the quality
of the JVM implementation first and foremost. Second, it will depend on
the quality of the c-libraries which it linked against. Then, depending
on the nature of the application, will determine how heavily the OS will
be used. If I have an audio analysis (DSP) application which does mostly
FP calculations on files which it loads from disk, the OS is only VERY
lightly used. In fact, the libraries and the JVM are going to be the
significant factors, unless you are running a ton of other applications
at the same time, which really has nothing to do with a JVM, rather, it's
a simple matter of determining how well an OS can handle a load. These
are two different issues which you seem to do well at confusing.
The above will hold true, as a rule of thumb, unless you are going to
tell me that Java isn't used for *real* applications, which may be the
case. ;)
--
Greg Copeland, Principal Consultant
Copeland Computer Consulting
==================================================
PGP/GPG Key at http://www.keyserver.net
DE5E 6F1D 0B51 6758 A5D7 7DFE D785 A386 BD11 4FCD
==================================================
------------------------------
From: "Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No More Linux!
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:29:29 +0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donn Miller"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Dave Martel wrote:
>>
>> I decided to become a FreeBSD snob instead. <g>
>
> I just installed Cygwin, and I love it! I love using XEmacs and gcc on
> Windows. The best part is that I can compile most GNU software that I
> normally use on FreeBSD on Windows. The bad part is that text entry
> fields in both Explorer and Netscape don't obey emacs conventions. Like
> for example, when I hit control-A to go to the beginning of a line, all
> my text gets hi-lighted instead.
Yeah, FreeBSD's and KDE's default key mappings are driving me crazy. For
example here in PAN, arrow keys in the editor act like the tab key does in
Windows dialogs. The delete key also doesn't work. It shouldn't be hard to
fix, I've just been too busy playing with other things.
PAN's really screwed up anyway. Nothing major, just a lot of unfinished
little stuff that gets on my nerves. Some of the other newsreaders would
be OK if Agent hadn't spoiled me. As a matter of principle I like to
keep Windows software off my *nix machines, but I'm going to have to
make an exception for Agent.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 20:42:42 +0100
> No, any known algorithm (and many unkown ones) can be crachked and read,
> they simply have to throw enough hardware and enough time at it. If the
> message is time sensitive, then of course that makes it not worth
> cracking if it takes too long.
It's still worth cracking, in case you use the same algorithm again.
-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: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 18:44:03 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >There are plenty of vertical platforms where the vendor would like
> >to control everything and lawsuits have been fought over whether
> >developers have the right to reverse-engineer the platform in order
> >to be able to provide added-value components. That makes me think
> >that if other means of controlling competition were possible, like
> >claiming that you own code that calls your library, it would also
> >have been tried in court by now.
>
> Why? If I am presuming correctly that you mean this "claiming you own
> code that calls your library" is supposed to reference the GPL (which
> does no such thing), until it is tried in court, there's no reason to
> presume it isn't perfectly legal.
Right, the GPL does not say any such thing. It says you have the right
to use the covered code any way you want. However, in the RIPEM
case and others, the FSF has made the claim that they own or control
code written by others that does not contain or copy any GPL'd work,
simply because it calls their interface.
> It's a private contract we're talking
> about, so regardless of your construction of copyright law or mine,
> you're just second-guessing for no apparent reason when you claim it is
> in some way in error.
No, it is not a private contract. The FSF claims that it is copyright law
that makes the work that simply references the GPL library a derived
work, even though nothing in the law or any court cases supports the
bizarre claim that copyright is involved when the covered work is
not copied or distributed.
> >However, use of a library by the
> >end user is in most cases explicitly allowed if there are licensing terms
> >on it at all, or assumed to be allowed under fair use since you must
> >be allowed to use it to provide the functionality you purchased.
>
> Use of a library by the end user requires no copyright license, under
> any conditions whatsoever.
Copyright and licenses are opposing things. Copyright takes away your
right to copy and use anything at all, and forces you to agree to licensing
terms that give you that right at all. The GPL gives you the right to copy
and use GPL covered works, and its restrictions only involve subsequent
distribution. Someone who is not distributing the GPL'd work itself should
never be affected by its restrictions.
> The private agreements, essentially trade
> secret licenses, which constitute end user license agreements, are a
> whole other matter. And the particular target of the GPL, the intent of
> the FSF, RMS, and the rest of its supporters, not coincidentally.
The GPL is hardly trade secret. The point is that since no GPL code
was distributed with the RIPEM code, no one involved should need
to make any license agreement with the GPL folks except the
end users when they separately obtain or subsequently distribute
the GPL'd fgmp library.
> > I think
> >the typical solution from these vendors is to sell a very expensive
> >development
> >kit that eliminates the need to reverse-engineer but also includes
> >copyrighted
> >and licensed code that becomes part of the final product which actually
> >does make the other work derivative and controllable by the development
> >kit license.
>
> Copyright and trade secret at the same time. Perfectly reasonable,
> though were I were a developer, I'd prefer the GPL.
Probably not. The GPL makes it impossible to use any other non-GPL
code. So if you need more than one library, and one is already non-GPL
you cannot use any GPL components.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Caldera CEO agrees with MS
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:32:05 +0700
In article <X%zK6.173$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2717264,00.html
>
> Ransom Love (his real name, ISYN) says he agrees with MS that the GPL is
> not appropriate for Commerical software, and is considering alternate
> licenses such as the BSDL.
>
>
>
Not surprising. It's hard to make a buck when you have to give out your
source code. But then the GPL is user-oriented, not business-oriented.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 18:47:25 GMT
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And maybe MS could add such restrictions, but they might not be
interested
> > in forbidding users from writing programs for their own use. Perhaps
> > it is inappropriate to call that philosophy, but it's close.
>
> I don't see a difference here. FSF is not interested in forbidding
> users from writing programs for their own use.
There is no evidence one way or another for that. As the GPL states,
its scope doesn't and can't cover that case. However, the FSF has
been interested in making it difficult for other free software to be
developed, as in the RIPEM case.
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
******************************
