Linux-Advocacy Digest #493, Volume #34 Sun, 13 May 01 21:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("David Brown")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Greg Cox)
Re: MS POLL! (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux in college & high school (Dave Martel)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[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: Mon, 14 May 2001 01:53:50 +0200
Ayende Rahien wrote in message <9dn5n5$pdb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9dmt27$9om$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Ayende Rahien wrote in message <9dmrfj$97o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>
>> I am not sure you understand what an OS is, nor what MS is being asked to
>do
>> (at least by more moderate people). An OS provides an execution
>environment
>> for other programs, and provides these programs with access to the
>> functionality of the computer. Thus, device drivers for a CDROM or DVD
>> drive form part of the OS. The OS provides an interface allowing
>> application programs to read from the CD drive regardless of details of
>the
>> drive, and it provides an interface allowing an application to play music
>> through a sound card, regardless of the type of sound card. But a
program
>> which reads tracks from a CD and plays them is an application - it is not
>> part of the OS. Similarly, low-level network protocols such as TCP/IP
can
>> be regarded as part of the OS (although that is debatable - drivers for
>> network cards certainly is part of the OS). Higher level protocols such
>as
>> HTTP or FTP are arguably part of the applications layer, as is a GUI.
>> Browsers and DVD players are without any doubt applications - they are
not
>> part of the OS in any way.
>
>Okay, that is not what I would call an OS, but that is argueable.
>What you have here is a framework, which provides basic services for
>applications.
>That was what DOS was, but that isn't quite what I would like to go in the
>store and buy.
>
>Basically, you can divide an OS to the services it provides (GUI is one of
>them, btw) and its application layer.
>Take linux, for example.
>
>The kernel, FS, POSIX API, and X are the services that the OS gives you.
>
>Such a system is pretty much useless, mind you, for both users and
>developers.
>You need the whole slew of POSIX applications, to make it useful.
>
>And still you wouldn't be able to sell something like that to the average
>consumer.
>
This is perfectly true - an OS on its own is little use, and needs basic
services on top before it can even run applications, and it is applications
that users want to see and run. As I said, Windows and Linux provide
applications with the distributions, which is a good thing. The only
problem is when some applications are forced upon the users and
distributers, and distributers are prevented from providing alternatives.
>> I don't think MS should be stopped from providing a browser with
Windows -
>a
>> Windows distribution is more than just an OS, in exactly the same way as
a
>> Linux distribution. But IE is an application - the user should be free
to
>> install it or not as they see fit. And distributers (i.e., OEMs) should
>be
>> free to include it or not, along with other applications such as
>alternative
>> browsers.
>
>
>
>> There is no reason for MS not to distribute IE, but it should be
>> on the same lines as a Linux distribution with KDE providing Konquerer -
>the
>> distributer can choose to include it or not, and can provide any number
of
>> other choices. The user can choose to install Konquerer or any other
>> browser, and can choose between them. They can also remove Konquerer at
a
>> later stage if they want.
>
>Okay, but wouldn't that break a lot of applications that depend on
>Konquerer? That is what would happen if you remove IE from Windows.
>The built-in Help system use IE engine to render itself, as does many 3rd
>party help systems. There are plenty of applications that depend of IE
being
>present. Winamp's mini-browser is a good example of that.
>
>You can choose not to use IE.
>Just as you choose not to choose KDE, but you can't remove KDE from your
>computer if you to keep running applications that depend on it, now can
you?
>That is the case with IE, there are many programs that depend on it,
>removing it would mean breaking them.
>
I don't think programs should depend on a full installation of IE. If a
program wants to display html help files, it can ask Windows to display it
using the default browser (this is the same under X, I believe) - this can
be either IE or anything else the user prefers. As for browsers embedded
within an app, the ideal arrangement is for the apps in question to request
an embedded OCX (or other component type - I'm getting out of my depth here
on the technicalities) version of the default browser. The required
interfaces should be published, so that, for example, Opera can make an
embeddable version of its browser, and Winamp would automatically use that
if it was the user's chosen default. As I say, I am not against IE, I would
just like users and distributers to have an open choice.
>> The client benifits from choice. Distributers benifit from choice - it
is
>> hard for OEMs to distinguish their systems from the next. Part of that
>used
>> to be in the software they included in the package - now it is almost
>> impossible for them to provide anything but MS software.
>
>I agree about this point.
>
>BTW, all those that hate IE are going to be happy to learn that it's market
>share is going to drop sharply when AOL6 (Mozilla based) will be released.
>
>
------------------------------
From: Greg Cox <[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: Mon, 14 May 2001 00:02:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> The value of intellectual property is whatever someone pays for it.
> Therefore Napster contributors, having paid nothing for the songs they
> trade, cannot ever be guilty of direct infringement, nor can Napster be
> guilty of contributory infringement.
Come on, Max. Is your arguement really "If I steal something then what
I stole really has no value because I didn't pay anthing for it."? No,
Max, the value is established in the normal market. I believe a court
would normally go by the MSRP.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS POLL!
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 00:02:58 GMT
On Sun 13 May 2001 06:13, Charlie Ebert wrote:
[Snip]
>
> They are all well aware of the inferior Linux web server and would
> have nothing to do with it!
>
> Installing Linux at our company without management approval is a
> termination offense.
>
> There is a core body of management which is clinging to Microsoft at
> my company as if it were some kind of life saving medicine.
>
> They are all well aware of the inferior Linux web server and would
> have nothing to do with it!
>
> Installing Linux at our company without management approval is a
> termination offense.
>
> There is a core body of management which is clinging to Microsoft at
> my company as if it were some kind of life saving medicine.
>
>
*whaps the side of his monitor to get his computer to stop skipping*
:-)
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[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: Sun, 13 May 2001 15:04:32 +0200
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > You said that MS should be broken because they added networking support,
> > Rick.
> > Don't try to deny it, google keeps an archive.
> >
>
> Provide the quote.
The very buttom of this page.
As well as news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"That[Why MS wasn't broken up because it added GUI, networking & memory
management] is what a lot of people are asking."
> > That should've been, "one of of the most common tasks", sorry.
> >
>
> It may be common, but ther are many other 'more" common"
It one of the most common tasks *all around*.
> > There were 3rd party networking, MS adding networking to windows, killed
> > them.
> > So, Windows should've been no-networking OS?
> > What about drivers? SB made a tidy profit from selling licenses to make
100%
> > compataible SB sound card, sound drivers kill it.
> > So Windows shouldn't have drivers, too.
> > What about GUI? There were GUI for DOS before (and during) Windows, so
> > Windows shouldn't have GUI.
>
> You make an excellant case for breaking up micro$oft.
In other words, if someone does it, MS is not allowed to do it too, right?
Can you name *one* feature that MS is then allowed to enter Windows, under
your philosophy?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 15:04:47 +0200
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9dn044$eb5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In other words, you used the worst instance of IE that you could
find,
> > > > knowing full well that when I, and everybody else, talk about IE, we
> > > > talk about IE on x86 on Windows. Go to a friend with windows and see
> > > > what it's
> > > > *really* like.
> > > > *Then* come back and tell me what browser is better than it.
> > >
> > > If it isn't cross platform, than there's a limit as to how good it can
> > > be.
> >
> > If it *is* cross platform, then there's a limit as to how good it can
be.
> >
>
> Why?
It isn't as efficent as it can be.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux in college & high school
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:59:07 -0600
On Sun, 13 May 2001 17:29:07 -0600, Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 13 May 2001 22:48:21 GMT, somebody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> stands accused of saying:
>>
>>>Well, MacOS X is simply Apple's version of Linux.
>>
>>is freebsd simply freebsd's version of Linux?
>
>No, FreeBSD is the Universtiy of California, Berkeley's version of
>Unix.
I started thinking about that after hitting Send. FreeBSD is derived
from BSD but I'm not sure what the relationship is between the
development team and Berkely.
Anyone know?
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 00:20:21 GMT
"Lee Hollaar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dn026$p39$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Lee Hollaar wrote:
> >>> That said, the practicality is that the copyright owner somehow needs
> >>> to find out about the creation of the derivative work to file suit.
But
> >>> that could be through other than its distribution, such as you
bragging
> >>> about it to somebody who tells the copyright owner. And even if there
> >>> is no actual damages to the copyright owner, statutory damages could
> >>> still be available.
> >>
> >> I would say that the most relevant real world situation where this
would
> >> arise would be a business using a modified (without authorization)
> >> version of a program in their business. In that case, there might be
> >> employees who know about it and could tell the copyright owner.
> >
> >I thought that adapting a legally obtained program to one's
> >needs was specifically allowed by the law.
>
> That was the final paragraph of my posting, which got cut in the reply
> to it. But one has to be the "owner of a copy" rather than just somebody
> who has legally obtained the program. For example, somebody borrowing
> the program could have obtained it legally, but is not the owner.
Do you consider someone who obtains GPL'd material 'correctly' (i.e.
through someone who agrees to the restricted methods of redistribution)
to be the "owner of a copy" in that sense? I don't see anything in
the license to suggest otherwise, or that modification for your
own use is restricted in any way.
> The original language proposed for Section 117 was "rightful possessor."
> Congress changed it to "owner," with no explaination. But a rule of
> statutory construction is that when a term is substituted for another,
> there must be some legally significant difference between them.
I'm not sure anything explicitly says it is OK, but I got the feeling long
ago that one of the things the GPL wanted to allow and encourage was
'software modification as a service' where a consultant could be
hired to customize programs for a business for internal use. Subsequent
copying for use within the business did not constitute 'distribution' in
the sense covered by the GPL, and even if it did, there has never been
any requirement for anyone to distribute to anyone else, just the
restriction
that if it is distributed it must carry GPL terms. The same consultant
might
write a similar customization for dozens of places, but if additional
components
made it impossible to distribute the result under the GPL, no one could
distribute it in any form.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[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: Sun, 13 May 2001 15:28:36 +0200
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dn6ou$2sq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote in message <9dn5n5$pdb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >You can choose not to use IE.
> >Just as you choose not to choose KDE, but you can't remove KDE from your
> >computer if you to keep running applications that depend on it, now can
> you?
> >That is the case with IE, there are many programs that depend on it,
> >removing it would mean breaking them.
> >
>
> I don't think programs should depend on a full installation of IE.
Full installation of IE include much more than just IE the browser.
It include OE, FPE, and other stuff. None of them is required in order for
the other stuff to run.
IIRC, IE only is about 25 - 30 MB, and full installation is about 50 more
MB.
> If a
> program wants to display html help files, it can ask Windows to display it
> using the default browser (this is the same under X, I believe) - this can
> be either IE or anything else the user prefers.
You can do it quite easily on your applications, by using
ShellExecute("MyAppHelpFile.html"), which will do the same on windows.
However, when I'm talking about help system, I'm talking about something a
little more sophisticated than that.
Press F1 to see what I mean about help system. It's possible to do the same
via simple HTML, which nearly all browsers will be able to support
correctly, however, it is a work for the author of the help system to do so.
And it doesn't create a consistent help system across the system.
> As for browsers embedded
> within an app, the ideal arrangement is for the apps in question to
request
> an embedded OCX (or other component type - I'm getting out of my depth
here
> on the technicalities) version of the default browser.
That is technically possible, I guess.
However,
A> as of now, no one but IE implements the interface, (and that interface
need to be kept, else it would break older programs.)
B> it is problematic because it require every browser to implement this
(complex) interface, (and expose it).
> The required
> interfaces should be published,
They are.
Mozilla is the closest to implementing the whole interface, but isn't there
yet.
> so that, for example, Opera can make an
> embeddable version of its browser, and Winamp would automatically use that
> if it was the user's chosen default.
Opera would have to implement the same interface, and then expose it, it not
as easy as it sound.
Especially since the interface was designed around IE's needs, and not
Opera's.
>As I say, I am not against IE, I would
> just like users and distributers to have an open choice.
Even assuming that you could make such a scheme work (the technicalities
aren't very hard, it's getting developers to use that method is going to be
a pain, as well as convincing other browsers makers to make the interface
and expose it.), there are still a lot of applications that would still need
IE or they would break.
Personally, I don't see the big deal about 30MB of HD.
You are not forced to use it to browse the net, or to manage your files,
anyway.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[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: Sun, 13 May 2001 15:35:56 +0200
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dn8se$stf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Full installation of IE include much more than just IE the browser.
> It include OE, FPE, and other stuff. None of them is required in order for
> the other stuff to run.
That is, not required for Windows or other applications to run.
Typo, sorry.
> > The required
> > interfaces should be published,
Just wanted to add that there is a problem with that.
There would be *un*required interfaces.
Which mean that some applications would work only if you had the browser
they were designed against.
And there is always bug compatability, of course. (I just had it, I replaced
a class' implementation with another one, which totally wreaked the
application. Took me *ages* to find what the problem was.)
You probably wouldn't *need* the extra interfaces, as the current (the one
likely to be standartized) seems to work just fine. However, the same can be
said about Java. And it has JNI...
You might have some killer feature in one browser that would convice a
developer to use it.
And there is efficency problem. The interface as used today maps correctly
to the way IE does stuff, not the way other browsers does it.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 14 May 2001 00:20:32 GMT
On Sun, 13 May 2001 23:57:06 GMT, Greg Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Actually that raises an interesting question. If you "buy" a pirated
>piece of software, aren't you breaking the law by "receiving stolen
>goods", regardless of whether you knew it was stolen or not? Is buying
>a stolen copy of CorelDraw any different from buying a stolen watch?
I think you have to distinguish copyright infringement from theft of
a copy here. I think the buyer of pirated copies is simply guilty
of copyright infringement, and the laws concerning receiving stolen
goods are not applicable.
I'm not sure what protection a bonafide purchaser for value has
with respect to copyright infringement, but I wouldn't be surprised
if the answer were completely different from the answer when a theft
of goods is concerned.
Isaac
------------------------------
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: Mon, 14 May 2001 00:50:04 GMT
"Isaac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:04 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> I snipped everything above because we've beaten it to death. You could
> probably write my response to most of it yourself.
>
> >The FSF seems to be 'playing dirty', because the only people who can get
> >"tricked" by this slippery license. Perhaps the GPL is nothing but a
> >dirty trick. But the only people who can get tricked are the ones who
>
> I don't think they are playing dirty, and unlike some people who disagree
> with you, I don't think they intend to trick anyone. My understanding
> is that they have added some explanation to accompany some of their
> libraries to explain exactly what their position is.
I think the RIPEM folks were very surprised to find out this
position. Nothing distributed with GPL material even suggested
that there were any usage restrictions on the code. Only distribution
is mentioned, and it is quite a stretch to imagine that distributing
something that allows additional use of an end-user's copy of
code they obtained separately can be considered a copyright violation.
> I also don't have any problem with the FSF prohibiting the use of their
> code or libraries in commercial products. I have an issue with their
> chose line of defense.
Yes, licensing with usage restrictions on the library would be
straightforward
and would indicate that in fact the usage restriction was desired by the
copyright holder. RMS and the FSF are associated with the GPL, but
there is no reason to think that their fanatic interpretation on this point
represents any of the many other authors of GPL'd code.
> >want to build commercial software, the proprietary closed source kind
> >that can be easily profiteered on, or the open source kind that can be
> >sold the same way. Les claims this inhibits some software from being
>
> Not quite true. The RIPEM code was incompatible with the GPL only
> because it had a license provision against export in violation of
> US export law. Without that provision, there would have been no
> problem with the GPL.
Max seems to have a blind spot here. I've been telling him that RIPEM
was free all along and the real issue is that the GPL is incompatible
with every other license, yet he keeps mindlessly repeating something
about 'profiteering'.
>
> >Perhaps they're just bluffing. You'll have to call their bet to see
>
> I don't really care if they are bluffing or not. I intend to honor
> the GPL as RMS interprets it because I believe it's the ethical thing
> to do.
Perhaps for the things where RMS was the author. I see no reason to
think that any other author of GPL'd code would have shared that
interpretation.
> I might feel differently if I didn't find out about his
> position before I had invested time and money, but I cannot argue
> that I've been tricked when I know his position ahead of time.
Can you read the GPL and arrive at that position yourself? If not,
how can you avoid saying it is deceptive?
> But I don't intend to apply Stallman's version of copyright law to
> other situations. In every other case, unless there is an appropriate
> license provision to the contrary, I'll assume that it's okay to
> dynamically link to the library even if I don't have the right to
> distribute the library.
His claim is that the calling program becomes a derived work as a
result of copyright law, so if it is true in his case, it is true in all
cases.
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
******************************
