Re: license v license v /license/

2011-01-12 Thread RJack
On 1/12/2011 4:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: Apple, for example, went proprietary with the freedom provided by BSD contributions in XNU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU Look at Apple now: A niche player in computers, and highly successful with iPods, iPhones and the like. We tend to minim

Re: license v license v /license/

2011-01-12 Thread JEDIDIAH
On 2011-01-12, David Kastrup wrote: > RJack writes: > >> On 1/11/2011 5:41 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> >>> Why do you think it is that BSD Unix has not held its own in >>> competition with GNU/Linux? >> >> One acronym: IBM. >> >> IBM could not successfully compete with Windows NT with their AIX

Re: license v license v /license/

2011-01-12 Thread Alan Mackenzie
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack wrote: > On 1/11/2011 5:41 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> Why do you think it is that BSD Unix has not held its own in >> competition with GNU/Linux? > One acronym: IBM. > IBM could not successfully compete with Windows NT with their AIX line > running on the WinTel PC.

Re: license v license v /license/

2011-01-12 Thread RJack
On 1/11/2011 5:41 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: Why do you think it is that BSD Unix has not held its own in competition with GNU/Linux? One acronym: IBM. IBM could not successfully compete with Windows NT with their AIX line running on the WinTel PC. Microsoft had screwed over IBM and their OS/2

Re: license v license v /license/

2011-01-12 Thread David Kastrup
RJack writes: > On 1/11/2011 5:41 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >> Why do you think it is that BSD Unix has not held its own in >> competition with GNU/Linux? > > One acronym: IBM. > > IBM could not successfully compete with Windows NT with their AIX > line running on the WinTel PC. Microsoft had s

Re: license v license v /license/

2011-01-11 Thread Alan Mackenzie
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack wrote: > On 1/11/2011 3:24 PM, Kari Laine wrote: >> Ok alexander, >> But without FSF we probably wouldn't have Linux. At least it won't >> be as functional as it is today. There are billions of dollars worth >> of GPLed software available to every one of us. > Uhhh...

Re: license v license v /license/

2011-01-11 Thread David Kastrup
Kari Laine writes: > Ok alexander, > > I bite, let's discuss about the FSF. I don't know enough about it. > I know the good software they made possible. I gather I donated some > money to them back in (don't remember the year). Do you mean they stole > my money to get FAT. Or what exactly is your

Re: license v license v /license/

2011-01-11 Thread owl
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Nice paper: > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1586580&download=yes > (Why License Agreements Do Not Control Copy Ownership: First Sales and > Essential Copies) > I especially like this part: > "When "license" is used a

Re: license v license v /license/

2011-01-11 Thread Kari Laine
Ok alexander, I bite, let's discuss about the FSF. I don't know enough about it. I know the good software they made possible. I gather I donated some money to them back in (don't remember the year). Do you mean they stole my money to get FAT. Or what exactly is your point of GNG Site? I find shar

Re: license v license v /license/

2011-01-11 Thread RJack
On 1/11/2011 3:24 PM, Kari Laine wrote: Ok alexander, But without FSF we probably wouldn't have Linux. At least it won't be as functional as it is today. There are billions of dollars worth of GPLed software available to every one of us. Uhhh... "...probably wouldn't have Linux" ? W

license v license v /license/

2011-01-11 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Nice paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1586580&download=yes (Why License Agreements Do Not Control Copy Ownership: First Sales and Essential Copies) I especially like this part: "When "license" is used as a noun in the copyright context, it means something like, "a gr