>I'm going to disagree with you on two points.
>To the extent that it is strong, it is so in part due to the Internet.
>And that in turn runs heavily on OSS. Cases in point, Apache, Linux,
>sendmail, emacs.
the economy is also strong "in part" due to neighborhood lemonade stands.
the real ques
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 05:01:52PM -0600, Josh Coates wrote:
>
> what i see is "OSDL employee break the law"
Violating a EULA is not breaking the law. Reverse engineering wasn't
breaking the law until DMCA, and probably isn't even in this case
since it doesn't involve the MPAA or RIAA.
> and im
>...but as you leave we discover your ridiculous mullet.
i'm new to utah, and i'm just trying to fit in.
doh! sorry, i couldn't resist. ;-)
actually i usually bottom-post and trim by hand, but i leave the leftover
cruft at the end. my MUA isn't too involved, it's an awful piece of
software an
A bit off-topic but Id like to get the lists feedback about Northface U.
A little Background: I am the typical self-taught utah admin / developer
(if I dare go that far) and since leaving my last position I have been
assessing my skills. What NU offers for cirriculum and the length of the
program
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 17:44 -0600, Hans Fugal wrote:
> The take-home lesson here is that a proprietary license for
> a beer-free product can not be trusted like an open source license can.
Exactly. (With, of course, the OSS v. Free Software semantics.)
No matter how much it looks like the owner
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 03:53:53PM -0600, Eric Jensen wrote:
> Stuart Jansen wrote:
>
> I can understand the "repeat victim" part. We have all experienced that
> plenty. But the economy part is a bit of a stretch. America's economy
> is one of, if not the, strongest economy in the world and I
>Josh, you seem to be a BitKeeper apologist. If you don't like that
>label, please explain to us why you're not because we want to give you
>the benefit of the doubt.
i'm not sure what i said to make me seem like a bitkeeper apologist. (???)
but for the record, i'm not..er, i don't think i am...
Josh, you amaze me. Sometimes you're a top posting, non-trimming
vagabond wandering around unshaven and burping. This time you've
carefully and thoughtfully folded three message into a single response.
Everything looks great--you've shaved recently, your shirt is tucked
in--but as you leave we disc
Stuart Jansen wrote:
I was wearing my "repeat victim of proprietary software
just trying to accomplish something and move the economy forward
productively" glasses.
Way to move your cause forward by tacking on a positive but unproven
clause to your argument. How does avoiding proprietary software
Josh, you seem to be a BitKeeper apologist. If you don't like that
label, please explain to us why you're not because we want to give you
the benefit of the doubt.
"Larry explained that a contracter still under pay from OSDL for an
unrelated project was also actively working on reverse engineering
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 15:53 -0600, Eric Jensen wrote:
> Stuart Jansen wrote:
> >On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 14:14 -0600, Josh Coates wrote:
> >I was wearing my "repeat victim of proprietary software
> >just trying to accomplish something and move the economy forward
> >productively" glasses.
> >
> I can
Josh Coates wrote:
>i think it's more likely that you mean "US economic strength is due to
>yankee ingenuity, finding a need and filling it, improving on the status
>quo, etc." and that you equate all that with "OSS mindset".
>
>Josh Coates
>www.jcoates.org
>
>
>
That's actually what I was sayin
(sjansen)
>You saw "OSDL employee tries to compete with BitMover". I saw, "BitMover
>tried to force its will on a user".
as usual, thoughtful and well said.
but in this case, you are wrong! (except for the part about the glasses..)
;-)
what i see is "OSDL employee break the law"
and imo, what you
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 15:53 -0600, Eric Jensen wrote:
> I can understand the "repeat victim" part. We have all experienced that
> plenty. But the economy part is a bit of a stretch. America's economy
> is one of, if not the, strongest economy in the world and I'm pretty
> sure it wasn't because
On Apr 6, 2005 3:06 PM, Josh Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >It's not illegal per se.
>
> AYAL? IANAL.
>
> but i'm pretty sure if you willfully violate an EULA (which typically has
> the "don't reverse engineer this" clause), and/or copy someones intellectual
> property, then you are brea
Stuart Jansen wrote:
>On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 14:14 -0600, Josh Coates wrote:
>
>
>I was wearing my "repeat victim of proprietary software
>just trying to accomplish something and move the economy forward
>productively" glasses.
>
>
>
I can understand the "repeat victim" part. We have all exper
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 14:14 -0600, Josh Coates wrote:
> >When you use proprietary software, you are selling your future. At least
> >Larry McVoy is being friendly about things.
>
> what i got out of the article was something a little different.
Because you were looking at it while wearing your "A
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 03:01:21PM -0600, Roberto Mello wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 02:14:50PM -0600, Josh Coates wrote:
> >
> > what i got out of the article was something a little different.
> >
> > i read "open source zealots ripped off (ie. stole) bitkeeper by illegally
> > reverse engin
Wow! I don't know if I've ever seen that argument turned around like
that. Usually it's the company fighting to own what the employee does
in their spare time. I hear Sears owns several of their Craftsman tools
due to that argument.
Jesse
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 15:04, Steve Dibb wrote:
> Okay, that makes sense then ... and explain why it mentioned the OSDL
> employees in the article, which, at first it seemed like it wouldn't
> matter.
They just came down on them because Employee A works at OSDL, but at night, he
works on a di
>It's not illegal per se.
AYAL? IANAL.
but i'm pretty sure if you willfully violate an EULA (which typically has
the "don't reverse engineer this" clause), and/or copy someones intellectual
property, then you are breaking the law.
but in either case, you are right that it certainly violates the
Gary Thornock wrote:
It's not illegal per se. If it were, BitMover would be suing
(or, at least, they'd have legal standing to sue) OSDL. On the
other hand, it does go against the original agreement between
BitMover and Linus, where they said "we'll provide you with our
product and space on our s
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 14:47 -0600, Gary Thornock wrote:
> .| This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. |
> | Don't Fear the Penguin. |
> | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net |
> `
How come your footer looks different then this one:
.===.
| This has been a P.L.U.G.
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 02:14:50PM -0600, Josh Coates wrote:
>
> what i got out of the article was something a little different.
>
> i read "open source zealots ripped off (ie. stole) bitkeeper by illegally
> reverse engineering it, which resulted in bitmover killing their free
> version of the p
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Steve Dibb
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 14:41
> To: Provo Linux Users Group Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Slashdot feed...
>
> Josh Coates wrote:
>> i read "open source zealots ripped off (ie. stole
Josh Coates wrote:
i read "open source zealots ripped off (ie. stole) bitkeeper by illegally
reverse engineering it, which resulted in bitmover killing their free
version of the product."
So, is it really illegal to reverse engineer something even if its a
license agreement (non-signed contract)?
>When you use proprietary software, you are selling your future. At least
>Larry McVoy is being friendly about things.
what i got out of the article was something a little different.
i read "open source zealots ripped off (ie. stole) bitkeeper by illegally
reverse engineering it, which resulted
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 12:51 -0700, Stuart Jansen wrote:
> I've already handed out some "I told you so"s on #utah, but I guess
> I'm still good for a few more.
Was there any doubt?
;)
Gabe
.===.
| This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. |
| Don't Fear the Penguin.
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 13:34 -0600, Gabriel Gunderson wrote:
> OK, so I know you all read /. and don't need me to point this out. In
> case you didn't see it, this is pretty interesting:
>
> http://kerneltrap.org/node/4966
>
> It will be interesting to see how things work out. I feel both good a
OK, so I know you all read /. and don't need me to point this out. In
case you didn't see it, this is pretty interesting:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/4966
It will be interesting to see how things work out. I feel both good and
bad about it.
Gabe
.===.
| This has
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 00:20 -0600, Daniel Timpson wrote:
> So I'm running NLD (Novell Linux Desktop) and by default it doesn't
> come with Quanta, a very good editor for web stuff. I decided to go
> ahead and compile it from scratch. Over an hour later, voila Quanta
> was installed. Is there an
I use it with most of the software that I install from tarballs, it works great.
On Apr 6, 2005 1:05 AM, Barry Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 12:20:05AM -0600, Daniel Timpson wrote:
> > Is there any way to make an RPM from the binaries that
> > I just got done compili
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 12:20:05AM -0600, Daniel Timpson wrote:
> Is there any way to make an RPM from the binaries that
> I just got done compiling? Or do I have to create a SPEC file and
> rebuild Quanta again with rpmbuild? Thoughts? Suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
>
I've never used it, but it lo
33 matches
Mail list logo
