Linux-Advocacy Digest #543, Volume #27 Sun, 9 Jul 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Derivative works (Was: Richard Stallman's Politics) (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Derivative works (Was: Richard Stallman's Politics) (Isaac)
Re: Derivative works (Was: Richard Stallman's Politics) (Russ Allbery)
Re: Derivative works (Was: Richard Stallman's Politics) (Lee Hollaar)
Re: ## HOT ## Microsoft software for Linux ("Brian")
Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Vote for the best WinTroll - COLA Oscars ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is just plain awful ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Bob Lyday)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451735 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Pink Screen of Death (Bob Lyday)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Derivative works (Was: Richard Stallman's Politics)
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 21:14:01 -0400
On 9 Jul 2000, Lee Hollaar wrote:
> I wrote:
>> If one and only one library can possibly make your code actually
>> *work*, then your work is a derivative work of the library.
> Please cite anything in copyright law that supports that proposition.
Sorry -- I do not personally hold this position. This is the position
of the FSF and RMS, and it is also something made explicit in the
documentation for the Cygwin DLLs.
It's also something that the FSF has been able to get someone to do
something about with the GPLed math library available, or something
like that.
[snip -- I happen to agree with Mr Hollaar's reasons and reasoning]
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Derivative works (Was: Richard Stallman's Politics)
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 01:31:31 GMT
On 9 Jul 2000 00:20:20 GMT, Lee Hollaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Please cite anything in copyright law that supports that proposition.
>
>It's likely wrong for a number of reasons --
>
< snip of four strong arguments >
I don't have counters for any of your points, but I'll admit to not working
very hard since I agree with them. I'm posting to see if I can get you to
comment on the argument I've most heard used to support the proposition
we're discussing.
The problem is that if there is no support in copyright law for preventing
dynamic linking to GPL'd libraries the result is a big gaping hole that
I see no way to close.
What some have argued is that when a binary is dynamically linked to
a library, the union is a derivative work of the library. If you
distribute your code either aggregated with the library or even
without the library intending that final user gets the library
on his own, you have accomplished a virtual distribution of a derivative
work. This virtual distribution is argued to be a subterfuge that
a court would see through.
I think that argument has some gaping holes in it, but I'd really be
interested in Lee's opinion.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Derivative works (Was: Richard Stallman's Politics)
Date: 08 Jul 2000 18:35:18 -0700
In gnu.misc.discuss, Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem is that if there is no support in copyright law for
> preventing dynamic linking to GPL'd libraries the result is a big gaping
> hole that I see no way to close.
I'm not sure I'd be quite that strong about it. It basically, so far as I
can tell, makes the GPL functionally equivalent to the MPL with some
additional work on the part of the person who wants to use GPL'd code in
that fashion, and I'm not sure that's really a bad thing. I think the MPL
is a pretty decent license, overall.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Derivative works (Was: Richard Stallman's Politics)
Date: 9 Jul 2000 02:01:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Isaac) writes:
>I don't have counters for any of your points, but I'll admit to not working
>very hard since I agree with them. I'm posting to see if I can get you to
>comment on the argument I've most heard used to support the proposition
>we're discussing.
Sure, since you asked ...
>The problem is that if there is no support in copyright law for preventing
>dynamic linking to GPL'd libraries the result is a big gaping hole that
>I see no way to close.
That's probably correct, at least to the extent the you are trying to
find a solution in copyright law. If there was something nonobvious in
the library, then you might be able to look to patent law with its
restrictions on use, although the FSF people hate patents for other
reasons.
You might also try contract law, which is what covers licenses. The
problem is that you can ignore the terms of the GPL if you aren't going
to do something that would infringe the copyright of the GPLed program.
And writing a program that uses a library likely wouldn't infringe.
(Distributing the library with the program would.)
>What some have argued is that when a binary is dynamically linked to
>a library, the union is a derivative work of the library.
Nice try by them, but I have never found anything is copyright law,
whether the statute itself, any court decision, or anything in the
major treatises (which I just reread tonight, in conjunction with
something I'm writing on the subject of derivative works) that justifies
such a position.
But if you keep saying something often enough, it enters the folklore
of an industry and people think it's actually the case. That's why
I'm correcting things whenever I get the chance and giving pointers to
the statute and pertinent cases.
> If you
>distribute your code either aggregated with the library or even
>without the library intending that final user gets the library
>on his own, you have accomplished a virtual distribution of a derivative
>work.
If you distribute your code aggregated with the library, you have
created a "compilation", which is "a work formed by the collection and
assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected,
coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a
whole constitutes an original work of authorship." 17 USC 101.
And just because you may have the copyright on the compilation and
some of its preexisting works, without the permission of the copyright
owners of the other preexisting works you can't distribute the
compilation.
As for distributing your program and having somebody else combine it
with the library, if that were to cause an infringement you would likely
be a contributory infringer, since you are distributing something that
has essentially no other use than aiding an infringement.
But if somebody is the owner of a copy of the library, they are allowed
to use it, modifying it as necessary, under the special rules of 17 USC 117.
> This virtual distribution is argued to be a subterfuge that
>a court would see through.
It's no subterfuge. It's a problem with the GPL trying to achieve
something that copyright doesn't contemplate. And much of that stems
from not wanting to put restrictions on the use of the GPLed program,
perhaps because it would look much like a proprietary software license.
>I think that argument has some gaping holes in it, but I'd really be
>interested in Lee's opinion.
Well, that's the short version ...
------------------------------
From: "Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.best,alt.linux.sucks,be.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: ## HOT ## Microsoft software for Linux
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 02:05:28 GMT
Alex DeLarge wrote in message <8k7vkl$cst$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>CyberSurfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>Please don't post attachments in a non-binary group.
Agreed!
>A url would've been fine. Microsoft actually do quite
>a bit for linux/unix, including Internet Explorer -
>I've seen it on unix, has anyone got it running on linux?
I disagree concerning what Microsoft does for Linux/Unix. Microsoft has
actively pursued a campaign of FUD "Fear Uncertainty and Doubt" in it's
efforts to bury Linux - check out:
www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/981116/business.fud_and_loathi1a.html
Further, the Unix version of Internet Explorer will never run in Linux; it
is only available for non-AMD/Intel processors (SUN Solaris and HP-UX).
Microsoft uses a collection of dirty tricks in it's conduct with respect to
competing server platforms. It is hard to justify paying Microsoft's
outrageous license fees when Linux is available for free, has a superior
track record for reliability/robustness and typically comes with a complete
suite of server applications that are value-added items with NT4/W2000.
Microsoft at present owns the desktop but despite the large numbers in that
market it is a low-profit high-maintenance line item. They are relying on
the business/server market for high profit license fees and service
contracts; they are hurting right now because many businesses are testing
the waters with Linux/FreeBSD because of the low cost of initialization -
this is the death knoll of the $3000+ Microsoft server market.
I use Windows 98 dual-boot for two of my 12 nodes of my SOHO network - my
personal experience with these installations, and all that came before, do
little to inspire confidence in any Microsoft product. I have heard some
good things about W2000 but I balk at paying $1000s for some perceived
improvement over previous Microsoft products when a proven server platform
is available for practically free.
There is nothing I can't do with a Linux server that W2000 can do and there
are many thing I can do with in Linux server environment that can't be
duplicated in any Windows product.
Just one guy's opinion.
Best regards,
Brian
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone?
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 23:09:34 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I suspect most in this group have grown up with PC's and all too well
> remember the days of Qemm, Desqview, Qaulitus (sp?) Norton (when it
> was great), PCTools, hacking BIOS code, changing the refresh bit to
> gain a couple of clock cycles and God help us all the miserable Copy
> Protection schemes used by Microprose on F-19 (I might have the wrong
> plane here).
>
> How about the Copy II PC board that did hardware based bit for bit
> copies?
>
> Making mother boards that only supported 720k drives use 1.44 drives?
>
> Seagate ST 225 drives with servos that would self destruct?
>
> How about the CMI drives that were in the original IBM 6mhz AT?
>
> Booooooommmm they went in all of their 30mb madness.
>
> AST Multifunction cards that included everything but the kitchen sink.
>
> The Lotus/Intes LIM spec? Get that 384k of memory ready!
>
> The Cascade Virus, where characters would fall to the bottom of the
> screen and lie in a pile.
>
> Dos 4.0 which was a complete disaster.
>
> MS DOS 5.x which included their version of Stacker which trashed your
> drive.
>
> DRDos which was always the better DOS.
>
> Windows 3.0, which had an up time of about an hour if you were lucky.
>
> I'll bet I hit a few nerves here and brought back some fond memories,
> at least I hope I have.
>
> Today's generation of computer wizards don't seem to have a clue what
> we, and those of you (not me!!) that remember when a "bug" was a real
> insect hiding among the vacuum tubes (I did study those in college!
> Tubes that is, not bugs).
>
> These folks have been spoon fed the gui in all of it's ease of use and
> for the most part die when it is taken away from them.
>
> I am not talking about programmers, geeks and techies, but average
> folks.
>
> My point is that these type of people who have been weaned on gui are
> not going to accept cli.
>
> Linux needs to offer up a clearly superior GUI to attract these folks.
> Eye candy? Yep sure is, but that is the reality. When all of us bit
> twiddlers head for that great bit-bucket in the sky the next
> generation will take over.
The same people who are designing CPU's, writing program, etc.
In other words...the EXACT SAME core user base as exists right now.
>
> Will they be using Linux?
Why not?
>
> Maybe. But not in it's current state, or it's focus on geeks.
>
> I suspect however Mac OS-X is going to be the future. Just a feeling,
> with nothing concrete to back it up.
>
> Comments?
>
> DP
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "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"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Vote for the best WinTroll - COLA Oscars
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 03:26:27 GMT
"James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Steve / DP,
>Very good, but you lost points when you posed as the Wong couple. Even I
>could spot your "signature" in that post.
>But don't worry, you are still a strong contender.
Quite frankly, apart from Tim Palmer (no, I will *not* vote for someone
who couldn't spell the word "vote"!), Jeff and Chad, I think he is the
*only* contender ;-)
Bernie
--
This is the Fourth?
Thomas Jefferson
US President 1801-09
Last words, on 4 July 1826
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 03:26:30 GMT
Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
["Susie Wong" manages a chain store...]
>> Schools out for the Summer, eh ? Pretty unimaginative as trolls go,
>> i.e., obviously bogus storyline, stock Linux complaints,
>Oh, yes, there can't be anything to the story at all, especially
>considering that it only rehashes the same complaints you're already
>familiar with...
Well, the problem is just *how* familiar we are with those "complaints".
Here, let me show you:
Exhibit 1:
My sister works as an accountant at a large computer software
chain in the USA. Guess what is the most requested software?
Surprise!!! LINUX!
Guess what is the most returned software?
No surprise thsi time :( LINUX!!!
And Linux has won a place in this vendors heart as the only
software that they will accept on return giving a FULL REFUND!
Exhibit 2:
You are not alone my friend. I work in hardware support for a major
software retail chain and unofficially (looking at the skids), I would say
that Linux is numero uno on the returned list. We had 2 people in here
today with their systems in tow, that destroyed their hard disks trying to
install Linux.
Exhibit 3:
My better half manages one of those chain stores [...]. As for
Linux, and they do stock most of the distributions and sales are
brisk however the loading dock is full of returned copies and
some people come back all fired up screaming about how Linux
screwed up their systems.
Linux is the number one returned product at least in her store and
nothing else is even close.
They had to put an extra sign on the Linux section emphasizing that
Linux is NOT a Windows program. I got a kick out of that one :)
Exhibit 4:
My wife works at one of the very large national chains and you would
not believe how many folks come back returning Linux and screaming out
loud that it F%#$#d up their hard drive and they lost all their data.
Linux is numero uno in returns and nothing is even close.
Exhibit 5:
I asked the store manager about it and she said
that Linux has been one of the worst sellers they
have ever had. Virtually every copy returned.
She added that most sales were returned by irate
customers pissed off at Linux for "erasing" their
hard drives.
Exhibit 6:
I manage a national software chain and as far as Linux is concerned, it
is numero uno on the return list. [...]
Our policy typically is to not accept opened shrinkwrap for money back
returns, but we have had such a backlash of dissatisfied Linux users that
we had no other choice.
In the above order, these were supposedly posted by
1: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
4: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6: Susan and Willy Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
on the following dates:
1: 20/09/99
2: 28/12/99
3: 19/03/00
4: 05/04/00
5: 08/06/00
6: 07/07/00
And here are the X-Trace lines from the headers (minus the dates):
1: X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 937858847 206.114.75.150
2: X-Trace: bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net 946429348 15711 12.78.186.44
3: X-Trace: bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 953503538 12.79.5.249
4: X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 954969526 12.78.224.175
5: X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 960422480 12.79.50.167
6: X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 962929551 12.79.50.225
X-Trace: nuq-read.news.verio.net 962933553 209.24.234.82 (Fri, 07 Jul 2000 01:32:33
GMT)
>Now is it just me or does that make no sense? Doesn't it seem as though
>someone ought to actually look into these complaints and try to fix the
>problem?
Go ahead. Most of those posts contain the line
X-Complaints-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Should be easy to fix the problem of Steve, the mindless troll.
Bernie
P.S.: A similar list could be made up for the "I know a <insert occupation>
who tried to migrate <insert number> offices with <insert number> PCs to
linux, and failed" part of the post --- I just can't be bother to grep
through the 181408 cola posts on my disk again with an appropriate
set of keywords.
--
Anybody that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years
organizing and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the
office
David Broder
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 21:02:19 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
SomeOne Else wrote:
>
> On 07 Jul 2000 00:32:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 20:35:34 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> >Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >| Of course, he realized quickly something about linux... a great potential, but
> >| not much to talk of for the end user right now. Which compared to Windows
> >| (a system with an equally great unused potential, but with numerous features
> >| for the end user), is a rather poor replacement...
> >
> >I happen to be an end-user who happens to think Linux is great and has
> >many more features for the end-user then Windows. Perhaps, you can
> >point out the end-user features available on Windows not available on
> >Linux?
> The ability of Macrocrap to "rent" you the software periodically.
> Forcing you to pay over and over and over.
>
> Still, I can live without that.
Um, Yahoo Messenger. Um, ICQ. LOL.
--
Bob
"Turnabout is fair play, Robin" -- Batman.
Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451735
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 04:05:17 GMT
Here's today's Tinman digest:
1> What alleged "question"?
T] Then why do you continue to reply to my posts?
Having reading comprehension problems?
1> You really don't know what pontification means.
Incorrect, and rather ironic.
1> On the contrary
Even more pontification.
1> What alleged "question"?
DT] Are you agreeing with me about the irony of your remark?
Having reading comprehension problems?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 21:05:06 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Pink Screen of Death
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
> >I happen to be an end-user who happens to think Linux is great and has
> >many more features for the end-user then Windows. Perhaps, you can
> >point out the end-user features available on Windows not available on
> >Linux?
>
> The ability to regurlarly crash with a pretty blue screen which keeps me
> well employed having to continually have to repeat the hours of lost work
> this causes.
Dang, I get about 2 or 3 of those suckers a day! Did you know that
there is some kind of a hack in an .ini file that lets you change the
background and text colors of your BSOD's? LOL. Just think, instead
you could have the Pink Screen of Death with green colors! Cool,
dude!
--
Bob
"Turnabout is fair play, Robin" -- Batman.
Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
