Linux-Advocacy Digest #559, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 03:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Russ Allbery)
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k (Arthur Frain)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Jay Maynard)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: DOJ File Suit Against Tiger Woods (Yet Yu Lee)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Russ Allbery)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Jay Maynard)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 09 Jul 2000 23:10:01 -0700
In gnu.misc.discuss, T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoting Russ Allbery from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 08 Jul 2000 14:28:56
>> Again, MS reimplemented Kerberos from an open standard. It would not
>> surprise me if their lawyers were unwilling to allow use of *any*
>> external source code regardless of the license, but in any case they do
>> not appear to have made use of the existing source base in any
>> significant fashion. The license that source base is covered by is
>> therefore irrelevant to what they did.
> What does "they do not appear to have made use of the existing source
> base" mean? The GPL doesn't make a distinction between "significant"
> use or not,
Yes, it does, because it's based on copyright law, and copyright law makes
that distinction.
> so I think the license may very well have made a profound difference.
All of the factual evidence of the situation doesn't seem to support this.
No offense, but if all you have is random speculation, I've talked to more
of the people directly involved and can come up with my own random
speculation. :)
> Particularly since the GPL requires redistribution of derivative works
> as open source,
For something to be a derivative work, it has to make significant use of
the underlying copyrighted work. Derivative work isn't defined by the
GPL; it's defined by copyright law.
> so we would be able to see precisely if they had used the existing base.
MS isn't ever going to distribute anything as fundamental as their OS core
security code as open source; their lawyers will have their programmers do
a clean-room implementation of anything where it's even an issue. I bet
that they did that with Kerberos anyway, just in case.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 11:45:27 -0700
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Steve Mading wrote:
> James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
> : endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
> : Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k. I am no linvocate, but I
> : find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
> : push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
> : Shame on you MS!!!
> What the hell is "13 times less reliable" supposed to mean? How do
> you attach numbers to a concept like "reliability"?
I'm not saying either MS or NSTL or the ad is using a
reasonable measure of reliability, but it is possible
to quantify it. "Reliability" is "performs to specs
over time" or some similar definition. You simply
measure the time between failures (MTBF - "mean time
between failures") or the reciprocal (FITS or 'failures
in time'). If you're really interested, see if
MIL-HDBK-217 is online.
Given my (brief, unhappy) experience with Win98, I
would not be eager to purchase something which was
only 13 times as reliable - several orders of magnitude
more would seem to be necessary before claiming
this as a benefit.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 02:24:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 8 Jul 2000
>On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 6 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>>> This is not true; if you so much as *link* GPLed code into yours (e.g.,
>>> you're calling *functions* in the linked code, but not using the code
>>> itself), distribution of the combined work must be under the GPL, which
>>> means that your unique code must either be GPLed or under a licence
>>> that offers no *different* restrictions (e.g., a credit clause).
>> I'm not a programmer, so I'd like some clarification on this issue. If
>> you wrote a program which uses a function from a library which is GPL,
>> you only need to make your program GPL if you actually distribute the
>> library with it. Is this not correct?
>
>This is ... an area which isn't entirely clear in the law, although the
>FSF has made threatening noises if the GPLed library is the only
>library to which you can link the software.
>
>If one and only one library can possibly make your code actually
>*work*, then your work is a derivative work of the library.
That's... strange. I guess you have to know more about libraries to
have an opinion, because I'm not really sure what I make of it.
But it sounds like we can assume that there would always generally be
several libraries that you could use, then theoretically your code
*should* work with any of them, right? So I can see some reason to
think of this as a valid test. But I honestly don't know how these
things get down to brass tacks. Can't you just decompile the code, and
look at the source to determine if it is derivative?
>> Granted, the "added burden" of
>> requiring your customer to acquire the library themselves if it is not
>> already available on their system might be something to whine about, but
>> this doesn't mean you can't write non-GPL software that uses GPL library
>> function calls, does it?
>
>Again, strictly speaking ... RMS has said that GPLed libraries (and not
>LGPLed libraries) are unusuable by proprietary or otherwise
>incompatible software. In particular, one cannot use a GPLed GIMP
>plugin in PhotoShop or a non-GPLed PhotoShop plugin in GIMP.
Sounds like RMS is pretty militant about this "aiding and abetting the
enemy" thing, huh? ;-)
>>>> When you start inserting your own code in the midst of the GPL code,
>>>> then there is no good practical way to keep the credit for the two
>>>> parts separate.
>>> When you insert your own code in the midst of GPLed code, you are typically
>>> contributing back to the GPLed codebase.
>> Which is to say, it seems, that the statement is correct, and when
>> inserting your own code in the midst of the GPL code, there is no
>> practical way to keep the credit for the two separate. So if keeping
>> credit is important to you, it wouldn't make sense to use GPL code as
>> the basis for your development. That sounds to me like a good thing,
>> though I know it terrifies some without as much faith in capitalism and
>> free markets to find legitimate ways of making money when profiteering
>> is uncovered and prevented.
>
>The problem is that Steve was conflating two issues -- the commingling
>of code in a single file and the link of two separate codebases.
>
>The commingling of code is easily handled (see the MPL for a good
>example of this), and the separate codebase situation is also easily
>handled (again, see the MPL).
And the conflation of the two? (Sorry, I'm baiting.)
The only arguments I seem to hear against the GPL seem to be based on
supposedly hypothetical developers wanting to benefit from open source
code without contributing to open source code. I can't see how
"handling" how to do that makes any sense for the developer of an open
source product, so why would an open source developer want to use any
other open source license?
Maybe I'm just too similar to RMS in mind-set, or maybe its because,
unlike RMS, I'm not a programmer, but I don't see why anyone would
disagree with either the implementation or the intent of GPL.
>>> [Aside: I'm not picking on Steve here, but have I mentioned that people can
>>> be confused by the claims about the GPL? I thought so.]
>> Maybe you gotta be a programmer to see it, but it seems perfectly clear
>> to me, and to everyone else I've explained it to.
>
>It'd be interesting to see how you've explained it -- because it isn't
>very clear. The religious claims have hidden the fact that it is very
>restrictive.
"Here's the software, free of charge, including the source code. You
can do anything you want with it, but if you want to re-distribute it
(or derivative works), you have to provide it free of charge, with the
source code, and have to use the same licensing, which means you can't
prevent anyone from doing anything with it, except distribute it for
profit or without source code."
It sounds like a more complicated explanation than it comes across, I
think. Most people instantly pick up on the "virus" angle, even those
who are hazy on what "source code" and "derivative works" mean.
I'm sure all the "not very clear" parts don't come up until you get to
the nitty gritty, like libraries and combining it with other code.
>The restrictions may be a good thing (in certain circumstances I think
>they are; I think they are clearer and better in the LGPL and the MPL,
>but that's my opinion), but the one thing they are not is something
>that makes the software 'free.'
They are the one thing that makes it "free", but let's not start that
again.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 02:31:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Steve Mading from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 9 Jul 2000 08:50:30
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: I think the reason this John Dyson troll is having such a great time
>: with the people who insist "free" means liberty and not zero financial
>: cost (in keeping with Stallman's politics, apparently, and in contention
>: with Dyson's claims) is because they don't want to back out of John's
>: self-imposed contradictions in order to note that the "encumbrance"
>: which seems to disqualify the GPL from being what you wish to insist is
>: "free" is what is, in fact, necessary to assure that the software
>: *remains* free, and that the intellectual property is not simply
>: available today without cost, but will always be available without cost
>: to anyone who may wish to use it.
>
>^--- Warning 61 in grammar.y: Parser stack overflow.
> (Increasing BRAIN_STACK_MEM, and restarting.)
>
>I mostly agree with Max, err at least I think so, but I wouldn't wish
>the above sentence on anyone. The only place I disagree with him is
>where he calls John a troll. I think John's point is legitimate, on
>topic, and not a deliberate lie just to goad people. I wouldn't
>classify it as trolling.
Well, then I'll have to apologize to John for calling him a troll. I
would, however, classify his posts on this topic over the last few days
as "trolls", most definitely. All of that "unfree" stuff was just
sickening.
As for the one sentence paragraph, thanks for pointing it out. I've
gotta watch that. But sometimes I just get so...
I think its that I write verbally, so to speak. That wouldn't *seem*
like one long run-on sentence if I was speaking it out loud, and it
would be much much easier to follow. Well, a bit easier to follow,
anyway.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 02:37:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting John Dyson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 08 Jul 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> >Hey, I am not arguing against GPL, I am arguing against lying. You are
>> >ONLY defending lies and deception by defending the unqualified term
>> >'free' when describing the GPL...
>>
>> You are not arguing, you are just lying. Which is to say that you are
>> mistaken, and don't understand why your mistake is important. Now that
>> I've pointed out what your mistake is, do you suppose you'll re-evaluate
>> your position?
>
>Calling the GPL 'free' is a lie. Almost everyone who is calling the
>GPL free, also give exceptions to show how it isn't free. The lie
>is obvious.
Posting crud like this, John, is trolling. GPL software costs no money.
GPL software can be redistributed and re-used. GPL (ostensibly)
promotes the broadening of the amount of open source software available
for no money, thus 'freeing' the consumer from the burden of having to
pay profiteers to use secret code software. I'm sorry, John. You
haven't a leg to stand on, and are just being contrary. Why, I don't
know.
>Some GPL advocates just want to pepetuate the lie, and it 'feels good'
>to call the GPL free. It even provides some marketing advantage. It
>is 'just convienient', but to the informed, it is also a lie to call
>the GPL free.
For some reason, you find this foaming at the mouth appropriate and
rewarding. Again, I'm not sure what it is. Could you explain it to me?
>If it wasn't so obvious, I would be offended by your claims that I am
>lying. It is VERY obvious that you are reassiging blame for the GPL
>lie to me.
With all due respect to Steve Mading, he apparently couldn't tell a
troll if one smacked him in the face, because you, sir, are a troll.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 06:44:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 02:24:22 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sounds like RMS is pretty militant about this "aiding and abetting the
>enemy" thing, huh? ;-)
You could have stopped after "militant". This is the reason that the "open
source" movement was started: businesses don't like to deal with militants,
of any stripe.
>The only arguments I seem to hear against the GPL seem to be based on
>supposedly hypothetical developers wanting to benefit from open source
>code without contributing to open source code. I can't see how
>"handling" how to do that makes any sense for the developer of an open
>source product, so why would an open source developer want to use any
>other open source license?
Because he doesn't want to limit the freedom of his users, perhaps? This is
exactly the reason that the developers of the various BSDs will not
contaminate their OSes with GPVed code. They wish to have their code be
freely available without restrictions for anyone to use as they wish.
Yo may not understand it, but I regard this as a higher, purer form of
freedom than the hollow shell provided and advocated by those who support
the GPV.
>The[ restrictions] are the one thing that makes it "free", but let's not
>start that again.
Just like the classic "****ing for virginity", or "We had to destroy that
village in order to save it".
You cannot guarantee freedom by removing it. That way lies Stalin.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 02:45:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting John Dyson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 08 Jul 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Quoting John Dyson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 05 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>> >Actually, I am not talking about 'liberty', I am talking about the GPL.
>> >You continue to create straw-men by adding in superfluous notions. Lets
>> >argue about the moon being made of green cheese also, but that doesn't offer
>> >any help on the issue of the GPL being non-free.
>>
>> Neither did that. Why do you say that "the GPL" is "non-free"?
>>
>No-one has proven the software encumbered by the GPL is free.
But nobody *needs* to prove that software licensed under GPL is free.
>God
>doesn't create all software 'free', and that 'free' attribute is taken away from
>people. Software is 'free' only after the creator and owner give it
>away by licensing it for free and (no,very weak)-strings attached use and
>reuse.
You're just taking the philosophical aspects of this too seriously. RPM
can say whatever he wants, GPL software is "free" because I don't have
to give anyone any money to run GPL software.
In point of fact, "God" (nature, whatever) does "create all software
free, and that attribute is taken away by people". Notably, the Unites
States Government, in the copyright statutes. If not for those
people-made laws, intellectual work wouldn't be considered property, but
available for use by any who possess it in whatever way they see fit,
just like information and ideas.
>GPL redistribution encumberancs are not 'very weak', because
>
>1) The encumberances of the original source/binaries
> that cover only the domain of the original creation of the owner.
>
>2) The encumberances of the original source/binaries
> that also cover the contributions of other people who add code, which
> might be (are often) more significant than the code of the original owner.
>
>Item (1) above is probably okay to allow the GPL to be called 'free',
>since the original code bearer is only encumbering his/her own work. Item (2)
>is the killer that really disqualifies the GPL from being free.
I don't believe that it encumbers the work of people who are benefiting
from the original author's GPLing of the software. It restricts them,
but that was a restriction that was entirely theirs to voluntarily
submit to, and so calling it an "encumbrance" is disingenuous.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Yet Yu Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
microsoft.public.win2000.general,microsoft.public.win2000.new_user,comp.os.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOJ File Suit Against Tiger Woods
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 06:47:30 GMT
Bob Hauck wrote:
> Apparently the New Economy is so important that we can't live without
> these companies, yet also so delicate that enforcing the law will cause
> them all to fail and their employees to be thrown into the street.
New economy is so important we can't live without these companies? Suck my
dick! Your Microsoft has been nipping their competitors in the bud, consumers
need a better product that just what is available that sucks. Of course it
look good, but do you know how inconvenience you're working a M$ Excel file or
a Word file for more than 2 hours then suddenly you get BSOD you don't even
have chance to save the file? How about companies like Sun Microsystem,
Silicon Graphics and IBM, these companies makes supercomputers with their own
UNIX flavor running in it. Can these companies will get chance to market in
the desktops?
As a computer end user I want more variety of desktop OS in the marketplace
not such one you don't have any other choice.
------------------------------
From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 09 Jul 2000 23:45:01 -0700
In gnu.misc.discuss, T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 8 Jul 2000
>> This is ... an area which isn't entirely clear in the law, although the
>> FSF has made threatening noises if the GPLed library is the only
>> library to which you can link the software.
>> If one and only one library can possibly make your code actually
>> *work*, then your work is a derivative work of the library.
This is one interpretation that apparently the FSF's lawyer holds; I'd
personally really like to see a court put this to rest and say that if all
you're using of the other code is its API, it's not a derivative work, and
the process of combining an executable with a dynamic library on the
system is not the formation of a derivative work but rather the execution
of two independent sets of instructions, one of which calls the other.
This is the only interpretation that I personally think makes any logical
sense in the presence of technologies like CORBA, multitasking systems,
and the like. It seems to me that when the joining of separate code bases
is through a well-defined interface such as some IPC mechanism or the
calling convention for dynamic libraries, it makes them two separate works
which are cooperating.
After listening to a lot of the arguments about this, I don't see any real
sense to the idea that, say, optionally using GNU readline to handle
terminal input makes GhostScript as a whole a derivative work of GNU
readline. I realize that this interpretation has benefitted FSF-free
software in a few specific cases (such as ncftp), but it still doesn't
seem logically justifiable to me.
> "Here's the software, free of charge, including the source code. You
> can do anything you want with it, but if you want to re-distribute it
> (or derivative works), you have to provide it free of charge, with the
> source code, and have to use the same licensing, which means you can't
> prevent anyone from doing anything with it, except distribute it for
> profit or without source code."
The GPL doesn't require you to provide your derivative works free of
charge. It just requires you to provide source whenever you provide
binaries, and prohibits you from preventing further distribution of the
source once it leaves your hands. The difference is important; if the GPL
prohibited selling GPL'd code, Red Hat couldn't sell their Linux
distribution.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 06:49:55 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 05:55:57 GMT, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Because "free speech" and other freedoms do universally obey the "free ==
>>unlimited action as long as you do not harm others without their consent".
>Is that the only limitation on them? Are you sure?
Yes. If you analyze the restrictions on speech upheld by the Supreme Court,
they al obey this formula.
>What about a judge that tells you to sit down and shut up. Do you
>think you can just talk if you want? Do you think it really harms
>him?
No, but talking out of turn or in a disorderly fashion in a courtroom does
harm others: in this case, the ability of both sides in a proceeding to
obtain a full and fair hearing of their issues and reach a fair judgment in
the most expeditious manner possible.
>Speech isn't as unlimited as you seem to think it is.
You're just not looking closely enough at the issue, or else you're a
Stalinist who really does wish to dictate how others live their lives. I
can't tell which from here.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 02:54:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting John Dyson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 08 Jul 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Quoting John Dyson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 05 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>> >The GPL is yet another commercial license (with source code available)
>> >in sheeps clothing :-).
>>
>> I think that is a very adequate and agreeable way of putting it. I will
>> point out, however, that there is no monetary cost for a GPL license, so
>> your statement that it isn't "free" isn't very clear to me.
>>
>Well, there isn't even any guarantee that GPLed software is free $$$.
>There might be some cases where buying a copy is free $$$, but the only way to
>get it for free $$$ requires net time.
I didn't say the distribution was free, I said the software was free.
>At that point, I can only use it, when in my possession. If I add code
>to it, then I have to offer to give away my value-added source code also.
So? You didn't pay anything for it. Why should you be able to make a
profit on using it as a raw material? That's somebody else's software,
not yours.
>That
>means that the code isn't really free $$$ to me, because of my VERY
>SIGNIFICANT
>opportunity cost.
Look, buddy, just because it isn't free to you, doesn't mean it isn't
free to me. And if it is free to me, it is free. I wouldn't be moronic
enough to put SIGNIFICANT "opportunity" cost (whatever that means) into
developing on top of a code base that I didn't own if I was planning on
keeping my software secret and selling closed source object code. Is
that what happened? You spent a lot of time developing on top of the
GPL code base, and now you're all pissed off because you can't profiteer
off the developments of all those other programmers?
>If I can ONLY use it for free $$$, then it isn't
>necessarily free.
Well, you're still allowed to sell your distribution services (you need
not even post your code on the net) or your maintenance or development
services, or even your integration services. But you won't be able to
sell the software itself, because you don't own all of it. You only own
the part you added, and since there's no way to distinguish how much of
your profits are based on your work and how much are based on others'
work, you can't keep the GPL software free without keeping your own
software free, which matches the licensing requirements anyway, leaving
you again unencumbered, but empowered.
>Please refer to the various very encumbered (but free-sample)
>commercial libraries for an example of code that initially costs nothing, but isn't
>free.
I have no need of libraries; I'm not a developer. I just play one on
Usenet.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
