Linux-Advocacy Digest #311, Volume #28 Tue, 8 Aug 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: On Software and Copyright: Sega (T. Max Devlin)
Why my company will NOT use Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: LINUX, OF COURSE!! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux: To Deploy or Not Deploy... (DeAnn Iwan)
And the winner is... (Mikey)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Mig)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: On Software and Copyright: Sega
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 15:15:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Isaac in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 04:44:40 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [A note to Isaac; I'm hoping that this is the only case you thought
>>might contradict my theories on software copyright; I'm familiar with
>>the white pages decision, and don't see any conflict. I'll check out
>
>There is no conflict. At one time you asked for evidence that
>creativity was a required element of a work. I assume now you accept
>that creativity is required. Good. We can drop this issue.
Yes, indeed. I have been educated on that point. Thank you very much
for your links, by the way. Though the creativity issue was answered
for me prior to your posting, they are very interesting.
[...]
>>First, I think the fact that it involves reverse engineering is very
>>cogent. Primarily because it seems to state that decompiling is reverse
>>engineering, and potentially that simple decompiling is reverse
>>engineering (though involving a proprietary console, more involved labor
>>was necessary in this case). This might be important in some other
>>questions, mostly, I think, concerning commercial software. I'm sure
>>its no secret, but I wasn't aware of a clear precedent. (All quotes are
>>from the quoted url.)
>>
>I don't understand your use of the word cogent. Are you using it to
>mean relevant?
>
>You miss the big picture.
Actually, I'm using the word cogent to mean "relevant to the big picture
in a telling way", though it wasn't actually the issue of library
infringement that I meant to imply it was cogent to, but the general
issue of PC applications as protected by copyright.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0378935.html
>In the end Accolade was able to write software
>which called routines written by Sega and Sega was unable to do one thing
>about it. How would you have ruled on that issue?
That wasn't the issue ruled on; that is merely the at-first-glance
perspective of the result of the ruling. In the end, as in the
beginning, Sega was unable to prevent Accolade from producing games
using its software. That does not conflict with current
practice-in-law, but does conflict with my theories, and so it is itself
cogent. However, my belief is that it is in potential conflict with
fundamental points of law, in accordance with my theories. The test has
simply never been executed by a court's necessity to judge a complaint.
The best that can be said for how these decisions actually impact the
discussion is that the fact that Sega didn't simply sue for
infringement, rather than trademark violation and making copies during
reverse engineering, means that Sega's lawyers' ideas about software
copyright are as conventional as many other people's ideas. But I think
that a large number of those people are as quick to mis-understand, and
even mis-represent, cases like the game console decisions as somehow
granting a right to create software which relies on someone else's
intellectual property to be valuable to the consumer.
>Read Nintendo v. Atari and you'll have the complete picture. The
>picture is that people can use reverse engineering to construct
>works that Max would define as derivative, and yet the copyright holder
>is helpless to prevent it. Once you understand that, you'll see that
>your definition needs revising.
The picture is that Sega did not attempt to prevent it. You only have
supposition, and only for reasons which are begging the question, to
justify a contention that they were helpless to prevent it on the
grounds which you state. The cases did not test the grounds that you
state. Do you think that is somehow unimportant in considering legal
precedent and reasoning?
My partial reading of (so far) three different cases on game console
infringement was that all three were based on trademark protection and
whether (bizarrely enough, since I thought this was a simple matter of
statute since the copyright law already allows for it) copying software
into RAM is a violation of copyright protections.
As with my earlier proposition that an OS developer could, indeed, sue
application developers for infringement, (assuming their applications
were closely enough related to the OS that they are dependant on it
specifically, and not just 'an' OS) but that this would defeat the
purpose of choosing to develop an OS, I suggest that the fact that the
point has never been tested is not conclusive evidence that it could not
be upheld if it were.
>Secondly you believe that it is the intellectual property which is
>protected. This court decision allowed grabbing the underlying
>intellectual property against the copyright holder's wishes.
>Yet another of Max's concepts torpedoed.
Hardly; the ideas, not the 'underlying intellectual property', can be
grabbed. The functional elements, as it were, are not protected. I
have never suggested that they were, though there has been confusion on
that point.
>Finally, I believe you've forgotten your completely erroneous
>definition of clean rooming. The correct definition was in the
>court case.
I hadn't noticed it until you brought it up, but you are correct that it
is described, even defined, within the Accolade decision. I have indeed
forgotten my "completely erroneous definition", I guess, since I didn't
disagree with what Judge Reinhardt said on the matter and don't remember
what you might be referring to or how it might be relevant.
[...]
>>The questions previously raised on another thread include whether such
>>"link infringement" is limited to only some library linking techniques,
>>and whether a single library is prerequisite. The FSF limit their legal
>>actions to cases where these points are not tested.
>>
>I disagree. I'd think there position on plug-ins doesn't even make the
>grey areas when Sega v Accolade and Nintendo v. Atari are considered.
There isn't anything but gray area when these are considered, unless you
conveniently forget that a game console is not a library, and a
cartridge game is not an application for a general purpose computer
system. It may indeed be the case that these are not important
distinctions in the end, but I don't think you can simply hand-wave
them.
>>Finally, the immediate precedent to this thread (ignoring the "plug-in"
>>distraction for now) was whether a program could be considered a
>>derivative of a single library if the library wasn't coded until after
>>the program was "complete", considering the apparent contradiction in
>>copyright statute that a derivative work be based on a "pre-existing"
>>work. My contention is that this reliance on the term is over-weighted
>>and even out of context, as well as proved meaningless by the dual
>>nature of software as both work of authorship and engineering, on closer
>>examination, if only in thought experiments.
>
>You use the word "proved" in a decidely non conventional way. Your
>final sentence makes no sense at all.
Then I'll rephrase it. "Any declaration that attempts to show that
chronology of coding is important in light of the requirement that a
derivative work be based on a 'pre-existing' work must first address the
fact that engineering design and work of authorship are not identical
concepts; the result of one is not protected by copyright, the result of
the other is. An assumption that the development of the software source
code is chronologically identical and procedurally inseparable from the
authorship of the original creative work, then it would in fact be
impossible for a programmer to use a shared library unless the shared
library already exists and is understood by him as to its behavior and
functional elements, if not specific coding. In this way, the use of
the term 'pre-existing' is proved meaningless, since it is the putative
example of writing a program which uses a library which has not yet been
coded which the discussion itself originates from."
Did it make any more sense that way? My point is not that anything has
been proven one way or the other in regards to whether library
infringement is possible, but merely whether 'pre-existing' can be
considered a prima facia refutation of library infringement.
>Why do you think the word 'preexisting' is in the statute? Was Congress
>just particulary verbose that day? Have the courts seen through this
>and decided to ignore the word? I think the burden of proof that a word
>in the statute is not being applied is on the one who makes that claim.
>Show me some court decisions that suggest that you are right.
A good point, which I've used myself in other circumstances. We cannot
presume that extra words might be gratuitously used within the
construction of statute, of that you are correct. I think Congress
literally thought that pre-existing was in fact a limiting factor, just
as many people still do. I think they were simply wrong about that, but
only if we first postulate, as they did not, that a functional work of
engineering could ever be considered protected by copyright as software
is. A different *aspect* than the functional work is supposedly where
that protection derives from (textual source code and compiled object
code as a transformation of such), but that doesn't prevent source code
and binaries from being functional works of engineering, entirely apart
from whether they are original works of authorship as well.
I'm not saying that there are no conflicts between my theories and
software copyright, but I am saying that there are also conflicts
between software and software copyright. I'm simply pointing out that
the lack of court cases (other than game console trademark cases) might
be due to the truth of that conflict as much as to the lack of it, and
this seems to be an issue of concern for both sides of the argument,
considering the positions that the FSF and the 'authors' of fgmp hold.
Whether "pre-existing" was a type of failed per se rule, or a simple
mistake, or a purposeful fallacy of exclusion, or whatever, the fact
remains that you can't reference what doesn't exist, so any library
called by a program must, by definition, be 'pre-existent' when any
violation of copyright law might apply. But whether that library must
exist previous to the development, release, distribution, or even use of
that program does not seem to be an issue that's been considered
adequately, primarily because the only reason for considering it so far
is if you want to make sense of fgmp and the FSF policy on library
infringement, or simply because you want to dispute that whatever I have
to say makes sense for whatever private reason you may have. Insisting
that library infringement does not make sense, or illustrating that
there are no court cases that directly support my theories (while still,
I'll contend, there are none to my knowledge which refute it on close
examination), do not provide justifiable reasons for failing to consider
the issue.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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]
Subject: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 19:13:17 GMT
I think David Thomas is right. Lots of people visit this site. Their
impression of the Linux community is formed in part by how people react
to those who question the perfection of Linux. And if the community
responds with hostility, rather than helpfulness, that is going to
influence people's views in a negative way.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 15:33:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>> >I see. So GnuCash has a support line now? Face it - people have a
>>
>> Can we get a testimonial from the Intuit support line?
>> Otherwise claiming it as a benefit is absurd.
>
> Mass marketed items sell by perception rather than reality. A
> potential buyer doesn't have to know how good or bad the support line
> is, just that it's there and they can use it.
Are you saying that a buyer wouldn't *want* to know, or that they would
be willing to not know if they were in fact able to base their
assessment of the quality of support for the software products they
intend to purchase on its reputation, length of service, and other
general attributes?
I would suggest that whether a buyer "has" to know something is up to
the buyer, and we haven't the duty or the power to second-guess them.
You accurately observe, of course, that current buyers *don't* know, but
"have to know" would have to be considered relative to "have to have"
the software, not "have to find out" how good the tech support is.
> After all, if FinanceFoo doesn't have a support line, but FinanceBar
> does, it would be a selling point if all else was equal and it
> wouldn't matter at the checkout counter whether that support line was
> any good or not.
That depends on if your perspective is the guy getting bilked with
shoddy goods or the guy trying to bilk him. Certainly if one product
has a support line and the other identical product doesn't, it would be
"a selling point". But the products are never identical to begin with,
and the support line isn't supposed to be an empty marketing promise,
but a service which provides value for cost to the consumer.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 15:38:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
> It would be interesting to see real figures of people that use
> vendor support lines for tutorial services.
[...]
Depending on how concise you think such distinctions between support and
tutorial are, I'd suggest the real figures are 'all of them'. In
theory, the user could simply get a CS degree and debug his own code,
even if there were technical problems to begin with. I would think most
support lines are more "bug education" than "tutorial services", but
either could easily take top honors, again assuming you can make a clear
and valid distinction between the two.
[...]
>>*really* doubt I'm in the minority on this one. Linux GUI is hardly
>>as good as MacOS or 2k.
>
> Trying to appeal to some notion of popularity doesn't count either.
>
> Of course those biased in favor of their particular other platform
> think theirs is the best. Whether or not they can actually express
> WHY, beyond the notion that it deviates from their prefered
> configuration is dubious.
But very helpful if they can manage to do so, don't you think?
> If you can't express what exactly is wrong with Linux on the
> desktop then it's pretty obvious that there is little holding
> it back there besides network effects.
A decisive point, to be sure.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: LINUX, OF COURSE!!
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 15:50:11 -0400
Cihl wrote:
>
> Boris wrote:
> >
> > Do they already use linux as chimp toy in NY zoo?
> >
> No, we haven't succeeded yet in porting Linux to chimp toys. Every
> time we test it, the chimp keeps tearing off the squishy cover and
> smashing the device.
In contrast...windows just crashes.
>
> --
> You have changed the signature included in your e-mail.
> For these changes to take effect, you must restart your computer!
> Do you wish to restart your computer now?
> [YES] [NO]
--
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"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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: DeAnn Iwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux: To Deploy or Not Deploy...
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 15:50:23 -0400
Hi,
I don't work in one of the vertical/rural areas you talk about. But
I do have a reply that might be of use.
As I read your post, it struck me as very clear that you were
worried about a continuity of administration of the systems under your
auspices--and linux or not_nix was an obscuring cloud rather than the
focal point. What the hospital needs for assurance of continued service
(and you need for your peace of mind) is a plan for handling contingency
administration. You are focusing on your group not knowing linux and it
running a few services. But this is just the frosting on a larger
problem, I suspect. How would the system get straighten out in your
absense, if a fire burned up the computer room, if a virus started
destroying hard drives, and -name-your-own-emergency-here? I suspect
you need a transition/recovery plan to keep thing running and/or get
them back up again; and I mean a very broad and robust plan.
Your group could probably help you come up with such a plan. Perhaps
it is training everyon one how to bring up email, etc. Perhaps it is
storing critical back up data off site. Perhaps it is consolidating OS
(not my approach, but hey). Getting everyone to pull together and team
up to come up with a solid workable plan could do a number of things.
One, it could get you a better plan that you'd make on your own. Two,
it would get some 'buy in' from the staff. Three, it could help
everyone from the new key puncher to the top hosptial administration see
how everything fit together and how they could make it work better.
Good luck.
"Larry Cosner Jr." wrote:
>
> After having followed the postings in the c.o.l.* groups for a bit, it
> seems that this is the place for my question. If I'm off-topic, please
> direct me to a better forum.
>
> I run a small I.S. dept in a _very_ rural community hospital. Many such
> organizations are characterized by two commonalities: (a) We generally use
> purchased s/w, and are therefor locked into certain os's by the vendor(s);
> and, (b) many of the folks in I.S. depts are not really geeks. (They are
> often merely more-or-less normal mortals, with a tolerance for computers
> and being yelled-at/hated/disparaged/pleaded-with by everyone else in the
> hospital.)
>
> In our particular shop Win_NT is the mandated os; over the last several
> years this has become increasingly common in healthcare, as I
> suspect--from reading and talking--it has in other vertical markets. [For
> a spittle-emitting rant on this, ask me; o/w I'll spare everyone.] The
> end-result of this, at least in our shop, is that my ~2.25 FTEs (~5
> employees) have enough windows knowlege (and interest) to be competent,
> but are not really the type to want to learn much outside that world. In
> particular, I've not been able to tempt them into exploring Linux.
>
> Given this as framing material, my question is: "Am I being a bad
> 'corporate steward' by bringing Linux into I.S.?" I have, in fact,
> already done this. I've brought up Linux boxes to serve as file (and
> print) servers, and I'm using a couple as backup servers for luser files.
> I'm anticipating more, as we're considering running our own email
> (currently having our ISP do it as part of our contract with them). I'd
> also like to dump our PDC/BDC windows boxes and use Linux, but since we
> may have to move soon to W_2000, and this may change some things, I'm
> biding my time (we've already spent the (BIG) $$ on the W_NT licenses
> anyway, dang it!).
>
> However, I'm having increasing heartburn about it. The Linux boxes are,
> expectedly, very stable. (We reboot our windows machines--both by vendor
> demand and by harsh experience--once or twice weekly. I never reboot the
> Linux boxes.) Nevertheless, if we [the hospital] become increasingly
> dependent upon Linux, and I leave [am killed, imprisoned, eaten,
> whatever], then the hospital is left in the lurch (since none of my
> (minimal) staff can manage these boxes). And, looking into the future, it
> does not at all seem a given that my replacement will necessarily have
> Linux/Unix experience (whereas, given the perversions of the day, it is
> pretty much a given that folks applying for I.S. jobs, at least to
> hospitals, have windows experience). We've interviewed a couple of times,
> and while the applicants uniformly have windows experience/expertise,
> Linux experience has--thus far--been notably absent. I think only one
> person I interviewed, and it was quite recently, had any Linux background
> (he had worked at a small ISP; we exchanged quasi-complaints about
> bringing up Linux on Alpha boxes). Admittedly we've interviewed mostly
> for 'operators', so hopefully I've seen a skewed slice of the population.
>
> Sooo...Is there anyone out there from the health-care sector, or other
> similar low-resource/low-pay environments, who has some thoughts and/or
> experience with this aspect of deploying Linux? (Or deciding, sadly, to
> _not_ deploy Linux?) And/or, is there significant evidence that the
> likelyhood of Linux experience will increase amongst the folks applying
> for jobs in rural and/or narrow vertical-market arenas? (ie--are colleges
> teaching/encouraging Linux, etc?) And finally, especially in isolated
> areas, how about contracting out management of specific boxen? Does this
> work well, especially when having to interact w/ the rest of the I.S.
> Dept?
>
> TIA! (And I again apologize if this is OT for c.o.l.a)
>
> ...Larry.
>
> ==================================================================
> | ~ ~ ~ ~ |
> | Morning Routine: |-( <- { c[] + c[] + c[] + c[] } => :-)) |
> ==================================================================
------------------------------
From: Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: And the winner is...
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 05:12:10 -0400
...of the Troll Luser without a life award....
it's: Steve/Mike/Simon/teknite/keymaster/keys88/"S"/Sponge/Syphon/
"Sewer Rat"/Sarek/steveno/scummer/McSwain/piddy/pickle_pete/
wazzoo/"leg log"/mike_hunt/Heather/Amy/claire_lynn/
susie_wong/Ishmeal_hafizi/"Saul Goldblatt"/Proculous/
Tiberious/Jerry_Butler/"Tim Palmer"/BklynBoy/bison/Wobbles/
screwbilk/deadpenguin/"%^$&&&&&&&&&&&&@!!!!!!!!!!!!!.com"/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/etc!
Screw it! Let's just call him Luser-boy.
And what's this luser's idea of a fun time? Wasting the night away by
trolling c.o.l.a. because that's the only way this idiot can get
attention. Even his mommy thinks he's replusive and won't talk to him.
The kids in your neighborhood *must* have kicked your ass really hard
the other day. Starting 6 troll threads in one night! Frustrations are
high in Luser-land.
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam
possit materiari?
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:03:36 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think David Thomas is right. Lots of people visit this site. Their
> impression of the Linux community is formed in part by how people react
> to those who question the perfection of Linux. And if the community
> responds with hostility, rather than helpfulness, that is going to
> influence people's views in a negative way.
Nahhh...... Steve/Claire/Teknite etc. is doing a wonderfull job promoting
Linux.. thats probably the reason why people dont really compalin to much
about him.
Others Like Drestin and Edwards XXVII take a more "serious" approcach but
fail miserably when facts are debated.
All this is Linux promoting and is very very positive... so Steve,
Teknite, Drestin and Boris please keep on.
I find Linux people here very very helpfull.. as an example i had a problem
configuring a HP 950C prionter.. and was able to use the printer -including
colors now!! - in under 24 hours, because people helped me in the right
direction. Quality of Windows advice: Reboot .. take a look with deja on
the newsgropups.
People react against trolls... Remenber that most Linux users -
maybe up to 90% - are former Windows users.. and some like me still make
their living by working with/supporting Windows usrers... I found it so
crappy that i decided to dump it and was surprised by the stability and
respondness of Linux compared to Windows. (AND its a lot more fun)
And why wont your company use Linux?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
