Linux-Advocacy Digest #338, Volume #32 Tue, 20 Feb 01 00:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (Bloody Viking)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (ZnU)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Chad Myers")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (ZnU)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (John Hasler)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (mlw)
Re: I will give MS credit for one thing (Bloody Viking)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (mlw)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (ZnU)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Ziya Oz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:40:15 -0600
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:20:25 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:16:54 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> > What I meant was OS/2 apps couldn't use Windows device drivers, and
> >> > the apps had a different look and feel.
> >>
> >> Which isn't surprising, since OS/2 is not Windows. I think your
> >> expectations of Windows compatibility may have been a little high.
> >
> > IBM was the one that was promoting OS/2 as a "better windows than
> > windows".
>
> I don't think IBM ever claimed that you could use DOS and Windows
> drivers on OS/2. For that to work, they'd basically just have to build
> Win95, and what would be the point of that? MS was already doing it.
IBM was marketing it as a replacement for windows. They misled people about
the nature of the Windows support.
> DOS and Win3/95 drivers don't seem to work on NT3 or 4. Is that a major
> flaw in NT, or just a design decision?
Microsoft didn't market NT as a better windows than Windows, and didn't
market it as a replacement for Windows 3.1.
> > MS made Win32 programs work with existing DOS and windows drivers,
> > something that OS/2 didn't do. This was important to consumers, as
> > was the solid look and feel.
>
> Of course, Win95 was slower and less reliable (and that's saying
> something) if you took advantage of this.
Not even, Win95 was much faster than Windows 3.1, and was much more stable
than 3.1.
> > The fact that the windows programs had a different look to them
> > was a constant reminder that they weren't "real" programs
>
> You seem to assume that all vendors must conform to Windows to be
> competitive. Of course, if you start with that assumption, then nothing
> not from Microsoft can ever be competitive.
No, I think IBM would have done a lot better if they had made the windows
programs use the OS/2 look and feel. The problem was that it was very
different between apps.
> And you were trying to convince me that you aren't a cheerleader.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just having a discussion.
> >> >> Why'd he bring it up then? Why'd he say that MS needs to "do a
better
> >> >> job of educating" Congress about Open Source?
> >> >
> >> > Because, he wants congress to feel like they're being victimized by
> >> > kids developing software in their garages.
> >>
> >> ROTFL! MS is afraid of the people they used to be...is that irony?
> >
> > That's not what I said.
>
> Yes it is. I quoted it up there. You said that Allchin wants Congress
> to feel that MS is being victimized by kids in garages. The only other
> way to parse that is that Congress is the one being victimized by kids
> in garages, but that doesn't make any sense.
No. You said that MS is afraid of these kids. I didn't say that. I said
MS wants Congress to believe they are being victimized. Two different
things.
> The irony is that MS was the two kids in a garage (more or less) not all
> that long ago. At least I think that's irony, but I'll have to ask
> George Carlin for confirmation.
that would be 26 years ago, which is quite a long time.
> > I said he's trying to generate sympathy in congress. I don't think
> > Alchin believes what he's saying, other than the basic concept that
> > Open Source does change the game.
>
> So you're saying that Allchin is a liar, which is something we can agree
> on. Is it ok for executives of public companies to lie, to say things
> that they do not believe, if it suits their purpose? Is that what they
> teach in Business Ethics nowadays?
I think he's embellishing, which could be called the same thing. It seems
to be commonplace today. McNeally does it, the CEO of Real Networks was
caught lying to congress about how Windows supposedly disables his program,
when it was proven that it was a bug in Real's software.
I'm not condoning it, just saying it happens. Deal with it.
> > MS wants it to become clear that *ANYONE* can overthrow them, and thus
> > make the idea that they're a monopoly ludicrous.
>
> Even if they have to lie to convince people of that. What a great
> company you cheerlead for.
I happen to agree that people in their garages can overthrow MS. Most Linux
people seem to think they can do just that. Congress and the DOJ doesn't
seem to think that is true.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: 20 Feb 2001 04:35:16 GMT
Edward Rosten ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: No, but it is open source and existed before the IBM PC. If IBM had not
: `open sourced ' the PC open source software would still be very much with
: us.
The PC was never "open sourced" but the BIOS was clean-room reverse
engineered. What the competitor did was take the BIOS machine code, translated
it to English, and had a separate programmer translate the English into
machine code. That way, no original code was infringed making the hacked BIOS
a separate work altogether.
Once one company succeeded, others duplicated the success, resulting in
competition in the PC market.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 04:36:00 GMT
In article <96sokt$46a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger) wrote:
> ZnU ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[snip]
> : This is pure FUD. They can't stop you from using it. They can't sue
> : you. All they can do is prevent you from having access to the
> : changes _they_ make to it.
>
> No, they can copyright it as their own then stop you from using it.
> this is the fear. It might not happen, but why not be sure?
There are other, less restrictive licenses which can do this.
> : Why would you want to allow this? The same reason corporations are
> : allowed to use government research as a starting point for
> : commercial products. Society benefits. If Microsoft uses your code
> : in the
>
> Actually, the corp mostly benefits. It's called corporate welfare.
> Society would benefit if the gov't could set a sane price for drugs.
> drugs cost too much. _I_ as a taxpayer pay for it, then it's sold
> back at me for a profit. this is theft.
Corporate welfare is something quite different. In the context of
government research, it generally refers to the government handing over
_exclusive_ rights to something developed with taxpayer money to some
corporation or group of corporations. Simply putting the information out
there for use by anyone (as is being done with the Human Genome Project,
for example) isn't corporate welfare.
> : networking stack, MS benefits, and MS's customers benefit. You
> : might not like MS, but millions of people have a more secure OS
> : because of your work.
>
> ??? People benefit b/c a criminal organization cannibalizes my work?
It's not criminal if you release the code under a license that allows it
(like BSD), and yes, people do benefit. Society as a whole benefits,
because there's less duplication of effort. If a company can use
existing code for e.g. its networking stack, it can spend time working
on new things rather than reinventing the wheel.
> : Maybe you don't like this. Fine. Use GPL. But don't claim it's
> : "free" (as in speech), because GPLed code comes with strings
> : attached. And
>
> As a 'realist' you know that all things come with strings attatched.
Some come with more strings than others. GPL code, for example, comes
with more strings than BSD code.
> : these strings sometimes result in people reinventing the wheel (one
> : of the major things open source tries to eliminate), simply because
> : of the license.
>
> How does this differ from proprietary sw?
It doesn't. That's the point. GPL, in many respects, has the same "this
is mine and you can't use it unless you give me something back"
mentality as proprietary software.
The BSD license, in contrast, is more like "I wrote this, and if you
find it useful, you can use it under whatever conditions you like." To
me, this just seems closer to the ideal that many GPL supporters claim
to advocate when they talk about the "gift culture." I like my gifts
without lots of strings attached, thanks.
> : I think the BSD OSes demonstrate that the GPL's "enforced sharing"
> : isn't : really needed; people give back just because they want to.
> : Even major : corporations do; in spite of whatever claims
> : uninformed zealots might : make, Apple has given quite a lot back
> : to the BSD community.
>
> Wha6t does zealot mean? Someone who's zealous, excited. I'm
> definately excited about GPL so I'm proud to say I'm a zealot.
Do you also consider yourself uninformed? ;-P
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 04:30:36 GMT
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:96rcdt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <ox9k6.55423$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > It's still just telnet, but it's encrypted. You're still just telneting
> > > > through a "secure" tunnel.
> > >
> > > Port forwarding, public-key authnntication, one-time-key authentication,
> > > X11 proxy, ... for most of my users the telnet functionality is just a
> > > side effect, what they're most interested is using it as a virtual proxy.
> >
> > All wrappings around Telnet. In the end, it's just telnet. It's utilities
> > to make telnet more available, but isn't really an improvement on telnet.
> > In the end, the user is still just telnetting.
>
> By your definition, the following is true:
>
> What is the web? Telnet over port 80.
> What is an Oracle ODBC connection? Telnet over port 1520.
> What is Windows Terminal Services? Telnet over port 3389.
>
> SSH is a tunneling mechanism, just like all the above, but with some
> seriously cool features.
Ok, I'll conceed that SSH has more than just telnet features. But,
these are newer features, correct? SSH was originally for making
secure shell access. Basically telnet, but secure. Thus the name
"Secure Shell", correct?
>
> > So, just because no one has written an exploit (THAT WE KNOW OF),
> > then it must not be an exploit, right?
> >
> > And, I mean, c'mon, these were just in the month of FEBRUARY ALONE!
> > What about January, and all of last year! There are bunches more in
> > there too.
> >
> > You can conveniently dismiss these other exploits, but can you deny
> > them all?
>
> Yep, that's pretty much the definition of FUD.
So you're admitting you're avoiding all my facts, right?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 20 Feb 2001 04:49:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > "Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:96rcdt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > In article <ox9k6.55423$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > It's still just telnet, but it's encrypted. You're still just telneting
>> > > > through a "secure" tunnel.
>> > >
>> > > Port forwarding, public-key authnntication, one-time-key authentication,
>> > > X11 proxy, ... for most of my users the telnet functionality is just a
>> > > side effect, what they're most interested is using it as a virtual proxy.
>> >
>> > All wrappings around Telnet. In the end, it's just telnet. It's utilities
>> > to make telnet more available, but isn't really an improvement on telnet.
>> > In the end, the user is still just telnetting.
>>
>> By your definition, the following is true:
>>
>> What is the web? Telnet over port 80.
>> What is an Oracle ODBC connection? Telnet over port 1520.
>> What is Windows Terminal Services? Telnet over port 3389.
>>
>> SSH is a tunneling mechanism, just like all the above, but with some
>> seriously cool features.
> Ok, I'll conceed that SSH has more than just telnet features. But,
> these are newer features, correct? SSH was originally for making
> secure shell access. Basically telnet, but secure. Thus the name
> "Secure Shell", correct?
Wrong. Most of these features have been around since the beginning.
Christ chad, the least you could do is a little fucking research before
you make yourself look like a goddamn retard.
=====.
--
thats it sir
youre leaving
the crackle of pigskin
the dust and the screaming
the yuppies networking
the panic, the vomit
god loves his children
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 04:50:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Hayes wrote:
> >
> > On 19 Feb 2001 01:41:22 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The "information wants to be free" idea comes from the GNU
> > > ideology as well as freeware crypto with PGP. PGP is "Pretty Good
> > > Privacy", data encryption strong enough that even the most
> > > resource posessing rogue government (i.e. the US government)
> > > can't crack it.
> >
> > Unlike the UK where you get 2 years in jail if you don't provide
> > the most fascist government in decades (if ever, and that includes
> > Thatcher) with
>
> Leftist socialism is merely fascism in disguise.
>
> That's what you get for electing the Labour party.
I can't say I follow UK politics too well, but I doubt that's the
problem. The problem is that a government typically operates at or
slightly beyond the legal limits of its authority. With no full
equivalent of the US Constitution to restrict its powers, the UK
government can get away with more, and does.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:33:42 GMT
Bob Surenko writes:
> Materialism claims that nothing can be known but from observation of the
> 5 senses.
> I'm arguing that there are other ways to know something. In this case the
> historical record.
You claim to possess a method of gaining access to the historical record
that does not involve the senses?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:56:10 -0500
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> Edward Rosten ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : No, but it is open source and existed before the IBM PC. If IBM had not
> : `open sourced ' the PC open source software would still be very much with
> : us.
>
> The PC was never "open sourced" but the BIOS was clean-room reverse
> engineered. What the competitor did was take the BIOS machine code, translated
> it to English, and had a separate programmer translate the English into
> machine code. That way, no original code was infringed making the hacked BIOS
> a separate work altogether.
I'm not sure of the exact terminology, bit the original PC was "open source."
They released the schematics and the source code to the bios. Anyone could
inspect the hardware design and the source of the bios.
The problem is that it was not GPL or public domain. It remained the copyright
of IBM. Phoenix created copyright law by perfecting the "clean room" as a
defensible position. One knowledgeable group reads the copyrighted material and
creates documentation. The "pure" group interprets the produced documentation
and writes "new" code, which is compatible.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: I will give MS credit for one thing
Date: 20 Feb 2001 04:53:18 GMT
Donn Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I am no MS advocate. But, I will admit one thing: Windows Media player is
: much better than the video MPEG players I have used on Linux. For video
There is one MS product I still find useful: DOS. Becuse I never figured out
how to install LILO I use Loadlin instead to boot Linux. And it works out that
it uses DOS to boot to first, then you boot with Loadlin.
So, I use a Microsoft product to fire up Linux, the antipode of Microsoft.
That's a perfect use for a Microsoft product, better than even the MPEG file
player.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:01:41 -0500
WickedDyno wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (Nick Condon) wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ziya Oz) wrote in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > >John Jensen wrote:
> > >
> > >> It's fair that some people sell things, and some people give things
> > >> away.
> > >
> > >Well, according to the Open Source zealots, it's not enough to just give
> > >your stuff away, you have to GPL it!
> >
> >
> > The zealots you refer to would probably be insulted by your reference to
> > "open source". The big grand-daddy Old Testament-style zealot, Richard
> > Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation, creator of the GPL,
> > principle author of a big chuck of the GNU project, insists the term is
> > Free Software, not Open Source.
> >
> > I don't agree with it, but here is the argument for reference:
> >
> > Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source''
> > http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
> >
> > Stallman is certainly an abrasive character, but it's worth remembering
> > that the only reason we have any kind of open source software today is
> > because he is such a stubborn, uncompromising bastard. If he was anything
> > less the GNU project would never have got started.
>
> I think that Stallman is a zealot; a inflexible, overly idealistic
> crusader with a paranoid streak a mile wide who has never heard of the
> term "compromise" except in the context of "to compromise one's
> principles".
>
> That said, I admire him immensely. He is one of those people who
> maddeningly, infuriatingly refuse to accept that the will of the
> majority is right, that the status quo is by and large a good thing, and
> has both the unmitigated gall and heinous presumption to actually do his
> best to change things.
>
> Agree with him. Disagree with him. Just don't ignore him, 'cause you
> can't.
I frequently look for the words to explain RMS. You have done a very good job.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:02:00 -0500
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Joseph T. Adams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : : I'm not a "fundy" or any other kind of Christian, but I'd prefer ANY of
> : : them to ANY of their detractors.
>
> : Take your xtian moral crap and shove it where it belongs, up your arse. I
> : don't care to live in a theocracy. If I did, I could always move to Iran. A
> : xtian version of an Iran still sucks.
>
> A Christian theocracy is impossible, because Christianity and
> theocracy are mutually exclusive. Jesus said that His kingdom was not
> of this world.
>
> However, for an elected leader to express some tiny bit of a moral
> backbone, with regard to abortion, infanticide, etc., does NOT
> constitute the establishment of a "theocracy."
>
> : Anyways, you don't need any gods at all to have an operational moral compass.
> : Bush v.2.0 AND Gore both have a degaussed moral compass, and both idiots go to
> : church.
>
> Gore is a contemptible jerk, and would be a discredit to any religion
> he might profess.
That's because he has contempt for everybody who Leona Helmsley
refers to as "the little people"....supposedly ideological opposites,
leftist socialists are almost identical to fascists.
>
> As for Bush, he has done contemptible things, but also claims to have
> repented and found faith in Christ. Hopefully, he will demonstrate
> that repentance and faith through his actions. I can understand your
> skepticism, but time will tell.
Significantly...Bush's stupid behavior was BEFORE he got religious.
He's kept his nose clean since then.
>
> Joe
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "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"
I: 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
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 05:02:30 GMT
In article <1ep4495.1qy899vihafh2N@[192.168.0.142]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <1ep3cpw.15jor811qwvgrvN@[192.168.0.142]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > Please. This is one of the most absurd statements I've ever
> > > > seen. It's blatantly false. You can use GPLed code in a project
> > > > only if you wish to release that entire project under the GPL.
> > > > BSD and many other licenses have no such restriction. GPL is
> > > > viral. These other licenses are not.
> > >
> > > What is the problem with releasing the entire project under the
> > > GPL as opposed to releasing it under a BSD license?
> >
> > Some people don't like the restrictions of GPL.
>
> I see no restrictions but the needed ones.
Why are the larger work licensing restrictions needed? As I pointed out,
the BSD OSes get by just fine without a viral license. People give back
because they want to or because it benefits them in some way, not
because the license requires it.
> > > > > Nobody has a "right to receive payment for his work".
> > > > >
> > > > > It depends on whether somebody is willing to pay for it.
> > > >
> > > > You're being needlessly pedantic. I meant, of course, that an
> > > > author has a right to release his work under a license which
> > > > requires people who make use of it to pay him.
> > >
> > > A legal right he has, a moral right I don't know.
> >
> > I don't see why someone who has invested time/money in creating
> > something shouldn't be allowed to sell it at a profit.
>
> We can talk about "selling it", and in fact this was often done.
> However most software is not sold but licensed, and in contrast to a
> person selling a chair, the vendor does not lose the property he is
> allegedly "selling".
Licensing software is no different from selling a book or any other item
which is essentially free to manufacture but has a high development cost.
> > > > > > Why does Apple do this? Simple self interest. If Apple's
> > > > > > changes are in the main source tree, it means that Apple's
> > > > > > code is maintained and improved by the community, and Apple
> > > > > > can use later versions of the software in Mac OS X without
> > > > > > having to reincorporate its modifications. Everyone wins.
> > > > > > This kind of thing wouldn't work with GPL; Apple tries to
> > > > > > keep the closed and open parts of OS X separate, but Apple
> > > > > > still couldn't use GPLed code in its proprietary OS without
> > > > > > serious potential licensing issues. A major corporation
> > > > > > just can't risk that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Apple could make the kernel GPL. MacOS X (and NEXTSTEP) is a
> > > > > very modular system.
> > > >
> > > > GPL does not permit linking proprietary software against GPLed
> > > > libraries. This would make things tricky.
> > >
> > > Use the lesser GPL.
> >
> > But then Apple can't mix in GPL code, so what's the point?
>
> I don't see why Darwin could not be released under the GPL as well.
It could, but this would provide no benefit to Apple, since Apple
couldn't incorporate changes to the GPLed version into OS X. The GPLed
version would probably fork off and end up as a totally separate OS with
a different community built around it.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
From: Ziya Oz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 05:04:15 GMT
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>> No, I'm thinking of "free" software, as I described it. It's the GPL zealots
>> who pollute the language with their double speak. Why should we let them
>> decide what "free" is?
>
> Free: unencumbered; having liberty.
GPL is perfectly encumbered. (reasons have been discussed here already)
> Where's the double speak?
Above.
****
Ziya
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
