Linux-Advocacy Digest #315, Volume #33 Tue, 3 Apr 01 09:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Something like Install Shield for Linux? (mlw)
Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows? ("gbp")
Re: What is user friendly? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? ("JS PL")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Something like Install Shield for Linux?
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 08:16:21 -0400
Yes, I know about "configure" and "make," but for binary distribution, is there
an open source installer? One, gasp, which is pretty and programmable, will
switch to root to perform the install? If so I haven't seen it.
While I think Install Shield is a miserable hack, and anyone that has used it
will fundamentally agree, it gets the job done.
So, if one were to write such a program, should it be able to handle RetHat and
Debian packages? Or would it be OK to simply use its own format? Self
extracting is a must.
Anyone have any ideas?
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "gbp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows?
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 12:13:34 GMT
>I'm talking about the stuff that goes on on the OTHER side of the
call.
>
>The side-effects are the root of many problems.
>
>Any proper implementation of Lose32 requires that you implement the
>side-effects.
>
Yeah thats right. But without the documentation how do you even
know all the side effects, or other undocumented features.
This isn't even a question of quality. You know theres got to be
some quicks in anything as large as an OS. Its just not realistic
to expect that there aren't any.
Lets drive this home with a totally made up example. Lets say that
a OS time routine is documented to return the time accurate to the
nearest millisecond. In reality it actually reurns to the nearest
tenth a millisecond. In microsoft's code database the code relating
to this is marked as (stable-- do not modify)-- its permently
locked. Some people at microsoft don't even know its documented
wrong. Some application programmers do, and they write code that
takes advantage of it. Some code unwittingly takes advantage of
this. See the problem....
Unless you find every little quirk like this you can't have a stable
OS.... In fact, even Microsoft upgrades (remember windows 98) can be
unstable the first few months. If they have this much trouble
adding to their OS _with_ access to all the source, I think it
suggests how difficult it will be without any source...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: 3 Apr 2001 12:22:59 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 1 Apr 2001 18:54:46 +1000, green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 20 Mar 2001 16:43:06 -0500
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >Quantum Leaper wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> [snip for brevity]
>>
>> >> > Because Microsoft had shills writing for YEARS about the supposed
>> >> > "problem" of the Unix command line being more difficult than the
>> >> > DOS command line. [In reality, the Unix command line is easier
>because
>> >> > it is more consistant....example: all wildcard characters are handled
>> >> > the same way....not only that, but you can do specificiations like
>> >> > *sept* to specify all files with the string "sept" anywhere within
>> >> > the name. DOS's pattern matching never did get sophisticated enough
>> >> > to handle even this still relatively SIMPLE method of wildcard
>matching.
>> >> >
>> >> Amazing I just tried your list test, not *sept* but with 'dir *in*' in
>the
>> >> Window directory, and had a long list of files. Which if I read your
>> >> complant correctly, Windows should NOT have done correctly. Sorry
>can't
>> >> test it with Dos6.22, since I don't have access to it.
>> >
>> >So, what's you're saying, is that it only took them 18 years to fix it.
>> >
>> >Fascinating.
>>
>> If you like that test, you'll *love* this one:
>>
>> NT> cd C:\Program Files\Plus!\Microsoft Internet
>>
>> That's right, no quotes or escapes. Just bare spaces!
>
>until you try to load say a game like
>
>c:\games\half life\half life
That's actually understandable, once you get the broken concept of
having the programs expand the command line arguments.
That in particular, is patched-up DOS behaviour.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 3 Apr 2001 12:26:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roger Perkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Read the post. I didn't say it was right, I just said that it was. And of
>course Cuba was under threat of invasion. They WERE invaded at the Bay of
>Pigs. I think the USSR reacted in a logical way and used what they had to
>get our missiles removed after they removed theirs from Cuba. As I said,
>read the post. History is history.
I know. I was replying to Aaron!
>Roger
>AIRBORNE!
>
>"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 07:38:36 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >Roger Perkins wrote:
>> >>
>> >> And you keep showing your ignorant ass. The missiles were put in as a
>> >> direct challenge to our nuclear missiles in Turkey, which we took out
>after
>> >
>> >And American missiles in Turkey pose a threat to Cuba how, exactly?
>>
>> The argument could be made that it was a threat to the security of the
>> nation that guaranteed Cuba would not be invaded. And don't dare say
>> Cuba was not under risk of being invaded, please ;-)
>>
>> If it was right for the US to put missiles in Turkey aiming at Russia,
>> why was it not right for Russia to put missiles on Cuba aiming at
>> the US? It's exactly the same thing!
>>
>> --
>> Roberto Alsina
>
>
--
("\''/").__..-''"`-. . Roberto Alsina
`9_ 9 ) `-. ( ).`-._.`) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._`. " -.-' Director técnico
_..`-'_..-_/ /-'_.' Conectiva SA
(l)-'' ((i).' ((!.' Buenos Aires - Argentina
KDE Developer (MFCH)
Futuaris nisi irrisus ridebis. (Carlton, De rerum comoedia)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 3 Apr 2001 12:27:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:17:03 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:35:13 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:29:22 -0800, Gunner © <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >Id love to see your cites on the Mexican border/Berlin comparison.
>> >> >Please provide them. I do not recall ever hearing about the AirForce
>> >> >shooting down unarmed civilian aircraft intentionally knowing full well
>> >> >that they were unarmed civilian aircraft.i
>> >>
>> >> I didn't say the airforce killed anyone on the border. It's usually up
>> >> to border patrols, or the good citizens of the US.
>> >
>> >
>> >You're saying private citizen and law-enforcement, armed with, at
>> >best, semi-automatic weapons, are gonna take down a private aircraft
>> >flying at over 100 MPH and a few thousand feet of altitude?
>>
>> Fuck, no.
>> You may want to remove the night vision googles while looking at
>> your computer, they impair your reading.
>
>Night vision goggles do NOTHING to impair the view of a computer screen.
The ones you bought using a coupon from the back cover of Archie magazine
do.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 05:29:30 -0700
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >The other alternative is to impose usage-based restrictions. The FSF
> >opposes those for philosophical reasons, but that's what hard choices
> >are about. They must pick one or the other.
>
> The major problem is that the FSF already opted against usage-based
> restrictions where it matters most: in the licenses' text.
I was referring to making a change in the future, not retroactively. I
doubt the FSF would do this, but they could.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 3 Apr 2001 12:34:54 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:26:04 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:48:19 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 01:03:09 +1000, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Gunner © wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:59:15 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >> Cuba has dedicated itself to the principle that, within its means, it
>> >> >>> >> will try not to kill any human beings due to lack of food, shelter,
>> >> >>> >> medical care, poor sanitation, etc.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> But they got real good at shooting down Cessnas......
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I wonder what Cuba would be like if Batista and the Mafia still ruled.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >It would be a lot like Las Vegas, Nevada
>> >>
>> >> Last i checked, Las Vegas Nevada had the mob, but didn't have
>> >>
>> >> a) Batista
>> >> b) A right-wing dictatorship
>> >
>> >I take such labels with a grain of salt.
>> >
>> >According to leftists, anything that isn't as left-wing as themselves
>> >is "right-wing".
>>
>> Under Batista there was no freedom of press, there was no free elections,
>> the politics were of open market and savage capitalism, there was no
>> socialized healthcare.
>
>See, this is why you fail.
>
>Capitalism is *NOT* right wing.
There are several strains of capitalism. Some of them are advocated
by right wing loonies such as yourself.
>Of course, freedom of any sort is destabilizing, as economic freedom
>breeds the desire for political freedom.
In this particular case, it bred a communist revolution.
>Which is why closet-dictators LOVE Communism, as it removes all
>economic freedom....from everybody...ESPECIALLY "THE MASSES".
Have you ever lived under a dictatorship, Aaron?
I have. You sound an awful lot like they did. Do you LOVE Communism?
>> Are you gonna say Batista was a communist?
>
>Spot the attempt to erect a straw-man.
It's a fair question.
>> >Right-wing has a definition that is more involved than merely
>> >"opposed to left-wing socialist fuck-heads".... "right-wingers"
>> >are actually the ideological cousins of left-wingers....they're
>> >BOTH socialists.
>> >
>> >This is why Stalin told the Communists in Germany to vote for Hitler.
>>
>> Well, Hitler did call himself a socialist.
>
>Thank you for admitting that truth.
>
>Fascism and Communism are two sides of the same coin.
Fascism claimed it was a facet of socialism. Communism claimed
the same thing. Claims are not truths.
>> >People who call the various wacko groups like the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan
>> >Nation, and other white supremecist groups 'right wing' are misusing
>> >the term, as these idiots...for all their faults, are *NOT* advocating
>> >any kind of socialism.
>>
>> Of course not. They are right wing loonies, not left wing loonies.
>
>KKK, AN, et. al, are calling for a vertically integrated, socialist
>economy?
Of course not. They are right wing loonies, not left wing loonies.
>Interesting. Could you point us to some position papers where they
>promulgate the economic order of 1930's Germany and Italy, and
>1920's - Present Japan?
What 1930's Germany, pre- or post- 1933?
>Last I checked, most of these groups were ragging on the Japanese
>economic model...which, if you do your homework, has been fascist
>for 80 years now.
Define "economic fascist model", if possible with a reference to the
real fascism, of "il Duce".
>> >Thus, although they are reprehensible, they certainly are NOT right-wing.
>> >
>> >
>> >Basically, left-wingers just use the phrase "right-wing" as a bogeyman
>> >to scare their dazed masses of mind-numbed robots into engaging in
>> >whatever stupid street theater de jure the miscreants at the top want.
>>
>> Well, it's a much better bogeyman than "socialist".
>
>So, what you're saying is that taxing the workers (translation: stealing
>from them under the threat of violence or imprisonment) for the benefit
>of other people is not one of the basic tenets of socialism...and that
>people who advocate such policies are socialists?
Well, I would prefer my money be taken from me to feed the poor than
to feed troops.
>Please provide us with a better term to use for these people.
Humane.
>Interesting.
You? In a traffic accident sense.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 3 Apr 2001 12:38:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:31:33 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roger Perkins wrote:
>>
>> Gee. I taught at my local university. Kids like you (except they have
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>That's where most leftists like you like to hang out...it's easier to hide
>from the light of truth in an environment like in the typical Humanities
>department where very few grand theories are ever subjected to testing
>against reality.
You are starting to sound like a bitter dropout.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 3 Apr 2001 12:41:32 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 01:00:17 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 07:38:36 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roger Perkins wrote:
>> >>
>> >> And you keep showing your ignorant ass. The missiles were put in as a
>> >> direct challenge to our nuclear missiles in Turkey, which we took out after
>> >
>> >And American missiles in Turkey pose a threat to Cuba how, exactly?
>>
>> The argument could be made that it was a threat to the security of the
>> nation that guaranteed Cuba would not be invaded. And don't dare say
>> Cuba was not under risk of being invaded, please ;-)
>>
>> If it was right for the US to put missiles in Turkey aiming at Russia,
>> why was it not right for Russia to put missiles on Cuba aiming at
>> the US? It's exactly the same thing!
>
>Americans weren't going around telling everyone that their primary
>political goal was to spark bloody revolutions.
Of course not. The US was actually doing it, and kept on doing it
for a couple more decades. Not to mention, the US *was* telling
everyone they were willing to support bloody dictatorships to
prevent those bloody revolutions.
>the Soviets were
>
>Spot the difference
I see no real difference in that. JFK was more handsome than
Kruschev, that's a real difference, but it's not an important
one, either.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 3 Apr 2001 12:42:45 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 06:24:52 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>billh wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>>
>> > Americans weren't going around telling everyone that their primary
>> > political goal was to spark bloody revolutions.
>> >
>> > the Soviets were
>> >
>> > Spot the difference
>>
>> America supported insurgencies and counter insurgencies quietly. Little
>> difference. Our record in South America speaks for itself.
>
>
>And this supports the typical communist-advocates "the government
>can do no wrong" line of thinking how, exactly?
I wouldn't know. You are the one that's willing to kill whoever your
government tells you to kill, not me.
How does this support YOUR "government can do no wrong" line of
thought?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 3 Apr 2001 12:44:48 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 07:35:43 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>billh wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>>
>> > > > Americans weren't going around telling everyone that their primary
>> > > > political goal was to spark bloody revolutions.
>> > > >
>> > > > the Soviets were
>> > > >
>> > > > Spot the difference
>> > >
>> > > America supported insurgencies and counter insurgencies quietly. Little
>> > > difference. Our record in South America speaks for itself.
>> >
>> >
>> > And this supports the typical communist-advocates "the government
>> > can do no wrong" line of thinking how, exactly?
>>
>> Try to stay on track and keep a line of thought, would ya. It's a simple
>> fact that in the support of insurgencies and counter insurgencies, there was
>> little difference between the USSR and the USA. You contend above that
>> there was a difference and imply that the difference was significant.
>
>
>You know, Bill, for someone who claims to be an officer in the United States
>Army, you really are a thick-head mule. (*)
>
>
>
>A) The USSR supported insurgencies whose primary goal was to "liberate"
>the people into enslaving themselves under the yoke of Communism
>(name one Communist country which isn't a totalitarian police state),
I could name Chile, if the US-sponsored revolution had not turned it
into a totalitarian police state.
>B) the US supported insurgencies to overthrow totalitarian police states.
And legally, democratically elected governments.
And the US supported totalitarian police states they liked.
>Compare and contrast.
No difference.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:47:02 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Prove it. I don't have your posts; perhaps you do. The conversation
> started and was always about IE5, AFAIK, and the posts *I* made
> mentioning it back in 1998 agree.
I don't archive newsgroup posts. And forgot to video tape the event in
question, so I guess your SOL.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 12:34:12 GMT
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 01:58:02 -0700, Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>There is a relationship to copyright law, in that copies made while
>using the program are copies which must be authorized by the copyright
>holder, unless the end user already "owns" a copy.
>
>Your comments about game consoles are interesting. I wonder how
>extensively copyright law issues have been tested in that arena.
I think for game consoles the issues have been thoroughly litigated.
I don't know how often those principles have been extended elsewhere.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 3 Apr 2001 12:53:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GMT, billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis"
>
>
>> So, what you're saying, then, is that we AREN'T supporting an
>> insurgency in Chile. I notice how you snipped where you said that
>> the reason the USSR didn't like us was because we were supporting
>> insurgencies.
>
>What did we support in Chile, KuKuNt?
Let me try to help Kuki ;-)
You supported "Pinocho". General Pinochet, if you care.
The guy that attacked the Palacio de la Moneda qith war planes and tanks.
The guy who said about his commander-in-chief and president (and this was
on tape!) "we should send him out of the country in a plane. And if he
has an accident... haha".
> Do you even have a clue. Now take
>the both sides of the coin...what did we support in Nicaragua? El Salvador?
The contras. Oportunist guerrilla men and mercenaries imany of who later
became little warlords and drug dealers. And how did you support them?
By first supporting, and getting money from, Iran. Did I get that
straight?
>Guatemala? You are clueless.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,misc.survivalism
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 3 Apr 2001 12:59:25 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:40:00 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 31 Mar 2001
>>Roger Perkins wrote:
>>>
>>> Again you illustrate both your stupidity and your ignorance. Ignoring your
>>> childish use of caps, show me that law that makes democracy illegal? I
>>
>>Let's see...Roger swore to uphold and defend the Constitution from all
>>enemies, foreign and domestic...and even claims to teach at a college,
>>and the old fuckhead doesn't even know what the Constitution says.
>>
>>Care to cite ANY section or sections of the US Constitution which
>>supposedly establish the US as a "democracy" ???
> [...]
>>Note that there is NO provision for the people to directly vote on
>>anything. Therefore, the US Federal government is *NOT* a democracy.
>
>What about the one where we elect representatives? Since every citizen
>has a right to vote in these elections, the US Federal government is a
>democracy. A democratic republic, in fact.
Well, the percentage of the population that voted in the last central
committee election in Cuba was 92%.
AND YES, THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE CANDIDATE.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 12:45:03 GMT
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 09:47:15 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 03:35:30 GMT;
>
>So far, its proven completely tenable. And you are right, they have no
>choice. Use the LGPL if it bothers you.
>
What does proven completely tenable mean to you? The FSF's position has
never been tested in court. Perhaps if tenable means not so outlandish
that your attorney risks Rule 11 santions when he argues your position,
then I can agree.
I have no desire to challenge the FSF on this point, because I have
no desire to exploit free code against the authors' wishes. On the other
hand I often write code that uses the libraries of others, and absent
some EULA restriction to the contrary, I don't expect distributing
such code to cause problems. Distributing the libraries themselves
of course requires permission, but not distributing code that links
to such a library.
Perhaps if you had experience programming, you would realize how
unique and bizarre the interpretation of copyright law the FSF
uses really is.
Isaac
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
