Linux-Advocacy Digest #445, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 04:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Cold feet or Reality Check? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: The Microsoft PATH. (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP ("Tom Wilson")
Re: The Microsoft PATH. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: The Microsoft PATH. ("Tom Wilson")
Pete's Linux printer problems (Donn Miller)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Good Tex Pdf Files was Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office
97/2000? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 05:09:39 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >The API is the least abstract part of the program. It is
specifically
> >> >> >what the components *must* use to correctly interoperate. [...]
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh, yea. Real concrete. Not abstract at all. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
> >> >
> >> >If you understood anything about programming you would know that
> >> >you must use specific program statements to invoke the functions in
> >> >a library. Those statements are the API and are not abstract at all.
If
> >> >you don't use them exactly as required, the thing on the other side of
> >> >the interface will not work.
> >>
> >> If you understood anything besides programming, you would know that
none
> >> of that makes it "concrete".
> >
> >Change as little as one character as you use it in the program and it
> >won't work. That's about as concrete as it gets.
>
> "As you use it in the program" == "as you use the library". Change ANY
> character in "the API", and as long as it is changed in both library and
> program, there is NO difference at all, am I right?
For any instance of the library, the api used in the program must
match exactly.
> Thus, the
> characters are "meaningless", and the API is 'metaphysical', i.e. not
> concrete at all in any way, regardless of how definite its
> specification, how heavy its documentation, or how strictly enforced is
> its contract.
For every instance it is concrete. It may change between versions
but the point of an API is to allow independent changes on either
side and changing the API itself (other than additions) breaks all
existing code it is not done lightly and is generally seen as an
admission of poor design in the earlier version(s). Regardless of
the possibility of versional changes, the api used to access any
single version is concrete.
> >> The FSF has pointed out that "an API" such as Win32 or POSIX is,
itself,
> >> far more concrete than an API that only one library supports. And if
> >> that one library is GPL, they have claimed that "using the API" is,
> >> analytically, using the library.
> >
> >There is only one complete implementation of the Win32 library.
Anything
> >written to Win32 is as much a derivative of it as anything using a
> >GPL library. These are exactly identical situations.
>
> No shit. Really?
>
> Sometimes I swear you seem to purposely forget EVERYTHING that I say
> from one post to the next. You're not really that stupid, are you? I
> mean, I would like to think you're just pretending. If its some sort of
> medical thing, let me know, and I'll forward my apologies in my next
> post.
You keep posting contradictory things. No one could possibly keep
track of them all.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 05:24:08 GMT
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> > > Do YOU know any way to write
> > > software that uses a library without using the library? (Aside from
the
> > > legally non-existent concept of an API, of course, an separate
argument
> > > I am even now pursuing. Feel free to pile on, but please don't beg
the
> > > question.)
> >
> > Copyright covers distribution, not using.
>
> Copyright covers using. Using softawre involves making copies. Making
> those copies, unless done in the context of the statutory exception,
> require the permission of the copyright holder.
Yes, obtaining 'your' copy must be done with the permission of
the copyright holder. You might do this by buying it, or by downloading
it from an ftp site where the copyright holder has allowed it to
be placed (as is commly the case with GPL'd material). If you are
required to agree the the terms of a license as a condition of obtaining
or installing 'your' copy then those additional terms apply. Otherwise
you still have the fair use of 'your' copy which allows backups and
loading into ram for use. The validity of 'shrink wrap' licenses
that you don't see until after obtaining a product may have changed
recently but at the time RIPEM was developed they were generally
considered invalid.
> > To violate copyright you must have
> > had access to the thing you are accused of copying.
>
> This is not true if you are guilty of contributory (or vicarious)
> infringement. (I personally don't believe there is any contributory
> infringement in the particular RIPEM/GPL case, but that's a question of
> the details, not a general element of copyright law.
Doesn't that have to be a part of a case where access to the original
by someone is still involved?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 05:25:01 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dgl7h$mp5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > >
> > > Use Linux if you don't like the licensing deals other software offer.
> > > Then again even Linux has the GPL but apparentely communism is
prefered
> > > over capitalism with that bunch...
> > >
> >
> > You *are* an asshole, Jan.
> > Keep politics out of here.
> > I know a lot of people who use linux. *None* of them, myself included,
> > is a communist or likes those ideas.
>
> Then you don't know much about communism.
> The GPL is very much in the spirit of the communism, or maybe socialism is
a
> better word for it.
It's just idealism and the desire of some to re-create the past when most
development was done in that fashion. Linux's success has proven the
efficiency of it and I admire the spirit. It's commercial viability over the
long haul is another matter - AFAIC, anyway. If Linux and open source
somehow manage to topple MS and open the market up again, the GPL will
likely be swept under the carpet and ignored, allowing business as usual to
follow. Especially if it happens with IBM at the helm.
Sorry if I'm peeing in anyone's corn flakes... I just don't wear
rose-colored glasses and can't see the market embracing feel-good idealism
over commerce.
I use Linux because its' a damned reliable and fast server. So much so that
I'd gladly utilize it if it were closed source and cost as much as a
comparable NT solution (Yes, I know "comparable NT solution" is oxymoronic).
"Warm fuzzies" or idealism just aren't part of the equation.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 05:33:09 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> I don't see a difference here. FSF is not interested in forbidding
> >> users from writing programs for their own use.
> >
> >There is no evidence one way or another for that. As the GPL states,
> >its scope doesn't and can't cover that case. However, the FSF has
> >been interested in making it difficult for other free software to be
> >developed, as in the RIPEM case.
>
> All it does is ensure that what free software is made is actually free,
> and remains so.
The only means it has to accomplish this is to destroy the ability to
produce other choices, even those that are less restricted. So
those choices are taken away from us.
> In fact, the 'aversion principle' you hypothesize causes less software
> to be created because you cannot 'mix' software this way is very
> beneficial to both opponents and proponents to the GPL. Everyone knows
> GPL is 'viral', even without the extreme case indicated by RIPEM. By
> ensuring that commercial privateers steer WELL clear of GPL, this stance
> by the FSF ensures that more software is written GPL originally.
No it doesn't. It only ensures that a great deal of software cannot
possibly
use any GPL components and that what we end up using will cost more
to develop and have less competition.
> This
> strengthens the GPL codebase itself. This ensures that free software
> remains a separate, alternate source of software.
This sounds uncomfortably close to a 'racial purity' argument.
> It doesn't matter how
> long commercial code wants to try to last, or what other scams are
> thought up in the future, as long as the GPL codebase remains separate
> and functional, we can feel secure that things will never get worse than
> 98/2K/XP on every desktop.
The inability to use GPL components in products that could be competitive
just helps keep it that way.
> It is a pointedly and specifically defensive form of predation, let us
> say.
It is misguided at best. If the best of some components are GPL and
the best of others are not, no one will ever be allowed to distribute
a product that combines the best of everything.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 05:51:34 GMT
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> >
> > Hey Jan! How much did that frontal lobotomy cost?
>
> LOL!! Or maybe he just has a bottle in front of him!
An "Existential Blues" reference? <g>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Cold feet or Reality Check?
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 06:13:46 GMT
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > None of their recent decisions have made a bit of sense. They must have
> > contracted their marketing department from a temp service or something.
> > Touting a "feature" that most clearly don't want - Feeling the, one
would
> > think, obvious heat and withdrawing said "feature" for a select few but
> > keeping it enabled for their
> > customers who, in many cases, don't have the infrastructure to support
> > it.......And intimating that all of this is just temporary.
> >
> > What kind of brain dead marketing scheme IS this?
> Question is, what advantage do I have by renting my software vs. buying
> it? I see no advantage. Thank god I have always used Wordperfect, and
> don't have to face the same shit.
Oh, there's a BIG advantage. For *them* anyway.<g> They've failed to coerce
users to upgrade their versions of Office in sufficient numbers. They don't
make as much as they used to off of it. This subscription thing, they
figure, will keep the cash cow from running dry. If consumers prove to be so
obscenely stupid as to buy the market-speak, it will happen.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Date: 12 May 2001 06:39:37 GMT
Subject: Re: The Microsoft PATH.
>Oh btw does anyone have an old C64 or C128 laying around? I am
>looking for one. Email me off list if you do.
>
I'd point you at rummage sales and thrift stores. Some of them I've seen have
had several C64s, usually for less than 10 USD a piece. I bought a 1541 for 5
USD at a thrift store, and the 64 to go with it for a buck at a garage sale.
All I need now is the serial cable, which I bet costs $540. :)
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 06:46:13 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Because he had to wait for you or I to make the point so he could
> "borrow" it.
>
> He knows nothing.....
Actually others made the point... he eventually came up with an answer, but
why did it take him so long? He's baiting, that's why. He's trolling.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 06:50:14 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Nonsense; Pete is expressing his frustration at being unable to avoid a
> spanking, nothing more.
What spanking? You were led by the nose down into the water and soaked in
another thread T Max.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 06:52:45 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> With the current crop of high end audio cards (Midiman for example)
> the WDM's work great under Win2k but have proven less than stellar
> under Win98SE/ME.
What does "less than steller" mean? Details! Details!
> Low latency is the big advantage for me.
Ah yes, latency. Another area where DirectX sucks.
> It seems that the card manufaturers are passing on the Win98SE
> versions and telling us to use the Win2k version. Understand it has to
> be Win98SE/ME, standard Win98 won't work.
Windows 98 SE + QFE. That has the working WDM stack.
> The drivers are stable under Win2k but so-so under Win98SE/ME.
How are they so-so? Details!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 06:53:48 GMT
Terry Porter wrote:
>> But if Windows is _so_ bad, why use it at all? If you think it's
>> "monopoly crapware" surely you cannot even touch it?
> Perhaps Max has logical reasons to use Windowsat the moment?
Then it can hardly be "monopolistic crapware" now can it!
>> Either that, or you're a hypocrit.
> Nonsense.
My assertion stands. I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 06:54:33 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>T Max needs a good spanking.
>
> Now if only if one of you were capable of giving it to me... ;-)
We did, in another thread. "DirectX sucks". Boy did I lead you to water!
You fell for it, too!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 07:04:35 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 11 May 2001 00:43:27 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Pete is expressing the frustrations of many professionals that have to
> >put up with bugs that never get fixed, or promised to get fixed. No O/S
> >is immune to bugs. However, Linux is the fastest to react to criticisms
> >of bugs and get them fixed. I welcome Petes bug reports to the Linux
> >community.... only that Pete should say that he reports these bugs to
> >the appropriate group that can fix them.
>
>
> This is really true but what is even more frustrating is what I call
> "the abandonment factor".
> As an example I offer MIDI interfaces. Most professional's use at
> least an 8x8 interface with SMPTE and other locking options and so
> forth. Typically these connect via the parallel port of the computer.
> Well Win2k, which is what XP is built on, doesn't like using these
> types of devices so USB MIDI devices came into vogue. Unfortunately
> there are some serious performance issues with USB and DAW so that's a
> real crap shoot. So now they are talking Firewire instead...So now
> those of us with $400+ MIDI interfaces are screwed into buying new
> ones just to keep up. Of course we could stay with Win98SE and things
> will be fine except...........
>
> the current high end audio boards prefer to use WDM drivers instead of
> MME types and Win98se is less than stable with the WDM drivers. Some
> work, some don't but the bottom line is manufacturers are writing for
> Win2k and XP.
>
> Another example:
> Event electronics Layla card was originally a 20 bit card. Later they
> released a 24 bit card. Finally they are releasing WDM drivers, but
> only for the 24 bit version. They have been coy as to whether or not
> the 20 bit folks will ever see WDM drivers.
> That's really wonderful. A $1000 card that can't be used anymore.
>
> While one can always stick with what works meaning staying with
> Win98SE, the problem arises with all of the other programs that are
> getting upgrades and so forth and depend upon the hardware drivers
> etc. It is a frustrating, vicious and very expensive cycle that never
> ends.
>
> Add into this all of the bugs that get introduced with all of these
> changes and it becomes a real nightmare.
>
> THIS is what is pissing us in the audio/music field off and THIS is
> why Linux comes up as a topic in discussions over and over again. We
> are tired of shelling out $500.00 for a piece of software/hardware
> only to find it gets orphaned 2 years later with no hope of upgrading.
>
> We are sick of MS changing the standards over and over again and
> putting us behind a financial 8-ball and that is the truth.
>
> Flatfish
I asked the question before, and I will again...
Seriously, what applications do you need and what are their requirements?
Make these sorts of things known and you just might interest someone willing
and able to provide a solution. Programmers, the good ones anyway, generally
love a challenge. Not all Linux software offerings are "CS-Student Project
Quality". VMWare is a great example of a quality commercial offering. Samba
and Apache are widely acknowledged examples of quality Open Source. Make
your demands known in detail and they just may be met.
Personally, I thought of doing a ProTools-like application for Linux
sometime down the road. It's abilities at multitasking seem tailor-made to
that sort of thing and I have musician friends who'd die to have those
features on a stable platform and with it,.I can cover-up the fact that my
guitar playing is lousy. (Time and prior commitments keep pushing this
farther and farther into the future, though...<grrr> )
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 07:17:32 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dedi6$l3k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> If you are talking about the *latest* version of VB, it's VB.NET, which
> isn't bad at all.
> Similar to C# in its capabilities.
>
> > As well as haing to program in VB, they have to write the code in Word.
>
> Been there, done that, not so bad.
> Try writing a program using edlin.
> Now *that* is a challange.
Not as bad as hacking out an ISR in debug.
MASM? We don't need no stinking MASM!
(I was poor at the time)
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 07:14:39 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> People who GPL libraries should have their toenails slowly peeled off
> with red-hot tongs by a cackling black-hooded torturer in a medaeval
> dungeon. Or be forced to use the latest version of VB... (Bwahahahaha!)
I'll have the toenails option, please... <g>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Microsoft PATH.
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 07:28:31 GMT
"Neil Cerutti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Craig Kelley posted:
> >My A500 still works today -- as does my C64. :) (although I
> >had to buy another 1541 a couple years ago because my original
> >one was dying)
>
> It's almost impossible to tell the difference between a 1541
> that's dying and one that's in perfect working order. ;-) It
> really bugged me back in the day how much faster the Apple ][
> floppy drives were.
That's why I cringed the first time someone mentioned USB hard drives <g> I
thought I saw the last of serial-based storage with the Commodore.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Microsoft PATH.
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 07:30:40 GMT
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti) writes:
>
> > Craig Kelley posted:
> > >My A500 still works today -- as does my C64. :) (although I
> > >had to buy another 1541 a couple years ago because my original
> > >one was dying)
> >
> > It's almost impossible to tell the difference between a 1541
> > that's dying and one that's in perfect working order. ;-) It
> > really bugged me back in the day how much faster the Apple ][
> > floppy drives were.
>
> Well, the C64 had no block device system at all; the 1541 is a tape
> drive for all intents and purposes. That's why its so huge, they had
> to put basically a second computer in it to run the block drive and
> then to masquarade as a serial device to the C64. That's also why it
> was so slow. In fact, the 1541's "CPU" is another 6502 chip!
>
> A good hack, regardless :)
I think the neatest "hack" for the 1541 was the copy program that loded
itself into a pair of them. You could then disconnect the drives from the
C64 and dupe disks simply by inserting them.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 03:41:44 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Pete's Linux printer problems
Just thought of this. Maybe your printer was configured for ECP+EPP in
the BIOS, and your printer can't handle this? If there's a DMA conflict
someplace, you may have problems with EPP mode (or is it ECP?). I have
an EPSON Actionlaser printer (Laser Jet III compatible), and I have some
nasty problems printing things under FreeBSD that crop up on occasion,
and I have ECP+EPP enabled for my parallel port. Since the printer is a
1995 model, I kinda figured maybe it had something to do with my
enabling ECP+EPP mode in the BIOS. I'll bet older laser printers like
that would prefer the "standard" (SPP) LPT mode. Who knows, maybe
you're having a similar problem?
I don't think I'd be missing much be reverting to SPP mode, because I
don't plan on using PLIP or and LPT devices requiring fast access
anytime soon. The type of problems I encounter are these errors that
pop up on my printer's LCD screen saying it needs service. Turning the
printer off and then on usually makes it go away, but then I get some
printing errors on occasion.
====== 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: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 09:54:31 +0100
>> - .LNK bodgery. Why not use soft/symbolic links like everyone else?
>> If I open a .LNK file from within a program, I get -- a .LNK file.
>> Whoopee. And you can forget about the hard stuff.
>> (One has to use "The Shell" to do it right.)
>
> Because they had to get some way to have shortcuts on a FAT system?
Wll, hard links are possible (surely you've had a cross linked filesystem
before :-). Also, if they put the code at a much lower level, ie belop
the API layer, then the soft links would work transparently.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 00:56:13 -0700
Les Mikesell wrote:
> ? ? To violate copyright you must have
> ? ? had access to the thing you are accused of copying.
> ?
> ? This is not true if you are guilty of contributory (or vicarious)
> ? infringement. (I personally don't believe there is any contributory
> ? infringement in the particular RIPEM/GPL case, but that's a question of
> ? the details, not a general element of copyright law.
>
> Doesn't that have to be a part of a case where access to the original
> by someone is still involved?
Someone, but not a party to the case.
Someone clearly does have access to the original copy of GPLed software
(even if the developer of complementary software does not): the end
user. That's precisely the type of situation that contributory
infringement is intended to address (although I don't believe it applies
in the case of GPL/RIPEM).
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Good Tex Pdf Files was Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office
97/2000?
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 10:05:46 +0100
> I use LyX and add
>
> \usepackage{pslatex}
> \usepackage[ps2pdf,pdftitle={My Document
> Title},urlcolor=blue,linktocpage,letterpaper,colorlinks=true]{hyperref}
>
> in the preamble if I need PDF output.
Another alternative it so to
\usepackage{times}
and then go through the latex->dvips|ps2pdf route. Unfortunately, you
have to use the Times fonts since the (fantastic) cmr fonts have to be
brought in as bitmaps, which is rotten.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 10:08:09 +0100
> Until the monopoly is broken or
> Microsoft (*cough*) embraces one of the open file formats that others
> are embracing (XML based if I recall), I doubt you'll see this situation
> change anytime soon.
XML doesn't help if any way:
<uuencoded_proprietry_data>
begin
845665438gv459mbnvertymbvu,9p[ecp.sr0[]tv45968mvb,430c,v
end
</uuencoded_proprietry_data>
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
