Replies in-line > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:27:54 +0000 (UTC) > From: PJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [ilugd] Bill Gates got Windows 1.0 source-code from > trash-bin > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > shirish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> First of all sorry for cross-posting the same query on so many lists. > > So don't do that then. It irritates people and gets you bad karma. > >> I read somewhere couple of days ago that Bill Gates actually got his >> source-code from some trash-bin > > It's distorted in the telling. > >> I don't remember the website [snip excuses] > > I posted about it on this mailing list too a while ago, I think. > > "I'd skip out on athletics and go down to this computer center. We were moving > ahead very rapidly: Basic, FORTRAN, LISP, PDP-10 machine language, digging out > the operating system listings from the trash and studying those." > > - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/06/29/bill_gates_roots/
I posted couple of more links after I got feedback. This was the original post which I had read and then forgotten http://www.dhanapalan.com/blog/2008/06/22/bill-gates-and-the-importance-of-source-code/ and another one which I got from here http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_1.html I thank you for the additional link. > PJ > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:16:52 +0530 > From: ???? ????? Ashish Shukla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [ilugd] [OT] Difference between cross-post and multi-post > To: The Linux-Delhi mailing list <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; x-action=pgp-signed > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > ,--[ On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 09:58:31AM +0530, shirish wrote: > | Hi all, > | Another thing I know both the articles are written from usenet > | perspectives. From what little I know usenet are the forefathers of > | modern mailing lists, so the above should apply to mailing lists as > | well I guess. > > Cross-posting and multi-posting make difference in newsgroup posting. I > don't know how they're relevant in terms of mailing list. > > If you post a message to multiple newsgroups, by mentioning multiple > newsgroups > separated by commas, in 'Newsgroups' header, this is cross-posting. > There is a 'Followup-To' header, where you specify, on which newsgroup, > you want follow-ups to the posting. > > If you post a single message to multiple newsgroups, by creating separate > postings, > this is multi-posting. > > In case of cross-posting, only single message is submitted, which will > show up in all posted newsgroups. If you've already read that message in one > newsgroup, it'll be marked as _read_ for you by your NUA (news user agent), > so if you came across that message in other newsgroups also, that message > will already marked as _read_ . > > The cross-posting won't have desired effect (similar to newsgroups) in case of > mailing lists, as these mailing lists operate in a different way from > newsgroups. Although the only benefit with cross-posting in terms of mailing > lists is > that you get messages from different lists with same 'Message-ID' header. It > depends > on your MUA to figure out that whether these messages are cross-postings > or not. > > HTH > - -- > ?-- ?- ???? ?--- ?- ???- ?- ?--?-? --? -- ?- ?? ?-?? ?-?-?- -?-? --- -- > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkhonXwACgkQHy+EEHYuXnTTlACeO1jTxDPB7Y1k/tNREYg5dDD3 > A0QAoKDrcYUcQXGbKHT35TjB/ChmqIlu > =7eDU > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:11:17 +0530 > From: Kenneth Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [ilugd] FOSS: VAT or service tax [was] Bill Gates got > Windows 1.0 source-code from trash-bin > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], The Linux-Delhi mailing list > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > > > On 29-Jun-08, at 7:44 AM, Raj Mathur wrote: > >>> and when you finally find a buyer for that bridge across the Yamuna >>> don't forget to add octroi and VAT >> >> If you don't believe me, I'd suggest you get some competent lawyer to >> read the various licences at opensource.org and explain to you how >> none >> of them prevents you from selling the software. > > if you are talking law, you would know that interpretation of > statutes (and licenses, contracts etc) does not depend on the mere > letter of the law. So by just examining the licenses, no lawyer, > competent or not can give an opinion on this. > > there are two types of competent lawyers: > > 1. Those who look at the laws and court rulings and tell you what can > be done within the confines of these laws > > 2. Those who look beyond what is written and work to create/develop > the law on the relevant subject > > ultimately law is made by the supreme court. There is no such thing > as 'settled law', laws are always subject to change - just needs a > larger bench of the supreme court to do so. And when the court looks > at any law, they look at the written law as well as such things as > natural justice, equity, interests of the state, interests of the > public in general and then they pronounce on the law. > > In the case of software in general and FOSS in particular, there is a > school of thought that software is knowledge which belongs to mankind > and can neither be bought nor sold. I happen to subscribe to that > school of thought. And I know competent lawyers who also belong to > that school of thought, who are working to get rulings from courts in > these areas. So the question is: which type of competent lawyer > should I approach? > > Further, there are two more problems here: > > 1. No two lawyers agree on anything. So how many opinions do I get? > > 2. A legal opinion is only worth anything if a fee is paid and the > opinion is given on the firm letterhead and signed on every page. For > an opinion on a matter so fraught with controversy and with huge > financial implications, the fee would run to several lakhs - I cannot > afford that. > > Anyway, the practical problem before us is that purveyors of FOSS > have to charge service tax as they have been advised that FOSS > software is not a commodity that can be bought or sold. Proprietary > software vendors get away with VAT - as the rate of ST is 12% and VAT > much lower, this puts FOSS vendors at a disadvantage. If we can get a > strong enough legal opinion on this subject, then we too could charge > VAT and become more competitive. > > Maybe we could get an opinion from Eben Moglen (only lawyer that I > know of who is competent in this field). > >> >> Some licences like the GPL force you to provide source code for a >> nominal fee along with binaries at the user's request; > > I thought all OSI licenses force you to do this > >> however, that >> nominal fee applies to the source code, not to the binaries -- >> there is >> no limit on how much you can charge for the binaries. >> >> In short, not being able to sell FOSS is a limitation of the market >> (no >> one wants to buy it), rather than some intrinsic limitation in FOSS >> itself. > > I would tend to the opinion that sale of any software, let alone FOSS > is illegal, immoral and an act of cheating - the only point is, that > the courts have to recognise this. > > > -- > regards > > Kenneth Gonsalves > Associate, NRC-FOSS > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://nrcfosshelpline.in/code/ > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:39:02 +0530 > From: Raj Mathur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [ilugd] FOSS: VAT or service tax [was] Bill Gates got > Windows 1.0 source-code from trash-bin > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On Monday 30 Jun 2008, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: >> On 29-Jun-08, at 7:44 AM, Raj Mathur wrote: >> [snip] >> > Some licences like the GPL force you to provide source code for a >> > nominal fee along with binaries at the user's request; >> >> I thought all OSI licenses force you to do this > > Once again, you need a competent lawyer to show you how various FOSS > licences differ from each other. Some, like the GPL, force > distribution of source when you distribute binaries. Others like BSD > permit you to give and/or sell binaries made from FOSS source without > any obligation to provide the source. > >> > however, that >> > nominal fee applies to the source code, not to the binaries -- >> > there is >> > no limit on how much you can charge for the binaries. >> > >> > In short, not being able to sell FOSS is a limitation of the market >> > (no >> > one wants to buy it), rather than some intrinsic limitation in FOSS >> > itself. >> >> I would tend to the opinion that sale of any software, let alone FOSS >> is illegal, immoral and an act of cheating - the only point is, that >> the courts have to recognise this. > > So are you OK with giving proprietary software away for free? Should we > be commending MS for making IE available for download for free? > > If someone wants to buy a FOSS package it is perfectly legal and, IMO, > moral to sell it to her. After all, the package remains doesn't become > proprietary by the mere fact of sale -- it remains FOSS. > > I believe that proprietary (close source) software it unethical and > immoral. Not being a communist, I don't believe that just selling > software is immoral or unethical. As long as the software remains open > you are welcome to make money from in in any way you desire short of > making it proprietary. You can give away free copies of proprietary > software > > As for legality, I would only like to quote some statements from the GNU > General Public Licence v2.0: > > <quote> > When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. > </quote> > > <quote> > ...if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a > fee... > </quote> > > <quote> > You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and > you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. > </quote> > > If RMS and all of FSF is satisfied with expressly permitting charging > money to distribute FOSS, I'm satisfied that it's legal and ethical. > > In short: Proprietary software is not the same as commercial software. > > Regards, > > -- Raju > -- > Raj Mathur [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kandalaya.org/ > GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F > PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ilugd mailing list > [email protected] > http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd > > > End of ilugd Digest, Vol 63, Issue 58 > ************************************* > -- Regards, Shirish Agarwal This email is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ 065C 6D79 A68C E7EA 52B3 8D70 950D 53FB 729A 8B17 _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- [email protected] http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
