Linux-Advocacy Digest #660, Volume #26 Wed, 24 May 00 09:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David T. Blake)
Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night (mlw)
Linux vs. Solaris Intel (2:1)
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (Csaba Raduly)
Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night (mlw)
Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night (2:1)
Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night (2:1)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Michael Hofmann)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (John Sanders)
Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save
It?) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (Bloody Viking)
Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ? (Full Name)
Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David Steuber)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David Steuber)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David Steuber)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David Steuber)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 23 May 2000 13:07:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake) writes:
> ' Section 3b) (on modifications to QT)
> ' When modifications to the Software are released under this
> ' license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the
> ' initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification.
>
> The right is non-exlusive. That means everyone can get that right. I
> think TrollTech is just trying to prevent forking of the Qt library
> here.
No, they are ensuring they can continue a revenue stream based
on contributions from outside the company. They will take your
modification and include it in QT Pro.
> As I said previously, if you don't like the Qt license, you can
> create your own library. There is no one to stop you. You can
> also use one of the other available libraries.
I was not arguing I should create a library. I was not arguing
against QTs right to use whatever license they like. I was
arguing that people should think twice before referring to QT
licensing as substantially free or "open source". The right to
fork is absent, the right not to have your contributions included
in proprietary works (such as QT Pro) is gone, and QT gets a copy
of EVERYTHING that even links to their code, even if it is not
publicly available.
--
Dave Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 07:12:53 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Simone Paddock
> > > O'Reilly & Associates
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > www.oreilly.com
> >
> > So what is the point of this? This is the "LINUX" advocacy group, not a
> > Windows group. If you want to attract Windows users to read the book, go
> > to the windows advocacy groups. The notion that we who use Linux and
> > feel comfortable with it, simply need a Windows 9x in a nutshell book is
> > insane. I know Windows, I have used every version of MS Windows ever
> > made, and I mean that!! Go away, troll.
>
> Did you even read the article? The article is written FOR Linux users (as
> is the book).
Yes, as a way to become better aquainted with Windows. I am aquainted
with Windows, thank you very much, I have chosen Linux over Windows
because Windows, by any rational view of what an OS should be, is
broken.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux vs. Solaris Intel
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:15:16 +0100
Can anyone comment on linux vs. solaris intel?
I've only used it from a users point of view (such as now), and have
noticed a few things (like the X server seem a bit slow) but they don't
really say much.
Can anyone do a better comparison?
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Csaba Raduly)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: 24 May 2000 11:11:22 GMT
24 May 2000: A formal bug report was sent to Seti@Home, because the
following message originated from [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray) was
reported as containing signs of intelligence:
>On Wed, 24 May 2000 05:14:05 GMT, Bloody Viking
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>When printing with LPR the Linux test.txt file, I get.... THIS!
>>
>>1
>> 2
>> 3
>> 4
>> 5
>> test of printer.
>
[snip]
>
>It's called the "Staircase Effect". Check out section 7.2 of The
>Linux Printing HOWTO.
>
I always called it the Maiakovsky effect, after the Russian poet who
used to
write poems
that looked
like this.
Anyway, you need to find the DIP switches (if any), specifically the
one that says "Auto CR" or something to that effect. That will do a CR
when receiving a LF.
Do not confuse it with tha "Auto LF", which does a LF when getting a
CR. That would produce a doubly-spaced staircase (or Maiakovsky :-)
--
Csaba Raduly, Software Developer (OS/2), Sophos Anti-Virus
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sophos.com/
US Support +1 888 SOPHOS 9 UK Support +44 1235 559933
Life is complex, with real and imaginary parts.
=====BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK=====
Version 3.1
GCS/IT/MU d- s:- a31 C++$ UL+ P+>+++ L++ E- W+ N++ w++>$ O++$
M-(+) V- PGP- t+ X++ R* tv++ b++ DI+++ D++ G- e+++ h-- r-- !y+
=====END GEEK CODE BLOCK=====
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 07:17:26 -0400
jbarntt wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Simone Paddock wrote:
> > >
> > > For whatever reason, a great many Linux and UNIX
> > > users spend a lot more time working with Windows
> > > than they might like, or like to admit.
> > >
> > > As Tim O'Reilly says in "Windows by Day, Linux by Night ":
> > > "...because we don't admit to our use of Windows, because
> > > it's a guilty secret, we don't spend the kind of time learning
> > > how to get the most out of the system. We do what we have
> > > to, and then go home, to where we feel more comfortable.
> > > That changed for me a year and a half ago."
> > >
> > > Find out why and how at:
> > > http://windows.oreilly.com/news/byday_0500.html
> > >
> > > The first 1000 people who read Tim's article get a free book.
> > >
> > > Simone Paddock
> > > O'Reilly & Associates
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > www.oreilly.com
> >
> > So what is the point of this? This is the "LINUX" advocacy group, not
> a
> > Windows group. If you want to attract Windows users to read the book,
> go
> > to the windows advocacy groups. The notion that we who use Linux and
> > feel comfortable with it, simply need a Windows 9x in a nutshell book
> is
> > insane. I know Windows, I have used every version of MS Windows ever
> > made, and I mean that!! Go away, troll.
>
> Oh, so in a Linux advocacy group only Linux advocates are allowed to
> post ? Sounds boring to me. Troll ? Don't think so. The original post
> advertises the availability of a book for users more familiar with *nix
> than Windows. What's wrong with that ? If you're a Windows guru, don't
> buy the book.
Hey there is a difference between debate about which is better, and some
condescending "If you knew Windows, it wouldn't be so hard to use, so
buy my book" crap. Most of the Linux users I know use Linux precisely
because we do know Windows, perhaps too well.
>
> >
> > If you want to talk books, the title "Windows for dummies" is correct
> > and descriptive on many levels.
>
> Perhaps, but there is also a "Linux for Dummies" book available also.
> Maybe you should check it out ?
Yes a "Linux for Dummies" book may exist, however, the title would not
be a self fulfilling prophecy.
>
> >
> > Looking at a book case of O'Reilly books, I think I shall start a
> > boycott. The f^%$^king nerve to try and promote Windows here.
>
> Go ahead, start a boycott. O'Reilly is a good publisher. If they
> publish one book you don't want to own, that makes them evil ?
I don't car what they publish, it is this marketing push that I find
offensive and insulting.
>
> >
> > --
> > Mohawk Software
> > Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> > Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
> > Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
> > sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
> >
>
> --
> jbarntt
>
> <Chocolate Watchband>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:20:17 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Simone Paddock
> > > O'Reilly & Associates
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > www.oreilly.com
> >
> > So what is the point of this? This is the "LINUX" advocacy group, not a
> > Windows group. If you want to attract Windows users to read the book, go
> > to the windows advocacy groups. The notion that we who use Linux and
> > feel comfortable with it, simply need a Windows 9x in a nutshell book is
> > insane. I know Windows, I have used every version of MS Windows ever
> > made, and I mean that!! Go away, troll.
>
> Did you even read the article? The article is written FOR Linux users (as
> is the book).
I was a 'doze user long before i was a UNIX user. Ever since I first saw
UNIX (this was when I was a kid, and before i had heard of linux) I
perfered it. A few years ago, when I found a linux distro in a shop
(hey, long downloads cost over here) I installed it and never went back
(except for games). I'm sure that there are many linux users who had
much more experience with windows before installing linux (like me), and
therefore won't be interested in a book telling us how to use something
we dislike.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:21:32 +0100
mlw wrote:
> > Perhaps, but there is also a "Linux for Dummies" book available also.
> > Maybe you should check it out ?
>
> Yes a "Linux for Dummies" book may exist, however, the title would not
> be a self fulfilling prophecy.
It does. I saw it this morning LOL!!!
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: Michael Hofmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:12:18 +0200
Full Name wrote:
>
> The more I read the more I believe Linux advocates are nothing more
> than children who have found a new toy to play with.
Yes "Full Name", and a good one too. Certainly more fun to play with
than Windows.
Children... well, us children do some of the computer work way more
efficiently than those WinKids ever get the chance to. No Blue Screens
here.
BTW, do yourself a favour and learn how to qoute.
Have fun,
Michael
--
Disclaimer: this message was written with Windows because my employer
forces me to.
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 06:29:10 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Sanders) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Fade out windows? What's wrong with you morons? Of course this can be
> >done using X. You can fade out any region, color/set of colors or the
> >entire display. You can make all the pixels on your screen fall to the
> >'bottom' of the display. And, what's the most fun, you can do it to
> >another user remotely!
>
> That's a security hole, if ever I saw one. Are you saying you can take over
> another desktop with relative ease?
>
> > You guys need to work in UNIX shop sometime. You're working away
> >quietly at your desk when you hear a flushing toilet and your screen
> >turns into a tornado and whorls away off stage left.
>
> This sort of thing was blocked on Digital UNIX.
>
> > Jeez. Fade out windows. When will the innovation stop?
>
> Does such a thing exist in KDE or Gnome?
>
> Pete
When people got carried away you could deny remote logins. I'm sure
there are lots of other things one could do, but I'm not a heavy
sys_admin type. It was explained to me that your current bit map is
saved off, and the remote user gets permission to write into your
display area. The 'whatever' program runs for a few seconds then
restores your display and that program terminates. You're then back to
normal.
As far as security goes, you can make UNIX/Linux as big of a security
mess as you like, or not. My SUN workstation at a former employer had
FDDI and ethernet subnets attached. This little trick could only be
done across the FDDI network. Its practical use was to watch the
progress of PCB layout on my machine which was being done by a person at
the other end of the building.
Sure I could block this, and the sysadmins could stop it all if they
wanted to. But, hey, you want to be 'one of the guys' don't you?
Don't get me started about KDE or Gnome. All you need to do this is a
knowledge of X.
Sorry I said 'morons'.
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 22:55:06 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Tue, 23 May 2000 22:13:02 +0200...
...and Nicholas Murison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CAguy wrote:
> > Umm..what version of Window are you talking about?..win32 is 'quite
> > flat' also. Anyway, who uses DOS/win16 anymore?
> >
> > James
>
> DOS is really quite useful, if you want to do some basic programming
> stuff. I'm currently using it to learn Assembly, as it's somewhat
> easier under DOS than under Linux.
What's the point? If you want to use assembly in the future, you need
to know how to use it under a modern system. So what's the use of
learning assembly under an ancient system like DOS that doesn't do
memory protection and such?
mawa
--
bumper sticker seen on stealth bomber: "IF YOU CAN READ THIS, THEN WE
WASTED 50 BILLION BUCKS." -- Donald Daybell
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary
Split Save It?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:23:46 GMT
Christopher Smith writes:
> We sic Tholen onto you.
Who is "we"?
------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:27:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Csaba Raduly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Anyway, you need to find the DIP switches (if any), specifically the
: one that says "Auto CR" or something to that effect. That will do a CR
: when receiving a LF.
The inkjet is an el cheapo, so I'll need to do it in software. What is the
way you make the carriage return character in C? I know about \n for the
linefeed and the \f for the formfeed.
At least I'll be able to print text with this brain-dead printer.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Subject: Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ?
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:52:41 GMT
On Tue, 23 May 2000 19:00:21 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>In short, Windows 9x is a disaster.
>
Win9x is what the consumers wanted. Even today people are still
waiting for Win ME cause they want something that does what DOS did 20
years ago. That's why Linux is in the toilet while Win 9x resides in
the penthouse.
Microsoft are smart in way you people will never understand.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:56:14 GMT
On Tue, 23 May 2000 22:55:06 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...and Nicholas Murison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> DOS is really quite useful, if you want to do some basic programming
>> stuff. I'm currently using it to learn Assembly, as it's somewhat
>> easier under DOS than under Linux.
>
>What's the point? If you want to use assembly in the future, you need
>to know how to use it under a modern system.
Unless your intent is to do embedded systems. Many of those don't use an
OS, especially ones with requirements critical enough to require extensive
use of assembler. DOS is reasonably close to "no OS".
DOS is actually still widely used in small embedded controllers. Hey, an
80186 costs about three bucks these days and Caldera will sell you DR-DOS
for real cheap. For more horsepower you can get a 386sx on a single
PC-104 board with 1 MB of RAM and a FLASH disk for about $100 in quantity
one and half that for larger quantities. On such a thing you're likely to
use either DOS or a small embedded OS, neither of which have memory
protection or POSIX compliance.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:00:00 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dowe Keller) writes:
' [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
' >David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
' >
' >> Do people really have trouble with ./configure, make, make install?
' >> It has _never_ been a problem for me. Maybe I am just lucky. Even
' >> though I changed my compiler, libc, and libtools.
' >
' >That precise process usually works out fine. However, a number of
' >these processes require manual modification of the Makefile or a
' >custom configuration file. I've also encountered several configure
' >scripts that break, and when that happens, you're doomed to rewriting
' >the Makefile by hand. And there are still a few programs that just
' >provide you with a grab-bag of Makefiles, and you get to pick which
' >one you want. Those are *always* disasters, but usually the Makefiles
' >are at least short enough that fixing them isn't impossible.
'
' Yow, you make it sound like brain surgery. I can count the number of
' times that I had to hack Makefiles to get a program to make on the
' fingers of one hand. And multiple make files are a good thing if you
' have to do special stuff to get a program to compile on a particular
' system. I'd rather there be three makefiles named:
'
' Makefile.AIX
' Makefile.Linux
' Makefile.BSD
'
' Than to have to edit a single Makefile to work.
Sorry to quote everything, but I thought that this is what
autoconf/automake was supposed to fix. Then there is TrollTech's
tmake. Life must get interesting at times.
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:00:01 GMT
Maciej Golebiewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
' How often the makefiles provide the "uninstall" target, too? Or at least
' a script for un-installing? Otherwise, over the time and number of upgrades
' to newer versions comprised of different files, you're accumulating
' "abandoned"
' files.
It does happen. I don't know what percentage of makefiles provide
that or a simiar target. Most produce a single executable image that
is easy to dispose of.
' RPM is not perfect but it is quite OK. It's just that the guys creating rpm
' not always can get the dependencies right. Personally one of my favourite
' query options in rpm is -q -f to instantly get the name of the package
' "owning" a specific file. I love it.
What do you do when two packages claim ownership of the same file?
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:59:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
' >Have I violated someone's license?
'
' Just putting the code on the same machine is not a problem.
' You must create a 'derived work', which has been commonly
' described as code linked in a single process. Linking
' GNU readline (GPL, not LGPL) into a database control
' program that used a commercial client library would be
' an example. While you can probably get away with building
' such a program yourself, distributing it would be at
' least questionable, especially if you redistributed a copy
' of the GPL'd readline with it. Now for something even
' more confusing, consider what happens if you have a
' perl script that dynamically loads readline and also
' uses DBI which can pull in an assortment of database
' client libraries at runtime, including commercial versions.
' If this ends up linking to (say) Oracle libs, does it
' become illegal to distribute the script?
I would think not. The dynamicly loaded modules are not part of the
script, they are just used by the script.
' For an even stranger case, consider mod_perl, compiled into apache,
' both of which can dynamically link other modules and the process
' lifetime spans many requests. If one web requests runs a script
' that links a GPL'd library, and another pulls in a commercial
' library, you now have a derived work (by some definition)
' that is not allowed, yet no single thing is responsible for it.
ibid.
' >I am not trying to create a situation where you or anyone else can't
' >use code that I write or code that is derived from code that I write.
' >I am trying to avoid the situation where improvements to my code are
' >not returned to me or to others. The whole point of FSF style free
' >software is to advance the state of the art by not shackling code with
' >proprietary licensing.
'
' The GPL instead shackles any other code linked into a derived
' work with its own restrictions, or in the cases where
' other code already has different restrictions it makes the
' combination impossible.
I think the only code shackled by GPL is the code that is derived from
GPL. In the case of linkage above, the top level code must be
compatible with GPL, but the libs it uses does not have to be.
If I have GPL lib A and proprietary lib B and my code C uses A and B,
then my code C is GPL. I can distribute my code without distributing
A or B. My code may even be able to work without A or B with reduced
or different functionality.
' >If there is a better way to achieve this goal, please tell me about
' >it.
'
' In the case of a complete stand-alone package, restrictions on
' derived works may not be a problem. For things that would
' be useful as a component, the LGPL or BSD style opens up
' more possibilities.
OK, you say reusable components like libs are better off with a less
restrictive license. That is fair. But if the lib is under a BSD
style license, Microsquish can take that library, change it, and not
release any of the changes back to the public. Once you use an
'enhanced' feature, you are tied to a non-free Microsquish library.
You are at the mercy of Microsquish. If the code is at least LGPL,
then the library code is still going to be free. Microsquish must
make its changes available as source.
Now if the library is GPL, then anything linking too it must also be
GPL or GPL compatible. What about software that makes system calls in
Linux? Must that also be GPL? Should I demand that Netscape ( now
AOL ) release _all_ the code for Navigator? Surly all programs must
make system calls at some level. Does the Linux kernel make
commercial software for Linux impossible? Make that closed source,
proprietary software. No Oracle or Sybase for Linux?
I guess that must mean running such software on *BSD instead. But
what if the application uses networking protocols to link to other
software? Is that linkage that GPL affects? How far does it go?
The possibility that closed source or non-GPL compatible software can
not be legally run on Linux does bother me. Although I would prefere
all software to be GPL, I do see the need to accommodate people who do
not like the GPL. Having a libc for each possible license category is
certainly wasteful if the duplication is soley to deal with license
concerns. I guess it's a good thing libc is LGPL.
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:00:00 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus) writes:
' It was the Tue, 23 May 2000 08:59:59 GMT...
' ...and David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
' > The right is non-exlusive. That means everyone can get that right. I
' > think TrollTech is just trying to prevent forking of the Qt library
' > here.
'
' Exactly that is which is bad IMHO. Real software freedom has always
' been the freedom to fork.
That's a good point. But what is the value in real forking? Do you
really want to have ten different major versions of GTK+ floating
around? Or even two? If an application says it uses GTK+ ver x.y,
wouldn't it be simpler to know that the application didn't really mean
FGTK+ x.y?
Linux is held together because people respect the opinion of Linus
Torvalds. Even so, there are Alan Cox diffs, RTLinux, and probably
others. The tendency is to stick with Linus Torvalds Linux as the
base. Will that be true for all GPL projects? What if some group
decides a certain feature is needed in GTK+, but another group of
equal size feels that feature doesn't belong, or should be implemented
in a different way, with a different interface?
I guess Qt doesn't really solve that problem since you can just use
inheritance to provide feature X in any number of ways.
Now the people at Microsquish might say that this is why you need one
company enforcing a single standard way of doing things. And yet they
too are stuck with feature creep and redundant implementations too.
It is a jungle out there.
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
