Linux-Advocacy Digest #751, Volume #26 Mon, 29 May 00 18:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: You need to reset your antennae; you're not getting the signals from (Marty)
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (Mark Bratcher)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:20:03 GMT
On Sun, 28 May 2000 21:54:52 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 29 May 2000 00:07:03 GMT
>>On Thu, 25 May 2000 03:32:21 +0200, someone claiming to be Giuliano
>>Colla wrote:
>>>Roger wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 22 May 2000 13:22:50 +0200, someone claiming to be Giuliano
>>>> Colla wrote:
>>>> >Roger wrote:
>>>> >> On Thu, 18 May 2000 03:30:45 +0200, someone claiming to be Giuliano
>>>> >> Colla wrote:
>>>> >> >There is just one difficulty: we happen to have uninstalled Office 97 because
>it was
>>>> >> >too buggy to be used (our secretary had become almost hysteric).
>>>> >> Bugs such as ... ?
>>>> >Crashing daily.
>>>> Not a bug, since it does not generically do so. Must have been
>>>> something in the environment.
>See there, you should have given up post haste, Giuliano. There's no
>way you're going to win if you let Roger get away with such blatant
>troll fallacies. The diagnosis of a bug is not whether it "generically
>does so", but whether the replacement does so. Otherwise, you're
>attributing bugs to specific flaws in programmatic behavior. That would
>be a "feature", in many cases.
What replacement are you referring to, Max? And a bug, by Earth
definition, * is* a flaw in programmatic behaviour.
>Consider this; you have two pieces of software, which have to "talk" to
>each other using a code. One is expecting a "7", the other is
>presenting an "8". Which is a "bug"?
Depends on * why * the difference exists? Should the first be
expecting an 8? Should the second be sending a 7? Is the second
really sending an 8, but an intervening piece of software changing it?
>Trying to troubleshoot a computer
>that way is a losing proposition. Trying to do it with software is
>insanity. Trying to do it on a network is a never-ending nightmare.
The usual content free Max assertions, boiling down to
<Max> Because I Said So! </Max>
>When something technological doesn't work with something else
>technological, you can either understand the true algorithmic issues, or
>you can make a simple choice. Which component is more easily
>replaceable? You replace that one, and if the problem doesn't go away,
>then it's the other programs "bug". You replace that one. If the
>problem persists, you don't know what you're doing. Get a decent
>conceptual, connectivity, and correlation model framework, and try
>again.
Or you can, based on a general knowledge of the interactions, but not
necessarily an intimate knowledge of the algorithmic issues, (what
ever that is,) try to isolate the problem. This may involve
replacement, this may involve reconfiguration, this may involve a
determination that one or more files have been changed in some way.
Of course, it's easier for Max to get rid of an entire program, so
that's the route he recommends.
>In Giuliano's case, the bugs were in Office because the bugs weren't in
>WordPerfect [or whatever he transitioned to], not because they weren't
>in Windows.
Star Office, so he claims. And the problem may have simply been
masked by the switch to Star Office. One cannot say even that a bug
existed, since t may have been a configuration issue (assuming that
the original issues even existed, about which there is doubt given
that Giuliano has demonstrated a willingness to prevaricate.)
>You certainly can't use that kind of troubleshooting in
>*Windows*, with *Office*.
But you can use the kind of troubleshooting I would have suggested.
>Honestly, Roger's already vapid technical
>ability is even more vaporous than I thought, if he thinks this is how
>to find out why a system is failing.
You know that straw man phrase you so badly misused in another
message? This is a real example of that fallacy. I have never
claimed that the way to troubleshoot this kind of problem was to
replace the entire program -- that is * your * technique. And as an
added bonus, you get absolutely free an ad hominem.
>>>The posting of Bob May just after mine, reminding me a problem I forgot
>>>to mention (also because our printer was not 600 feet away from PC)
>>>would support better my limited statistics, than your unsupported
>>>assertion.
>>And you have supported yours? Please post the message ID on the
>>response where you have -- all I've seen is bald assertion on your
>>part.
>Sorry, Roger. The question is on you to support your ascertations.
Max, you're an iron. What assertion did you have in mind?
>Accusing Giuliano of intellectual dishonesty does not deflect that
>burden. You've heard considered opinion from our side, why do we only
>hear vapid trolling from yours?
No, I've heard bald assertion from demonstrated liars. And yet I do
not use this as an excuse to not respond.
>>And yet while I do not deny that you experienced such problems (only
>>that they were generically Office bugs,) you completely discount my
>>experience to the contrary.
>His is positive correlation with a theory, yours is negative correlation
>without a supporting theory.
His is baseless assertion. Mine is supported by the fact that if
Office were as unstable as is claimed, it wold not be in such wide
use. Despite the flight of fancy you're about to take, MS cannot
force people to use software that is unsuitable. I offer in support
of this MS Bob.
>We can account for your trouble-free
>experience; many people are "satisfied" in their ignorance with
>Microsoft's PC software, particularly if they are in the habit of buying
>a new PC every year and a half or so.
Nice ad hominem. I can similarly account for Giuliano's problems with
Office -- he was ignorant of how to use the software. Note that my
assertion correlates more precisely with the experience of the market,
since many more people use Office effectively for a variety of tasks
than experience the kinds of problems Giuliano has.
Also note that this assertion was made to illustrate the point that
all Max has offered above is bald assertion. He would have asked for
me to support this if I hadn't added this last, ignoring the irony
that he will completely disregard any requests for the same from him.
>You, not having any positive arguments to begin with, other than an
>unsupported claim of some emotional motivations and paranoid delusion on
>our part, can only account for your own experience, and seem willing to
>insist that our experience is valueless.
<Tholen> Reading comprehension problems? </Tholen>
I have supported my claims of your motivations by showing on several
occasions that you are more than willing to lie and distort to support
your points, when you do not simply rely on an appeal to your own
authority (despite ongoing proof that this is somewhat less than
unimpeachable.)
I do not insist that your supposed experiences are valueless. I
maintain that they are neither universal nor even terribly common.
I'd ask you show where I have so dismissed Giuliano's experiences,
except that I know you will either ignore it, or attempt to quote out
of context again.
>This is pathetic, really, when
>you come to consider the actual levels of our technical expertise.
You have yet to demonstrate such, and in fact have shown a willingness
to be selectively perceptive in pursuit of your goal of bashing MS.
I've made it easy lately -- search on the phrase "more about the
industry than anyone else" for a multitude of examples of Max's lack.
>That
>you can type with the same keyboard as such men as Rex Ballard, let
>alone sniff some of his intellect, is a testament to everything that
>Windows isn't.
I am not aware that Rex has ever used this keyboard. And Rex's track
record is not sterling either.
Please note, gentle reader, the continuing use of ad hominem and
appeal to authority.
>Your conclusion concerning "generic Office bugs" is
>meaningless, Roger. You don't show the first level of expertise
>required to have any conclusions worth mentioning, to be honest.
Because it is so much easier to attack me than support your own
assertion.
>>Of course, since you've been shown in another thread to have a
>>singular disregard for the truth, an objective observer will have to
>>decide which assertion is the more credible.
>I think we'd all like to see that message quoted, Roger, before
>anybody's going to believe that what you regard as a "singular disregard
>for the truth" is anything more than some minor factual discrepancy.
Of * course * it will be minor to you, Max. Giuliano, in
his zeal to bash MS, recently posted a message about a secretary
having to use a typewriter because Word was so unusable. He seems to
have forgotten that he told us that he had completely replaced Office
with Star Office. So either he lied about the replacement, or about
this more recent episode with the typewriter. Shall I post the
message ID's, or will you ignore them as you have done before?
>You don't seem to have a lot of "objective observers" in support of any
>of your disruptive rantings. Just other trolls, on occasion. Most of
>them give up, and wander away. You have stuck around. Why is that?
Of course, Max has redefined troll to mean "someone who disagrees with
Max" and completely ignores that he has no "objective observers" who
support him either, which begs the question why is he still here?
And when is he going to make good on that bet?
>As you're so fond of using the "aside to the reader" trick, Roger, allow
>me to point out for any observers, objective or not, that the
>aforementioned Rex Ballard, a distinguished proponent of Linux, suspects
>that you are actually a data-gathering effort by the Department of
>Justice.
And let me point out he has also claimed that the DOJ directly reacts
to his posts, using information he writes in court filings. When
asked which specific posts were so treated, the silence was deafening.
>>Especially given that
>>the numbers of people using Office tend to refute a generic problem of
>>the magnitude you posit.
>The magnitude is that his system didn't work.
He claims.
>Yes, there are a huge
>number of people who have that same general problem, and they can in
>fact be attributed to Office.
There are? And this information was compiled how?
>One might say "generic", but I don't
>believe you're actually interested in classifying bugs. Merely
>insisting that if every system doesn't fail, then it can't be a bug,
>which is so wrong as to be more than meaningless. A sort of anti-truth,
>is such is possible.
I did not claim that some random bug could not be a bug because every
system does not fail. Giuliano made the claim that Office usually
crashes after making a single change to an existing document.
I claim that it does not "usually," while not making any statements
about whatever problems Giuliano may or may not have experienced.
This is another of those straw men you accuse me of using.
>>Again, not something which generically happens. What video / print
>>driver combination pertains?
>Yes, printers and video drivers both fail, and cause failures, all the
>time. I would call just about any video or printer driver combination
>sensitive failure a generic bug. The question isn't what the
>combination was, Roger, its whether any other software applications are
>affected. Whether all hardware combinations are affected is, well,
>stupid.
No, the question was could a problem in such a combination be
considered an Office bug. You and Giuliano say yes. I say no.
>Remember back in 99, when you installed IE5 on your computer, and your
>video card fucked up, Roger? You replaced the video card, and the
>"problem went away". So it wasn't an IE5 problem, of course, it was a
>video card problem!
Since this never happened, there is nothing to remember. And you know
this. Yet another example of you're being willing to say anything to
advance your ABM agenda.
>You're hilarious. (Folks, this was a true exchange. Roger's
>"troubleshooting skills" in action; he explained the whole thing
>unapologetically. Bad hardware, he said; its just that IE4 didn't
>"uncover" the problem! SO HE BOUGHT A NEW VIDEO CARD! LOL What a hoot.)
Please post the message ID, or admit that you are talking out of the
hole in your keyboard, liar.
Folks, Max is lying again.
< remainder snipped as likely being more lies. If there is something
you actually want a response to, post it separately with an apology
for your lies and I will consider it.>
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: You need to reset your antennae; you're not getting the signals from
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:22:30 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim Stuyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton) writes:
> >>
> >> >Interestingly enough, there are no supporting URLs to any announcement
> >> >by IBM saying "warp is dead" in the "WinInfo Short Take" about this.
> >>
> >> Of course not. The article is quoted from zdnet, which is quoted
> >> from network news in the UK. It is all based on an article
> >> claiming that an unnamed IBM spokesperson provided the
> >> information. I just can't remember the last time IBM made any
> >> "official" announcements by way of anonymous sources talking to
> >> relatively unknown and less well respected correspondents for
> >> equally unknown and less well respected on line publications.
> >> Maybe it represents a new policy <g>?
> >
> >"An IBM spokesperson" is NOT the same thing as your
> >characterization of "an *unnamed* IBM spokesperson."
> >The article in question does NOT say "unnamed."
>
> Oh shut up Jim.
This has got to be the most well thought-out response I have heard from Karen
yet. If she keeps up this pattern, she might advance from being utterly
ignored and discounted to the lofty position of being worthy of ridicule.
Keep up the good work!
------------------------------
From: Mark Bratcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 17:28:53 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Alfter) writes:
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>OK, next question: I have a PCL5 printer, and a PCL5 file. How do I get one
> >>to print on the other *under Windows*?
>
> >There are DOS and Win9x versions of Ghostscript; their use is about the same
> >as under Linux/*BSD/etc. Binaries are available, or you might be able to
> >roll your own from source with Cygwin or something similar.
>
> Actually, I was asking about sending PCL5 data to a PCL5 printer.
>
> But as you mentioned it --- If I wanted to print Postscript on a
> PCL5 printer with Ghostscript for Windows, would GS convert the PS into
> GDI, which subsequently gets converted into PCL5 by the Windows printer
> driver? Or is there a way to actually send something directly to the printer
> from within a Windows program, avoiding GDI?
One easy way to do it is to create a batch file with the following line:
copy /b %1 lpt1
And put a shortcut to that file on your desktop. Then you can
drag-n-drop a PCL5 file to it and it will copy the PCL5 directly to the
printer.
--
Mark Bratcher
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=========================================================
Escape from Microsoft's proprietary tentacles: use Linux!
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:39:09 GMT
On Sun, 28 May 2000 22:13:47 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 29 May 2000 00:19:51 GMT
>>On Thu, 25 May 2000 20:31:29 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T
>>Williams wrote:
>>>1. Microsoft office (at least 4.3 and 97) crashes frequently.
>>Unsupported assertion, refuted by everyone who runs these versions
>>regularly without experiencing such.
>Yet unrefuted by those who do experience such. Your lack of evidence is
>meaningless, since a bug need not affect all installations to be a bug.
Refuted by its lack of support. Your lack of evidence makes the claim
meaningless.
>>>2. Microsoft office is full of bugs (at least 4.3 and 97) that's why they
>>>issued (for 97) sr1 and sr2.
>>There were issues, most not related to stability. You'd prefer these
>>to go unaddressed?
>No, why? You'd prefer to redirect the discussion?
Not a redirection. The question at hand is bugs in Office cause
instability, and the existence of the Service Packs offered in support
of that. But since most of the service packs were not fixes for
stability problems, they cannot be used in support of that question.
>>>3. Microsoft office 97 did not originally write Word 6/95 files, it wrote
>>>RTF files which it labeled as DOC files
>>So? MS made a bad decision. Not their first, won't likely be their
>>last.
>>
>>This was not a bug, but a design decision.
>No it was an anti-competitive business practice. Nobody would be
>surprised to find that internal emails very similar to the ones we have
>seen could be found showing discussion of just how to affect a format
>change to inhibit competition. Except you, Roger. You'd deny they can
>be 'proven' to be the reason for the change.
If you cold produce such emails, I would deal with them on their
merits. Please explain how saving a document as an .RTF while naming
it .DOC would tend to reduce competition?
>>>4. After much yelling and screaming Microsoft issued a patch for word 97
>>>which allowed it to write real Word 6/95 "DOC" files. They also issued a
>>>patch for Word 6 which allowed it to read Word 97 files.
>>They issued an import filter for Word 6, shortly after the release of
>>97, and well before the export filter was fixed for 97.
>As would be expected if their goal was to prevent a new installation
>from co-existing with older systems in a way which forced out the older
>systems rather than inhibiting implementation of the new one. An import
>filter for the old software merely allows the infestation to begin.
>Early availability of the export filter would allow the new system to
>remain backwards compatible indefinitely, and wouldn't force an upgrade
>as quickly. Thus we see how Microsoft's addition of new features does
>in fact, derive not from enhancing service to customers, or even
>profitability, necessarily. Encouraging acceptance and use of new
>features (like that awful form stuff) presents documents which fail on
>import, because it isn't a question of format compatibility, but
>structural capabilities.
You might have a point if the export filter did not exist. It did.
It created documents which could be read and edited in he earlier
versions. That the file was in RTF format simply meant that certain
formatting features did not transfer well.
>>>5. In the Dos based environment (Win 9x) there is little or no memory
>>>protection.
>>Wrong.
>In some respects. Right in others. Substantially correct in most all
>discussions, depending on what concepts you might decide on. Note to
>readers: Roger's not going to let you decide on any. Trolls seem to
>prosper by shifting concepts and arguments quite readily. Perhaps they
>get a satisfaction from never being "pinned down", no matter how wrong
>their arguments are considered to be. Maybe they don't even believe
>this shit themselves. I wonder.
Which concepts would you like to establish as the ground rules for a
discussion on Win9x's memory protection?
Note to readers: Max often makes these kinds of unsupported
assertions, but then you knew that.
>>>If you run several things, at one time or another one of them
>>>is going to write into someone else's memory.
>>Wrong. If you would care to reword this as "could attempt to write
>>into someone else's memory" then you would be correct.
>Accepting your obviously amateurish definitions for such technical
>concepts would be silly. In order to accept anyone's definition of such
>an exacting turn of phrase, I would expect them to accept that there are
>alternative definitions, and you would never be able to do that, I
>suspect.
Care to offer one for discussion? I promise not to immediately
dismiss it the way you have done.
But then, I never have and you often do.
>>>This can also happen in the NT 4.0 NTVDM/WOW environment.
>>You misspelled "can also happen to 16 bit apps in the NT..."
>Alas, it can happen with 32 bit apps on NT as well, depending on what
>you're going to classify as an "app".
Document a single instance where a 32bit app running under NT does
*not* run in its own memory space.
>In this regard, you've stumbled
>upon the reason why so many experts are conflicted on whether IE is an
>application. Because it can scribble on Office's memory, I think,
You think. But you are wrong. Again.
Amazing how often that happens to someone whose job it is to know more
about the industry than anyone else, isn't it?
>because the concept of an app having memory in the clear an concise
>fashion you might favor is ludicrous when you've got such an awesome
>amount of code-sharing going on.
Why is it ludicrous?
<Max> Because I Said So! </Max>
>>>That is why you are allowed to start
>>>separate instances of NTVDM/WOW.
>>To work around problems with such apps, yes.
>To work around NT's problems with backwards compatibility to such apps,
>as well.
Problems such as ... ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:29:02 GMT
In article <8gu9dc$533$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> : In article <8gp9f3$20h0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>
> : > *snip stuff about os/2*
> : >
> : > And BTW, why are you posting this to comp.os.linux.advocacy?
> : >
> : > You are most assuredly doing what you always swore you never did:
> : > Trying to start a fight.
> : >
> : > May I be the first to say: Fuck off drestin.
>
> : Sorry, you are not the first to say it. Still, Drestin if fun to
> : torment. He gets so pissed when you ask him to back up his claims.
Of
> : course he never can. Then he tries some personal attack. So
predictable.
>
> Oh please! This is such typical "kettle" behavior. If anyone has an
> inherent disability to post proof of wild claims, it's you, bright
boy.
> --
Stephen, You've been sinking since your pathetic showing in the Titanic
debate. If you have NOTHING to add, please keep you personal attacks to
your self. Unless you would like to back up drestin's claim that w2K is
independent of MS's business practices???
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:47:32 GMT
On Sun, 28 May 2000 23:01:50 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T
Williams wrote:
>"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 25 May 2000 20:31:29 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T
>> Williams wrote:
>> >1. Microsoft office (at least 4.3 and 97) crashes frequently.
>> Unsupported assertion, refuted by everyone who runs these versions
>> regularly without experiencing such.
>Bullshit. They crash.
Not your original assertion, which was that they crash frequently.
>> >2. Microsoft office is full of bugs (at least 4.3 and 97) that's why they
>> >issued (for 97) sr1 and sr2.
>> There were issues, most not related to stability. You'd prefer these
>> to go unaddressed?
>you mean like "Error Msg: "Word Cannot Open the Document"
Which caused a crash?
>or like "Error or Unexpected Quit When You Type Complex Sentence"
>or like "Error: "Cannot Access the File" After File Closed (ODMA)"
Which caused a crash?
>or like "Embedded OLE Objects Are Changed to Pictures After Save As "
Which caused a crash?
>or like "Advanced Power Management Causes Data Loss "
>and many many more. I said bugs, not stability.
But these bugs were offered in support of your contention that Office
crashes frequently.
>> >3. Microsoft office 97 did not originally write Word 6/95 files, it wrote
>> >RTF files which it labeled as DOC files
>> So? MS made a bad decision. Not their first, won't likely be their
>> last.
>>
>> This was not a bug, but a design decision.
>I didn't say this was a bug. If you had bothered to read Arclight's prior
>message, you would have
>seen that he was asserting that Office '97 was always able to write true
>Word 6 documents. I was
>pointing out that it didn't. Nor did Word 6 read Word 97 Docs. Get your
>facts straight.
If this had been meant as a response to Arclight, you probably should
have responded to his message, instead of a thread that held only
myself and Giuliano.
I don't think I can be faulted for not reading your mind and
determining to whom you meant to have responded.
>> >5. In the Dos based environment (Win 9x) there is little or no memory
>> >protection.
>> Wrong.
>> >If you run several things, at one time or another one of them
>> >is going to write into someone else's memory.
>> Wrong. If you would care to reword this as "could attempt to write
>> into someone else's memory" then you would be correct.
>If I had cared to reword it, I would have. In any case, what difference does
>it make. The result is still a GPF.
Because as stated, this * will * happen, and that it * could * is a
more accurate description of events. If it doesn't happen, which is
by far more common, no GPF.
>> >This can also happen in the NT 4.0 NTVDM/WOW environment.
>> You misspelled "can also happen to 16 bit apps in the NT..."
>and what the fuck do you think NTVDM/WOW is? and don't tell me what I
>mispelled or
>didn't misspell
You specified NTVDM, which made the clarification that you were
discussing 16bit significant.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:24:53 GMT
On Sun, 28 May 2000 22:05:23 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T
Williams wrote:
>"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 25 May 2000 20:17:46 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T
>> Williams wrote:
>> >If something is copyrightable by law then yes, but until it declared to be,
>> >then not necessarily.
>> And you question * my * English skills? Case and statutory law
>> maintains that a copyright, once declared, to be valid except in the
>> cases where it can be proved the work had previously been copyrighted,
>> or in the case where the holder does not aggressively defend the
>> copyright.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you thought you were writing.
>I think that I was saying that until either the courts or a legislature say
>something is copyrightable, then it may or may not be. I am NOT refering to
>something which is currently entitled to copyright.
Then you are wrong. The declaration of copyright on a given work has
been held to be sufficient, regardless of whether the specific *type*
of work is explicitly listed in a law book. There are two exceptions
to this : that the work in question is provably prior art, or if the
holder does not aggressively protect the copyright.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
