Linux-Advocacy Digest #556, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 01:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Perry Pip)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 23:57:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
[...]
>The issue of product and services bundling was resolved
>OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO. It's an open and shut case.
>Microsoft's legal department must have their heads up their asses.
>
>DOJ's case is based on MOUNDS of precedence.
You should check the last few days' posts on alt.destroy.microsoft,
where David Petticord and I have been discussing this exact issue in a
great amount of detail.
The problem is that the MOUNDS of precedence, which are all true and
valid, even when applied to software, aren't *proven* to be true when
applied to software. One of the fundamental tests for whether MS's
actions have been illegal for thirty years (or a hundred) or whether
they are legal, is not applicable to software. So at the very least one
new precedence has to be set, which is, "how does software work when you
apply the 'technical capabilities' test?"
I'll summarize very briefly:
All software bundling/integration can be said to provide value to the
consumer.
One of the applicable tests for illegal tying is whether the
bundling/integration provides value to the consumer.
On the face of it, this means that your precedent is worthless, because
that test is the precedent. So either you say the test is not valid at
all (which you can do, because of precedent; it is known to be valid
unless you can prove otherwise), or you say that the test can't be
applied to software, or you say that software bundling/integration can't
be considered illegal tying regardless of the circumstances (or you
define such circumstances, but that is the least likely precedent to be
set).
Because of the long history of anti-trust law and the importance of
this, and other similar, tests in its enforcement, the Supreme Court
will probably have to make a decision concerning this issue, as Judge
Jackson has no ability to overthrow precedent without justification (and
finding MS guilty is, obviously enough, not considered justification.)
Note, however, that this is only one part of the case. The other, which
established that Microsoft monopolized independently of the tying
charge, is still considered valid by everyone but Microsoft and its most
ardent fans, and doesn't seem to be in danger of being over-ruled.
So yes, its an open and shut case, but, yes, the Supreme Court will have
to at least take a look at it before it can be considered "over".
Obviously not a defense of the Microsoft troll who posted that this case
concerns whether you can or "can't have a Internet browsing in a
sufficiently popular desktop OS?" But hopefully it was educational and
interesting to those with more than one tenth of a brain.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:09:53 -0400
On 9 Jul 2000, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Problem #2 is that people claim that the GPL is free; it isn't. It
>> doesn't 'free' software any more than any other licence does, or any
>> less. Because the software remains licenced, it isn't free. (Which
>> doesn't necessarily invalidate the utility and the purpose of the GPL
>> -- I'm only after removing the religious language.)
> This applies equally well to any other "free" license except for
> public domain. So now you are tilting at windmills. You have taken
> upon yourself the task of educating everyone who talks about free
> software and telling them that they're using an incorrect term,
> because the only free software is public domain. You will have even
> less success than you have had saying that just the GPL is not free.
Only the GPL claims to be 'free software', Mr Rosen.
Most others use the better, but still inadequate, term 'open source.'
It would help if you actually *read* what I write, because it's not what
you think it is.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:10:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Daniel Johnson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
>"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8jqd4e$1rtl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <Jr185.4270$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snip]
>> >Predictions have to predict things that *haven't already
>> >happened*; predictions after the fact aren't really
>> >predictions.
>>
>> I've always predicted problems with MS software, even before
>> the first windows releases.
>
>It's not sufficient for *you* to predict it; your theory must do so;
>your theory was that MS's mixing of authentication and
>authorization leads to such problems. Did you have this
>theory before Windows every came out?
>
>Did you publish it anywhere?
Forgive me for bursting in, but I just can't take it anymore.
For a theory to be correct, it has to predict a result before the result
is known, not before the result occurs. Your suggestion that when his
prediction was published is almost comical in this regard.
It might have been prompted by common confusion over the difference
between a logical theory and empirical theory. If we were trying to
empirically identify causes of failures concerning authentication or
authorization, we would need to make our predictions and then perform
experiments; we cannot make the predictions after the experiments have
already happened.
But we're dealing with real world issues, not scientific investigation.
Whether the "experiment" (events) happened before or after the theory
was stated, the theory can still be considered at least tentatively
valid if it can *explain* the results. To be able to *expect* the
results (what you're thinking of when you say "predicted", either of
you) by claiming what they would be before you know how the event
resulted, is a strong support of the theory. For a logical theory, it
is essentially the equivalent of a successful experiment for an
empirical theory. And one experiment cannot "prove" an empirical theory
or one event prove a logical theory, but neither can one experiment's or
expectation's failure be considered to disprove a theory.
"If there is an exception, then the rule can't be true" is a troll
tactic, not a valid statement, because you cannot be sure of why the one
exception exists, and it may have nothing to do with the rule.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:12:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Daniel Johnson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> On 3 Jul 2000 11:50:27 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
[...]
>> >Novell says it is impossible with the win2k scheme. If they can't
>> >do it I doubt if I could either.
>>
>> What Daniel means by this, I think, is that you can invent your own
[...]
>Bingo!
>
>> IOW, he doesn't think they need to document wire protocols because they
>> allow you to invent your own protocol instead of using theirs.
>
>My God, someone was listening!
>
>> The
>> various shenanigans they use to make this frustrating to do in practice
>> are just "legitimate capitalism" if they really even exist at all,
>
>Well, nobody has actually *mentioned* any such "shenanigans" until
>just now.
>
>What "shenanigans" have you in mind, then, Bob?
[...]
>To alleviate your problem, what you must do is somehow prevent
>anyone else from using MS products.
>
>This seems a little harsh.
You're a troll, Daniel. Did anybody ever tell you that?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 04:02:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 05 Jul 2000 12:38:02 -0400, Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Why should someone have the right to demand that others
>>give away their services?
>
>Why, indeed?
>Now, apply that question to the GPV. Why should the author of a GPV-licensed
>program - who has already made the choice to give away his services - have
>the right to demand that I do so, too?
He has as much right to do this, as he has to demand that you derive
your software from his.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 04:13:21 GMT
On 9 Jul 2000 21:50:04 GMT,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The real problem is that
>there's no single desktop that everyone agrees is usable.
Exactly, no single desktop, anywhere, that is usable by
everyone. That's a why decent OS needs to offer a choice if desktops in
order to truely be usable to a large number of people. When people are
forced to use an OS with only one desktop, and that desktop doesn't
work for them, they learn very little and remain forever afraid of
their computers. Such is the state of many desktop users today.
Perry
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:23:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Daniel Johnson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
>"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8jqi6k$26o0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <Yr185.4272$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snip]
[unsnipped]
>>>> Please name one vendor of dial-up terminal servers that
>>>> was not forced to re-write their firmware or go
>>>> out of business.
>
>> >If you want to say that the vendors of dial-up terminal servers
>> >were 'forced' to re-write their firmware or go out of
>> >business, you should provide some evidence for it.
>>
>> If you want to claim that dropping an incompatible dialer
>> on every desktop didn't break the standards-conforming
>> existing hardware, you should provide the evidence, except
>> there obviously isn't any.
>
>If you want to play the "shifting the burden of proof" game,
>you really ought to do it more subtlely.
>
>You are being *so* blatant about it that the only people who
>will be convinced are the sort of people who would
>had already agreed in advance, for other reasons entirely.
Just for the record, 'cuz this needs to be done more often:
You are the one who played "shift the burden of proof", but admittedly
you did it more subtly, and combined it with protestations of ignorance
AND the standard insinuations and misdirection, though neither was to a
particularly notable degree. Which is a shame, because if you'd have
pressed it on either count, you would have had a "Troll Cycle" right
there.
Your last paragraph (at least as far as I was concerned) was enough to
make amends, though. You've set up that trap so perfectly it is almost
a wonder in itself. I'm sure I'm not giving it away for Les, as he
seems capable on either side himself, but in an alt. group that would
have snared just about anyone. Even at this point, I'm not sure how Les
can meet your challenge, and he may just pass on this one, which would
be point for you, but disappointing to me, as I want to see what Les
says when we reach the denouement of this bit, and find out how he could
possibly play off of "the only people who would be convinced are the
sort of people who would [have] already agreed in advance, for other
reasons." Christ, that's beautiful. I'd have to admit that I would go
for the "pass" on this, and deal with one of your less impressive
exhibits of intellectual dishonesty.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 20:12:46 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Look at what they have already done. Remember DRI? Remeber the other
antitrust actions against them in the past that were ended by out of court
settlements. Settlements that they promptly foud way to circumvent or just
plain ignore.
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Ture, but Microsoft cannot do so with impunity. Even aside from antitrust
> action, such breaking of compatibility could irritate Microsoft's
customers.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 20:19:31 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I'm not against porting such apps, I just haven't heard of any such apps
> being ported.
Many of those apps have been ported many times in the past already.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 21:00:27 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Are DOS and Windows closer to each other than Linux and Windows?
> Besides, the ISV's had to see that Windows would be dominant.
Some of those apps were ported to Gem and other Windowing systems that ran
on Dos before they were ever ported to windows as well as OS/2, the Amiga,
the Commodores, etc. None of those envionments were dominant at the time.
Dos was a poor copy of CP/M-86 during the days of Dos 1.x. Starting with
version 2.x Dos started to aquire features from unix. To the point that
programming in C under Dos one could treat Dos as a single user single
tasking version of unix. So long as the system dependent parts of a program
were isolated properly by the original development staff porting, as any
programmers worth their salt would do, porting a Dos application to unix is
a trivial process.
The most difficult programs to port from Dos/WIndows or any other
OS/environment to any unix, or even sometimes from one unix to another, are
games. Seeing that games are being ported from Windows to Linux, is proof
that just about ANY program from Windows can be ported to native Linux app.
The only thing that is preventing just about every application for the
Dos/Windows platform being ported to Linux is the will to do it.
> > The history of the industry argues against your position.
> >
>
> Could you be more specific?
As I have said elsewhere, the history of computer industry has seen many of
these apps ported and reported many times.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:26:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Daniel Johnson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
[...]
>[snip]
>> >This isn't true of computers. Most of their value is
>> >rather more self contained. Don't get fixated on the
>> >Web.
>>
>> No, that value was provided by typewriters, where you only
>> get back what you put it. Computers gain their added value
>> by being able to store data and exchange it.
>
>Computers, well, compute, and were very popular before
>the web came along. "Exchanging" data you can do with
>the post office; Computers can do much more.
>
>Don't get fixated on the web. Comptuers are used for
>much, much more.
This in the middle of a discussion of network protocols? This attempt
at mis-direction is a 1.3, at best; it may be buried deep, but its
hardly subtle.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:35:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting John Dyson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 08 Jul 2000
>> >GPL aint needed. GPL can be helpful for the purpose though.
>> >
>> >John
>>
>> Wrong. The BSD-type license made it easier for Mircosoft to rip-off the
>> Kerberos source code. GPL'ld code would have made Microthief's efforts much
>> more difficult as well as being more expensive.
>>
>Again, Microsoft used a compatible reimplementation based upon spec.
>The GPL would not have hurt Microsoft any any significant way.
It might have been compatible, but it wasn't interoperable. The GPL
might have hurt Microsoft indirectly because it might have encouraged
more open source development of Kerberos. This might have a) deterred
MS from trying their little scam and disallowing this particular assault
on competition, and b) allowing more development and implementation of
Kerberos before MS got to it, preventing MS from attempting the attack.
But I'm sure you're not willing to even entertain such notions in
rational discussion so that I could figure out if its true, and suspect
you wouldn't be capable of it regardless.
>If Microsoft had such low volume such that the cost of implementation was large, then
>it
>(GPL) would have significantly hurt them.
There is no incremental cost in software development to speak of, so the
volume is meaningless as a component of cost of implementation, except
when software companies are allowed to cook their books.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:41:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 8 Jul 2000
13:54:59 -0400
>On 8 Jul 2000, Chris Lee wrote:
>> Wrong. The BSD-type license made it easier for Mircosoft to rip-off the
>> Kerberos source code. GPL'ld code would have made Microthief's efforts much
>> more difficult as well as being more expensive.
>
>Do you have any proof that Microsoft actually used the open source code
>in implementing Kerberos? My understanding is that they did not, but
>that they used the specification.
You don't need proof that they "used [...] source code in
implement[ation]" if the code is open and they used the specification,
because it is a reasonable (bumbumbumBUUHHM - I never use this word like
this hardly) assumption.
So your suggestion that this isn't the case is an unreasonable
assumption, and therefore requires some proof before anyone is required
to take it seriously. And considering the circumstances, its worth
reminding you that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
>Sorry, but it really would help if GPL advocates didn't make fools of
>themselves this way.
And, what do you know! If the Kerberos source code were GPL, then MS
couldn't have kept the source for their implementation secret, and we
would know the answer to your question of whether they used Kerberos
open source code or not.
So it appears that, yes, the GPL would have stopped your trolling, if
not Microsoft's shenanigans with Kerberos. To be honest, that's reason
enough for me to think that Kerberos should have been GPL'd.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 04:41:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Care to prove it? (Hint: you can't.) From www.m-w.com, I find that:
Thanks for the reference...
> * 1free7[a-b] don't apply.
7a1 and 7b seem to apply fairly well. 10 usually applies.
> * 1free10 often applies, but is the 'free beer' sense.
Sounds like you agree with me on 10. If 10 often applies, then why is
it a lie to call GPLed software, free software, when you even agree it
often is.
> * 1free12[a-b] doesn't apply.
I think 12 b also applies nicely.
> * 1free14 *might* apply, except that it refers to animates and not
> inanimates.
free is perfectly good slag use of 14. Also, I question your
assertion. Look up slavery, 2 fits just fine, and it isn't limited to
persons. Please prove that slavery can only be applied to persons.
> * 1free15 definitely *does not* apply to GPLed code.
There are no limitations on who can use GPLed software. 15 certainly
does apply. Some people may choose that GPLed isn't right for them,
but they do so of their own choice. Also, most people `use' without
modification. For these people, GPLed software is in fact open to a
fairly wide audience.
Thanks for playing.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:46:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Russ Allbery from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 08 Jul 2000 14:28:56
>In gnu.misc.discuss, Chris Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Wrong. The BSD-type license made it easier for Mircosoft to rip-off the
>> Kerberos source code. GPL'ld code would have made Microthief's efforts
>> much more difficult as well as being more expensive.
>
>The actual facts of the situation do not seem to support this unless you
>have some additional inside information that I've not heard even from the
>Kerberos developers.
>
>Again, MS reimplemented Kerberos from an open standard. It would not
>surprise me if their lawyers were unwilling to allow use of *any* external
>source code regardless of the license, but in any case they do not appear
>to have made use of the existing source base in any significant fashion.
>The license that source base is covered by is therefore irrelevant to what
>they did.
What does "they do not appear to have made use of the existing source
base" mean? The GPL doesn't make a distinction between "significant"
use or not, so I think the license may very well have made a profound
difference. Particularly since the GPL requires redistribution of
derivative works as open source, so we would be able to see precisely if
they had used the existing base. Or you'd be able to see it, maybe, if
you were looking. I'm not a programmer, so I couldn't tell.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
