Linux-Advocacy Digest #564, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 11:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Joe Ragosta)
Re: I am trying to do an unbiased comparison of operating systems (DeAnn Iwan)
Getting distributions, apps and tools on CD ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Where did all my windows go? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I am trying to do an unbiased comparison of operating systems (Paul Wilson)
Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right? ("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
Re: Distribution reviews (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Illya Vaes)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:30:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
() wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:21:01 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "John W. Stevens"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Joe Ragosta wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In article <8il6cp$gg7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Says who? You? Don't go making claims like this without having
> >> > > proof,
> >> > > or at least a credible source to quote. Otherwise it's just hot
> >> > > air.
> >> > >
> >>
> >> Translation: he believes what they say,
> >
> >Not to mention lots of independent magazines.
>
> Hmm.. "Lots of independant magazines", eh? Why don't you
> mention a few?
I did.
The Windiots complained that my references weren't handy, so I reposted
them (see my .sig).
Of course, then they complained when I _did_ post them. Sore losers, I
guess.
>
> >> I did, but of course, you failed to accept it . . . say, that's pretty
> >> much the exact same thing people do to you, isn't it?
> >>
> >> Such incredible nonsense. . . obviously, the Windows OS is superior to
> >> the MacOS. Anybody who understands even basic evolutionary theory
> >> knows
> >> that. And anybody who knows even basic evolutionary theory would know
> >> that Linux is going to continue to grow, but that it is unlikely to
> >> ever
> >> displace Windows on the desktop.
> >
> >
> >Windows is superior to Mac OS? Really? In what way?
>
> Even Windows 95 has pre-emptive multitasking. Mac OS before
> Mac OS X (in other words, the version of Mac OS that Mac
> users are using today) does not. In all other respects, it's
> just as crappy as Windows and actually crappier than Windows
> if it's on an iMac, where the OS has to be working for you to
> be able to use the power switch or the Macintosh Three finger
> Salute (on non-iMac systems, the Three Finger Salute, Control+
> Command+Reset, still works even when the OS crashes, and if it
> didn't, the power switch still works, while on iMac hardware,
> the only way to recover a crashed OS is to pull the plug or
> switch off the power strip if the owner of the iMac has one
> installed).
>
I see. So your inane ramblings are supposed to prove something?
I've already admitted that Windows is better in buzzword compliance. But
as soon as you have a _real_ argument (with evidence to support it),
feel free to post it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DeAnn Iwan)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: I am trying to do an unbiased comparison of operating systems
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:47:48 GMT
On 10 Jul 2000 05:11:26 GMT, Jeff Silverman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And now that you are all finished laughing at me....
>
>I am running about 120 computers in an electrical engineering department at a major
>university.
>Some of the professors want Windows/2000 and others want Linux and still others want
>SunOS. I am
>trying to compare the operating systems I currently use and see if I can develop
>selection
>criteria. ....
Why not just let the professors make their own choice? Or
set all the machines up in a three way multiboot and let each user
make bigger partitions for her prefered OS. Yes, it takes more effort
to support three OS than one....but the flexibility would be worth it
to your users.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Getting distributions, apps and tools on CD
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:54:05 GMT
Hi
If you want to try out different distributions, apps and tools and
don't have the bandwidth to download then this site is nice:
www.burnadisc.com
I was told about it by a friend last week and got the CDs two days
later.
WinLinux2000 is nice to show of linux to the windows people.
A happy Penquin on a 56k line
Michael
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:15:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 01:15:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> Your caps key is broken, which is probably why your post was
completely
> incoherent. It almost looked as if you were trying to claim that I'm
out
> to force KDE on everyone, but I'm sure you wouldn't say something that
> dumb, so I guess your keyboard is just hosed.
This coming from a guy that piped in supporting peter, shees,
>
> --
> Donovan
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Paul Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I am trying to do an unbiased comparison of operating systems
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 08:31:19 -0500
Mike Diack wrote:
>
> Jeff,
> Even though I am a huge Linux fan (and am longing to see Linux succeed over
> Windows), I must point out one minor point, in the name of fair advocacy:
>
> Windows 2000 DOES support FAT 32.
So does Linux (except it's usually called vfat).
Paul
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:51:15 +0400
Doug Begley wrote:
>
] long snip [
This story might encourage you to try
something else ...
http://www.linuxorbit.com/dcforum/DCForumID29/3.html#
> is there. The trick is finding it.
>
> Just my 7.5 cents
> DougB
Ferdinand
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Distribution reviews
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 08:51:30 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bob Hauck wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 09:50:27 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I have used Lynx quite a bit actually. It's too bad so many sites are
> >> >going out of thier way to make things totally unreadable in Lynx (you
> >> >almost have to do that on purpose as Lynx reads standard HTML very
> >> >well).
> >>
> >> Except for tables. I doesn't handle them real well. w3m does much
> >> better.
> >>
> >> --
> >> -| Bob Hauck
> >> -| Codem Systems, Inc.
> >> -| http://www.codem.com/
> >
> > True enough. I have used w3m, but started just using Netscape or
> > Mozilla for anything that requires tables support.
>
> Another alternative is links. (yes, I know it is confusing in conversation)
> Version 0.84 is in Mandrake 7.1, latest is 0.92, which has rather good table,
> frame and colour support. Parses & renders faster than w3m, and you don't have
> to wait 'til the whole file is downloaded before it starts. Doesn't do SSL or
> cookies very well yet, though.
>
> http://links.browser.org.
>
> --
> ____________________________________________________________________
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | It is not 'who' you are
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | But who you are becoming.
> | -- Goethe
Interesting, I may have to check that one out in my "spare time"
(currently about 25 minutes a day, which is usually used up by my wife,
not that that bothers me too much).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Illya Vaes <[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 16:05:04 +0200
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>SMTP is the transport protocol that handles delivery to
>>the destination host where it is stored for access by the user.
>"the"? You mean its the one Unix uses, right?
This guy is beyond help...
>Unix *has* been able to do a certain amount of htis, because
>it has dominated the Internet and it *refuses* to interoperate
>with anything.
*Waaaayyyyy* beyond help...
I must say, Leslie, I admire you how long and how respectfully you've tried to
discuss with this guy, but you must agree there's no use to this.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink...
--
Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but myself
------------------------------
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 10:08:20 -0400
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 8 Jul 2000
>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 6 Jul 2000
>>>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>> You cannot restrict others anymore than you have been restricted.
>>>> In GPL terms, this actually means 'you cannot restrict others
>>>> *differently* than you have been restricted'; [...]
>>> All that proves is that the GPL is the least restrictive license
>>> possible, since any difference in restrictions would constitute more of
>>> a restriction.
>> This is not the case. The least restrictive licence is the BSDL. The
>> MPL and the LGPL are significantly more restrictive, but the GPL is one
>> of the most restrictive of the open source movement.
> By "possible" I meant "possible without failing to prevent distribution
> of open source software as closed source software".
That may have been what you *meant*, but it is not what you *said*. If
that's the intended meaning, you should look to both the LGPL and the
MPL as being far less restrictive than the GPL. Neither of these permit
the portion of software that is open source to be closed source in
distribution; software that *uses* them can be.
>> Other licences may fit along the scale differently, but I don't know of
>> anything less restrictive than the BSDL without hopping of licensing
>> altogether (e.g., public domain). There are more restrictive licences
>> than the GPL, but they may not also properly match the open source
>> licence definition.
> I didn't say GPL was least restrictive, actually; I just said that is
> how the response that was posted parsed out. But I still submit that
> the GPL is the least restrictive open source license.
> You can quantify and qualify "restrictions" how you like; AFAIK (and
> I'm not necessarily studied on this, but I've read about it, and I'm
> pretty bright) these other licenses have more restrictions on what
> whoever recieves the code can do with it.
They do not. They often have *different* restrictions, but not necessarily
more restrictions.
> Like "you can't produce derivative works" and such. I can't see how
> anyone could call Mozilla less restrictive than GPL.
It *is* less restrictive and differently restrictive. You are permitted to
produce derivative works -- and those derivatives do not need to be wholly
open source. That's less of a restriction. You do have to provide credit
for the original source, which is a different restriction.
I'm not sure where you get the concept of 'you can't produce derivative
works' -- because none of the licences that I've mentioned suggest
anything of the like.
> Could someone maybe give me a moderate's run-down of this issue? I'm
> getting sick of the trolling on this topic, and would seriously love
> to get down to some actual discussion.
Maybe it would help if you started listening to what I'm saying, then
-- because I *am* a moderate, except when it comes to deceptive
terminology. I also happen to have been one of a few dozen people that
actively participated in criticism on the NPL/MPL when it was being
created.
-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
------------------------------
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 10:24:24 -0400
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 8 Jul 2000
>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 6 Jul 2000
>>> [...]
>>>> This is not true; if you so much as *link* GPLed code into yours (e.g.,
>>>> you're calling *functions* in the linked code, but not using the code
>>>> itself), distribution of the combined work must be under the GPL, which
>>>> means that your unique code must either be GPLed or under a licence
>>>> that offers no *different* restrictions (e.g., a credit clause).
>>> I'm not a programmer, so I'd like some clarification on this issue. If
>>> you wrote a program which uses a function from a library which is GPL,
>>> you only need to make your program GPL if you actually distribute the
>>> library with it. Is this not correct?
>> This is ... an area which isn't entirely clear in the law, although the
>> FSF has made threatening noises if the GPLed library is the only
>> library to which you can link the software.
>> If one and only one library can possibly make your code actually
>> *work*, then your work is a derivative work of the library.
> That's... strange. I guess you have to know more about libraries to
> have an opinion, because I'm not really sure what I make of it.
I'll make a quick technical aside, then. This is not intended to be
insulting, but to clarify what is meant by libraries -- and the opinion
on what a derivative work is, as expressed by RMS.
A library is simply a set of code that is called by other code and
usually has a formalised interface. Linking with libraries can be
static (at compile time, where the library is actually included in the
resulting binary), or dynamic (at run time, where the library must
exist on the system so that the binary may run it).
RMS has stated in the past that linking makes a derivative of the
library, regardless of whether it is static or dynamic binding.
> But it sounds like we can assume that there would always generally be
> several libraries that you could use, then theoretically your code
> *should* work with any of them, right? So I can see some reason to
> think of this as a valid test. But I honestly don't know how these
> things get down to brass tacks. Can't you just decompile the code, and
> look at the source to determine if it is derivative?
The assumption isn't necessarily correct. If one were to use RogueWave
tools.h++ libraries, then the code would likely be littered with RWDate
and RWCollection classes. If there is a different library that provies
substantially the same functionality as tools.h++, then you could
create compile options to switch between tools.h++ and tools.h--
(fex.). It could even be done dynamically, but you'd still need to wrap
the classes into your own and then compile them properly.
There's an example that others have raised about a math library that
was GPLed, and someone had written a program to use it, but the program
was under a non-GPL-compatible licence. The FSF raised a stink about
it, so a non-GPLed math library was written to make the interface
generic.
>>> Granted, the "added burden" of
>>> requiring your customer to acquire the library themselves if it is not
>>> already available on their system might be something to whine about, but
>>> this doesn't mean you can't write non-GPL software that uses GPL library
>>> function calls, does it?
>> Again, strictly speaking ... RMS has said that GPLed libraries (and not
>> LGPLed libraries) are unusuable by proprietary or otherwise
>> incompatible software. In particular, one cannot use a GPLed GIMP
>> plugin in PhotoShop or a non-GPLed PhotoShop plugin in GIMP.
> Sounds like RMS is pretty militant about this "aiding and abetting the
> enemy" thing, huh? ;-)
He's a zealot -- and it's painful to see the damage he is now causing to
the open source movement.
>>>>> When you start inserting your own code in the midst of the GPL code,
>>>>> then there is no good practical way to keep the credit for the two
>>>>> parts separate.
>>>> When you insert your own code in the midst of GPLed code, you are typically
>>>> contributing back to the GPLed codebase.
>>> Which is to say, it seems, that the statement is correct, and when
>>> inserting your own code in the midst of the GPL code, there is no
>>> practical way to keep the credit for the two separate. So if keeping
>>> credit is important to you, it wouldn't make sense to use GPL code as
>>> the basis for your development. That sounds to me like a good thing,
>>> though I know it terrifies some without as much faith in capitalism and
>>> free markets to find legitimate ways of making money when profiteering
>>> is uncovered and prevented.
>> The problem is that Steve was conflating two issues -- the commingling
>> of code in a single file and the link of two separate codebases.
>>
>> The commingling of code is easily handled (see the MPL for a good
>> example of this), and the separate codebase situation is also easily
>> handled (again, see the MPL).
> And the conflation of the two? (Sorry, I'm baiting.)
> The only arguments I seem to hear against the GPL seem to be based on
> supposedly hypothetical developers wanting to benefit from open source
> code without contributing to open source code. I can't see how
> "handling" how to do that makes any sense for the developer of an open
> source product, so why would an open source developer want to use any
> other open source license?
Then you're not hearing correctly; there are several projects that use
non-GPL licences that are also GPL-incompatible which could be enhanced
by the use of GPLed code.
Frankly, not everyone agrees with the political *goals* of the GPL. I
have some software that I've written that simply will never be released
under the GPL, but will likely be released under the MPL or the LGPL.
> Maybe I'm just too similar to RMS in mind-set, or maybe its because,
> unlike RMS, I'm not a programmer, but I don't see why anyone would
> disagree with either the implementation or the intent of GPL.
Because some of us don't have a hard-on against proprietary
development, and see cooperative efforts with proprietary developers as
a good thing. (And, in my case, the software that I've written that
will at some point be released with an appropriate licence was
originally written on a company dime, but they've let me keep the
copyright on it. They still want it to be commercially friendly.)
>>>> [Aside: I'm not picking on Steve here, but have I mentioned that people can
>>>> be confused by the claims about the GPL? I thought so.]
>>> Maybe you gotta be a programmer to see it, but it seems perfectly clear
>>> to me, and to everyone else I've explained it to.
>> It'd be interesting to see how you've explained it -- because it isn't
>> very clear. The religious claims have hidden the fact that it is very
>> restrictive.
> "Here's the software, free of charge, including the source code. You
> can do anything you want with it, but if you want to re-distribute it
> (or derivative works), you have to provide it free of charge, with the
> source code, and have to use the same licensing, which means you can't
> prevent anyone from doing anything with it, except distribute it for
> profit or without source code."
It's inaccurate. The software is not necessarily free of charge, nor is
a person restricted from charging for redistribution (else RedHat would
be in violation of the GPL).
>> The restrictions may be a good thing (in certain circumstances I think
>> they are; I think they are clearer and better in the LGPL and the MPL,
>> but that's my opinion), but the one thing they are not is something
>> that makes the software 'free.'
> They are the one thing that makes it "free", but let's not start that
> again.
Except that you've got to use a very tortured redefinition of 'free' for
the GPL to mean anything like it.
-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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:16:14 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> This "the GPL is free" "it is not" debate is ludicrous, Noone has a
>>> freedometer.
>> I'd venture to say that the insistence with which the "gang of
>> three" argue that the GPL is not free is not warranted by the
>> facts or the attitude of those who think the GPL is not a bad
>> idea.
>
> Stefaan, stick it in your ear. I have *not once* said that the GPL is a
> bad idea; I don't think it's one of the *better* ideas for
> source-available software out there, but it's not a *bad* idea.
And if you read my sentence, I did not say that. You argue that
it cannot honestly be called "free".
> Given that, it's still not a 'free' licence (a contradiction in terms,
> really), despite the religious protestations otherwise.
If anything is religious, it's people arguing that their
interpretation of "free" is the only one. After all,
proselitising religion is about choosing a set of values,
and then behaving like everyone else is ignorant, malicious
or deluded when they don't see it your way.
The GPL grants a number of rights (or "freedoms"), over
and above the rights granted by the current copyright
law. Hence it is not unreasonable, nor dishonest, to call
it free, as everyone understands that "free" never means
"utterly without restrictions". That these "freedoms" might
not be enough to some is wholly their privilege, and they
are _free_ to use the GPL, or use GPLed software, or not use
either.
Now go away, and continue your quixotic crusade in
alt.usenet.kooks or suchlike (you'll notice that this
gives you the benefit of the doubt: you really might
believe that it's important to get the FSF to change
its name, after all).
> -f, yes, RMS *does* walk on water, doesn't he?
--
Stefaan
--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:19:17 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> This is one interpretation that apparently the FSF's lawyer holds; I'd
> personally really like to see a court put this to rest and say that if all
> you're using of the other code is its API, it's not a derivative work, and
> the process of combining an executable with a dynamic library on the
> system is not the formation of a derivative work but rather the execution
> of two independent sets of instructions, one of which calls the other.
>
> This is the only interpretation that I personally think makes any logical
> sense in the presence of technologies like CORBA, multitasking systems,
> and the like. It seems to me that when the joining of separate code bases
> is through a well-defined interface such as some IPC mechanism or the
> calling convention for dynamic libraries, it makes them two separate works
> which are cooperating.
>
> After listening to a lot of the arguments about this, I don't see any real
> sense to the idea that, say, optionally using GNU readline to handle
> terminal input makes GhostScript as a whole a derivative work of GNU
> readline. I realize that this interpretation has benefitted FSF-free
> software in a few specific cases (such as ncftp), but it still doesn't
> seem logically justifiable to me.
Well said.
--
Stefaan
--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
------------------------------
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 10:30:17 -0400
On 9 Jul 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In gnu.misc.discuss, T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 8 Jul 2000
>>> This is ... an area which isn't entirely clear in the law, although the
>>> FSF has made threatening noises if the GPLed library is the only
>>> library to which you can link the software.
>>> If one and only one library can possibly make your code actually
>>> *work*, then your work is a derivative work of the library.
> This is one interpretation that apparently the FSF's lawyer holds; I'd
> personally really like to see a court put this to rest and say that if all
> you're using of the other code is its API, it's not a derivative work, and
> the process of combining an executable with a dynamic library on the
> system is not the formation of a derivative work but rather the execution
> of two independent sets of instructions, one of which calls the other.
I happen to agree with you on this, but it significantly weakens the
FSF's position and the GPL's purported strength. What, then, becomes
the difference between static linking and dynamic linking?
Could I not then create a library (say, libEmacs.a or libEmacs.so), put
a front-end around it [the source for which I don't release], and then
use that?
I understand WHY the FSF does this, but disagree with it. (And, if the
interpretation is such, the GPL really becomes not much more than the
LGPL.)
> This is the only interpretation that I personally think makes any logical
> sense in the presence of technologies like CORBA, multitasking systems,
> and the like. It seems to me that when the joining of separate code bases
> is through a well-defined interface such as some IPC mechanism or the
> calling convention for dynamic libraries, it makes them two separate works
> which are cooperating.
I agree; this is one reason I oppose the GPLing of any Java programs,
because *everything* is dynamically linkable.
>> "Here's the software, free of charge, including the source code. You
>> can do anything you want with it, but if you want to re-distribute it
>> (or derivative works), you have to provide it free of charge, with the
>> source code, and have to use the same licensing, which means you can't
>> prevent anyone from doing anything with it, except distribute it for
>> profit or without source code."
> The GPL doesn't require you to provide your derivative works free of
> charge. It just requires you to provide source whenever you provide
> binaries, and prohibits you from preventing further distribution of the
> source once it leaves your hands. The difference is important; if the GPL
> prohibited selling GPL'd code, Red Hat couldn't sell their Linux
> distribution.
Thank you.
-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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
