Linux-Advocacy Digest #261, Volume #28 Sun, 6 Aug 00 09:13:03 EDT
Contents:
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: The Failure of the USS Yorktown (Ed Cogburn)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: MSN Drops Newsgroup Support (Ed Cogburn)
Re: "pure" Linux?? (Ed Cogburn)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Gary Hallock)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: "pure" Linux?? (Doc Shipley)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 07:48:57 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 19:00:02 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>Don't you recognize your own position? I'll be more explicit.
>
>You have stated that a program is derivative of the libraries it calls,
>not withstanding whether the program or the library is created first.
Additionally, notwithstanding which is "program" and which is "library".
>All that's needed to conclude that Netscape is derivative of a given plug-in
>is to accept the premise that plug-ins are (or at least can be) libraries.
And this is the premise I don't buy. It seems that in the matter of PC
software, at least, a plug in is to an application as a program is to a
library.
>You don't accept the final premise, but I don't see any need to push
>you over the last hurdle. It wouldn't be necessary for someone with
>who is familiar with the technical details of plug-ins and libraries
>to accept that there problem with the argument lies elsewhere.
I'm not sure at all what you meant to say, perhaps merely because of a
couple small grammatically errors. Nevertheless, I would insist that
knowledge of technical details is, must be, considered irrelevant;
source code is protected as a literary work of authorship, not a work of
engineering design.
>The conclusion is of course absurd, but that is of course the entire
>point. Your premise is the problem, but because you are ignorant of
>the technical details of the other premise you don't have to accept
>that.
My premise is that there is no real distinction vis-a-vis copyright law
between library and program. As Lee is fond of pointing out, "copyright
law does not protect functionality".
>Finally though you have added another factor to the mix. You now
>insist that the program must derive "a great deal of its value
>from the plug-in." You didn't require this for libraries, but
>strangely you do for plug-ins.
Likewise, a library would have to derive a great deal of its value from
the availability of a program to be considered derivative, I think.
Your inversion of the concept of "basic function/feature implementation"
from the library and the program which calls it, to the plug in and the
program which launches it, is not difficult to understand, but I must
confess it is difficult for me to agree with. If only because it is a
meaningless dichotomy in either form; software is source code, and
library and program and application and plug-in are labels which are
meaningless in copyright terms, in the end.
>>And so the question of derivative works, and the idea that "times arrow"
>>has anything to do with it, is once again re-enforced in your thinking
>>without being questioned.
>>
>I've seen the selective reading trick you do to conclude that the word
>'preexisting' has no meaning. I don't find it a very amusing trick.
>It merely confirms my conclusion that you cannot comprehend what you
>read. I must be an idiot for posting things for you to read.
Selective reading? That's bullshit. If you can't understand that it
doesn't matter to the consumer (or the producer) what order the chapters
were written in, then I'm afraid you're trying to fit something you do
understand (software) into something you don't understand (copyright
law) and you're losing something in the translation.
[...]
>I didn't suggest that you should accept their conclusions. I said that
>you ought to check their sources to see if they do indeed know what
>they are talking about. In this case, Mr. Hollaar made it extremely
>easy for you by giving you a list of court decisions that you could
>check yourself. I can only assume you didn't bother with them.
>I'd be happy to send you any that you can't find yourself.
Mr. Hollaar didn't post any urls. I don't have a law library handy, so
his citations were little more than a referral to authority. I have
access to an extensive amount of information through the magic of web
browsing; it is knowing where to find concise information, not general
statements of principle, which is most helpful. If you could simply
post links and *terse* quotes and commentary, that should be more than
sufficient. I can find far too many on my own to begin with, and have
(believe it or not) only a limited amount of time for digesting an
overwhelming amount of information.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 07:54:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>1. I'm positively certain that they aren't two different rendering
> programs. The difference is merely in how they are launched.
But wouldn't the rendering actually be the work of a library, with the
launched programs merely shells to provide display mechanisms?
>2. It completely destroys your argument "Plug ins are not to
> applications as programs are to libraries." In the case of Acrobat,
> a plug-in and an application are precisely the same thing, and they
> both use shared libraries to accomplish this. This does not make
> Communicator a derivative of Acrobat in any way -- except in your
> fantasy-land.
Your insistence on posturing is getting quite tiresome. If a plug in
and an application are precisely the same thing, and both use shared
libraries, then isn't a plug in an application? Since you are saying
that a plug-in is distinct from an application (and further that it is
distinct in the same way as a library is distinct from a program), this
seems to undermine your position. As does my observation that if any
such distinctions are to be presumed, then the distinction between a
plug-in and an application is more similar to the distinction between a
program and a library, not between a library and a program.
In your fantasy-land, all this has something to do with copyright and
whether something is a derivative work. In the real world, software is
text, and whether it is a magazine or a novel, it is essentially
identical under copyright law.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 08:00:21 -0400
From: Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> "Anthony D. Tribelli" wrote:
> >
> > Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > While the Sherman wasn't a great tank, it was an adequete one,
> > > and it was being produced fast, in high-volume. That was its
> > > big advantage. One of the reasons for the bad narrow, high design
> > > was that it was intended to be made on existing automobile
> > > assembly lines in Detroit. Sure, it sucked compared to the tanks
> > > other countries had. But there were an awful lot of them.
> >
> > We built a lot of them, but we lost a lot of them too. Don't forget the
> > most expensive part of the tank, the crew. Perhaps if it had been a better
> > design we would have needed fewer of them and crew survival rates could
> > have been higher.
>
> Which is why the main emphasis on the M-1 design is crew
> survivability. I think we only lost 3 M-1 crews in the
> gulf war.
Not exactly. We lost 9 M1s permanently (could not be repaired) and
some others to temporary damage, but we didn't lose a *single* M1
crewman. Not one. Like you said, crew survivability is a hallmark of
the M1, a focus that was started by the man the M1 is named after,
beginning with the Patton tank.
Aaron will you *please* trim your sig!?!
====== 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: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 08:03:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Leslie Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>No, it is copying that is covered by copyright law. If another
>author had not seen any previous Star War material and made
>a similar character or plot it could not be an infringement
>(although unless it pre-dated the famous version it would
>be hard to prove that the author had not seen any of it).
>If anything is copied from the original even in a translated
>or transformed way, it would be an infringement.
Your assumption that an onerous of proof would be on the author to
evidence that he *hadn't* seen any 'prior work' indicates the confusion
on this issue, I think. What, precisely, are you "copying in a
transformed way" if you are not copying the original author's text?
>>In truth, there are at least four different publishers producing written
>>Star Wars materials. It isn't this bogus 'copying' issue which confuses
>>you so much which allows this; it is the fact that all have the
>>permission (license) of the owner of the intellectual property embodied
>>by the literal aspects of Star Wars.
>
>Yes, the rights can be bought, sold, or given away.
How off-target and contentious. What's your point?
>>What are your thoughts on "plagiarism" versus "infringement" and the
>>distinction or commonality between them?
>
>They are the same - actual copying of material must occur. None
>of which has anything to do with original code that makes
>function calls to another library that an end user already
>has obtained legally.
I'm afraid that the distinction between plagiarism and infringement has
been discussed at least to some extent in court decisions concerning
copyright; they are not the same thing. It is "original code",
"functional calls" and "obtained legally" which has nothing to do with
the issue of derivative works.
I still haven't heard anyone consider the concept of compilations of
literary works versus PC software. Particularly considering that the
user has generally agreed to licensing terms (which an end user need not
do to comply with copyright law), I would think the concept that a
personal computer's software is always an "original work" of the
administrator/operator, to some extent, would be more prevalent.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 08:06:10 -0400
From: Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MSN Drops Newsgroup Support
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
>
> In article <8lsbk2$mgb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Dealing with those pesky Internet standards the Microsoft way. Hmmm...
> >I wonder if MSN will offer a Linux advocacy message board?
> >
> >http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1555559.html?tag=st.ne.ni.rnbot.rn.
> >ni
>
> They tried to give convenience as the reason, but there is no
> competition for a newsgroup in an xterm with a keystroke-based interface
> for convenience and speed, especially in large traffic situations where
> you have to sift.
>
> With web based things you have to point, click, and then _wait_ for each
> message (sometimes each piece of a message) to download. And when they
> have ads that auto-reload, caching becomes irrelevant.
>
> I find slashdot unreadable for this reason, for example.
Slashdot is bearable if you use Junkbuster to suppress the ads.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 08:39:40 -0400
From: Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: "pure" Linux??
Alan Murrell wrote:
>
> Greetings!
>
> I know there are many "flavours" of Linux out there (Red Hat, Mandrake,
> TurboLinux, etc.), each of which have their own benefits, drawbacks, etc.
> However, I was wondering if it is possible to take the kernel itself,
> without any "flavour" moifications, install it on a system, and then
> install different individual components, as you see fit, and thus have a
> "pure" Linux system installed on your system.
>
> Where would one get all these individual components? What would be
> involved in such an undertaking??
There'd be a hell of a lot of compiling for one thing. But why do
all this in the first place? "Linux" technically refers to the
kernel, and that is something that many distros do modify, you're
right. Its easy however to get Linus's kernel package and compile it,
so there's your "pure" Linux kernel. But beyond the kernel, I don't
even understand how you define `"pure" Linux system'? Most distros
are kernel + GNU + some BSD stuff + XFree86 + KDE/GNOME + distro
package management + miscellanous stuff from a hundred different
sources. I don't think there is such a thing as a "pure" Linux
system. One reason distros are usefull is they've already solved the
various problems of conflict between different programs over certain
files or directories, odd placement of config files, a consistent,
controlled approach to allowing multiple packages to modify an
important system config file, etc. Doing things as you describe would
mean putting up with all those nagging problems that the distro makers
have already solved for you.
It sounds to me like you're really wanting FreeBSD or similar. As I
understand it, it installs source for everything on your system in a
centralized source directory tree, and to rebuild it all, you just
type "make world".
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 08:54:33 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>
> Thank you for yet another tiresome repetition of what I already know.
> Now try to shake the cobwebs out of your skull and *listen*. Nothing
> you have said has in any way *defined* either "bit", though they have
> (yet again) _described_ them in a way I recognize and agree with. Now
> WHAT ARE THEY? Sure I can read the man page available at
> http://www.softlab.ntua.gr/cgi-bin/man-cgi but so can you, and
> supposedly you'd understand more of what might be cogent to my
> confusion.
Hu??? Could you please explain the above paragraph? I just explained the sticky and
suid bits and this was definitely different from your description of the sticky bit.
So obviously it was not what you already knew. What more information do you want?
Do you want to know the syntax of chmod? Ok, here it is. To set the suid bit:
chmod +s file
To set the sticky bit:
chmod +t file
Or are you having difficulty understanding the concept of associating attributes with
files?
>
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 6 Aug 2000 12:57:50 GMT
On 6 Aug 2000 02:49:41 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Indonesia hasn't moved on.
We were talking about America. Your entire post is hence both out of
context and irrelevant to this discussion.
> It still has the factories, the 16-hour shifts,
>the workers living in company-owned dorms, and the pennies-per-hour wages,
>just like what the US had in the 19th century. And it's all run by American
>corporations,
No, it's not "all run by American corporations". Until recently, it was
"run by" the Suhartos, with the support of most of the West ( not just
the US ). While Suharto and his family ranked among the worlds richest,
the rest of the nation lived in poverty.
The relevenace of all this to questions about social mobility within the
US completely escapes me.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Doc Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: "pure" Linux??
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 13:04:16 GMT
Alan Murrell wrote:
> install different individual components, as you see fit, and thus have a
> "pure" Linux system installed on your system.
>
> Where would one get all these individual components? What would be
> involved in such an undertaking??
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org is as close as I've seen to what you're
looking for.
It's a *major* project, though. Depending on what distribution you're
starting from, neither LFS or DIYLinux are going to work exactly
according to the HOWTO. It is a great learning process, and that's what
I got into it for.
--
Doc Shipley
Network Stuff
Austin, Earth
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 6 Aug 2000 13:07:36 GMT
On 6 Aug 2000 02:28:42 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>>>There have to be underlings somewhere, because if there aren't, then
>>>we live in anarchy ( == the absence of hierarchy ) right now.
>>
>>Underlings is insufficient. Loren said "underlings who grovel in fear before
>>him". Not just one such underling, but "tends of thousands" of them.
>
>Grovelling in fear is implied in the definition of underling. If they didn't
>have anything to be afraid of, they would be equals, not underlings.
No fair -- you're changing your definition of "underling".
Since you say that "grovelling in fear" is implied by the definition of
underling, I'm going to attack the premise that underlings exist in the first
place -- see above. The claim was that the existence of heirarchy implies
that of underlings which implies grovelling in fear.
Now at my work place ( a University ), there is definitely a heirarchy, and
as a grad student, I'm somewhere in the middle. But my undergrad students
do not "grovel in fear" of me ( I certainly hope not anyway ) and I certainly
don't "grovel in fear" of my academic supervisor.
So if your definition of "underlings" requires that they "grovel in fear",
then I dispute that heirarchy implies their existence.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
