Linux-Advocacy Digest #602, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 18:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Programs for Linux (robert w hall)
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet! ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:26:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Pat McCann in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>> Yes, it could, but I didn't see it in the reference you made to
>> "compulsory licensing", but with that further context, I'd like you to
>> represent your reference, if you don't mind. Sorry if I'm showing any
>> pigheadedness; I appreciate your candor.
>
>I don't know what "represent your reference" means. Is that a scholarly
>term? I am an engineer, not a scholar.
I meant "re-present", sorry.
[...]
>I didn't give my reference to address dynamic linking in particular;
>just to demonstrate that current law goes beyond a strict implementation
>of the Constitution in regard to an author's right in his work. Current
>law only grants most rights and reserves other rights as public
>freedoms, some of which you might better given to the author. (Eg, the
>right to exclude others use of your dynamic library because you consider
>it derivative and therefore (dare I say it?) wrong.) You seemed to not
>share my belief that law CAN (not "should") withhold such rights; hence
>the reference.
I can't help but see rampant glitches in your analysis. The
*Constitution* only grants some rights to authors, and all other rights
to copyrighted or patented works are *explicitly* the public's. More
accurately, the derivation of the Constitutional responsibility given to
Congress only provides those rights necessary for an author, which
Congress and the courts (not the author) feel "promote the progress of
science and the useful arts". The courts routinely and readily apply
this over-arching goal in determining the extent of copyright
protection, most often by observing it in the breach, by identifying its
limitations.
[...]
>I think I see your point and it makes a good distinction that I had not
>considered. That renders much prior discussion moot, and I apologize
>that I didn't consider that on my own or if I missed a prior mention of
>it. My mind might have been over-concentrating on 117 which I have just
>recently read about in this forum.
I appreciate your acknowledgement. Of course, I must match you apology
by pointing out my own culpability. As you have mentioned several
times, following my 'reasoning' might seem more like chasing a
will-o-the-wisp than it should. But you certainly don't need to
apologize; one of the reasons Usenet is often so plainly frustrating is
that there is no way to know what prior discussion someone has or has
not already engaged in, either previous in the thread or at any other
time.
>With my new insight into your theory, I would like to discuss your
>claims in the later third of your above paragraph. I know it's been
>discussed before, so feel free to ignore my request.
I've had to defend it before. I dare say its never been discussed. Let
us commence.
>I'd like to discuss this claim: The distribution of copies of a partial
>program written to an API infringes the copyrights on a library written
>to that same API when the library was written before the program.
>
>We might need to work on the claim. Let me mention a few more things
>about it.
Yes. We'll need to strike the unworkable concept of "a partial
program", for one thing. And you are trying to go back to the 'time
travel experiment', and I'm no longer sure I want to do that. But I'll
go along as long as your patience holds out, I hope.
>By "written to an API" I just mean that the software matches a set of
>rules with respect to how the software instructs a computer's switches
>between running the program and the library and how data is shared.
The functionality, OK. But accessing that functionality requires the
calling program to 'use' some of the libraries copyrighted matter.
Notably, the function call names. And if the form of the program is in
any way determined by the *use* of those function calls, it is a
derivative work of the library, whether that library as literally been
coded or not. Unless (or, rather, in addition) the library is a
derivative of the program.
>I'm fairly sure that the time order is unimportant, but the given order
>is most straightforward to discuss, for now.
>
>I don't have time now to continue setting up the claim or attempting
>to prove it is contrary to law, so do what you want with it and if
>you care to discuss it further, I'll continue later.
OK, we can pick it up from there, whenever you get the chance.
[...]
>> if you understood my argument fully, you would agree with it fully.
>
>That's hard to believe, but I've made bigger conceptual changes.
Well, belief in it isn't necessary. ;-)
>> And I am so foolish, is that what you're saying? :-)
>
>"I don't use any [anything]" is usually a foolish thing to say.
Any use of the word "any" or "none" is problematic, particularly when
discussing things with pedants.
>> No offense, even if a tiny bit might have been intended.
>
>I shouldn't be suprised if you strike out; I've been lazily expressing
>myself in an overly frank manner that you could easily find cruel and
>offensive yourself. Your restraint and endurance are admirable.
Hardly. I simply have no concept of what the phrase 'overly frank' is
supposed to mean. You've supported any jibes you thrust my way with
wonderfully concise and useful comments. You could call me a motherless
son of a goat who eats Bill Gates' feces, and I won't get upset, so long
as you don't make that the entire jist of your argument. I'm far more
interested in being correct than I am in being "right".
>BTW, "fligblatz" is a nonsense word. "Free" is merely ambiguous (in
>many uses). Most nonsense is formed from sensible words.
You are being pedantic in any observation that I misrepresented your use
of the term "nonsense", though it is true I did so. It should have been
apparent that it was purely for entertainment purposes, though I can't
fault you for not making such a presumption given my penchant for
clashes in vocabulary.
>> Maybe tomorrow.
>
>Words that have made me what I am today. May I suggest that we stop
>opening up to each other. It's unseemly on Usenet and probably is more
>healthy if reserved for real life. Some closed-source software is better.
Was that a jest, or a non-sequiter?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:26:51 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
>> >> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
>> >> > > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
>> >> > > > > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >> Occasionally, vulgarity is the appropiate answer. Why should
>> >> I restrain my means of expression.
>> >
>> >Note: dangerious ground, using that argument to defend vulgarity could be
>> >setting the foundation to use it to defend the using any insulting
>> >expressions here, including racial slurs, religious slurs, and ethnic
>slurs.
>>
>> Only if "a racial slur is the appropriate answer", and I can't see that
>> happening, honestly. Use of vulgarity is quite appropriate in some
>> situations. Racial, religious, or ethnic slurs are not.
>
>Vulgarity defended by that argument is the camels nose.
I disagree, and will continue that point by saying that your attempt to
indicate that it is so is the camels nose of "political correctness".
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:26:57 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
[...]
>Neither are they required to pay TT (not Qt) a licensing fee now in
>order to benefit from Linux. Max, you have no idea of what you are
>talking about (again).
And you, Roberto, are still trying to avoid correcting the matter. Are
you so incapable of grasping abstractions that you cannot substitute
"QT" for "the commercial entity responsible for QT"?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:27:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:02:14 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
[...]
>> Dammit, *somebody*
>>should be making money.
>
>Troll Tech, the makers of QT, are making money.
>
>> Where's it coming from?
>
>Sales of the "professional edition" of QT.
To...? And where are they getting it?
>>>No more than you do by using GPL'd software.
>>
>>Then why isn't it GPL?
>
>Because Troll Tech wanted their library to be available to the authors of
>proprietary software for a fee. Basically, they wanted to be able to sell
>it, but they wanted it to be free for free software authors.
>
>>I use these discussions, in fact, as the most expedient and (bizarrely
>>enough) efficient method of finding out what is going on. You see,
>
>Perhaps you could use dejanews ! I mean this issue has been beaten to
>death which is partly why I'm displaying less than my usual level of
>patience.
Well, I don't think you're being impatient, though I guess you'd prefer
I did. I am looking for a concise run-down of the comprehensive issue,
and don't have the patience, myself, to try to extract it slowly from
someone else's questions throughout the entirety of dejanews.
Your description above, that TT wants to charge "proprietary" vendors a
fee, but not free software authors, seems to place them on firm ethical
grounds, to be honest. After all, those who claim that free software is
"less free" in some respects for developers than other licenses (such as
the Artistic licenses) do have a point. The viral nature of the GPL
does *not* directly encourage even free software production, and
discourages profit (thus, in turn, potentially discouraging the
development of the useful art of software) on the code itself. It is a
"poison pill" which is necessary, however, to overcome the oppressive
profiteering of commercial software licensing as it is practiced today,
and in the end will provide free software for the vast majority of
people.
So I feel the matter resolved in my mind, at least, because I now
understand why the people who hate KDE on licensing grounds and the
people who don't see a problem with KDE are both right.
[...]
>It's OK to be ignorant, but it's not OK to launch poorly founded personal
>attacks on developers from a state of ignorance.
Roberto already mentioned that he isn't a developer, but I see your
point. In the end, I was, indeed, trolling. My apologies.
[...]
>How do you consider it to be "not" free ?
It isn't GPL. ;-)
>>So, if you would be so kind, could you explain "this issue", in your own
>>words?
>
>I believe that initially, there were concerns about what would happen if
>Troll Tech went out of business because there were fears that if this
>happened, QT would be orphaned and no one would be able to fix it. TT have
>now addressed the issue and it's not a concern. The main "issues" ( if you
>want to call them that ) are
>
>(a) restrictions on forking the software, and
>(b) vague mumblings about QT being "incompatible" with the GPL.
>
>(a) is a non-issue in practice, as very few projects are forked,
>(b) is not an issue about free software, it's an issue regarding
> whether it makes sense to license KDE software under the GPL,
> or if a slightly different license needs to be used instead.
Perhaps I should come clean and point out that I would actually prefer
that software remain a viable commercial market in its own right, and
not be defused or dissuaded by the GPL virus. But that would only
happen, IMHO, if licensing fees were about 1/100th to 1/1000th what they
are today, for most products, as they stand.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:27:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:11:54 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>So what did they require, what does QT require, what did they require,
>>what did they change, when did they change it, what didn't they change,
>>why didn't they change it, how much is the "professional edition"
>>license, and where do you plan to make that money back?
>
>If you don't know the answer, you should lower the tone of your posts
>to one that is somewhat less aggressive. You are basically launching
>attacks from a position of ignorance, and then getting upset when the
>guy you attack points out your ignorance instead of trying to
>educate you. Perhaps a less combative approach would elicit mor helpful
>answers.
Perhaps, but perhaps I'd simply get 'popular wisdom' shoved back at me,
with no way of knowing whether its technically valid.
Obviously, my "KDE is a commercial enterprise" comment was over-the-top.
I'm afraid I must admit, again, that this was intentional. Its
certainly not my preferred method of eliciting information. But when
asking questions doesn't work sufficiently for me, I'm liable to try
*anything* to make sure I'm not falling prey to 'popular wisdom'. My
apologies if my impatient methods seem 'undisciplined' or offensive.
But I wasn't shooting in the dark, you'll see. I seem to have hit the
target, in the end.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:27:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:13:03 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>Well, yes it does, Roberto. Does QT pay your salary?
>
>In case you haven't got it yet, QT is a widget set, not an organisation.
>QT dialog boxes do not jump out of the screen and hand you money when
>you use the kit ( though I wouldn't mind if they did ). QT are made
>by a company called "Troll Tech", who do pay salaries. But they do
>not pay the KDE developers ( such as Roberto ). KDE is a free, not for
>profit project.
Is it really so difficult to figure out what I'm trying to find out? Is
there some part of NNTP I'm not aware of which prevents anyone from
understanding a question in anything but the most literal (and
unproductive) manner?
The reason the issue came up is because nobody seems to be able (or want
to) explain where TT's customers for their fee-based software are going
to derive profit. The reason it is worth finding this out is because it
does, whether TT, 'KDE', or Roberto want to recognize it or not,
relevant in determining whether there is an ethical problem with Troll
Tech's intent. As I've indicated in the previous post, it also resolves
to the amount of profit extracted by the customers licenses from their
own customers, believe it or not. I have nothing against honest
profits, and am merely trying, as an inquisitive consumer, to determine
if the software suppliers (regardless of their 'chain of licensing') are
acting ethically, as I try to avoid contributing to unethical behavior
by making it profitable. If I determine that TT's commercial customers
are profiteers, then I will undoubtedly avoid using KDE software.
Roberto might have a problem with that apparent "misdirection of
responsibility", but it is the only response which is ethical given the
nature of the situation.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: robert w hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Programs for Linux
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:21:56 +0100
In article <0ono5.13700$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ram416
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>(edited by choice)Is Nick kidding? Man, pick up a copy 3D magazine and look at how
>many
>projects are being done on Linux/UNIX. Some hardcore Macfolks still use
>their PowerPCs. And some shops opt for WinNt. But by in far if they need
>flexable environment, Linux is the OS of choice. I will grant you that the
>price tags for some of the programs in the mag are WAY outside of my price
>range ,$ 3000+ is not uncommon, but it's the same price for ALL platforms.
>
>Ram416
>
>Oh, and didn't I just see a CAD program on Linux.org?
>
and if you want a fallback position, get win4lin (v1 is now only $35 I
hear) and run M$ software in a stable linux environment; and keep the
techie side of your id alive by experimenting with wine.
Bob Hall
>> > If you know of some post-development applications that can do these
>things,
>> > tell us all!!!
>> > You can email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > If not, guys and gals, we need to get busy programming!
>> >
>> > --NSC--
>> > _The Liquid Linux Project_
>> >
>> > Posted on: alt.linux, alt.os.linux, alt.os.linux.caldera,
>> > alt.os.linux.mandrake, comp.os.linux, comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> > comp.os.linux.questions
>>
>
>
--
robert w hall
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: 23 Aug 2000 22:02:53 GMT
Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I'm glad somebody cleared that one up. It's actually the proper
: term, of course, since my X server uses video drivers to display
: one or more X clients (local or otherwise) but I think some
: "X11 for Beginners" is in order.
: I'd like a few less creeping Mac-isms in the computing world, myself.
: For instance, "directories" are now "folders", "programs" are now
: "applications" and "files" are now "documents". But I expect that
: translating is something I'll just have to live with.
'Bloze and 'Bloze apps tend to use the same terminology.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 23 Aug 2000 22:09:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I don't *like* laws that are exceptions on exceptions on
>exceptions. And I quite frankly don't believe it is the proper way to
>approach the law.
It's too bad that you don't *like* certain laws, or that they aren't
the proper way to approach the law, but the reality is that in the
United States, Congress gets to write the copyright law. And they
don't need to do it so you like it. (They don't even have to do it
so I like it.)
Maybe you should contact your Senators or Representative and show them
how it should be done. In the mean time, it would be helpful if you
indicated when you are saying how something SHOULD BE in your consistent
system as opposed to how it IS in the messy world of the Copyright Act
of 1976 as amended.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
