Linux-Advocacy Digest #210, Volume #29 Tue, 19 Sep 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (OSguy)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! ("Stuart
Fox")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) ("Stuart Fox")
Re: GPL & freedom (Zenin)
Re: New Linux Install ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: GPL & freedom (Zenin)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! ("Ingemar
Lundin")
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Peter Ammon)
Re: GPL & freedom (Zenin)
Re: The Linux Experience ("Rich C")
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("Joe R.")
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Alan Baker)
Re: GPL & freedom ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: GPL & freedom ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy,comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:27:09 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> And your true colors come out. You don't care about the truth, only
> sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling that you can't hear anyone.
>
> (that wasn't for OSGuy's benefit, but anyone reading this).
And your true colors are to discredit anybody who like Linux or Run
Linux.....And the way you do it is to defend to the death everything MS does.
And what you are doing in this thread it to bog it down trying to tell me how
to fix my installation of WinME and go through a whole bunch of details (again
trying to make me swallow that MS is blameless in the idiotic way they did
there WinME stuff). Screw You....I've already got a running version of WinME
and unfortunately worked around MS'es quirks to make my daughter's machine
work. NO WHERE DID I EVER ASK FOR HELP IN GETTING MY WINME COMPUTER
WORKING!!! I yell this since this seems to be what you only understand. I
have already gotten my WinME computer working and I'm not Interested in
listening to you whine on about how MS did it and I should do that and trying
to tell me and others here that Linux ought to do it too. You're right, I'm
not interested in hearing the BS details. My opinion that I've expressed is
that the way MS had me install WInME took hours with a lot of dumb garbage to
make it work....and that I never had to waste this amount of time on Linux, and
that It is a DAMN LIE that Windows installation is easier than Linux. Next
time read the headers.
No go give your dissertation and justification of MS to someone who
cares........someone outside of c.o.l.a.
(And this is for your benefit Funkenbusch, most everyone else understands!)
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:20:45 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >
> >> >I hate to break it to you but - you are supporting Windows. You are
> >> >unnecessarily relying on the very company you are bashing, which only
> >> >mirrors you ingnorance to the world.
> >>
> >> So now "supporting" becomes "relying on"?
> >
> >No - it becomes "unnecessarily relying on", dim bulb... notice the word
> >"unnecessarily".
>
> Care to supply the amazing amount of research you've done to determine
> if I or ELTRAX has incorrectly determined what is necessary for us to
> run out business?
What's this have to do with the fact that you post anti-microsoft statements
to usenet in your leisure time USING the very software you apparently hate?
And then grasp at straws trying to justify it. You haven't got a leg to
stand on when it comes to the issue. Your a hypocrite... you are to this
issue as a person bringing a six pack of Bud to an AA meeting, and then
justifying it by saying it's cheaper to keep drinking than it is paying for
treatment.
> >Less expensive than "free".
>
> No, less expensive than 'avoiding the monopoly'.
What does it cost to avoid MS products, Your Dimness? The only cost I can
see is maybe replacing a winmodem and maybe a video card or sound card, but
most of the latter are supported. The value of the thousand apps that come
with most distros would probably more than compensate you for that.
The fact that a pro-MS person like me has to explain this to you is quite
ironic. Get a clue from it! There isn't a legitimate reason on earth which
forces you to use MS software to post to usenet in your leisure time. If you
need the hardware to make it possible I'll get you an old 486 system to help
you out, I can probably pick one up for less than $100 complete with
monitor, unless that's beyond your means. I'll even let you use your laptop
as a proxy server if you can't afford a non-winmodem.
Let me know.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:26:20 +0100
"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:u0Mx5.237$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Run setup on a blank disk, and choose to format as NTFS. It takes about
> 20
> > seconds max to format. Try it and see, you might be surprised.
> >
>
> let me get this straight Stuart...?
>
> i have installed Windows 2000 on at least 25 machines so far, with cd-rom
> boot of course, but about tree times using the four boot disketts,
> so -exactly *when* and *how* -using these diskettes, are you presented
with
> the option of doing a *quick* format?
>
It just does it. Unlike the old NT 4 setup which did a slow format to FAT,
then ran convert on the next boot, it just does a quick NTFS format. On all
the machines I've done so far it doesn't grind away like NT 4 used to doing
a slow FAT format, it takes about 20 seconds to do the NTFS format.
On all the machines I've done, it's been very quick. This includes Compaq
Proliant servers, and deskpro desktops, as well as a few Dell Poweredge
boxes.
How long does it take when you do it? And why exactly are you so agressive?
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:36:14 +0100
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry R) writes:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote in
> >
> > >These are built into the GUI system, not the kernel. It's the GUI's
> > >responsibility to implement this stuff. That's why you can't "execute"
> > >a word document from dos and have it open word.
> >
> > Actually, I just tried that and it does work (surprise ;-0 )
> > C:\docs>test.doc opened up word with the file so it can "execute" a
> > doc file from a DOS window. (I know it isn't the same as booting DOS
> > and doing this)
> >
> > But I still hate WinNT.
>
> It doesn't work on my NT Server 4.0 (runnung under VMware).
>
> Just so you know.
It works on mine - also under VMware. NT 4.0 SP5 with IE5. Although I
don't have Office installed, I can still execute doc.doc at the command line
and get Wordpad opening (not that I can read anything). It may be a
"feature" of the IE5 shell stuff. Or not.
Just so you know as well. :)
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:40:14 -0000
D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
:> Except that it doesn't even meet that goal. Sure, it gives you the
:> freedom to run the software, copy it, distribute it. You cannot study
:> it, change it, or improve it for any reason other than personal use
:> without having your actions dictated to you by the GPL.
:
: Sigh. The goeal is to gurantee that any changes are given back to the
: community fo furthur study/change. Again your trying to change what is
: meant by "free".
Sigh. That's most likely because 'what is meant by "free"' simply
isn't, regardless of whatever deceptive spin RMS puts on the
semantics.
:> Now, the first three items are guaranteed by other, less restrictive
:> licenses as well, and the last three are not more free than other
:> licenses. So I fail to see how it cain be claimed that it is.
:
: Please name another license that gurantees that all derived works are
: given back for further study/change.
That's just it; this aspect is about as far from "free" as one can
get.
If this is your goal, by all means use the GPL; just don't lie to us
that it's in any way "free" and expect us to actually swallow it,
because it simply isn't so.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: New Linux Install
Date: 19 Sep 2000 16:39:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc James M. Luongo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I plan on installing Linux Mandrake 7.1 for the first time. I need some
: help. How big should the partitions be? And, I heard something about
Read the Partition-HOWTO.
http://ldp.iol.it/HOWTO/mini/Partition.html
http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/partition/Partition.html
This Linux Mini-HOWTO teaches you how to plan and create partitions
on IDE and SCSI hard drives. It discusses
partitioning terminology and considers size and location issues.
Use of the fdisk partitioning utility for creating and
recovering of partition tables is covered.
: LiLo not recognizing a Linux partition after a certain disk cylinder (or
: sector, whatever). I think it was 1023, but I'm not sure. Is this
It'll be your bios that can't jump that far, if anything. Don't worry
about it, this is a triviality even if it occurs.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:45:56 -0000
James A. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
: It's a license; get over it. All licenses restrict your rights and/or
: access to code in some fashion.
:
: It's the price you pay for having some entity take stewardship over a code
: base.
It's not the restrictions we have a problem with, really. It's the
commonly repeated lies that the GPL is in any way "free" or protects
an author's rights to keep their own code "free" more then a basic
BSD style license does.
If you believe the viral affects the GPL are good and that you have
the right to tell others what to do with their code, more power to
you; use the GPL and be proud. Just don't expect for a second that
anyone with more then two brain cells to rub together will believe
it's in any way "free".
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:50:17 GMT
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:8q844a$bqm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:u0Mx5.237$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Run setup on a blank disk, and choose to format as NTFS. It takes
about
> > 20
> > > seconds max to format. Try it and see, you might be surprised.
> > >
> >
> > let me get this straight Stuart...?
> >
> > i have installed Windows 2000 on at least 25 machines so far, with
cd-rom
> > boot of course, but about tree times using the four boot disketts,
> > so -exactly *when* and *how* -using these diskettes, are you presented
> with
> > the option of doing a *quick* format?
> >
> It just does it. Unlike the old NT 4 setup which did a slow format to
FAT,
> then ran convert on the next boot, it just does a quick NTFS format. On
all
> the machines I've done so far it doesn't grind away like NT 4 used to
doing
> a slow FAT format, it takes about 20 seconds to do the NTFS format.
>
> On all the machines I've done, it's been very quick. This includes Compaq
> Proliant servers, and deskpro desktops, as well as a few Dell Poweredge
> boxes.
>
> How long does it take when you do it? And why exactly are you so
agressive?
<LoL> ...eh?...ok try this one, last time i installed windows 2000 was
about 3 months ago on my own machine, finally got my company to pay me a
license for it (never would buy one myself) as i always install from the
cd-rom, i asked you when you were presented with the option to do a quick
format...and the only thing you can tell me is that "It just does
it"....<LoL>
anyhow, back to my home install of Windows 2000...i have a 15 GIG harddrive
and as Windows 2000:s setup finally got to the point were i have the option
to wich drive to put it on, there *were* and *are* no option to do a quick
format, *it takes him about 25 minutes to format the drive* - that however
is not a quick format...
now, i installed SuSE Linux 6.4 only a couple of days before that, *and*
there you have a "quick format" option in YaST when it comes to choose wich
drive to install it on...
*were* do you have that in Windows 2000:s setup????
(either with floppys or booting from cd-rom???)
/IL
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:49:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Jason Bowen wrote:
> >
> > Bob Germer wrote:
> > >
> > > On 09/18/2000 at 08:14 AM,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> > >
> > > > >Bullshit. They spike after every volcanic eruption, and then drop
> > > > >sharply according to exponential decay.
> > >
> > > > What spikes and drops?
> > >
> > > Go ask the professor of Geology 101.
> > >
> >
> > It was Aaron's claim, let him take care of it.
>
> All chemical reactions proceed at a rate determined by exponential
> decay.
>
No they don't. There are all sorts of rate laws for reactions. Heck, a
few proceed at a constant rate, such as some that include catalysts.
> If you had the slightest bit of understanding, you would understand
> this.
>
Perhaps you should learn a bit yourself before you try to correct
everyone else.
> You see, this is how I know that you are an ignorant, uneducated little
> freshman doing nothing other than repeating leftist eco-paranoid
> propaganda.
And perhaps you should shed a bit of your own ignorance before
attempting to find it in others.
>
> Better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all
> doubt.
> --Abraham Lincoln.
>
> In light of Mr. Lincoln's wisdom, I suggest that you
>
> SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Finally, perhaps you should take your own advice.
-Peter
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:57:06 -0000
D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> > Freedom to always have access to the source of any work based on
:> > original GPL code. Where is the hypocricy? It only becomes hypocricy
:> > if you attribute a different meaning to the word "free"... a menaing
:> > other than what the GPL specifies.
:
:> That would be as silly as saying "You're free to listen to my speech, so
:> long as you never charge anyone else for ever listening to your speeches
:> ever again in your life". Sure, you could do it, but it's not freedom.
:
: If your speach incorporates my speach then it isn't really just your
: speach is it?
Closer analogy:
If your speech is GPLed and in my speech I simply quote a single
line of your speech to make a point, suddenly my entire speech
must be GPLed.
Again...so much for protecting "freedom"...
This is a pointed example actually, as the original Perl
documentation (a form of "speech") was once covered by the
GPL...which of course meant that anyone that so much as used a
single, one line example from that documentation in their own code
was now required to license their entire work under the GPL.
"Derived" my ass.
When this was discovered the GPL was quickly and totally removed
from the documentation (luckily most of the documentation was the
work of very few people, one mainly). One will note that this move
also sent the FSF into a hissy-fit, claiming that the Perl
documentation "wasn't free" because it wasn't under the GPL and
quickly started a movement to recreate the entire documentation set
for Perl from the ground up.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 13:08:26 -0400
"Tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8q806e$nda$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
>
> HEY! Don't blame ME! **I** didn't trash it! ;-)
>
Sorry, man. I didn't mean it like that. :o)
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy,comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:41:20 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8q796f$f9m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8q76oc$juo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8q762i$e68$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8q5hd3$pha$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:8q5cnh$491$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > MS has precisely fuck all to do with whether your video card is
> > > supported.
> > > > > Your hardware manufacturer decides whether to write the driver,
not
> > MS.
> > > > MS
> > > > > may bundle the driver, but they certainly don't write them...
> > > >
> > > > Who writes the VGA 640x480 16 color driver?
> > >
> > > If your card isn't supported by the VGA 640x480 driver, then go to
your
> > OEM.
> > > I fail to see how this is a Microsoft problem. If you OEM chooses not
> to
> > > write a driver to support Win9x/ME then there's really very little MS
> can
> > do
> > > about it. Feel free to write your own though
> >
> > Do you realize that you missed the whole point of my question?
>
> Do you realise you missed the point of my original statement? Whether or
> not MS supplies (very) generic drivers for various resolutions, the choice
> as to whether your hardware is supported under Windows lies with your OEM,
> not Microsoft.
> >
> > You stated that Microsoft has nothing to do with video drivers and is
not
> > responsible for writing them. I asked "Who writes the VGA 640x480 16
> color
> > driver"? The answer of course is Microsoft, which refutes your claim
that
> > they do not write them.
>
> OK, so they supply a generic 640x480 driver (Windows setup has to use
> something to drive the display), and probably a generic 800x600 and a
> 1024x768 driver as well, but the choice as to whether your hardware is
> supported by Windows is entirely driven by your OEM. You may have refuted
> my claim that they do not write them, but have not refuted my claim that
MS
> has nothing to do with whether your card is supported or not. Speak to
your
> OEM if the generic drivers don't work.
No, setup does not *have* to use generic drivers to drive the display, setup
could be written to provide a character mode interface. You seem to be
under the mistaken impression that I have had trouble using my video adaptor
with Windows ME. I have not had any such trouble since I have not installed
ME.
What has improvements have there been in Windows ME that would invalidate
using drivers written to the standards of Window 95 or Windows 98?
If it is the hardware manufacturer's not Microsoft's fault for Windows ME
not working with given a piece of hardware, then why is it Linux's fault
when there is hardware that does not work with Linux?
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:11:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jason Bowen wrote:
> >
> >
> > It was Aaron's claim, let him take care of it.
>
> All chemical reactions proceed at a rate determined by exponential
> decay.
>
> If you had the slightest bit of understanding, you would understand
> this.
ROTFLMAO.
Aaron--there are several chemists who read this group regularly
(including me). Don't expect to get away with posting absolute nonsense
like the above.
For the record, you're wrong. Way wrong.
------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:14:19 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>> In article <39c6f112$6$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >On 09/18/2000 at 03:00 AM,
>> > Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >
>> >> > According to the Encylopedia Brittanica that fast current glaciers
>> >> > advance at as much as 25 metres a day. That's 9.125 kilometres a
>> >> > year.
>> >> > To advance over half of Canada (say conservatively, 1800
>> >> > kilometres)
>> >> > glaciers would have to advance at roughly 200 times that fast or 5
>> >> > kilometres a day. I just find that a little hard to believe.
>> >
>> >> I should say formation and not advancement, sounds wrong.
>> >
>> >Too late, liar. You stated several times that Canada was half covered
>> >with
>> >an ice sheet in the past decade. Now you try to weasel out. I for one
>> >will
>> >not let you off the hook.
>>
>> Umm, Bob. Dial it down, would you?
>
>What....are you saying that Bob should just sit idly by as Jason
>spews his idiotic lies and propaganda?
>
>For evil to prevail, it is required that good men do nothing.
>
>Why are you advocating that good men do nothing?
>Hmmmmmmm?
I'm advocating that "good men" dial the rhetoric down.
Duhhhhhhh.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:36:13 -0500
"D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:55Kx5.2395$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:WfEx5.2672$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:1SDx5.2386
> > > " "Free software" refers to the users' freedom to run, copy,
distribute,
> > > study, change and improve the software."
>
> > > Given that goal the GPL is more "free" than other licenses.
>
> > Except that it doesn't even meet that goal. Sure, it gives you the
> freedom
> > to run the software, copy it, distribute it. You cannot study it,
change
> > it, or improve it for any reason other than personal use without having
> your
> > actions dictated to you by the GPL.
>
> Sigh. The goeal is to gurantee that any changes are given back to the
> community fo furthur study/change. Again your trying to change what
> is meant by "free".
I don't see "guarantee that any changes are given back to the community" in
your first statement. It says:
> > > " "Free software" refers to the users' freedom to run, copy,
distribute,
> > > study, change and improve the software."
I've already said I see nothing wrong with the goal of the GPL. What I have
a problem with is calling it "free". The definition of freedom is in direct
opposition to the goal of the license.
> > Now, the first three items are guaranteed by other, less restrictive
> > licenses as well, and the last three are not more free than other
> licenses.
> > So I fail to see how it cain be claimed that it is.
>
> Please name another license that gurantees that all derived works
> are given back for further study/change.
But that's just it. Now you're guaranteeing that someone elses work is now
available for study change, not your own work. Work that is copyright by
someone else. Work that is owned by someone else. This is one step removed
from confiscation.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:43:49 -0500
"D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:55Kx5.2394$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:PJDx5.2667$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:YbBx5.2357
>
> > > Freedom to always have access to the source of any work based
> > > on original GPL code. Where is the hypocricy? It only becomes
> > > hypocricy if you attribute a different meaning to the word "free"...
> > > a menaing other than what the GPL specifies.
>
> > That would be as silly as saying "You're free to listen to my speech, so
> > long as you never charge anyone else for ever listening to your speeches
> > ever again in your life". Sure, you could do it, but it's not freedom.
>
> If your speach incorporates my speach then it isn't really just your
> speach is it?
Of course not, but then your speech isn't free if you're putting conditions
on it's use. Generally when we say "free speech" we mean "we can say
anything we like as long as we don't violate someone elses civil rights".
The GPL violates someone elses civil rights. The right to do what *I* want
with my own code. Even if my code is based on your code, it's still *MY*
code and I am the copyright owner. Even the GPL acknowledges that.
> > The argument here seems to be that outlawing walls, fences, cages, and
all
> > other kinds of obstructions guarantees freedom. Except that it ignores
> that
> > a certain percentage of the people *LIKE* to live behind walls, enjoy
> fences
> > and like the fact that obstructions keep others out as much as they keep
> > them in.
>
> And they don't have to use GPL.
They may have to. They may be forced to (see my other argument about third
parties distributing my non-GPL'd code with GPL'd code).
> > That percentage of the population should be free to live within a
> > cage if they want to. Forcing them to live in the wilderness is
violating
> > their freedom.
>
> Nobody is forcing people to use GPL.
Actually, the GPL does force others to use the GPL. The description of the
GPL even talks about this force. Basically it encourages employees of
companies to use GPL'd code, and then when the company goes to release the
code it should be "explained" to them that they can't do so without
releasing the source. GNU then says "The majority of them will go ahead and
release the source rather than not make the tool available".
I call that attempting to force companies to use the GPL by hijacking their
IP and saying "Pay up or the code dies".
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
