Linux-Advocacy Digest #218, Volume #29 Tue, 19 Sep 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Richard)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (WickedDyno)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (WickedDyno)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: GPL & freedom ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: GPL & freedom ("D'Arcy Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:24:41 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:28:06 GMT, Richard wrote:
>
> >That's the same thing as a filename extension, except
>
> No, it's not. One way dictates the filenames to the user, the
> other one does not.
The file name is the string before the last period, the type
is the string after the last period.
> >that it's a kludge because you create a separate function
> >to access the type information for no good reason. Well,
>
> Actually, I don't see any good reason for such a strong
> coupling between file names and file types. Either way, you
> need a "function" to determine file types.
That's the programmer's side of things; from the user's side
there is only one function. In fact, even from the programmer's
side there is still only one function that he has to learn, it just
serves a dual purpose and he has to get in the habit of separating
out the two purposes (and then only if he cares). Just like
Smalltalk programmers get in the habit of naming globals with
a CapitalLetter and non-globals startingWithASmallLetter;
the system doesn't *force* them to name them that way but it
does behave differently depending on how you name things;
the browser behaves completely differently in response to a
mere /convention/.
> >the 'reason' is that you want to complicate/obfuscate the
>
> I don't see how it's "complicating" or "obfuscating" anything.
It complicates the user's access to typing information.
> In fact quite the opposite, this way clarifies things.
>
> The way you want to do it ( by having the user changing extensions )
> has the undesirable effect of creating unnecessary side effects.
>
> Changing the name of a file needn't have anything to do with changing
> the file type. Yet, it's possible that the user could change the type
> as a side effect of changing the name.
That's called an "accident", /not/ a side-effect.
> In programming, code with side effects is considered "bad" because the
> code is difficult to read. I would say that a similar principle applies
> to interface design -- actions that have side effects make a system
> confusing.
Well then we have a problem because no system that I know of doesn't
have side effects. And you mangled the definition of side-effect; a side-
effect is something like reading the next character in a stream and the
pointer advancing by one. Arguably, /any/ command is a side-effect so
your case is extremely weak. I've only ever seen side-effect used within
the context of functional programming so I've always understood it to
mean (and that's the way I've seen it defined too) as anything that isn't
an expression or definition.
> There's no reason to put hurdles in front of renaming files. What is
> necessary is to remove side effects from the operation of renaming a
> file.
And you know what? Even renaming a file is a side-effect. Only creating
a new file (and thus defining a /new/ name) is free of side-effects. Adding
a link has no side-effect, but removing a link /is/ a side-effect.
> A request from the user to "Change file type" should change a files type.
>
> A request from the user to "rename file" should rename the file. It shouldn't
> reboot the computer. It shouldn't change the default font. It shouldn't
> print the file. And it shouldn't change the file type.
Why not? Types aren't abstractions of objects nor links to objects. There
is nothing in the nature of an object that dictates how the user wants to
use it. Nor is there anything in the nature of a link that says this. Is there
something in the nature of a name that dictates how the user plans to use
it? Bingo!
>From a user's point of view, changing the name and type of an object are
the same (or closely related anyways) operations. Should it have side-effects?
Why the hell not? That's an integral part of communicating their wishes to
the machine.
> > (in this
> >case, it's legitimate to say that users will learn from their
> >mistakes).
>
> Well, that's really not good enough. Why design a system with side effects
> in the first place ?
Because it's absolutely impossible to do otherwise?
Your entire case is that the operation of name+type change is an unnatural
and arbitrary abstraction. And for a while you almost had me convinced,
but naming and typing are very closely related.
> Your gross over generalisations succeed at doing little more than
> convincing the readers here that you are a small minded bigot.
I'm sure that the fact my conclusions are perceived as a personal
attack to the readers has nothing to do with it, right? It's only a
reaction to the abstract affront of my /over/generalizing ....
> >need to manipulate types too and filename extensions are
> >1) extremely easy and convenient,
>
> No, they are not. What is convenient is an API that tells the programmer
> what the file type is and allows them to manipulate/modify the type.
> Given the existence of such an API, it really doesn't matter *how*
> the types are manipulated.
Yes it does. The API should be as simple and elegant as possible.
It should not have two closely related operations instead of one.
And the programmer isn't the only person in the picture, nor
even the most important.
> What makes life inconvenient for programmers and users alike is the
> existence of operations that have side effects. Renaming a file should
> rename the file. It shouldn't do anything else.
>
> > 2) don't complicate the
> >API.
>
> I don't see how any other method would make the API more "complicated" to
> use.
It would make it more complicated to *learn* and even recall.
Man, you /have/ had your brain fried by C/C++.
> You have the file listing display type information ( is it really that
> hard ) ?
>
> In fact top make it more "intuitive", you can color code ( like color ls )
There is a very SMALL number of colours you can meaningfully
use in a CLI, which means that there is only a very small number
of types you can colour code. And in any case, I'd reserve colour
codes for something else like link type; whether it's a mount or
normal link, what kind of permissions are set on it, et cetera. Of
course, Unix has very weak access semantics so it may not seem
reasonable to colour-code access; you'll just have to trust me that
in a system with strong access semantics it makes perfect sense.
> >accessors? Of course. Is it a good *enough* reason to pay
> >the penalty of complicating the interface?
>
> What do you mean by "complicating" ?
Two functions instead of one. Two different things to learn
and memorize. Two entries in a reference book. Two methods
in the class definition.
> >There are ways to reduce the number of accidental type
> >changes without hobbling the users. And forcing users to
> >use separate accessor functions is not one of them. The
>
> Let me reiterate -- side effects are bad.
Side effects are inevitable. The only question is how obvious
they are. The meaning of extensions seems pretty obvious to
me, as long as you have meaningful extension names.
> Again, there you go again ranting like an obnoxious bigot.
>
> No one's going to take you seriously while you continue to post
> these bigoted, spiteful and downright ignorant comments. Programmers
> are not terribly nasty people. They are certainly considerably less
> bitter than you seem to be.
So why is it that programmers keep complaining about "Real Lazy"
users? And why is it that they resent users' perfectly reasonable
demands and perfectly accurate criticisms? And why is it that they
write software that acts like a mean son of a bitch towards users?
If it were only once or twice, I'd blame it on sloppy thinking. If it
were uniform (towards all people) then I'd blame it on laziness.
But it only seems to be against users, and that's hatred and bigotry.
And you should know that intolerance of intolerance does not
make one a bigot.
(Note that "it sucks" may not be constructive but that doesn't
stop it from being accurate.)
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[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 20:31:14 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WickedDyno wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote in part:
> > > >
> > > > : The Earth is a system of balances. If one thing gets out of
> > > > : whack,
> > > > : 10 other things compensate to restore the balance.
> > > >
> > > > This is true of market economies also.
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that it can take a really long time (from our
> > > > perspective at least) for the damage to be corrected.
> > > >
> > > > : This has been happening over billions of years. Many more
> > > > : catastrophic
> > > > : things have happened to the ecosystem that Humans could ever cook
> > > > : up
> > > > : and the ecosystem restored itself in a geological second. The
> > > > : amount
> > > > : of data we, as humans, have collected scientifically over the
> > > > : past
> > > > : 1-200 years is nothing. It's not even a nano-second in geological
> > > > : terms. To conclude or attempt to draw anything from these
> > > > : statistics
> > > > : is meaningless and absurd to say the least.
> > > >
> > > > We've collected substantial evidence of the earth's geological
> > > > history.
> > > >
> > > > The catastrophes of earlier geological ages did not destroy the
> > > > earth,
> > > > nor will our activities, but they *did* change the climate in ways
> > > > that would have been horribly destructive to human civilization had
> > > > it
> > > > existed at the time. The fear is that our far smaller, but still
> > > > potentially significant, activities might similarly cause
> > > > destruction
> > > > to human (and other) habitats in the relatively near future.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not convinced that it will. I'm convinced that it might,
> > > > though,
> > > > and that the chance that it might is sufficient reason for us to
> > > > continue to study and to evaluate our activities to make sure that
> > > > we
> > > > aren't creating any potentially avoidable problems.
> > > >
> > > > : Dinosaur populations excreted more methane and CO/2 than humans
> > > > : could ever hope to generate.
> > > >
> > > > Yep. But most of the sites of today's cities were under water
> > > > then.
> > > > Later, most of today's lakes and straits and mountains were under
> > > > thousands of feet of ice. Neither of those outcomes would be
> > > > particularly desirable today.
> > > >
> > > > : It's rather arrogant and self-important
> > > > : to think that humans are so powerful that we could permanently
> > > > : change
> > > > : or destroy the ecosystem and have it stay permanently dead.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think anyone is alleging that we could permanently destroy
> > > > the
> > > > Earth. Only that our activities, if continued unchecked, could
> > > > alter
> > > > climate substantially enough, and for long enough, to have a
> > > > detrimental impact on human and other habitats.
> > > >
> > > > : We will
> > > > : kill ourselves with war or accidentally releasing a deadly virus
> > > > : into the world before we'll ever hope to destroy this planet.
> > > >
> > > > Very possible. We've come damn close, more than once. Closer than
> > > > most people are willing to believe.
> > > >
> > > > : Granted, we shouldn't try, I agree we need to control ourselves
> > > >
> > > > That's all I'm saying. It's all that responsible environmentalists
> > > > are saying too. (There are a lot of very *irresponsible* folks
> > > > pretending to be environmentalists that are saying a lot more.
> > > > Mostly, those are folks with political agendas, usually of a
> > > > leftist
> > > > variety, who *use* well-meaning but naive environmental activists
> > > > to
> > > > promote that agenda.)
> > > >
> > > > , but
> > > > : this world has been through huge floods, all sorts of geological
> > > > : disasters (giant earthquakes, massive volcanoes spewing millions
> > > > : of
> > > > : tons of CO/2, methane, and all other sorts of noxious gasses into
> > > > : the atmosphere) and look where we are today, paradise.
> > > >
> > > > We have an environment that is in many respects better than it ever
> > > > has been (more free from infectious disease, for example).
> > > >
> > > > The challenge is keeping it that way.
> > > >
> > > > And in spite of the progress we've made, there still are serious
> > > > problems such as air pollution in large cities, both air and water
> > > > pollution behind the former Iron Curtain, rapid deforestation in
> > > > certain areas (mostly South America and Latin America), and, to be
> > > > blunt, unsustainable development in certain parts of the world
> > > > where
> > > > there simply is not enough guaranteed fresh water to sustain life.
> > > > (The wealthy oil states of the Middle East, and the urban areas of
> > > > the
> > > > southwestern U.S., are prime examples of this).
> > > >
> > > > Preventable diseases still kill tens of millions in the poorest
> > > > countries. Wars and famines caused mostly by statist political
> > > > ideologies claim many more.
> > > >
> > > > We're doing better than we did in the past in many ways, but there
> > > > is
> > > > still much work left to be done.
> > > >
> > > > As a libertarian I hope it can be done the way it should be,
> > > > namely,
> > > > by voluntary cooperation and consent.
> > > >
> > > > But it does need to be done.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know if global warming is something we can control, or
> > > > should
> > > > attempt to. But I certainly would like to know. And I certainly
> > > > suggest caution in the meantime.
> > > >
> > > > : We're do for
> > > > : another ice age here in about 25-50,000 years or so, we're
> > > > : probably
> > > > : just seeing the cycle repeat itself and seeing the ecosystem
> > > > : building
> > > > : up and building up for the next ice age when it'll all start over
> > > > : again and the same thing will happen 100,000 years after that
> > > > : like
> > > > : it's done for the past several million years.
> > > >
> > > > Probably.
> > > >
> > > > But in the meantime I'd like those who will come after me to be
> > > > able
> > > > to enjoy the same, or better, environmental AND economic conditions
> > > > that we have today.
> > > >
> > > > To ensure this, we must avoid both extremes. We must not destroy
> > > > people's livelihoods in a vain attempt to meet arbitrary or
> > > > unrealistic goals that might not be necessary or even worthwhile.
> > > > At
> > > > the same time, we must not ignore the mounting evidence that
> > > > warming
> > > > *is* occurring, that human activities *may* be contributing to it,
> > > > and
> > > > that the costs for dealing with it *will* be staggering.
> > > >
> > > > : Humanity is not even a blink of an eye in the Earth's history and
> > > > : it's not about to be destroyed by us.
> > > >
> > > > Unlike some of my more left-leaning peers, I'm not concerned about
> > > > the
> > > > destruction of Earth, so much as I am about the destruction of
> > > > human
> > > > (and other) life on it.
> > > >
> > > > Joe
> > >
> > > Paging Chicken Little
> > > Paging Chicken Little
> > >
> > > The Sky is Falling!
> >
> > If someone tells me the sky is falling, I at least look up.
>
> That is why......... you fail.
Is this the portion of the evening when we randomly quote Star Wars?
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 20:32:57 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WickedDyno wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > WickedDyno wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > WickedDyno wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jason Bowen wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > > > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >Jason Bowen wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Bob Germer wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > On 09/18/2000 at 05:54 AM,
> > > > > > > > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > See your showing your bias. Have I mentioned the
> > > > > > > > >> > > ozone
> > > > > > > > >> > > hole
> > > > > > > > >> > > once? You
> > > > > > > > >> > > mentioned Copernicus being persecuted and yet you'd
> > > > > > > > >> > > do
> > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > same
> > > > > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > people looking for answers as to what is happening
> > > > > > > > >> > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > out
> > > > > > > > >> > > world
> > > > > > > > >> > > today.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Ah, but Copernicus PROVED his theory by verifiable,
> > > > > > > > >> > repeatable
> > > > > > > > >> > measurements which eliminated all other possibilities.
> > > > > > > > >> > Einstein's
> > > > > > > > >> > theories
> > > > > > > > >> > have been proven by repeatable experiments which
> > > > > > > > >> > preclude
> > > > > > > > >> > any
> > > > > > > > >> > alternate
> > > > > > > > >> > possibilities.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > But until the econuts PROVE their theories about
> > > > > > > > >> > CFC's,
> > > > > > > > >> > they
> > > > > > > > >> > are
> > > > > > > > >> > junk
> > > > > > > > >> > scientists and not to be trusted. And until the
> > > > > > > > >> > theories
> > > > > > > > >> > are
> > > > > > > > >> > PROVEN, I
> > > > > > > > >> > refuse to sanction actions based thereupon.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Oh man this is rich. So unitl it is verifiable you will
> > > > > > > > >> call it
> > > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > >> lie and not support looking
> > > > > > > > >> into it? You would've been right their lynching
> > > > > > > > >> Copernicus.
> > > > > > > > >> What
> > > > > > > > >> an asshole.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >What is the concentration of CFC's in the upper
> > > > > > > > >atmosphere, oh
> > > > > > > > >ignorant
> > > > > > > > >freshman.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Last reading I saw was 3.6ppb billion, already referenced
> > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > Plantlife
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In other words...negligible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because you say so?
> > > > >
> > > > > 3.6 ppb = 0.00036 %
> > > > >
> > > > > Please explain how a 0.00036% concentration of CFC's is going to
> > > > > wipe out a >1% concentration of O3
> > > >
> > > > It's a catalyst. Catalysts can be present in very small quantities
> > > > and
> > > > still have an appreciable effect on the rate of a reaction.
> > > >
> > > > Argument from personal incredulity just plain doesn't work.
> > >
> > > Aactually, we know that 03 levels drop significantly in the absence
> > > of sunlight.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> It's ENTIRELY relevant to a discussion about what happens to 03
> layer over the poles during the (non-sunlit) wintertime.
That wasn't precisely what we were talking about.
> > > We ALSO know that CFC are extremely heavy molecules that really
> > > don't make it into the upper atmosphere.
> >
> > Wasn't the 3.6ppb the concentration IN the upper atmosphere? So we
> > know
> > they ARE there.
>
> I don't believe those figures.
>
> 3.6ppb at ground level...MAYBE...in the upper atmosphere? not a chance.
Well, then, could the person who originally provided that figure please
provide a reference?
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
From: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: 20 Sep 2000 00:40:09 GMT
Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Anthony D. Tribelli" wrote:
>> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > ... Macintosh failed to support many technologies available on
>> > Windows. Instead game developers had to hand code translation layers
>> > between the Microsoft proprietary APIs and the Apple proprietary APIs.
>> > You don't see too many folks writing directly to those Apple proprietary
>> > APIs. Since MacOS didn't support OpenGL until recently I think it will
>> > be awhile before Apple games are any more than just "ports" of Windows
>> > games.
>>
>> OpenGL is irrelevant in this regard.
>
> I don't think so. I think OpenGL support in OS X (and a decent core OS
> :-) will make game developers much happier -- Carmack seems to like it
> :-)
You confuse everyone being happy about OpenGL support in MacOS X with the
decision to do simultaneous development for Windows and Mac or to port to
the Mac after the Windows version is done. Needing a Direct3D to OpenGL
layer or having OpenGL on both sides is largely irrelevant to this
decision.
>> Some companies can spend the money up
>> front and do simultaneous development (costs less), some companies decide
>> to spend the money on the back side and do a port (costs more, but less
>> risky, PC flops don't port). It has much to do with the resources of
>> whoever is paying the bills
>
> You need to get this straight. Windows pays the bills. That's why
> there's so much business activity around it. Linux can't figure out how
> to pay the bills because they think everything should be "free".
> Macintosh can only get a few folks interested more in ideology than
> technology - they like to pay big bills because it's righteous but there
> aren't that many of them.
??? This seems unrelated to my argument: OpenGL being largely irrelevant
to the decision of whether or not to target the Mac, Direct3D to RAVE
layers not being a big problem. OpenGL is nice, but it has been a minor
variable in this decision.
>> and the faith they have that the game will be
>> a hit, and little to do with technology.
>
> When I've got to write and maintain some kinda special software
> rendering engine just for Mac it has everything to do with the COST of
> technology. Thankfully OpenGL should solve that.
You are mistaken, you would not have to write a software renderer. OpenGL
is a nice replacement for RAVE, but RAVE does work.
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: 20 Sep 2000 00:58:58 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Microsoft's "lead" was miniscule compared to the amount of
>> time they sandbagged on fully exploiting the 386 architecture
>> or delivering a viable GUI.
>
> Really. I was happily using os/2, with 32 bit pre-emptive multithreading
> multitasking it's wonderfull WPS GUI while mickysoft users were using that
> pathetic windoze 3.1 running a top dos with nearly nonexistant
> multitasking. OS/2 ran dos sessions in V8086 boxes well enough to fool
> a windoze 3.1 instalation to run win31 apps perfectly except those that
> had to bypass all the microsoft crap and talk directly to the hardware like
> communications programs.
>
> 7 years later and MS is finally getting around to dumping DOS, but needs
> 16 times the processor and memory to achive the same results.
You do realize that OS/2 1.x was Microsoft's second attempt to dump DOS
and that Microsoft's first attempt to dump DOS was Xenix? WinNT (aka OS/2
NT) a third attempt? But those damn end users ...
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 01:00:42 GMT
"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
Sigh. Free in the sense of GPL is defined to mean a certain thing.
If you think it should mean something else then fine - but don't
pretend that the GPL is saying something that it is not.
> :> 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.
No you continualy (and probably purposly) keep missing the point.
The point is that if you take software and modify it and hide the
result from the community then you are taking away the freedoms
of the community. That is what the "free" is referring to.
> 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.
Perhaps you should pay attention to what "free" means in the GPL.
..darcy
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 01:04:45 GMT
"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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 your basing your work off of mine. Mine dictates
that if you want to make use of my work then you have
to agree to make your work fully available.
If you don't want to make use of my work fine. Don't
try to take my work and benefit from it without doing
anything in return.
> Again...so much for protecting "freedom"...
Again... the freedom being protected is the freedom for
others to view/modify your code. It is not to provide
you the freedom to hide the code from others.
Your being pathalogical in your misunderstanding of
what "free" is talking about - the GPL states very clearly
what it means by "free". Attempting to give other meanings
to "free" and then pointing at the GPL and saying that it isn't
"free" doesn't work.
..darcy
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
