Linux-Advocacy Digest #665, Volume #32 Tue, 6 Mar 01 01:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: GPL Like patents. (mlw)
Re: Cuts both ways (.)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Ed Allen)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (.)
Re: What does IQ measure? (.)
Re: GPL Like patents. ("Les Mikesell")
NT at sea (Homer Simpson)
Re: GPL Like patents. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Bloody Viking)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Bloody Viking)
Re: NT at sea (Bloody Viking)
Re: Sometimes, when i run Windows (Matthew Gardiner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 23:47:47 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Craig Kelley wrote:
> > >
> > > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Encourage development by protecting the results of investment.
> > > > Make public inventions so that industry can prosper.
> > >
> > > How about providing for free code so that *anyone* can prosper? The
> > > GPL doesn't allow that because it is predjudiced against certain
> > > classes of developers (intentionally).
> >
> > Ahh, and how would you prosper? By taking code you didn't write and don't
> own,
> > and charging money for it and NOT properly compensating the original
> authors.
>
> We all prosper when everyone is free to incorporate well-tested and
> correctly interoperable code into everything they produce regardless
> of the terms. If they don't they will almost certainly re-invent it
> very badly and the bugs will affect everything else that tries to
> interoperate with it.
I like the ideology, but shudder at the practicality.
>
> > GPL prevents this, and rightfully so. If you want to use GPL code in this
> way,
> > you are welcome to contact the copyright holders and negotiate a deal
> where you
> > are allowed to use their code without the GPL status.
> >
> > If the code is not released, you would not have it, so just deal.
>
> Anyone who actually believes this should be condemned to spending
> the rest of their lives supporting a large network containing mostly
> the first version of TCP that Microsoft wrote by themselves. I'm
> very happy that they are allowed to use something that works
> correctly instead in windows2000, and that most other product
> vendors used the BSD base from the start. If it had been GPL'd
> instead, we would still be trying to make the internet work.
I will budge here an admit that unrestricted reference implementation of
standardized protocols should be made available. ONLY because reliable
standards are very important.
A reference implementation of a public API is different from an original work.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Cuts both ways
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:59:49 +1300
> > Hmm, checking the dictionary:
> >
> > Linux Idiot: (n) One who, upon installing Linux without RTFM, decides to
> > return to an inferior operating system and bash that which they do not
> > understand.
> > See also: Windroid, Wintroll, Microsoft Lemmings.
>
> is that one of those "idiots for dummies: dictionary" dictionaries???
If it wasn't, I wouldn't give you the definition for fear you wouldn't
understand it.
> wanker.
Absolutely, I wont deny it.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 04:59:56 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97vif3$h0i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> > Of course it is relevant if you are going to make the claim that every
> > outdated binary must always be accompanied by equally outdated source,
> > adding to the cost of every distribution whether anyone wants it or not.
>
> It wasn't outdated what I bought it, it was brand new.
Everything is brand new exactly once. The next day you
probably want to check for updates.
> >> Nothing is too much to download over a modem in theory. But when I'm at
> >> home, I have one (metered) phonline shared between 4 people. Long
> >> downloads aren't that fesiable.
> >
> > Should that be someone else's problem or your own to solve?
>
> Until BT get off their collective arses and get round to installing DSL,
> there is precious little I can do about it that is within my budget.
>
> Not everyon has unmeterd access, you should realist that I am not unique.
> USA is NOT the world.
You can always ask someone with better access to copy to a CD
and mail it to you - or pay them just like you do the suppliers of
the GPL'd source. Are you sure there is actually any relationship
to GPL and access on CD anyway? Don't you get source for the
non-GPL'd parts of the Linux distributions too?
> > The GPL consists only of restrictions. It does not relate to freedom at
> > all. If it did, we might see some evidence that it was needed to
> > maintain open access to freely available software, yet instead there is
> > a vast amount of evidence to the contrary with code under the bsd,
> > artistic, X, and similar licenses.
>
> It is another form of free licenses. I'm getting bored of going in
> circles. There is more than one way to guage free.
As long as you mistake restrictions for freedom you are bound to
keep going in circles.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 05:01:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JS PL <js@plcom> wrote:
>
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JS PL <js@plcom> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> In engineering they teach a rule of thumb that one quantity being
>> >> over ten times the next largest means than the smaller can be
>> >> ignored because the larger totally dominates the input.
>> >
>> >That's what Apple was probably saying just before the PC hit the market.
>> >It's why they gambled and made the worst decision in their history, not
>> >allowing clones.
>> >
>> Apple has less than 9% of the market therefore they cannot have a
>> significant effect on it.
>
>What's the cutoff point for having an effect on the market Einstein?
>
Reading is not as important to a sock-puppet as the noise they make
I guess:
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> In engineering they teach a rule of thumb that one quantity being
> over ten times the next largest means than the smaller can be
> ignored because the larger totally dominates the input.
>
>In what sense does using Linux provide more "freedom" than Windows? It was
Not paying recurring fees for what you already bought. GPL provides
the code not a license to run it.
Once bought it will never be taken away and you are not forced to
"upgrade" when you get a newer computer or add more computers to
your collection.
That software is installable by you on as many computers as you
want. Nothing else to buy, ever.
>touted as being free until a hanfull of companies put the disk into retail
>stores for about the same price as what the Windows OS adds to a new PC.
>($50.00 range) This idea that it's now about "freedom" instead of being free
>of charge came about only lately. Linux offers no more freedom than Windows
>(it offers LESS freedom),
You can download the images of all the distributions for the cost of
your connection time. Hard to understand how much lower cost that
could be without them paying you to download it.
You can by a CD for $1.98+shipping of that same image.
Once you obtain it in any way you are free to make thousands of
copies and compete with CheapBytes if you think $1.98 is still too
high.
All legal, nobody to stop you. That is what CheapBytes does as
their main income. RedHat and SuSE et. al. will never complain or
take them to court.
Hard to claim that unlimited copying and never paying for another upgrade
is LESS freedom.
> it offers much less choice in hardware devices due
>to the fact that most new hardware is released with windows drivers and
>Linux drivers come along either later, or MUCH later, or never. Linux
>certainly does not offer as much freedom of choice in compatible software!
>
Sounds pretty much like NT/W2K to me. They each have hardware
compatibility restrictions too.
At least most Linux drivers are written by the OS developers so they
have fewer failures which bring down the entire system.
>> Almost all high-school kids have some exposure to Linux and when they
>> see that their company is sending a fortune to Redmond while their
>> classmates get along well on Linux more will join the fold to keep
>> that money within their own company.
>
>The cost of the software is a drop in the bucket. Fully deductible too! Not
>too many (if any) companies go out of business because the $50 - $200 or
>even $4000 cost of their Windows OS was too hard to bear.
>
>
Only deductible as a business expense home users are just screwed.
Since Redmond wants their pound of flesh paid for on time you are
talking about tying that money up for months at least.
Most businesses which I have dealt with are in need of more
liquidity not less.
The prospect of paying thousands of dollars from their own budget
today to be returned months later to some other department does not
thrill the managers I have worked with. The money is returned to
the business as a whole, seldom to the budget of the victim.
--
GPL says
"What's mine is ours,
If you make *OUR* stuff better the result is still ours."
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:02:20 +1300
> If I burned you a copy of a music CD, in the grand scheme of the
> cosmos, it wouldn't be a big deal.
>
> If I set up a major web site or internet application to allow you
> and 4 million other friends of mine to download that CD, THAT
> would be a problem. =)
... but still not in the grand scheme of the cosmos ;)
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:07:50 +1300
> > IQ-tests measure what psychologists call intelligence, which they
> > represent with the symbol "g".
> >
> You mean like a Brit, a Canadian, Ozzy or American? They all speak
> English, I guess your implying that only Americans can be proficient in
you're
> English?
Actually, Americans I've met often pride themselves on speaking
"American" rather than English, as it seems to be a bit of a different
beastie.
As for IQ tests, I've yet to see one that leaves me feeling confident it
was somehow a test of my intelligence, as opposed to being a test of my
learning. A vast majority of them are in English for starters, and I've
seen some almost vocabulary-testing questions... this isn't an
indication of how smart you are in my book. How well you learn ANY
language is not a test of intelligence.
A true IQ test would have to involve pictures and patterns, and perhaps
have some mathematical basis, because these are the only ideas that
translate well all over the world.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 05:18:35 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97vlq3$j90$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <7uHo6.9915$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Les Mikesell"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> >>
> >> Don't expect any sympathy if you want to use GPL software, for free,
> >> and
> > then
> >> charge for your changes. Why should you be able to capitalize on the
> >> work
> > of
> >> others without sharing in the cost? Anything less WOULD be communism.
> >
> > Why should you be able to use the knowledge you gained in public school
> > in a job where you are paid?
>
> Because you earn money and conrtibute back taxes. Esentially you
> eventually pay for the services.
Ah, but the difference is that at least in the US there is no such
requirement
attached to what you receive. Communities choose to tax themselves
without any particular regard to the public education of the people
paying the tax.
A GPL-like concept would require you to give everything away that
contained anything non-original.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Homer Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: NT at sea
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 20:33:59 -0900
I see that they just launched a new aircraft carrier and named
it after Ronald reagan:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/03/04/bush.reagan.carrier.ap/index.html
I wonder if that's because it's one of those newfangled NT powered
warships that forgets where it is?
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 05:40:56 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >
> > > Any debate about GPL must be centered around the actual license. Not
what
> > > you think, or what you think you have heard Stallman say.
> >
> > Excuse me but it's not what I think he said, it's what he told me. I am
not
> > defending precisely my opinion here, as should be clear if you bothered
> > reading what I bothered writing, but the position of the FSF, as
expressed
> > to me, among others, by RMS.
>
> What RMS says is not as important as the agreement with which you use the
> software. In a court of law, RMS on the stand saying "I intend it to
mean...."
> does not out weigh the weight of actual contract.
Don't you think RMS would be at least considered as an 'expert witness'
in a case regarding the GPL? Your view then becomes 'I didn't realize
it meant ....'. Regardless, most people want to avoid the lawsuit, not
just have some chance of winning.
> The most important phrases are:
> "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable
> sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
reasonably
> considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this
License, and
> its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as
separate
> works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which
is a
> work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the
terms
> of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire
> whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. "
>
> This means that as long as you keep your code separate from the GPL code,
you
> do not need to release your code as GPL. It is very clear. It is only when
you
> extend a GPL work, or embed your code into GPL work, it MUST be GPL. This
is a
> perfectly reasonable approach.
The 'work as a whole' is the relevant issue. If there is a line of GPL'd
code
(or at least more than what might be excepted from copyright under fair
use), included in a program of any size, it must all be licensed as GPL to
be distributed. According to the FSF, all the libraries linked together
at runtime constitute the work-as-a-whole, although there is a specific
exception for the standard system libraries. Therefore you can't use
any GPL code with anything that is not GPL'd compiled or linked
into the work and redistribute it. Only the cleverly dual-licensed works
that are allowed to be distributed under GPL or another less restricted
license are able to escape this isolated fate.
> "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with
> the
> Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or
> distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this
> License. "
>
> This means you can ship GPL licensed code with your non-GPL code.
Only if they are not part of the same 'work'.
> "Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your
> rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise
the
> right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based
on
> the Program. "
>
> It is not the intent to limit your rights.
If that were true, there would be no restrictions imposed on other
people's work... It is perfectly clear that the whole purpose of
the GPL is to control other people's work.
> I don't see what all the fuss is about. I don't understand how people can
be so
> confused.
You could start with the misrepresentation of intention you show above,
and then move on to the open-ended concept of 'work-as-a-whole'.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: 6 Mar 2001 05:56:53 GMT
. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I can't see that there's anything inherently illegal OR immoral in
: writing a virus. After all, a virus is simply a program that reproduces
: itself and attempts to 'survive'. Destructive capabilities are added as
: an afterthought, and they are the only thing that should be considered
: illegal.
Whether or not law has caught up with computering, it is wrong to
intentionally code a virus as it's destructive code intended to be passed onto
an unsuspecting user. Imagine an IE user clicking on a link with an Active-X
thing that formats a hard drive and gives no warning but "baits" the link with
"kewl links!" or similar. Anyone would agree that this is wrong, laws or not.
If I coded a video game that trashed the hard drive on purpose, say with a
certain ending score and you downloaded it (a classic "Trojan") and trashed
your drive, you wouldn't be happy. Indeed, if you could trace the source,
you'd want to sue and/or prosecute me. Even worse, would be if I made the
Trojan and intentionally downloaded some viri to add to it.
Yes, a virus is a programme that reproduces, and some might even mutate to
avoid Norton Antivirus. But liik at AIDS, a bio-virus. It does the same... and
kills. But just as it would be wrong to develop a disease and unleash it, it's
wrong to code and unleash a computer virus. There really isn't any way to
rationalise coding viruses. Doesn't let Microsoft off the hook for making a
non-immune OS, but you don't have to fall for the temptation.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: 6 Mar 2001 05:58:31 GMT
. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: The amount of money BG makes directly off you (whoever) helping someone
: who already (potentially illegally) has it installed is a pretty
: intangible concept, so being literal really gets us nowhere. The point
: is, the money is not as important as helping one another.
The number is about like .00000000000001 of a percent.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: NT at sea
Date: 6 Mar 2001 06:04:02 GMT
Homer Simpson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I see that they just launched a new aircraft carrier and named
: it after Ronald reagan:
: http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/03/04/bush.reagan.carrier.ap/index.html
: I wonder if that's because it's one of those newfangled NT powered
: warships that forgets where it is?
An NT nuke carrier? Oh, no. A BSO-D.I.W. could cause a _meltdown_.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when i run Windows
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 19:07:44 +1300
Thats very optimistic
Matthew Gardiner
Bobert Big Bollocks wrote:
> It crashes :)
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
