Linux-Advocacy Digest #326, Volume #33 Tue, 3 Apr 01 18:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Rick)
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Mig)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Mig)
Re: Windows "speed" (".")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 20:09:35 GMT
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 02:41:13 GMT;
>On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 22:28:43 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 02 Apr 2001 20:17:48 GMT;
>>>The real point is that since the statute
>>>defines derivative works as being based on one or more pre-existing works,
>>>a program by definition cannot be derivative of a given library if it exists
>>>before the library is even written.
>>
>>Other than very painfully extended special cases, the idea, as I
>>remarked, is ludicrous.
>
>We've had this discussion before. I suspect you are the lone poster
>who believes the idea is ludicrous. Even posters who agree with your
>conclusion don't buy your argument.
People honestly think that you can use the analogy that a computer is a
cook in arguing copyright law? That's insane! A computer cannot be a
human being, and copyright law is about what human beings do with works
of authorship, not what computers do with them. A computer does not
read a program "like a cookbook", although it could be *programmed* to
read a cook book like data. Mix that up with the quasi-protection that
recipes already have (and the part the computer would use, of course, is
the very part that isn't protected, the ingredients) and you've just got
one hell of a bunch of confused people, I am sure.
This being the second post where the argument that a program is not to a
computer as a cookbook is to a *human*, I don't quite understand where
this consensus on my opinion has been arrived at.
>>>Apparently you don't believe it to be possible to write such a program,
>>>but most others know better. For example I can write a program that can
>>>use currently existing gimp plug-ins. Assuming I write my program
>>>correctly, it could also use gpl'd plug-ins that have yet to be written.
>>
>>Well, you might get lucky, but if your goal is to support an interface
>
>It wouldn't take luck. It would simply be a matter of properly
>implementing an api already intended to accept future plug-ins.
Let's stick to libraries, that was the case. Transmogrifying it to the
dubious example of plug-ins is senseless. How can you write a program
that uses a library which does not *exist*. By writing to the API,
right? But how do you know how the actual API is going to "work" until
the library is written? I've been told by programmers that the idea
that you could write a program "blind" in this manner is not
supportable.
>It's
>not magic, it's science you simply don't understand. But it's just my
>job five days a week. <g>
That makes you an expert on copyright, because you are a specialist at
software programming? You've written applications that use libraries
which haven't been written yet? What? No, friend, its not science I
don't understand; its technology I don't work with. If it were science,
it wouldn't be copyrightable. Whoops.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 20:09:36 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 Apr 2001 05:30:48
GMT;
>On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 02:41:13 GMT, Isaac wrote:
>>On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 22:28:43 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 02 Apr 2001 20:17:48 GMT;
>>It wouldn't take luck. It would simply be a matter of properly
>>implementing an api already intended to accept future plug-ins. It's
>>not magic, it's science you simply don't understand.
>
>Which is hardly surprising -- Max doesn't do (or even know very much about)
>software development: he merely holds very strong opinions about it, as
>well as a completely unjustified delusion of superiority.
Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 20:09:37 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 03:46:13
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> I think you've misconstrued the example quite a bit. If I understand it
>> correctly, the library is the GPL component. The program is not GPL.
>> Les' thought experiment requires one to postulate that it is possible to
>> write a program to use a library which does not yet exist. The fatal
>> flaw, I think, is obvious, but using this trick he has convinced himself
>> that time travel has a bearing on copyright law.
>
>I am not aware of any distinction between whether the main program
>code or the libraries are the GPL'd component except for the
>specific exemption for standard system libraries. Consider the
>case where both GPL and anti-GPL libraries are linked by the
>same main program, or dynamically linked by run-time instructions
>(actually a common case under perl, where a proprietary database
>client library might be linked with one or more GPL libraries in
>the same program at runtime). How does the status of these
>libraries change as a result of being used this way? Does one
>suddenly become a derivative of the other in the copyright sense
>even though is was not before being used in this combination?
No. You're trying to use your time machine again. Software becomes
derivative when it is *written*. If it was *written* to use a GPL
library, it is derivative of that library. It is as 'sudden' as any
other act of artistic creation is assumed to be. It is not real, Les,
it is an abstraction. A metaphor, not a metaphysical substance.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 20:09:39 GMT
Said nuxx in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:32:59 +0800;
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> The iPaq has two things over Palm, really. One is that it can play
>> MP3's, the other is that it can speak wireless ethernet (by virtue of a
>> PC Card slot). Color is a minor thing I think compared to those, and I
>> don't think that Palm will let them keep the advantage forever.
>
>The third is that it has a Citrix ICA client available, rather important for
>some people,
<*sniff*> <*sniff*>
What's that I smell? It smells like... <*sniff*>...
A monopoly?
>also very nice when combined with wireless ethernet. Why
>wouldn't Citrix produce a client for the Palm OS if it's technically
>feasible (screen resolution)? Makes no sense given their support for other
>platforms (Win32, CE, Unix, Linux, Epoc, OS/2 etc) and also Palms strong
>market position ... I'm a Palm user myself & this is the only thing it
>lacks.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. Citrix is an MS sock puppet. There's no *way*
they're going to even *touch* the Palm.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 20:38:47 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in alt.destroy.microsoft on 3 Apr 2001 13:14:47 GMT;
>On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:58:56 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:21:36 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
>>> > [...]
>>> >>If someone attempts to enter your country, unanounced, without making
>>> >>proper contact with the appropriate authorities (customs officials,
>>> >>border patrol, air traffic control), then they are a legitimate target
>>> >>for those personnel charged with the DUTY of defending the border.
>>>
>>> Ok, then you support the right of the Cuban government to shoot down
>>> Cessnas.
>
>Note: no response from Aaron. Perhaps he agrees with Castro?
Very neatly done. How could he resist agreeing, and thus damning his
own rhetoric?
>>> >>What's the difference between "illegal immigrants" and "invading
>>> >>army" other than numbers?
>>> >
>>> >Nothing, if you're a paranoid schizophrenic.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>
>>That's not what I asked
>
>Well, you ARE a paranoid schizo, so you probably can't see the difference.
>I suppose that's why you have to ask.
<*chuckle*> Watch it, Roberto. So far, you only have my authority on
that. ;-)
>>How about for those who are not paranoid schizophrenics.
>
>Well, the most obvious one is what they plan to do once they get into
>the country.
>
>>What's the difference between "illegal immigrants" and "invading
>>army" other than numbers?
>
>See above.
Occasionally, Aaron also pulls a successful gambit. Future plans are
hardly available for inspection; your thinking requires treating illegal
immigrants as invading army. Aaron's right, of course, in an extreme
sort of way; the only immigrants that should be illegal are an invading
army.
>>Be sure to account for the fact that when Germany invaded Norway,
>>the German soldiers entered the country without weapons or uniforms.
>
>I have seen reports of that being a myth.
>
>For example: http://www.magweb.com/sample/sconflic/co03wese.htm
Yup; Aaron's believing myths. Shocker.
>>They simply met in warehouses across the country one night, broke
>>open cases of uniforms and weapons...and when the sun rose, they
>>greeted the Norwegian populace with the news that they had just
>>be annexed by the German Army.
>
>Well, what about the extensive minimg of Norwegian ports, and the
>huge fleet that actually invaded Norway?
I'm wondering who embroidered more, Aaron, or the guy who told him that
bed time fable about the invasion of Norway?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 16:51:51 -0400
Are you saying (assuming Chad is correct in his interpretation) that
your company doesnt mind any commuications it sends through Hotmail
becoming the property of Micro$oft?
Zed Mister wrote:
>
> I sure as hell would not want to deal with tech support calls from users who
> can't send or receive mail through hotmail if the isp admin decided to block
> access to it. A huge majority of legitimate mail that passes through our
> mail servers originates from hotmail. If you're some sort of admin and have
> actually gone ahead and banned hotmail access from your mail server, prepare
> to be yelled at by your boss or worse.
>
> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > msn.com 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their
> services will be accepted.
> > msn.net 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their
> services will be accepted.
> > microsoft.com 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their
> services will be accepted.
> > microsoft.net 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their
> services will be accepted.
> > hotmail.com 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their
> services will be accepted.
> > hotmail.net 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their
> services will be accepted.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 3 Apr 2001 21:03:14 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 20:38:47 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in alt.destroy.microsoft on 3 Apr 2001 13:14:47 GMT;
>>On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:58:56 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:21:36 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> >Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
>>>> > [...]
>>>> >>If someone attempts to enter your country, unanounced, without making
>>>> >>proper contact with the appropriate authorities (customs officials,
>>>> >>border patrol, air traffic control), then they are a legitimate target
>>>> >>for those personnel charged with the DUTY of defending the border.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, then you support the right of the Cuban government to shoot down
>>>> Cessnas.
>>
>>Note: no response from Aaron. Perhaps he agrees with Castro?
>
>Very neatly done. How could he resist agreeing, and thus damning his
>own rhetoric?
That's the idea. After all, that would be an exampl of a communist government's
policy he supports. Supporter == advocate. Thus, he advocates the actions of
a communist government. Thus he is a COMMIE!
>>>> >>What's the difference between "illegal immigrants" and "invading
>>>> >>army" other than numbers?
>>>> >
>>>> >Nothing, if you're a paranoid schizophrenic.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>>That's not what I asked
>>
>>Well, you ARE a paranoid schizo, so you probably can't see the difference.
>>I suppose that's why you have to ask.
>
><*chuckle*> Watch it, Roberto. So far, you only have my authority on
>that. ;-)
>
>>>How about for those who are not paranoid schizophrenics.
>>
>>Well, the most obvious one is what they plan to do once they get into
>>the country.
>>
>>>What's the difference between "illegal immigrants" and "invading
>>>army" other than numbers?
>>
>>See above.
>
>Occasionally, Aaron also pulls a successful gambit. Future plans are
>hardly available for inspection; your thinking requires treating illegal
>immigrants as invading army. Aaron's right, of course, in an extreme
>sort of way; the only immigrants that should be illegal are an invading
>army.
Well, if they come up in a tank, the future plans are kinda obvious ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[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, 03 Apr 2001 14:13:12 -0700
Isaac wrote:
> >I'm aware of the reverse engineering cases, which attempt to apply
> >copyright law to impede the ability to produce unauthorized games but
> >that is somewhat different than applying copyright law to prohibit end
> >users from from using unauthorized games. Have there been such cases?
>
> I suspect that very few games players ever get sued for copyright
> violations
That's not the point.
> Perhaps the reverse engineering cases have dealt with the issue at
> least to dismiss contributory infringement claims.
That's the point.
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:23:46 +0200
Dont worry :-)
www.microsoft.com
===============
Microsoft JScript runtime error '800a138f'
'aszSplitHTTPLANG[...]' is not an object
/UTILS/SetLCID.asp, line 78
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:25:44 +0200
Mig wrote:
> Dont worry :-)
>
> www.microsoft.com
Sorry.That was www.passport.com
> ===============
> Microsoft JScript runtime error '800a138f'
>
> 'aszSplitHTTPLANG[...]' is not an object
>
> /UTILS/SetLCID.asp, line 78
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:34:44 +1200
> You are bashing Windows, right?
> At least do so *intelegently*!
intelligently, perhaps?
Anyway, how am I not being intelligent? I would really love to know how you
think not looking up every flaw in Windows (fuck, there's a task) to post to
a newsgroup is not being intelligent.
To put it another way, what did I say that was blatantly stupid?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
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, 03 Apr 2001 21:23:15 GMT
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 14:13:12 -0700, Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Isaac wrote:
>> >I'm aware of the reverse engineering cases, which attempt to apply
>> >copyright law to impede the ability to produce unauthorized games but
>> >that is somewhat different than applying copyright law to prohibit end
>> >users from from using unauthorized games. Have there been such cases?
>>
>> I suspect that very few games players ever get sued for copyright
>> violations
>
>That's not the point.
Didn't you ask if any there were any cases concerning end users?
I was speculating that there weren't any involving them as parties,
but that we might find end users mentioned in other suits. What did
I miss?
>
>> Perhaps the reverse engineering cases have dealt with the issue at
>> least to dismiss contributory infringement claims.
>
>That's the point.
Okay. My question above isn't really important probably.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[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, 03 Apr 2001 14:51:58 -0700
Isaac wrote:
> >That's not the point.
>
> Didn't you ask if any there were any cases concerning end users?
> I was speculating that there weren't any involving them as parties,
> but that we might find end users mentioned in other suits. What did
> I miss?
Nothing at all. Clarification only.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
