Linux-Advocacy Digest #336, Volume #33 Wed, 4 Apr 01 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("David Casey")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language? (Hugh Bonney)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:45:20 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 03:36:35
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> >What if you don't want to distribute GPLed code, but you want the
> >> >user to obtain his own copy and use it by linking it with another
> >> >component under either less or more restrictive terms?
> >>
> >> Why would you want to do that? Seriously, I would like to know there
> >> might be some rational reason before considering the metaphysics of it.
> >
> >The reason is to remove the claim of the GPL that it controls
> >things other than the GPL'd work itself. This has been done, by
> >the way, and met with legal threats from the FSF...
>
> Because it attempts to sidestep the intent of the GPL, which is to
> control *derivative works*, not arbitrary code other than the GPL'd work
> itself.
And since the GPL attempts to sidestep the normal concept of copyright
usage, what's wrong with that? Copyright law unsurprisingly covers
copying. Even when you include the fuzzy concepts of characters, plots
and the like, some covered thing must be copied. A link-your-own kit
copies nothing. Instead it uses the end users own copy.
> Software is, by nature, a derivative system.
It should be, if we are ever to learn and improve anything. However,
it should be able to derive from all previous accumulated knowlege.
The GPL does not allow that.
> If I'm not
> mistaken, that's the general point you try to make about the danger of
> the library linking issue; you believe it will deter development by
> making that kind of derivative development (use of shared libraries)
> less expedient.
'Less expedient' is an odd way of putting 'impossible'.
> But its commercial exploitation of wrapping copyright
> in a trade secret license that makes deriving software from existing
> works so potentially damaging to the original authors, as predatory
> behavior is both common and counter-productive to the actual derivative
> development you say you desire.
Is this a fundamental religious belief you absorbed from mythology
as a child? There is no such actual problem and simultaneous free
and commercial development go together very nicely.
> Sorry; "take me" free software licenses like the BSDL are a dead end.
> Microsoft has proved that.
In what way would anyone be better off if Microsoft had not replaced
their broken code with something working and well tested? Why
do you want to keep working code out of the hands of the mass
market users? How do you imagine that the users of the free base
are harmed by being able to interoperate correctly with the commercial
copy?
> I would encourage you to initiate and
> support efforts to legally test the "library linking/derivative
> development" issue you are troubled about in a court of law. I expect
> you'll lose more than you'll win, but I could be wrong. As far as I am
> concerned, there's nothing metaphysical to protect in the integrity of
> copyright, so as long as trade secret EULA's go away, you won't hear
> much from me.
I don't have enough to gain to cover such costs. I'm not interested
in selling anything. I am troubled by the inability to obtain the
well-tested code as components of cheap commerical products
or less restricted free products.
> >> >but
> >> >the FSF's claim of control over things that do not contain a copy
> >> >of the covered material is even more problematic. How can
> >> >anyone believe these people are reasonable?
> >>
> >> Because they're not the ones who made the rules about what constitutes
> >> "derivative works", though they are the ones who are applying it.
> >
> >You mean they are the ones making threats.
>
> Okay, yes. They are the ones defending their rights and making threats
> to take infringers to court. You expect MS can play money games
> threatening customers with "piracy audits" but the GPL authors can't
> protect their code?
If you want to put both parties on the same side of the fence that is
the correct view. Actually they have clearly put themselves on
the same side.
> >> The
> >> law allows just the case you claim: infringement without a literal
copy.
> >
> >Case law please, where only a reference is used in the infringing
material.
>
> Get a clue, Les. When it's tested, you'll know its "right". I'm pretty
> sure already. I don't have your hangups about the metaphysical
> properties of intellectual property.
I've seen nothing in copyright law that related to anything but copies.
Using dynamic libraries or supplying only the other components is
more like providing a binder with conveniently marked sections
where you insert your own legal copy of other covered works.
> No reference in case law, but
> "software is different". All it takes is one developer with the balls
> to go to court, and its not like you're being pummeled by Microsoft's
> corporate goon-squad.
It takes a lot of money, and there is only a small amount to be gained
here. It just bothers me because it affects everyone.
> >> If you disagree with how they're applying it, which is to say that a
> >> program is derived from the libraries it uses, you have merely to show
> >> in court that it is not valid. But the lack of legal precedent leaves
> >> you constantly befuddled about it. Leading to your desire to deride
> >> those who feel they understand it well enough to consider it quite
> >> reasonable.
> >
> >Or perhaps there is a good reason why there is no precedent... They
> >understand it well enough to know better than to take a case to court.
>
> I thought you said they're the ones defending. Has anyone stamped all
> over their claims?
Have they threatened anyone with money to defend against them, or
enough to gain to be worth the fight?
> It would only take one, and then nobody would be so
> cowed. Its tough to tell whether its balls or money, but someone
> doesn't have what it takes to take the case to court. The FSF has a lot
> of balls, and at least a little money; I believe they are hardly
> reticent.
That doesn't make their claims correct.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "David Casey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:57:02 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Congress's? But that means you believe the Constitution supports the
> current tax rate, doesn't it? And the social spending? Or is it "only
> in war do I pay attention to Congress's interpretation of the
> Constitution"?
I don't support the current tax rate! I finally got the first half of my
reenlistment bonus for the New Mexico National Guard today. It was supposed
to be $1250. After federal taxes ($350) and state taxes ($102), I got $798.
*sigh*
> Your answer seems nonsensical and self-refuting.
We get that a lot with, Aaron.
Dave
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 4 Apr 2001 05:03:51 GMT
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:13:35 GMT, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>restriction claim. More modern environments allow dynamic
>linking so in many cases there is in fact no copyrighted material
>distributed - and in some instances dynamic loading where the
>libraries are not even known prior to execution time. How can
>you reconcile that with your statement that the code is or isn't
>derived when it is written?
The dynamic loading one is a very interesting issue indeed, one I hadn't
considered. It would certainly appear not to be a "derived work" if the
library isn't required for execution (eg an image viewer that dlopen()s
various graphics libraries)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
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: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 05:28:09 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 04:24:44
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> >> >Err, no. Software doesn't 'run' or perform anything. It is a set of
> >> >instructions that a CPU follows just like a cook may follow a
cookbook.
> >>
> >> Well, see, the problem is you have a CPU, an inanimate object, *doing*
> >> things, but then you say that software cannot. CPU's don't "follow"
> >> instructions "just like a cook may follow a cookbook". That's a
> >> ridiculous idea, and I know you know way more about software than to
> >> think it holds up. Care to try again?
> >
> >No, that was pretty close.
>
> Are you trying to tell me you accept this ridiculous idea? A CPU is a
> cook, and software a recipe? Where on earth did you come up with that?
Analogies are always flawed, but CPUs just read instructions and execute
them, and the software is that set of instructions.
> I mean, it makes perfect sense as a technical analogy, to explain to
> people "how computers/software work". But as a legal abstraction to
> base copyright protection on? That's crazy!
You can make more precise analogies in terms of mathmatical formulas
or Turing-device emulation, but it boils down to the same thing. The
software is a set of instructions very much like a recipe.
> >> >> If I'm not mistaken, one can copyright a juggling performance, but
one
> >> >> cannot copyright a juggler.
> >> >
> >> >The point is that if you have legally obtained a library, you have the
> >> >right for it to do anything you throw at it.
> >>
> >> Yes, but do you have the right to give others that right?
> >
> >Ahh, back to the real issue. Why should it be up to me to give
> >anyone that right when the library isn't mine? Why shouldn't that be
> >left up to the owner of the library and the end user to determine?
>
> It was. He GPLed the library, if I follow the example.
You only followed half. There is another library involved and
you are allowing only one to make this decision for the whole
work.
> Thus, he
> determined under what conditions (on you) you may transfer that right to
> them. And those conditions are, succinctly put, that you apply no
> conditions on them that were not applied to you. His decision to write
> the library, your decision to develop "on top" of it, and the end user's
> decision to do anything the hell he wants with it, subject to the same
> limitations you had.
Try to re-write that paragraph for the case where the new work
combines multiple pre-existing components already under different
terms, GPL being only one of them. The net effect is that it is impossible
to develop software based on the best of earlier development. Now
what was it you liked about the concept of free software?
> >> >> Is the juggler's performance "derived" from
> >> >> the other juggler's performance? It seems so to me, and to the
courts,
> >> >> as both jugglers will share all rights to whatever act they develop.
> >> >
> >> >What does that mean? Are you going to claim that tossing a ball back
> >> >and forth with one person forever contaminates your right to do the
> >> >same with a different partner?
> >>
> >> A juggler, as an artist, has a valid copyright claim on his artistic
> >> work, which would include any unique routines he has developed.
Other's
> >> cannot perform "his act" without his permission.
> >
> >Pay attention here. No one else is performing his act. Someone is
letting
> >him perform his own act.
>
> "Someone is letting him perform his own act?" I don't get it, sorry.
> Maybe its just a parsing error. If the jugglers developed the act
> together, and both juggler's future acts are derivative (by whatever
> definition that means in juggling), then it isn't *his* act, it's
> *their* act.
One represents the GPL'd component, one the component under
different restrictions. They each do their own thing, and control
is occasionally passed between them.
> So was your point to indicate how difficult it is to determine whether
> one juggling act is derivative of another? That's an interesting point,
> for jugglers, I guess, but in fact juggling acts generally aren't
> considered "novel" enough to require the kind of originality which
> merits copyright protection. Its all been done before, as it were, and
> it would take a very unique act to provide any claims by either party,
> and in all honesty it would probably come down to a trademark case, in
> real life.
No, not even close. You haven't 'copied' the juggler, you have him
doing his own thing himself (representing a library which you have the
right to use). The other components occasionally give control
to this library to perform the function it does.
> As for how the art of juggling is supposed to relate to the putative art
> (some say science, some pretend both) of software programming is not
> clear to me at the moment.
The transfer of control is the similar point. A program transfering
control to a library function is no more 'derived' from that library
than a juggler is derived from a different juggler because he might
on occasion transfer control of a ball to him.
> >Well, then try to understand it first. The juggler is another library.
>
> I'm sorry. Maybe this is like the "cook" thing. Perhaps its just a
> matter of my own inability to grasp certain abstractions. I'm not sure
> why turning a juggler into a library, and a ball into the process
> execution of commands as a sort of metaphysical pointer, makes a
> juggling act like software. Or, rather, how it might illuminate the
> supposed problem you see in considering programs derivative of libraries
> on which they are dependent to be functionally useful.
The CPU follows the instructions in the software. This will involve
having one component transfer control to another component which
will then direct the CPU for some sequence of instructions and then
return control. The calling instructions are not 'derived' from the
other component when it is a library, they just allow your own
copy of that code to perform its job.
> I do appreciate your trying, though, honestly. Its an interesting
> analogy. If I do understand it, and interpret your "the juggler is
> another library" correctly, your saying that a "GPL juggler" would
> prevent his partner from juggling. The analogy is flawed because his
> partner would have to already be GPL, due to the nature of GPL, and so
> the fact that his *partner* was GPL wouldn't be what's preventing him
> from juggling.
This is close to the concept. Note that there is no restriction against
assembling a mix of GPL/non-GPL components and using them
yourself. The restriction is only on sharing such a combination.
The point that I am trying to make is that in such a combination
neither is really derived from the other even though they may
work together. Also, they should be considered equals rather
than letting one control the other.
> It would be his *new* partner, who doesn't want to get
> "contaminated" with the GPL. He will refuse to juggle with the partner,
> or he will forget to ask and become GPL himself, or whatever you decide
> for the analogy.
No, just no matter how well they work together for you, you can't share
the performance because of the unreasonable GPL restriction.
> It all works just as intended, as far as I can see. Non-GPL jugglers
> (not all of them, but enough to make it a concern) throw sharp knives at
> the audience at random intervals, and refuse to let anyone know which
> direction they're going to throw them. So the GPL movement was created;
> GPL jugglers are only allowed to throw soft spongy balls that you can
> see coming a mile away.
Insanity strikes unpredictably, I see...
> >You
> >have the right to have/use that library whether purchased or free. You
> >don't duplicate what that library does, you hand over control to it and
> >let it do the function itself. If you have a dozen different libraries,
> >each obtained under their own terms you can use them all together. And
as far
> >as can tell, only the GPL is so restrictive as to claim ownership and
> >control of the code linking to it.
>
> You have created a derivative work by creating a program that uses that
> libraries code to supply functionality as a necessary part of your
> program's functionality.
No, you have create a program that uses the functions of a library that
you have the right to use.
> A derived work is covered by copyright law,
> and the GPL is a legal copyright license, AFAIK. You may be correct
> that the GPL is the only software license so restrictive as to *control*
> the code linking to it, but the fact that linked code can be considered
> derivative is not, AFAIK (but you would know better than I), something
> that is limited to consideration of the GPL.
I know of no other case similar to the FSF claim. Others might claim
a copyright on the interface itself, such that the use of the covered work
would be impossible without including small parts of it (but this would
likely fail under fair use anyway). However, the FSF does not claim
interface copyright but would still like you to believe that a work that
uses your own copy of a library and does not include a copy of covered
material is somehow prohibited under copyright law. The question
simply doesn't arise for commercial library vendors - they are obviously
happy for others to write software that requires end users to buy the
libraries.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP.
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 05:35:39 GMT
"Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
>
> I would like to go on record that Dame Margaret Thatcher definitely has
> the biggest set of balls any non ball-bearing person has ever flaunted.
> "Balls of steel" doesn't quite cut the mustard, think neutronium.
I'll agree to that wholeheartedly.
Were she to immigrate and declare her candidacy, I'd vote for her in a
heartbeat.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Karel Jansens
> ==============================================================
> "You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
> ==============================================================
------------------------------
From: Hugh Bonney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language?
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 05:53:29 GMT
In comp.arch 2 + 2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Can Sun battle Intel in chips, IBM in the high end market and Microsoft in
: the software platforms areas all at one time with profits in the Dell range
: in a DOWNTURN?
Well, the retreating tide lowers all the boats...
Unless Intel can generate enough FUD to cause disinvestment in other
architectures, why would anyone think IA-64 that much of a threat?
They did seem to be trying to do that before it appeared. Now they
are busy telling us to not pay attention to the man behind the
curtain,
H.---
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
