Linux-Advocacy Digest #369, Volume #33 Thu, 5 Apr 01 00:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised ("JS PL")
LINUX FEVER magazine ... Check it out! (tom)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Dunk)
Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? ("JS PL")
Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? ("JS PL")
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <jspl@jsplom>
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: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:49:44 -0400
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <v7Ry6.28253$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Chad Everett wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Microsoft is doing the old shuffle and lie...but signs are they are
> >> > starting to sweat:
> >> >
> >> > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-5508903.html?tag=mn_hd
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:10:39 GMT, Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >Oh... ...my... ...god.
> >> >>SNIP for bandwidth<<
> >> But they seem to retain the clause about being able to change terms at
> >> any time. So, if you are a business, you have to have a lawyer check
> >> the terms every few minutes and before sending any mail.
> >
> > And this is different from every other licensing agreement how?
>
> It's different because they had the nerve to demand everything but your
> first born in the previous agreement. Now they just say it could change
> at any time - perhaps to the previous version. This has got to be one
> the worst PR blunders of all time. Who is going to trust MS with all
> their data now? Of course, who would have been crazy enough to trust
> them before?
The worst PR blunder of all time!! I think not. It's most likely going to be
a non-story to most.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 23:47:24 -0400
From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: LINUX FEVER magazine ... Check it out!
http://linuxfever.hypermart.net
Get your free issue today!
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dunk)
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 03:59:45 GMT
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 10:51:47 +0000, Karel Jansens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Just in case we are talking about the same thing: by "mutation" do you
>> > maen the genetic variations that result from sexual reproduction, or
>> > merely those that are the result from cosmic particle impacts?
They usually result from copying errors, if the repair system also
fails.
>It was sexual reproduction that led to the explosion of species in the
>early Cambrium.
Ah, European spelling. Over here, it's Cambrian. Where did the
sexual reproduction theory come from?
>...Previously the Earth had seen basically the same
>bacteria for more than three billion years
Not so; do a search on 'Vendian' or 'Ediacara'.
Dunk
>Karel Jansens
>==============================================================
>"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
>==============================================================
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <jspl@jsplom>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:57:34 -0400
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9afpfd$ot0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "JS PL" <jspl@jsplom> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9afjn4$hud$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "JS PL" <jspl@jsplom> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > What product did you "buy" that adds IE5 to their DOWNLOAD???? I've
> > never
> > > > seen any company tack on a 60 meg file that's available for free
> > elsewhere
> > > > anyway!! What company is adding an un-necessary 60mb or so file to
> their
> > > > product download? Hmmm....That's very interesting. You_did_"buy"_it,
> > > didn't
> > > > you??
> > >
> > > Sorry to burst your bubble, but I just happened to go to this page:
> > > http://www.aonix.com/Products/CSDS/oa.win.free2.html
> > > a.. Full Special Edition (77 MB)
> > > Includes all Core and Help files plus Internet Explorer and Sun Java
> > > Development Kit (JDK).
> >
> > And what about this??
> > "Please note that the Permissions/Copyright Group will not grant special
> > permission rights to redistribute Microsoft Internet Explorer (and/or
any
> > components thereof)."
> > at:
> > http://www.microsoft.com/permission/copyrgt/cop-soft.htm#IE
> >
> > dang, foiled again?
>
> Then how can magazines distribue it on CDs? And ISPs?
I haven't seen that happening since early in the existence of IE4. IE is now
built in to Windows, why does an ISP have to distribute it these days? The
Alan guy was attempting to fib and got caught. He didn't buy any software
which included IE in the download. He got caught and has now taken the smart
course of shutting the fuck up. End of story.
The company in the link you posted is most likely breaking the law, but I
would have to see the EULA of the browser they are distributing to prove it.
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <jspl@jsplom>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 00:08:36 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:38:36 -0400;
> >"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:9afjn4$hud$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "JS PL" <jspl@jsplom> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> > What product did you "buy" that adds IE5 to their DOWNLOAD???? I've
> >never
> >> > seen any company tack on a 60 meg file that's available for free
> >elsewhere
> >> > anyway!! What company is adding an un-necessary 60mb or so file to
their
> >> > product download? Hmmm....That's very interesting. You_did_"buy"_it,
> >> didn't
> >> > you??
> >>
> >> Sorry to burst your bubble, but I just happened to go to this page:
> >> http://www.aonix.com/Products/CSDS/oa.win.free2.html
> >> a.. Full Special Edition (77 MB)
> >> Includes all Core and Help files plus Internet Explorer and Sun Java
> >> Development Kit (JDK).
> >
> >And what about this??
> >"Please note that the Permissions/Copyright Group will not grant special
> >permission rights to redistribute Microsoft Internet Explorer (and/or any
> >components thereof)."
> >at:
> >http://www.microsoft.com/permission/copyrgt/cop-soft.htm#IE
> >
> >dang, foiled again?
>
> And this somehow prevents Microsoft from providing licenses under
> different terms to an ISV they wish to use, to encourage the use of IE?
They are well past the point of needing to "encourage it's use".
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/March/browser.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:08:03 GMT
Said Zed Mister in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 04 Apr 2001 02:04:58
>Even if it did stand up in court, which is highly doubtful, there are ways
>of protecting content that is actually important to the user. Furthermore,
>Microsoft would be in deep shit if they actually tried to exercise this
>so-called 'right' in a court of law, if not with the courts themselves,
>definitely with the public who hears about the court proceedings.
They only have to exercise it on the data already sitting on their
servers; they don't have to go anywhere near a court of law first.
>Now let's say that I have a highly sensitive and unsubmitted patent document
>that I want to work on in collaboration with a partner.[...]
Encrypt it, yes, then make sure than neither he nor anybody else
involved in any fashion uses a hotmail account or any other MS service.
Suppose Microsoft doesn't believe in the DMCA quite so much as to think
your encryption should prevent them from looking at the bits that they
believe they own, and have in their possession?
--
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: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:08:09 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 04 Apr 2001 05:28:09
>"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.
Analogies are for explaining technical concepts. There are no analogies
in legal concepts. Perhaps this is why you are more confused than you
realize concerning copyright on software.
>> 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.
"Very much like." At least you are smart enough to prepare your
retreat. Are all sets of instructions copyrightable? Which ones are
not, and why?
[...]
>> 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.
No, YOU are the one who makes the decision for the whole work. If you
can't get it to work without a GPL library, then what is
counter-intuitive about saying your program is based on the GPL library?
>> 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?
If you include "GPL code" in your definition of "the best of earlier
development", you are correct and I agree with you. That is the point:
to refuse to allow GPL code to be used for non-GPL development. And
that is what I like about the concept of free software: I know what I'm
getting into with GPL, I cannot know what I'm getting into with trade
secret EULAs.
[...]
>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.
Metaphysical hogwash, I'm afraid. I cannot see it as a worthwhile
analogy, let alone legal description [even in a gedanken experiment] for
software execution, this throwing of mystical balls representing very
abstract concepts like "control being passed".
>> 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.
Not if he's GPL, it doesn't. Not unless it wants to become infected by
the GPL. Get it? Your trying very very hard to explain this so that
you can convince me that this exclusionary effect is a bad thing. But I
*do* understand it, and I don't agree it is a bad thing, and my reasons,
logic, and results are valid, whether you wish to agree with them or
not. I could construct some fancy extension of your analogy (again)
about how some jugglers use balls that break the fingers of other
jugglers, but that doesn't prevent the analogy from being metaphysical
bunk.
>> 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.
It is NOT whether it transfers control: a program is *written* as
derivative, or it is not derivative. I know this wigs you out because
on the other side, you expect this makes your time travel experiment
impossible. But the fact is, the only thing that stops the time travel
experiment from being possible is ONLY the fact that it is very very
very very very unlikely. A program *when it is written* can be
derivative of a library *which has not yet been written*, according to
your gedanken experiment (and the insistence of some naive programmers),
as far as copyright rights are considered, because COPYRIGHT IS NOT
METAPHYSICAL. It does not imbue any "essence of IP" or anything, no
balls transferring control between jugglers. Copyright is merely a
book-keeping mechanism to ensure that authors are paid for their works.
It is not a guarantee that those works will be worth anything, EVEN IF
THEY ARE COMPLETE AND FUNCTIONAL.
I know that's a bunch of shotgun statements, but I am definitely
progressing in my arguments since last time we talked: you're still
stuck believing what you "know to be correct". The time travel
experiment still shows the same inevitable flaw it did last time: there
are no practical examples of the ability to write a program for a
library that doesn't exist. Your jugglers are just a waste of time, and
your cooks and their recipes have some serious category errors.
>> >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.
The CPU is the instructions in the hardware. How can it follow itself,
when the software cannot? Is it merely the fact that you can imagine
something physical (but inanimate) as animate, but you refuse to
consider something that is not physical as being animate? You do
realize a CPU is an inanimate object, right?
> 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.
If any of this is necessary to formulate a coherent and comprehensive
application of copyright law to software, then copyright law cannot be
coherently applied to software. We are not talking about "calling
instructions" and whether they are derived. We are talking about a
single, atomic piece of intellectual property: a program, or a library,
or several libraries, each considered, again, singular and atomic
(indivisible). You've merely illustrated by your descriptions that the
concept of "artistic integrity" is ENTIRELY AND COMPLETELY
INCOMPREHENSIBLE for software, and thus there's no reason at all they
should be covered by copyright. They are works of engineering,
compilations of scientifically, not artistically, feasible instructions.
If they were used by human beings as reading material, (as developers
do, which is why they find it so outrageously difficult to understand
this point) then they might at least *look* like works of authorship.
But they are, in the end, simply works of engineering. (I say that
simply not to denigrate engineers in comparison to artisans, but simply
to indicate that while they may require skill, just as an artisan does,
they do NOT require "artistry". What you mistake for aesthetic value is
actually, to yourself and anyone else in the world, elegance of design.
The choices you make from all the possibilities of how to program
something is not an issue of "beauty", but technical intuition.
>> 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.
If there is a mix of component which make a whole, the whole is derived
from all of the components, in proportion to the mix. The components
are not derived from each other, but no argument, AFAIK, has been
advanced to this point. Perhaps you are thinking that because you
cannot combine GPL with non-GPL, the GPL is infringing on the non-GPL
library's author's right to control his program. That is obviously
senseless, though, I think. The non-GPL library's author does not have
a "right" to combine with GPL code, nor does the combiner have a "right"
to be able to combine GPL with non-GPL code not granted him by the
author of the GPL code. And GPL authors specifically and vehemently
refuse to grant THAT right, because of actual and existent predatory
behavior by other non-GPL authors.
>> 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.
Blame those who made it necessary, not those who make it unreasonable
(to you).
[...]
>> 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.
"Use"? No, that is not "use". That is "develop derived works based on
the licensed work", in the context in which you _use_ the word. You do
not have the right to do that unless you can and will GPL the result.
You still have an entirely and absolutely unlimited right to use the
library, for the appropriate context of the word "use" in copyright law.
>> 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.
I understand your discomfort with this novel implementation of copyright
law which the FSF pursues, and honestly I agree with it, but believe the
matter would be correctly resolved by a court differently than you do.
I understand your distaste for the FSF's polemic and possibly even their
rhetorical use of the term "free". Ironically, I again agree, but am of
the opposite opinion: to my mind, their calling non-copyleft software
"free" is inaccurate and inconsistent, though I believe the
justification for doing so was practical.
Thank you for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
