Linux-Advocacy Digest #452, Volume #33 Sun, 8 Apr 01 15:13:12 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
DVD on Linux? ("Andy Walker")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: DVD on Linux? (Salvador Peralta)
Weekly Posting: Where to Find Linux Frequently Asked Questions with Answers
(Pointer) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 17:09:21 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 7 Apr 2001 14:06:02 -0500...
...and Logan Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, TeX is decent, reliable, and available for every single platform
> I've ever heard of in my life (except PalmOS, but I might be wrong
> about even that). But, a typesetting tool like that might be overkill
> for many purposes.
Is there a DVI viewer for PalmOS?
mawa
--
Shoot someone, get shot. Sounds good, at least in theory.
Have people think you shot someone, get shot. Who will shoot them?
-- mawa in a mail to Eric S. Raymond
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 8 Apr 2001 18:36:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roger Perkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That's reality, Roberto. Not opinion. My graduate degree is in
>International Relations so I am familiar with this field. You bring up
>generalities and expect specifics in return.
Uh? If bringing up the US support of Pinochet and the answer is
"the US acts in the best interest of the US" I think you are
the one trading specifics for generalities.
> Just because you don't like my
>answers doesn't make them incorrect.
Just because they are yours, that doesn�t make them specific.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 8 Apr 2001 18:40:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin"
>
>> So "though shalt not assassinate" means murder is wrong but killing is
>> OK? "Though shalt not slay" means the same thing? Sounds more to me
>> like it isn't so much murder as killing of a human (as opposed to
>> killing a calf, which obviously isn't going to fly in the Old
>> Testament.) Which is to say, it says "though shalt not kill", as
>> indicated, despite this linguistic quibbling that you use to try to
>> justify war.
>
>Read Exodus and Numbers. God instructed the Israelites to wage war and kill
>entire populations. The quibble is using one verse from scripture to state
>all killing is wrong, when in fact, use of that one verse of scripture to
>support such a position is wrong.
Suppose instead of God, your general (when you were in the army)
told you "don�t kill people". Then later, he told you "kill these
specific persons".
You would probably not see any contradiction if you went and killed
those specific persons, right?
It would be logical, for a theocratic army, to kill if told God
ordered to kill, even if god had previously ordered not to kill
in general, because it would be a more specific command.
Now, if you are using the bible to support war, I will agree it
makes sense, as soon as you mention me when god told you to wage
war against whom.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 8 Apr 2001 18:42:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 18:27:55 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Roberto Alsina"
>> >
>> >> >> That would be a sin of omission in catholicspeak.
>> >> >
>> >> >Since you said in another post, "Well, I don't really give a damn about
>> >the
>> >> >bible, to be honest", why do you conitue to speak from the "catholic"
>> >point
>> >> >of view
>> >>
>> >> I don't speak from a catholic point of view, I speak from my point of
>> >view.
>> >> In this particular case, it's close to there.
>> >>
>> >> > or use "catholicspeak"?
>> >>
>> >> Well, I am not english, yet you don't see me posting in french.
>> >
>> >So you don't care for the Bible but use it in an attempt to strengthen your
>> >argument.
>>
>> Indeed. The arguments used to convince someone are the arguments that
>> convince HIM, not the arguments that convince ME.
>
>P.S. It didn't work
A temporary setback.
>If I see some scoundrel about to kill an innocent little girl,
>I'm gonna wax the asshole with a clear conscience.
I instead will kill him without a clear conscience.
That is one of the many differences between you and me.
And that is one reason I am happy to be me and not you.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 8 Apr 2001 18:50:14 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:31:11 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 5 Apr 2001 23:41:34
>
>>>>If you say that implementing the interface is a copyright violation,
>>>>the copyright of WHAT is being violated?
>>>
>>>Are you only now figuring out that 'intellectual property' is an
>>>abstraction, and is not actually bound into physical substance?
>>
>>Each violation of copyright is the violation of the copyright of a
>>specific work. What work's copyright is being violated?
>
>Other than spouting tautologies, was that supposed to mean anything to
>me?
Yes. What is the work whose copyright was violated in the example
now deleted? Simple question.
>>>Perhaps we need a new clause to explain this to software developers,
>>>because their technical education seems to force them to think in terms
>>>of metaphysical manipulations of things. Something like "A software
>>>author has the right to dictate whether anyone ever makes any money on
>>>the very existence of his code in any way now or in the future, and has
>>>no right to keep secret any code he writes which relates functionally to
>>>any other code owned by someone else."
>>
>>If the copyright law said anything like that, a library (and I mean
>>one of those with books) would be violating copyright.
>
>They are, strictly speaking. They get a special exemption, essentially.
>But you'll notice Stephen King's newest thriller isn't available in a
>library, so nobody cares. Buy a new best seller, donate it to a
>library, and precisely how are you acting any different the being on
>Napster?
I am not copying the book. I am not increasing the number
of copies of the book in existence.
>>You see, your theory is incredibly stupid, because it would
>>forbid a bazillion things that are commonly accepted practice
>>in the field where copyright has its roots: books. Like, say,
>>cliff's notes.
>
>No, it is your theory that is "stupid", for that very reason; because
>you believe my theory would result in these inconsistences, and it
>doesn't. At least no any more than the standard theory does (I'm
>careful, after all, not to create a theory that makes impossible what I
>know to exist.)
YEt you claim that donating a book to a library is an analogy to
napster. Either you don�t know what donating is, or don�t know
what napster does.
>Your theory, in case you're interested, requires the conception of
>"copyright" as a metaphysical substance. If you would like me to
>explain how, then you should ask questions, and I'll explain it.
I�d rather pinch my eye with a tweezer.
>>>>>>Are you saying they would sue over an API copyright?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it is not API copyright, though the difference is amazingly subtle.
>>>>
>>>>Or the difference is only in your mind? ;-)
>>>
>>>Your ability to grasp abstractions is simply staggering, Roberto.
>>
>>Whoa, my ability to grasp abstractions is "so surprisingly impressive
>>as to stun or overwhelm" you? Thanks! I am sure yours will be just
>>as good if you study at nights!
>
>Maybe you should look up the word "sarcasm", you would understand how
>thoroughly you just got flamed.
Perhaps you should notice the concept of "a reply in kind".
>>> In
>>>case you weren't aware, 'API', 'copyright', and 'intellectual property'
>>>are all also entirely mental concepts. So when someone suggests there's
>>>a difference between two things that you can't see, it's rather insipid
>>>to proclaim it isn't there because you can't see it.
>>
>>Well, let's see. you have a very flimsy grasp on anything software
>>related,
>
>No, I'm sorry, I did not say that.
I am saying that.
>>and apparently a not much better one of copyright law,
>
>I did say that, but only in the same vein as the above.
Well, there is such a thing as unintentional wisdom.
>>you say there is a difference,
>
>Indeed, there must be, or both the GPL and the monopoly would be
>completely comprehensible to you.
>
>>show no indication of what the
>>difference is,
>
>I'm sorry if you missed it, but you have to pay attention. The
>difference is that your conception of software is metaphysically based.
My conception of software is strictly practical. Software is a material
entity to me.
>>and I should just accept it?
>
>Certainly not. You should question it, you should probe it, you should
>explore it. You should get your head out of your ass.
>
>>I am not gullible, Max. You have to work harder than that.
>
>Sorry, that's as hard as I'm willing to work until you start paying me.
I would have to be a lot drunker to pay you for the abilities shown here.
What precisely is your field of expertise? Not software, not law...
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 8 Apr 2001 18:54:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:39:53 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 5 Apr 2001 23:44:43
> [...]
>>Heck, no. That makes no sense, in general.
>
>This response is meaningless, as it purposefully avoided addressing the
>intent of the very text which it supposedly responded to.
How would we know? You deleted the text. I don�t recall.
>>> I have never claimed there is a difference, but Austin was.
>>>"(Hint: plug-ins are libraries)".
>>
>>I can't parse that. "plugins are libraries" means there is no difference
>>, not that there is a difference.
>
>Look, Roberto; you're being a pig-headed asshole. *I* didn't say
>"plugins are libraries". The person I was *responding to* was, and my
>response was "plug-ins are not libararies; they are plug-ins". Would
>you get a fucking grip, please?
I see that Austin claimed there was no difference.
Your response to that was of disagreement. Yet you claim there is no
difference.
Do you agree with Austin that there is no difference?
If you agree there is no difference, why did you say they are
not the same ("plugins are not libraries").
You really seem to be speaking from both sides of your mouth
here.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 8 Apr 2001 18:58:53 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:43:40 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 5 Apr 2001 23:55:57
>GMT;
>>On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:32 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 5 Apr 2001 15:10:06
>>>>On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:08:26 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 Apr 2001 19:10:39
>>>>>>On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:10:30 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 Apr 2001 12:01:40
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>It is technically simple, and it is done all the time.
>>>>>>>>It can't be ludicrous, because it's happening, and will continue to happen.
>>>>>>>>Technical ignorance is not a defense against reality.
>>>>>>>Please provide a couple examples of programs which were written to use
>>>>>>>libraries which did not yet exist. I do not believe "it" is done all
>>>>>>>the time, though I do know for a fact that you and other's have
>>>>>>>misconstrued what "it" is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>FTE. Text editor. With no modification to the original sources, just
>>>>>>a little dynamic linking magic (could be done at runtime if you want)
>>>>>>it now uses Qt or KDElibs (2.0b5 or later).
>>>>>
>>>>>It was written before Qt or KDElibs were?
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>So there were no libraries which existed at the time that did what Qt
>>>and KDElibs now do, but this program somehow was written to be able to
>>>use such a library, though it didn't exist?
>>
>>Precisely.
>
>You obviously misunderstood the question. No, you cannot write a
>program which requires a library which does not yet exist.
You are changing the verbs: this paragraph is the first time in the
subthread you use "requires". I didn�t say "requires" and you didn�t
say "requires". If you change that, it is all very different.
>>>>> Perhaps you misunderstand (as
>>>>>I seem to have suspected) what "it" is. A program that was written that
>>>>>*requires* a library that has never been written.
>>>>
>>>>Mind you, this "requires" stuff is new. We have been saying "uses".
>>>
>>>Most of the time it is quibbling to make the point, but "uses" is a
>>>rather generic term, like "use", and its expected you need to be able to
>>>change it into some other word, in theory, simply for it to make any
>>>sense at all. But, yes, I had always assumed that when you said a
>>>program "uses" a library, it means it is required for some function of
>>>that software to be operational.
>>
>>Well, that's why I say you should not discuss software issues.
>>Uses and requires are very different things.
>
>No, they are not, in this context.
They are EXTREMELY different things, in any context. One states
a necessity, the other states simply a functional relation.
> The only way you could possibly
>believe they are is if you purposefully misunderstood the premise.
Indeed, if you meant "requires" all along, and you kept
saying "uses" all along, I would say there is a purposeful
misunderstanding.
>>>>> If any *other*
>>>>>libraries are already available, the case is flawed; the GPL library
>>>>>linking stipulation already indicates that the situation involves
>>>>>libraries which are only available GPL.
>>>>
>>>>Where?
>>>
>>>A priori. If there are multiple libraries a program can use
>>>interchangeably and only one is GPL, the FSF does not claim protection.
>>
>>Since when the FSF defines the law?
>
>They define licenses, which are legal constructs. They do not define
>laws, despite your contention that they do.
They don�t define what the license means. They only define the text
of the license. The meaning of the license depends on the law.
>(You see how obstructive one can be if one is actually trying to
>inhibit, rather than promote, communication?)
Yes, your posts are an excellent example.
>>If you are saying the FSF's
>>position is correct: why is it correct? On what part of the law
>>do you base that position?
>
>Get a real argument, then get back to me.
Well, that looked like one. Perhaps you don�t have one, though.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: DVD on Linux?
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 19:58:08 -0000
I was trying to find out how to get my DVD to play on Linux the other day
and found out that there is a reverse engineered decryption package needed
to do so.
I then found out that it is illegal in the USA to even provide an address to
where this code is and that a magazine has been prosecuted for providing
this information!
Is this true, because if it is, then it must be one of the most insane
pieces of legislation in history.
The way I see it, is that if I buy a DVD drive that is advertised as such
and a DVD disk that is aledgedly compatible, then it should play on that
unit. If it does not do this, then it is false advertising which is illegal
and you should be entitled to your money back on said unit.
If the manufacturers want encryption then it's up to then to imbed it it
their hardware and up to us if we choose to use it. It is not acceptable to
mislead us into buying the hardware and then tell us we cannot use it
because we happen to use Linux as our operating system. The odour of greedy
multi-national companies is rife in the air.
As this law doesn't exist in the UK, does anyone know where I can get the
necessary files?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 8 Apr 2001 19:02:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:54:33 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 Apr 2001 00:06:04
>GMT;
>>On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:35 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>What part of copyright law says anything about being "useful"? Or
>>>>that the covered program must work at all?
>>>
>>>The one that makes it part of the laws of the United States of America,
>>>where epistemological arguments are not allowed to make an individuals
>>>rights disappear in a puff of smoke.
>>>
>>>If it isn't useful or doesn't work, it is not valuable to anybody, hence
>>>cannot be bought and sold, hence cannot be intellectual property.
>>
>>Excuse me, but you are making that up.
>
>It is an abstraction, yes. I would even go so far as to point out that
>it is a conceptual extension of current copyright law. What's your
>point?
That we are not ruled by conceptual extensions of the law that exist
solely in your mind.
>>What is the "usefulness", of "Satisfaction"? how does it "work"?
>
>Ask the guy who's paying for it; the customer is always right, in these
>things.
You are using circular reasoning: works can only be protected if
they are functional. All works protected must be functional or
noone would pay for them. Noone would pay for them if they
weren�t protected.
Therefore: works are protected or they wouldn�t be protected.
That�s stupid.
>>Yet it is intellectual property, and can be bought and sold.
>
>Only because the law pretends that it exists, and because the customer
>is willing to buy it. If *either* condition does not apply, then the
>whole case goes in the toilet.
So, a song the Stones write is IP, but a song I write
is not? That�s not the law.
>>Everything I write is my intellectual property, unless it's a derivative
>>work of someone else's. No ifs or buts. THAT is the law.
>
>Quite true. And nothing you write is valuable, unless the *expression*,
>not just the *ideas* (engineering; programming) are valuable,
Value of the creatin is irrelevant to its status as a protected work.
> according
>to that same law. Copyright is not a guarantee that something is
>valuable, nor a way to guarantee that something is worth money, nor an
>excuse to profiteer on it if it turns out that it is. It is merely a
>guarantee that if it is worth money, the author gets a cut. No
>guarantees that he'll get rich, just that nobody else profits unless he
>does.
And how you get from there to "only functional programs can be
protected", we will never know.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DVD on Linux?
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:19:18 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andy Walker quoth:
> I was trying to find out how to get my DVD to play on Linux the
> other day and found out that there is a reverse engineered
> decryption package needed to do so.
www.livid.org
--
Salvador Peralta -o)
Programmer/Analyst, Webmaster / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Weekly Posting: Where to Find Linux Frequently Asked Questions with Answers
(Pointer)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 19:08:42 GMT
Where to Find Linux Frequently Asked Questions with Answers
The complete text FAQ is posted weekly in six parts to the following
Usenet News groups:
- comp.os.linux.misc
- comp.answers
- news.answers
The latest version of the FAQ is available as searchable HTML, DocBook
SGML, and text at its home site:
- http://www.mainmatter.com/
In addition, it is archived in various formats on the following sites:
- ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/
- http://www.linuxdoc.org/
- http://www.faqs.org/
Suggestions and errata for the FAQ are always welcome. Please
send them to the FAQ maintainer:
- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank you for your time and support of Linux!
Robert Kiesling
Linux FAQ Maintainer
--
Robert Kiesling
Linux FAQ Maintainer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.mainmatter.com/linux-faq/toc.html http://www.mainmatter.com/
---
Tired of spam? Please forward messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
