Linux-Advocacy Digest #498, Volume #33 Wed, 11 Apr 01 01:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis (Brent R)
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux? ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux? ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux? ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a
tosser, and lies about free software)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 04:21:40 GMT
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Why only blame the GPL?
> >
> >Because it is the GPL that prevents distribution and places unconditional
> >claims on other people's work. Other licenses may have requirements
> >but they may be quite reasonable to meet. A license that demands that
> >you change the license on someone else's existing work has a
> >requirement that is both unreasonable and impossible to meet.
> >There is no way to consider those as similar encumbrances.
>
> Who is deceiving now? The GPL does not and *can not* place any claim on
> other peoples work. It places a restriction on *you* when *you* want to
> distribute the GPLed code. The author of the GPLed code is perfectly
> entitled to do so and often does so for a reason.
Yes, that reason is to control other people's work, as I'm quite
sure you know. Aren't you the same person who suggested a few
messages back that I should have changed the copyright on the
existing non-gpl'd works to meet the GPL demand if it were possible?
Why change your story about this demand now? If it were not
for this claim on other's work, there would be no need for the
difference between the GPL and the LGPL.
> >Because it included components that did not belong to me but had
> >their own terms that allowed free distribution. Even if I were
> >able to change the terms on those other works I would consider
> >it unethical to do so, just as I consider the GPL's demands about
> >other people's works to be unethical.
>
> man-db is unethical?
What does that mean?
> >> 2. It was legally impossible because you could not apply the GPL to the
> >> other part(s). This means that like the GPL, the other parts were
> >> licensed under equally restrictive conditions (i.e.: you can only
> >> redistribute this software under license A, B or C).
> >
> >The other components had restrictions, but they had nothing to do
> >with redistribution.
>
> Bull. If you *cannot redistribute* under a more restrictive license,
> then the license restrictions have everything to do with redistribution.
What? Being able to change the license on someone else's work
has nothing to do with redistribution.
> How more clear can it get? Look at the emphasised words!
Clear? You are very confused if you think that is clear. Besides,
if I were able to change any terms I would want to change the
more restrictive ones, not the opposite. But again, this has nothing
to do with redistribution.
> >> If you see a third possibility, I am eager to hear about it.
> >
> >As I recall the wattcp library did not allow modified versions
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >to be distributed - the author wanted to collect and collate the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >patches, if any.
>
> I rest my case.
Again, no problem with distributing binaries, no claims over code
that links with it. Source has always been available.
> >> Correct. The GPL ensures the freedom of use of the software you *have*.
> >> It also ensures the freedom of use for the person that gets the
software
> >> from you.
> >
> >But, it ensures that you can't share much of what you can use and others
> >would likely want to use as well.
>
> Again, who is the deceiver here? You can share perfectly well *under the
> same license*.
Consider the number of possible combinations that are allowed vs.
the combinations that are prohibited. There are more that can't be shared.
> >I thought we were talking about comparisons to free software which
> >allows distribution. If you have to compare to proprietary software
> >to find anything similar you should see that you are on the wrong track.
>
> We most certainly were not. We were disputing if redistribution is a
> form of use. I say no.
I've never mentioned any such thing. I have said all along that it is
impossible to use anything that can't be distributed to you.
> >> So my being able to have an unencumbered use is of no significance to
> >> you?
> >
> >No, why should it be significant to me that you can build something
> >that you are not allowed to share? Why would you prefer that to
> >a less restrictive license that not only provides you unencumbered
> >use but also leaves redistribution unencumbered?
>
> I'm not going to rehash that. You might want to lookup MID
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for an example of what I prefer.
> But it's nice to know that you don't consider freedom of use
> significant. Have you joined the pro-UCITA and pro-DMCA teams yet?
No, I don't object to any choice that is clear and explicit about
cost, your rights after meeting the license terms, and any
intentional inconvenience built into the product. However,
I don't think this is true for either the GPL or the other acronyms
you mention.
> >> >There is some small sample of code that completely meets the
> >> >detailed requirements of the GPL and is allowed to be distributed.
> >> >I don't see why you would want to restrict yourself to this isolated
> >> >set of code, or why you want to prevent others from derive new and
> >> >better versions from this base in combination with other existing
> >> >code that might also already have the first few years of development
> >> >bugs shaken out.
> >>
> >> Personally, I wouldn't call the superset of all GPLed, BSDLed, MIT
> >> licensed, public domain and much more software a "small sample of
code".
> >
> >The GPL'd set is the only part with the redistribution restrictions.
> >Fortunately, the BSDL'd and MIT components have permitted some
> >very useful products to exist.
>
> So you agree with me that the set of software that "meets the detailed
> requirements" of the GPL is quite a bit more than "some small sample of
> code"? Then why /did/ you post the paragraph above?
I wasn't aware that GPL'd code could be be linked with MIT or the original
BSDL code and redistributed. Thus the set that can remains small.
> >> BTW, nobody prevents others from deriving new code from this superset.
> >> It is only not allowed by the deriving developer or any other person in
> >> the chain of redistribution to add any additional restriction on top of
> >> the set of "GPL" restrictions. The way to enforce this is GPL the
> >> product.
> >
> >'Enforcing' such a thing on the BSD and MIT portions would likely
> >have resulted in TCP/IP being just another forgotten protocol and
> >unix just another forgotten OS.
>
> Personally I lack one of those nice crystal spheres to look into. Where
> did you get yours?
I just remember the days when everyone thought that OSI was going to
be the protocol that connected the world. The reason it wasn't had
nothing to do with TCP being better (if it had been, we would not
have any need for ipv6...). It had to do with the lack of restrictions
on redistribution of the base code combined with anything else. You
need a crystal sphere to predict the future. Hindsight is pretty obvious.
> >
> >And BSDL, MIT, Artistic License, none of which place any claims
> >on other people's work?
>
> Neither does the GPL.
Give it up unless you want to fantasize about the LGPL and GPL being
one and the same. They aren't and the reason is specifically to place
claims on other people's work.
> Yeah, OK. Debian is a cult. They redefine the word free. Just because
> you say so, right? Reasonable people are the people that share your
> views, right?
If you didn't already consider them to be extreme you wouldn't have
pointed them out as an example.
> Debian has created a list of 9 clear demands for software licenses to
> abide to before the software can be called free. They didn't broaden the
> list, they narrowed it down!
Come up with a few dozen other groups that agree exactly and maybe
we'll see a middle-of-the road opinion.
> Look, I feel sorry for you if you burned your fingers by not doing your
> legal homework when it comes to reusing other people's code. But I see
> no reason why you should project your frustrations on the other people
> by calling them deceivers.
I wasn't the only one, and I would like to reduce the number of people
deceived in the future. And I especially object to the characterization
that the terms that relate to other people's works are a good thing
or in any way necessary for the future of free source.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:19:12 -0400
Chad Everett wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:26:01 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >WesTralia wrote:
> >>
> >> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, WesTralia
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote
> >> > on Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:12:23 -0500
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >[...]
> >> > >
> >> > >> > Assembly might become a lost art....
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Personally, it's still my favorite type of programming...
> >> > >> followed by microcoding.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Because elegance and efficiency are closely tied at that level.
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >I think I am going to be sick!
> >> >
> >> > Eh? Please explain. Unless it's related to some personal vendetta
> >> > between you and Aaron, in which case don't bother. :-)
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, it's like this, I am going to be sick in Aaron's case in the same
> >> sense that I would become sick if I saw Barbara Striesand (Babs) preaching
> >> foreign policy and energy conservation.
> >>
> >> For a Wintendo98 DosLuser, Aaron and microcoding seem like strange bedfellows.
> >> Translation: BS!
> >
> >Actually, I microcoded the PDP-11 instruction set, after writing
> >a microcode simulator for a proposed CPU architecture.
> >
> >And yes,....it ran PDP-11 object code flawlessly.
> >
>
> Have you written any code in the last ten years? How about the last five
> years? What about this year?
Most of what I've done in the last 5 years has been shell scripting.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:19:51 -0400
Brent R wrote:
>
> Martin Eden wrote:
>
> > (And I have to admit, he is
> > entertaining).
>
> Wow... you hit the nail right on the head. I took Kulkis off of killfile
> to get a few cheap laughs. He's almost as funny as Derek Smart.
>
Glad to amuse you.
> --
> - Brent
>
> http://rotten168.home.att.net
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:21:07 -0400
Brent R wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > I don't care if people know my name...it's the name of the OS, and
> > the software that I'm using that I want obscured.
>
> So as a "UNIX administrator" you're running an insecure system right?
>
> Or you're lying.
What I will tell you is that I'm *NOT* running Windows, and I'm *NOT*
running Netscape.
hope that helps.
>
> --
> - Brent
>
> http://rotten168.home.att.net
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 04:36:22 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Brent R wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > > I don't care if people know my name...it's the name of the OS, and
> > > the software that I'm using that I want obscured.
> >
> > So as a "UNIX administrator" you're running an insecure system right?
> >
> > Or you're lying.
>
> What I will tell you is that I'm *NOT* running Windows, and I'm *NOT*
> running Netscape.
>
> hope that helps.
Yeah, like I said, you're either running Windows 98 or you're running a
(self-admitted by you) insecure system. Just what are you afraid of?
> > --
> > - Brent
> >
> > http://rotten168.home.att.net
--
- Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:49:50 -0400
On 10 Apr 2001, Rob S. Wolfram wrote:
>> individual source modules used in Linux aren't change. The third
>> reality -- not possibility, but reality -- is that rGPL + rOL > rGPL,
>
> rGPL + rBSDL == rGPL
> rGPL + rMIT == rGPL
The combinations of restrictions are limited -- but the licence is GPL
for the GPLed code, GPL for the work as a whole, and BSDL or MITL for
the portions which were originally BSDLed or MITLed. The code hasn't
been relicensed.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux?
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 04:59:32 GMT
[snips]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bob Hauck"
> Do you usually use apt and rpm on the same machine? No. Do you usually
> use the whole collection of old formats on the same machine? Yes.
Right; I use HTML and TXT and DOC and MDB, and not a one of them is
interchangeable. I also use Wise and InstallShield and MSI and not a one
of them is interchangeable. Not surprising, they're all from different
vendors. Big deal.
> Do
> both apt and rpm give you tools to find out what is installed and where
> it is? Yes. Do the Windows installers give you these tools? No
So complain to InstallShield and Wise; they're the ones who made the
installers.
> However, to answer your other questions, you can in fact install both
> apt and rpm on the same machine if you want to.
Yes, but that wasn't quite the question; it was whether I could use apt
tools to install, edit, and so on RPM packages and vice-versa - whether they're
interchangeable. See, if they're _not_, then we have the MSI +
InstallShield + Wise situation all over again, with incompatible
installers. We _may_ actually have tools available to convert... but
then again, if you really wanted that for Windows, why wouldn't you ask
the people responsible for the formats to supply a tool?
> was done. On Linux, all of the package managers can give you this
> information without the need of add-ons.
This is now true of Win2K, WinME, Win98, NT4 and, IIRC, Win95 as well,
with MSI. See, the logic was to provide a standardized installation
method, since apparently issues such as "don't put older DLLs on top of
newer ones" was beyond the grasp of some install developers. MSI manages
that sort of crud for you. Plus adds a mess of new things.
> I'm sure that if you buy the developer kits from these helpful vendors
> that you will get the utilities. However, that does not help end-users
> manage their systems.
Nor would it; prior to MSI, installs were not, generally, built to be
managed, ubt rather, to be installed. MSI is based on the concept of
product management, rather than merely installation, so it offers a lot
more.
> While it is nice that you all think that you can do such a great job
> with your installers that nobody would ever need to second-guess them,
> bitter experience tells me that is not the case. The fact that there
> are third-party utilities to do part of the job
Which part of the job? I've never seen a third-party product that will
examine an InstallShield proprietary installation package and allow you
to extend it, alter it, or do anytihng useful with it. Sure, there are
some tools for, say, removing things left behind by uninstalls... but
again, mostly that's an issue of sloppy install _developers_, rather than
failings in the technology itself. Also, again, MSI fixes most of those
issues.
>> > Works great until the network is down or the disk is full. Then
>> > you've created a whole new class of errors.
>>
>> Depends what one means by "error".
>
> And what the meaning of "is" is.
Cute.
> If the package needed isn't on the
> machine, or can't be installed, then the user will be confronted with an
> error that he did not expect.
"I've chosen to only install a portion of the available packages.
Therefore I am surprised when they're not actually all there." Okay, I
grant there may well be users this stupid, but are they really relevant
to the discussion here?
> Having been lead to believe that the
> package is already "installed"
Led by whom? One of two people decided to set things up that way: them
or their administrators. If they set it up that way, see above. If
their admins did, then the admins have assumed the responsibility for
ensuring that their users "get it". Sorta like creating a user account;
the admin has to make sure the user "gets it", or the user won't be able
to use the machine; is this a flaw of using a logon mechanism?
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux?
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 05:02:13 GMT
[snips]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Craig Kelley"
> ... and now you get to reboot *before* installing a product (after the
> "Microsoft Installer" has been updated), and then again after you
> install the product. Yay.
Assuming you install 3 packages a day, every day, expect to reboot for
this reason at most once every 6 months or so; hardly the end of the
world.
>
>> >One big difference between this technology and previous install
>> >technology is that "is installed" takes on something of a vague
>> >meaning; in a lot of cases, while the product is "installed", perhaps
>> >only a meg or two of it are actually copied to the machine - the rest
>> >can be faulted in as needed.
>>
>> Works great until the network is down or the disk is full. Then you've
>> created a whole new class of errors.
>
> Or if you have users that aren't on the WAN, in which case they are
> prompted for the "XXXXXX" CD-ROM every time you access some particular
> feature that wasn't explicitly installed (and even then, Microsoft
> Office 2000 won't install everything even if you tell it to).
So talk to the admin who set that up. He _could_ have rolled out the
whole package locally. Or he could have set up a half dozen FTP sites,
plus the LAN share point, plus the CD, so that nothing short of the end
of the Internet would prevent a user being able to update his
installation as needed. He didn't. So blame the tool, right?
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux?
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 05:03:31 GMT
In article <9agu0l$mj9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David Steinberg"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gary Hallock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : InstallShield is available for Linux
>
> And getting all the use that it deserves. Does anyone really believe
> that InstallShield actually does a better job than dpkg + apt-get or
> even rpm?
Considering RPM's track record around here, it would be very difficult to
do even _as_ poorly as RPM, never mind worse.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
