Linux-Advocacy Digest #654, Volume #33 Tue, 17 Apr 01 01:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal (T. Max Devlin)
Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal (T. Max Devlin)
Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 04:18:01 GMT
Said Jon Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 11 Apr 2001 14:23:04
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 2 Apr 2001 18:43:06 -0500, Jon Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>> >> > Really now. I would also ask how in the hell
>> >> > you've determined that Microsoft has merely
>> >> > implemented some 4.4BSD code in order to
>> >> > get Windows2000. Do you have access to the
>> >> > WindowsNT v4.0 and v5.0 source trees?
>> >>
>> >> the "strings" command finds embedded strings in ANY file, including
>> >> compiled executables and dll files.
>> >>
>> >> "Copyright (C), Regents of the University of California" strings have
>> >> been found in Mafia$oft's DLL files.
>> >>
>> >> Hope that helps.
>> >
>> >I don't believe you. How about showing us one?
>> >
>>
>> Hey Everybody! It's Jon! Hi Jon!
>>
>> You asked, so here ya go:
>>
>> Here are some files from a Windows 2000 Professional system along with
>> the copyright strings that are contained in them:
>>
>> C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\finger.exe
>> @(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
>> C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\nslookup.exe
>> @(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.
>> C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\rcp.exe
>> @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
>> C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\rsh.exe
>> @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
>> C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\FTP.EXE
>> @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
>>
>
>Yer right - look at that. Proof from a linvocate - sorry, that caught me off
>guard.
Let's all do it, now:
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!
(As in: Guffaw!)
>big deal - you don't really consider those commands significant to the rest
>of W2K do you?
Obviously, that would depend on precisely what you would define as
"significant". If you were, say, a happy Microsoft customer
(<*hmphgh*>) then you probably wouldn't know what a program file is, so
you probably wouldn't consider them significant. Analytically, I think
we all have to agree that this is somewhat decisive, as the majority of
users must be considered in that group, or we end up second-guessing
everyone. If you were one of the small group, however, who did know
what a program file is, and understood the significance of these strings
being found in those files, the situation changes.
You would then have to, I imagine, fall into one of two groups,
logically. Either you continue to find them insignificant, or you
don't. If you do, then I would suggest that there would be a strong
correlation between that, and an abstract quanta of whatever it is that
drives somebody to be a sock-puppet for a criminal organization.
Obviously, you would find them insignificant then, at least in terms of
vindicating, or apologizing for, the criminal organization in question
from any civil claims against them. One might be tempted to say "in
order to" apologize for the monopoly, you would believe they are
insignificant. There might be (must be) some undefined group, who
continues to find them insignificant but is not a sock-puppet, in any
way; if you have no complicity you can not be held responsible for being
the victim of a crime, obviously. My theory would then require that any
person who is complicit in the development of the monopoly is in some
sense, a sock puppet.
I thereby indict myself for the ethical lapse which caused me to promote
the use of Windows in the early 1990s, despite my growing awareness of
their anti-competitive activities and strategies. I plead ignorance;
how could I possibly grasp how close I was to whatever it is that allows
such crappy software to be so prevalent and unavoidable, and yet still
so crappy, and yet still so unavoidable? I throw myself on the mercy of
the court and submit the last several years of effort to correct this
oversight as proof of my rectitude.
As for the last group, the overwhelming majority of technically
knowledgeable folk, to suggest that FTP, NSLOOKUP, or R* commands (!!!)
are "insignificant" in the modern world of Internet connectivity is
simply laughable. Sure, they're somewhat archaic at this point, but I
don't believe this was Win95b we're talking here: these strings are on
Windows2000! Yes, of course that's significant, you moron.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 04:18:05 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 11 Apr 2001
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Yer right - look at that. Proof from a linvocate - sorry, that caught me
>off
>> > guard.
>> >
>> > big deal - you don't really consider those commands significant to the
>rest
>> > of W2K do you?
>>
>> FTP isn't significant?
>
>Few people use the command line program. Either they use IE, which uses
>WinInet (not the FTP command) or they use a program like WS_FTP or CuteFTP.
>None of which use the FTP command.
WS_FTP and CuteFTP are not copyright 1983 The Regents of the University
of California, though, are they?
>> Clue for the clueless--that's the protocol used for pushing all
>> the files every time you browse a web page.
>
>Looks like you're the clueless one. Web pages use HTTP for file transfers
>(you know, downloading images, or Java code, or whatever). Not FTP, and
>even when a page links to an FTP site, Neither IE or Netscape make use of
>the FTP command.
Yea; we get the point. You've succeeded in being as clueless as Aaron.
Congratulations.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 04:18:07 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 11 Apr 2001 21:57:01
>"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Clue for the clueless--that's the protocol used for pushing all
>> >> the files every time you browse a web page.
>>
>> > Looks like you're the clueless one. Web pages use HTTP for file
>transfers
>> > (you know, downloading images, or Java code, or whatever). Not FTP, and
>>
>> Wrong. The "publish" thing in the browsers is ftp.
>
>Um, can you be even more ambiguous?!
>What "publish" "thing" in which browsers?
Why? Does it matter? Or are you just hunting for an argument to deny
that Microsoft's functionality is premised on other people's
intellectual property, not their own? You don't make much of a point by
arguing with Aaron; you really ought to just give up if that's the best
you can do, Jan.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 04:18:09 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 09 Apr 2001 01:55:17
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 06 Apr 2001 04:44:52
>> [...]
>> >It doesn't matter how useful they are, the only point of the GPL is
>> >to keep most people from obtaining them.
>>
>> Because most people don't understand the danger of proprietary software;
>> they think there's actually a *reason* to spend hundreds and thousands
>> and millions of dollars a year on something they already have!
>
>You never have to spend more than something is worth unless there
>is a monopoly controlling the supply.
That's an unfalsifiable tautology, and therefore useless and
unsupportable. The definition of "something is worth" is merely defined
as "what was paid". Its a cute little word-game, maybe, but useless for
any serious discussion. You're going to have to concretize your
concepts to be intelligible.
>All it takes is some competition.
>The GPL encourages the continued monopoly by making it impossible
>to use GPL'd code in combination with other components by a
>competitive startup.
Yea, right; that's going to fly as a logical premise. Looks a lot like
"GPL is evil" as stated by MS, only they don't say it continues any
monopoly. They are prepared to deny the monopoly as much as you are
prepared to deny the contribution that non-GPL "free" software has made
to that monopoly. And then you're going to pretend that it is the GPL's
fault? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. I honestly used to think you had a real
argument, Les.
>> >A few people can build
>> >their own versions or hire consultants to do it - most can't.
>>
>> And you're relying on that fact, rather than the possibility you can do
>> it _well_, to pay for your retirement.
>
>That makes even less sense than anything else you've said.
I took off the training wheels. If you can't keep up, think harder.
>I've never
>been interested in selling GPL code.
I don't care.
>I've been prevented from giving
>it away, and I've been prevented from buying it as cheap competition
>to a monopolistic company's offerings.
I don't care.
>And so have you.
Yes, but I assign the blame more rationally, recognizing that it is the
monopoly which prevented cheap competitive alternatives, not the failure
of the alternatives to be politically correct according to your private
definitions.
>If you can
>understand why PC hardware is cheap you should be able to understand
>that anything that promotes interoperability and competition is good for
> everyone, and things like the GPL that prevent them are not.
Yes, but not as bad as the alternative, and so magically what does
prevent does not prevent. Abstraction; its a bitch, ain't it?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 04:18:11 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 Apr 2001 18:50:14
>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.
I don't know, I don't care, and it doesn't matter because copyright and
'work' are not metaphysical substances who's integrity must be defended.
Copyright gets "infringed"; it cannot be "violated" to the level of
violence that would call for such a word, since copyright is not a
matter of criminal law. The more direct and specific "plagiarize" does
seem to have the kind of metaphoric emphasis you might prefer, but of
course we are not talking about plagiarism, but infringement.
"What is the work whose copyright was infringed" would be the same
question as "what is the work which is protected by copyright",
obviously. Can you sort through your deleted example, now?
[...]
>>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.
Copyright is not a metaphysical substance. The total number of books in
existence is irrelevant. If you are making money on an author's work
without his permission, you are infringing: this is the book-keeping
truth of copyright, and no amount of gedanken experiments is going to
change that.
>>>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.
I don't consider copyright a metaphysical substance, that is all. I do
know that the critical PHYSICAL difference between the two is that
napster works with digital content, which are completely reduplicatable
without degradation. I am not so misinformed about the Law, however,
that I think this makes any difference, other than making duplication of
music (or books in electronic form, or anything else in digital form)
incredibly cheap, and potentially (much to the chagrin of those who made
LOTS of money before digital content) so cheap that it cannot sustain a
profit. If you can't compete with the pirates, then you have to get
them into court so you can charge royalties: copyright demands that an
author get a cut. But if there's no money changing hands, or no revenue
stream for the copier? Then you get the thanks of everyone who
appreciates your contribution to the development of the sciences and
useful arts, and no more.
No, there's no difference at all between a library and napster. There
is no mystical importance to "copying" some bit of intellectual
authorship; that's just a handy hook to use in managing the
book-keeping.
>>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.
Well, if you haven't started sorting things out by now, and getting a
better grip on "copyright", then I suggest you do that, instead, because
you obviously aren't up to the more intellectual pursuit.
>>>>>>>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".
Yes, but I fail to see what it has to do with this case: my reply was
funny, and yours was not.
>>>> 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.
Well, Duh. You're so wrong it is not even funny; its just the typical
jealous bigotry of the specialist. You have a flimsy grasp, in fact, of
anything software related, despite your ability to program software.
You've been trained to come up with all these metaphysical ideas about
how your software works, you can't seem to turn it off, and you keep
making up such as ideas as if they are rational explanations for the
world around you.
[...]
>>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.
Thus the problem. That idea of software is obviously not very
practical. Even assuming that by "entity" you did not mean "willful,
cognizant entity", but actually just meant "object". Obviously, calling
software a material object is not what you meant, either. Put this
confusion together with your wholly arbitrary but supposedly logical
understanding of copyright, and its no wonder you have such problems
understanding what you are supposedly so expert in.
>>>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...
But both, that's right. If you try real hard to think harder, you MIGHT
be able to adequately understand maybe ONE of them. Until then, you've
got too much of a "stick up your ass condescending prick" attitude about
you, so I'll desist here.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 04:18:12 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 09 Apr 2001 01:43:25
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >>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.
>
>Of course you can. Large projects always start with API specs so the
>components can be developed in parallel. There is no reason to wait
>for a library to exist before writing code that will use it.
And of course, these projects do not then involve weeks and months of
fixing all the problems in the code because you can't really do what you
described very well, even if you can do it practically.
You've described a process which seems to me to clearly indicate that it
is an engineering project. The API would thereby, at least by analogy,
be the architectural plans, would it not? Now there must be some very
large and important flaw in my analogy, because architectural plans are
covered by copyright, but APIs are not, and works of engineering are not
covered by copyright, but large software projects are. But I guess
"wherever there is effort, someone deserves to get paid for it." Does
that mean that an architect or engineer could charge everyone who enters
a building? Well, the owner can, can't they? But is this a copyright
license, or just an admission ticket? Do you believe a theater ticket
is a copyright license?
I'm just trying to get somewhere in sorting all this out. You can
pretend these aren't conundrums, but that certainly doesn't suggest that
you understand copyright law, only that you are willing to take for
granted that it is just and it is always enforced justly. (Or that
there is no such thing as "justice", and therefore you have a stunted
ethical sense.)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 04:18:15 GMT
Said Stefaan A Eeckels in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 8 Apr 2001
[...]
>You're not getting the point, are you? Your reasoning
>leads to the conclusion that every work is based on
>the works in the same field that predate it. Without
>Sherlock Holmes, Perry Mason would not have existed,
>but that doesn't make a Perry Mason story a derivative
>of a Sherlock Holmes story.
I got to that point about a year and a half ago. I'm not the one saying
that any software is "derivative" of another, or that it even merits
copyright protection. I am saying that if you DO provide it copyright
protection, then the definition of "derivative" becomes whatever is
necessary to encourage the development of science and the useful arts.
Right now, monopoly prevents any development; I would just as soon stop
paying any programmer for anything until that situation is resolved.
I am not "justifying" my use of derivative simply in whatever way is
necessary to make it fit; I am saying it does and it will make sense,
because I will explain to you how it makes sense, in any real world
instance. Your supposition is not a real world instance. In the real
world, if we turned it into a gedanken experiment, Sir Doyle would have
a right to sue; whether he would win is not something that is an
absolute certainty, either way.
>> Are you beginning to understand the point of copyright, at all?
>> Copyright is not metaphysical; it is book-keeping.
>
>It is what the law defines it to be.
>But you suggestion that it is about bean counting
>(it uses 'n' words or concepts or services that happen
>to appear or be available in another work) is most
>certainly incorrect.
Your understanding of what beans are being counted is entirely
incorrect. I don't know where you got it; "book-keeping" is a term
which indicates financial transactions. The law defines copyright to be
whatever is necessary to promote development of the sciences and useful
arts by securing for authors the exclusive right to profit from their
works; that is clearly spelled out, in precisely that language, in the
US Constitution, and I suggest that the same ethical and legal basis is
conferred on all other countries that support copyright
>>>For your education, I'll quote the definition of
>>>"derivative work" as given in US Title 17, Chapter 1,
>>>section 101:
>>>
>>>| A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more
>>>| preexisting works,[...]
>>
>> Yup; that's enough for me. All software which requires GPL libraries
>> are derivative, until you prove different in court, because they are
>> "based upon" those libraries. Case closed.
>
>No. It's elementary legal practice to read the definition as
>a whole. If the law meant "based upon" in its broadest sense,
>the definition would have read as you snipped it. It does however
>qualify the broad term "based upon", and these qualifications
>are as important as the first part:
Only in that they verify that the definition is not singular, but
'whatever is necessary to make the concept valuable and valid in
copyright law'. If I wanted to be a lawyer, I'd do what a lawyer does
and pretend whatever the Law says is absolutely Right, and just be done
with it. I have a more pragmatic awareness; I will discuss the gestalt
the law creates, but I am less concerned with the text.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 04:18:21 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 09 Apr 2001 01:36:12
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >Nonsense. I've written source code that's not plagiarism,
>> >and happens, for the sake of the argument, to contain the
>> >single word "readline(..)". Does this make the _source_
>> >code a derivative work of libreadline.so?
>>
>> No, nor does it prove it is not. Don't you understand even the
>> slightest bit about the real world outside of "I am a programmer and
>> therefore am god"? Programming details don't matter for *shit*; this is
>> a legal issue, not a technical issue, that we are supposedly discussing.
>
>Great, present some legal evidence then or admit that your guess
>is no better than anyone else's.
Prevent some contrary precedent or argument, or admit it is a valid
legal opinion which you are unable to refute.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 04:18:27 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 Apr 2001 19:02:47
>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.
It seems as true and correct a definition of "ethics" as I can come up
with, without getting into religion. Are you not ethical?
>>>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. [...]
I know I just claimed to somebody else that I'm not overly concerned
with literal text, but I would surely love to see a quote from some
copyright law which states that this is the case. It sounds imaginary
to me. And so your argument falls due to a false premise.
--
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
******************************
