Linux-Advocacy Digest #323, Volume #34 Tue, 8 May 01 12:13:05 EDT
Contents:
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)
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:41 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001 01:20:25
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 03:10:38
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >
>> >> By "in theory" I meant to exclude such moronic ideas as those coming
>> >> from you right now. This "here is code" is THEORY. PRACTICE is when
>> >> you make a real program that real people use.
>> >
>> >So ask any software company if in practice they wait for all components
>> >to be finished before writing any other components that use their
>> >interfaces.
>>
>> This isn't necessary for my claim to be true. Are you saying that one
>> component is produced and delivered before being tested with the others?
>
>Yes.
>
>> A rather sloppy development model, eh?
>
>No.
I'm sorry; you're obviously living in a fantasy world, where you can
deliver products that don't work and still stay in business.
(Whoops.)
--
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
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:42 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001 12:17:30
>"Stefaan A Eeckels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <9d4iog$p5v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > I don't see any reason why you can't copyright an API.
>>
>> Remember that you cannot copyright an idea, but only
>> your specific expression of that idea.
>> Also note that the FSF does not believe in API and
>> look-and-feel copyrights (remember Apple).
>
>Okay, that makes more sense, I guess.
>Can you patent an API?
>(Why do I bother asking, you can patent *anyting* in US of A?)
Its the "API", not the patent, which is a floating abstraction, Ayende.
The reason you can't copyright an API is because an API is simply a
listing of 'features', so to speak, of a library or platform. You could
write a patent saying "here is a process for performing X" and part of
that patent could be a description of an API helpful in implementing
that process. This doesn't make the API patentable, but it might well
be described that way, rhetorically.
--
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
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:43 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 20:59:47
>"Isaac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> My point is that while the lack of law suits is probably not a convincing
>> arguement for the the FSF's position, it is even weaker evidence that
>> the code is of limited value.
>
>The nature of the GPL has kept most of the value in standalone applications
>which are not greatly affected by the restriction against combining with
>other components. Would you risk a lawsuit, even one you expected
>to win, to save rewriting something like readline?
I don't know. Would you? AFAIK, there are a great number of
applications that use readline. What's your point; that you should be
able to use something someone else wrote, without their permission, for
your own work?
>> While it's true that the FSF's position hasn't been tested in court,
>> the position is not so far removed from some precedent that suggests
>> their position is wrong.
>
>If they are right, then Microsoft would automatically gain control of
>everything their competitors in application programs have written that
>call any system dlls.
No, there is nothing "automatic" about copyright, as you've observed.
Microsoft could claim control over everything (to what purpose?), and
then it would be up to the app developers to argue against it in court.
Obviously Microsoft is familiar with this kind of thing; it sounds
almost exactly with what they did recently with their non-US hotmail
"license agreement". (You need a license to use a website???)
--
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
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:44 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001 02:28:11
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 17:06:51
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >> Yes, you have FINALLY gotten to the BEGINNING of the argument you
>jumped
>> >> in trolling on. The point of the discussion, ultimately, is the fact
>> >> that the courts have not made any decisions either way, and so under
>> >> current law, the FSF's interpretation of the GPL stands, until someone
>> >> has the balls enough to refute it in front of a judge.
>> >
>> >More accurately, their unreasonable threat stands until disproven in
>> >court.
>>
>> How could it POSSIBLY be unreasonable? It does not prevent you from
>> using the code in any way, it only prevents you from making a profit on
>> it through profiteering. How is it a threat for them to point out in
>> advance that they refuse to grant license to commercial exploitation of
>> their code. Its THEIR code! You now are expecting to be able to STEAL
>> it from them and claim their defense is unreasonable threats?
>
>One good test of a law is that it stand the reverse test.
>IE, switch position, now is it fair & just?
Do you switch identities, as well? That's not switching anything. Your
use of the phrase "fair and just" doesn't seem to make sense, since that
is what 'switching positions' is all about. Whether it is fair and just
already includes this 'reverse test'. Hell, that's precisely what
"fair" means!
>If MS demanded that any program that use *any* API that they have
>implemented, (and there have been *many*) to be a closed source, would you
>consider it fair?
No, the question is whether it would be legal. If it would be legal for
the FSF, it would be legal for Microsoft; THAT is what determines
whether it *is* fair. Not any private consideration of whether it would
conform to some particular metaphysics. It would be legal; it couldn't
possibly be fair, because it is a criminal activity, being an attempt to
monopolize. But that has nothing to do with copyright.
--
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
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:45 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001 01:20:22
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 17:06:51
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >> Yes, you have FINALLY gotten to the BEGINNING of the argument you jumped
>> >> in trolling on. The point of the discussion, ultimately, is the fact
>> >> that the courts have not made any decisions either way, and so under
>> >> current law, the FSF's interpretation of the GPL stands, until someone
>> >> has the balls enough to refute it in front of a judge.
>> >
>> >More accurately, their unreasonable threat stands until disproven in
>> >court.
>>
>> How could it POSSIBLY be unreasonable?
>
>It is unreasonable because it has nothing to do with copyright law, yet
>claims to be.
If you do not understand how it rests, very securely and completely, on
copyright law, then you simply do not understand it. That does not make
it unreasonable, simply because you do not understand it. It isn't
truly incomprehensible, and therefore unreasonable, unless nobody else
understand it, either. Your troll point would require you to insist
that "nobody" understands it, but I do, and there are obviously enough
other people who do that they have not gone to court over the matter.
You can question whether it does, in fact, rest on copyright law. Your
claim that it is unreasonable "because it has nothing to do with
copyright law, yet claims to" is simply your private prejudice, though,
not a reasonable opinion on the legal issue.
>> It does not prevent you from
>> using the code in any way, it only prevents you from making a profit on
>> it through profiteering.
>
>How was profiteering involved in the RIPEM situation? The FSF simply
>made it more difficult for someone else to provide unrestricted code.
RIPEM simply tried to use a loophole. Their efforts to "get around" the
GPL did not rise to the level of fraud, simply because it was not a
profit-making endeavor. The FSF simply protected their intellectual
property rights. They had no reason to pursue the authors after they
created RIPEM to comply with the license.
>> How is it a threat for them to point out in
>> advance that they refuse to grant license to commercial exploitation of
>> their code. Its THEIR code!
>
>No, it is not their code. They are claiming rights over other people's
>code that simply references the API to a GPL'd work.
No, they are claiming rights over other people's code that simply
references *the library on the other side of the API*. The library is
GPL; the API is unprotected. You are free to "use" the API, for your
personal use. You can use it for commercial use, too, BUT YOU CAN'T USE
THE GPL LIBRARY on the other side. The fact that the API isn't
protected doesn't change this relationship at all, because APIs don't
have any bearing on copyright. If you wish to use the API, but not the
library (because you do not want to release your program under GPL),
then all you have to do is write another library to support that API.
Just like the RIPEM situation, in fact. If you can use a non-GPL
library already, for the same API, then the FSF makes no claims against
your intellectual property.
You don't seem to realize that this is a rather critical point: the only
time the FSF claims a program is derivative of a library IS WHEN IT IS
DERIVATIVE OF THE LIBRARY, not the API. If only a GPL library exists
for that API, then obviously that is the library you are using when you
use the API, and so YOU are trying to claim rights over someone else's
work! If other libraries exist for the API, but your program is
bug-compatible with the GPL library, then the same case applies.
I've never questioned that this is a novel application of copyright law.
But your assumption that it is invalid simply because it is novel
indicates that you aren't concerned at all with the legality of
copyright claims, but only in using the law to further your own private
ends.
>> You now are expecting to be able to STEAL
>> it from them and claim their defense is unreasonable threats?
>
>No, they have given the right to use their own code to anyone who
>wants it. Now they claim that they own other people's work just
>because it calls the API to the GPL'd library that the end user already
>has and has the right to use any way they want.
Again, you commit an unseen abstraction error with your use of the term
"use". It might seem as if the FSF's position is the same as Microsoft
claiming to own all patents written in Word, for instance. This isn't
the case, though. The issue is not the end users right to "use" the
library productively which is at question. It is the developer's right
to "use" the library IN production. The GPL binds both groups with the
same restrictions on "use"; but the meaning of the term changes between
them. This means the developer has a lesser ability to "use" the work
of others, and the consumer has a greater ability to "use" the work of
others, just as intended.
>> >The fact that no one has taken on the challenge says more about
>> >the value of the covered works than the validity of the threat.
>>
>> Actually, its just simple proof that your posturing about some fatal
>> flaw or anti-consumer effect of GPL is hogwash.
>
>Or it is proof that they have accomplished their goal of preventing you
>from having your choice of many combinations of software that would
>otherwise have e to possible.
Blah, blah, blah....
--
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
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:47 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001
>On Sun, 6 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001
>>> On Sat, 5 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 23:33:45
>>>>>> You are mistaken about what "it" is.
>>>>> Programming to an API without implementation.
>>>> No, creating a program that is derivative of something that doesn't
>>>> exist.
>>> That's your claim -- and we're saying that mere use of a library
>>> doesn't imply or cause derivation. Not that you'll pay attention to any
>>> of this -- you don't listen to anything that differs from what you
>>> say.
>> You've ALMOST managed to post an entire message without abandoning your
>> reason, Austin. I'm almost proud of you.
>
>Oh, please, go stick a cork in it, you insufferable gasbag.
Guffaw.
>> Yes, you have FINALLY gotten to the BEGINNING of the argument you jumped
>> in trolling on.
>
>You're the only troll, dimwit. In USENET, trolls are those who bring in
>idiotic statements (just like your so-called logic) in order to attempt
>to bring about strife and flamage (just like yourself). The *fact* is that
>you're wrong.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. No, a troll is someone who can't handle a serious
discussion, but desperately wants to think highly of his intellect. I
qualify on neither count. The facts are simply what they are.
>> The point of the discussion, ultimately, is the fact
>> that the courts have not made any decisions either way, and so under
>> current law, the FSF's interpretation of the GPL stands, until someone
>> has the balls enough to refute it in front of a judge.
>
>While statements about the GPL have not been affirmed or denied in the
>courts, there have been court cases which prove your gasbagging to be
>nothing more than hot air. In particular, both Les and Isaac have
>pointed out court cases that basically point out the *fact* that you're
>full of shit.
Which ones were those? I don't recall any such case being pointed out.
The only case I think has even been specifically referred to recently is
the non-case of RIPEM, which supports my point, and the 1990 decision
Lasercomb America v. Reynolds, which gives some guidance concerning the
limits of using copyright to restrain trade (which is what you are
falsely accusing the FSF of doing).
>My task has been to point out where you're logically
>clueless -- unfortunately, you make that both an extraordinarily easy
>and extraordinarily difficult task. It's easy because there's very
>little that you say which has any usable logic behind it; it's
>difficult because there's so many things that you say that aren't
>merely wrong, but are painfully wrong that it's tough to choose just
>which fish in the barrel will be shot.
If I am slightly mistaken, you will find my words comprehensible. If
you find my words unreasonable, it can only be because you do not
understand them, which is not my problem nor my fault, at this point.
I've stated the case clearly enough; if you are going to say it is
"wrong" that is simply because you are being unreasonable, that's all.
>Now, are you done trying to tell practitioners that they don't know
>what they're talking about without anything more than the USENET
>equivalent of "my mommy told me so"?
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. You're a boob.
--
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
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:48 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001
[...]
>I think you meant to say that it's an irrelevancy. Especially since you
>tried to claim that a program written that uses an API is derivative of
>a particular implementation of that API ("a library"). Which is ...
>well, let's just say that it's one of your sillier ideas, which is
>something worth noting.
Stop acting like a simpleton. Your metaphysical idea of "an API" as
having anything to do with the matter is what is preventing you from
acting like a reasonable person, knowledgable of the issue and balanced
in your opinion. If you need to go study for a few years before you
could possibly understand that statement, it wouldn't surprise me.
Perhaps you're simply not bright enough to understand that it is
perfectly reasonable and accurate.
--
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
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:50 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 20:54:14
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >> No real-world software has EVER been written to an *API* that doesn't
>> >> "exist".
>> >
>> >Of course it is - and is probably the typical practice for projects small
>> >enough to not need a formal spec. You just write the main program
>> >using functions/methods that you implement later after seeing exactly
>> >what they need to do.
>>
>> "Implement later" doesn't mean "doesn't exist until later".
>
>It does when I say it. Something exists when it is implemented.
...and "is implemented" as soon as "it exists", I know, I know. Are you
ever planning on addressing this circular logic you're using, or are you
just going to hope you can die before having to own up to your bullshit?
Isn't it a kind of boring way to spend your life, interested in nothing
so much as protecting your ego? Doesn't it bother you that the basis of
your understanding of the situation is something that you admit yourself
is unfalsifiable?
>> I know it
>> sounds like a quibble, but it goes to the distinction between library
>> and intellectual property. It's why I put the word 'exist' in quotes,
>> and I do wish you hadn't ignored it.
>
>I didn't realize that you used quotes to point out that you were making
>up a new meaning for a word that no one else should understand.
Its a standard convention, sans the obvious ad hominem bullshit.
>> >> If you write the program and say "some day their will be a
>> >> library that..." then you have created the API.
>> >
>> >But it didn't exist until you wrote it as part of the main program.
>>
>> So you agree a library can be derivative of a program, even if it isn't
>> considered part of the program?
>
>Not in the general case where the library correctly contains things not
>duplicated in the main program. If you write a program containing the
>functions first, then extract code from it into a library, the duplicated
>material would be derivative of the earlier copy. However, the point
>of having an interface definition is to separate the things on either
>side so that they are not derivative and need nothing else in common.
And you don't see how this metaphysical manipulation ("extract the code
from it into a library") shows that you are going far beyond the
copyright law in your application of copyright to software?
If a library author wants to present an API for anyone to use, he will
use the LGPL. If there are multiple libraries supporting the API, the
GPL places no claim against any program using the API. This conflict
between GPL and copyright you imagine is just that: nothing but your
imagination. Nobody else seems to agree this conflict exists, which
would explain why your position has not ever been presented in court.
[...]
>Copyright has nothing to do with functionality, and all the code
>does is make the reference.
Copyright has nothing to do with metaphysics, and the only issue is
whether authors get paid by those wishing to directly profit from the
author's work.
>> >To complete the meal, you need to obtain the cookbook(s)
>> >containing the recipes; to play the playlist you must obtain the
>> >songs; to run the program you must obtain the referenced libraries
>> >and the right to use them.
>>
>> Obviously, this mirrors the FSF's position, as I've corrected above. It
>> is the application of the analogy, not its validity, which is suspect.
>
>No, it is the opposite of the FSF's position but it mirrors every other
>library providers' postions. [...]
Well, it's your analogy, so if you want to say it does something, I
can't prove you wrong. It certainly isn't the opposite of the FSF's
position, though it might well be the opposite of your perception of the
FSF's position.
[...]
--
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
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:51 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001 02:42:25
[...]
>To make it clear to T. Max, this mean *every* program that run on windows,
>dos, Xenix (MS' unix), and all their deriatives.
>This mean that about 70 - 90% of the software in the world.
I am well aware that this is consistent. It causes no conflict at all
in my understanding. You cannot use the fact that MS has not tried to
enforce this claim to reason that it cannot exist. That is an inductive
error. Microsoft makes plenty of money on their current strategies. An
argument might be made that it would make more sense for MS to use this
method, as it is putatively legal, instead of the methods they do, which
are illegal. But this only highlights another flaw in the "popular
wisdom" concerning anti-trust law, and it is no coincidence, in fact,
that this issue comes up so often these days.
Microsoft's actions are illegal, not because the actions themselves are
explicitly in violation of statute, but because the *results* of those
actions places them in a class of action in violation of statute.
Namely, actions which unreasonably restrain trade, including
monopolization. If MS were to use this argument of copyright claim,
rather than per-processor licenses and other predatory pricing, FUD and
predatory development, or any of their other anti-competitive tricks, I
think we'd be better off, in fact. Because it is more easily understood
that, while MS *could* lay these claims in keeping with copyright law,
that very act would be in violation of anti-trust law. This makes the
actions used to monopolize less damaging to the industry, and yet more
easily proven in court. Like Lasercomb America, MS would find that they
had no right to prevent anyone from "using" their software in any way
they wanted.
The ironic part is, of course, the same argument can be used against the
FSF, then, right? Except this happens to be the goal of the FSF to
begin with. Doh!
(Note to Les, because I know he's going to argue against the very last
point: yes, the mechanism that the FSF uses restrains developers from
"mixing code". This is entirely true, except this restraint is not in
any way even slightly unreasonable. Yes, you could claim that it is
'unreasonable' to require someone to re-implement an API in a new
library simply to avoid conflict with the GPL's 'restraint', and I know
you use the argument that some 'inherent introduction of bugs' makes
this an unreasonable approach to software development. I don't find
either of those claims reasonable, however, or supported by any facts,
and so I cannot understand how the GPL's restrictions could be
considered unreasonable.)
--
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
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:52 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 7 May 2001 13:37:09
>On Sun, 06 May 2001 18:20:51 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 03:10:39
>>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>>> No real-world software has EVER been written to an *API* that doesn't
>>>> "exist".
>>>
>>>Of course it is - and is probably the typical practice for projects small
>>>enough to not need a formal spec. You just write the main program
>>>using functions/methods that you implement later after seeing exactly
>>>what they need to do.
>>
>>"Implement later" doesn't mean "doesn't exist until later".
>
>"Implement later" means EXACTLY "the implementation doesn't exist
>until later".
Yes, but does the API, that is the question. I'm trying to point out
the metaphysical nature of this thing that everyone wants to treat as if
it were a concrete thing.
--
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
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:53 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001
>On Sun, 6 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 20:23:30
>>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> You mean the library won't work if a programmer makes a function call
>>>> unless the function is documented?
>>> Of course it would work. The problem would be that you wouldn't know
>>> what it does.
>>> Similar to standing on an elevator, when the floors' buttons has no
>>> numbers, or any other identification.
>> How much you want to bet that I can quickly get to the floor I want,
>> every time?
>
>If the numbers aren't anywhere on or near the buttons, and they're not
>necessarily wired in an ascending or descending order, then you're not
>going to get where you expect to quickly -- or at all.
"If... if... if...." What's your point?
>>> You know *how* to use them, you don't know what they will do.
>> Many function calls are "self-documenting", in that respect, aren't
>> they?
>
>Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Many functions, yes or no. There is no reason to quibble about
"sometimes", since we are only talking about "many", to begin with. Get
it?
So what's your point?
--
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
******************************
