Linux-Advocacy Digest #358, Volume #34 Wed, 9 May 01 11:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (chrisv)
Re: ChromeLinuxT/ WebServer ("fmc")
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("JS PL")
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP (Neil Cerutti)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux Users...Why? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ("Edward Rosten")
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:15:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina) wrote:
>What can I say, except that apparently you only use the first meaning
>of every word? If you want to use only a specific meaning of nurse,
>implying lactation, please use a more specific word, because birds nurse
>their young.
Idiots. Note the "s" for every one of you arguing this "nurse" point.
It was very f*cking OBVIOUS from the context of the post what was
meant by "nurse" when the guy said "mammals nurse their young and
birds don't."
Sheesh! You idiots would argue about the color sh*t!
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ChromeLinuxT/ WebServer
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:31:22 GMT
"kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9da8vm$fu7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Look at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html it is a pretty simple license
> to read.
>
> It makes no such requirement about software. I can write software for
linux
> and release it under any license I want. However if I use gpl code to
write
> my software then I have to gpl my work or ask the author for some special
> deal. Using GPL tools has no affect on the license of the stuff you make.
GPL:
"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and
can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves,
then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
distribute them as separate works."
Apparently Chromium feels that its product is "not derived from the Program"
and "reasonably considered independent and separate", even though it DEPENDS
ON AND CANNOT FUNCTION without the Apache webserver.
GPL:
"But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a
work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the
terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. "
The Chromium EULA represents Chromium and Apache to be two distinct products
with separate licensing, even though the two are distributed together as a
"whole work based on the Program":
"4. COPYRIGHT. All title and copyrights in and to the SOFTWARE ... are owned
by Chromium or its licensors. All title and intellectual property rights in
and to the content which may be accessed through use of the SOFTWARE is the
property of the respective content owner and may be protected by applicable
copyright or other intellectual property laws and treaties. This EULA
grants you no rights to use such content."
''5. PROPRIETARY NOTICES. The SOFTWARE includes third party software for
which
Chromium is required to include the following notices:
ChromeLinux/WebServer includes software contributed to and developed by the
Apache Software Foundation and such source code can be found at
http://www.apache.org/.... "
http://a.tolx.net/b/chrome.webserver/EULA.WebServer
Chromium's interpretation of what the GPL means is interesting, to say the
least.
fm
>
> Harison Phinizy wrote:
>
> > If something is made for Linux doesn't it fall under the GPL...
Therefore,
> > it must be made available for free (at least the source) then how does
> > this software avoid doing such?
> >
> > Just curious...
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 10:37:33 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001 01:54:12
> [...]
> >Yes, Win9x suck for everything. I couldn't imagine trying to do
> >anything like CD burning in Win9x, let alone try to get any decent
> >amount of work done.
> >
> >Win9x just suck.
I run Windows 98 on one machine (rarely) and the apps crash less than the
apps on my Linux box. I can't remember the last time the Win98 OS crashed,
then a gain, I touch the machine about once a month. Maybe some of that
Win2k reliability on the same network is rubbing off on it.
>
> So why is MS still demanding the same price for it that they did when it
> was the only thing available? Guffaw.
So then, with inflation the price of Win9X has dropped. And it has NEVER
been the only thing available.
http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Operating_Systems/
> >This is a common problem. I find many MS bashers like to bash
> >MS and all Windows because of the poor experience they've had with
> >Win9x.
>
> ...and DOS, and Office, and IE, and Outlook, and VB, and NT, and W2K....
>
> >They seem to feel that Win2K is the same thing somehow. They've
> >obviously never used it and so they can't talk about it.
>
> Microsoft claims its the same thing somehow. Those who have tried it
> point out its the same thing, mostly, with a few more features and few
> more bugs and a bit less performance and a bit more built to handle
> being a piece of crapware that crashes routinely...
How would you know? You've never touched the Windows 2000 platform.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Date: 9 May 2001 14:42:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ayende Rahien posted:
>"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Look, someone goes to the effort to write some SW that you
>> want to use. The original author wants to make it free for
>> everyone by using the GPL. That is their choice. You are free
>> to add to their SW and even sell it (the GPL doesn't stop
>> you). Don't you think you should honour the desires of the
>> original person? If you can't accept it then write your own
>> code and don't use theirs. I find this discussion about the
>> GPL to be pathetic. It is a licence that some SW developers
>> want to use so that everyone can use and enhance their SW
>> knowing that everyone may benefit.
>
>A> The GPL *does* stop me, check the part about giving for free
>binaries & source in it.
>From the GPL:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have
not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to
modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works."
I don't see how this constrains anyone who doesn't modify or
distribute GPL programs or derivative works.
>B> I don't have a problem with forcing changes to the code that
>you wrote to be open under the same license. In fact, I think
>it's a good thing if you want to OS your code. I have a big
>problem with forcing *other* code to be free as well, just
>because the FSF thinks it's a derivative. The FSF defination of
>derivative includes just about *anything*. I'm surprised that
>you don't have to use GPL tools to list the files that are GPL,
>in fact.
I find this confusing too. It seems to contradict itself a
little, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding.
>From the GPL:
0. This License applies to any program or other work which
contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may
be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.
The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and
a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any
derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work
containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or
with modifications and/or translated into another language.'
Under copyright law, a derivative work has a very specific
definition, one that won't be quite the same in all nations, so
it seems strange to include the imprecise elaboration which
follows it.
Here's another part I find confusing:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and
separate works in themselves, then this License, and its
terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them
as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections
as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the
distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this
License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of
who wrote it.
So you get around the license by simply not distributing the GPL
parts (say, libc++) in a package, e.g., a tarball, with your own
original program, right? I use an excellent program, called Mup
from Arkkra Enterprises which is shareware, yet depends on gv for
full functionality.
But this section contains new language: "reasonably independent
and separate works", not defined elsewhere in the license. I'm
not surprised some people are troubled by such ambiguity in a
legal document. It could be improved if that part of the sentence
were removed and people had to refer back to the earlier
definition of "derivative work", albeit a definition I don't
fully comprehend.
But the license refers to the existence of works that are not
derivitave of a Program under the GPL, so I don't believe saying
"The GPL definition of 'derivative' work includes just about
*anything*" is very defensible. It makes good copy, though.
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*** You found a dead moose rat and sold the hide for $250. ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: 9 May 2001 14:49:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 09 May 2001 14:15:59 GMT, chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina) wrote:
>
>>What can I say, except that apparently you only use the first meaning
>>of every word? If you want to use only a specific meaning of nurse,
>>implying lactation, please use a more specific word, because birds nurse
>>their young.
>
>Idiots. Note the "s" for every one of you arguing this "nurse" point.
>It was very f*cking OBVIOUS from the context of the post what was
>meant by "nurse" when the guy said "mammals nurse their young and
>birds don't."
>
>Sheesh! You idiots would argue about the color sh*t!
Shit can be many different colours, including white. And what are you,
8, that you can't write without censoring yourself?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 16:51:01 +0100
>>To get the same things under Windows, I would have needed to spend
>>$10,000 plus.
>
> You do circuit board layouts or something of that nature I believe?
>
> That more than likely means you have a need for highly vertical
> applications like AutoCad etc, which are also extremely expensive.
You'd probably be better off wit a Sun or SGI.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman
Date: 9 May 2001 14:54:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marada C. Shradrakaii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Read it. This exception applies "unless that component (the libc)
>>> itself accompanies the executable (GNOME)"
>
>To play devil's advocate, you have to ask: What does "accompany" mean.
>Accompany could mean "on the same disc", or "in the same tarball or
>equivalent", or "included in the same software bundle with the machine"
How about "In the same cardboard box, in another CD."?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 16:56:24 +0100
>>What can I say, except that apparently you only use the first meaning of
>>every word? If you want to use only a specific meaning of nurse,
>>implying lactation, please use a more specific word, because birds nurse
>>their young.
>
> Idiots. Note the "s" for every one of you arguing this "nurse" point.
> It was very f*cking OBVIOUS from the context of the post what was meant
> by
> "nurse" when the guy said "mammals nurse their young and birds don't."
Aaron simply claimed that birds do not nurse their young. This is false.
He probably meany to say they don't suckle their young.
> Sheesh! You idiots would argue about the color sh*t!
And you would probably claim that all shit is brown, forgetting to take
birds, for example in to account who's shit is not brown.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:56:15 GMT
Said Michael Pye in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 8 May 2001 20:27:25
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> Because Microsoft has already put all the "pressure on browser
>> manufacturer's" I would ever want to see, already. You cannot mandate
>> standards, Michael.
>>
>> Don't let Microsoft's extreme activity confuse you: real competitors
>> don't try to destroy standards, and aren't necessarily acting
>> anti-competitively just because they do not voluntarily implement some
>> standard.
>
>Fair point. However, I wasn't suggesting the same sort of pressure. If (and
>of course we are talking completely hypothetically here), I were to engineer
>a new language for the presentation of information over the internet, I
>would wish to personally pressure large browsers like opera and the mozilla
>engine (as used in NS6+, nautilus etc...) to implement the standard as an
>alternative to HTML in their products. However, I would not stand to gain
>from that arrangement financially, or in the market. I would merely pressure
>in the sense of pointing out the current state of affairs and the advantages
>to both developers and consumers from my new technology and ask them to
>implement it to the benefit of all. If they don't then that is fine...
Fair enough. I did get the complete opposite connotation from your term
'pressure'; I guess I'm the one with the knee-jerk reaction.
>I didn't intent to imply the kind of pressure microsoft apply by their
>market domination to steer the market in the most favourable direction for
>them.
>
>If such a standard were to be developed by myself, I would do it through
>open sourced channels, such as a modification of the mozilla engine as a
>starting point. This would ensure that the standard was widely assessed and
>appraised before it was implemented and also that market gains did not enter
>into the matter.
That's the problem with the aforementioned presumption that is rather
common that all companies are simply vying for monopoly. It is the
*vendors* that come up with the new, simplified and improved standards.
That's the way the thing has always worked, with some rather large
exceptions allowed for government and academic funding.
>> It is the "it lost because" that turns an observation of market trends
>> (the consumer market valued long record time over fidelity; the
>> professional market {which still uses Beta extensively; no,
>> ubiquitously} made the opposite approach more popular.
>>
>> So how precisely did Betamax manufacturers "lose", when they simply
>> abandoned the "cheapest price possible" consumer market for the
>> high-value, less price-sensitive professional market? Sounds to me like
>> the VHS guys were the losers, maybe.
>
>I was actually unaware of the fact that the industry used the betamax
>standard.
Most people who bring up the "superior technology lost" idea are.
Funny, isn't it?
>I don't know if they do in the UK, but I simply picked an example
>that came to mind. As far as I knew, betamax had sunk without a trace, but I
>stand corrected.
Would you believe there are still companies that make vacuum tubes?
They get a LOT of money for them, needless to say, due to the limited
supply. And obviously any demand is going to be pretty tolerant of
price increases, if it's never been cost-effective for them to develop
alternatives to this point. Still, there's not much of a market, so its
a side-line at best.
>> Most people should learn not to hyper-extend their amateur perspective
>> so emphatically, then.
>
>Well that put me in my place didn't it.
>
>Fair enough, we live and learn. Don't be too harsh I probably haven't been
>doing either as long as yourself (no offence meant, I have only had 17 years
>of living to gather my general knowledge)
I apologize for being harsh. It's Usenet; it does that to you, if
you're not careful. You don't come off as a kid, and that ain't as easy
to pull off as it sounds. Welcome to the planet, sir.
--
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: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:56:24 GMT
Said Michael Pye in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 8 May 2001 21:00:09
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> I think it has been agreed that there *SHOULD* be two different webs. I
>> did not mean to suggest that there was some easy dichotomy which can or
>> should be applied.
>
>No. Again, I was merely hypothesising as I am wont to do, about the problem
>which faces the web and one possible solution. I don't suggest that it would
>be the only, the best, the worst or the proper way to do things. It was an
>idea. For discussion. Unfortunately we don't seem to be discussing the ideas
>anymore, but brushing them aside in favour of arguing each other's
>credibility.
My fault, sorry. I should know better. You made good points; I'm sorry
my debate style is so severe and direct. It tends to intimidate, but I
guess that's part of the attraction for me. Again, my apologies.
It might have helped if you'd mentioned how inexperienced you are;
considering that, your ideas are extremely well developed. They just
aren't quite as developed as mine, and I tend to treat other posters as
a chance to hone my own position, and my arguments are very concise and
pointed. More apologies if you just got clipped by the cross-fire.
>> The key to this "real web" is organization and hyperlinks.
>>
>> Your "eye candy surfer" is a myth, Michael. Sure, people may be looking
>> for amusement when they're bored, but THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BUY ANYTHING.
>> They do not want to "look for bargains", as I've said; they want the
>> bargains to come looking for them! Web shoppers are not idle, they are
>> not windows shopping; they are either doing serious research or making a
>> purchase.
>
>I was only putting forward the evidence of what I have observed.
And you did a good job of it, believe me. I've observed more evidence,
so you'll just have to deal with my correcting your understanding of the
evidence. I hope you'll note that I never called you wrong, dumb, or
clueless, AFAIK. I'm only pointing out where you're mistaken. If my
reaction seems too vehement for your innocent conviction to warrant, its
because there are other, silent readers who I'm also trying to convince.
Don't take it personal.
>> Your 'trendy web' doesn't stand up to the light of day. It is a mirage
>> created by vendors expecting to be able to 'capture markets'. It is the
>> antithesis of the convenience of the real web. There may be value in
>> having some form of "store front" protocol, for presenting a highly
>> graphic remote console "site" interface; it might even look very much
>> like the web. But navigation, not organization, is the key, and
>> interaction, not information, is the goal. There's nothing wrong with
>> this web; the hostility you may notice I have is caused only by the fact
>> that it has rather thoroughly messed up the real web.
>
>I do hate to be picky, but "The key to this "real web" is organization and
>hyperlinks." -> "But navigation, not organization, is the key". Are we
>talking about the same web?
No, that's what I said. Two different webs. One which functions to
organize information for convenient access, and one designed for
navigational processes, like your 'browsing' and more interactive
purposes. In the 'info-web', there's just 'getting there', no 'going
there'. On the 'site-web', it's just a bunch of corporate front desks
and store-fronts.
>> But that function is not what you or the vendors believe it is, so it
>> doesn't serve it very well, that's all.
>
>Let's move away from what I believe as you seem to have thins somewhat
>confused and it is bogging down the debate.
I'll be glad to explain anything you didn't understand the first time.
>> If you didn't try so hard to show your bias, you might have a shadow of
>> a point. Are you REALLY suggesting that the only information that can
>> exist is scientific information? What is wrong with you?
>
>No. I am suggestion nothing of the sort. But it is true that the web
>originally grew out of an academic base.
Not really. It grew out of academic technology, yes. But it was
embraced by commercial sites well before it was even common within the
academic world. It never had an 'academic base' that actually proved
any of the technology before it was already being commercialized.
>> Usenet, BTW, has nothing whatsoever to do with the web.
>
>No. But it does have something to do with the internet.
Now, it does. Historically, it didn't, no.
>> Your contempt
>> for science and the implied transcendence of crass commercialism,
>> unfortunately, tends to undermine your position.
>
>I cannot see where exactly I have shown any contempt for science. [...]
Don't worry about it; I was just ranting. The very words you use
contain a contempt for science, in my philosophy. Modern language is
bogged down with metaphysical bullshit; people make up explanations for
things that just have no scientific foundation or veracity at ALL. It's
sort of a pet peeve of mine. No offense intended.
[...]
--
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: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:56:34 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 9 May 2001 05:13:36
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Michael Pye in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 7 May 2001 12:51:39
>> >OK, there were too many points in there to reply to individually, so I
>shall
>> >endeavour to summarise my arguments and that which I can understand and
>> >accept form this discussion.
>> >
>> >It has been agreed that there are two very different types of web.
>>
>> I think it has been agreed that there *SHOULD* be two different webs. I
>> did not mean to suggest that there was some easy dichotomy which can or
>> should be applied.
>
>There are, it's called Internet2.
No, not hardly. Or, rather, No, not at all. That is an entirely
different thing (if it can be considered a coherent 'thing' at all,
which isn't really true as far as I am concerned.)
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:56:44 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 9 May 2001 05:09:37
>"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <9d83de$q36$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >
>> >> > > Nah! FUD!
>> >> >
>> >> > You qouted the whole articles for *two* words?
>> >> > And what was FUD about it?
>> >>
>> >> GPL is a viral thing... totally untrue.
>> >
>> > Really? Show me how I can incorporate GPL code with any other code
>without
>> > turning the whole thing to GPL?
>> > Where is the GPLed browser using Gecko?
>> > Where is non-GPL KDE application?
>>
>> Look, someone goes to the effort to write some SW that you want to use.
>> The original author wants to make it free for everyone by using the GPL.
>> That is their choice. You are free to add to their SW and even sell it
>> (the GPL doesn't stop you). Don't you think you should honour the desires
>> of the original person? If you can't accept it then write your own code
>> and don't use theirs. I find this discussion about the GPL to be pathetic.
>> It is a licence that some SW developers want to use so that everyone can
>> use and enhance their SW knowing that everyone may benefit.
>
>A> The GPL *does* stop me, check the part about giving for free binaries &
>source in it.
No, it says you can't charge for *licenses*. You can charge as much for
binaries as you want. You do have to include source for free, of
course.
>B> I don't have a problem with forcing changes to the code that you wrote to
>be open under the same license. In fact, I think it's a good thing if you
>want to OS your code. I have a big problem with forcing *other* code to be
>free as well, just because the FSF thinks it's a deriative. The FSF
>defination of deriative includes just about *anything*. I'm surprised that
>you don't have to use GPL tools to list the files that are GPL, in fact.
Your contention that "the FSF definition of derivative includes just
about *anything*" is simply false, Ayende. In fact, it is only one very
limited set of instances where their claim includes anything that
anybody else wouldn't likewise claim. In comparison to MS's non-US
'license' for hotmail, the GPL is entirely benign.
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:56:51 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 9 May 2001 05:12:10
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Why do I see so many Linux distros that have some good programs provided
>> written with GPL code for sale?
>
>Because people are nice.
Because your contention that the GPL prevents charging for software is
false.
>I could *demand* you to give me your GPL code, both as binary & source, and
>you would have no choice but to comply, and the only thing you could charge
>me for is S&H.
You misunderstand the GPL, Ayende. No problem, really. It is a complex
document, and so it is not uncommon that someone would misinterpret it.
THe GPL does not allow anyone to "demand" that they provide you with
their code. Or rather, it doesn't prevent them from demanding, but it
doesn't say anything about having to comply. Only that you cannot
charge for licenses, and you cannot distribute binaries without
distributing source. There is no compulsory distribution; I'm not
entirely sure where you got that idea.
>My problem with GPL, again, is not that it prevents embracing & extending
>the code, that I consider as a good thing. I don't like the fact that you
>can't *use* it with any other code.
You can use it with all the other code you want. You just can't use a
GPL library without infecting your program. So use an LGPL library;
that's what it's for.
--
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,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:56:59 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 8 May 2001
[...]
>I can no longer find the reference, but the basic workings of COM were
>developed in 1988, however, they didn't at the time know what to do with it.
Yea, yea. Whatever.
--
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
******************************
