In article <oxjF7.13822$Ud.456...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > In article <slrn9uba6f.vt5.m...@oscar.eng.cv.net>, Marc Spitzer wrote: >>In article <G5hF7.13453$Ud.421...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> In article <slrn9ub5ik.vt5.m...@oscar.eng.cv.net>, Marc Spitzer wrote: >>>>here is my point the gpl is NOT NOT NOT free, but is presented as free >>>>and this is dishonest and misleading.
>>> Would you like to actually name someone, and accuse him or her of lying?
>>It was explained in my previous post, in a part you cut out that I do >>not think anything that comes with oblagations is free, my dictionary >>agrees with me on this(see below)
> So you must object to a whole lot of uses of the word ``free'' made in > the market place.
I object to the deleberate misuse/abuse of the word free in the market place, in this case the the terms and conditions of the gpl from the point of view of a developer who wants to do orignal work based on a gpled package. From a developers POV the BSD licence is much better, you are required to give credit where credit is due, but you can keep your modifacations and due what you will with them. And yes public domain is the most free
>>> As far as ``free'' goes, the GNU advocates go through great pains to >>> tell everyone what they mean when they use the word, to the point >>> of being irritating to some.
>>I do not care what made up definition they use I care about the agreed >>apon definitions used by everyone else.
> The most common definition used in the consumer marketplace is that free > means you don't have to pay. Since you can obtain GNU-type software that > way, this interpretation holds true.
but as a developer I do have to pay by being forced to release my code, weather I want to or not.
> For instance, a GNU program is *at least* as free as Internet Explorer, > which Microsoft claims is free for download.
> What about all those vendors who offers you a ``free gift''---with > a purchase, of course.
when I get the gift it is mine and if there is an up front condition that I have to purchase something else, that is clearly stated, they are being much more honest then the FSF.
>>Just to be sure I was not wrong I just reread the definition of free >>in the dictionary and all of the definations seem to contradict the >>FSF's personel definition of free.
> [ snip ]
>>let me type in my dictionaries definition of free: >>free: >>1: having liberity >>2: not controled by others >>3: made or done voluntarily >>4: released or not suffering from something unpleasant >>5: not subject to a duty tax or other charge >>6: not obstructed >>7: not being used or occupided >>8: not fastened >>9: lavish >>10: open , frank >>11: given with out charge >>12: not literal or exact >>13: not restricted by conventional forms
>>The dictionary is "The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary" >>copy right 1989
>>the FSF definition of free seems to contradict 2, 5, 6 and 11 easly >>and 4 and 10 are a matter of opinion.
> Let's see. That leaves 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13. You said above that > the FSF's usage seems to contradict *all* of the nuances of the word > covered in your dictionary, not only six out of thirteen.
actualy #1 also applys to my argument, the gpl takes away liberity from the developer and #3 in theroy it complels you with force of law to release your source code.
Now of the remaining definitions of the word free listed above, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 could you please show me how they apply to this thread? With an real example for each, because I can not see any of the definitions if free that you have left, short of the FSF's lie, applying in the context of this discussion.
>>and will you please stop with the idiot remarks, I have test score >>that prove I am not an idiot.
> Your test scores mean nothing here. Stop being an idiot here, and > the remarks will stop. Perhaps your test didn't require the ability to > count to 13.
no they did not, I had to count to 21. But could you at least understand that insulting people is a creative art and apply some varity to your insult of choice, it would make for more interesting reading. Here are some examples of alternatives to idiot: moron fool lack wit buffoon empty headed buffoon block head knuckle dragging block head and so on
varity is the spice of usenet posts, add some to yours.
> >>... I think there is an old idiom, "Indian giver" or > >>something, which applies to people who do not _really_ give things away...
> > Without prejudice as to the usefulness of the expression in this > > context,
> > I think you have to say "Native American giver" now, though no one > > does. ;) It seems to me like whatever the group is, they got a bad > > rap. Things were mostly only taken from them and NOT given back. > > I don't know why they, of ALL people, would be associated with > > inappropriate desire to have things returned. > The term, though used as a put-down, actually describes an admirable > attitude about sharing.
Any time I've heard the term in use, the story wasn't about returning a "peace pipe."
It was instead about a horse that would get sold to a would-be new owner; shortly after the purchase, the horse would buck them off, and head home to its previous master who would then set up another customer for fleecing.
As with all stereotypes, there likely is enough truth to allow people to believe it sometimes true; as with most stereotypes, it oversimplifies things, of course... -- (concatenate 'string "aa454" "@freenet.carleton.ca") http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/linuxdistributions.html "On the Internet, no one knows you're using Windows NT" -- Ramiro Estrugo, restr...@fateware.com
In article <slrn9uca0m.10ij.m...@oscar.eng.cv.net>, Marc Spitzer wrote: >gpled package. From a developers POV the BSD licence is much better, >you are required to give credit where credit is due, but you can keep
Actually you are not. That requirement has been removed from the BSD license. That is to say, compiled code doesn't have to carry any copyright messages. You can use BSD-licensed code in a compiled program without revealing that it contains any such thing.
>your modifacations and due what you will with them. And yes public >domain is the most free
The BSD license is now equivalent to public domain (at least with respect to the incorporation of the code into compiled programs).
So what you are saying is that it's better from *your* point of view for *other* developers to put their stuff under the BSD license or put it into the public domain, so that you could leech their work.
Developers who don't want to quite do that for you are dishonest liars, who are denying you a piece of your absolute freedom.
In article <UdqF7.14928$Ud.545...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > In article <slrn9uca0m.10ij.m...@oscar.eng.cv.net>, Marc Spitzer wrote: >>gpled package. From a developers POV the BSD licence is much better, >>you are required to give credit where credit is due, but you can keep
> Actually you are not. That requirement has been removed from the > BSD license. That is to say, compiled code doesn't have to carry any > copyright messages. You can use BSD-licensed code in a compiled program > without revealing that it contains any such thing.
It does depend on which version of the bsd licence we are talking about. I was talking about the orginal not the newer one, I do not see any real need not to give credit where it is due and would gladly do so.
>>your modifacations and due what you will with them. And yes public >>domain is the most free
> The BSD license is now equivalent to public domain (at least with > respect to the incorporation of the code into compiled programs).
> So what you are saying is that it's better from *your* point > of view for *other* developers to put their stuff under the BSD license > or put it into the public domain, so that you could leech their work.
Who are you to call me a leach, please present your evidence or be known for what you are a slanderer. Well at least leach is a change from idiot.
> Developers who don't want to quite do that for you are dishonest liars, > who are denying you a piece of your absolute freedom.
I never said that they had to use my personal definition of free, I leave that to the FSF, I want them to use the definition if free that apears in dictionaries. That is what I would like to see. And I have no objection to someone releasing there work onder what ever terms they wan I just have a problem with them being dishonest about those terms, that is all. Redefining words that are in common use to allow you to call something its not is dishonest pure and simple.
since you have refused to reply to any of my main points and have edited them out of your replys we are done, is this correct or do you wish to insult my cat now to put me in my place.
cbbro...@acm.org wrote: > Any time I've heard the term in use, the story wasn't about returning > a "peace pipe."
that horse story sounds familiar. i certainly thought it was an insult before finding that web site, and according to one dictionary I saw it /is/ an insult, no two ways about it.
it is nice to know there is another more benign meaning, and amusing how that meaning aligns with the GPL:
"The true meaning of the term 'Indian Giver' signifies a willingness to care, an expectation of sharing; a cultural commitment to generosity that is not to be questioned. Indian Giving was and is the future wealth of society."
that is even reminiscent of the obligation placed on users of GPLed software by the GPL to continue the sharing if they relect to redistribute.
In article <3BE6478E.60...@nyc.rr.com>, Kenny Tilton wrote: > cbbro...@acm.org wrote:
>> Any time I've heard the term in use, the story wasn't about returning >> a "peace pipe."
> that horse story sounds familiar. i certainly thought it was an insult > before finding that web site, and according to one dictionary I saw it > /is/ an insult, no two ways about it.
> it is nice to know there is another more benign meaning, and amusing how > that meaning aligns with the GPL:
> "The true meaning of the term 'Indian Giver' signifies a willingness to > care, an expectation of sharing; a cultural commitment to generosity > that is not to be questioned. Indian Giving was and is the future wealth > of society."
> that is even reminiscent of the obligation placed on users of GPLed > software by the GPL to continue the sharing if they relect to redistribute.
> kenny > clinisys
I do not see a clear connection here between "indian giver" and gpl as "indian giver" is defined above.
The gpl is an act of force, you must comply or we will do bad things to you with our lawyers. But "indisn giver" as defined above says I will treate you well and hope that you will treat me like wise, this is moral and ethical behavior. There is a big difference between the two. I think "indian giver" is in line with BSD licenceing and puting something in the public domain not the gpl.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: > amazingly high overhead. But regardless of the inherent overhead, the > compiler implementation was not exactly very optimized and the runtime > system was bloated,
There was, however, _originally_, a really good Simula implementation used at the University of Oslo: The DEC 10 one (not the DEC 20 one, that was basically the DEC 10 one running in some kind of compatibility mode (I don't really remember much of the details)). The runtime system of the DEC 10 simula was able to load most of the code into the "sharable high segment" of TOPS-10 (shared by all users), so each new user process would only contribute minimally to the total memory usage.
Erik Naggum wrote: > Garbage collection has led people astray several times. It seems to be > somewhat like taxation -- people who do not want to think things through > tend to get ticked off by this cost that they do not accept, but if they > do not see it, they accept it nonetheless...
I like this: The Income Tax versus VAT approach to memory allocation...
> [SNIP] If I modify the free gizmo and find a way to > make some better gizmo, I owe nobody anything. If I do the same with a > GNU GPL'ed program, I must give the new, better idea back to whoever gave > it to me for "free". [SNIP]
Not quite. If you modify something that's under the GPL and you never distribute it you never have to provide your enhancements to anyone. The only people you need to provide your enhancements to are the people that you distribute them to. That doesn't have to include the author of the code you enhanced, neither does it have to include the person who provided you with the code (they could be different people).
Obviously, in many cases, such distribution could mean that your enhancements to an item of free software will make it back to the original author via a indirect route, which might be what you were getting at.
-- Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface. http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode. Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes. http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
* Kaz Kylheku | Nonsense; software is entirely abstract. All identical copies of a | program are EQ; they are really one program.
No. Bits are real, nothing abstract abaout them.
/// -- Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate. -- Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
* Kaz Kylheku | If the gizmo is that much better than the original work, then why did | you need the original to start with? Should you be able to usurp | any rights over the original code, just because of your enhancement?
I think you need to look at how patent law works.
| It was you who not long ago here explained so clearly the difference | between *ideas* and their *expression*.
So assume I get it, damnit.
| You also have to be careful to distinguish between GPLed program and GNU | program. The Free Software Foundation asks for copyright transfers and | employer waivers when you contribute to their software. This is not | required by the GNU license; it's a separate activity the FSF engages in. | It actually makes a lot of good sense, because without the copyright | transfers and waivers, a program, especially one with many authors, is at | risk of future infringement claims. It's not intended to wrestle the | software away from programmers. They go through this hassle voluntarily, | as I have.
Well, the important issue here is whether the authors of the changes are the legal owners of the source they contribute. This tends to be quite hard to ascertain. The copyright transfer is the only viable way to deal with that issue.
| It's true that when you sign such a copyright transfer, you do lose your | rights over the code. But that has nothing to do with the GNU license; | it's a contribution prerequisite imposed by the maintainers of a | particular stream of the program.
I disagree strongly. A GPL'ed program without a clean copyright trail is a very dangerous thing, legally speaking.
| If I'm maintaining a free program, and I ask you to play the fiddle while | standing on your head before I accept a patch, then by golly, you will | do that, or I won't accept the patch into my stream. :)
Well, there is this notion in contract law of unenforceable requirements.
/// -- Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate. -- Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
* Kent M Pitman <pit...@world.std.com> | It seems to me like whatever the group is, they got a bad rap. Things | were mostly only taken from them and NOT given back. I don't know why | they, of ALL people, would be associated with inappropriate desire to | have things returned.
The history of this expression seems to be that Indians (or whatever) did not deal with one-way gifts, only two-way gifts, and so wanted something in return for giving you something. It seems more applicable when I know the story of this expression, however politically incorrect.
/// -- Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate. -- Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
k...@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes: > In article <3213912667651...@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum wrote:
> > Part of the problem here is equivocation. These "free" things mean only > > and explicitly "free of charge", not any political mumbo-jumbo. They > > also come with extensive licenses that you have to agree to. When you > > get GNU software, this licensing stuff is _not_ made explicit up front in > > all cases, and the consequences are far from obvious. > ... > > I believe this is > > intentional.
> It is. Why shove licensing in the face of people, when 99% of them will > ever only *use* the program, which requires no licensing?
I find this part [(non) warranty] of the GPL quite important, especially to *users*:
THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
(But most Windows users will click the "I agree" option anyway because that's what Big Bill (as in Big Brother) has tought them -- Windows itself comes with NO-WARRANTY and that should be the norm for all software from now on.)
> I used to believe it was a good idea to call it "Free Software" because > the freedom of the users was so important. That was as long as I was a > user. When I had given away a couple thousand hours of work on various > "Free Software" projects (time flies when you're having fun and no reason > to prioritize), I came to conclude that all this freedom did not apply to > creators of significant portions of anything, only to consumers who did a > _little_ tinkering, and I lost interest fast.
It applies to everyone who doesn't want to re-release the code with a more restrictive license.
...
> It is important that the "user language" is a > complete programming language. In short, I concluded that writing "Free > Software" in C and similar languages in order to give programmers more > freedom was _nuts_ -- the right solution is to use Lisp, and preferably > something based on the best industry practice, Common Lisp, and give > users the ability to load patches and do useful things in the programming > framework that the application provides.
Sounds good, but there is a lot of excellent software I'm using right now that is the direct result of the "nuts" way, so I'll choose to call it "proven effective" rather than nuts.
...
> After a long process of not being to happy about the sitution, I had to > conclude that "Free Software" was all wrong and that getting lots of > people to contribute to something like this and _profit_ from it in the > _long_ run would require a whole different model.
What kind of profit do you mean? I've profited from GPL'ed software because it taught me programming *before* I was a programmer and before I had enough money to buy books.
> Which one I could not > tell and have not figured out, yet, but I am quite certain it cannot be > the very _coercive_ model used by the "Free Software" movement.
Please let us know when you come up with a better way for me to release code publicly while still being sure that I am not working for MegaBucks without pay.
In article <3213940682900...@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum wrote: >* Kaz Kylheku >| Nonsense; software is entirely abstract. All identical copies of a >| program are EQ; they are really one program.
> No. Bits are real, nothing abstract abaout them.
Okay, but they are real in a way that is different from ``any other object being traded''. They are real in the same sense that the integers are real. There is only one 42; new utterances of 42 don't give rise to a new integer.
k...@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes: > In article <3213940682900...@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum wrote: > >* Kaz Kylheku > >| Nonsense; software is entirely abstract. All identical copies of a > >| program are EQ; they are really one program.
> > No. Bits are real, nothing abstract abaout them.
> Okay, but they are real in a way that is different from ``any other > object being traded''. They are real in the same sense that the integers > are real. There is only one 42; new utterances of 42 don't give rise to > a new integer.
Are you sure? :) After all, 42 is such a special number....
Cheers
-- Marco Antoniotti ======================================================== NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488 719 Broadway 12th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122 New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu "Hello New York! We'll do what we can!" Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
> once code is touched by gpled code the FSF's oppinion is that it is > all gpled code, as I unserstand it.
This isn't the right way to look at it.
GPLed code is licensed. That license says that if you want to use the GPLed code, you have to agree to certain conditions.
If you don't follow those conditions you have no legal right to use the GPLed code.
Thus code doesn't get `touched' by GPLed code. You choose to use the GPLed code. The consequences of that choice include following the GPL.
> here is my point the gpl is NOT NOT NOT free, but is presented as > free and this is dishonest and misleading.
I think it was Eric Naggum that brought up the distinction of `encumbered' and `unencumbered'. This seems to be the most valid way of looking at things. GPLed code is encumbered. That's true. That's because the FSF is using its coding efforts to advance its political agenda. Note that the meanest intelligence can determine what the FSF is up to by simply reading the documents they produce. So they are not hiding anything. So they are not being dishonest and misleading.
I personally have no problem with the FSF's policy, because they are not coercing me to follow their political agenda. What's more, I obtain high-quality software for no direct outlay of money, as long as I'm willing to follow the GPL where it applies. I make the choice. I also (usually) have alternatives, such as software with less restrictive licenses, or even commercial software.
The FSF also argues that the GPL is a means to an end, that end being that all software would be unencumbered. They claim that the GPL will further that end. One can agree or disagree with either the end itself or whether the GPL furthers the end, but at least that's what they think they are doing.
The GPL doesn't actively take away your freedom, and one can at least argue that because of it software is freer than it would otherwise be. One can also make use of GPLed software without agreeing with every aspect of the FSF's position.
-- Fred Gilham gil...@csl.sri.com Ah, the 20th century, when the flight from reason crash-landed into the slaughterhouse. --- James Ostrowski
In article <u77kt5go19....@snapdragon.csl.sri.com>, Fred Gilham wrote:
>> once code is touched by gpled code the FSF's oppinion is that it is >> all gpled code, as I unserstand it.
> This isn't the right way to look at it.
> GPLed code is licensed. That license says that if you want to use the > GPLed code, you have to agree to certain conditions.
> If you don't follow those conditions you have no legal right to use > the GPLed code.
> Thus code doesn't get `touched' by GPLed code. You choose to use the > GPLed code. The consequences of that choice include following the > GPL.
If you look at my previous posts I said mistakenly included gpled code in my app and releases a rpm. Now I did not make a deliberate decision to use gpled code, I made a deliberate decision not to use gpled code and messed up on implamentation. But I am stuck with the consaquences of having released a binary based on gpled code(rpm) so I ma in the code maintenance business for the next 3 years.
>> here is my point the gpl is NOT NOT NOT free, but is presented as >> free and this is dishonest and misleading.
> I think it was Eric Naggum that brought up the distinction of > `encumbered' and `unencumbered'. This seems to be the most valid way > of looking at things. GPLed code is encumbered. That's true. That's > because the FSF is using its coding efforts to advance its political > agenda. Note that the meanest intelligence can determine what the FSF > is up to by simply reading the documents they produce. So they are > not hiding anything. So they are not being dishonest and misleading.
I dont have a problem with there licence, I don't agree with it and that is a seperate issue, because they have the right to release there code under what ever licence they want. What I have a problem with is that the gpl is not free for any normal definition of free and they know this because they *redefine* free to suit there agenda and this is dishonest and I have a problem with lie's and/or deliberate misrepresentation. And they are being misleading, to say the least, when I need to do a due diligence on there material to figure out that the "free" software is not free when they claim it is "free" for there *unique and custom* definition of free.
> I personally have no problem with the FSF's policy, because they are > not coercing me to follow their political agenda. What's more, I > obtain high-quality software for no direct outlay of money, as long as > I'm willing to follow the GPL where it applies. I make the choice. I > also (usually) have alternatives, such as software with less > restrictive licenses, or even commercial software.
I have a problem with there honesty in how they go about implementing there policy
> The FSF also argues that the GPL is a means to an end, that end being > that all software would be unencumbered. They claim that the GPL will > further that end. One can agree or disagree with either the end > itself or whether the GPL furthers the end, but at least that's what > they think they are doing.
The ends justify the means? As far as I know they never have, in the long run.
> The GPL doesn't actively take away your freedom, and one can at least > argue that because of it software is freer than it would otherwise be. > One can also make use of GPLed software without agreeing with every > aspect of the FSF's position.
sure it does, if I use there stuff I havwe to release my stuff if I sell it or give it away and I have to maintain copies of my stuff for 3 years in source code format if I distribute a binary copy
In article <3213912667651...@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> wrote: > * cbbro...@acm.org > | The comparisons being drawn relate to software;
> Software is not materially different from any other object being traded.
Yes it is. Software isn't made of matter. (The media in which software resides are made of matter, but the software itself is not.) The "physics" of software are different from the physics of material objects.
> In the case of GNU GPL'ed stuff, they can, in theory, force me to > give away stuff that is not related to the object whose license I have > supposedly violated.
No, they can't. From the GPL paragraph 2:
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.
* Ed L Cashin <ecas...@terry.uga.edu> | Sounds good, but there is a lot of excellent software I'm using right now | that is the direct result of the "nuts" way, so I'll choose to call it | "proven effective" rather than nuts.
Sigh. Not the Microsoft argument! If people work hard enough, _anything_ can be proven effective.
| What kind of profit do you mean? I've profited from GPL'ed software | because it taught me programming *before* I was a programmer and before I | had enough money to buy books.
I have argued for the educational value of "free software" for years.
| Please let us know when you come up with a better way for me to release | code publicly while still being sure that I am not working for MegaBucks | without pay.
That appears to be a central argument for "free software", but MegaBucks Inc have the bucks to take all of your work and modify it sufficiently that you will be unable to tell it was yours, and it will cost them less than developing it from scratch. Releasing the source code means that some scumbags _will_ use it in violation of your license, and you will not have a snowball's chance in hell protecting yourself or your source.
/// -- Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate. -- Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
* Kaz Kylheku | Okay, but they are real in a way that is different from ``any other | object being traded''. They are real in the same sense that the integers | are real. There is only one 42; new utterances of 42 don't give rise to | a new integer.
This is convenient mythology for some political and ideological ends, but it is bogus all the way through. There is _nothing_ in the creation and duplication of bits that differs one hoot from creation and duplication of any other kind of object. Think about it, please.
/// -- Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate. -- Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
In article <3213988767049...@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum wrote: >* Kaz Kylheku >| Okay, but they are real in a way that is different from ``any other >| object being traded''. They are real in the same sense that the integers >| are real. There is only one 42; new utterances of 42 don't give rise to >| a new integer.
> This is convenient mythology for some political and ideological ends, but > it is bogus all the way through. There is _nothing_ in the creation and > duplication of bits that differs one hoot from creation and duplication > of any other kind of object. Think about it, please.
Yes, duplication of the *representation* of bits much like duplication of any other object.
But there are some differences.
Software is duplicated whenever it is used; the stored representation isn't used directly by a data processor. Ordinary objects are not duplicated prior to use.
Bits can have many representations and is easily and automatically converted among them. An ordinary object is usually created by a single process, and thereafter keeps its representation.
Duplication of bits can be done today with very little cost using consumer-grade equipment. That kind of duplication of ordinary objects is the subject of Star Trek. If you know of a matter replicator, I'd love to hear about it. Mass production of objects is not duplication; it's an optimized, specialized process for making specific kinds of new instances of things out of raw materials. A given process can't be trivially readjusted to make a completely different thing. But a bit replicator will copy any bit sequence.
Lastly, when an ordinary object is traded, the value is usually assigned to the *instance*. When bits are traded, it's not the concrete representation, or instance that is being traded, but rather the *class*: the abstract program which all representations are instances of.
It's no use denying differences that are real, just because they don't agree with your political view. Reality must be the starting point of all rational thought.
* Erann Gat | Yes it is. Software isn't made of matter. (The media in which software | resides are made of matter, but the software itself is not.) The | "physics" of software are different from the physics of material objects.
This is completely bogus. There is no physical way to separate software from the medium. Copying it requires a physical process, just like any other physical object does. The so-called "abstraction" of meaning is no different from that performed by illuminating a page full of ink blots and understanding the reflected photons as letters and words and meaning in some language the reader understands. However, both the books and the literature contained in them are physically existing objects. Software is just like that literature. Again, it is only because it is convenient to some political and ideological ends that software is somehow regarded as this mystical, non-physical, magical thing. It is, in fact, not true.
| > In the case of GNU GPL'ed stuff, they can, in theory, force me to | > give away stuff that is not related to the object whose license I have | > supposedly violated. | | No, they can't. From the GPL paragraph 2: | | 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.
Sigh. The context here is when the GNU GPL applies but is violated, obviously not when it does not apply, so the context was _obviously_ when distributing them not as separate works, but together. It is _not_ the intention, nor the letter of the GNU GPL, to make it possible for people to separate works from eachother merely because they violate the license. So, if you distribute them together and thus fall under the license agreement, you have to give it away because you have violated the license.
/// -- Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate. -- Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
> I dont have a problem with there licence, I don't agree with it and > that is a seperate issue, because they have the right to release > there code under what ever licence they want. What I have a problem > with is that the gpl is not free for any normal definition of free > and they know this because they *redefine* free to suit there agenda > and this is dishonest and I have a problem with lie's and/or > deliberate misrepresentation.
Please, for the love of Bob, learn and use the distinction between "they're," "there," and "their," when to use the apostrophe, how to capitalize acronyms, and how to construct non run-on sentences.
Also, please take this discussion to gnu.misc.discuss, or somewhere else appropriate. I suspect that I'm not alone among c.l.l lurkers in my irritation.
