Roy Schestowitz Doesn't Even Understand The Implications of the GPL
robert.e...@gmail.com
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/08/28/miguel-de-icaza-vs-gpl/
--------------------- BEGIN TRANSMISSION ----------------
#
Roy Schestowitz said,
August 30, 2008 at 3:09 am
I didn’t add this to the text above (cited it instead and talked about
it in IRC), but the licence is possibly designed to permit change of
‘de facto’ ownership or control. Microsoft cannot stand the GNU GPL
and, in case it buys Novell, that matters.
#
AlexH said,
August 30, 2008 at 4:06 am
@Roy: totally false.
All open source licenses are perpetual; when ownership changes, the
new owner can change the license on the software but that doesn’t
affect existing users.
I’m not surprised that you don’t understand Miguel’s comment and think
it FUD. Probably because you don’t know your history: when it was
created, it was put under the GPL for “political” reasons, and was
thus inaccessible to both proprietary apps but also non-GPL compatible
open source apps (e.g., Apache-licensed apps) and also to those non-
copylefted projects who didn’t want to be forced to release under the
GPL (good example: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2000-12/msg01038.php).
This rubbed some people up the wrong way, not because it was GPL, but
because of how overtly the point was made. It’s a historical argument
well-known amongst the free software community.
Miguel is referring to that debate. He may not prefer the GPL, I don’t
know his personal view, but his comment is about which licenses you
use where in the stack, not whether or not certain licenses are good
or bad.
I’ve stopped expecting you to correct your false stories, but maybe
this will help inform you in the future.
#
Roy Schestowitz said,
August 30, 2008 at 4:10 am
All open source licenses are perpetual; when ownership changes,
the new owner can change the license on the software but that doesn’t
affect existing users.
Yes, but miss not the point that the GPL ensures there is an
obligation to /keep/ it open.
Microsoft has already ‘closed-sourced’ some BSD code.
#
AlexH said,
August 30, 2008 at 4:14 am
The GPL doesn’t have any such obligation, sorry Roy.
If you are the copyright owner, you can change the license to a closed
license and make all your future releases under that.
The GPL copyleft works only “against” non-copyright owners. No
copyright license can restrict the activity of the rightful copyright
owner.
#
Roy Schestowitz said,
August 30, 2008 at 4:32 am
Okay, so you seem to be suggesting that if Microsoft buys Novell, then
it can change Mono’s licence and close it regardless.
#
Dan O'Brian said,
August 30, 2008 at 6:06 am
I hate to say it, but “Duh” at Roy’s last comment.
Iff Microsoft were to buy Novell, everything that Novell has copyright
ownership of, they could relicense - regardless of whether it is GPL
or not.
I honestly cannot believe that this is “news” to anyone, it’s so
fundamental.
FWIW, since Mono is LGPL and MIT/X11 licensed - if Microsoft were to
buy Novell (or even if they don’t), you could fork Mono and relicense
GPLv3 because neither license has any restriction against doing so.
------------------ END TRANSMISSION -----------------
Yes, that's correct ladies and gentlemen, Roy Schestowitz doesn't even
understand the most basic of principles that his beliefs are built
upon.
If he can be so wrong about what the GPL means, what else is he wrong
about?
Roy Schestowitz's credibility is 0.
Moshe Goldfarb.
Roy Schestowitz is an idiot.
He couldn't even figure out how to filter people out of COLA without
filtering at the ISP level.
That's pretty sad.
What can you expect from a person who is approaching 10 years at University
and still has not graduated?
A person who posts to literally every corner of the Internet 24x7 ?
Here is a little about Roy Schestowitz (not my Blog BTW):
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/2007/09/roy-schestowitz-liar.html
"Roy Schestowitz is a career college student at some liberal artsy
university. He has never had a job or any responsibility in his life and
his poor parents have been supporting his butt for many years. Instead of
actually graduating like you're supposed to this proven liar spends 24
hours a day, 7 days a week (including all holidays) posting lies to every
corner of the internet. He posts to a Microsoft-hate newsgroup called COLA
for instance where he finds the time to make thousands of posts each month.
Really... this is no exaggeration. He literally makes several thousand
posts per month to this lowly newsgroup instead of studying or getting a
job. He was posting so much and misusing his college computers so much that
after several warnings and complaints his school had no choice but to
suspend his internet posting privileges. (He's not supposed to use school
computers for personal gain.) Now he uses Mark Kent's account (another
linux liar) to spew his lies and hatred from.
He was recently found guilty of stealing artwork from other websites and
posting them on his site despite the clear and obvious copyright warnings.
He has no hesitation in shamelessly stealing the work of others and posting
it up on his website as his own in order to try and make a few pennies
profit.
Other than posting to COLA he has his own anti-Microsoft website and
created for-profit websites that attempt to boycott linux vendors he
doesn't like such as Novell, Xandros and etc. His specialty is to take news
stories and twist the headline and contents of the story into something
that was never written. Unsuspecting readers will see the post from Roy
Schestowitz and assume it's the truth when in reality it's nothing but
lies, delusions, ravings and rants from this immature child. "
Roy Schestowitz is a hoot to observe on ICQ and some of the statements he
makes are so ludicrous that it's difficult to imagine how he could even
begin to believe them himself.
Also entertaining is observing him conjuring up methods for dealing with
what he deems *trolls* in other groups and sites he posts in.
IOW people who disagree with his paranoid, incorrect, unsubstantiated
claims of lunacy and compairacy theories.
Currently Roy Schestowitz is calling for the Novel and Microsoft executives
to be put into prison!!!
Schestowitz is a couple of cubes short of a Rubik....
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
7
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
> R
Micoshaft asstroturfers don't fully understand the implications of the GPL.
It is the GPL that gives them work because Micoshaft is very afraid
and funds asstroturfers to attack individuals on the net.
Governments and politicians just sit and watch it all go through
right under their noses drunk on tax payer money
when they should be making such activity illegal and award tripple damage
to individuals that are being harmed by micoshaft marketing manager's
decisions to order up attacks on individuals and who get away with it with
no harm to them whatsoever.
More reasons to ban micoshaft from the workplace for good.
Here is article I find earlier written by Rex Ballard...
"
Here are some tactics I've been hearing about from different companies
who are trying to prevent another "forced upgrade" to Vista at the
cost of jobs, poor earnings reports, and loss of productivity.
Executive Management Approval
Employees who want Vista or Office 2007 have to get approval from
their supervisor, who has to get approval from his supervisor, and so
on up the chain almost to the CEO or COO. If a lower level manager
approves, and doesn't get prior approval from his management, a
substantial charge is assessed to his budget, sufficient to clearly
and negatively affect his bonuses. In effect, any Vista or Office
2007 he personally approves, comes out of his bonus.
The point is that most lower level workers are not willing to go
through the hassles of writting a justification sufficient to merit
the approval of a high level executive, and mid-level managers aren't
going to eliminate their chances of promotion or bonuses by bucking
upper management.
Self Funded Personal Platforms
The company will provide the PC and Windows 2000, XP, or Linux, but if
the employee feels that he has to have Vista or Office 2007, they have
to purchase it through the corporate procurement system, and the cost
of the software will be deducted from their bunuses or raises.
Linux bonuses
Company offers bonuses, or adds to annual bonuses based on the
employee's ability to use Linux, with higher bonuses for Linux in
Native mode, slightly less for Virtual Mode, because they have taken
the time to self-train and take responsibility for their own desktop
or laptop environment.
Annual surcharges.
Rather than just giving every employee a copy of Windows and Office,
the employees department gets charged for the licenses and support
they are using. For example, a call to the help desk for XP issues
would be over $300 per call. A support call for Linux might be as
little as $30 per call. In addition, administrative fees and support
fees for just having XP or Linux are similarly proportionally priced.
Full Time Reportinng
Time spent dealing with Windows XP or Office issues, ranging from back-
up and restore to reinstallation of software or Windows, has to be
reported separately on a time sheet. If this time is from the 40 hour
work week, it's treated similar to "sick time". If it's done in
ADDITION to the standard 40 hour week, it is considered volunteer
effort, but this gives companies a much better picture of how much
time is spent dealing with Microsoft related issues, and makes a
better case for switching to Linux.
Extra time spent installing and learning to use Linux ad Open Office
are treated like training, since these are new skills that the company
wants to encourage. Since this training time indicates a willingness
to follow corporate guidelines, Therefore this is a positive when
considering bonuses, raises, and promotions.
Client Provided software
More consulting firms are now expecting the client to pay for special
software. If the client is using Vista and/or Office 2007 and won't
share documents in a legacy friendly way, the consultant has to
purchase the software through corporate procurement, and expense it to
the client along with travel and other expenses (at full corporate
price). This is because too many clients have been "giving" pirated
copies of Vista and Office 2007 to consultants, and the corporate
licenses ONLY apply to permanent employees of the corporation. The
consulting company is liable to Microsoft for the pirated licenses and
could even face a $10,000 per copy fine for the copyright violation.
In some countries, the penalties for stealing are quite severe,
including the loss of body parts.
Automated License and software audits
Most corporations now have the ability to get a comprehensive list of
who has what software, and many are on the lookout for pirated copies
of Vista or Office 2007. If it's not on the inventory as a purchased
license, then it's pirated. Many companies are also asking violators
to come to the data center or customer support depot and have their
laptops re-imaged. Some corporate desktops can automatically be re-
imaged if pirated software is detected.
There are also some new viruses out that are causing full indexes of
the entire file-system to be generated, and sending the index to some
unknown location on a "trickle" basis. If your laptop is suddenly
runnig very SLOWLY, this might be why.
Another virus is looking for file-sharing software such as bit-
torrent, if it's found, the virus deletes all mp3 files. It only
impacts Win2K, XP and Vista users.
Seems like a lot of corporate and hacker forces are starting to make
Windows users really "suffer" for their addiction to Windows. And
attempts to install Vista are pretty much the road to an
"Intervention".
"
So start with LiveCDs me thinks....
http://www.livecdlist.com
http://www.distrowatch.com
Ringmaster is wack job
"7" <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote in message
news:Cgfuk.50177$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
bbgruff
> You truly are a fucking idiot.
Not really.
That title is best applied to the individual who turned a single-NG thread
into a cross-posted one.
Perhaps somebody could help us non-techies out by looking back and seeing who
that was?
robert.e...@gmail.com
> Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Moshe Goldfarb
> wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
>
> > R
>
> Micoshaft asstroturfers don't fully understand the implications of the GPL.
>
> It is the GPL that gives them work because Micoshaft is very afraid
> and funds asstroturfers to attack individuals on the net.
>
This suggests that Roy Schestowitz must be a Microsoft astroturfer.
Thanks for the confirmation.
The Bee
<snipped>
Is there a cross posting full Moon in the skies? What has set you off?
chrisv
news:Cgfuk.50177$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> You truly are a fucking idiot.
>
You're elevating his status. Don't.
Moshe Goldfarb.
There is some evidence to suggest that Roy Schestowitz is indeed a
Microsoft astroturfer working as a reverse troll.
amicus_curious
<robert.e...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a66dddc-a64b-4c01...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>Caught this rather embarrassing (for Roy) exchange on BN:
>Roy Schestowitz's credibility is 0.
I'm kind of curious as to who he is in actuality. He has been criticized as
being a perpetual student, but the UofManchester directory classes him as
"Other" when they have explicit categories of undergraduate, postgraduate,
and faculty/staff. If he is none of the above, what status does he really
have? Richard Stallman has long traded on some vague association with MIT
even though he has no degrees from MIT nor is he a faculty or staff member
there. Is Shestowitz doing the same with Manchester?
amicus_curious
"Moshe Goldfarb." <brick_...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hwdxoss0t2s3.1p...@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:51:35 -0700 (PDT), robert.e...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 30, 1:17 pm, 7 <website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>> Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Moshe Goldfarb
>>> wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
>>>
>>>> R
>>>
>>> Micoshaft asstroturfers don't fully understand the implications of the
>>> GPL.
>>>
>>> It is the GPL that gives them work because Micoshaft is very afraid
>>> and funds asstroturfers to attack individuals on the net.
>>>
>>
>> This suggests that Roy Schestowitz must be a Microsoft astroturfer.
>>
>> Thanks for the confirmation.
>
> There is some evidence to suggest that Roy Schestowitz is indeed a
> Microsoft astroturfer working as a reverse troll.
>
Linux crowd, has little to actually fear from Linux or open source in
general. They have been prospering for well over a decade in spite of the
best efforts of that bunch to dethrone them. On the other hand Sun
Microsystems has be devastated by Linux and has a genuine cause to promote
someone presenting himself as so totally anti-MS as Shestowitz does.
Sun would relish the effort to continually pit the Linuxers and other OSS
fans against Microsoft and so value the rabble rousing ability of Shestowits
as well as get some benefit from Shestowitz's ability to make his cause look
strident and fanatical. The best of both worlds and so the more likely
explanation.
Moshe Goldfarb.
Check this link out:
http://locusmeus.com/aww/who-is-who.html
"am a Ph.D. student at The Victoria University of Manchester, expecting
completion in 2006. I work on a MIAS IRC research project at Imaging
Science and Biomedical Engineering, which is a division of the Faculty of
Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy. I am employed on a casual
employment basis at Manchester Computing and I also retain some duties at
HoRNet support. Prior to this I studied software engineering at the
Department of Computer Science (home of the "Baby", headed by my project
supervisor, Prof. Chris Taylor OBE) where I was involved in a couple of
projects and where, as an external student, I still perform many of my
experiments with AART/MARS."
Other means he is probably not full matriculated.
Meaning he is still "trying to find himself".
IOW a loser.
Moshe Goldfarb.
> "Moshe Goldfarb." <brick_...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hwdxoss0t2s3.1p...@40tude.net...
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:51:35 -0700 (PDT), robert.e...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 30, 1:17 pm, 7 <website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>>> Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Moshe Goldfarb
>>>> wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
>>>>
>>>>> R
>>>>
>>>> Micoshaft asstroturfers don't fully understand the implications of the
>>>> GPL.
>>>>
>>>> It is the GPL that gives them work because Micoshaft is very afraid
>>>> and funds asstroturfers to attack individuals on the net.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This suggests that Roy Schestowitz must be a Microsoft astroturfer.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the confirmation.
>>
>> There is some evidence to suggest that Roy Schestowitz is indeed a
>> Microsoft astroturfer working as a reverse troll.
>>
> He may be playing a deeper game. Microsoft, in spite of the hopes of the
> Linux crowd, has little to actually fear from Linux or open source in
> general. They have been prospering for well over a decade in spite of the
> best efforts of that bunch to dethrone them. On the other hand Sun
> Microsystems has be devastated by Linux and has a genuine cause to promote
> someone presenting himself as so totally anti-MS as Shestowitz does.
Interesting you should say that because I have a email from a person who
pretty much says the same thing.
> Sun would relish the effort to continually pit the Linuxers and other OSS
> fans against Microsoft and so value the rabble rousing ability of Shestowits
> as well as get some benefit from Shestowitz's ability to make his cause look
> strident and fanatical. The best of both worlds and so the more likely
> explanation.
Anything is possible but one thing he is NOT is a person just doing this
24x7 as a hobby and for the *good* of Linux advocacy.
Anyone who believes that is daft or has their head buried in the sand.
RonB
> He may be playing a deeper game. Microsoft, in spite of the hopes of the
> Linux crowd, has little to actually fear from Linux or open source in
> general.
Yeah, that's why Micro$haft spends so much time, effort and money FUDding
Linux and why WinTrolls spew 24/7 on COLA.
Do tell.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
chrisv
>You're elevating his status. Don't.
Ignore the forger.
Moshe Goldfarb.
Why?
He makes more sense than the real chrisv.
Tim Smith
Here's Miguel's statement that Roy takes as an attack on GPL:
It is licensed under the MIT X11 license and the Apache 2.0 license
so there are no annoying licensing issues and can be mixed with
anything out there.
--
--Tim Smith
Moshe Goldfarb.
Once again Schestowitz attempts to discuss/debate and issue and he falls
flat on his face.
He should stick to his web crawling and spewing scripts because this way he
doesn't have to open his mouth and confirm to all that he is indeed an
idiot.
Linonut
> He may be playing a deeper game. Microsoft, in spite of the hopes of the
> Linux crowd, has little to actually fear from Linux or open source in
> general. They have been prospering for well over a decade in spite of the
> best efforts of that bunch to dethrone them. On the other hand Sun
> Microsystems has be devastated by Linux and has a genuine cause to promote
> someone presenting himself as so totally anti-MS as Shestowitz does.
So is it Sun or Microsoft that is paying you to post?
(Fortune pulled this one up, honest:
--
Quack!
Quack!! Quack!!)
Linonut
* Moshe Goldfarb. peremptorily fired off this memo:
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:18:34 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> I'm kind of curious as to who he is in actuality. He has been criticized as
>> being a perpetual student, but the UofManchester directory classes him as
>> "Other" when they have explicit categories of undergraduate, postgraduate,
>> and faculty/staff. If he is none of the above, what status does he really
>> have? Richard Stallman has long traded on some vague association with MIT
>> even though he has no degrees from MIT nor is he a faculty or staff member
>> there. Is Shestowitz doing the same with Manchester?
You guess is as good as anyone's, eh amicus_unscrupulous?
> Check this link out:
>
> http://locusmeus.com/aww/who-is-who.html
>
> "am a Ph.D. student at The Victoria University of Manchester, expecting
> completion in 2006. I work on a MIAS IRC research project at Imaging
> Science and Biomedical Engineering, which is a division of the Faculty of
> Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy. I am employed on a casual
> employment basis at Manchester Computing and I also retain some duties at
> HoRNet support. Prior to this I studied software engineering at the
> Department of Computer Science (home of the "Baby", headed by my project
> supervisor, Prof. Chris Taylor OBE) where I was involved in a couple of
> projects and where, as an external student, I still perform many of my
> experiments with AART/MARS."
>
> Other means he is probably not full matriculated.
> Meaning he is still "trying to find himself".
>
> IOW a loser.
Uh, Beavis. Isn't it like 2008 now?
You're pretty scummy sometimes, Moshe. Why the need for insinuation and
insult?
Not enough beef?
Jean-David Beyer
>> Richard Stallman has long traded on some vague association with MIT
>> even though he has no degrees from MIT nor is he a faculty or staff member
>> there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 17:30:01 up 23 days, 23:36, 4 users, load average: 4.56, 4.31, 4.18
Sinister Midget
> Caught this rather embarrassing (for Roy) exchange on BN:
Gawrshk! No posting history (Robert E. Clayton, Robert Clayton or Bob
Clayton, although there /is/ one post by a Robert T. Clayton). Gmail
address, bringing tirades from outside COLA to COLA as a means of
trying to undermine the credibility of someone (ala Timmy and Sh1T)
....Wonder if this might have been a troll......
--
The Microsoft motto: We're the leaders....wait for us!
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups
Moshe Goldfarb.
> On 2008-08-30, robert.e...@gmail.com <robert.e...@gmail.com> claimed:
>> Caught this rather embarrassing (for Roy) exchange on BN:
>
> Gawrshk! No posting history (Robert E. Clayton, Robert Clayton or Bob
> Clayton, although there /is/ one post by a Robert T. Clayton). Gmail
> address, bringing tirades from outside COLA to COLA as a means of
> trying to undermine the credibility of someone (ala Timmy and Sh1T)
> ....Wonder if this might have been a troll......
Wow...
We've had a rash of these same people posting pro-Linux messages and all
seem to come from upstate New York and all have very minor posting
histories, like days, in amateur radio groups....
Funny how you Linux loons never seem to notice that...
Considering Amateur radio is pretty much dead, I would say it's the same
person.
Snit
pf6wttvdcemv.1pqbn7qdub3rw$.d...@40tude.net on 8/30/08 3:27 PM:
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:23:26 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:
>
>> On 2008-08-30, robert.e...@gmail.com <robert.e...@gmail.com>
>> claimed:
>>> Caught this rather embarrassing (for Roy) exchange on BN:
>>
>> Gawrshk! No posting history (Robert E. Clayton, Robert Clayton or Bob
>> Clayton, although there /is/ one post by a Robert T. Clayton). Gmail
>> address, bringing tirades from outside COLA to COLA as a means of
>> trying to undermine the credibility of someone (ala Timmy and Sh1T)
>> ....Wonder if this might have been a troll......
>
> Wow...
> We've had a rash of these same people posting pro-Linux messages and all
> seem to come from upstate New York and all have very minor posting
> histories, like days, in amateur radio groups....
>
> Funny how you Linux loons never seem to notice that...
>
> Considering Amateur radio is pretty much dead, I would say it's the same
> person.
What? Peter Köhlmann is losing his paranoia - he did not accuse me of
posting as a new poster.
Amazing.
Maybe he will next admit he simply fabricated his dishonest accusations
against me being Rekruled.
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Sinister Midget
> On 2008-08-30, robert.e...@gmail.com <robert.e...@gmail.com> claimed:
>> Caught this rather embarrassing (for Roy) exchange on BN:
>
> Gawrshk! No posting history (Robert E. Clayton, Robert Clayton or Bob
> Clayton, although there /is/ one post by a Robert T. Clayton). Gmail
> address, bringing tirades from outside COLA to COLA as a means of
> trying to undermine the credibility of someone (ala Timmy and Sh1T)
> ....Wonder if this might have been a troll......
My bad. There _is_ mention of a Bob Clayton. He's having a discussion
of Windwoes stuff, something about creating an msi, with one Sasa Coh,
who responds with the precise version of Visual Studio to compile
sources (Sasa's history seems to turn up some programming material
concerning what appears to be SIP-related stuff). And the email address
for Bob is still altogether different.
Oops! I found more by the infamous Bob. He participates in a whole
thread about running database jobberdoos on Windross. But still doesn't
look like the same guy as our beloved Robert E. Clayton who appears out
of nowhere to trash Roy. Those posts Bob made are all web-based as
well, none on Usenet.
I ask again, Bob/Robert/Flatso/Sh1T/Quirk/whomever: troll?
--
The brain of the average IE user. Divide by five for Outlook.
/
/
.
Peter Köhlmann
Idiot
--
Don't abandon hope: your Tom Mix decoder ring arrives tomorrow
raylopez99
> >> Richard Stallman has long traded on some vague association with MIT
> >> even though he has no degrees from MIT nor is he a faculty or staff member
> >> there.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
>
I would not compare Richard Stallman with Roy, that's for sure, after
reading the Wiki entry on the former: "[Stallman] - His doctoral
pursuits in physics became a casualty of this calling; however,
Stallman has since been awarded six honorary doctorates and two
honorary professorships.(see list below)"
The only honorary degrees that Roy and Nesumo of this group have
gotten would be a self-appointed Publisher's Sweepstakes-type mass
spammer award. They are perpetual students because nobody in the
real world wants to hire them.
BTW since installing Linux DSL distro I have yet to turn on that
machine--I'm too busy coding with the real deal--Windows. Who has
time to learn an entirely new OS? You might as well learn Chinese or
a useful foreign language with that much time on your hands.
RL
robert.e...@gmail.com
amicus_curious
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ad5dc640-ca4c-4e84...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 30, 2:36 pm, Jean-David Beyer <jeandav...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> Richard Stallman has long traded on some vague association with MIT
> >> even though he has no degrees from MIT nor is he a faculty or staff
> >> member
> >> there.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
>
I would not compare Richard Stallman with Roy, that's for sure, after
reading the Wiki entry on the former: "[Stallman] - His doctoral
pursuits in physics became a casualty of this calling; however,
Stallman has since been awarded six honorary doctorates and two
honorary professorships.(see list below)"
Well, I think that is a lot overstated. He has no degree from MIT. Period.
He spent a partial term in a graduate program at MIT for physics but
completed nothing as far as a degree is concerned. He pursued the the PhD
in physics for just a few months, long enough, apparently to dissuade him
from that goal. Shestowitz claims to have done more than that.
amicus_curious
nutcase, but still a nutcase. He is a sort of computer geek DonQuixote,
entralled with the notion of "libre" and trying to look like a champion to
those he imagines find him inspiring. He even manages to acquire a Sancho
of sorts in the form of Mark Kent. Think about it.
Sinister Midget
> You might try googling "Robert Clayton Ubuntu"
Not sure why it didn't show up with "Robert E. Clayton", but "Robert T.
Clayton" did. Not sure why "Robert Clayton" didn't turn it up either.
But it sure as heck did when I stuck "Ubuntu" on the end. Curious.
I stand corrected.
Still nothing in usenet groups that I could find, though. So maybe or
maybe not flatfish, Quook, Timmy or some of the others. But part of the
question still stands: With no previous history that I could locate on
usenet, what prompts the first post to be one that attacks Roy? Why not
keep it in the forums in which it was already taking place? Why would
you think one or more of us would even care?
Perhaps you didn't think about the possibility that most of us skim
what Roy posts, maybe reading one or more a little closer, and only
bothering to read further on the ones that interest us, usually
following the links provided. We'll only be influenced by that which we
allow to influence us. That rarely encompasses everything any one
person says or does.
In my view Roy's credibility may or may not be intact. But I don't give
a whit about how credible he is when he's posting mostly links to other
places. That being the case, the importance of credibility lies with
those from whom he quotes. His comments are separate, and minimal. He
has as much right to be wrong as he does to be right.
As for the things he says, I take away those things I tend to fall into
areas that I already know about and/or fall within the scope of common
sense. Since little I see from him that matters to me falls outside
either of those, I have no problem with him.
Oh. You're mad because you view his previous (and possible current)
take on something as wrong. If being incorrect made us all enemies of
everybody around us, nobody would be cordial to anyone, anywhere. We're
all wrong sometimes.
--
Friends don't let friends use Windows.
The God of Odd Statements, Henry Schmidt
> some idiot forging chrisv wrote:
>
>>You're elevating his status. Don't.
>
> Ignore the forger.
Hey, Chris, how does one "forge" a non-replyable address? BTW, if you
wish to complain about my .sig, just send it on to my ISP (I'm "sure"
they'll LART me one day...Maybe in a few years, anyway). I don't need to
actually see your whine.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Chung Convict #28; Usenet Ruiner #5
Demon Lord of Confusion; Official Chung Demon; Top Asshole #3
Superfaggot; Wingnut's #1 World Class Coward (next to the French)
COOSN-029-06-71069; Most Hated Usenetizen of All Time #13; Lits Slut #16
Gutter Chix0r #17; BowTie's Spuriously Accused Pedo Photographer #4
AUK Psycho & Felon #21; Parrot & Zombie #2; AUK Hate Machine Cog #19
Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
The posting nym is best removed from my posting address if your goal is
to speak with me in private.
Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.*
"Atheists are people who have no invisible means of support"
Join my RuneScape clan!
http://z11.invisionfree.com/Holy_Pretzel_Cabal/index.php
Full name of clan: Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet
And Usenet Terrorist Pretzel
"A dog in the video I watched fucked a human woman. The dog consented to
it and the woman consented to it. That is like one gay man consenting to
having sex with another. Do you approve of it?" -- Agamemnon watches
bestiality porn and compares it to gay sex. Message-ID:
<A7adnV1ksaSyY_Lb...@eclipse.net.uk>
"I know how you special busboys are.
You're crazy." -- John "special busboy" Wentzky, in Message-ID:
<HMb3k.2413$bh5....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>
"Roe V Wade has zero bearing on my existence other than it affects it
adversely."
-- Johnny Wentzky never had much truck with "logic". Message-ID:
<V6xNe.27650$XM3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>
"F!ck moderation, free speech is a masculinist proverb and that's what
feminist manvagina's like yourself." -- conn...@hotmail.com posted
before finishing a thought, in MID:
<1158480805.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
"Fredbot == SameAsB4 == TGOOS
"You are stalking me, even after I thrashed ya." -- PorchMonkey4Life,
a veritable combination of Sherlock Holmes and Doc Savage for the 21st
Century. No, really. Would I lie? MID: <zaUqh.2972$E35.415@trnddc02>
"He unleashes a fecal explosion he time he posts. He uses so many nyms
because he gets beaten so easily and so convincingly in flame wars and
tries to hide behind nyms in the hopes of getting a fresh start. To bad
for him that his lameness keep shining through like a beacon for all
tards (e.g., SameAs$B4, Demon Spawn, Barbara's Pus$y, FredBot,
TGOOS, ......, etc)" -- Monkey-man identifies <jitter> as me, among
others, in broken English, in MID: <Z_Xqh.3167$E35.215@trnddc02>
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Trainer of the above k00k
http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2008
Hammer of Thor, July 2008
"Q: What do you call someone in the White House who is honest, caring,
and well-read?
A: A tourist." -- Anonymous
"It would be offly hard for any of you to abuse me on usenet. Really. I
have the advantage. I could easily turn alt.usenet.kooks into a cesspool
of encoded posts. Bringing the noise ratio up so high as to make the
group worthless. Anybody who can code could do this, why nobody has
bothered before now is beyond me. The ultimate spamming engine..
'BAWAHAHA'" -- Dustbin "Outer Filth" K00k's delusions of grandeur
reached new heights, in Message-ID:
<Xns98355D29419...@69.28.186.121>
"Immorality: The morality of those who are having a better time." -- H.
L. Mencken
"Consider that language a moment. 'Purposefully and materially
supported hostilities against the United States' is in the eye of the
beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly
impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by
this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a
hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other
part of the so-called 'War on Terror.'
"If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be
deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the
United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against
Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall
you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House
members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize
investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same
designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them
up." -- William Rivers Pitt
"It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American
people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the
president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq,
and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections,
the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly
worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect,
declare himself dictator." -- Frank Morales
http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=e&fark
"Right you are correct. Someone hooked me. I do believe in building
relationships. That is what Christians are required to do. I am amoral.
I am sure you know what that means. So are Scorpios. I am being
'protected' by the Formosa Rule because of my 'mental illness'. I am not
targeting 'teh Mop Jockey'. You are and you are using me as a bait.
Please stop. I have my own fish to reel in. Leave me alone. It is my hope
that I will be able to catch a fish and reel it in for you. Once my
retired bishop thought I was fishing for him and he took the bait, alas
it wasn't me and that spelled the demise of our relationship. Have a
little bit more faith in me. An Eastern Orthodox bishop thought I was
fishing for him and willingly, proudly and defiantly took the bait on
public record, and it wasn't even me. Give me a break." -- Atlanta
Olympiada "Erica" Kane yammered in
Message-ID: <ochc3.a...@news.alt.net>
"It does to a certain extant physically and theoretically
it holds even into the quantum but there observational confirmation is
limited or non existent. That's the problem and the major stumbling
block to field unification. For Dr. Einstein held out that a physical
based field theory should be sought out and not left to quantum
uncertainty of how the universe primly base works. Man made coordinate
systems are fine without knowing from where or what is the base essence
of what the space as deduced field is composed of, but not totally
satisfactory. Anomalies keep space cropping up and scientists have to
keep adjusting for these unexpected events. It's like a blind man that
has memorized his physical surroundings to a point he feels very
comfortable until that one new or unexpected event pops up and he's lost
and fumbling." -- nightbat, in one of his more lucid moments.
Message-ID: <b27b0$45ed14a7$46e3a646$66...@COMTECK.COM>
Clogwog
news:aa6jb4tktciqi8k1v...@4ax.com...
> some idiot forging chrisv wrote:
>
>>You're elevating his status. Don't.
>
> Ignore the forger.
>
User: chrisv
Email me at mailto:chr...@nospam.invalid. Privacy and discretion assured.
My sphere of interest:
adult swim, aqua teen, bondage, dead can dance, erotica, fantasy, ferrets,
fetishism, naked fight clubs, greg the bunny, jump little children,
morphine, pornography, sensuality, sex, sexuality, shiny things, gang
banging, 69, Anal, Asian, Ass, AssLicking, AssToMouth, BallsLicking,
BendOver, BigL, BigNaturals, BigTits, Bikini, Black, Blonde, Blowjob, Boots,
Bra, Brunette, Closeup, Condom, Corset, Creampie, Cumshot, CumSwallow,
CurlyHair, DoggyStyle, DP, FaceSitting, Facial, Fetish, Fingering, Fishnet,
Flexible, Foot, Footjob, Gagging, Gaping, Gonzo, HairPulling, Handjob,
Hardcore, High-Heels, HoldingHer, Interracial, Kissing, Latinas, Legs,
Lesbian, Lingerie, Masturbation, Mature, MILF, MiniSkirt, Mouthfull,
OnHerKnees, OnTop, Outdoor, Piercing, Ponytail, Pool, Posing, PuffyNipples,
PussyLicking, Redhead, ReverseCowgirl, SeeThrough, ShavedPussy, ShortHair,
Shorts, SiliconeTits, SmallTits, Smoking, Sofa, Solo, Spitting, Spoons,
StandingSex, Stockings, Tan, Tattoo, TBack, Teasing, Teens, Threesome,
ThroatFucking, Titjob, TitLicking, Topless, Toys, TrimmedPussy, Upskirt,
Bathroom, BigBlackCock, BigCock, Bizzare, Braces, Bukkake, CamelToe,
Cheerleader, Chubby, ClothedSex, Erotica, Exhibitionism, Fat, Fisting,
Freckles, Gape, Garterbelt, Gay, Glasses, Gloves, Granny, Group, HairyPussy,
HiddenCam, Housewife, Indian, Insertions, Jeans, Kitchen, Lactating, Latex,
Messy, Midget, Nurses, Orgasm, Orgy, Pale Party Pissing, Pregnant,
RoughSex, SchoolGirl, Secretary, Sexy, Shemale, Shower, Skinny, Socks,
Spanking, Squirting, Strapon, String, Tickling, Toes, Toons, Ugly, Uniform,
Vintage, Voyeur, Wet, WhiteOnBlack.
/C/ircumscriptly
/H/ard-bitten.
/R/ug-headed and
/I/ncapably
/S/kin-headed
/V/agabond.
Linonut
>> Anything is possible but one thing he is NOT is a person just doing this
>> 24x7 as a hobby and for the *good* of Linux advocacy.
>>
>> Anyone who believes that is daft or has their head buried in the sand.
>>
> Well, my real belief is that he is just a nutcase. An inspired, energetic
> nutcase, but still a nutcase. He is a sort of computer geek DonQuixote,
> entralled with the notion of "libre" and trying to look like a champion to
> those he imagines find him inspiring. He even manages to acquire a Sancho
> of sorts in the form of Mark Kent. Think about it.
What explains you, then, amicus_unscrupulous?
--
"The pathology is to want control, not that you ever get it, because of
course you never do."
-- Gregory Bateson
amicus_curious
"Linonut" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
news:XVAuk.19897$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>* amicus_curious peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>>> Anything is possible but one thing he is NOT is a person just doing this
>>> 24x7 as a hobby and for the *good* of Linux advocacy.
>>>
>>> Anyone who believes that is daft or has their head buried in the sand.
>>>
>> Well, my real belief is that he is just a nutcase. An inspired,
>> energetic
>> nutcase, but still a nutcase. He is a sort of computer geek DonQuixote,
>> entralled with the notion of "libre" and trying to look like a champion
>> to
>> those he imagines find him inspiring. He even manages to acquire a
>> Sancho
>> of sorts in the form of Mark Kent. Think about it.
>
> What explains you, then, amicus_unscrupulous?
>
source. That should be obvious from the majority of my posts. I think that
the practice of Shestowitz creating a blizzard of unsubstantiated nonsense
detracts from the opportunities to really discuss anything here. He is much
more of a liability than an asset. Look at how much discussion centers on
his or other fool's behavior and involves nothing material about the useful
aspects of open source.
Can it succeed? I don't think so since the conventional wisdom of markets
and technologies argues against its success. It is OK to slavishly believe
in things if you have no alternate means of analyzing and assessing their
chances, but that makes such a person dull and uninteresting. OTOH, if they
can reason, then they should be able to postulate a mechanism by which open
source could succeed under some set of conditions.
The legal situation is equally complex and bears a lot on the commercial
situation. It creates some interesting questions, for example whether or
not the GPL can command that one's own source be disclosed merely because
one incorporated some GPL source from the past. The law is still untested
on that issue, as far as I can tell. The only things that have made it to
court or almost made it involved mere accreditation of the original, not
disclosure of any enhancement.
Another issue is whether or not there is any value in the ongoing
"protection" offered by the GPL in any case. It seems to me that open
source code mostly mimmics the functionality, including fit and feel, of
commercial programs. That is not so good for the commercial programs, but
it doesn't offer any help to anyone who might want to "steal" the GPL code
and try to sell it as some new commercial product, whether enhanced from the
original or not. After all, whatever product market was being addressed
would have already been dominated by one or more commercial products along
with the open source product or products. That seems like a crowded market
to try to enter and the common wisdom there is that one should not try since
you cannot succeed.
Linonut
> Another issue is whether or not there is any value in the ongoing
> "protection" offered by the GPL in any case. It seems to me that open
> source code mostly mimmics the functionality, including fit and feel, of
> commercial programs. That is not so good for the commercial programs, but
> it doesn't offer any help to anyone who might want to "steal" the GPL code
> and try to sell it as some new commercial product, whether enhanced from the
> original or not.
Not sure what you mean above. Besides, commercial products all mimic
and "steal" from each other as well.
> After all, whatever product market was being addressed
> would have already been dominated by one or more commercial products along
> with the open source product or products. That seems like a crowded market
> to try to enter and the common wisdom there is that one should not try since
> you cannot succeed.
Actually, the Free market is a completely separate market, consisting of
"buyers" who cannot afford the commercial product, or simply want a
source-code supported version with more open formats or protocols, or
something that is not restricted to a single vendor's operating platform.
--
Micro Credo:
Never trust a computer bigger than you can lift.
Moshe Goldfarb.
> "Linonut" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
> news:XVAuk.19897$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>* amicus_curious peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>>> Anything is possible but one thing he is NOT is a person just doing this
>>>> 24x7 as a hobby and for the *good* of Linux advocacy.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone who believes that is daft or has their head buried in the sand.
>>>>
>>> Well, my real belief is that he is just a nutcase. An inspired,
>>> energetic
>>> nutcase, but still a nutcase. He is a sort of computer geek DonQuixote,
>>> entralled with the notion of "libre" and trying to look like a champion
>>> to
>>> those he imagines find him inspiring. He even manages to acquire a
>>> Sancho
>>> of sorts in the form of Mark Kent. Think about it.
>>
>> What explains you, then, amicus_unscrupulous?
>>
> Why I am merely curious about the commercial and legal aspects of open
> source. That should be obvious from the majority of my posts. I think that
> the practice of Shestowitz creating a blizzard of unsubstantiated nonsense
> detracts from the opportunities to really discuss anything here. He is much
> more of a liability than an asset. Look at how much discussion centers on
> his or other fool's behavior and involves nothing material about the useful
> aspects of open source.
Schestowitz is to Linux advocacy what Pat Robertson is to religion.
They both scare away more people than they convert.
amicus_curious
"Linonut" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
>* amicus_curious peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Another issue is whether or not there is any value in the ongoing
>> "protection" offered by the GPL in any case. It seems to me that open
>> source code mostly mimmics the functionality, including fit and feel, of
>> commercial programs. That is not so good for the commercial programs,
>> but
>> it doesn't offer any help to anyone who might want to "steal" the GPL
>> code
>> and try to sell it as some new commercial product, whether enhanced from
>> the
>> original or not.
>
> Not sure what you mean above. Besides, commercial products all mimic
> and "steal" from each other as well.
>
to stay is a different issue than whether or not to enter. Presumably a
person with nothing of their own to build on would be the most likely person
to "steal" an OSS project source set and try to proprietize and
commercialize it by making some useful improvement and that is what the GPL
mainly tries to prevent. Or so that is the way I interpret all the frenzy
here.
Realistically, that is unlikely to happen since just the revelation of the
idea is usually enough to enable it to be copied by others familiar with the
product area. In any even, it is very unlikely to lead to any financial
success.
>> After all, whatever product market was being addressed
>> would have already been dominated by one or more commercial products
>> along
>> with the open source product or products. That seems like a crowded
>> market
>> to try to enter and the common wisdom there is that one should not try
>> since
>> you cannot succeed.
>
> Actually, the Free market is a completely separate market, consisting of
> "buyers" who cannot afford the commercial product, or simply want a
> source-code supported version with more open formats or protocols, or
> something that is not restricted to a single vendor's operating platform.
>
But you cannot make any money doing that, I think. I also doubt that one
person in a thousand who uses open source software is even slightly
interested in digging into the code and fixing something that may be broken.
If someone wants to do that and offer it as closed source, still for free,
all power to them. Most of the open source licenses other than the GPL do
not require any source release of changes, merely attribution of the
original or even less.
There are billions of lines of source code offered as tutorial examples of
how to do things, too.
raylopez99
Amicus--see the above link, for a flamey but still informative
discussion of "artistic license" and a typical artistic "open source"
type license found in Perl, which has this escape clause:
<quote>
4.You may distribute the programs of this Package in object code or
executable form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following:
a) distribute a Standard Version of the executables and library
files,
together with instructions (in the manual page or equivalent) on
where
to get the Standard Version.
</quote>
"4a is the most commonly used option - you include an acknowledgement
in
your user manual, or readme, or whatever, saying where you got the
code. Easy." --another poster in the thread, Jon Skeet
What this stays is that if you distribute source code that's artistic
license, you don't have to pay any money if you don't change it any,
but just point to where it can be found (i.e., point to the original
author).
However, the same artistic license pointed to at opensource.org points
out that if you do change anything in the original code, you must
'document' your changes with a very detailed man page, or risk having
to pay the original author a royalty. What a pain!
As a consequence, as the poster Jon Skeet points out, this results in
most people not changing anything in the source code, so they don't
have to run afoul of the license. That way they can simply point to
clause 4a above and be safe.
So much for "open standards" and such nonsense as the "cathedral and
the bazaar" and other such dribble the Linux crowd loves to crow
about.
Seems then that Linux is just as "closed" as Microsoft, as a practical
matter (unless you want to write a man page detailing everything
you've changed in an open source source code, and why, or risk a
lawsuit).
RL
amicus_curious
> http://tinyurl.com/6d8xhz
>
>
> Seems then that Linux is just as "closed" as Microsoft, as a practical
> matter (unless you want to write a man page detailing everything
> you've changed in an open source source code, and why, or risk a
> lawsuit).
>
charge at the same time, I don't believe that a court is going to find much
wrong with anyone who takes advantage of the offer. There is some quibbling
going on as to whether or not attribution is needed and it is a reasonable
thing, I think, to say where you got something that is significant. On the
other hand, I do not believe that a code snippet that does some particular
task is defensible under a copyright to begin with and even less so if it is
part of a general disclosure of a complete source work.
You can only copyright a "unique expression fixed in a media" and that is
pretty hard to apply to most source code. There may be several ways to
write a function, but none of them are very unique, given the limits of
computer languages, and would be very hard to assert in court and even
harder to detect in practice.
As I said earlier, I don't see anyone seriously trying to lift an entire
source work and proprietize it, given the circumstances of a software
market, which doesn't allow for much longevity of any particular work. It
has to continually evolve or become passe and so old source is too old hat
to be of any real use. There may be some snippets, certainly, that stand
the test of time, for example the STL classes in C++, but they are not
candidates for such protection anyway.
raylopez99
> "raylopez99" <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
That's the fair and balanced view, yes. Copyrights protect the
expression of the idea, not the idea.
But in this day and age, I think it's somewhat naive.
Kind of like arguing what you're lifting is 'fair use'--it's a defense
that only holds up when you've gone to court and spent 10s or 100s of
thousands of dollars on legal fees.
RL
chrisv
>>
>> That seems like a crowded market
>> to try to enter and the common wisdom there is that one should not try since
>> you cannot succeed.
Nope. The common wisdom is that you're a stupid fsck, and a
pathological liar.
Plenty of "crowded markets" are successfully entered by new
competitors. The examples are myriad.
amicus_curious
>Kind of like arguing what you're lifting is 'fair use'--it's a defense
>that only holds up when you've gone to court and spent 10s or 100s of
>thousands of dollars on legal fees.
How would anyone even tell? Say, just as a for instance, that someone read
through the source for the Ghostscript project and took some section that
did some useful function such as extracting image sections and used the same
mechanisms for doing that and implemented it in C#. The PDF spec defines
the mapping and everyone who provides a viewer or reader has to create that
code. How could you tell if it was just a translation from Ghostscript?
And even if they did, the process would be a more or less straightforward
execution of common operations in a required sequence and not such a unique
expression in any case.
raylopez99
> And even if they did, the process would be a more or less straightforward
> execution of common operations in a required sequence and not such a unique
> expression in any case.
I agree, detection is difficult. Usually it's done via a disgruntled
employee who has worked for the defendant, and can testify in court
that in fact the defendant did copy the plaintiff's code, and did so
on purpose.
And, like you say, the copyright only protects the particular
expression or instantiation of the idea, not the idea itself, though
I've seen some NY state / federal case law I think it was, that tried
to protect the "look and feel" of the program, which begins (in my
mind) to sound like you're trying to protect the idea (especially the
'feel' part). But this look-and-feel law is a minority view.
RL