> "Kaz Kylheku" <k...@ashi.footprints.net> wrote in messageSo you could ``get'' the talk based on who is talking? Hmm,
> > The GNU license indeed undermines one man's ability to help himself to
> I don't get this kind of talk from people who claim to support
By the way, I didn't claim to support open source, so feel free to get
> You're talking about open source, remember?That is nonsense; there is nothing in the license about excluding
> That means it's out there for the whole world to see and use,
> or so the world thought, before GNU came along (borrowed
> most of it), and tried to make sure that the "wrong" people
> didn't get to use open source.
specific people, only specific *actions* with regard to redistributing
protected work. It is purely a legal instrument; it is completely
irrelevant that some people with certain views believe that the
license serves their politics.
Regarding ``use'', the license doesn't cover use, only redistribution.
Anyone may use a GPL'ed program without agreeing to any license. The
> > Microsoft's operating systems have working TCP/IP today only becauseLegally, it did indeed.
> > they were able to mooch the inadequately licensed BSD protocol stack.
> > There were no cries to the press about undermined intellectual
> > property then.
> THAT'S BECAUSE THE LICENSE ALLOWED THEM TO DO IT,
> they didn't "mooch", "steal", or undermine anything. The codeUh oh, the ``still there'' argument! Isn't that used by pirates? That
> is still there, still available to anyone who wants it.
artist's music, or that computer program, is ``still there'', I just
have a harmless copy. Objectivists aren't allowed to invoke this, are
> Furthermore, Windows and the world are better for it.So what's good for the world is good, not necessarily what is good for
the producing individual. Uh oh!
> Would you rather have had some MS proprietary stack,That would actually be better for security; you wouldn't have as many
> and a Sun stack, and an IBM stack? <scratch>
cases of exactly the same exploit being found in half a dozen
different operating systems at once.
There are dangers in software monocultures.
You do know that TCP/IP existed before BSD UNIX acquired a stack? You
Do you understand what it means to have a rigorous specification, that
But all of these observations are irrelevant. Suppose it really is
This is analogous to justifying a totalitarian government, on the
> Hmmm, which Internet should I go onto today?Linux has its own TCP stack. Do you have to go on a Linux internet to
access Linux hosts?
> Some people just don't get it.Indeed.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.