The GPL: Intellectual Protection or Intellectual Theft?
Egg Troll
Consulting for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do
some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was
very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our
exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.
Although we met several technical challenges along the way
(specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process
went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were
considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.
So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It
was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
now be available at no cost to our competitors.
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult
position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with
another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no
option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my
experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my
associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to
something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".
Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure
it remains only a bit player.
Thank you for your time.
philo
i think their policy may be different
Erik Funkenbusch
> So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
> we would be required to publish our source code for others to use.
You must only publish the source code to those you give the binary code to,
but unfortunately you cannot prevent them from giving those changes to
anyone else (such as your competitors).
> Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
> products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
> its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
It's also very incorrect. Your lawyers need to be shot. GCC doesn't put
any liability on its produced output, though there are compilers that do
(such as Borlands Kylix Open Edition). However, if you link to GPL'd
libraries which do not offer any kind of exemption, then this is the case
(again, you must only give code to those you give the binaries to).
Dave Uhring
> Hello,
>
> Consulting for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
> Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do
> some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was
> very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our
> exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.
>
> Although we met several technical challenges along the way
> (specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
> were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process
> went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were
> considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.
>
If you do not distribute the code containing GPL code there is no
requirement whatever that you release your source code.
> So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
> we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It
> was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
> called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
> states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
> Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
> we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
> now be available at no cost to our competitors.
>
Unless you distributed your binaries to someone outside of your own
organization you are not required to publish any source code. If on
the other hand you wish to distribute the binaries of your code, then
the GPL requirement of providing the source applies.
> Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
> products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
> its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
>
Your lawyer appears to have his head in his ass, or you are a liar.
Your published name certainly identifies you. You are indeed a troll.
Pascal Bourguignon
> Hello,
>
> Consulting for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
> Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do
> some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was
> very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our
> exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.
>
> Although we met several technical challenges along the way
> (specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
> were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process
> went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were
> considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.
You should be aware that unix file systems use to fragment (big) files
on purpose! But you can mount a MS-DOS file system if you prefer it.
> So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
> we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It
> was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
> called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
> states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
> Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
> we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
> now be available at no cost to our competitors.
Only if you distribute your modifications of GPL'ed software you have
to distribute them as sources. If you keep your modifications for
yourself, you can do whatever please you freely.
> Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
> products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
> its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
This is plain wrong. Your lawyers did not understand the GPL and how
it applies to tools such as gcc.
> Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
> use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult
> position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with
> another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no
> option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
If nobody outside your company will ever use the modified software,
you can keep it and its sources with your modifications by you.
> I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
> with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
> guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my
> experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my
> associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to
> something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".
> Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure
> it remains only a bit player.
You don't need to reconsider anything, you've been misled by wrong
interpretations of the GPL.
In a nutshell:
- IF you distribute GPL'ed software or modifications of GPL'ed software,
THEN you MUST distribute it with the sources.
- IF you don't distribute any GPL'ed software,
THEN you can keep the sources for yourself.
Remember, GPL is about freedom, not free beer.
That means that:
- We agree to let you have all our GPL'ed software with our sources
if you agree to aalways provide the sources under GPL when you
distribute it, including the sources of your modifications that you
agree to put under GPL too.
but in any case:
- We agree to let you have all our GPL'ed software with our sources
if you keep it for yourself to do anything you want with it, but
distribute it.
What we don't want is to see somebody exploit our intellectual work,
modify it, lock it (by way of compilation) and distribute it locked
without leaving us access to the modifications. But otherwise, we
don't mind to share.
You may find that this is quite fair to also provide your sources
under GPL. But you're free to decide that for your sources. Not for
our sources, even if you modify them, when you distribute our software.
> Thank you for your time.
Check http://www.gnu.org/licenses/ for more information.
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ (o_ Software patents are endangering
() ASCII ribbon against html email //\ the computer industry all around
/\ and Microsoft attachments. V_/ the world http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/
1962:DO20I=1.100 2001:my($f)=`fortune`; http://petition.eurolinux.org/
You're a web designer? Please read http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ !
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/IT d? s++:++(+++)>++ a C+++ UB+++L++++$S+X++++>$ P- L+++ E++ W++
N++ o-- K- w------ O- M++$ V PS+E++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5? X+ R !tv b++(+)
DI+++ D++ G++ e+++ h+(++) r? y---? UF++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Joel Mayes
Hash: SHA1
In article <4e2f159f.02050...@posting.google.com>, Egg Troll wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Consulting for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
> Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do
> some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was
> very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our
> exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.
>
> Although we met several technical challenges along the way
> (specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
> were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process
> went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were
> considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.
>
This is FUD
The ext2 fs doesn't need defraging, but there are defrag utils for it
for those who don't understand this.
Linux does support IBM token ring cards
> So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
> we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It
> was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
> called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
> states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
> Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
> we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
> now be available at no cost to our competitors.
>
This is FUD
You only have to release source code if you release a binary version of
your changes, If you develop something in house you can keep the changes
to your self.
> Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
> products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
> its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
>
This is FUD
There is nothing in the GPL (which is the General Public License) that
says you can't use GPL'ed tool to produce closed source products.
The license only covers the distrobution of the programs not how you use
them
> Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
> use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult
> position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with
> another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no
> option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
>
If you are going to make up a story you should at least try to make it
believable
> I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
> with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
> guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my
> experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my
> associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to
> something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".
> Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure
> it remains only a bit player.
>
> Thank you for your time.
http://www.m-tech.ab.ca/linux-biz/
Here a list of a couple of hundred businesses & goverments & charities
that use as part of their day to day operations.
It includes Law firms, Telecom, Manufacturing, Engineering companies
and Software developers and computer consultants most of which produce
close source software
They don't have a problem with the GPL
Prehaps your lawers where working for MS?
P.S.
was there a reason you cross posted this to alt.fan.british-accent ?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE81IQWWxU5n0eFaBkRAtckAJsHGuKQl5JN3DX7sfMOsuR1eNnq8gCfQgQ3
kjYRFHM5Ja7V7oxubalDBl4=
=ZKAN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
D. C. Sessions
Contest time again. How many howlers can we spot in this?
--
| It's the heart afraid of breaking that never learns to dance |
| It's the dream afraid of waking that never takes the chance |
| It's the one who won't be taken who cannot seem to give |
| and the soul afraid of dyin' that never learns to live |
+------------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> -----------+
D. C. Sessions
> It's also very incorrect. Your lawyers need to be shot. GCC doesn't put
> any liability on its produced output, though there are compilers that do
> (such as Borlands Kylix Open Edition).
Borland isn't that stupid. The constraint isn't on code
produced by their compiler, just on redistribution of their
libraries.
David T. Ashley
news:4e2f159f.02050...@posting.google.com...
> Hello,
>
> I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
> with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
> guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my
> experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my
> associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to
> something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".
> Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure
> it remains only a bit player.
Egg Troll, you are very simply an idiot.
First of all, you should have read the license and understood its
implications before you began the project. If the GPL caused you headache,
you brought it on yourself.
Second, as another poster pointed out, the GPL has been misinterpreted by
your lawyer.
Third, my personal theory is that you are Bill Gates under another name,
trying to demonize open-source.
So, Bill, tell us, what barber gives you those crappy $4 haircuts?
Dave.
Old Man
Astounding ignorance, even for a troll.
--
Old Man
Byron A Jeff
Egg Troll <eggt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
-Hello,
-
I really think the only truth in this whole message is the name of the
author: Egg TROLL.
-Consulting for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
-Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do
-some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was
-very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our
-exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.
So you liked having access to the source. Eh?
And exactly what do you think this access should cost you?
-
-Although we met several technical challenges along the way
-(specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
-were unable to defrag its ext2 file system),
Pray tell, why would you need to defrag it? Just because you're used to
that horrid activity in M$ filesystems, doesn't mean that all filesystems
are subject to it. See when a filesystems is actually designed properly
fragmentation can be minimized.
Also can you be more specific about Linux's lack of Token ring support?
- all in all the process
-went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were
-considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.
So you liked it.
-
-So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
-we would be required to publish our source code for others to use.
And your lawyer should have imagined his suprise when you fired him for
incompetence. You guys should have known about the license situation before
you took the contract. Duh.
- It
-was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
-called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License.
So you still didn't read it, right? It's the GNU Public License.
- Part of this license
-states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
And? TANSTAAFL. Go look it up.
-Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
-we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
-now be available at no cost to our competitors.
So? That's precisely the purpose of the license, which you obviously didn't
read.
-
-Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
-products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
-its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
And it's complete bullshit. Publish this fool's name so that I make sure
never to hire his sorry butt.
You didn't read it. He didn't read it. This is a troll of the worst sort.
-
-Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
-use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult
-position.
Again you didn't read the license. In fact there is a provision specifically
for the situation you just described.
GO READ IT!
- We could either give away our hard work, or come up with
-another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no
-option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
And we're all glad that you did. What's the name your outfit? I'll make sure
to steer anyone who asks away from a group that's clearly clueless as yours.
-
-I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
-with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
-guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it.
Its 'draconian requirements' as you put are precisely in place so that
carpetbaggers such as yourself can't just scoop up and privitize hard earned
code.
-After my
-experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my
-associates.
After my experience with this foul, misguided, delusional, lying post, I
certainly won't be recommending you to any of 'my associates'.
- I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to
-something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's so over the top I just have to laugh!
-Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure
-it remains only a bit player.
If the choice is being a bit player, or being a lying, manipulative, thieving,
overbearing monoply, a bit player I shall be.
-
-Thank you for your time.
Thank you for wasting my time. This well thought out post was designed to
get a rise. Congratulations, you've succeeded.
Each and every one of the original assertions put forth in the original message
is false. It's specifically designed to sow FUD to readers who are not
completely clued in to the issues with the GPL. Just to set the record
straight:
* Any lawyer who enters into a contract without clear understanding of all the
intellectual property issues should be shot: "First let's kill the lawyers!"
* TANSTAAFL. Go look it up.
* The GPL has specific provisions for code that will not be distributed outside
of an organization.
* Code compiled with GCC has no additional license burden attached.
* The Microsoft shared source license? HA! Enough said.
* Please please please publish your real name and organization so that Linux
users everywhere can revile and puke at the thought of you!
Logic dictates that such clearly immflammatory posts should be summarily
ignored. But unfortunately someone might actually accept that there's even
a kernel of truth in this drivel.
READ THE LICENSE! JUST READ IT! IT TELLS THE TRUTH! YOU DO NOT!
BAJ
David T. Ashley
news:ab2ecu$h...@cleon.cc.gatech.edu...
> In article <4e2f159f.02050...@posting.google.com>,
> Egg Troll <eggt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> -was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
> -called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License.
>
> So you still didn't read it, right? It's the GNU Public License.
Yeah, what is really bad about the GNU GPL is how hard it is to find on the
web. My gosh, if you searched by GNU GPL, I bet you wouldn't find more
than, say 1,000,000 copies of it out there in every language.
Egg Troll is really Bill Gates.
Egg Troll, again, where do you get those $4 haircuts?
Dave.
Alok
> Hello,
>
> Consulting for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
> Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do
> some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was
> very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our
> exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.
You posted an equally silly message in comp.lang.c some time ago.
-Alok
--
It is contrary to reasoning to say that there is a vacuum or space in
which there is absolutely nothing.
-- Descartes
TuxTrax
> Hello,
<snip that incredible load of lies>
> I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
> with Microsoft is this GPL.
<snip another load of lies>
This is a known troll and liar at work. *None* of what he says is true.
It is intentionally vague and lacking in details. He does not even get
his information correct (he dosen't even seem to know what the acronym
GPL stands for, as an example).
This is also a rework of an earlier message posted by other trolls. It
seems to be a template. I recall flatfish for one, posting something
similar, once upon a time.
One little bit of disinformation which needs to be corrected for the benefit
of the lurkers; You *do* *not* have to GPL code compiled by GCC, the
GNU C compiler. You have to GPL your code only if you are utilizing a GPL'ed
*library* or linked binary. Quite simply, you can't use someone elses GPL'ed,
freely available, code in your program without making your code freely
available to anyone who wants it (ala the GPL).
Liars. They can't damage Linux legitimately, so the only thing left to them
is deciet.
Cheers,
Mathew
--
TuxTrax (n.) An invincible, all terrain, Linux driven armored assault
vehicle that can take as much fire as it gives ;-)
___
__( )====::
/~~~~~~~~~\
\O.O.O.O.O/
Yes, I am a Penguin cult high priest. Fin readings upon request.
ROT13 this email address to mail me: nep...@ghkgenk.pbz
TuxTrax
> Oh, goody!
> Contest time again. How many howlers can we spot in this?
>
Yea, the guy's a clown. By the way, group, this is being crossposted to
about seven different groups. It's crosspost trimming time.
David Dutchison
> So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
> we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It
Have you considered consulting a lawer who knows how to read?
--
D. Dutchison
Paul Cooke
> -I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
> -with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
> -guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it.
>
> Its 'draconian requirements' as you put are precisely in place so that
> carpetbaggers such as yourself can't just scoop up and privitize hard
> earned code.
which is why they (the microsoft shills) like the BSD licence so much.
Paul Cooke
jynyl
>
> * Please please please publish your real name and organization so that
> Linux users everywhere can revile and puke at the thought of you!
>
We won't see any real name, because there isn't one. I'm sure the OP was
just a work of fiction.
It simply is not credible that any competent IT person would not know of
the GPL. Even if they did not, they would surely notice it strange that
they had free access to source code of an entire OS complete with a
multitude of applications.
The OP is just more FUD.
Peter
Tsu Dho Nimh
>So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
>we would be required to publish our source code for others to use.
Tell that lawyer to go to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
and RTFGPL ... it is quite explicit about the conditions that
trigger source code distribution.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
You are required to make the modifications to GPL source code
available ONLY IF you modified the GPL'd source code, AND IF the
software is being distributed outside the company that hired you
to make the changes.
>was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
>called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License.
"GPL" stands for "General Public License" ... if you are going to
whine about
> Part of this license
>states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
>Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
>we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
>now be available at no cost to our competitors.
To quote from GNU.ORG:
"The GPL does not require you to release your modified version.
You are free to make modifications and use them privately,
without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations
(including companies), too; an organization can make a modified
version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside
the organization."
>Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
>products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
>its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
Which clause says that?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF
Q:Can I use GPL-covered editors to develop non-free programs? Can
I use GPL-covered tools to compile them?
A: Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not
cover the code you write.
>Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
>use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult
>position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with
>another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no
>option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
Well, what can I say - you wasted your time and your client's
money.
>I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
>with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
>guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it.
I know plenty of businesses that use LINUX and other GPL
software, customising it to suit their needs, without revealing a
single byte of the revisions.
>After my
>experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my
>associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to
>something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".
"Shared Source" ... you mean the one that gives you the "tight"
to peek at and modify the code, but gives Microsoft the right to
sell your changes with no compensation to you? Go for it, dude.
Tsu Dho Nimh
The neat thing about free speech, practiced properly, is that *everyone*
gets to do it.
Linonut
> Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
> products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
> its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
And wrong.
> Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
> use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult
> position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with
> another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no
> option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
What a load of bullshit.
> I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
> with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
> guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my
> experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my
> associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to
> something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".
> Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure
> it remains only a bit player.
Go back to Redmond, you rube.
Rod Smith
by...@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes:
> In article <4e2f159f.02050...@posting.google.com>,
> Egg Troll <eggt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I really think the only truth in this whole message is the name of the
> author: Egg TROLL.
OK, we all get the "troll" part, but where's the egg come in? Egging us
on, maybe? In my research (see below), I came across some uses of the
phrase "suck an egg, troll," so maybe there's some link....
> - It
> -was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
> -called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License.
>
> So you still didn't read it, right? It's the GNU Public License.
Actually, the GNU *GENERAL* Public License (emphasis added). GNU is a
recursive acronym, but GPL isn't.
> * Please please please publish your real name and organization so that Linux
> users everywhere can revile and puke at the thought of you!
The OP's Path: indicates that the post originated from Google Groups,
with a posting host of 206.181.129.19, which translates to an ISP
(Icix) that appears to be related to Digex and/or Intermedia. When I
did a grep for that IP address in my Fetchnews cache, I turned up
another post from that address on April 19, also from somebody claiming
to be "Egg Troll," with a subject of "My Review of Mandrake Linux."
This one didn't take such a laudatory tone to Linux's technical merits
-- it complained about the poster's inability to install Mandrake on a
486 system and various other more technically-oriented (as opposed to
license-oriented) complaints. (This isn't to say the complaints had
merit; they were mostly FUD.) A further search on Google Groups reveals
additional posts from this IP address and pseudonym; namely:
- "C: A Dead Language" to comp.lang.java, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++,
comp.lang.basic.visual, and comp.os.linux.advocacy (4/28/02)
- "I Think My Cat is Sick. How Should I Treat It?" to rec.pets.cats
(4/27/02)
- "My Experience with the Linux" to comp.os.linux.advocacy,
comp.os.linux.questions, comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, and
rec.pets.cats (4/17/02)
I just checked the Google Groups posting policy:
http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/posting_terms.html
It seems fairly typical, and doesn't explicitly forbid trolling. I
doubt if Google would turn over this clown's true identity, but you
never know.... In any event, the nature of the IP address makes me
think Egg Troll is using a work account or a broadband connection. A
dialup link would almost certainly have produced different IP addresses
for different posts made over a two-week period.
Clearly, this person is waging a low-level campaign of FUD against
Linux. Whether that's just this clown's idea of fun or whether the
individual is being paid by Microsoft is another matter....
--
Rod Smith, rods...@rodsbooks.com
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux & multi-OS configuration
Darren Winsper
> So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that we
> would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It was
> brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
> called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
> states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
> Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
> we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would now
> be available at no cost to our competitors.
GPL does not stand for that. Do you not read the licenses when you use
development software? It's your own fault.
> Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
> products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
> its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
Wrong. Compiling software using GCC is considered normal use and not
creating a derived program. Thus, you are not required to follow the GPL.
> Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever use,
> let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position.
> We could either give away our hard work, or come up with another
> solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no option: We
> had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
Why? If you do not distribute the program, you are under no obligation
to distribute your source code any further than the people who get it
(i.e. the company).
> Thank you for your time.
Thank you for being so uninformed that it amazes me you claim to know
anything about software development.
--
ICQ: 8899775 Jabber ID: dar...@rooter.dyndns.org
Stop the EUCD before it's too late:
http://uk.eurorights.org/issues/eucd/
http://www.tomchance.uklinux.net/articles/darkages.shtm
Alan Brand
relevence in alt.fan.british-accent - please trim your cross-postings
in future.
Thank you.
--
AlanB
Erik Funkenbusch
>
>> It's also very incorrect. Your lawyers need to be shot. GCC
>> doesn't put any liability on its produced output, though there are
>> compilers that do (such as Borlands Kylix Open Edition).
>
> Borland isn't that stupid. The constraint isn't on code
> produced by their compiler, just on redistribution of their
> libraries.
Incorrect.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3A7F4C6E.A3C0268E%40borland.com
Anything that goes through the IDE (and thus compiler) must be GPL'd.
ECS Sales
extraneous groups the message went to?):
Note: He also talks about writing the linux kernel in VB, and that he was
talking to several important players in the linux world, but he can't even
spell LT's name right! Also, sorry for reposting this idiotic post, but it
clearly shows how much of a liar and troll Egg Head is! Also, he talks about
how he doesn't write C, he writes VB, but in GPL: IProtection or I Theft, he
talks about using gcc, which as far as I know does not work with VB(duh.)
Then there is the marketing people at the monopolistic FSF, which he states
owns gcc, which we all know is an absolute lie. He also talks about Perl
being a dead language, which it obviously isn't. When Egg Head the
proverbial liar reads this, I would ask him to give me Alan Cox's phone
number, and I then will procede to either call him with that number, or find
his email address Get a life Egg Head.
From: Egg Troll (eggt...@yahoo.com)
Subject: C: A Dead Language
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++,
comp.lang.basic.visual, comp.os.linux.advocacy
View this article only
Date: 2002-04-27 16:23:44 PST
Gentlemen, the time has come for a serious discussion on whether or
not to continue using C for serious programming projects. As I will
explain, I feel that C needs to be retired, much the same way that
Fortran, Cobol and Perl have been. Furthermore, allow me to be so bold
as to suggest a superior replacement to this outdated language.
To give you a little background on this subject, I was recently asked
to develop a client/server project on a Unix platform for a Fortune
500 company. While I've never coded in C before I have coded in VB for
fifteen years, and in Java for over ten, I was stunned to see how
poorly C fared compared to these two, more low-level languages.
C's biggest difficulty, as we all know, is the fact that it is by far
one of the slowest languages in existance, especially when compared to
more modern languages such as Java and C#. Although the reasons for
this are varied, the main reasons seems to be the way C requires a
programmer to laboriously work with chunks of memory.
Requiring a programmer to manipulate blocks of memory is a tedious way
to program. This was satisfactory back in the early days of coding,
but then again, so were punchcards. By using what are called
"pointers" a C programmer is basically requiring the computer to do
three sets of work rather than one. The first time requires the
computer to duplicate whatever is stored in the memory space "pointed
to" by the pointer. The second time requires it to perform the needed
operation on this space. Finally the computer must delete the
duplicate set and set the values of the original accordingly.
Clearly this is a horrendous use of resources and the chief reason why
C is so slow. When one looks at a more modern (and a more serious)
programming language like Java, C# or - even better - Visual Basic
that lacks such archaic coding styles, one will also note a serious
speed increase over C.
So what does this mean for the programming community? I think clearly
that C needs to be abandonded. There are two candidates that would be
a suitable replacement for it. Those are Java and Visual Basic.
Having programmed in both for many years, I believe that VB has the
edge. Not only is it slightly faster than Java its also much easier to
code in. I found C to be confusing, frightening and intimidating with
its non-GUI-based coding style. Furthermore, I like to see the source
code of the projects I work with. Java's source seems to be under the
monopolistic thumb of Sun much the way that GCC is obscured from us by
the marketing people at the FSF. Microsoft's "shared source" under
which Visual Basic is released definately seems to be the most fair
and reasonable of all the licenses in existance, with none of the
harsh restrictions of the BSD license. It also lacks the GPLs
requirement that anything coded with its tools becomes property of the
FSF.
I hope to see a switch from C to VB very soon. I've already spoken
with various luminaries in the C coding world and most are eager to
begin to transition. Having just gotten off the phone with Mr. Alan
Cox, I can say that he is quite thrilled with the speed increases that
will occur when the Linux kernel is completely rewritten in Visual
Basic. Richard Stallman plans to support this, and hopes that the
great Swede himself, Linux Torvaldis, won't object to renaming Linux
to VB/Linux. Although not a C coder himself, I'm told that Slashdot's
very own Admiral Taco will support this on his web site. Finally,
Dennis Ritchie is excited about the switch!
Thank you for your time. Happy coding.
Egg Troll
timeOday
ECS Sales
"ECS Sales" <rm...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:ab466k$eoeu7$1...@ID-143331.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Note: He also talks about writing the linux kernel in VB,
I also forgot to mention, wouldn't it be impossible to write the linux
kernel in VB? I hope no one is stupid enough to listen to such an idiot.
Hartmann Schaffer
eggt...@yahoo.com (Egg Troll) writes:
well chosen handle! maybe you should start wiping the first part off
your face
> ...
> Although we met several technical challenges along the way
maybe challenging to you. anybody worth his money would have in the
course of such a contract done his work:
> (specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
most likely the system you installed didn't come configured with token
ring support in the kernel, but is easy to run kernel configuration,
add token ring support (and, if not needed, remove ethernet support)
> were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process
and why would you want to do that? do you know enough about file
systems in general to be sure defragmentation is needed?
> went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were
> considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.
iow, you liked it.
> So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
> we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It
fire that lawyer and get one that is competent
> was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
> called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
don't you think it would be a good idea to at least figure out what an
acronym stands for before ranting about it?
> states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
only if you distribute the code
> Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
> we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
> now be available at no cost to our competitors.
given the blatant technical incompetence revealed in the list of
"technical challenges" this would be only to your advantage: you
would have to release it under the same license, so everybody who
picks up your code and distributes the programs would have to make the
source available as well, so you would benefit from whatever of your
bugs he fixes
> Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
> products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
> its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
if he really gave you that advice, he either didn't read it or was
working for somebody else. but you probably billed you for it. fire
him and demand all the money back
> Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
> use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult
> position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with
> another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no
> option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
actually, it would have been less "thought" (is that why you
crossposted to a.t.fan.british-accent"?) to read the GPL and
understand what it really says
> I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
> with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
> guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my
well, there seem to be lots of businesses that disagree with you
> experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my
> associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to
> something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".
you mean something like "you do the work fixing it up and we charge
you on the next release fo incorporating it"?
> Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure
> it remains only a bit player.
only in the mind of incompetent idiots like you
> Thank you for your time.
thank you for giving me the good feeling of "whatever might go wrong,
at least i'm not as stupid as troll-with egg-all-over-his-face"
hs
--
don't use malice as an explanation when stupidity suffices
rcarter
>
> Consulting for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
> Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do
> some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was
> very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our
> exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.
>
> considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.
>
> we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It
> called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
> we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
> now be available at no cost to our competitors.
>
> products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
> its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
>
> use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult
> position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with
> another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no
> option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
>
> with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
> guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my
> associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to
> something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".
> it remains only a bit player.
>
On the other hand, without that same license, you would have had no place to
start!!
ECS Sales
>I consider myself to be very technically inclined having >programmed in
>VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level programming.
Kernel level programming, in what? Windows?
> I don't
>believe in C programming because contrary to popular >belief, VB can go
>just as low level as C and the newest VB compiler >generates code
>that's every bit as fast.
Now he's saying that VB is a higher level than C, which is contradictory to
the text below, and he's saying that C and VB are equal, which is also
contradictory:
>While I've never coded in C before I have coded in VB >for
>fifteen years, and in Java for over ten, I was stunned to >see how
>poorly C fared compared to these two, more low-level >anguages.
ECS Sales
source is obviously false, but just to prove it to people who might not
know, here is the link to gcc's website:
http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/
Jesse F. Hughes
Why do so many people reply to EggTroll's posts as if they were
legitimate arguments? These are clearly old-school trolls, which are
intended as jokes. Any rebuttal which attempts to respond to each of
his purposely false allegations is silly. Eggtroll even gives the
troll away by his name, as so many posters mention.
Look how obvious these statements are:
"...(specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact
that we were unable to defrag its ext2 file system)"
"I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to something a little
more fair, such as Microsoft's 'Shared Source'."
It's a joke, dammit, and serious responses are silly. If it's like
shooting fish in a barrel, see if anyone has a bead on you.
--
Jesse Hughes
"The only 'intuitive' interface is the nipple. After that, it's all
learned." -Bruce Ediger on X interfaces
"Nipples are intuitive, my ass!" -Quincy Prescott Hughes
FeebleMind
> called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License.
Great Powerball License?
Gun Powder License?
Greek Poatoes License?
Galaxy Pirates License?
Ghosford Park License?
Grand Prix License?
Gelly Phish License?
Richard James
hmm
Green Pegs n Lamb?
Richard :)
--
First newbie rule: IGNORE the flamers...
Second newbie rule: DON'T give up... Jerry McBride in Alt.Linux
THIRD newbie rule: see first rule...
alt.os.linux.slackware FAQ: http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/perl/fom
Johan Lindquist
Richard James <thisemai...@all.will.it> suddenly blurted:
> FeebleMind wrote:
>>> Linux is copyrighted under something
>>> called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License.
>>
>> Great Powerball License?
>> Gun Powder License?
>> Greek Poatoes License?
>> Galaxy Pirates License?
>> Ghosford Park License?
>> Grand Prix License?
>> Gelly Phish License?
>
Go Punish a Luser? Gosh, Probably Lame.
cheers,
/Johan
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
2:25pm up 20:02, 4 users, load average: 1.27, 1.39, 1.54
$ cat /dev/bollocks Registered Linux user #261729
orchestrate distributed models
Joost Kremers
> Mon, 06 May 2002 at 14:10 GMT, peering quizzically at his shoes,
> Richard James <thisemai...@all.will.it> suddenly blurted:
>> FeebleMind wrote:
>>>> Linux is copyrighted under something
>>>> called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License.
>>>
>>> Great Powerball License?
>>> Gun Powder License?
>>> Greek Poatoes License?
>>> Galaxy Pirates License?
>>> Ghosford Park License?
>>> Grand Prix License?
>>> Gelly Phish License?
>>
>> Green Pegs n Lamb?
>
> Go Punish a Luser? Gosh, Probably Lame.
no, it's quite funny, actually... ;-)
--
Joost Kremers
Life has its moments
sean inglis
<comedy trolling snipped>
Gents,
I can't work out if you're just playing along, or not reading this
carefully. Theres no trolling here, but some beautifully subtle
*piss-taking* of trolling.
Very "Private Eye"ish, Egg Troll, keep them coming :-)
Sean
Nick Evans
"Egg Troll" <eggt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e2f159f.02050...@posting.google.com...
> Hello,
>
> Consulting for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
> Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to
<Crap Snipped>
Dear Mr E. Troll
You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As we
say in Texas, you couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions
printed on the heel. You are a canker, an open wound. I would rather
kiss a lawyer than be seen with you. You took your last vacation in
the Islets of Langerhans.
You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little
worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk,
a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a
stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.
You are a bleating foal, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared
richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth
into a hostile world. You are an insensate, blinking calf,
meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling
beasts who sired you and then died of shame in recognition of what
they had done. They were a bit late.
I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same
species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf
at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut.
Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You
are a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. And did I mention
that you smell?
Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting
to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a
nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be
able to access it ever so much more rapidly.
You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up,
drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set
you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the
frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood. May you choke on the
queasy, convulsing nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs.
You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid,
nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an
ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with
you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost
in a land that reality forgot. You are not ANSI compliant. You
have a couple of address lines shorted together. You should be
promoted to Engineering Manager.
And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important
statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us?
What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your
tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous
desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of
the snake?
You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a
loathsome disease, a puerile slack-jawed drooling meatslapper. You
make Quakers shout and strike Pentecostals silent.
Your mother had to tie a pork chop around your neck
just to get your dog to play with you. You think P.D.Q. Bach is
the greatest composer who ever lived. You prefer L. Ron Hubbard to
Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. Hee-Haw is too deep for you. You
would watch test patterns all day if the other inmates would let you.
On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are
deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality
of wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted.
You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and
sorrow wherever you go.
You smarmy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off,
pillock. You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john.
You clouted boggish foot-licking half-twit. You dankish clack-dish
plonker. You gormless crook-pated tosser. You bloody churlish
boil-brained clotpole ponce. You craven dewberry pisshead cockup
pratting naff. You cockered bum-bailey poofter. You gob-kissing
gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted
clapper-clawed flirt-gill.
You are so clueless that if we stripped you naked, soaked you in
clue musk, and dropped you into a field full of horny clues, You
still would not have a clue.
You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are
degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing
you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would go
away.
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard
stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it
goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension
of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid
collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed.
Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity
stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more
stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year.
Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our
universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial
fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence
of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the
laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an
epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me
again for a while. I don't have enough strength left to deride
your ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant
trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh.
The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have
snipped away most of your of what you wrote, because, well...
it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a
creative flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together
a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective...
Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell,
and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary
skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that
everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget
that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these
things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then
I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been
"right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the
best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be
placing such a demand on you.
P.S.:
You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful,
cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable,
belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal,
fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic,
brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented,
lame, self-righteous, byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic,
fraudulent, libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant,
clueless, illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb evasive,
double-talking, devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative,
paternalistic, fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical,
cultic, diseased, suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant,
deceptive, dim, crazy, weird, dystopic, stifling, uncaring,
plantigrade, grim, unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious,
secretive, aggressive, mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant,
self-destructive, abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, and
Generally Not Good.
I hope this helps...
_____________________________________
The above text is leeched from http://www.guymacon.com/insult.txt
Bill Marcum
flatf...@mariana.trench <flatf...@mariana.trench> wrote:
>><Crap Snipped>
>>
>>Dear Mr E. Troll
>>
>>You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As we
>>say in Texas, you couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions
>>printed on the heel. You are a canker, an open wound. I would rather
>>kiss a lawyer than be seen with you. You took your last vacation in
>>the Islets of Langerhans.
>>
...
>>secretive, aggressive, mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant,
>>self-destructive, abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, and
>>Generally Not Good.
>>
>>I hope this helps...
>
>
>Here we have a classic example of what the Linux community is all about.
>
>Foul mouthed zealots who border on insanity.
>
>Use Linux in my business?
>
>I don't think so.
>
If you base all your business decisions on generalizations like that,
you won't have to worry about next year's mandatory Windows upgrade.
Nick Evans' post wasn't really about Linux, but then neither was the
original post that started this thread.
Andrew Theken
Andrew T.
ECS Sales
"Rod Smith" <rods...@speaker.rodsbooks.com> wrote in message
news:vri3ba...@speaker.rodsbooks.com...
<snipo>
Some other posts by Egg Fool(a.k.a. Egg Troll)
>
> - "C: A Dead Language" to comp.lang.java, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++,
> comp.lang.basic.visual, and comp.os.linux.advocacy (4/28/02)
> - "I Think My Cat is Sick. How Should I Treat It?" to rec.pets.cats
> (4/27/02)
Did anyone read this one? God, it's about his cat being addicted to illegal
drugs! What a complete troll!
> - "My Experience with the Linux" to comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> comp.os.linux.questions, comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, and
> rec.pets.cats (4/17/02)
I'm wondering what Linux has to do with cats?
> I just checked the Google Groups posting policy:
>
> http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/posting_terms.html
>
Egg Troll is obviously just a fool.
Hartmann Schaffer
flatf...@mariana.trench writes:
> On Mon, 6 May 2002 16:53:27 +0000 (UTC), "Nick Evans" <ni...@huff.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>news:4e2f159f.02050...@posting.google.com...
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Consulting for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
>>> Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to
>>do........
>>
>><Crap Snipped>
>>
>>Dear Mr E. Troll
> Here we have a classic example of what the Linux community is all about.
what would you expect in response to the garbage ET posted?
> Foul mouthed zealots who border on insanity.
better than liars who are too stupid to come up with a credible story
or their cheer leaders
> Use Linux in my business?
>
> I don't think so.
your technical ability and sound business judgement seems to rival
that of ET
Jim Lascola
> experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my
> something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".
> it remains only a bit player.
>
> Thank you for your time.
wow M$ cannot Buy embrace&Extend swallow destroy bribe or kill Linux
so they are now fudding the GPL
Get a Life Troll
Linux and the GPL are gonna win !
Jim
Jim Lascola
> On Sun, 05 May 2002 06:02:22 +0100, Byron A Jeff wrote:
>
> > -I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
> > -with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
> > -guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it.
> >
> > Its 'draconian requirements' as you put are precisely in place so that
> > carpetbaggers such as yourself can't just scoop up and privitize hard
> > earned code.
>
> which is why they (the microsoft shills) like the BSD licence so much.
>
> Paul Cooke
Which TRULY Doesnt support IBM 16/4 Tokenring cards... I know i tried
using them and Freebsd in 1998-99
Dont believe me wintrolls
Do a search for jimlascola+tokenring
Jim
phobos
> Hello,
>
> Consulting for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
> some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was
> very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our
> exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.
>
> Although we met several technical challenges along the way
> went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were
> considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.
>
> So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
> we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It
> was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
> called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
> states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
> Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
> we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
> now be available at no cost to our competitors.
Not quite so. You have to make the source code available to anyone you
provide the binaries to. So if you've got some modified Linux kernel,
and you sell a copy to someone, the source has to go with it. You
don't actually have to broadcast it to the world, but the people you
just gave the source to can if they want to.
Most people DO make the source easily available, though...
> Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
> products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
> its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
I don't think that's true either. As long as the stuff you just
compiled contained no code taken from GPL sources, you're free to put
whatever license you like on it.
> Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
> use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult
> position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with
> another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no
> option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
That's the whole point, though, isn't it? If you could take a Linux
kernel, make your modifications and then sell it WITHOUT the source,
then you could hijack Linux itself. Microsoft loves to do that sort of
thing. Here's the plan:
1) Copy free source and incorporate into Windows
2) Don't make modified source available
3) Abuse monopoly position to gain market share for modified version
4) Crush opposition
The BSD license is less restrictive than the GPL. So when Microsoft
wanted to let Windows connect to this new 'Internet' thing they just
pirated the BSD TCP-IP code and used that. The whole aim of the GPL is
to prevent this sort of thing.
If you don't like the terms the code is available under, *don't use
it*.
Nosey
wallpaper!
"Nick Evans" <ni...@huff.org.uk> wrote in message
news:ab6ce4$3bf$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>
> "Egg Troll" <eggt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4e2f159f.02050...@posting.google.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> > Consulting for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
> > Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to
> do........
-------------------------------------------
> On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are
> deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality
> of wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted.
> You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and
> sorrow wherever you go.
--------------------------------------------
Matthew Gardiner
> Hello,
>
> Consulting for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
> some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was
> very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our
> exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.
Just out of curiousity, what is the name of the consulting company.
>
> Although we met several technical challenges along the way
> (specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
> were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process
> went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were
> considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.
1. ext2 does not require a defragmenter.
2. From by recolection token ring support is available. What distro did
you use?
> So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
> we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It
> was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
> called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
> states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
> Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
> we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
> now be available at no cost to our competitors.
>
> Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
> products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
> its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
Bull shit. Please explain how:
1. Apple uses GCC to compile proprietary software
2. Real Networks uses GCC to compile Real for *nix
> Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
> use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult
> position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with
> another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no
> option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
>
> I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
> with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
> guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my
> experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my
> associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to
> something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".
> Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure
> it remains only a bit player.
>
> Thank you for your time.
No, actually, you little critter, you get your facts right before
spouting bullshit onto this newsgroup. Read the fucking license, then
commment, otherwise keep your trap shut.
Matthew Gardiner
Matthew Gardiner
> Egg Troll <eggt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
>>we would be required to publish our source code for others to use.
>
>
> but unfortunately you cannot prevent them from giving those changes to
> anyone else (such as your competitors).
>
>
>>Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
>>products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
>>its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
>
>
> any liability on its produced output, though there are compilers that do
> libraries which do not offer any kind of exemption, then this is the case
> (again, you must only give code to those you give the binaries to).
Point of note, most libraries/software is LGPL allow static/dynamic
linking without the need to disclose the source code on proprietary
software.
Matthew Gardiner
A Magee
feeding your troll, but would you mind removing alt.fan.british-accent from
the crossposts? We're just a little group and you're sort of flooding us
out here. Thanks.
Anne
--
"Eschew obfuscation."
afba website at http://www.kyson.crosswinds.net/afba/
Photo website at http://www.kyson.crosswinds.net/
Hal Burgiss
<abm...@noneofyourbusiness.ca> wrote:
><clears throat> Excuse me, Linux people. I can see you're all having
>fun feeding your troll, but would you mind removing
>alt.fan.british-accent from the crossposts? We're just a little group
>and you're sort of flooding us out here. Thanks.
If we were smart Linux people we wouldn't be playing this bloody
dumbass's game and perpetuating his drivel.
--
Hal Burgiss
ECS Sales
<flatf...@mariana.trench> wrote in message
news:nqhddugmbbp2o4tit...@4ax.com...
<snipo>
>
> Here we have a classic example of what the Linux community is all about.
>
I wouldn't say he represents the Linux community, it is a community with no
central government, therefore, no central leader representing the group.
Learn about government before talking about them.
> Foul mouthed zealots who border on insanity.
Well, I'm far from insane, and name the one foul mouthed thing I've said.
> Use Linux in my business?
>
> I don't think so.
Well, since you aren't smart enough to install Linux, and judging the data
you based your business decision on, I don't think you're capable of hiring
anyone smart enough to install it for you. As Scott Adams has said in
Dilbert:
Pointy Haired Boss: "He has a degree from Yale."
Ivan: "I yust got out last week."
> flatfish+++
Thomas
read this
/thomas
"Egg Troll" <eggt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e2f159f.02050...@posting.google.com...
> Hello,
>
> Consulting for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
> Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do
> some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was
> very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our
> exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.
>
> Although we met several technical challenges along the way
> (specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
> were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process
> went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were
> considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.
>
> So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
> we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It
> was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
> called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
> states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
> Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
> we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
> now be available at no cost to our competitors.
>
> Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
> products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
> its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
>
Rob van Riel
Shees, folks are trigger happy around here. I can offer no guarantees,
but it looks to me like Egg Troll (whatever the real name might be) is
poking his nose at all "serious" trolls here. So why do hordes of
people, rather than sharing a laugh, burn this guy to the ground like
he's some genuine troll.
Lighten up!
Rob
Leo
Gibson Nichols
Company "A" builds a custom application. They provide the application
binary to company "B". The Linux software is obtained from another
source for company "B".
A year later company "A" makes a change to the application. They find
they must also make a minor change to the kernel of Linux. However;
the people who are responsible for the infrastructure in company "B"
are not interested in the source. That is, a department, say, runs the
application on a small server but they have no influence as to the
policy of the company and no rights to obtain source.
"Egg Troll" <eggt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e2f159f.02050...@posting.google.com...
> Hello,
>
> <snip introduction> It
> was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
> called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
> states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
> <snip remainder>
John Sanders
> How about this situation:
>
> Company "A" builds a custom application. They provide the application
> binary to company "B". The Linux software is obtained from another
> source for company "B".
>
> A year later company "A" makes a change to the application. They find
> they must also make a minor change to the kernel of Linux. However;
> the people who are responsible for the infrastructure in company "B"
> are not interested in the source. That is, a department, say, runs the
> application on a small server but they have no influence as to the
> policy of the company and no rights to obtain source.
>
John Sanders
Thomas Worthington
>The GPL: Intellectual Protection or Intellectual Theft?
Yes.
TW
Goldenpi
"Thomas Worthington" <t...@theBitBeforeTheAtSignAgain.cx> wrote in message
news:nipG8.143229$oK4.124585@NewsReader...
> On Sun, 05 May 2002 01:08:15 +0100, Egg Troll wrote:
>
> >The GPL: Intellectual Protection or Intellectual Theft?
>
> Yes.
Depends who you ask. Microsoft says its theft and discribes it as a viral
license. Everyone else says microsoft is stealing peoples money with OEM
contracts, so they really shouldn't be saying that :-)
>
> TW