GPL equivalent for interfaces?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
open formats, interfaces and protocols in such a way as to legally bar
"embrace, extend, extinguish"? What I have in mind would be something
that would legally compel publication of any extensions, somewhat akin
to what the GPL does for software.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Ray Ingles
wrote:
> Has anybody devised a legal vehicle for publishing descriptions of
> open formats, interfaces and protocols in such a way as to legally bar
> "embrace, extend, extinguish"? What I have in mind would be something
> that would legally compel publication of any extensions, somewhat akin
> to what the GPL does for software.
That's tricky. Even the GPL might (note: *might*) have a problem with
its prohibition of dynamic linking with proprietary code. You can
copyright (or Creative Commons) the *spec document* for such a protocol,
but someone else could rewrite the doc in their own words and get around
copyright.
Trademarking the spec might work, but has limitations. Apple came up
with Firewire, and wanted to charge something like a $1.00 a unit
royalty to use the label "Firewire" on a product. Sony called it iLink
and other companies used 1394 (for the IEEE standard that specified it).
I don't think Apple ended up getting too many royalty payments.
Patents would work for something like this but are expensive and can
be difficult to come by, and also expire after ~17 years. (Of course, in
software that's several geologic eras.)
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"When it comes to gas, [Americans] need it cheap, and the president
had better get it for us, or else, and we don't care how. If it
takes a hundred thousand dead Iraqi 'soldiers' to keep gas below
two bucks a gallon - when the rest of the world pays five and up -
then that's what it takes."
- Bill Maher, "When You Ride Alone You Ride With bin Laden"
r.e.b...@usa.net
Back when ham radio equipment was used to relay usenet and internet
traffic, it was ILLEGAL to transmit any content encrypted or otherwise
encoded to prevent obvervation an monitoring. Simply put, if it wasn't
following standards officially approved by the FCC, it wasn't allowed.
Common Carriers also have rules as to what is and is not allowed over
their networks. If the purpose of proprietary code is to engage in
illegal acts such as surveillance, wiretapping, or to prevent court
ordered wiretapping, then the proprietary technology can also be
unlawful. This happened with PGP back in the early 1990s.
Many corporations have corporate standards which forbid the use of
proprietary extensions to IETF technologies, and many SPECIFICALLY
prohibit the use of ActiveX and Signed Java applets other than those an
a strictly enforced list. For example, many corporations will ONLY
allow you to get PDF/Acrobat and Flash controls from a site THEY
provide and which is signed by THEIR Certificate Authority.
There have been many attempts to have the postal service as a
Certificate Authority, but this is a political football because when
the United States Postal Service is used to convey information, ANY
examination of information they carry requires a court order.
Many governments around the world restrict the use of encryption and
any traffic not conforming to publicly documented protocols. India for
example only permits 64 bit encryption in and out of the country. The
U.S. only permits 56 bit encryption between certain countries and
permits no encryption to others such as N. Korea, Cuba, and Libya.
There are also legal restrictions on HOW information passed via the
Internet can be used. For example, using worms or viruses to collect
"mailing lists" is illegal. Using worms or viruses to download a
person's quicken account files, password files, or "remembered" forms,
is also a federal crime in the U.S. and very serious crime in other
countries.
Microsoft gets aways with most of it's proprietary extensions because
their undocumented and NDA protected protocols are used by Windows
machines, which everybody has.
Of course, when you click to accept the EULA agreement you waive all of
your legal rights and Microsoft can read, write, modify, destroy, or
remove any information contained on your hard drive, simply because
your machine is now capable of running Windows.
Even when Microsoft DOES engage in malicious and illegal activities
designed to do deliberate and direct damage to users of competor third
party software, the end-user has no recourse. The users of Stacker got
nothing, even though there hard drives were trashed. Stack, the
company who wrote stacker got $200 million in damages because Microsoft
willfully sabotaged their software without getting their prior written
permission to do so.
In most cases, Microsoft simply offers a settlement, usually involving
payments to the plaintiff in "Billy Bux", waiving Microsoft license
fees, permitting additional use of Windows, or other "fluffy" payments.
In many cases, the "settlement" is actually a reissue of revoked
Windows licenses.
The problem with going after Microsoft is that nearly any attempt to
present evidence in court results in a violation of the EULA and/or
corporate license agreement. Microsoft can simply revoke the license
and demand that all copies of Windows either be repurchased (via
settlment) or removed from the hard drives. Most companies are not
prepared to remove Windows completely, regardless of the notice given.
Microsoft IS above the law.
billwg
"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote
> Has anybody devised a legal vehicle for publishing descriptions of
> open formats, interfaces and protocols in such a way as to legally bar
> "embrace, extend, extinguish"? What I have in mind would be something
> that would legally compel publication of any extensions, somewhat akin
> to what the GPL does for software.
>
> --
If you have a program or design or whatever that you want to share with
the world freely and openly, fine. Just do it. Set a fine example.
People will say, "How about that Seymour Metz! What a guy!". If
someone else comes along and adds to it but doesn't want to share, so
what? That's no skin off your nose, you weren't going to get anything
but praise in return anyway. If someone wants to be selfish like that,
they will not get the public admiration that you received. Someone else
may come along and figure out how to do the exact same thing and maybe
even better and will have been inspired by your original act to continue
to give. You may not even want that to happen since, when it does,
people will be saying, "How about that billwg! He fixed all the
problems with Seymour's crap! What a guy!".
It seems to me that all you GPL fans are not trying to be so free and
open as you are trying to poison the well so that nobody else can do
anything on their own. Complaining about Microsoft selling their
software is hypocritical.
General Protection Fault
> There are certain things that can be done, but not GPL.
[snip]
Rex, I have to hand it to you. You spend way more time than anyone else
coming up with elaborate bull$hit conspiracy theories.
--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
11:35AM up 79 days, 23:24, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
7
> On 2005-10-07, r.e.b...@usa.net <r.e.b...@usa.net> wrote:
>> There are certain things that can be done, but not GPL.
>
> [snip]
>
> Rex, I have to hand it to you. You spend way more time than anyone else
> coming up with elaborate bull$hit conspiracy theories.
Idiot!
That post was fascinating eye opener, and your cut and paste net abuse
is just dammed disrespectful, even for a windope.
General Protection Fault
An eye opener? It's 100% conjecture.
--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
12:00PM up 79 days, 23:49, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Ray Ingles
> If someone else comes along and adds to it but doesn't want to share, so
> what?
Well, in that case, they aren't really "adding", but "taking".
> That's no skin off your nose, you weren't going to get anything
> but praise in return anyway.
Um, I have profited quite nicely from my open-source work. Directly in
the form of tens of thousands of dollars from the VA Linux stock bubble,
and indirectly in the form of several job offers.
But yes, praise does come on occasion as well. Just last night someone
rang me up to tell me that they use and enjoy one of the programs I
wrote.
> people will be saying, "How about that billwg! He fixed all the
> problems with Seymour's crap! What a guy!".
In the case of "that billwg", this has never, ever happened. I see no
reason to believe it ever will.
> It seems to me that all you GPL fans are not trying to be so free and
> open as you are trying to poison the well so that nobody else can do
> anything on their own. Complaining about Microsoft selling their
> software is hypocritical.
No, we're willing to be open, but only with people who are willing to
reciprocate. You're free to join in or not, just as you're free to pay
the asking price for any software or not. So far we haven't missed
you...
(Oh, and it would be appreciated if you could reply to the message with
ID "slrndk27ga....@localhost.localdomain".)
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it;
to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.
- Scott Granneman
7
> On 2005-10-07, 7 <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>> General Protection Fault wrote:
>>
>>> On 2005-10-07, r.e.b...@usa.net <r.e.b...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>> There are certain things that can be done, but not GPL.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Rex, I have to hand it to you. You spend way more time than anyone else
>>> coming up with elaborate bull$hit conspiracy theories.
>>
>> Idiot!
>>
>> That post was fascinating eye opener, and your cut and paste net abuse
>> is just dammed disrespectful, even for a windope.
>
> An eye opener? It's 100% conjecture.
You mean your cut and paste rant is 100% pure conjecture!
General Protection Fault
What cut and paste rant? Have you taken your meds today?
--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
2:35PM up 80 days, 2:24, 1 user, load averages: 0.04, 0.03, 0.00
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrndkdb21....@localhost.localdomain...
> On 2005-10-07, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> If someone else comes along and adds to it but doesn't want to share,
>> so
>> what?
>
> Well, in that case, they aren't really "adding", but "taking".
>
implying a negative value to the person who uses the open software. Why
do you care?
>> That's no skin off your nose, you weren't going to get anything
>> but praise in return anyway.
>
> Um, I have profited quite nicely from my open-source work. Directly in
> the form of tens of thousands of dollars from the VA Linux stock
> bubble,
> and indirectly in the form of several job offers.
>
> But yes, praise does come on occasion as well. Just last night someone
> rang me up to tell me that they use and enjoy one of the programs I
> wrote.
>
Still no nevermind, eh? You get the attention and any fall out
regardless of whether or not someone else uses the source without
disclosure.
>> people will be saying, "How about that billwg! He fixed all the
>> problems with Seymour's crap! What a guy!".
>
> In the case of "that billwg", this has never, ever happened. I see no
> reason to believe it ever will.
>
What the do you really know about that, Ray?
>> It seems to me that all you GPL fans are not trying to be so free and
>> open as you are trying to poison the well so that nobody else can do
>> anything on their own. Complaining about Microsoft selling their
>> software is hypocritical.
>
> No, we're willing to be open, but only with people who are willing to
> reciprocate.
Well, that's exactly what I mean, Ray. You people are not really open
since you must continually stipulate conditions. There is a ton of free
code from freeBSD in linux according to Bruce Perens. That doesn't
require any GPL conditions to use, just a need. Those people seem to be
a lot more open than you folks.
> You're free to join in or not, just as you're free to pay
> the asking price for any software or not. So far we haven't missed
> you...
Well, OK by me, Ray. Red Hat and Novell charge for their linux by the
machine and even by the year, similarly to the way that Microsoft
charges. They get a lot of free work done by the OSS developers and are
slowly starting to make a little money off the deal. You schmoes go
along with that and are happy because they tell you that Microsoft is
quaking in their boots! LOL. Who's the bigger fool?
>
> (Oh, and it would be appreciated if you could reply to the message
> with
> ID "slrndk27ga....@localhost.localdomain".)
>
I have no idea what you are on about, Ray. What sort of a reply do you
want? You are being cat-with-canary as typical, so I assume that you
have some zinger or other that you want to spring, but I don't see
anything so obvious there.
Ray Ingles
>>> If someone else comes along and adds to it but doesn't want to share,
>>> so what?
>>
>> Well, in that case, they aren't really "adding", but "taking".
>>
> Maybe they are just using, Ray.
Um, that's not the case you proposed. You said, let's look up just a
line or two, yup, you said "adds to it but doesn't want to share", not
"uses it". I addressed the case you proposed. Now, let's turn our
attention to this new case you've come up with.
What if they're "just using"? Mazel Tov, I say. If that's what you
wanted to know, you should have asked that question.
> But your statement is a case on point, implying a negative value to
> the person who uses the open software. Why do you care?
I don't. That's your (pretended) misunderstanding of what I said.
> Still no nevermind, eh? You get the attention and any fall out
> regardless of whether or not someone else uses the source without
> disclosure.
Um, well, actually, by releasing the source I've gotten bugfixes and
collaborators. Kind of the *point* of releasing the source. That's in
addition to the praise and the profit.
>>> people will be saying, "How about that billwg! He fixed all the
>>> problems with Seymour's crap! What a guy!".
>>
>> In the case of "that billwg", this has never, ever happened. I see no
>> reason to believe it ever will.
>>
> What the do you really know about that, Ray?
I know that I haven't seen "Bill Weisgerber" in the CREDITS file of any
project I've ever looked at, nor does such a cite seem to show up on the
web. Feel free to explain to me what *you* know about that, if you have
an example of you contributing to an open-source project...
>> No, we're willing to be open, but only with people who are willing to
>> reciprocate.
>
> Well, that's exactly what I mean, Ray. You people are not really open
> since you must continually stipulate conditions.
Consider copyright. Normally, you see things like "All Rights
Reserved". Then there's the public domain, where, effectively, no rights
are reserved. But there are options in between, like for example here:
...which offer a variety of licenses which effectively say, "Some
Rights Reserved". "Openness" is not a binary value, it's an analog one,
or at least has multiple potential values.
Now, as a proponent of closed-source development, you are like the
event horizon calling the kettle black. You say, "You're not completely
open! Shame on you!" when you are not even remotely open at all.
There's a difference between open range, a fenced lot with a gate, and
Fort Knox, though one would never guess from your writings...
> There is a ton of free
> code from freeBSD in linux according to Bruce Perens. That doesn't
> require any GPL conditions to use, just a need. Those people seem to be
> a lot more open than you folks.
Some people like that license, and use it. Others think that it's just
simple fairness to request that people who benefit from source code, and
extend it, share their extensions back. If you don't like that
arrangement, feel free to stick with just the BSD stuff, or even (gasp)
write it yourself. As I keep saying, you're not obligated or forced to
accept the agreement, even just to use it. (Speaking of 'open', compare
that to closed-source EULAs...)
> Well, OK by me, Ray. Red Hat and Novell charge for their linux by the
> machine and even by the year, similarly to the way that Microsoft
> charges.
Well, actually, they charge for *support*. You can get SUSE OSS without
any trouble. If you don't need/want the support, you don't have to pay
for it. Personally, I've pretty much moved on to Debian-based distros,
but it's nice that people have options.
> They get a lot of free work done by the OSS developers and are
> slowly starting to make a little money off the deal. You schmoes go
> along with that and are happy because they tell you that Microsoft is
> quaking in their boots! LOL. Who's the bigger fool?
So long as they contribute their changes back (and hey, they are in
fact doing so, who would have thought?) then they are keeping up their
end of the bargain. If charging for GPL'd code was a problem, it would
have been forbidden in the GPL, instead of *explicitly permitted*.
>> (Oh, and it would be appreciated if you could reply to the message
>> with ID "slrndk27ga....@localhost.localdomain".)
>
> I have no idea what you are on about, Ray. What sort of a reply do you
> want? You are being cat-with-canary as typical, so I assume that you
> have some zinger or other that you want to spring, but I don't see
> anything so obvious there.
Oh, fine, if you don't have any suggestions for debugging the problem,
I can accept that. Not surprising, really.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Ironically, Microsoft's efforts to deny interoperability of Windows
with legitimate non-Microsoft applications have created an
environment in which Microsoft's programs interoperate efficiently
only with Internet viruses." -- Daniel Geer
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> Um, well, actually, by releasing the source I've gotten bugfixes and
> collaborators. Kind of the *point* of releasing the source. That's in
> addition to the praise and the profit.
>
fixes/additions loses on that score, but so why do you care? Let him do
it all he wants.
>
> Consider copyright. Normally, you see things like "All Rights
> Reserved". Then there's the public domain, where, effectively, no
> rights
> are reserved. But there are options in between, like for example here:
>
> http://creativecommons.org/
>
> ...which offer a variety of licenses which effectively say, "Some
> Rights Reserved". "Openness" is not a binary value, it's an analog
> one,
> or at least has multiple potential values.
>
> Now, as a proponent of closed-source development, you are like the
> event horizon calling the kettle black. You say, "You're not
> completely
> open! Shame on you!" when you are not even remotely open at all.
>
But I'm not making a religious act out of being open, either. GPL
software is just as closed but the proponents paraded their devotion to
the common weal as a badge of honor.
> There's a difference between open range, a fenced lot with a gate, and
> Fort Knox, though one would never guess from your writings...
>
>> There is a ton of free
>> code from freeBSD in linux according to Bruce Perens. That doesn't
>> require any GPL conditions to use, just a need. Those people seem to
>> be
>> a lot more open than you folks.
>
> Some people like that license, and use it. Others think that it's just
> simple fairness to request that people who benefit from source code,
> and
> extend it, share their extensions back. If you don't like that
> arrangement, feel free to stick with just the BSD stuff, or even
> (gasp)
> write it yourself. As I keep saying, you're not obligated or forced to
> accept the agreement, even just to use it. (Speaking of 'open',
> compare
> that to closed-source EULAs...)
>
But linux has taken freeBSD code and hidden it behind the GPL. The code
is less free and the world is not as good a place due to that, if only
by a little. GPL folk are hypocrites.
>> Well, OK by me, Ray. Red Hat and Novell charge for their linux by
>> the
>> machine and even by the year, similarly to the way that Microsoft
>> charges.
>
> Well, actually, they charge for *support*. You can get SUSE OSS
> without
> any trouble. If you don't need/want the support, you don't have to pay
> for it. Personally, I've pretty much moved on to Debian-based distros,
> but it's nice that people have options.
>
Not so exactly, Ray. It has been discused around here already. If your
subscription for the "support" runs out at Red Hat, you have to remove
the software from your server because they have put various trademarks
and logos on modules and stipulated in their "support" contracts, keyed
to individual machine s/n's, that you must do that. At least MS lets
you continue to use the product, you just can't get free version updates
although you can get free maintenance packs. I think MS is a lot more
liberal in this regard than RH.
>> They get a lot of free work done by the OSS developers and are
>> slowly starting to make a little money off the deal. You schmoes go
>> along with that and are happy because they tell you that Microsoft is
>> quaking in their boots! LOL. Who's the bigger fool?
>
> So long as they contribute their changes back (and hey, they are in
> fact doing so, who would have thought?) then they are keeping up their
> end of the bargain. If charging for GPL'd code was a problem, it would
> have been forbidden in the GPL, instead of *explicitly permitted*.
>
I don't see where they are doing that at all, Ray. They stay away from
the latest releases and lock up the free stuff by mingling it with
non-free stuff to the degree that people cant tell where one begins and
the other lets off.
Ray Ingles
>> Um, well, actually, by releasing the source I've gotten bugfixes and
>> collaborators. Kind of the *point* of releasing the source. That's in
>> addition to the praise and the profit.
>>
> So the person who takes the source and doesn't release his
> fixes/additions loses on that score, but so why do you care? Let him do
> it all he wants.
Um, I released the source in part so I could get those fixes. That was
the deal. "He" can do whatever he wants with his own copy, but if he
distributes his updated version to others, he has to give them the
source code changes, too.
Note, if the people he gives the changed version to don't want to share
with me, I'm shut out, and perfectly in accord with the GPL. Doesn't
happen in practice, but...
>> Now, as a proponent of closed-source development, you are like the
>> event horizon calling the kettle black. You say, "You're not
>> completely open! Shame on you!" when you are not even remotely
>> open at all.
>>
> But I'm not making a religious act out of being open, either. GPL
> software is just as closed but the proponents paraded their devotion to
> the common weal as a badge of honor.
"GPL software is just as closed..."
Oh, come on, at least *try*, Bill. You can be *far* more misleading
than that. Naked lies are just not up to your usual standards of
half-truth.
>> As I keep saying, you're not obligated or forced to
>> accept the agreement, even just to use it. (Speaking of 'open',
>> compare that to closed-source EULAs...)
>>
> But linux has taken freeBSD code and hidden it behind the GPL. The code
> is less free and the world is not as good a place due to that, if only
> by a little. GPL folk are hypocrites.
"Hidden" and "GPL" don't go together. You can download, view, and
change the source as much as you like. Heck, the BSD code that was
incorporated is *still* out there, under the same license it always was.
Only if you *distribute* changed versions do you have to distribute
your source changes too. No need for payment, contracts, or even contact
with the copyright owner. Please, please, compare this with Microsoft's
"Shared Source" license. Show me how it's "just as closed".
(This should be good.)
>> Well, actually, they charge for *support*. You can get SUSE OSS without
>> any trouble. If you don't need/want the support, you don't have to pay
>> for it. Personally, I've pretty much moved on to Debian-based distros,
>> but it's nice that people have options.
>>
> Not so exactly, Ray. It has been discused around here already. If your
> subscription for the "support" runs out at Red Hat, you have to remove
> the software from your server because they have put various trademarks
> and logos on modules and stipulated in their "support" contracts, keyed
> to individual machine s/n's, that you must do that.
That's their contract, entirely separate from the GPL. You can still
take the source code, remove the trademarks and logos, and keep using
it. Or you can just let CentOS do it for you...
>> So long as they contribute their changes back (and hey, they are in
>> fact doing so, who would have thought?) then they are keeping up their
>> end of the bargain. If charging for GPL'd code was a problem, it would
>> have been forbidden in the GPL, instead of *explicitly permitted*.
>>
> I don't see where they are doing that at all, Ray. They stay away from
> the latest releases and lock up the free stuff by mingling it with
> non-free stuff to the degree that people cant tell where one begins and
> the other lets off.
Who's "they" here? You haven't caught up on SUSE, have you? Besides
which, it's not that hard to tell what's GPL and what isn't. See, e.g.,
Fedora and CentOS, which do *exactly* what you are saying is impossible
(i.e. distribute the GPL portions of Red Hat).
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"A person is just about as big as the things that make them angry."
- Anonymous
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
You can dodge the point, Ray, but you know that I am right. Microsoft
gives away their sample code with no strings attached. Not so the GPL
that demands to own anything that you do that is based on their starting
point. As we have discussed, I don't think it is all that defensible,
but the threat is always there.
>
>>> As I keep saying, you're not obligated or forced to
>>> accept the agreement, even just to use it. (Speaking of 'open',
>>> compare that to closed-source EULAs...)
>>>
>> But linux has taken freeBSD code and hidden it behind the GPL. The
>> code
>> is less free and the world is not as good a place due to that, if
>> only
>> by a little. GPL folk are hypocrites.
>
> "Hidden" and "GPL" don't go together. You can download, view, and
> change the source as much as you like. Heck, the BSD code that was
> incorporated is *still* out there, under the same license it always
> was.
>
So is any GPL code that may have been used to create a proprietary
product. The GPL prevents your making it your own by restricting your
ability to copyright your own creation. You are forced to release it,
if you are so silly or misled.
> Only if you *distribute* changed versions do you have to distribute
> your source changes too. No need for payment, contracts, or even
> contact
> with the copyright owner. Please, please, compare this with
> Microsoft's
> "Shared Source" license. Show me how it's "just as closed".
>
Microsoft provides millions of lines of example code as part of SDKs and
tutorials for the express purpose of providing a jumping off point for
individuals to develop their own programs. The vast majority of the OSS
crap is "protected" from ever being used gainfully by the GPL and is
woefully inferior to the MSDN and other samples. It does me no good if
I cannot use it to make something that I can call my own, Ray, all the
GPL is doing is robbing the unwary of their work products.
Not that I think much of that has gone on. Most of the GPL/OSS
activities seem to revolve around the linux OS itself and a number of
applications that are more or less equivalent to the mainstays in the
Windows world. OSS seems to me to be mostly concerned with re-inventing
the wheel so as to avoid having to pay the commercial product fees. I
think of it as a sort of software scavenging akin to the little girls
collecting dandelion leaves to use in a free salad during the depression
years versus paying the farmer his price for a head of lettuce. A lot
of poke salad eaters swore by it, just as some want to say that linux is
better than Windows.
>
> That's their contract, entirely separate from the GPL. You can still
> take the source code, remove the trademarks and logos, and keep using
> it. Or you can just let CentOS do it for you...
>
True, but they are riding the coat tails of Windows and Unix and preying
on people who are conditioned to paying for their software.
>>> So long as they contribute their changes back (and hey, they are in
>>> fact doing so, who would have thought?) then they are keeping up
>>> their
>>> end of the bargain. If charging for GPL'd code was a problem, it
>>> would
>>> have been forbidden in the GPL, instead of *explicitly permitted*.
>>>
>> I don't see where they are doing that at all, Ray. They stay away
>> from
>> the latest releases and lock up the free stuff by mingling it with
>> non-free stuff to the degree that people cant tell where one begins
>> and
>> the other lets off.
>
> Who's "they" here?
you would have to be fairly coy to not think that it meant Red Hat from
the context.
> You haven't caught up on SUSE, have you? Besides
> which, it's not that hard to tell what's GPL and what isn't. See,
> e.g.,
> Fedora and CentOS, which do *exactly* what you are saying is
> impossible
> (i.e. distribute the GPL portions of Red Hat).
>
It seems to me that Fedora is a different version of linux than the RHEL
that they license via subscription. Fedora is the latest versions that
presumably the conservative operators do not want to go to for a long
time after they are released. CentOS is the RHEL with the hooks
removed, but I seem to remember RHAT objecting to even the references
that they are equivalent, citing the trademarking of RHEL. I know that
it is the same thing, but it seems to me that RH is making money off of
a lot of smoke and mirrors in distributing the "open" software in a
tricky package. I have no idea what Novell is doing.
Kier
Wrong. But even if it were true, what hell do you care? Why should you?
Don't like it, don't use it, but don't try to tell us we're doing anything
harmful.
I
> think of it as a sort of software scavenging akin to the little girls
> collecting dandelion leaves to use in a free salad during the depression
> years versus paying the farmer his price for a head of lettuce. A lot
> of poke salad eaters swore by it, just as some want to say that linux is
> better than Windows.
You are so utterly dishonest and wrong here that I hardly know where to
begin. It takes my breath away that anyone could be such a liar.
Your analogy is a pretty vile one, too, since what those 'little girls'
were doing while they ate dandelion leaves was *starving*, you complete
ass.
>
>>
>> That's their contract, entirely separate from the GPL. You can still
>> take the source code, remove the trademarks and logos, and keep using
>> it. Or you can just let CentOS do it for you...
>>
> True, but they are riding the coat tails of Windows and Unix and preying
> on people who are conditioned to paying for their software.
That is a lie. They are not 'preying' on anyone. That is your twisted and
dishojest interpretation, which no one here but your fellow trolls
believes. The rest of us know better.
What hooks?
> removed, but I seem to remember RHAT objecting to even the references
> that they are equivalent, citing the trademarking of RHEL. I know that
> it is the same thing, but it seems to me that RH is making money off of
> a lot of smoke and mirrors in distributing the "open" software in a
> tricky package. I have no idea what Novell is doing.
You have pretty much no idea about anything. All you do is twist and turn
and lie while Ray kicks your arse from here to breakfast. Give it up,
bill. You are just despicable.
--
Kier
Ray Ingles
>> "GPL software is just as closed..."
>>
>> Oh, come on, at least *try*, Bill. You can be *far* more misleading
>> than that. Naked lies are just not up to your usual standards of
>> half-truth.
>
> You can dodge the point, Ray, but you know that I am right. Microsoft
> gives away their sample code with no strings attached.
Um, yeah, Microsoft gives away *sample code*. They do *not* "give away"
all their source code. Big corporations and universities can see *some*
of their source code, but go actually read the "Shared Source" license
sometime. Yikes!
Meanwhile, the FSF and everyone else using the GPL is giving away *all*
the code to full applications and operating systems, not just sample
code, and asks only that you share in return if you create *and*
distribute something based it.
Oh, yeah, "just as closed".
> Not so the GPL that demands to own anything that you do that is based
> on their starting point.
No, actually, *you* explicitly own (well, to be technically accurate,
own the copyright on) that part and you are free to take it, separate
it from the GPL'd code, and make a commercial product out of it if you
like.
(Note that if you write something entirely your own, you can release it
*both* under the GPL and with other licenses.)
What you are not free to do is distribute both the GPL stuff *and* your
extensions/modifications as a single package. I'm pretty sure it would
be legal to sell a set of patches to GPL'd code under a restrictive
license. The buyer would be given the right to patch their GPL'd stuff
with your patches and use it, but they would not be allowed to
distribute the changed version. Presto, there's your business model,
Bill.
The FSF doesn't like this:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient
...but I'm not sure if this is a legal position or a statement of
preference. It'd probably be best to budget for some legal challenges
if you pursue this. And, of course, when the GPL'd code changes, you'll
need to keep updating your patchsets. And it might be complex to create
patches that *only* include your code and none of the GPL'd code.
> As we have discussed, I don't think it is
> all that defensible, but the threat is always there.
Yeah, yeah, the old "GPL not enforceable" stuff. It was stale then,
too.
>> "Hidden" and "GPL" don't go together. You can download, view, and
>> change the source as much as you like. Heck, the BSD code that was
>> incorporated is *still* out there, under the same license it always
>> was.
>
> So is any GPL code that may have been used to create a proprietary
> product. The GPL prevents your making it your own by restricting your
> ability to copyright your own creation.
Oh, heaven forfend! Let's assume that (a) you're right, and (b) that
this is a bad thing. Go yell at Microsoft for doing even worse things.
Here, let me quote to you:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/901/ShSourceCLIbetaLicense.htm
"You may not use or distribute this Software or any derivative works in
any form for commercial purposes."
> You are forced to release it, if you are so silly or misled.
The GPL still allows you to sell your modified versions, you just need
to provide source code, too. "Shared Source" doesn't even allow that.
> Microsoft provides millions of lines of example code as part of SDKs and
> tutorials for the express purpose of providing a jumping off point for
> individuals to develop their own programs.
Yeah, but do they provide the source to, say, Microsoft Word?
> The vast majority of the OSS crap is "protected" from ever being used
> gainfully by the GPL
In a word, as I have painstaking explained to you, "nope".
> ...and is woefully inferior to the MSDN and other samples.
That's your opinion. It doesn't match the facts
(http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~bart/fuzz/fuzz.html) but you're welcome to it.
But let's assume that were true. Why would *you* care if "the GPL...
demands to own anything that you do that is based on their starting
point"? If it really *were* such a crappy starting point from a code
perspective, why would you care if you'd have to give up code based on
it?
> It does me no good if I cannot use it to make something that I can
> call my own, Ray, all the GPL is doing is robbing the unwary of
> their work products.
What, you can't learn anything from reading code even if you don't copy
it line-by-line? What a poor programmer you must be. How did you ever
learn to abstract an algorithm?
> OSS seems to me to be mostly concerned with re-inventing
> the wheel so as to avoid having to pay the commercial product fees.
You are welcome to that opinion, too. I don't know of too many people
who share it, or want to.
>> That's their contract, entirely separate from the GPL. You can still
>> take the source code, remove the trademarks and logos, and keep using
>> it. Or you can just let CentOS do it for you...
>>
> True, but they are riding the coat tails of Windows and Unix and preying
> on people who are conditioned to paying for their software.
And Microsoft is *not* "preying on people who are conditioned to paying
for their software"? I must say, Bill, this is *much* more entertaining
than that lame "GPL software is just as closed" tripe. Good show. :->
>>> I don't see where they are doing that at all, Ray. They stay away from
>>> the latest releases and lock up the free stuff by mingling it with
>>> non-free stuff to the degree that people cant tell where one begins
>>> and the other lets off.
>>
>> Who's "they" here?
>
> you would have to be fairly coy to not think that it meant Red Hat from
> the context.
Um, from the context (MMy2f.6730$ae....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com) you
were talking about "Red Hat and Novell". And as I've pointed out, Novell
(as SUSE) has completely open-sourced the SUSE distribution. Quite
different from the picture you tried to paint.
>> You haven't caught up on SUSE, have you? Besides which, it's not that
>> hard to tell what's GPL and what isn't. See, e.g., Fedora and CentOS,
>> which do *exactly* what you are saying is impossible (i.e. distribute
>> the GPL portions of Red Hat).
>>
> It seems to me that Fedora is a different version of linux than the RHEL
> that they license via subscription. Fedora is the latest versions that
> presumably the conservative operators do not want to go to for a long
> time after they are released.
It is, nevertheless, a fully open-source version of Red Hat, and is
used in production. Perhaps the operators there aren't "conservative",
but that's a separate issue.
> CentOS is the RHEL with the hooks removed, but I seem to remember RHAT
> objecting to even the references that they are equivalent, citing the
> trademarking of RHEL.
They did object. So what? That *is* the way trademarks work. Your point
being?
> I know that it is the same thing, but it seems to me that RH is making
> money off of a lot of smoke and mirrors in distributing the "open"
> software in a tricky package.
I'm not fond of Red Hat's business model either, but it's apparently
compatible with the GPL. Since you want people to be able to make money
from GPL'd code, it seems odd that *you'd* object, though...
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"If decisive but massive killing actually stopped the other side,
Israel would be as peaceful as Omaha by now." - elmegil
Erik Funkenbusch
> Oh, heaven forfend! Let's assume that (a) you're right, and (b) that
> this is a bad thing. Go yell at Microsoft for doing even worse things.
> Here, let me quote to you:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/901/ShSourceCLIbetaLicense.htm
>
> "You may not use or distribute this Software or any derivative works in
> any form for commercial purposes."
The difference between Microsoft's shared source and the GPL is that the
GPL capitalizes upon misunderstanding of it's license by people that have
not read it very well and believe they're releasing their code without
restrictions. The use of the word "Free" is a deliberate attempt by the
FSF to confuse people and get them to release code under a license they
probably wouldn't choose if they understood the full ramifications.
I know this because i've explained the full meaning of the GPL to the
developers of several projects who thought they were just releasing their
code under a no cost license, and eventually they decided to change their
licensing model because of it.
One example is the VCF:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/vcf/
Originally (some time around 1999), the author had released it under the
GPL. After reading some messages by him which seemed to indicate he
thought the GPL was simply a no cost license, I explained the full
ramifications and he was horrified and changed to a BSD style license.
The FSF even recognizes this problem, but that hasn't change the fact that
they continue to use it, which leads me to believe they are doing it
intentionally. They could have easily called themself the Software Freedom
Foundation or somethign like that to avoid the confusion, but they like the
nice little side effects.
Linønut
> On 11 Oct 2005 09:32:01 -0400, Ray Ingles wrote:
>
>> Oh, heaven forfend! Let's assume that (a) you're right, and (b) that
>> this is a bad thing. Go yell at Microsoft for doing even worse things.
>> Here, let me quote to you:
>>
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/901/ShSourceCLIbetaLicense.htm
>>
>> "You may not use or distribute this Software or any derivative works in
>> any form for commercial purposes."
>
> The difference between Microsoft's shared source and the GPL is that the
> GPL capitalizes upon misunderstanding of it's license by people that have
> not read it very well and believe they're releasing their code without
> restrictions.
"the GPL capitalizes upon..."
Give me a freakin' break.
> The use of the word "Free" is a deliberate attempt by the
> FSF to confuse people and get them to release code under a license they
> probably wouldn't choose if they understood the full ramifications.
You're in full spin mode on this one.
--
Code is community.
billwg
"Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.10....@tiscali.co.uk...
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:40:48 +0000, billwg wrote:
>
>
> Wrong. But even if it were true, what hell do you care? Why should
> you?
> Don't like it, don't use it, but don't try to tell us we're doing
> anything
> harmful.
>
hypocritical, though, and it is a danger to the very unsophisticated.
> I
>> think of it as a sort of software scavenging akin to the little girls
>> collecting dandelion leaves to use in a free salad during the
>> depression
>> years versus paying the farmer his price for a head of lettuce. A
>> lot
>> of poke salad eaters swore by it, just as some want to say that linux
>> is
>> better than Windows.
>
> You are so utterly dishonest and wrong here that I hardly know where
> to
> begin. It takes my breath away that anyone could be such a liar.
>
You have the wrong choice of words, Kier! How can I lie about what I
think? Certainly I am no linux fan, so where is there any dishonesty?
> Your analogy is a pretty vile one, too, since what those 'little
> girls'
> were doing while they ate dandelion leaves was *starving*, you
> complete
> ass.
>
Perhaps the poor folk were frequently hungry during the Depression,
Kier, but I don't think there was any starvation. People substituted
inferior experiences for richer ones, just like substituting linux for
Windows. I don't think that the analogy is at all vile.
> What hooks?
>
The trademarks and logos that make it illegal to copy the RHEL
distribution media and use the installed image after the subscriptin
term.
Erik Funkenbusch
I've been saying this for years.
Is it true or not that the word Free has two meanings and is easily
confused?
Is it true or not that the term "Free Software" can be easily confused with
"no cost software"?
Is it true or not that the FSF recognizes this ambiguity?
Is it true or not that the FSF has done nothing to prevent that ambiguity?
So, I ask, Why is that? Especially when there are multiple very easy ways
to avoid it.
Ray Ingles
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/901/ShSourceCLIbetaLicense.htm
>>
>> "You may not use or distribute this Software or any derivative works in
>> any form for commercial purposes."
>
> The difference between Microsoft's shared source and the GPL is that the
> GPL capitalizes upon misunderstanding of it's license by people that have
> not read it very well and believe they're releasing their code without
> restrictions.
The GPL is unusually free of legalese. It's hard to imagine someone who
read it at all and misunderstood the basics. I know that people do
misunderstand things all the time, but there's a pretty extensive FAQ
and so forth. I would hardly call that 'capitalizing on
misunderstanding'.
> The use of the word "Free" is a deliberate attempt by the
> FSF to confuse people and get them to release code under a license they
> probably wouldn't choose if they understood the full ramifications.
Uhhhh... nope. I'm not buying it. The second sentence of the homepage
of the FSF links to the definition of "free software". The second
sentence of *that* page says:
"Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand
the concept, you should think of "free" as in "free speech," not
as in "free beer."
Yup, a dark conspiracy indeed...
> Originally (some time around 1999), the author had released it under the
> GPL. After reading some messages by him which seemed to indicate he
> thought the GPL was simply a no cost license, I explained the full
> ramifications and he was horrified and changed to a BSD style license.
What exactly *are* the "full ramifications" that you "explained"?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power."
- Ashleigh Brilliant
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
Is it true or not that the FSF webpage itself points out the different
meanings of "Free" and clarifies which one they mean? Yes.
Your conspiracy ramblings on this are well known Erik, amusing, but
other than that....
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDTBoOd90bcYOAWPYRAlNJAJ4wj25OKu1LpBMD6tMaJl4hkOeTGQCfetm3
6DXarkisOfTq36h5oW6xPCY=
=U8Hc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Who was the sick-minded SOB who called it a "lisp"?
"What's wrong with you?" "I litthhp."
"You what?" "I *litthhp* ."
Linønut
> Is it true or not that the word Free has two meanings and is easily
> confused?
Yes.
> Is it true or not that the term "Free Software" can be easily confused with
> "no cost software"?
Yes.
> Is it true or not that the FSF recognizes this ambiguity?
Yes.
> Is it true or not that the FSF has done nothing to prevent that ambiguity?
Absolutely not. That's where you go wrong.
>
> So, I ask, Why is that?
As noted above, "that" is false.
> Especially when there are multiple very easy ways
> to avoid it.
Such as?
--
Code is community.
Kier
>
> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.10.10....@tiscali.co.uk...
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:40:48 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>
>>
>> Wrong. But even if it were true, what hell do you care? Why should
>> you?
>> Don't like it, don't use it, but don't try to tell us we're doing
>> anything
>> harmful.
>>
> I didn't say it was harmful, per se, Kier. It is certainly
> hypocritical, though, and it is a danger to the very unsophisticated.
Lie, and lie. How can it be a danger?
>
>> I
>>> think of it as a sort of software scavenging akin to the little girls
>>> collecting dandelion leaves to use in a free salad during the
>>> depression
>>> years versus paying the farmer his price for a head of lettuce. A
>>> lot
>>> of poke salad eaters swore by it, just as some want to say that linux
>>> is
>>> better than Windows.
>>
>> You are so utterly dishonest and wrong here that I hardly know where
>> to
>> begin. It takes my breath away that anyone could be such a liar.
>>
>
> You have the wrong choice of words, Kier! How can I lie about what I
> think? Certainly I am no linux fan, so where is there any dishonesty?
Beause every thing you said is false, twisted and untrue. And you're very
well aware of it. You can sit there laughing and pretending we're fools,
but you know that we're not, and we see through your waffling.
>
>> Your analogy is a pretty vile one, too, since what those 'little
>> girls'
>> were doing while they ate dandelion leaves was *starving*, you
>> complete
>> ass.
>>
> Perhaps the poor folk were frequently hungry during the Depression,
> Kier, but I don't think there was any starvation. People substituted
> inferior experiences for richer ones, just like substituting linux for
> Windows. I don't think that the analogy is at all vile.
You may not, but it certainly is. It is also dishonest, since Linux is in
no way inferior. Different, perhaps, but not inferior. And the GPL harms
no one.
>
>> What hooks?
>>
> The trademarks and logos that make it illegal to copy the RHEL
> distribution media and use the installed image after the subscriptin
> term.
So, it's okay for other companies to have trademarks, but not Linux
company. Right. Is see.
What a hypocrite *you* are.
--
kier
Sinister Midget
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:54:00 -0500, Linųnut wrote:
>> You're in full spin mode on this one.
>
> I've been saying this for years.
We know. It's still lies, whether you repeat it ten or a thousand
times.
--
A computer without Windows is like a fish without a bicycle.
Sinister Midget
>
>> Oh, heaven forfend! Let's assume that (a) you're right, and (b) that
>> this is a bad thing. Go yell at Microsoft for doing even worse things.
>> Here, let me quote to you:
>>
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/901/ShSourceCLIbetaLicense.htm
>>
>> "You may not use or distribute this Software or any derivative works in
>> any form for commercial purposes."
>
> The difference between Microsoft's shared source and the GPL is that the
> GPL capitalizes upon misunderstanding of it's license by people that have
> not read it very well and believe they're releasing their code without
> restrictions. The use of the word "Free" is a deliberate attempt by the
> FSF to confuse people and get them to release code under a license they
> probably wouldn't choose if they understood the full ramifications.
Idiot.
--
Friends don't let friends use Windows.
Bob Hauck
<er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:54:00 -0500, Linųnut wrote:
>>> The use of the word "Free" is a deliberate attempt by the FSF to
>>> confuse people and get them to release code under a license they
>>> probably wouldn't choose if they understood the full ramifications.
>>
>> You're in full spin mode on this one.
>
> I've been saying this for years.
And it has been spin for years.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| A proud member of the reality-based community.
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Erik Funkenbusch
>> Is it true or not that the FSF has done nothing to prevent that ambiguity?
>
> Absolutely not. That's where you go wrong.
Alright, I'll adjust that to "has done little".
>> Especially when there are multiple very easy ways
>> to avoid it.
>
> Such as?
Perhaps using a name like Software Freedom Foundation instead. The EFF
chose correctly, rather than calling themselves the "Free Electonic
Foundation"
Ku Karlovsky
<er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message
<<uwgkg04odrl0$.d...@funkenbusch.com>>:
> The difference between Microsoft's shared source and the GPL is that the
> GPL capitalizes upon misunderstanding of it's license by people that have
> not read it very well and believe they're releasing their code without
> restrictions. The use of the word "Free" is a deliberate attempt by the
> FSF to confuse people and get them to release code under a license they
> probably wouldn't choose if they understood the full ramifications.
Even for you, Erik, that's an astoundingly petty misstatement.
Roy Culley
<slrndkom3p....@laptop.harry.net>,
Not at all. It is just FUD and since we know Erik has studied the GPL
and for sure visited the FSF's website it is also a lie.
Erik, IMHO, is still the most obnoxious and ethically lacking wintroll
on COLA.
--
Rich Bell in thread: Things I couldn't do if I switched to Linux
Message-ID: <tB7Oe.182$yo7...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>
I am connected to the Net using a Linksys WRT54G router. I don't
get hacked.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Not at all. It is just FUD and since we know Erik has studied the GPL
> and for sure visited the FSF's website it is also a lie.
>
> Erik, IMHO, is still the most obnoxious and ethically lacking wintroll
> on COLA.
You know Roy, quite a while ago I used to get really angry at you. I even
killfiled you for quite some time. Now I realize that you're actually
giving me a compliment.
Obviously I scare you so much that you will go to any lengths to discredit
me. So, I must be doing something right.
(Hmm.. that sounds a lot like those "Microsoft must be really scared of us"
arguments you read in here so often, of course I doubt you'll see the
irony).
Roy Culley
<7iuok15e3rmkio3s0...@4ax.com>,
What? Seemed like true to form for Erik to me. He ain't known as
FUDenbusch for nothing.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 07:02:15 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
>
>> Not at all. It is just FUD and since we know Erik has studied the GPL
>> and for sure visited the FSF's website it is also a lie.
>>
>> Erik, IMHO, is still the most obnoxious and ethically lacking wintroll
>> on COLA.
>
> You know Roy, quite a while ago I used to get really angry at you. I even
> killfiled you for quite some time. Now I realize that you're actually
> giving me a compliment.
>
> Obviously I scare you so much that you will go to any lengths to discredit
> me. So, I must be doing something right.
>
You scare noone here. When Roy tells you that you are a FUDding liar and
astroturfer, he is telling exactly what you are
And it is right that you are an ethically lacking wintroll
So yes, you are "doing something right". You stay to your true form
You haven't changed one little bit. You are still an ethically lacking,
astroturfing FUDder and liar
> (Hmm.. that sounds a lot like those "Microsoft must be really scared of
> us" arguments you read in here so often, of course I doubt you'll see the
> irony).
No, it does not sound in any way like that
--
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change,
the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the
bodies of those I had to kill because they pissed me off.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
given that your basic premise is wrong. (that somehow, the FSF tries to
mislead with the word free, even though they explicitly explain exactly
what they mean by it, and it's a valid definition of free.) I'd say that
yes, either you don't understand wtf you are talking about, or you are
being somewhat disengenuous.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDTMF0d90bcYOAWPYRAq87AKDC5iXtrIHm/qi5UoHcu8x+pA0z3ACfQ886
+Nea5y98z8wBuGmcrasnYSA=
=H6KN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Never appeal to a man's 'better nature.' He may not have one. Invoking his
self-interest gives you more leverage. -- Lazarus Long
Linønut
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:51:05 -0500, Linųnut wrote:
>
>>> Is it true or not that the FSF has done nothing to prevent that ambiguity?
>>
>> Absolutely not. That's where you go wrong.
>
> Alright, I'll adjust that to "has done little".
Bzzzzzt.
>>> Especially when there are multiple very easy ways to avoid it.
>>
>> Such as?
>
> Perhaps using a name like Software Freedom Foundation instead. The EFF
> chose correctly, rather than calling themselves the "Free Electonic
> Foundation"
A good idea, actually, even though the free-as-in-beer is still an
option for all users. A little late for a name change now, though.
However, the current name needs explanation, which, of course, is a good
conversation-starter.
--
Code is community.
Linønut
> Not at all. It is just FUD and since we know Erik has studied the GPL
> and for sure visited the FSF's website it is also a lie.
>
> Erik, IMHO, is still the most obnoxious and ethically lacking wintroll
> on COLA.
No, he's not.
--
Code is community.
William Poaster
Linųnutlinųnut console, was as follows:
He isn't? Um....you got another candidate then?
--
Microsoft's use of the word "innovation"
should be read as "appropriation".
-- Craig Bruce
Linønut
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 06:35:23 -0500, a broadcast message from the
> Linųnutlinųnut console, was as follows:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Culley belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Not at all. It is just FUD and since we know Erik has studied the GPL
>>> and for sure visited the FSF's website it is also a lie.
>>>
>>> Erik, IMHO, is still the most obnoxious and ethically lacking wintroll
>>> on COLA.
>>
>> No, he's not.
>
> He isn't? Um....you got another candidate then?
There are at least three present. Another one is long gone, it seems.
Although Erik does have his faults, there are posters here who are more:
strident
obnoxious
ethically lacking
stupid
Not all at the same time, of course.
At least with Erik you can sometimes have a decent exchange of opinions,
and not feel dirty afterward.
--
Code is community.
chrisv
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>
>> You know Roy, quite a while ago I used to get really angry at you. I even
>> killfiled you for quite some time. Now I realize that you're actually
>> giving me a compliment.
>>
>> Obviously I scare you so much that you will go to any lengths to discredit
>> me. So, I must be doing something right.
>>
>> (Hmm.. that sounds a lot like those "Microsoft must be really scared of us"
>> arguments you read in here so often, of course I doubt you'll see the
>> irony).
>
>given that your basic premise is wrong. (that somehow, the FSF tries to
>mislead with the word free, even though they explicitly explain exactly
>what they mean by it, and it's a valid definition of free.) I'd say that
>yes, either you don't understand wtf you are talking about, or you are
>being somewhat disengenuous.
His implication that the FSF is, in any way, worse than Micro$oft, is
more than disingenuous. It's ludicrous.
Roy Culley
<sgjik1ynau6$.d...@funkenbusch.com>,
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 07:02:15 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
>
>> Not at all. It is just FUD and since we know Erik has studied the GPL
>> and for sure visited the FSF's website it is also a lie.
>>
>> Erik, IMHO, is still the most obnoxious and ethically lacking wintroll
>> on COLA.
>
> You know Roy, quite a while ago I used to get really angry at you.
> I even killfiled you for quite some time. Now I realize that you're
> actually giving me a compliment.
I just like to make sure that any new COLA readers are at least warned
that anything you post is most likely to be carefully worded FUD if
not a downright lie. The fact that you go to such efforts and don't
have the guts to apologise when you are proven to have spread FUD and
lies says much about your character.
> Obviously I scare you so much that you will go to any lengths to
> discredit me. So, I must be doing something right.
I don't go to any lengths to discredit you Erik. You do a wonderful
job all by yourself. As I said above I merely provide a service for
COLA subscribers who may not realise immediately the low life you
are. Remember Erik, people thought you were a good guy in the early
COLA days even though you were pro-MS.
Slowly but surely most Linux advocates started to see through your
lies and FUD to the point I doubt there is a single Linux advocate who
has read your posts for any length of time who believes a word you
type. Your perceived character is of your own making.
> (Hmm.. that sounds a lot like those "Microsoft must be really scared
> of us" arguments you read in here so often, of course I doubt you'll
> see the irony).
Not at all. I'm certainly not scared of you and neither are most Linux
advocates. You on the other hand continue to humiliate yourself in
this newsgroup time and time again. MS are really scared of Linux and
OSS. That is a fact. As for you, it is fun watching you squirm and
eventually run away. Keep it up Erik.
Mark Kent
Roy Culley <r...@nodomain.none> espoused:
Just to add my vote to Roy's here. Erik is pitiable, but not scary.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
How can you do 'New Math' problems with an 'Old Math' mind?
-- Charles Schulz
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 07:14:41 +0100,
Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Roy Culley <r...@nodomain.none> espoused:
>> begin risky.vbs
>> <sgjik1ynau6$.d...@funkenbusch.com>,
>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:
>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 07:02:15 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> (Hmm.. that sounds a lot like those "Microsoft must be really scared
>>> of us" arguments you read in here so often, of course I doubt you'll
>>> see the irony).
>>
>> Not at all. I'm certainly not scared of you and neither are most Linux
>> advocates. You on the other hand continue to humiliate yourself in
>> this newsgroup time and time again. MS are really scared of Linux and
>> OSS. That is a fact. As for you, it is fun watching you squirm and
>> eventually run away. Keep it up Erik.
>>
>
> Just to add my vote to Roy's here. Erik is pitiable, but not scary.
>
Erik is pretty smart considering, but he's got a habit of vanishing when
people start pointing out the bullshit in his bullshit claims. Of the
wintrolls here, he's one of the brighter ones. I realize that's somewhat
"damning with faint praise" but at least he isn't tab or the like.
There's always a chance Erik will come clean and answer the questions
his claims and statements in the past have brought forth.
Location of NTFS journal anyone?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDT303d90bcYOAWPYRApGhAKCb3Ba1Nm4EZ00PWvDcXoVvavTRxwCgroCe
VK517k2xiHaXE5Xf8nLLiSg=
=CxyD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"We are a nation of laws, poorly written and randomly enforced."
-- Frank Zappa
Linønut
> Erik is pretty smart considering, but he's got a habit of vanishing when
> people start pointing out the bullshit in his bullshit claims. Of the
> wintrolls here, he's one of the brighter ones. I realize that's somewhat
> "damning with faint praise" but at least he isn't tab or the like.
>
> There's always a chance Erik will come clean and answer the questions
> his claims and statements in the past have brought forth.
>
> Location of NTFS journal anyone?
It seems to me that, in Microsoft culture, being shown to be wrong
is tremendously humiliating, and is to be avoided at all costs, because
your fellows will then try to use your mistake to neutralize anything
you say later, even in unrelated areas of knowledge.
Microsoft -- a culture of bullies.
That's my take, anyway.
--
Code is community.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
You are *spot* on. I know several people who work/worked for MS, either
directly, or as contractors. It's a real snakepit. The company
encourages you to "poach" other projects. The legendary conflict between
office and windows is one example of the major internal friction.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDT//ed90bcYOAWPYRAtQEAKCj838PufIfvdx0XBMORW1lckfqZQCbBQ/u
t3AKgzJeCEq3pIbTi5cB1Lg=
=g5lo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles
as if she laid an asteroid.
-- Mark Twain
Roy Culley
<o2b423-...@fimbul.myth>,
Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> writes:
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 07:14:41 +0100,
> Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Roy Culley <r...@nodomain.none> espoused:
>>> begin risky.vbs
>>> <sgjik1ynau6$.d...@funkenbusch.com>,
>>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 07:02:15 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
>>>
>>>> (Hmm.. that sounds a lot like those "Microsoft must be really
>>>> scared of us" arguments you read in here so often, of course I
>>>> doubt you'll see the irony).
>>>
>>> Not at all. I'm certainly not scared of you and neither are most
>>> Linux advocates. You on the other hand continue to humiliate
>>> yourself in this newsgroup time and time again. MS are really
>>> scared of Linux and OSS. That is a fact. As for you, it is fun
>>> watching you squirm and eventually run away. Keep it up Erik.
>>
>> Just to add my vote to Roy's here. Erik is pitiable, but not
>> scary.
>
> Erik is pretty smart considering, but he's got a habit of vanishing
> when people start pointing out the bullshit in his bullshit
> claims. Of the wintrolls here, he's one of the brighter ones. I
> realize that's somewhat "damning with faint praise" but at least he
> isn't tab or the like.
I agree, Erik is one of the smarter wintrolls. It is also why I regard
him with utter disdain. He tries very hard to smear Linux at every
opportunity knowing full well that what he writes most of the time is
at best FUD and often just downright lies.
> There's always a chance Erik will come clean and answer the questions
> his claims and statements in the past have brought forth.
Wishful thinking. He hasn't the balls.
> Location of NTFS journal anyone?
It isn't just the location of the NTFS journal. Erik tried to make
ext3 look bad by saying that it kept its journal on the same device as
the filesystem. When shown that this is not indeed true, ext3 can have
its journal on any other partition on any disk, Erik ran away as
usual. Then when asked where does NTFS store its journal he didn't
have the guts to admit it stored it on the same partition as the
filesystem.
Erik's sole purpose is spreading FUD, lies and being a MS apologist
(and occasionally using unethical means to discredit others of
course). He clearly puts a lot of effort into it. Trouble is, he lost
all credibility a long time ago.
The other wintrolls can only aspire to be a Funkenbusch. Sadly for
them they just aren't smart enough.