where is emacs21?
Stefan Monnier <foo@acm.com>
> software projects. EMACS (although I worship at her alters) she is a
> Cathedral. How Bazaar.
Having read some of ESR's papers (despite having serious reservations about
the political underpinnings of his rhetoric), I think you're confused.
Emacs development might not be as transparent as you'd like, but it is
not following a carefully planned design. Instead Emacs just incorporates
code contributed from just about anybody in a manner strongly reminiscent
of things like fetchmail (to take a completely arbitrary example ;-)
I believe the reason why Emacs is labelled as "the bad cathedral guy"
has a lot more to do with the fact that it is associated with the Free
Software movement whose political goals are actually strongly opposed
to those of the Open Software movement (at least as far as they are
represented by resp RMS and ESR).
Stefan
Alex Schroeder
> I believe the reason why Emacs is labelled as "the bad cathedral guy"
> has a lot more to do with the fact that it is associated with the Free
> Software movement whose political goals are actually strongly opposed
> to those of the Open Software movement (at least as far as they are
> represented by resp RMS and ESR).
From reading the posts of people complaining, I got the impression
that these people expect read-only CVS access, that's it. I
understand that -- I run gnus and bbdb on the bleeding edge, and it
feels good.
What these people confuse is "no CVS access" and "not open source".
Obviously I think they are confused. But I do think that people like
to have CVS access, and since they are being denied CVS access, they
complain.
Alex.
--
http://www.geocities.com/kensanata/emacs.html
http://www.emacswiki.org/
"Check the Emacs Wiki: http://www.emacswiki.org/"
Per Abrahamsen
> Having read some of ESR's papers (despite having serious
> reservations about the political underpinnings of his rhetoric), I
> think you're confused. Emacs development might not be as
> transparent as you'd like, but it is not following a carefully
> planned design.
I believe the opaqueness of Emacs development is the main issue, and
will continue to be so. That RMS and Gerd doesn't follow the open
discussion fora where most (in persons, not in code) of the developers
hang out will continue to make a difference, even when the CVS
repository gets opened.
Only slightly releated fact: The invisibility of the main Emacs
maintainer is astonishing, of the Emacs contributers, Gerd Moellmann
is only the #312 most well known, as measured by Google hits. This is
not a critique, but it make a difference compared to projects where the
development discussions and the developers are more visible.
See <URL: http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/emacs/fame.html > for the
full list.
> Instead Emacs just incorporates code contributed from just about
> anybody in a manner strongly reminiscent of things like fetchmail
> (to take a completely arbitrary example ;-)
You won't claim the fetchmail development isn't visible, will you?
And certainly not the maintaner.
> I believe the reason why Emacs is labelled as "the bad cathedral guy"
> has a lot more to do with the fact that it is associated with the Free
> Software movement whose political goals are actually strongly opposed
> to those of the Open Software movement (at least as far as they are
> represented by resp RMS and ESR).
I believe the Open/Free split was later than the C&B paper.
Kai Großjohann
> I believe the opaqueness of Emacs development is the main issue, and
> will continue to be so. That RMS and Gerd doesn't follow the open
> discussion fora where most (in persons, not in code) of the
> developers hang out will continue to make a difference, even when
> the CVS repository gets opened.
IIUC, Gerd reads the emacs-devel mailing list, doesn't he? So that
would be a way to get in contact with him directly.
I'm not sure, but I think that other projects are similar. For
example, aren't there debian-user and debian-devel mailing lists,
roughly parallel to gnu.emacs.help and emacs-devel? Also, it seems
that the FreeBSD project has a users mailing list and a developers
mailing list.
And the idea is that user-to-user communication happens on one of
them, and the developer-to-developer and user-to-developer
communication happens on the devel list?
How does Emacs compare to other projects? I don't really know enough
about the projects to be able to say.
Maybe Emacs could gently be moved in a direction which makes everybody
satisfied (if not happy)?
kai
--
~/.signature: No such file or directory
Luis Fernandes
Per> Only slightly releated fact: The invisibility of the main
Per> Emacs maintainer is astonishing, of the Emacs contributers,
Per> Gerd Moellmann is only the #312 most well known, as measured
Per> by Google hits. This is not a critique, but it make a
Per> difference compared to projects where the development
Per> discussions and the developers are more visible.
If you want to raise gerd's profile, just get him to grow his hair
long, have him drive a Porsche Boxter and arrange for a Playboy bunny
(just don't tell his wife) to accompany him to an Emacs con.
Per Abrahamsen
> IIUC, Gerd reads the emacs-devel mailing list, doesn't he?
But few of the developers does. Most developers just write a single
Lisp package, post it to g.e.sources (which both Gerd and RMS read),
and talk about it g.e.help. The emacs-devel list does not seem to
have many active participants. I don't even know if it is open to the
public, like e.g. xemacs-beta or the Linux kernel lists are.
> So that would be a way to get in contact with him directly.
It has never been hard to get in touch with Gerd or RMS.
> I'm not sure, but I think that other projects are similar.
In organization, perhaps, but not in execution.
> Maybe Emacs could gently be moved in a direction which makes everybody
> satisfied (if not happy)?
It doesn't have to. What is important is that the development process
works, not how it works. And if the current organization means Gerd
can spend more time code, and less time reading mailing lists and more
time writing code and integrating patches, that might be a good
tradfoff, even if it gives a more opaque impression.
Nix
> I believe the reason why Emacs is labelled as "the bad cathedral guy"
> has a lot more to do with the fact that it is associated with the Free
> Software movement whose political goals are actually strongly opposed
> to those of the Open Software movement (at least as far as they are
> represented by resp RMS and ESR).
Hardly. GCC is one of the most well-known bazaar projects out there, yet
it too was written by RMS to start with. It's just adapted better, to
the point where BSD developers and even people @microsoft.com help out
and don't get tortured, even slightly.
And its development is really rather open. Certainly compared to
Emacs's.
--
`LARTing lusers is supposed to be satisfying. This is just tedious. The
silly shite I'm doing now is like trying to toothpick to death a Black
Knight made of jelly.' --- RDD
Rene Kyllingstad
> On 18 May 2001, Stefan Monnier gibbered:
> > I believe the reason why Emacs is labelled as "the bad cathedral guy"
> > has a lot more to do with the fact that it is associated with the Free
> > Software movement whose political goals are actually strongly opposed
> > to those of the Open Software movement (at least as far as they are
> > represented by resp RMS and ESR).
>
> Hardly. GCC is one of the most well-known bazaar projects out there, yet
> it too was written by RMS to start with. It's just adapted better, to
> the point where BSD developers and even people @microsoft.com help out
> and don't get tortured, even slightly.
>
> And its development is really rather open. Certainly compared to
> Emacs's.
Wasn't egcs started *because* the GCC development was too closed? Or,
would the fork have occured if the gcc development was as open then as it
is today?
-- Rene
Austin Ziegler
> On 18 May 2001, Stefan Monnier gibbered:
>> I believe the reason why Emacs is labelled as "the bad cathedral guy"
>> has a lot more to do with the fact that it is associated with the Free
>> Software movement whose political goals are actually strongly opposed
>> to those of the Open Software movement (at least as far as they are
>> represented by resp RMS and ESR).
> Hardly. GCC is one of the most well-known bazaar projects out there, yet
> it too was written by RMS to start with. It's just adapted better, to
> the point where BSD developers and even people @microsoft.com help out
> and don't get tortured, even slightly.
>
> And its development is really rather open. Certainly compared to
> Emacs's.
My understanding is that GCC only *became* bazaar because of EGCS,
which was (IIRC) started shortly after the C&B paper. I think it was
because people were tired of how long it was taking and how opaque the
process was, at least in part.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
-----------------* I speak for myself alone
Nix
> Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> Hardly. GCC is one of the most well-known bazaar projects out there, yet
>> it too was written by RMS to start with. It's just adapted better, to
>> the point where BSD developers and even people @microsoft.com help out
>> and don't get tortured, even slightly.
>>
>> And its development is really rather open. Certainly compared to
>> Emacs's.
>
> Wasn't egcs started *because* the GCC development was too closed? Or,
Yes, but bear in mind that *all* the GCC developers got involved in it
in short order, even Kenner, the maintainer of GCC :) so it's arguable
how much of a fork it really was. The *code* forked, but the developer
base did not, not really. (Not for long.)
> would the fork have occured if the gcc development was as open then as it
> is today?
No, definitely not.
Hmm. I think I may have just torpedoed my own argument.
Ah well.
Matthias Warkus
...and Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> And its development is really rather open. Certainly compared to
> Emacs's.
I could care less about how open Emacs' development is. To me, the
important things are:
a) development continues
b) releases are often
c) the code is under the GPL.
All fine and dandy. *I*'m happy.
mawa
--
When you think of Red Hat, think of Perrier (bottled water). Water is
essentially free, or at least very low cost to produce. Red Hat is
selling the name, and some service.
-- Ed Young
Paul Repacholi
> Wasn't egcs started *because* the GCC development was too closed?
> Or, would the fork have occured if the gcc development was as open
> then as it is today?
No, egcs was forked out because the design of gcc was not a good base
for non-32 bit machines, and also had major problems if you wanted to
include a pile a modern optimizations. A clean sheet that re-used
those parts of gcc that made sense was an idear whose time had come.
From day one, it was expected that the streams would become one, and
that egcs would replace classic gcc.
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
Spam-To: u...@ftc.gov,enfor...@sec.gov,sn...@fcc.gov,hfur...@fcc.gov,
mpo...@fcc.gov,gtri...@fcc.gov
Rene Kyllingstad
> Rene Kyllingstad <ren...@hamspam.stud.ntnu.no> writes:
> > Wasn't egcs started *because* the GCC development was too closed?
> > Or, would the fork have occured if the gcc development was as open
> > then as it is today?
>
> No, egcs was forked out because the design of gcc was not a good base
> for non-32 bit machines, and also had major problems if you wanted to
> include a pile a modern optimizations. A clean sheet that re-used
> those parts of gcc that made sense was an idear whose time had come.
>
> From day one, it was expected that the streams would become one, and
> that egcs would replace classic gcc.
From the egcs 1.0 release statement:
"EGCS is a collaborative effort involving several groups of hackers using an
open development model to accelerate development and testing of GNU
compilers and runtime libraries."
http://gcc.gnu.org/egcs-1.0/egcs-1.0.html
It seems to me that this was not merely an experimental branch and redesign
off the main trunk, but also a reaction to the closed development.
-- René
Russ Allbery
> No, egcs was forked out because the design of gcc was not a good base
> for non-32 bit machines, and also had major problems if you wanted to
> include a pile a modern optimizations. A clean sheet that re-used those
> parts of gcc that made sense was an idear whose time had come.
Er, that bears very little resemblence to the egcs project as I understood
it, and I've been following the mailing lists since day one. I
particularly question the idea that egcs represented a clean sheet.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Nix
> Er, that bears very little resemblence to the egcs project as I understood
> it, and I've been following the mailing lists since day one. I
> particularly question the idea that egcs represented a clean sheet.
So do I. Some of the worst cruft *is* being removed from GCC; but this
is an incremental, evolutionary process, not a revolutionary `chuck
everything and start again' process.
(In some respects GCC *would* benefit from having some of its ad-hockery
chucked, because some of the confusing intertangled unstated assumptions
would be chucked with it... but this hasn't happened.)
Jay Maynard
<monnier+comp.emacs/news/@flint.cs.yale.edu> wrote:
>I believe the reason why Emacs is labelled as "the bad cathedral guy"
>has a lot more to do with the fact that it is associated with the Free
>Software movement whose political goals are actually strongly opposed
>to those of the Open Software movement (at least as far as they are
>represented by resp RMS and ESR).
Bzzt.
I got this straight from ESR last week over a game of Robo Rally: The open
source movement explicitly includes the soi-disant "free software" movement.
The goals of the open source movement are broader than those of the "free
software" movement, and not incompatible at all. RMS doesn't think so, but
he's flat-out wrong, and been told so repeatedly.
Shawn Betts
'not incompatible at all'? So you're suggesting that they are not
fully incompatible and therefore at most partially compatible? Yes you
are correct. But their philosophical objectives differ.
ESR isn't necessarily correct. Perhaps you should read some of RMS's
essays on the topic. Just because lots of people tell RMS he's 'wrong',
doesn't make him 'wrong'.
Perhaps you could dig your head out of your butt so as to better smell
the coffee?
Russ Allbery
> I got this straight from ESR last week over a game of Robo Rally: The
> open source movement explicitly includes the soi-disant "free software"
> movement. The goals of the open source movement are broader than those
> of the "free software" movement, and not incompatible at all. RMS
> doesn't think so, but he's flat-out wrong, and been told so repeatedly.
Your acceptance of ESR's word for this over RMS's obvious disagreement is
rather interseting.
For the record, I agree with RMS and think ESR is fooling himself if he
doesn't realize that the open source movement as he presents it is
incompatible with the free software movement that RMS believes in.
They're advocating some of the same practices, but for *radically*
different reasons, and the reasons are far more important to RMS than the
actual techniques.
Jay Maynard
>ESR isn't necessarily correct. Perhaps you should read some of RMS's
>essays on the topic. Just because lots of people tell RMS he's 'wrong',
>doesn't make him 'wrong'.
I've read RMS's essays. They all hinge on his peculiar redefinition of the
term "free", applying it to a collection of bits instead of people. If ESR's
wrong, he's at least a lot closer to right than RMS, who the rest of the
world (except for those who belong to the Holy Church of GNU, with Stallman
as its Pope) sees as anywhere from out in left field to a real ****ing kook.
>Perhaps you could dig your head out of your butt so as to better smell
>the coffee?
I've been following the FSF and RMS's polemics for well over a decade, and
arguing against the GPV since 1990. I'm well familiar with the issues. I've
seen the effects of RMS's stridency and ESR's more inclusive, less
politicized approach. RMS's approach doesn't advance anything but his own
blood pressure. ESR's has led to major inroads in the world of computing.
I prefer positive results to political blathering every time.
Erik Brown
> ... (except for those who belong to the Holy Church of GNU, with Stallman as its Pope) ...
You mean Saint IGNUcius?
Russ Allbery
> I've been following the FSF and RMS's polemics for well over a decade,
> and arguing against the GPV since 1990. I'm well familiar with the
> issues. I've seen the effects of RMS's stridency and ESR's more
> inclusive, less politicized approach.
The idea that ESR is less political and politicized than RMS is completely
absurd. His politics just have different goals.
Matthias Warkus
...and Jay Maynard <jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
> I got this straight from ESR last week over a game of Robo Rally: The open
> source movement explicitly includes the soi-disant "free software" movement.
Has Raymond lost any contact to reality? If no, why does he think he
can annect other people's momentum into the "movement" of his own
creation at will?
mawa
--
X[11] is like pavement: once you figure out how to lay it on the
ground and paint yellow lines on it, there isn't much left to say
about it. [...] New developments are happening in things that run ON
TOP of the pavement, like cars [...] and motorcycles. -- E. O'Neil
Matthias Warkus
> arguing against the GPV since 1990. I'm well familiar with the issues. I've
> seen the effects of RMS's stridency and ESR's more inclusive, less
> politicized approach.
Less politicised? One of ESR's main reasons for the "Open Source
movement" is political self-gratification, i.e. trying to prove to
himself that his libertoonian anarcho-capitalist gun-crazed ideology
has some place in the world.
> RMS's approach doesn't advance anything but his own
> blood pressure.
Bullshit. Where would we be without gcc?
John Hasler
> Has Raymond lost any contact to reality? If no, why does he think he can
> annect other people's momentum into the "movement" of his own creation at
> will?
Why do you think that Eric thinks what Maynard says he thinks?
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Jay Maynard
>The idea that ESR is less political and politicized than RMS is completely
>absurd. His politics just have different goals.
Hardly. ESR's concentrating on what works. RMS is concentrating on being
politically correct as defined by the GNU Manifesto. ESR isn't concerned
about being politically correct by any definition.
Jay Maynard
>Matthias Warkus writes:
>> Has Raymond lost any contact to reality? If no, why does he think he can
>> annect other people's momentum into the "movement" of his own creation at
>> will?
>Why do you think that Eric thinks what Maynard says he thinks?
I will freely admit that my statement was based on my memory of a
conversation...but I sincerely doubt that I got it that far wrong. I am,
however, open to correction.
Per Abrahamsen
> The idea that ESR is less political and politicized than RMS is completely
> absurd. His politics just have different goals.
No, it is not completely absurd. ESR explicitly wants to downplay the
political goals, in order to make open software more acceptable.
While the goals are there, and are just as radical, they are not in
front to the same degree as with RMS.
It might be considered a less honest approach, but if it works, I
don't care.
Jay Maynard
>Your acceptance of ESR's word for this over RMS's obvious disagreement is
>rather interseting.
Well, since ESR disagrees with RMS's disagreement... :-)
>For the record, I agree with RMS and think ESR is fooling himself if he
>doesn't realize that the open source movement as he presents it is
>incompatible with the free software movement that RMS believes in.
>They're advocating some of the same practices, but for *radically*
>different reasons, and the reasons are far more important to RMS than the
>actual techniques.
It comes down to a simple question: What's important here, reasons or
results?
(It seems necessary to note that the following analysis is mine, not
(necessarily) ESR's.)
RMS is overwhelmingly consumed with the need to be simon-pure ideologically.
He doesn't care what the effects are in the real world as long as his
motives are pure. He doesn't care, in particular, what someone who doesn't
share his ideology does. He's after saving souls, not doing good. If you
don't hew to his line all the way, you're the enemy.
ESR, OTOH, is concerned with results. As long as software is released under
an OSD-compliant license (several of which, I'll note, even RMS admits
qualify for his definition of "free software"), it's good, regardless of the
motives of the person doing the releasing. The software is all that he cares
about.
Thus, ESR and RMS are free to disagree while both being correct by their own
definitions. Personally, I consider results to be important - I truly
believe without the relative depoliticzation of the OSI, we wouldn't be
anywhere near the point we are today - and so I agree with ESR.
ESR's argument in this discussion is that, since "free software" is
distributed under a license that makes it OSD-compliant, it is a proper
subset of open source software. The reverse is obviously not true: Hercules,
for example, is released under the QPL, an OSD-compliant license that RMS
does not consider "free". Advancing the cause of "free software", therefore,
also automatically advances the cause of open source software.
There's room in the open source movement for advocates of "free software".
If they choose not to believe that, that's their problem.
Shawn Betts
> On 22 May 2001 17:49:31 -0700, Shawn Betts <sab...@van.gobasis.com> wrote:
> >ESR isn't necessarily correct. Perhaps you should read some of RMS's
> >essays on the topic. Just because lots of people tell RMS he's 'wrong',
> >doesn't make him 'wrong'.
>
> I've read RMS's essays. They all hinge on his peculiar redefinition of the
> term "free", applying it to a collection of bits instead of people. If ESR's
> wrong, he's at least a lot closer to right than RMS, who the rest of the
> world (except for those who belong to the Holy Church of GNU, with Stallman
> as its Pope) sees as anywhere from out in left field to a real ****ing kook.
Oh, c'mon. The only reason you're mad at RMS is because he's so right
it makes you sick. I'm sorry for you.
> >Perhaps you could dig your head out of your butt so as to better smell
> >the coffee?
>
> I've been following the FSF and RMS's polemics for well over a decade, and
> arguing against the GPV since 1990. I'm well familiar with the issues. I've
> seen the effects of RMS's stridency and ESR's more inclusive, less
> politicized approach. RMS's approach doesn't advance anything but his own
> blood pressure. ESR's has led to major inroads in the world of computing.
>
> I prefer positive results to political blathering every time.
Are these inroads taking us where we want to go? I'm not sure they
are.
Jay Maynard
>Oh, c'mon. The only reason you're mad at RMS is because he's so right
>it makes you sick. I'm sorry for you.
You go right on believing that if it makes you feel better. In my guts,
however, I know he's nuts.
>> ESR's has led to major inroads in the world of computing.
>Are these inroads taking us where we want to go? I'm not sure they
>are.
That depends on just where you want to go. I believe that open source
(which, by definition, includes "free") software and commercial software are
both valid choices, depending on the needs of an organization. I just want
to see open source software get the same consideration as commercial
software. I do not consider those who wish to destroy commercial software
as having the best interests of users truly at heart, regardless of what
they believe or what their motives are. The inroads from ESR's approach are
those which I would like to see, and I do not believe RMS's approach would
have led to the same penetration of "free" software in the real world where
people use computers to actually get things done.
Shawn Betts
> On 23 May 2001 09:58:37 -0700, Shawn Betts <sab...@van.gobasis.com> wrote:
> >Oh, c'mon. The only reason you're mad at RMS is because he's so right
> >it makes you sick. I'm sorry for you.
>
> You go right on believing that if it makes you feel better. In my guts,
> however, I know he's nuts.
Looks like you have worms, though dude.
> >> ESR's has led to major inroads in the world of computing.
> >Are these inroads taking us where we want to go? I'm not sure they
> >are.
>
> That depends on just where you want to go. I believe that open source
> (which, by definition, includes "free") software and commercial software are
> both valid choices, depending on the needs of an organization. I just want
> to see open source software get the same consideration as commercial
> software. I do not consider those who wish to destroy commercial software
> as having the best interests of users truly at heart, regardless of what
> they believe or what their motives are. The inroads from ESR's approach are
> those which I would like to see, and I do not believe RMS's approach would
> have led to the same penetration of "free" software in the real world where
> people use computers to actually get things done.
Do you use VI or something??
Paul Jarc
> arguing against the GPV since 1990.
There is no virus. You can commercialize Emacs. Here's how: you
distribute vanilla Emacs (under the GPL), alongside your proprietary
modifications. Your proprietary installer program applies your
changes. The result cannot be distributed except under the GPL, but
you don't need to distribute it at all at this point.
The GPL does not apply except to what is distributed. So all you need
to do is keep the free bits separate from the proprietary bits until
after distribution.
It's true that this interpretation hasn't been supported by case law,
but no other interpretation has either (AFAIK), and this is the only
one that makes sense to me. IANAL, etc.
paul
Florian Weimer
The statement that writing free software is not a policital issue is
in itself a highly political statement.
I'm sorry, but you cannot be apolitical in this context. ;-)
brl...@my-deja.com
> ESR, OTOH, is concerned with results. As long as software is released under
> an OSD-compliant license (several of which, I'll note, even RMS admits
> qualify for his definition of "free software"), it's good, regardless of the
> motives of the person doing the releasing. The software is all that he cares
> about.
You use the word "admits" as if he were somehow ashamed of such
statements, or as if such statements were somehow in conflict with the
rest of his philosophy.
> The reverse is obviously not true: Hercules,
> for example, is released under the QPL, an OSD-compliant license that RMS
> does not consider "free".
Where did you get this info? Obviously not from
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.es.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
where the QPL is called a "free software license".
--
Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
I rarely read mail sent to brl...@my-deja.com
Russ Allbery
> It comes down to a simple question: What's important here, reasons or
> results?
Given that the ends don't justify the means, I think that question has a
simple and obvious answer. And I even prefer the BSD or MIT license.
Russ Allbery
> Hardly. ESR's concentrating on what works. RMS is concentrating on being
> politically correct as defined by the GNU Manifesto. ESR isn't concerned
> about being politically correct by any definition.
I know from personal experience that this isn't even remotely close to
correct. For example, ESR regularly lays into people in the open source
or free software movements for stating public disagreement with things
that he says because he claims that it shows a divided front to
organizations like Microsoft or makes it seem like not everyone agrees
with his Open Source movement. This is *pure* politics and political
correctness.
People seem to think that it's RMS who's starting the conflicts with ESR.
That's not my experience at all. ESR regularly shoves sharp, pointy
sticks at RMS in public or posts incredibly condescending "advice" aimed
at furthering his political agenda.
Luc Van Oostenryck
>
> On 23 May 2001 09:58:37 -0700, Shawn Betts <sab...@van.gobasis.com> wrote:
> >Oh, c'mon. The only reason you're mad at RMS is because he's so right
> >it makes you sick. I'm sorry for you.
>
> You go right on believing that if it makes you feel better. In my guts,
> however, I know he's nuts.
>
> >> ESR's has led to major inroads in the world of computing.
> >Are these inroads taking us where we want to go? I'm not sure they
> >are.
>
> That depends on just where you want to go. I believe that open source
> (which, by definition, includes "free") software and commercial software are
> both valid choices, depending on the needs of an organization. I just want
> to see open source software get the same consideration as commercial
> software.
I 'just' want to see commercial software get the same consideration as
...
> I do not consider those who wish to destroy commercial software
> as having the best interests of users truly at heart, regardless of what
> they believe or what their motives are. The inroads from ESR's approach are
> those which I would like to see, and I do not believe RMS's approach would
> have led to the same penetration of "free" software in the real world where
> people use computers to actually get things done.
--
Luc Van Oostenryck
Do not use the address in the 'reply-to' field, but this instead:
<luc dot vanoostenryck at easynet dot be>
Jay Maynard
>> That depends on just where you want to go. I believe that open source
>> (which, by definition, includes "free") software and commercial software are
>> both valid choices, depending on the needs of an organization. I just want
>> to see open source software get the same consideration as commercial
>> software. I do not consider those who wish to destroy commercial software
>> as having the best interests of users truly at heart, regardless of what
>> they believe or what their motives are. The inroads from ESR's approach are
>> those which I would like to see, and I do not believe RMS's approach would
>> have led to the same penetration of "free" software in the real world where
>> people use computers to actually get things done.
>Do you use VI or something??
Uhm...huh? What does that have to do with anything? If you must know, I
despise vi and EMACS equally, though for different reasons, and use joe.
Now, would you mind answering the paragraph I quoted?
Jay Maynard
>There is no virus. You can commercialize Emacs. Here's how: you
>distribute vanilla Emacs (under the GPL), alongside your proprietary
>modifications. Your proprietary installer program applies your
>changes. The result cannot be distributed except under the GPL, but
>you don't need to distribute it at all at this point.
The FSF disagrees, and rather strongly; this is essentially the RIPEM case,
and those folks were strong-armed into writing their own library to avoid
the problem.
>It's true that this interpretation hasn't been supported by case law,
>but no other interpretation has either (AFAIK), and this is the only
>one that makes sense to me. IANAL, etc.
Me, too, but the FSF has other ideas.
Jay Maynard
>The statement that writing free software is not a policital issue is
>in itself a highly political statement.
Huh? Only if you subscribe to the FSF's strange definition of "free" is this
a true statement.
I work on open source software to make it available to those who want it,
not out of some political agenda.
>I'm sorry, but you cannot be apolitical in this context. ;-)
Watch me.
Roberto Alsina
>On 23 May 2001 14:12:04 -0400, Paul Jarc <p...@po.cwru.edu.> wrote:
>>There is no virus. You can commercialize Emacs. Here's how: you
>>distribute vanilla Emacs (under the GPL), alongside your proprietary
>>modifications. Your proprietary installer program applies your
>>changes. The result cannot be distributed except under the GPL, but
>>you don't need to distribute it at all at this point.
>
>The FSF disagrees, and rather strongly; this is essentially the RIPEM case,
>and those folks were strong-armed into writing their own library to avoid
>the problem.
And the KDE case, and the NeXT obj-c compiler case, and the ncFTP case,
and so on.
>>It's true that this interpretation hasn't been supported by case law,
>>but no other interpretation has either (AFAIK), and this is the only
>>one that makes sense to me. IANAL, etc.
>
>Me, too, but the FSF has other ideas.
Oh, do they have other ideas ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
Jay Maynard
>You use the word "admits" as if he were somehow ashamed of such
>statements, or as if such statements were somehow in conflict with the
>rest of his philosophy.
RMS would like for the world to use the GPV exclusively, and anything that
does not further that goal is in conflict with the rest of his philosophy.
>Where did you get this info? Obviously not from
>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.es.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
>where the QPL is called a "free software license".
You're correct, somewhat to my surprise, as I'd thought he had heartburn
with the QPL's requirement that all changes be sent to the original author
even if not otherwise distributed. The original Artistic License qualifies
in its place, however.
It's also instructive to note that every license listed on the OSI site as
being approved Open Source licenses is also, if mentioned at all, listed on
the RMS page as a free software license. This makes the claims of a
distinction between the two even more hollow.
Jay Maynard
>In gnu.misc.discuss, Jay Maynard <jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> writes:
>> It comes down to a simple question: What's important here, reasons or
>> results?
>Given that the ends don't justify the means, I think that question has a
>simple and obvious answer. And I even prefer the BSD or MIT license.
While this is certainly true when morally correct results are achieved by
immoral means, I'm not at all sure it applies when two different, equally
morally correct means are in question. This then reduces to "Are ESR's means
less morally correct than RMS's?", which, of course, is the entire point of
contention. Since I disagree rather strongly with RMS's morality, my answer
to that question is "no", and therefore disagree that your observation
applies to the present question.
Jay Maynard
>I know from personal experience that this isn't even remotely close to
>correct. For example, ESR regularly lays into people in the open source
>or free software movements for stating public disagreement with things
>that he says because he claims that it shows a divided front to
>organizations like Microsoft or makes it seem like not everyone agrees
>with his Open Source movement. This is *pure* politics and political
>correctness.
Does he? I'm not familiar with such examples. However, I would suggest that
pointing that out to him might well have the effect of changing his
behavior. Have you tried it?
>People seem to think that it's RMS who's starting the conflicts with ESR.
>That's not my experience at all. ESR regularly shoves sharp, pointy
>sticks at RMS in public or posts incredibly condescending "advice" aimed
>at furthering his political agenda.
Shoving sharp, pointy sticks at RMS is hardly limited to ESR...it's
something I do regularly, and with (IMAO) more than adequate justification.
As for the advice, you're presupposing your conclusion. ESR's agenda isn't
political, either on its own or (especially) when compared to RMS's.
brl...@my-deja.com
> It's also instructive to note that every license listed on the OSI site as
> being approved Open Source licenses is also, if mentioned at all, listed on
> the RMS page as a free software license. This makes the claims of a
> distinction between the two even more hollow.
What's the story with APSL? Although it's not listed on
http://www.opensource.org/site_index.html
that page has a broken link titled "OS Clarifies The Status Of The APSL"
that probably pointed to something like
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/4240.html
asserting that the APSL is "Open Source".
Has ESR quietly retracted APSL's "Open Source" status?
Niels Möller
> It's also instructive to note that every license listed on the OSI site as
> being approved Open Source licenses is also, if mentioned at all, listed on
> the RMS page as a free software license. This makes the claims of a
> distinction between the two even more hollow.
Some posts ago you said `I believe that open source (which, by
definition, includes "free") [...]'. I'm happy that you now see that
`Free software (by the GNU definition) includes open source software.'
is also true.
The practices are the same, only the reasons differ. (And of course, a
proprietary "enhanced" version of an open source/free software program
is neither open nor free, so they're kind-of irrelevant for this
distinction, if any).
/Niels
Roberto Alsina
>jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) writes:
>
>> It's also instructive to note that every license listed on the OSI site as
>> being approved Open Source licenses is also, if mentioned at all, listed on
>> the RMS page as a free software license. This makes the claims of a
>> distinction between the two even more hollow.
>
>Some posts ago you said `I believe that open source (which, by
>definition, includes "free") [...]'. I'm happy that you now see that
>`Free software (by the GNU definition) includes open source software.'
>is also true.
Actually, it is not true. The FSF declared the Artistic License not free:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
Yet it is open source:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.html
So, while open source MAY include free software (I made no effort to
verify it), the inverse is simply false.
--
Roberto Alsina
Jay Maynard
>definition, includes "free") [...]'. I'm happy that you now see that
>`Free software (by the GNU definition) includes open source software.'
>is also true.
I'm not the one claiming it's not. RMS is...though his own page gives the
lie to the claim.
>The practices are the same, only the reasons differ. (And of course, a
>proprietary "enhanced" version of an open source/free software program
>is neither open nor free, so they're kind-of irrelevant for this
>distinction, if any).
True. Again, I'm not claiming there's a difference. I've been saying all
along that open source includes "free software". RMS is the one frothing at
the mouth and claiming it doesn't.
Jay Maynard
wrote:
>What's the story with APSL? Although it's not listed on
>http://www.opensource.org/site_index.html
>that page has a broken link titled "OS Clarifies The Status Of The APSL"
>that probably pointed to something like
>http://linuxtoday.com/stories/4240.html
>asserting that the APSL is "Open Source".
>Has ESR quietly retracted APSL's "Open Source" status?
Good question. I don't know. AIUI, though, that decision would not be ESR's,
alone, to make; approving licenses as OSD-compliant takes more than one
man's decision, ESR or otherwise.
Russ Allbery
> Does he? I'm not familiar with such examples. However, I would suggest
> that pointing that out to him might well have the effect of changing his
> behavior. Have you tried it?
Yes. He told me essentially that if I thought I could do his job better,
I was welcome to try. Given that I don't agree with him that someone
needs to be doing what he's doing, that seemed to indicate a rift of
fundamental assumptions that effectively ended the discussion.
> ESR's agenda isn't political, either on its own or (especially) when
> compared to RMS's.
This is definitely not my experience. Perhaps we'll have to agree to
disagree.
Russ Allbery
> Actually, it is not true. The FSF declared the Artistic License not free:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
> Yet it is open source:
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.html
> So, while open source MAY include free software (I made no effort to
> verify it), the inverse is simply false.
The open source folks badly wanted to declare it not open source as well
and mostly didn't for political reasons, IIRC. The problem with the
Artistic License is that it's murky and unclear enough to give anyone
looking at it with an eye to legal precision heartburn.
Roberto Alsina
>Roberto Alsina <ral...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
>> Actually, it is not true. The FSF declared the Artistic License not free:
>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
>
>> Yet it is open source:
>> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.html
>
>> So, while open source MAY include free software (I made no effort to
>> verify it), the inverse is simply false.
>
>The open source folks badly wanted to declare it not open source as well
>and mostly didn't for political reasons, IIRC.
Makes no difference. It may have been close to happening, but didn't.
What happened, happened, and what is, is.
> The problem with the
>Artistic License is that it's murky and unclear enough to give anyone
>looking at it with an eye to legal precision heartburn.
The same is true of the GPL, yet the FSF embraces it (what the heck, they
CREATED that vague beast!)
--
Roberto Alsina
Russ Allbery
No, it's not.
It may give you heartburn, but the GPL was written by real lawyers and is
probably as likely to stand up to legal scrutiny as any other complicated
free software license. The Artistic License was not. Lumping them into
the same category is both inaccurate and misleading.
Roberto Alsina
>Roberto Alsina <ral...@my-deja.com> writes:
>> On 23 May 2001 16:10:46 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>> The problem with the Artistic License is that it's murky and unclear
>>> enough to give anyone looking at it with an eye to legal precision
>>> heartburn.
>
>> The same is true of the GPL,
>
>No, it's not.
It's nice to know your opinion. Of course I prefer mine.
>It may give you heartburn, but the GPL was written by real lawyers and is
>probably as likely to stand up to legal scrutiny as any other complicated
>free software license.
What other complicated free software licenses? The NPL? I pretty much
doubt it. In any case, it seems the GPL will be legally tested soon,
let's just hope it's not declared void with all rights returning to
the copyright holder, beause it would be a mess.
> The Artistic License was not. Lumping them into
>the same category is both inaccurate and misleading.
The GPL was written by a lawyer? maybe. The GPl is murky and
unclear? Yes. I actually PAID a lawyer to read it, and he almost
laughed. It is vague, it is poorly worded, and most of what the FSF
says it means simply is not there.
The Artistic license may be hard to understand, but at least the things
allowed are clear for many values of "thing".
--
Roberto Alsina
Jay Maynard
>Yes. He told me essentially that if I thought I could do his job better,
>I was welcome to try. Given that I don't agree with him that someone
>needs to be doing what he's doing, that seemed to indicate a rift of
>fundamental assumptions that effectively ended the discussion.
Then I must be on the other side of that rift, as well. Put simply, there
will be someone who the media and such will latch on to to provide quotes
and opinions, whether we like it or not. That person will be the defacto
spokesman for the movement. Our choice is not whether or not to have
someone, but only (within limits) who that someone will be.
ESR certainly takes a lot of flamage over the job he does from people not
qualified to do it themselves.
>> ESR's agenda isn't political, either on its own or (especially) when
>> compared to RMS's.
>This is definitely not my experience. Perhaps we'll have to agree to
>disagree.
I guess so.
Russ Allbery
> The GPL was written by a lawyer? maybe.
I'm fairly certain that the GPL was written with the active assistence of
an intellectual property attorney, and that revisions and the like have
similarly been done with the assistence of legal counsel.
I'm also fairly certain that this is *not* the case with the Artistic
License, although I don't know this for sure.
As such, provided that my beliefs are correct, they are in completely
different categories of legal murkiness. A lawyer may well disagree with
another lawyer on what is or isn't clear, but documents drafted with legal
aid are still a different ballgame than documents that aren't.
Furthermore, again whether you found the GPL murky or not, following the
writings and analysis of licenses for some time would show you that there
are far more people who are uncomfortable with the Artistic License than
with the GPL on the point of legal precision and correct use of legal
terminology, and the amount of analysis to which the GPL has been
subjected is considerably higher. I remain very comfortable with my
original statements, the relevance of which to this discussion being that
the Artistic License is not a good example to use in attempting to make
*any* point about free or open source software licenses because of these
issues. It is to some degree a special case.
Russ Allbery
> Then I must be on the other side of that rift, as well. Put simply,
> there will be someone who the media and such will latch on to to provide
> quotes and opinions, whether we like it or not. That person will be the
> defacto spokesman for the movement. Our choice is not whether or not to
> have someone, but only (within limits) who that someone will be.
Yes, you and I are on opposite sides of the rift. I don't agree with this
analysis of the situation.
There is no single person that the media interviews about closed-source
software licenses and no single spokesperson for the closed-source
software industry. I see no reason why free / open source software has to
be any different. The media interviews large numbers of people from Linus
to RMS to the Samba developers to Larry Wall to Tim O'Reilly to Bruce
Perens, and I far prefer that to having any single person try to put
themselves forward as the spokesperson. Thankfully, ESR has backed down
considerably in recent times from trying to be that person; for a while,
it was getting rather ridiculous.
In general, I'm quite happy to see the quantity of drama around open
source or free software dying down considerably. Microsoft is now coming
late to the party, but hopefully soon we might actually be able to go back
to just writing software rather than talking about licensing software in
the media. I'm mildly allergic to constant jabbering about things without
actually doing anything concrete.
Roberto Alsina
>Roberto Alsina <ral...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
>> The GPL was written by a lawyer? maybe.
>
>I'm fairly certain that the GPL was written with the active assistence of
>an intellectual property attorney, and that revisions and the like have
>similarly been done with the assistence of legal counsel.
Yes, I am pretty sure Eben Moglen helped. I am also pretty sure that
what ended in the license doesn't look at all like any other license.
>I'm also fairly certain that this is *not* the case with the Artistic
>License, although I don't know this for sure.
>
>As such, provided that my beliefs are correct, they are in completely
>different categories of legal murkiness. A lawyer may well disagree with
>another lawyer on what is or isn't clear, but documents drafted with legal
>aid are still a different ballgame than documents that aren't.
"This software is in the public domain". I am not a lawyer.
Let me know if that is not clear ;-)
>Furthermore, again whether you found the GPL murky or not,
Mind you: my lawyer found it murky. I find it just awful.
> following the
>writings and analysis of licenses for some time would show you that there
>are far more people who are uncomfortable with the Artistic License than
>with the GPL on the point of legal precision and correct use of legal
>terminology, and the amount of analysis to which the GPL has been
>subjected is considerably higher.
Yet, the position expressed by the FSF has never been supported
publicly by any lawyer, IIRC, except the man who helped draft it.
> I remain very comfortable with my
>original statements, the relevance of which to this discussion being that
>the Artistic License is not a good example to use in attempting to make
>*any* point about free or open source software licenses because of these
>issues. It is to some degree a special case.
Sure. I was just making the pedant point that there are licenses that
are not fsf-blessed-free but are esr-blessed-os.
You and the FSF say this example is because the license is badly written?
That's opinion, and in my opinion, the GPL is badly written as well.
Having said that, we can just agree to disagree, I suppose. I still
believe the GPL is badly written, that it's deceitful, and that the
propaganda the FSF does around it is a lot of garbage, but that is
just MHO.
--
Roberto Alsina
Russ Allbery
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> As such, provided that my beliefs are correct, they are in completely
>> different categories of legal murkiness. A lawyer may well disagree
>> with another lawyer on what is or isn't clear, but documents drafted
>> with legal aid are still a different ballgame than documents that
>> aren't.
> "This software is in the public domain". I am not a lawyer.
> Let me know if that is not clear ;-)
That's neither a document nor a license. But even apart from that, if you
want to argue the pedantic point, that *isn't* clear. In order to know
how to interpret that statement, I have to know your country of origin,
since my understanding is that in many countries outside the US it is not
*possible* to put a work into the public domain in the same way that it is
in the US.
It's not even immediately clear to me that this works in the US in the way
that you might think; I haven't seen language specifically covering how to
do this in the US copyright statutes. (If someone else knows where that
is, I'd be very interested.)
Per Abrahamsen
> Oh, c'mon. The only reason you're mad at RMS is because he's so right
> it makes you sick. I'm sorry for you.
Actually, he is mad at RMS because he didn't want to target GNU
development for a 16 bit platform, back in the days where 32 bit
platforms (with 1MB memory) was way beyond the reach of ordinary
people. Since then he has invented reasons to keep being mad, even
after the original cause has become obsolete.
Per Abrahamsen
> Yes, I am pretty sure Eben Moglen helped.
Well, you are wrong. Eben Moglen became the FSF lawyer well after the
GPL was written. The FSF paid another lawyer to help create the GPL.
Eben Moglen works as a colunteer.
I suspect Eben Moglen will be the lawyer involved in GPL v3.
> "This software is in the public domain". I am not a lawyer.
> Let me know if that is not clear ;-)
There is no such concept in Danish law. I'm not even sure the Berne
convention allows for it.
Jay Maynard
>Actually, he is mad at RMS because he didn't want to target GNU
>development for a 16 bit platform, back in the days where 32 bit
>platforms (with 1MB memory) was way beyond the reach of ordinary
>people. Since then he has invented reasons to keep being mad, even
>after the original cause has become obsolete.
I will certainly agree that I was mad at RMS at one time for targeting
machines well beyond the reach of the average person. It's worthwhile to
note that his attitude of not caring how big and bloated his programs are
remains to this day; GNU software is normally the biggest and most bloated
of any in its class.
I don't have to invent reasons to be mad at him now, however. His utopia is
nothing less than the destruction of the software industry as we know it,
which will result in millions of programmers being thrown out of work, or
else having their jobs devalued to the point of poverty. I cannot consider
this beneficial to anyone. That he redefines the term "freedom" to support
his utopia makes it all the more offensive.
I consider Bill Gates' greatest crime to be lowering the expectations of the
average person about software to the point that repeated crashes and
reinstalls and data destruction are all taken in stride, with at most minor
grumbling. I consider RMS' greatest crime to be making the idea that
programmers should not be compensated for the fruits of their labor unless
they do it in just the way RMS considers "good" politically acceptable.
Roberto Alsina
>Roberto Alsina <ral...@my-deja.com> writes:
>> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>> As such, provided that my beliefs are correct, they are in completely
>>> different categories of legal murkiness. A lawyer may well disagree
>>> with another lawyer on what is or isn't clear, but documents drafted
>>> with legal aid are still a different ballgame than documents that
>>> aren't.
>
>> "This software is in the public domain". I am not a lawyer.
>> Let me know if that is not clear ;-)
>
>That's neither a document nor a license.
Blah, it fulfills its purpose easier and clearer than the GPL. Its purpose
being informing the user of what his rights are.
> But even apart from that, if you
>want to argue the pedantic point, that *isn't* clear. In order to know
>how to interpret that statement, I have to know your country of origin,
>since my understanding is that in many countries outside the US it is not
>*possible* to put a work into the public domain in the same way that it is
>in the US.
I am making a US example. I live in Argentina and it is done in the exact
same way, only in spanish.
>It's not even immediately clear to me that this works in the US in the way
>that you might think; I haven't seen language specifically covering how to
>do this in the US copyright statutes. (If someone else knows where that
>is, I'd be very interested.)
--
Roberto Alsina
Shawn Betts
> On 24 May 2001 11:43:58 +0200, Per Abrahamsen <abr...@dina.kvl.dk> wrote:
> >Actually, he is mad at RMS because he didn't want to target GNU
> >development for a 16 bit platform, back in the days where 32 bit
> >platforms (with 1MB memory) was way beyond the reach of ordinary
> >people. Since then he has invented reasons to keep being mad, even
> >after the original cause has become obsolete.
>
> I will certainly agree that I was mad at RMS at one time for targeting
> machines well beyond the reach of the average person. It's worthwhile to
> note that his attitude of not caring how big and bloated his programs are
> remains to this day; GNU software is normally the biggest and most bloated
> of any in its class.
Why didn't you tell him? I'm sure with a small financial contribution
he would have readily ported GNU software to your platform of
choice. I'd rather have GNU software that is fat and useful, than some
other skinny retch of a software package that's hardcoded and
buggy. GNU is a good use of space in my eyes.
> I don't have to invent reasons to be mad at him now, however. His utopia is
> nothing less than the destruction of the software industry as we know it,
> which will result in millions of programmers being thrown out of work, or
> else having their jobs devalued to the point of poverty. I cannot consider
> this beneficial to anyone. That he redefines the term "freedom" to support
> his utopia makes it all the more offensive.
Perhaps the software industry needs to be dismantled. Don't you want
to mess stuff up and wreck things? It sounds fun to me. Who cares
about poverty if we've derailed the software train to oblivion. Grab
the hammer beside you and start smashing. See, its fun!
> I consider Bill Gates' greatest crime to be lowering the expectations of the
> average person about software to the point that repeated crashes and
> reinstalls and data destruction are all taken in stride, with at most minor
> grumbling. I consider RMS' greatest crime to be making the idea that
> programmers should not be compensated for the fruits of their labor unless
> they do it in just the way RMS considers "good" politically acceptable.
Bill and Dick are not criminals. You just need a vacation. Take a load
off, enjoy the air.
John Hasler
> Blah, it fulfills its purpose easier and clearer than the GPL. Its
> purpose being informing the user of what his rights are.
> I am making a US example.
US copyright law makes no provision for a work to enter the public domain
other than by expiration of the copyright.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
Jym Dyer
> inclusive, less politicized approach. RMS's approach doesn't
> advance anything but his own blood pressure.
=v= What an astonishing claim. It's hard to take your opinions
seriously when you dismiss RMS' many accomplishments like this.
> ESR's has led to major inroads in the world of computing.
=v= I give both RMS and ESR credit for all that they've done and
continue to do.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> in its class.
=v= An astonishing claim, especially in an era when most
computer applications on the planet are written in Visual Basic
and Visual C++.
=v= GNU software differs from lesser Unix implementations by
finding and fixing holes in the designs of utilities, by being
feature-inclusive, and by insisting on dynamically-allocated
storage rather than that classic Unix security hole, the fixed-
length buffer. That's the sort of "bloat" I can live with.
<_Jym_>
Jay Maynard
>> I've seen the effects of RMS's stridency and ESR's more
>> inclusive, less politicized approach. RMS's approach doesn't
>> advance anything but his own blood pressure.
>=v= What an astonishing claim. It's hard to take your opinions
>seriously when you dismiss RMS' many accomplishments like this.
What's he done since, say, he quit actively working on gcc? Yes, he's
written a lot of code. None of it is more recent than 1995 or thereabouts.
I don't consider his pontificating a feature, mind you.
>> ESR's has led to major inroads in the world of computing.
>=v= I give both RMS and ESR credit for all that they've done and
>continue to do.
FSVO "continue to do".
Jay Maynard
>> GNU software is normally the biggest and most bloated of any
>> in its class.
>=v= An astonishing claim, especially in an era when most
>computer applications on the planet are written in Visual Basic
>and Visual C++.
Far be it from me to discount the excessive bloat of VB/VC++ apps...but note
that I said "in its class". Stuff that is competition for GNUware is very
seldom written in VC++, let alone VB.
>=v= GNU software differs from lesser Unix implementations by
>finding and fixing holes in the designs of utilities, by being
>feature-inclusive, and by insisting on dynamically-allocated
>storage rather than that classic Unix security hole, the fixed-
>length buffer. That's the sort of "bloat" I can live with.
For values of "feature-inclusive" roughly equal to "crammed full of every
feature anyone ever dreamed up, whether or not it could possibly fit", and
for values of "holes in the designs of" roughly equal to "not having all of
the features anyone could dream up". GNUware is creeping featurism to the
Nth degree.
(Insisting on dynamically-allocated storage is in itself not a cause of
bloat, as long as the dynamic allocation is done in a reasonable manner and
the dynamically allocated storage is at some point freed.)
The art of writing small, tight, fast code is long gone, and we are
poorer for its loss. RMS's attitude in this regard closely parallels
Microsoft's: "Who cares? Buy a {faster CPU,bigger disk, couple more DIMMs}."
Jay Maynard
>Why didn't you tell him? I'm sure with a small financial contribution
>he would have readily ported GNU software to your platform of
>choice.
Nope. He considered such machines beneath him, and would not consider
working on them for anything.
> I'd rather have GNU software that is fat and useful, than some
>other skinny retch of a software package that's hardcoded and
>buggy. GNU is a good use of space in my eyes.
Good, useful, non-buggy software need not be bloated. Alas, that is not the
way current programmers think.
>Perhaps the software industry needs to be dismantled. Don't you want
>to mess stuff up and wreck things? It sounds fun to me. Who cares
>about poverty if we've derailed the software train to oblivion. Grab
>the hammer beside you and start smashing. See, its fun!
No, thank you. I, and my bank, and my creditors, do indeed care whether or
not my income drops below the poverty level.
>Bill and Dick are not criminals. You just need a vacation. Take a load
>off, enjoy the air.
Well, this is certainly a new experience: an FSF supporter claiming Bill
Gates is not a criminal. (I started to say "not a bad guy", but decided that
you didn't say that, whether or not you appear to mean it.)
RMS is not a criminal in the sense of "has violated criminal statues"
(AFAIK); whether Bill has or not is the subject of current litigation. The
crimes I refer to are crimes against the public welfare.
Alex Schroeder
> I don't have to invent reasons to be mad at him now, however. His utopia is
> nothing less than the destruction of the software industry as we know it,
> which will result in millions of programmers being thrown out of work, or
> else having their jobs devalued to the point of poverty. I cannot consider
> this beneficial to anyone.
Hm, I'm not so sure. As far as I can tell, most software (in terms of
money, not in terms of copies sold) is being written in projects --
for example our company will write a web portal for another company
and the effort we are putting into this (in terms of man-days) will
get paid. And if it were not for proprietary traditions, our software
could have been "free software". But it is not. Making it free
software would not have destroyed our software company.
Such a project may cost our clients anywhere from one half to three
million dollars. That is certainly more money than all our Microsoft
software cost. Therefore I claim that most software could be free
software and not destroy the industry.
Now, what about software products instead of software projects.
Eventhough (I claim) there is much less money being made in that area,
it obviously is very important to all the Windows and Word users out
there. It wouldn't work, some claim. But nobody has tried, right?
There are promising models out there, such as people paying money in
advance to a trusted third party which will pay the developpers when
the next release is out, or pay the money back if development is
cancelled. Sounds great! I am sure such schemes would spread very
quickly.
> That he redefines the term "freedom" to support
> his utopia makes it all the more offensive.
Hm, coming from a German speaking background, the distinction he makes
seems perfectly reasonable: free -> frei, Freiheit, liberté -- and
gratis, which is definitely not the same... So what is offensive
about making the distinction?
Alex.
--
http://www.geocities.com/kensanata/emacs.html
http://www.emacswiki.org/
"Put (global-font-lock-mode 1) in your .emacs for syntax coloring."
Alex Schroeder
> > "This software is in the public domain". I am not a lawyer.
> > Let me know if that is not clear ;-)
>
> There is no such concept in Danish law. I'm not even sure the Berne
> convention allows for it.
Does the Berne Convention cover software? Citing from
http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/1.html and
http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/2.html:
Article 1
The countries to which this Convention applies constitute a Union for
the protection of the rights of authors in their literary and artistic
works.
Article 2
(1) The expression "literary and artistic works" shall include every
production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever
may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets
and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of
the same nature; dramatic or dramatico-musical works; choreographic
works and entertainments in dumb show; musical compositions with or
without words; cinematographic works to which are assimilated works
expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing,
painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography;
photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a
process analogous to photography; works of applied art; illustrations,
maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to
geography, topography, architecture or science.
Anyway, I didn't find any way to actually give away "literary and
artistic works". You are give these rights and it is not clear how
you can get rid of them. I think all you can do is promise not claim
any compensation ("subject to change without notice"?).
Article 5
(2) The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be
subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise shall be
independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of
the work. Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention,
the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to
the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the
laws of the country where protection is claimed.
Alex.
--
http://www.geocities.com/kensanata/
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death and sweet as love.
-- Turkish proverb
John Hasler
> I think all you can do is promise not claim any compensation
You can't even always do that. Some countries impose 'authorial rights"
which you are forbidden to transfer or waive.
Bernd Gehrmann
> >> As such, provided that my beliefs are correct, they are in completely
> >> different categories of legal murkiness. A lawyer may well disagree
> >> with another lawyer on what is or isn't clear, but documents drafted
> >> with legal aid are still a different ballgame than documents that
> >> aren't.
>
> > "This software is in the public domain". I am not a lawyer.
> > Let me know if that is not clear ;-)
>
> That's neither a document nor a license. But even apart from that, if you
> want to argue the pedantic point, that *isn't* clear. In order to know
> how to interpret that statement, I have to know your country of origin,
> since my understanding is that in many countries outside the US it is not
> *possible* to put a work into the public domain in the same way that it is
> in the US.
If you argue about legal differences between countries, then I
can tell you that you are on a shaky legal ground with GPL in
Germany. Lawyers have consistently found that the GPL is not
a valid license according to german law.
Bernd.
Stefaan A Eeckels
Bernd Gehrmann <geh...@ifh.de> writes:
>
> If you argue about legal differences between countries, then I
> can tell you that you are on a shaky legal ground with GPL in
> Germany. Lawyers have consistently found that the GPL is not
> a valid license according to german law.
It would be better if _courts_ had found that the GPL is
not a valid license. On the other hand, a reference or two
detailing why the lawyers came to this conclusion (other than
it being in English, not in German, and that licenses
that aren't on a signed piece of paper are unenforceable)
would be most welcome.
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
Per Abrahamsen
> Why didn't you tell him?
Jay did so back then, his arguments was just as polite, coherent and
convincing as they are today.
> I'm sure with a small financial contribution he would have readily
> ported GNU software to your platform of choice.
At the time, there wasn't any GNU to port. At the time GNU was
expected to be completed, 32bit machines with 1MB of RAM was expected
to be common.
I think the FSF rarely take development orders, unless they match the
direction of the project. However, nothing would stop anyone else
from making the port. Unfortunately, for some people that is not
enough. They reserve the right to complain when other people use
their own time to follow their own visions.
> I'd rather have GNU software that is fat and useful, than some
> other skinny retch of a software package that's hardcoded and
> buggy. GNU is a good use of space in my eyes.
Even GNU Emacs has a hard time fully utilizing the power of entry
level PC these days.
> Bill and Dick are not criminals. You just need a vacation. Take a load
> off, enjoy the air.
Jay is just being polite, and demonstrating my point about him
inventing reasons to keep up the hate
Per Abrahamsen
> Making it free software would not have destroyed our software
> company.
Very few programmers write programs intended for sale. By far the
majority of software is written to solve specific problems. A large
pool of free software make this process easier, which theoretically
can threaten the jobs of programmers, just like any other progress in
the software development process theoretically can threaten the jobs
of programmers.
Until now, the need for software have grown faster by far then the
improvements in the software development process, so we still lack
qualified programmers. I doubt free software will be the silver
bullet changing that trend. But one can hope.
> Hm, coming from a German speaking background, the distinction he makes
> seems perfectly reasonable: free -> frei, Freiheit, liberté -- and
> gratis, which is definitely not the same... So what is offensive
> about making the distinction?
It is a kind of philosofical play with word. Does true freedom
include the freedom to deny other the freedom they themselves have
received? People like Jay desperate for arguments will claim it does,
and thus any freedom that does *not* include the freedom to deny other
the same freedom is not a *true* freedom, and people advocating it are
hypocrites.
It might sound strange anyone would spend time inventing arguments
like that, but think of the theological arguments of the middle age,
where people were killed for disagreements about similarly obscure
details. It is apparently a common human trait.
Jay Maynard
>It is a kind of philosofical play with word. Does true freedom
>include the freedom to deny other the freedom they themselves have
>received? People like Jay desperate for arguments will claim it does,
>and thus any freedom that does *not* include the freedom to deny other
>the same freedom is not a *true* freedom, and people advocating it are
>hypocrites.
It comes down to a simple point: True freedom must necessarily include the
freedom for others to do things that piss you off, else it is merely a
hollow echo. FSF-style "free software"advocates are pissed off by the
thought that their work may be included in works they don't consider free,
*even if those works are freely available*. (See the RIPEM case.) The
argument about denying others freedom is a hollow one, as there is no way to
deny others the same freedom you had to obtain the same software under the
same conditions. What they want is to deny me the right to distribute *my*
work as *I* see fit. This is not freedom. It's communism.
You may compare me to middle-ages theologians all you wish, but it will not
change the fact that true freedom is precious and rare, and easily lost -
more quickly to ourselves than anyone else. Mislabeling something that's not
free as "freedom" to advance an agenda will inevitably harm the cause of
freedom.
Glyn Millington
> It might sound strange anyone would spend time inventing arguments
> like that, but think of the theological arguments of the middle age,
> where people were killed for disagreements about similarly obscure
> details. It is apparently a common human trait.
Hey, as this is a religious newsgroup I feel someone ought to stand up
for theologians! Also, I am genuinely ignorant about this:-
Which people were killed when over which obscure details in the middle
ages?
But I agree about the common human trait ;-)
Glyn
--
so here we are then....
http://members.tripod.co.uk/Christchurch2000uk
==== Running Debian/Gnu Linux ====
4:40pm up 9:29, 2 users, load average: 0.13, 0.23, 0.11
John Hasler
> Which people were killed when over which obscure details in the middle
> ages?
Well, lots of christians and moslems killed each other over the obscure
details on which their religions differed, and then there was that
unpleasantness in southern France, and the activities of the Inquisition.
Glyn Millington
> Glyn writes:
> > Which people were killed when over which obscure details in the middle
> > ages?
>
> Well, lots of christians and moslems killed each other over the obscure
> details on which their religions differed, and then there was that
> unpleasantness in southern France, and the activities of the Inquisition.
Thanks John - its something I've often heard mentioned but never
understood. Not sure I agree about the Christians v Moslems thing (the
details weren't _that_ obscure!), but see the point of the others.
I would have thought that the kind of people who got so excited about the
nature of God are just the kind who would get excited about the nature of
freedom.... (hoping irony as as good as asbestos ;-)
Glyn
--
so here we are then....
http://members.tripod.co.uk/Christchurch2000uk
==== Running Debian/Gnu Linux ====
8:12pm up 13:01, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.22, 0.15
Nix
> Hardly. ESR's concentrating on what works. RMS is concentrating on being
> politically correct as defined by the GNU Manifesto.
Er, since RMS *wrote* the Manifesto, surely you can't call sticking to
its principles `political correctness'? `Consistency' is more like it.
Some might argue that it is consistency past all sanity, but at least we
know we have an ideological anchor in RMS. Sure, he's a strangely
located anchor to some, but we know that anything he says or does is
guided by one set of unvarying principles; he's not one who will distort
what he says for political gains or to present (as Russ said) some kind
of united front.
RMS isn't willing to compromise his principles *at all*. I think this
makes him trustworthy.
(Also, RMS may well have a *substantially* larger ideological following
in .uk and .eu than does ESR. ESR's political leanings, from the extreme
libertarianism to the gun-control stuff, smack of all that in the US
political culture which is most removed from mainstream .eu political
life; RMS's leanings are fairly similar to mainstream .eu politics, at
least on the surface. Hell, sometimes the GNU Manifesto reminds me of
something that, say, the French government could have written... :) )
(Who this is damning and who praising, or vice versa, is up to you. ;) )
--
`Technology is meaningless. What matters is how people _think_
of it.' --- Linus Torvalds
Nix
> And the KDE case, and the NeXT obj-c compiler case, and the ncFTP case,
The NeXT objc compiler case, for one, was a different matter. Before it
was GPLed, cc1obj contained some modules that were not GPLed, linked
directly to others that were, including GPLed header files, and so on.
It even included modifications to the compiler core (which was
emphatically GPLed); and before RMS asked, those modifications were not
distributed[1], thus rendering all of the Objective C compiler
infringing. You don't need to get into arguments over `linking' versus
`mere aggregation' to realize that it was infringing; you just need to
be able to read.
I don't see anything suspicious or unpraiseworthy about RMS defending
the right for his own work and derived works thereof to be distributed
in accordance with the license he applied to it when he wrote it. I fail
to see why *anyone* would.
The KDE case was similar (if *slightly* less clear-cut), involving in
some cases direct linking of GPLed code to non-GPLed code; clear GPL
violation.
>>Me, too, but the FSF has other ideas.
>
> Oh, do they have other ideas ;-)
Not as far as I know. They don't even pursue GPL violations except in
their own code.
[1] or perhaps `going to be distributed'; I'm unclear if an infringing
cc1obj was ever distributed, or whether this was nipped in the bud.
Nix
> Actually, he is mad at RMS because he didn't want to target GNU
> development for a 16 bit platform, back in the days where 32 bit
> platforms (with 1MB memory) was way beyond the reach of ordinary
> people. Since then he has invented reasons to keep being mad, even
> after the original cause has become obsolete.
*boggle* Please tell me this isn't true.
Please tell me that Jay understands what Moore's Law implies for the
platform spec major developments should start on.
Nix
> same conditions. What they want is to deny me the right to distribute *my*
> work as *I* see fit. This is not freedom. It's communism.
*sigh* Out come the old US propagandistic drums...
> You may compare me to middle-ages theologians all you wish, but it will not
I wouldn't.
The middle-age theologians knew what ad-hominem arguments were, and
understood guilt by association, and didn't lower their castles of logic
to make use of those techniques.
You do. You are not worthy of being compared with middle-age
theologians.
You don't, it seems, care about accuracy, or correctness, just about
winning.
Nix
> does not further that goal is in conflict with the rest of his philosophy.
`GPV'? Ah, so there's room for free software advocates in the open
source tent as long as they're willing to be insulted by other people
sitting in that tent?
Pardon me, I'll stay in my free software tent across the field, I
think. We don't agree that innuendo and infantile insults are a
reasonable way to conduct discourse over there; we care about the
*results* of the discourse, you see, not merely about winning it.
John Hasler
> They don't even pursue GPL violations except in their own code.
Of course not. They couldn't if they wanted to. Only the owner of the
copyright on a work can take legal action to enforce it.
Roberto Alsina
> On 23 May 2001, Roberto Alsina said:
> > And the KDE case, and the NeXT obj-c compiler case, and the ncFTP case,
>
> The NeXT objc compiler case, for one, was a different matter. Before it
> was GPLed, cc1obj contained some modules that were not GPLed, linked
> directly to others that were, including GPLed header files, and so on.
If all that was needed to avoid infringement was dynamic linking to the
GPLd parts, it would have been done in 3 minutes.
> It even included modifications to the compiler core (which was
> emphatically GPLed); and before RMS asked, those modifications were not
> distributed[1], thus rendering all of the Objective C compiler
> infringing. You don't need to get into arguments over `linking' versus
> `mere aggregation' to realize that it was infringing; you just need to
> be able to read.
They could have released the modifications to the core, and kept the
rest proprietary.
> I don't see anything suspicious or unpraiseworthy about RMS defending
> the right for his own work and derived works thereof to be distributed
> in accordance with the license he applied to it when he wrote it. I fail
> to see why *anyone* would.
But he is defending things that are not in the license. That is my issue.
He licenses it under the GPL, then says "Oh, but the GPL means all
these nonobvious things, too", and then you already are in the hook.
I do have an objection to that.
If it is not intentional that "linking is tainting" is not in the GPL,
then it should be modified and put in. If it is intentional, it is
deeply dishonest.
> The KDE case was similar (if *slightly* less clear-cut), involving in
> some cases direct linking of GPLed code to non-GPLed code; clear GPL
> violation.
There were a whole 3 small programs in the whole thing that were using
GPLd code from third parties. None of those third parties complained,
except RMS who complained (to me, BTW) and his code was removed.
> >>Me, too, but the FSF has other ideas.
> >
> > Oh, do they have other ideas ;-)
>
> Not as far as I know. They don't even pursue GPL violations except in
> their own code.
They have never pursued a GPL violation. They have threatened to pursue,
though. And they CAN NOT pursue on things they are not copyright holders.
> [1] or perhaps `going to be distributed'; I'm unclear if an infringing
> cc1obj was ever distributed, or whether this was nipped in the bud.
I don´t think it ever was, but I was not there yet.
--
Roberto Alsina
Jay Maynard
>Please tell me that Jay understands what Moore's Law implies for the
>platform spec major developments should start on.
From the time I had this disagreement until the time that the price of
machines RMS was willing to develop for dropped to the point the average
person could afford one was 5 years. Given RMS's stance, I was not at all
sure that Moore's Law would keep ahead of RMS's appetite for computrons. I
am happy to have been proven wrong.
Jay Maynard
>`GPV'? Ah, so there's room for free software advocates in the open
>source tent as long as they're willing to be insulted by other people
>sitting in that tent?
I'll stop calling it a virus when it stops being a virus. I'll also note
that the "free software" adherents don't hesitate to insult me, as well.
Note that ESR does not use that term; I am unsure whether he even agrees
with it.
The point is that people can disagree and still want the same things. I
fully support the open source movement, even though it embraces a license I
find repugnant and have argued against. Software licensed under the GPV is
unquestionably open source software, and while I wish the authors of such
software would choose a different license - for a host of different reasons
- I still believe that people making use of it advances the cause of open
source software. (Whether RMS likes that or not.)
>Pardon me, I'll stay in my free software tent across the field, I
>think. We don't agree that innuendo and infantile insults are a
>reasonable way to conduct discourse over there; we care about the
>*results* of the discourse, you see, not merely about winning it.
Oh? Tell that to RMS; he seems to be supremely uninterested in results.
Jay Maynard
>On 25 May 2001, Jay Maynard gibbered:
>> same conditions. What they want is to deny me the right to distribute *my*
>> work as *I* see fit. This is not freedom. It's communism.
>*sigh* Out come the old US propagandistic drums...
Calling a spade a salad fork does not alter the essential fact that its
purpose in life is to dig. I calls 'em as I sees 'em, and demanding control
over others' work is the antithesis of freedom.
>The middle-age theologians knew what ad-hominem arguments were, and
>understood guilt by association, and didn't lower their castles of logic
>to make use of those techniques.
*shrug* What, you want me to stop making truthful comparisons? Complain
about my calling a Communist a Communist all you like, but it does not alter
the essential fact that it's Communist.
>You don't, it seems, care about accuracy, or correctness, just about
>winning.
I don't care about political correctness, no. I do care about truth in
advertising. The FSF does not, or else it would not rely on its own peculiar
definition of the word "free" to gain debating points.
Roberto Alsina
> Roberto Alsina writes:
> > Blah, it fulfills its purpose easier and clearer than the GPL. Its
> > purpose being informing the user of what his rights are.
> > ...
> > I am making a US example.
>
> US copyright law makes no provision for a work to enter the public domain
> other than by expiration of the copyright.
Whoa. Is this recent or has it always been like this?
I recall dozens of packages with precisely that disclaimer on them.
--
Roberto Alsina
David B Terrell
>What they want is to deny me the right to distribute *my*
>work as *I* see fit. This is not freedom. It's communism.
Do whatever you want with your code. Just don't make it use anything
GPLed. No problem.
Nobody's forcing you to use GPLed code in your applications.
--
David Terrell | "Instead of plodding through the equivalent of
Prime Minister, NebCorp | literary Xanax, the pregeeks go for sci-fi and
d...@meat.net | fantasy: LSD in book form." - Benjy Feen,
http://wwn.nebcorp.com | http://www.monkeybagel.com/ "Origins of Sysadmins"
John Hasler
> US copyright law makes no provision for a work to enter the public domain
> other than by expiration of the copyright.
Roberto Alsina writes:
> Is this recent or has it always been like this?
Always has, AFAIK. Why would those who write the copyright laws provide
for such a thing? None of them could conceive anyone wanting to give up a
valuable copyright, or caring one way or the other about a valueless one.
> I recall dozens of packages with precisely that disclaimer on them.
And I've seen many with "All rights reserved" on them, despite the fact
that it has been meaningless for decades.
IIRC at least one lawyer has opined that "This work is hereby placed into
the public domain" does have the effect of granting everyone everywhere an
unrestricted license.
I sometimes use "You may treat this work as if it were in the public
domain".
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Jay Maynard
>Do whatever you want with your code. Just don't make it use anything
>GPLed. No problem.
>Nobody's forcing you to use GPLed code in your applications.
This is indeed the standard pat answer of GPV advocates. It has one flaw,
however: it goes directly against one major principle they claim to
espouse, that of maximizing code reuse. They only want their code reused by
those who buy into their utopia. The rest of us can go to hell.
Just like "screwing for virginity".
Russ Allbery
> It has one flaw, however: it goes directly against one major principle
> they claim to espouse, that of maximizing code reuse.
The BSD license doesn't maximize code reuse either. The only license that
maximizes code reuse is a public-domain equivalent.
Maximize is a superlative.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
> I'll stop calling it a virus when it stops being a virus. I'll also note
> that the "free software" adherents don't hesitate to insult me, as well.
But that's because you're a loon.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
la...@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
Greg Menke
Not quite. You can use all the GPL code you want, but if you
distribute something that includes it, then you have to provide the
source. If those terms aren't acceptable, then either don't use GPL
code or don't distribute the program. I really don't see why this is
an issue. The GPL is intended to maximize code re-use, but not at the
expense of allowing others to benefit without contributing back.
No-one owes you code or owes you the use of their code, so I still
don't understand why this is a problem; the terms of use are known up
front. Just because you may find the GPL inconvienent doesn't make it
objectively "bad".
Doubtless there are pathological cases where circumstances combine and
a system ends up with a tangle of inter-related licences of various
kinds causing it to be in violation of one or another no matter what
is done, but hopefully they are limited in number.
Some have called the GPL a "communist" model & I still don't
understand why- aside from a naive pejorative use of the word.
Gregm
Matthias Warkus
...and Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> (Also, RMS may well have a *substantially* larger ideological following
> in .uk and .eu than does ESR. ESR's political leanings, from the extreme
> libertarianism to the gun-control stuff, smack of all that in the US
> political culture which is most removed from mainstream .eu political
> life; RMS's leanings are fairly similar to mainstream .eu politics, at
> least on the surface. Hell, sometimes the GNU Manifesto reminds me of
> something that, say, the French government could have written... :) )
Furthermore, RMS carries a concealed flute and ESR carries a concealed
gun.
I'd much rather hang around with RMS than with ESR. (For that matter:
I have had dinner with RMS, and I've had a long e-mail discussion with
ESR. I know what I'm talking about.)
mawa
--
Tja, nun bin ich selber Kanzler - und welches andere Subventionsbonbon
sollte ich meinen Wählern geben als meine Wähler's Original?
Wähler's Original. Damit auch du jemand ganz Besonderen wählst - mich.
Austin Ziegler
> In gnu.misc.discuss, Jay Maynard <jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> writes:
>> It has one flaw, however: it goes directly against one major principle
>> they claim to espouse, that of maximizing code reuse.
> The BSD license doesn't maximize code reuse either. The only license that
> maximizes code reuse is a public-domain equivalent.
>
> Maximize is a superlative.
<<The BSD licence does a better job of making code more available to
more groups of people than the GNU GPL does. The GPL is used when you
want to restrict downstream use of the code you've written (or, when
you don't actually understand what the GPL means, which happens IMO far
too often); the BSD is used when you want to simply make code available
with a minimal set of restrictions. Of course, there's a wide variety
of open source licences available that have values between these two
and even beyond, but Jay's statement is mostly accurate.>>
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
-----------------* I speak for myself alone