GNU supports 70's ethics
Linønut
And that is a *good* thing.
Just had to cheerlead here for a minute. Without GNU, I'd be all
over the Internet searching for tools.
Chris (aka Linųnut)
--
Windows desktops and servers can find a safe haven on a
GNU/Linux/FreeBSD network!
Alan Connor
Right on, Brother!
All we are saying
Is give GNU a chance
(absolutely NO sarcasm intended)
--
Later, Alan C
take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a
spammers hate this program because they can't beat it
Bruce Lewis
'70s patent law.
Alan Connor
>
>
> Now all we need is somebody who will bring us '70s copyright law and
> '70s patent law.
There's a lot about this discussion I don't get. First of all, Linux is
supposed to be amateur, so why does it need copyright protection?
I mean, if RedSnot and Mandork go under, I couldn't care less. These distros
are just turning Linux into Windoze clones anyway.
As for anyone (like SCO :-) collecting fees from Linux users because of
corrupt courts, let them try. Lotsa luck.
--
Later, Alan C
You can find my email address at the website:
elrav1.html --> ACKNOWLDEGEMENTS/CONTACT (20k or less, plain text)
Dave Pearson
> There's a lot about this discussion I don't get. First of all, Linux is
> supposed to be amateur, so why does it need copyright protection?
Even if Linux was supposed to be amateur (is it? what makes you say that?),
why wouldn't it need copyright protection? Does something have to be
non-amateur for it to warrant copyright protection?
--
Dave Pearson
http://www.davep.org/
Alan Connor
>
>
> * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
>
>> There's a lot about this discussion I don't get. First of all, Linux is
>> supposed to be amateur, so why does it need copyright protection?
>
> Even if Linux was supposed to be amateur (is it? what makes you say that?),
The Linux *I* use and support is amateur. The REAL Linux.
> why wouldn't it need copyright protection? Does something have to be
> non-amateur for it to warrant copyright protection?
>
Yes. If they aren't making money on proprietary software then why do they
care about copyrights?
> --
> Dave Pearson
> http://www.davep.org/
--
Russ Allbery
> On 29 Sep 2003 17:07:52 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
>> Even if Linux was supposed to be amateur (is it? what makes you say
>> that?),
> The Linux *I* use and support is amateur. The REAL Linux.
What do you mean by amateur in this context? Most of the Linux developers
I know are just as professional as any non-free software developer.
> Yes. If they aren't making money on proprietary software then why do
> they care about copyrights?
As protection against people who do?
<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/writing/homesteading.html>
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Bruce Lewis
> On 29 Sep 2003 09:01:14 -0400, Bruce Lewis <brl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Now all we need is somebody who will bring us '70s copyright law and
> > '70s patent law.
>
> There's a lot about this discussion I don't get. First of all, Linux is
> supposed to be amateur, so why does it need copyright protection?
My comment wasn't really about copyright protection. It was about
things like the DM"C"A, which isn't really about preventing copying.
It's about preventing you from skipping past the ads on your DVD. I put
the C in DMCA in quotes, because it really isn't about copyright.
About patents, it would be nice to return to the 1970s, when the
computer software industry was growing by leaps and bounds without
patent protection.
Alan Connor
The only computer 'industry' *I* care about already is. And will continue
to do so. But this is NOT the world of the Linux sellouts who are fighting
for market shares with M$ and thus becoming what they hate.
I haven't touched a plastic rodent in weeks and rarely bring up X at all.
I don't have sound enabled in my kernel and the same for *moving* video
capability. For me, and those like me, the computer/internet is a communications
tool, not a shopping mall or amusement arcade or concert hall or movie
theatre. (Yes, you could call those things "communucation" but the tools
to do those things already exist, and attempting to replicate them with the
computer/internet has priced 2/3 of the world OUT of the internet.)
All *valuable* information can be conveyed with static graphics and text.
Alan Connor
>
>
> Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> writes:
>> On 29 Sep 2003 17:07:52 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
>
>>> Even if Linux was supposed to be amateur (is it? what makes you say
>>> that?),
>
>> The Linux *I* use and support is amateur. The REAL Linux.
>
> What do you mean by amateur in this context? Most of the Linux developers
> I know are just as professional as any non-free software developer.
That's a different meaning of the word.
What I meant is, that they aren't making money from proprietary software.
On the other hand, I have no problem with SMALL Linux businesses, that aren't
controlled by banks, stockholders, and insurance companies.
>
>> Yes. If they aren't making money on proprietary software then why do
>> they care about copyrights?
>
> As protection against people who do?
>
><http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/writing/homesteading.html>
>
I will use Linux for the rest of my life and I will never pay a cent to
anyone other than the small businesses/amateurs that make it happen.
I don't care what the corrupt courts say. If they push the matter I will
become the cracker of their nightmares and see to it that their computers never
function reliably again.
And I know of THOUSANDS of Linux pros that would join me in this endeavor.
> --
> Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
John Hasler
> There's a lot about this discussion I don't get. First of all, Linux is
Where did you get that notion? Do you labor under the delusion that Free
Software is produced solely by basement hobbiests?
> ...why does it need copyright protection?
To protect it from copyright protection.
> I mean, if RedSnot and Mandork go under, I couldn't care less.
Those companies (among others) are paying professional programmers to write
Free Software.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Alan Connor
>
>
> Alan Connor writes:
>> There's a lot about this discussion I don't get. First of all, Linux is
>> supposed to be amateur...
>
> Where did you get that notion? Do you labor under the delusion that Free
> Software is produced solely by basement hobbiests?
>
>> ...why does it need copyright protection?
>
> To protect it from copyright protection.
>
I have explained my views on that specious argument on this very thread.
>> I mean, if RedSnot and Mandork go under, I couldn't care less.
>
> Those companies (among others) are paying professional programmers to write
> Free Software.
And that has to do with what?
(On another note, most of the software they are writing is eye-candy,
M$-clone Konsumer garbage, and I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole)
> --
> John Hasler
> jo...@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, WI
It would be really nice if people would read the thread before responding.
But I think the bottom line here is that we disagree on fundamental issues.
That doesn't bother me. Does it bother you?
phil hunt
>On 29 Sep 2003 09:01:14 -0400, Bruce Lewis <brl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Now all we need is somebody who will bring us '70s copyright law and
>> '70s patent law.
>
>There's a lot about this discussion I don't get. First of all, Linux is
>supposed to be amateur,
Says who?
>so why does it need copyright protection?
To enforce the GPL. The GPL works by give and take: you can take the
code, and give back your modifications to it. Some people (BG) don't
like that -- they want to take without giving. The GPL prevents
them.
>I mean, if RedSnot and Mandork go under, I couldn't care less. These distros
>are just turning Linux into Windoze clones anyway.
I'll beleive that when I get 400 email virus spams a day from Red
hat and mandrake boxes.
--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
Alan Connor
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:29:19 GMT, Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> wrote:
>>On 29 Sep 2003 09:01:14 -0400, Bruce Lewis <brl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Now all we need is somebody who will bring us '70s copyright law and
>>> '70s patent law.
>>
>>There's a lot about this discussion I don't get. First of all, Linux is
>>supposed to be amateur,
>
> Says who?
>
Myself and a LOT of other people.
>>so why does it need copyright protection?
>
> To enforce the GPL. The GPL works by give and take: you can take the
> code, and give back your modifications to it. Some people (BG) don't
> like that -- they want to take without giving. The GPL prevents
> them.
>
I doubt it. And don't care. Either software is free or it isn't.
>>I mean, if RedSnot and Mandork go under, I couldn't care less. These distros
>>are just turning Linux into Windoze clones anyway.
>
> I'll beleive that when I get 400 email virus spams a day from Red
> hat and mandrake boxes.
>
>
> --
> "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
> people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
>
>
Most of the worse spammers on the Internet use Linux. Many of them are
to be found on the mailing lists of all the distros and have some status
there.
--
Later, Alan C
You can find my email address at the website: contact.html
David Kastrup
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:03:05 +0100, phil hunt <ph...@cabalamat.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:29:19 GMT, Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> wrote:
> >>On 29 Sep 2003 09:01:14 -0400, Bruce Lewis <brl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Now all we need is somebody who will bring us '70s copyright law
> >>> and '70s patent law.
> >>
> >>There's a lot about this discussion I don't get. First of all,
> >>Linux is supposed to be amateur,
> >
> > Says who?
> >
>
> Myself and a LOT of other people.
What is your definition of "amateur" in this connection? "Amateur"
usually means without being paid. Now Linux, not being a person, is
certainly not being paid. Do you want to say Linux is created and
maintained only by people that are not being paid for it? Then you
are wrong, I am afraid.
> >>so why does it need copyright protection?
> >
> > To enforce the GPL. The GPL works by give and take: you can take
> > the code, and give back your modifications to it. Some people (BG)
> > don't like that -- they want to take without giving. The GPL
> > prevents them.
>
> I doubt it.
Well, Microsoft's networking code is partly based on BSD licenced
stuff. It is not supposed to be based on GPLed stuff, however. And
Microsoft is certainly a company that tries out everything it thinks
it can get away with legally.
> And don't care. Either software is free or it isn't.
Once you have told us your definition of "free software", and just
what pieces of software you are talking about.
> >>I mean, if RedSnot and Mandork go under, I couldn't care
> >>less. These distros are just turning Linux into Windoze clones
> >>anyway.
> >
> > I'll beleive that when I get 400 email virus spams a day from Red
> > hat and mandrake boxes.
>
> Most of the worse spammers on the Internet use Linux. Many of them
> are to be found on the mailing lists of all the distros and have
> some status there.
Names, proof, references? Or just a bit of fuzzy slander? Anyhow,
the _virus_ attacks predominantly rely on Microsoft products. I don't
know about _central_ mass mailings (not virus-distributed) from a
central machine. Could well be that those people use Linux, since
that can do heavy-duty mail serving.
It's like saying most child pornographers use Fujifilm. Well, maybe.
But I don't see how this could be seen to reflect bad on the brand.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Alan Connor
>
>
> Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:03:05 +0100, phil hunt <ph...@cabalamat.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:29:19 GMT, Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> wrote:
>> >>On 29 Sep 2003 09:01:14 -0400, Bruce Lewis <brl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Now all we need is somebody who will bring us '70s copyright law
>> >>> and '70s patent law.
>> >>
>> >>There's a lot about this discussion I don't get. First of all,
>> >>Linux is supposed to be amateur,
>> >
>> > Says who?
>> >
>>
>> Myself and a LOT of other people.
>
> What is your definition of "amateur" in this connection? "Amateur"
> usually means without being paid. Now Linux, not being a person, is
> certainly not being paid. Do you want to say Linux is created and
> maintained only by people that are not being paid for it? Then you
> are wrong, I am afraid.
>
You know, modern newsreaders thread discussions for a reason, so that
the OP, or anyone else, doesn't have to answer the same question over and
over.
>> >>so why does it need copyright protection?
>> >
>> > To enforce the GPL. The GPL works by give and take: you can take
>> > the code, and give back your modifications to it. Some people (BG)
>> > don't like that -- they want to take without giving. The GPL
>> > prevents them.
>>
>> I doubt it.
>
> Well, Microsoft's networking code is partly based on BSD licenced
> stuff. It is not supposed to be based on GPLed stuff, however. And
> Microsoft is certainly a company that tries out everything it thinks
> it can get away with legally.
>
>> And don't care. Either software is free or it isn't.
>
> Once you have told us your definition of "free software", and just
> what pieces of software you are talking about.
Free software is code that is offered without restrictions to the public.
It's THERE, do what want with it. Pretty simple. No need to play lawyer
games with the language.
>
>> >>I mean, if RedSnot and Mandork go under, I couldn't care
>> >>less. These distros are just turning Linux into Windoze clones
>> >>anyway.
>> >
>> > I'll beleive that when I get 400 email virus spams a day from Red
>> > hat and mandrake boxes.
>>
>> Most of the worse spammers on the Internet use Linux. Many of them
>> are to be found on the mailing lists of all the distros and have
>> some status there.
>
> Names, proof, references? Or just a bit of fuzzy slander?
I KNOW. Proof that would stand up in court is another matter. I'd have
to admit breaking the law to get them to accept it.
Just posting names WOULD be libelous.
Nor do I really care. My mail filters kill all spam. Most of it doesn't
even make it off the server and one-way-or-another, I don't even know
it arrived.
Spam is the problem of people with inferior mail tools.
Anyhow,
> the _virus_ attacks predominantly rely on Microsoft products. I don't
> know about _central_ mass mailings (not virus-distributed) from a
> central machine. Could well be that those people use Linux, since
> that can do heavy-duty mail serving.
>
> It's like saying most child pornographers use Fujifilm. Well, maybe.
> But I don't see how this could be seen to reflect bad on the brand.
>
Actually, it reflects well on the "brand". It's used because it is
superior.
> --
> David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
--
Alan Connor
>
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:03:05 +0100, phil hunt <ph...@cabalamat.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:29:19 GMT, Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> wrote:
>> >>On 29 Sep 2003 09:01:14 -0400, Bruce Lewis <brl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Now all we need is somebody who will bring us '70s copyright law
>> >>> and '70s patent law.
>> >>
>> >>There's a lot about this discussion I don't get. First of all,
>> >>Linux is supposed to be amateur,
>> >
>> > Says who?
>> >
>>
>> Myself and a LOT of other people.
>
> What is your definition of "amateur" in this connection? "Amateur"
> usually means without being paid. Now Linux, not being a person, is
> certainly not being paid. Do you want to say Linux is created and
> maintained only by people that are not being paid for it? Then you
> are wrong, I am afraid.
>
You know, modern newsreaders thread discussions for a reason, so that
the OP, or anyone else, doesn't have to answer the same question over and
over.
>> >>so why does it need copyright protection?
>> >
>> > To enforce the GPL. The GPL works by give and take: you can take
>> > the code, and give back your modifications to it. Some people (BG)
>> > don't like that -- they want to take without giving. The GPL
>> > prevents them.
>>
>> I doubt it.
>
> Well, Microsoft's networking code is partly based on BSD licenced
> stuff. It is not supposed to be based on GPLed stuff, however. And
> Microsoft is certainly a company that tries out everything it thinks
> it can get away with legally.
>
>> And don't care. Either software is free or it isn't.
>
> Once you have told us your definition of "free software", and just
> what pieces of software you are talking about.
Free software is code that is offered without restrictions to the public.
It's THERE, do what want with it. Pretty simple. No need to play lawyer
games with the language.
>
>> >>I mean, if RedSnot and Mandork go under, I couldn't care
>> >>less. These distros are just turning Linux into Windoze clones
>> >>anyway.
>> >
>> > I'll beleive that when I get 400 email virus spams a day from Red
>> > hat and mandrake boxes.
>>
>> Most of the worse spammers on the Internet use Linux. Many of them
>> are to be found on the mailing lists of all the distros and have
>> some status there.
>
> Names, proof, references? Or just a bit of fuzzy slander?
I KNOW. Proof that would stand up in court is another matter. I'd have
to admit breaking the law to get them to accept it.
Just posting names WOULD be libelous.
Nor do I really care. My mail filters kill all spam. Most of it doesn't
even make it off the server and one-way-or-another, I don't even know
it arrived.
Spam is the problem of people with inferior mail tools.
Anyhow,
> the _virus_ attacks predominantly rely on Microsoft products. I don't
> know about _central_ mass mailings (not virus-distributed) from a
> central machine. Could well be that those people use Linux, since
> that can do heavy-duty mail serving.
>
> It's like saying most child pornographers use Fujifilm. Well, maybe.
> But I don't see how this could be seen to reflect bad on the brand.
>
Actually, it reflects well on the "brand". It's used because it is
superior.
> --
> David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
--
David Kastrup
> On 30 Sep 2003 00:14:20 +0200, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> writes:
> >
> >> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:03:05 +0100, phil hunt <ph...@cabalamat.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:29:19 GMT, Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> wrote:
> >> >>On 29 Sep 2003 09:01:14 -0400, Bruce Lewis <brl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Now all we need is somebody who will bring us '70s copyright
> >> >>> law and '70s patent law.
> >> >>
> >> >>There's a lot about this discussion I don't get. First of all,
> >> >>Linux is supposed to be amateur,
> >> >
> >> > Says who?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Myself and a LOT of other people.
> >
> > What is your definition of "amateur" in this connection?
> > "Amateur" usually means without being paid. Now Linux, not being
> > a person, is certainly not being paid. Do you want to say Linux
> > is created and maintained only by people that are not being paid
> > for it? Then you are wrong, I am afraid.
> >
>
> You know, modern newsreaders thread discussions for a reason, so
> that the OP, or anyone else, doesn't have to answer the same
> question over and over.
Your definition for amateur was "not making money on proprietary
software". That is garbage. My grocer is not making money on
proprietary software, and he is not an amateur, either. The
definition _any_ sane person uses for amateur is "not being paid for
it". And that does not fit Linux.
> >> >>so why does it need copyright protection?
> >> >
> >> > To enforce the GPL. The GPL works by give and take: you can
> >> > take the code, and give back your modifications to it. Some
> >> > people (BG) don't like that -- they want to take without
> >> > giving. The GPL prevents them.
> >>
> >> I doubt it.
> >
> > Well, Microsoft's networking code is partly based on BSD licenced
> > stuff. It is not supposed to be based on GPLed stuff, however.
> > And Microsoft is certainly a company that tries out everything it
> > thinks it can get away with legally.
> >
> >> And don't care. Either software is free or it isn't.
> >
> > Once you have told us your definition of "free software", and just
> > what pieces of software you are talking about.
>
> Free software is code that is offered without restrictions to the
> public. It's THERE, do what want with it.
That's only software in the Public Domain. Neither Linux nor even
BSD fit that definition. They come with a licence, meaning
restrictions.
> Pretty simple. No need to play lawyer games with the language.
So you define "free" the same as "public domain". Then there is
pretty little free software.
> >> Most of the worse spammers on the Internet use Linux. Many of
> >> them are to be found on the mailing lists of all the distros and
> >> have some status there.
> >
> > Names, proof, references? Or just a bit of fuzzy slander?
>
> I KNOW. Proof that would stand up in court is another matter. I'd
> have to admit breaking the law to get them to accept it.
Ok, so just a bit of fuzzy slander.
Alan Connor
>
>
> Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> writes:
>
>> On 30 Sep 2003 00:14:20 +0200, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > What is your definition of "amateur" in this connection?
>> > "Amateur" usually means without being paid. Now Linux, not being
>> > a person, is certainly not being paid. Do you want to say Linux
>> > is created and maintained only by people that are not being paid
>> > for it? Then you are wrong, I am afraid.
>> >
>>
>> You know, modern newsreaders thread discussions for a reason, so
>> that the OP, or anyone else, doesn't have to answer the same
>> question over and over.
>
> Your definition for amateur was "not making money on proprietary
> software". That is garbage. My grocer is not making money on
No. That was only part of what I had to say on the subject.
Read the thread or go away.
David Kastrup
> On 30 Sep 2003 01:03:22 +0200, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> writes:
> >
> >> On 30 Sep 2003 00:14:20 +0200, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What is your definition of "amateur" in this connection?
> >> > "Amateur" usually means without being paid. Now Linux, not being
> >> > a person, is certainly not being paid. Do you want to say Linux
> >> > is created and maintained only by people that are not being paid
> >> > for it? Then you are wrong, I am afraid.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You know, modern newsreaders thread discussions for a reason, so
> >> that the OP, or anyone else, doesn't have to answer the same
> >> question over and over.
> >
> > Your definition for amateur was "not making money on proprietary
> > software". That is garbage. My grocer is not making money on
>
> No. That was only part of what I had to say on the subject.
>
> Read the thread or go away.
I did. That was all you gave in the way of definition of "amateur".
And frankly, even if it were not, wouldn't it be easier for you to
write down a single sentence than it would be for others to read a
dozen postings?
Alan Connor
>
>>
>> No. That was only part of what I had to say on the subject.
>>
>> Read the thread or go away.
>
> I did. That was all you gave in the way of definition of "amateur".
You are lying and you are history.
I won't be reading another one of your posts for at least 30 days.
Fucking troll.
Sam Holden
> On 30 Sep 2003 00:14:20 +0200, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> What is your definition of "amateur" in this connection? "Amateur"
>> usually means without being paid. Now Linux, not being a person, is
>> certainly not being paid. Do you want to say Linux is created and
>> maintained only by people that are not being paid for it? Then you
>> are wrong, I am afraid.
>>
>
> You know, modern newsreaders thread discussions for a reason, so that
> the OP, or anyone else, doesn't have to answer the same question over and
> over.
Have you considered, that maybe your answer wasn't considered complete
enough, and hence the question was asked again.
>>
>> Once you have told us your definition of "free software", and just
>> what pieces of software you are talking about.
>
> Free software is code that is offered without restrictions to the public.
> It's THERE, do what want with it. Pretty simple. No need to play lawyer
> games with the language.
Oh well, you better stop using linux and the *bsds since, none of
them are "free software" by your definition. And neither is Apache,
perl, gcc, or essentially every piece of what everyone else
calls "free software".
Using your own personal definition of a term which has a commonly held,
and different, definition in the area of discussion only serves to
start stupid word games and arguments. It only makes communication
harder, and is really only done by trolls (since other people actually
want to assist in the communication of ideas).
People who object to the common usage of the term, either don't use
it at all, or put it in scare quotes. Trolls just assign it an
arbitrary definition, which usually (as in this case) is useless
since their is already a commonly used term for their definition
(in this case: public domain).
--
Sam Holden
Alan Connor
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:49:37 GMT, Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> wrote:
>> On 30 Sep 2003 00:14:20 +0200, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> What is your definition of "amateur" in this connection? "Amateur"
>>> usually means without being paid. Now Linux, not being a person, is
>>> certainly not being paid. Do you want to say Linux is created and
>>> maintained only by people that are not being paid for it? Then you
>>> are wrong, I am afraid.
>>>
>>
>> You know, modern newsreaders thread discussions for a reason, so that
>> the OP, or anyone else, doesn't have to answer the same question over and
>> over.
>
> Have you considered, that maybe your answer wasn't considered complete
> enough, and hence the question was asked again.
>
I guess you haven't read the thread either.
Including the very post that you are at least pretending to be responding
to.
The poster gave no indication whatsoever that that was his meaning.
And IF you had read the thread, you would know that he was just flat
lying or playing games.
>
> --
> Sam Holden
>
I'm beginning to see why GNU is in trouble.
Sam Holden
>
> I'm beginning to see why GNU is in trouble.
It isn't in trouble. In fact things couldn't be better from what I
see happening around the world.
But don't let that get in the way of your trolling.
--
Sam Holden
Russ Allbery
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> As protection against people who do?
>> <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/writing/homesteading.html>
> I will use Linux for the rest of my life and I will never pay a cent to
> anyone other than the small businesses/amateurs that make it happen.
> I don't care what the corrupt courts say. If they push the matter I will
> become the cracker of their nightmares and see to it that their
> computers never function reliably again.
Some of us think that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of revolt.
> And I know of THOUSANDS of Linux pros that would join me in this
> endeavor.
There are millions of people in the US military.
This isn't a winning argument.
The winning argument is a lot more subtle and involves finding ways to
both play within the rules and make them support what one wants to do.
While it's nice to ponder tossing out the rules of one's native society
that don't fit one very well, it doesn't tend to be very productive or
useful in accomplishing one's goals, unless radical revolution is your
thing.
Confrontation for the sake of confrontation isn't really a virtue, no
matter how righteous it can make one feel.
Alan Connor
Now that's a lame response. Juvenile in fact.
An adult would have read the thread and realized that I had in fact
very carefully defined what I regarded to be legitimate business involvements
for true Linux people.
(and it's a SHORT thread too!)
And then they would have apologized and we could have had an interesting
discussion.
Ah well......
Sam Holden
> On 30 Sep 2003 03:07:30 GMT, Sam Holden <sho...@flexal.cs.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 02:40:05 GMT, Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm beginning to see why GNU is in trouble.
>>
>> It isn't in trouble. In fact things couldn't be better from what I
>> see happening around the world.
>>
>> But don't let that get in the way of your trolling.
>>
>> --
>> Sam Holden
>>
>
> Now that's a lame response. Juvenile in fact.
>
> An adult would have read the thread and realized that I had in fact
> very carefully defined what I regarded to be legitimate business involvements
> for true Linux people.
And what pray tell what that have with GNU being in trouble?
GNU isn't a "business", GNU is only linked to Linux loosely due to the Hurd
not being as useful at this time (and possibly ever :). After all they call
it GNU/Linux because Linux isn't part of the GNU project, but is a
completely seperate project that happens to use a variant of the GPL.
Currently I see lots of governments around the world realising that
"free software" as defined by GNU/FSF (not your definition of it) is
of great importance and taking actions to realise the benefits. That
seems like the outlook of GNU spreading - hardly a sign of the
project being "in trouble".
> (and it's a SHORT thread too!)
>
> And then they would have apologized and we could have had an interesting
> discussion.
>
> Ah well......
No great loss, discussion with people who refuse to use commonly held
definitions are *never* fruitful.
--
Sam Holden
Dave Pearson
> On 29 Sep 2003 17:07:52 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
>
> > Even if Linux was supposed to be amateur (is it? what makes you say
> > that?),
>
> The Linux *I* use and support is amateur. The REAL Linux.
Amateur in what sense? Real in what sense?
> > why wouldn't it need copyright protection? Does something have to be
> > non-amateur for it to warrant copyright protection?
>
> Yes. If they aren't making money on proprietary software then why do they
> care about copyrights?
Because making money and using copyright protection are unconnected issues?
Dave Pearson
> On 30 Sep 2003 00:14:20 +0200, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > Once you have told us your definition of "free software", and just what
> > pieces of software you are talking about.
>
> Free software is code that is offered without restrictions to the public.
> It's THERE, do what want with it. Pretty simple. No need to play lawyer
> games with the language.
In which case Linux and large parts of the GNU system aren't free software
by your definition. Why do you use them if they're not free software by your
definition?
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
Dave Pearson
> On 30 Sep 2003 03:07:30 GMT, Sam Holden <sho...@flexal.cs.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > But don't let that get in the way of your trolling.
>
> Now that's a lame response. Juvenile in fact.
That's a little rich from someone who was shouting "toll" elsewhere in this
thread.
> An adult would have read the thread and realized that I had in fact very
> carefully defined what I regarded to be legitimate business involvements
> for true Linux people.
I think you'll find that everyone asking about what you mean when you say
"amateur" has read your own personal opinion about what "true Linux people"
are and I think they'd all note and acknowledge that trotting out some
variation on a "no true Scotsman" argument doesn't make "amateur" mean what
you'd like it to mean.
And neither does it give any reasons why you hold the opinion that copyright
isn't a valuable tool for the creation and spread of free software.
> And then they would have apologized and we could have had an interesting
> discussion.
An interesting discussion can also stem from you acknowledging that
"amateur" isn't a word that describes the size of a business or the source
of one's income.
Alan Connor
>
>
> * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
>
>> On 29 Sep 2003 17:07:52 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Even if Linux was supposed to be amateur (is it? what makes you say
>> > that?),
>>
>> The Linux *I* use and support is amateur. The REAL Linux.
>
> Amateur in what sense? Real in what sense?
"Amateur" is probably not the right word. "Private" would be better.
That would include both pure amateurs and businesses not controlled by
banks,insurance companies or stockholders. Privately held. Non-profits
would be a part of that picture.
Private as opposed to corporate, in the sense that private is a lot more
free than corporate, where people that don't care about anything but money
have a significant amount of control. Sure, that can happen with a small
business, but they usually don't last because they don't have the power
to influence lawmakers and other organs of the government at every level.
>
>> > why wouldn't it need copyright protection? Does something have to be
>> > non-amateur for it to warrant copyright protection?
>>
Code is only a part of the story, but an important one. I believe that it
should be completely free: If a group or individual writes and
publishes a program's source code, then no one can copyright that code but
them. There's an implied legal copyright granted to the first person to
publish anything. They'd have to prove you stole it from them and they'd lose
and it would cost them a lot of money.
If they want to use it, then so what? That isn't preventing YOU from using it
and selling it in various forms.
>> Yes. If they aren't making money on proprietary software then why do they
>> care about copyrights?
>
> Because making money and using copyright protection are unconnected issues?
>
No. Read the statement again, in context.
> --
> Dave Pearson
> http://www.davep.org/
--
Later, Alan C
You can find my email address at the website: contact.html
Dave Pearson
> On 30 Sep 2003 10:05:48 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
> >
> >> The Linux *I* use and support is amateur. The REAL Linux.
> >
> > Amateur in what sense? Real in what sense?
>
> "Amateur" is probably not the right word. "Private" would be better. That
> would include both pure amateurs and businesses not controlled by
> banks,insurance companies or stockholders. Privately held. Non-profits
> would be a part of that picture.
Right, that makes some sense. But isn't it the case that free software can
and does get created by companies and organisations that don't fit into this
picture? Is that free software not just as valuable?
> >> > why wouldn't it need copyright protection? Does something have to be
> >> > non-amateur for it to warrant copyright protection?
>
> Code is only a part of the story, but an important one. I believe that it
> should be completely free: If a group or individual writes and publishes a
> program's source code, then no one can copyright that code but them.
> There's an implied legal copyright granted to the first person to publish
> anything. They'd have to prove you stole it from them and they'd lose and
> it would cost them a lot of money.
>
> If they want to use it, then so what? That isn't preventing YOU from using
> it and selling it in various forms.
In which case copyright is important. Moreover, you're describing here why,
at the moment, copyright is vital to free software.
> >> Yes. If they aren't making money on proprietary software then why do
> >> they care about copyrights?
> >
> > Because making money and using copyright protection are unconnected
> > issues?
>
> No. Read the statement again, in context.
I have and I'm still not sure what you're saying here. You yourself, just
above, have pointed out why copyright, as things stand, is as important for
free software as it is for non-free software. If someone isn't making money
on proprietary software but is, instead, developing (and possibly making
money on) free software then copyright is the central issue to ensuring that
their code isn't used in proprietary software.
Isaac
> Code is only a part of the story, but an important one. I believe that it
> should be completely free: If a group or individual writes and
> publishes a program's source code, then no one can copyright that code but
> them. There's an implied legal copyright granted to the first person to
> publish anything. They'd have to prove you stole it from them and they'd lose
> and it would cost them a lot of money.
There isn't a "real" Linux that works like this. That's why people are
repeatedly asking you what you are talking about before they bother to
address your questions. Your basic premises seem to be completely wrong
making whatever position you are trying to convey uninteresting.
Isaac
Alan Connor
>
>
> * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
>
>> On 30 Sep 2003 10:05:48 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
>> >
>> >> The Linux *I* use and support is amateur. The REAL Linux.
>> >
>> > Amateur in what sense? Real in what sense?
>>
>> "Amateur" is probably not the right word. "Private" would be better. That
>> would include both pure amateurs and businesses not controlled by
>> banks,insurance companies or stockholders. Privately held. Non-profits
>> would be a part of that picture.
>
> Right, that makes some sense. But isn't it the case that free software can
> and does get created by companies and organisations that don't fit into this
> picture? Is that free software not just as valuable?
>
Sure. Why not? As long as it is actually free software (see below).
>> >> > why wouldn't it need copyright protection? Does something have to be
>> >> > non-amateur for it to warrant copyright protection?
>>
>> Code is only a part of the story, but an important one. I believe that it
>> should be completely free: If a group or individual writes and publishes a
>> program's source code, then no one can copyright that code but them.
>> There's an implied legal copyright granted to the first person to publish
>> anything. They'd have to prove you stole it from them and they'd lose and
>> it would cost them a lot of money.
>>
>> If they want to use it, then so what? That isn't preventing YOU from using
>> it and selling it in various forms.
>
> In which case copyright is important. Moreover, you're describing here why,
> at the moment, copyright is vital to free software.
>
Perhaps I am at that. But it's not a copyright that excludes others from
using the code as they wish. It's not proprietary. All it does is keep
others from taking out a proprietary copyright on it. It's not something
you have to do, it just happens.
There's a huge difference between the two sorts of copyrights. I think
free software MUST have the non-proprietary kind exclusively.
>> >> Yes. If they aren't making money on proprietary software then why do
>> >> they care about copyrights?
>> >
>> > Because making money and using copyright protection are unconnected
>> > issues?
>>
>> No. Read the statement again, in context.
>
> I have and I'm still not sure what you're saying here. You yourself, just
> above, have pointed out why copyright, as things stand, is as important for
> free software as it is for non-free software. If someone isn't making money
> on proprietary software but is, instead, developing (and possibly making
> money on) free software then copyright is the central issue to ensuring that
> their code isn't used in proprietary software.
>
While its true, I see now, that that wasn't a good way to put it, I still say
that it has to be a non-proprietary (non-exclusionary) copyright and if some-
one wants to include it in proprietary software, that's THEIR business.
Let's concentrate on coding, shall we? And quit wasting our time playing
unnecessary and hypocritical legal games. It's free or it isn't.
> --
> Dave Pearson
> http://www.davep.org/
--
Alan Connor
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:19:17 GMT, Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> wrote:
>
>> Code is only a part of the story, but an important one. I believe that it
>> should be completely free: If a group or individual writes and
>> publishes a program's source code, then no one can copyright that code but
>> them. There's an implied legal copyright granted to the first person to
>> publish anything. They'd have to prove you stole it from them and they'd lose
>> and it would cost them a lot of money.
>
> There isn't a "real" Linux that works like this.
Sure there is. Lot's of small distros do.
> That's why people are
> repeatedly asking you what you are talking about before they bother to
> address your questions.
Well, since that statement is obviously as false as your first assertion,
I really don't get where you are coming from.
> Your basic premises seem to be completely wrong
> making whatever position you are trying to convey uninteresting.
>
> Isaac
Well, Isaac, I obviously disagree with you. Nor do I need your approval,
or consent to hold these views. I back them up by only supporting (with
money) the distros that conform to a high degree to these ideals, though they
may have different motivations for doing this.
If you would actually make a specific and well-defined criticism, I'd be
happy to debate it with you, if I think you are wrong.
But the above posts amounts to nothing but a poorly thought out attempt
to discredit me, and I won't respond to another one like it.
Dave Pearson
> On 30 Sep 2003 12:10:09 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
>
> > Right, that makes some sense. But isn't it the case that free software
> > can and does get created by companies and organisations that don't fit
> > into this picture? Is that free software not just as valuable?
>
> Sure. Why not? As long as it is actually free software (see below).
It can't be free software if it isn't free software so it would seem that
what you initially said doesn't really make an awful lot of sense. Linux
isn't supposed to be "amateur" by any definition that's been given here,
neither is the GNU project. Linux and the GNU project are free software, no
matter who contributes to them, no matter who pays the people that pay the
people that contribute to them and no matter who packages and distributes
them.
> > In which case copyright is important. Moreover, you're describing here
> > why, at the moment, copyright is vital to free software.
>
> Perhaps I am at that. But it's not a copyright that excludes others from
> using the code as they wish. It's not proprietary. All it does is keep
> others from taking out a proprietary copyright on it. It's not something
> you have to do, it just happens.
>
> There's a huge difference between the two sorts of copyrights. I think
> free software MUST have the non-proprietary kind exclusively.
It's the licence that allows or forbids what you're talking about here. And
it's copyright that lets free software authors provide you with a licence
that lets you do the sorts of things you'd want to do with free software. In
other words it is copyright that lets free software exist. As such this
question:
,----[ From your initial post ]
| There's a lot about this discussion I don't get. First of all, Linux is
| supposed to be amateur, so why does it need copyright protection?
`----
is best answered by saying "because it's free software".
> Let's concentrate on coding, shall we?
You concentrate on whatever you want. Personally I can cope and read/post to
usenet all at the same time.
> And quit wasting our time playing
> unnecessary and hypocritical legal games.
Hypocritical? Wasting out time? Speak for yourself. I'm not being
hypocritical and I'm not wasting my time.
> It's free or it isn't.
Right. And copyright is central to one method of attempting to ensure that
free software is always used and deployed as free software. This is the
answer to your question about why free software needs copyright protection.
Why is answering your question seen as hypocritical or a waste of time?
You said that there was a lot about this discussion that you didn't get.
Hopefully you "get" it better now. That doesn't seem like a waste of time to
me and, if you're going back to coding and you're going to be coding
software that you wish to distribute as free software you'll be doing so
with a better understanding of what free software means to some people,
especially the sorts of people who contribute to Linux and the GNU project.
Dave Pearson
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:17:11 GMT, Isaac <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:19:17 GMT, Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> wrote:
> >
> >> Code is only a part of the story, but an important one. I believe that
> >> it should be completely free: If a group or individual writes and
> >> publishes a program's source code, then no one can copyright that code
> >> but them. There's an implied legal copyright granted to the first
> >> person to publish anything. They'd have to prove you stole it from them
> >> and they'd lose and it would cost them a lot of money.
> >
> > There isn't a "real" Linux that works like this.
>
> Sure there is. Lot's of small distros do.
Can you name one?
John Hasler
> In which case Linux and large parts of the GNU system aren't free
> software by your definition.
In fact just about the only software that comes close to meeting his
definition is that written by US government employees on government time.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
David Kastrup
> On 30 Sep 2003 02:06:26 +0200, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> No. That was only part of what I had to say on the subject.
> >>
> >> Read the thread or go away.
> >
> > I did. That was all you gave in the way of definition of "amateur".
>
> You are lying and you are history.
If I was lying, it would be very easy for you to provide a Message Id
where you gave another definition.
> I won't be reading another one of your posts for at least 30 days.
Of course not. Otherwise you'd have to back up your statements.
> Fucking troll.
The sentiment is reciprocated.
David Kastrup
> Dave Pearson writes:
> > In which case Linux and large parts of the GNU system aren't free
> > software by your definition.
>
> In fact just about the only software that comes close to meeting his
> definition is that written by US government employees on government
> time.
But that rules out his definitions of "amateur". In short, the kind
of software he is talking so strongly and vocal about is non-existent.
Stefan Monnier
ROTFL
Stefan
Stefan Monnier
I'm at a loss to imagine what that could look like,
Stefan
Andy Smith
> You are lying and you are history.
>
> I won't be reading another one of your posts for at least 30 days.
>
> Fucking troll.
_|\_
[___] <-------------------- 180m --------------------->
O O___________________________________________________-o
Alan's pram Alan's rattle
John Hasler
> But that rules out his definitions of "amateur". In short, the kind of
> software he is talking so strongly and vocal about is non-existent.
Well, not quite non-existent. Some people do distribute their software
under a "You may treat this as if it were in the public domain" license.
It's a miniscule fraction of all Free Software, though.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Christopher Browne
>> You are lying and you are history.
>
> If I was lying, it would be very easy for you to provide a Message Id
> where you gave another definition.
Apparently he tired of dung fights in comp.os.linux.* where he would
accuse anyone that differed with his "doctrine" about his
spam-avoidance software of being a liar or of being in the spam
business. gnu.misc.discuss hasn't had a good dung fight in a while,
so apparently it seemed a good candidate...
--
"cbbrowne","@","ntlug.org"
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/sap.html
"The social dynamics of the net are a direct consequence of the fact
that nobody has yet developed a Remote Strangulation Protocol."
-- Larry Wall
Alan Connor
>
>
> * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
>
>> On 30 Sep 2003 12:10:09 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Right, that makes some sense. But isn't it the case that free software
>> > can and does get created by companies and organisations that don't fit
>> > into this picture? Is that free software not just as valuable?
>>
>> Sure. Why not? As long as it is actually free software (see below).
>
> It can't be free software if it isn't free software
What the HELL does *that* mean?
(you obviously didn't "see below" before you responded, which is bizaarre)
Are you a lawyer or a politician?
Please go fuck with someone else's head. It's plain as day that you are
either nuts, a troll, or just determined to oppose the ideas I present at the
cost of all reason and accuracy.
I don't need your consent or permission to hold these views, and only
lucid arguments can change my mind, not this sort of gobbledy-gook.
Alan Connor
>
>
> A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>>> You are lying and you are history.
>>
>> If I was lying, it would be very easy for you to provide a Message Id
>> where you gave another definition.
>
> Apparently he tired of dung fights in comp.os.linux.* where he would
> accuse anyone that differed with his "doctrine" about his
> spam-avoidance software of being a liar or of being in the spam
> business. gnu.misc.discuss hasn't had a good dung fight in a while,
> so apparently it seemed a good candidate...
No. You are lying. I only jumped on people who claimed to understand my
program but either didn't or were maliciiously representing its operation.
I guess YOU don't like my ideas about what free software and Linux should
be about.
That's fine. But why don't you debate me like a man, instead of attempting
to stab me in the back like a coward?
Alan Connor
So my ideas scare you so badly that you have to resort to this kind of
juvenile attack?
Got your number, bigot.
Alan Connor
Another concise and lucid argument.
Hey, if you don't like these ideas, that's too bad. A LOT of people share
them and putting your head in the sand won't help anything.
You folks are amusing as hell.
Myself and the people I am associated with recognize ONLY the standards
I have described here. Whether you or the corrupt courts agree with them
or not has no relevance whatsoever. Any software we write is in the public
domain and any software we acquire that calls itself "free", we consider
to be in the public domain and treat it as such.
It's either free or it isn't. A woman is either pregnant or she isn't.
All this hypocritical and self-serving dancing around logic is just pathetic.
David Kastrup
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:36:11 GMT, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >
> >
> >> ... and we could have had an interesting discussion.
> >
> > I'm at a loss to imagine what that could look like,
> >
> > Stefan
>
> Another concise and lucid argument.
>
> Hey, if you don't like these ideas, that's too bad. A LOT of people
> share them and putting your head in the sand won't help anything.
Uh, Stefan is one of those people that, instead of putting their head
in the sand, _write_ free software. Significant amounts. And he is
one of the few people that does almost never get into any useless
fight or quibbling. If you feel that he is not up to your standards
of discussion, chances are that you should keep your discussion to
yourself in order to be most productive.
> You folks are amusing as hell.
>
> Myself and the people I am associated with recognize ONLY the
> standards I have described here.
That's your business. We are concerned about the GNU project in this
group in general, and that means basically software covered by the GNU
General Public Licence. And a licence allows you what to do with the
software, and what not.
> Whether you or the corrupt courts agree with them or not has no
> relevance whatsoever. Any software we write is in the public domain
> and any software we acquire that calls itself "free", we consider to
> be in the public domain and treat it as such.
Then you better do not do so in any relevant or apparent way. No
company has been able to contest the GPL up to now, simply because
you are free to accept it or not. And if you don't, standard
copyright applies, and that is more restrictive than the GPL.
> It's either free or it isn't. A woman is either pregnant or she
> isn't. All this hypocritical and self-serving dancing around logic
> is just pathetic.
Well, I could say, a person either makes a fool out of himself or
doesn't. In your case it would actually appear to be a rather
black&white decision, indeed.
Stefan Monnier
check that M-x insert-zippyism is still functional. ]
> You folks are amusing as hell.
AIEEEEE! I am having an UNDULATING EXPERIENCE!
Stefan
Alan Connor
Your posts are singularly lacking in substance.
You remind me of the bullies in high school who would make rude noises
from the sidelines.
They didn't slow me down then, and chronological adults that have never
actually grown up don't slow me down now.
Stefan Monnier
> from the sidelines.
Yow! Now I get to think about all the BAD THINGS I did to a BOWLING BALL
when I was in JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL!
Stefan
David Kastrup
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:32:23 GMT, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >
> >
> > [ David is too kind: useless fights are always the occasion to try
> > and check that M-x insert-zippyism is still functional. ]
> >
> >> You folks are amusing as hell.
> >
> > AIEEEEE! I am having an UNDULATING EXPERIENCE!
> >
> >
> > Stefan
>
>
> Your posts are singularly lacking in substance.
I'd contest the "singularly". Anyhow, Emacs' function
insert-zippyism is free software.
If I have enough money to buy 5,000 CANS of NOODLE-RONI, can I get a
VAT of MARSHMALLOW FLUFF free??
Alan Connor
I won't be reading any of your posts for 90 days.
Please grow up.
Robert Uhl
>
> On the other hand, I have no problem with SMALL Linux businesses, that
> aren't controlled by banks, stockholders, and insurance companies.
That makes little sense. Banks & insurance companies serve a very
useful purpose: by averaging risk out over a large population, one is
able to lead a more enjoyable life than otherwise. Say one wishes to
purchase a car or house. These cost _large_ sums of money, necessarily
(they require the concerted effort of many people, each of whom wishes
to be paid for his time, and they are the product of many resources,
each of which had to be produced), and it would be painful indeed were
one forced to save up the entire sum before purchase (not to mention the
fact that if one's house were robbed or burnt, the money would go up in
smoke). But the bank can give one a loan at remarkably good rates
(compared to the 30-40% I understand mediaeval loans tended to go for,
even 16% is none too bad), due to the fact that it has many loans out,
and if only a few are defaulted upon, it's still in business. It takes
advantage of economies of scale to sell you money now in return for
money later.
The insurance company performs a similar function. You _could_ save
your insurance payment each month, and the odds are that you'd come out
ahead of someone who paid the same to an insurance company. But by so
doing you'd assume a huge risk: what if you ended up needing extensive
hospital care, or car repairs, or you house burned down? Insurance is
simply making an informed decision about risk.
And as for stockholders, what exactly is the difference between 100,000
stockholders in a public corporation and three partners in a small
business? None, really. The stockholders want a profit; the partners
do too. The stockholders are (likely) decent people; so too the
partners. There is no greater probability that the stockholders will be
individually bastards than that the partners will be. There is, in
fact, a far smaller probability that a majority of the stockholders will
be jerks than that a majority of the partners will be.
> I will use Linux for the rest of my life and I will never pay a cent
> to anyone other than the small businesses/amateurs that make it
> happen.
That's fine, and one of the advantages of free software. But some of us
like the economies of scale, stability and assurances provided by
support from larger firms.
> I don't care what the corrupt courts say. If they push the matter I
> will become the cracker of their nightmares and see to it that their
> computers never function reliably again.
>
> And I know of THOUSANDS of Linux pros that would join me in this
> endeavor.
I sincerely doubt that. The vast majority of Linux hackers I know are
far too mature to run about cracking nuisances, just as all the gun
owners I know are far too mature to run about shooting folks who annoy
them. In fact, I would argue that willingness to crack an opponent
needlessly disqualifies one from claiming professionalism.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
English was a language invented by Norman invaders to pick up
Anglo-Saxon barmaids. It retains much of this character.
Alan Connor
>
>
> Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> writes:
>>
>> On the other hand, I have no problem with SMALL Linux businesses, that
>> aren't controlled by banks, stockholders, and insurance companies.
>
What an insufferably arrogant person you are. You begin by telling me
that my ideas make no sense, when obviously *I* think they do.
Not knowing, of course, what my reasoning is, because you never asked
and obviusly couldn't care less.
Then you proceed to deliver a primer on this society's basic institutions
as if I had never heard of them. And without bothering to ask.
The problem with all three of those institutions is that they care about
nothing but money, and exert a great deal of influence on the businesses
that patronize them.
There is no way to be reasonably free and in control of an enterprise if
there is any significant involvement with any of them. Or any at all, in
the case of the stock market market.
You can act on your best judgement and I will act on mine. So I will
support amateur orgs and small businesses involved with Linux and
you will support big corporate business.
I won't buy your products or loan you money through banks or the stock
market or work for you.
Dave Pearson
> On 30 Sep 2003 13:26:55 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
>
> > It can't be free software if it isn't free software
>
> What the HELL does *that* mean?
It means exactly what it says. It should be self evident. But, in case you
really don't understand: if an item of code is free software, and lots of
free software is free software thanks to it being under copyright, then the
dangers you seem concerned about and for which you think copyright isn't a
necessary defence aren't an issue. Or, more to the point, it's copyright
that helps keep most free software free.
> (you obviously didn't "see below" before you responded, which is bizaarre)
I'm not surprised to learn that a falsehood is obvious to you.
> Are you a lawyer or a politician?
Do you have this programmed as a shortcut in your editor? I notice you trot
this out when you're faced with a post you can't or won't comprehend.
> Please go fuck with someone else's head. It's plain as day that you are
> either nuts, a troll, or just determined to oppose the ideas I present at
> the cost of all reason and accuracy.
It's not surprising that falsehoods are the only things that are "plain as
day" to you. What is as plain as day is that you're not sincere. You're an
angry young man who probably means well but, in the face of facts and
answers to his questions, resorts to strong language and accusations of
trolling so as to blot out the pain he feels when learning. Don't worry,
this should pass in time.
> I don't need your consent or permission to hold these views,
You're quite paranoid aren't you Alan Connor? Could it be that you're not
capable of dealing with the idea that people might wish to answer your
questions without having malevolent intent?
> and only
> lucid arguments can change my mind, not this sort of gobbledy-gook.
It's worrying that you think some of the core facts about free software are
gobbledy-gook. Why would you pretend to want to learn yet, when provided
with the information you seek, turn hostile?
I notice that you totally failed to address any of the points I made and
totally failed to answer any of the questions I asked of you. It's
interesting and worth noting that you've done that by using the same old
text and accusations you use against anyone who might appear to have a good
understanding of the subject or who might hold a view slightly different
from yours. Perhaps, when you're more self assured and have the conviction
of your beliefs you can come back to such discussions and take part in them
in a meaningful way.
Dave Pearson
> Hey, if you don't like these ideas, that's too bad. A LOT of people share
> them and putting your head in the sand won't help anything.
The thing is Alan, you're the one who is putting your head in the sand.
People have been trying to debate you on your opinion on what "Linux" (and,
presumably, the GNU system too) *should* be by trying to help you with your
self-documented lack of understanding about how GNU/Linux and free software
(especially free software licenced under the GPL) works right now. You put
your head in the sand every time that you dismiss the GPL as "gobbldy-gook".
> Myself and the people I am associated with recognize ONLY the standards I
> have described here.
I wonder if you're able to make your point without claiming that you've got
an invisible constituency behind you?
> Whether you or the corrupt courts agree with them or
> not has no relevance whatsoever. Any software we write is in the public
> domain and any software we acquire that calls itself "free", we consider
> to be in the public domain and treat it as such.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. What you're saying is that you're actually
anti-GPL. This means that you're also mostly anti-Linux and anti-GNU.
Thanks, this is the first bit of real substance we've seen here from you.
Do you realise that you hold exactly the same line as people who would seek
to use free software in non-free software? Do you realise that you hold the
same lack of regard and lack of respect as those who would ignore a free
software licence and use code regardless of the copyright holder's wishes
that it only be used in free software?
Do you realise that you're posting to a news group in which a lot of people
write and contribute to a lot of free software and that they're people who
generally protect that free software with the GPL? The same protection
device used by Linux.
> It's either free or it isn't. A woman is either pregnant or she isn't. All
> this hypocritical and self-serving dancing around logic is just pathetic.
Please explain how anything said here about the connection between free
software and copyrights is "hypocritical" or "self-serving". If you're not
able perhaps you could get one of your "associates" do to this for you? If
you're really sincere about this you'd be doing that.
Christopher Browne
> * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
>> Whether you or the corrupt courts agree with them or
>> not has no relevance whatsoever. Any software we write is in the public
>> domain and any software we acquire that calls itself "free", we consider
>> to be in the public domain and treat it as such.
>
> Ok, now we're getting somewhere. What you're saying is that you're actually
> anti-GPL. This means that you're also mostly anti-Linux and anti-GNU.
> Thanks, this is the first bit of real substance we've seen here from you.
>
> Do you realise that you hold exactly the same line as people who would seek
> to use free software in non-free software? Do you realise that you hold the
> same lack of regard and lack of respect as those who would ignore a free
> software licence and use code regardless of the copyright holder's wishes
> that it only be used in free software?
At first blush, that would seem to "pigeon-hole" him as someone that
ought to be in one of the BSD camps.
But I doubt they would be any more accepting of his ranting...
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
http://cbbrowne.com/info/rdbms.html
Editing is a rewording activity.
-- Alan Perlis
[And EMACS a rewording editor. Ed.]
David Kastrup
> Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org>wrote:
> > * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
> >> Whether you or the corrupt courts agree with them or
> >> not has no relevance whatsoever. Any software we write is in the public
> >> domain and any software we acquire that calls itself "free", we consider
> >> to be in the public domain and treat it as such.
> >
> > Do you realise that you hold exactly the same line as people who would seek
> > to use free software in non-free software? Do you realise that you hold the
> > same lack of regard and lack of respect as those who would ignore a free
> > software licence and use code regardless of the copyright holder's wishes
> > that it only be used in free software?
>
> At first blush, that would seem to "pigeon-hole" him as someone that
> ought to be in one of the BSD camps.
No, the BSD licences also hold restrictions (for example, you have to
keep the copyright notices in the source) that are incompatible with
his notion of "free" as being equivalent to "public domain".
Stefan Monnier
> stockholders in a public corporation and three partners in a small
> business? None, really.
I disagree here. Stockholders can very easily sell their stock, buy other,
etc... so they might be interested in a short term profit even if it implies
a long term loss. Partners in a small company are much more tightly
attached to the long term health of the company.
I've seen several cases where a group of people buys a large number of
shares (enough to influence the decision making), then try to force the
company to sell unprofitable (but crucial for long term survival) assets,
generating artificially high short-term profits, and then sell their stock.
And I'm sure they don't do it out of meanness, but only because they think
it's better that way, and they ignore the fact that a company going
bankrupt costs enormously to the whole community (but those stock holders
don't live in that community, so they don't see it).
Stefan
Dave Pearson
> Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing whenDave Pearson <davep...@davep.org>wrote:
>
> > Do you realise that you hold exactly the same line as people who would
> > seek to use free software in non-free software? Do you realise that you
> > hold the same lack of regard and lack of respect as those who would
> > ignore a free software licence and use code regardless of the copyright
> > holder's wishes that it only be used in free software?
>
> At first blush, that would seem to "pigeon-hole" him as someone that ought
> to be in one of the BSD camps.
Indeed, I was thinking that too. However, given what he's written so far, it
would seem that he shares their desire to provide as much freedom as
possible while, at the same time, pointing out that if you use the freedom
in a way he doesn't like he'll come round and boil your pet rabbit.
> But I doubt they would be any more accepting of his ranting...
...and I doubt he'd be accepting of their approach to software freedom.
Linønut
> On 29 Sep 2003 17:07:52 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
>>
>> * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
>>
>>> There's a lot about this discussion I don't get. First of all, Linux is
>>> supposed to be amateur, so why does it need copyright protection?
>>
>> Even if Linux was supposed to be amateur (is it? what makes you say that?),
>
> The Linux *I* use and support is amateur. The REAL Linux.
>
>> why wouldn't it need copyright protection? Does something have to be
>> non-amateur for it to warrant copyright protection?
>
> Yes. If they aren't making money on proprietary software then why do they
> care about copyrights?
First, *everything* you produce nowadays is copyrighted. Even this
posting. Someone could use it, and I could hassle them about it.
Second, copyright law gives the GPL license some force, so that the
author can have you handle his/her code the way he/she intended.
Copyright prevents a Microsoft or SCO from claiming rights to your code,
and handling it in a manner contrary to your wishes.
Amateur/professional doesn't matter here.
--
Windows desktops and servers can find a safe haven on a
GNU/Linux/FreeBSD network!
Linønut
> I will use Linux for the rest of my life and I will never pay a cent to
> anyone other than the small businesses/amateurs that make it happen.
>
> I don't care what the corrupt courts say. If they push the matter I will
> become the cracker of their nightmares and see to it that their computers never
> function reliably again.
>
> And I know of THOUSANDS of Linux pros that would join me in this endeavor.
Amen.
David Kastrup
> While restarting Outlook, Alan Connor grumbled:
>
> > I will use Linux for the rest of my life and I will never pay a
> > cent to anyone other than the small businesses/amateurs that make
> > it happen.
> >
> > I don't care what the corrupt courts say. If they push the matter
> > I will become the cracker of their nightmares and see to it that
> > their computers never function reliably again.
> >
> > And I know of THOUSANDS of Linux pros that would join me in this
> > endeavor.
>
> Amen.
What rubbish. For one thing, cracking threats are not likely to
achieve anything useful. For another, I see absolutely no incentive
for THOUSANDS of Linux pros (were we not talking about amateurs a
minute ago?) to see to it that court computers never function
reliably again, since that is typically accomplished by installing
Windows on them.
For a third, it is absolutely unclear just what "If they push the
matter" is supposed to mean here. Who? What matter?
This is just a warm and fuzzy "if anybody bad is around, he better
watch it or I'll get mean" statement, without purpose, focus or sense
in it.
phil hunt
>
>Myself and the people I am associated with recognize ONLY the standards
>I have described here.
Which people are these?
> Whether you or the corrupt courts agree with them
>or not has no relevance whatsoever. Any software we write is in the public
>domain
Which software do you write? URLs?
>and any software we acquire that calls itself "free", we consider
>to be in the public domain and treat it as such.
Then you might be breaking the law.
--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
Alan Connor
>
>
> Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing whenDave Pearson <davep...@davep.org>wrote:
>> * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
>>> Whether you or the corrupt courts agree with them or
>>> not has no relevance whatsoever. Any software we write is in the public
>>> domain and any software we acquire that calls itself "free", we consider
>>> to be in the public domain and treat it as such.
>>
>> Ok, now we're getting somewhere. What you're saying is that you're actually
>> anti-GPL. This means that you're also mostly anti-Linux and anti-GNU.
>> Thanks, this is the first bit of real substance we've seen here from you.
>>
>> Do you realise that you hold exactly the same line as people who would seek
>> to use free software in non-free software? Do you realise that you hold the
>> same lack of regard and lack of respect as those who would ignore a free
>> software licence and use code regardless of the copyright holder's wishes
>> that it only be used in free software?
>
> At first blush, that would seem to "pigeon-hole" him as someone that
> ought to be in one of the BSD camps.
>
> But I doubt they would be any more accepting of his ranting...
Ah. Another mindless attack. Sorry, I am seeking intelligent conversation,
not the condemnation of bigots lacking lives.
Alan Connor
>
>
> While restarting Outlook, Alan Connor grumbled:
>
>> On 29 Sep 2003 17:07:52 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
>>>
>>>> There's a lot about this discussion I don't get. First of all, Linux is
>>>> supposed to be amateur, so why does it need copyright protection?
>>>
>>> Even if Linux was supposed to be amateur (is it? what makes you say that?),
>>
>> The Linux *I* use and support is amateur. The REAL Linux.
>>
>>> why wouldn't it need copyright protection? Does something have to be
>>> non-amateur for it to warrant copyright protection?
>>
>> Yes. If they aren't making money on proprietary software then why do they
>> care about copyrights?
>
> First, *everything* you produce nowadays is copyrighted. Even this
> posting. Someone could use it, and I could hassle them about it.
Sure. It's automatic. But this is a far cry from actually taking people
to court and catfighting rather than doing what you want to do with your
life, which would be, in this case, writing software.
>
> Second, copyright law gives the GPL license some force, so that the
> author can have you handle his/her code the way he/she intended.
And I'm saying that's not really free software. Free software is in the
public domain.
>
> Copyright prevents a Microsoft or SCO from claiming rights to your code,
> and handling it in a manner contrary to your wishes.
>
You believe that? Then I have some Pacific Ocean beachfront property in
Nevada for sale that you'll love. A bargain.
And anyway, who cares? If it's free its free and anyone can do what they
want with it.
When I put some paperbacks in the freebox down the street, what's done with
them is none of my business because it's a *free* box.
If there are conditions, it isn't free.
Let's label things accurateley and then decide whether we want to spend our
resources fighting in corrupt courts or writing software.
Alan Connor
>
>
> While restarting Outlook, Alan Connor grumbled:
>
>> I will use Linux for the rest of my life and I will never pay a cent to
>> anyone other than the small businesses/amateurs that make it happen.
>>
>> I don't care what the corrupt courts say. If they push the matter I will
>> become the cracker of their nightmares and see to it that their computers never
>> function reliably again.
>>
>> And I know of THOUSANDS of Linux pros that would join me in this endeavor.
>
> Amen.
>
"re-starting Outlook" ????
You have a morbid sense of humor :-)
David Kastrup
But it's so much fun condemning bigots lacking lives. And it strikes
me as being decidedly less difficult than reflecting their attacks
into something resembling intelligent conversation.
Alan Connor
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:34:02 GMT, Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> wrote:
>>
>>Myself and the people I am associated with recognize ONLY the standards
>>I have described here.
>
> Which people are these?
>
>> Whether you or the corrupt courts agree with them
>>or not has no relevance whatsoever. Any software we write is in the public
>>domain
>
> Which software do you write? URLs?
>
>>and any software we acquire that calls itself "free", we consider
>>to be in the public domain and treat it as such.
>
> Then you might be breaking the law.
>
So? What's that mean? Not long ago a Black person was breaking the law when
they sat at the front of the bus.
I am pleased to ignore the laws passed by hypocrites and criminals.
Christopher Browne
Which seems to be the typical problem with all of the "major
objectors" to the sundry free software licenses.
They tend not to be "conscientious" objectors, as they either:
a) Evaluate things based on their dislike of certain personalities
(Many of the pro-BSD folk despise RMS, and base opinions on
that), or
b) Want to make up a license that amounts to:
"You can do anything you want with the software, so long as I
approve of it." Which isn't terribly free at all.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/internet.html
"Women who seek to be equal to men lack ambition. "
-- Timothy Leary
Alan Connor
>
> Which seems to be the typical problem with all of the "major
> objectors" to the sundry free software licenses.
>
> They tend not to be "conscientious" objectors, as they either:
>
> a) Evaluate things based on their dislike of certain personalities
> (Many of the pro-BSD folk despise RMS, and base opinions on
> that), or
>
> b) Want to make up a license that amounts to:
> "You can do anything you want with the software, so long as I
> approve of it." Which isn't terribly free at all.
Wrong about "a". In my case anyway. The issue has nothing to do with
personalities.
If you would like to actually discuss the issues rather than this juvenile
campaign to discredit me, then I'll be happy to do so, even though I think
you are an asshole.
As for "b", my earlier posts contradict that, so you either haven't read
them (in which case you have no business presenting my point-of-view) or
you are lying outright, which makes you even more of an asshole.
If I do my version of killfiling you, it will have nothing to do with
your views on what constitutes free software.
It will be because you don't TALK about free software, but just post these
bitchy little snipes worthy of a teen-age punk.
Dave Pearson
> On 1 Oct 2003 21:56:14 GMT, Christopher Browne <cbbr...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> > [SNIP]
> > b) Want to make up a license that amounts to:
> > "You can do anything you want with the software, so long as I
> > approve of it." Which isn't terribly free at all.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> If you would like to actually discuss the issues rather than this juvenile
> campaign to discredit me, then I'll be happy to do so, even though I think
> you are an asshole.
People are trying to discuss what you're saying. When they do you simply
call them a "troll" or an "asshole" or pretend that you can't understand
what they're saying.
> As for "b", my earlier posts contradict that, so you either haven't read
> them (in which case you have no business presenting my point-of-view) or
> you are lying outright, which makes you even more of an asshole.
Earlier you've more or less said that you think that free software should be
in the public domain, that everyone should be able to do anything they want
with it, except use it for non-free purposes. That's point "b" above, so
how, exactly, is Christopher lying? Can you give some substance to this
assertion or will you finally admit, if only to yourself, that you're the
one who is on a "juvenile campaign" and is posting "bitchy little snipes
worthy of a teen-age punk"?
Dave Pearson
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 09:36:25 -0500, Linųnut <linųn...@bone.com> wrote:
>
> > Second, copyright law gives the GPL license some force, so that the
> > author can have you handle his/her code the way he/she intended.
>
> And I'm saying that's not really free software. Free software is in the
> public domain.
You've spoken before of your like for Linux and, presumably, the GNU system.
You seem to be a fan of mutt too. Linux, much of the GNU system and mutt are
all things that are free software, under copyright and licenced with the
GPL. If you're a great supporter of free software, as you define it above,
why do you use and praise these non-free bodies of code?
--
Dave Pearson: | mutt.octet.filter - autoview octet-streams
http://www.davep.org/ | mutt.vcard.filter - autoview simple vcards
Mutt: | muttrc2html - muttrc -> HTML utility
http://www.davep.org/mutt/ | muttrc.sl - Jed muttrc mode
Alan Connor
>
>
> * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
>
>> On 1 Oct 2003 21:56:14 GMT, Christopher Browne <cbbr...@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> > [SNIP]
>> > b) Want to make up a license that amounts to:
>> > "You can do anything you want with the software, so long as I
>> > approve of it." Which isn't terribly free at all.
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> If you would like to actually discuss the issues rather than this juvenile
>> campaign to discredit me, then I'll be happy to do so, even though I think
>> you are an asshole.
>
> People are trying to discuss what you're saying. When they do you simply
> call them a "troll" or an "asshole" or pretend that you can't understand
> what they're saying.
>
No. Like you, they PRETEND that they are discussing the subject, but I
don't see anything here about the subject.
Maybe you should walk your talk.
The other one ignored.
--------------------------------
I think that Free Software should be *Free*. It's not free if there are
conditions attached to its use. In the public domain.
Let's call it what it is, not mislabel it and pretend like the label describes
the reality, because it doesn't at present.
I do not believe that Linux can maintain its integrity beyond the level of
small businesses or non-profit organizations. We cannot let it be
controlled by people who care more for money than they do about Linux.
Therefore, heavy involvement with banks or insurance companies, and any
involvement with the stock market, are out-of-the-question.
As is the incredible drain on resources that any involvement with the
courts over copyrights. Write the software, use it, and give it to the world.
Once you've published the code, no one can claim you stole it from them, so
you are covered.
The object is to do Linux, not waste your life with lawyers and courts.
-----
If someone tells me that their software is free, then that's it. I own it.
If a Linux enterprise is controlled by Big Business, I won't do business
with them.
David Kastrup
> On 2 Oct 2003 07:42:39 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
> >
> >> On 1 Oct 2003 21:56:14 GMT, Christopher Browne <cbbr...@acm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > [SNIP]
> >> > b) Want to make up a license that amounts to:
> >> > "You can do anything you want with the software, so long as I
> >> > approve of it." Which isn't terribly free at all.
> >>
> >> [SNIP]
> >>
> >> If you would like to actually discuss the issues rather than this
> >> juvenile campaign to discredit me, then I'll be happy to do so,
> >> even though I think you are an asshole.
> >
> > People are trying to discuss what you're saying. When they do you
> > simply call them a "troll" or an "asshole" or pretend that you
> > can't understand what they're saying.
>
> No. Like you, they PRETEND that they are discussing the subject, but
> I don't see anything here about the subject.
Because you don't care to read. And since you have started presumably
killfiling anyone that is capable of actually contributing, this is
not going to improve.
> I think that Free Software should be *Free*. It's not free if there
> are conditions attached to its use. In the public domain.
So, first you define "free" as "public domain".
> Let's call it what it is, not mislabel it and pretend like the label
> describes the reality, because it doesn't at present.
>
> I do not believe that Linux can maintain its integrity beyond the
> level of small businesses or non-profit organizations. We cannot let
> it be controlled by people who care more for money than they do
> about Linux.
Fine, so you object to Linux being controlled by people who care for
money. The legal tool that stops money controlling Linux is the GPL,
since it stops proprietary versions of Linux to spread. This is the
reason that, unlike much of the more closely to public domain
licensed BSD Unix derivatives, Linux has not had any proprietary
forks.
> Therefore, heavy involvement with banks or insurance companies, and
> any involvement with the stock market, are out-of-the-question.
But those have large resources for improving Linux. If Linux is
supposed to be free, they can't be prohibited from improving it, even
according to your definition of "free". What is it that keeps them
from wrenching control over the improved versions? The GPL.
> As is the incredible drain on resources that any involvement with
> the courts over copyrights. Write the software, use it, and give it
> to the world.
The GPL has almost never been contested in court. There is no drain
of resources here worth noticing.
> Once you've published the code, no one can claim you stole it from
> them, so you are covered.
But the same goes for the big companies. Once they published some
minor variation of code, no one else can claim ownership over it.
But the GPL forces them to allow others to use the code freely.
> The object is to do Linux, not waste your life with lawyers and
> courts.
Right. That's why the GPL has been a good choice. It is a licence
that is so good that it has almost never been contested in spite of
its widespread use.
> If someone tells me that their software is free, then that's it. I
> own it.
No. But you can use it. If your neighbour tells you that he is a
free man, that does not mean that you own him.
> If a Linux enterprise is controlled by Big Business, I won't do
> business with them.
You don't need to.
Dave Pearson
> On 2 Oct 2003 07:42:39 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
> >
> > People are trying to discuss what you're saying. When they do you simply
> > call them a "troll" or an "asshole" or pretend that you can't understand
> > what they're saying.
>
> No. Like you, they PRETEND that they are discussing the subject, but I
> don't see anything here about the subject.
No, but you've ignored plenty of things I have written about the subject,
usually ignoring them in hostile ways. And you've done the same to others
here, often when they've been making sensible points or asking reasonable
questions. Why is that Alan Connor? Can you answer that without being
hostile?
> Maybe you should walk your talk.
Are you suggesting I should write about free software and write free
software? Guess what, I do and I do. How about you? Can you stop ignoring,
in a hostile way, text about the subject and start to respond to people's
questions without dismissing them as liars and trolls?
What, really, do you mean when you say "walk your talk"? What is "my talk"?
But, anyway, I see that you've written a nice summary of what it is you're
trying to say below so, in the spirit of "walk your talk", I'll reiterate
the questions I've got about your position and see if you're now willing to
answer them in a non-hostile way.
> I think that Free Software should be *Free*. It's not free if there are
> conditions attached to its use. In the public domain.
Right, you're not alone in this opinion. So, here's a question I've asked of
you before in this regard: Why do you make use of software that isn't free
in your sense of free? Do you realise that the news reader you used to post
your post isn't free software by your definition? Why do you use it if it
isn't free software?
> Let's call it what it is, not mislabel it and pretend like the label
> describes the reality, because it doesn't at present.
So, just to be clear about this, you're the latest in a long line of people
to come to the news groups of the GNU project and tell them that they
shouldn't call software that is released under the GPL "free software"? Is
that one of the reasons you're posting here?
If you think that Linux and the GNU project aren't free software, and you
support free software, why do you use GNU/Linux?
> I do not believe that Linux can maintain its integrity beyond the level of
> small businesses or non-profit organizations. We cannot let it be
> controlled by people who care more for money than they do about Linux.
Ok, that's a reasonable enough opinion and, to some degree, one that might
actually have some anecdotal evidence to suggest that it's an opinion worth
holding. You'll note that this is tangential to your question about why free
software uses copyrights.
> Therefore, heavy involvement with banks or insurance companies, and any
> involvement with the stock market, are out-of-the-question.
For you? That's fine, that's your choice. But earlier you said that you'd
accept free software that came from any source. There would appear to be a
conflict here. Would you be so kind as to explain why you'd value free
software, in either sense of the term, less if it came from a bigger
organisation? What methods do you use to determine the size of the
organisation?
> As is the incredible drain on resources that any involvement with the
> courts over copyrights. Write the software, use it, and give it to the
> world.
Why do you think that using a licence such as the GPL requires that you deal
with the courts? That is one possible outcome but it seems to be amazingly
rare. As much as anything the GPL seems to be used as a device for a
software author to say to their users "when distributing this work or a work
based on it please ensure you provide the same freedom as I provided you".
> Once you've published the code, no one can claim you stole it from them,
> so you are covered.
I'm not sure this is at all true. Can you explain this a bit more please?
> The object is to do Linux, not waste your life with lawyers and courts.
Given that Linux, and the GNU system, use copyright as a device to ensure
and promote freedom, how do you explain the fact that lots of people are
writing lots of software that is covered by the GPL, a copyright based
device, and do this without spending time with lawyers and courts? How do
you explain the fact that you're using lots of GPLd software to read this
post and wrote your response? Did all the people who are involved in
creating those tools really waste their lives dealing with lawyers and
courts?
> If someone tells me that their software is free, then that's it. I own it.
Thing is, you don't. You might like to think that you do, but you don't.
What this tells me is that you're as willing to ignore a free software
licence as someone who wishes to ignore a free software licence for non-free
purposes. Is that really what you're saying?
> If a Linux enterprise is controlled by Big Business, I won't do business
> with them.
That is, of course, your choice and your right. Possibly one shared by a
good many GNU/Linux users. It is, however, tangential to any answer to your
initial question about copyrights and free software.
Alan Connor
>
>
> * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
>
You can sure bullshit with the best of them, Dave.
I have told you where I stand, and modified that stance in line with
some of the things I have learned here.
But all I hear now is recycled arguments that I have already rejected.
(and the signal-to-noise-ratio is miniscule)
How about: You do your thing, and I'll do mine.
My way is superior in part because it doesn't seek to control other people.
My way is free. Yours isn't.
A fart by any other name would smell as bad.
David Kastrup
> You can sure bullshit with the best of them, Dave.
[...]
> My way is superior in part because it doesn't seek to control other people.
>
> My way is free. Yours isn't.
>
> A fart by any other name would smell as bad.
So what other names do you post under?
Dave Pearson
> On 2 Oct 2003 10:21:24 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
>
> You can sure bullshit with the best of them, Dave.
Right, just as I thought, you'd dismiss all the reasonable stuff in a
hostile way and then pretend that the author of what you're ignoring is the
one with the sincerity problem. Your sincerity in regards to wishing to
discuss GNU issues in <URL:news:gnu.misc.discuss> has been tested and found
wanting.
Please try again when you've acquired some honesty and integrity.
Alan Connor
>
>
> * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
>
>> On 2 Oct 2003 10:21:24 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
>>
>> You can sure bullshit with the best of them, Dave.
>
> Right, just as I thought, you'd dismiss all the reasonable stuff in a
> hostile way and then pretend that the author of what you're ignoring is the
> one with the sincerity problem. Your sincerity in regards to wishing to
> discuss GNU issues in <URL:news:gnu.misc.discuss> has been tested and found
> wanting.
What's going on here is that you and I disagree on some of the fundamental
issues.
Why is it so hard for you to accept this?
We don't agree. Simple as that. I'm not a bad person for having my views,
and you aren't a bad person for having yours.
I reject the GPL as it stands and I reject Big Business Linux.
That's a fact, Dave. One you will just have to live with. None of your
arguments have given me any reason to change this stance.
In fact, quite the contrary. Linux should not be overseen by arrogant
authoritarians with bloated egos.
(and all such people are welcome to kiss my ass)
Sam Holden
> On 2 Oct 2003 11:43:05 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
>>
>>> On 2 Oct 2003 10:21:24 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
>>>
>>> You can sure bullshit with the best of them, Dave.
>>
>> Right, just as I thought, you'd dismiss all the reasonable stuff in a
>> hostile way and then pretend that the author of what you're ignoring is the
>> one with the sincerity problem. Your sincerity in regards to wishing to
>> discuss GNU issues in <URL:news:gnu.misc.discuss> has been tested and found
>> wanting.
>
>
> What's going on here is that you and I disagree on some of the fundamental
> issues.
Everyone else manages to disagree with people and remain civil.
You resort to labelling their views "bullshit" (rather than
just saying you disagree and explaining why).
This is a discussion group, the vast majority of posters manage to
discuss their differing views in a positive manner in which both
parties learn something. You don't seem to have the communication
skills required...
> Why is it so hard for you to accept this?
>
> We don't agree. Simple as that. I'm not a bad person for having my views,
> and you aren't a bad person for having yours.
Yet you label others views as "bullshit". With not explanation as to
why they are bullshit.
The other posters have explained why they disagree with your views,
indicating they were giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your posting
style means I'm sure lots of people have now written you off as a
"bad person", *not* for your views and opinions, but for your
love for insults and your lack of any effort to actually have a
discussion.
>
> I reject the GPL as it stands and I reject Big Business Linux.
>
> That's a fact, Dave. One you will just have to live with. None of your
> arguments have given me any reason to change this stance.
No one really cares what you think and what your views are. People
had trouble understanding your views since you used inconsistant
terminology and spent more time insulting others than you did
justifying, explaining, or even just stating your views.
When they asked for explanations of the things they thought were
inconsistant you decided that rather than explaining (which in many
cases would have been one sentence, such as "by free I mean people
are free to do with the software anything that I think is OK"),
you would just insult or ignore the questions.
>
> In fact, quite the contrary. Linux should not be overseen by arrogant
> authoritarians with bloated egos.
Linux is meant to be "free". And hence "arrogant authoritarians with
bloated egos" are allow to try and oversee it as much as anyone else.
You are free to take the source and ignore them, except of course, you
personally are not legally, since you don't accept the GPL, and that
license is what allows you to do that.
Until you change copyright law in whatever jurisdiction you are in.
>
> (and all such people are welcome to kiss my ass)
More civility and maturity, I see.
--
Sam Holden
Alan Connor
>
>
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:09:14 GMT, Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> wrote:
>> On 2 Oct 2003 11:43:05 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
>>>
>>>> On 2 Oct 2003 10:21:24 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
>>>>
>>>> You can sure bullshit with the best of them, Dave.
>>>
>>> Right, just as I thought, you'd dismiss all the reasonable stuff in a
>>> hostile way and then pretend that the author of what you're ignoring is the
>>> one with the sincerity problem. Your sincerity in regards to wishing to
>>> discuss GNU issues in <URL:news:gnu.misc.discuss> has been tested and found
>>> wanting.
>>
>>
>> What's going on here is that you and I disagree on some of the fundamental
>> issues.
>
> Everyone else manages to disagree with people and remain civil.
> You resort to labelling their views "bullshit" (rather than
> just saying you disagree and explaining why).
>
An examination of the thread clearly reveals that to be an extremely distorted
representation of the facts.
If you want me to read your posts, Sam, then you had better not begin them
like this.
And listen really closely: I will post where, when, and what I want to,
and you will just live with it.
One of the best features of the Usenet is that arrogant, authoritarian,
hypocritical, reactionary, bigots such as yourself have no power to deny
the expression of the right of free speech to those who disagree with them.
In-other-words: kiss my butt and shut your trap and go away and get a life.
I, who walk my talk, will now set an example for you to follow.
Posts ignored for 30 days
Sam Holden
> On 2 Oct 2003 22:38:21 GMT, Sam Holden <sho...@flexal.cs.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:09:14 GMT, Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> wrote:
>>> On 2 Oct 2003 11:43:05 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2 Oct 2003 10:21:24 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > * Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>:
>>>>>
>>>>> You can sure bullshit with the best of them, Dave.
>>>>
>>>> Right, just as I thought, you'd dismiss all the reasonable stuff in a
>>>> hostile way and then pretend that the author of what you're ignoring is the
>>>> one with the sincerity problem. Your sincerity in regards to wishing to
>>>> discuss GNU issues in <URL:news:gnu.misc.discuss> has been tested and found
>>>> wanting.
>>>
>>>
>>> What's going on here is that you and I disagree on some of the fundamental
>>> issues.
>>
>> Everyone else manages to disagree with people and remain civil.
>> You resort to labelling their views "bullshit" (rather than
>> just saying you disagree and explaining why).
>>
>
> An examination of the thread clearly reveals that to be an extremely distorted
> representation of the facts.
>
> If you want me to read your posts, Sam, then you had better not begin them
> like this.
Why would I care if you read my posts? I don't post for you, you know.
Strangely enough you are not the center of my universe.
> And listen really closely: I will post where, when, and what I want to,
> and you will just live with it.
I didn't say you couldn't post. I didn't even say I don't want
you to post.
>
> One of the best features of the Usenet is that arrogant, authoritarian,
> hypocritical, reactionary, bigots such as yourself have no power to deny
> the expression of the right of free speech to those who disagree with them.
I haven't denied any such thing, and I haven't tried to
deny any such thing.
As usual you are just flinging around insults because there is no
substance to anything you have said.
Or maybe you really are that paraniod. There are people who can
help with problems like that.
>
> In-other-words: kiss my butt and shut your trap and go away and get a life.
I have a life.
I'm not the one ranting and raving. Count the posts and see who has
more of a life outside of getting worked up about what unknown entities
far away in usenet land think and do.
>
> I, who walk my talk, will now set an example for you to follow.
>
> Posts ignored for 30 days
Oh no whatever will I do?!?
I'm being ignored by a someone whop can't formulate rational posts.
My life feels so empty now.
--
Sam Holden
Alan Connor
The GPL is flawed and Big Business will corrupt the Linux Revolution as
it does everything it consumes.
So I ignore the GPL, as I do all flawed laws, and do not lend my energy
to Big Business Pseudo-Linux.
Have a nice day.
Sam Holden
>
> The GPL is flawed and Big Business will corrupt the Linux Revolution as
> it does everything it consumes.
>
>
> So I ignore the GPL, as I do all flawed laws, and do not lend my energy
> to Big Business Pseudo-Linux.
The GPL isn't a law, so that makes as much sense as "I don't like the GPL,
as I don't like all cheese".
--
Sam Holden
Tim Smith
Connor wrote:
> What an insufferably arrogant person you are. You begin by telling me that
> my ideas make no sense, when obviously *I* think they do.
...
> Then you proceed to deliver a primer on this society's basic institutions
> as if I had never heard of them. And without bothering to ask.
He was not being arrogant. He was giving you the benefit of the doubt and
assumed you were ignorant rather than stupid or insane. I'm sure that
subsequent developments in the thread have suitably convinced him that he
was wrong.
--
Evidence Eliminator is worthless. See evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
--Tim Smith
Dave Pearson
> On 2 Oct 2003 11:43:05 GMT, Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
>
> > Right, just as I thought, you'd dismiss all the reasonable stuff in a
> > hostile way and then pretend that the author of what you're ignoring is
> > the one with the sincerity problem. Your sincerity in regards to wishing
> > to discuss GNU issues in <URL:news:gnu.misc.discuss> has been tested and
> > found wanting.
>
> What's going on here is that you and I disagree on some of the fundamental
> issues.
That much is obvious.
> Why is it so hard for you to accept this?
I accepted this from the moment you posted. You seem unable to accept it,
posting hostile cant whenever you see someone seek more information about
your position.
> We don't agree. Simple as that. I'm not a bad person for having my views,
> and you aren't a bad person for having yours.
How people view you is important to you isn't it?
> I reject the GPL as it stands and I reject Big Business Linux.
So you reject Linux and the GNU project, slrn and mutt too. Is that what
you're saying?
> That's a fact, Dave. One you will just have to live with. None of your
> arguments have given me any reason to change this stance.
Why do you think I'm trying to get you to change your stance? It seems
pretty clear that you're not interested in learning but there's always a
good chance that you might be interested in teaching. However, sadly, as has
been seen here over and over again, when offered the chance to teach you
crumble and become hostile.
> In fact, quite the contrary. Linux should not be overseen by arrogant
> authoritarians with bloated egos.
So why do you use software that you perceive to be non-free? Why do you find
it so hard to answer such a simple question?
> (and all such people are welcome to kiss my ass)
Like I said, you crumble and become hostile.
Dave Pearson
> And listen really closely: I will post where, when, and what I want to,
> and you will just live with it.
This is a common theme in your posts isn't it Alan? Thing is, I don't recall
seeing anyone here say that you shouldn't post your views. If you stop and
think for a moment you'll notice that a good number of people, Sam included
in the post of his that you followed up, have spent time *encouraging* you
to post. Lots of people here have been encouraging you to flesh out your
position and to try and get around the incorrect terminology so as to better
understand and appreciate what it is you're trying to say.
People seek more information about your position and you see it as an
attempt to shut you up.
> One of the best features of the Usenet is that arrogant, authoritarian,
> hypocritical, reactionary, bigots such as yourself have no power to deny
> the expression of the right of free speech to those who disagree with
> them.
The irony is, of course, that you're the one acting like a reactionary
bigot. Dropping into a newsgroup that, in part, is about discussing the use
of and the ramifications of the GPL and simply telling everyone that "Linux
should be amateur". If that isn't reactionary bigotry I don't know what is.
> In-other-words: kiss my butt and shut your trap and go away and get a
> life.
How is what you've written here not reactionary bigotry?
> I, who walk my talk, will now set an example for you to follow.
Thing is, you don't "walk your talk". You post sound-bites and run scared
and post hostile attacks on people if they seek more information.
Alan Connor
All I get is crap like this, worthy of rotten children.
Anything but an open-minded and reasonable discussion of the relevant issues,
right?
The major problem with the GPL is that it has to be enforced. Valuable time
and energy that could be spent working on Linux is instead devoted to
dealing with the courts,lawyers, and bureaucracies.
It would make much for free software to actually be free. Then you can just
forget about it and concentrate on Linux. Who cares if someone uses it?
Doesn't keep YOU from using it.
The Linux kernel is basically a copy of the UNIX kernel. Linus didn't
create it from scratch.
And where would Linux be without all that BSD TCP/IP code? Nowhere, that's
where.
But if we could take all the energy that currently goes into dealing with
copyrights and put it into Linux directly, then HURD would have been finished
by now, as well as a BSD substitute, with both being superior to the
originals.
Dave Pearson
> The GPL is flawed and Big Business will corrupt the Linux Revolution as it
> does everything it consumes.
Are you willing to tell us *how* the GPL is flawed and how "Big Business
will corrupt the Linux Revolution"?
> So I ignore the GPL, as I do all flawed laws, and do not lend my energy to
> Big Business Pseudo-Linux.
If you lend your energy to any form of Linux you're lending your energy to
software covered by the GPL. Indeed, you're able to lend your energy because
it is covered by the GPL. So, given this, could you explain why you mean
here and what you mean by "Bug Business Pseudo-Linux"?
Dave Pearson
> But if we could take all the energy that currently goes into dealing with
> copyrights and put it into Linux directly, then HURD would have been
> finished by now, as well as a BSD substitute, with both being superior to
> the originals.
How would extra work on Linux result in "HURD" being finished?
Jay Belanger
Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> writes:
...
> In-other-words: kiss my butt and shut your trap and go away and get a life.
>
> I, who walk my talk, will now set an example for you to follow.
Does this mean that you're going to kiss your own butt, shut your trap
and get a life?
Klaus von der Heyde
> Lots of people here have been encouraging you to flesh out your
> position and to try and get around the incorrect terminology so as to better
> understand and appreciate what it is you're trying to say.
To me it seems that Alan thinks "free software" is an incorrect term
to label software licenced by the GPL. Perhaps he is uncomfortable
with the FSF "conquering" the term and defining it to a meaning
incompatible with his own interpretation of "free". It may just
bother him that so many programmers accept the definition by the
FSF (of course, there are also a lot of *BSD people around...).
Alan's "free" means without any restrictions, while the FSF's "free"
just exactly allows the restrictions the GPL contains (which are few
and do not restrict the use of software and its modification).
By the way, any restrictions for use ony by non-commercial or amateur
users would go far beyond the GPL conditions, so it is actually a
sign of freedom that the GPL does not impose such restrictions.
Klaus
Robert Uhl
>
> He was not being arrogant. He was giving you the benefit of the doubt
> and assumed you were ignorant rather than stupid or insane. I'm sure
> that subsequent developments in the thread have suitably convinced him
> that he was wrong.
Exactly. I really should know enough after all these years to read an
entire thread before responding to any part.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
I owe the government $3,400 in taxes. So I sent them two hammers and a
toilet seat. --Michael McShane
Dave Pearson
> Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> > Lots of people here have been encouraging you to flesh out your position
> > and to try and get around the incorrect terminology so as to better
> > understand and appreciate what it is you're trying to say.
>
> To me it seems that Alan thinks "free software" is an incorrect term to
> label software licenced by the GPL. Perhaps he is uncomfortable with the
> FSF "conquering" the term and defining it to a meaning incompatible with
> his own interpretation of "free". It may just bother him that so many
> programmers accept the definition by the FSF (of course, there are also a
> lot of *BSD people around...).
Indeed. This very idea has been suggested elsewhere in this thread.
> By the way, any restrictions for use ony by non-commercial or amateur
> users would go far beyond the GPL conditions, so it is actually a sign of
> freedom that the GPL does not impose such restrictions.
Right, and this is one part of Alan's opinion that he's still not actually
clarifying. Well, that's not totally true, he did say something about how
such situations might be acted upon by the cracker army that he seems to
think he's part of and he's also said something about a "different" form of
copyright that would come in to play (without explaining how it is
"different"). What's still to be explained in that sense is how copyright
helps when he is of the belief that free software doesn't need and shouldn't
use copyright.
John Hasler
> How would extra work on Linux result in "HURD" being finished?
And why would Alan care, since the Hurd is licensed under the GPL which he
claims to despise?
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
Alan Connor
>
>
> Dave Pearson wrote:
>
>> Lots of people here have been encouraging you to flesh out your
>> position and to try and get around the incorrect terminology so as to better
>> understand and appreciate what it is you're trying to say.
>
> To me it seems that Alan thinks "free software" is an incorrect term
> to label software licenced by the GPL. Perhaps he is uncomfortable
> with the FSF "conquering" the term and defining it to a meaning
> incompatible with his own interpretation of "free". It may just
> bother him that so many programmers accept the definition by the
> FSF (of course, there are also a lot of *BSD people around...).
>
> Alan's "free" means without any restrictions, while the FSF's "free"
> just exactly allows the restrictions the GPL contains (which are few
> and do not restrict the use of software and its modification).
>
Above you say that the GPL does not restrict the use of software and its
modifications.
Below you say that it does, IF the use is non-amateur and/or commercial.
> By the way, any restrictions for use ony by non-commercial or amateur
> users would go far beyond the GPL conditions, so it is actually a
> sign of freedom that the GPL does not impose such restrictions.
>
> Klaus
>
Please make up your mind!