Your quote, while interesting, doesn't really apply. It sounds like it was intended to guard against things like the following hypothetical example:
Company A gives Company B some code C under an NDA. B puts C into software S under the GPL and releases it. A sues B to make them stop releasing the source code. If the court agrees with A, the your snippet says "A can't stop releasing just the source code, they have to stop releasing EVERYTHING".
But if the court rules against some portion of the GPL ITSELF, then the meaning "satisfy...your obligations under this License" will change depending on what part was ruled against. In other words that snippet may not keep GPL'd code safe in the event of a negative court ruling. --
2) GPL is upheld. Life returns to normal but with a little added secure feeling about the GPL.
3) GPL is NOT upheld. Then what? Does RMS have a contingency plan? Does all released GPL'd code revert to the public domain? To the BSD license? Does the FSF write a new GPL (GNGPL "GPL2 is Not GPL")? --
"...what's your theory on why MS is converting to XML?"
No theory is needed. XML is not a format, it is a language (that's what the "L" stands for). There's no reason in the world that an XML file can't also be proprietary.
"Oh, I guarantee you that people like you are irrelevent to how the industry is going to evolve on this matter."
And you call yourself Reality Master? Have you seen anything that's happened since around 1995? "People like me" are starting to take the tech industry away from Microsoft. Why do you think Linux is getting big? Not because we follow "de facto standards"--it's because we like quality software AND the freedom to do what we want. And we aren't ashamed to say it.
'But "anything but Microsoft" is not an advantage, as much as you would like it to be.'
Please provide a quote, with context, where I've indicated this desire.
It's pretty clear from this series of posts and others that you like to think of yourself as a "counter-revolutionary": "The sheep like MS, the slightly less-sheeplike hate MS, but *I* (in my level-transcending wisdom) like MS--for the 'right' reasons." But guess what? Just because you condescending to "the masses" AND "non-conformist" among the "elite" doesn't make you right. --
I am not whining. Not now, nor to people who send me proprietary data files.
However, my complaints and explanations ARE changing reality. Trivially: People resend me the files in a non-Word format. Non-trivially: My workplace has stopped using proprietary encryption and authentication on their VPN.
"But in the meantime, I see no reason to make everyone else's life miserable. The emergence of a standard format is clearly a big plus."
Just how do you think this emergence is going to take place? A magic wand waved near Bill Gates and suddenly he decides to play nice with others? No, it takes a lot of people deciding they aren't going to "conform" to get a critical mass going.
Of course, I'm sure in 5 years you'll be telling everyone how your "cooperative attitude" allowed you to overturn the MS Office dominance "from the inside"--when it was really people who just refused to take it anymore. --
'"Unix" has no word processing features. Oh, you mean some of the office apps available for Unix?'
No, I mean tools like ispell, TeX/LaTeX, grep, sed, etc. Put these (especially *TeX) together right and you can do anything Word can do. Plus, you can do it more modularly AND deterministicly than Word will ever be.
And you can't credit Word with good printing while denying it to Unix. That's comparing apps to os's. Word itself doesn't do ANY printing. Yes, Windows printing system is, in general, easier to use. But again, using *TeX (or even just PostScript) good quality output is possible, even easy, under *nix.
"Finally, the most important feature that Word has is -- Word compatibility. Face it; Word is the defacto industry standard document interchange format."
I'll leave it to others to counter the ridiculous claim that I should follow Word just because other people do.
I'll just turn this argument against itself: "Finally, the most important feature that Unix has is -- universal compatibility. Face it; Unix is the defacto industry standard data processing system." Sounds stupid? Because it is. So is your argument. --
Wow, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?
A kernel developer is someone who develops for the kernel. That's a pretty clearcut definition. For instance, *I* am not a kernel developer nor did I claim to be.
I didn't use the word "real" and I wasn't taking an elitist attitude. In fact, I'm inclined to say that "chip on the shoulder" attitudes like yours are more likely the cause of friction on ANY software project. --
"They are interested in getting work done, and you are preventing them from getting work done."
I am also interested in getting work done. Having to reboot into Windows to read something that turns out to be a macro-virus prevents me from working, too.
"Even if/when the office suites under Unix catch up with MS/Office..."
Name one useful feature that Word has that can't be done on Unix.
"...people will still remember that "arrogant Unix asshole" who told them that Unix couldn't read their Word docs."
Ah, the old straw-man argument. Who said anything about "arrogant" and "asshole"? When I get Word documents (or requests for Word documents) and say "I'm sorry, I don't have access to Microsoft Word." Depending on the situation, I give a list of alternatives (plain text, html, etc). I am polite but firm. If asked why I can't read (or supply) a Word file, I use the (completely applicable) word "proprietary".
Besides, what am I *supposed* to do? Ignore the document? --
Non-(kernel developers) should stay the heck out of this discussion. Political infighting is never helped by the uninformed butting in of outsiders.
Yeah, yeah "maybe we have a better view from the outside". But just imagine YOU are a coder working on a project with a bunch of people you know are competent but who don't agree with you. In comes a consultant to "help you out". How do you feel about the consultant? Now imagine that you were working on the project voluntarily and for no money. And further imagine that there is no "management" to appeal to make the coders listen to the consultant's ideas.
One of three things will happen:
1) Everyone will be rational and form a consensus. 2) Opinions will polarize and the project will fork. 3) Squabbling will continue.
Nope, I'll watch this one from the sidelines and I suggest you all do too. --
Top 10 Ways To Say Congrats...To Hemos
on
Hemos Gets Hitched
·
· Score: 4
10) "All I wan too sey is, 'god joob!'" 9) perl -e "print 'Congratulations To The Bates\''" 8) Why do all your wedding invitations say "Copyright Andover.net"? 7) We all know how these Internet mergers go--right now they are Bates-Lane, but in 9 months I'm sure they'll spin off a "joint venture". 6) This just in from ESR: Hemos "gets it". 5) Your wedding night is no time to find out why Hemos is so interested in nano-everything. 4) On the other hand, it's better than Rob's obsession with "quickies". 3) So this is gonna be an Open Source marriage, right? Which one is the "benevolent dictator"? 2) Katz gave a beautiful toast: We geeks gather here today, among geeks, to celebrate the union of two structs, I mean geeks, in holy matrimony. 1) Hemos sux!
It's pretty clear you are a troll, but what they hey, I'm waiting for something to finish.
"Argument- Computer Business has taken off due to Bill Gates/Copyright."
This isn't an argument, it's a claim. An argument is a series of logically connected statements that lead to conclusion. A claim is just a bald statement of (supposed) fact.
"I don't see any evidence to prove him wrong though."
And you'll continue to not see any. Let HIM provide evidence that it's true, then we'll talk. BTW, if all you are going to respond with is more non-sequiters and nonsense, I won't be responding. If you want to continue to play your little 14-year-old games, you'll have to get your big brother to help you come up with something interesting. --
How about a lesson of your own? In order to be taken seriously you have to provide support for your claims. All my post did was point out that just saying "Gates did A at time T" and "Event E happened at time T+1" proves nothing about Gates and Event E.
It's not on me to prove Gates DIDN'T have an effect. It's on the original poster to prove that he DID. --
"...integrates with windows...so any computer in the world can be used as "your" computer."
Any computer running Windows, anyway. Oh and you have to install our software.
Prediction #1: We will never hear about this again. Prediction #2 (somewhat related to #1): ASP's are never going to take off in a big way, at least not for "desktop" software. With the possible exception of email service (for small businesses), ASP's are going to be the 2001 equivalent of the 1996-7 "push technology". --
I commented earlier poking a few holes in Dr Spafford's argument, but now I'm posting again with a totally different point.
Let's say he's right: Open Source isn't a security panacea. So what?
This is only a big deal to the ESR's of the world because they try to make arguments about using "Open Source" software based on business needs (like security, cost, bugs, etc). But that's not why I (a non-business, after all) use Linux (and friends). I'm in it for the freedom. And no amount of specs and formalism will give you freedom. --
OK you lawyers who want to make money off the Internet, come read this this journal. That's right, stand a little closer together, come on, there's room for everyone. Now don't move for a second....
In the mathematical sense, he is right. If you start with a formal spec that can be tested (crypto-mathematically) to be safe and then implement that spec rigidly (testing each component) you can use some definition of the word "trusted" to describe the outcome.
This is probably the same method Bill Richardson advocates for keeping nuclear secrets safe.
You could also skip a little on the formality but add a buttload of real-world testing. Throw in a sense of honor that feels personally offended when a bug is found. Then mix in some "many eyes effect". Now you have something that you can't PROVE safe, but at least you FEEL safe.
Now before you respond, be aware that, Bill R ref aside, I'm not saying "those ivory tower fools don't know what it's like in the real world". What I AM saying is that formality, like scientific theory, is only as good as the real-world experiments that bear it out.
I also think that Linux could benefit from a little more...structure. There are some projects that are doing audits, but we all know it's better to design security in, not QA it in. However, I think Spafford is underappreciating the Open Source Way. --
When I first heard about blender, I thought "that sounds cool, I'll try it". So I d/l'd and was shocked--at the poor (and poorly documented) UI.
But the coolness made me persevere. And man, am I ever glad. Blender is just about the coolest thing since sliced bread. And the UI is actually easy to use once you get used to it. It's very consistent--it just has a whole different paradigm (like buttons that act like sliders or that do different things depending on which edge you press on). Once you realize how much screen real estate is being saved just by relearning a few key mappings you will marvel at the mind that came up with it all.
I've been lusting after the manual and tutorial book, but I think I'll wait until 2.0 comes out.
To anyone thinking of trying it: Do it now! Even if you have no artistic skills (like me) you will have more fun than sex in a hottub (believe me, I know). --
This post was on-topic. Sure, some nitwit moderator didn't see the connection between this post and "Intel Releases Red Hat Based Netpliance" but we all know how dumb moderators are (present company excluded).
So please, mark this "offtopic" moderation as "unfair". --
The link points to the W3C itself. Where is the "harsh criticism".
BTW, you are doing your readers (and therefore yourselves) a great disservice by confusing them with this "Pretty Poor Privacy" pseudo-joke. I'd never heard of it until just now and I was totally baffled why I should be surprised that a spec that was called "poor privacy" would have privacy problems. --
This is old news. Their new language is called "MicroSpeak". Here's a sample:
Microsoft: Source of all innovation. Consumer: Recipient of innovation (and therefore all consumers are Microsoft customers and vice versa) Bug: Potential innovation Lawsuit: Oppression against innovation Competitor: Reason for innovating. Not because they "spur us on"--because that's the only way to crush, I mean "innovate", them. --
I was patient (for instance, I explained the popup window thing 3 times--twice to marketing and once to the web designer), clear and civil.
But I got the distinct impression that the VP of "Operations" (which mostly meant "Marketing") Wanted It This Way. He didn't spend any time online, but he knew what he liked. And the idiot^H^H^H^H^H, sorry, web designers didn't help by not even acknowledging that I had a point. --
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps we need to coin a new phrase: "The GPL treats the justice system as damage and routes around it."
--
Your quote, while interesting, doesn't really apply. It sounds like it was intended to guard against things like the following hypothetical example:
Company A gives Company B some code C under an NDA. B puts C into software S under the GPL and releases it. A sues B to make them stop releasing the source code. If the court agrees with A, the your snippet says "A can't stop releasing just the source code, they have to stop releasing EVERYTHING".
But if the court rules against some portion of the GPL ITSELF, then the meaning "satisfy...your obligations under this License" will change depending on what part was ruled against. In other words that snippet may not keep GPL'd code safe in the event of a negative court ruling.
--
1) Court is avoided. Life returns to normal.
2) GPL is upheld. Life returns to normal but with a little added secure feeling about the GPL.
3) GPL is NOT upheld. Then what? Does RMS have a contingency plan? Does all released GPL'd code revert to the public domain? To the BSD license? Does the FSF write a new GPL (GNGPL "GPL2 is Not GPL")?
--
"...what's your theory on why MS is converting to XML?"
No theory is needed. XML is not a format, it is a language (that's what the "L" stands for). There's no reason in the world that an XML file can't also be proprietary.
"Oh, I guarantee you that people like you are irrelevent to how the industry is going to evolve on this matter."
And you call yourself Reality Master? Have you seen anything that's happened since around 1995? "People like me" are starting to take the tech industry away from Microsoft. Why do you think Linux is getting big? Not because we follow "de facto standards"--it's because we like quality software AND the freedom to do what we want. And we aren't ashamed to say it.
'But "anything but Microsoft" is not an advantage, as much as you would like it to be.'
Please provide a quote, with context, where I've indicated this desire.
It's pretty clear from this series of posts and others that you like to think of yourself as a "counter-revolutionary": "The sheep like MS, the slightly less-sheeplike hate MS, but *I* (in my level-transcending wisdom) like MS--for the 'right' reasons." But guess what? Just because you condescending to "the masses" AND "non-conformist" among the "elite" doesn't make you right.
--
"Your whining does nothing to change reality."
I am not whining. Not now, nor to people who send me proprietary data files.
However, my complaints and explanations ARE changing reality. Trivially: People resend me the files in a non-Word format. Non-trivially: My workplace has stopped using proprietary encryption and authentication on their VPN.
"But in the meantime, I see no reason to make everyone else's life miserable. The emergence of a standard format is clearly a big plus."
Just how do you think this emergence is going to take place? A magic wand waved near Bill Gates and suddenly he decides to play nice with others? No, it takes a lot of people deciding they aren't going to "conform" to get a critical mass going.
Of course, I'm sure in 5 years you'll be telling everyone how your "cooperative attitude" allowed you to overturn the MS Office dominance "from the inside"--when it was really people who just refused to take it anymore.
--
'"Unix" has no word processing features. Oh, you mean some of the office apps available for Unix?'
No, I mean tools like ispell, TeX/LaTeX, grep, sed, etc. Put these (especially *TeX) together right and you can do anything Word can do. Plus, you can do it more modularly AND deterministicly than Word will ever be.
And you can't credit Word with good printing while denying it to Unix. That's comparing apps to os's. Word itself doesn't do ANY printing. Yes, Windows printing system is, in general, easier to use. But again, using *TeX (or even just PostScript) good quality output is possible, even easy, under *nix.
"Finally, the most important feature that Word has is -- Word compatibility. Face it; Word is the defacto industry standard document interchange format."
I'll leave it to others to counter the ridiculous claim that I should follow Word just because other people do.
I'll just turn this argument against itself: "Finally, the most important feature that Unix has is -- universal compatibility. Face it; Unix is the defacto industry standard data processing system." Sounds stupid? Because it is. So is your argument.
--
Wow, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?
A kernel developer is someone who develops for the kernel. That's a pretty clearcut definition. For instance, *I* am not a kernel developer nor did I claim to be.
I didn't use the word "real" and I wasn't taking an elitist attitude. In fact, I'm inclined to say that "chip on the shoulder" attitudes like yours are more likely the cause of friction on ANY software project.
--
"They are interested in getting work done, and you are preventing them from getting work done."
I am also interested in getting work done. Having to reboot into Windows to read something that turns out to be a macro-virus prevents me from working, too.
"Even if/when the office suites under Unix catch up with MS/Office..."
Name one useful feature that Word has that can't be done on Unix.
"...people will still remember that "arrogant Unix asshole" who told them that Unix couldn't read their Word docs."
Ah, the old straw-man argument. Who said anything about "arrogant" and "asshole"? When I get Word documents (or requests for Word documents) and say "I'm sorry, I don't have access to Microsoft Word." Depending on the situation, I give a list of alternatives (plain text, html, etc). I am polite but firm. If asked why I can't read (or supply) a Word file, I use the (completely applicable) word "proprietary".
Besides, what am I *supposed* to do? Ignore the document?
--
...but I know what's wrong.
Non-(kernel developers) should stay the heck out of this discussion. Political infighting is never helped by the uninformed butting in of outsiders.
Yeah, yeah "maybe we have a better view from the outside". But just imagine YOU are a coder working on a project with a bunch of people you know are competent but who don't agree with you. In comes a consultant to "help you out". How do you feel about the consultant? Now imagine that you were working on the project voluntarily and for no money. And further imagine that there is no "management" to appeal to make the coders listen to the consultant's ideas.
One of three things will happen:
1) Everyone will be rational and form a consensus.
2) Opinions will polarize and the project will fork.
3) Squabbling will continue.
Nope, I'll watch this one from the sidelines and I suggest you all do too.
--
...about Hemos and the Techno-Talking Babes?
--
10) "All I wan too sey is, 'god joob!'"
9) perl -e "print 'Congratulations To The Bates\''"
8) Why do all your wedding invitations say "Copyright Andover.net"?
7) We all know how these Internet mergers go--right now they are Bates-Lane, but in 9 months I'm sure they'll spin off a "joint venture".
6) This just in from ESR: Hemos "gets it".
5) Your wedding night is no time to find out why Hemos is so interested in nano-everything.
4) On the other hand, it's better than Rob's obsession with "quickies".
3) So this is gonna be an Open Source marriage, right? Which one is the "benevolent dictator"?
2) Katz gave a beautiful toast: We geeks gather here today, among geeks, to celebrate the union of two structs, I mean geeks, in holy matrimony.
1) Hemos sux!
--
It's pretty clear you are a troll, but what they hey, I'm waiting for something to finish.
"Argument- Computer Business has taken off due to Bill Gates/Copyright."
This isn't an argument, it's a claim. An argument is a series of logically connected statements that lead to conclusion. A claim is just a bald statement of (supposed) fact.
"I don't see any evidence to prove him wrong though."
And you'll continue to not see any. Let HIM provide evidence that it's true, then we'll talk. BTW, if all you are going to respond with is more non-sequiters and nonsense, I won't be responding. If you want to continue to play your little 14-year-old games, you'll have to get your big brother to help you come up with something interesting.
--
How about a lesson of your own? In order to be taken seriously you have to provide support for your claims. All my post did was point out that just saying "Gates did A at time T" and "Event E happened at time T+1" proves nothing about Gates and Event E.
It's not on me to prove Gates DIDN'T have an effect. It's on the original poster to prove that he DID.
--
"...computers didn't become big business until Bill Gates got copyright protection on BASIC back in the early 80's."
True. John Lennon being shot in 1980 was a big factor, too.
Just because Gates got in on the ground floor doesn't mean he drove the elevator.
--
Great! With access to CVS those XFree86 folk can work smarter, not harder through the use of prescription drugs.
(for those who don't understand, "CVS" is a huge drugstore chain in New England)
--
"...integrates with windows...so any computer in the world can be used as "your" computer."
Any computer running Windows, anyway. Oh and you have to install our software.
Prediction #1: We will never hear about this again.
Prediction #2 (somewhat related to #1): ASP's are never going to take off in a big way, at least not for "desktop" software. With the possible exception of email service (for small businesses), ASP's are going to be the 2001 equivalent of the 1996-7 "push technology".
--
I commented earlier poking a few holes in Dr Spafford's argument, but now I'm posting again with a totally different point.
Let's say he's right: Open Source isn't a security panacea. So what?
This is only a big deal to the ESR's of the world because they try to make arguments about using "Open Source" software based on business needs (like security, cost, bugs, etc). But that's not why I (a non-business, after all) use Linux (and friends). I'm in it for the freedom. And no amount of specs and formalism will give you freedom.
--
OK you lawyers who want to make money off the Internet, come read this this journal. That's right, stand a little closer together, come on, there's room for everyone. Now don't move for a second....
....there, I think I got 'em all.
KABOOM
--
In the mathematical sense, he is right. If you start with a formal spec that can be tested (crypto-mathematically) to be safe and then implement that spec rigidly (testing each component) you can use some definition of the word "trusted" to describe the outcome.
This is probably the same method Bill Richardson advocates for keeping nuclear secrets safe.
You could also skip a little on the formality but add a buttload of real-world testing. Throw in a sense of honor that feels personally offended when a bug is found. Then mix in some "many eyes effect". Now you have something that you can't PROVE safe, but at least you FEEL safe.
Now before you respond, be aware that, Bill R ref aside, I'm not saying "those ivory tower fools don't know what it's like in the real world". What I AM saying is that formality, like scientific theory, is only as good as the real-world experiments that bear it out.
I also think that Linux could benefit from a little more...structure. There are some projects that are doing audits, but we all know it's better to design security in, not QA it in. However, I think Spafford is underappreciating the Open Source Way.
--
When I first heard about blender, I thought "that sounds cool, I'll try it". So I d/l'd and was shocked--at the poor (and poorly documented) UI.
But the coolness made me persevere. And man, am I ever glad. Blender is just about the coolest thing since sliced bread. And the UI is actually easy to use once you get used to it. It's very consistent--it just has a whole different paradigm (like buttons that act like sliders or that do different things depending on which edge you press on). Once you realize how much screen real estate is being saved just by relearning a few key mappings you will marvel at the mind that came up with it all.
I've been lusting after the manual and tutorial book, but I think I'll wait until 2.0 comes out.
To anyone thinking of trying it: Do it now! Even if you have no artistic skills (like me) you will have more fun than sex in a hottub (believe me, I know).
--
This post was on-topic. Sure, some nitwit moderator didn't see the connection between this post and "Intel Releases Red Hat Based Netpliance" but we all know how dumb moderators are (present company excluded).
So please, mark this "offtopic" moderation as "unfair".
--
It's spelled "Dot.Station", but it's pronounced "computer".
--
The link points to the W3C itself. Where is the "harsh criticism".
BTW, you are doing your readers (and therefore yourselves) a great disservice by confusing them with this "Pretty Poor Privacy" pseudo-joke. I'd never heard of it until just now and I was totally baffled why I should be surprised that a spec that was called "poor privacy" would have privacy problems.
--
This is old news. Their new language is called "MicroSpeak". Here's a sample:
Microsoft: Source of all innovation.
Consumer: Recipient of innovation (and therefore all consumers are Microsoft customers and vice versa)
Bug: Potential innovation
Lawsuit: Oppression against innovation
Competitor: Reason for innovating. Not because they "spur us on"--because that's the only way to crush, I mean "innovate", them.
--
Whoops, I kinda gave the wrong impression there.
I was patient (for instance, I explained the popup window thing 3 times--twice to marketing and once to the web designer), clear and civil.
But I got the distinct impression that the VP of "Operations" (which mostly meant "Marketing") Wanted It This Way. He didn't spend any time online, but he knew what he liked. And the idiot^H^H^H^H^H, sorry, web designers didn't help by not even acknowledging that I had a point.
--