Searching \ for '[OT:] SCO lobbying Congress about Linux' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=sco+lobbying+congress
Search entire site for: 'SCO lobbying Congress about Linux'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT:] SCO lobbying Congress about Linux'
2004\01\23@113948 by Lucas Hartmann

flavicon
face
part 1 1056 bytes content-type:Text/Plain; (decoded quoted-printable)

Read. It pays the time spent: http://www.osaia.org/letters/sco_hill.pdf

SCO is trying to make OpenSource software and the GPL illegal.



Just 3 points on it:



How can SCO believe that if I wrote my software I MUST be credited for it,
even if I don't want to???



If open-source software really slows technology innovations, why they're
refered to as "highly capable software", and why would RedHat, Conectiva and
Mandrake spend time and efforts improving Linux?



However I don't agree with RedHat's opinion of "no copyrights for software".
Leave paid software alone... If they can't be good enough to pay for their
cost, they'll die on their own.



Engineering software use to be really expensive, making development
restricted to big companies. With free software smaller companies can grow
up to become big ones.



Lucas Hartmann.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics



part 2 531 bytes content-type:image/gif; (decode)

2004\01\23@225729 by Richard Graziano

picon face
part 1 426 bytes content-type:text/plain; (decoded 7bit)

See Attached


----- Original Message -----
From: "Lucas Hartmann" <spam_OUTlhartmannTakeThisOuTspamDETEC.UNIJUI.TCHE.BR>
To: <.....PICLISTKILLspamspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: [OT:] SCO lobbying Congress about Linux


--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics




part 2 29221 bytes content-type:application/msword; (decode)

2004\01\24@054355 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> If open-source software really slows technology innovations, why they're
>> refered to as "highly capable software", and why would RedHat, Conectiva
and
>> Mandrake spend time and efforts improving Linux?

> These questions here you raise are hypothetical
> and reductio ad absurdum.


Reductio ad absurdum is entirely legitimate when the original proposition is
absurd :-)



       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2004\01\24@054358 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Summary: SCO are, it would seem, utterly pathetic and despicable.
__________________________

I'll put material referred to by others in plain text here:

1.    Truly pathetic whinging & lying letter from SCO

       http://www.osaia.org/letters/sco_hill.pdf

2.    Text version of DOC file posted by Richard
       Portions between ">  ... > " are Lucas Hartman's original.

   At end

______________

I'll assume the letter really was written by SCO. If not, my apologies to
them for anything here that rails against things they have not in fact said
or done. If it IS genuine, then I consider their actions despicable.

At least SCO's letter clarifies their claim.
It says that "thousands of lines" of their code is contained in Linux.
Shouldn't be too hard to spot then, should it.

I absolutely agree that there is no place in GPL software for stolen code.
They have every right to protect their property. I would not be at all
surprised if there was in fact some stolen code in Linux. If so, those who
are responsible for taking the entirely unnecessary short cuts which bring
GPL into disrepute deserve all the trouble that results. Regrettably, such
trouble will instead be directed far more broadly at the whole GPL / Linux
community.

However, SCO's letter presents an utterly perverted impression of what GPL
is about. If it was presented in a technical forum it could simply be
treated with the utter derision that it deserves. At a minimum rotten eggs
are invited. However, if this is being sent to US legislators, who are
liable to be less than aware of what GPL really is about, then it is an
attempt to create a mis-impression and to destroy something by nefarious
means that they cannot, apparently, combat by fair means based on the merits
of their own software. If this is the ethical level that SCO sees fit to
operate at then woe betide their customers. GPL makes no demands on the
behaviour of those who wish to pursue another software production model. It
may well (indeed, does) impact on other models.

As long as the actions of GPLers are legal in all areas then the only
morally available course is to combat it through legally available means.
Telling lies to Congressman et al about it doesn't count guys. As for the
ability for eg North Koreans being able to run Linux but not UNIX - they
must have an extremely exalted opionion indeed of the effect of mere
regulations to prevent the illegal dissemination of software. If legal
restrictions had any protective value whatsoever they would stop SCO code
turning up in Linux much more effectively than they would prevent North
Korea pirating as many copies of SCO UNIX as they wished. The arguments that
other practices reduce the value of the software market for the
protagonists, while not without some persuasive value at first glance, would
logically led one to the conclusion (amongst many others) that software
producers should be protected from competition and encouraged to put up
their prices at every opportunity.

SCO's attempts to fetter people legally doing what they wish to do with
their resources is against the core tenets of US democracy (and most other
democracy as well :-) ) and, dare I say it, the spirit of capitalism
(whatever that is) and is an offence to the concept of freedom. Alas, such
perversity may well go unnoticed in the current US climate.



       Russell McMahon

_______________________________________

RICHARD'S LETTER

> ....
>   = Lucas

>SCO is trying to make OpenSource software and the GPL illegal.
Just 3 points on it:
How can SCO believe that if I wrote my software I MUST be credited for it,
even if I don't want to???
>

1. This is not about the existential individual but about the broader
aspects of business, even though some persons tend to see the world in terms
of their self as apart from the greater community without rendering any
responsibility to that community.  This is clearly an issue of reciprocity.
It is an issue of prosperity for the individual that obtains from the
prosperous functional organization and security of the greater technological
community, which by virtue of its existence creates the very opportunity for
technical contribution by the individual.

Your argument, here, is without merit because it is not germane to the
central issue, which is the software industry.


> If open-source software really slows technology innovations, why they're
refered to as "highly capable software", and why would RedHat, Conectiva and
Mandrake spend time and efforts improving Linux?
>

2. These questions here you raise are hypothetical and reductio ad absurdum.
Furthermore, you are implicitly advancing the proposition that open-source
software enhances technology, without a reasonable premise.  Do you, in
fact, intend to suggest that technology will be enhanced by open-source
software, and that technology is presently retarded by the legal protection
of intellectual property?

3. You have raised some intriguing and important questions that demonstrate
the need for education and understanding of the issue itself, and also to
the ramifications of removing the legal protection of intellectual property.


4. Furthermore, there are legal considerations to be taken into account.
The process of law is in large part a process of decision.  Cases are
reviewed with consideration to precedent.  The abrogation of intellectual
property rights to software sets a dangerous precedent for intellectual
property protection in the broader sense.  Is it possible that such as
invention, writing, music and art forms in general will not be encumbered or
discouraged by the loss of such protection as now exists?


> However I don't agree with RedHat's opinion of "no copyrights for
software".
Leave paid software alone... If they can't be good enough to pay for their
cost, they'll die on their own.

Engineering software use to be really expensive, making development
restricted to big companies. With free software smaller companies can grow
up to become big ones.
>


5. Engineering costs for software, like the costs for hardware, are defined
by the market conditions and the imposition of government regulations and
social costs together with fully burdened overhead.  The issue you present
limits the scope of the argument to the simplistic view of one man's
basement overhead versus the large corporate facility overhead and does not
take into account many other important factors; the productivity of a
technical community versus the freelance programmer, for example.  The
resources available for problem solving in a community of software engineers
is advantageous by virtue of collective knowledge, collective experience,
funds available for research and testing, intellectual backup and redundancy
and the list goes on.



Clearly, the issue is not a simplistic as the advocates of open-software
make it appear. It is likely, in fact, that most advocates of open-software
are ignorant of the broader ramifications of their position and have no idea
that they are uneducated as to the real issues.

What is the cost of errors?  We have already discovered that they can be
very expensive. Even small errors in Microsoft products received big
attention and cost large sums of money, not only from the errors, per se,
but from the publicity and the outcry.

To advance the idea of open software we must ask would we advance the idea
of open military strategy?  In a real sense, that is an equivalent
proposition because proprietary software is as germane to American Security
as proprietary military strategy.  It may be that some adversary of America
would promulgate open software, and that is altogether understandable.



Because there is insufficient space and time to provide a comprehensive
answer to your argument, I have summarized a brief mention of some
challenges that you have raised.

I hope that I have been of some help and that this reply is of some value to
you.  I am always happy to see that people will get involved in an issue
rather than stand by passively and watch things happen.  It is nobler to get
involved regardless of the position taken than it is to have no interest.
Reading and learning, whether or not one takes up a position, is still an
active practice of involvement.  I complement you on your willingness to
take a position.  My advice is to become educated on all sides of the issue.

I am confident that many rebuttals would follow this were it to be an open
issue.  But that is also a form of intellectual colloquy and it is
intellectually healthy.  And this is an issue of critical strategic interest
to Americans, Germans, or other nations as benefit from intellectual
property protection laws.  The open debate on a Grande scale could only
prove beneficial, if it is carried by logic and not propaganda.

Respectfully,
Richard

Lucas Hartmann.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2004\01\24@082218 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> See Attached

Better not attach .doc files, on Windoze that's a word document and that
format can hide virii. Better user .rtf or .pdf.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2004\01\24@082220 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Read. It pays the time spent:
> http://www.osaia.org/letters/sco_hill.pdf

They must be loosing the fight agains IBM quickly to get to this level
of desparateness. Did thet use the same copywriter that Microsoft once
used?

> I've just had a mini flood of repeated messages from the Piclist
mailer.

Me150

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2004\01\24@103705 by Howard Winter
face
flavicon
picon face
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:35:30 +1300, Russell McMahon wrote:

>lots of good stuff snipped<

> SCO's attempts to fetter people legally doing what they wish to do with
> their resources is against the core tenets of US democracy (and most other
> democracy as well :-) ) and, dare I say it, the spirit of capitalism
> (whatever that is) and is an offence to the concept of freedom. Alas, such
> perversity may well go unnoticed in the current US climate.

SCO's entire conduct has annoyed me immensely, but the aspect that has me leaping out of my seat shouting
"NO!!!!" is their attempt to hitch a ride on the current "if you're not with us you're against us" bandwagon
by making "National Security" part of their argument.  The utter cynicism of suggesting that letting any
flavour of UNIX get into the hands of the "enemy" is dangerous, and that nobody else is capable of writing
software that could threaten the US is amazing, and rather along the lines of trying to stop PGP from being
exported all those years ago.  So someone in North Korea builds a "virtual supercomputer" (!) - what are they
going to do with it that could not be done (perhaps more slowly) using any decent PC that is available
worldwide?  Remember that most of the code-cracking that went on during WWII was done with pencil and paper,
aided only by some crude electro-mechanical devices, which did no actual cracking, but checked the validity of
a possible solution.  A "supercomputer" can speed things up dramatically, but there's very little that can't
be done without one.

The whole thing is patent scaremongering (pun not intended) to try to bolster support for their groundless
position from people who are not equipped to disbelieve their assertions.  I hope they lose their shirt over
it!

I wonder what SCO would do if the US Congress agrees with them, but the rest of the World doesn't?  If their
worst-case scenario happens and Free Software becomes the norm outside the US, but the US only has Expensive
Software, their "continued ability to lead the World in technological innovation" (!) would look a tad thin!

Cheers,

Howard Winter
St.Albans, England

Your homework essay for tonight, children:  "Plagiarism: offence or useful technique?"  :-)

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2004\01\24@111849 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Wouter,

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:21:05 +0100, Wouter van Ooijen
wrote:


> They must be loosing the fight agains IBM quickly to
get to this level
> of desparateness. Did thet use the same copywriter
that Microsoft once
> used?

Perhaps one that they are still using?  :-)

> > I've just had a mini flood of repeated messages from
the Piclist
> mailer.
>
> Me150

I've got this funny feeling that I've had Deja Vu
before...

Cheers,

Howard Winter
St.Albans, England

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2004\01\24@173543 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:

> At least SCO's letter clarifies their claim.
> It says that "thousands of lines" of their code is contained in Linux.
> Shouldn't be too hard to spot then, should it.

Nah, they've been being asked by the Courts here in the U.S. in their
case against IBM to produce specifics.  They never do.

http://www.groklaw.net is a great place to keep up on the real legal
proceedings (the only thing that counts in the long-run with SCO
garbage) and Darl's idiotic troop of big-company-with-real-ideas wanna-bees.

Nate Duehr, natespamKILLspamnatetech.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2004\01\24@173923 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Howard Winter wrote:

>>They must be loosing the fight agains IBM quickly to
>
> get to this level
>
>>of desparateness. Did thet use the same copywriter
>
> that Microsoft once
>
>>used?
>
>
> Perhaps one that they are still using?  :-)

That $12 million "settlement" from Microsoft that SCO got earlier this
year probably also came with the free use of a Public Relations person
(or ten).  ;-)

Nate Duehr, .....nateKILLspamspam.....natetech.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2004\01\25@020402 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> That $12 million "settlement" from Microsoft that SCO got earlier this
> year probably also came with the free use of a Public Relations person
> (or ten).  ;-)

And with a license (or knowing uSoft strategies: probably an
obligation!) to used MUD tactics against Open Source.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2004\01\25@071052 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Nate,

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:34:46 -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:

> Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> > At least SCO's letter clarifies their claim.
> > It says that "thousands of lines" of their code is contained in Linux.
> > Shouldn't be too hard to spot then, should it.
>
> Nah, they've been being asked by the Courts here in the U.S. in their
> case against IBM to produce specifics.  They never do.

Isn't that contempt of court?  You get locked up for that, here!  :-)

Or at the very least, they are failing to produce evidence to support their case, which ought to result in a
finding for the other side...

Cheers,

Howard Winter
St.Albans, England

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2004\01\26@140603 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
I see the open sourced software versus proprietary software question in
the way I see toll roads versus public roads.

Roads are necessary for life and business, they have been around for quite
a while, lots of people worked to make them and keep them open and
passable, some volunteered, some were volunteered, and others got paid.
Some are toll roads, most are not, as most were built from *tax* money
spent as military or government expenditure (and as such have been paid
for, by the work of honest taxpayers many times over, and should not be
sell-able either to companies or to individuals, nor should they be used
to levy additional taxes in the form of a toll, or other governmental
money-making schemes).

What the proprietary software supporters are trying to do, is to make all
roads toll roads, because theirs is a toll road, and because (so they
claim) all roads resemble theirs in design (which they consistently failed
to prove so far - the design pattern - the POSIX standards among others in
this case - being in the public domain just like any public road), and
because they would greatly benefit from everyone else being forced to do
things the way they do them, knowing full well that one needs roads to be
able to travel.  And they would like to sell this idea to a democratic
assembly in the country that says it's the freeest (sp?) of all. You know
what ? I don't think so.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
@spam@piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu

2004\01\26@214125 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Monday, Jan 26, 2004, at 09:19 US/Pacific, Peter L. Peres wrote:

> What the proprietary software supporters are trying to do, is to make
> all
> roads toll roads, because theirs is a toll road, and because (so they
> claim) all roads resemble theirs in design

What proprietary SW supporter other than SCO is making claims along
these lines?  Don't you DARE villify PS vendors because of SCO's
actions!  i don't think even microsoft has been stupid enough to
make such a claim against Open source software (although I wouldn't
be surprised if they're clandestinly supporting SCO...)

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
KILLspampiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu

2004\01\27@005220 by John Plocher

picon face
James Caska wrote:
> I think it comes down to intent. The real 'spirit' of OpenSource seems
> to be a big 'F.U' to capatilism actually

Please be precise in your flames - it is not all of Open Source
you seem to be having a problem with, but only that part of it
which has chosen to make itself available under the GNU Public
License (aka GPL).

Many of the Open Source offerings use licenses that are not
virus-like.  BSD, Perl, Apache etc are all (IMHO) much more
reasonable and don't require you to make your stuff Open Source
as well.

Rhetorical Question: how many here are using the MicroChip AP Note
examples or Tony Nixon's or Jinx's or ... example code in your
projects?  This is an example of an Open Source community,
where the people of the community value the sharing of their
source code and examples over charging money for it.

GPL is not my personal license of choice, and I disagree with
the goals that many in the GPL camp espouse, but I support the
GPL-crowd's freedom to choose for themselves the specific
terms and conditions under which they are willing to make the
fruits of their labors available.

Bill Gates chooses to make only the executable bits of his labors
available, and he charges $$$ for them.

Richard Stallman chooses to make the source code, binaries, build
system, documentation etc available - without monetary cost - if you
simply agree to make any derivative work of yours available to
others under the same terms he gave you.

Bill is doing it because he wants more $$$.

Richard is doing it because he wants to build a better community - one
that values open sharing of source code.

I find it amazing that people are falling over themselves to defend
a monopolist's right to exploit money from the people of this world
and lamblasting the Open Source community's efforts to build a better
society.

Sigh,
 -John

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@042046 by James Caska

flavicon
face
>Please be precise in your flames -

What if you are not trying to flame :-) I was deliberately avoiding
specifics and the whole thrust of the line of thought was simply an
observation about the biological similarities of (some) OpenSource
licenses and virus's..


James Caska
http://www.muvium.com
uVM - 'Java Bred for Embedded'



{Original Message removed}

2004\01\27@042707 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> What if you are not trying to flame :-) I was deliberately avoiding
> specifics and the whole thrust of the line of thought was simply an
> observation about the biological similarities of (some) OpenSource
> licenses and virus's..

Your observation is totally correct. It shows that the GPL is a
carefully created piece of work! Note that most (succesfull)
'organisations' (religions, political parties, mutinationals, etc) use a
similar mechanism.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@063353 by Lucas Hartmann

flavicon
face
I see absolutely no similarities... You can't choose to catch a cold or
not.... :-)

Lucas Hartmann

--------- Mensagem Original --------
De: "pic microcontroller discussion list" <RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Para: "spamBeGonePICLISTspamBeGonespamMITVMA.MIT.EDU" <TakeThisOuTPICLISTEraseMEspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Assunto: Re: [OT:] SCO lobbying Congress about Linux
Data: 27/01/04 06:20


>Please be precise in your flames -

What if you are not trying to flame :-) I was deliberately avoiding
specifics and the whole thrust of the line of thought was simply an
observation about the biological similarities of (some) OpenSource
licenses and virus's..


James Caska
http://www.muvium.com
uVM - 'Java Bred for Embedded'



{Original Message removed}

2004\01\27@064638 by Hulatt, Jon

flavicon
face
A slight aside, but still related to this thread:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3432639.stm

... is a bbc news article relating to this new virus that's around today.
But, I quote:-

"SCO is one of the largest Unix open-source vendors in the world."

Which made me laugh. That statement, noting this thread, is actually 100%
wrong.




Kind of dissapointing that this new virus seems to have been deliberately
released for a DOS attack at sco.com. It's only going to further enrage sco
in their "fight" against open-source. I wonder if the code for this virus
has been released under GPL :-D

jon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@065054 by Bill Couture

picon face
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, James Caska wrote:

> >Please be precise in your flames -
>
> What if you are not trying to flame :-) I was deliberately avoiding
> specifics and the whole thrust of the line of thought was simply an
> observation about the biological similarities of (some) OpenSource
> licenses and virus's..

However, unlike biological viruses, it's YOUR decision if you want to
catch this virus.

If you don't like the license terms of the code, just don't use it.

Bill

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@075637 by James Caska

flavicon
face
>However, unlike biological viruses, it's YOUR decision if you want to
catch this virus.

I think the other point was that at the time of this code being widely
absorbed into the commercial codebase there was a general
misunderstanding of the intention of the 'free software'. At the time of
the absorbtion of the code I don't think the DECISION was as widely
understood as it is now becoming more clear. You only need to consider
the complexity of the debate on this list to forgive early adoptors of
these cleverly written licenses that the impact of their DECISION to
adopt such code has had unexpected and poorly understood consequences. I
mean sure it was written into the license 'agreement' but so were the
words FREE! Only now these licenses are starting to be tested in court
is the actual DECISION being clarified and retrospectively it is having
distruptive consquences.. Sounds like all the hallmarks of a trogan
horse in addition to that of a virus.. A very clever strategy indeed.

Let me clarify my personal position. I am in no way and by no means
against open-source software, in fact an advocate, but the nature of
some of the 'clever' licences is all a bit too clever for me. There is
no doubt that huge open-source libraries is of enourmous benefit - look
at suns open-source java model for example. You can look and see and
learn and extend from opensource code.. And if you get enough value from
it you can put back into the system.. Now that's what sharing is
supposed to be about :-)

The key point is, 'as intended'.. If people want to develop code and
give it away for free that's fantastic and they should have no concern
who uses it and for what purpose ( some good examples earlier on
Microchip released code and others ) but deserve of course credit and
glory where appropriate. However if people are developing code and
giving it away for free with the intention or hope of being disruptive
(#PC Alert - yes this is a generalisation) then this is as bad as anyone
else out there attempting to be disruptive. The question really is..
What purpose does the GPL license have other than to be intentionally
disruptive? Perhaps there is a very good answer for that, and I don't
buy into that whole pay it forward argument.. Although a good one ;-) ,
but from many perspectives it appears intentionally distruptive ( and
the consequences certainly seem to be) so then you must ask, what are
the legalities of an intentionally disruptive paragidm? IMHO (The deeper
issue is that it is frustratingly difficult to be rewarded for your
efforts (despite your obvious brilliance) in this highly competitive
deeply entrenched electronic jungle and there are all these evil
software companies making all this money doing stuff you could do in a
weekend.. Right? .. It's not fair.. Right?.. Sounds like a motive to
me.. But that's another story.. For now Build-A-Bridge ;-) )

Let people develop for free, let them gain glory, let them get their
names in build releases, but don't let them get their glory by putting
legal trogan horses in commercial software and then let their names go
up in lights as they torpedo the commercial efforts of business
enterprises based on the subtleties of what the legal meaning of 'free'
really is..

In the end the whole thing will fizzle out (eventually) because GPL etc
will simply be Immune Responsed out of consideration.. Eventually your
free code will just sit there with I'ts RED STIPES because no-one will
take any interest in it until you change your license.. And that's just
no fun now is it.  Besides someone else who is prepared to change their
license to a newer more evolved license that will probably come from all
this, maybe the license model that Wouter is looking for, will have
their free software available for download with attached glory and
whatever constitutes the revised agreement. That's the true beauty of
this.. Its an evolutionary process through and through and discussions
like this are in fact the survival-of-the-fittest selection process
bringing forward all the excellent questions and thoughts raised by this
list of what in fact Capital is and what rights are and who is allowed
to do what etc... Maybe there just isn't an answer from our current
models and something new will be invented to address it.. Now THAT would
be exciting :-)

But for now it has runnaway a little, like any new virus will, it's not
a catastrophy or anything, it's hardly a hickup really in the scheme of
things but it does give us all a reason to express some philosophy which
makes for nice change of pace :-)

Cheers all and thanks for the time to read the ramble.

James Caska
http://www.muvium.com
uVM - 'Java Bred for Embedded'



{Original Message removed}

2004\01\27@081736 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> there was a general
> misunderstanding of the intention of the 'free software'.

Might be true, but in that case the blame is on the ones who were doing
the misunderstanding.

> distruptive consquences.. Sounds like all the hallmarks of a trogan
> horse in addition to that of a virus.. A very clever strategy indeed.

The GPL/Stallman group has always made it very clear where they stood,
what their license meant and what the effect would be. If someone used
there software and now start to complain about the consequences he must
face the music. If I smuggle drugs into Thailand and get caught I might
be lucky and the queen might get me off the electric chair (or whatever
they use), but the defence 'is this illegal, I had no idea!' is will not
be very succesfull if my IQ is over 80.

> Now that's what sharing is supposed to be about :-)

Sorry, it is not up to you to decide what sharing *as done by someone
else* is all about. You decide the rules for what you share, not for
someone else. BTW what do you share, and under what license?

> What purpose does the GPL license have other than to be intentionally
> disruptive?

To make software in source form freely available. Is that any more
disruprive than indoctrinating people with Catholic ethics (replace with
Protestant, Muslim, Yewish, Buddist, Communist, Freemason, ...)? I think
it is actually less disruptive.

> what are
> the legalities of an intentionally disruptive paragidm?

AFAIK disruptiveness is not forbidden by most free-country laws,
otherwise all speculators (currency, oil, etc) would be in jail.

> but don't let them get their glory by putting
> legal trogan horses in commercial software

They did not put anything in commercial software! Nor did the commercial
vendor, because the moment he did put GPL-licensed code in his software
he agreed that is was not commercial (loose definition) any more :)

> the subtleties of what the legal meaning
> of 'free' really is..

No subtleties, jusy a cleverly written and very clear document of a few
pages. In fact much shorter and clearer than most licenses for
commecrial software. And accompanied by an explaining text that is
readable (but not legally perfect, that's what the license text itself
is for). Any company who's legal department can not interpret the GPL
deserves to go down.

> Eventually your
> free code will just sit there with I'ts RED STIPES because no-one will
> take any interest in it until you change your license.

I both use GPL-ed software and make GPL-ed software available. And so do
many others. Man, half the internet relies on GPL-ed and other
free-licensed software, so if you were not 'using' it your email would
never come through!

> this, maybe the license model that Wouter is looking for

What I am looking for is a model that is suited to what I want for my
Jal library. For many ofther pieces of software I am perfectly satisfied
with GPL, sometimes LGPL, FDL, or sometimes another license.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@082813 by James Caska

flavicon
face
>Might be true, but in that case the blame is on the ones who were doing
the misunderstanding.

I agree actually - it is their misunderstanding and they are paying the
consequences for their misunderstanding. All I am really saying is that
they won't be making that mistake again :-)

> Man, half the internet relies on GPL-ed and other free-licensed
software,
> so if you were not 'using' it your email would never come through!

Again I agree - in general it's an excellent concept! Only where it
overlaps into being retrospectively disruptive to commercial efforts do
I raise an eyebrow.

>No subtleties, jusy a cleverly written and very clear document of a few
pages.

Certainly not in retrospect with precedent court cases to underscore the
legal meanings of the licenses.

Enough now!

Cheers,

James Caska
http://www.muvium.com
uVM - 'Java Bred for Embedded'



{Original Message removed}

2004\01\27@083227 by James Caska

flavicon
face
>BTW what do you share, and under what license?

http://www.muvium.com
http://www.virtualbreadboard.com

Freeware and public domain.. No licenses

James Caska
http://www.muvium.com
uVM - 'Java Bred for Embedded'



{Original Message removed}

2004\01\27@084305 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
just a quickie
my personal feelings are this
I think they seem to represent the arguments of one side here.
I have 2 different "modes" of coding, there is serious coding and fun
coding.
serious coding is stuff I don't want to share, its my baby, I might
distribute the binary and take info on fixes etc. And there is coding I do
for fun, stuff I don't mind giving away. That stuff I want other people to
use and hopefully send me a postcard, or money if they really feel guilty
lol.
thing is I have no problem with people using the software I write for fun in
their own proprietary app (though I would like that postcard). But for
serious work, that stuff is mine and I don't want to give it away. if I want
to write an app for nix or something I just plain wont if I had to rewrite
the c libs etc in order to do it, and it bugs me that somebody would want to
make me try.

> {Original Message removed}

2004\01\27@085205 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> But for
> serious work, that stuff is mine and I don't want to give it
> away.

Feel free to do so. (Note that the word 'free' is popping up again and
again!) But I do write serious software that I want to share as (free)
source, for good (partly commercial) reasons. And I feel (and am) free
to do so!

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@091114 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> thing is I have no problem with people using the software I write for fun in
> their own proprietary app (though I would like that postcard). But for
> serious work, that stuff is mine and I don't want to give it away. if I want
> to write an app for nix or something I just plain wont if I had to rewrite
> the c libs etc in order to do it, and it bugs me that somebody would want to
> make me try.

For *most* uses, such as writing apps on *nix, the GPL'ed license on the
C libraries doesn't prevent you from writing proprietary applications.

It's the oddball cases, such as embedded systems, where there is no
dynamic linking that cause trouble.

Since this is the PICLIST, we are familiar with embedded systems...
--
D. Jay Newman           !
RemoveMEjayspamTakeThisOuTsprucegrove.com     ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy.
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@091321 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>I think the other point was that at the time of this code being widely
>absorbed into the commercial codebase there was a general
>misunderstanding of the intention of the 'free software'. At the time of
>the absorbtion of the code I don't think the DECISION was as widely
>understood as it is now becoming more clear. You only need to consider
>the complexity of the debate on this list to forgive early adoptors of
>these cleverly written licenses that the impact of their DECISION to
>adopt such code has had unexpected and poorly understood consequences. I
>mean sure it was written into the license 'agreement' but so were the
>words FREE! Only now these licenses are starting to be tested in court
>is the actual DECISION being clarified and retrospectively it is having
>distruptive consquences.. Sounds like all the hallmarks of a trogan
>horse in addition to that of a virus.. A very clever strategy indeed.

What a load of b*******. What you really mean is that someone out-lawyered
the lawyers, and the lawyers were not even aware of it. The disruptive
consequences are happening because the lawyers did not think about the
possible later consequences of the legal status of what was being included
in commercial software. There is nothing Trojan Horse about it. If the
lawyers had read the small print properly at the time of inclusion of the
software, then there would not be problems now with law suits.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@091909 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> > What if you are not trying to flame :-) I was deliberately avoiding
> > specifics and the whole thrust of the line of thought was simply an
> > observation about the biological similarities of (some) OpenSource
> > licenses and virus's..
>
> However, unlike biological viruses, it's YOUR decision if you want to
> catch this virus.
>
> If you don't like the license terms of the code, just don't use it.
>
> Bill

Unfortunately there are enough similarities between the GPL and a virus
that this analogy keeps coming up.

Example:

One problem is that large commercial programs are made by large teams
of programmers. Some of these programmers may not understand the problems
they may cause by including GPL'ed code. The companies legal department
probably doesn't look through the source code.

Now this company has released a commercial program that *should* have been
GPL'ed.

What should happen if they are "caught"?

I would say that if the original GPL'ed code is a small part, that the
company should just rewrite it. There are other opinions on this. I'm
a moderate. The GPL was written by somebedy much less moderate (great
piece of work, however).
--
D. Jay Newman           !
jayEraseMEspam.....sprucegrove.com     ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy.
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@095450 by cisco J. A. Ares

flavicon
face
I have no intention to teach anything to anyone :-) , but here is my comment to the subject.

AFAIK:

- if you use GPL source code *STATICALLY LINKED* to your own code, you must release your source code as GPL.

- if you use GPL source code *DINAMICALLY LINKED* to your code, yours is not GPL, unless you want it to.

I resell an equipment from a german company that embedded Linux in a PowerPC microprocessor, and they sell their hardware controlling libraries and also many other useful stuff in the form of more libraries that rely on the Linux kernel, and several other GPL'ed libraries. No problem. No mess. I have to pay them license fees for every package sold.

And, like this one, I know that several others are embedding Linux. Corel did ported their office suit once, and they didn't GPL'ed it. IBM is using Linux on many kinds of servers, and they do not opened their products running on such machines. Novel is now starting to use Linux, and the same thing happens.

So, you can *INDIRECTLY* profit from GPL source code, just don't statically link it with your own.

And you can *DIRECTLY* profit from GPL code: give your program with the source code (that someone else on the world may be adding features and removing bugs) to your clients and sell services (expertise) to them.


For Wouter, try http://creativecommons.org . Not sure if it will fit, but a good reading, at least ;-)


Hope this helps
Francisco

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@100108 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> AFAIK:
>
> - if you use GPL source code *STATICALLY LINKED* to your own
> code, you must release your source code as GPL.
>
> - if you use GPL source code *DINAMICALLY LINKED* to your
> code, yours is not GPL, unless you want it to.

I think you are right if you meant LGPL. For GPL this distinction is not
made. Unfortunately a PIC chip never contains dynamically linked code...

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@102445 by Dan Oelke

flavicon
face
>One problem is that large commercial programs are made by large teams
>of programmers. Some of these programmers may not understand the problems
>they may cause by including GPL'ed code. The companies legal department
>probably doesn't look through the source code.
>
>Now this company has released a commercial program that *should* have been
>GPL'ed.
>
>What should happen if they are "caught"?
>
>I would say that if the original GPL'ed code is a small part, that the
>company should just rewrite it. There are other opinions on this. I'm
>a moderate. The GPL was written by somebedy much less moderate (great
>piece of work, however).
>
>

The actual resolution of every case to date has either been that the
company released the code they were required to, OR they rewrote and
removed the offending piece of code.  There have not been any court
cases on the GPL to date, because once pointed out it was ususally
pretty easy to settle the issue.

In cases where it is the "rogue" programmer, I would bet that most of
them are not caught - how easy is it to see if they included say the GPL
malloc routine in an embedded product???  Those that are caught it is
easy enough to just remove the offending code and replace it with
something else - it was after all only the work of one programmer.

In cases where it isn't easy to replace the code because it is such a
large portion of the code - then it can not be claimed that they company
didn't know.  If say 25% or more of your code comes from an outside
source and you don't analyze the legal ramifications of using that code
then you are negligent in your duties as a software
engineer/manager/director/etc.  Those companies that used GPL code as
the basis for most of their product and then claim that they "didn't
know" are full of ......

Analyzing the legal ramifications doesn't have to include a lawyer -
although that might not be a bad idea in unusual circumstances.  If you
understand the GPL or BSD or Artistic or whatever license and are ok
with it - then you don't need to go re-review it with a lawyer every
time.  I think that people jump at needing a lawyer.  If you are not
trying to do something to screw someone else chances are you will be
just fine.  Act with good intent and carry some insurance to cover the
cases where some jack*** comes after you.  You can't stop those guys who
will sue anyway - so why waste time and money worrying about it.

The GPL has been around for decades and is very well understood by many
people, not to mention it is very readable and understandable for non
lawyers.  Even though RMS is not a moderate when it comes to his
definition of free software - he and the FSF can not sue you for
compliance with the GPL for most of the GPL code out there.  The GPL is
just a license given with the code, but the original author still
retains the original copyright and they are the only ones allowed to sue
to enforce those rights.  The FSF believes it is a good idea for authors
to assign their copyright to the FSF so that the FSF can sue if needed,
but it is not required.  The split between Xemacs and emacs is mostly
because the Xemacs people choose to use GPL code that did not have it's
copyright assigned to the FSF, where emacs was run by the FSF and they
would not allow code to be included unless the authors assigned their
copyright to them.  So a fork in the code base was created - and now we
have two editors that are both very good.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@102901 by William Couture

picon face
{Quote hidden}

And I'm sure you've also had a lawyer read and consider the
consequences of every EULA that pops up on your computer
before you click the "Accept" button?

The GPL is about 3 pages of very clear text.  Most EULAs
are 20 or 30 pages of lawyer-speak, which often contain
little nuggets that let Bill Gates (hack, spit) own your
machine, or forbid you to compare/benchmark a product
without the explicit permission of the company (so that they
can avoid bad reviews).

Are you old enough to remember when the license for the
compiler you bought required you to BUY A LICENSE for each
and every commerical application you produced with the
compiler?  Probably not, but I do.  And we're seeing this
sort of thing begin to pop up again, thanks to EULAs that
forbid compiling competing products.

If you're going to build a commerical product without
considering the licensing details of the software you're
using, you're a fool.

What we're seeing is companies that thought the "hippie"
license didn't mean anything, and so are crying about
being held to the terms of the license by the very copyright
laws that they cheer when they are in their favor.

Bill

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@103902 by William Couture

picon face
>--- Original Message ---
>From: James Caska <RemoveMEcaskaEraseMEspamEraseMEVIRTUALBREADBOARD.COM>
>To: RemoveMEPICLISTspam_OUTspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
>Date: 2/27/04 8:31:10 AM
>
>>BTW what do you share, and under what license?
>
>http://www.muvium.com
>http://www.virtualbreadboard.com
>
>Freeware and public domain.. No licenses

The problem with "no licenses" is that nothing stops the
XYZ corporation from taking the code, tweaking it (i.e.
rubbing off the serial numbers, if they can be bothered
to spend that much effort), and making it their propriatary
commercial product.

And in this lawsuit happy world of ours, they can shut down
your free software for infringing on "their" commerical,
copyrighted product.  Think you can win in court?  Sure,
but do you have $100K plus to defend your free software?

Consider Microsoft, BSD, Linux, the BSD license, and the
GPL.

Microsoft could, tomorrow, take the BSD kernel, slap
"Microsoft" all over it, leave in a copyright notice and
sell their new closed-source operating system (Apple is
actually doing this with OSX, but they are remaining true
to the spirit of the open source community.  Microsoft
would not do this).

Right now, Linux (not BSD) is Microsoft's biggest worry.
It's the GPL that prevents Microsoft from taking Linux,
creating a derivative and non-compatible kernel and selling
their new closed-source operating system.  Then they let
Linux live -- every update to Linux gets fed into their
propriatary extensions to produce an improved product,
without having to release any of their fixes or
improvements.  Embrace, Extend, and Destroy.

Bill

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@104524 by William Couture

picon face
>--- Original Message ---
>From: Jake Anderson <RemoveMEgrooveeeTakeThisOuTspamspamOPTUSHOME.COM.AU>
>Date: 1/27/04 9:43:31 AM
>
>if I want to write an app for nix or something I just plain

>wont if I had to rewrite the c libs etc in order to do it,
>and it bugs me that somebody would want to make me try.

Which is why the Lesser GPL (previously known as the
Library GPL) was written.  You can use, for example, GCC
to compile your propritary code, link it with the LGPL
GCC libraries, and have a propritary (closed-source)
product, even though you use (L)GPL tools to create it.

You can even extend the GPLed GCC for your closed-source
product and not have to give away the extensions.

However, if you distribute your improved GCC, the GPL says
you have to distribute the source, too.

Bill

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@105148 by William Couture

picon face
--- Original Message ---
>From: "Francisco J. A. Ares"
>Date: 1/27/04 9:53:18 AM
>
>- if you use GPL source code *STATICALLY LINKED* to your
>own code, you must release your source code as GPL.
>
>- if you use GPL source code *DINAMICALLY LINKED* to your
>code, yours is not GPL, unless you want it to.
>
>So, you can *INDIRECTLY* profit from GPL source code, just
>don't statically link it with your own.
>
>And you can *DIRECTLY* profit from GPL code: give your
>program with the source code (that someone else on the
>world may be adding features and removing bugs) to your
>clients and sell services (expertise) to them.

An excellent example of this is Tivo.  They use Linux,
and have released their kernel changes back to the world.

They have *NOT* had to release their propritary code, as
it is dynamically linked to the GPL code.

So, they save mountains of time and money on developement
and still have a closed-source product.

Bill

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@120925 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 04:00:08PM +0100, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > AFAIK:
> >
> > - if you use GPL source code *STATICALLY LINKED* to your own
> > code, you must release your source code as GPL.
> >
> > - if you use GPL source code *DINAMICALLY LINKED* to your
> > code, yours is not GPL, unless you want it to.
>
> I think you are right if you meant LGPL. For GPL this distinction is not
> made.

Correct. If it's GPLed code, you must release the source in all cases when
you distribute additions or modifications. Note that this applies to
distribution only. If you make changes and you don't give it to anyone, then
you're not obligated to do anything at all.

> Unfortunately a PIC chip never contains dynamically linked code...

True. But as you well know that with the LGPL if you statically link, you
still don't have to release the non library source. But you do have to
have a way for a user to relink the applications code to an updated library.
And the current PIC tools can support this. A quick example:

1) I write a library for the PIC and make it LGPL. I release the source and
a relocatable object of the code.

2) You write an application as a relocatable object and use the linker to link
my library in. You program the complete executable onto a PIC and sell it.
Note that you make no changes to the library in this case.

Now given this situation you do not have to release the source to your code
as its just a user of the library. However you do have to make relocatable
objects of your application available to your users so that...

3) I update the library and make it 50 times more efficient than before. The
end user can get my library relocatable object, your application relocatable
objects and use the linker to create a new, more efficient executable that
they can then use.

Note that you never released your source to the applications code. However by
facilitating relinking (even statically) the user remains free to use the free
library in such a way as to benefit them. Also note that you can place any
license you want for your source and relocatable objects. No copying, no
reverse engineering (I believe...???) etc as long as you do not restrict the
users rights to utilize the free library.

Now we both know that JAL doesn't do this at this time, because it includes the
library code and produces absolute executables that cannot be relinked.
So the BSD would be a better fit for JALs libraries as is does not have the
"must be able to update" clause.

A better solution is to recode JAL to produce relocatable objects. Then the
full force of the LGPL can then be utilized.

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@124044 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@124045 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> A better solution is to recode JAL to produce relocatable
> objects. Then the
> full force of the LGPL can then be utilized.

Defintely no. Jal is an 'all-at-once' compiler by design. One of the
reasons is that I wanted it to be able to do global optimizations and
analysis, like for instance the stack use warning/error.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@124920 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
William Chops Westfield wrote:
> On Monday, Jan 26, 2004, at 09:19 US/Pacific, Peter L. Peres wrote:
>
>> What the proprietary software supporters are trying to do, is to make
>> all
>> roads toll roads, because theirs is a toll road, and because (so they
>> claim) all roads resemble theirs in design
>
>
> What proprietary SW supporter other than SCO is making claims along
> these lines?  Don't you DARE villify PS vendors because of SCO's
> actions!  i don't think even microsoft has been stupid enough to
> make such a claim against Open source software (although I wouldn't
> be surprised if they're clandestinly supporting SCO...)

The propretary vendors make these statements by their actions.
Microsoft, Apple, etc... all say "you have to pay to play" with their
OS.  And their Marketing departments (just doing their job) work hard to
give the impression there is "no other way" to get the solutions needed
from your computer hardware than to use their software.

I think that's all Peter is saying, but I could be wrong.

An example would be last year's announcement by Microsoft that what Unix
folks call "symlinks" were "created by Microsoft for Windows XP".  The
idea of a symbolic link on a file system that redirects you to another
file is not new, not by a long shot... but those that read and believe
the Marketing hype *do* believe it.  And when they believe, they follow
with their money and purchase the software.

Personally I have no problem with people paying for Microsoft products.
 It gives both my small consulting company (side business) and numerous
employers I have worked for a competitive advantage -- I don't pay for
operating systems, and I don't ever feel like I have to in order to do
business.

A number of small business owners have been very happy with the
possibility that they'll "never pay for software again" when I've helped
them through server rebuilds using Free Software.  Yes -- they'll
probably feel the need to pay me to return and look things over once in
a while, or fix specific problems they are having, but even then -- they
don't HAVE to... they can find anyone to do it.  If someone else will
charge them less money, they can hope that person will do as good a job
as I did -- or if they hated the job I did (boy I hope not!) they can
easily switch "vendors".  And I'm always careful to examine the risks of
using Free Software with them also -- the possibility (very real) that a
particular piece of software will go through a huge transformation and
become unusable for their business and the real-world examples of a
"fork" -- where they'll have to (with my help) have to make an educated
decision about which side of the tree to stay with.  Most of them like
the control it gives them over their own "fate", shall we say.

Nate Duehr, nateSTOPspamspamspam_OUTnatetech.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@160209 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> One problem is that large commercial programs are made by large teams
> of programmers. Some of these programmers may not understand the problems
> they may cause by including GPL'ed code. The companies legal department
> probably doesn't look through the source code.
>
> Now this company has released a commercial program that *should* have been
> GPL'ed.
>
> What should happen if they are "caught"?

Replace "GPL'ed" code with "MicroSoft Code" in the above and rerun it.
What do you think would happen? :-)

If you take out the GPL code and apologise profusely what do you think would
happen?
If you take out the Micro$oft code and apologise profusely what do you think
would happen?


       Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\27@173003 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 06:40:00PM +0100, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > A better solution is to recode JAL to produce relocatable
> > objects. Then the
> > full force of the LGPL can then be utilized.
>
> Defintely no. Jal is an 'all-at-once' compiler by design. One of the
> reasons is that I wanted it to be able to do global optimizations and
> analysis, like for instance the stack use warning/error.

Then there's only one solution left: Write a new license which is the LGPL
with the exception of the user relink requirement. It's the only option left.

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\01\28@014029 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Tuesday, Jan 27, 2004, at 09:07 US/Pacific, Byron A Jeff wrote:

> True. But as you well know that with the LGPL if you statically link,
> you
> still don't have to release the non library source. But you do have to
> have a way for a user to relink the applications code to an updated
> library.
> And the current PIC tools can support this.

Not if the PIC in your device is not reprogrammable and not replacable.

Sure, I can ship a relocatable binary with my encapsulated blob of
epoxy,
at the expense of a lot of trouble and ... expense.  But it doesn't do
anyone any good.

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\01\28@014029 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Tuesday, Jan 27, 2004, at 09:07 US/Pacific, Byron A Jeff wrote:

> True. But as you well know that with the LGPL if you statically link,
> you
> still don't have to release the non library source. But you do have to
> have a way for a user to relink the applications code to an updated
> library.
> And the current PIC tools can support this.

Not if the PIC in your device is not reprogrammable and not replacable.

Sure, I can ship a relocatable binary with my encapsulated blob of
epoxy,
at the expense of a lot of trouble and ... expense.  But it doesn't do
anyone any good.

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

.

2004\01\28@093405 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:39:59PM -0800, William Chops Westfield wrote:
> On Tuesday, Jan 27, 2004, at 09:07 US/Pacific, Byron A Jeff wrote:
>
> >True. But as you well know that with the LGPL if you statically link,
> >you
> >still don't have to release the non library source. But you do have to
> >have a way for a user to relink the applications code to an updated
> >library.
> >And the current PIC tools can support this.
>
> Not if the PIC in your device is not reprogrammable and not replacable.

I can't put my finger on it, but I distinctly remember reading that you are
not obligated to provide a mechanism for the user to actually put the updated
code on a chip. However you must provide a mechanism for them to generate a
new executable with the freee code.

>
> Sure, I can ship a relocatable binary with my encapsulated blob of
> epoxy,
> at the expense of a lot of trouble and ... expense.  But it doesn't do
> anyone any good.

I know. I not sure the issue is as much the end user as it is other potential
developers.

It's starting to become clear to be that there needs to be some serious thought
to the concept of an Embedded GPL license. If needs to do two main tasks:

1) Decouple the fixation of the final executable to the hardware and the
  freeness of the free code.
2) Ensure that changes to the free code remains free.

Essentially it needs to be the LGPL, dropping the end user update requirement
and explicitly allowing for free and non free code to be comingled via
compilation without affecting the applications code so long as no modifications
are made to the free code. Also there may need to be an explicit extension
stating that it's OK for free and non free code to reside in the same memory
space on a chip.

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\01\28@093405 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:39:59PM -0800, William Chops Westfield wrote:
> On Tuesday, Jan 27, 2004, at 09:07 US/Pacific, Byron A Jeff wrote:
>
> >True. But as you well know that with the LGPL if you statically link,
> >you
> >still don't have to release the non library source. But you do have to
> >have a way for a user to relink the applications code to an updated
> >library.
> >And the current PIC tools can support this.
>
> Not if the PIC in your device is not reprogrammable and not replacable.

I can't put my finger on it, but I distinctly remember reading that you are
not obligated to provide a mechanism for the user to actually put the updated
code on a chip. However you must provide a mechanism for them to generate a
new executable with the freee code.

>
> Sure, I can ship a relocatable binary with my encapsulated blob of
> epoxy,
> at the expense of a lot of trouble and ... expense.  But it doesn't do
> anyone any good.

I know. I not sure the issue is as much the end user as it is other potential
developers.

It's starting to become clear to be that there needs to be some serious thought
to the concept of an Embedded GPL license. If needs to do two main tasks:

1) Decouple the fixation of the final executable to the hardware and the
  freeness of the free code.
2) Ensure that changes to the free code remains free.

Essentially it needs to be the LGPL, dropping the end user update requirement
and explicitly allowing for free and non free code to be comingled via
compilation without affecting the applications code so long as no modifications
are made to the free code. Also there may need to be an explicit extension
stating that it's OK for free and non free code to reside in the same memory
space on a chip.

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

.

2004\01\28@110802 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
John Plocher wrote:

> I find it amazing that people are falling over themselves to defend
> a monopolist's right to exploit money from the people of this world
> and lamblasting the Open Source community's efforts to build a better
> society.

Forgive them.  They own Microsoft stock.  ;-)

Nate Duehr, spamBeGonenateSTOPspamspamEraseMEnatetech.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\01\28@110802 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
John Plocher wrote:

> I find it amazing that people are falling over themselves to defend
> a monopolist's right to exploit money from the people of this world
> and lamblasting the Open Source community's efforts to build a better
> society.

Forgive them.  They own Microsoft stock.  ;-)

Nate Duehr, KILLspamnatespamBeGonespamnatetech.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

.

2004\01\28@154407 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
Nate Duehr wrote:
>The propretary vendors make these statements by their actions.
>Microsoft, Apple, etc... all say "you have to pay to play" with their
>OS.  And their Marketing departments (just doing their job) work hard to
>give the impression there is "no other way" to get the solutions needed
>from your computer hardware than to use their software.
>
>I think that's all Peter is saying, but I could be wrong.

My road parable was trying to convey a bigger picture, that would include
the current trends in legislation, pushing towards making everything
non-free, and producing blanket legislation, as opposed to regulating
specific products and ip under specific circumstances. Such as, but not
limited to, the tax applied to all blank music CD media (what do you care
if I record birds or geophysical data on them 24/365 ?), attempts to force
'qualification' for programmers (the qualification system being put in
place by the firms, and a cash cow for 'schools' who keep pushing for more
clients by ever-changing standards), attempts to force everyone who makes
embedded products to run certain self-testing routines that cannot be run
on certain micros, and thus exclude them from a certain market, and so on
and so on. And the attempt to force warranty obligations which clients do
not want, on small businesses which would be crushed.

Freedom is the freedom to choose, and GPL, and free software are parts of
that, alongside proprietary systems. Specifically, the GPL is a
well-worded license (ianal). If it will fall, as I said, a precedent will
be created that will threaten any and all existing licenses.

You don't have to like or use or hate the GPL, you have to understand that
it is a well crafted piece of work that does what it was designed to do,
well. It plays 'by the rules' at least as much as a M$ EULA which takes
away all your rights excepting those they cannot take away legally (and
it grudgingly gives a few rights back to those fortunate enough to live
in countries where certain limitations do not apply - such as that of
warranty, in Germany at least). It is interesting to read the GPL (your
choice of version) and the EULA in parallel, point by point. I have done
this.

As others have said, if you do not like the GPL you can use the LGPL.
There is even a special license for the embeddable libc for linux that
specifically permits their use in an embedded product (i.e. you can link
your programs against them and distribute a product containing them).

The problem I see is that any entity that lives solely on exponential
growth as opposed to quality will eventually try to do in its competitors,
no matter how small, when it runs out of expansion space, or when it
thinks it is about to. And all blows are legal in a food fight. The
expansion space ran out about when the dot com fall happened, and
earnings in the software industry fell through the floor, imho.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

.

2004\01\30@220520 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
On Tuesday 27 January 2004 04:39 am, Hulatt, Jon wrote:

> Kind of dissapointing that this new virus seems to have been deliberately
> released for a DOS attack at sco.com. It's only going to further enrage sco
> in their "fight" against open-source. I wonder if the code for this virus
> has been released under GPL :-D

A conspiracy theorist might ask:

Who says SCO themselves didn't write it themselves or ask someone else to?
There's about a milion ways they could get the thing started propagating
around the world while still covering their tracks that they did it.

Sure would make them look like a good "victim"... and up up up goes the stock
price even more...

'Cause they're SURE to win against those "Open Source Hoodlums!!!"  ;-)

Things that make you go ... Hmmmm.

--
Nate Duehr, EraseMEnatespamEraseMEnatetech.com

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email @spam@listserv@spam@spamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

.

2004\01\30@221801 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
On Friday 27 February 2004 05:55 am, James Caska wrote:

> In the end the whole thing will fizzle out (eventually) because GPL etc
> will simply be Immune Responsed out of consideration.. Eventually your
> free code will just sit there with I'ts RED STIPES because no-one will
> take any interest in it until you change your license.. And that's just
> no fun now is it.  Besides someone else who is prepared to change their

Uhh, someone forgot to tell IBM that their entire OS for their pSeries servers
is going to "fizzle out"... you may want to write and let them know.

See, it's not about doing things the "old way" of commercial software
"product" production -- it's about creating software and sharing it with
others so you all can concentrate on other things your customers want like
good service and great hardware.  IBM gets it, I think.  Want an HP box to
run Linux on, they'll sell them to you.  Want an IBM box to run Linux on?
They'll also sell them to you.  The HP guys are reading the IBM guys code and
vice-versa... both have equal right to do that.  Meanwhile their customers
purchase the full solution -- the whole Nelson -- the big enchilada... a
computing SYSTEM that works well because the programmers don't have to diddle
with the low level OS creation.

Open source code is never going away, and it's not going to take over and
fully "win" either.  It's just the required ying for the yang.

Open, not-open... it's your choice... and THAT really is the whole point.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

--
Nate Duehr, spamBeGonenatespamKILLspamnatetech.com

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservspam_OUTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

.

2004\01\30@224745 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
On Tuesday 27 January 2004 07:15 am, D. Jay Newman wrote:

> One problem is that large commercial programs are made by large teams
> of programmers. Some of these programmers may not understand the problems
> they may cause by including GPL'ed code. The companies legal department
> probably doesn't look through the source code.

Then the company's legal department is not doing their job correctly and
thus... the company should be penalized for it.

Just like if the programmers were downloading and using commercial software
illegally in the finished product.

SOMEONE at the organization is supposed to have complete knowledge of the
software development trail, and policies about the use of common licenses
should have been dealt up long ago. (The GPL has been around for almost 20
years in some fashion or another... if company legal departments haven't seen
it yet, they're incompetent.

Both are illegal, both deserve to see the company suffer for it to the extent
a judge will allow.

--
Nate Duehr, TakeThisOuTnate.....spamTakeThisOuTnatetech.com

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email TakeThisOuTlistservKILLspamspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

.

2004\01\30@224747 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
On Friday 27 February 2004 06:31 am, James Caska wrote:
> >BTW what do you share, and under what license?
>
> http://www.muvium.com
> http://www.virtualbreadboard.com
>
> Freeware and public domain.. No licenses
>
> James Caska
> http://www.muvium.com
> uVM - 'Java Bred for Embedded'

So I can take Muvium As-Is, do a little marketing magic, change the name, call
it Natevium and sell it for $1000 a copy to anyone I want.  I can also make
changes to it that make it completely useless and broken and call it muvium
and give that away also and ruin your business when people download the wrong
version from a Google search.

PD is dangerous with software unless you absolutely don't care AT ALL about
the code anymore -- throwaway code.

That's the risk you run when something is in the PD.  I have FULL rights to
it, and can modify it OR NOT MODIFY IT and sell it as MY product.

You don't have much respect for your software or your organization if you
licensed it as PD.  My opinion anyway...

--
Nate Duehr, .....natespamRemoveMEnatetech.com

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservspamspamBeGonemitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

.

2004\01\31@044812 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> I
> can also make
> changes to it that make it completely useless and broken and
> call it muvium
> and give that away also and ruin your business when people
> download the wrong
> version from a Google search.

I think that would be illegal (at least under Dutch law).

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-request@spam@spamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu

.

2004\01\31@101155 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> > I
> > can also make
> > changes to it that make it completely useless and broken and
> > call it muvium
> > and give that away also and ruin your business when people
> > download the wrong
> > version from a Google search.
>
> I think that would be illegal (at least under Dutch law).

Given that the muvum software is Public Domain, would it still be
illegal if:
 1. The broken changes were a mistake (say, it was only tested under
    Windows 98 and deletes source files under Windows XP).
 2. The name "muvium" is not trademarked?
--
D. Jay Newman           !
TakeThisOuTjayspamspamsprucegrove.com     ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy.
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseMEspammitvma.mit.edu

.

2004\01\31@144711 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
Somewhat oblique link with bearing on the subject:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/35242.html

not US and M$ is fighting for every inch (or mm) of ground. This time,
Open Source caused them to rethink the licensing pricing policy in drastic
terms. It might be good for all organisations interested in renewing
software licenses to take a good look at Open Source (and see the demos)
and mention it when negotiating licenses, I think ;-).

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseMEspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu

.

2004\01\31@155807 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Wouter,

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:47:58 +0100, Wouter van Ooijen
wrote:

> > I
> > can also make
> > changes to it that make it completely useless and
broken and
> > call it muvium
> > and give that away also and ruin your business when
people
> > download the wrong
> > version from a Google search.
>
> I think that would be illegal (at least under Dutch
law).

And under English law.  As are attempts at hacking into
someone else's system, writing and distributing viruses,
worms, spyware, misusing "Personal Data", and (now)
sending unsolicited spam.  The bad news is that there
doesn't seem to be much effort to enforce this lot!

Cheers,

Howard Winter
St.Albans, England

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
@spam@piclist-unsubscribe-requestRemoveMEspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu

.


'[OT:] SCO lobbying Congress about Linux'
2004\02\01@150216 by Nate Duehr
face
flavicon
face
On Saturday, Jan 31, 2004, at 05:24 America/Denver, Howard Winter wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Hi Howard,

I'm not suggesting anyone would do anything illegal, I'm suggesting
that by releasing under the Public Domain (at least in the U.S.) the
person has Zero right to the software after that -- even if someone
releases a piece of software that does the exact same thing by copying
the original.  Even worse, someone could release a version that's named
the same but has "mistakes" in it to cause the reputation of the
original to go down.

I left Copyright out of this -- just discussing the fact that muvuim is
PD.

And definitely agreed... the cracking laws are not enforced highly
enough here either.

Nate

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

.

2004\02\01@215247 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
Does anybody have a URL to the actual SCO letter to the congresscritters?

Bob Ammerman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

.

2004\02\01@220324 by Dan Oelke

flavicon
face
For all things SCO - check out:
    http://groklaw.com/

For this specific letter you can see a copy at
   http://www.osaia.org/letters/sco_hill.pdf

Bob Ammerman wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

.
Return-Path: <>
Received: from mitvma.mit.edu ([18.92.0.3]) by tomts26-srv.bellnexxia.net
         (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP
         id <EraseME20040128021230.IROP5924.tomts26-srv.bellnexxia.netspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu>>          for <@spam@piclist_errorsspam_OUTspam.....SYMPATICO.CA>;
         Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:12:30 -0500
Received:  by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 430) via spool with SMTP id 6151 ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:12:27 EST
Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 3785; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:12:28 -0500
Date:         Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:12:28 -0500
From:         "L-Soft list server at MITVMA.MIT.EDU (1.8e)"
             <spamBeGoneLISTSERVEraseMEspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Subject: PICLIST: error report from YAHOO.COM
To:           listsjoshspamBeGonespam3MTMP.COM,
             RemoveMEpiclist_errors@spam@spamspamBeGoneSYMPATICO.CA
Message-ID:   <LISTSERV%.....2004012721122783@spam@spamEraseMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
X-LSV-ListID: None

The enclosed message has been identified as a delivery error for the PICLIST
list because it was sent to '.....owner-piclistRemoveMEspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU'.

------------------------------ Message in error -------------------------------
Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail
         V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 3783; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:12:28 -0500
Received: from mta200.mail.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.86.116] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM
         VM SMTP Level 430) via TCP with SMTP ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:12:27 EST
X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by mta200.mail.scd.yahoo.com
From: .....MAILER-DAEMONSTOPspamspam@spam@yahoo.com
To: owner-piclistEraseMEspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu
X-Loop: RemoveMEMAILER-DAEMONspamspamBeGoneyahoo.com
Subject: Delivery failure

Message from yahoo.com.
Unable to deliver message to the following address(es).

<spamBeGonehbarregrdKILLspamspam@spam@yahoo.com>:
Sorry, your message to hbarregrdspam_OUTspam@spam@yahoo.com cannot be delivered.  This account is over quota.

--- Original message follows.

The original message is over 5K. Message truncated.

Return-Path: <spamBeGoneowner-piclist@spam@spammitvma.mit.edu>
Received: from 209.119.0.109  (EHLO cherry.ease.lsoft.com) (209.119.0.109)
 by mta200.mail.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:40:54 -0800
Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <RemoveME17.00CBF5CAEraseMEspamKILLspamcherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:17:58 -0500
Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e)
         with spool id 8506 for spamBeGonePICLISTspam_OUTspamRemoveMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU; Tue, 27 Jan 2004
         12:17:53 -0500
Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail
         V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 8288; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:16:02 -0500
Received: from warpspeed.megalink.net [205.243.60.4] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM
         SMTP Level 430) via TCP with SMTP ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:16:01 EST
X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by warpspeed.megalink.net
Received: from [63.164.27.118] (HELO ab.uninets.net) by warpspeed.megalink.net
         (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.1) with ESMTP id 154626745 for
         .....PICLISTspamRemoveMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:14:54 -0500
X-Sender: artky1kspam@spam@pop3.uninets.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22
References: <EraseME23075D38FE1C8144847DFAECA3565F270173E378RemoveMEspamSTOPspampai-smx-01.europe.bkhm.net>> Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Message-ID:  <
RemoveME6.0.0.22.0.20040127120907.02971d20KILLspamspamTakeThisOuTpop3.uninets.net>> Date:         Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:13:42 -0500
Reply-To:     pic microcontroller discussion list <
spamBeGonePICLISTspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sender:       pic microcontroller discussion list <RemoveMEPICLISTspam_OUTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
From:         Art <artky1kspamspamUNINETS.NET>
Subject: Re: [EE:] PICLIST SPECIFIC VIRUS ALERT
To:           spam_OUTPICLISTspam_OUTspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To:  <23075D38FE1C8144847DFAECA3565F270173E378spam_OUTspampai-smx-01.europe>              .bkhm.net>
Precedence: list

Set your email so that any downloaded attachments go to the desktop without
being opened.

Do not use Bill Gates email programs.

When a new file that was not expected shows up on your desktop, delete it
without delay-if it turns out to be something you need, you can retrieve it
from the trashcan.

I practice this religiously and have deleted hundreds (if not more) virus
files. It works. Be safe-and don't waste alot of time deciding whether you
should open it or not!!!

Good luck-

Art

PS:I got 3 of them, my ISP caught one, but the other 2 went right straight
into the trashcan. If anyone wants a copy of the virus file, I'd be happy
to mail it to them.

At 11:25 AM 1/27/04, you wrote:
> >{Original Message removed}

2004\02\02@092537 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Nate,

About Muvium being placed in the Public Domain...

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 13:01:16 -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:

>...<
>
> Hi Howard,
>
> I'm not suggesting anyone would do anything illegal, I'm suggesting
> that by releasing under the Public Domain (at least in the U.S.) the
> person has Zero right to the software after that -- even if someone
> releases a piece of software that does the exact same thing by copying
> the original.

Yes, if Muvium really is placed in the Public Domain, relinquishing all copyright, then yes, it's not his any
more and he has no control and no redress for anything anyone may do to it.  This is different from publishing
it, or giving it away free, if copyright is retained - I don't know the situation with Muvium.  But it's quite
feasible to release free software while retaining copyright, and most people do this.  Then they still have
control and may allow or prohibit any type of copying and/or changing they like.

>  Even worse, someone could release a version that's named the same but has "mistakes" in it to cause the
reputation of the original to go down.

Again, if copyright is relinquished, there's no protection.

But otherwise, this is called (I believe) "Passing off" and it's illegal.  It covers counterfeit items of all
sorts, and even if you don't intend to deceive anyone into believing it's real, you may not import counterfeit
items (including software) into Britain.  I have a friend who was visiting Hong Kong a number of years ago,
and picked up one of the Rolex lookalike watches for about US$10.  He was the sort who liked to pose... but
coming through Customs into the UK he had it confiscated and had to talk his way out of being prosecuted -
because he was wearing it and only had one they let him go, but if he'd had half-a-dozen he would have ended
up in court.

> I left Copyright out of this -- just discussing the fact that muvuim is PD.

OK, if it truly is PD, then you're right!

> And definitely agreed... the cracking laws are not enforced highly enough here either.

I was a bit surprised when I sent the first Nigerian 419 scam email I got to the computer crimes unit at New
Scotland Yard - they just said: "Don't reply to it, delete it and just delete any more you get".  Which is
what I was going to do anyway - but I expected they would be at least pass it on to their Nigerian
counterparts, but the impression they gave was that they weren't interested.

Ah well!

Cheers,

Howard Winter
St.Albans, England

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2004 , 2005 only
- Today
- New search...