Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!convex!tchr...@convex.COM
From: tchr...@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Newsgroups: alt.sources.d
Subject: Re: uutraffic report (in perl)
Message-ID: <3273@convex.UUCP>
Date: 21 Nov 89 04:28:30 GMT
References: <4025@mhres.mh.nl> <1194@radius.UUCP>
Sender: n...@convex.UUCP
Reply-To: tchr...@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Software Development, Richardson, TX
Lines: 42
In article <1...@radius.UUCP> radius!le...@apple.com (Generic Account) writes:
>In article <4...@mhres.mh.nl> j...@mhres.mh.nl (Johan Vromans) writes:
>}This is where perl is designed for ...
>
>OK, but what about those of us who don't have perl? Is there already such
>a script or program in plain old "c" that can make the same pretty reports
>as shown above? We're running a NeXT with version 1.0 OS...
>===== Steve Lemke, Engineering Quality Assurance, Radius Inc., San Jose =====
Please don't take this wrong, but why DON'T you have perl? If you can
post this note, you can get perl. It's freely available from FTP and
plain old uumail-type archive servers all over the net. Its author,
Larry Wall, is the same man who brought you rn, metaconfig, and patch.
He privately supports perl better than any industrial software house
that I've ever seen. He's extremely helpful in getting perl running on
new machines, and I'll bet it's already been tweaked for your
architecture. If you've ever run one of Larry's Configure scripts, you
know what I mean.
Perl is light years ahead of awk, sed, and sh as far as tools go. I
very strongly believe that it will be around for many years to come,
and that it will be extremely widely used throughout the world. You
can see how much source has come across the net just lately that's been
written in perl. I have not written any awk or sed scripts since I got
perl, and certainly none of those horrendous sh scripts full of
multiple calls to sed and awk and tr and sort and cut and paste and
expand and grep and all their brethren. I've saved myself quite a
bit of development time by writing fewer C programs as well.
Furthermore, perl programs are portable without modification or
recompilation to a wealth of architectures. I only have around 5
architectures now to send common programs too, but in my last job there
were no fewer than a dozen. It's really nice to just close your eyes
and rdist your program and know it will run.
Do yourself a favor: get perl.
--tom
Tom Christiansen {uunet,uiucdcs,sun}!convex!tchrist
Convex Computer Corporation tchr...@convex.COM
"EMACS belongs in <sys/errno.h>: Editor too big!"
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uhnix1!splut!jay
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: alt.sources.d
Subject: Perl may be great, but... (was Re: uutraffic report (in perl))
Message-ID: <1989Nov22.153901.3503@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 22 Nov 89 15:39:01 GMT
References: <4025@mhres.mh.nl> <1194@radius.UUCP> <3273@convex.UUCP>
Reply-To: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 31
In article <3...@convex.UUCP> tchr...@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
>Please don't take this wrong, but why DON'T you have perl? If you can
>post this note, you can get perl. It's freely available from FTP and
>plain old uumail-type archive servers all over the net. Its author,
>Larry Wall, is the same man who brought you rn, metaconfig, and patch.
>He privately supports perl better than any industrial software house
>that I've ever seen. He's extremely helpful in getting perl running on
>new machines, and I'll bet it's already been tweaked for your
>architecture. If you've ever run one of Larry's Configure scripts, you
>know what I mean.
Perl won't run on my 286-powered system. Larry's comment about "perl
probably won't run on 16-bit systems" is dead on.
I'm watching the world do great things in perl, and I'm jealous, knowing
that Larry has succumbed to the Richard Stallman Syndrome: "That's not a
real computer, and I won't program to it." Richard is as blatant about
it as he is about the GNU Manifesto's real objectives. I don't really
think Larry has it in for 16-bit machines, but then again, perl could
have been written to avoid the more obvious limitations...as it is now,
perl crashes and burns spectacularly.
Just as net policy should not be made on the assumption that everyone
has rn (because it's not standard), programming should not be done on
the assumption that everyone has perl.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
j...@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
_free press_, n.: 100 men imposing their prejudices on 100 million.
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!
gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!tale
From: t...@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence)
Newsgroups: alt.sources.d,alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: Perl may be great, but...
Message-ID: <256B31A9.62EF@rpi.edu>
Date: 22 Nov 89 23:54:16 GMT
References: <4025@mhres.mh.nl> <1194@radius.UUCP> <3273@convex.UUCP>
<1989Nov22.153901.3503@splut.conmicro.com>
Followup-To: alt.religion.computers
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Lines: 21
In <1989Nov22.153901.3...@splut.conmicro.com> j...@splut.conmicro.com
(Jay Maynard) writes:
Jay> I'm watching the world do great things in perl, and I'm jealous, knowing
Jay> that Larry has succumbed to the Richard Stallman Syndrome: "That's not a
Jay> real computer, and I won't program to it." Richard is as blatant about
Jay> it as he is about the GNU Manifesto's real objectives. I don't really
Jay> think Larry has it in for 16-bit machines, but then again, perl could
Jay> have been written to avoid the more obvious limitations...as it is now,
Jay> perl crashes and burns spectacularly.
This is actually pretty amusing. Now it's a pathological disorder to
write good software that runs on a variety of machines, but not all of
them. Now you might believe that Richard needs treatment for other
things, but I don't think this is one of them.
[Obligatory religious cut: You'd have to ship a few MTS/Plus
programmers that way first.]
Dave
--
(setq mail '("t...@pawl.rpi.edu" "t...@ai.mit.edu" "t...@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uhnix1!splut!jay
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: Perl may be great, but...
Message-ID: <1989Nov24.042533.2151@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 24 Nov 89 04:25:33 GMT
References: <4025@mhres.mh.nl> <1194@radius.UUCP> <3273@convex.UUCP>
<1989Nov22.153901.3503@splut.conmicro.com> <256B31A9.62EF@rpi.edu>
Reply-To: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 20
Posted: Fri Nov 24 05:25:33 1989
In article <256B31A9.6...@rpi.edu> t...@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes:
>This is actually pretty amusing. Now it's a pathological disorder to
>write good software that runs on a variety of machines, but not all of
>them. Now you might believe that Richard needs treatment for other
>things, but I don't think this is one of them.
Actually, until perl, Larry Wall has done a fantastic job of making
software very useful and usable on small machines. rn, patch, and stuff
that uses the config package work just fine.
Actually, I think RMS needs treatment for his outlook on software
ownership... I find the GNU Manifesto to be as offensive as the
Communist Manifesto, and for many of the same reasons. His pathological
hatred for small machines is merely a symptom.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
j...@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
"...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, t...@ssd.harris.com
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uhnix1!flatline!jet
From: j...@flatline.UUCP (It's "Mr. Boyo" to you Dylan)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: Perl may be great, but...
Message-ID: <2549@flatline.UUCP>
Date: 24 Nov 89 05:33:45 GMT
References: <4025@mhres.mh.nl> <1194@radius.UUCP> <3273@convex.UUCP>
<1989Nov22.153901.3503@splut.conmicro.com> <256B31A9.62EF@rpi.edu>
<1989Nov24.042533.2151@splut.conmicro.com>
Reply-To: j...@flatline.UUCP (It's "Mr. Boyo" to you Dylan)
Organization: Marshall McLuhan's Revenge
Lines: 19
Posted: Fri Nov 24 06:33:45 1989
In article <1989Nov24.042533.2...@splut.conmicro.com> j...@splut.conmicro.com
(Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>Actually, I think RMS needs treatment for his outlook on software
>ownership... I find the GNU Manifesto to be as offensive as the
>Communist Manifesto, and for many of the same reasons. His pathological
>hatred for small machines is merely a symptom.
BFD. Don't use his code. I have great hated for how EDS treats its
employess. I hate IBM's idea of a computer. I don't buy their
equipment/services.
For what we use GNU software for, the GNU Manifesto is just fine:
code paid for by the public should be owned by the public, and no
one should be able to unfairly benefit from its usage...
--
I most like CD players because I don't have to worry about feedback through
the needle anymore... :-)
J. Eric Townsend uunet!sugar!flatline!jet j...@flatline.lonestar.org
EastEnders Mailing list: easten...@flatline.UUCP
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uhnix1!splut!jay
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: Perl may be great, but...
Message-ID: <1989Nov24.101721.3442@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 24 Nov 89 10:17:21 GMT
References: <4025@mhres.mh.nl> <1194@radius.UUCP> <3273@convex.UUCP>
<1989Nov22.153901.3503@splut.conmicro.com> <256B31A9.62EF@rpi.edu>
<1989Nov24.042533.2151@splut.conmicro.com> <2549@flatline.UUCP>
Reply-To: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 38
Posted: Fri Nov 24 11:17:21 1989
In article <2...@flatline.UUCP> j...@flatline.UUCP (It's "Mr. Boyo" to you Dylan)
writes:
>In article <1989Nov24.042533.2...@splut.conmicro.com> j...@splut.conmicro.com
(Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>>Actually, I think RMS needs treatment for his outlook on software
>>ownership... I find the GNU Manifesto to be as offensive as the
>>Communist Manifesto, and for many of the same reasons. His pathological
>>hatred for small machines is merely a symptom.
>BFD. Don't use his code. I have great hated for how EDS treats its
>employess. I hate IBM's idea of a computer. I don't buy their
>equipment/services.
I have little choice in the matter; damned little of GNUware will run on
my system anyway. It's filled with juicy little nonportabilities like
treating integers and pointers as interchangeable, and caring if the 32K
they just allocated is adjacent to the last 32K they allocated. I pretty
well have to just say NO to GNUware.
>For what we use GNU software for, the GNU Manifesto is just fine:
>code paid for by the public should be owned by the public, and no
>one should be able to unfairly benefit from its usage...
"Paid for by the public"? Hehehe.
Have you read the GNU Public License? It's a legal virus, contaminating
everything it touches. If you run GNU Bison at all, the entire program
you write is magically brought under its terms. I'm not sure if this
applies to GNU cc's libraries or not, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Of course, RMS wants this to happen, since he thinks private ownership
of software is eeeeeeeeeevil...
Most of GNUware was either written by RMS himself or by other people on
their own time. This is no more "paid for by the public" than NetHack.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
j...@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
"...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, t...@ssd.harris.com
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!shelby!mcnc!uvaarpa!hudson!bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU!
gl8f
From: g...@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: Perl may be great, but...
Message-ID: <2340@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
Date: 27 Nov 89 06:20:43 GMT
References: <4025@mhres.mh.nl> <1194@radius.UUCP> <3273@convex.UUCP>
<1989Nov22.153901.3503@splut.conmicro.com> <256B31A9.62EF@rpi.edu>
<1989Nov24.042533.2151@splut.conmicro.com> <2549@flatline.UUCP>
<1989Nov24.101721.3442@splut.conmicro.com>
Sender: n...@hudson.acc.virginia.edu
Reply-To: g...@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Organization: Dept. of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Lines: 24
Posted: Mon Nov 27 07:20:43 1989
In article <1989Nov24.101721.3...@splut.conmicro.com> j...@splut.conmicro.com
(Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>Have you read the GNU Public License? It's a legal virus, contaminating
>everything it touches. If you run GNU Bison at all, the entire program
>you write is magically brought under its terms. I'm not sure if this
>applies to GNU cc's libraries or not, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Yep, if GNU published gcc libraries they'd be covered too. So use the
library supplied with your system, or the PD library which is currently
under development courtesy of some Atari ST people.
If you want to use Bison, all you need to do is write a skeleton.
A few simple steps like this, and the GNU people admit that you could
use their software to generate software with no GNU Public License
restrictions at all. However, you seem to have no interest in the topic
other than claiming RMS is evil and out to outlaw your software.
How about researching this topic before you post on it again? I could
swear I've responded to postings on this very topic from you in
comp.misc before.
------
Greg Lindahl Astrophysicists for Choice
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!splut!jay
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: GNU's a menace to software (was Re: Perl may be great, but...)
Message-ID: <#V.0VG@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 29 Nov 89 02:16:42 GMT
References: <1989Nov24.042533.2151@splut.conmicro.com> <2549@flatline.UUCP>
<1989Nov24.101721.3442@splut.conmicro.com> <2340@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
Reply-To: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 29
Posted: Wed Nov 29 03:16:42 1989
In article <2...@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> g...@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU
(Greg Lindahl) writes:
[describes how not to get infected by the GNU Public Virus...er...License]
>A few simple steps like this, and the GNU people admit that you could
>use their software to generate software with no GNU Public License
>restrictions at all. However, you seem to have no interest in the topic
>other than claiming RMS is evil and out to outlaw your software.
I can have little other interest at the moment, since they're too
snobbish to write software that could be portable to my machine.
However, the last time the GPL was discussed, the point came up that the
GPL was specifically written to have the virus-like effect. This is
indeed evil, since it coerces me into publishing my software under RMS's
terms, and in furtherance of RMS's goals, if I choose to use RMS's
tools. This is as evil as communism - for that's exactly what it is.
>How about researching this topic before you post on it again? I could
>swear I've responded to postings on this very topic from you in
>comp.misc before.
Why should I subject myself to yet another reading of RMS's diatribe and
RMS's legal virus? Once was all I could stomach.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
j...@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
"...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, t...@ssd.harris.com
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uhnix1!flatline!jet
From: j...@flatline.UUCP (It's "Mr. Boyo" to you Dylan)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: GNU's a menace to software (was Re: Perl may be great, but...)
Message-ID: <2558@flatline.UUCP>
Date: 29 Nov 89 14:32:14 GMT
References: <1989Nov24.042533.2151@splut.conmicro.com> <2549@flatline.UUCP>
<1989Nov24.101721.3442@splut.conmicro.com> <2340@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
<#V.0VG@splut.conmicro.com>
Reply-To: j...@flatline.UUCP (It's "Mr. Boyo" to you Dylan)
Organization: Marshall McLuhan's Revenge
Lines: 26
Posted: Wed Nov 29 15:32:14 1989
In article <#V....@splut.conmicro.com> j...@splut.conmicro.com
(Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>However, the last time the GPL was discussed, the point came up that the
>GPL was specifically written to have the virus-like effect. This is
>indeed evil, since it coerces me into publishing my software under RMS's
>terms, and in furtherance of RMS's goals, if I choose to use RMS's
>tools. This is as evil as communism - for that's exactly what it is.
This is paranoid and delusional, at best. If you don't agree with
RMS's occasionally bozoid ideas, don't use his code. There's no
gun to your head or anything...
You just don't want anyone *else* to use his code, right?
(Obligatory Computer Religion Content)
If you're machine was based on a *REAL* CPU, you would be able to
run GNU software. My goofball 3b1 supports GCC/G++/etc because it is
based on the Most Holy Motorola 680x0. :-)
--
I most like CD players because I don't have to worry about feedback through
the needle anymore... :-)
J. Eric Townsend uunet!sugar!flatline!jet j...@flatline.lonestar.org
EastEnders Mailing list: easten...@flatline.UUCP
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uhnix1!splut!jay
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: GNU's a menace to software (was Re: Perl may be great, but...)
Message-ID: <2#_1ZH@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 29 Nov 89 14:44:25 GMT
References: <1989Nov24.042533.2151@splut.conmicro.com> <2549@flatline.UUCP>
<1989Nov24.101721.3442@splut.conmicro.com> <2340@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
<#V.0VG@splut.conmicro.com> <2558@flatline.UUCP>
Reply-To: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 43
Posted: Wed Nov 29 15:44:25 1989
In article <2...@flatline.UUCP> j...@flatline.UUCP (It's "Mr. Boyo" to you Dylan)
writes:
>In article <#V....@splut.conmicro.com> j...@splut.conmicro.com
(Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>>However, the last time the GPL was discussed, the point came up that the
>>GPL was specifically written to have the virus-like effect. This is
>>indeed evil, since it coerces me into publishing my software under RMS's
>>terms, and in furtherance of RMS's goals, if I choose to use RMS's
>>tools. This is as evil as communism - for that's exactly what it is.
>This is paranoid and delusional, at best. If you don't agree with
>RMS's occasionally bozoid ideas, don't use his code. There's no
>gun to your head or anything...
As I said last time, I generally *can't* use his code, despite the fact
that I'd occasionally like to. (In particular, I'd like to play Gnuchess
just to see how strong it is.) I'd like to have a less buggy C compiler
than Microbug's, but there's no hope at all for that, since gcc can't be
made to run on my machine through any amount of hacking. (Better
programmers than I have tried.)
As for RMS's ideas, that should be occasionally lucid, not occasionally
bozoid...
>You just don't want anyone *else* to use his code, right?
I want everyone to understand the legal effects of the GNU Public Virus.
I'd like to see it changed to remove the virus effects, but I realize
that there's not much chance of that, given RMS's idea that software
communism is the ideal structure.
>If you're machine was based on a *REAL* CPU, you would be able to
>run GNU software. My goofball 3b1 supports GCC/G++/etc because it is
>based on the Most Holy Motorola 680x0. :-)
Your 68010 may support GNUware, but it won't run the mountain of PC/DOS
programs out there; since I make money supporting such, I need that
capability.
I'd loooove to go to a 386, but I can't afford the $1500-2000 that
upgrading the motherboard and Unix would cost me.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
j...@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
"...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, t...@ssd.harris.com
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!samsung!usc!wuarchive!mit-eddie!bu-cs!xylogics!
world!bzs
From: b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: GNU's a menace to software (was Re: Perl may be great, but...)
Message-ID: <1989Nov30.171308.14875@world.std.com>
Date: 30 Nov 89 17:13:08 GMT
References: <1989Nov24.042533.2151@splut.conmicro.com> <2549@flatline.UUCP>
<1989Nov24.101721.3442@splut.conmicro.com> <2340@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
<#V.0VG@splut.conmicro.com>
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Lines: 57
Posted: Thu Nov 30 18:13:08 1989
In-Reply-To: jay@splut.conmicro.com's message of 29 Nov 89 02:16:42 GMT
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)>
>I can have little other interest at the moment, since they're too
>snobbish to write software that could be portable to my machine.
>
>However, the last time the GPL was discussed, the point came up that the
>GPL was specifically written to have the virus-like effect. This is
>indeed evil, since it coerces me into publishing my software under RMS's
>terms, and in furtherance of RMS's goals, if I choose to use RMS's
>tools. This is as evil as communism - for that's exactly what it is.
You know Jay, you're a clown.
These folks write good-quality, useful software, give it away
basically for free. Ok, that bugs you because if you use it you have
to abide by its licensing agreements. Wow!
But...you then gripe holy hell that they're unsavory because they
don't write *free* software for *your* machine. Worse, they refuse to
let you make lots of $$ off their free software on your machine!
Gee, I mean how many folks/companies out there write software that
doesn't run on your machine?
Oh, I guess that's OK because most of them charge lots of money for
the software which doesn't run on your machine. That must excuse it.
And then you call them communists (how quaint)? Why, because RMS,
unlike *other* software vendors (?!), has a licensing agreement with
terms and conditions of use? It *coerces* you? I'm sorry, does someone
have a gun to your head? Is RMS now in control of the police force or
the army something?
I assume the reasons they're communists is because they consider their
software to be their private property to do with as they please?
Including tacking a license onto it that you happen to not like (hint:
*so don't use the software*.)
Are you making the slightest bit of sense?
No.
P.S.
This message Copyright (c) 1989, Barry Shein.
Re-use of any text or part thereof in any manner, printed, electronic
or otherwise immediately obligates the individual and all software
s/he has produced, is producing or ever will produce to all terms and
conditions of the GNU Public License.
Go ahead Jay, respond! MOO-HAH-HAH!!! WE'RE UNDER YOUR BED!!!
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | b...@world.std.com
1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!mit-eddie!bu-cs!
xylogics!world!bzs
From: b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: GNU's a menace to software (was Re: Perl may be great, but...)
Message-ID: <1989Nov30.172156.15042@world.std.com>
Date: 30 Nov 89 17:21:56 GMT
References: <1989Nov24.042533.2151@splut.conmicro.com> <2549@flatline.UUCP>
<1989Nov24.101721.3442@splut.conmicro.com> <2340@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
<#V.0VG@splut.conmicro.com> <2558@flatline.UUCP> <2#_1ZH@splut.conmicro.com>
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Lines: 41
Posted: Thu Nov 30 18:21:56 1989
In-Reply-To: jay@splut.conmicro.com's message of 29 Nov 89 14:44:25 GMT
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
>Your 68010 may support GNUware, but it won't run the mountain of PC/DOS
>programs out there; since I make money supporting such, I need that
>capability.
>I'd loooove to go to a 386, but I can't afford the $1500-2000 that
>upgrading the motherboard and Unix would cost me.
Oh, now we're getting down to it. RMS is a communist and a snob
(interesting combination of traits, but your words) because you
can't afford to upgrade your motherboard.
Aw shucks Jay, you're making me cry. Perhaps you should try the
welfare office, there must be some assistance available for the
cpu-handicapped. Is this really your gripe with RMS? That he won't buy
you a '386? Have you ever asked him for one?
OB-ALT.RELIGION.COMPUTERS: A lot of us rational folks have no interest
in running "the mountain of PC/DOS software out there". That's your
typical American "quantity == quality" confusion. Like those cup and a
half of flavor ads from Maxwell House (gee, it must be taste good, it
overflows the cup!) or that Texas must be a great state because, well,
it's so BIG!
Gee, a MOUNTAIN of PC/DOS programs...ya know, it makes me QUIVER!
--------------------
This message Copyright (c) 1989, Barry Shein.
Re-use of any text or part thereof in any manner, printed, electronic
or otherwise immediately obligates the individual and all software
s/he has produced, is producing or ever will produce to all terms and
conditions of the GNU Public License.
Go ahead Jay, respond! MOO-HAH-HAH!!! WE'RE UNDER YOUR BED!!!
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | b...@world.std.com
1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!snorkelwacker!apple!oracle!news
From: nh...@dvlseq.oracle.com (Nate Hess)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: GNU's a menace to software (was Re: Perl may be great, but...)
Message-ID: <1989Nov30.224649.13619@oracle.com>
Date: 30 Nov 89 22:46:49 GMT
References: <1989Nov24.042533.2151@splut.conmicro.com> <2549@flatline.UUCP>
<1989Nov24.101721.3442@splut.conmicro.com> <2340@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
<#V.0VG@splut.conmicro.com>
Sender: n...@oracle.com
Reply-To: nh...@dvlseq.oracle.com (Nate Hess)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA
Lines: 14
Posted: Thu Nov 30 23:46:49 1989
In-reply-to: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Posting-Front-End: Gnews 2.0
In article <#V....@splut.conmicro.com>, jay@splut
(Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>I can have little other interest at the moment, since they're too
>snobbish to write software that could be portable to my machine.
Where is it written that the FSF -- or anyone else, for that matter --
has to write software that works on *your* machine? Why aren't you
writing software that works on *mine*?
--woodstock
--
"What I like is when you're looking and thinking and looking
and thinking...and suddenly you wake up." - Hobbes
nh...@dvlseq.oracle.com or ...!uunet!oracle!nhess or (415) 598-3046
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uhnix1!splut!jay
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: GNU's a menace to software (was Re: Perl may be great, but...)
Message-ID: <0PAHP:@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 1 Dec 89 04:52:07 GMT
References: <1989Nov24.042533.2151@splut.conmicro.com> <2549@flatline.UUCP>
<1989Nov24.101721.3442@splut.conmicro.com> <2340@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
<#V.0VG@splut.conmicro.com> <5818@alvin.mcnc.org>
Reply-To: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 48
Posted: Fri Dec 1 05:52:07 1989
In article <5...@alvin.mcnc.org> s...@mcnc.org.UUCP (Steve Lamont) writes:
>In article <#V....@splut.conmicro.com> j...@splut.conmicro.com
(Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>> ... This [GNU License] is
>>indeed evil, since it coerces me into publishing my software under RMS's
>>terms, and in furtherance of RMS's goals, if I choose to use RMS's
>>tools. This is as evil as communism - for that's exactly what it is.
>Oh, PUH-leeeze! This is in no way *evil*. It may represent a different
>philosophy than capitalism, but there is nothing inherently *evil* in
>communism, as theorized. (It has been practiced in a pretty evil manner, I'll
>grant you, but it is apparent from events in Eastern Europe of late that
>communism (socialism) is maturing.)
Actually, about all that is evident in Eastern Europe is that communism
is crumbling, and that people will get freedom eventually.
As for the evil of communism, if you don't think that depriving people
of the rightful fruits of their efforts isn't evil, then I suggest you
try to get slavery reintroduced here.
RMS's legal virus has the exact same effect - it deprives software
authors of the rightful fruits of their efforts, for it forces them to
give their work away if they choose to use his tools.
>The same is true for GNU -- use it and abide by the rules or get your software
>somewhere else. To use a hackneyed expression -- it's a free country.
The problem is people who discover GNUware and think it's great without
realizing their exact obligations. If nothing else, I expect that this
discussion has raised their awareness of the situation.
I also hope to get other authors to not use the GNU Public Virus as the
basis for their copyright notice and license. As another poster said,
authors do a much greater service if they place their stuff in the
public domain, like Henry Spencer and his regexp package.
>For those of us who haven't read Mr Stallman's credo, where can we find a
>copy? Or is it too dangerous to be published? :-)
It's been posted to the net before; I erased my copy, because I didn't
want it to contaminate my hard disk. I suspect that if you were to drop
g...@prep.ai.mit.edu a note, they'd be more than happy to send you a
copy.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
j...@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
"...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, t...@ssd.harris.com
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uhnix1!nuchat!sugar!peter
From: pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: GNU's a menace to software (was Re: Perl may be great, but...)
Message-ID: <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Date: 30 Nov 89 13:11:55 GMT
References: <1989Nov24.042533.2151@splut.conmicro.com> <2549@flatline.UUCP>
<1989Nov24.101721.3442@splut.conmicro.com> <2340@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
<#V.0VG@splut.conmicro.com> <2558@flatline.UUCP>
Reply-To: pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston
Lines: 19
Posted: Thu Nov 30 14:11:55 1989
I'm sorry, he's not paranoid. Read section 2b of the Gnu Public License.
Any code that uses any amount (however small) of GNU code becomes GNU code.
Given that A/UX and the NeXT are shipped with GNU code, it's all too easy
for some unsuspecting entrepreneur to compile a release of his code on his
new cube. Now he's unknowingly given up his right to sell the fruits of the
past umpteen months of hard work. Sure, you can get around it if you're
forewarned and savvy about system software... but what about the poor slobs
who aren't?
As to the rationale for section 2b, read the associated document: the GNU
manifesto. Richard Stallman has explicitly stated, here and in other places,
that selling software is evil. He has stated that his goal is to use the GNU
copyleft to force people to give away code. The carrot is GNUware, the stick
is the copyleft, and his goals are just plain wrong.
--
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com>
`-_-'
'U` "Really, a video game is nothing more than a Skinner box."
-- Peter Merel <p...@basser.oz>
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!tale
From: t...@cs.rpi.edu (Dave Lawrence)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: GNU's a menace to software
Message-ID: <25770F75.3EA@rpi.edu>
Date: 1 Dec 89 23:55:32 GMT
References: <1989Nov24.042533.2151@splut.conmicro.com> <2549@flatline.UUCP>
<1989Nov24.101721.3442@splut.conmicro.com>
<2340@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> <#V.0VG@splut.conmicro.com>
<2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Lines: 27
Posted: Sat Dec 2 00:55:32 1989
In <4...@sugar.hackercorp.com> pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva):
Richard Stallman has explicitly stated, here and in other places,
that selling software is evil.
Prove it. Provide quotes, and don't twist them to suit your meaning.
I just went through the GNU Manifesto, yet again, and no where does he
say this.
The word "sell", or some superset, appears a few times. No where does
he say that the selling of software is evil. No where does the GPL
prohibit selling software.
Geez, Peter. I remember the last time you tried to claim this,
somewhere over in news.misc I think a few months ago. I was left with
the impression that you finally understood this after we discussed it
tersely in mail.
This isn't a total flame against Peter; I have a lot of respect for
his knowledge and experience. I am just amazed that he still
misrepresents the FSF like this. If you don't like GNU, well fine.
Convince others that way, too, if it is your wont. Don't do it by
lying about what is said though.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("t...@cs.rpi.edu" "t...@ai.mit.edu" "t...@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!samsung!think!
snorkelwacker!apple!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!wintermute.Sun.COM!jthomp
From: jth...@wintermute.Sun.COM (Jim Thompson )
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GNU's a menace to software
Summary: All's not well that makes one rich
Keywords: GNU RMS riches software free
Message-ID: <1913@texsun.Central.Sun.COM>
Date: 2 Dec 89 05:16:05 GMT
References: <1989Nov24.042533.2151@splut.conmicro.com> <2549@flatline.UUCP>
<1989Nov24.101721.3442@splut.conmicro.com> <2340@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
<#V.0VG@splut.conmicro.com> <2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com>
<25770F75.3EA@rpi.edu>
Sender: n...@texsun.Central.Sun.COM
Followup-To: alt.religion.computers
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 147
(GNU.misc.discuss folks, theres a current war raging in alt.religion.computers
about how evil RMS is, you've been cross posted.)
In article <25770F75....@rpi.edu> t...@cs.rpi.edu (Dave Lawrence) writes:
>In <4...@sugar.hackercorp.com> pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva):
>
> Richard Stallman has explicitly stated, here and in other places,
> that selling software is evil.
>
>Prove it. Provide quotes, and don't twist them to suit your meaning.
>I just went through the GNU Manifesto, yet again, and no where does he
>say this.
He does seem to imply it. Even I have to admit that much.
(I'm still amazed at the lack of response to my posting of all
those GNU articles two days ago. I *know* they got out.
Hell, they all exist at apple, uunet, and lll-winken.)
Stallman says:
----------
Why I Must Write GNU
I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must
share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide
the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with
others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way. I
cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software
license agreement. For years I worked within the Artificial Intelligence
Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities, but eventually
they had gone too far: I could not remain in an institution where such
things are done for me against my will.
{and later}
GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition.
You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but neither will your
competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and they will compete in
other areas, while benefitting mutually in this one. If your business is
selling an operating system, you will not like GNU, but that's tough on
you. If your business is something else, GNU can save you from being
pushed into the expensive business of selling operating systems.
{and later: (In response to a few 'meta-questions'..)}
"Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?"
If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity can
be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the
results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative
programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict
the use of these programs.
"Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his creativity?"
There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to maximize
one's income, as long as one does not use means that are destructive. But
the means customary in the field of software today are based on
destruction.
Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is
destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that
the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity
derives from the program. When there is a deliberate choice to restrict,
the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction.
----------
>The word "sell", or some superset, appears a few times. No where does
>he say that the selling of software is evil. No where does the GPL
>prohibit selling software.
No, but his idea is that all software should be free, or at least
supported by society.
>Geez, Peter. I remember the last time you tried to claim this,
>somewhere over in news.misc I think a few months ago. I was left with
>the impression that you finally understood this after we discussed it
>tersely in mail.
Peter isn't wrong about Stallman beliving that all software should
be free. Peter (correct me if wrong, Peter) is only upset that
RMS (and others) want to remove the profit from restricting the
use of software.
>This isn't a total flame against Peter; I have a lot of respect for
>his knowledge and experience. I am just amazed that he still
>misrepresents the FSF like this. If you don't like GNU, well fine.
>Convince others that way, too, if it is your wont. Don't do it by
>lying about what is said though.
Most programers that I've met that oppose GNU got into programming for
the monetary rewards, rather than the pure love of programming.
Certainly gaining sustinance from programing is ok. It is work, even
the GNU project pays the people it employs. However, "Extracting money
from users of a program by restricting their use of it is
destructive..." For all the reasons stated above.
RMS writes some more:
-----
The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to become
wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become poorer from the
mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or, the Golden Rule.
Since I do not like the consequences that result if everyone hoards
information, I am required to consider it wrong for one to do so.
Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity does not
justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that creativity.
-----
I have to agree. I don't plan on getting rich fom programming.
Perhaps others do. I feel sorry for them. I certainly wouldn't plan
on becomming rich by delivering mail, or becomming a fireman, or a
policeman. There are ways of becomming wealthy in each of these
occupations. Almost all of these methods are illegal. Why? Because
they are bad for society.
By the way, RMS never implied 'communism'. He does argue for a sort of
software socialism. I agree. (Again.) Why should I have to duplicate
your work? Why should I have to duplicate your work for my
Great-American-Compiler?
I certainly don't want to have to maintain code written by someone who
is in it 'for the money'. I'd much rather use code written by someone
who was in it for much the same reason as someone patents an invention
of any sort. Copyright was invented in a time when copying the product
involved (books) was prohibitivly expensive. Now its been turned into
'intellectual property rights', and its socially bankrupt. Does
society benefit by the current scheme? Would society benefit more if
we all shared our code?
I belive so, therefore I support RMS and the FSF.
If you're a software hoarder, admit it, and then repent. Consider what
your actions are costing society. Consider the pain you endure to
re-write what someone else may already have written (potentially as
well, or better that you're about to write it.) Computers are tools,
we should all be helping build tools. Not fighting each others
efforts in order to make a pile of bread.
Jim
(All quotes from (emacs)/etc/GNU. Titled: The GNU MAnifesto.)
(Which I posted here the other day.)
Jim Thompson - Network Engineering - Sun Microsystems - jth...@central.sun.com
Member of the Fatalistic International Society for Hedonistic Youth (FISHY)
"I woudn't recommend sex, drugs, or unix for everyone, but they work for me."
- Me (paraphrasing Hunter S. Thompson)
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!splut!jay
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: GNU's a menace to software (was Re: Perl may be great, but...)
Message-ID: <T+C=8_@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 2 Dec 89 21:57:44 GMT
References: <1989Nov24.042533.2151@splut.conmicro.com> <2549@flatline.UUCP>
<1989Nov24.101721.3442@splut.conmicro.com> <2340@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
<#V.0VG@splut.conmicro.com> <1989Nov30.171308.14875@world.std.com>
Reply-To: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 33
Posted: Sat Dec 2 22:57:44 1989
This is a reply to Barry Shein, of Software Tool & Die. I can't quote
his article directly, since it carried a stupid licensing restriction; I
have no desire to test its enforceability, however.
You claimed that I was bugged that I would have to abide by the GNU
Public Virus if I wished to use GNUware. That's not it at all...I object
to the license itself. Yes, they are reputed to write good-quality
software; I can't tell. They don't give it away basically for free: they
demand that you join their effort. Sorry, but I'm not interested in
joining their communistic utopia. I'll give it away - no strings
attached.
I also don't like their adamant refusal to follow commonly held good
programming practices - like not treating integers and pointers as
interchangeable - just because it would help make their bloated code
more likely to run on my smaller machine.
I call them communists because they wish to force the world to give away
their code for free; since they can't do that to everyone, they'll do
the next best thing: they attach a condition to their software forcing
those who use their code to give their work away for free.
I'm sorry you got offended that I used communist as an insult; your
positions in the past lead me to believe that you would like to see
communism as the system here as well. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
True public domain code is freedom. GNU Public Virus-licensed code is
communism.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
j...@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
"...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, t...@ssd.harris.com
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!splut!jay
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: GNU's a menace to software (was Re: Perl may be great, but...)
Message-ID: <1+C+0_@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 2 Dec 89 22:03:35 GMT
References: <1989Nov24.042533.2151@splut.conmicro.com> <2549@flatline.UUCP>
<1989Nov24.101721.3442@splut.conmicro.com> <2340@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
<#V.0VG@splut.conmicro.com> <1989Nov30.224649.13619@oracle.com>
Reply-To: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 24
Posted: Sat Dec 2 23:03:35 1989
In article <1989Nov30.224649.13...@oracle.com> nh...@dvlseq.oracle.com
(Nate Hess) writes:
>In article <#V....@splut.conmicro.com>, jay@splut
(Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>>I can have little other interest at the moment, since they're too
>>snobbish to write software that could be portable to my machine.
^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^
>Where is it written that the FSF -- or anyone else, for that matter --
>has to write software that works on *your* machine? Why aren't you
>writing software that works on *mine*?
I don't expect them to write software that works on my system unaltered.
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that they write software that can
be ported to my system without a complete rewrite.
GNUware is full of portability violations: things like assuming all ints
are 32 bits, or that pointers and ints are interchangeable. That kind of
thing. Instead of avoiding this kind of crud, they say, "Get a better
processor!" Horse hockey. If they wrote portable code, I wouldn't have a
complaint...about that. The GNU Public Virus still rankles.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
j...@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
"...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, t...@ssd.harris.com
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uhnix1!
splut!jay
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: GNU's a menace to software
Keywords: GNU RMS riches software free
Message-ID: <8XC:BB@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 3 Dec 89 14:50:17 GMT
References: <1989Nov24.042533.2151@splut.conmicro.com> <2549@flatline.UUCP>
<1989Nov24.101721.3442@splut.conmicro.com> <2340@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
<#V.0VG@splut.conmicro.com> <2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com>
<25770F75.3EA@rpi.edu> <1913@texsun.Cent
Reply-To: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 39
Posted: Sun Dec 3 15:50:17 1989
In article <1...@texsun.Central.Sun.COM> jth...@wintermute.Sun.COM
(Jim Thompson ) writes:
>Most programers that I've met that oppose GNU got into programming for
>the monetary rewards, rather than the pure love of programming.
>Certainly gaining sustinance from programing is ok. It is work, even
>the GNU project pays the people it employs. However, "Extracting money
>from users of a program by restricting their use of it is
>destructive..." For all the reasons stated above.
I guess I'm not "most programmers", then. I got into it because I love to
do it, and because I'm reasonably good at it. It's not my fault that
there are people out there who pay good money for me to do it...
The GNU philosophy, though, says that I cannot be compensated for the
exercise of my creativity, because that harms society. This is pure and
utter hogwash. If I am not compensated for my creativity, I have little
incentive to create, and none to let others into my creation, the
pseudopsychologicalBS posted here recently notwithstanding. I love
programming, and have (and will) contributed to the public domain most
of my work that's been useful to more than myself. This is only possible
because I have been able to be compensated by others for the rest of my
work.
>If you're a software hoarder, admit it, and then repent. Consider what
>your actions are costing society. Consider the pain you endure to
>re-write what someone else may already have written (potentially as
>well, or better that you're about to write it.) Computers are tools,
>we should all be helping build tools. Not fighting each others
>efforts in order to make a pile of bread.
If we do not have the opportunity to sell our tools, then the production
of tools will be restricted to people who produce tools because they
want to. The set of available tools will be drastically reduced in such
a world.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
j...@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
"...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, t...@ssd.harris.com
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uhnix1!
splut!jay
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: GNU's a menace to software (was Re: Perl may be great, but...)
Message-ID: <GADLJC@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 4 Dec 89 04:25:56 GMT
References: <1989Nov24.042533.2151@splut.conmicro.com> <2549@flatline.UUCP>
<1989Nov24.101721.3442@splut.conmicro.com> <2340@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
<#V.0VG@splut.conmicro.com> <2558@flatline.UUCP> <2#_1ZH@splut.conmicro.com>
<1989Nov30.225754.13835@oracle.com>
Reply-To: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 38
Posted: Mon Dec 4 05:25:56 1989
In article <1989Nov30.225754.13...@oracle.com> nh...@dvlseq.oracle.com
(Nate Hess) writes:
>You seem to be making the hidden assumption that you should be able to
>use any piece of software that the FSF produces. WHY?
I'm saying that, instead of deliberately making their code
difficult-to-impossible to port, they could use a few well-known items
of good programming style and make my job a lot easier. I don't expect
to have their code compile on my system unaltered. I would like to be
able to run their code, even if some work were needed.
>Saying "there's no hope at all for that" [having a "less buggy C
>compiler than Microbug's"] *because* gcc doesn't work on your machine is
>not only silly, it's bordering on stupid. Where is the C compiler that
>*you've* been working on? Instead of bitching about the compiler that
>RMS chose to write, why don't you write one that *does* suit you? And,
>supposing you wrote such a compiler, how would you feel if RMS began
>publically bitching about the fact that your compiler worked on your
>PC/DOS machine and a VAX, say, but not on a SPARC or a MIPS or an i860?
I'm not a compiler author. I haven't the foggiest notion of how to
begin, much less how to make it turn out decent code. If I had a
compiler that I was writing, though, and chose not to sell it (which I'd
strongly consider, given the number of problems with Microbug), I'd
write it so that it *could* be easily ported, instead of just saying,
"Well, your machine is too crippled, so the hell with you."
>You've made a choice. Learn to live with it, or make a different
>choice. Quit complaining about choices that others have made.
I'm not complaining about others' choices; I'm complaining about
processor snobbery that other people indulge in because of the choice I
made.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
j...@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
"...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, t...@ssd.harris.com
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!
samsung!aplcen!haven!uvaarpa!news.acc.Virginia.EDU!bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU!gl8f
From: g...@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.religion.computers
Subject: asdf
Message-ID: <1989Dec7.075641.13191@news.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 7 Dec 89 07:56:41 GMT
References: <2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com>
<25770F75.3EA@rpi.edu> <1913@texsun.Central.Sun.COM>
Sender: n...@news.acc.Virginia.EDU
Reply-To: g...@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Organization: Dept. of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Lines: 39
Ireallyam: gl8f
In article <1...@texsun.Central.Sun.Com>, someone whose name I just
accidentally deleted says:
> Peter isn't wrong about Stallman beliving that all software should
> be free. Peter (correct me if wrong, Peter) is only upset that
> RMS (and others) want to remove the profit from restricting the
> use of software.
Actually, Peter makes the following incorrect leap of faith:
"Because RMS believes selling software is evil, he leads a movement to
make selling software illegal."
This leap of faith is incorrect without proof; it's the same thing
as assuming that I want to outlaw meat consumption because I'm
a vegatarian. After all, I believe that eating meat is unethical...
No, the reality is that I live my life not eating meat, and I don't
care what you do. Stallman lives his life writing and giving away
software which is militantly free. I don't see him running out
demanding that software copyrights be abolished. Rather, I've seen
him proposing some rather sane changes to copyright laws. You could
still sell software for money and keep the source secret after
these changes. And you might see me proposing laws that would
require factory farming be more humane.
Now, just as the earlier postings resulted in some inane economic
discussions, I expect a flood of postings and mail accusing me
of being a communist, or perhaps being out to put the American
Cattle Rancher out of business... ;-) But it's too late, this
vegetarian is out of the closet.
Followups for this entire discussion to your-favorite-graphical-
waste-receptical,-which-better-not-be-a-trashcan-or-Apple-will-sue-
you-for-violating-a-copyright-concerning-look-and-feel-of-something-
that-Xerox-invented.
------
Greg Lindahl
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!
texbell!sugar!peter
From: pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.religion.computers
Subject: Because you think I misrepresent RMS, it's OK to misrepresent me?
Message-ID: <4754@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Date: 13 Dec 89 14:39:09 GMT
References: <2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com>
<25770F75.3EA@rpi.edu> <1913@texsun.Central.Sun.COM>
<1989Dec7.075641.13191@news.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Reply-To: pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston
Lines: 23
I didn't say:
> "Because RMS believes selling software is evil, he leads a movement to
> make selling software illegal."
Well...
(a) That's his stated goal. (b) That's the implied goal in section 2b of the
GNU public license.
I'm saying "RMS is leading a movement that is attempting to make people
unwittingly lose their intellectual property rights, because he believes that
restricting the use of software to people who have paid for it is evil."
> Rather, I've seen
> him proposing some rather sane changes to copyright laws. You could
> still sell software for money and keep the source secret after
> these changes.
Isn't that at odds with the GPL?
--
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com>
`-_-'
'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!
bu-cs!lll-winken!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ibmchs!auschs!cello!
sanders.austin.ibm.com
From: sand...@sanders.austin.ibm.com (Tony Sanders)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: Because you think I misrepresent RMS, it's OK to misrepresent me?
Message-ID: <3084@cello.UUCP>
Date: 14 Dec 89 00:26:48 GMT
References: <2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com>
<25770F75.3EA@rpi.edu> <1913@texsun.Central.Sun.COM>
<1989Dec7.075641.13191@news.acc.Virginia.EDU> <4754@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Sender: n...@cello.UUCP
Reply-To: sand...@sanders.austin.ibm.com (Tony Sanders)
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin, TX
Lines: 27
In article <4...@sugar.hackercorp.com> pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
writes:
>I'm saying "RMS is leading a movement that is attempting to make people
>unwittingly lose their intellectual property rights, because he believes that
>restricting the use of software to people who have paid for it is evil."
The only right they loose is they cannot sell gnu code for their own
profit.
For anything other than the "GNU library" and "bison" issue:
I fail to see how someone could unwittingly do this unless they
havn't a clue. Would you just snarf up code from ANY source with a
copyright without at LEAST reading the copyright yourself. You
don't need a lawyer to figure it out.
If you ONLY mean "GNU library" and "bison" then:
I agree that it is more possible that one could "unwittingly" use gnu code
in this case although for me it still isn't an issue. You would have to
be pretty careless.
Would you be happy if it were more obvious that you cannot use this
code without falling under the GNU copyright? Or does it really
strike deeper than that?
Would you be happy if these items were removed from the copyright realm?
-- sanders
Reply-To: cs.utexas.edu!ibmaus!auschs!sanders.austin.ibm.com!sanders
I love to hack, to hack, to hack . . .
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uhnix1!
splut!jay
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: Because you think I misrepresent RMS, it's OK to misrepresent me?
Message-ID: <.SP8B@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 14 Dec 89 14:19:23 GMT
References: <2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com>
<25770F75.3EA@rpi.edu> <1913@texsun.Central.Sun.COM>
<1989Dec7.075641.13191@news.acc.Virginia.EDU> <4754@sugar.hackercorp.com>
<3084@cello.UUCP>
Reply-To: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 31
[I don't get gnu.* here...]
In article <3...@cello.UUCP> sand...@sanders.austin.ibm.com (Tony Sanders) writes:
>The only right they loose is they cannot sell gnu code for their own
>profit.
>For anything other than the "GNU library" and "bison" issue:
> I fail to see how someone could unwittingly do this unless they
> havn't a clue. Would you just snarf up code from ANY source with a
> copyright without at LEAST reading the copyright yourself. You
> don't need a lawyer to figure it out.
Well, for example, take a recent posting to alt.sources: GNU getopt
ported to MS-DOS.
It was posted without a copy of the GNU Public Virus.
Despite that, it is still covered by it. That means that anyone who uses
that package is, because of section 2b of the GPV, automatically forced
to give _his source code_, not just the GNU getopt package, away, and
prevented from restricting redistribution of that code. All without his
knowledge.
I agree that the person who posted GNU getopt without a copy of the GPV
screwed up; still, that doesn't mean that those who use the code should
be penalized.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
j...@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
"...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, t...@ssd.harris.com
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!rpi.edu!rodney
From: rod...@dali.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: Because you think I misrepresent RMS, it's OK to misrepresent me?
Message-ID: <RODNEY.89Dec14141031@dali.ipl.rpi.edu>
Date: 14 Dec 89 19:10:50 GMT
References: <2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com>
<25770F75.3EA@rpi.edu> <1913@texsun.Central.Sun.COM>
<1989Dec7.075641.13191@news.acc.Virginia.EDU>
<4754@sugar.hackercorp.com> <3084@cello.UUCP>
<.SP8B@splut.conmicro.com>
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Image Processing Lab, Troy NY
Lines: 18
In-Reply-To: jay@splut.conmicro.com's message of 14 Dec 89 14:19:23 GMT
>>>>> On 14 Dec 89 14:19:23 GMT, j...@splut.conmicro.com
(Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) said:
Jay> Well, for example, take a recent posting to alt.sources: GNU getopt
Jay> ported to MS-DOS.
Jay> It was posted without a copy of the GNU Public Virus.
A bit hostile? (and pointless)
Jay> Despite that, it is still covered by it. That means that anyone who uses
Jay> that package is, because of section 2b of the GPV, automatically forced
Jay> to give _his source code_, not just the GNU getopt package, away, and
Jay> prevented from restricting redistribution of that code. All without his
Jay> knowledge.
no, if you use the getopt package, you don't have to post your
sources. if you change getopt and redistribute it, then you do.
--
Rodney
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!samsung!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!bbn!bbn.com!rsalz
From: rs...@bbn.com (Rich Salz)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: Because you think I misrepresent RMS, it's OK to misrepresent me?
Message-ID: <2212@prune.bbn.com>
Date: 14 Dec 89 19:55:17 GMT
References: <2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com>
<25770F75.3EA@rpi.edu> <1913@texsun.Central.Sun.COM>
<1989Dec7.075641.13191@news.acc.Virginia.EDU> <4754@sugar.hackercorp.com>
<3084@cello.UUCP> <.SP8B@splut.conmicro.com>
Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation
Lines: 19
In <.S...@splut.conmicro.com> j...@splut.conmicro.com
(Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>I agree that the person who posted GNU getopt without a copy of the GPV
>screwed up; still, that doesn't mean that those who use the code should
>be penalized.
The truism "ignorance of the law is no excuse" has special meaning when
copyright is involved. Find a lawyer to explain it. I think there were
also some articles in UnixReview about it.
Basically, the rule is that even if you get something without the copyright
THE COURTS have said that you are liable. (You'd presumably seek civil
action against the person to cover your tail.)
I emphasized the courts, above, because I wish to point out that this is
not FSF's doing; it is the work of the US Legal System.
/r$
--
Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rs...@uunet.uu.net.
Use a domain-based address or give alternate paths, or you may lose out.
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uhnix1!splut!jay
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: Because you think I misrepresent RMS, it's OK to misrepresent me?
Message-ID: <5MQ#.+@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 15 Dec 89 14:07:25 GMT
References: <2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com>
<25770F75.3EA@rpi.edu> <1913@texsun.Central.Sun.COM>
<1989Dec7.075641.13191@news.acc.Virginia.EDU> <4754@sugar.hackercorp.com>
<3084@cello.UUCP> <.SP8B@splut.conmicro.com> <2212@prune.bbn.com>
Reply-To: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 24
In article <2...@prune.bbn.com> rs...@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes:
>In <.S...@splut.conmicro.com> j...@splut.conmicro.com
(Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>>I agree that the person who posted GNU getopt without a copy of the GPV
>>screwed up; still, that doesn't mean that those who use the code should
>>be penalized.
>Basically, the rule is that even if you get something without the copyright
>THE COURTS have said that you are liable. (You'd presumably seek civil
>action against the person to cover your tail.)
I was speaking in the moral sense, not the legal sense.
I don't object to the fact that someone in that situation should have to
conform to the coyright; what I am objecting to is, specifically, the
virus part of the GPV: his code, _not just GNU getopt_, falls under the
terms of the GPV. This is unconscionable.
People wanted an example of how someone's program could fall under the
terms of the GPV without his knowledge. Here 'tis.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
j...@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
"...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, t...@ssd.harris.com
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uhnix1!splut!jay
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: Because you think I misrepresent RMS, it's OK to misrepresent me?
Message-ID: <_NQ-B+@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 15 Dec 89 14:20:47 GMT
References: <2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com>
<25770F75.3EA@rpi.edu> <1913@texsun.Central.Sun.COM>
<1989Dec7.075641.13191@news.acc.Virginia.EDU> <4754@sugar.hackercorp.com>
<3084@cello.UUCP> <.SP8B@splut.conmicro.com> <RODNEY.89Dec14141031@dali.ipl.rpi
Reply-To: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 23
In article <RODNEY.89Dec14141...@dali.ipl.rpi.edu> rod...@dali.ipl.rpi.edu
(Rodney Peck II) writes:
Jay> It was posted without a copy of the GNU Public Virus.
>A bit hostile? (and pointless)
Hostile? Possibly. Pointless? nope, since it is an accurate description
of the effect of the GNU Public License: it's a legal virus.
Jay> Despite that, it is still covered by it. That means that anyone who uses
Jay> that package is, because of section 2b of the GPV, automatically forced
Jay> to give _his source code_, not just the GNU getopt package, away, and
Jay> prevented from restricting redistribution of that code. All without his
Jay> knowledge.
>no, if you use the getopt package, you don't have to post your
>sources. if you change getopt and redistribute it, then you do.
Sorry, that's not correct. Paragraph 2b of the GPV specifically forces
you to place all of your program under its terms if you use any GNU code
in it. This is the virus effect I refer to.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
j...@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
"...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, t...@ssd.harris.com
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!
AI.MIT.EDU!tower
From: to...@AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Because you think I misrepresent RMS, it's OK to misrepresent me?
Message-ID: <8912201207.AA03579@wheat-chex>
Date: 20 Dec 89 12:07:04 GMT
References: <.SP8B@splut.conmicro.com>
Sender: k...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Reply-To: gnu-misc-disc...@cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation,
675 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
Lines: 39
Date: 14 Dec 89 14:19:23 GMT
From: uhnix1!splut!...@cs.utexas.edu (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
[I don't get gnu.* here...]
In article <3...@cello.UUCP> sand...@sanders.austin.ibm.com (Tony Sanders) writes:
>The only right they loose is they cannot sell gnu code for their own
>profit.
>For anything other than the "GNU library" and "bison" issue:
> I fail to see how someone could unwittingly do this unless they
> havn't a clue. Would you just snarf up code from ANY source with a
> copyright without at LEAST reading the copyright yourself. You
> don't need a lawyer to figure it out.
Well, for example, take a recent posting to alt.sources: GNU getopt
ported to MS-DOS.
It was posted without a copy of the GNU Public Virus.
Despite that, it is still covered by it. That means that anyone who uses
that package is, because of section 2b of the GPV, automatically forced
to give _his source code_, not just the GNU getopt package, away, and
prevented from restricting redistribution of that code. All without his
knowledge.
This problem is NOT unique to the GNU General Public License. It's
how the copyright law works. You would have the same problem with
code from AT&T, Sun, Digital et al.
I agree that the person who posted GNU getopt without a copy of the GPV
screwed up; still, that doesn't mean that those who use the code should
be penalized.
He should be asked to post a corrected version, and his mistake
should be noted in the appropriate alt.all newsgroup.
thanx -len
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!
AI.MIT.EDU!tower
From: to...@AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Because you think I misrepresent RMS, it's OK to misrepresent me?
Message-ID: <8912201209.AA03583@wheat-chex>
Date: 20 Dec 89 12:09:13 GMT
References: <RODNEY.89Dec14141031@dali.ipl.rpi.edu>
Sender: k...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Reply-To: gnu-misc-disc...@cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation,
675 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
Lines: 25
Errors-To: gnu-misc-discuss-requ...@cis.ohio-state.edu
Reply-To: gnu-misc-disc...@cis.ohio-state.edu
Sender: gnu-misc-discuss-requ...@cis.ohio-state.edu
Date: 14 Dec 89 19:10:50 GMT
From: rod...@rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II)
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Image Processing Lab, Troy NY
>>>>> On 14 Dec 89 14:19:23 GMT, j...@splut.conmicro.com
(Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) said:
Jay> Despite that, it is still covered by it. That means that
Jay> anyone who use that package is, because of section 2b of the
Jay> GPV, automatically forced to give _his source code_, not just
Jay> the GNU getopt package, away, and prevented from restricting
Jay> redistribution of that code. All without his knowledge.
no, if you use the getopt package, you don't have to post your
sources. if you change getopt and redistribute it, then you do.
--
Rodney
Wrong. If your program requires GNU source to be linked in, it's all
covered by the GPL.
thanx -len