On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 02:54:12PM +0000, George Borisov wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> >
> > Win32 belies that. It's been stable for 8 (possibly 11, not being a
> > Windows developer) years. Windows XP will run 8 year old Windows 98
> > apps with no problem.
>
> Sadly this does not include any of the nice old games that I used
> to enjoy all those years ago. They worked just fine on Win 98,
> but not 2k or XP. :-(

Ahhh, Larry Lounge Lizard ...

--
Chris.
======
" ... the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of
rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government
conspiracy of `X-Files' proportions and insidiousness."
Letter to the LA Times Magazine, September 18, 2005.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12/03/06 02:02, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 02:54:12PM +0000, George Borisov wrote:
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> Win32 belies that. It's been stable for 8 (possibly 11, not being a
>>> Windows developer) years. Windows XP will run 8 year old Windows 98
>>> apps with no problem.
>> Sadly this does not include any of the nice old games that I used
>> to enjoy all those years ago. They worked just fine on Win 98,
>> but not 2k or XP. :-(
>
> Ahhh, Larry Lounge Lizard ...

Do you mean Leisure Suit Larry? That was a series of DOS games.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFctMLS9HxQb37XmcRAqEfAJ4u1pwxaZrUNwXF3geHZu 49uTSl3wCggPBT
uIA4J9JyJi9WEdH3O/uToLI=
=p05G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 09:52:16PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
> hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
>
> >>My assertion: The kernel is more important than the license. Code
> >>trumps license. No code, no need to even use or have a license...
> >>whatever it is.
> >
> >Code without licence tends not to propagate. Linux wasn't the first
> >Unix-compatible one to have been written. It seems to me there was a
> >Unix-compatible kerlen written in the language TURING sometime in the
> >late 70's or early 80's. But it didn't have a free license, and --
> >well, have any of you ever heard of it?
>
> Code before licenses were popular propagated just fine. Ask RMS! It's
> the basis for the entire GNU movement! Code *was* propagating just fine
> until greedy companies added licenses. Then the so-called battle was
> enjoined.

True. I remember those days from back in the sixties. What you need
the license for is to grant the users the right to propagate the code.
Placing it in the public domain (which to my mind is a kind of license,
whatever the legal technicalities may say) has the effect that companies
can take the code private, privately enhance it to the degree that they
effectively own what the original code has become, which may atrophy.
This may or may not be what is intended, but the larger the developer
community, and the greater the utility of the code, the less likely is
will be to happen.

GPL did prevent that kind of taking-private, but its contagion
provisions are, in my mind, more restrictive than necessary to
accomplish this aim.

>
> I could send you some code in e-mail right now if you'd like. You could
> modify it and send it on privately to someone or use it in your business
> and I'd never know about it. Code propagates just fine without licenses.

And if you ever found out about it seven years form now when you've
acquired a different mindset? Would you sue? Are you sure? If you
did sue, would you win? And even if you are sure you wouldn't sue or
couldn't win, can I be sure unless you do explicitly place it in the
public
domain?

Under current international law, code is automatically copyright by the
author. Unless a license is explicitly or implicitly granted, no one
else has the right to make copies.

>
> Ironically, the places it doesn't propagate now without an onerous
> license (of either the "good" or "evil" sort) is in PUBLIC. Because
> people are somehow afraid of the results of their sharing.
>
> Both the GPL *and* commercial licenses are ultimately based on FUD. If
> you're scared of the consequences of simply taking some code and using
> it as you please and/or the consequences of doing so: You want a
> license to tell you how you may or may not use it.
>
> Neither is Freedom. Both are restricted. Otherwise they wouldn't be
> licenses.
>
> If you simply do what you wish with whatever code you have, and accept
> the consequences, whatever they might be, you don't need a license.

The potential consequences are what generates the fear.

-- hendrik


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

This fabulous has been mailed to me in private, and I'd like to share
it with all ya...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Arlie Stephens <arlie@worldash.org>
Date: Nov 30, 2006 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
To: Tshepang Lekhonkhobe <tshepang@gmail.com>


On Nov 30 2006, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:

> Hi,
> A killer app is an application that compels one to use a certain
> system.

Like many others, I don't have a specific "killer app." I've simply
been using *nix systems for many years, and can get a lot more
accomplished when I have that kind of shell based enviroment, not to
mention familiar tools.

Why pick linux, or debian specifically? Well, I'll pick whichever one
gives me fewer headaches, and more tools. Once I've picked one, I'll
stay with it until sufficient aggravations accumulate that the cost of
switching seems lower than the cost of staying.

Net result - I went SunOS to RedHat to Debian for my home systems,
and HP-UX to RedHat to Debian for work systems. (My employers also
kindly supply me with a Windoze box, which I use as little as
possible.)

If I had to say why Debian specifically - because it (a) has just
about everything I could possibly want in pre-built, conveniently
installable packages and (b) manages to install and upgrade new
packages without rendering my system unbootable, etc. Also (c)
At the point when RedHat had become DeadRat to me, I knew more people
using Debian than any of the other choices, and figured I'd be more
likely to be able to get with it.

If comparing with e.g. Windoze, my killer apps are bash, grep, find,
gcc, and perl == the power to make my own tools, rather than either
using what's presupplied or paying for the privilege of trying to
create something. Next tier of killer apps would be apache, postfix
(any mail server), ecartis, etc. And of course the privilege of
reading email without worrying about it installing a virus ;-)
But these are common to all *nixes, or can be.

On Debian lists, someone mentioned that meld, a GUI diff
> utility, was killer. I can't think of any I have because I moved to
> GNU/Linux for its said overall magnificence, instead of a particular
> application, and today there's isn't one utility I admire so much I'd
> consider such... maybe gnome-terminal, lsof, grep, top,
> epiphany-browser, or less. I'd mention admirance for Blender, GCC,
> Python but they are cross-platform. I'd mention GNOME, but it's a 100
> apps. So I give up and ask you, what's your killer app(s)?

--
Arlie

(Arlie Stephens arlie@worldash.org)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On 12/1/06, Kevin Mark <kevin.mark@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 01:14:34PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> > Hi,
> > A killer app is an application that compels one to use a certain
> > system. On Debian lists, someone mentioned that meld, a GUI diff
> > utility, was killer. I can't think of any I have because I moved to
> > GNU/Linux for its said overall magnificence, instead of a particular
> > application, and today there's isn't one utility I admire so much I'd
> > consider such... maybe gnome-terminal, lsof, grep, top,
> > epiphany-browser, or less. I'd mention admirance for Blender, GCC,
> > Python but they are cross-platform. I'd mention GNOME, but it's a 100
> > apps. So I give up and ask you, what's your killer app(s)?
> Hi Tshepang,
> from the myriad of answers, it seems clear that the answer depends upon
> what the user think is important to them and there are different
> requirement for each users. There is not just one user type for Gnu.
> Some are people are looking for text processing, some graphics, some
> audio, some programming platorm, some privacy, some no viruses, etc. It
> takes any person _a lot_ of persistance to want to use *nix systems. At
> least the folks that I know simply have no interest in doing anything
> 'odd' or 'difficult' or 'not what everyone uses' and that requires
> asking questions and reading alot, what with literacy today. They must
> have learned about something like DRM, copyright, or have been in
> academia where *nix system are used to have a wish to depart from the
> mainstream. I like reading about relatives or friends of *nix people
> installing Gnu. And Ubuntu seems to be making some impression although
> I've not really figured out how they get those average folks to use it
> against all the pressures of todays society to not be geeks and be like
> everyone else. The 3-clicks approach is ful to get it installed,
> but it doesnt prevent the need for join irc or mailing lists which most
> folks are not very interested in doing. Any way, once you set your mind
> to install it, the rest is easy. Just ask question, wait for people to
> answer you, and read alot. Any thought on how people come to Gnu is the
> harder question to me, not what they use when they get here.

I don't know if we both on page 20, but Windows users are often at
luck because because there far more Windows 'experts' than GNU ones;
Windows is easily at hand; Windows software is all over the
place; Also, my brother loves Debian (except that he wouldn't if I
wasn't around), but has to dual-boot since he needs a Cubase or Reason
(music production) which don't really have FLOSS equivalents...


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 07:52:23AM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> On 12/1/06, Kevin Mark <kevin.mark@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 01:14:34PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> A killer app is an application that compels one to use a certain
> >> system. On Debian lists, someone mentioned that meld, a GUI diff
> >> utility, was killer. I can't think of any I have because I moved to
> >> GNU/Linux for its said overall magnificence, instead of a particular
> >> application, and today there's isn't one utility I admire so much I'd
> >> consider such... maybe gnome-terminal, lsof, grep, top,
> >> epiphany-browser, or less. I'd mention admirance for Blender, GCC,
> >> Python but they are cross-platform. I'd mention GNOME, but it's a 100
> >> apps. So I give up and ask you, what's your killer app(s)?
> >Hi Tshepang,
> >from the myriad of answers, it seems clear that the answer depends upon
> >what the user think is important to them and there are different
> >requirement for each users. There is not just one user type for Gnu.
> >Some are people are looking for text processing, some graphics, some
> >audio, some programming platorm, some privacy, some no viruses, etc. It
> >takes any person _a lot_ of persistance to want to use *nix systems. At
> >least the folks that I know simply have no interest in doing anything
> >'odd' or 'difficult' or 'not what everyone uses' and that requires
> >asking questions and reading alot, what with literacy today. They must
> >have learned about something like DRM, copyright, or have been in
> >academia where *nix system are used to have a wish to depart from the
> >mainstream. I like reading about relatives or friends of *nix people
> >installing Gnu. And Ubuntu seems to be making some impression although
> >I've not really figured out how they get those average folks to use it
> >against all the pressures of todays society to not be geeks and be like
> >everyone else. The 3-clicks approach is ful to get it installed,
> >but it doesnt prevent the need for join irc or mailing lists which most
> >folks are not very interested in doing. Any way, once you set your mind
> >to install it, the rest is easy. Just ask question, wait for people to
> >answer you, and read alot. Any thought on how people come to Gnu is the
> >harder question to me, not what they use when they get here.
>
> I don't know if we both on page 20, but Windows users are often at
> luck because because there far more Windows 'experts' than GNU ones;
> Windows is easily at hand; Windows software is all over the
> place; Also, my brother loves Debian (except that he wouldn't if I
> wasn't around), but has to dual-boot since he needs a Cubase or Reason
> (music production) which don't really have FLOSS equivalents...
Hi T,
I'd take my luck with wikis, irc and mailing lists anyday rather than
rely on 'windows experts', expensive howto books, paid supportr, paid
upgrades and virsues. Exactly how useful is just learning to click this,
click than to do a task versus using the command line?
The only thing that would keep me in the ms world would be a specific
app that would not run on wine and was job critical. Besides, most
'' I used to get on Win was reformat and reinstall,
Ugh. Even rpm hell is better than that!
cheers,
Kev
- --
| .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: |
| : :' : The Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com |
| `. `' Operating System | go to counter.li.org and |
| `- http://www.debian.org/ | be counted! #238656 |
| my keysever: pgp.mit.edu | my NPO: cfsg.org |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFc8Xxv8UcC1qRZVMRArRGAJ9f+9U3OUY7JSItbqJsXt YyhSrJIQCeJCLQ
Gj3ciV7292sAYIiYWYsfjM0=
=8SGz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 07:52:23AM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
<snip>
> Also, my brother loves Debian (except that he wouldn't if I
> wasn't around), but has to dual-boot since he needs a Cubase or Reason
> (music production) which don't really have FLOSS equivalents...
>
Hi T,
just recalled a post[0] by this guy pete from ubuntu about FLOSS audio
stuff. follow his blog (or like me at planet.ubuntu.com) for more a/v
stuff.
Cheers,
Kev
[0] http://www.progbox.co.uk/wordpress/?p=166
- --
| .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: |
| : :' : The Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com |
| `. `' Operating System | go to counter.li.org and |
| `- http://www.debian.org/ | be counted! #238656 |
| my keysever: pgp.mit.edu | my NPO: cfsg.org |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFc8ezv8UcC1qRZVMRApV+AKCHtp00ACYQ3rmtSFHb6P SP0QQEFgCfWetE
XAl7cZA4hAZ26ZBi1uZW7pM=
=W8KS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Tshepang Lekhonkhobe escribe:
> I don't know if we both on page 20, but Windows users are often at
> luck because because there far more Windows 'experts' than GNU ones;
> Windows is easily at hand; Windows software is all over the
> place; Also, my brother loves Debian (except that he wouldn't if I
> wasn't around), but has to dual-boot since he needs a Cubase or Reason
> (music production) which don't really have FLOSS equivalents...

Interconnecting different audio apps using jack is as funny as using
Reason. And an equivalent to Cubase depends on if he's using MIDI
(then Rosegarden or Muse should be tried) or mainly for mixing audio
(then Ardour which for many people is as powerful as ProTools.)

One can do audio and MIDI work with linux, it's a matter of changing
minds.

Cordially, Ismael
--
Ismael Valladolid Torres

http://lamediahostia.blogspot.com/ m. +34679156321
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ivalladt j. ivalladt@jabberes.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)

iD8DBQFFc+xg59Nokt5yGvQRAqQgAJ9Rh0PhOcVQSnkebCNzIU Ho6tv87QCcCEKg
uVgGf011n1zt23CY9SwoCFc=
=Iopl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> Ahhh, Larry Lounge Lizard ...

I was thinking of "Dungeon Keeper 2" myself. :-)


--
George Borisov

DXSolutions Ltd


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 09:52:16PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
>> Both the GPL *and* commercial licenses are ultimately based on FUD. If
>> you're scared of the consequences of simply taking some code and using
>> it as you please and/or the consequences of doing so: You want a
>> license to tell you how you may or may not use it.
>>
>> Neither is Freedom. Both are restricted. Otherwise they wouldn't be
>> licenses.
>>
>> If you simply do what you wish with whatever code you have, and accept
>> the consequences, whatever they might be, you don't need a license.
>>
> s/code/books/
>
> Your argument does not hold. In the early days, so few people were
> using code that it really didn't matter. As more people came along and
> became education in programming and computer science, more people
> started founding companies to develop software. These people realized
> that like a book, someone could copy it without permission and sell
> those copies without the original author getting the benefit. That is
> called copyright. It has existed for a very long time.

Totally unrelated to my point. In fact, you completely missed it.

I can send you some non-GPL'ed non-Copyrighted code right now. Would
you like some?

You're adding things that simply don't need to exist. They *do* exist
for *some* code, including GPL'ed code, but licensing of ANY sort
(including Copyright, which is nothing more than another contrived
license allowed by law in many places) *restricts* the use of code in
some fashion. The only truly FREE code is code without any license at all.

Code does NOT inherently *require* licensing or Copyright. You just
think it does.

What would you like me to send you? A two line BASIC program?

10 PRINT "HELLO"
20 GOTO 10

Look - there you go. Free code. No Copyright, no license. Freely
distributed.

I would tell you to do with it what you wish, but that would insinuate
that you need to follow my wishes. You don't. It has no license or
copyright. (Many countries call this "Public Domain".) You may
incorporate my code into your own works freely without any encumberances
of any kind. Enjoy. Or don't. Your choice.

Do you get it now?

I'm not arguing for or against the GPL, just pointing out that code
doesn't need to be licensed just because anyone (or even a majority of
anyone) says it does.

Nate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 09:52:16PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
>> hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
>>
>>>> My assertion: The kernel is more important than the license. Code
>>>> trumps license. No code, no need to even use or have a license...
>>>> whatever it is.
>>> Code without licence tends not to propagate. Linux wasn't the first
>>> Unix-compatible one to have been written. It seems to me there was a
>>> Unix-compatible kerlen written in the language TURING sometime in the
>>> late 70's or early 80's. But it didn't have a free license, and --
>>> well, have any of you ever heard of it?
>> Code before licenses were popular propagated just fine. Ask RMS! It's
>> the basis for the entire GNU movement! Code *was* propagating just fine
>> until greedy companies added licenses. Then the so-called battle was
>> enjoined.
>
> True. I remember those days from back in the sixties. What you need
> the license for is to grant the users the right to propagate the code.
> Placing it in the public domain (which to my mind is a kind of license,
> whatever the legal technicalities may say) has the effect that companies
> can take the code private, privately enhance it to the degree that they
> effectively own what the original code has become, which may atrophy.
> This may or may not be what is intended, but the larger the developer
> community, and the greater the utility of the code, the less likely is
> will be to happen.
>
> GPL did prevent that kind of taking-private, but its contagion
> provisions are, in my mind, more restrictive than necessary to
> accomplish this aim.

GPL prevents it, but people CHOOSING to purchase the commercial version
in the first place caused the problem. GPL was not necessary if people
had simply refused to use the commercialized versions.

>
>> I could send you some code in e-mail right now if you'd like. You could
>> modify it and send it on privately to someone or use it in your business
>> and I'd never know about it. Code propagates just fine without licenses.
>
> And if you ever found out about it seven years form now when you've
> acquired a different mindset? Would you sue? Are you sure? If you
> did sue, would you win? And even if you are sure you wouldn't sue or
> couldn't win, can I be sure unless you do explicitly place it in the
> public
> domain?

Depends on my morals and ethics, doesn't it? I could GPL it and later
still sue, no difference there. GPL would limit whatever damage I could
cause by suing -- maybe. That remains to be seen in court.

> Under current international law, code is automatically copyright by the
> author. Unless a license is explicitly or implicitly granted, no one
> else has the right to make copies.

What if I don't WANT a Copyright. Stupid. What if I want nothing to do
with it once released? I don't want an "automatic license" if I mail
you some code without a license on it. That's stupid and sounds like it
was creaed for idiots who forgot to license their code.

You guys do realize I'm playing Devil's advocate here, and would always
explicitly license any code I released as a matter of course. Or
explicitly release Copyright and place it in the Public Domain.

I completely understand all you guy's comments, but I disagree heavily
that code ever *REQUIRES* a license.

And that is the point I'm trying to drive home to anyone who believes
that code requires a license. It simply doesn't.

Code is code, and is always Free, unless created under contract that it
remain non-Free or released under a restrictive license like the GPL or
BSD or anything else... anything other than raw code is encumbered with
non-Freedom. And that's okay... it's just a point that few in the GPL
fan-boy community ever even think about, let alone really digest fully.

Nate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Nate Duehr writes:
> What if I don't WANT a Copyright.

The politicians and lawyers who created copyright law cannot conceive of
such a thing. Consequently copyright is compulsory. The best you can do
is explicitly license it for anyone to do anything they want with it.

> And that is the point I'm trying to drive home to anyone who believes
> that code requires a license. It simply doesn't.

If you give or sell me a copy of a work of yours I own that copy and can do
as I please with it (that includes running it if it is a computer program)
with no need for a license. However, copyright law forbids me to make and
distribute copies of it without your permission.

> Code is code, and is always Free, unless created under contract that it
> remain non-Free or released under a restrictive license like the GPL or
> BSD or anything else... anything other than raw code is encumbered with
> non-Freedom.

Code is protected by copyright by default and may not be copied and
distributed without permission of the copyright owner.

> it's just a point that few in the GPL fan-boy community ever even think
> about, let alone really digest fully.

Perhaps you should try actually reading the copyright law. It is available
on line at
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17.html>.

--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

John Hasler wrote:

> If you give or sell me a copy of a work of yours I own that copy and can do
> as I please with it (that includes running it if it is a computer program)
> with no need for a license. However, copyright law forbids me to make and
> distribute copies of it without your permission.

Feel free to feel bound and to limit your own freedom if you so choose.

It's a self-imposed limitation in the case of my example of
non-licensed, non-attributed code that I typed into the mailing list.

> Code is protected by copyright by default and may not be copied and
> distributed without permission of the copyright owner.

If you feel you need to follow that law in every circumstance, go right
ahead. Breaking copyright in the case of someone releasing something
without a license appears to be a victim-less crime.

Thus, copyright in the real world only matters if the author chooses to
exercise it.

By your definition, you could have hit reply with quoting turned on in
your MUA to my code example I sent -- and then you would have been a law
breaker!

I could start sprinkling code into my signature line and then sue
everyone who quotes it on a mailing list? Yeah, right. It'd actually
be fun to see someone try that and see how far it got in the legal system.

I continue to contend that if you put it up in public (not private,
there are differences there) for anyone to see, and it has no license or
stated Copyright -- you'll have no leg to stand on if you attempted to
take that to a court to enforce copyright later. No matter how the law
is written, no Judge with half a brain cell operating would allow me to
sue you for hitting "reply" and "copying" my code.

Therefore the most effective way to "share" code with absolutely zero
encumbrances, is simply to post it somewhere in public, and to force
people to grow up and make their own decisions about whether or not they
wish to copy it and use it. No license required.

Copyright may be automatic, but doesn't apply unless the author chooses
to enforce it. And by posting it in public, they've taken all their own
teeth out if they were ever dumb enough to try to retroactively enforce
it later on.

Nate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 11:02:12AM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
> Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 09:52:16PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:

> I can send you some non-GPL'ed non-Copyrighted code right now. Would
> you like some?
>
> You're adding things that simply don't need to exist. They *do* exist
> for *some* code, including GPL'ed code, but licensing of ANY sort
> (including Copyright, which is nothing more than another contrived
> license allowed by law in many places) *restricts* the use of code in
> some fashion. The only truly FREE code is code without any license at all.
>
> Code does NOT inherently *require* licensing or Copyright. You just
> think it does.
>
> What would you like me to send you? A two line BASIC program?
>
> 10 PRINT "HELLO"
> 20 GOTO 10
>
> Look - there you go. Free code. No Copyright, no license. Freely
> distributed.

This would be your licence. Thank you.

>
> I would tell you to do with it what you wish, but that would insinuate
> that you need to follow my wishes. You don't. It has no license or
> copyright. (Many countries call this "Public Domain".) You may
> incorporate my code into your own works freely without any encumberances
> of any kind. Enjoy. Or don't. Your choice.
>

Clause two of your licence. Thank you.

Doug.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 03:03:53PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
>
> >If you give or sell me a copy of a work of yours I own that copy and can do
> >as I please with it (that includes running it if it is a computer program)
> >with no need for a license. However, copyright law forbids me to make and
> >distribute copies of it without your permission.
>
> Feel free to feel bound and to limit your own freedom if you so choose.
>
> It's a self-imposed limitation in the case of my example of
> non-licensed, non-attributed code that I typed into the mailing list.
>
> >Code is protected by copyright by default and may not be copied and
> >distributed without permission of the copyright owner.
>
> If you feel you need to follow that law in every circumstance, go right
> ahead. Breaking copyright in the case of someone releasing something
> without a license appears to be a victim-less crime.
>
> Thus, copyright in the real world only matters if the author chooses to
> exercise it.

Since copywrite exists unless released within a licence, who would want
to open themselves (or their company) to the risk of a legal battle, or
tarnishing of a reputation.

>
> By your definition, you could have hit reply with quoting turned on in
> your MUA to my code example I sent -- and then you would have been a law
> breaker!
>

No. The forums are clearly stated on the web-site (not just assumed by
the culture) that they and anything posted to them are public. This
releases the rest of us from liability if we redistribute your code.

> I could start sprinkling code into my signature line and then sue
> everyone who quotes it on a mailing list? Yeah, right. It'd actually
> be fun to see someone try that and see how far it got in the legal system.

You obviously don't agree with automatic copyright. However, to change
it you would have to change international law.

If you have the energy and effectivness to pull that off, I'd rather you
spend your talents on climate change.


Doug.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:55:21PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 03:03:53PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
> >
> > Thus, copyright in the real world only matters if the author chooses to
> > exercise it.
>
> Since copywrite exists unless released within a licence, who would want
> to open themselves (or their company) to the risk of a legal battle, or
> tarnishing of a reputation.
>

I can't believe I'm jumping into this but...

ISTM, that this is an interesting scenario:

you release code anonymously into public domain. companyA sees that
code, likes it, grabs it, incorporates it, copyrights and distributes it ina
closed source application. this of course is their right as there are
no licenses or rights attached to the code.
simultaneously, userB sees it, grabs it, incorporates it, and
releases it under gpl. later, companyA, having
lost track of how it got the code, sees it in userB's gpl code and
sues userB claiming that they stole it, violated companyA's
copyright. userB ends up in court trying to defend themselves. If
there is no other record available of this code being in public
domain, nor any clear release from the author, then userB is
effectively screwed.

If one had instead released the code with explicit copyright releases
attached, then userB could attribute the code properly and be
defendable.

it seems irresponsible to just throw code out there with the idea that
anybody could use it without making some statement to that effect.

this all assumes the existence of automatic copyright etc. Without
automatic copyright, I suppose the situation would be pretty similar though.

my .02 as IANAA or coder at this point.

/me runs and hides

A

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFdgpzaIeIEqwil4YRAq+TAKCtdZLtE02/vIrI8npO9hBH1o7SOACgn4nx
RylZmArlHNgUaRxYQXeTpIA=
=dPXy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Douglas Tutty writes:
> No. The forums are clearly stated on the web-site (not just assumed by
> the culture) that they and anything posted to them are public. This
> releases the rest of us from liability if we redistribute your code.

I don't think it does. We are free to download the code and read it and
probably run it, but I don't see how we get any distribution rights.

Nate Duehr wrote:
> I could start sprinkling code into my signature line and then sue
> everyone who quotes it on a mailing list? Yeah, right. It'd actually be
> fun to see someone try that and see how far it got in the legal system.

There is clearly an implied license (in addition to fair use) to quote such
things. However, if there was enough code to qualify for copyright
protection you might very well be able to prevent me from selling copies of
it.

Copyright law is what it is, not what we want it to be.
--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Douglas Tutty wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 11:02:12AM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
>> Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 09:52:16PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
>> I can send you some non-GPL'ed non-Copyrighted code right now. Would
>> you like some?
>>
>> You're adding things that simply don't need to exist. They *do* exist
>> for *some* code, including GPL'ed code, but licensing of ANY sort
>> (including Copyright, which is nothing more than another contrived
>> license allowed by law in many places) *restricts* the use of code in
>> some fashion. The only truly FREE code is code without any license at all.
>>
>> Code does NOT inherently *require* licensing or Copyright. You just
>> think it does.
>>
>> What would you like me to send you? A two line BASIC program?
>>
>> 10 PRINT "HELLO"
>> 20 GOTO 10
>>
>> Look - there you go. Free code. No Copyright, no license. Freely
>> distributed.
>
> This would be your licence. Thank you.
>
>> I would tell you to do with it what you wish, but that would insinuate
>> that you need to follow my wishes. You don't. It has no license or
>> copyright. (Many countries call this "Public Domain".) You may
>> incorporate my code into your own works freely without any encumberances
>> of any kind. Enjoy. Or don't. Your choice.
>>
>
> Clause two of your licence. Thank you.

I knew some pedantic schmuck would say that.

Pretend that I left those OFF the message, because trying to make the
point in the message is difficult without saying it explicitly, so just
use your tiny little imagination and pretend none of that explanation
was there).

Twit.

Nate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Douglas Tutty wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 03:03:53PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
>> Thus, copyright in the real world only matters if the author chooses to
>> exercise it.
>
> Since copywrite exists unless released within a licence, who would want
> to open themselves (or their company) to the risk of a legal battle, or
> tarnishing of a reputation.

Their view of the real risks are skewed then. Ask any company who's put
GPL'ed code inside a product and gotten away with it because no one
could tell it was there. You naive enough to think that hasn't, and
isn't happening daily? Do those people give a whit about the license or
the Copyright? Nope. Do they just have a copy of the code. Yep.

You (as copyright holder) have to prove they're using your code. (Re:
SCO.) You can't prove it, then what good did your automatic Copyright
do for you? Absolutely nothing.

>> By your definition, you could have hit reply with quoting turned on in
>> your MUA to my code example I sent -- and then you would have been a law
>> breaker!
>>
>
> No. The forums are clearly stated on the web-site (not just assumed by
> the culture) that they and anything posted to them are public. This
> releases the rest of us from liability if we redistribute your code.

Where? What forum? This is a mailing list you can sign up for without
ever seeing a web page.

>> I could start sprinkling code into my signature line and then sue
>> everyone who quotes it on a mailing list? Yeah, right. It'd actually
>> be fun to see someone try that and see how far it got in the legal system.
>
> You obviously don't agree with automatic copyright. However, to change
> it you would have to change international law.

I have no beef with automatic Copyright, I just claim it's useless. Can
you find any case law where automatic Copyright has been invoked?

Try releasing something into public and then trying to regain your
Copyright in a couple of years if it gets wildly popular just because
you changed your mind. Won't happen. Most Judges just aren't that stupid.

Nate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Andrew Sackville-West writes:
> you release code anonymously into public domain. companyA sees that code,
> likes it, grabs it, incorporates it, copyrights and distributes it in a
> closed source application. this of course is their right as there are no
> licenses or rights attached to the code. simultaneously, userB sees it,
> grabs it, incorporates it, and releases it under gpl. later, companyA,
> having lost track of how it got the code, sees it in userB's gpl code and
> sues userB claiming that they stole it, violated companyA's
> copyright. userB ends up in court trying to defend themselves. If there
> is no other record available of this code being in public domain, nor any
> clear release from the author, then userB is effectively screwed.

CompanyA has to show that userB had access to their source code. Copyright
is not patent.
--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

John Hasler wrote:

> Copyright law is what it is, not what we want it to be.

Agreed, but that doesn't require us to pay any attention to it, or give
it more than it deserves.

Nate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org