HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:22:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.221526.18943@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>The way I see it, the use of GNU places me under a legal obligation to
>the FSF; on the other hand, as a certified misanthrope with no ready
>ftp access, I have no way to obtain a copy for nothing.

I know, this is the third or fourth article in this thread in which I'm
saying the same thing, but then I'm still not anywhere near Michael's
volume of repetitive rhetoric, so here goes...

READ THE BLOODY LICENSE!

"The use of GNU" does NOT place you under any legal obligation to
anyone or anything.  Only the redistribution of GNU places you under
legal obligations to the copyright holder, the FSF.

>TOB:
>>In any case, the CopyLeft license can be easily obtained and read (As I'm
>>sure you have), so I can't believe anyone is truly misled.
>
>Consider a career as a copywriter; you have the right approach.  On
>second thought, even that profession does not call for a small print
>explanation that the "Care Free" menstrual pads will not *really* live
>up to the insouciantly autarchic implications of their trade name.

The above paragraph is apparently devoid of semantic content.  Equally
apparent is that either Michael did not in fact read the GNU Public
License, or he first translated it into a similarly content-free 
intermediate representation.

--
Jurgen Botz, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu
Northampton, MA, USA
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 19:54:25 GMT

In article <C0ALHs.9yv@news.udel.edu> johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
>>>Okay, I'll bite ... how would a pricing differential prevent FSF 
>>>from using a "distribution fee" explanation, if that was indeed
>>>the only way to "explain" a fee?   
>>Surely you can answer this question yourself.
>Businesses often offer similar products - or even the same 
>product - at different prices to different customers.  There
>is certainly no law (or even tradition) that dictates that 
>products with the same cost of manufacture or distribution
>must be sold for the same price to all customers.

If things with the same cost of distribution are not being sold for the same
price, in what sense is the price a "distribution fee"?  One would think that
a distribution fee would have something to do with the cost of distribution....
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 4 Jan 93 03:55:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1i8cgeINN8l6
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

Michael.Norrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Michael Norrish) writes:
>their use. Pick some 'conventional software companies', do they do
>this? Does Microsoft have the source for Windows available for ftp at
>their sites? Is Microsoft perhaps not a conventional software company?

As a programmer, I find Microsoft source code as available to me as FSF
source code.  That is, not at all.

Compare two hypothetical situtations:

Situtation 1: I take a job to write a program for a company.  I realize that
something I need to do has been done in Microsoft Windows.  I can't use
the Windows source, however, because Microsoft has not shown it to me.

Situtation 2: I take a job to write a program for a company.  I realize that
something I need to do has been done in GNU Emacs.  I can't use the Emacs
source, however, because the program I am working on is proprietary.

Looks the same to me.

--Tim Smith
From: probreak@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (James Michael Chacon)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Profiteering at FSF (was: First GNU CD-ROM)
Date: 29 Dec 1992 10:11:44 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

lenoil@catalogic.com (Robert Lenoil) writes:

>>The CD costs $100 if you are an individual, $400 if you are a
>>business.  This is a distribution fee.  The software is `copylefted',
>>which means you have the the right to copy, change, and redistribute it.

>It seems to me that a "distribution fee" would be to recover the costs of
>distribution, which shouldn't differ for individuals vs. businesses. You're
>really stretching the "Free" in "Free Software Foundation" by marking up the
>CD-ROM cost 400% for businesses. I never would have expected such behavior
>from FSF, and am quite disappointed.


The whole idea behind the FSF hasn't been that the software was free, but
that your access to it was. You were given full source and are allowed to do
what you please with the software.

They have always stood behind the right to make a profit. Come on, if they
can't make money, then how do you expect them to continue. 

Try reading the GNU manifesto sometime, it explains some of this in more
detail. If you have read it before do read it again, because you obviously
missed the boat and the point.

James
From: marcus@ips104.desy.de (Marcus Speh)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: plain text from texinfo with makeinfo[-1.47]
Date: 3 Jan 93 01:38:06 GMT
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany.

A very simple question for anyone who has been 
distributing a *text* file from a texinfo source:
  in some files .text on prep.ai.mit.edu, one 
can find headers like:

"This is Info file standards.text, produced by Makeinfo-1.47 from the
 input file standards.texi."

* Anybody out there knows how that works: 
* getting a *text* [not an Info] file with makeinfo?

Until now, I used some sed(1) command to strip off the
unwanted lines used by Emacs to locate nodes, and the
Tag list. 
I would prefer to use a standard makeinfo command but
wasn't able to figure it out (no hint in the Texinfo 
Info manual). 

Thanks [for any solution],
Marcus
--
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//Marcus Speh__II. Institut f. Theor. Physik__Luruper Chaussee 149             
//2000 Hamburg 50/Germany___Tel.(040)8998-2260  FAX:(040)8998-2267
//marcus@x4u.desy.de___speh@vxdesy.desy.de___i02msp@dsyibm.desy.de
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Novell just bought Unix? 
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 19:10:17 GMT
Organization: Crynwr Software

In article <1992Dec24.203040.18122@primerd.prime.com> jasonp@bungee.NoSubdomain.NoDomain writes:

   In article <BzrvK9.7xv@mtholyoke.edu>, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)    writes:
   |> In article <1hbllvINNfj5@uwm.edu> jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:
   |> >There is an active patent infringement lawsuit against Novell claiming
   |> >that Novell NetWare infringes this client-server patent.  According to
   |> >what I've read, the patent's claims are _very_ broad, and some legal
   |> >experts think that if this goes to trial, the patent holder (an
   |> >independent engineer, _not_ another corporate behemouth) may well win.
   |> 
   |> a) Does anybody have more info on this?
   |> 
   |> b) If this is really as described, maybe it would be A Good Thing if this
   |> independent engineer won such a suit... it could well mean that that 
   |> corporate America would start to rethink the value of software patents
   |> if such a thing happened, no?

   I don't think so. We can't praise one person for the same thing which
   we condemn whole corporations.

Nonono.  He's saying that corporate America might start perceiving
software patents as a Bad Thing if they lost a few millions in
royalties.  But can good come of evil?

-russ <nelson@crynwr.com> What canst *thou* say?
Crynwr Software           Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St.              315-268-1925 Voice  |  LPF member - ask me about
Potsdam, NY 13676         315-268-9201 FAX    |  the harm software patents do.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: sakaria@vipunen.hut.fi (Sakari Aaltonen)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Reply-To: sakaria@vipunen.hut.fi (Sakari Aaltonen)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:03:50 GMT

Not being a native speaker of English, I'm not aware of the multitude of
meanings the word 'free' may possess. However, when 'free' refers to a
_ware_, the obvious meaning - obvious to me, that is - is 'no-cost'.
Free hardware (or free kitchenware) is something you don't have to pay for; 
similarly for free software. 

Free will is something else; so is a free society or a free agent. In
these case, referral is made to things that cannot ordinarily be bought
or sold, so the 'no-cost' meaning has no sense.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sakari Aaltonen                              Email: sakaria@vipunen.hut.fi
"... implementing hardware interrupts in a PC peripheral interface is like
falling off a log."              Horowitz and Hill, The Art of Electronics
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 02:27:53 GMT

In article <C0B34q.Ax0@news.udel.edu>, johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston)
writes:
> 
> You could have saved time by making it clear that what you meant 
> in repeated assertions about the "use" of GNU software is really
> "proprietary use of the source code".  Most computer folk employ
> the term "use" in the same sense as "user", namely, someone who
> "uses" the software tools.  Similarly, a driver is more apt to be
> thought of as the "user" of a car than is the mechanic.


You don't understand, Bill.  Zeleny isn't interested in making anything clear.
Nor is he interested in saving time.  On the contrary, he's interested in
wasting as much of it as possible.  One can only conclude that being abused
by the Usenet population is more enjoyable for him than anything else in
his life.  


Marie Coffin
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: jim@thor.albany.edu (SCHLEMMER JAMES A)
Subject: Has anyone had success building gpc (GNU pascal)?
Organization: State University of New York at Albany
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 20:14:28 GMT

I'm having troubles  building gpc on a Sun IPX running SunOS 4.1.2.
Has anyone been able to build and use this compiler for anything?

I'm using gcc 2.0 and gpc-2.0-920314.tar.Z.  

Any tips would be helpful.

Jim

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: lupson@geom.umn.edu (Linus Upson)
Subject: #import
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:12:26 GMT

I just finished installing gcc 2.3.2 on the Irises here (Objective-C  
works!), and on my first compile was greeted with the following message:

% gcc ttt.m -lobjc
ttt.m:1: warning: using `#import' is not recommended
The fact that a certain header file need not be processed more than once
should be indicated in the header file, not where it is used.
The best way to do this is with a conditional of this form:

  #ifndef _FOO_H_INCLUDED
  #define _FOO_H_INCLUDED
  ... <real contents of file> ...
  #endif /* Not _FOO_H_INCLUDED */

Then users can use `#include' any number of times.
GNU C automatically avoids processing the file more than once
when it is equipped with such a conditional.

A person here pointed me to -Wno-import, but I was wondering if someone  
could answer a couple of questions for me:
1. Why is this warning on by default?  It seems that import allows greater  
flexibility on the part of the programmer using the header.
2. How can I turn it off permanently?  The only way I came up with was to  
modify the source.

I realize that this topic is probably extremely flammable, so please reply  
to me via email.

Linus Upson
The Geometry Center
lupson@geom.umn.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: dcb@slsvitt (David Binderman 3841)
Subject: G++ sparc.md
Organization: SEL-Alcatel LTS Dept. US/ES
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 12:42:12 GMT

Hello there,

Would anyone care to comment in the difference between the sparc.md in the
GNU G++ 2.2.2 and 2.3.2 packages ?

Bugfixes ? Enhancements ?

Or the same question more precisely:

Does anyone have any idea how much code breaks as a result of a move
from the old sparc.md to the new one ?

Regards

David C Binderman     Dept US/ESI, Bau 60, SEL-Alcatel AG, Lorenz Strasse 10,
D-7000 Stuttgart 40, Germany      dcb@us-es.sel.de   Tel: +49 711 821 3841
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: ctm@ardi.com (Clifford T. Matthews)
Subject: humorous juxtaposition (was Re: Raising Funds ...)
Followup-To: /dev/null
Organization: ARDI
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 02:56:24 GMT

	"...

	I don't require jack shit, my excitable boy, with the sole
	exception that men live up to their billing.

	...

	cordially,

	..."

The irony is subtle once you realize that there is more than one meaning of
"cordially."  When used at the closing of a letter, it usually means
"warmly and genially affable."  However, "cordially" also encompasses
"sincerely or deeply felt".  It appears that we have a word, "cordially,"
used as a billing--describing the contents of the letter containing it--in a
manner that clashes with the images that the word typically conjures.

	--Cliff[ord T. Matthews]
	ctm@ardi.com
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 21:45:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.215318.18942@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>MZ:
>>>When I want a new release of TeX, I have the
>>>option of ftp'ing it from an Internet node, paying the AMS or somebody
>>>else for the distribution medium, or asking someone to make me a copy.
>
>BB:
>>	You can do this for FSF software as well.
>
>I am not contesting that.

Yes you are!

>[...]  In short, GNU is neither free
>in the sense of being distributed at no cost, nor free in the sense of
>being distributed without imposing an obligation of its recipient.  No
>more needs to be said.

It /is/ free in the sense of being distributed at no cost---as you stated
above, like TeX you an ftp it from a number of Internet nodes.  Furthermore,
anybody can redistribute GNU software (in its original form).  Similarly,
the AMS could redistribute TeX (if I understand the terms of TeX's copyright
correctly) and charge a fee which they could use to (help) finance work on
AMSTeX, for example.  The FSF charges a fee if-and-only-if you ask /them/ to
provide you with a copy on physical media.  But since they simultaneously
make all their software available at no cost via computer networks (and since
the GNU archive is mirrored by archives which are accessible via all 
conceivable methods of computer networking this is not even restricted to
the Internet) you simply can't claim that GNU software is not "free in the
sense of being distributed at no cost."

It also /is/ free "in the sense of being distributed without imposing an
obligation of its /recipient/" (emphasis mine).  The obligation imposed
by the GNU public license applies only to those who wish to /redistribute/
GNU software in some form or another.  As a recipient I have *no* obligations
to the FSF until I wish to redistribute GNU or GNU-derived software.  To put
it another way, if you read the GNU public license carefully, YOU DO NOT HAVE
TO ACCEPT THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE TO USE THE SOFTWARE, only to redistribute
it.  I quote from the GNU Public License, version 2:

	Activities other than copying, distribution and modification
	are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
	The act of running the Program is not restricted [...]

Since you're such a stickler for terms (the semantics of "free" apparently
set you off on your tirade), at least get this right... the recipient has /no/
obligations.  Period.

--
Jurgen Botz, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu
Northampton, MA, USA
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
From: Michael.Norrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Michael Norrish)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 01:35:18 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Victoria Uni. of Wellington, NZ.

>>>>> On 3 Jan 93 04:18:44 GMT, zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael
>>>>> Zeleny) (MZ henceforth) said:

MZ> In article <9301021752.AA25483@life.ai.mit.edu> tower@ai.mit.edu
MZ> (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes:

MZ> LT:
>FSF's employees are not slaves though.  They are all working for FSF
>of their own free will.

MZ> Sure they do.  And some slaves sold themselves into slavery of
MZ> their own free will.  Like I say, I have no idea whether the above
MZ> figure includes overhead, as it ought to; but regardless of that,
MZ> the implied maximum figure is way below par for professional work,
MZ> particularly when Stallman's original penny-pinching rationale of
MZ> "they have to show that they are doing it for the idea" no longer
MZ> applies as FSF is looking more and more like a conventional
MZ> software company.

For someone who has accused many other posters of petty rhetorical
tricks, the paragraph above is pretty rich. 

For a start, once sold into slavery, (whether that decision was one's
own or not), a person no longer has the freedom that is guaranteed to
all adults by law. The difference here is that the people working at
the FDF continue to do so by their own free choice as well. They are
not bound as a slave would be. 

The FSF is like a conventional software company? "More and more like"
even? Well, let's see now, they do charge people money for a service
they provide, (even if they misleadingly call it a distribution fee; I
agree with Michael that it is a poor term), but there are not many
software companies out there that have the source for their products
available at no cost at ftp sites around the world. (Excluding the
costs, if you want to be pedantic, inherent in the medium of
transmission). What's more anybody is _free_ (there is that evil word
again), to *use* the provided products without any restrictions on
their use. Pick some 'conventional software companies', do they do
this? Does Microsoft have the source for Windows available for ftp at
their sites? Is Microsoft perhaps not a conventional software company?

If I may be allowed a rhetorical flourish of my own: 
      pull the other one!

If the FSF feels that it is appropriate to establish legal restrictions
on the potential future redistribution of the software to ensure that
people remain free to use it, that is their privilege as owners of the
software. 

Perhaps this overly caustic debate would subside if the term
distribution fee was replaced by price?

Michael.

mnorrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: aa393@Freenet.carleton.ca (Ramesh Fernando)
Subject: Re: AT&T sells USL to Novell
Organization: National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 08:27:27 GMT


     I wrote Doug  DeJulio about this, I just wonder how organizations
who are boycotting USL over there suit vs UC Berkeley are going
to do against Novell the new parent company.
     The other interesting thing is if Apple merges with Novell/USL
we will have 2 companies merging with Novell being in the middle, who
prefer legal action over product development and who probably have 
bigger legal departments for there look and feel beliefs instead of
investing in R&D
-- 
Ramesh Fernando                   I am OOP guy so 
aa393@freenet.carleton.ca         Class Disclaimer
Ramesh_Fernando@qube.ocunix.on.ca    self myWordsAreMine
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: AT&T sells USL to Novell
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:42:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.082727.26990@freenet.carleton.ca> aa393@Freenet.carleton.ca (Ramesh Fernando) writes:
>     I wrote Doug  DeJulio about this, I just wonder how organizations
>who are boycotting USL over there suit vs UC Berkeley are going
>to do against Novell the new parent company.

It remains to be seen if Novell will keep that suit... I think there
is a real chance that they will drop it.  It's a braindamaged suit to
begin with (probably unwinable), and Novell has more to gain by making
friends out of the Unix industry as a whole.

>     The other interesting thing is if Apple merges with Novell/USL
>we will have 2 companies merging with Novell being in the middle, who
>prefer legal action over product development and who probably have 
>bigger legal departments for there look and feel beliefs instead of
>investing in R&D

What's with this persistence of the Novell/Apple merger rumor?  It was
a rumor, nothing more.  Novell's (intended) purchase of USL shows
where Novell is trying to go, and it isn't "the Macintosh Way."  Look
instead for a merger with Borland or Quarterdeck in the next year or so.

--
Jurgen Botz                  |   Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant  |     Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College        |      Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA        | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From: mikc@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Mike Coughlin)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 3 Jan 1993 20:51:24 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu

In article <1993Jan2.220350.10661@nntp.hut.fi> sakaria@vipunen.hut.fi (Sakari Aaltonen) writes:
>Not being a native speaker of English, I'm not aware of the multitude of
>meanings the word 'free' may possess. However, when 'free' refers to a
>_ware_, the obvious meaning - obvious to me, that is - is 'no-cost'.
>Free hardware (or free kitchenware) is something you don't have to pay for; 
>similarly for free software. 
>
    There are more than enough meanings to the English word "free" to 
confuse any non-native speaker. And to confuse many native English
speakers too.
    In this discussion we have lost the main idea of the whole business.
The copyright laws, especially the laws in the United States, are a
restriction of the freedom of the press. In the case of computer
software the restrictions have increased lately. The idea of copyleft is
an attempt to reverse this trend. The source to a computer program 
cannot be placed in the public domain for the benefit of humanity. Anyone
may take the source, change it and then copyright it in his own name
for his own benefit. In order to publish source code for everyone to 
use freely, it has to be published with a lot of legal restrictions. If
the law said that the derivative works of writing placed in the public
domain were also in the public domain, then we would not need anything
like a copyleft. But the law does not say that. If you want your code
and everything dervived from using it to be available without 
restriction everywhere and forever, then you have a real problem.
Copylefting is one attempt to do it. It is not the perfect answer.
If the copyright law made better provisions for people who wanted their
work to be in the public domain or to be truly free, we would have a 
better solution. 
     I wish the courts would find out what algorithms are and not
let them be copyrighted and patented.
-- 
   Michael Coughlin             mikc@gnu.ai.mit.edu