Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model - Linux ; Linonut writes: > * owl peremptorily fired off this memo: > >>> So, with that in mind, it's highly unlikely that a Linux freak would munge >>> a header to show a Windows News reader. >> >> Unless he had ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

  1. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    Linonut writes:

    > * owl peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >>> So, with that in mind, it's highly unlikely that a Linux freak would munge
    >>> a header to show a Windows News reader.

    >>
    >> Unless he had a reason to want you to think he was running Windoze.


    Or he was a hypocrite?

    >
    > Or was posting from work.
    >
    > Looks like Niccolo knows why Hadron has a hard-on for me, by the way.
    >


    Or why you're a schizo loony who loses track of a thread quicker than
    Roy loses the meaning of someones post he has plagiarised.


  2. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    Moshe Goldfarb writes:

    > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:05:11 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
    >
    >> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:32:12 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>> chrisv writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Well, Quark salts his bull**** with jeering and insults.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Quack is an asshole.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Perhaps, when judged by your criteria. But at least I don't use a closed
    >>>>> source newsreader.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Another fine "advocacy" post from "chrisv"
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ,----
    >>>>>| X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
    >>>>> `----
    >>>>
    >>>> You are ****ing clueless if you think you can tell much of anything
    >>>> from usenet headers.
    >>>
    >>> Linux nuts are about the only people who actually care about headers and
    >>> they just LOVE to have some obtuse, cryptic, ancient Newreader showing up.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Hadron seems to be the only person here who cares about Newsreader
    >> headers
    >>
    >>
    >>> Like tin or trn or slrn or emacs (just to show they could actually get it
    >>> to work).
    >>>

    >>
    >> Is that why Hadron inserts an emacs User-Agent header?

    >
    > Windows users actually USE the program.
    > Linux users brag about using the program.
    >
    > Take a look at some of the crap these Linoscrews have in their headers.
    >
    >
    >>
    >>> It gives them a feeling of superiority over the point and click crowd.
    >>>
    >>> So, with that in mind, it's highly unlikely that a Linux freak would munge
    >>> a header to show a Windows News reader.

    >>
    >> Unless he had a reason to want you to think he was running Windoze.

    >
    > No self respting Lino-freak would do that.
    > Generally the first accusation the Linux freak makes when he sees a
    > newcomer in COLA is something along the lines of using Outlook to post to
    > COLA.
    >
    > Nobody really cares, except the Linux freak because he has to feel superior
    > using slrn.


    Fact : Mark Kent and other are ON RECORD of kill filing people using
    OE. They also killfile all people from teranews (except from Ghost who is
    a real programmer) and google groups.

    The hypocrisy is astounding.

    I have argued publicly AGAINST filtering people who use windows and/or
    closed SW and/or google groups.

    But no.

    Argue the man and not the point. Its the COLA way.

    I was merely pointing out that chrisv is an uber reverse troll.

  3. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    JEDIDIAH espoused:
    > On 2008-01-29, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Daemonising your own customer base has to be one of the most short-sighted
    >>> moves ever.

    >>
    >> Good. Now explain GPL3 then

    >
    > End users are the customer, not robber baron wannabes.
    >
    >
    > This came out in a recent discusion on a Solaris dominated list.
    > Someone was upset that she couldn't take someone elses code, make
    > some minor tweaks and then act as if it was her own personal
    > private property.


    This was Bill Gates' issue about the GPL, too.

    >
    > Then she had the gaul to whine at the rest of us for excusing
    > or tolerating piracy and whatnot.
    >
    >
    > The GPL in all of its various form is only a problem for those
    > that do not wish to share in the manner that they have been allowed
    > to share: IOW self-centered jerks.
    >


    Which was essentially my point about the Tivoisation thing, as it
    effectively reduces GPL to BSD licence terms, which is absolutely not
    the intention of the GPL, and remains an exploitative move based on a
    loophole in the licence, not an honest attempt to abide by its terms and
    intention.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  4. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    JEDIDIAH wrote:

    > On 2008-01-29, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >>> * Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>
    >>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Daemonising your own customer base has to be one of the most
    >>>>> short-sighted moves ever.
    >>>>
    >>>> Good. Now explain GPL3 then
    >>>
    >>> Right after you explain why the BSD license was not sufficient.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I asked Mark Kent to tell his "version". After all, he is all for
    >> destroying Tivo, who have done everything as demanded by the GPL2. He is
    >> all for not having closed source blobs in drivers, making whole groups of
    >> devices impossible to use on linux.

    >
    > The GPL was invented because some "crackpot" was pissed off about
    > not being able to fix a device drivers. So the idea that the GPL might
    > torpedo binary-only drivers is very appropriate.


    That was not GPL3, and I am talking about drivers which need firmware blobs
    which are closed source

    > [deletia]
    >
    > Any person that's not completely gullible should be suspicious of a
    > driver that needs to hide.
    >


    Explain that to the governments which *demand* that certain aspects of WiFi
    cards can't be changed by the users.
    So you think it is OK that most WiFi cards are not useable anymore if the
    kernel went GPL3? Really? That is truly your position?
    --
    The easiest way to figure the cost of living is to take your income
    and add ten percent.


  5. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    Peter Khlmann espoused:
    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> * Peter Khlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Daemonising your own customer base has to be one of the most
    >>>> short-sighted moves ever.
    >>>
    >>> Good. Now explain GPL3 then

    >>
    >> Right after you explain why the BSD license was not sufficient.
    >>

    >
    > I asked Mark Kent to tell his "version". After all, he is all for destroying
    > Tivo, who have done everything as demanded by the GPL2.



    I've no desire to destroy Tivo, but I do want them to respect both the
    letter and the spirit of the GPL.

    > He is all for not
    > having closed source blobs in drivers, making whole groups of devices
    > impossible to use on linux.


    The reason I have a specific issue with this is that once the vendor
    decides to stop supporting the device, it will become unusable anyway.
    Again, the spirit of the GPL is that it puts the customer in charge of
    how they use their equipment and software. Allowing binary-only
    drivers, whilst certainly a pragmatic choice in many respects, in fact
    merely encourages a drift back to the world of proprietary software, but
    with the manufacturers of peripherals relying on the efforts of
    thousands of people in order to have their device used.

    To put this around another way, the customer, the final consumer, should
    be setting the agenda, the vendor, the supplier, should be responding to
    the market needs. By using binary-only drivers, the vendors are
    attempting to manipulate the market, creating artificial exit-barriers
    and the possibility that they can force "end of life" whenever they feel
    like it, merely by refusing to supply updated drivers.

    My issue with Tivo remains that they are exploiting a loophole which was
    certainly not intentional on the part of the GPLv2 writers, and even
    though this has been pointed out, they continue to develop their
    hardware in such a way that customers cannot use it as *they* want to,
    rather, they're beholden to Tivo.

    >
    > I want *him* to explain this outright idiocy


    If you are so convinced that it's idiocy, why bother asking me to
    repeat it?

    >
    > I have asked him dozens of times by now, and he is behaving exactly in the
    > extremely dishonest way Hadron Quark does: He simply ignores it and keeps
    > on telling his lies and bull****


    Sorry, Peter, I probably haven't seen it, my apologies. Even so, I
    believe I have made my point already at some length, so it's difficult
    to know quite what to add to it.

    In any case, I remain convinced that there is a huge gap between "doing
    everything demanded by GPLv2" whilst exploiting a clearly unintended
    loophole versus meeting the spirit of the GPL. Tivo are knowingly
    exploiting GPLed code. I don't understand why they didn't just use BSD
    code.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  6. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:52:32 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:

    >> This came out in a recent discusion on a Solaris dominated list.
    >> Someone was upset that she couldn't take someone elses code, make some
    >> minor tweaks and then act as if it was her own personal private
    >> property.

    >
    > This was Bill Gates' issue about the GPL, too.



    Out of curiosity, do you have a link to that thread?


    -Thufir

  7. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:52:32 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:


    > Which was essentially my point about the Tivoisation thing, as it
    > effectively reduces GPL to BSD licence terms, which is absolutely not
    > the intention of the GPL, and remains an exploitative move based on a
    > loophole in the licence, not an honest attempt to abide by its terms and
    > intention.


    You make a convincing argument in comparing the intent of the GPL versus
    that of the BSD license. Tentatively, I agree.


    -Thufir

  8. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    Thufir espoused:
    > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:52:32 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
    >
    >>> This came out in a recent discusion on a Solaris dominated list.
    >>> Someone was upset that she couldn't take someone elses code, make some
    >>> minor tweaks and then act as if it was her own personal private
    >>> property.

    >>
    >> This was Bill Gates' issue about the GPL, too.

    >
    >
    > Out of curiosity, do you have a link to that thread?
    >


    I've not, Jedi might.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  9. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    Thufir espoused:
    > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:52:32 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Which was essentially my point about the Tivoisation thing, as it
    >> effectively reduces GPL to BSD licence terms, which is absolutely not
    >> the intention of the GPL, and remains an exploitative move based on a
    >> loophole in the licence, not an honest attempt to abide by its terms and
    >> intention.

    >
    > You make a convincing argument in comparing the intent of the GPL versus
    > that of the BSD license. Tentatively, I agree.
    >


    Excellent :-)

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  10. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model


    JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >
    > On 2008-01-29, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > >
    > > Mark Kent wrote:
    > > [...]
    > >> Quite. Piracy remains a very real and very nasty crime, whereas
    > >> copyright violation, although clearly illegal, does not involve attacks
    > >> on individuals, property or other tangible things. The music industry

    > >
    > > Copyright rights are *property* rights, silly. See for example

    >
    > No they aren't.


    Supreme Court: "As we read the Framers' instruction, the Copyright
    Clause empowers Congress to determine the intellectual PROPERTY
    regimes that, overall, in that body's judgment, will serve the
    ends of the Clause." Eldred v. Ashcroft (537 U.S. 186 (2003).

    FTC: "First, intellectual property is PROPERTY, that is to say, it
    belongs to someone who has the right to exclude others from using it
    without his or her consent. Second, intellectual property has
    attributes that distinguish it from personal property and real
    property -- that is why we have a different word for it. For example,
    the enforcement of an owner's exclusive right to use physical
    property may be accomplished more easily, as a practical matter, than
    enforcement of an exclusive intellectual property right. Antitrust
    enforcers should certainly remain open to considering new ideas about
    how the rights associated with intellectual property can and should
    be distinguished from the ownership of tangible property in the
    analysis of antitrust liability. But for now, it seems fair to say
    that for antitrust purposes, intellectual property is generally
    treated like other forms of property."

    Hth.

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    http://www.linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm

  11. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    owl wrote:

    > Troll wrote:
    >> owl wrote:
    >>> Hadron snotted:
    >>>> chrisv wrote:
    >>>>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Well, Quark salts his bull**** with jeering and insults.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Quack is an asshole.
    >>>>
    >>>> Perhaps, when judged by your criteria. But at least I don't use a
    >>>> closed source newsreader.
    >>>>
    >>>> Another fine "advocacy" post from "chrisv"
    >>>>
    >>>> ,----
    >>>>| X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
    >>>> `----
    >>>
    >>> You are ****ing clueless if you think you can tell much of anything
    >>> from usenet headers.

    >>
    >> Linux nuts are about the only people who actually care about headers
    >> and they just LOVE to have some obtuse, cryptic, ancient Newreader
    >> showing up.

    >
    > Hadron seems to be the only person here who cares about Newsreader
    > headers


    "Hadron" is a pathetic loser, so desperate to fling snot that he thinks
    it's really interesting that, despite being a Linux advocate, I am not a
    purist who is resolutely opposed to using any closed-source software.

    Hell, I would no problem with M$, if they would stop with their
    anti-competitive evil practices, and produce a decent, secure,
    customer-friendly OS...



  12. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:31:08 +0100, Hadron wrote:

    > Moshe Goldfarb writes:
    >
    >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:05:11 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
    >>
    >>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:32:12 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>>> chrisv writes:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>Well, Quark salts his bull**** with jeering and insults.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Quack is an asshole.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Perhaps, when judged by your criteria. But at least I don't use a closed
    >>>>>> source newsreader.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Another fine "advocacy" post from "chrisv"
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> ,----
    >>>>>>| X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
    >>>>>> `----
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You are ****ing clueless if you think you can tell much of anything
    >>>>> from usenet headers.
    >>>>
    >>>> Linux nuts are about the only people who actually care about headers and
    >>>> they just LOVE to have some obtuse, cryptic, ancient Newreader showing up.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Hadron seems to be the only person here who cares about Newsreader
    >>> headers
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Like tin or trn or slrn or emacs (just to show they could actually get it
    >>>> to work).
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Is that why Hadron inserts an emacs User-Agent header?

    >>
    >> Windows users actually USE the program.
    >> Linux users brag about using the program.
    >>
    >> Take a look at some of the crap these Linoscrews have in their headers.
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> It gives them a feeling of superiority over the point and click crowd.
    >>>>
    >>>> So, with that in mind, it's highly unlikely that a Linux freak would munge
    >>>> a header to show a Windows News reader.
    >>>
    >>> Unless he had a reason to want you to think he was running Windoze.

    >>
    >> No self respting Lino-freak would do that.
    >> Generally the first accusation the Linux freak makes when he sees a
    >> newcomer in COLA is something along the lines of using Outlook to post to
    >> COLA.
    >>
    >> Nobody really cares, except the Linux freak because he has to feel superior
    >> using slrn.

    >
    > Fact : Mark Kent and other are ON RECORD of kill filing people using
    > OE. They also killfile all people from teranews (except from Ghost who is
    > a real programmer) and google groups.
    >
    > The hypocrisy is astounding.
    >
    > I have argued publicly AGAINST filtering people who use windows and/or
    > closed SW and/or google groups.
    >
    > But no.
    >
    > Argue the man and not the point. Its the COLA way.
    >
    > I was merely pointing out that chrisv is an uber reverse troll.


    That's the point.
    I could care less what news reader anyone uses, but it's a fact that the
    bearded masses make a very big deal out of it and headers in general.

    Take a look at some of the headers of the Linux bearded ones who post here.

    Ever see any strange stuff like that in other than Linux groups?
    In the numbers you see here?
    Nope.

    The Linux bearded masses worship headers and their newsreaders.

  13. Re: So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    On Jan 29, 6:52*am, Peter Khlmann
    wrote:
    > Linonut wrote:


    > I want *him* to explain this outright idiocy
    >
    > I have asked him dozens of times by now, and he is behaving exactly in the
    > extremely dishonest way Hadron Quark does: He simply ignores it and keeps
    > on telling his lies and bull****


    So now you get all crude and low with your posting? Blhhh...
    I'm not going to follow this conversation anymore...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2