Re: I open mine big fat mouth and say unto the world:

Post #78,483 by rickmoen 1/31/03 4:40:09 PM 1/31/03 6:42:41 PM Reply	Re: I open mine big fat mouth and say unto the world: cwbrenn wrote: Should I start calling my comic strip "CORELDRAW/Help Desk" simply because I rely on CorelDraw to create it every day? Does your comic strip include a copy of CorelDraw inside every copy of the newspaper, and not have a prayer of functioning without that embedded copy? Your parallel would seem to require that, for starters. Looks to me like that parallel's pretty non-Euclidian, to say the least. Let's play this game some more: If I created a proprietary* program using emacs and named it "GNU/ProprietaryApp"....* When you say "created using", do you mean "linked to and incorporating for key portions of its functionality"? You could certainly create such a thing and nobody could reasonably object. (Distributing it would be copyright violation, on account of licence conflict.) But that's not what you mean, is it? See the category error? Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already. Edited by rickmoen Jan. 31, 2003, 06:42:41 PM EST Expand All History
Post #78,492 by cwbrenn 1/31/03 5:35:43 PM Reply	Re: I open mine big fat mouth and say unto the world: Fine... I also provided the PNG example for the strip. You can argue that every one of my comic strips "contains" the PNG format. (You can also argue that it's contained within, and you can argue both simultaneously if you're feeling particularly peevish). "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #78,501 by rickmoen 1/31/03 6:26:08 PM Reply	Re: I open mine big fat mouth and say unto the world: cwbrenn wrote: You can argue that every one of my comic strips "contains" the PNG format. You could. But that would be rather silly. We're talkin' 'bout inclusion of big honking codebases -- code -- not the platonic ideal of a graphics format. There's a difference between your incorporating the idea of a sandwich into your baloney on rye and breaking into the Kilpatrick's bakery to grab some loaves so you can include them. Either way, though, I say what you have there is most definitely baloney. ;-> Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
Post #78,506 by cwbrenn 1/31/03 7:15:05 PM Reply	but... I'm not breaking into the bakery. Kilpatric has placed all the sandwich parts on a table, and has expressly given me permission to use them. I mean, the components that went into the Linux distribution were intended to be used, weren't they? The whole idea behind licensing them under the GPL was to allow people to use them under the terms of that license AND NOTHING MORE, right? So when Linux and the other distro people put together an environment and gave it a name, what exactly were they doing that showed disrespect to the GPL, to the GNU project, to the Free Software Foundation? They were using the tools as they were intended to be used. Why make them available to the world at large if you don't really want people using them to do their own stuff? I'm perfectly willing to grant that the tools and libraries were an enourmous amount of work, and were absolutely necessary for the building blocks of a free software operating system. What I don't grant is that this somehow obligates the people who use those tools properly to do more than the license requires they do... "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #78,594 by rickmoen 2/1/03 2:10:07 AM Reply	Re: but... cwbrenn wrote: I'm not breaking into the bakery. Kilpatric has placed all the sandwich parts on a table, and has expressly given me permission to use them. In which case, slathering them with mayo and giving them to the public as "cwbrenn's 100% pure slab o'mayo" wouldn't be illegal. But it would be a rather tacky way to behave towards Kilpatrick Bakeries. (Not to mention greasy.) Which of course was the point. Sorry, I just don't think you can creatively analogise your way out of the ethical issue. Though you're hardly the first person I've seen try that. Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
Post #78,614 by cwbrenn 2/1/03 9:32:07 AM Reply	I don't see it as an ethical issue. Sorry. An unethical use of the tools and libraries would be to use them in a way that violaed the GPL. The GPL is the ethical issue as far as free software goes. All the tools and libraries from the GNU project were used exactly as they were intended to be used when they were designed. The problem -- and it's a legitimate problem -- is that over time the whole open source thing started, and the idea of free software became diluted. But it's a political act and has nothing to do with ethical obligations. The ethical obligations are listed in the GNU General Public License and they don't extend beyond that. The tools and libraries branded by the GPL are SUPPOSED to be used by the public, are SUPPOSED to be used in other applications. That's part of the whole reason the GNU project came to be -- to restore and protect a software community that had been doing that in the first place. There is nothing unethical about calling it Linux. Nothing is being stolen. This is not an ethical issue. "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #78,675 by CRConrad 2/1/03 6:38:59 PM Reply	So, "ethics" = the letter of the law (or license), to you?
Post #78,689 by cwbrenn 2/1/03 8:21:57 PM Reply	Yes, when the REASON for the license is ETHICAL What is the purpose of the GPL? Why does the Free Software Foundation try to convince people to use the GPL? The GPL is an ETHICAL license... the reason why there is an Open Source movement is because some people don't like the ETHICAL elements of the GPL. When you comply with the terms of the GPL, you are complying with an ETHICAL stance on software development and how the software development community should function. So yes, Conrad, the letter of the license should be sufficient, especially considering the intent of that license. "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #78,793 by CRConrad 2/2/03 5:24:45 PM Reply	Freaky definition of ethics, AFAICS.
Post #78,828 by cwbrenn 2/2/03 11:16:14 PM Reply	Very well. "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #78,730 by rickmoen 2/2/03 2:20:46 AM Reply	Re: I don't see it as an ethical issue. Sorry. cwbrenn wrote: I don't see it as an ethical issue. Sorry. Well, as I said up front, I'm not trying to convince anyone to use or not use particular names for things. I have no stake in doing so, and no special reason to care. I was just trying to answer Ross's question. My main point to you has been that pretty much 100% of your arguments have suffered gross defects of logic. And, after demolition of those chains of logic, you're now reduced to... But it's a political act and has nothing to do with ethical obligations. ...question-begging. {shrug} Oh well. Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
Post #78,756 by cwbrenn 2/2/03 11:56:35 AM Reply	??? I've heard you say "this begs the question" and I've heard you say "this is a gross defect of logic" but I've yet to see you actually PROVE any of that. All I've seen is you accuse me of being illogical -- I haven't seen you PROVE anything yet, and I doubt I will. But hey. Feel free to enjoy the sound of your own keyboard... "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #78,757 by rickmoen 2/2/03 12:09:56 PM Reply	??? cwbrenn wrote: I've yet to see you actually PROVE any of that. Delighted to say, I can live with your having not gotten the point. So, we're both happy. Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
Post #78,493 by cwbrenn 1/31/03 5:36:42 PM Reply	oh yeah... I have no idea what "non-Euclidean" means, other than "not Euclidean". :) "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #78,504 by rickmoen 1/31/03 6:41:11 PM Reply	Re: oh yeah... cwbrenn wrote: I have no idea what "non-Euclidean" means, other than "not Euclidean". :) I was making a witticism about situations where parallel fails to be parallel. When mathematicians were attempting to see if any of Euclid's postulates were absolutely necessary to an axiomatic system, they found to their surprise that negating one of them (the parallel postulate) created self-consistent, functional alternative systems of geometry, which were thus dubbed non-Euclidean geometries. If none of that rings a bell, well, read some history of mathematics and science. Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Welcome to IWETHEY!