Full Disclosure mailing list archives
[OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2
From: Barry Fitzgerald <bkfsec () sdf lonestar org>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:56:22 -0400
joe wrote:
If only a #define statement were copied they wouldn't be obligated to disclose it's source.I did not say that the only use was a #define, what I said was that would be enough to get MS to document it if they didn't otherwise outright own the rights. If you pick up a #define straight out of someone else's file without change, you are borrowing their work. It is small, but you are still borrowing. Someone may come looking because they may think it is more than a #define especially if the define betrays functionality not publicly documented. Not saying that is the case here so try not to read into what I am trying to say other than acknowledging use of someone else's code canoccur even if it is some small piece, even if they aren't legally required.
Understood - but your point was still incorrect.You're showing here that you really don't know exactly what was from what source. I, personally, have no problem with that. It's not a crime. My only question is why try to confuse things and make the point that the Win2k TCP/IP stack is not derived from BSDs code when you, in fact, can't say either way?
OK - put your money where your mouth is. Pretend I'm a consumer. I have 2000 USD to spend and want a good PC with a good warranty with GNU/Linux on it. Find me a link to a major OEM that will ship me a PC within those specs with decent hardware and a generally recognized name (Dell, Gateway, HP, IBM...).The existance of an alternative does not make the alternative readily available. You need a readily available alternative to prove your point, and right now that doesn't exist.I would say this is a pretty poor comment on our current position. The fact that you had issues getting what you wanted from where you wanted doesn't mean alternatives are not readily available.
The PC must be listed as a desktop system and must be easy to find.That's your assignment. That's the way that you can prove your point, and it's the only way. If the situation is as you claim it is, that should take you no less than 3 minutes. The clock is ticking...
I suppose... if you count code taken from *BSD and added to proprietary projects, then I'd agree... I don't personally count that as deployment, though.The only problem I see there is that the BSD people didn't have the foresight to license their code under the GNU GPLI think this could only have hurt its use and deployment.
Many large businesses do not like GNU.
Ignorance will do that.
Many people don't like it.
Ignorance will do that.
I don't like it.I think you're seeing my pattern. :) (It's not meant as a personal, ad hominem attack. Ignorance is OK. Admitting that it is the case is the first step to solving the problem.)
I'm curious what you did that was so difficult. Adding source code to a package is not particularly difficult.I will never use GNU code within my code, I will rewrite what I need from scratch if I need it badly enough. I won't share my source, I tried, itturned out to be more pain than it was worth.
Yawn... take take take take... what's so wrong with giving back after you take?I will use GNU licensed software because I like some of the stuff out there but I would use it even if it weren't GNU. I don't see why I should have the right to look at the source in order to use software. I am using the software by my choice, no one forces me to sit at a computer.
No it isn't -- haven't you been reading? This is a BS lie about the litmus test for declaring a company a monopoly. It's a widely held misconception. Market power is what's important, not the presence of alternatives. That's what the law says.They've already been declared a monopoly.This one always made me chuckle. The whole thing is based on the conceptthat there is no commercially viable alternative to Windows.
If you don't like that the law says that, don't whine to me about it. I can't change it.
-Barry _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: lame bitching about xpsp2, (continued)
- Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 devis (Aug 16)
- Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Joshua Levitsky (Aug 16)
- RE: lame bitching about xpsp2 joe (Aug 16)
- RE: lame bitching about xpsp2 ktabic (Aug 17)
- Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Steffen Schumacher (Aug 17)
- Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 KF_lists (Aug 17)
- Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Tremaine (Aug 17)
- RE: lame bitching about xpsp2 joe (Aug 17)
- Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Barry Fitzgerald (Aug 17)
- RE: lame bitching about xpsp2 joe (Aug 18)
- [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Barry Fitzgerald (Aug 18)
- RE: [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 joe (Aug 18)
- Re: [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Barry Fitzgerald (Aug 18)
- Re: [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 KF_lists (Aug 18)
- Re: [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Invicticide X (Aug 18)
- Re: [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 KF_lists (Aug 18)
- Re: [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Invicticide X (Aug 18)
- Re: [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 KF_lists (Aug 18)
- RE: !SPAM! Re: [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Yaakov Yehudi (Aug 19)
- Re: [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Maarten (Aug 19)
- Re: [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Barry Fitzgerald (Aug 18)