From david at idiomatrix.com Sun Jul 1 04:27:26 2007 From: david at idiomatrix.com (David Herren) Date: Sun Jul 1 04:27:52 2007 Subject: iPhone on the road In-Reply-To: <859DE00C-43D9-41D2-AC74-C796DAFC6EFE@cocoadoc.com> References: <859DE00C-43D9-41D2-AC74-C796DAFC6EFE@cocoadoc.com> Message-ID: <235889B4-F32D-45E2-9079-BFC2FE196006@idiomatrix.com> Seconded... They'll have working iPhone before _I_ have a working cell phone of any kind in Vermont. (Scott lives in the big city--population 2741-- and probably gets cell service there. I live in a village of 250 people and there is no signal here from any provider, nor is there signal from any provider on my 25 mile commute down the Rte 22A corridor to work...nor while I am at work ...though in one corner of the parking lot you can get 1 bar from Unicel). On Jul 1, 2007, at 1:42 AM, Scott Anguish wrote: > I'm betting that you'll have a working iPhone there before we do > here in the wilds of Vermont. > > > On Jun 30, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Matt Johnston wrote: > >> I'm looking forward to it. But then I think by the time it ships >> over here I'm hoping that some enterprising bugger will have >> released a few apps for it. /david -- david herren - shoreham, vt us na terra solsys orionarm "He loves nature in spite of what it did to him." --- Forrest Tucker From charles.dyer at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 05:33:18 2007 From: charles.dyer at gmail.com (Charles Dyer) Date: Sun Jul 1 05:33:29 2007 Subject: iPhone on the road In-Reply-To: <235889B4-F32D-45E2-9079-BFC2FE196006@idiomatrix.com> References: <859DE00C-43D9-41D2-AC74-C796DAFC6EFE@cocoadoc.com> <235889B4-F32D-45E2-9079-BFC2FE196006@idiomatrix.com> Message-ID: <8C210F71-2C19-4B06-99FD-553C54BBCC77@gmail.com> On 01 Jul 2007, at 07:27:26, David Herren wrote: > Seconded... > > They'll have working iPhone before _I_ have a working cell phone of > any kind in Vermont. (Scott lives in the big city--population 2741-- > and probably gets cell service there. I live in a village of 250 > people and there is no signal here from any provider, nor is there > signal from any provider on my 25 mile commute down the Rte 22A > corridor to work...nor while I am at work ...though in one corner > of the parking lot you can get 1 bar from Unicel). Gez, man, do the cell phone companies _hate_ Vermont or what? I can get one or two bar reception in the middle of the God-damn Everglades! The official T-Mobile (and the official Cingular) map shows only thin lines of coverage centered on roads such as I-75 (Alligator Alley) and US 41 (Tamaimi Trail) but you can get a signal at places where the official map says there's no coverage at all, in areas where the only way in is by airboat or swamp buggy. I can get a signal where the only local inhabitants are fish, 'gators, panthers, raccoons, and mosquitos (especially mosquitos) but you can't get a signal at work?! Someone needs to have a little chat with the local cell phone people... Maybe we could loan you a few 'gators to give 'em an incentive. > > On Jul 1, 2007, at 1:42 AM, Scott Anguish wrote: > >> I'm betting that you'll have a working iPhone there before we do >> here in the wilds of Vermont. >> >> >> On Jun 30, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Matt Johnston wrote: >> >>> I'm looking forward to it. But then I think by the time it ships >>> over here I'm hoping that some enterprising bugger will have >>> released a few apps for it. > > > /david > > -- > david herren - shoreham, vt us na terra solsys orionarm > > "He loves nature in spite of what it did to him." --- Forrest Tucker > > > > _______________________________________________ > MacOSX-talk mailing list > MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk From pelorus at mac.com Sun Jul 1 05:52:37 2007 From: pelorus at mac.com (Matt Johnston) Date: Sun Jul 1 05:52:46 2007 Subject: iPhone on the road In-Reply-To: <235889B4-F32D-45E2-9079-BFC2FE196006@idiomatrix.com> References: <859DE00C-43D9-41D2-AC74-C796DAFC6EFE@cocoadoc.com> <235889B4-F32D-45E2-9079-BFC2FE196006@idiomatrix.com> Message-ID: <31AB8C4F-C2B0-401A-A38B-BCCEF1297F0F@mac.com> On 1 Jul 2007, at 12:27, David Herren wrote: > Seconded... > > They'll have working iPhone before _I_ have a working cell phone of > any kind in Vermont. (Scott lives in the big city--population 2741-- > and probably gets cell service there. I live in a village of 250 > people and there is no signal here from any provider, nor is there > signal from any provider on my 25 mile commute down the Rte 22A > corridor to work...nor while I am at work ...though in one corner > of the parking lot you can get 1 bar from Unicel). sorry to hear that, We get coverage province-wide though I get annoyed because romaing from tower to tower often results in a dropped call (which is quite often when piddling about country roads at 70 mph) I also get VERY annoyed when the GPRS drops and I'm back to GSM data speeds... From david at idiomatrix.com Sun Jul 1 09:02:21 2007 From: david at idiomatrix.com (David Herren) Date: Sun Jul 1 09:02:47 2007 Subject: iPhone on the road In-Reply-To: <8C210F71-2C19-4B06-99FD-553C54BBCC77@gmail.com> References: <859DE00C-43D9-41D2-AC74-C796DAFC6EFE@cocoadoc.com> <235889B4-F32D-45E2-9079-BFC2FE196006@idiomatrix.com> <8C210F71-2C19-4B06-99FD-553C54BBCC77@gmail.com> Message-ID: <97995A49-1245-4C9B-8451-3AE4B5E3B138@idiomatrix.com> On Jul 1, 2007, at 8:33 AM, Charles Dyer wrote: > > Gez, man, do the cell phone companies _hate_ Vermont or what? I can > get one or two bar reception in the middle of the God-damn > Everglades! The official T-Mobile (and the official Cingular) map > shows only thin lines of coverage centered on roads such as I-75 > (Alligator Alley) and US 41 (Tamaimi Trail) but you can get a > signal at places where the official map says there's no coverage at > all, in areas where the only way in is by airboat or swamp buggy. I > can get a signal where the only local inhabitants are fish, > 'gators, panthers, raccoons, and mosquitos (especially mosquitos) > but you can't get a signal at work?! Someone needs to have a little > chat with the local cell phone people... Maybe we could loan you a > few 'gators to give 'em an incentive. Florida's flat so line of site is far longer than here in the mountains. There's also some strange legal issue here that companies providing service in Vermont have to be careful about their signal footprint not extending too far into upstate New York, and since I live less than a mile from Lake Champlain (the west coast of Vermont separating VT from NY), and Rte 22A runs north/south about two miles from the lake, no one will put up a tower (or install in a church steeple or grain silo) if that would extend the footprint across the lake. Other than that, it is great to be back in Vermont from Spain... /david -- david herren - shoreham, vt us na terra solsys orionarm "He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary." --- William Faulkner (about Ernest Hemingway) From kcall at mac.com Sun Jul 1 09:25:25 2007 From: kcall at mac.com (Kevin Callahan) Date: Sun Jul 1 09:25:24 2007 Subject: iPhone on the road In-Reply-To: <4cfa589b0706302319o51577824n78749a90a29676a1@mail.gmail.com> References: <4cfa589b0706302319o51577824n78749a90a29676a1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3B8B7605-D824-4DB9-A09B-C87B35B88CD0@mac.com> On Jun 30, 2007, at 11:19 PM, Adam Bridge wrote: > I only wish I could get my iPhone to connect to my Airport network. > For some reason it rejects the password for our network. I've hooked up to both my AE_g and my AE_n. The AE_g is bridged off the AE_n. My signal to the AE_n is not a strong as to the AE_g. I switched my AE_n from "n-only" to compatible a/g so that I could hang off the better signal and range. When I first tried connecting (the first day), I couldn't get connected. I realized I was probably typing the password incorrectly, or I was choosing the wrong encryption. I *thought* at the time I had to use WEP to make it work, even though my settings on the basestation were for WPA/WPA2. For sure, it's set for WPA2 now and the iPhone is set for WPA2. All is good. > On the other > hand it worked great at the ball park this evening - I could look up > player stats very quickly! > > I like it! A winner. Except for my Airport... > > Grump Grump > > Adam Bridge > _______________________________________________ > MacOSX-talk mailing list > MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk From kcall at mac.com Sun Jul 1 09:41:43 2007 From: kcall at mac.com (Kevin Callahan) Date: Sun Jul 1 09:41:43 2007 Subject: iPhone and PDF Message-ID: Wow ! It really does work ! This kicks ass! http://www.kevincallahan.org/YeslerWayScore_iPhone.jpg http://www.kevincallahan.org/YeslerWayScore_MP_iPhone.jpg Kevin Callahan http://www.kevincallahan.org/ http://www.kevincallahan.org/software/accessorizer.html http://www.kevincallahan.org/gharecords/Guitar.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20070701/568d925e/attachment.html From kremels at kreme.com Sun Jul 1 13:15:18 2007 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Sun Jul 1 13:15:44 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: References: <1183069718.4929.266.camel@localhost> <5B2AC469-4679-4D1D-B59A-34F092004847@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <50A1AC90-8956-4400-9644-C838B392A7B6@mac.com> <5FCED56B-2614-406A-B7DF-DC49D1CE9723@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <977CD745-9786-473D-9163-89A8A00DD6A7@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <70C91F67-FE92-47CE-A2F0-2E1117C1C307@kreme.com> Message-ID: <38AFB5E4-996E-451A-B49E-A17405B38651@kreme.com> On 30-Jun-2007, at 19:30, Chad Leigh wrote: > On Jun 30, 2007, at 3:20 PM, LuKreme wrote: >> On 29-Jun-2007, at 23:42, Chad Leigh -- ObjectWerks Inc wrote: >>> There are real open source licenses out there that work well. I >>> am all for OSS. I am not for GPL software. It calls itself >>> "free" which is rather bold of them since it is not free in the >>> least. It comes with a whole ton of baggage. >> >> To be fair, the only reason there are OSS licenses in existence is >> because of the GPL. > > Absurd. There were various other licenses like the BSD license > before the GPL existed I think Yes, the BSD license 'existed' Of course, BSD was locked up under AT&T at the time, so the fact there was a BSD license was largely irrelevant. Do you really think that we'd have the OSS and OSS licenses we have without the GPL? -- Nothing like grilling a kosher dog over human hair to bring out the subtle flavors. From cwilbur at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 13:24:07 2007 From: cwilbur at gmail.com (Charlton Wilbur) Date: Sun Jul 1 13:24:27 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <38AFB5E4-996E-451A-B49E-A17405B38651@kreme.com> References: <1183069718.4929.266.camel@localhost> <5B2AC469-4679-4D1D-B59A-34F092004847@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <50A1AC90-8956-4400-9644-C838B392A7B6@mac.com> <5FCED56B-2614-406A-B7DF-DC49D1CE9723@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <977CD745-9786-473D-9163-89A8A00DD6A7@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <70C91F67-FE92-47CE-A2F0-2E1117C1C307@kreme.com> <38AFB5E4-996E-451A-B49E-A17405B38651@kreme.com> Message-ID: <85A13935-6707-4D43-B745-D2139C52483D@gmail.com> On Jul 1, 2007, at 4:15 PM, LuKreme wrote: > On 30-Jun-2007, at 19:30, Chad Leigh wrote: >> On Jun 30, 2007, at 3:20 PM, LuKreme wrote: >>> On 29-Jun-2007, at 23:42, Chad Leigh -- ObjectWerks Inc wrote: >>>> There are real open source licenses out there that work well. I >>>> am all for OSS. I am not for GPL software. It calls itself >>>> "free" which is rather bold of them since it is not free in the >>>> least. It comes with a whole ton of baggage. >>> >>> To be fair, the only reason there are OSS licenses in existence >>> is because of the GPL. >> >> Absurd. There were various other licenses like the BSD license >> before the GPL existed I think > > Yes, the BSD license 'existed' > > Of course, BSD was locked up under AT&T at the time, so the fact > there was a BSD license was largely irrelevant. Other projects used the BSD license. > Do you really think that we'd have the OSS and OSS licenses we have > without the GPL? Yes. And without Stallman and the GPL, we'd have a lot fewer pissing contests about true software freedom. Whether it would be worth losing gcc and emacs is a tough call. Honestly, there needs to be a GPL-nutters mailing list. Charlton -- Charlton Wilbur cwilbur@gmail.com cwilbur@chromatico.net From kremels at kreme.com Sun Jul 1 13:25:48 2007 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Sun Jul 1 13:26:12 2007 Subject: iPhone on the road In-Reply-To: <8C210F71-2C19-4B06-99FD-553C54BBCC77@gmail.com> References: <859DE00C-43D9-41D2-AC74-C796DAFC6EFE@cocoadoc.com> <235889B4-F32D-45E2-9079-BFC2FE196006@idiomatrix.com> <8C210F71-2C19-4B06-99FD-553C54BBCC77@gmail.com> Message-ID: <264F2C74-38BF-47F0-9887-7A44D243D105@kreme.com> On 1-Jul-2007, at 06:33, Charles Dyer wrote: > On 01 Jul 2007, at 07:27:26, David Herren wrote: >> Seconded... >> >> They'll have working iPhone before _I_ have a working cell phone >> of any kind in Vermont. > Gez, man, do the cell phone companies _hate_ Vermont or what? I can > get one or two bar reception in the middle of the God-damn Everglades! Well, let's see, the Everglades are a waste empty flat space, and there is a very large metropolitan area a bit north and east, and nothing to interfere with reception. You know, no pesky trees, hills, buildings, much less mountains. Shoreham, VT is within spitting distance of Hanover, a bustling metropolis of, what, 10,000? Of course, there is that pesky ridge of mountains in the way... and on the other side is Adirondack Park. Not exactly a mobile friendly area. OK, OK, Hartford and Hanover and White River Junction together are about 15,000 -- Your letters they all say that you're beside me now. Then why do I feel alone? I'm standing on a ledge and your fine spider web is fastening my ankle to a stone. From kremels at kreme.com Sun Jul 1 13:32:56 2007 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Sun Jul 1 13:33:22 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <85A13935-6707-4D43-B745-D2139C52483D@gmail.com> References: <1183069718.4929.266.camel@localhost> <5B2AC469-4679-4D1D-B59A-34F092004847@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <50A1AC90-8956-4400-9644-C838B392A7B6@mac.com> <5FCED56B-2614-406A-B7DF-DC49D1CE9723@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <977CD745-9786-473D-9163-89A8A00DD6A7@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <70C91F67-FE92-47CE-A2F0-2E1117C1C307@kreme.com> <38AFB5E4-996E-451A-B49E-A17405B38651@kreme.com> <85A13935-6707-4D43-B745-D2139C52483D@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1-Jul-2007, at 14:24, Charlton Wilbur wrote: > On Jul 1, 2007, at 4:15 PM, LuKreme wrote: >> Yes, the BSD license 'existed' >> >> Of course, BSD was locked up under AT&T at the time, so the fact >> there was a BSD license was largely irrelevant. > > Other projects used the BSD license. Uh huh. >> Do you really think that we'd have the OSS and OSS licenses we >> have without the GPL? > > Yes. And without Stallman and the GPL, we'd have a lot fewer > pissing contests about true software freedom. Whether it would be > worth losing gcc and emacs is a tough call. I dunno, I remember trying to get free software in the 80's and it was, while not impossible, it was nigh-impossible. Everything started to change after GNU. > Honestly, there needs to be a GPL-nutters mailing list. You know, that';s not helping. I'm not a GPL nutter. I've never really cared one way or the other. I know there are other licenses out there, but I also know that before GNU it was pretty hard to get code. Maybe you had a much better OSS experience. If so, you were probably part of some institution that had resources as opposed to a neophyte unix dweeb who dreamed one day of being elevated to geek status. I've never used Linux (GNU/Linux) seriously, have always preferred *BSD, and don't have anything invested in the argument other than the existence of the GPL made my life easier. -- Can I borrow your underpants for 10 minutes? From cwilbur at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 14:00:05 2007 From: cwilbur at gmail.com (Charlton Wilbur) Date: Sun Jul 1 14:00:36 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: References: <1183069718.4929.266.camel@localhost> <5B2AC469-4679-4D1D-B59A-34F092004847@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <50A1AC90-8956-4400-9644-C838B392A7B6@mac.com> <5FCED56B-2614-406A-B7DF-DC49D1CE9723@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <977CD745-9786-473D-9163-89A8A00DD6A7@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <70C91F67-FE92-47CE-A2F0-2E1117C1C307@kreme.com> <38AFB5E4-996E-451A-B49E-A17405B38651@kreme.com> <85A13935-6707-4D43-B745-D2139C52483D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <838AF705-614A-46C0-8ABB-C17AD265C014@gmail.com> On Jul 1, 2007, at 4:32 PM, LuKreme wrote: >> Honestly, there needs to be a GPL-nutters mailing list. > > You know, that';s not helping. I'm not a GPL nutter. When you say things like "Without the GPL, there would be no open source licenses now," you sound like a GPL nutter, or at least someone who's been fed very biased information by a variety of GPL nutters. > I've never really cared one way or the other. I know there are > other licenses out there, but I also know that before GNU it was > pretty hard to get code. Maybe you had a much better OSS > experience. If so, you were probably part of some institution that > had resources as opposed to a neophyte unix dweeb who dreamed one > day of being elevated to geek status. Before the GPL, it was pretty hard to get code. Before the Internet became widespread, it was pretty hard to get code. Before the BSD license, it was pretty hard to get code. All of these things started in the early 80s and reached critical mass in the early 1990s. The GPL no more *caused* open source than the BSD license did; they were both part of the same movement, that arose for the same reasons; the difference is that Stallman was rather more strident and had a rather more ideological take on the whole thing. You were most likely aware of the GPL and of GNU software before you were aware of the BSD license, because the GNU project released things piecemeal and had no IP encumbrances for ideological reasons (and this is a *good* thing, or we'd still be waiting for Stallman to get around to the Hurd), while the BSD project released everything as a unit and had to tangle with AT&T before everything got done. But this does not mean that the existence of the GPL and the GNU project *caused* the existence of the BSD license and the BSD project, or the existence of the Artistic License and Perl, which is what you claimed and what people objected to. In particular, the record shows that the BSD project was underway and the Berkeley license were in use *before* Stallman started the GNU project and wrote the Emacs Public License; it seems foolish to claim that the Berkeley license would have retroactively ceased to exist, and the BSD project retroactively ceased to have ever begun, if Stallman had not written his license. Charlton -- Charlton Wilbur cwilbur@gmail.com cwilbur@chromatico.net From bill at cheeseman.name Sun Jul 1 14:25:43 2007 From: bill at cheeseman.name (Bill Cheeseman) Date: Sun Jul 1 14:34:41 2007 Subject: iPhone on the road In-Reply-To: <264F2C74-38BF-47F0-9887-7A44D243D105@kreme.com> Message-ID: on 2007-07-01 4:25 PM, LuKreme at kremels@kreme.com wrote: > OK, OK, Hartford and Hanover and White River Junction together are > about 15,000 I live in Quechee (which, like our next door neighbor White River Junction, is a village in the town of Hartford). The only cell phone that works at my house is Sprint (formerly Nextel). But it doesn't work at my office, a couple of hundred yards from I-91 and 3 minutes from Hanover. I hear that some folks near my house get Verizon, but its Vermont business is being bought out by a local company that is widely believed to have insufficient funds to survive. Thank goodness for Apple's new teleportation booth technology, which is being tested only in Vermont for the time being.... Oh, sorry, I forgot about my NDA for a moment there. -- Bill Cheeseman - bill@cheeseman.name Quechee Software, Quechee, Vermont, USA www.quecheesoftware.com PreFab Software - www.prefabsoftware.com From scott at cocoadoc.com Sun Jul 1 15:57:25 2007 From: scott at cocoadoc.com (Scott Anguish) Date: Sun Jul 1 15:57:37 2007 Subject: iPhone on the road In-Reply-To: <97995A49-1245-4C9B-8451-3AE4B5E3B138@idiomatrix.com> References: <859DE00C-43D9-41D2-AC74-C796DAFC6EFE@cocoadoc.com> <235889B4-F32D-45E2-9079-BFC2FE196006@idiomatrix.com> <8C210F71-2C19-4B06-99FD-553C54BBCC77@gmail.com> <97995A49-1245-4C9B-8451-3AE4B5E3B138@idiomatrix.com> Message-ID: On Jul 1, 2007, at 12:02 PM, David Herren wrote: > Florida's flat so line of site is far longer than here in the > mountains. There's also some strange legal issue here that companies > providing service in Vermont have to be careful about their signal > footprin and in general Vermonters hate cell towers. The drama around getting an HD antenna up for this side of the state was incredible. If AT&T is stepping in to buy other providers (like they did in OK just the other day) there may be hope of an iPhone here. I feel like going into the Nextel/Sprint/Verizon places and asking for an iPhone just to stick it to them. From fusion at mx6.tiki.ne.jp Sun Jul 1 17:18:18 2007 From: fusion at mx6.tiki.ne.jp (Jean-Christophe Helary) Date: Sun Jul 1 17:18:41 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <838AF705-614A-46C0-8ABB-C17AD265C014@gmail.com> References: <1183069718.4929.266.camel@localhost> <5B2AC469-4679-4D1D-B59A-34F092004847@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <50A1AC90-8956-4400-9644-C838B392A7B6@mac.com> <5FCED56B-2614-406A-B7DF-DC49D1CE9723@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <977CD745-9786-473D-9163-89A8A00DD6A7@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <70C91F67-FE92-47CE-A2F0-2E1117C1C307@kreme.com> <38AFB5E4-996E-451A-B49E-A17405B38651@kreme.com> <85A13935-6707-4D43-B745-D2139C52483D@gmail.com> <838AF705-614A-46C0-8ABB-C17AD265C014@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000AB3F2-C517-4CFA-B64A-044D65BD12F3@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> On 2 juil. 07, at 06:00, Charlton Wilbur wrote: > The GPL no more *caused* open source than the BSD license did; they > were both part of the same movement, that arose for the same > reasons; the difference is that Stallman was rather more strident > and had a rather more ideological take on the whole thing. Interesting how people who favor the GPL can be called "nutters" "communists" on a list of seemingly reasonable people. Regarding the above sentence, I think nothing could be further from the truth. Besides, there is still this confusion between free software and open source software. "Open source software" as such _never_ existed before the GPL. The term itself was coined in opposition to what the FSF called free software. So indeed, there was _no_ open source source software before the GPL. Any claim to the contrary is BS. Now maybe it was called something else, but I challenge you to remember the naming at the time ! And singling out the FSF and Stallman for their "ideology" is a little preposterous. The OSI definitely represents another ideology and the the BSD/MIT too. Such licenses are _not_ part of the same movement as the GPL at all. They were developed with a closed code release in mind and the openness of the code as a by-product necessary for academic activity. Who would have imagined at that time that most of the code would be released _out_ of academic or enterprise circles at the time, and that most of the code would be used outside those circles anyway. The GPL and other free license represent the will of the individual to actually ensure the code is shared equally and _never_ stolen. I find that very contradictory that some people here get all excited when we talk about small developers who manage to create immensely successful apps for the Mac because they don't release their code (and can't get it stolen) but at the same time don't mind the idea of stealing BSD/MIT (or others) licensed code. But I think the line is not there. I think the line is with people who want strong protection of their code: either they close it or they use a share alike/free license like the GPL (and both come at a price) on one side, and on the other side people who don't mind stealing other people's idea by closing otherwise freely available code. I think that is where the line is. (And apparently, Parallels has crossed the line with version 3 of their soft...) Jean-Christophe Helary From chad at objectwerks.com Sun Jul 1 17:55:16 2007 From: chad at objectwerks.com (Chad Leigh -- ObjectWerks Inc) Date: Sun Jul 1 17:55:24 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <000AB3F2-C517-4CFA-B64A-044D65BD12F3@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> References: <1183069718.4929.266.camel@localhost> <5B2AC469-4679-4D1D-B59A-34F092004847@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <50A1AC90-8956-4400-9644-C838B392A7B6@mac.com> <5FCED56B-2614-406A-B7DF-DC49D1CE9723@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <977CD745-9786-473D-9163-89A8A00DD6A7@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <70C91F67-FE92-47CE-A2F0-2E1117C1C307@kreme.com> <38AFB5E4-996E-451A-B49E-A17405B38651@kreme.com> <85A13935-6707-4D43-B745-D2139C52483D@gmail.com> <838AF705-614A-46C0-8ABB-C17AD265C014@gmail.com> <000AB3F2-C517-4CFA-B64A-044D65BD12F3@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> Message-ID: <5BA9DDF7-E67D-4A94-B9CE-791522A7E26D@objectwerks.com> On Jul 1, 2007, at 6:18 PM, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote: > I find that very contradictory that some people here get all > excited when we talk about small developers who manage to create > immensely successful apps for the Mac because they don't release > their code (and can't get it stolen) but at the same time don't > mind the idea of stealing BSD/MIT (or others) licensed code. Uhh, the BSD license allows you to use the code. It is not stolen. Chad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20070701/4a815e13/attachment.html From cwilbur at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 17:55:32 2007 From: cwilbur at gmail.com (Charlton Wilbur) Date: Sun Jul 1 17:56:08 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <000AB3F2-C517-4CFA-B64A-044D65BD12F3@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> References: <1183069718.4929.266.camel@localhost> <5B2AC469-4679-4D1D-B59A-34F092004847@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <50A1AC90-8956-4400-9644-C838B392A7B6@mac.com> <5FCED56B-2614-406A-B7DF-DC49D1CE9723@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <977CD745-9786-473D-9163-89A8A00DD6A7@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <70C91F67-FE92-47CE-A2F0-2E1117C1C307@kreme.com> <38AFB5E4-996E-451A-B49E-A17405B38651@kreme.com> <85A13935-6707-4D43-B745-D2139C52483D@gmail.com> <838AF705-614A-46C0-8ABB-C17AD265C014@gmail.com> <000AB3F2-C517-4CFA-B64A-044D65BD12F3@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> Message-ID: <104CA62E-7B59-440D-95C9-1CA13563E1DA@gmail.com> On Jul 1, 2007, at 8:18 PM, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote: > > On 2 juil. 07, at 06:00, Charlton Wilbur wrote: > >> The GPL no more *caused* open source than the BSD license did; >> they were both part of the same movement, that arose for the same >> reasons; the difference is that Stallman was rather more strident >> and had a rather more ideological take on the whole thing. > > Interesting how people who favor the GPL can be called "nutters" > "communists" on a list of seemingly reasonable people. It's not favoring the GPL that makes you a nutter; it's ignoring or rewriting history to favor the GPL, or redefining terms such as "free" to cast only the GPL in a favorable light, to wit: > And singling out the FSF and Stallman for their "ideology" is a > little preposterous. The OSI definitely represents another ideology > and the the BSD/MIT too. Such licenses are _not_ part of the same > movement as the GPL at all. They were developed with a closed code > release in mind and the openness of the code as a by-product > necessary for academic activity. > > Who would have imagined at that time that most of the code would be > released _out_ of academic or enterprise circles at the time, and > that most of the code would be used outside those circles anyway. > > The GPL and other free license represent the will of the individual > to actually ensure the code is shared equally and _never_ stolen. Nutter, nutter, nutter. "Only the GPL is *truly* free, because even though there were all these *other* people allowing others free access to their code, they didn't *really* mean to give it away, because they weren't using the GPL -- so all the other licenses that allowed people to read, modify, and redistribute the code without restriction might as well retroactively not have existed, and even though they placed fewer restrictions on what one could do with the code than the GPL does, they weren't *truly* free." Charlton -- Charlton Wilbur cwilbur@gmail.com cwilbur@chromatico.net From kremels at kreme.com Sun Jul 1 17:56:38 2007 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Sun Jul 1 17:56:47 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <000AB3F2-C517-4CFA-B64A-044D65BD12F3@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> References: <1183069718.4929.266.camel@localhost> <5B2AC469-4679-4D1D-B59A-34F092004847@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <50A1AC90-8956-4400-9644-C838B392A7B6@mac.com> <5FCED56B-2614-406A-B7DF-DC49D1CE9723@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <977CD745-9786-473D-9163-89A8A00DD6A7@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <70C91F67-FE92-47CE-A2F0-2E1117C1C307@kreme.com> <38AFB5E4-996E-451A-B49E-A17405B38651@kreme.com> <85A13935-6707-4D43-B745-D2139C52483D@gmail.com> <838AF705-614A-46C0-8ABB-C17AD265C014@gmail.com> <000AB3F2-C517-4CFA-B64A-044D65BD12F3@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> Message-ID: <7A1EBDBC-C358-47CA-9A2C-5AF419EE14F7@kreme.com> On 1-Jul-2007, at 18:18, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote: > "Open source software" as such _never_ existed before the GPL. The > term itself was coined in opposition to what the FSF called free > software. So indeed, there was _no_ open source source software > before the GPL. Any claim to the contrary is BS. Now maybe it was > called something else, but I challenge you to remember the naming > at the time ! And keep in mind that what we think of as OSS is quite cleraly GPL. The BSD license is, and certainly was, a license in which it was very easy to take code, wrap your own 'brand' around it, not release the code you modified, and sell it for extortionary prices. Which is what was happening. On 1-Jul-2007, at 15:00, Charlton Wilbur wrote: > The GPL no more *caused* open source than the BSD license did; they > were both part of the same movement, that arose for the same reasons; Yeah, I have to disagree there. OSS as we know it didn't exist before GPL and I don't see anything to convince me that it would exist without GPL. What we would have is a core BSD that was free and a thousand customized version of BSD that are not. That's where it was heading before GPL showed that you could have a complete OS that was completely free of all encumbrances. -- "I hope someday you know the indescribable joy of having children, and of paying someone else to raise them." From cwilbur at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 18:13:04 2007 From: cwilbur at gmail.com (Charlton Wilbur) Date: Sun Jul 1 18:13:33 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <7A1EBDBC-C358-47CA-9A2C-5AF419EE14F7@kreme.com> References: <1183069718.4929.266.camel@localhost> <5B2AC469-4679-4D1D-B59A-34F092004847@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <50A1AC90-8956-4400-9644-C838B392A7B6@mac.com> <5FCED56B-2614-406A-B7DF-DC49D1CE9723@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <977CD745-9786-473D-9163-89A8A00DD6A7@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <70C91F67-FE92-47CE-A2F0-2E1117C1C307@kreme.com> <38AFB5E4-996E-451A-B49E-A17405B38651@kreme.com> <85A13935-6707-4D43-B745-D2139C52483D@gmail.com> <838AF705-614A-46C0-8ABB-C17AD265C014@gmail.com> <000AB3F2-C517-4CFA-B64A-044D65BD12F3@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <7A1EBDBC-C358-47CA-9A2C-5AF419EE14F7@kreme.com> Message-ID: <36C015A8-B71A-4399-897D-89083EB25C4F@gmail.com> On Jul 1, 2007, at 8:56 PM, LuKreme wrote: > On 1-Jul-2007, at 15:00, Charlton Wilbur wrote: >> The GPL no more *caused* open source than the BSD license did; >> they were both part of the same movement, that arose for the same >> reasons; > > Yeah, I have to disagree there. OSS as we know it didn't exist > before GPL and I don't see anything to convince me that it would > exist without GPL. Disagree if you will; the historical record and the historical evidence are evident. > What we would have is a core BSD that was free and a thousand > customized version of BSD that are not. That's where it was > heading before GPL showed that you could have a complete OS that > was completely free of all encumbrances. It wasn't the GPL that did that first, chronologically: it was 386BSD, already well underway when Linus started his project, ironically enough, but it wasn't until the USL v UCB lawsuit was resolved and 4.4BSD-Lite was released in 1993 that it was determined that they actually weren't free of encumbrances; and while that was being decided in court, Linux had enough of a chance to establish itself in mindshare. (386BSD, begun in 1989, released as the somewhat stable version 0.0 in March 1992, and the more stable version 0.1 in July 1992; Linux, begun in 1991, released as the somewhat stable 0.12 version in January 1992 and the more stable version 0.96a in May 1992.) Again, believe what you will, but the historical record shows otherwise. Charlton -- Charlton Wilbur cwilbur@gmail.com cwilbur@chromatico.net From chad at objectwerks.com Sun Jul 1 19:52:15 2007 From: chad at objectwerks.com (Chad Leigh -- ObjectWerks Inc) Date: Sun Jul 1 19:52:28 2007 Subject: iPhone pretty tough Message-ID: <72F7F660-23A1-4F38-A3BC-DC94CEF7D0F4@objectwerks.com> From pcoskren at mac.com Sun Jul 1 20:19:05 2007 From: pcoskren at mac.com (Patrick Coskren) Date: Sun Jul 1 20:19:29 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <7A1EBDBC-C358-47CA-9A2C-5AF419EE14F7@kreme.com> References: <1183069718.4929.266.camel@localhost> <5B2AC469-4679-4D1D-B59A-34F092004847@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <50A1AC90-8956-4400-9644-C838B392A7B6@mac.com> <5FCED56B-2614-406A-B7DF-DC49D1CE9723@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <977CD745-9786-473D-9163-89A8A00DD6A7@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <70C91F67-FE92-47CE-A2F0-2E1117C1C307@kreme.com> <38AFB5E4-996E-451A-B49E-A17405B38651@kreme.com> <85A13935-6707-4D43-B745-D2139C52483D@gmail.com> <838AF705-614A-46C0-8ABB-C17AD265C014@gmail.com> <000AB3F2-C517-4CFA-B64A-044D65BD12F3@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <7A1EBDBC-C358-47CA-9A2C-5AF419EE14F7@kreme.com> Message-ID: <35E82D1A-7D13-4841-9112-2C593D701A9D@mac.com> On Jul 1, 2007, at 8:56 PM, LuKreme wrote: > And keep in mind that what we think of as OSS is quite cleraly > GPL. The BSD license is, and certainly was, a license in which it > was very easy to take code, wrap your own 'brand' around it, not > release the code you modified, and sell it for extortionary > prices. Which is what was happening. This argument always strikes me as a little paranoid, because it couldn't possibly work that way in any sort of real market. Let's say I write this really cool program to graph out correlations between the stock market and women's fashions. I release it with a BSD license. Now Banana Republic comes along, adds a nifty toolbar, and sells it for $100 a pop. I see two possible cases: 1) The nifty toolbar isn't worth $100 bucks, so nobody buys the Banana Republic version, they just download mine. 2) The nifty toolbar *is* worth $100 bucks, so everybody buys the Banana Republic version. Well, fine. If the toolbar was worth that much, then that's what people are paying for. If I don't like it, I guess I'd better add my own toolbar, and then we revert to case 1. 3) The nifty toolbar isn't worth $100 bucks, but buying it at Banana Republic is so much more convenient than downloading it that the convenience is worth $100 to people. Well, fine. Banana Republic spends a lot of time and money on maintaining their distribution channel, so that's what they're charging for. In none of these events does my code cease to be available for free, and because of that, any money other people are making is going to be for the improvements they make, either in the product or in the distribution. It's not easy, after all, to compete with my free product if they're not doing *something* to add value. Therefore, they're not stealing anything from me, they're providing a real service. Now, my code is making it easier for other people to make money, but that's fine, I've released it free. Other people are free to do whatever they want. Use it as a hobby. Use it to make money by predicting the stock market by reading Vogue. Use it to make money by wrapping it with a toolbar that people want to pay money for. Whatever; I don't care; I've released the software for free, and people are free to do whatever they want. -Patrick From amorton at fastmail.fm Sun Jul 1 21:52:13 2007 From: amorton at fastmail.fm (Anthony Morton) Date: Sun Jul 1 21:52:24 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <35E82D1A-7D13-4841-9112-2C593D701A9D@mac.com> Message-ID: > 2) The nifty toolbar *is* worth $100 bucks, so everybody buys the > Banana Republic version. Well, fine. If the toolbar was worth that > much, then that's what people are paying for. If I don't like it, I > guess I'd better add my own toolbar, and then we revert to case 1. Though it's not entirely 'fine' - there's a side effect whereby open source software has suddenly become closed source software. Yes, the original code is still available for free, but in the real world it's never as simple as an open-source version versus a closed-source version that has one extra feature tacked on. What will happen is the closed-source version will continue to evolve independently of the open-source version until it's barely recognisable as a variant of the latter. You can also get the situation where two or more incompatible proprietary software standards develop based on the same original freely-available source, often creating headaches for the users. Had the original code been licensed differently, the software would remain open-source throughout, and there's a greater likelihood of it evolving along a single path while at all stages remaining free for others to develop further. That would appear to be the motivation for the GPL: to ensure that an open-source software project remains an open-source project, and doesn't lose market share to possibly incompatible closed-source variants just because of one nifty new feature that was used as a Trojan horse to convince people to abandon the open-source version. Tony M. From chad at objectwerks.com Sun Jul 1 22:01:31 2007 From: chad at objectwerks.com (Chad Leigh -- ObjectWerks Inc) Date: Sun Jul 1 22:01:38 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6E92334E-5929-4F6B-86E9-55E624637F99@objectwerks.com> On Jul 1, 2007, at 10:52 PM, Anthony Morton wrote: > >> 2) The nifty toolbar *is* worth $100 bucks, so everybody buys the >> Banana Republic version. Well, fine. If the toolbar was worth >> that much, then that's what people are paying for. If I don't >> like it, I guess I'd better add my own toolbar, and then we revert >> to case 1. > > Though it's not entirely 'fine' - there's a side effect whereby > open source software has suddenly become closed source software. > > Yes, the original code is still available for free, but in the real > world it's never as simple as an open-source version versus a > closed-source version that has one extra feature tacked on. What > will happen is the closed-source version will continue to evolve > independently of the open-source version until it's barely > recognisable as a variant of the latter. You can also get the > situation where two or more incompatible proprietary software > standards develop based on the same original freely-available > source, often creating headaches for the users. > > Had the original code been licensed differently, the software would > remain open-source throughout, and there's a greater likelihood of > it evolving along a single path while at all stages remaining free > for others to develop further. > > That would appear to be the motivation for the GPL: to ensure that > an open-source software project remains an open-source project, and > doesn't lose market share to possibly incompatible closed-source > variants just because of one nifty new feature that was used as a > Trojan horse to convince people to abandon the open-source version. In other words, a planned economy (GPL) versus a free economy (BSD type license). I'd rather let the market drive improvements than some planned / forced management of the software. Patrick is right. You can see the difference in the difference between Linux and OS X. Linux sucks as a desktop (and as anything if you ask me -- I'd rather run BSD on the server or Solaris 10) while OS X built on open source bits but made vast improvements to it all, becoming proprietary on those new bits, but providing a much better product. Chad From amorton at fastmail.fm Sun Jul 1 22:58:13 2007 From: amorton at fastmail.fm (Anthony Morton) Date: Sun Jul 1 22:58:23 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <6E92334E-5929-4F6B-86E9-55E624637F99@objectwerks.com> Message-ID: <38625876-2861-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> > In other words, a planned economy (GPL) versus a free economy (BSD > type license). I'd rather let the market drive improvements than some > planned / forced management of the software. And it's strange that you give OS X as an example - this is a case where Apple undertakes 'forced management' by keeping all development closed and in-house. And the approach mostly works. At the same time you have open-source projects like Apache and TeX, and GCC and Emacs, and even Wikipedia, that are also carefully managed, but as open projects with diverse contributors. This approach also works. Let me put it more capitalistically. If you're the creator of a piece of software and you want to take it open-source but retain control over it, you don't want your competitors to take advantage of the IP you've just magnanimously made public in order to take away your market share. So a GPL-style licence works as a kind of patent, that allows others to benefit from your stuff while you retain control over your IP. At the same time it's unlike a patent in that there are no restrictions on who can use your stuff, and your competitors pay you not in cash but in kind, by publishing improvements that can be fed back into the project. The alternative, if you want to maintain control over your IP, is of course the traditional approach where you don't publish anything. Should I presume those who call the GPL 'communist' or 'anti-competitive' because of its restrictions have a similar attitude to developers who don't publish their source code? Tony M. From chad at objectwerks.com Sun Jul 1 23:19:36 2007 From: chad at objectwerks.com (Chad Leigh -- ObjectWerks Inc) Date: Sun Jul 1 23:19:41 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <38625876-2861-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> References: <38625876-2861-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> Message-ID: On Jul 1, 2007, at 11:58 PM, Anthony Morton wrote: > >> In other words, a planned economy (GPL) versus a free economy (BSD >> type license). I'd rather let the market drive improvements than >> some planned / forced management of the software. > > And it's strange that you give OS X as an example - this is a case > where Apple undertakes 'forced management' by keeping all > development closed and in-house. And the approach mostly works. You totally misunderstood my point. This is not "open source" versus "proprietary", this is GPL versus more free OSS licenses. You complained that Patricks example of an OSS license that allowed private companies to take the code and improve it resulted in an example of open source going closed source. First of all, that is not true. In Patrick's example, the original open source version is still open source. The only thing that has become closed source were the proprietary company's "improvements" and enchancements. My example of planned economy (GPL) was in contrast to open market / free market economy (BSD license), not OSS versus Proprietary. OS X is a great example where Apple took its own Proprietary code (what became Cocoa, Carbon, and other bits) and married it to open source and OSS (I list it both ways as I am not entirely familiar with the Mach licences) like Mach, FreeBSD, and various other open source code (samba, Sun's DTrace and ZFS, etc) and made a much better solution. Parts of which are proprietary. Mach, FreeBSD user layer, and all the other oss bits Apple used are still open source, but the whole that Apple assembled is not but is a much better product than the pure free software GPL people have been able to come up with. Your comments about Apple etc are way off base. They manage their own projects of course, but that is their right. But they did NOT hijack the open source projects they use and indeed contribute much back to them. Those Open Source projects still exist. > > At the same time you have open-source projects like Apache and TeX, > and GCC and Emacs, and even Wikipedia, that are also carefully > managed, but as open projects with diverse contributors. This > approach also works. I never claimed open source didn't work. I merely likened the GPL to a planned economy way of managing things compared to true free software licenses like BSD. > > Let me put it more capitalistically. If you're the creator of a > piece of software and you want to take it open-source but retain > control over it, you don't want your competitors to take advantage > of the IP you've just magnanimously made public in order to take > away your market share. So a GPL-style licence works as a kind of > patent, that allows others to benefit from your stuff while you > retain control over your IP. No you don't. They can fork it and do with it whatever they want. They have to make the result GPL but you don't have control over it. > At the same time it's unlike a patent in that there are no > restrictions on who can use your stuff, and your competitors pay > you not in cash but in kind, by publishing improvements that can be > fed back into the project. Uhh, see above. > > The alternative, if you want to maintain control over your IP, is > of course the traditional approach where you don't publish > anything. Should I presume those who call the GPL 'communist' or > 'anti-competitive' because of its restrictions have a similar > attitude to developers who don't publish their source code? Some people find a great advantage to contributing source code, others rather keep it proprietary. That is their prerogative. The GPL is "communistic" in that it tries to exert control over MY IP if I happen to build on other's shoulders (who submitted their work to be used by others, not stolen). True free software licenses don't do that. GPL us RMS's wet dream come true for his control freak ideology while others work on truly free software like the BSD licensed stuff. Chad > > Tony M. > From chad at objectwerks.com Sun Jul 1 23:23:46 2007 From: chad at objectwerks.com (Chad Leigh -- ObjectWerks Inc) Date: Sun Jul 1 23:23:53 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0E662203-BE32-4458-A587-514E2F991910@objectwerks.com> On Jul 1, 2007, at 10:52 PM, Anthony Morton wrote: > >> 2) The nifty toolbar *is* worth $100 bucks, so everybody buys the >> Banana Republic version. Well, fine. If the toolbar was worth >> that much, then that's what people are paying for. If I don't >> like it, I guess I'd better add my own toolbar, and then we revert >> to case 1. > > Though it's not entirely 'fine' - there's a side effect whereby > open source software has suddenly become closed source software. No it hasn't. Patricks original stock market fashion program is still open. > > Yes, the original code is still available for free, but in the real > world it's never as simple as an open-source version versus a > closed-source version that has one extra feature tacked on. What > will happen is the closed-source version will continue to evolve > independently of the open-source version until it's barely > recognisable as a variant of the latter. So? > You can also get the situation where two or more incompatible > proprietary software standards develop based on the same original > freely-available source, often creating headaches for the users. The market has all sorts of "proprietary" standards that cause headaches. Things eventually clear up. > > Had the original code been licensed differently, the software would > remain open-source throughout, and there's a greater likelihood of > it evolving along a single path while at all stages remaining free > for others to develop further. There are plenty of examples of forks of open source software diverging along two different paths. And in the "remain open source throughout" path you lose all the creative genius of people building on the software to do amazing things. People like Apple. You get stuck with a Linux desktop instead of OS X. > > That would appear to be the motivation for the GPL: to ensure that > an open-source software project remains an open-source project, and > doesn't lose market share to possibly incompatible closed-source > variants just because of one nifty new feature that was used as a > Trojan horse to convince people to abandon the open-source version. Which is an anti free market economy outlook. It is planned economy and all the attendant problems. Chad From amorton at fastmail.fm Mon Jul 2 00:39:42 2007 From: amorton at fastmail.fm (Anthony Morton) Date: Mon Jul 2 00:39:51 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6556B39B-286F-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> > You totally misunderstood my point. This is not "open source" versus > "proprietary", this is GPL versus more free OSS licenses. Actually, I'm pretty agnostic about OSS licences in general. What I was responding to was the idea that the GPL has no right to exist at all and that people who release software under the GPL are somehow 'communist' compared with those who use other OSS licences. So I pointed out that in a world without the GPL, it's conceivable that some open-source versus closed-source decisions for what is now open-source software might have come down in favour of closed-source instead. >> So a GPL-style licence works as a kind of patent, that allows others >> to benefit from your stuff while you retain control over your IP. > > No you don't. They can fork it and do with it whatever they want. > They have to make the result GPL but you don't have control over it. You have control in the sense that you can always take their improved code and merge it back into your project. > Some people find a great advantage to contributing source code, others > rather keep it proprietary. That is their prerogative. Of course. But the GPL offers one more option to those who are of a mind to keep their code proprietary but might experiment with open-source if they can retain some control. > The GPL is "communistic" in that it tries to exert control over MY IP > if I happen to build on other's shoulders (who submitted their work to > be used by others, not stolen). But if the alternative is that those others don't publish their code at all, it's a moot point. You don't have any work by others on which to base your IP, and you'll have to develop it from scratch, in which case you can do what you like with it. > True free software licenses don't do that. GPL us RMS's wet dream > come true for his control freak ideology while others work on truly > free software like the BSD licensed stuff. I'm reluctant to buy into arguments about what is and isn't 'free software', and I can see that BSD licensed software is 'free' in ways that GPL software isn't and vice versa. And I don't necessarily see any merit in the FSF-vs-iPhone stuff. At the same time, if the FSF had operated as a closed shop instead of publishing all their code they could hardly be less control-freakish than they are, and yet they'd just be behaving like a typical software company. And of course, if I were a commercial developer looking for code on which to base my own software project I'd be much happier if it were BSD licensed than GPL'd. But ultimately it's the original developer's right to choose which licence to use. Tony M. From chad at objectwerks.com Mon Jul 2 00:57:55 2007 From: chad at objectwerks.com (Chad Leigh) Date: Mon Jul 2 00:57:59 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <6556B39B-286F-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> References: <6556B39B-286F-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> Message-ID: <861C1E80-8F77-4074-8583-4D3B858C6078@objectwerks.com> On Jul 2, 2007, at 1:39 AM, Anthony Morton wrote: > >> You totally misunderstood my point. This is not "open source" >> versus "proprietary", this is GPL versus more free OSS licenses. > > Actually, I'm pretty agnostic about OSS licences in general. What > I was responding to was the idea that the GPL has no right to exist > at all and that people who release software under the GPL are > somehow 'communist' compared with those who use other OSS > licences. So I pointed out that in a world without the GPL, it's > conceivable that some open-source versus closed-source decisions > for what is now open-source software might have come down in favour > of closed-source instead. In no case is this true. Other style licenses cannot compel the original project to go closed source if someone uses it or incorporates it into another project, whether open or closed source. > >>> So a GPL-style licence works as a kind of patent, that allows >>> others to benefit from your stuff while you retain control over >>> your IP. >> >> No you don't. They can fork it and do with it whatever they want. >> They have to make the result GPL but you don't have control over it. > > You have control in the sense that you can always take their > improved code and merge it back into your project. That is not control. It could be helpful, but is not control. > >> Some people find a great advantage to contributing source code, >> others rather keep it proprietary. That is their prerogative. > > Of course. But the GPL offers one more option to those who are of > a mind to keep their code proprietary but might experiment with > open-source if they can retain some control. I am not advocating governmental abolishment of the GPL. I am just saying that the GPL is not an ideal license and is not about freedom but rather control. It encourages the planned economy style of project. > >> The GPL is "communistic" in that it tries to exert control over MY >> IP if I happen to build on other's shoulders (who submitted their >> work to be used by others, not stolen). > > But if the alternative is that those others don't publish their > code at all, it's a moot point. You don't have any work by others > on which to base your IP, and you'll have to develop it from > scratch, in which case you can do what you like with it. Does not change the GPL > >> True free software licenses don't do that. GPL us RMS's wet >> dream come true for his control freak ideology while others work >> on truly free software like the BSD licensed stuff. > > I'm reluctant to buy into arguments about what is and isn't 'free > software', and I can see that BSD licensed software is 'free' in > ways that GPL software isn't and vice versa. And I don't > necessarily see any merit in the FSF-vs-iPhone stuff. At the same > time, if the FSF had operated as a closed shop instead of > publishing all their code they could hardly be less control- > freakish than they are, I am sorry to be so dense but this last sentence I don't grok. Must be the late hours. > and yet they'd just be behaving like a typical software company. > And behaving like a typical software company is bad, how? Most of the software most of us use came from one or more "typical software company." > And of course, if I were a commercial developer looking for code on > which to base my own software project I'd be much happier if it > were BSD licensed than GPL'd. But ultimately it's the original > developer's right to choose which licence to use. Never said it wasn't. My point is not to crusade against the GPL and get the government to outlaw it. It is merely to say that the GPL is not what people think it is in terms of fostering innovation and improvement. Lots of good software out there came out under the GPL. Lots of good software came out under BSD or other more-free license. But history I think shows that the software that is not GPL but some other license has lead to more innovation and user choice than has the GPL as it has inspired others to do new things, to build upon the shoulders of those who came before, and give us new and better SW that the GPL has not. OS X is a good example. Most users of software don't give a flying flip about having access to the source code and making changes to it. Some do, but most don't. They just want the SW to provide solutions to their problems. This is because the non GPL software is more friendly to people making a buck off of it which motivates people to do things in ways that the GPL, which relies on mostly altruistic behavior, does not. Some big companies who provide complete solutions [IBM etc] and/or service contracts and some service oriented companies make a buck with GPL software by providing complete solutions (sell their HW or services) or by providing service/maintenance contracts. And these companies have contributed greatly to GPLed projects like Linux (think jfs and xfs from IBM and SGI?). But these guys are providing complete Linux based solutions and have the $ motivation; a path that most software developers cannot afford to go down. But in general lots of people who could bring out new and wonderful software cannot because their base is GPLed. Again, witness the Linux desktop versus OS X. best Chad > > Tony M. > From list-omnigroup at fsck.net Mon Jul 2 01:32:13 2007 From: list-omnigroup at fsck.net (Eugene) Date: Mon Jul 2 01:32:24 2007 Subject: iPhone on the road In-Reply-To: References: <859DE00C-43D9-41D2-AC74-C796DAFC6EFE@cocoadoc.com> <235889B4-F32D-45E2-9079-BFC2FE196006@idiomatrix.com> <8C210F71-2C19-4B06-99FD-553C54BBCC77@gmail.com> <97995A49-1245-4C9B-8451-3AE4B5E3B138@idiomatrix.com> Message-ID: <20070702083213.GE483@user-12lmfba.cable.mindspring.com> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 05:57:25PM CDT, Scott Anguish wrote: > > On Jul 1, 2007, at 12:02 PM, David Herren wrote: > >> Florida's flat so line of site is far longer than here in the mountains. >> There's also some strange legal issue here that companies providing >> service in Vermont have to be careful about their signal footprin > > and in general Vermonters hate cell towers. The drama around getting an HD > antenna up for this side of the state was incredible. Cell towers are fugly. The good news is that New Englanders have a better sense of taste. The bad news is that engineers who design cell towers have a lousy sense of taste. The good news is that some people have gotten the hint that asthetics are also important. -- Eugene http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ From kremels at kreme.com Mon Jul 2 02:02:03 2007 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Mon Jul 2 02:02:11 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <861C1E80-8F77-4074-8583-4D3B858C6078@objectwerks.com> References: <6556B39B-286F-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> <861C1E80-8F77-4074-8583-4D3B858C6078@objectwerks.com> Message-ID: On 2-Jul-2007, at 01:57, Chad Leigh wrote: > But history I think shows that the software that is not GPL but > some other license has lead to more innovation and user choice than > has the GPL as it has inspired others to do new things, to build > upon the shoulders of those who came before, and give us new and > better SW that the GPL has not. OS X is a good example. gcc is the ultimate counter example. Come on, a large portion of all the development done in OSS would not have even been possible without gcc. I seem to recall being able to get a copy of AT&T Unix with a -- the number 6100 jumps to mind -- AT&T microcomputer that was being retired at a place I worked. Unix came with the machine, but I would have to buy a c compiler myself. This was... oh, 1988? 89? If I remember right, the company would sell me the obsolete machine for $300. AT&T wanted $3000 for a c compiler. Might not have been $3000, but it WAS 4 digits. Where would we be without gcc? -- I loved you when our love was blessed I love you now there's nothing left But sorrow and a sense of overtime From kremels at kreme.com Mon Jul 2 02:07:02 2007 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Mon Jul 2 02:07:07 2007 Subject: iPhone on the road In-Reply-To: <20070702083213.GE483@user-12lmfba.cable.mindspring.com> References: <859DE00C-43D9-41D2-AC74-C796DAFC6EFE@cocoadoc.com> <235889B4-F32D-45E2-9079-BFC2FE196006@idiomatrix.com> <8C210F71-2C19-4B06-99FD-553C54BBCC77@gmail.com> <97995A49-1245-4C9B-8451-3AE4B5E3B138@idiomatrix.com> <20070702083213.GE483@user-12lmfba.cable.mindspring.com> Message-ID: <06552305-7F9A-42EE-BEEF-FF217D851640@kreme.com> On 2-Jul-2007, at 02:32, Eugene wrote: > I dunno if that fake tree is any better. I prefer the disguised ones that are clocks, chimneys, water towers, or other 'synthetic' towers. Also, placing towers on existing structures is a great idea. -- Monique: He keeps putting his testicles all over me. Lane: Excuse me? From chad at objectwerks.com Mon Jul 2 02:33:31 2007 From: chad at objectwerks.com (Chad Leigh) Date: Mon Jul 2 02:33:36 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: References: <6556B39B-286F-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> <861C1E80-8F77-4074-8583-4D3B858C6078@objectwerks.com> Message-ID: <028653D5-A8C6-4129-9CB1-9155A1B75454@objectwerks.com> On Jul 2, 2007, at 3:02 AM, LuKreme wrote: > On 2-Jul-2007, at 01:57, Chad Leigh wrote: >> But history I think shows that the software that is not GPL but >> some other license has lead to more innovation and user choice >> than has the GPL as it has inspired others to do new things, to >> build upon the shoulders of those who came before, and give us new >> and better SW that the GPL has not. OS X is a good example. > > gcc is the ultimate counter example. Not really. It has not lead to more choice, or particularly innovation -- gcc is about it and gcc is not that great a compiler compared to the top of the hill commercial offerings in terms of code output quality. And it is the sort of example of program that most computer users don't get too excited about unless they are actually developing SW. I did not say that GPL software all sucks. Just that it does not lead to the sorts of innovation and new ideas that might come about with a profit motive. gcc works great but does not prove anything. > Come on, a large portion of all the development done in OSS would > not have even been possible without gcc. Pure horse hooey. Something else would have stepped in to takes its place. gcc is a fine product but does not prove anything. > > I seem to recall being able to get a copy of AT&T Unix with a -- > the number 6100 jumps to mind -- AT&T microcomputer that was being > retired at a place I worked. Unix came with the machine, but I > would have to buy a c compiler myself. This was... oh, 1988? 89? > > If I remember right, the company would sell me the obsolete machine > for $300. AT&T wanted $3000 for a c compiler. > > Might not have been $3000, but it WAS 4 digits. > > Where would we be without gcc? Probably about the same place we are now more or less I would guess. Something else would have happened in its place. But it didn't and we use gcc, which is fine. (This statement assumes that open source would still have developed more or less the way it is now but using someone elses compiler that would have come out -- chances are someone would have released a usable compiler) Chad From amorton at fastmail.fm Mon Jul 2 03:53:53 2007 From: amorton at fastmail.fm (Anthony Morton) Date: Mon Jul 2 04:04:36 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <861C1E80-8F77-4074-8583-4D3B858C6078@objectwerks.com> Message-ID: <863274BF-288A-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> >> I'm reluctant to buy into arguments about what is and isn't 'free >> software', and I can see that BSD licensed software is 'free' in ways >> that GPL software isn't and vice versa. And I don't necessarily see >> any merit in the FSF-vs-iPhone stuff. At the same time, if the FSF >> had operated as a closed shop instead of publishing all their code >> they could hardly be less control-freakish than they are, > > I am sorry to be so dense but this last sentence I don't grok. Must > be the late hours. > >> and yet they'd just be behaving like a typical software company. > > And behaving like a typical software company is bad, how? Most of the > software most of us use came from one or more "typical software > company." Yep, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with typical software companies. But they don't allow you to use their code in your own projects. FSF could have gone the same way, and what I was trying to say above is that this would have made them *more* 'control-freakish' by any reasonable definition - since you can hardly assert more control over your code than by keeping it secret. I guess what I'm getting at is there's a continuum of control over IP, with the closed shop at one end and the BSD anarchistic approach at the other. GPL is in the middle - it gives the originator more control than other OSS licences, but less control than with a closed-source approach. Tony M. From dp.chaoswerks at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 05:10:47 2007 From: dp.chaoswerks at gmail.com (David P. Henderson) Date: Mon Jul 2 05:10:52 2007 Subject: iPhone on the road In-Reply-To: <8C210F71-2C19-4B06-99FD-553C54BBCC77@gmail.com> References: <859DE00C-43D9-41D2-AC74-C796DAFC6EFE@cocoadoc.com> <235889B4-F32D-45E2-9079-BFC2FE196006@idiomatrix.com> <8C210F71-2C19-4B06-99FD-553C54BBCC77@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 01 Jul 2007, at 08:33, Charles Dyer wrote: > Gez, man, do the cell phone companies _hate_ Vermont or what? I can > get one or two bar reception in the middle of the God-damn > Everglades! The official T-Mobile (and the official Cingular) map > shows only thin lines of coverage centered on roads such as I-75 > (Alligator Alley) and US 41 (Tamaimi Trail) but you can get a > signal at places where the official map says there's no coverage at > all, in areas where the only way in is by airboat or swamp buggy. I > can get a signal where the only local inhabitants are fish, > 'gators, panthers, raccoons, and mosquitos (especially mosquitos) > but you can't get a signal at work?! Someone needs to have a little > chat with the local cell phone people... Maybe we could loan you a > few 'gators to give 'em an incentive. Of course, you are overlooking a major geographical difference between the Everglades and Vermont. Namely, that the Everglades are _flat_ while Vermont (from the french for green mountains) is quite mountainous. :) Dave -- Chaoswerks Design "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt From charles.dyer at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 05:31:10 2007 From: charles.dyer at gmail.com (Charles Dyer) Date: Mon Jul 2 05:31:16 2007 Subject: iPhone on the road In-Reply-To: References: <859DE00C-43D9-41D2-AC74-C796DAFC6EFE@cocoadoc.com> <235889B4-F32D-45E2-9079-BFC2FE196006@idiomatrix.com> <8C210F71-2C19-4B06-99FD-553C54BBCC77@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 02 Jul 2007, at 08:10:47, David P. Henderson wrote: > > On 01 Jul 2007, at 08:33, Charles Dyer wrote: > >> Gez, man, do the cell phone companies _hate_ Vermont or what? I >> can get one or two bar reception in the middle of the God-damn >> Everglades! The official T-Mobile (and the official Cingular) map >> shows only thin lines of coverage centered on roads such as I-75 >> (Alligator Alley) and US 41 (Tamaimi Trail) but you can get a >> signal at places where the official map says there's no coverage >> at all, in areas where the only way in is by airboat or swamp >> buggy. I can get a signal where the only local inhabitants are >> fish, 'gators, panthers, raccoons, and mosquitos (especially >> mosquitos) but you can't get a signal at work?! Someone needs to >> have a little chat with the local cell phone people... Maybe we >> could loan you a few 'gators to give 'em an incentive. > > Of course, you are overlooking a major geographical difference > between the Everglades and Vermont. Namely, that the Everglades are > _flat_ while Vermont (from the french for green mountains) is quite > mountainous. :) > Quite true. But before I was in Florida (maximum altitude, other than fake mountains at Disney World, 328 feet above sea level) I lived in Jamaica, which has a few hills here and there. Digicel gave pretty good cell reception there. (Cable & Wireless didn't, but then there were many reasons why they were called 'Completely Worthless'.) And precisely because Florida is flat, there have to be a lot of cell towers to maintain a line of sight. From fusion at mx6.tiki.ne.jp Mon Jul 2 05:32:50 2007 From: fusion at mx6.tiki.ne.jp (Jean-Christophe Helary) Date: Mon Jul 2 05:32:59 2007 Subject: The Global Software Industry in Transformation: After GPLv3 Message-ID: > Professor Eben Moglen of the Software Freedom Law Center delivers a > lecture in Edinburgh, Scotland 26th June 2007 titled "The Global > Software Industry in Transformation: After GPLv3". Lecture hosted > by the Scottish Society for Computers and Law. http://www.archive.org/details/ EbenMoglenLectureEdinburghJune2007StreamingVideo384kbits Communist hippies ! (with short hair...) Jean-Christophe Helary From dp.chaoswerks at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 05:41:54 2007 From: dp.chaoswerks at gmail.com (David P. Henderson) Date: Mon Jul 2 05:42:01 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <000AB3F2-C517-4CFA-B64A-044D65BD12F3@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> References: <1183069718.4929.266.camel@localhost> <5B2AC469-4679-4D1D-B59A-34F092004847@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <50A1AC90-8956-4400-9644-C838B392A7B6@mac.com> <5FCED56B-2614-406A-B7DF-DC49D1CE9723@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <977CD745-9786-473D-9163-89A8A00DD6A7@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <70C91F67-FE92-47CE-A2F0-2E1117C1C307@kreme.com> <38AFB5E4-996E-451A-B49E-A17405B38651@kreme.com> <85A13935-6707-4D43-B745-D2139C52483D@gmail.com> <838AF705-614A-46C0-8ABB-C17AD265C014@gmail.com> <000AB3F2-C517-4CFA-B64A-044D65BD12F3@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> Message-ID: <772EAF6F-ABE0-4844-A640-4F23D44CA754@gmail.com> On 01 Jul 2007, at 20:18, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote: > The GPL and other free license represent the will of the individual > to actually ensure the code is shared equally and _never_ stolen. > I guarantee you that GPL'ed code is stolen all the time. Neither the FSF nor other GPL licensers have the time or resources to examine all existing code bases for GPL violations. And if one is caught, there is no penalty if one can decouple the GPL code. > I find that very contradictory that some people here get all > excited when we talk about small developers who manage to create > immensely successful apps for the Mac because they don't release > their code (and can't get it stolen) but at the same time don't > mind the idea of stealing BSD/MIT (or others) licensed code. > One can not "steal" BSD/MIT or similarly licensed code since the licenses permit liberal use of the code including appropriation. Those style licenses are nearly equivalent to making the code public domain. Dave -- Chaoswerks Design cha?os werks (k?'os w?rks?) n.pl. (usu. construed as sing.) An industrial plant for producing utter disorder and confusion. de?sign (di?z?n') n. A plan or project; Deliberate intention. From cwilbur at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 05:52:03 2007 From: cwilbur at gmail.com (Charlton Wilbur) Date: Mon Jul 2 05:52:48 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <38625876-2861-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> References: <38625876-2861-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> Message-ID: On Jul 2, 2007, at 1:58 AM, Anthony Morton wrote: > Let me put it more capitalistically. If you're the creator of a > piece of software and you want to take it open-source but retain > control over it, you don't want your competitors to take advantage > of the IP you've just magnanimously made public in order to take > away your market share. So a GPL-style licence works as a kind of > patent, that allows others to benefit from your stuff while you > retain control over your IP. Except that the control is illusory: once it's given away, you have no more control over it. The GPL does prevent other people from selling it where you can't, and the existence of dual-licensing approaches like MySQL's means you can still profit from it. On the other hand, the profit motive is a large part of why people develop software, and nobody who contributes to the software can profit directly from that contribution. There's a reason that Apple built OS X on a BSD-licensed base, and it's not purely technical. For that matter, you never give up control over your IP; you always hold the copyright, and in fact it's the copyright that makes the license meaningful and enforceable at all. The primary difference in control between the GPL and the BSD license is that the GPL tries to exert control over other people who want to use the code, putting restrictions on what they may and may not do with it. And from a profit-seeking capitalist point of view, the GPL is a disaster, because it restricts what license-holders may charge while giving any license holder the ability to duplicate the software. It is impossible to profit from GPL-licensed software directly; you can sell the first copy for as much as you like, but the purchaser can turn around and *give* the software away, completely legally. It is *designed* to do this, and it's foolish to pretend otherwise. Wise people who want to profit from their code directly (and not from support contracts for their code) don't release it under an open source license in the first place, or produce a legal hedge such as MySQL's approach, where the GPL doesn't apply if it's for commercial redistribution. > The alternative, if you want to maintain control over your IP, is > of course the traditional approach where you don't publish > anything. Should I presume those who call the GPL 'communist' or > 'anti-competitive' because of its restrictions have a similar > attitude to developers who don't publish their source code? If you want to maintain control over your code, you don't release it under any open source licence. Once it's released, you retain just as much control over the IP with the BSD or MIT license, and the choice of licenses determines how much you control over other people's IP in the form of works derivative to yours. The fact that the FSF has managed to redefine "free" in such a way that the GPL, with all its restrictions on how subsequent users may use the licensed code, is considered more "free" than the BSD or MIT license is a triumph of propaganda over clear thought. Charlton -- Charlton Wilbur cwilbur@gmail.com cwilbur@chromatico.net From mrhatken at mac.com Mon Jul 2 06:06:11 2007 From: mrhatken at mac.com (Ashley Aitken) Date: Mon Jul 2 06:06:50 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <863274BF-288A-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> References: <863274BF-288A-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> Message-ID: <890F7A48-6980-480C-BB78-CC27EEE8676A@mac.com> On 02/07/2007, at 6:53 PM, Anthony Morton wrote: > I guess what I'm getting at is there's a continuum of control over > IP, with the closed shop at one end and the BSD anarchistic > approach at the other. GPL is in the middle - it gives the > originator more control than other OSS licences, but less control > than with a closed-source approach. Yes, Tony I agree. GPL is often painted as being the extreme when, in reality, it is the middle ground. Discussion of which is the "free-ist" often get confused in the use of the term free. Anyway, these are just licenses, developers can choose to use them or not, and choose to use the code provided under them if they wish (and can) or not. Cheers, Ashley. -- Ashley Aitken Perth, Western Australia mrhatken at mac dot com Skype Name: MrHatken (GMT + 8 Hours!) From lists at toddwarfel.com Mon Jul 2 06:16:04 2007 From: lists at toddwarfel.com (Todd Zaki Warfel) Date: Mon Jul 2 06:16:17 2007 Subject: adding an iPhone to a business account with AT&T In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <728BDF21-83BC-4BAE-B195-CB8709F0F576@toddwarfel.com> You have to use the AT&T SIM card, but you can take your existing SIM and put it in the SIM slot up top to copy over information. On Jun 30, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Kevin Callahan wrote: > They also said the SIM cards are not interchangeable. So, I can?t > take my existing card and pop it into the iPhone. Cheers! Todd Zaki Warfel President, Design & Usability Specialist Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully. ---------------------------------- Contact Info Voice: (215) 825-7423 Email: todd@messagefirst.com AIM: twarfel@mac.com Blog: http://toddwarfel.com ---------------------------------- In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20070702/95b3f377/attachment.html From lists at toddwarfel.com Mon Jul 2 06:17:30 2007 From: lists at toddwarfel.com (Todd Zaki Warfel) Date: Mon Jul 2 06:17:51 2007 Subject: iPhone on the road In-Reply-To: <859DE00C-43D9-41D2-AC74-C796DAFC6EFE@cocoadoc.com> References: <859DE00C-43D9-41D2-AC74-C796DAFC6EFE@cocoadoc.com> Message-ID: <33597397-A8AD-4BFC-822F-26AAB78E1AAD@toddwarfel.com> 83rd in line at the Apple store in KOP and I had two phones in hand in about 20 minutes after the line started moving. Apple really had their game on. Buy your phone(s), then continue through the store to purchase accessories. That way they can get people their phones as quickly as possible and move the line. Initial impressions: -> Activation was really quick. I had two phones activated with numbers and working in under 10 minutes from the privacy of my own home. -> Thinner than I expected. It's actually smaller than my 60GB and 80GB iPod videos. It's a little taller, but thinner. -> The ads don't do the UI justice. It's really slick. Motion is seamless. And the resolution is incredible. -> The keyboard took about 2 minutes for me to get used to. Now I'm flying along pretty quickly. I can't type as fast as I can on a normal keyboard, but I can type a lot faster than I did on my Samsung t589 series (slim candy bar phone). My wife is a Blackberry user and it's taking her a little longer to get used to it - couple hours probably. -> A couple of clever things about the keyboard. Audio feedback. The keys magnify as you move over them (you have to be on top of the screen for this). And when you're surfing the web, there's no space bar. You can't type spaces in URLs, so they just eliminate it and instead give you a handy little .com button. Very clever - contextual keyboard. -> EDGE network isn't bad. It's no WiFi, but it's not bad. YouTube on EDGE is lower quality than using the WiFi. -> The wireless network mode is really clever. When it senses you're near a WiFi spot, it comes up on screen and asks you if you want to join it - just like a Mac. In the future, it just remembers that network and when it's in range, it automatically hops over to that instead of using EDGE for downloading email, stocks, Google Maps, or surfing the Internet. -> Syncing worked flawlessly. I manually selected a few playlists, photo albums, and a list of people from my Address Book. It synced them up in a few minutes (about 2GB worth). -> One of the greatest things about Syncing and the iPhone - you can unplug it anytime you want, even mid-sync. There's no "Ooops! You disconnected a device..." message. It just knows. Finally. -> Zooming in/out, panning, and scrolling take a bout 2 seconds to learn. Scrolling is backwards from how you use a mouse, but way more intuitive. You simply throw the screen into the direction you want to move. -> Google Maps is great on the phone as well. And getting directions works well. I haven't tried the GPS out yet. On the downside: -> The screen shows fingerprints real bad. I'm going to get a protective film for mine. They run $14.99 for two. -> The battery life is good for about 2 days when you're getting email, calling, texting, surfing YouTube, and the Web on the iPhone. So, not bad, but not stellar either. Things they need to fix, or do in upcoming models: -> I want to be able to select the little WiFi/network icon in the upper left corner of the screen to change networks. In every neighborhood I'm in, there are a number of open networks. Typically I just use my own, but... Cheers! Todd Zaki Warfel President, Design & Usability Specialist Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully. ---------------------------------- Contact Info Voice: (215) 825-7423 Email: todd@messagefirst.com AIM: twarfel@mac.com Blog: http://toddwarfel.com ---------------------------------- In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20070702/b5fcb415/attachment.html From zpamaral at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 08:04:19 2007 From: zpamaral at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Pedro_Sousa_do_Amaral?=) Date: Mon Jul 2 08:04:25 2007 Subject: iPhone on the road In-Reply-To: <33597397-A8AD-4BFC-822F-26AAB78E1AAD@toddwarfel.com> References: <859DE00C-43D9-41D2-AC74-C796DAFC6EFE@cocoadoc.com> <33597397-A8AD-4BFC-822F-26AAB78E1AAD@toddwarfel.com> Message-ID: <01F46428-D5FE-44ED-83FE-FB0B8563CD93@gmail.com> Em 02/07/2007, ?s 08:17, Todd Zaki Warfel escreveu: > -> Activation was really quick. I had two phones activated with > numbers and working in under 10 minutes from the privacy of my own > home. I bought mine at 6:49 pm CDT on Friday and finally managed to had it activated at 6:07 am CDT today (Monday). My mileage did vary! Went three times to the store and no dice --- I was trying to get an AT&T account over the registration process. The way I fixed the problem was to open an account with AT&T, for which I received a SIM but not a telephone, and then transfer that account to the iPhone. Otherwise, I have been playing with it and I find it wonderful. ZP -- Jos? Pedro Sousa do Amaral Hoare's Law of Large Problems: Inside every large problem is a small problem struggling to get out. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2419 bytes Desc: not available Url : /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20070702/adfb9554/smime.bin From zpamaral at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 12:02:58 2007 From: zpamaral at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Pedro_Sousa_do_Amaral?=) Date: Mon Jul 2 12:03:04 2007 Subject: iPhone and diacritic marks Message-ID: <2B6666FF-90EC-43F8-B452-E78664F15EC7@gmail.com> Hi, Can one type diacritic marks with the iPhone? The iPhone displays well the accented text it receives but I have found no way of typing letters with them. Thanks. ZP -- Jos? Pedro Sousa do Amaral Go ahead, capitalize the T on technology, deify it if it will make you feel less responsible -- but it puts you in with the neutered, brother, in with the eunuchs keeping the harem of our stolen Earth for the numb and joyless hardons of human sultans, human elite with no right at all to be where they are... -- Thomas Pynchon -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2419 bytes Desc: not available Url : /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20070702/f77e9751/smime.bin From kc at omnigroup.com Mon Jul 2 12:14:47 2007 From: kc at omnigroup.com (Ken Case) Date: Mon Jul 2 12:15:15 2007 Subject: New iPhone-talk mailing list Message-ID: <80254609-2A0E-4E71-A3C9-FE35118717AD@omnigroup.com> I've created a new iphone-talk@omnigroup.com mailing list, where general discussions about the iPhone are welcome. Those interested can subscribe to the list at: http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/iphone-talk Enjoy! Ken From pelorus at mac.com Mon Jul 2 13:04:48 2007 From: pelorus at mac.com (Matt Johnston) Date: Mon Jul 2 13:04:59 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <000AB3F2-C517-4CFA-B64A-044D65BD12F3@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> References: <1183069718.4929.266.camel@localhost> <5B2AC469-4679-4D1D-B59A-34F092004847@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <50A1AC90-8956-4400-9644-C838B392A7B6@mac.com> <5FCED56B-2614-406A-B7DF-DC49D1CE9723@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <977CD745-9786-473D-9163-89A8A00DD6A7@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <70C91F67-FE92-47CE-A2F0-2E1117C1C307@kreme.com> <38AFB5E4-996E-451A-B49E-A17405B38651@kreme.com> <85A13935-6707-4D43-B745-D2139C52483D@gmail.com> <838AF705-614A-46C0-8ABB-C17AD265C014@gmail.com> <000AB3F2-C517-4CFA-B64A-044D65BD12F3@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> Message-ID: On 2 Jul 2007, at 01:18, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote: > The GPL and other free license represent the will of the individual > to actually ensure the code is shared equally and _never_ stolen. > > I find that very contradictory that some people here get all > excited when we talk about small developers who manage to create > immensely successful apps for the Mac because they don't release > their code (and can't get it stolen) but at the same time don't > mind the idea of stealing BSD/MIT (or others) licensed code. This is exactly the ignorant propaganda that makes me loathe the politicos at my local LUG. Technical merit doesn't even come into it. Everything must be GPL as they've trademarked "Free" Matt Johnston pelorus@mac.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20070702/7cee755e/attachment.html From pelorus at mac.com Mon Jul 2 13:06:22 2007 From: pelorus at mac.com (Matt Johnston) Date: Mon Jul 2 13:06:28 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <35E82D1A-7D13-4841-9112-2C593D701A9D@mac.com> References: <1183069718.4929.266.camel@localhost> <5B2AC469-4679-4D1D-B59A-34F092004847@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <50A1AC90-8956-4400-9644-C838B392A7B6@mac.com> <5FCED56B-2614-406A-B7DF-DC49D1CE9723@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <977CD745-9786-473D-9163-89A8A00DD6A7@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <70C91F67-FE92-47CE-A2F0-2E1117C1C307@kreme.com> <38AFB5E4-996E-451A-B49E-A17405B38651@kreme.com> <85A13935-6707-4D43-B745-D2139C52483D@gmail.com> <838AF705-614A-46C0-8ABB-C17AD265C014@gmail.com> <000AB3F2-C517-4CFA-B64A-044D65BD12F3@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <7A1EBDBC-C358-47CA-9A2C-5AF419EE14F7@kreme.com> <35E82D1A-7D13-4841-9112-2C593D701A9D@mac.com> Message-ID: On 2 Jul 2007, at 04:19, Patrick Coskren wrote: > In none of these events does my code cease to be available for > free, and because of that, any money other people are making is > going to be for the improvements they make, either in the product > or in the distribution. It's not easy, after all, to compete with > my free product if they're not doing *something* to add value. > Therefore, they're not stealing anything from me, they're providing > a real service. Now, my code is making it easier for other people > to make money, but that's fine, I've released it free. Other > people are free to do whatever they want. Use it as a hobby. Use > it to make money by predicting the stock market by reading Vogue. > Use it to make money by wrapping it with a toolbar that people want > to pay money for. Whatever; I don't care; I've released the > software for free, and people are free to do whatever they want. Patrick provides the very definition of Freedom w.r.t code. Matt Johnston pelorus@mac.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20070702/c4556462/attachment.html From pelorus at mac.com Mon Jul 2 13:08:59 2007 From: pelorus at mac.com (Matt Johnston) Date: Mon Jul 2 13:09:04 2007 Subject: New iPhone-talk mailing list In-Reply-To: <80254609-2A0E-4E71-A3C9-FE35118717AD@omnigroup.com> References: <80254609-2A0E-4E71-A3C9-FE35118717AD@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <9CD735D1-4909-469C-A3A5-0F3EDA5D1093@mac.com> On 2 Jul 2007, at 20:14, Ken Case wrote: > I've created a new iphone-talk@omnigroup.com mailing list, where > general discussions about the iPhone are welcome. You are a BAD BAD Man Mister Case.... From jesusdiaz at apinet.es Mon Jul 2 13:41:05 2007 From: jesusdiaz at apinet.es (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs_D=EDaz_Blanco?=) Date: Mon Jul 2 13:41:23 2007 Subject: Your iPhone Coolness Factor In-Reply-To: References: <1183069718.4929.266.camel@localhost> <5B2AC469-4679-4D1D-B59A-34F092004847@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <50A1AC90-8956-4400-9644-C838B392A7B6@mac.com> <5FCED56B-2614-406A-B7DF-DC49D1CE9723@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <977CD745-9786-473D-9163-89A8A00DD6A7@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <70C91F67-FE92-47CE-A2F0-2E1117C1C307@kreme.com> <38AFB5E4-996E-451A-B49E-A17405B38651@kreme.com> <85A13935-6707-4D43-B745-D2139C52483D@gmail.com> <838AF705-614A-46C0-8ABB-C17AD265C014@gmail.com> <000AB3F2-C517-4CFA-B64A-044D65BD12F3@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <7A1EBDBC-C358-47CA-9A2C-5AF419EE14F7@kreme.com> <35E82D1A-7D13-4841-9112-2C593D701A9D@mac.com> Message-ID: My new iPhone "application" that will only last until next saturday :-) http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/exclusive/your-iphone-coolness- factor-274336.php j. From pelorus at mac.com Mon Jul 2 14:30:19 2007 From: pelorus at mac.com (Matt Johnston) Date: Mon Jul 2 14:30:45 2007 Subject: 3d shooter for iPhone :) Message-ID: <5C60926A-494D-4335-B84D-4D89E5F00175@mac.com> > 3D TOMB II is a First Person Shooter in a fully textured > environment done in less than 4k of JavaScript by MATHIEU 'P01' > HENRI originally made for THE5K 2004. > Ahhh, but does it work on the iPhone??? http://www.3dtomb2.com/technical_infos.php Matt Johnston pelorus@mac.com From pcoskren at mac.com Mon Jul 2 15:03:03 2007 From: pcoskren at mac.com (Patrick Coskren) Date: Mon Jul 2 15:03:29 2007 Subject: Your iPhone Coolness Factor In-Reply-To: References: <1183069718.4929.266.camel@localhost> <5B2AC469-4679-4D1D-B59A-34F092004847@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <50A1AC90-8956-4400-9644-C838B392A7B6@mac.com> <5FCED56B-2614-406A-B7DF-DC49D1CE9723@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <977CD745-9786-473D-9163-89A8A00DD6A7@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <70C91F67-FE92-47CE-A2F0-2E1117C1C307@kreme.com> <38AFB5E4-996E-451A-B49E-A17405B38651@kreme.com> <85A13935-6707-4D43-B745-D2139C52483D@gmail.com> <838AF705-614A-46C0-8ABB-C17AD265C014@gmail.com> <000AB3F2-C517-4CFA-B64A-044D65BD12F3@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <7A1EBDBC-C358-47CA-9A2C-5AF419EE14F7@kreme.com> <35E82D1A-7D13-4841-9112-2C593D701A9D@mac.com> Message-ID: On Monday, July 02, 2007, at 04:41PM, "Jes?s D?az Blanco" wrote: >My new iPhone "application" that will only last until next saturday :-) Hey, there are some who would pay the $600 just for Monday. :-) -Patrick From newslists at autonomy.caltech.edu Mon Jul 2 18:40:55 2007 From: newslists at autonomy.caltech.edu (R.L. Grigg) Date: Mon Jul 2 18:41:00 2007 Subject: Your iPhone Coolness Factor In-Reply-To: References: <1183069718.4929.266.camel@localhost> <5B2AC469-4679-4D1D-B59A-34F092004847@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <50A1AC90-8956-4400-9644-C838B392A7B6@mac.com> <5FCED56B-2614-406A-B7DF-DC49D1CE9723@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <977CD745-9786-473D-9163-89A8A00DD6A7@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <70C91F67-FE92-47CE-A2F0-2E1117C1C307@kreme.com> <38AFB5E4-996E-451A-B49E-A17405B38651@kreme.com> <85A13935-6707-4D43-B745-D2139C52483D@gmail.com> <838AF705-614A-46C0-8ABB-C17AD265C014@gmail.com> <000AB3F2-C517-4CFA-B64A-044D65BD12F3@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <7A1EBDBC-C358-47CA-9A2C-5AF419EE14F7@kreme.com> <35E82D1A-7D13-4841-9112-2C593D701A9D@mac.com> Message-ID: On Jul 2, 2007, at 1:41 PM, Jes?s D?az Blanco wrote: > My new iPhone "application" that will only last until next > saturday :-) > > http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/exclusive/your-iphone-coolness- > factor-274336.php Can you make it so it will detect LIFE FORMS? From henry at trilithon.com Mon Jul 2 19:03:15 2007 From: henry at trilithon.com (Henry McGilton) Date: Mon Jul 2 19:04:00 2007 Subject: Your iPhone Coolness Factor In-Reply-To: References: <1183069718.4929.266.camel@localhost> <5B2AC469-4679-4D1D-B59A-34F092004847@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <50A1AC90-8956-4400-9644-C838B392A7B6@mac.com> <5FCED56B-2614-406A-B7DF-DC49D1CE9723@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <977CD745-9786-473D-9163-89A8A00DD6A7@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <70C91F67-FE92-47CE-A2F0-2E1117C1C307@kreme.com> <38AFB5E4-996E-451A-B49E-A17405B38651@kreme.com> <85A13935-6707-4D43-B745-D2139C52483D@gmail.com> <838AF705-614A-46C0-8ABB-C17AD265C014@gmail.com> <000AB3F2-C517-4CFA-B64A-044D65BD12F3@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <7A1EBDBC-C358-47CA-9A2C-5AF419EE14F7@kreme.com> <35E82D1A-7D13-4841-9112-2C593D701A9D@mac.com> Message-ID: <3A11A157-E6DF-437F-9137-B767EA636E87@trilithon.com> On Jul 2, 2007, at 1:41 PM, Jes?s D?az Blanco wrote: > My new iPhone "application" that will only last until next > saturday :-) > > http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/exclusive/your-iphone-coolness- > factor-274336.php Hmmmmmm . . . Safari 3 beta shows a completely blank page, doing View Source shows a blank document, and saving the source from Safari saves a completely empty document . . . Cheers, ........ Henry ===============================+============================ Henry McGilton, Boulevardier | Trilithon Software Objective-C/Java Composer | Seroia Research -------------------------------+---------------------------- mailto:henry@trilithon.com | http://www.trilithon.com | ===============================+============================ From kremels at kreme.com Mon Jul 2 19:53:03 2007 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Mon Jul 2 19:53:21 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <028653D5-A8C6-4129-9CB1-9155A1B75454@objectwerks.com> References: <6556B39B-286F-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> <861C1E80-8F77-4074-8583-4D3B858C6078@objectwerks.com> <028653D5-A8C6-4129-9CB1-9155A1B75454@objectwerks.com> Message-ID: <081363D1-0517-43DD-9389-33A2BFDE4933@kreme.com> On 2-Jul-2007, at 03:33, Chad Leigh wrote: > On Jul 2, 2007, at 3:02 AM, LuKreme wrote: > gcc works great but does not prove anything. > >> Come on, a large portion of all the development done in OSS would >> not have even been possible without gcc. > > Pure horse hooey. Something else would have stepped in to takes > its place. And you base this one what, exactly? there were _NO_ C compilers that were freely available before gcc, and no evidence whatsoever that there ever would have been. gcc allowed anyone who wanted to code to write code. Whether the project they were committing code to was ultimately built with gcc or something else is irrelevant, gcc made it possible. And gcc is still the default compiler for most servers running *BSD or any Linux variant. >> Where would we be without gcc? > > Probably about the same place we are now more or less I would > guess. Something else would have happened in its place. Like moon ponies? > But it didn't and we use gcc, which is fine. (This statement > assumes that open source would still have developed more or less > the way it is now but using someone elses compiler that would have > come out -- chances are someone would have released a usable compiler) That's pure fantasy speculation. -- There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't. From kremels at kreme.com Mon Jul 2 20:00:02 2007 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Mon Jul 2 20:00:10 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: References: <38625876-2861-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> Message-ID: <47BFAE4A-9F99-4A31-80CD-C711702D695D@kreme.com> On 2-Jul-2007, at 06:52, Charlton Wilbur wrote: > It is impossible to profit from GPL-licensed software directly; That's pretty much the entire ethos of the GPL. > you can sell the first copy for as much as you like, but the > purchaser can turn around and *give* the software away, completely > legally. It is *designed* to do this, and it's foolish to pretend > otherwise. Who's pretending otherwise? It's the people who are claiming that the BSD license is "just like GPL, only better" that are pretending. > Wise people who want to profit from their code directly (and not > from support contracts for their code) don't release it under an > open source license in the first place, or produce a legal hedge > such as MySQL's approach, where the GPL doesn't apply if it's for > commercial redistribution. Not everyone feels the need to profit from their code. There are plenty of ways to make money with OSS, it just happens that coding is not, directly, one of them. >> The alternative, if you want to maintain control over your IP, is >> of course the traditional approach where you don't publish >> anything. Should I presume those who call the GPL 'communist' or >> 'anti-competitive' because of its restrictions have a similar >> attitude to developers who don't publish their source code? > > If you want to maintain control over your code, you don't release > it under any open source licence. Once it's released, you retain > just as much control over the IP with the BSD or MIT license, That patently false, because the BSD license allows someone to package your code and SELL IT. > and the choice of licenses determines how much you control over > other people's IP in the form of works derivative to yours. The > fact that the FSF has managed to redefine "free" in such a way that > the GPL, with all its restrictions on how subsequent users may use > the licensed code, is considered more "free" than the BSD or MIT > license is a triumph of propaganda over clear thought. It's because with the GPL it is the CODE that is free, with the BSD/ MIT licenses it is the CODER who is free. The GPL is designed to ensure that the code is always free once designated as free. It's the only license that does that. It also ensures that changes tot he code are also FREE and freely available. It's a huge difference. Personally, I think I prefer free CODE to free CODERS. -- I want a refund, I want a light, I want a reason for all this night after night after night after night From henry at trilithon.com Mon Jul 2 21:48:15 2007 From: henry at trilithon.com (Henry McGilton) Date: Mon Jul 2 21:49:00 2007 Subject: Safari 3 Beta Crashing Printing PDF Message-ID: Don't know if anybody has seen this one. You get a PDF from the web, or drag one from your file system. Safari 3 displays PDF. Select print, push OK, and Safari crashes. Here is a fix. I tried this and it seems to work okay. Cheers, ........ Henry ===============================+============================ Henry McGilton, Boulevardier | Trilithon Software Objective-C/Java Composer | Seroia Research -------------------------------+---------------------------- mailto:henry@trilithon.com | http://www.trilithon.com | ===============================+============================ From bentley at crenelle.com Tue Jul 3 00:46:26 2007 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Tue Jul 3 00:46:54 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <081363D1-0517-43DD-9389-33A2BFDE4933@kreme.com> References: <6556B39B-286F-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> <861C1E80-8F77-4074-8583-4D3B858C6078@objectwerks.com> <028653D5-A8C6-4129-9CB1-9155A1B75454@objectwerks.com> <081363D1-0517-43DD-9389-33A2BFDE4933@kreme.com> Message-ID: LuKreme says: >And you base this one what, exactly? there were _NO_ C compilers >that were freely available before gcc, and no evidence whatsoever >that there ever would have been. GCC work was started around 1985, and was started using another compiler system for a bootstrap. I also believe there was a portable C compiler out there during the early 80s that Stallman may or may not have known about. -m http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/gnu/bull/01/bull01.txt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- February 1986 G N U ' S B U L L E T I N Volume 1 No.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Gnu Status by Richard M. Stallman 4. C compiler Although I have a portable C and Pascal compiler, it has a serious drawback: it is a very large program, and intrinsically cannot be made smaller. It is also very hard to bootstrap. The problem is that most of the compiler is written in Pastel, a super-hairy extended Pascal, and it is also the sole compiler for that language. To make it smaller, we must eliminate the hair needed to compile Pastel; then we will not be able to compile Pastel, so it must all be rewritten into C. From kremels at kreme.com Tue Jul 3 04:08:50 2007 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Tue Jul 3 04:09:04 2007 Subject: Your iPhone Coolness Factor In-Reply-To: <3A11A157-E6DF-437F-9137-B767EA636E87@trilithon.com> References: <1183069718.4929.266.camel@localhost> <5B2AC469-4679-4D1D-B59A-34F092004847@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <50A1AC90-8956-4400-9644-C838B392A7B6@mac.com> <5FCED56B-2614-406A-B7DF-DC49D1CE9723@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <977CD745-9786-473D-9163-89A8A00DD6A7@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <70C91F67-FE92-47CE-A2F0-2E1117C1C307@kreme.com> <38AFB5E4-996E-451A-B49E-A17405B38651@kreme.com> <85A13935-6707-4D43-B745-D2139C52483D@gmail.com> <838AF705-614A-46C0-8ABB-C17AD265C014@gmail.com> <000AB3F2-C517-4CFA-B64A-044D65BD12F3@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <7A1EBDBC-C358-47CA-9A2C-5AF419EE14F7@kreme.com> <35E82D1A-7D13-4841-9112-2C593D701A9D@mac.com> <3A11A157-E6DF-437F-9137-B767EA636E87@trilithon.com> Message-ID: On 2-Jul-2007, at 20:03, Henry McGilton wrote: >> http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/exclusive/your-iphone-coolness- >> factor-274336.php > > Hmmmmmm . . . Safari 3 beta shows a completely blank page, > doing View Source shows a blank document, and saving the > source from Safari saves a completely empty document . . . Safari3 is seriously borked then. -- Naked blonde walks into a bar with a poodle under one arm, and a two- foot salami under the other. The bartender says, I guess you won't be needing a drink. Naked lady says? From lomion at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 05:05:18 2007 From: lomion at gmail.com (Lawrence Sica) Date: Tue Jul 3 05:05:42 2007 Subject: Your iPhone Coolness Factor In-Reply-To: References: <1183069718.4929.266.camel@localhost> <5B2AC469-4679-4D1D-B59A-34F092004847@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <50A1AC90-8956-4400-9644-C838B392A7B6@mac.com> <5FCED56B-2614-406A-B7DF-DC49D1CE9723@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <977CD745-9786-473D-9163-89A8A00DD6A7@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <70C91F67-FE92-47CE-A2F0-2E1117C1C307@kreme.com> <38AFB5E4-996E-451A-B49E-A17405B38651@kreme.com> <85A13935-6707-4D43-B745-D2139C52483D@gmail.com> <838AF705-614A-46C0-8ABB-C17AD265C014@gmail.com> <000AB3F2-C517-4CFA-B64A-044D65BD12F3@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <7A1EBDBC-C358-47CA-9A2C-5AF419EE14F7@kreme.com> <35E82D1A-7D13-4841-9112-2C593D701A9D@mac.com> <3A11A157-E6DF-437F-9137-B767EA636E87@trilithon.com> Message-ID: On Jul 3, 2007, at 7:08 AM, LuKreme wrote: > On 2-Jul-2007, at 20:03, Henry McGilton wrote: >>> http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/exclusive/your-iphone-coolness- >>> factor-274336.php >> >> Hmmmmmm . . . Safari 3 beta shows a completely blank page, >> doing View Source shows a blank document, and saving the >> source from Safari saves a completely empty document . . . > > Safari3 is seriously borked then. > Works here on safari 3. Damn betas. --Larry From lomion at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 05:09:18 2007 From: lomion at gmail.com (Lawrence Sica) Date: Tue Jul 3 05:09:42 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <47BFAE4A-9F99-4A31-80CD-C711702D695D@kreme.com> References: <38625876-2861-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> <47BFAE4A-9F99-4A31-80CD-C711702D695D@kreme.com> Message-ID: <767533BC-7D58-46FF-B07F-90D5BAA79B23@gmail.com> On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:00 PM, LuKreme wrote: >> > > That patently false, because the BSD license allows someone to > package your code and SELL IT. You still own your source. That is the point. They cannot take the source you created from you. That is the point of the BSDL and MIT style licenses. You own your code, but let anyone do whatever they want with it. --Larry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20070703/3d5cb27b/attachment.html From lomion at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 05:14:37 2007 From: lomion at gmail.com (Lawrence Sica) Date: Tue Jul 3 05:14:58 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: References: <6556B39B-286F-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> <861C1E80-8F77-4074-8583-4D3B858C6078@objectwerks.com> <028653D5-A8C6-4129-9CB1-9155A1B75454@objectwerks.com> <081363D1-0517-43DD-9389-33A2BFDE4933@kreme.com> Message-ID: On Jul 3, 2007, at 3:46 AM, Michael Brian Bentley wrote: > LuKreme says: > >> And you base this one what, exactly? there were _NO_ C compilers >> that were freely available before gcc, and no evidence whatsoever >> that there ever would have been. > > GCC work was started around 1985, and was started using another > compiler system for a bootstrap. > > I also believe there was a portable C compiler out there during the > early 80s that Stallman may or may not have known about. > The first compilers were actually free. The first commercial compiler was based on DMR, Dennis Ritchie's compiler IIRC. PCC was the portable compiler you are thinking of I think. It replaced DMR. --Larry From cwilbur at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 07:20:12 2007 From: cwilbur at gmail.com (Charlton Wilbur) Date: Tue Jul 3 07:20:17 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <47BFAE4A-9F99-4A31-80CD-C711702D695D@kreme.com> References: <38625876-2861-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> <47BFAE4A-9F99-4A31-80CD-C711702D695D@kreme.com> Message-ID: On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:00 PM, LuKreme wrote: > On 2-Jul-2007, at 06:52, Charlton Wilbur wrote: >> It is impossible to profit from GPL-licensed software directly; > > That's pretty much the entire ethos of the GPL. > >> you can sell the first copy for as much as you like, but the >> purchaser can turn around and *give* the software away, completely >> legally. It is *designed* to do this, and it's foolish to pretend >> otherwise. > > Who's pretending otherwise? It's the people who are claiming that > the BSD license is "just like GPL, only better" that are pretending. The people, including the one to whom I replied, who are trying to claim that the GPL makes any kind of sense for profit-seeking capitalists. >> Wise people who want to profit from their code directly (and not >> from support contracts for their code) don't release it under an >> open source license in the first place, or produce a legal hedge >> such as MySQL's approach, where the GPL doesn't apply if it's for >> commercial redistribution. > > Not everyone feels the need to profit from their code. There are > plenty of ways to make money with OSS, it just happens that coding > is not, directly, one of them. This is not in dispute; that's why I included the restrictive clause "who want to profit from their code directly." And it doesn't "just happen" that the GPL destroyed the practical ability to sell software; that was part of the intent, and as you note, "pretty much the entire ethos of the GPL." On the other hand, and on-topic for this list, Apple makes a great deal of money from OSS. Just not GPL'd OSS. >> If you want to maintain control over your code, you don't release >> it under any open source licence. Once it's released, you retain >> just as much control over the IP with the BSD or MIT license, > > That patently false, because the BSD license allows someone to > package your code and SELL IT. Where the GPL somehow prevents this? I can package GPL code any way I like and ask for any price I want for it. I could, without violating the GPL, burn CDs of Fedora Core Linux and sell them for $1,500 on eBay. Nothing prevents me from doing this, or from some idiot out there from buying it. If I include the source code and a copy of the GPL, I'm covered. Of course, it would take a real idiot to *pay* $1500 for a copy of Fedora Core Linux when he can download it for the cost of bandwidth or buy it on a CD for the cost of the media, but that's beside the point. Also, that aspect of the BSD license is considered a *feature* by its proponents -- much the same way that the viral nature of the GPL is considered a feature by its proponents. The demonstration was provided by someone else in this thread, and runs like this: Suppose Joe produces a chunk of code to do something useful, and releases it under the BSD license. Megacorp Inc. takes that code, spends a couple thousand dollars of programmer-time to put a pretty UI on it, and releases it as an app for $100. If Joe's code is the valuable part in the eyes of the buyer, and Megacorp Inc. hasn't added anything of value, then people can get his code for free. (Nothing Megacorp Inc. did made Joe's original code any less free.) If the UI or the packaging and redistribution is the valuable part in the eyes of the buyer, then Megacorp is making the money from it, as it should for having done the valuable work. And had it been licensed under the GPL, which intentionally destroys the practial ability to sell software, there's no way for Megacorp to recoup the money it spent on development, and so Joe's code, had it been GPL'd, would have languished in relative obscurity. There's a direct relationship between licensing terms and the difference in usability between OS X and Linux. >> and the choice of licenses determines how much you control over >> other people's IP in the form of works derivative to yours. The >> fact that the FSF has managed to redefine "free" in such a way >> that the GPL, with all its restrictions on how subsequent users >> may use the licensed code, is considered more "free" than the BSD >> or MIT license is a triumph of propaganda over clear thought. > > It's because with the GPL it is the CODE that is free, with the BSD/ > MIT licenses it is the CODER who is free. The GPL is designed to > ensure that the code is always free once designated as free. It's > the only license that does that. It also ensures that changes tot > he code are also FREE and freely available. > > It's a huge difference. Personally, I think I prefer free CODE to > free CODERS. Non-coders frequently do, because it means they get something for nothing. Coders, on the other hand, frequently find that the GPL reduces their value to precisely what they can sell their code for. My viewpoint on GPL vs. BSD changed when I left college and had to support myself from my work. Without coders, you have no code. Frankly, this whole thread isn't about whether the GPL or the BSD is clearly better. I don't care whether you like the GPL more; for anyone who isn't a coder, and who's happy with the level of usability and polish offered by the Linux desktop (or who optimistically believes that, contrary to every "year of the Linux desktop" in the past decade, *this* will be the year that Linux gets its act together and produces a usable desktop), supporting the GPL is a no-brainer. But I do care about historical revisionism ("the GPL was the first open source license"), historical fantasizing ("without the GPL, we'd have no open source licenses or open source software today"), and outright nuttery (referring to using BSD-licensed code as "theft"). The historical record does not support the first two assertions, and the last assertion doesn't support itself; it *is* possible to be a GPL advocate without rewriting history or redefining "theft" and "freedom" in GPL-specific terms. Charlton -- Charlton Wilbur cwilbur@gmail.com cwilbur@chromatico.net From fusion at mx6.tiki.ne.jp Tue Jul 3 07:29:33 2007 From: fusion at mx6.tiki.ne.jp (Jean-Christophe Helary) Date: Tue Jul 3 07:29:47 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: References: <38625876-2861-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> <47BFAE4A-9F99-4A31-80CD-C711702D695D@kreme.com> Message-ID: <4A5FEBDD-4EF6-4E0D-843E-0BD8A96A2882@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> On 3 juil. 07, at 23:20, Charlton Wilbur wrote: > Suppose Joe produces a chunk of code to do something useful, and > releases it under the BSD license. Megacorp Inc. takes that code, > spends a couple thousand dollars of programmer-time to put a pretty > UI on it, and releases it as an app for $100. > > If Joe's code is the valuable part in the eyes of the buyer, and > Megacorp Inc. hasn't added anything of value, then people can get > his code for free. (Nothing Megacorp Inc. did made Joe's original > code any less free.) Think Kerberos and the way it has been modified by Microsoft to ruin the efforts of the community to have a vendor neutral protocol. Was it added value ? No, it was just distorting the original so that nobody would use it anymore. Was that innovation ? No, it was stealing, plain and simple. Obviously the Kerberos developers with their MIT license had not considered the consequences of their move... Jean-Christophe Helary From dp.chaoswerks at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 08:20:51 2007 From: dp.chaoswerks at gmail.com (David P. Henderson) Date: Tue Jul 3 08:20:59 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <4A5FEBDD-4EF6-4E0D-843E-0BD8A96A2882@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> References: <38625876-2861-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> <47BFAE4A-9F99-4A31-80CD-C711702D695D@kreme.com> <4A5FEBDD-4EF6-4E0D-843E-0BD8A96A2882@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> Message-ID: <902DA801-2025-4A58-9D25-C100F89087D5@gmail.com> On 03 Jul 2007, at 10:29, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote: > Think Kerberos and the way it has been modified by Microsoft to > ruin the efforts of the community to have a vendor neutral protocol. > > Was it added value ? No, it was just distorting the original so > that nobody would use it anymore. Was that innovation ? No, it was > stealing, plain and simple. > > Obviously the Kerberos developers with their MIT license had not > considered the consequences of their move... How exactly would the GPL have stopped MS from doing this to Kerberos. There have been many complaints from the KHTML community that Apple did exactly this when it adopted KHTML for use in Web Kit. And there was absolutely nothing the KHTML creators could do to stop Apple since it followed the letter of the license. All code bases under open source licenses can be readily abused intentionally or not without violating the terms of the license. Continuing to use phrases like "steal," "stealing," and "theft" with regard to licenses which approximate public domain make you sound like a marxist chanting, "property is theft." Dave -- Chaoswerks Design "The proper office of a friend is to side with you when you are in the wrong. Nearly anybody will side with you when you are in the right." - Mark Twain From pcoskren at mac.com Tue Jul 3 08:26:09 2007 From: pcoskren at mac.com (Patrick Coskren) Date: Tue Jul 3 08:26:17 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <47BFAE4A-9F99-4A31-80CD-C711702D695D@kreme.com> References: <38625876-2861-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> <47BFAE4A-9F99-4A31-80CD-C711702D695D@kreme.com> Message-ID: <7A7C1979-0113-1000-BC02-837C187D093A-Webmail-10009@mac.com> On Monday, July 02, 2007, at 11:00PM, "LuKreme" wrote: >It's because with the GPL it is the CODE that is free, with the BSD/ >MIT licenses it is the CODER who is free. The GPL is designed to >ensure that the code is always free once designated as free. It's >the only license that does that. It also ensures that changes tot he >code are also FREE and freely available. > >It's a huge difference. Personally, I think I prefer free CODE to >free CODERS. That's the crux of the issue right there. It's a misuse of the word "free". "Freedom", assuming we don't mean "free as in beer", is the ability to make choices. Only a human can be free. Code cannot be free. Code *can* be kept freely usable (note the passive), or free-as-in-beer, but only by restricting the freedom of other people to use it. GPL says, "you can use my code, but only in the way I say you can". And that's *fine*. To repeat my position: I've got no problem with the GPL per se. If people write code, they can release it under any license they want, including a restrictive one that ensures the code remains freely usable and free-as-in-beer. Where I get annoyed is when they pretend this is about "freedom" the abstract concept, which it simply is not. The GPL is an open source license, but it is not, in any way, about freedom. I wish they'd get off their damned high-horse about it. -Patrick From fusion at mx6.tiki.ne.jp Tue Jul 3 08:34:04 2007 From: fusion at mx6.tiki.ne.jp (Jean-Christophe Helary) Date: Tue Jul 3 08:34:10 2007 Subject: iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them In-Reply-To: <902DA801-2025-4A58-9D25-C100F89087D5@gmail.com> References: <38625876-2861-11DC-9521-0003931D89F6@fastmail.fm> <47BFAE4A-9F99-4A31-80CD-C711702D695D@kreme.com> <4A5FEBDD-4EF6-4E0D-843E-0BD8A96A2882@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <902DA801-2025-4A58-9D25-C100F89087D5@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 4 juil. 07, at 00:20, David P. Henderson wrote: > On 03 Jul 2007, at 10:29, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote: > >> Think Kerberos and the way it has been modified by Microsoft to >> ruin the efforts of the community to have a vendor neutral protocol. >> >> Was it added value ? No, it was just distorting the original so >> that nobody would use it anymore. Was that innovation ? No, it was >> stealing, plain and simple. >> >> Obviously the Kerberos developers with their MIT license had not >> considered the consequences of their move... > > How exactly would the GPL have stopped MS from doing this to Kerberos. Figure it out yourself... > There have been many complaints from the KHTML community that Apple > did exactly this when it adopted KHTML for use in Web Kit. And > there was absolutely nothing the KHTML creators could do to stop > Apple since it followed the letter of the license. How can you know since there is no code audit possible ? Not that I am suspecting Apple of wrongdoi