ru.linux

 
 - RU.LINUX ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 From : Sergey Lentsov                       2:4615/71.10   19 Apr 2002  21:20:32
 To : All
 Subject : URL: http://www.lwn.net/2002/0418/letters.php3
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 

    [1][LWN Logo] 
    [LWN.net]
 
    Sections:
     [2]Main page
     [3]Security
     [4]Kernel
     [5]Distributions
     [6]Development
     [7]Commerce
     [8]Linux in the news
     [9]Announcements
     Letters
    [10]All in one big page
 
    See also: [11]last week's Letters page.
 
 Letters to the editor
 
    Letters to the editor should be sent to [12]letters@lwn.net.
    Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and
    well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some
    way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against
    anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them.
    April 18, 2002
 From:    Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: iSCSI and patents
 Date:    Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:00:45 -0600 (MDT)
 
 Dear Editor
 
 Tom Wu in a letter on April 1 takes issue that the statement that SRP
 "appears to be covered" by three patents.  However, when we look at
 his version of the facts, it is not entirely different.  Wu tells us
 that Lucent "has not asserted" a claim, but that doesn't mean it won't
 do so later.  Lucent could be hanging back so that SRP will be
 accepted a standard, and planning to attack its users once they are
 hooked, much as Unisys did with GIF format.  Phoenix says its patent
 "may" apply to SRP.  Unless we have reason to be sure it does not,
 that is reason aplenty to consider SRP a booby trap.
 
 Wu clearly wants his work on SRP to be a contribution to human
 knowledge and available for unrestricted use.  The tragedy of software
 patents is that they don't allow him to contribute: his work can be
 privatized by others, and there is nothing he can do to protect it
 from patents.
 
 In his wish for his contribution to be of service, he faces the
 temptation to believe that it is safe, so he argues that a mere
 possibility (rather than a likelihood) of a patent problem is not
 cause for real alarm.  Believe this at your peril!  A chance that
 patents cover a protocol is like a chance that food has salmonella:
 don't find out by eating it!
 
 Of course, any protocol might perhaps be patented, just as any piece
 of food might perhaps be poisoned; safety is never guaranteed.  But
 when you see a specific reason to doubt the safety of a particular
 piece of food, you wouldn't risk it.  Likewise, if a protocol is
 menaced by a known patent, it must not be part of a standard.  We must
 speak with a firm voice, telling the iSCSI committee that SRP must be
 optional and no more.  We must insist on free standards also for web
 services, and for every area of computing.  Any company that wants to
 be a friend of the free software community should take a clear stand
 for patent-free standards.
 
 Please take a look at www.programming-freedom.org and www.ffii.org,
 and please join the campaign against software patents--in Europe,
 and elsewhere.
 Sincerely
 
 Richard Stallman
 Founder of the Free Software Movement (www.gnu.org/why-free.html)
 Initiator of the GNU/Linux operating system
   ([13]http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html)
 From:    bryanh@giraffe-data.com (Bryan Henderson)
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: The right to the fruits of one's ideas
 Date:    Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:25:07 +0000
 
 A letter in the April 11 LWN talks about the need for private property
 and the moral right of a free person to profit from his
 labor or inventions to the full extent that the market will bear.
 
 The writer says
 
   Patents, copyrights and trade secret protections are a cornerstone
   of modern Western civilization.  ... The founders of the United
   States felt the issue was sufficiently important to put it in the
   Constitution."
 
 Because the US Constitution is usually associated with its guarantees
 of individual rights, this statement could be misleading.  The reference
 is to a part of the Constitution that defines the powers of Congress, not
 that defines rights of citizens.  It reads,
 
   The Congress shall have the power...  To promote the progress of
   science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors
   and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and
   discoveries;
 
 What this means is that Congress can, where it sees fit, create
 patents and copyrights and such.  It doesn't mean Congress has to
 create patents or that anyone has a right to one.  In fact, in "for a
 limited time," it goes exactly the other way -- preserving the right
 of people to sponge off other peoples' work.
 
 People like Richard Stallman who hate what intellectual property law
 has become don't think there should be no (private) intellectual
 property.  They just don't think it should be distributed the way it is
 today.
 
 For example, if a patent allows an inventor just enough exclusive use
 that inventing the thing and telling the world about it are
 worthwhile, but beyond that allows everyone free use of the invention,
 it's done it's job to "promote the progress of science and useful
 arts."  It isn't necessary for the inventor to get rich off his great
 idea.
 
 --
 Bryan Henderson                                    Phone 408-621-2000
 San Jose, California
 From:    Dan Stromberg <strombrg@nis.acs.uci.edu>
 To:      lwn@lwn.net
 Subject: RAND
 Date:    Thu, 11 Apr 2002 08:03:31 -0700
 
 IMO, the biggest problem with RAND licensing isn't that it's
 unreasonable to exclude Free Software as it does (I don't like it, but
 that's big business' prerogative); it's that the acronym itself makes it
 sound as though it isn't discriminatory, while it is very much so.
 
 --
 Dan Stromberg                                               UCI/NACS/DCS
 From:    Nick LeRoy <nleroy@cs.wisc.edu>
 To:      corporate.communications@gateway.com
 Subject: Gateway's Consumer Advocacy Campaign
 Date:    Fri, 12 Apr 2002 21:34:25 -0500
 Cc:      letters@lwn.net
 
 Ted Waitt, CEO
 
 Dear Mr. Waitt:
 
 I would like to take a minute and personally thank you for standing up to
 Hollywood for consumer's rights.  It's great to have you on our side!
 
 I'd also like to let you know that next time that I'm shopping for computer
 equipment, Gateway will be my first stop.
 
 Thanks again!!
 
 -Nick
 From:    Kay Hayen <kayhayen@gmx.de>
 To:      lwn@lwn.net
 Subject: http://www.lwn.net/daily/perens-robertson.php3
 Date:    Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:52:58 +0200
 Cc:      bruce@perens.com
 Bruce,
 
 gratulations for a well-done rebuttal of the Robertson letter, but your
 comment "my surmise is that over the long term a non-profit like Debian
 supported by hardware manufacturers and other businesses will work best. But
 I'd be delighted to see you prove me wrong. "
 
 I agree with that Debian will win in the end. I do not agree with the reason
 you seem to give, calling Debian "non-profit".
 
 To me, this is more like the question of wether a closed system of a company
 that does not share with others can win over an open system like Debian where
 everybody can contribute to their own benefit.
 
 If companies want to make Suse or Redhat support their system or make it go
 in a certain direction, they need to give them money. With Debian this is not
 needed, but instead companies like HP can provide their skills to improve the
 system.
 
 So, like Free Software wins over proprietary software, the open system, I dare
 say, the Free Debian, is going to win over the closed systems that exist so
 far.
 
 I do not necessarily think an open system needs to be non-profit. I believe
 there is at least one effort to make profit in an open system company.
 
 Yours, Kay Hayen
 From:    joey tsai <joeytsai@corban.resnet.gatech.edu>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: waiting for a configuration system in 2.5
 Date:    Thu, 11 Apr 2002 01:29:02 -0400
 
 With this week's announcement of Keith Owens kbuild 2.5
 ([14]http://lwn.net/2002/0411/kernel.php3) I remembered ESR's CML2, last
 mentioned during a flamewar ([15]http://lwn.net/2002/0221/kernel.php3).
 While Guillaume Boissiere 2.5 status still shows CML2 as "Ready" the
 last CML2 update released was weeks ago.  Were the many flamewars and
 its long non-inclusion in the kernel nails in its coffin?
 
 I was looking forward to the new configuration system, but I certainly
 understood the hostility some developers had against it.  I figured
 (probably like Eric) that any obstacles would be eventually overcome,
 though.
 
 Many times when I'm programming, I have "gut feelings" about whether I'm
 approaching the solution correctly or not.  And the more I thought about
 CML2, the more I tended to agree with the dissenters, it was simply a
 huge overkill.  The fact is that though it certainly has warts, the
 configuration system works improperly only for a small number of cases.
 
 I still think that the kernel needs a better configuration system, but
 right now it doesn't appear to be CML2.  Unfortunately, there is no
 other feasible option ready now, so we may have to continue waiting.
 
 --
            |  PHILANTHROPIST, n.  A rich (and usually bald) old gentleman who
  joey tsai |  has trained himself to grin while his conscience is picking his
            |  pocket.
            |                       -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
 From:    Emile Snyder <esnyder@whitesalmon.net>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: RMS, property, and freedom
 Date:    Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:52:39 -0700
 Cc:      alternativept@yahoo.com
 
 In last weeks edition Mr. David Walker wrote a letter responding to an
 interview with Richard Stallman that LWN conducted.  I believe that by
 conflating two very different kinds of property laws Mr. Walker
 fundamentally misunderstands Mr. Stallman's points.
 
 He asserts that "In the world of computing, Mr. Stallman says that a
 programmer who goes to school and thinks up a unique, marketable hack
 must give it away."  And later that "In fact, there is no freedom
 without private property.  Freedom starts with the absolute ownership
 of your own body and your own labor."
 
 In taking this position Mr. Walker ignores the fundamental distinction
 in kind between physical property, and so called intellectual
 property.  Namely, the non-replicable nature of physical stuff; if I
 have a sandwich and I sell it to you, I can't eat it, it's gone.
 Contrast this with digital information distribution where we can all,
 so to speak, eat the same sandwich.  Physical property law is intended
 to advance a particular social good: that individuals need not fear
 being *deprived* of physical stuff; you can't just take my sandwich
 and leave me with nothing.  Copyright and patent law (in the US at
 least) is intended to advance a very different social good: "To
 promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (US Constitution,
 Section 8, Clause 8).  Ie., the problem is "how do we motivate people to
 create interesting ideas/books/music" and the particular answer chosen
 is "grant them an artificial limited monopoly over reproduction."
 
 Mr. Stallman's (consistent) position in regards to software is that
 copyright and patent law fails in this "promotion of the arts and
 sciences" goal, and that other social goods which are more important
 are harmed by the application of copyright and patent law to software
 production and distribution.  However, Mr. Walker's letter appeals to
 a conception of intellectual property as basically interchangeable
 with physical property, as when he says
 
 "In a free society if a guy writes a program, it is his.  He can sell
 it or give it away as the spirit moves him."
 
 But the FSF and Mr. Stallman have never argued otherwise.  They have
 only pointed out the social harm in then punishing the buyer from
 giving away copies to his/her friends and neighbors.  This is why the
 physical/informational distinction is at the crux of the issue.  One
 may disagree with RMS's analysis of the failings of copyright law,
 but it is irresponsible to impugn his position based on specious
 analogy to physical property law.
 
 Regards,
 Emile Snyder
 From:    Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel@free.fr>
 To:      David Walker <alternativept@yahoo.com>
 Subject: Re:
 Date:    11 Apr 2002 15:45:38 +0200
 Cc:      letters@lwn.net
 
 David Walker wrote:
 
 > It would appear from these quotes that Mr. Stallman does not think people
 > should be allowed to make money from their own labor, but should "donate"
 > it to the common good or have it taken from them.
 >
 > As a health professional (physical therapist), I am familiar with this
 > thinking.  There are many who contend that health care should be a "human
 > right", available to all at no cost.  Nice idea until you get to the part
 > where I must work for free.  Health care is a service, not a right.
 > Otherwise, who will pay for my lunch?
 
 Just try to think out of the box. Here in France, everyone has nearly
 free access to health care, and rest assured that therapists don't work
 for free at all ! They are generally very well paid, and are
 independant.
 
 Moreover your comparison doesn't work very well: GPL software can be
 written by professional and sold by companies. It just can't be
 proprietary.
 
 Cheers,
 
         Xav
 From:    Leon Brooks <leonb@cyberknights.com.au>
 To:      postmaster@amd.com
 Subject: Open Letter to Jerry Sanders
 Date:    Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:54:39 +0800
 Cc:      letters@lwn.net
 
 AN OPEN LETTER TO JERRY SANDERS [PLEASE FORWARD]
 
 Jerry Sanders,
 
 You appear to have made some critical mistakes which may impact AMD's image.
 
 In your testimony in the Microsoft monopolistic remedy trial, you said,
 (quoting [16]http://news.com.com/2100-1001-883701.html):
 
 > most non-Microsoft server operating systems only run on specialized
 > microprocessors,
 
 FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and Linux run on a wide variety of processors,
 including AMD's own architectures. Even Sun's Solaris will run on `Intel'
 (ie, Athlon etc) processors. Many of these operating systems will run on AMD
 processors which Microsoft do not support.
 
 > Sanders praised Microsoft for helping to bring standardization to the
 > computer industry. "Standardized platforms promote competition," he
 > asserted. The absence of this standardization "would diminish overall
 > competition as many software and hardware vendors would have to
 > decide which particular operating system(s) to target as a
 > development platform."
 
 I agree that standards provide for uniform interfaces and behaviour across a
 wide variety of platforms and systems, including many of those running AMD
 processors and support chips. Thus they support competition.
 
 Microsoft do not promote standards. Standards are called standards because
 they are freely available, and do not contain restrictions peculiar to one
 entity.
 
 The vast majority of Microsoft's software technologies are entirely
 proprietary, and where Microsoft do approach standards, their implementations
 (such as Kerberos, CIFS, Java, HTML, UniCode) are sufficiently non-standard
 that they do not successfully interoperate with standard systems.
 
 In short, Microsoft break standards. They `demote' them. Microsoft break
 standards, even their own defacto `standards', deliberately. Has anyone told
 you about `DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run'? How about `100% seems like a
 fair share [of the wordprocessor market] to me'?
 
 The enormous number of technical and semi-technical people who know about this
 and have to live with the consequences daily will notice a vast dichotomy
 between what actually happens, and what you are reported as having asserted
 in court.
 
 There are two obvious conclusions which follow from your words as quoted,
 pending the availability of background information to the contrary:
 
   (1) `this man is incompetent'; or
 
   (2) `this man is following a hidden agenda'.
 
 Now I know, and you know, that you didn't get to where you are by being a liar
 or a nitwit. But that won't stop people from coming to those conclusions.
 
 Neither of these understandings will help AMD's reputation. They will induce
 people in a position to dispense technical advice - which is where I sit - to
 recommend against AMD. That means recommending someone like Intel or Samsung.
 
 I don't want to do that, because Intel and Samsung need stiff competition to
 keep them honest and busy, and AMD is that competition. Please take steps to
 reassure me, and the many people like me, that either your statements have
 been misreported, or that the agenda behind them is genuinely in the public
 interest.
 
 Cheers; Leon
    [17]Eklektix, Inc. Linux powered! Copyright Л 2002 [18]Eklektix, Inc.,
    all rights reserved
    Linux (R) is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
 
 References
 
    1. http://lwn.net/
    2. http://lwn.net/2002/0418/
    3. http://lwn.net/2002/0418/security.php3
    4. http://lwn.net/2002/0418/kernel.php3
    5. http://lwn.net/2002/0418/dists.php3
    6. http://lwn.net/2002/0418/devel.php3
    7. http://lwn.net/2002/0418/commerce.php3
    8. http://lwn.net/2002/0418/press.php3
    9. http://lwn.net/2002/0418/announce.php3
   10. http://lwn.net/2002/0418/bigpage.php3
   11. http://lwn.net/2002/0411/letters.php3
   12. mailto:letters@lwn.net
   13. http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html
   14. http://lwn.net/2002/0411/kernel.php3
   15. http://lwn.net/2002/0221/kernel.php3
   16. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-883701.html
   17. http://www.eklektix.com/
   18. http://www.eklektix.com/
 
 --- ifmail v.2.14.os7-aks1
  * Origin: Unknown (2:4615/71.10@fidonet)
 
 

Вернуться к списку тем, сортированных по: возрастание даты  уменьшение даты  тема  автор