headers
Andre Majorel | 4 Aug 2007 14:41
Favicon

NUL-terminated lines : -0, -z or -Z ?

Some GNU utilities use -0 to specify NUL-terminated lines
(locate, xargs), some use -z (sort) and grep uses both -z and
-Z. Does the GNU project have a rationale as to which is
preferred ?

--

-- 
André Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
(Counterfeit: qylijyg <at> watchesbazaar.com idaxof <at> naomi.com)
"Duty, honor, country" -- Douglas MacArthur
"Travail, famille, patrie" -- Philippe Pétain
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Andre Majorel | 5 Aug 2007 12:08
Favicon

Option to look inside special files

Is there any kind of standard on the name of an option to look
inside special files ?

Historically, cp -r did that. GNU cp uses --copy-contents. GNU
file uses -s/--special-files.

--

-- 
André Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
(Counterfeit: nesuk <at> nostril.com ytijerel <at> bigelow.com)
"Duty, honor, country" -- Douglas MacArthur
"Travail, famille, patrie" -- Philippe Pétain
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
mike3 | 12 Aug 2007 04:23
Picon
Favicon

Another GNU License Question

Hi.

I've got more questions about the GNU License and I couldn't find an
answer in the FAQs. I noticed the following unsettling passage in the
GNU GPL, version 3, in "Section 2: Basic Permissions":

"Those thus making or running the covered works
for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction
and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of
your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you."

Does this mean then that the GPL is telling me I must restrict my own
copyrighted material in some way? Ie. it's telling me I have to do
things with *my* stuff? What if I want to make my copyrighted material
FREE as in LIBRE so they CAN make copies of MY material WAY outside
their relationship with me? It's MY material, after all. Or am I
missing something here?
Permalink | Reply | 21 comments |
headers
mike3 | 12 Aug 2007 04:41
Picon
Favicon

Re: Is it OK to use my rewritten GNU program commercially?

On Jul 13, 10:31 pm, Inventor <Inventor... <at> comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have released my sports prediction software under the GNU GPL, folks
> are using it, and I plan to add the latest features for a 'final'
> release.  The first version is a klugy hodgepodge of code with only a
> command line interface, and now that I am learning the beginnings of
> OOP and CGI, I am rewriting the program from scratch with a web front-
> end.  The new code will have the same algorithm as the old code, but
> is completely new in every other way.
>
> My friend wants to possibly commercialize the new code someday,
> setting up a web page and charging for either access or software or
> datafeed.  Now, i'm fairly sure we could charge for datafeed since
> that is not the program, just the data for the program, but could we
> charge for access or software of the new program?  I would keep the
> old program on the web for free in any case.
>
> Is it OK to commercialize the new rewritten version, or have I given
> that away for free as well?  Also, is it OK that we would have a free
> command line version and a paid web version, or is that just plain
> wrong to do?  I think it's OK because the new program is totally new,
> but i thought I'd ask wiser folks to be sure.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Inventor

As long as all the code in the program is your own original work you
can do whatever the heck you please with it -- that's why it's
called copyRIGHT as in you have a legal right to do that.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
mike3 | 12 Aug 2007 04:45
Picon
Favicon

Re: Why distrust M$, but trust Sun?

On Jul 25, 4:39 pm, plenty... <at> yahoo.com wrote:
> It has been my observation that most of the Linux users
> that I have encountered tend to use OpenOffice, which is
> a Sun Microsystems product. It's a decent product, too.
> It works well and probably better than KOffice. But
> it occurred to me recently, what is to keep Sun from
> putting spyware in OpenOffice, for instance on behalf
> of the NSA? Are they an especially ethical company?
> (Is any?) Astute observers of corporate America have
> seen in recent times a series of tech companies that proved
> willing to assist with current administration's agenda
> or the RIAA/MPAA agenda. And what better way to
> infiltrate an otherwise hard to enter area such as
> Linux users' personal PCs than to sneak some code
> into an OpenOffice binary? Even if users encrypt their
> drives, the baddies would still get access. And, as everyone
> knows, the more bloated the software, the less likely
> people are to download the sources and compile it for
> themselves. (Not all distros come with OO.)

Open source means that everyone can see it so if you
compromise something everyone can see it. Open source
software is MORE secure, not less, than closed source.
Security through obscurity is a dangerous myth. Open
source allows people to see it and with more eyes looking
at it more bugs and flaws can be found, and hence
corrected, making the security even greater.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John Hasler | 12 Aug 2007 05:09

Re: Another GNU License Question

mike3 writes:
> Or am I missing something here?

Yes.  The license does not apply to you, the author.  It describes the
privileges that you are granting to those who receive copies from you
(directly or indirectly).  It places no limits on what you do with your own
work (nor could it if it wanted to).
--

-- 
John Hasler 
john <at> dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Permalink | Reply | 20 comments |
headers
mike3 | 12 Aug 2007 05:46
Picon
Favicon

Re: Another GNU License Question

On Aug 11, 9:09 pm, John Hasler <j... <at> dhh.gt.org> wrote:
> mike3 writes:
> > Or am I missing something here?
>
> Yes.  The license does not apply to you, the author.  It describes the
> privileges that you are granting to those who receive copies from you
> (directly or indirectly).  It places no limits on what you do with your own
> work (nor could it if it wanted to).

So then the "you" there refers to "you the user", not "you the
author".
The GNU License is addressed to the user, not the author, and not
from the view of a spectator watching the user/author thingy, as it is
an _end-user_ license agreement. An agreement the _end user_
signs to use the free software.

Is this right?

What exactly then is being said in the quoted passage?

> --
> John Hasler
> j... <at> dhh.gt.org
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, WI USA
Permalink | Reply | 19 comments |
headers
David Kastrup | 12 Aug 2007 09:24
X-Face
Picon
Picon

Re: Another GNU License Question

mike3 <mike4ty4 <at> yahoo.com> writes:

> What exactly then is being said in the quoted passage?

It defines "internal use", the situation where no distribution occurs.
For example, if you made a lot of changes to a GPL program by
inserting a bunch of private material, and then something breaks and
you hire a programmer to fix it.  This programmer does not have the
right to distribute your modified program to the world under the terms
of the GPL.

--

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
mike3 | 12 Aug 2007 10:18
Picon
Favicon

Re: Another GNU License Question

On Aug 12, 1:24 am, David Kastrup <d... <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> mike3 <mike4... <at> yahoo.com> writes:
> > What exactly then is being said in the quoted passage?
>
> It defines "internal use", the situation where no distribution occurs.
> For example, if you made a lot of changes to a GPL program by
> inserting a bunch of private material, and then something breaks and
> you hire a programmer to fix it.  This programmer does not have the
> right to distribute your modified program to the world under the terms
> of the GPL.
>

Oh, and the license is directed at this hired guy, then. But does the
terms under the GPL mean that _you_ cannot go and grant the hired
guy permission to distribute your program even if for some odd
reason you wanted to?

> --
> David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
mike3 | 12 Aug 2007 10:22
Picon
Favicon

Re: Is it OK to use my rewritten GNU program commercially?

On Jul 18, 7:16 am, rjack <rjack <at> com> wrote:
> Inventor wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > I have released my sports prediction software under the GNU GPL,
> > folks are using it, and I plan to add the latest features for a
> > 'final' release.  The first version is a klugy hodgepodge of code
> > with only a command line interface, and now that I am learning the
> > beginnings of OOP and CGI, I am rewriting the program from scratch
> > with a web front- end.  The new code will have the same algorithm as
> > the old code, but is completely new in every other way.
>
> > My friend wants to possibly commercialize the new code someday,
> > setting up a web page and charging for either access or software or
> > datafeed.  Now, i'm fairly sure we could charge for datafeed since
> > that is not the program, just the data for the program, but could we
> > charge for access or software of the new program?  I would keep the
> > old program on the web for free in any case.
>
> > Is it OK to commercialize the new rewritten version, or have I given
> > that away for free as well?  Also, is it OK that we would have a free
> >  command line version and a paid web version, or is that just plain
> > wrong to do?  I think it's OK because the new program is totally new,
> >  but i thought I'd ask wiser folks to be sure.
>
> > Thanks in advance, Inventor
>
> ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!!
>
> Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen now own your program, your wife and
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane