From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Thu, 29 Sep 94 02:13:19 EDT Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #841 Linux-Misc Digest #841, Volume #2 Thu, 29 Sep 94 02:13:19 EDT Contents: Thanks (was Linux Flame Bait - can't print) (Jon Nash) Re: SCO WordPerfect: does it run on Linux? (Marc Fraioli) Re: Maple V for Linux (DAVID L. JOHNSON) Re: Linux won't see printer (Joseph W. Vigneau) Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors (Russell Nelson) Re: where to get the texbook (Markus Reith) Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors ("Theodore Ts'o") Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors (Russell Nelson) Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors ("Theodore Ts'o") Linux goes commercial (Champ Clark) fvwm programming question (Jason Van Patten) Linux everywhere? (Thomas Gschwind) Re: Linux/FreeBSD ISDN support (Harald Milz) [ppp] (pp000547@interramp.com) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tesla@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Jon Nash) Subject: Thanks (was Linux Flame Bait - can't print) Date: 28 Sep 1994 15:44:46 -0600 Thanks to all who offered help to get my printer up and running. I tried to thank all of you individually, but may have missed someone. I must say that I found the Printing-HOWTO document most helpful. If all the HOWTO's are this well written I suggest every new user take a look! There's still a few things I don't understand, but things seem to work now! Thanks again for all the help. Sincerely, Jon Nash Tesla@Lamar.ColoState.EDU ------------------------------ From: mjf@clark.net (Marc Fraioli) Subject: Re: SCO WordPerfect: does it run on Linux? Date: 28 Sep 1994 21:53:13 GMT Reply-To: mjf@clark.net In article 4915@taylor.infi.net, mark@taylor.infi.net (Mark A. Davis) writes: >mjf@clark.net (Marc Fraioli) writes: > >>In article 24574@taylor.infi.net, mark@taylor.infi.net (Mark A. Davis) writes: >>>The text version flies at an incredible speed. The Xwindows version will >>>be similar to the Sun version. WordPerfect 5.1 was WordPerfect's first >>>attempt at X software, it is rather large and slow.... but usable. > >>I have WordPerfect 5.0 for X/Ultrix at work. It is ghastly. Quite >>probably the worst written piece of software I have ever seen. > >5.0 does not include an X version at all. Which means you are using the >text version. I do not understand your reaction at all. We have been using >WordPerfect for Unix since version 4.2. And the text version is very fast, >functional, mostly bug free, and very stable. The only major problems >I have seen with WordPerfect for Unix revolve around the 5.1 X version; >which I imagine most will be fixed in the 6.0 X version. > Nope, 5.0 does have an X version. I have seen it on SunOS, and use it nearly every day on Ultrix. Due to my constant exposure to it and great hatred for it, I am afraid you will be unable to convince me of its non-existence (although I wish it were so). 5.1-X is not too bad, but it is not available for Ultrix, which is what I have on my desk at work. --- Marc Fraioli | "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist- " mjf@clark.net | - Last words of Union General John Sedgwick, | Battle of Spotsylvania Court House, U.S. Civil War ------------------------------ From: dlj0@Lehigh.EDU (DAVID L. JOHNSON) Subject: Re: Maple V for Linux Date: 29 Sep 1994 01:46:06 GMT In article <369jag$rp@news.bu.edu>, spw@chamois.bu.edu (Steve Weibel) writes: > >For those of you interested, this is what I found out about Maple V for >Linux. Egads - $595(US)... > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message-Id: >Date: 27 Sep 1994 08:18:44 -0500 >From: "Stefanie Dietrich" >Subject: Re: FWD>Maple for Linux >To: "Steve Weibel" >X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP/QM 3.0.0 >Status: R > > Waterloo Maple Software RE>FWD>Maple for Linux > >Dear Steve, > >**************************************************************** > Maple V Release 3 and Linux >**************************************************************** >Thank you for your message indicating your interest in Maple for Linux. >Waterloo Maple Software has recently completed a port to the Linux operating >system and the product is now available for shipping. > >Maple was compiled under Linux kernel 1.0. Disk space use is standard >for a UNIX port: 30 MB. If the user is running X and xmaple, then 8 MB >of RAM are essential. > Actually, it does run with 4 meg RAM, if your want X that way. >The academic price for a single copy of Linux is $595.00 (US) > >If you have any further questions please feel free to contact us. > > > |\^/| Waterloo Maple Software >._|\| |/|_. 450 Phillip Street > \ MAPLE / Waterloo, Ontario > <____ ____> CANADA N2L 5J2 > | Tel: (519) 747-2373 > Fax: (519) 747-5284 > E-mail: info@maplesoft.on.ca >******************************************************************* > > >-------------------------------------- >Date: 9/26/94 09:16 AM >To: Stefanie Dietrich >From: Info general > > >-------------------------------------- > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >I don't know... When I can pick up a student version of Mathematica for >Windows at the bookstore for $160, I'm tempted to keep my DOS partition. > > >Steve Weibel > > Well, you can pick up MapleV rel 3 in a student version for $100 or less. But this is a full, fully supported release. In Windows version I believe the educational price is ~$400. OK, this is more, but I believe it to be faster, and you don't have to live with `GPF' from Windows. it doesn't seem that out of line. Maybe on the upper edge, but not really workstation pricing -- which we were afraid of. -- David L. Johnson dlj0@lehigh.edu or Department of Mathematics dlj0@chern.math.lehigh.edu Lehigh University 14 E. Packer Avenue (610) 758-3759 Bethlehem, PA 18015-3174 (610) 828-3708 ------------------------------ From: joev@garden.WPI.EDU (Joseph W. Vigneau) Subject: Re: Linux won't see printer Date: 28 Sep 1994 21:31:15 GMT In article <36blis$4gm@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, Brad Matthew Garcia wrote: > >Also, for my machine, I had to do a HARD reset after re-compiling the >kernel in order for the changes to take effect. A soft reset just >wouldn't do it. Umm... Did you remember to tell lilo about your new kernal? -- joev@wpi.edu, joev@hotblack.gweep.net WPI Computer Science Linux! Click Here! ------------------------------ From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) Subject: Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors Date: 28 Sep 1994 23:10:20 -0400 Reply-To: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 94 22:54:08 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o Cc: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU Another example --- suppose I write a program that uses dbm; it can potentially be linked against gdbm. Hence, by your reasoning, my program must fall under the GPL! No, not at all, never, no way. Your program uses dbm. dbm has a known interface. Just because you *can* use gdbm, that doesn't put your program under the GPL. But perhaps the fact that there is a non-GPL library is enough to make it O.K. Alright, I'll write a slow, stub library which implements the gmp interface. Then PGP must be OK! A stub library isn't enough? Alright, I'll write a library which implements the gmp interface but calls a slower package as its back-end. Now is that OK? I'm sure the FSF would find some reason why that wouldn't be OK, since they dislike PGP so much. It's not as mechanistic as that. If you wrote the stub library as a way to let the user do the link to a GPL'ed package, then you aren't accomplishing anything. The point at which something becomes OK by the FSF's "definition" is purely arbitrary, which is what I dislike. Then what you wish to escape is the legal system. Fine, don't use a copyright. There is an entirely separate question which is whether or not the FSF interpretation would possibly even hold water in a court of law, or whether the FSF would be laughed out of court. Short of a test case actually coming before a court, we won't know for certain the answer to this. Judges aren't stupid, and they don't like it when you try to fool them. If an attorney could show the court that any of the above coding is a subterfuge intended to misappropriate a GPL'ed program, the court will find in his favor. -russ http://www.crynwr.com/crynwr/nelson.html Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | ask4 PGP key 11 Grant St. | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX) | What is thee doing about it? Potsdam, NY 13676 | LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 1994 16:28:00 +0200 From: reith@maxwell.ping.de (Markus Reith) Subject: Re: where to get the texbook Reply-To: root@maxwell.ping.de Hello, I think You will need a book about Latex. There is the original source from Leslie Lamport : The Latex Book . You will get in university-bookstores. Of course You can order it in any bookstore You want. I think the Book is published by Addison-Wesley. Markus Reith reith@maxwell.ping.de ## CrossPoint v3.0 ## ------------------------------ From: "Theodore Ts'o" Subject: Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors Date: 28 Sep 1994 23:36:08 -0400 Reply-To: tytso@MIT.EDU Followup-to: gnu.misc.discuss Date: Wed, 28 Sep 94 23:14 EDT From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) There is an entirely separate question which is whether or not the FSF interpretation would possibly even hold water in a court of law, or whether the FSF would be laughed out of court. Short of a test case actually coming before a court, we won't know for certain the answer to this. Judges aren't stupid, and they don't like it when you try to fool them. If an attorney could show the court that any of the above coding is a subterfuge intended to misappropriate a GPL'ed program, the court will find in his favor. As I said before, short of a test case actually coming before a court, we won't know that. The law is the law, and if copyright law doesn't happen to be convenient for the Free Software Foundation, that's just too bad. The fact that certain laws don't work they way you would like isn't a case of "subterfuge". So I don't find your rationale (which I think is similar or the same to Stallman's rationale --- did you just use his words?) pursuasive. In any case, that's not the important issue. By merely trying to prohibit someone from distribute a program that's coded to a particular interface, even though every single line of code in that program is written BY THAT PERSON, then the you and the FSF are in effect trying to assert what might as well be an interface copyright. In effect, there is an attempt using copyright law to try to put restrictions on software coded to a particular interface --- at least in the case of any program written to use the gmp interface. Sure, you have a great justification for it, which is that it helps promote the FSF's agenda of its particular vision of free software, but that's a means justify the ends argument. Even if you think it is a justified form of interface copyright, it's still a form of interface copyright. Whether or not the FSF's attempt at this interface copyright would hold water is a different question, and it's not worth argueing here, since neither of us will know until it comes before a judge and jury --- and it's probably in the best interests of the FSF for it not to actually come into a courtroom setting anyway. But the mere fact that the FSF is even trying to do this is something that I find morally repugnant. - Ted ------------------------------ From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) Subject: Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors Date: 28 Sep 1994 23:48:53 -0400 Reply-To: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 23:36:14 +0500 From: Theodore Ts'o In any case, that's not the important issue. By merely trying to prohibit someone from distribute a program that's coded to a particular interface, even though every single line of code in that program is written BY THAT PERSON, then the you and the FSF are in effect trying to assert what might as well be an interface copyright. In effect, there is an attempt using copyright law to try to put restrictions on software coded to a particular interface --- at least in the case of any program written to use the gmp interface. An odd kind of interface copyright if you can unilaterally take the "copyright" away from the "copyright holder", by actually programming to that interface. In other words, if you don't like the gmp "interface copyright", write a package that is compatible with it (that people would seriously use). That act takes away the "interface copyright", which could not happen under copyright law if an actual copyright on the interface was claimed. -russ http://www.crynwr.com/crynwr/nelson.html Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | ask4 PGP key 11 Grant St. | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX) | What is thee doing about it? Potsdam, NY 13676 | LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do. ------------------------------ From: "Theodore Ts'o" Subject: Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors Date: 28 Sep 1994 23:58:50 -0400 Reply-To: tytso@MIT.EDU Date: Wed, 28 Sep 94 23:53 EDT From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) An odd kind of interface copyright if you can unilaterally take the "copyright" away from the "copyright holder", by actually programming to that interface. In other words, if you don't like the gmp "interface copyright", write a package that is compatible with it (that people would seriously use). That act takes away the "interface copyright", which could not happen under copyright law if an actual copyright on the interface was claimed. So whether or not package A can be distrbuted only under the terms attached to package B depends on the existence or non-existence of package C, where A, B, and C do not share any lines of codes and are not otherwise derived from one another? This is rational? I suppose that since no one else has written a freeware distribution of MS-DOS, the fact that your drivers dynamically link with MS-DOS means that they are "one program", and you are therefore misappropriating Microsloth's program by using the subterfuge of distributing drivers separately from MS-DOS? - Ted ------------------------------ From: c-clark@freenet2.scri.fsu.edu (Champ Clark) Subject: Linux goes commercial Date: 27 Sep 1994 10:54:58 GMT My boss swears up and down that he read somewhere that Linux is no longer going to be a "free" (when I say that, I mean, you dont have to buy it.. you can FTP it) anymore. He states that the author (linus) has decided to make "linux" a commerical product. I told him that I though this was odd, and i figured I would have heard *something* around usenet about that (that would be pretty big news!). I told him there was commerical *distributions* of linux, but that was no to be confused with "linux" itself (ie = kernel source). He stated, "nope, Linux itelf will go commerical... It will no longer be a public freeware/public domain OS, but a commercial OS", which I took as "Similar to SunOS for x86" or "SCO"... First off, if you have any information about this ppllleeasasse mail it to me... Tell me it aint so! Mail me, and I will forward artciles to him.. Thanks -- ------------------------------ From: vanpatjm@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Jason Van Patten) Subject: fvwm programming question Date: 27 Sep 1994 11:42:23 GMT Hi - I've been trying, ever since I got Linux running, to get fvwm to respond _exactly_ like Motif does. I've been fairly successful except for this one thing.. I can't get the "Window Ops" menu to drop down when I single-click on the button in the left corner, and still be able to close the window by double-clicking on that same button. Here's what I've tried thus far: Function "del_window" PopUp "Window Ops" Window Ops Delete "DoubleClick" EndFunction . . . Mouse 1 1 A Function "del_window" With this setup, I can double-click and the window disappears. However, single-clicking gives me nothing. Anyone have any clues, or suggestions for me? Reply via email if you could. Thanks. Jason -- Jason Van Patten | If at first you don't succeed, keep | Clarkson University | on sucking till you do succeed. | vanpatjm@craft.camp.clarkson.edu | - Curly Howard | | (The Three Stooges) | ** Any opinions expressed here are actually yours, you just don't know it, yet. ** ------------------------------ From: tom@csdec1.tuwien.ac.at (Thomas Gschwind) Subject: Linux everywhere? Date: 28 Sep 1994 22:10:21 GMT Today night I were dreaming, that I am waking up and all the world's PCs run Linux? Imagine that feeling (No WinDogs around :))! But then I woke up and :((((((( Tom -- \|/ Thomas GSCHWIND, Student at Technische Universität WIEN (o o) email: tom@logic.tuwien.ac.at --oOo--(_)--oOo-- DOS is too DOSASTROUS for you? Try UN*X! ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.dcom.isdn,mn.general From: hm@ix.de (Harald Milz) Subject: Re: Linux/FreeBSD ISDN support Reply-To: hm@ix.de Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 16:30:15 GMT In comp.os.linux.misc, Neal Dalton (nrd@scrapie.med.umn.edu) wrote: > OK, I talked to Digiboard. They will be have Linux drivers for their > multiport serial boards available Nov. 1. > There is some hope, Nope. This information has been in the Projects-Map for about four weeks. -- That secret you've been guarding, isn't. -- Harald Milz (hm@ix.de) WWW: http://www.ix.de/editors/hm.html iX Multiuser Multitasking Magazine phone +49 (511) 53 52-377 Helstorfer Str. 7, D-30625 Hannover fax +49 (511) 53 52-378 Opinions stated herein are my own, not necessarily my employer's. ------------------------------ From: pp000547@interramp.com Subject: [ppp] Date: 27 Sep 1994 10:39:30 GMT Reply-To: pp000547@interramp.com Hello. As the moment, I am connected to nntp.interramp.com via PPP. I am thinking about moving my PPP account to another server that I will call `snarf.com'. As far as I can tell, the only thing different about the way I now interface with interramp.com via PPP and the way I am supposed to interface with snarf.com is that interramp.com assigns me a "dynamic" IP address each time I dial in, whereas snarf.com has "loaned" me a fixed IP address. So, since the various scripts that I am using with interramp.com work nicely, I simply copied them all into another directory and modified them to suit snarf.com. However, when I try to connect to snarf.com, the negotiations get bogged down and (I think) my end of the negotiations eventually loses patience and quits. Here is the tail-end of the log: ... Sep 27 01:44:36 bedlam pppd[651]: fsm_sdata(LCP): Sent code 1, id 1. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sep 27 01:44:36 bedlam pppd[651]: Timeout 2194:10910 in 3 seconds. Sep 27 01:44:36 bedlam pppd[651]: Setting itimer for 3 seconds in timeout. Sep 27 01:44:36 bedlam pppd[651]: LCP: sending Configure-Request, id 1 ====================================================================== Sep 27 01:44:39 bedlam pppd[651]: Alarm Sep 27 01:44:39 bedlam pppd[651]: sent [LCP ConfReq id=0x1 ] Sep 27 01:44:39 bedlam pppd[651]: fsm_sdata(LCP): Sent code 1, id 1. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sep 27 01:44:39 bedlam pppd[651]: Timeout 2194:10910 in 3 seconds. Sep 27 01:44:39 bedlam pppd[651]: Setting itimer for 3 seconds in timeout. Sep 27 01:44:39 bedlam pppd[651]: LCP: sending Configure-Request, id 1 ====================================================================== Sep 27 01:44:42 bedlam pppd[651]: Alarm Sep 27 01:44:42 bedlam pppd[651]: LCP: timeout sending Config-Requests Sep 27 01:44:42 bedlam pppd[651]: Connection terminated. Sep 27 01:44:42 bedlam pppd[651]: Exit. For comparison, here is a piece of the log I get when I connect to interramp.com that I think corresponds to the point where the corresponding negotiation is resolved successfully: ... Sep 27 01:57:42 bedlam pppd[726]: fsm_sdata(LCP): Sent code 1, id 1. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sep 27 01:57:42 bedlam pppd[726]: Timeout 2194:10910 in 3 seconds. Sep 27 01:57:42 bedlam pppd[726]: Setting itimer for 3 seconds in timeout. Sep 27 01:57:42 bedlam pppd[726]: LCP: sending Configure-Request, id 1 ====================================================================== Sep 27 01:57:42 bedlam pppd[726]: IO signal received <----------------ok! Sep 27 01:57:42 bedlam pppd[726]: rcvd [LCP ConfReq id=0xcb ] 32 ce Sep 27 01:57:42 bedlam pppd[726]: fsm_rconfreq(LCP): Rcvd id 203. Sep 27 01:57:42 bedlam pppd[726]: lcp_reqci: rcvd ASYNCMAP Sep 27 01:57:42 bedlam pppd[726]: (a0000) Sep 27 01:57:42 bedlam pppd[726]: (ACK) Sep 27 01:57:42 bedlam pppd[726]: lcp_reqci: rcvd AUTHTYPE Sep 27 01:57:42 bedlam pppd[726]: (c023) Sep 27 01:57:42 bedlam pppd[726]: (ACK) Sep 27 01:57:42 bedlam pppd[726]: lcp_reqci: returning CONFACK. ... and so on until eventually the connection is made. Here is what is in the two directories I mentioned: bedlam:[*root*]/etc/ppp # ls interramp.com my-ppp-off options ppp-chat-script my-ppp-on pap-secrets ppp.log bedlam:[*root*]/etc/ppp # ls snarf.com my-ppp-off options ppp-chat-script my-ppp-on pap-secrets ppp.log Assuming these two sets of files are precisely parallel -- differing only w/r phone numbers, passwords, and the like -- I am at a loss to figure out what *else* might account for the fact that I am able to connect to interramp.com but not to snarf.com. Unless, of course, it is the matter of having a dynamic IP address assigned to me versus having a fixed IP address -- but in that case I can't figure out where the fixed IP address is supposed to go. (I thought it might go in /etc/hosts but I tried that and it didn't make any difference.) Thank you! Buffalo'd Bill -- Bill Hogan "Show me a wisdom that is greater than kindness." [J-J.Rousseau] ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is: Internet: Linux-Misc-Request@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via: Internet: Linux-Misc@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites: nic.funet.fi pub/OS/Linux tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux End of Linux-Misc Digest ******************************