Date: 10 Apr 2002 12:47:18 -0700 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Use/Utilize Message-ID: <23g023xrnd.023@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <3CB424E4.629016E0@mindspring.com> References: <3CB2125B.8F11C442@mindspring.com> <200204090020.g390KTPL059689@grimreaper.grondar.org> <3CB2733E.F98DD29B@mindspring.com> <20020409132012.F48437@lpt.ens.fr> <3CB3737A.1551931@mindspring.com> <20020410043451.GA1013@lpt.ens.fr> <3CB3DF33.5B677641@mindspring.com> <20020410073309.GA279@lpt.ens.fr> <3CB41997.214F408C@mindspring.com> <20020410130629.A16154@lpt.ens.fr> <3CB424E4.629016E0@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes:
> Without a contract, there is no transfer of rights for you to use
> the code -- no matter which definition of "use" you choose this
> week.
(It's funny that you insist on bringing us back to some paraphrased quote
of stupid claims supposedly heard in GNU/Linux forums. The error of the
claim should have been obvious to anyone who had read the BSD license.
The OP was either trolling or just thinking out loud. There was no
serious controversy or attempt at obfusication going on, AFAIK. (Apart
from a couple of people who where completely ignorant of the topic.))
Please remember that this use/utilize issue was a result of your
gratuitous and erroneous slam of the GPL's use of the word "use" in my
"Harmless" thread in which I wanted to talk about unprotected "running"
of software and in which you wanted to talk about everything else but
that. I quote:
[Gary:]
> > For the purposes of the argument, yes, like that; but not even such
> > low-value consideration is involved in the "running" of PD or BSDL'd (or
> > GPL'd) software (assuming the DMCA doesn't forbid it).
[above just to show me reminding you of the context of my thread]
I snipped your reply as irrelevant to the current message]
[Terry:]
> > > No. The BSD license *specifically* states:
> > >
> > > The Regents of the University of California. All
> > > rights reserved.
> > >
> > > This includes use and performance rights. 8-).
[I assumed from the context that you meant "run" and I suppose we should
know that it doesn't mean "utilize" in your special "derive from" sense.
[Gary:]
> > There are no such rights FOR SOFTWARE in the 17USC106 "Exclusive
> > rights..." list and I've read quite a bit on the subject and have never
> > seen anyone show any evidence for such rights for software. The FSF,
> > for instance, is clear to note that the GPL doesn't cover "use". The
> > BSDL's mention of "use" is moot, AFAIK.
[Terry:]
> No. The GPL incorrectly uses the word "use" when they mean
> "utilize".
Which you've finally identified as coming from the GPL preamble which
can only be this:
"...designed to make sure...that you can change the software or use
pieces of it in new free programs;..."
the meaning of which is not changed by exchanging "use" for "utilize"
as the meaning of that "use" it is abundantly clear.
I choose to ignore the inapplicability of the point to my comment about
the GPL saying that it doesn't cover "use" (which I quoted in a
unsuccessful attempt to remind you what we were talking about, namely
running, not things protected by copyright). I ignored it because I
thought is was a silly point to begin with since the words would mean
the same thing to 99.94% of the parties to the licenses and because it
had nothing to do with my point about the GPL anyway. I was just trying
to refer to this part of section "0":
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted,
without having to quote what everyone has seen many times. But you use
(or utilize) it as a chance to slam the GPL's (admittedly abundant)
misleading language and avoiding my point. Obfuscation indeed.
From a couple messages back in this sub-thread:
> When I pointed out that the requirement for retaining the notice
> was inclusive:
And when I pointed out that the requirement for "retaining" the actual
license (permission) part of the license-related text was non-existent,
you ignored it. (But remember that I also noted that the presence or
absence of license text need not mean the presence or absence of
license.)
I think some of the initial confusion was a result of the OP's use of
"copyright notice" for what I (and apparently you, judging from the
previous quote) assumed he meant all the related text (copyright notice
and license (permission, conditions, and disclaimer)).
> The entire "use/utilize" debate is an attempt to discredit an
> example of the intentional misuse of language.
An example which richly deserved to be discredited, both because it had
nothing to do with the point it was in response to and on its (lack of)
merit. It's a shame that you can't bring yourself to admit it,
especially when there are so many good opportunities for you to rant
about RMS's misuse of language.
> Even were this attempt successful (and I do not believe that it
> has been), the only thing a success in the redefinition of the
> word "utilize" as a synonym for the word "use" would have is to
> indicate a poor choice of examples on my part, not that my premise
> was invalid (or even valid, to be fair).
Again, the problem with that is that it wasn't your premise that was
being discussed. It was my premise; which you kept side-tracking until
I gave up in disgust. (BTW, I didn't SAY (as you unfairly said that I
said) that the HP and other lawyers were stupid enough to think that
those files were not published. I said only that the statements are
untrue; because the files have been published. I chose not to say
whether I thought the lawyers were making an overreaching claim in the
manner of many licenses or were quite innocently claiming something that
was true when they claimed it but which has subsequently become untrue
through the actions of others.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?23g023xrnd.023>