Microsoft embraces another Linux company

> It is not unreasonable to expect people to do the right thing, which a lot of the time has no relationship to what is legal.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

After someone can come up with a universally accepted definition of what is or isn't moral, what is or isn't ethical, then maybe we can tackle a universally accepted truth for 'right'.

i.e. there is no defintion of right, moral, or ethical behavior that exists. These are judgments based upon individual and/or societal bias. Using them as a base for any metric is as meaningless as the words themselves.

So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin

*curiously I had put that quote up on Facebook some 35 minutes before the posts that triggered the response*

gus3 -

Oh yeah, more than one, I'm afraid.

Feel free to despise Microsoft for any number of reasons. Using BSD code in a completely permissible way should not be one of them.

azer -

I have to differ with you there. There is absolute right and wrong, and anybody who feels even a peppercorn's worth of self-worth should know it:

Good for Dino == right Bad for Dino == wrong

When in doubt, ask Dino.

And what about the stuff that doesn't affect Dino one whit?

That falls under the clause stating that you are violating Dino's IP by not affecting him.

That would be correct. Good job.

Dang, it's so hard to keep track of all this. No wonder law libraries are so huge. Guess I'll start a new shelf for Dino Covenants. Oh, my aching back.

> After someone can come up with a universally accepted definition of what is or isn't moral, what is or isn't ethical, then maybe we can tackle a universally accepted truth for 'right'.

At this time I would like to interject the "Non-Aggression Axiom".

That it is "wrong" to use coercion, or deligate that use of coercion, against someone who has not aggressed against someone else. In other words, no use of force except against an aggressor.

Since no two people or two situations are ever identical, courts and social standards have evolved to enable there to be some semblance of "justice".

I think that's as close to a universally acceptable definition as we're going to get. I haven't heard of any better.

Quoting:When in doubt, ask Dino

I will accept your dubious assertions, if and only if you can respond affirmatively to these questions:

1. Do you spill more spirits than most other humans are able to consume?

2. Are you known for your steadiness of hand* at all stages of inebriation?

3. Can you carry a tune?

Your Buddy Txt.

* Meaning you do not spill much.

So the payments to both dino and YBT must be calculated against the gross total, and may not have any other disbursements recorded before said calculation. Remember that the percentages for any thing that does not affect either is twice the rate of if it does, so it is in your best interest to always include them.

Quoting:So the payments to both dino and YBT must be calculated against the gross total

With heavy emphasis on "gross".

Eye pee is kind of icky.

> Eye pee is kind of icky.

The word of the thread is "gross".

Folks, in this case, Dino is absolutely correct. Microsoft is using the BSD code exactly as the license permits and the developers intended. The BSD folks have made it clear more times than I can count that this is exactly what they wanted

Now, as I recall, Microsoft had to be dragged kicking and screaming into admitting that they had in fact used BSD code, but once it was conclusively shown that they had, they complied with the license.

Quoting:Eye pee is kind of icky.

Ewww, now that is gross..lol!

txt --

re 1& 2: Drank enough in college for a lifetime. Now have a beer when eating Mexican or watching a ball game, but nearly a teetotaler.

3. Surprisingly -- Yes. In young days, used to perform on stage regularly, though it helped that the audence was drinking.

dino,

Well that proves conclusively that dino is right Some of the Time, in a Space-Time continuum. Other times ... well ...

Let me think about it, BBL*.

YBT

P.S. Hmm, citing college experiences, but not presently may invalidate my tentative acceptance of "Dino Rules!" Now this is becoming complicated, in vector space would this hold? BBL*

* aka Be Back Later..

But what's Non Agression?

If people who do no harm, like the ones who write GPLv2 code and the Japanese firm are bled dry by Microsoft, can such a 'legal' act be considered Agression? If so, wasn't it the act of allowing software patents to be enforceable in first place that enabled and condones this Agression?

> But what's Non Agression?

Non-Aggression is just voluntary interaction.

Other than pointing you to several relevant texts, consider the concept of "trespassing": Cracking into someone's computer is wrong because the owner of the private property has made it clear (through security measures and convention) that logging onto the system without permission is ...well... not permitted.

The trespasser is aggressing upon they who are being trespassed. While most cultures have conventions and traditions about "right of way", "easement" and other ways people use in order to get along, there is pretty much no way to aggress upon someone else and not have it be considered "wrong".

A trojan horse is an example of "fraud", which is also an aggression but through an idea rather than physical trespass.

> wasn't it the act of allowing software patents to be enforceable in first place that enabled and condones this Agression?

I believe that your statement makes perfect sense. Lots of things that are legal are in fact aggression, which if done by someone who does not enjoy the protection of the statutes would be considered "wrong".

> Well that proves conclusively that dino is right Some of the Time, in a Space-Time continuum.

In the 11 dimensions of the universe, there is a trace where Dino is always right.

I'm not convinced that it's the same trace I am typing in now, but it could be.