Posted on 08/28/2007 9:43:45 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
Here you say I have a "disdain" for "Intellectual Property" with the meaning that I have a disdain for copyrights, patents, etc. To prove your point, you link to only this text of my earlier post:
"Intellectual Property" is a fiction and the term shouldn't be used. - as stated by antiRepublicanBut now we look at the whole post, including the text that you purposefully cut out in order to create your lie:
"Intellectual Property" is a fiction and the term shouldn't be used. It helps perpetuate the confusion we see these days, where people don't know the difference between patent, copyright and trademark. The big difference here is that copyright doesn't require that the work be non-obvious, just original, so of course any original software can be copyrighted.Oh the light of truth shines upon us when we have context! Further, the post was in response to someone using the term "Intellectual Property" and confusing copyright and patent. In context, I defend copyright and patent, and their different rules and laws, against being obfuscated by the term "Intellectual Property" that you love so much.
When I called you on this you immediately afterwards, you did not retract your false statement about me, instead choosing to go on a completely irrelevant attack that included some of your even earlier lies, like this one:
here's a post from almost 2 years ago when defended Stallman and criticized DRM copyright protection.Notice the ellipsis at the end? Yeah, that's where you cut out "(stripped of all the extremist hippie talk)." You tried to portray me as a loyal follower and defender, while the text that you purposefully cut out shows I think he is an extremist hippie.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1377815/posts?page=35#35
"It is exactly this kind of consumer control and fair use that will be hindered when DRM is embedded into the hardware. That's why it's a bad thing and why Stallman is right in concept..."
That's two more attempts to libel me, and 2xYAGEL.
The context shows I believe Microsoft did not infringe on the BSD copyrights, contrary to your lie.
And I see you did not take the opportunity to retract your proven false statement that it was five paragraphs down. You have left what was possibly an honest mistake to turn into a willful lie.
This one goes into the record, too.
LOL you’re caught again, of course, lying again to cover up another obvious lie made previously. Otherwise you would now admit Microsoft did NOT “lift” code from BSD as you originally claimed, which we know to be false.
For the last time, that whole post that you take out of context argues that Microsoft did not "lift" from (as in the meaning of "steal", or more properly, infringe on the copyright of) BSD.
Your lie, continually supported, stands as proven. Interestingly enough, another definition of "lift" describes exactly what you are doing, as in "to take out of normal setting <lift a word out of context>."
This is another obvious lie made to try to cover up the other lies you've been making about this. The very first part of your post contains the statement:
And Microsoft did "lift" code from BSD.
This was you obviously agreeing with the other poster's bogus claim Microsoft stole code from BSD. The opposite is what you should have said if you truly meant to refute his bogus assertion.
But Microsoft did not "lift" code from BSD.
Whether you simply couldn't bring yourself to do it, or forgot what you originally typed by the time you got to the end of your post, it doesn't matter, you agreed with him initially that Microsoft had indeed "lifted" code from BSD, which is false, and many quit reading your BS at that point. Further indication of your guilt is your admission you're now digging through every dictionary you can find to find some obscure definition for "lift" that might somehow fit your claim that accussing someone of "lifting" something is some how a defense for them.
You could have just admitted it was a mistake, which I might have accepted previously, but of course you'd rather do what you do, lie further, double talk, admit you don't believe it but quote the Holy Bible LOL, and falsely accuse me of being the liar for simply pointing out your bogus claims that Microsoft "lifted" code from BSD, which we know is false.
Thanks again for showing who you are and to what lengths you'll go to in order to spread your lies, it's really quite entertaining watching liberals make up ridiculous lies that only other whacko leftists would ever fall for.
The reason you will not include context is that it proves you are a liar.
You could have just admitted it was a mistake
It wasn't a mistake. I purposely quoted your term because you were wrong about no BSD code having been in Windows, and the other FReeper was wrong about any copyright infringement. It was a lead-in, a connection from the statements of you and him to my argument that Microsoft did include the code, but did not infringe.
Your willful distortion of my position, your lie, remains proven.
As do the other two I linked to.
Another lie, I linked it from the very start, as it contains at the very top your lie in agreement with the other poster that Microsoft “lifted” the code, which is obviously false. More lies from you now isn’t changing that either.
Troll filter on. Now I can enjoy intelligent conversation with sane adults instead of being harassed by juvenile delinquents in their mother’s basement who get off on annoying conservatives.
Ahhh, fresh air!
ROFL, more like continue going around posting lies attacking Christians, Republicans, and true conservatives like you always have.
“I wonder how Stallman likes that one.”
He’ll just rewrite the GPL again...he and Eben Moglen will probably be tweaking the license quite a bit to defeat these attempts to nullify v3’s more draconian provisions.
This is a prime example of why I support open source methodology, but not groups like the FSF. They’re all for “freedom”, as long as it’s their vision of freedom you’re adhering to. I think Linus is losing patience with some of the people over at FSF too.
Couldn’t agree more with your entire post.
No doubt, use BSD Unix then, open source Unix and a concerted effort to avoid the leftist moonbats at the FSF.
“VxWorks takes half the memory of Linux and can work on a less-expensive Broadcom chipset than the previous model. Linksys “passes the cost savings on to users,” Eric says.”
Embedded Linux is an issue that’s been bugging me for awhile. I’m not real thrilled about this effort to make Linux all things to all people. We’re trying to make it usable for cell phones and superclusters alike. Frankly, I think the developers should stick to the roots of the OS...emphasize a PC operating system that’s X86 specific. You can still make great Beowulf clusters without comprimise there, but in the continuing effort make Linux run on everything from watches to mainframes, it’ll end up not being the best on any platform....a software jack of all trades, and master of none.
I’d like to see the embedded Linux people fork a project and bascially create a Unix-like OS specifically for the nature of small embedded systems....another clone. Use Linux as a starting point, but write this system from the ground up specifically for embedded systems, and keep that emphasis.
Thanks, glad to hear it. As more people’s eyes get opened to the radical intentions of Stallman’s groups hopefully more will switch away. And don’t let Torvalds convince you the Linux kernel team isn’t loaded with copyleftists either, the recent attack against VMware by kernel maintainers such as Chris Helwig should tell you all you need to know.
http://www.virtualization.info/2007/08/top-linux-maintainer-claims-vmware-esx.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.