Rekall not longer available from theKompany.com - a fabrication

[Tim Ronning]

På Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:11:37 GMT, skrev Alex Martelli <aleax at aleax.it>:

> Paul Boddie wrote:
> ...
>>> licensing scheme. There would be a free for non-commercial use GPL
>>> version and the normal commercial version.
>>
>> Well, given the history of Rekall, combined with TheKompany's problems
>> with selling GPL software because people apparently demanded the
>> source code for free without buying anything, it's hard to know
>
> *blink* surely the source has to be given only if the binaries are?
> Can't stop others from redistributing that, but "demand the source
> code w/o buying anything" doesn't seem something the GPL mandates.
>
>
>>> The GPL would not include any kind of support whatsoever, therefore
>>> you would need to take out a support subscription.
>>> The GPL version would be free for non-commercial use.
>>
>> You have to ask yourself the question: if your knowledge of the GPL
>> was sketchy or non-existent, how would you interpret that last
>> sentence?
>
> Presumably in the "obvious way", yes:-).
>
>
>> Isn't this known as being "economical with the truth", or is it just
>> downright contradictory? It's like saying that "nude bathing is
>> allowed but you aren't allowed to get wet", only to explain such a
>> ridiculous statement away by then saying that "they just forgot to
>> mention that you are allowed to get wet as well".
>
> No, your analogy is misplaced: the "aren't allowed" would be
> overtly false in your "it's like".
>
> A correct analogy would be: "I never strangle somebody with the
> initials PB on a Friday".  This statement _is_ perfectly true: I
> never strangle anybody at all, and therefore, in particular, not
> people with the initials PB, and even more specifically, not
> on a Friday,
>
> However, it's _misleading_ because, although Aristotelian logic
> has nothing to say in the matter, people "naturally expect" that
> a qualification restricting a statement is there for SOME reason:
> typically because, without the restriction, the statement would
> not hold.  But that's just a heuristical inference based on "if
> the restriction wasn't necessary he wouldn't bother stating it" --
> there's nothing either dishonest or contradictory in putting on
> a statement _more_ qualifications than strictly necessary (it's
> the difference between "precondition" and "WEAKEST precondition").
>
> E.g., a similarly misleading statement would be "In Euclidean
> geometry, there is one and only one perpendicular to a given
> line through a given external point".  The qualification "In
> Euclidean geometry" is way stronger than necessary, since
> existence and uniqueness of the perpendicular follow from the
> first _four_ axioms of Euclid only, _not_ needing the fifth
> one which is not valid in non-Euclidean geometries such as
> Riemann's and Lobachevsky's.
>
> And yet, unless I have specifically undertaken to tutor
> somebody in a field including non-Euclidean geometries, I
> might well make such a statement and consider it defensible.
> Indeed, I have seen _proofs_ of this very statement, based
> on other results which _do_ hold in Euclidean geometry only...
> Presumably, depending on context, the responsibility for
> learning about NON-Euclidean geometries may be held to belong
> to the reader of my statements, without any duty on my part
> to instruct said reader in this subject.
>
> Similarly, the asserters of the above statement (falsely
> claimed to be contradictory, though truly claimable as being
> misleading) might contend that the responsibility for learning
> about the GPL belong to their customers, without any duty on
> their part to instruct said customers.  I'm gonna stay neutral
> on the specifics, but I've always been fascinated by the issues
> of NON-weakest preconditions and qualification in many fields
> (natural language, programming, and logic) so I couldn't resist...:-)
>
>
> Alex
>

Puuuhhh! And I just ordered your Nutshell book. God thing it was COD!

Joke aside, I'm sure it's fine, I just coldn't resist either......:-)

Rgds
Tim R.

-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/