No GPL credit for Rex Ballard?

It was on, or about, Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:36:11 +0000, that as I was
halfway through a large jam doughnut, spike1 wrote:

> Slow news day Doofus?
>
> Nothing at all to complain about so instead you've decided to rake over
> this old bollocks again?
>
> Give it a REST. FFS. WE DON'T CARE!
> None of us.
> Not ONE.

Well some of us have him binned, that's how much *we* care.

--
Using X-No-Archive suggests the post is of little value &
not worth archiving. Anyone marking *all* their posts
XNA is a sure sign of low self-esteem. In short, they
are NOT worth reading to begin with.

DFS wrote:
>
> The FSF says "Richard Stallman wrote the version 1 and 2 of the GNU GPL with
> legal advice from Perkins, Smith & Cohen."

Yup (except that it was the GNU Emacs General Public License which
RMS later transformed into the GNU GPL). Mark Fischer of Perkins, Smith
& Cohen, LLP, One Beacon Street, Boston, MA. 02108. (The attorneys of
the former firm, Perkins Smith & Cohen LLP joined the Boston-based law
firm Burns & Levinson LLP in early January 2006).

http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch09.html
(The GNU General Public License)

------
Mark Fischer, a Boston attorney specializing in intellectual-property
law, recalls discussing the license with Stallman during this period.
"Richard had very strong views about how it should work," Fischer says,
"He had two principles. The first was to make the software absolutely
as open as possible. The second was to encourage others to adopt the
same licensing practices."

Encouraging others to adopt the same licensing practices meant closing
off the escape hatch that had allowed privately owned versions of
Emacs to emerge. To close that escape hatch, Stallman and his free
software colleagues came up with a solution: users would be free to
modify GNU Emacs just so long as they published their modifications. In
addition, the resulting "derivative" works would also have carry the
same GNU Emacs License.

The revolutionary nature of this final condition would take a while to
sink in. At the time, Fischer says, he simply viewed the GNU Emacs
License as a simple contract. It put a price tag on GNU Emacs' use.
Instead of money, Stallman was charging users access to their own
later modifications. That said, Fischer does remember the contract
terms as unique.
------

But we all know that the GPL is not a contract according to FSF and
SFLC.

regards,
alexander.

--
"Live cheaply," he said, offering some free advice. "Don't buy a house,
a car or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have
to spend all your time making money to pay for them."

-- Free Software Foundation's Richard Stallman: 'Live Cheaply'

"DFS" <nospam RemoveThis @dfs_.com> writes:
> But Rex Ballard (Linux Visionary) says "I was one of the many legal minds
> which Richard Stallman solicited in the net.legal newsgroups back in
> 1984....As we reviewed the goals, we drafted the language for what was first
> known as the "General Public License".

http://groups.google.com/group/net.legal/search?q=Rex+Ballard&start=0&

Rex Ballard can indeed be seen posting to net.legal about copyright
issues around the timeframe of the drafting of the GPL although the
archives seem to be rather incomplete.

Tracy R Reed wrote:
> "DFS" <nospam DeleteThis @dfs_.com> writes:
>> But Rex Ballard (Linux Visionary) says "I was one of the many legal
>> minds which Richard Stallman solicited in the net.legal newsgroups
>> back in 1984....As we reviewed the goals, we drafted the language
>> for what was first known as the "General Public License".
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/net.legal/search?q=Rex+Ballard&start=0&
>
> Rex Ballard can indeed be seen posting to net.legal about copyright
> issues around the timeframe of the drafting of the GPL although the
> archives seem to be rather incomplete.

uh huh... and in his warped mind posting to a newsgroup is all the evidence
he needs to claim credit for contributing actual language to the GPL.

DFS <nospam RemoveThis @dfs_.com> did eloquently scribble:
> Only someone who supports a blatant liar like Rex Ballard would view my
> asking for proof as an attack on him.

with the tones your posts take, the sneering, the belittling comments, the
general arseyness, yes, they are attacks on him.

and as they are thread origin articles, yes, they are unprovoked.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| spike1 RemoveThis @freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2007-07-04, Tracy R Reed <treed.DeleteThis@ultraviolet.org> claimed:
> "DFS" <nospam.DeleteThis@dfs_.com> writes:
>> But Rex Ballard (Linux Visionary) says "I was one of the many legal minds
>> which Richard Stallman solicited in the net.legal newsgroups back in
>> 1984....As we reviewed the goals, we drafted the language for what was first
>> known as the "General Public License".
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/net.legal/search?q=Rex+Ballard&start=0&
>
> Rex Ballard can indeed be seen posting to net.legal about copyright
> issues around the timeframe of the drafting of the GPL although the
> archives seem to be rather incomplete.

You're not supposed to burst DuFS' bubble like that. He'll get his
white-hooded buddies after you now!

--
Money is better than poverty, if only for financial
reasons.

On 4 Jul, 12:41, "DFS" <nospam RemoveThis @dfs_.com> wrote:

> It's his burden to prove his bogus claims:

<snip>

But who cares what Rex Ballard claims? Apart from you.

The way you obsessively follow his every word, not just in newsgroups
but in his blog too, says something about /you/ more than it does
about Ballard.

If you're right - if he's a fantasist or mentally ill - why do you go
to such lengths to ridicule and oppose him? Has the court order
stopped you from visiting the local school to steal candy off the
children?

AB wrote:
> On 2007-07-04, Tracy R Reed <treed.RemoveThis@ultraviolet.org> claimed:
>> "DFS" <nospam.RemoveThis@dfs_.com> writes:
>>> But Rex Ballard (Linux Visionary) says "I was one of the many legal
>>> minds which Richard Stallman solicited in the net.legal newsgroups
>>> back in 1984....As we reviewed the goals, we drafted the language
>>> for what was first known as the "General Public License".
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/net.legal/search?q=Rex+Ballard&start=0&
>>
>> Rex Ballard can indeed be seen posting to net.legal about copyright
>> issues around the timeframe of the drafting of the GPL although the
>> archives seem to be rather incomplete.
>
> You're not supposed to burst DuFS' bubble like that.

I never doubted Rex posted to newsgroups - it's what he does. He writes
long, lunatic posts. Then he claims he inspires all the readers. Then he
claims he's responsible for the work of others reading the newsgroup.
Perfect example: he claims Lycos, Yahoo and Amazon solicited his advice on
Usenet, then shortly afterwards became huge businesses.

uh oh. There's a superman (attention starved child, really) amidst us.




> He'll get his white-hooded buddies after you now!

Only cola idiots with no ethics or morals support Rex Ballard. You fools
don't mind hounding someone like George Ou who has proof of his claims, but
because he "advocates" Linux, slimy cola morons give Rex a free pass to say
anything he wants for years.

In the real world his claims of originating Java and Netscape and SSL and
shttp and so on are dismissed as the ravings of a Usenet kook.

On Jul 4, 6:26 am, "DFS" <nospam.TakeThisOut@dfs_.com> wrote:
> Tracy R Reed wrote:
> > "DFS" <nospam.TakeThisOut@dfs_.com> writes:
> >> ButRexBallard(Linux Visionary) says "I was one of the many legal
> >> minds which Richard Stallman solicited in the net.legal newsgroups
> >> back in 1984....As we reviewed the goals, we drafted the language
> >> for what was first known as the "General Public License".
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/net.legal/search?q=Rex+Ballard&start=0&
>
> >RexBallardcan indeed be seen posting to net.legal about copyright
> > issues around the timeframe of the drafting of the GPL although the
> > archives seem to be rather incomplete.

The usenet archives are indeed very incomplete. Keep in mind
that most of the machines on usenet at the time were owned by
colleges or universities. In 1984, a 6250 bpi tape large enough to
store 40 megabytes cost about $100 each. The tech groups
exceeded 8-10 megabytes/day, even week-ends were pretty busy.
A full archive could easily fill 2 tapes/week. Most of the
universities
didn't have the budget for $10,000 worth of back-up tapes for
usenet archives.

Google obtained an archive CD which had about 500 megabytes of data
ranging from the early 1980s to the early 1990s. Google admits that
the archive prior to 1995 is very incomplete.

> uh huh... and in his warped mind posting to a newsgroup is all the evidence
> he needs to claim credit for contributing actual language to the GPL.

It's really easy to disprove my claim. Locate the usenet archives of
net.legal during the year 1984. If you get a complete year, and see
no mention of my name, or any postings by rexb!ccivax, then you might
be able to substantiate your claim.

I have the tapes for some of my personal postings and archives. I
found a guy who will attempt to convert them to CD-ROM for about $100
per tape.

It might even be worth $400-500 to provide the information that proves
my claim.

Those tapes also include dialogues with Bill Joy, discussions of
Forth, including a discussion of something that sounds similar to
Java. Of course, that was 25 years ago. It's easy to see why someone
might have trouble remembering a conversation via usenet with a
faceless poster on a newsgroup you read while you were in college.

For now, the evidence is in my favor. It can be confirmed that I
posted to net.legal regarding copyright law.

Means, motive, and opportunity.

On Jul 4, 7:42 am, spi....DeleteThis@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> DFS <nospam.DeleteThis@dfs_.com> did eloquently scribble:
>
> > Only someone who supports a blatant liar likeRexBallardwould view my
> > asking for proof as an attack on him.
>
> with the tones your posts take, the sneering, the belittling comments, the
> general arseyness, yes, they are attacks on him.
>
> and as they are thread origin articles, yes, they are unprovoked.
>
DFS has a history. I seem to be one of his favorite target.

Given that he seems to target only the most effective posters to COLA,
I almost feel flattered.

If I was really not that credible, and there was not effective with my
postings,
it's quite likely that I wouldn't even be interesting to DFS.

One can google this group to see how popular I am with Win Trolls.

It's almost enough to make me think that Microsoft is paying them a
bonus for going after me.

Rex Ballard wrote:
> On Jul 4, 7:42 am, spi....TakeThisOut@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>> DFS <nospam.TakeThisOut@dfs_.com> did eloquently scribble:
>>
>>> Only someone who supports a blatant liar likeRexBallardwould view my
>>> asking for proof as an attack on him.
>>
>> with the tones your posts take, the sneering, the belittling
>> comments, the general arseyness, yes, they are attacks on him.
>>
>> and as they are thread origin articles, yes, they are unprovoked.
>>
> DFS has a history. I seem to be one of his favorite target.

All cola liars are my favorite target. You just happen tell the biggest,
most frequent, most ludicrous lies.


> Given that he seems to target only the most effective posters to COLA,
> I almost feel flattered.

Your posts are effective *in your mind*. To an outside observer, they're
way too long to bother with, and contain far too many fictional "facts" and
numbers.

All it takes to know you're not right in the head is to read your schizoid
rants where you imply something nefarious about Bill Gates' speeding ticket
in New Mexico in 1977 that somehow lead to/resulted in New Mexico being the
first state approached in the anti-trust settlement.




> If I was really not that credible, and there was not effective with my
> postings,
> it's quite likely that I wouldn't even be interesting to DFS.
>
> One can google this group to see how popular I am with Win Trolls.

Who ever answers your rambling fiction? Me, and sometimes Erik Funkenbusch.



> It's almost enough to make me think that Microsoft is paying them a
> bonus for going after me.

I'm quite sure you believe that, too. You're sick in the head.

Rex Ballard wrote:
> On Jul 4, 6:26 am, "DFS" <nospam.DeleteThis@dfs_.com> wrote:
>> Tracy R Reed wrote:
>>> "DFS" <nospam.DeleteThis@dfs_.com> writes:
>>>> ButRexBallard(Linux Visionary) says "I was one of the many legal
>>>> minds which Richard Stallman solicited in the net.legal newsgroups
>>>> back in 1984....As we reviewed the goals, we drafted the language
>>>> for what was first known as the "General Public License".
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/net.legal/search?q=Rex+Ballard&start=0&
>>
>>> RexBallardcan indeed be seen posting to net.legal about copyright
>>> issues around the timeframe of the drafting of the GPL although the
>>> archives seem to be rather incomplete.
>
> The usenet archives are indeed very incomplete. Keep in mind
> that most of the machines on usenet at the time were owned by
> colleges or universities. In 1984, a 6250 bpi tape large enough to
> store 40 megabytes cost about $100 each. The tech groups
> exceeded 8-10 megabytes/day, even week-ends were pretty busy.
> A full archive could easily fill 2 tapes/week. Most of the
> universities
> didn't have the budget for $10,000 worth of back-up tapes for
> usenet archives.
>
> Google obtained an archive CD which had about 500 megabytes of data
> ranging from the early 1980s to the early 1990s. Google admits that
> the archive prior to 1995 is very incomplete.
>
>> uh huh... and in his warped mind posting to a newsgroup is all the
>> evidence he needs to claim credit for contributing actual language
>> to the GPL.
>
> It's really easy to disprove my claim. Locate the usenet archives of
> net.legal during the year 1984. If you get a complete year, and see
> no mention of my name, or any postings by rexb!ccivax, then you might
> be able to substantiate your claim.

I don't have to substantiate my claim; you have to substantiate yours. Fact
is, if you were as important as you say - if you personally "helped draft
the language of the GPL" as you claim you did, your name would be readily
linked to it somewhere.

Alas, it never happened.



> I have the tapes for some of my personal postings and archives. I
> found a guy who will attempt to convert them to CD-ROM for about $100
> per tape.
>
> It might even be worth $400-500 to provide the information that proves
> my claim.

Indeed it would. I'll apologize up and down if you can convince me original
legal wording in one of your posts made it into the GPL.



> Those tapes also include dialogues with Bill Joy, discussions of
> Forth, including a discussion of something that sounds similar to
> Java.

It sounds similar now that Sun Microsystems developed Java internally (with
exactly ZERO input from you) and put in on the market, so you can examine it
and back-date your claims about having precursor ideas. You also claimed to
have invented the idea of remote procedure calls - unfortunately for your
lies, these guys were first:

Birrell, A.D. & Nelson, B.J. "Implementing Remote Procedure Calls." ACM
Transactions on Computer Systems 2, 1 (February 1984): 39-59.

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/str/descriptions/rpc.html




> Of course, that was 25 years ago.

Of course, 13 months ago James Gosling (co-author of Java) told me in an
email that you were a liar, and that he never heard of you, and that you had
nothing to do with Java.



> It's easy to see why someone
> might have trouble remembering a conversation via usenet with a
> faceless poster on a newsgroup you read while you were in college.
>
> For now, the evidence is in my favor. It can be confirmed that I
> posted to net.legal regarding copyright law.

I never doubted you posted to Usenet. It's what you do: you post to
newsgroups or mailing lists, and when someone on the group achieves
something interesting or groundbreaking, you claim you were the author of
the technology. You did it with Netscape, with Java, with SSL, with remote
procedure calls, etc.

Then you claim to create $1,000,000,000 industries. ROFL! Where's your
$1,000,000,000 Rex?

It's all just fantasy-land squeaking because you want attention. If you
were to sue these commercial entities for recognition - like any normal
person would - you'd be out $thousands, and laughed out of the courtroom.
So you confine your bogus claims to your website and to cola.



> Means, motive, and opportunity.

Yep. And that's all you'll ever have. You'll never be able to show proof -
because it doesn't exist anywhere, on any tape or any hard drive - that you
personally contributed language to the first GPL...which is your claim. Or
that SSL was your idea. Or that your work led to Java. And so on...