On 11/21/2024 5:51 PM, vallor wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 06:56:47 -0500, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
> wrote in <vhn75v$aeqt$2@dont-email.me>:
>
>> "incompetent", "psychopaths", "sociopaths",
>> > "asshole", "jerk", "half-wit"
>
> Describing DFS himself, of course.
>
> Guess that hit pretty close to home...

How are your folds doing?

On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 17:17:08 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> But above you were describing as “silly” not the legislation, but
measures
>> to avoid being caught by it. Surely self-preservation is an entirely
>> rational response.
>
> The legislation is indeed silly. Preserving oneself is not silly, but
> it's silly to preserve oneself when there's no danger.

You hope.

> Nobody is going to sue us because we're writing UNIX over here, for
> example.

That might be considered “legal advice” ...

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

> On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 17:17:08 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> But above you were describing as “silly” not the legislation, but
> measures
>>> to avoid being caught by it. Surely self-preservation is an entirely
>>> rational response.
>>
>> The legislation is indeed silly. Preserving oneself is not silly, but
>> it's silly to preserve oneself when there's no danger.
>
> You hope.
>
>> Nobody is going to sue us because we're writing UNIX over here, for
>> example.
>
> That might be considered “legal advice” ...

Another totally silly thing---to have to state things such as IANAL and
other silly things. The typical USENET article is just someone's
opinion, which makes up the rule rather than the exception.

Wolfgang Agnes <wagnes@example.com> wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 21:57:30 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
> >
> >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:19:52 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
> >>>>> infringing on the trademark.
> >>>>
> >>>> I wouldn't be so sure. Huawei lost against 3M for using the term 3N.
> >>>> Courts decided it was similar enough.
> >>>>
> >>>>> So use 'Unix', or 'unix' if you must, but '*nix' is unneeded,
> >>>>> meaningless and a bit silly.
> >>>>
> >>>> Totally silly.
> >>>
> >>> Strange, isn?t it: above you point out how dangerous trademark
> >>> infringement can be, and here you are saying that trying to avoid it
> >>> is ?totally silly?.
> >>
> >> One tries to use ``3N'' and get sued by 3M. But
> >> that's very silly. It's silliness that comes from legislation.
> >
> > But above you were describing as ?silly? not the legislation, but measures
> > to avoid being caught by it. Surely self-preservation is an entirely
> > rational response.
>
> The legislation is indeed silly. Preserving oneself is not silly, but
> it's silly to preserve oneself when there's no danger. Nobody is going
> to sue us because we're writing UNIX over here, for example. That's not
> really how it works. So in such circumstances, it's silly to worry
> about that.

But the issue isn't even about writing 'UNIX', but about Lawrence
using the unneeded, meaningless and somewhat silly '*nix', instead of
the recommended common usage 'Unix' or even 'unix' if he must.

On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 08:54:52 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 17:17:08 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody is going to sue us because we're writing UNIX over here, for
>>> example.
>>
>> That might be considered “legal advice” ...
>
> Another totally silly thing---to have to state things such as IANAL and
> other silly things.

Again, it’s just “cover your arse” --- it’s common sense.

On 23 Nov 2024 14:02:36 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> But the issue isn't even about writing 'UNIX', but about Lawrence
> using the unneeded, meaningless and somewhat silly '*nix', instead of
> the recommended common usage 'Unix' or even 'unix' if he must.

“*nix” is the recommended usage. Also it avoids confusion with systems
like Apple, which are official “Unix” trademark licensees, but don’t
really work the way we expect.

-hh wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>>Read it, folks. There's not one shred of support for -highhorse's
>>claim of "hardcore Linux advocates" "rejecting" "insufficiently pure"
>>Open Source projects.
>
> (snipped, unread)

Of course, there is nothing wrong with an individual choosing, or
rejecting, or advocating-for, a product for any reason that they think
important. Including "purity".

But snits, like -highhorse, will twist such opinions into something
"bad", something "anti choice".

I'll use this analogy again: There is nothing wrong with saying that
you should not vote for Donald Trump. It only beomes bad when you say
that people should not be allowed to vote for Donald Trump.

No real FOSS advocate seeks to deny anyone the choice of "less pure"
open-source products.

On 11/23/24 8:13 PM, chrisv wrote:
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> {doublepost whining ... snipped!}

<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/a_hit_dog_will_holler>

-hh

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2024 14:02:36 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > But the issue isn't even about writing 'UNIX', but about Lawrence
> > using the unneeded, meaningless and somewhat silly '*nix', instead of
> > the recommended common usage 'Unix' or even 'unix' if he must.
>
> ?*nix? is the recommended usage. Also it avoids confusion with systems
> like Apple, which are official ?Unix? trademark licensees, but don?t
> really work the way we expect.

Apparently '*nix' is "the recommended usage" in your world, but not in
the real world. And there's no such thing as an "official 'Unix'
trademark licensee". The wording should be "official UNIX licensee", i.e.
all uppercase and without quotes.

But all that has already been explained, including the Wikipedia
reference. If you think you know better than the Wikipedia page, then
try to get it 'corrected'. And good luck with convincing The Open Group
that they've got it all wrong.

On 11/23/2024 7:56 PM, chrisv wrote:

> It only beomes bad when you say that people should not be allowed to vote for Donald Trump.

Every idiotic 2020 election denier should never be allowed to vote
again, because it PROVES they're scumbags who only believe the vote is
fair if their candidate wins. They're willing to subvert democracy to
get their candidate in office.

Thus Trump should never be allowed to vote again, nor should Slimer or
RonB or whatever other Trump-worshipping mutts hang around here.

DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:
>On 11/23/2024 7:56 PM, chrisv wrote:
>
>> It only beomes bad when you say that people should not be allowed to vote for Donald Trump.
>
>Every idiotic 2020 election denier should never be allowed to vote
>again, because it PROVES they're scumbags who only believe the vote is
>fair if their candidate wins. They're willing to subvert democracy to
>get their candidate in office.
>
>Thus Trump should never be allowed to vote again, nor should Slimer or
>RonB or whatever other Trump-worshipping mutts hang around here.

You're a good guy, at heart, man.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Joel wrote:

>DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:
>>On 11/23/2024 7:56 PM, chrisv wrote:

(unread)

On 24 Nov 2024 10:57:11 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> ... there's no such thing as an "official 'Unix'
> trademark licensee". The wording should be "official UNIX licensee", i.e.
> all uppercase and without quotes.

What are they licensing then, if not the trademark?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On 24 Nov 2024 10:57:11 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > ... there's no such thing as an "official 'Unix'
> > trademark licensee". The wording should be "official UNIX licensee", i.e.
> > all uppercase and without quotes.
>
> What are they licensing then, if not the trademark?

['Convenient' snipping noted.]

Sigh! Of course they are licensing the trademark, but the trademark is
'UNIX', not 'Unix'. and when used in a sentence, the name 'UNIX'
obviously should have no quotes around it. So "official UNIX licensee".

On 29 Nov 2024 11:21:42 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 24 Nov 2024 10:57:11 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>>> ... there's no such thing as an "official 'Unix'
>>> trademark licensee". The wording should be "official UNIX licensee"
>>> ...
>>
>> What are they licensing then, if not the trademark?
>
> Sigh! Of course they are licensing the trademark, but the trademark is
> 'UNIX', not 'Unix'.

Doesn’t matter which it is, the other one would still be considered close
enough to cause confusion.

Otherwise, we would not be having this discussion, would we?