I know people have not been extremely explicit about it, but I still managed to figure out there was some reference to reverse engineering and/or decompiling in preceding comments -- something generally disallowed by commercial, closed source copyright licenses.
That's because the GPL is essentially the antithesis of copyright, hence that whole "copyleft" thing.
That's only as true as the statement that Democrats are the antithesis of Republicans in the US.
It's essentially a way to fight copyright within the confines of copyright itself.
No -- it's a way to fight certain uses of copyright with other uses of copyright, like a nation of state socialists using nuclear weapons to fight against the use of nuclear weapons by a nation of fascists. A much less paradoxical way to fight copyright would be to choose neither copyright nor copyleft, but copyfree instead.
When your license imposes the overhead costs of a bunch of source archive management, bookkeeping, and so on, it creates incentives to plagiarize for people working on projects that do not turn a profit or for startups.
Once again, we might note that this isn't a property of the GPL; it's just as true for proprietary code. The only real difference is that GPL'd code is usually published openly and comes with a license that lets anyone use the code for free, while you typically have to pay for a license to use proprietary code -- if you can even get a license to use the code.
It is a property of copyright restrictions in general, yes. This is, in fact, sorta my point. The GPL does not provide nearly the level of greater ease of code reuse that many people seem to think.
. . . and you completely bypassed my point, which was the fact that plagiarism is incentivized for GPLed (and, yes, proprietary) code in ways that do not apply to copyfree and public domain code. In short, any copyright restrictions that impose any overhead on the reuser of your code serves as a trade-off between chances of plagiarism and chances of someone using your code without giving you anything (other than attribution).
Note that this also applies to supposedly "permissive" licenses that come with nontrivial restrictions, like the Apache License 2.0.
There is no difference in the legally required accountability when you use someone else's code. If you do this at all, you need to keep good records, or you are opening yourself and your products to serious legal problems. The GPL may "invite" this by making the code easily available, but GPL'd code is copyrighted, and is legally no different from proprietary code in regards to ownership.
Criticising someone because they make their code easy to copy, use, and build on is a rather bizarre sort of negativism. Do you really think it's better that you not be allowed access to the code at all, or that you be charged for non-commercial, personal use?
Your straw men are burning.
An honest person would consider it normal to keep track of what usage they make of other people's work, and would give proper credit to their sources. They would consider keeping proper records of such usage just a normal part of creating something new, not an unnecessary burden. Complaining about the need for something that's ethically required is a fairly clear statement of one's character.
I wasn't talking about what honest people would or would not do. I agree that an honest person would make some effort to properly credit people on whose work he or she builds, but that does not in any way change the applicability of anything I said.
I hope you're not trying to insinuate that I personally object to giving proper attribution for others' work when I build on it. In fact, my approach is to just not use copyleft licensed code in my work so I never have to worry about its restrictions. Sometimes this makes things a little harder, but usually there's no extra difficulty at all, and I'm happy to give attribution for the copyfree licensed projects whose work I do use, and release my code under the terms of copyfree licenses any time I have a choice in the matter. So . . . no, I don't object to giving proper attribution. I just think people should stop equating copyright enforcement with attribution enforcement, and recognize that the two are actually opposed to some nontrivial degree.
Living in a fantasy land where as long as you talk about your intentions you don't have to worry about unintended consequences is kinda counterproductive, after all.
(Yes, I do normally work from copies of all software that I "borrow" from someone else, and archive the originals. There are good technical reasons for doing this, in addition to the ethical obligation. I don't consider it a burden at all. And I've often found it useful during debugging. Sometimes the result is that I send bug reports back to the original authors, who usually thank me. And I've similarly thanked people for such info about code that I've made available to the public.
I think you're confusing keeping an original copy handy for development purposes with maintaining archives of someone else's project for every single version you use over a period of however long you maintain your own project plus a few years for the general public to access, paying for all the bandwidth, storage, backups, and legal compliance ass-covering that implies.
It's also worth noting that the GPL actually encourages plagiarism in some cases. Consider someone wanting to use freely available code as the basis for a closed source offering (or maybe even open source, but doesn't want to deal with the hassle of the GPL's draconian source archive management requirements). If the code the person finds that best suits his or her needs is distributed under the MIT/X11 License (for instance), that person might proudly refer to the open source roots of the software. If it is distributed under the terms of the GPL, on the other hand, that person might instead decide to conceal the source of the code, thinking it won't be discovered so that all that source archive management overhead can be avoided (and even if it is discovered the worst result will probably then be having to start sharing the sources in accordance with the requirements of the license, still having given the person a grace period with no costs incurred by that overhead).
When your license imposes the overhead costs of a bunch of source archive management, bookkeeping, and so on, it creates incentives to plagiarize for people working on projects that do not turn a profit or for startups. This is just one of the many unintended consequences that can arise from the use of highly complex, restrictive licenses that try to micromanage how people modify and distribute derivative works.
That is because you selectively quoted what I said.
What I quoted implies everything you just restated, and it still doesn't dispute the fact that "BSD Unix ran into major legal hurdles in the early days of its migration to the x86-based commodity software sphere, thus helping Linux gain an early lead." You seem to have no (willingness to acknowledge, or conception of) the importance of timing. I suppose you've never heard the phrase "fist to market", either.
That is not the "early" days. That is well after the lawsuit.
This is not a substantive contribution to the discussion. It's quibbling over definitions. It has been about twenty years since BSD Unix and Linux kernels arrived on x86 architecture systems. It (and, explicitly so you don't just complain about selective quoting: including the stuff immediately following what I quoted) also doesn't substantively address what I said about the nature of those companies with regard to the "marketing" effects on growing popularity; it just confirms some of what I said about them.
Is that a euphemism for "wrong"?
Is that your substitution of snark for meaningful discussion?
No, it's not a euphemism for "wrong". It's a reference to the fact that his statement was incautiously phrased and overlooked key cases. Yes, what he said was factually incorrect, or "wrong" if you like, but what I said addressed more of the character of how he was "wrong". Unlike you, I don't have a vested interest in ridiculing anyone in this discussion.
Anyone who makes assertions of the form "all X is Y", or "no X is Y", "X is always Y", etc. in an argument like this, is almost always wrong (note: I said almost).
True (and noted). People make incautious statements like that quite regularly. There is, sometimes, quite a lot of truth in the thrust of the statement even when its literal meaning is false in some particulars due to overly absolutist use of language, though, and this is relevant here.
I mean, it's obvious that the data about uptake of every single GPL software compared with BSD software is basically unknowable, so making a blanket statement like that is ridiculous. Like the rest of his blanket statements.
If your only goal is to "win" by showing that someone is "wrong" a lot, I guess that's the most important thing about what he said. If it's to actually engage in some kind of exchange of information and possibly have a meaningful discussion, however, it pays to think not in terms like "your blanket statement is technically wrong", but rather in terms like "as a blanket statement, that is incorrect, but it is worth considering whether a strong trend exists before dismissing the ideas you raise".
Of course, I've seen libman around in other contexts before, and he has not only a tendency toward blanket statements where they are not strictly accurate, and toward imposing interpretations of non-blanket statements as though they were blanket statements on others' arguments (highly fucking aggravating when he does that) and using that to "prove" that person was "wrong" somehow. I doubt you know this from past experience with him like I do, though, and your response is counterproductive toward convincing anyone of anything, I think. In fact, in this case you seem to come off less reasonably than he does, by blowing past the meat of every point he makes to attack something peripheral, tied solely to phrasing, or otherwise well off the mark. You've done the same in response to my previous comment, too (see above, re: "early", for instance). Perhaps you could try looking for the meat of a statement rather than just looking for excuses to disagree in vague disagreements about use of nonspecific terms.
Nice strawman. I did not say that is all he does. I did not say everything he does is irrational.
That's funny. First, your use of "just" implies "only", as regards the context of his contributions (or lack thereof) to open source software communities or whatever it was you were implying is not served by him. Second, your protestation that you did not say everything he does is irrational is, itself, a strawman, because it addresses a claim I never made, resulting in a hopelessly fallacious bit of meta-fallacy nitpicking.
That is a completely different thing then. Lots of communities have anti business issues. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some BSD developers that are anti business.
I do not disagree with anything you said in what I just quoted. On the other hand . .
I am not stupid, so I would not go and call any license an "anti business license" in that case, then. Particularly not when you have many other communities using that license who are business friendly.
I understand libman's meaning in this case, though, in that there is a difference between the creator+maintainers of a license holding a particular view (and the idea that the license has design characteristics that seem like naive implementations of that view) and some random Joe who uses the license holding that view. If the creator+maintainers hold socialistic views, and the license itself has a form that seems like it could well have been designed to serve those views, that might be described as "the license is socialistic" as shorthand for the statement about the creator+maintainers. If some random Joe using the license does so in an anticompetitive state-corporatist ploy to destroy other people's livelihoods to provide coercive, protectionistic benefits to his own livelihood, there is no reasonable way (based on that alone) to claim the license is by nature an anticompetitive state-corporatist license, even as shorthand for what Joe did.
Given that state of affairs, I might point out that it's possible (even quite plausible) that the initial creation of the license and the philosophy that guided its creation may have been socialistic, but that the license itself has no political philosophy character itself. I would not, as you have, simply say the person making claims about socialistic character of the license is stupid, because that's counterproductive to trying to productively contribute to the general pool of public understanding of the complexities surrounding copyright licensing.
It is not GPL-based threats, it is copyright-based threats. GPL is not a contract.
You're trying to split hairs that don't even exist. The GPL's terms allow certain behaviors not inherently embodied in copyright law's conditions themselves (though the doctrine of fair use would allow some of them as a consequence of a non-explicit license granted by the act of distributing a copy of the work in question to a given recipient); that allowance comes with specific restrictions (which would not apply in the fair use case); the recipient took advantage of the allowance, but the distributors or entities who consider themselves otherwise relevant to the distribution relationship assert that the restrictions were not observed; therefore, a copyright violation occurred. Whether you term that a "license violation" or a "copyright violation persuant to the terms of the license in consideration for allowances granted" or something else along those lines, the obvious meaning is the same for those of us who are not fighting it out in a court of law. Now that we've settled that little diversion, please return to addressing the actual point I made.
I'm increasingly disappointed in your tendency to attack irrelevancies as excuses to disagree rather than address the obvious intended meaning of colloquial phrasings issuing from people who have not identified themselves as lawyers. Are you just unwilling or unable to have a meaningful, productive discussion about the subject?
Rephrased: BSD licensed software owners sometimes threaten to enforce their rights against other users who violate their terms.
That is irrelevant to the point made and, in fact, there are not typically such threats involved -- just observances of the hypocrisy of people who bitch and whine about GPL restrictions. (Go ahead now. Ignore my point in favor of focusing on the way I used the term GPL, as if you can make very problem with the GPL totally separate from the GPL.)
Or, occasional BSD developers who violate GPL licenses, who complain about "businesses" not "giving back". See? I can do this too.
Yes, you can parrot things I've said, substituting some terms for others -- but when the actual facts of the matter have totally different meaning in the same context when the license terms are swapped, your paraphrasing of what I said serves to meaningfully contradict my point not one whit. A GPL software developer who chooses to use the GPL to "force" people to "give back", who violates the Simplified BSD License terms and failing to "give back", is acting in direct contradiction of his or her own expressed principles and desires (assuming they are applied consistently, and not just self-centeredly for manipulative ends); this is called "hypocrisy". A Simplified BSD License software developer who chooses to use that license to free people to accomplish things with the project in question and doesn't really care how people use it, who violates the GPL, may be acting incautiously, recklessly, spitefully, under a misunderstanding, or by way of any of a number of other motivations or accidents, but is not thereby acting hypocritically in violation of his or her own professed principles.
I think it is.
Your bald-faced disputation with no evident interest in resolving the reason for our disagreement on the matter looks fairly emblematic of your entire approach her, which seems to have zero to do with honest communication, and much to do with trying to "win" for your "team", whatever that may be.
It was not because of the legal issues. FreeBSD 4 was widely considered as the pinnacle of FreeBSD's technial advantage over Linux, for example.
I don't see how this disputes the simple fact that BSD Unix ran into major legal hurdles in the early days of its migration to the x86-based commodity software sphere, thus helping Linux gain an early lead.
BSDs were run on some of the busiest websites on the internet for years. Hotmail, Yahoo, cdrom.
You seem to be trying to say that somehow BSD Unix systems such as FreeBSD were doing great in the early days, then suddenly tanked in quality and were thus surpassed by Linux. The flaw in the argument, of course, is that technical quality has far less to do with popularity than technically minded people like us (I assume you fall into this category, for argument's sake) would like to think. A large number of businesses using BSD Unix early on were just using it -- not further developing it, not distributing it -- and in that respect had little or nothing to do with popularizing the system for anyone else. Meanwhile, the Linux community grew by leaps and bounds because of an initial low barrier to entry and low level of uncertainty over its future that bootstrapped the critical mass needed to create a self-expanding effort. As more users (some of whom became contributors) got involved, the grassroots marketing power of the community grew over time, and soon enough Linux had become enough of a buzzword that it became synonymous with "open source" in the minds of many. It's possible that, when the business explosion of Linux occurred (thus pushing it past BSD Unix significantly in business usage), many of the business adopters did so on the say-so of technical employees who essentially didn't know BSD Unix existed as a viable option.
All of that has little or nothing to do with comparative technical benefits of one system over another. In point of fact, FreeBSD and common Linux-based systems tend to be trade-offs in terms of performance; FreeBSD tends to be more stable for most purposes; Linux-based systems are often much more focused on being "user friendly"; and FreeBSD tends to be much more oriented to low-overhead system administration, consistency of experience, and "correctness" of development practices and system design. Both, in other words, have their advantages. Pretending that "Linux" somehow "won" by being technically better must be a case of either confirmation bias or simple ignorance.
Of course there are categories where GPL licensed code is gaining ground over BSD and similar licensed software.
That's correct. In this regard, libman overstepped himself. Your example of version control systems is pretty much the canonical example, where the top version control systems in the open source world seem to be (in descending order) Git, Mercurial, Bazaar, Fossil, and Subversion. While Subversion still boasts a huge userbase (it may well outstrip Git in that regard), much of that is essentially "legacy" rather than a matter of its popularity. Of the five, the first three were created and distributed under the terms of the GPL (a copyleft license); Fossil uses a BSD license (a copyfree license); and Subversion initially used a copyfree license as well. It gets worse for the copyfree side: when the Apache Software Foundation took over control of the Subversion project, it relicensed it under the terms of the Apache License 2.0, which (while many people dubiously label it "permissive") is not a copyfree license. It's worth noting that the ASF has kind of a center-of-gravity effect on licensing, though; every project it adopts is relicensed to Apache License 2.0, including both the previously copyfree licensed Subversion and the previously copyleft licensed OpenOffice.org.
The most notable thing about the version control example, however, is the fact that it is one of the exceptions to the general trend toward more-permissive licensing in the last half-dozen years or so. For good or ill, the hold of GNU licenses in particular, and of copyleft licenses in general (which is really just GNU licenses plus a small number of admittedly very popular notable exceptions such as Mozilla and Sun/Oracle projects), over the open source community at large is eroding rapidly these days. Even many copyleft licensed projects are increasingly becoming riddled with holes in their copyleftness, as in the case of the increasing number of Firefox components distributed under more-permissive terms (such as adoption of moving parts under the hood like public domain SQLite for what was once managed by plain text databases, and creation of new feature initiatives like the upcoming browser-integrated copyfree implementation of PDF display).
It is not considered rational to just rant on internet forums and limit your economic choices because "was making me feel like a commie conformist" and raging against the machine with exactly zero effect on anything.
Unless you know more about libman than I do, you have no basis for a reasonable belief that all he does is "just rant on internet forums and limit [his] economic choices". He has, in fact, rather clearly referred to his work to establish himself as a(n apparently professional) supporter of system and network technologies available under non-copyleft terms.
Finally, GPL licenses are not anti business, soaked with legal threats, or socialist.
It's more the GPL-focused "Free Software" community around Stallman and the FSF that is anti-business, in part because many of them seem incapable of discerning a difference between corporate and non-corporate businesses. The license is, in fact, very pro-corporate in effect, in that resource-rich public corporations that create something and release it under the terms of the GPL are able to garner significant community support for their supposed "Free Software" altruism, require copyright assignment for their projects so they still maintain sole copyright control. The can then offer closed source extended or commercially licensed versions to paying customers as a means of combining the benefits of open source development with closed source proprietary licensing based revenue streams and, at the same time, engage in anticompetitive business practices that shut would-be competitors (including open source competitors) out of the ability to offer the full range of capabilities in their extended versions -- thus always having a legally enforced anticompetitive advantage.
I guess you could say I disagree with libman's characterization of the GPL as strictly "anti-business", for common definitions of "business".
As for being "soaked with legal threats", I was a bit mortified early this century to hear about the GPL-based threats of litigation aimed at small, indepdent Linux projects such as MEPIS and Kororaa, among many other legal threats aimed at even smaller open source projects around the same period. In one case, the freely-offered MEPIS distributions were targeted for supposedly violating source code retention and accessibility restrictions of the GPL, based on the fact MEPIS distributions were regarded by those making legal threats as being a commercial enterprise just because a business entity that offered Linux support services was distributing MEPIS and referring people to upstream Debian sources. In the other case, Kororaa (a purely community-driven effort) was targeted for the manner in which it distributed high performance drivers. The maintainers of other small Linux distribution projects showed significant solidarity with the maintainers of those projects (notably including the Damn Small Linux creator) by castigating the people making litigative threats, but the problem of license terms that create an environment where such threats are possible still remains.
While regarding copyright as the default yields a view that the GPL is just a set of permissions that free us from the restrictions of copyright, as you have characterized it, the perspective of someone who regards more permissive licensing as the standard by which things should be judged may reasonably regard complex, legally challenging licenses with strict terms of compliance and litigatively motivated organizations like the FSF and SFLW backing them, as licenses "soaked with legal threats" (or something to that effect).
As for socialism, I've lost track of whether Stallman calls himself a socialist, communist, Marxist, social democrat, or . . . whatever. That his legacy in the GPL seems well-suited to his statements of political philosophy is difficult to dispute with a straight face. The effective application of the license, however, has as much in common with corporatist state capitalism as it has with socialist and related left-collectivist political philosophies, though.
This holds true whether it is BSD licensed software
I have yet to run across anyone having problems with license compliance for software distributed under copyfree licenses other than the occasional Linux community developer who thinks he can just throw away BSD license notices when incorporating copyfree licensed code into GPLed projects (thus, ironically, behaving in exactly the same manner as the corporations they often rail against when complaining about "businesses" not "giving back" to the community).
Only an utter nincompoop or a deliberate liar would violate the terms of the license they use, and then claim that the software somehow made them do it because "it's viral" or "it threatened me with legal action" or something ridiculous like that. Which are you?
I really don't think that's productive commentary, especially because it is not a perfectly accurate representation of libman's involvement here.
To quote you:
I'm better served by public domain open source, both when I've released software as open source and when I've used others open source. GPL has only ever restricted what I want to do with open source software, not given me more freedom.
You do say GPL has restricted what you want to do.
I think you mean "to quote BasilBrush", and "BasilBrush does say", because it was not me who said that in this thread.
I said "presumably this means you develop commercial software" because the requirements around providing source code tend to allow users to give copies away to others for free which goes against the profit motive.
In other words, you jumped to conclusions.
Apparently that's incorrect - you seem a bit angry about my supposition.
I doubt you are a psychologist, and even if you are you should try to refrain from diagnosing mental state in Internet discussions. I'm not angry about anything. I'm simply pointing out that you have utterly failed to address the core point of BasilBrush's comments.
But if we take that off the table it only leaves a couple options for what you don't like. And I do say "what you don't like" deliberately. At this point the GPL does not directly prevent you from using software, adding to the software, incorporating code into your own software, or redistributing any of that. It does require you to do certain things in some of those case.
Yes, it is true that the GPL requires certain actions that may not be practical or desirable in some cases when "using" covered software, for a very broad definition of "using" that includes stuff like distribution and development among other things. By doing so, it restricts the "use" of the software in cases where such actions are impractical or undesirable.
It requires your combined work to be GPL licensed should you give it to someone (which you may not like).
Worse than that, it may make it effectively impossible to give it to someone else in some circumstances, such as in combined distribution with works covered by other copyleft licenses.
It requires you to offer source code (which may be an inconvenience).
It may be more than an inconvenience. There have been cases where I did not have access to source code myself and thus have not been able to legally give a copy of GPLed works to others, through no fault of anyone higher up the chain of distribution. Consider the case of some upstream distributor who ceased distributing a given version, exhausted the source distribution period, and thus stopped distributing the source as well. I'm then disallowed from distributing the copy I have, by law, due to the fact that I can't even point someone at the upstream distributor's copy of the sources.
Personally I would have accepted my presumption - the diminished potential for commercial use is the strongest and most reasonable objection to the GPL (IMHO of course).
It's an unnecessary, often inaccurate excuse to try to shut down or ignore arguments from others.
The remaining motives seem more like personal preference and laziness.
. . . and here, it starts to look like you have zero interest in actually discussing the benefits and detriments of the GPL and other copyleft licenses, per se, and only really want to denigrate the character of those who prefer other licenses, shut them up, and live in a world where you don't have to think about uncomfortable factors that may lead some to reject copyleft licensing for their purposes. If that's not your intent, you should probably rethink your methods.
And lastly:
I specifically avoid contributing code to anything licensed under copyleft terms because I do not want other people restricting how third parties can use my code.
The key question is "is it OK if someone puts your code into a closed source program and gives/sells that to someone?"
Closed source . . . ? Maybe. Proprietary? Absolutely not, though there's no way to stop them from doing so short of methods like copyleft licensing, whose cure is worse than the disease. Consider, for instance, the fact that I am legally prohibited from including the source of both proprietary, strictly copyright enforced software and copyleft software in a copyfree licensed project, or in another copyleft or proprietary, strictly copyright enforced project. For most of the world, the effect is often identical between the two opposed approaches; don't use the source in your project. There is one difference where doing more than simply looking at the source or benefiting from someone else looking at the source is involved: if you happen to be working only with code distributed under the same license, you're okay. Otherwise, not so much.
Because that is restricting what that "someone" can do with your code unless they can find an original copy of just your contribution.
The GPL can pick up my code and add it to its own project in a way that prohibits me from using the larger software project for my own purposes, too. Same deal as with proprietary, strictly copyright enforced software projects. The difference is that with a copyfree license, such as the MIT/X11 License, people developing other copyfree licensed projects could also use my code, which would be wonderful. With the GPL, they couldn't, just as they couldn't with proprietary code.
Then, of course, there's the fact that the GPL has been used to threaten lawsuits against small Linux distribution projects such as Kororaa (which has been shut down for half a dozen years, give or take, thanks to the GPL police) and MEPIS. There's also the fact that copyleft licenses like the GPL make great anticompetitive tools for corporate commercial software vendors, who can use an "open core" strategy to reap the benefits of open source development, make money on closed source components, and prevent competitors from leveraging their codebases to do the same so that there is a distinctly lopsided market. The whole thing is a mess, to say nothing of the legal problems that come with complex licensing whose actual effects if tested in court may be surprising, especially to the legions of people who think they know what the GPL means but have no understanding of the law and have never actually read the thing anyway.
That's really the distinction between GPL and BSD. GPL guarantees the third party has the same rights as the second party.
. . . but fewer than the first party, and fewer thanthey should have. The GPL is, as a weapon against proprietary, closed source software, like a weapon of mass destruction that affects innocent bystanders in the area as well as the intended target. The way to fight inequity and restriction in software licensing is not, for the honest, to take a scorched earth approach in a bloodbath struggle; it is to make restrictive licensing irrelevant.
One major difference is that Linux distributions made it possible for mere mortals to acquire, install, and use a Unixlike OS while BSD was still a superbitch.
When is this "was" of which you speak?
I see no evidence that more cutting-edge development is going on in BSDland, there's tons of stuff in Linuxland that is going on that isn't part of mainline... yet.
How is it my problem that you aren't paying enough attention to notice developments in the BSD Unix world?
Statistically nobody cares that FreeBSD supported amd64 before Linux did because by the time anybody really had hardware to run it on, it was working.
. . . except all the people who cared.
There has been room for a Free/Open PC-BSD community since the sources to BSD-4.3-lite were released. It didn't really come together until Linux broke on the scene. The only comfort you have is being ahead of Minix.
What the heck are you talking about? Are you aware that PC-BSD is the name of a particular distribution of FreeBSD? Are you aware that FreeBSD arrived as a contemporary of Slackware, with both systems being (finally) usable systems? Is there some point you're trying to make that is getting lost in the haphazard way you hand-wave away facts and just make vague pronouncements that are difficult to nail down to having a particular meaning reflective of reality?
ignoring all the relevant commentary
Oh, that must mean SuperBanana is wrong! Right? Right . . . ?
Hmm. Wait a minute. No, that's not what that means at all. Darn.
The most difficult thing in the world is to know how to do a thing and to watch someone else doing it wrong, without commenting. -- T.H. White
