Travers Buda wrote: > * David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-14 14:39:49]: >> >> Put away the licenses and open up your mind. God did not write the >> licenses, >> People wrote them. They wrote them to meet specific needs. >> >> Blobs are not bad because Theo says so, or RMS says so or the GPL says >> so or BSD says so. >> Whether software hardware or whatever there are good logical reasons. >> There is no classic BSD vs. GPL - not unless you are trapped in one >> world or the other. >> Either you know what free means to you without a license to refer to or >> you don't. >> If you really beleive that somehow hardware binary blobs - not that thee >> really is such a thing are evil, and software ones >> aren't then say so. If not then why are you arguing? >> >> > > What? Your argument is not concise. > I am not sure how to state this much clearer. My argument is best on my understanding of OpenBSD principles. It does not matter what set of values you use to condemn binary blobs for drivers. The same logic works elsewhere. It is not my argument I am using, its yours. I just happen to aggree with it. > Evil? Blobs are not evil! That's stupid. Blobs are stupid. Blobs mean > >>>> Rely on someone else to make it >>>> Rely on someone else to fix it >>>> Design X.org in a crappy way so said blobs can be used >>>> Security... Christ, it's not about ethics, it's about the >>>> > quality of the OS. You GPL zealots are a bunch of religious nut-jobs > The quality of nothing else matters ? I do embedded work, there is often little or no boundary between the OS and user space. M$ has proven fairly effectively that you can take an OS with a reasonable security model and make it incredibly insecure through poor policy, and applications that ignore security entirely.
I have not picked labels at random and slapped them on you. While I am not a GPL zealot, even if I were it adds nothing. My argument had nothing to do with any license. I took your statements to their logical conclusion.
