microsoft.com -> NetBSD
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/downloads/754fee75-c5a0-4542-bf9b-47f236c0a90b/default.aspx Any comments? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/726161.5795...@web121403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
[OT] Re: microsoft.com -> NetBSD
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:11:43 -0800, S Mathias wrote: > http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/downloads/754fee75-c5a0-4542- bf9b-47f236c0a90b/default.aspx > > Any comments? Additional information: http://www.bsdnewsletter.com/2010/12/News180.html I can only say that I love BSD licenses. I know many people can be anger by this but I find that BSD licences are the best exponent for the true and unconditional user freedom. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.12.30.18.40...@gmail.com
Re: [OT] Re: microsoft.com -> NetBSD
> I can only say that I love BSD licenses. I know many people can be anger > by this but I find that BSD licences are the best exponent for the true > and unconditional user freedom. I agree with Camaleón. Not to end 2010 with a flame war, but this is the one thing that irritates me most about the FSF. They advocate free software, which is a laudable goal, but they seem to only acknowledge it *if* you conform to their definition of free. By definition, if a user chooses to, they should be *free* to use commercial software and be as equally accepted as someone who opts not to have any binary blobs on their system. In their own way, Stallman and the FSF are trying to accomplish lock-in as much as the vendors... --b -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti=zfkkhwsyn6utdfxm-vnjswqqic38wgwgr1...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [OT] Re: microsoft.com -> NetBSD
* On 2010 30 Dec 12:50 -0600, Brad Alexander wrote: > > I can only say that I love BSD licenses. I know many people can be anger > > by this but I find that BSD licences are the best exponent for the true > > and unconditional user freedom. > > I agree with Camaleón. Not to end 2010 with a flame war, but this is > the one thing that irritates me most about the FSF. They advocate free > software, which is a laudable goal, but they seem to only acknowledge > it *if* you conform to their definition of free. By definition, if a > user chooses to, they should be *free* to use commercial software and > be as equally accepted as someone who opts not to have any binary > blobs on their system. In their own way, Stallman and the FSF are > trying to accomplish lock-in as much as the vendors... Sorry, but as a contributor to a small Free Software project licensed under GPL and LGPL, I respectfully disagree. Much has been provided to me because of the GPL and I believe that my contributions warrant the same opportunity by others. I do not want any of my contributions taken proprietary by *any* entity for *any* reason. I also do not see the GPL as lock-in, rather as lock-out. I do understand and respect why others would prefer to choose a BSD license. I just ask that others do the same for us who choose the GPL. HNY - Nate >> -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://n0nb.us/index.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101231044558.ge21...@n0nb.us
Re: [OT] Re: microsoft.com -> NetBSD
Dne, 31. 12. 2010 05:45:58 je Nate Bargmann napisal(a): * On 2010 30 Dec 12:50 -0600, Brad Alexander wrote: > > I can only say that I love BSD licenses. I know many people can be anger > > by this but I find that BSD licences are the best exponent for the true > > and unconditional user freedom. > > I agree with Camaleón. Not to end 2010 with a flame war, but this is > the one thing that irritates me most about the FSF. They advocate free > software, which is a laudable goal, but they seem to only acknowledge > it *if* you conform to their definition of free. By definition, if a > user chooses to, they should be *free* to use commercial software and > be as equally accepted as someone who opts not to have any binary > blobs on their system. In their own way, Stallman and the FSF are > trying to accomplish lock-in as much as the vendors... Sorry, but as a contributor to a small Free Software project licensed under GPL and LGPL, I respectfully disagree. Much has been provided to me because of the GPL and I believe that my contributions warrant the same opportunity by others. I do not want any of my contributions taken proprietary by *any* entity for *any* reason. I also do not see the GPL as lock-in, rather as lock-out. Couldn't agree more. It's a war. We really shouldn't fool ourselves about that. Countering the immense power of proprietary software companies with non-viral free licenses is like fighting against tanks with just bare hands. Corporations -- software ones included -- are *not* like us. They may contain some "decent people" but they are not themselves "decent people" like we are, they are soulless entities. We shouldn't make the mistake of personifying them, that is, of projecting our inner traits of honesty, decency, humanity, honor, or morality onto them: they have none of those. They just have *agendas*. GPL gives developers of free software at least half a chance. It saddens me to see how many people fail, or refuse, to see that. -- Cheerio, Klistvud http://bufferoverflow.tiddlyspot.com Certifiable Loonix User #481801 Please reply to the list, not to me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1293792231.692...@compax
Re: [OT] Re: microsoft.com -> NetBSD
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 13:47:15 -0500, Brad Alexander wrote: >> I can only say that I love BSD licenses. I know many people can be >> anger by this but I find that BSD licences are the best exponent for >> the true and unconditional user freedom. > > I agree with Camaleón. Not to end 2010 with a flame war, but this is the > one thing that irritates me most about the FSF. They advocate free > software, which is a laudable goal, but they seem to only acknowledge it > *if* you conform to their definition of free. By definition, if a user > chooses to, they should be *free* to use commercial software and be as > equally accepted as someone who opts not to have any binary blobs on > their system. In their own way, Stallman and the FSF are trying to > accomplish lock-in as much as the vendors... Well, I don't see any strong contradictions in BSD licences (tagged as "new/modified") and the FSF... in fact the Modified BSD licencse it is listed in their site and marked as "GPL compatible": http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses So we (BSD and FSF lovers) can all be happy :-) In brief, I think non-copyleft licences are more user-oriented than gpl- ed ones (which put the "full powers" on developer's hand). Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.12.31.12.58...@gmail.com
Re: [OT] Re: microsoft.com -> NetBSD
On Jo, 30 dec 10, 18:40:57, Camaleón wrote: > On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:11:43 -0800, S Mathias wrote: > > > http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/downloads/754fee75-c5a0-4542- > bf9b-47f236c0a90b/default.aspx > > > > Any comments? > > Additional information: > > http://www.bsdnewsletter.com/2010/12/News180.html > > I can only say that I love BSD licenses. I know many people can be anger > by this but I find that BSD licences are the best exponent for the true > and unconditional user freedom. The most interesting for me was this (emphasis mine): , | Microsoft released their NetBSD installation ISO image with everything: | their custom scheduler, *full sources*, tools, man pages, etc. [...] | (Under the nice NetBSD license.) ` especially since the BSD license does not force them to release sources, or to release them under same license. Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Re: microsoft.com -> NetBSD
Brad Alexander writes: > Not to end 2010 with a flame war, but this is the one thing that > irritates me most about the FSF. They advocate free software, which is > a laudable goal, but they seem to only acknowledge it *if* you conform > to their definition of free. The FSF explicitly acknowledges the BSD as a Free license. > By definition, if a user chooses to, they should be *free* to use > commercial software... They are. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/877heqax90@thumper.dhh.gt.org
Re: [OT] Re: microsoft.com -> NetBSD
Look, I am as much for free software as the rest, but I think the FSF tends to start brush fires to justify their own existence. I believe they have done some good work, but many things they do seem to be counterproductive to the cause. For instance, their latest attack, on Linus Torvalds, claiming that the Linux Kernel is Open Core, and that "Linux Kernel Is Torvalds' 'Bait and Switch'" (http://www.osnews.com/story/24009/FSFLA_Linux_Kernel_Is_Torvalds_Bait_and_Switch_ and http://lwn.net/Articles/413927/) Why? Because you can install binary blobs on your Linux system if you _choose to_? That makes the kernel Open Core? And Linus is intentionally drawing people in to software heresy? I understand people like Nate's position. However, I also understand the need for some proprietary software. If it weren't for some of it, Linux would still be a garage project. For the last 12 years, I have been able to earn a living as a professional Linux system admin. We would not be where we are without uptake on the part of companies. The human genome would not have been mapped by Linux, military systems would not be running Linux, etc. It's a balancing act that we have, thus far, done, IMHO, a pretty decent job of. Again, I am not trying to start a flame war, but I am a pragmatist. I would rather get Linux in an organization, even if that means that temporarily (e.g. application level) or semi-permanently (e.g. binary blobs for proprietary hardware...until equivalent free drivers are developed) using something proprietary. I think getting Linux in the door is a win, even if it is not 100% free. --b On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Klistvud wrote: > Dne, 31. 12. 2010 05:45:58 je Nate Bargmann napisal(a): >> >> * On 2010 30 Dec 12:50 -0600, Brad Alexander wrote: >> > > I can only say that I love BSD licenses. I know many people can be >> > > anger >> > > by this but I find that BSD licences are the best exponent for the >> > > true >> > > and unconditional user freedom. >> > >> > I agree with Camaleón. Not to end 2010 with a flame war, but this is >> > the one thing that irritates me most about the FSF. They advocate free >> > software, which is a laudable goal, but they seem to only acknowledge >> > it *if* you conform to their definition of free. By definition, if a >> > user chooses to, they should be *free* to use commercial software and >> > be as equally accepted as someone who opts not to have any binary >> > blobs on their system. In their own way, Stallman and the FSF are >> > trying to accomplish lock-in as much as the vendors... >> >> Sorry, but as a contributor to a small Free Software project licensed >> under GPL and LGPL, I respectfully disagree. Much has been provided to >> me because of the GPL and I believe that my contributions warrant the >> same opportunity by others. I do not want any of my contributions taken >> proprietary by *any* entity for *any* reason. I also do not see the GPL >> as lock-in, rather as lock-out. > > Couldn't agree more. It's a war. We really shouldn't fool ourselves about > that. Countering the immense power of proprietary software companies with > non-viral free licenses is like fighting against tanks with just bare hands. > Corporations -- software ones included -- are *not* like us. They may > contain some "decent people" but they are not themselves "decent people" > like we are, they are soulless entities. We shouldn't make the mistake of > personifying them, that is, of projecting our inner traits of honesty, > decency, humanity, honor, or morality onto them: they have none of those. > They just have *agendas*. > > GPL gives developers of free software at least half a chance. It saddens me > to see how many people fail, or refuse, to see that. > > -- > Cheerio, > > Klistvud http://bufferoverflow.tiddlyspot.com > Certifiable Loonix User #481801 Please reply to the list, not to me. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.orgwith a subject > of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1293792231.692...@compax > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinh6p2ue-flj4xcebwi50t2zye7b35nrxbf9...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [OT] Re: microsoft.com -> NetBSD
On Sb, 01 ian 11, 23:35:34, Brad Alexander wrote: > Look, I am as much for free software as the rest, but I think the FSF > tends to start brush fires to justify their own existence. I believe > they have done some good work, but many things they do seem to be > counterproductive to the cause. For instance, their latest attack, on > Linus Torvalds, claiming that the Linux Kernel is Open Core, and that > "Linux Kernel Is Torvalds' 'Bait and Switch'" > (http://www.osnews.com/story/24009/FSFLA_Linux_Kernel_Is_Torvalds_Bait_and_Switch_ > and http://lwn.net/Articles/413927/) Why? Because you can install > binary blobs on your Linux system if you _choose to_? That makes the > kernel Open Core? And Linus is intentionally drawing people in to > software heresy? There might come a day when most of the systems in the world will be running free software, but we are still not there. Actually, at the moment it's (almost?) impossible to run a completely free system, so there is still work to do. Even more, it's important to not let people think "it's just the firmware", because even the firmware does have source code somewhere[1]. Unfortunately the method used (attacking other members of the free software community) is IMVHO not the best... [1] except maybe some hex tables used to initialize the hardware, but even then, those hex tables should be thoroughly documented Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
