Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
2008/6/2 Raj Mathur raju at linux-delhi.org: Some people (including me) are neutral to code that doesn't run on their primary processor. For instance, I'd complain if you gave me a non-free driver for my WiFi card, but I wouldn't if you gave me a free driver that downloads a binary blob to the card itself. The blob isn't running on my CPU, so I'm less antagonistic to it being non-free. Praveen A [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But, doesn't you own both the CPUs? It is like saying you cannot break my leg, but it is OK to break my finger. I think the problem here is that historically a lot of these blobs were running off the cpu as: 1. hardware 2. firmware and didn't come wrapped up in the kernel. When the move was made to making the off-cpu stuff cheaper by doing the stuff in payload code carried (but not executed) by the kernel, the manufacturer lost sight of the fact that while the function remained the same, GPL distribution conditions applied. I don't see it as a failing of GPL v2 for such special cases, and there is a violation - it's just not truly evil in intention. Also the owner still keeps the right to modify the code where as the user is left in the dark, isn't that the whole of the issue? Where is runs is just a matter of technical design. When the owner of the code has the ability to control code and the user is left at mercy of the owner the issue of Freedom comes. The intention was not to get around GPL, which is what I understand Raj to mean when he says he is less antagnostic. Talking about breaking fingers and legs, in that analogy, for this less evil case it is an accident - it is not on purpose - that your finger/leg was broken. Though, yeah, it's still been broken (fingers/legs/GPL), and ideally the source should be available. PJ ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
2008/6/2 Gora Mohanty [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I will reiterate that a GPL violation is a very serious matter, and one in which the FSF, and people like Eben Moglen would be very interested. Could someone please demonstrate that such has happened? FSF and/or Eben can act only in cases where the violation has happened with code that FSF owns copyright. You cannot enforce copyright violations of other people's code. Erm, the FSF for one is very militant about such things, and rightly so. gpl-violations.org has been enforcing GPL on violations of Linux, the kernel. There have been endless arguments about binary drivers on lkml, and frankly, I am not personally interested enough to try and follow the details. However, from what I remember, the consensus was that it was possible to have binary drivers without violating the GPLv2. Again, the GPLv3 explicitly tries to block such loopholes. The violation does not comes with releasing binary drivers separately (working aoround GPL requirement I believe), it comes into picture when you distribute it is a combined work. Cheers Praveen -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
On Monday 02 Jun 2008, Praveen A wrote: 2008/6/2 Raj Mathur [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Some people (including me) are neutral to code that doesn't run on their primary processor. For instance, I'd complain if you gave me a non-free driver for my WiFi card, but I wouldn't if you gave me a free driver that downloads a binary blob to the card itself. The blob isn't running on my CPU, so I'm less antagonistic to it being non-free. But, doesn't you own both the CPUs? It is like saying you cannot break my leg, but it is OK to break my finger. Also the owner still keeps the right to modify the code where as the user is left in the dark, isn't that the whole of the issue? Where is runs is just a matter of technical design. When the owner of the code has the ability to control code and the user is left at mercy of the owner the issue of Freedom comes. Well, yes and no. By that token you also have to condemn firmware that sits permanently on the card (in ROM), in addition to what we are discussing: firmware that gets downloaded to the card at init time. In my personal opinion, card firmware (whether on-board or downloaded) is less of an issue than the software that your computer is running. Yes, it'd be nice to have completely open source cards, but I'm not losing any sleep over it right now. As long as the card manufacturers open their interface specs so the FOSS folks can write quality drivers, I don't care what the card does -- it's a black box and can remain so. Regards, -- Raju -- Raj Mathur[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
2008/6/3 Raj Mathur [EMAIL PROTECTED]: When the owner of the code has the ability to control code and the user is left at mercy of the owner the issue of Freedom comes. Well, yes and no. By that token you also have to condemn firmware that sits permanently on the card (in ROM), in addition to what we are discussing: firmware that gets downloaded to the card at init time. There is a difference. firmaware that sits on the card permanantly cannot be modified by the manufacturer also but one that gets downloaded at run time can be. In the first case the manufacturer is passing on all Freedoms (and tha lack of) to the user while in the second case the manufacturer keeps the Freedom to modify himself and deny it to the user. Cheers Praveen -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
PJ wrote: Doesn't the blob have the privilege to do horrid things to a running kernel (crash, compromise, expose stuff?) Raj Mathur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know if the above is true - I don't know kernel internals. But unverifiable code with kernel privileges is not a reassuring thought. That's the whole point, isn't it? The blob is not running as part of your kernel. It has been offloaded to the card in question, and it is the card's CPU that is running that code. Your kernel does nothing with the code except to push it onto the card once at initialisation time. Specifically, the kernel never executes it; heck, most of that code probably won't even run on x86! Thanks for the clarification. I see that I am almost certainly wrong then in being that worried about the security and stability aspect for off-cpu blobs (I wonder if there are any off-cpu x86 cards around - anyone care to run a disassembler on the payloads and see what comes up? (hmmm... vaguely wondering about the legality of that in some jurisdictions)) Also, is there pretty much a standard hook that is used by all such off-cpu blobs to deliver the payload that is easy to follow for a reviewer? To avoid a trojan sneaking in the kernel source via an obfuscated delivery method? PJ ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
Gora Mohanty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [about me saying that Linus needs to ensure GPL compatible code] Huh? How so? You are now making a claim that has not been voiced so far, namely that this is somehow in violation of the GPL. Linus is committed to GPL V2 for the kernel. So he is obliged to fix code that violates that compatibility. He absolutely has every right to not bother getting involved in the debate on what a GPL violation actually is - but he is obliged to stick with GPL for kernel releases. Gora Mohanty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Admittedly without having looked into the details of any of this, I find this hard to believe. At the least, there would be much more of a stink about this, and if it were true, vehement opposition would indeed be in order. You and me understand the issues around software freedom better than most people. The issue here isn't that obvious. If we don't see it as obvious, then how do you expect there to be much of a stink about it in general? I think it is a GPL violation since a decent coder can't figure out how to modify the disputed code that is distributed with the kernel, unlike the original coder. So there is no way you can say it is a preferred form of source in the GPL sense for the developer the code was distributed to. My objection was not to the initial alert, but to the implication that it was somehow incumbent on the quote community unquote to take up cudgels on this issue. I agree with your objection. (Though I am neutral on Niyam's sensationalizing technique. That looks like an ends vs means issue to me). so it looks like the kernel releases will be healthier than ever as a result of this. So the whole issue is IMO very Nietzschean in the sense of if it doesn't kill you it makes you stronger. I fail to understand how this gels with the rest of your message. I personally read it as the equivalent of oh well, at least the smallpox blankets that we handed out did not kill so many people after all. Your comparison is non-germ-ane. Poor joke aside, I can't see how your analogy is applicable. My point was: in the end people are not locked in as much with the improved (= getting stronger) kernel as the GPL incompatible parts are removed. Eg: they are not doomed when a device manufacturer upgrades the code for newer hardware and the code turns out to be incompatible with the older hardware. PJ ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
On Monday 02 Jun 2008, PJ wrote: [snip] I think it is a GPL violation since a decent coder can't figure out how to modify the disputed code that is distributed with the kernel, unlike the original coder. So there is no way you can say it is a preferred form of source in the GPL sense for the developer the code was distributed to. Some people (including me) are neutral to code that doesn't run on their primary processor. For instance, I'd complain if you gave me a non-free driver for my WiFi card, but I wouldn't if you gave me a free driver that downloads a binary blob to the card itself. The blob isn't running on my CPU, so I'm less antagonistic to it being non-free. Just a different point of view to the issue... Regards, -- Raju -- Raj Mathur[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 07:33:14 + (UTC) PJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gora Mohanty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [about me saying that Linus needs to ensure GPL compatible code] Huh? How so? You are now making a claim that has not been voiced so far, namely that this is somehow in violation of the GPL. Linus is committed to GPL V2 for the kernel. So he is obliged to fix code that violates that compatibility. [...] Not so. As I understand it various portions of the kernel are released under various licences, and it is possible to have something like this under the GPLv2. Part of the reason of creating the GPLv3 was to plug loopholes like this. I will reiterate that a GPL violation is a very serious matter, and one in which the FSF, and people like Eben Moglen would be very interested. Could someone please demonstrate that such has happened? Gora Mohanty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Admittedly without having looked into the details of any of this, I find this hard to believe. At the least, there would be much more of a stink about this, and if it were true, vehement opposition would indeed be in order. You and me understand the issues around software freedom better than most people. The issue here isn't that obvious. If we don't see it as obvious, then how do you expect there to be much of a stink about it in general? Erm, the FSF for one is very militant about such things, and rightly so. I think it is a GPL violation since a decent coder can't figure out how to modify the disputed code that is distributed with the kernel, unlike the original coder. So there is no way you can say it is a preferred form of source in the GPL sense for the developer the code was distributed to. There have been endless arguments about binary drivers on lkml, and frankly, I am not personally interested enough to try and follow the details. However, from what I remember, the consensus was that it was possible to have binary drivers without violating the GPLv2. Again, the GPLv3 explicitly tries to block such loopholes. [...] Your comparison is non-germ-ane. Poor joke aside, I can't see how your analogy is applicable. [...] Yeah, sorry. That started out as a poor attempt at a joke, and turned into a pointless snark. Please ignore it. Regards, Gora ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
Raj Mathur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Some people (including me) are neutral to code that doesn't run on their primary processor. For instance, I'd complain if you gave me a non-free driver for my WiFi card, but I wouldn't if you gave me a free driver that downloads a binary blob to the card itself. The blob isn't running on my CPU, so I'm less antagonistic to it being non-free. OK. Aside from the freedom issue: Doesn't the blob have the privilege to do horrid things to a running kernel (crash, compromise, expose stuff?) I don't know if the above is true - I don't know kernel internals. But unverifiable code with kernel privileges is not a reassuring thought. PJ ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
On Monday 02 Jun 2008, PJ wrote: Raj Mathur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Some people (including me) are neutral to code that doesn't run on their primary processor. For instance, I'd complain if you gave me a non-free driver for my WiFi card, but I wouldn't if you gave me a free driver that downloads a binary blob to the card itself. The blob isn't running on my CPU, so I'm less antagonistic to it being non-free. Aside from the freedom issue: Doesn't the blob have the privilege to do horrid things to a running kernel (crash, compromise, expose stuff?) I don't know if the above is true - I don't know kernel internals. But unverifiable code with kernel privileges is not a reassuring thought. That's the whole point, isn't it? The blob is not running as part of your kernel. It has been offloaded to the card in question, and it is the card's CPU that is running that code. Your kernel does nothing with the code except to push it onto the card once at initialisation time. Specifically, the kernel never executes it; heck, most of that code probably won't even run on x86! Note (for the benefit of everyone following this thread): this is completely different from binary drivers with a FOSS wrapper. A prime example of the latter is the iNvidious graphics drivers -- they provide binary-only objects, with a source code wrapper that gets compiled with your kernel and provides an interface between your system and the binary object. That blob DOES run as part of your kernel, and it does have the potential to do horrid things to your system if it goes wrong (or if iNvidious decide tomorrow that you shouldn't be watching HDTV on Linux and report you silently to the MPAA/RIAA/whoever). Regards, -- Raju -- Raj Mathur[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
On Monday 02 Jun 2008, Gora Mohanty wrote: [snip] Not so. As I understand it various portions of the kernel are released under various licences, and it is possible to have something like this under the GPLv2. Er, no -- the whole kernel is GPLv2, and Linus has refused to migrate it to GPLv3 last I heard. OK, some parts may be ``GPLv2 or later''. Regards, -- Raju -- Raj Mathur[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
Niyam wrote: unless, are we supposed to merely agree with all-things linus, the pied-piper on the gates of dawn? Gora Mohanty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know how starkly I can say this, but I will try: Linus doesn't owe anyone shit [snip] Well, actually, he does. If he's releasing stuff under GPL he's obliged to ensure it is GPL compatible. Let's keep things in proportion here though. This is stuff that would likely have got resolved done way or the other with clarity in the end. The current alert over this is timely, and is speeding stuff up in a helpful and positive way. I note in passing that much of the disputed code is turning out to be unpopular or BSD licenced anyway (ie GPL compatible) so it looks like the kernel releases will be healthier than ever as a result of this. So the whole issue is IMO very Nietzschean in the sense of if it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger. PJ ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:55:50 + (UTC) PJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Niyam wrote: unless, are we supposed to merely agree with all-things linus, the pied-piper on the gates of dawn? Gora Mohanty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know how starkly I can say this, but I will try: Linus doesn't owe anyone shit [snip] Well, actually, he does. If he's releasing stuff under GPL he's obliged to ensure it is GPL compatible. Huh? How so? You are now making a claim that has not been voiced so far, namely that this is somehow in violation of the GPL. Admittedly without having looked into the details of any of this, I find this hard to believe. At the least, there would be much more of a stink about this, and if it were true, vehement opposition would indeed be in order. Let's keep things in proportion here though. This is stuff that would likely have got resolved done way or the other with clarity in the end. The current alert over this is timely, and is speeding stuff up in a helpful and positive way. Yes, indeed, let us keep things in proportion! My objection was not to the initial alert, but to the implication that it was somehow incumbent on the quote community unquote to take up cudgels on this issue. I will quote Niyam again in that context: On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:49:35 +0530 Linux Lingam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] apart from PJ and arun, no response yet from the community on this. wow! so much for endlessly and passionately debating value-systems around foss all these years in our mailing lists and ilug-meets and events. [...] (Niyam, I am quite aware that you often use hyperbole as a debating device, and this is *not* personally directed at you.) However, as it stands, the above statement pushes too many of my buttons to go without remark. As I said, the other place that I see such attitudes is from various corporate shills, and it usually goes along the lines of ABC corporation has done a wonderful piece of XYZ open-source work, and therefore the much-lauded community somehow owes them. Again, not to mince words: Screw that! To head off another endless line of arguments, I am not anti-corporate, only against such companies that seek to subvert FOSS to their own ends. And, believe me, Microsoft is hardly the only culprit there. I note in passing that much of the disputed code is turning out to be unpopular or BSD licenced anyway (ie GPL compatible) so it looks like the kernel releases will be healthier than ever as a result of this. So the whole issue is IMO very Nietzschean in the sense of if it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger. I fail to understand how this gels with the rest of your message. I personally read it as the equivalent of oh well, at least the smallpox blankets that we handed out did not kill so many people after all. Or, have you been staring into the abyss too long? Regards, Gora ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
PJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Niyam wrote: unless, are we supposed to merely agree with all-things linus, the pied-piper on the gates of dawn? Gora Mohanty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: snip Guys, am taking the liberty to comment and explain as below. Please feel free to cross-check my facts and counter comment (if you want to!) The reason for the is as below:-- (1) Device Manufacturers often have black-magic happening in the driver code. By black-magic-- I mean, drivers for things like hard-disks etc have stuff like checks for the chip-set version--- by writing a value to a certain port-- and polling till another value can be read--- and using that to decide the version number--- which in turn will be used to set up delays and loop-iterations for busy-wait spin-locks--- optimal values for which are often discovered by trial and error-- through testing and through tech support's solutions to problems to earlier versions of the hardware-- and collected in a manufacturer's bug/solution database-- and used to optimize the next version of the driver. This expensive; highly technical; labour intensive work is often unglamorous to hacker-types. Also, this same work costs the manufacturers a lot of money-- which is necessarily spent to maintain their market position. Further-more documenting a lot of their work would make the manufacturers liable-- to be sued etc... or have the reliability of their peripherals questioned by rivals--- or even possibly have rivals use seemingly open source techies to shred their reputation. Hence, even though many device manufacturers are more than happy to release drivers; and as far as possible help open-source folks developing drivers--- they at the same time make sure their backs are covered-- with respect to the following kinds of issues:-- (1) legal issues (2) trade-secret related issues (3) possible rumour mongering issues (like some supposedly open-source guy claiming that XYZ's hard-disk is least reliable-- based on false arguments). That's why the above partially proprietary type of issues. That's also why manufacturers often issue certain chunks of their code as BLOBs of object-code/machine-language byte sequences instead of c source code. Hope that helps... Regards, N.S ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
[snip] I think you're right, but there're so many devices which requires firmware to be uploaded at runtime. I never thought that my Intel ethernet card requires a non-free binary blob to function properly. I thought I am running a complete free software (binary blob-free except BIOS) based system. Anyways, I've switched to use Realtek NIC although I'm still using a _cheap_ Yamaha sound card, which requires binary blob :( . ashish, i didn't realize that the linux kernel would have these blobs inside it either, until i learnt about linux-libre. yup, i use an el-cheapo yamaha sound card too. Anyways, how about listing some hardware (like NICs, Sound Cards, Printers, etc.) which requires binary blobs at some wiki, hmm...? good old debian and its wiki to the rescue. read through this, it further clarifies the issue, and also lists software under inspection: http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing a more up-to-date page on the buzz surrounding the issue, with a list of software removed: http://forums.blagblagblag.org/viewtopic.php?t=4580 there's also talk to discuss this at the kernel summit. okay, time for me to go check some popular new videos on youtube using the flash plug-in in firefox, fiddle with that nvidia plug-in, listen to some mp3, get that wireless router working, convert videos using w32codecs, ffmpeg, xine, and even check this important legacy software-utility under wine. . . [oops!] ;-) 100% freedom is a thing. niyam ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
2008/5/30 Linux Lingam [EMAIL PROTECTED]: okay, time for me to go check some popular new videos on youtube using the flash plug-in in firefox, gnash works with youtube videos. fiddle with that nvidia plug-in, I have Intel graphics card with Free driver providing accelerated graphics. listen to some mp3, software patents not applicable in India, so no worries, my rhythmbox plays it by default (on debian) 100% freedom is a thing. We are so close to it, and now more people are ready to compromise, when there is only a small sacrifice to make. I really admire the oldies who stuck with Free Software when much more sacrifice required. - Praveen -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
2008/5/28 Ashish Shukla आशीष शुक्ल [EMAIL PROTECTED]: . But do you care if you don't have to flash firmware from the software, but rather it is pre-programmed into the hardware. And what difference does it make, from firmware being loaded at runtime, or flashed at the time of manufacture ? When it is loaded at runtime, the manufacturer has the ability to modify but you don't have it. That is they restrict your freedom to modify while keeping theirs - does not pass on all the freedoms required by GPL. If it is pre-programmed into the hardware the manufacturer is not in a position to change it - so he is passing on all the freedoms he has got to you. Empowering user is what Free Software is all about (this may not be the case if you are talking about Open Source, which is about creating powerful and reliable software). Cheers Praveen -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
2008/5/28 Gora Mohanty [EMAIL PROTECTED]: try to put together the resources to fork the Linux kernel. There is already one - it is called deblob http://www.fsfla.org/svn/fsfla/software/linux-libre/scripts/ I don't know how starkly I can say this, but I will try: Linus doesn't owe anyone shit, and neither does the quote community unquote. Please try to forgive us if we do not all drop everything else, and take up the cause du jour. Exactly !! That is why we have to be careful about this issue if we are bothered about our Freedom and everyone else's Freedom. Cheers Praveen -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Praveen A writes: Praveen 2008/5/28 Ashish Shukla आशीष शुक्ल [EMAIL PROTECTED]: . But do you care if you don't have to flash firmware from the software, but rather it is pre-programmed into the hardware. And what difference does it make, from firmware being loaded at runtime, or flashed at the time of manufacture ? Praveen When it is loaded at runtime, the manufacturer has the ability to Praveen modify but you don't have it. That is they restrict your freedom to Praveen modify while keeping theirs - does not pass on all the freedoms Praveen required by GPL. If it is pre-programmed into the hardware the Praveen manufacturer is not in a position to change it - so he is passing on Praveen all the freedoms he has got to you. Empowering user is what Free Praveen Software is all about (this may not be the case if you are talking Praveen about Open Source, which is about creating powerful and reliable Praveen software). I think you're right, but there're so many devices which requires firmware to be uploaded at runtime. I never thought that my Intel ethernet card requires a non-free binary blob to function properly. I thought I am running a complete free software (binary blob-free except BIOS) based system. Anyways, I've switched to use Realtek NIC although I'm still using a _cheap_ Yamaha sound card, which requires binary blob :( . Anyways, initially OpenBSD tried to advocate against use of binary blobs, but atm, they're also shipping with these binary blob based drivers. Anyways, how about listing some hardware (like NICs, Sound Cards, Printers, etc.) which requires binary blobs at some wiki, hmm...? Thanks for enlightening me... - -- Ashish Shukla आशीष शुक्ल http://wahjava.wordpress.com/ ·-- ·- ·--- ·- ···- ·- ·--·-· --· -- ·- ·· ·-·· ·-·-·- -·-· --- -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkg+zJoACgkQHy+EEHYuXnTnnACgtS+K1zd7tOP0DvgwciT4+m82 NRcAnRtjftBLGs3fsBJyEF1WWo8/sWhC =Kb0r -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Linux Lingam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: dear all, [snip] The official vanilla Linux kernel from Linus that gets distributed on kernel.org has non-free[1] software in it. click on the above url to discover more, and of course, search the web for more, if you wish. what do you guys have to say and share about this important new development in the saga of the linux kernel? regards niyam apart from PJ and arun, no response yet from the community on this. wow! so much for endlessly and passionately debating value-systems around foss all these years in our mailing lists and ilug-meets and events. unless, are we supposed to merely agree with all-things linus, the pied-piper on the gates of dawn? regards niyam ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:49:35 +0530 Linux Lingam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] apart from PJ and arun, no response yet from the community on this. wow! so much for endlessly and passionately debating value-systems around foss all these years in our mailing lists and ilug-meets and events. No offence, but I am always puzzled by the above kind of weak-minded arguments, which I typically see from various corporate shills who seek to exploit FOSS for their own nefarious ends. Which is why I am surprised to see you taking up this position of late. Who is the quote community unquote above? To my mind the community is *you*. So, if there is a subject that you are passionately interested about, please, do feel free to take up the cause. For example, Venky, Nagarjuna, Prabir, and other folk did this wonderfully with the whole OOXML business; taking up and fighting what must have, at times, seemed like a lonely battle. All the while taking care to keep the FOSS community informed, and constantly trying to engage them. If you care so much about this issue, please try to put together the resources to fork the Linux kernel. Doing a smidgen of constructive work counts for much more in my book than endless hand-wringing on mailing lists. unless, are we supposed to merely agree with all-things linus, the pied-piper on the gates of dawn? I don't know how starkly I can say this, but I will try: Linus doesn't owe anyone shit, and neither does the quote community unquote. Please try to forgive us if we do not all drop everything else, and take up the cause du jour. Regards, Gora ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Linux Lingam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The official vanilla Linux kernel from Linus that gets distributed on kernel.org has non-free[1] software in it. click on the above url to discover more, and of course, search the web for more, if you wish. i can't find any info on this.. can u post a direct link on the list, where this has been elaborated..?? what do you guys have to say and share about this important new development in the saga of the linux kernel? regards niyam apart from PJ and arun, no response yet from the community on this. wow! so much for endlessly and passionately debating value-systems around foss all these years in our mailing lists and ilug-meets and events. unless, are we supposed to merely agree with all-things linus, the pied-piper on the gates of dawn? maybe because everyone is either to find whether what you have posted is true in every sense or maybe because all of us are shocked by this Breaking News! -- Sahil ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 LL == Linux Lingam [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: LL On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Linux Lingam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: dear all, LL [snip] The official vanilla Linux kernel from Linus that gets distributed on kernel.org has non-free[1] software in it. click on the above url to discover more, and of course, search the web for more, if you wish. what do you guys have to say and share about this important new development in the saga of the linux kernel? regards niyam LL apart from PJ and arun, no response yet from the community on this. LL wow! so much for endlessly and passionately debating value-systems LL around foss all these years in our mailing lists and ilug-meets and LL events. LL unless, are we supposed to merely agree with all-things linus, the LL pied-piper on the gates of dawn? OpenBSD is already advocating this since a long time[1]. A large number of the devices these days are saving the cost of flash memory by providing firmware separately. But do you care if you don't have to flash firmware from the software, but rather it is pre-programmed into the hardware. And what difference does it make, from firmware being loaded at runtime, or flashed at the time of manufacture ? LL regards LL niyam References: [1] - http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39 Thanks - -- Ashish Shukla आशीष शुक्ल http://wahjava.wordpress.com/ ·-- ·- ·--- ·- ···- ·- ·--·-· --· -- ·- ·· ·-·· ·-·-·- -·-· --- -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkg9noUACgkQHy+EEHYuXnTqsQCg8L693DyztXS6TneQND+ffA0s Q/AAoJWcI8zpG+Xfvs7G1aKwEDh55dWN =uTMF -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
[ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?
dear all, dr g nagarjuna of fsfindia.org was in delhi tuesday, we met for coffee and chat this late afternoon. he mentioned 'linux-libre' to me. i just discovered this a moment ago, so am immediately sharing with all of you: http://jebba.blagblagblag.org/?p=244 The official vanilla Linux kernel from Linus that gets distributed on kernel.org has non-free[1] software in it. click on the above url to discover more, and of course, search the web for more, if you wish. what do you guys have to say and share about this important new development in the saga of the linux kernel? regards niyam -- niyam bhushan ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
