Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

Finally, why should we trivialize the kernel of any OS as an "only
thing"? If kernels were so easy, one would think that GNU would
have long ago released one. But in my experience kernels are not
so easy, 

I do not think the kernel is easy; I didn't intend to say so, and I'm
sorry if there was a misunderstanding.  The kernel is clearly a big
job.

But the whole system is a much bigger job than a kernel.

Perhaps some respect is also due to the people who have
actually managed to build a viable kernel.

I agree.  That's one of the reasons I call the combination
"GNU/Linux" rather than just "GNU": I do want to give credit
to Linus and the others who wrote the kernel.

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Arandir]

On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Angelo Schneider wrote:

> > This is exactly one of the mistake Troll Tech made with their first license. 
> 
> Question (but see below also):
> Why was/is that a mistake?
> 
> At
> > first glance, it seemed quite sensible to me: Free for Free Software,
> > proprietary for proprietary software. What it does however is deny that Free
> > Software can be commercial software. If all Free Software remains "freeware
> > with source", then it will never cross the boundaries from hobby programs to
> 
> Can you explain that? 
> What are the reasons, are there any evidents/examples for that? 
> What would be the difference if it would be free from the start off?
> Why should it not work to SELL commercial licenses and to grant
> FREE licenses for the GNU project or open source projects e.g
> simultaniously?
> 
> I do not get what kind of boundary you mean and in which way it can't
> cross.

I feel that a particular item is free only if it is free for everyone. Bill
Gates get's exactly the same permissions to use the software as John Doe down
the street. To use political liberty as an analogy, it would be hypocritical if
the US Bill of Rights granted freedom of speech to all citizens except for
professional speakers, who were granted a different set of rights. Perhaps you
are mistaking "commercial" for "proprietary". I confess that I was not
clear on this in my post. My apologies if it seemed that I was blurring the
line between them. Commercial software can certainly be free software. In fact,
Richard Stallman used to sell emacs to support himself and the GNU project.
Although I personally see nothing wrong whatsoever with proprietary software, I
make a distinction between "free" and "proprietary", and money is not involved
in that distinction.

What the old Qt license did (among other things), however, was to grant
*different* permissions to commercial developers than to other developers. To
quote: "If you are paid to develop something with Qt Free Edition or it is a
part of your job the following conditions also apply: ...". Their old license
did not prevent commercial developers from using Qt, but it did treat them as
"second-class citizens". Many people thought it actually prohibited commercial
development since the introduction to the license said "If you want to use Qt
for developing commercial/proprietary software, you must use the Qt
Professional Edition." It may not have explicity forbidden commercial usage
with the free license, but it certainly discouraged it. The new free QPL
license makes no distinction between free, commercial or proprietary developers.

As to my assertion that free software must be allowed to be commercial, I feel
that people must be allowed to make a living with free software. Free software
works very well for "hobby" programs. But very many key players in the Free
Software arena assert that free software is better or superior to proprietary
software. If this is true, but no one is allowed to profit on it, you end up
with a very strange industry. To keep it within the information related
vocations, musicians are allowed to make money on their hobbies, as are
authors. Developers should be no different..

I would hazard a guess that the majority of people on this list are
professional developers. I would certainly hope that they don't view their
daily work as evil, immoral or even sub-standard.

> In Fact I do even not see any change in QT, only the Linux Version is 
> "FREE" the other versions are still proprietary.
> 
> But I do not like to bind my license to the OS.

I believe that you are mistaken. The X11 version of the library is released
under the free QPL license, while the Win32 version is released under the
professional edition license. Thus, it is not limited to Linux, or even unices.
It has been run successfully under OS/2 and WinNT using XFree. Also, there is
no prohibition against porting the Qt library to the Win32 API. And it's
certainly acceptable and feasable to use the non-gui portions of the library
(collection classes) on any platform.

-- 
Arandir...
___

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Angelo Schneider]

Ok,

now we come to a point, please read below.

Angelo

Arandir wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Angelo Schneider wrote:
> > >
> > > If people have to pay per copy, then the program is not free software,
> > > and it is also not open source software.
> >
> > I do not get that.
> >
> > a) One uses my software to gain profit:
> >   he has to share his profit with me
> >
> > b) One uses my source to derive work:
> >   he has to chare his work with mine
> 
> This is exactly one of the mistake Troll Tech made with their first license. 

Question (but see below also):
Why was/is that a mistake?

At
> first glance, it seemed quite sensible to me: Free for Free Software,
> proprietary for proprietary software. What it does however is deny that Free
> Software can be commercial software. If all Free Software remains "freeware
> with source", then it will never cross the boundaries from hobby programs to

Can you explain that? 
What are the reasons, are there any evidents/examples for that? 
What would be the difference if it would be free from the start off?
Why should it not work to SELL commercial licenses and to grant
FREE licenses for the GNU project or open source projects e.g
simultaniously?

I do not get what kind of boundary you mean and in which way it can't
cross.

> professional programs (professionals get paid).
> 
>  --
> Arandir...
> ___
> 

Counterexample: JACOB a free/commercial JAVA->COM Bridge.

In Fact I do even not see any change in QT, only the Linux Version is 
"FREE" the other versions are still proprietary.

But I do not like to bind my license to the OS.

Best Regards,
Angelo

-
Angelo Schneider   OOAD/UML   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks   Fon: +49 721 9812465
76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Arandir]

On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Angelo Schneider wrote:
> > 
> > If people have to pay per copy, then the program is not free software,
> > and it is also not open source software.
> 
> I do not get that.
> 
> a) One uses my software to gain profit:
>   he has to share his profit with me
> 
> b) One uses my source to derive work:
>   he has to chare his work with mine

This is exactly one of the mistake Troll Tech made with their first license. At
first glance, it seemed quite sensible to me: Free for Free Software,
proprietary for proprietary software. What it does however is deny that Free
Software can be commercial software. If all Free Software remains "freeware
with source", then it will never cross the boundaries from hobby programs to
professional programs (professionals get paid).


 -- 
Arandir...
___

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Bernard Lang]

On Sun, Oct 24, 1999 at 01:55:54PM +0100, Angelo Schneider wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I commented below.
> 
> Bernard Lang wrote:
> > 
> > Cf. your ptoposal below ...
> > 
> > why not ... seems fair ... except it does not work
> > 
> > - how do you hendle sharing revenues between contributors ?
> 
> By granting them shares.

Nice of you ... on what basis ... how do you evolve it when new
contributions come in ?

> > - how do you share responsibility for the software you are now selling ?
> 
> By allocating "authorities".

on what basis ?

> > - it introcuces viscosity in the sytems,... more things to bother with
> > 
> >and most people do not want to bother ...
> 
> I thought that is what "commnity licenses" are about.

easy when there are no shares to manage ... else a pain

> > read the litterature on libre development... your scheme is just to
> > complex ... and too constraining ...
> > 
> > But since you object to free (gratis) contributions, I suggest you be
> > consistent and buy solaris or SCO.
> > 
> > Bernard
> > 
> -- 
> -
> Angelo Schneider   OOAD/UML   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks   Fon: +49 721 9812465
> 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ,_  /\o\o/Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
 Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Angelo Schneider]

Hi,

I commented below.

Bernard Lang wrote:
> 
> Cf. your ptoposal below ...
> 
> why not ... seems fair ... except it does not work
> 
> - how do you hendle sharing revenues between contributors ?

By granting them shares.

> 
> - how do you share responsibility for the software you are now selling ?

By allocating "authorities".

> 
> - it introcuces viscosity in the sytems,... more things to bother with
> 
>and most people do not want to bother ...

I thought that is what "commnity licenses" are about.

> 
> read the litterature on libre development... your scheme is just to
> complex ... and too constraining ...
> 
> But since you object to free (gratis) contributions, I suggest you be
> consistent and buy solaris or SCO.
> 
> Bernard
> 
> On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 10:15:40PM +0100, Angelo Schneider wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If people have to pay per copy, then the program is not free software,
> > > and it is also not open source software.
> >
> > I do not get that.
> >
> > a) One uses my software to gain profit:
> >   he has to share his profit with me
> >
> > b) One uses my source to derive work:
> >   he has to chare his work with mine
> >
> > Both can get the source of my software for free, and can distribute
> > it under the same terms they recieved it.
> >
> > So GPL is not applicable.
> >
> > But why is that not "open source" or "community source"?
> >
> > Because it is not for free?
> >
> > So far you failed to express what free realy means ... (in your view).
> >
> > For me it will never be an option to work and to give my work away for
> > nothing. (I did it often enough and allways got ripped off)
> >
> > If you use my source, you have to contribute to it (so that I'm FREE
> > to use that contribution AS I LIKE!) As you may use you contribution
> > AS YOU LIKE.
> >
> > If you use my software and earn money with that use, you have to
> > contribute
> > money to my work.
> >
> > Quite easy.
> >
> > Each  NON PROFIT organization may use my software without fee and may
> > use
> > my source without fee as long as it contributes its modifications to
> > that
> > source.
> >
> > Each profit organization has to chare it's profit with me, on a per
> > copy,
> > on a per site or whatever base.
> >
> > Both kinds of organizations have full access to the source, so whats the
> > problem?
> >
> > Both kinds of organizations should give me the right to re-use their
> > modifications.
> >
> > Free means for me: you can get the source without additional charge.
> > You can even give away that source, it depend wat the new recipient
> > does with it.
> >
> > Angelo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Angelo Schneider   OOAD/UML   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks   Fon: +49 721 9812465
> > 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
> >
> 
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ,_  /\o\o/Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
> http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
> INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
>  Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
>  CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX

-- 
-
Angelo Schneider   OOAD/UML   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks   Fon: +49 721 9812465
76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Alejandro Forero Cuervo]

I'm shure that history is mainly determined by economics.
Even if the economics behind it are often not obvious.

I'd say there are a lot of other factors. This is a point where many
sociologists differ. Some will tell you economy is the most important
reason while others will tell you there are far many other things to
consider. It is just like asking whether humans act rationally or not.
No matter what you do, trying to get others to agree with you on these
subjects is just a waste of time.

Alejo.
http://bachue.com/alejo

--
The mere formulation of a problem is far more essential than its solution.
  -- Albert Einstein.



 PGP signature

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

> If people have to pay per copy, then the program is not free software,
> and it is also not open source software.

I do not get that.

That is part of the definition of free software: users must be allowed
to run it without having to pay for permission.  That includes all
users, whatever their purpose.

The definition of open source software includes essentially the same
criterion, expressed with different words.

I suggest you look at the definition of free software
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) and the definition of
open source software (somewhere on http://www.opensource.org/) and try
again to understand what they are meant to say.

For me it will never be an option to work and to give my work away for 
nothing. (I did it often enough and allways got ripped off)

Then your software won't be free software, and we won't use it.

If you don't want to develop free software, we can't force you to do
that.  However, free software and open source software are what
these lists are about.  If you're not interested in doing that,
I guess we're not the people you're looking for.

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

AS far as I know, but that my be wrong:
The seperation came first,
then came the war,
and while the war seemd to get expensive and would last longer than
the north expected, Lincoln finaly mobilized the masses because of
"slavery".

The whole country was in a ferment about slavery for years before the
war started.  It was the issue that divided Congress, and the subject
of crucial Supreme Court decisions.

The motive for secession was specifically the intention in the South
to preserve slavery, because things did not appear to be favorable
for that as part of the US.

Nope. I did not read something about that.
Specific events in history are normaly tought/examined by the pupils for
3 to 6 month, so also the civil/seperation war in the US.

I'm sure it was influence

Further I'm shure that the victory writes the history.

In this case, apologists for the Confederacy have done a good job of
rewriting history afterward.  I expect their version influenced
what you read.

I'm shure that history is mainly determined by economics.

That is a simplistic view.

Economics is the study of what people do when nothing more
important than money is at stake.

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Bernard Lang]

Cf. your ptoposal below ...

why not ... seems fair ... except it does not work

- how do you hendle sharing revenues between contributors ?

- how do you share responsibility for the software you are now selling ?

- it introcuces viscosity in the sytems,... more things to bother with

   and most people do not want to bother ...

read the litterature on libre development... your scheme is just to
complex ... and too constraining ...

But since you object to free (gratis) contributions, I suggest you be
consistent and buy solaris or SCO.

Bernard

On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 10:15:40PM +0100, Angelo Schneider wrote:
> 
> > 
> > If people have to pay per copy, then the program is not free software,
> > and it is also not open source software.
> 
> I do not get that.
> 
> a) One uses my software to gain profit:
>   he has to share his profit with me
> 
> b) One uses my source to derive work:
>   he has to chare his work with mine
> 
> Both can get the source of my software for free, and can distribute 
> it under the same terms they recieved it.
> 
> So GPL is not applicable.
> 
> But why is that not "open source" or "community source"?
> 
> Because it is not for free?
> 
> So far you failed to express what free realy means ... (in your view).
> 
> For me it will never be an option to work and to give my work away for 
> nothing. (I did it often enough and allways got ripped off)
> 
> If you use my source, you have to contribute to it (so that I'm FREE
> to use that contribution AS I LIKE!) As you may use you contribution
> AS YOU LIKE.
> 
> If you use my software and earn money with that use, you have to
> contribute
> money to my work.
> 
> Quite easy.
> 
> Each  NON PROFIT organization may use my software without fee and may
> use
> my source without fee as long as it contributes its modifications to
> that 
> source.
> 
> Each profit organization has to chare it's profit with me, on a per
> copy,
> on a per site or whatever base.
> 
> Both kinds of organizations have full access to the source, so whats the 
> problem?
> 
> Both kinds of organizations should give me the right to re-use their 
> modifications.
> 
> Free means for me: you can get the source without additional charge.
> You can even give away that source, it depend wat the new recipient 
> does with it.
> 
> Angelo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Angelo Schneider   OOAD/UML   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks   Fon: +49 721 9812465
> 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
> 

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ,_  /\o\o/Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
 Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Angelo Schneider]

> 
> If people have to pay per copy, then the program is not free software,
> and it is also not open source software.

I do not get that.

a) One uses my software to gain profit:
he has to share his profit with me

b) One uses my source to derive work:
he has to chare his work with mine

Both can get the source of my software for free, and can distribute 
it under the same terms they recieved it.

So GPL is not applicable.

But why is that not "open source" or "community source"?

Because it is not for free?

So far you failed to express what free realy means ... (in your view).

For me it will never be an option to work and to give my work away for 
nothing. (I did it often enough and allways got ripped off)

If you use my source, you have to contribute to it (so that I'm FREE
to use that contribution AS I LIKE!) As you may use you contribution
AS YOU LIKE.

If you use my software and earn money with that use, you have to
contribute
money to my work.

Quite easy.

Each  NON PROFIT organization may use my software without fee and may
use
my source without fee as long as it contributes its modifications to
that 
source.

Each profit organization has to chare it's profit with me, on a per
copy,
on a per site or whatever base.

Both kinds of organizations have full access to the source, so whats the 
problem?

Both kinds of organizations should give me the right to re-use their 
modifications.

Free means for me: you can get the source without additional charge.
You can even give away that source, it depend wat the new recipient 
does with it.

Angelo




-
Angelo Schneider   OOAD/UML   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks   Fon: +49 721 9812465
76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Angelo Schneider]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> Sorry, Richard, thats wrong. The war is called seccesion war.
> 
> I though you where an american and you knew that, are you not?
> 
> I am an American, and I have read extensively about the Civil War.  It
> was caused by the dispute over slavery, not by economic factors.
> Slavery was the reason for secession, and disgust for slavery
> motivated the Union troops.  It wasn't for nothing that they sang
> about John Brown while marching to war.

AS far as I know, but that my be wrong:
The seperation came first,
then came the war,
and while the war seemd to get expensive and would last longer than
the north expected, Lincoln finaly mobilized the masses because of
"slavery".


> 
> For a long time, Southerners have made a great effort to deny this.
> You may have read their propaganda.  Or you may have seen something

Nope. I did not read something about that.
Specific events in history are normaly tought/examined by the pupils for
3 to 6 month, so also the civil/seperation war in the US.

We considered everything which we thought could have an influence.

> influenced indirectly by the Marxist idea that history is determined
> mainly by economics.  It is useful to look for economic factors in
> history, but they are not the only ones.

I'm shure that history is mainly determined by economics.
Even if the economics behind it are often not obvious.
Further I'm shure that the victory writes the history.

W II was started from the german side merly because of economic reasons.
Fachism was only needed to GUIDE the people.

Angelo

-
Angelo Schneider   OOAD/UML   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks   Fon: +49 721 9812465
76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Derek Balling]

At 07:06 PM 10/19/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
>For a long time, Southerners have made a great effort to deny this.

You're right, they're wrong. I mean, come on, what would the southerners 
know about the "why's and wherefore's" of their seceding from the Union. Of 
course, a computer programmer must certainly know FAR more about what 
motivated the southerners than they themselves did.

For someone who says you can't read peoples minds (GNU developers, previous 
message), you're certainly quick to read the minds of 100+-year-dead Civil 
War Secessionists.

>You may have read their propaganda.  Or you may have seen something
>influenced indirectly by the Marxist idea that history is determined
>mainly by economics.  It is useful to look for economic factors in
>history, but they are not the only ones.

No, they were not the only reasons. The "War of Northern Aggression" was a 
battle more about States' Rights than it was about Slavery as an individual 
issue. Slavery was a catalyst to be certain, but the south was tired of the 
economics of their lives being dictated by the north, something they had 
every right to be.

D

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

Sorry, Richard, thats wrong. The war is called seccesion war. 

I though you where an american and you knew that, are you not?

I am an American, and I have read extensively about the Civil War.  It
was caused by the dispute over slavery, not by economic factors.
Slavery was the reason for secession, and disgust for slavery
motivated the Union troops.  It wasn't for nothing that they sang
about John Brown while marching to war.

For a long time, Southerners have made a great effort to deny this.
You may have read their propaganda.  Or you may have seen something
influenced indirectly by the Marxist idea that history is determined
mainly by economics.  It is useful to look for economic factors in
history, but they are not the only ones.

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

> regards use of my code.  If you want to use my code, you have to let
> me use yours.  Fair is fair.

That will I do ... But not under the GPL :-) If you want to use my code
you will have to accept my open source licence, 

In your previous message, you said you wanted to use a "community"
license which would limit people to noncommercial use.  That does NOT
fit the definition of "open source".

Most of the open source licenses are also free software licenses.
But the Sun Community Source License is neither an open source
license nor a free software license.

You said you dislike the GPL because it will not let you reuse our
code under such a non-free non-open-source "community" license.
I responded to what I thought you were saying.

If I did not understand you properly the first time, I am willing to
listen if you try again.  I have no wish to criticize you for a view
which is not what you believe.

I know that. But how can I apply the GPL to release my software to be
payed on an per copy base?

If people have to pay per copy, then the program is not free software,
and it is also not open source software.

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of software
developers believe that the software that they write is "theirs",
no matter who uses it.

You are probably right.  And the vast majority develop proprietary
software.  I developed the GPL because I disagree with the majority.

   This also applies for most developers
distributing their software under the GPL.

I, like you, cannot read the minds of these authors to be certain what
they think.  However, as the author of the GPL and its leading (in a
sense) user, I believe you are mistaken.

Otherwise, the developer who does not believe the software to be theirs
wouldn't not restrict it in any way to the user.

This is the kind of argument that is falsified by one exception, and I
know for certain about one exception--namely me.  I do not consider
the programs I write "mine" in the sense that you are talking about.
I think of myself as their custodian on behalf of humanity, not their
owner.

However, I know that copyright law considers me the owner, and allows
me to choose the distribution terms for the programs.  So I choose the
distribution terms that I think are best for the community in general.
That way I fulfull what I see as my responsibility as custodian
of the software.

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

This all comes down to the concept of intellectual property. Those who believe
IP is wrong, will believe any software license, proprietary or free, is a
domination. Those who believe that IP is justified will see any license on
software as just that, a license, that gives the user certain permissions.

I don't believe that "IP is wrong".  I don't believe that "IP is
justified".  I don't have any opinion about "intellectual property",
because the term is too big a generalization to have one opinion
about.

I have opinions about copyrights for certain types of works, opinions
about patents in certain fields, and to some extent opinions about
trademarks.  These opinions are not all the same.

I find that when people use the term "intellectual property", it leads
them to think they must either be "for it" or "against it".  In other
words, it encourages people to ignore all possible positions except
two simplistic generalizations.

I recommend avoiding the term "intellectual property",
and not replacing it with any other term.

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Nick Moffitt]

Quoting Alejandro Forero Cuervo:
> And I also recall some old note from Linus Torvalds announcing Linux all
> happy since Bash (I think it was Bash) compiled and ran on it. I could
> not find it.
> 
> I actually think Linux was written to work with GNU software.  Many of
> the GNU utilities existed long before the Linux kernel did.

The infamous "Linux is Obsolete!" thread contained a
discussion of how Linux was a way to get a GNU system up and running
_then_, rather than wait for the official GNU kernel.  I suggest you
find an archive on the net or purchase Open Sources from O'Reilly.
(the discussion is in the appendices)

-- 
((lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x)))
(quote (lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x)
-- A LISP quine written by Seth David Schoen
+++ath

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Nick Moffitt]

Quoting Tom Hull:
> Did GNU define a kernel API? Was Linux written to conform to that
> API?

YES.

I found out by reading W. Richard Stevens' books that RMS was
on the POSIX committee.  He even chose the name POSIX.  

-- 
((lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x)))
(quote (lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x)
-- A LISP quine written by Seth David Schoen
+++ath

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

> Finally, why should we trivialize the kernel of any OS as an "only
> thing"?

When I say that Linux is only the kernel, I am not trying to minimize
the work of writing of a kernel.  I am comparing it with something of
a greater order of complexity--a whole operating system.  The kernel
is a substantial and important software package; at the same time, it
is just a part of the operating system.  The same is true of the
compiler, the C library, the editor, the debugger, to list some parts
of the system that were written by the GNU Project.

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

The X Windows system is not a GNU program; the GNU Project
cannot claim any of the credit for developing X.

However, we decided back in the 1980s to include X in the GNU
operating system, and we began integrating the rest of the system with
it.  So the GNU operating system includes X, even though X is not GNU
software.

When I say that the GNU Project provided more of the GNU/Linux system
than any other source, I do not count X, because the GNU Project did
not provide X.  MIT did that.

When I say that the GNU/Linux system is the combination of the
GNU system and Linux, I do count X as part of the GNU system.
It was part of the GNU system before Linux was started.

Remember that the GNU system did not set out to write GNU programs.
We set out to develop a whole system.  GNU is first of all the name of
the system, and only secondarily the name of a project and a "brand"
of software and manuals and licenses.

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[John Cowan]

Tom Hull scripsit:

> Finally, why should we trivialize the kernel of any OS as an "only
> thing"? If kernels were so easy, one would think that GNU would
> have long ago released one. But in my experience kernels are not
> so easy, which is precisely why I think that anyone who seriously
> intends to build an Operating System has to tackle the kernel
> first. Perhaps some respect is also due to the people who have
> actually managed to build a viable kernel.

The HURD is not meant to be a standard average monolithic Unix kernel.
The Linux kernel is.

-- 
John Cowan   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[John Cowan]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:

> For example the US Civil war was not fought
> over abolishing slavery, it was fought over whether states had the
> right to leave the Union.  Yet after years of fighting Lincoln proclaimed
> that under Union law, all slaves in the Confederacy were free.  This was
> a completely symbolic gesture given that the Union was doing very
> badly and looked to have little prospect of winning.

Yes, but!  The Emancipation Proclamation pretty much assured that
Britain, which had abolished slavery years before, wouldn't recognize
the Confederacy as a separate nation.  By seizing the moral high ground,
the Union ensured that Britain, the most powerful nation in the world
at the time, would not become its opponent --- and then it was just
a matter of time until the Confederacy was defeated.

Despite Napoleon's cynical question about how many legions the Pope has,
moral pressure can have amazing practical results.

-- 
John Cowan   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin

Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Stephen Turnbull]

I wrote:

  I think your analogy is precise and accurate.  It also
demonstrates an irreparable flaw in your position about individual
freedom.

> "rms" == Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

rms> It just shows that we're evaluating freedom in two different
rms> ways and not understanding each other.

OK, fair enough.  I'm being very analytical (in the sense of "breaking
into pieces"); evidently what you are thinking about is at a higher
level.  I guess _this_ "is the part of `Gestalt' I don't understand".

rms> I was hoping the analogy would help you see it, but it
rms> didn't, because you're evaluating it the same way in regard
rms> to dictatorships as in regard to proprietary software.

Yes.  That's because I wanted to try as hard as possible to see what
you're getting at.  There is a very important distinction between
freedoms that the government takes from one by law, backed by force,
and the "freedoms" that one cannot persuade the counterparty in a
negotiation to grant one in voluntary trade.  The former is a direct
unavoidable loss of freedom.  The latter leaves _me_ no worse off than
if I never heard of the product, or it never existed, and I remain
free to go talk to a different vendor.  That comparison makes the
whole discussion moot, so I abstracted from it.

Do you believe you are better off if you are not informed of the
existence of a non-free work of software?

rms> It is very consistent of you to use the same evaluation
rms> always, but I'm at a loss to explain what the other way is.

As far as I can tell from your arguments, you believe that the
accident of coming into physical possession of an item carries with it
the right to use it in its natural way.  At least when that item is
software; I can't imagine that you would assert ownership over the
cash or credit cards in a wallet found on the street in the same way.

How do you feel about congestion tolls (the practice of exacting a
toll on use of a public good such as a bridge, not to amortize the
cost of construction, but to improve the convenience to fewer users
who choose to pay the higher toll)?  I think it would be consistent
for you to maintain that the natural use of a bridge is to cross it,
and that the congestion toll infringes your freedom to do so.  But in
fact your use of the bridge also infringes others' freedom to cross it 
(that's what "congestion" means).  So there are rights/freedoms on
both sides.

As there are in the case of legally defined "IP rights".  I have never
seen you deny the software author's right to withhold _all_ rights on
his work from society (by not publishing and distributing the work).
So authors do retain some rights.  That being so, I do not understand
the case for bundling (that is, _forcing_ an author's decision to be
all or nothing) the various rights to

1. run a program once
2. run a program as often as you like
3. see the source of the program
4. modify the source of the program for personal use
5. redistribute the executable verbatim
6. redistribute the source verbatim
7. redistribute modified executables
8. redistribute modified source

(are any missing?)  There is absolutely no question that it is
economic nonsense to (a priori) bundle those rights together.
Removing a constraint from an optimization cannot decrease the optimal
objective value.  But you wish to discuss "freedom", not "cost".

That is, if the automatic bundling of rights 2--8 with right 1 whenever
right 1 is granted has equal status to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit
of Happiness," then the economic argument is irrelevant.  But I do not
see any justification for elevating automatic bundling of 2-8 with 1
to that status.  I can see a justification for raising the bundle 1-8
to that status; it's called "Communism".  I disagree with that.  But
AFAIK, so do you.

What is the argument for bundling those rights together?

On the other hand, there is a pretty strong (IMO) argument that these
rights are in the domain of property rights, and that there is no
strong a priori claim that the property rights should be assigned to
users rather than producers, or in any particular bundle.  And that
argument is that software is very much an economic good.

By that I mean "highly substitutable."  The substitutability is in the 
sense that any given program can "easily" be replaced by an equivalent 
program.  The GNU Project proves this.[1]  (Evidently software patents 
nullify this argument, but we're not talking software patents here.)
If you want to look at the source of a given application, and it's
proprietary, the answer is simple:  write a compatible implementation
and look at that source.  It's not quite the same, but it's very
close most of the time.

Wasted resources rewriting the program?  That's an argument from cost,
and now you're _purely_ in the domain of economics.

And in fact making that bundling principle a "constitutional right"
increases 

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Alejandro Forero Cuervo]

I like the acronym expansion of GNU/Linux:

GNU's Not Unix/Linux

But wait, don't forget what Linux stands for:

Linux Is Not UniX.

So now we've got two things that are not Unix?

Heh. ;)

Alejo.
http://bachue.com/alejo

--
The mere formulation of a problem is far more essential than its solution.
  -- Albert Einstein.



 PGP signature

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Arandir]

On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Richard Stallman wrote:

> For those of us who care about these freedoms as freedoms,
> to be denied them is domination.

I rarely respond the Richard Stallman, because even though I disagree with him
on certain philosophical issues, I still greatly respect him. However, this
previous statement cuts right to the heart of the matter, and I feel I must
respond. It appears to be a main premise of the FSF.

It depends greatly upon the meaning of "freedom" and "domination". A
restriction in and of itself is not a domination. If someone denies me the use
of my own property or faculties, either by criminal or governmental acts, then
I am certainly dominated. If one believes that the software in their possession
is their own property, then certainly they will feel dominated by restrictions
against distribution or modifications. This is a question of property
ownership. Is the software owned by the user or the copyright holder? Current
law recognizes the latter, but the existance of a law does not make it right,
correct or proper.

I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of software developers believe
that the software that they write is "theirs", no matter who uses it. This also
applies for most developers distributing their software under the GPL. In fact,
the mere fact that the software is under the GPL give creedence to this belief.
Otherwise, the developer who does not believe the software to be theirs
wouldn't not restrict it in any way to the user.

The use of software is voluntary. Caveat Emptor, and if you didn't read the
restrictive license that Microsoft or Sun gave you, that is your fault. It is
still voluntary, because you can discontinue its use at any time. You are not
being dominated unless the software is your personal possession
(You may believe that they have defrauded you into thinking you actually bought
it, but that is another case)

This all comes down to the concept of intellectual property. Those who believe
IP is wrong, will believe any software license, proprietary or free, is a
domination. Those who believe that IP is justified will see any license on
software as just that, a license, that gives the user certain permissions.

But I never understood that the "free" in Free Software referred to a
political freedom or liberty. This understanding probably differs from
Richards. I see the "free" as meaning "free to use". I write an application,
and give it to my friend, telling him he is "free to use it". I certainly do
not tell him that I am liberating him, or that I am giving him a freedom or a
right. The freedoms granted to me in the GPL or other free licenses are
permissions, not political rights like free speech.

-- 
David Johnson
___

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Bruce Perens]

From: Arandir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If this is the case, then the logical solution is to name it "Free Linux".

That's the worst of both worlds. Free Linux like Free Beer, eh? Or call it
Open  Linux, except that that doesn't mean what we want to say either.

We're going around in circles. Give it up.

Thanks

Bruce

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Arandir]

On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
> I believe the reasons why Richard wants us to call the system GNU/Linux is
> so newcomers learn about the real reasons why the system is so important:
> The freedom. 

If this is the case, then the logical solution is to name it "Free Linux".
Newcomers have no idea what "GNU" means. To a newcomer, "GNU/Linux" is just a
name.  Calling it GNU/Linux to assert proper credit to the developers makes
much more sense to me, whether or not I agree with it.

 -- 
David Johnson
___

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Forrest J. Cavalier III]

> Well, to explain all the reasons, the political and economic
> circumstances
> would need about 30 pages ...
> 
> I though you where an american and you knew that, are you not?
> 
> Regards,
>  Angelo
> 

Your education seems to lack the realization that any
telling of history is one of opinion and interpretation,
not a dissection or autopsy. History is not science.

Apparently, you have been given one interpretation of an
extremely complex period of American history and incorrectly
assumed it to be a statement of indisputable fact.

Secondly, wars do not occur for reasons easily summarized in one
email message, or even 30 pages.  Wars require individuals
willing to risk life.  The reasons individuals will risk
life are extremely varied, ranging from the practical
"it pays well" to percepted "well-being of my family" or
"well-being of society in which I and my family will live."

Every combatant will have a slightly different reason for
being a combatant, and have slightly different "rules of
acceptable engagement."  Any summary in an attempt to
explain an aggregate will of a group to war against another,
will be hopelessly approximate.

Not that this has much to do with GNU license for hardware.

Forrest

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Derek Balling]

Independent Observation: It's really sad when a German has to give an 
American a lesson in American History. (.de is Germany right? I think so 
but am too lazy to look it up *g*)

Angelo, you have it down 100% as to the causes and such of the Civil War 
(known in many places in the south as the "War of Northern Aggression" to 
this day).

It frightens me in no small manner that Richard, who is very knowledgeable 
on some topics, would be so way off on American history.

D


>Sorry, Richard, thats wrong. The war is called seccesion war.
>The reasons are very economical. E.G. the rich industrialized north
>fought against the poor agricultural south. Why? The south seperated.
>Thwy would had have the possibility to increase prices on food and
>cotten
>etc. to get a fairer exchange for the ibdustrial products they recieved.
>
>Nobody in the north was interested in slavery (excepted some
>brave men who gave shelter and possibility to escape).
>
>Nobody in the north was interested in the war either.
>
>But Lincoln was very good in public relations, he convinced people
>to fight for the slaves because he knew nobody would fight against the
>seperation very long.
>
>Well, to explain all the reasons, the political and economic
>circumstances
>would need about 30 pages ...
>
>I though you where an american and you knew that, are you not?
>
>Regards,
> Angelo
>
>-
>Angelo Schneider   OOAD/UML   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks   Fon: +49 721 9812465
>76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[David Starner]

On Sun, Oct 17, 1999 at 11:42:41PM +0100, Angelo Schneider wrote:
> 
> 
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> > which is rare in the OSS movement.  In my experience, people who
> > firmly reject non-free software do so at least partly based on the
> > moral disapproval which is the basis of the Free Software movement.
> 
> That is a strange experiance. Why should anybody have moral reasons
> not to use free software?

I assume you meant not to use non-free software, in which case you need
to take a look at www.gnu.org. Anyway, if you believe writing non-free
software is wrong, then using it perpetuates the behavior of writing
non-free software.

> >   For example the US Civil war was not fought
> > over abolishing slavery, it was fought over whether states had the
> > right to leave the Union.

That can't be a primary reason. "Hey, we like them and all, but we've got
to leave the Union, just to see if we can." No one cares about that
enough to die for it.

> > That was the superficial issue, but really it was fought about
> > slavery.
> 
> Sorry, Richard, thats wrong. The war is called seccesion war. 

In the South only.

> The reasons are very economical. E.G. the rich industrialized north
> fought against the poor agricultural south. Why? The south seperated.
> Thwy would had have the possibility to increase prices on food and
> cotten
> etc. to get a fairer exchange for the ibdustrial products they recieved.

Then why not succeed after tariffs were raised? Why succeed because
of Lincoln being elected?
 
> Nobody in the north was interested in slavery (excepted some
> brave men who gave shelter and possibility to escape).
Then why was slavery illegal in the North?

> Well, to explain all the reasons, the political and economic
> circumstances
> would need about 30 pages ...
Oh, many hundreds. Probably thousands. And the summary would say that
both slavery and econmic issues had an effect, and that the relative
degree of the effect is highly debated over. 

David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Angelo Schneider]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> which is rare in the OSS movement.  In my experience, people who
> firmly reject non-free software do so at least partly based on the
> moral disapproval which is the basis of the Free Software movement.

That is a strange experiance. Why should anybody have moral reasons
not to use free software?

> 
>   For example the US Civil war was not fought
> over abolishing slavery, it was fought over whether states had the
> right to leave the Union.
> 
> That was the superficial issue, but really it was fought about
> slavery.

Sorry, Richard, thats wrong. The war is called seccesion war. 
The reasons are very economical. E.G. the rich industrialized north
fought against the poor agricultural south. Why? The south seperated.
Thwy would had have the possibility to increase prices on food and
cotten
etc. to get a fairer exchange for the ibdustrial products they recieved.

Nobody in the north was interested in slavery (excepted some
brave men who gave shelter and possibility to escape).

Nobody in the north was interested in the war either.

But Lincoln was very good in public relations, he convinced people
to fight for the slaves because he knew nobody would fight against the
seperation very long.

Well, to explain all the reasons, the political and economic
circumstances
would need about 30 pages ...

I though you where an american and you knew that, are you not?

Regards,
Angelo

-
Angelo Schneider   OOAD/UML   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks   Fon: +49 721 9812465
76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Angelo Schneider]

Hi,

please RMS, if you quote me and you draw conclusions, please
quote everything, than its easyer to correlate what I said and ment
in relation what you quoted.

Propably, (you remember 'free' verus 'for free/free beer') you are
not aware that many people on that lists are not native english speakers
as e.g. I.

Ok pleaese see below.

Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> It forces you to release all your stuff which is in someway combined
> with the GNU stuff as GPL, too.
> 
> Most people prefer 'free' software where the author states: "you can do
> what
> ever you want provided you leave this notice intact".
> ...
> 
> In fact I prefer a community source licence, which enforces everyone,
> who is earning money with my stuff, to fund me and allows every one, who
> simply want to use it for non commercial purpose, to use it 'for free'.
> 
> Please tell me if I understand you properly.  Here is what
> you seem to be saying.

Ok, to make it easy: no, you did not understand me properly.

> 
> * You want to make your software non-free, with a license like Sun's
>   non-free license.  (That would mean we have to reject it.)

My softwae will be as free as yours but more free in one aspekt and less
free
in one other aspect:

a) you can get the source (thats what I consider free, the rest realy
does not interest me)
b) you can get it for free if you don't release your derived software
build on 
my work for money/if you are not payed for your software [less free]
c) you are not forced to make your derived work 'free' [more free]

> 
> * You want US to release OUR software in a different way.

NO.

>   You want us to use non-copyleft lax licenses
>   which let you use our code in your non-free software.

Please see below: but yes I would like to use some stuff from your stuff
in a comemrcial 'product' payed per copy without to be forced to release
it imedialtly as open code and free code.

> 
> * But you have no intention of letting us use your code
>   in our free software packages.

Sorry, thats my point why I would like to be quoted in total.
>From where did you draw that conclusion?
You are a free human and everybody on this list is a free human(alien?)
so why should I want YOU (capitalising your US) to change anything?
Where did you get the point that I do not let you use my stuff?
I simply would sombody, who uses my stuff, let think about that:
do you save money/effort in using it? Do you earn money in using it?
If yes why don't you think that it is fair to chare one percent of it
with 
me?

> 
> It seems you want a system where you impose restrictions on everyone
> else, for your profit, while the rest of us bend over backwards to

Very strange conclusion

> cater to you.  Surely you must be aware that that is quite
> asymmetrical.
> 
> I use the GPL to insist that we have a fair relationship, at least as

Thats what I wanted to point out: the GPL does not let me use the
software
under the conditions I like, and I think that are many people out there
with the same feeling. Thats all, and thats not an offence.

> regards use of my code.  If you want to use my code, you have to let
> me use yours.  Fair is fair.

That will I do ... But not under the GPL :-) If you want to use my code
you will have to accept my open source licence, as far as I know the GNU
project, this would ever be enough, but you seem very ideologic on that,
so I'm afraid you will never use code from me :-(

> 
> I have not the finacial background to work years for free an than giving
> away my software for free.
> 
> (Free software does not mean you have to "give it away for free".
> Free software is a matter of freedom, not price.)

I know that. But how can I apply the GPL to release my software to be
payed on an per copy base?

> 
> You're saying you cannot write free software because you are not rich.
> 
> When I started the GNU Project, I was not rich.
> Most people who work on free software are not rich.
> If you don't know this is possible, ask some people and find out.

Asking this does not help. You need a teacher and an advisor or a
mentor.

> 
> If you really wish to write free software, try to find a way,

I want to write open source software. I want everybody who has a
finacial
benefit in using my software to contribute (to my organisation).

It's just like using a road, sombody builds it, and everybody who uses
it
pays for it. Why not having the same in software?

I prefer to get simply rich :-) and spending my money in doing good
things 
with that. But as I tried to express: the GPL forces me to forget the
simple
"I write a tool and you as a smith use it and you pay back in some
respect what you save in using my tool" schema.

If I dont have to work for money at all, I will still have projects in
my 
mind which are quite to huge to be done during my livetime.

I want to finance them, so I have to get rich first, quite easy.

> and maybe you will succeed.  Even if you don't succeed compl

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Angelo Schneider]

Justin Wells wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 09:33:11PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > > It makes sense that the end-user in general would prefer a "do anything
> > > you want" license.  The important point is that the _author_ often
> > > doesn't prefer this license ...
> >
> > If Open Source is going to be used extensively by commercial
> > concerns, then the needs of the consumer must be taken into
> > account.
> 
> No, it doesn't seem to matter. Linux has made significant inroads into
> commercial concerns, and it does not have a "do anything you want" license.
> 
> I think developers care a lot more about software licenses than the average
> consumer. Consumers only care about quality, reliability, and price.
> 
> Justin

This is because you rarely use the kernel code and build up a
'propriery'(sp?)
system on top of it.
You simply use the kernal as is and provide additional software.
BUT: my point was and is: some hundred people contributed to the
kernel and some thousend people make their living and get welthy by
shrinkwrapping it.

If you, as a kernel contributor, like that: ok.

Regards,
Angelo

-
Angelo Schneider   OOAD/UML   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks   Fon: +49 721 9812465
76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

  The goal
of the OSS movement is to convince people and companies that by
definition a proprietary system cannot long-term deliver the same
real benefits that OSS can.  If someone is well and truly convinced
of that, then they cannot be sold a proprietary system, no matter what
the claim or the current reality, because they will not believe that any
present difference is anything other than transitory.

You're assuming that they will put long-term considerations ahead of
short-term ones.  People who are judging based on practical values
alone rarely do that.  They will tend to let the immediate practical
advantages of using proprietary software packages outweigh their
long-term interests.

Also, you are speaking of a very firm and total kind of convincing,
which is rare in the OSS movement.  In my experience, people who
firmly reject non-free software do so at least partly based on the
moral disapproval which is the basis of the Free Software movement.

Do you know of anyone who has been convinced so thoroughly by the OSS
movement that he now rejects non-free software, purely for the sake of
the long-term practical benefits?  Bob Young is not one.  Red Hat
develops non-free software only with considerable reluctance, but it
distributes plenty of non-free software.

So I believe that there is a real OSS argument with some difficult
converts left to make.

Earlier you were talking about making the easy converts.  And the
advantage you claimed for the Open Source approach was precisely that
it could convert some people easily.  (I agree that this is useful,
but there are lots of other people doing it already.)

But if you are talking about difficult converts, that advantage is
gone.  You may as well help the Free Software movement convert people
in its more thorough fashion.

But by slamming the OSS movement you
are closing an avenue towards helping your vision happen.

I said that it was constructive, but that other things need to be done
as well.  Is that "slamming"?

And above all, don't make it look like accepting the points that the
OSS folks make contradicts your goals.

I say that I agree with it, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far
enough.

Where did you get your information about what I say
about the Open Source movement?

  For example the US Civil war was not fought
over abolishing slavery, it was fought over whether states had the
right to leave the Union.

That was the superficial issue, but really it was fought about
slavery.

Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

  I think your analogy is precise and accurate.  It also
demonstrates an irreparable flaw in your position about individual
freedom.

It isn't a flaw, it just shows that we're evaluating freedom in two
different ways and not understanding each other.  I was hoping the
analogy would help you see it, but it didn't, because you're
evaluating it the same way in regard to dictatorships as in regard to
proprietary software.  It is very consistent of you to use the same
evaluation always, but I'm at a loss to explain what the other way is.

That is an important freedom: the freedom to choose to take risks.  In 
economics it's known by a rather different name:  "entreprenuerism".

I think this is quite a stretch; taking a risk of losing some money is
very different from living in a dictatorship.  There are some
similarities--they both involve a risk of some kind--but differences
as well.  The problems of living in a dictatorship are not solely a
matter of risk, they are not only a matter of money, and they do not
apply only to you.  Perhaps in your political philosophy these
differences are of no import, but that is not so in all political
philosophies.

Comparing Japan to a dictatorship is also a stretch.

(I do not share the unqualified adoration of entreprenuerism that is
part of the established ideology, but I think that would be an
unnecessary tangent.)

I'm sorry, if you want to argue that using proprietary software makes
me less free, you are going to have to argue in dynamic terms, 

Using proprietary software makes you less free because it means you
are living under domination.  Whether you are encouraging or
discouraging the development of more free software or more proprietary
software is also important, but it's something else.

You may not care about this, but I do.

Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

rms> A program which doesn't exist cannot be described either as
rms> free or as non-free.  It is outside the scope of that
rms> distinction.

It is not.  I didn't write "doesn't exist"; I wrote "not written".
Please pay others the courtesy that you always demand: reading, and
responding to, what they write.

I read it again, and I still believe that a program that is not
written does not exist.  I guess I do not understand.

rms> In regard to the use of that non-free program, you are under
rms> the domination of someone else, in a way that would not
rms> happen if you had no non-free software.

_What_ domination?

You are forbidden to redistribute a copy to me or anyone else.
You are unable to change the program.  In other words, you don't
have the freedoms that define free software.

For those of us who care about these freedoms as freedoms,
to be denied them is domination.

(pace, Robert Anson) I can choose to violate the contract, either
following Thoreau and landing in jail, or secretly, just like any
promise-breaker hoping to get away with it.

You can grant yourself the freedom to redistribute copies underground
if you dare, but you cannot get yourself the source code in this way.

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Kristofer Coward]

> Windows98 and says "I'm not using Windows98, THAT's the kernel, I'm using 
> the 'Program Manager OS'" (since that's REALLY what they're using if your 
> argument is taken to its logical conclusions).

If your argument is taken to its logical conclusion, I'm using the bash
OS.. even on the IRIX boxne I have to admin at work, I'm running GNU..
somehow, I think not.

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Justin Wells]

On Sat, Oct 16, 1999 at 03:02:37PM -0500, Tom Hull wrote:
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> > 
> > The only thing in GNU/Linux which is Linux is the kernel.
> 
> Is this really a true statement?
> 
> What about lilo? What about kerneld? Other user level (non-kernel)
> daemons and utilities?

You're right, things like LILO make his statement technically
incorrect. However the idea is right. Linux is the kernel 
"and friends", meaning all the hardware dependent stuff like
the boot loader, kernel module junk, etc., with some fuzziness
around the edges because this is necessarily handwaving.

There's also a whole lot of other important things that are 
not Linux and are not GNU, such as the package manager, 
install system, filesystem layout, and administrative tools, 
which are supplied by the distributor.

That leaves out important things like XFree86, however you can 
have a Unix system that does not run X, and people will still 
be willing to consider it Unix.

I admit things like XFree86 present a grey area though. You 
don't need X on a Unix server, but you do need it in order 
to call a machine a Unix workstation.


> Conversely, if we do an inventory of the user level programs in
> a typical "GNU/Linux" distribution, how much of this is really
> attributable directly to GNU? Even if you discount applications,
> games and the like, and just try to concentrate on tools, layered
> infrastructure, and sysadmin utilities (the sort of things that
> are typically bundled with Operating Systems, e.g. by commercial
> Unix vendors)?

The GNU project contributed (almost?) all the tools which make it
"Unix", other than the kernel. You could rm all the rest of the
stuff in Linux and still be happy to call it a Unix system. 

Think of it this way: if you took all the GNU tools and ran them
under a BSD kernel, it would feel like Linux. If you took all the 
BSD tools and ran them under a Linux kernel, it wouldn't feel 
much like Linux at all. 

The "Linux feel" is actually the "GNU feel".

If I asked you to define Unix and list the minimal set of things
that would comprise a Unix system, you would mention the kernel,
plus the shell, ls, dd, ed, and other things in /bin, the compiler,
C preprocessor, debugger, the various libraries, tar/cpio/compress,
gzip, grep/regex, a dbm implementation, and you would probably
expect there to be a decent editor as well (like emacs). All 
of those things, other than the kernel, are GNU tools.

It's notable that GNU does not provide an implementation of ex/vi,
since it's one of the few things you would expect Unix to have 
that GNU doesn't provide.

Given that the "Linux feel" is actually the "GNU feel" I think 
there is a strong argument to stick the word GNU in the name. On
the other hand, it seems like there are more important things 
to worry about. 

I remember reading a column once where the author complained that 
Stallman was far too political, and that it would be best to 
ignore him. However, the author noted with obvious exasperation
that it was impossible to ignore Stallman, since he had written
too much software.


> In the case of GNU software like glibc, was the software in
> question ported to run under Linux (like it was ported to run
> under umpteen Unix variants), or was Linux written to conform to
> the GNU software? Did GNU define a kernel API? Was Linux written
> to conform to that API?

Linux was written to conform to the GNU tools, and was written
using the GNU tools. GNU predates Linux, and the GNU tools were
being used and developed on other (non-free) OS's prior to that.


> Should we count under the GNU column something like GNOME, which
> is at most an optional part of many Linux distributions?

No. You should count the basic feel of the OS at the command line 
level, and notice how many of the basic Unix tools are GNU tools.

You could have a Unix system without GNOME. You could not have 
a Unix system without ls, sh, tar, cc, db, etc. 


> Finally, why should we trivialize the kernel of any OS as an "only
> thing"? If kernels were so easy, one would think that GNU would
> have long ago released one.

Perhaps you would prefer to call it "Linux/GNU" if you think the 
kernel is more difficult to write than gcc, gdb, bash, emacs, 
and all the other GNU tools.

Or perhaps it is you who's trivializing things.

GNU probably would have implemented a kernel a long time ago, 
except that someone else wrote a good one and released it under
the GNU license. So there was less pressure to do so, and 
people apparently concentrated on implementing things that 
didn't yet exist. 

Justin

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[mark]

On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Tom Hull wrote:

> Finally, why should we trivialize the kernel of any OS as an "only
> thing"? If kernels were so easy, one would think that GNU would
> have long ago released one. But in my experience kernels are not
> so easy, which is precisely why I think that anyone who seriously
> intends to build an Operating System has to tackle the kernel
> first. Perhaps some respect is also due to the people who have

I disagree with the statement about tackling the kernel first, especially
in this context.

FSF built the programming tools, applications, and libraries first, and
then the kernel (which isn't finished yet, and might never need to be
finished considering that there are plenty of Free kernels out there that
(a) interoperate with GNU stuff and (b) actually work).

The result of this is that today it's not that difficult to port GNU tools
and apps to run on any Unix-style kernel, which means that we could, if we
were so inclined, create GNU/Solaris or GNU/HP-UX or whatever.  In theory,
the proprietary Unix vendors could realize that it's not profitable for
them to try to maintain proprietary tools for their platforms when they
could just port the GNU stuff, which usually works better anyway. (Doesn't
SCO ship a CD of GNU software with one of their distributions?  I remember
seeing that somewhere.)

If FSF had started with a kernel, they might very well have finished the
kernel first and then designed all their tools to work specifically with
their kernel.  They'd lose the sort of gradual infiltration of GNU
software into proprietary Unix packages that we're seeing, and end up
writing an OS that works very well but doesn't take advantage of the
potential support of the proprietary vendors.

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Alejandro Forero Cuervo]

Conversely, if we do an inventory of the user level programs in
a typical "GNU/Linux" distribution, how much of this is really
attributable directly to GNU? Even if you discount applications,
games and the like, and just try to concentrate on tools, layered
infrastructure, and sysadmin utilities (the sort of things that
are typically bundled with Operating Systems, e.g. by commercial
Unix vendors)?

The following programs/library are made by GNU:

- C library.
- Inetutils (telnet, ftp, inetd...).
- Compiler.
- Textutils (cat fmt sort head tail...)
- Shellutils (sleep echo su uptime whoami pwd...)

I would find a box without any of those utilities (or an appropiate
replacement) completely unusable (perhaps the only one that could be
lacking would be Inetutils, but I don't really want a box with no inetd).
Most, if not all, the GNU/Linux distributions come with them (not with
`appropiate replacements').

The following software, all part of the GNU project, comes with many
GNU/Linux distributions as well.  It is not as important as the packages
listed above, but very important anyway:

- Bash.
- Binutils (ar, ld, ranlib, gas)
- The grep package.
- Make.
- WindowMaker
- GNOME
- GDB
- Emacs
- Findutils (find, locate...)
- Groff
- RCS
- Sed
- tar
- gzip

In the case of GNU software like glibc, was the software in
question ported to run under Linux (like it was ported to run
under umpteen Unix variants), or was Linux written to conform to
the GNU software? Did GNU define a kernel API? Was Linux written
to conform to that API?

Linux was written to be compiled with GCC. If I recall correctly, there
were some problems when the people behind GCC decided to no longer support
some non-standard features and the Linux kernel no longer compiled with
new versions of GCC (until it (Linux) was modified). I could be wrong,
though.

And I also recall some old note from Linus Torvalds announcing Linux all
happy since Bash (I think it was Bash) compiled and ran on it. I could
not find it.

I actually think Linux was written to work with GNU software.  Many of
the GNU utilities existed long before the Linux kernel did.

I believe the reasons why Richard wants us to call the system GNU/Linux is
so newcomers learn about the real reasons why the system is so important:
The freedom. Whether or not the system depends on GNU programs/libraries
is something I find relatively unimportant. The system does depend on the
freedom actively promoted by the FSF. By calling it GNU/Linux, I am just
acknowledging that fact and inviting my friends to find out about GNU.

You all tell Richard you are free to call it anyway you want. So is
he. Why don't we just drop this thread and let him spend his time in
more productive activities?

Alejo.
http://bachue.com/alejo

--
The mere formulation of a problem is far more essential than its solution.
  -- Albert Einstein.



 PGP signature

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Tom Hull ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):

> [...]  Finally, why should we trivialize the kernel of any OS as an
> "only thing"?  If kernels were so easy, one would think that GNU would
> have long ago released one.

If you are familiar with the history involved, then you would already 
know the answer to this question.  So, I'll assume you've never heard
the story.  (Please don't jump on minor inaccuracies in what follows,
folks, if I manage to get the gist of it right.)  

In essence, RMS had the bad luck to back what currently seems to have
been the wrong horse.  When the Hurd project started, microkernels
were considered the wave of the future for sundry reasons, including
the ability to do source-level debugging.  Unexpected implementation
difficulties have slowed progress, since then, and microkernels in
general no longer seem such a good idea.

Disclaimer:  I am nobody's idea of a kernel hacker.  I've just tried
to summarise the facts as best I understand them.

> Perhaps some respect is also due to the people who have actually
> managed to build a viable kernel.

Please don't let an urge towards rhetorical flourishes get the better of
you, Tom:  The gentleman you addressed _nowhere_ expressed disrespect.

-- 
Cheers, "Heedless of grammar, they all cried 'It's him!'"
Rick Moen   -- R.H. Barham, _Misadventure at Margate_
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Richard Stallman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):

> It is a question of fact and interpretation.  Here are
> several reasons, which I think are more than sufficient.
> 
> 1. We launched the project to develop a complete free operating system
>like this one.
> 2. All the other projects that wrote programs now in the system
>aimed to write a program to do this or that specific job.
>We alone proposed the goal of a whole system, and did whatever
>was necessary to achieve that goal.

I have personally heard Kirk McKusick credit Richard Stallman
and the FSF for directly inspiring the effort to create a free
version of 4.x BSD.  This was during his two-hour talk to
the Silicon Valley Linux User Group, earlier this year.

One of my employees is currently taking a class from McKusick
at Berkeley, and I'm going to request that she ask Kirk to 
confirm this in writing, to Richard.  I suspect he'll be delighted
to do so, as he has considerable respect for the GNU Project.

In the meanwhile, perhaps this e-mail will help.

-- 
Cheers, "Heedless of grammar, they all cried 'It's him!'"
Rick Moen   -- R.H. Barham, _Misadventure at Margate_
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Tom Hull]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> The only thing in GNU/Linux which is Linux is the kernel.

Is this really a true statement?

What about lilo? What about kerneld? Other user level (non-kernel)
daemons and utilities?

Conversely, if we do an inventory of the user level programs in
a typical "GNU/Linux" distribution, how much of this is really
attributable directly to GNU? Even if you discount applications,
games and the like, and just try to concentrate on tools, layered
infrastructure, and sysadmin utilities (the sort of things that
are typically bundled with Operating Systems, e.g. by commercial
Unix vendors)?

In the case of GNU software like glibc, was the software in
question ported to run under Linux (like it was ported to run
under umpteen Unix variants), or was Linux written to conform to
the GNU software? Did GNU define a kernel API? Was Linux written
to conform to that API?

Should we count under the GNU column something like GNOME, which
is at most an optional part of many Linux distributions?

Finally, why should we trivialize the kernel of any OS as an "only
thing"? If kernels were so easy, one would think that GNU would
have long ago released one. But in my experience kernels are not
so easy, which is precisely why I think that anyone who seriously
intends to build an Operating System has to tackle the kernel
first. Perhaps some respect is also due to the people who have
actually managed to build a viable kernel.

-- 
/*
 * Tom Hull -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 * http://www.ocston.org/~thull
 */

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Alejandro Forero Cuervo]

Maybe we should make them call it Linux/GNU. ;-)

Or maybe you should stop writing to license-discuss flaming Stallman
and telling us how to call it.

Alejo.
http://bachue.com/alejo

--
The mere formulation of a problem is far more essential than its solution.
  -- Albert Einstein.



 PGP signature

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

> We're the
> principal (though not the sole) developers of the system,

This is a question of fact.  What is the evidence for it?

It is a question of fact and interpretation.  Here are
several reasons, which I think are more than sufficient.

1. We launched the project to develop a complete free operating system
   like this one.
2. All the other projects that wrote programs now in the system
   aimed to write a program to do this or that specific job.
   We alone proposed the goal of a whole system, and did whatever
   was necessary to achieve that goal.
   GNU is and always was the name for an operating system,
   not just a brand for software packages.
3. We persisted through the early days, when most people said the
   job was too big ever to be done--years before Linus Torvalds
   got involved.  (Not that this should be held against him,
   since he was pretty young at the time.)
4. We contributed more of the system than any other project.

Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Stephen Turnbull]

CC trimmed somewhat.

> "sjt" == I wrote:

sjt> Then what is the benefit to anyone of me foregoing my OCR?

> "rms" == Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

rms> I would rather have no program for the job, than have a
rms> non-free program.  With no program, I have nothing to be
rms> ashamed of.

We differ there.  I am a fully informed decision-maker in the matter;
I chose to use the software because it makes doing my job (trying to
explain neoclassical economics in terms that are both accurate and
convey that there's more than money to economics, in fact, that money
is not particularly an important goal) much easier.  I am in no way
ashamed of using free software where it exists, even when it sucks,
and proprietary software where free software does not, even when the
proprietary software is cheap and excellent, in the course of my work.

Why not?  Because teaching economics right is, In My Biased-By-My-
Profession Opinion, far more important to maintaining freedom in
general than maintaining certain disputable theoretical freedoms of a
small part of the economy/culture/society, software.

sjt> A program that is never written is trivially not free.

rms> A program which doesn't exist cannot be described either as
rms> free or as non-free.  It is outside the scope of that
rms> distinction.

It is not.  I didn't write "doesn't exist"; I wrote "not written".
Please pay others the courtesy that you always demand: reading, and
responding to, what they write.

In some sense all possible programs already exist; we have an
algorithm to generate them ("monkeys typing Shakespeare").  What makes
a person a great programmer is picking programs that are useful,
efficient, and correct out of that soup.  They don't "create" the
programs out of a vaccuum; the programs already exist in this sense,
as members of the (eg) language defined by the syntax of C.[1]

sjt> So what's wrong with substituting an existing non-free
sjt> program for a non-existent non-free one?  _Freedom is not
sjt> decreased._

I am sorry you were misled by my inaccurate use here of "non-existent"
to increase the symmetry of the expression.

rms> There is a sense in which your freedom is not decreased.  But
rms> there is another sense in which it is.

_Your_ freedom might be decreased in that sense.  _Mine_ is not.

rms> In regard to the use of that non-free program, you are under
rms> the domination of someone else, in a way that would not
rms> happen if you had no non-free software.

_What_ domination?

I own the software, I pay no royalties on its use, I can lend my box
to my friends so they can use it, exactly as I share my automobile on
occasion.  I can stop using that software any time.  I have done so,
although not for reasons of principle (installing the wrong DLL broke
the software).  But the solution would be the same: I typed by hand,
just as I would have done had the software not been available at all.

What domination?  I just don't see it.  It's a voluntary transaction,
and it's not like I'm unaware of the small print.

On the other hand, my freedom increases, because there are activities
that I can choose to do that I could not if I forego the OCR software.
I can scan and OCR documents, increasing accuracy and saving time.  As
for the restrictions, if I own the software, I am not legally free to
make copies for my friends.  If I don't own the software, I am not
physically free to make copies for my friends.  I just don't see a
difference.

In fact, even the transmutation of a physical restriction into a legal
restriction increases my freedom; as a semi-anarchic rationalist
(pace, Robert Anson) I can choose to violate the contract, either
following Thoreau and landing in jail, or secretly, just like any
promise-breaker hoping to get away with it.  I can't copy bits I don't
possess, though.

rms> Perhaps I can explain better with an analogy.  (Analogies are
rms> never valid as proofs, but they can be useful as
rms> explanations.)

Or they can be Trojan horses, which then destroy your argument from
the inside.  I think your analogy is precise and accurate.  It also
demonstrates an irreparable flaw in your position about individual
freedom.

rms> Suppose you live in country A which is a free country.
rms> Suppose you are not allowed to enter country B, which is a
rms> dictatorship.

rms> Now suppose the situation changes and you are allowed to
rms> enter country B, subject to its restrictions on speech,
rms> secret police, and such.  In one sense, this decision gives
rms> you increased freedom, because a strictly larger set of
rms> options is open to you.  I think that is the sense that you
rms> are using for the comparison.

rms> But if you start spending much of your time in country B, I
rms> would say that your life is less free in another sense,
rms> because the oppressive system of country B now do

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Bruce Perens]

On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 09:33:11PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> If Open Source is going to be used extensively by commercial
> concerns, then the needs of the consumer must be taken into
> account.

You are confusing needs with preferences.

Assuming that the user would maximize freedom given the chance, they would
prefer the license that gives them _all_ rights. However, they seem to be
quite willing to accept _less_ than all rights in exchange for access to
software.

The Open Source Definition defines a balance-point between rights and
access to software that is acceptable to many users, that is very much
more in the "rights" direction than the usual deal one gets with
proprietary software.

From: Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No, it doesn't seem to matter. Linux has made significant inroads into
> commercial concerns, and it does not have a "do anything you want" license. 
>
> I think developers care a lot more about software licenses than the average
> consumer. Consumers only care about quality, reliability, and price.

In microeconomics-speak, consumers want "maximal utility", which can
be decomposed to various desires, including the ones you list above.
I'd add maintainability, extensibility, and endurance to your list,
since those are areas in which Open Source really shines. By "endurance",
I mean the fact that you can continue to use Open Source software for a
long time after the time when proprietary software would have ended its
life-cycle.

Thanks

Bruce

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Justin Wells]

On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 09:33:11PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > It makes sense that the end-user in general would prefer a "do anything
> > you want" license.  The important point is that the _author_ often
> > doesn't prefer this license ...
> 
> If Open Source is going to be used extensively by commercial
> concerns, then the needs of the consumer must be taken into
> account.

No, it doesn't seem to matter. Linux has made significant inroads into
commercial concerns, and it does not have a "do anything you want" license. 

I think developers care a lot more about software licenses than the average
consumer. Consumers only care about quality, reliability, and price.

Justin

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Derek Balling]

>What suddenly struck me is that a GNU System with its own kernel, although it
>exists today, did not exist when the original Linux distributions were 
>created.
>As I recall, back then GNU did not exist as a system in any form. It was a
>future goal, but then it was only a collection of programs. So in one very 
>real
>sense, LinuxOS was around long before GNUOS.

Wow... good point that I hadn't thought of. :)  Maybe we should make them 
call it Linux/GNU. ;-)

D

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[David Johnson]

On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Derek J. Balling wrote:
> At 02:59 PM 10/15/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >Actually I do not say that Linux is part of the GNU system.  What I
> >say is that the GNU/Linux system is the combination of GNU and Linux.
> >It is the result of integrating Linux into the GNU system, but it
> >isn't precisely the GNU system.  It is a system that differs from GNU
> >in having a different kernel.
> 
> A, but that implies that this was the direction of integration. I would 
> argue, and many others would also argue, that it was the GNU tools which 
> were integrated into the Linux system.

What suddenly struck me is that a GNU System with its own kernel, although it
exists today, did not exist when the original Linux distributions were created.
As I recall, back then GNU did not exist as a system in any form. It was a
future goal, but then it was only a collection of programs. So in one very real
sense, LinuxOS was around long before GNUOS.

-- 
David Johnson
___

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[David Johnson]

On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
> It makes sense that the end-user in general would prefer a "do anything
> you want" license.  The important point is that the _author_ often
> doesn't prefer this license, and since one of the most sensitive areas
> of Open Source is providing the author an incentive to write for no pay,
> we have to listen to their license preferences.

If Open Source is going to be used extensively by commercial concerns, then the
needs of the consumer must be taken into account. Grocers don't make a living
selling only the foods they like personally.

> Going by the freshmeat announcements, GPL is extremely popular. On any day,
> more than half of the announcements refer to GPL software. I'm assuming that
> _active_ free software projects have been registered on freshmeat. 

Scanning freshmeat announcements, one only gets a snapshot of what orginal
developers prefer. It is blind as to what downstream developers or end users
want. As Linux progresses beyond the "by hackers for hackers" stage, I think
you'll see the freshmeat numbers slowly change.

-- 
David Johnson
___

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Ben_Tilly]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> > If you think that both are important, your place is in the
> > Free Software movement.
>
> No.  If you think that both are important AND that the methodology
> put forward by the Open Source movement is not currently the right
> strategy, then you belong in the Free Software movement.
>
> Your point is that it is a person who agrees with the Free Software
> movement might under some circumstances decide to use the Open Source
> movement's method.  I can imagine situations where that might make
> sense.  But the present situation is not one of them.
>
This is clearly the substance of our disagreement.

> At present there are plenty of people and companies using the Open
> Source approach, and just a few using the Free Software approach.
> The plan to invite business to give the fair-weather support that
> we can expect from business is working fine, but we are not doing
> a comparable amount to spread the love of freedom.
>
Plenty are, I agree.  More are not.  And there is still a large amount
of public doubt about the ones that are.  How can they survive?
Will they make money?  Even some who have produced a lot of
free software wonder that.

I still think that we can make up a lot more meaningful ground by
getting more fair-weather support from businesses.  Particularly
when products that are being released are frequently GPLed for
a variety of practical reasons.  (Heck, if you are going to make it
OSS anyways, and want to use some GPLed software, it is not a
very hard decision to justify.)

> Millions of new users are flocking to free operating systems, but we
> are not telling them about the issues of freedom as fast as they are
> coming into the community.  We are getting them "hooked" with the
> practical advantages, then failing to follow up.
>
Most users don't need to know, think about, or support free
software for the FSF to succeed fully.  Programmers are the ones
who are most likely to care, and who in caring make the greatest
impact.  In the meantime there are still very real situations where
programmers are denied free tools because they do not meet
corporate standards.  As long as that remains a common case,
there is tremendous value in putting forth the OSS philosophy in
the short term.

> So if you agree that freedom is an important benefit in its own right,
> right now you should let all those other people win the easy converts,
> and help me tell them about the benefits of freedom.
>
Why do I feel like Luke talking with Darth Vader?  You are certainly
very persuasive... :-)

> If we don't have enough people to help with this, the danger is that
> the Free Software movement will be forgotten, drowned under the flood
> of Open Source publicity.  Then by the time all the easy converts have
> been won, there will be no effort to suggest to them that there is any
> more at stake than the convenience and reliability of the free
> software they happen to be using.  And the next time someone offers
> them a proprietary system which is more convenient and reliable, they
> might leave our community as easily as they came in.

Ah, but there you miss the appeal of the OSS movement.  The goal
of the OSS movement is to convince people and companies that by
definition a proprietary system cannot long-term deliver the same
real benefits that OSS can.  If someone is well and truly convinced
of that, then they cannot be sold a proprietary system, no matter what
the claim or the current reality, because they will not believe that any
present difference is anything other than transitory.  Additionally as
new people enter this community and contribute to the desire for
OSS with a belief that OSS comes licenced as GPLed and weaker
imitations, the argument that you aimed for when releasing the GPL
in the first place becomes stronger and stronger.

In some sense your greatest ally is Bob Young.  He disagrees with
you absolutely on goals.  He doesn't care about freedom.  He is a
slimy salesman right to the core who will use any tactic to make his
sale.  (He might disagree with the word slimy, he might not.  The rest
is assuredly true.)  And one thing that he noticed is that there is real
value to users in selling freely modifiable software - and he can make
a lot of sales that way.  Of course that means that he has to release
open software and depend on first mover advantage, but he does
that.  Bob's claim is that every piece of software that Red Hat ever
releases is released under the GPL.  However he does it for
business reasons and business reasons only.

In his words, "If I try a proprietary licence then I am playing Microsoft's
game and I know I cannot win that.  But with the GPL I deliver value
that they cannot afford to match - and that lets me sleep at night."

He doesn't use another licence.  A BSD licence would let Microsoft
take and not contribute.  He doesn't want to guarantee Sun's
intellectual property.  I don't know of an official Red Hat policy on
pa

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Derek J. Balling]

At 03:01 PM 10/15/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
>That is true.  At the same time, the Free Software movement
>can instill a stronger, firmer, more persistent kind of support,
>because we appeal to the kind of values which can generate such
>support.
>
>Thus, each approach can do something that the other cannot do.

Yes. And the FSF's methodology of trying to claim what isn't theirs can 
turn people off to the concept entirely.

>Your point is that it is a person who agrees with the Free Software
>movement might under some circumstances decide to use the Open Source
>movement's method.  I can imagine situations where that might make
>sense.  But the present situation is not one of them.

... for you. I agree with the Free Software movement's ideals, but I am 
also a realist in knowing that, through your actions, you turn OFF more 
people to the concept than you turn ON to the concept.

>Millions of new users are flocking to free operating systems, but we
>are not telling them about the issues of freedom as fast as they are
>coming into the community.  We are getting them "hooked" with the
>practical advantages, then failing to follow up.

Maybe we are allowing them the freedom to decide for themselves the reason 
to use Open Source software. If we shove an ideology down their throat, 
they may get disgusted and leave. If they use the software, they will have 
to at some point become aware of what surrounds it, and decide for 
themselves what role they wish to play.

>If we don't have enough people to help with this, the danger is that
>the Free Software movement will be forgotten, drowned under the flood
>of Open Source publicity.

These days, with you as the lead spokesperson, I don't necessarily see that 
as a bad thing. You have kept the "spirit" alive, and to that we owe you an 
indeterminable amount of thanks, but your methodology yields not growth but 
subsistence.

>   Then by the time all the easy converts have
>been won, there will be no effort to suggest to them that there is any
>more at stake than the convenience and reliability of the free
>software they happen to be using.  And the next time someone offers
>them a proprietary system which is more convenient and reliable, they
>might leave our community as easily as they came in.

If that software does their job that they need software for better than 
ours does, then they SHOULD leave the community. If our software sucks, 
people won't use it, is that what you're saying, Richard? Well, you're 
right, so instead of turning people off with rhetoric, let's turn them on 
with good software.

D

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Derek J. Balling]

At 02:59 PM 10/15/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
>Actually I do not say that Linux is part of the GNU system.  What I
>say is that the GNU/Linux system is the combination of GNU and Linux.
>It is the result of integrating Linux into the GNU system, but it
>isn't precisely the GNU system.  It is a system that differs from GNU
>in having a different kernel.

A, but that implies that this was the direction of integration. I would 
argue, and many others would also argue, that it was the GNU tools which 
were integrated into the Linux system.

This may seem like a to-MAY-to/to-MAH-to thing, but it really isn't.

The argument for this point is very sound, since many distributions of 
Linux contain non-GNU software. The GNU system does not include vi, as it 
is not GNU software. The GNU system does not include pine, as that is not 
GNU software.  Both of these are fairly standard on a Linux deployment. 
What am I getting at? LINUX IS NOT A GNU SYSTEM. It is an Operating System 
named after its kernel which also happens to incorporate a lot of GNU software.

Linux is, as I have said before, a "best of breed", a meritocracy if you 
will. If another version of bash came along that was Open Source, but not 
GNU, and it was better, you'd probably see it get implemented all over the 
place. (Perhaps a bad example since shells, like editors, are a fairly 
religious issue, but the point is made, I hope). Linux is less about 
freedom and more about creating a great open source operating system. 
Certainly Linux has incorporated many great pieces of GNU software.

You say that "It is the result of integrating Linux into the GNU system", 
but the same could be said that "it is the result of integrating the Linux 
kernel along with GNU applications, along with BSD applications, along with 
University of Washington applications, along with...", at which point its 
name would become VERY tedious. Whole column-inches of articles would be 
spent just typing the name of the OS.  To simplify it, like many OS's, 
Linux was named after its kernel -- Linux. Just as nobody boots up 
Windows98 and says "I'm not using Windows98, THAT's the kernel, I'm using 
the 'Program Manager OS'" (since that's REALLY what they're using if your 
argument is taken to its logical conclusions).

D

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

It forces you to release all your stuff which is in someway combined 
with the GNU stuff as GPL, too.

Most people prefer 'free' software where the author states: "you can do
what
ever you want provided you leave this notice intact".
...

In fact I prefer a community source licence, which enforces everyone,
who is earning money with my stuff, to fund me and allows every one, who
simply want to use it for non commercial purpose, to use it 'for free'.

Please tell me if I understand you properly.  Here is what
you seem to be saying.

* You want to make your software non-free, with a license like Sun's
  non-free license.  (That would mean we have to reject it.)

* You want US to release OUR software in a different way.
  You want us to use non-copyleft lax licenses
  which let you use our code in your non-free software.

* But you have no intention of letting us use your code
  in our free software packages.

It seems you want a system where you impose restrictions on everyone
else, for your profit, while the rest of us bend over backwards to
cater to you.  Surely you must be aware that that is quite
asymmetrical.

I use the GPL to insist that we have a fair relationship, at least as
regards use of my code.  If you want to use my code, you have to let
me use yours.  Fair is fair.

I have not the finacial background to work years for free an than giving 
away my software for free. 

(Free software does not mean you have to "give it away for free".
Free software is a matter of freedom, not price.)

You're saying you cannot write free software because you are not rich.

When I started the GNU Project, I was not rich.
Most people who work on free software are not rich.
If you don't know this is possible, ask some people and find out.

If you really wish to write free software, try to find a way,
and maybe you will succeed.  Even if you don't succeed completely,
you may succeed partly.  If you live cheaply, as I did and still do,
you ought to be able to make a living by working half-time or less
as a programmer.  Even if that job involves making proprietary software,
you could still write free software the other half of your time.
Doing good for society with half of your work is better than doing
no good at all.

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

  But they differ on methodology, and the Open
Source movement can appeal to people that the Free Software
movement does not.

That is true.  At the same time, the Free Software movement
can instill a stronger, firmer, more persistent kind of support,
because we appeal to the kind of values which can generate such
support.

Thus, each approach can do something that the other cannot do.

> If you think that both are important, your place is in the
> Free Software movement.

No.  If you think that both are important AND that the methodology
put forward by the Open Source movement is not currently the right
strategy, then you belong in the Free Software movement.

Your point is that it is a person who agrees with the Free Software
movement might under some circumstances decide to use the Open Source
movement's method.  I can imagine situations where that might make
sense.  But the present situation is not one of them.

At present there are plenty of people and companies using the Open
Source approach, and just a few using the Free Software approach.
The plan to invite business to give the fair-weather support that
we can expect from business is working fine, but we are not doing
a comparable amount to spread the love of freedom.

Millions of new users are flocking to free operating systems, but we
are not telling them about the issues of freedom as fast as they are
coming into the community.  We are getting them "hooked" with the
practical advantages, then failing to follow up.

So if you agree that freedom is an important benefit in its own right,
right now you should let all those other people win the easy converts,
and help me tell them about the benefits of freedom.

If we don't have enough people to help with this, the danger is that
the Free Software movement will be forgotten, drowned under the flood
of Open Source publicity.  Then by the time all the easy converts have
been won, there will be no effort to suggest to them that there is any
more at stake than the convenience and reliability of the free
software they happen to be using.  And the next time someone offers
them a proprietary system which is more convenient and reliable, they
might leave our community as easily as they came in.

Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

This is false.  Or have you changed your mind about about accepting
code to support ssh in Emacs?

You are right that we don't support any and all non-free applications
in all ways.  We only support some of them, in some ways.

Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

Then what is the benefit to anyone of me foregoing my OCR?

I can tell you the benefit for which I would forego the use of such a
program.  I do not want to be in the position of having a program and
not being allowed to share it with you.  I would rather have no
program for the job, than have a non-free program.  With no program, I
have nothing to be ashamed of.

A program
that is never written is trivially not free.

A program which doesn't exist cannot be described either as free or as
non-free.  It is outside the scope of that distinction.

So what's wrong with substituting an
existing non-free program for a non-existent non-free one?  _Freedom
is not decreased._

There is a sense in which your freedom is not decreased.
But there is another sense in which it is.

In regard to the use of that non-free program, you are
under the domination of someone else, in a way that would
not happen if you had no non-free software.

For me, I object to this domination so strongly that I try to exclude
it completely from my life.  If I let it have a foothold, then
non-freedom is back in my life, and in that sense, I am less free.

Perhaps I can explain better with an analogy.  (Analogies are
never valid as proofs, but they can be useful as explanations.)

Suppose you live in country A which is a free country.  Suppose you
are not allowed to enter country B, which is a dictatorship.

Now suppose the situation changes and you are allowed to enter country
B, subject to its restrictions on speech, secret police, and such.  In
one sense, this decision gives you increased freedom, because a
strictly larger set of options is open to you.  I think that is the
sense that you are using for the comparison.

But if you start spending much of your time in country B, I would say
that your life is less free in another sense, because the oppressive
system of country B now dominates a part of your life.  I think that
sense is more important.

I occasionally go to countries ruled by dictatorships, but only for
brief visits (and I go there to do something in my way for the cause
of freedom).  I don't want living in them to be a normal part of my
life.

I also occasionally try out a non-free program to see what it looks
like, or because it is running on someone else's computer.  But I will
not put them on my computer.

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

Balling has attributed to me

The only people (or to clarify, the FIRST person) who claimed Linux was 
"part of the GNU system" was RMS.

Actually I do not say that Linux is part of the GNU system.  What I
say is that the GNU/Linux system is the combination of GNU and Linux.
It is the result of integrating Linux into the GNU system, but it
isn't precisely the GNU system.  It is a system that differs from GNU
in having a different kernel.

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[John Cowan]

Richard Stallman scripsit:

> We're the
> principal (though not the sole) developers of the system,

This is a question of fact.  What is the evidence for it?

> If he urges one the use of GNU/Linux, but won't urge the use of (the 
> theoretical) GNU/Solaris, even though the products are fundamentally 
> identical, then that IS hypocrisy.

I now understand that this (non-RMS) statement refers to urging the
use of a name, not to urging the use of an operating system.

> Not "GNU/Solaris", because Solaris is the whole system,

Technically, the kernel is called "the SunOS kernel", because the
level below the applications is still SunOS.  Ask uname -a.

-- 
John Cowan   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Derek Balling]

At 05:02 AM 10/15/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
>The GNU GPL does not make any legal requirements about what name you
>can call your system if you include a GNU program in it.  I think it
>would be wrong to try to impose such a requirement by legal force.

It is good that you recognize such.

>Therefore, people have a legal right to take the whole GNU system,
>replace one component such as the kernel (or even make no change at
>all), and call it some other name which does not include "GNU".  The
>FSF and other copyright holders of GNU programs cannot sue you for
>doing this.

Nor should they even desire to, if they truly believe in Freedom.

One thing to keep in mind though, is that, if Linus were a dick, he could 
have a field day with the FSF for attempting to dilute the Linux trademark 
he owns. We all know that Linus is NOT a dick though, so this is not even 
close to happening.

>But while that conduct is legal, that does not make it right and good.
>Part of the respect that people normally give to the developers of a
>software package is using the name they gave it.  If you make a
>variant of the GNU system, you don't legally have to call it "GNU",
>but it is rather unfriendly if you don't.

Linux never tries to be a variant of the GNU system. You insist on calling 
it that, but in many ways Linux simply tries to be a "best of breed" 
system. In many cases that is GNU software, in others it isn't. One variant 
of Linux (Debian) actively tries to be a GNU system, and they call 
themselves that - that is their choice. They could take Linux and call it 
something else if they wanted to, really. But the core developers of Linux 
do not try to make it a GNU system, and for you to attempt to impose that 
name upon them is regretful.

>Since the BSD advertising requirement has been mentioned, I should
>point out that it too makes no legal requirement about what name you
>can call your system if you include some BSD software.  As regards
>this particular issue, the old BSD license is no different from the
>GNU GPL.

But it would at least force people to give your ego the massaging it needs 
by leaving your (theoretical) GNU Advertising Clause in there.

>(I've called the BSD advertising requirement "obnoxious", but I don't
>call it evil.  I have asked people to avoid it because of practical
>problems it causes.  See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html.)

But if the GPL had it, then any GNU software would have to be recognized as 
such somewhere. That would suit your desires just fine, it would seem.

D

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Derek Balling]

At 05:01 AM 10/15/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
>Derek Balling has made accusations against me here that call for
>refutation.

Indeed.

>Calling this version of the GNU system "Linux", and not mentioning the
>name GNU, is treating the GNU Project with disrespect.  We're the
>principal (though not the sole) developers of the system, and ordinary
>respect suggests you should call it by our name for it.

If you wish to insist upon it, then you need to write that clause into the 
GPL. You have every right to desire that. You can desire a Lamborghini as 
well. But for you to truly stand behind your stance on freedom, you need to 
also accept that people are NOT going to do that. I've yet to see you 
willingly accept that a largish chunk of the Linux community, inclduing its 
founder, has no desire to call it "GNU/Linux".

>The freedom to treat anyone with disrespect is an essential part of
>freedom of speech.  I strongly support freedom of speech, and
>therefore I never demand that people call the GNU system "GNU".

Richard, that is an outright lie. I have watched you - with my own two eyes 
and my own two ears - berate a journalist at LWCE for calling it simply 
"Linux".

>However, I too have freedom of speech.  When I see a person
>persistently treat the GNU Project with disrespect, I have the right
>to criticize or even reproach their conduct.  I don't do this often,
>because usually I think it is more effective to stick to the issues
>and address them in a calm tone.  But I have done it sometimes.

Indeed. "Persistently" in this case must mean "When a journalist, in their 
first sentence, uses the word 'Linux'".

> If he urges one the use of GNU/Linux, but won't urge the use of (the
> theoretical) GNU/Solaris, even though the products are fundamentally
> identical, then that IS hypocrisy.
>
>The only thing in GNU/Linux which is Linux is the kernel.  If you took
>the kernel of Solaris and made it work in the GNU system, that would
>be an analogous situation, and the term "GNU/Solaris-kernel" would be
>appropriate.  (Not "GNU/Solaris", because Solaris is the whole system,
>not the kernel.)

No. The only thing in Linux which is Linux is everything. The Linux 
community has taken the GNU Code -- we have that right because you 
explicitly granted it to us via the GPL. We have taken that and made it our 
own. That was one of the things you claimed you WANTED about Free Software, 
for people who needed code to be able to reuse it, modify it, incorporate 
it into their own projects, etc.  As I said, the Linux community took you 
at your word, and has taken no end of shit for it afterwards. The Linux 
community read the GPL, we read your writings, and assumed that you would 
be openly supportive of our reusing of your code, bringing it into our own 
project, already named "Linux".

As to GNU/Solaris vs GNU/Solaris-kernel... Someone from Sun would have to 
speak up to say by what name the Sun kernel is known. It could very well be 
that GNU/SunOS is where it would go (since uname still reports the kernel 
revision as SunOS even today, so perhaps that's the name that would need to 
be used).   BUT we're not talking about taking the Sun kernel and making it 
work in the GNU system. This would be taking the Sun kernel and installing 
all the GNU stuff and leaving nothing but the Sun kernel behind. As I said, 
you don't change a kernel to allow applications to run, you port your 
applications to the kernel. If someone made the GNU apps all work and 
replace all the Sun apps, then by your logic, that would have to be 
GNU/(Solaris|SunOS|etc.).   Is that correct?

>But if you just install some GNU packages on Solaris, that is not an
>analogous situation: much more remains of Solaris than just the
>kernel.  This would not be GNU/Solaris-kernel.

Agreed. But the original poster asked if they replaced EVERYTHING with GNU 
software, which is when you said you would not support that naming. Which 
is, among other ludicrous statements, what started this thread.

D

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

The GNU GPL does not make any legal requirements about what name you
can call your system if you include a GNU program in it.  I think it
would be wrong to try to impose such a requirement by legal force.

Besides which, individual GNU programs have often been included in
other systems, such as GCC in NeXTstep and DGUX.  Those systems are
mostly different from the GNU system, and it would only be misleading
to call them "GNU" just because they contain GCC.  So it is clear that
the GPL should not impose any requirement about the name of a system,
on account of its containing a GPL-covered program.  And it does not.

Therefore, people have a legal right to take the whole GNU system,
replace one component such as the kernel (or even make no change at
all), and call it some other name which does not include "GNU".  The
FSF and other copyright holders of GNU programs cannot sue you for
doing this.

But while that conduct is legal, that does not make it right and good.
Part of the respect that people normally give to the developers of a
software package is using the name they gave it.  If you make a
variant of the GNU system, you don't legally have to call it "GNU",
but it is rather unfriendly if you don't.


Since the BSD advertising requirement has been mentioned, I should
point out that it too makes no legal requirement about what name you
can call your system if you include some BSD software.  As regards
this particular issue, the old BSD license is no different from the
GNU GPL.

(I've called the BSD advertising requirement "obnoxious", but I don't
call it evil.  I have asked people to avoid it because of practical
problems it causes.  See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html.)

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

Derek Balling has made accusations against me here that call for
refutation.

I have seen him personally with my own eyes demand it of people. I saw him 
rip into a member of the press for being "ignorant" when he referred to 
Linux as Linux.

Calling this version of the GNU system "Linux", and not mentioning the
name GNU, is treating the GNU Project with disrespect.  We're the
principal (though not the sole) developers of the system, and ordinary
respect suggests you should call it by our name for it.

The freedom to treat anyone with disrespect is an essential part of
freedom of speech.  I strongly support freedom of speech, and
therefore I never demand that people call the GNU system "GNU".

However, I too have freedom of speech.  When I see a person
persistently treat the GNU Project with disrespect, I have the right
to criticize or even reproach their conduct.  I don't do this often,
because usually I think it is more effective to stick to the issues
and address them in a calm tone.  But I have done it sometimes.

However, when I say someone is speaking from ignorance, that is not a
reproach.  We all start out ignorant on any particular topic.  It's
no shame to say something wrong out of ignorance, as long as you're
willing to learn.

If he urges one the use of GNU/Linux, but won't urge the use of (the 
theoretical) GNU/Solaris, even though the products are fundamentally 
identical, then that IS hypocrisy.

The only thing in GNU/Linux which is Linux is the kernel.  If you took
the kernel of Solaris and made it work in the GNU system, that would
be an analogous situation, and the term "GNU/Solaris-kernel" would be
appropriate.  (Not "GNU/Solaris", because Solaris is the whole system,
not the kernel.)

But if you just install some GNU packages on Solaris, that is not an
analogous situation: much more remains of Solaris than just the
kernel.  This would not be GNU/Solaris-kernel.

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

> "Bruce" == Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Bruce> It makes sense that the end-user in general would prefer a
Bruce> "do anything you want" license.

Well, no.  At least, not if you mean that's more plausible than its
negation.  It is true that downstream developers will prefer less
restrictive licenses, as John Metzger has so forcefully argued.

But his argument that users will prefer it depends on many things.  In 
the first round, there will be (exaggerating for effect) an explosion
of (presumably proprietary) development, which almost surely is of
great benefit to users (by the usual economic arguments about voluntary
trade).

Set against that are (a) the quality of the second round---many eyes,
few bugs; since time-to-market is so important, it's unlikely large
design changes will be made, making the Steve McConnell "a few good
inspections upstream beat a lot of eyeballs floating out to sea" (IEEE
Software July IIRC) argument irrelevant, and open source may have an
advantage here, and (b) the quality of support and bugfixes, and the
possibility to hire your own mechanic.  And there's (c) some people
just like to look at the source, and (d) the freedom fighter
contingent.

More important in the long run is which generates more software
benefits.  That's going to depend on how you measure it, but it is
theoretically possible (I think it highly improbable) that putting all 
software under the GNU GPL would result in the highest possible amount 
of software being produced.  It is more likely (although still IMO
improbable) that open source, current quality of the software fixed,
is preferable, the quality-adjusted quantity of software will be
highest under that scenario.

And with more realistic, mixed-license scenarios, it is not clear what 
is best for the users.  Users may actually prefer GPL on the OS and
X11 on the apps, or vice versa.  Or even more fine distinctions.

Bruce> Going by the freshmeat announcements, GPL is extremely
Bruce> popular.

Good URN.  Thanks.  As such, this is a measure of activity, not
authors.  (Technical note, not a complaint.  Can fix.)

-- 
University of TsukubaTennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences   Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
__
__
What are those two straight lines for?  "Free software rules."

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Bruce Perens]

> "Bernard" == Bernard Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> Most people prefer 'free' software where the author states:
>> "you can do what ever you want provided you leave this notice
>> intact".

Bernard> No !

From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> A pox on both your innumerate houses.
> 
> URL to the survey data, please.  Preferable several such, conducted by 
> different and independent 3rd parties.
> 
> Data on packages by license would also be acceptable as a stand-in.

It makes sense that the end-user in general would prefer a "do anything
you want" license.  The important point is that the _author_ often
doesn't prefer this license, and since one of the most sensitive areas
of Open Source is providing the author an incentive to write for no pay,
we have to listen to their license preferences.

Going by the freshmeat announcements, GPL is extremely popular. On any day,
more than half of the announcements refer to GPL software. I'm assuming that
_active_ free software projects have been registered on freshmeat. This doesn't
mean BSD "ls" or other projects that were finished years ago and have little
active development today. Most of those were done with government funding.

Thanks

Bruce

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Individuals and lists where this discussion is off-topic trimmed.

Sheesh.

> "Bernard" == Bernard Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> Most people prefer 'free' software where the author states:
>> "you can do what ever you want provided you leave this notice
>> intact".

Bernard> No !

A pox on both your innumerate houses.

URL to the survey data, please.  Preferable several such, conducted by 
different and independent 3rd parties.

Data on packages by license would also be acceptable as a stand-in.

-- 
University of TsukubaTennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences   Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
__
__
What are those two straight lines for?  "Free software rules."

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Adam 'WeirdArms' Wiggins]

Due to peoples continued lack of respect for my request to remove
the PLEB mail alias from the continuing SPAM of
off-topic postings I've had to make the list moderated and a large number
of subscribers have left the list.
I hope those contributing to this are happy with themselves.

Adam

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Andrew J Bromage]

G'day all.

On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 12:46:16PM -0400, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:

> Whereas Linux (the kernel) *is* free, and is considered part of
> the GNU system.

I like the acronym expansion of GNU/Linux:

GNU's Not Unix/Linux

Since Linux is in fact a re-implementation of Unix, it's recursive and
contradictory all at once.  Hofstadter would be proud.

Cheers,
Andrew Bromage

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Bernard Lang]

On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 07:43:14PM +0200, Angelo Schneider wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> > 
> > I am looking for a GPL-like license, but it is intended for
> > collections of data resources, for the time being linguistic resources:
> >   corpora, dictionnaries (as used by machines, not people), grammars
> > 
> > I see no reason why the GPL could not be used.
> 
> 
> to make it simple: 
> 
> The GPL is one of the licences which gives you actually the least
> freedom
> you can get from a free/open software.
> 
> It forces you to release all your stuff which is in someway combined 
> with the GNU stuff as GPL, too.

do not waste your breath, or fingers... discussion obsolete

I was obviously asking for technical details.

There are few people whose judgement I trust ... Richard is one of them.

> Most people prefer 'free' software where the author states: "you can
> do what ever you want provided you leave this notice intact".

No !

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ,_  /\o\o/Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
 Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Ben_Tilly]

(List of recipients trimmed.)

Richard Stallman wrote:
> RMS has said that he considers OSI and FSF to be like "two political parties
> within our community". Perhaps he has something like the Clinton Republicans
> and the Dole Democrats in mind, but it plays more like the two sides of a
> Lite Beer commercial: More Freedom! Fewer Bugs! Both are true, and both are
> important.
>
> I think both are important, and that is what I say when I speak.
> My disagreement with the Open Source movement is that they
> avoid talking about one of these two, and some of their leaders
> have made statements rejecting it.
>
Agreed.  The Open Source movement was started by people who by
and large like contributing to a similar reality to what the Free Software
movement is aiming for.  But they differ on methodology, and the Open
Source movement can appeal to people that the Free Software
movement does not.

> If you think that both are important, your place is in the
> Free Software movement.

No.  If you think that both are important AND that the methodology
put forward by the Open Source movement is not currently the right
strategy, then you belong in the Free Software movement.  Personally
I think that until even naive computer users see "OSS" as being the key
dynamo that runs computers, the most effective strategy for most is to
identify themselves as members of the Open Source movement and
*just incidentally* recommend the GPL as a standard safe licence to
use.  Get people hooked, spread the GPL, or at least open software,
and let free software win in stages.

So it is possible to be for the goals of the Free Software movement yet
have beliefs making openly declaring oneself a member of the OSS
camp a better short-term decision.  (Until the OSS conversion method
is no longer winning easy converts.)  The free software sale is much
easier for someone who has already experienced it, and OSS is an
effective method for having people who would not otherwise get that
experience to experience it.

Sincerely,
Ben

Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Kristofer Coward]

> The rest is apps
> (many of that being programs that do a job that no free software does
> satisfactorily yet, and even accepted as a necessary evil by FSF.
> 
> The truth is more complex than that.  We don't accept non-free
> apps as a necessary evil, but we do accept that many GNU users
> want to run them.

I suppose I should have been clearer with the implicit "until a free
alternative can be written" in my statement of non-free applications as a
necessary evil.

Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

CC: Good grief.

CC list trimmed to lists, ppc-mobo and pleb omitted per announced
policy.

> "rms" == Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

The rest is apps
(many of that being programs that do a job that no free software does
satisfactorily yet, and even accepted as a necessary evil by FSF.

rms> We used the LGPL for GNU Libc as part of a strategic decision
rms> to allow non-free apps to be distributed for GNU.  But that
rms> doesn't mean their existence is a good thing, or that it is
rms> good to distribute them.  We treat them like non-free
rms> operating systems: we support using our software with them,

This is false.  Or have you changed your mind about about accepting
code to support ssh in Emacs?  At the time you were discouraging
XEmacs from providing such support, you argued that there was no need
(ignoring the anguish of the cypherpunks), and in fact that it could
harm development efforts for a free secure remote shell.  (Is it done
yet?)

That sounds like "support only for evils the FSF considers necessary"
to me.

rms> but we don't encourage anyone to use them, and we hope you
rms> won't either.

When somebody writes a free OCR program that does Japanese, I will
happily fdisk last Windows partition.  Until that happens, I will be
using a non-free app on a non-free OS on non-free hardware.  And I
encourage my students and colleagues to use that non-free app, too.

Of course, I consider that a minor evil.  When is the FSF going to
make it unnecessary?  I don't have the tools or the time.  What?  You
don't either?

Then what is the benefit to anyone of me foregoing my OCR?  A program
that is never written is trivially not free.  (Even the author has no
access to the source code.)  So what's wrong with substituting an
existing non-free program for a non-existent non-free one?  _Freedom
is not decreased._


-- 
University of TsukubaTennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences   Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
__
__
What are those two straight lines for?  "Free software rules."

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Angelo Schneider]

Hi all,


Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> I am looking for a GPL-like license, but it is intended for
> collections of data resources, for the time being linguistic resources:
>   corpora, dictionnaries (as used by machines, not people), grammars
> 
> I see no reason why the GPL could not be used.


to make it simple: 

The GPL is one of the licences which gives you actually the least
freedom
you can get from a free/open software.

It forces you to release all your stuff which is in someway combined 
with the GNU stuff as GPL, too.

Most people prefer 'free' software where the author states: "you can do
what
ever you want provided you leave this notice intact".

> If you think you see an obstacle, please describe it to me
> privately, and I will ask our lawyer if it is really a problem.

I will never release any software under the GPL. I'm considering
LGPL or other 'open' schemas.

In fact I prefer a community source licence, which enforces everyone,
who is earning money with my stuff, to fund me and allows every one, who
simply want to use it for non commercial purpose, to use it 'for free'.

I have not the finacial background to work years for free an than giving 
away my software for free. 

This is even true if I save some years by using GNU stuff.

> No offence to GNU or RMS. 

Regards,
Angelo

-
Angelo Schneider   OOAD/UML   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks   Fon: +49 721 9812465
76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Derek J. Balling]

At 01:26 PM 10/14/99 -0400, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
>I actually agree; I was attempting to clarify what seems to continue to be
>unclear below.

Fine.

> > It is the GNU system running Solaris kernel, just as RMS's claim that 
> it is
> > the GNU system running the Linux kernel. We're not talking quantum physics
> > here.
>
>Yeah, it's the GNU system with the Solaris kernel -- which is not and can
>not be part of GNU.  Linux *can*.  That's the difference.

But Linux doesn't WANT to be part of the GNU system. Ask the lead 
developer, the guy with the cryptic job and the think european accent.

> > >Except that you can't create a GNU system with proprietary software, so
> > >until the SunOS kernel is free, it won't be a GNU system.
> >
> > Linux doesn't try to be the GNU system either, despite RMS's claim to the
> > contrary.
>
>But in some cases it does; witness Debian GNU/Linux, the GNU system
>including the Linux kernel.  IMO, right now, it's pretty much the only
>GNU/Linux system, though.

Debian has made a conscious choice to add the name to their distribution. 
That's great, more power to them. RMS's contention is that everyone should 
"stop referring to Linux and start referring to GNU/Linux", which is 
flat-out wrong. (re: http://www.fsf.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html )  The 
author of that document claims "When Linus Torvalds wrote Linux, he filled 
the last major gap."  That may be the case, from the FSF's perspective, but 
it certainly wasn't what Linus appears to have had in mind. He has said 
that Linux isn't part of the GNU system. I don't understand the confusion 
on this issue.

You can call something a rose, but if its really a snake it will still bite 
you in the ass. :)  Likewise, it matters little what the FSF calls Linux, 
because it still remains Linux.

But getting back to the point. The SunOS kernel could just have easily 
"filled the gap" and made the GNU system usable. (Hurd certainly wasn't 
doing it), in which case the (hypothetical) "GNU/Solaris" would have been born.

D

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Matthew C. Weigel]

On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Derek J. Balling wrote:

> The only people (or to clarify, the FIRST person) who claimed Linux was 
> "part of the GNU system" was RMS. Linus -- the principal author -- made no 
> such claims and has in fact stated just the opposite. (You'll notice that 
> even after being made fully aware of RMS's position, Linus does not use the 
> abomination "GNU/Linux").

I actually agree; I was attempting to clarify what seems to continue to be
unclear below.

> >I'm not sure I agree with it, but I *am* sure that GNU/Solaris is
> >incosistent.
> 
> It is the GNU system running Solaris kernel, just as RMS's claim that it is 
> the GNU system running the Linux kernel. We're not talking quantum physics 
> here.

Yeah, it's the GNU system with the Solaris kernel -- which is not and can
not be part of GNU.  Linux *can*.  That's the difference.

> >Except that you can't create a GNU system with proprietary software, so
> >until the SunOS kernel is free, it won't be a GNU system.
> 
> Linux doesn't try to be the GNU system either, despite RMS's claim to the 
> contrary.

But in some cases it does; witness Debian GNU/Linux, the GNU system
including the Linux kernel.  IMO, right now, it's pretty much the only
GNU/Linux system, though.

 Matthew Weigel   Programmer/Sysadmin
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Operating Systems Advocate
 http://www.pitt.edu/~weigel

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Derek J. Balling]

At 12:46 PM 10/14/99 -0400, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
>Yeah -- the SunOS kernel isn't free, so why should it be considered a GNU
>system?  ...Whereas Linux (the kernel) *is* free, and is considered part of
>the GNU system.  I don't think it should always be called GNU/Linux, in the
>case of, say, S.u.S.E or OpenLinux etc., but when you're talking about an
>operating environment that consists of the GNU system and a kernel licensed
>under the GNU license...

The only people (or to clarify, the FIRST person) who claimed Linux was 
"part of the GNU system" was RMS. Linus -- the principal author -- made no 
such claims and has in fact stated just the opposite. (You'll notice that 
even after being made fully aware of RMS's position, Linus does not use the 
abomination "GNU/Linux").

>I'm not sure I agree with it, but I *am* sure that GNU/Solaris is
>incosistent.

It is the GNU system running Solaris kernel, just as RMS's claim that it is 
the GNU system running the Linux kernel. We're not talking quantum physics 
here.

>Except that you can't create a GNU system with proprietary software, so
>until the SunOS kernel is free, it won't be a GNU system.

Linux doesn't try to be the GNU system either, despite RMS's claim to the 
contrary.

D

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Matthew C. Weigel]

On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Derek Balling wrote:

> >Say what?  The SunOS kernel isn't free.  Why would RMS urge its use?
> 
> We're not talking about urging its use, we're simply talking about "what 
> would you CALL a hybrid of the SunOS kernel using entirely GNU 
> applications". For RMS's contentions about the name "GNU/Linux" to be true, 
> they also must hold true for "GNU/Solaris".

Yeah -- the SunOS kernel isn't free, so why should it be considered a GNU
system?  ...Whereas Linux (the kernel) *is* free, and is considered part of
the GNU system.  I don't think it should always be called GNU/Linux, in the
case of, say, S.u.S.E or OpenLinux etc., but when you're talking about an
operating environment that consists of the GNU system and a kernel licensed
under the GNU license...

I'm not sure I agree with it, but I *am* sure that GNU/Solaris is
incosistent.

> His claim is that Linux is the Kernel, and GNU is the "meat" of the OS, 
> hence the "/" name. His claim also can be extended to GNU/Solaris, if 
> someone were to design such a beast. RMS states that he would not encourage 
> that name, even though he encourages GNU/Linux. THAT is the hypocrisy.

Except that you can't create a GNU system with proprietary software, so
until the SunOS kernel is free, it won't be a GNU system.

 Matthew Weigel   Programmer/Sysadmin
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Operating Systems Advocate
 http://www.pitt.edu/~weigel

Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

True, but the only non-free software living at a low enough level to be
considered part of the OS (that I can think of) is qt (which a lot of open
source folk don't consider a threat to the movement). 

Nowadays Qt is free software, although its license the QPL just barely
qualifies.  Before the QPL, when Qt was non-free, it was such a grave
threat to our community that we started two projects--GNOME and
Harmony--to defend against it.

The rest is apps
(many of that being programs that do a job that no free software does
satisfactorily yet, and even accepted as a necessary evil by FSF.

The truth is more complex than that.  We don't accept non-free
apps as a necessary evil, but we do accept that many GNU users
want to run them.

We used the LGPL for GNU Libc as part of a strategic decision to allow
non-free apps to be distributed for GNU.  But that doesn't mean their
existence is a good thing, or that it is good to distribute them.  We
treat them like non-free operating systems: we support using our
software with them, but we don't encourage anyone to use them, and we
hope you won't either.

It is a real shame that most of the commercial GNU/Linux CD
distributions contain non-free software.  I'm urging them to release
versions that are wholly free.

I hope this shows that the GNU Project is not as extremist and
inflexible as it is sometimes made out to be.  We don't see issue as
not an all-or-nothing one.

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

I am looking for a GPL-like license, but it is intended for
collections of data resources, for the time being linguistic resources:
  corpora, dictionnaries (as used by machines, not people), grammars

I see no reason why the GPL could not be used.
If you think you see an obstacle, please describe it to me
privately, and I will ask our lawyer if it is really a problem.

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

RMS has said that he considers OSI and FSF to be like "two political parties
within our community". Perhaps he has something like the Clinton Republicans
and the Dole Democrats in mind, but it plays more like the two sides of a
Lite Beer commercial: More Freedom! Fewer Bugs! Both are true, and both are
important.

I think both are important, and that is what I say when I speak.
My disagreement with the Open Source movement is that they
avoid talking about one of these two, and some of their leaders
have made statements rejecting it.

If you think that both are important, your place is in the
Free Software movement.

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Derek Balling]

At 12:07 PM 10/14/99 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> > If he urges one the use of GNU/Linux, but won't urge the use of (the
> > theoretical) GNU/Solaris, even though the products are fundamentally
> > identical, then that IS hypocrisy.
>
>Say what?  The SunOS kernel isn't free.  Why would RMS urge its use?

We're not talking about urging its use, we're simply talking about "what 
would you CALL a hybrid of the SunOS kernel using entirely GNU 
applications". For RMS's contentions about the name "GNU/Linux" to be true, 
they also must hold true for "GNU/Solaris".

His claim is that Linux is the Kernel, and GNU is the "meat" of the OS, 
hence the "/" name. His claim also can be extended to GNU/Solaris, if 
someone were to design such a beast. RMS states that he would not encourage 
that name, even though he encourages GNU/Linux. THAT is the hypocrisy.

D

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[John Cowan]

Derek Balling scripsit:

> If he urges one the use of GNU/Linux, but won't urge the use of (the 
> theoretical) GNU/Solaris, even though the products are fundamentally 
> identical, then that IS hypocrisy.

Say what?  The SunOS kernel isn't free.  Why would RMS urge its use?

-- 
John Cowan   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Derek Balling]

At 11:18 AM 10/14/99 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>"What RMS wants" != "what RMS thinks he has the right to demand".
>I hear RMS urging people to use the name GNU/Linux, not demanding that
>they do so, still less claiming that he has a right to demand that they
>do so.

I have seen him personally with my own eyes demand it of people. I saw him 
rip into a member of the press for being "ignorant" when he referred to 
Linux as Linux.

> > Either you have to defend their right to take that code
> > and name it what they will, or you have to admit to a harsh difference
> > between your published philosophy and your actions.
>
>Defending someone's right to do X is not the same as urging them to do
>X, nor is it inconsistent with urging them not to.  I will defend your
>right to create a fork of Emacs called "eat-my-shorts", but I will also
>urge you not to do it.

If he urges one the use of GNU/Linux, but won't urge the use of (the 
theoretical) GNU/Solaris, even though the products are fundamentally 
identical, then that IS hypocrisy.

D

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[John Cowan]

Derek J. Balling scripsit:

> You seem to think that you have 
> the right to demand that they change the name of their product to include 
> "GNU", simply because they are using some code you told them they could 
> use.

"What RMS wants" != "what RMS thinks he has the right to demand".
I hear RMS urging people to use the name GNU/Linux, not demanding that
they do so, still less claiming that he has a right to demand that they
do so.

> Either you have to defend their right to take that code 
> and name it what they will, or you have to admit to a harsh difference 
> between your published philosophy and your actions.

Defending someone's right to do X is not the same as urging them to do
X, nor is it inconsistent with urging them not to.  I will defend your
right to create a fork of Emacs called "eat-my-shorts", but I will also
urge you not to do it.

-- 
John Cowan   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin

Re: gEDA: Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

["BørgeStrand"]

> I agree that the term "free software" is not perfectly clear.  There
> seems to be no better alternative in English--all the alternatives
> have flaws of their own.  English has no everyday word analogous to
> "libre" which means "free as in freedom, not as in price."
> 
> It's unfortunate that such an important language has such an important
> gap.

If the word lacks, invent it and explain it. GNU is an established
term. Let's call it GNUware and explain the free [speach|beer] stuff
to the people who don't get it at once.



(If you feel like flaming, please read below and hold your horses for
a little while.)


-- 
Børge

P.S. I'm sorry to keep up this traffic on geda-dev, being the one who
suggested a split. What's the status on an alternative list coming up
so that we can post there and skip these long cc lines?

Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Sven LUTHER]

On Tue, Oct 12, 1999 at 03:55:11PM -0400, Kristofer Coward wrote:
> > Anyway, you don't have to go that far for an example, think of all the linux
> > distrib who also ship non free sofware with it ?
> 
> True, but the only non-free software living at a low enough level to be
> considered part of the OS (that I can think of) is qt (which a lot of open

That is a discution we best not have here, please.

> source folk don't consider a threat to the movement). The rest is apps
> (many of that being programs that do a job that no free software does
> satisfactorily yet, and even accepted as a necessary evil by FSF.. unless 
> RMS has any objections to this statement)

You could consider a lot of dæemons and other stuff also in this category.

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Derek J. Balling]

At 03:43 PM 10/13/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > If I was to replace all of Solaris's utilities with the GNU
> >   equivalents, would anybody call it GNU/Solaris?
>
>I for one would not call it that.  Copying just the utilities from GNU
>is not enough of a reason to say "the result is basically the GNU
>system."  What GNU/Linux has in common with GNU is much more than a
>bunch of utilities.  If you took the kernel of Solaris and made it
>work in the GNU system, that would produce GNU/Solaris.

Applications are compiled to work with a kernel, not the other way around 
(unless you're M$, trying to maintain backward compatibility). If you take 
all the GNU stuff and compile it to run under the Solaris kernel, leaving 
none of the original Sun stuff behind, why SHOULDN'T it be called 
GNU/Solaris? Your argument is that the operating system is more than just 
the kernel, it is the applications as well. (Hence you want people to use 
GNU/Linux). If the only difference between a Linux box and a Solaris box 
suddenly becomes the kernel, then for your argument to hold up logically, 
you would also have to defend the use of "GNU/Solaris".

If your argument is that "this new system isn't the GNU system", then on 
behalf of many many people, let me tell you... Linux is not the GNU system 
either. I hope the FSF continues working on Hurd, and finishes the GNU 
system, because that's not what Linux is, nor is it what Linux strives to 
be. Linux is an operating system that cannibalized a good chunk of the 
existing GNU system. Linux developers could do that, thanks to the GPL.

 >> If Stallman wants a GNU/Linux distribution, he
> >   should create a Linux distribution, and call it GNU.
>
>We want users to know that the various popular system distributions,
>such as Debian and Red Hat and Caldera, are all variants of the
>GNU/Linux system.

They are variants of the Linux system. The Linux system uses GNU utilities 
and libraries.  There is no denying this, nor would they want to try.

>Linux is a perfectly good name for an operating system.
>
>It would have been a perfectly good name, but the principal developers
>of this particular system use the name GNU.

Part of the GPL, which you yourself wrote, is the lack of control over code 
once it leaves your hands. I could, if I were so inclined, take the source 
code to emacs and republish it under the name 
"rms-can-eat-my-shorts-editor". Could you stop me? No. Would I want to do 
that? No. But I have every right to take your product and do whatever my 
heart's desire is with it, so long as I conform to the requirements of the GPL.

The GNU developers have voluntarily given up the ability to control the 
destiny of their software. That's the price of freedom, Richard. GNU 
developers freely open Pandora's Box every time they release code under the 
GPL. They have said "Anyone may use this software any way they see fit. You 
don't need to pay me, you don't need to get my permission, you don't need 
anything at all from me. Just obey the rules in the GPL and everything is 
fine."  The Linux movement took them at their word. They incorporated that 
code into their product, the Linux Operating System. It was a success. It 
was a success because of good marketing, excellent reliability, and a 
fairly rapid deployment rate (due in no small part to their reuse of 
existing GNU code).

I think maybe you would have, in retrospect, been happier with a BSD-style 
license, which required the advertising. That seems to be more in line with 
what you want users of GNU software to do. You seem to think that you have 
the right to demand that they change the name of their product to include 
"GNU", simply because they are using some code you told them they could 
use. There were no strings attached then, and so long as the code they use 
remains under the GPL, there never will be.

The more you whine (and yes, Richard, it IS whining) about GNU/Linux vs. 
Linux, the less credible you sound to many people.  I, and everyone else in 
this forum I am sure, respect you for bringing us where we are today, both 
in philosophy and in code, but you need to stand by your philosophy, even 
if it doesn't soothe your ego to do it. The GNU philosophy explicitly 
grants the Linux developers the right to take the GNU code away to do what 
they want with it. Either you have to defend their right to take that code 
and name it what they will, or you have to admit to a harsh difference 
between your published philosophy and your actions.

D

Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

Even in the software world it is not free of false usage, were not the open
group using it for some rather closed/non-free stuff ?

The term "open software" was a buzzword in the late 1980s, meaning
that components communicate using standard interfaces so you can mix
and match them.  Unix was the paradigmatic open system.  Most open
software was proprietary software, and the Open Software Foundation
developed mainly proprietary software.

I think that open software is not good enough--software should be
free.  However, for hardware, I think it is sufficient for it to be
open.  Hardware needs to be open in order for free software to support
it.

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

Nope.  Unices have always been named after their kernel.

With all due respect, there are almost no examples of naming a system
after its kernel.  It is normally the opposite: the kernel is named
after the system it was used in.  Names such as SunOS, AIX, HPUX, and
Unix itself, are first of all the names of whole systems.  That is why
people say "the Unix kernel", and "the SunOS kernel", which mean, "the
kernel of Unix" and "the kernel of SunOS".  These terms imply that
Unix (resp. SunOS) is the system, and NOT the kernel.

If the system Unix were named after its kernel, it would be a
redundant indirection to say "the Unix kernel".  "Unix, the kernel",
or just "Unix", would be appropriate.

  If I was to replace all of Solaris's utilities with the GNU
equivalents, would anybody call it GNU/Solaris?

I for one would not call it that.  Copying just the utilities from GNU
is not enough of a reason to say "the result is basically the GNU
system."  What GNU/Linux has in common with GNU is much more than a
bunch of utilities.  If you took the kernel of Solaris and made it
work in the GNU system, that would produce GNU/Solaris.

I think that IBM is working on GNU/AIX.  (Of course, since the kernel
won't be free, I would not recommend this system.)

FreeBSD uses many BSD utilities.  Does anybody call it BSD/FreeBSD?

FreeBSD is derived from the BSD system, and they give credit for this
by including BSD in the name "FreeBSD".

  If Stallman wants a GNU/Linux distribution, he
should create a Linux distribution, and call it GNU.

We want users to know that the various popular system distributions,
such as Debian and Red Hat and Caldera, are all variants of the
GNU/Linux system.

Linux is a perfectly good name for an operating system.

It would have been a perfectly good name, but the principal developers
of this particular system use the name GNU.

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

It is a simple fact that the Open Source movement rejects the idea of
talking about users's freedom as an issue in its own right.  If you
ask them, they will say so themselves.  In my view, that is a bad
decision, but they think it is a good one, and that is precisely where
the two movements disagree.

So I stand by what I said.  Precisely because of this agreement
between the two movements, I ask everyone who agrees with the Free
Software movement about this issue to express that agremeent, by using
the term "free" rather than "open".

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

I agree that the term "free software" is not perfectly clear.  There
seems to be no better alternative in English--all the alternatives
have flaws of their own.  English has no everyday word analogous to
"libre" which means "free as in freedom, not as in price."

It's unfortunate that such an important language has such an important
gap.

I suggest reading http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html.

Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[John Metzger]

> One of RMS's more dubious accomplishments is that people all over the world
> are agonizing that "free" as in "free software" doesn't have anything to do
> with price. Moreover, they soured to the point where they're even disparaging
> happy hour (a/k/a "free beer").
>
> The fact is that free (unrestricted)

GPL covered software is not unrestricted. There are very important
restrictions...

> availability of software and the freedom (opportunity) to change it

so long as NO non-free (in Richard's definition of free) software is
impermissibly mixed with the "free" GPL code.

As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong please) the following isn't
permitted under a strict GPL license. I modify the IBM POP design to include
a USB and Firewire ports. I then want to use a non-free (proprietary, binary
only, third party) USB and Firewire stack, cause that is the only software
I can find to drive the chips (assume no free software exists for those
functions). But I can't mix them with the GPLed Linux kernel because I can't
pass on the source code nor the right to redistribute the USB or Firewire
code, even in binary form, because my supplier wants a per copy royalty for
that code and thus I can't distribute Linux to support my enhanced hardware.

> can only be universally possible by making software
> available free of charge.

that sounds like free beer to me. Some folks just don't know where to find
the free beer, don't want to waste time looking, etc. so they just buy cheap
beer from Red Hat (which is fine).

> It is precisely the confluence of all of these shades
> of meaning that makes "free software" the ideal term.
>
> One way to see this link between free price and the other freedoms that RMS
> cherishes is to observe that proprietary software interests restrict those
> freedoms precisely in order to limit availability and jack up the price and
> profits they covet. (Even to the further detriment of their customers.)

How is the customer severed by having no software to drive their hardware in
the above example? They should simply wait until "free" software appears or
do without USB or Firewire all together?

> The irony of this is that while RMS keeps harping on the semantics of libre
> vs. gratuit, the very first requirement set forth in the OSD insists on free
> (no royalty or fee) redistribution for "open source" software. The title may
> say "Open Source Definition", but the OSD is the clearest definition of free
> software we have to date.
>
> In an earlier email to this group, RMS characterized "the Open Source
movement"
> as "rejecting all talk of freedom, principle and non-material benefits." It
> seems closer to the mark to suggest that it is RMS who has wrapped himself up
> so exclusively in the principle of freedom

Partial freedom.

> that he rejects all talk of material
> benefits. Such a stance is terribly self-limiting. Throughout the whole
history
> of the capitalist era, freedom and material wealth and comfort have been
> intertwined inextricably. And nowhere is the economic benefit of freedom more
> clear than in software -- with its unique ability to support near-infinite
> reproduction at near-zero cost.
...

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Richard Stallman]

Remember what Billy Shakespeare said about roses...

When you communicate using words, the words you choose determine
what message you convey.

People can find out about roses by looking at them, smelling them, and
pricking themselves with thorns.  But a social activity such as the
Free Software movement consists primarily of the thoughts people think
while doing it.  The only way to convey understanding about the Free
Software movement is with words.  So it makes a big difference what
words we use.

Please see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
for more information.

Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Arandir]

On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Kristofer Coward wrote:

> True, but the only non-free software living at a low enough level to be
> considered part of the OS (that I can think of) is qt (which a lot of open
> source folk don't consider a threat to the movement). 

Okay, Qt licensing is still on-topic, so here goes:

The current version of Qt is 100% Free Software and 100% Open Source. The
previous versions of Qt (1.4x and prior) were not Free or Open (merely
semi-free), and this may be what you meant. All software that is currently
based on Qt 1.4x is being upgraded to work with Qt 2.0.

It would make sense, at least until Qt 1.4x fades into history, that we refer
to Qt by it's versions 1.4 or 2.0.

-- 
Arandir...
___

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[L. Peter Deutsch]

> the very first requirement set forth in the OSD insists on free
> (no royalty or fee) redistribution for "open source" software.

No it doesn't.  This is a very common misunderstanding.  An Open Source
license must *allow* free redistribution (i.e., must not *require* payment),
but it need not *forbid* charging, and as far as I know none of the common
Open Source licenses do, not even the GPL.  I'm allowed to sell CD-ROMs
containing only Open Source software to those people who find this more
convenient / cheap / reliable / trustworthy / ... than downloading it from
the Internet or copying it from their friend's CD-ROM or hard disk, but the
license must also allow the download site (and my friend) to let me do this
without payment if they and I agree to it.

The Aladdin Free Public License forbids charging, but it isn't an Open
Source license, because it imposes restrictions on software that it is
aggregated with and hence doesn't comply with item #9 of the OSD.

-- 

L. Peter Deutsch |   Aladdin Enterprises  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
203 Santa Margarita Ave. | tel. +1-650-322-0103 (AM only); fax +1-650-322-1734
Menlo Park, CA 94025 |http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/index.html

Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Tom Geller]

O.K., this has gone far enough.

I've lowered a parameter on The OpenPPC Project's mailing list software: 
It will hold for moderation any post sent to more than n recpients. And 
no, I'm not gonna tell you what n is. :-P

Licensing topics that will make it through:

* Open hardware licenses
* How hardware differs from software
* Integration of hardware with free software

Licensing topics that will get rejected:

* Naming conventions (open vs. free, Linux vs. GNU/Linux...)
* Internicene wars (e.g. OSI vs. FSF)
* Software-only issues

Also sprach Zarathustra.

---
Tom Geller  *  Geller Communications  *  San Francisco
  Domains: tgeller.com, openppc.org, suespammers.org

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Adam 'WeirdArms' Wiggins]

I'm not sure if its the back log of our mail server or the time
difference or what but I've asked once before and it seems I have to ask
again (and add more SPAM in the process). Please move the discussion back
on TOPIC (ie licencing, or hardware design) or remove the PLEB mail alias
(not to mention the others) from the cc. I'm getting 3 copies of each post
on this utter SPAM and my list as well as the others are getting crap
totally unrelated to the topic we were discussing. So please people kill
the philosophy debate or take it somewhere else.

Cheers Adam



On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Tom Hull wrote:

> One of RMS's more dubious accomplishments is that people all over the world
> are agonizing that "free" as in "free software" doesn't have anything to do
> with price. Moreover, they soured to the point where they're even disparaging
> happy hour (a/k/a "free beer").
> 
> The fact is that free (unrestricted) availability of software and the freedom
> (opportunity) to change it can only be universally possible by making software
> available free of charge. It is precisely the confluence of all of these shades
> of meaning that makes "free software" the ideal term.
> 
> One way to see this link between free price and the other freedoms that RMS
> cherishes is to observe that proprietary software interests restrict those
> freedoms precisely in order to limit availability and jack up the price and
> profits they covet. (Even to the further detriment of their customers.)
> 
> The irony of this is that while RMS keeps harping on the semantics of libre
> vs. gratuit, the very first requirement set forth in the OSD insists on free
> (no royalty or fee) redistribution for "open source" software. The title may
> say "Open Source Definition", but the OSD is the clearest definition of free
> software we have to date.
> 
> In an earlier email to this group, RMS characterized "the Open Source movement"
> as "rejecting all talk of freedom, principle and non-material benefits." It
> seems closer to the mark to suggest that it is RMS who has wrapped himself up
> so exclusively in the principle of freedom that he rejects all talk of material
> benefits. Such a stance is terribly self-limiting. Throughout the whole history
> of the capitalist era, freedom and material wealth and comfort have been
> intertwined inextricably. And nowhere is the economic benefit of freedom more
> clear than in software -- with its unique ability to support near-infinite
> reproduction at near-zero cost.
> 
> RMS has said that he considers OSI and FSF to be like "two political parties
> within our community". Perhaps he has something like the Clinton Republicans
> and the Dole Democrats in mind, but it plays more like the two sides of a
> Lite Beer commercial: More Freedom! Fewer Bugs! Both are true, and both are
> important. Why can't you guys get it together?
> 
> Robert J Hale wrote:
> > 
> > Sign!  I hate to contiue this "SPAM" but I would like to agree and
> > disagree with Richard.  Free_  is not the right word due to the dumb
> > conotations people have in the US or English speaking world.
> > 
> > I think Richard is right that it should reflect the Freedom of ___ but we
> > should choose a new word that is not sonomyous with FREE, ie no charge.
> > 
> > I think someone should get out the dictionary and see what other words
> > would bring about the proper understanding and we should reflect the true
> > unfettered choice we are bringing into the world.
> > 
> > My opion here in the north.
> > 
> > Robert in Alaska
> > 
> > PS.  Thanks for all you have done Richard.
> 
> -- 
> /*
>  * Tom Hull -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  * http://www.ocston.org/~thull
>  */
> 

Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Bernard Lang]

On Mon, Oct 11, 1999 at 03:39:21PM -0700, Reto Stamm wrote:
> Derek J. Balling wrote:
> 
> > I have to disagree. I agree with many of Richard's concepts, (although I
> > still don't call it GNU/Linux *G*) but for hardware I have to seriously
> > disagree.
> >
> > "Free", in today's society, when attached to hardware, will have lots of
> > confusion when it comes to things like FreePC, .
...
> I am sure there is a term that matches exactly what we want to express in
> some language, and the people who speak english have never been very hesitant
> to adopt these words when they fill a particular gap. So if there is some
> word in Latin, Sanskrit, Hindi, Chinese, Japanese or wherever, we should see
> if we can use that to express what we really mean. I am sure that it will be
> mispronounced, but it shows what this is about.
> 
> Any suggestions for names?
> 
> Reto Stamm (speaking for myself)
> 

Well I believe that the french word "libre" has been used in the past,
even in english, to express precisely that concept ("free" as in "free
speech"). We'll gladly lend you the word for such a good usage.


and while I have the floor ...

I am looking for a GPL-like license, but it is intended for
collections of data resources, for the time being linguistic resources:
  corpora, dictionnaries (as used by machines, not people), grammars

  Such resources can be extended, modified, refined ... and included
in software applications (as data, or hard linked).

These are hard to come by resources, essential to develop linguistic
applications. Their creation requires both expertise and lot of
manpower.
  I am not sure the GPL would apply as is ... any comment or suggestion.

Bernard

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ,_  /\o\o/Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
 Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX