Re: Define hosts lookup for pf.conf
Dave, Thanks so much for your help. I have never touched perl but I will give it a try. Still, I have other questiones: 1. What software will I need to install on the firewalll in order for this script to work? 2. Is there any danger in having this kind of software on a publically accessable firewall? Muchas Gracias, Pedro Granada Spain -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Define-hosts-lookup-for-pf.conf-tf4469900.html#a12750872 Sent from the openbsd user - misc mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: samba performance redux
Jacob Yocom-Piatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > am having trouble getting samba on my 4.1-release machine to deliver > more than 3-7 MBps transfer speed. Just to eliminate the obvious, you *have* checked full/half duplex mismatches? - P -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.datadok.no/ http://www.nuug.no/ "Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic" delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
Re: Microsoft gets the Most Secure Operating Systems award
Why are you still talking? Why are you topposting? Why does it matter to the world at all what your one random friend does? And the standard: What does this have to do with OpenBSD? On 9/17/07, The One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Apple will, undoubtedly, implement some of these basic techniques for > "Leopard". > > But market share has completely NOTHING to do with "OS X"'s security. > > Apple always has and will be 100 % when it comes to their software for > OS X and OS X itself. > > Only time will tell. "Leopard"'s release will solve every Mac user's > concerns and PC fanboys idiocy! > > Even my friend, who uses a PC, is considering the purchase of a Mac. I > told him to wait until October, which is very near, to buy one. That > way he will not have to pay extra for "Leopard"! ;) > > On 9/5/07, Nick Shank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The One wrote: > > > But how would it spread? There have been 2 OS X viruses, yet they > > > spread terribly. > > > > > > And Apple has already fixed the issue. :) > > > > > > -The One > > > > > > On 9/2/07, Kennith Mann III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> On 9/1/07, The One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> On 3/23/07 2:53 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > >>> > > > Symantec have been trying to demonise OS X for a long while. > > > > > And it is going to work soon. > > > > Because OS X has no Propolice-like compiler stack protection, nor > > anything like W^X which makes parts of the address space > > non-executable, nor anything like address space randomization which > > makes certain attacks very difficult, especially with the previous two > > techniques. > > > > So when they have a bug, it is exploitable just like bugs are on any > > other powerpc or i386 machine running some other operating system. > > > > These days even operating systems like Vista have the above 3 security > > technologies. > > > > > > >>> First of all, "bugs" and "viruses" are two different things. > > >>> > > >>> Second, OS X does not need third-party "protection". All of the > > >>> protection is built into the OS! > > >>> > > >>> If Vista is so secure, then why does one need to download > > >>> "virus/spyware protection" when it can simply be built into the OS? > > >>> > > >>> -The One > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> I don't have "virus/spyware protection" and I've been fine before with > > >> Vista and XP. > > >> > > >> Perhaps you mean to say "why do users who install things they > > >> shouldn't need virus/spyware protection?" which I would argue that the > > >> OS doesn't matter. I could write a script that asks for rootly > > >> permission in OS X and start nuking stuff with the promise of prettier > > >> icons for their desktop or IM client. > > >> > > >> If you were to argue for worms and things of the like, then I would > > >> agree. The only virus I will probably ever catch is some zero-day that > > >> hits the world and gets in my work network (won't happen at my house > > >> -- I live alone) > > >> > > > > > > > > Here we hit the heart of the issue. The virus and spyware detection > > software for Windows isn't really to protect to the OS. It's to protect > > the user from themselves.
Re: Microsoft gets the Most Secure Operating Systems award
Apple will, undoubtedly, implement some of these basic techniques for "Leopard". But market share has completely NOTHING to do with "OS X"'s security. Apple always has and will be 100 % when it comes to their software for OS X and OS X itself. Only time will tell. "Leopard"'s release will solve every Mac user's concerns and PC fanboys idiocy! Even my friend, who uses a PC, is considering the purchase of a Mac. I told him to wait until October, which is very near, to buy one. That way he will not have to pay extra for "Leopard"! ;) On 9/5/07, Nick Shank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The One wrote: > > But how would it spread? There have been 2 OS X viruses, yet they > > spread terribly. > > > > And Apple has already fixed the issue. :) > > > > -The One > > > > On 9/2/07, Kennith Mann III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On 9/1/07, The One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> On 3/23/07 2:53 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote: > >>> > > Symantec have been trying to demonise OS X for a long while. > > > And it is going to work soon. > > Because OS X has no Propolice-like compiler stack protection, nor > anything like W^X which makes parts of the address space > non-executable, nor anything like address space randomization which > makes certain attacks very difficult, especially with the previous two > techniques. > > So when they have a bug, it is exploitable just like bugs are on any > other powerpc or i386 machine running some other operating system. > > These days even operating systems like Vista have the above 3 security > technologies. > > > >>> First of all, "bugs" and "viruses" are two different things. > >>> > >>> Second, OS X does not need third-party "protection". All of the > >>> protection is built into the OS! > >>> > >>> If Vista is so secure, then why does one need to download > >>> "virus/spyware protection" when it can simply be built into the OS? > >>> > >>> -The One > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> I don't have "virus/spyware protection" and I've been fine before with > >> Vista and XP. > >> > >> Perhaps you mean to say "why do users who install things they > >> shouldn't need virus/spyware protection?" which I would argue that the > >> OS doesn't matter. I could write a script that asks for rootly > >> permission in OS X and start nuking stuff with the promise of prettier > >> icons for their desktop or IM client. > >> > >> If you were to argue for worms and things of the like, then I would > >> agree. The only virus I will probably ever catch is some zero-day that > >> hits the world and gets in my work network (won't happen at my house > >> -- I live alone) > >> > > > > > Here we hit the heart of the issue. The virus and spyware detection > software for Windows isn't really to protect to the OS. It's to protect > the user from themselves.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:03:55PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a > > > derivative work from > > > receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable > > > elements in that work. > > > > Of course you can. > > No you can't. Gentlemen, please remove your wanking selves back to the gutter you've crawled from. This is not slashdot[1]. This is not gnu.misc.discuss. This is not alt.sex.cartooney.sue.sue.sue. This is a technical maillist and that dungpile doesn't belong here. If you insist on hitting vger, ask davem to create a new maillist ([EMAIL PROTECTED] would fit that kind of traffic nicely) and for pity sake, do fuck off already. Enough is enough. [1] the spews from nerds, the spews that splatter...
Re: Creating bridge problem
Yes fxp1 has been up'ed with ifconfig and I've ping'ed other machines with it so it is working just can't figure out why bridge0 doesn't want to bind to it, fxp0, or any device. On 9/15/07, Jeff Quast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/15/07, Jake Conk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > For some reason when I try to add my bridge interface to one of my > > cards it just hangs. My commands are: > > > > ifconfig bridge0 create > > ifconfig bridge0 add fxp1 > > > > And it just hangs pretty much forever until i Ctrl-C it... If I put in > > my /etc/hostname.bridge0 file... > > > > add fxp1 > > up > > > > ...then on my screen it would say it couldn't add fxp1 to bridge0... > > > > Anyone know what i'm doing wrong? > > > > Thanks, > > -Jake > > > > > > has the fxp1 device been 'up'ed with ifconfig?
Re: Define hosts lookup for pf.conf
> -Original Message-
>
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering if there was a way to name hosts in pf.conf
> so when I did a
> pfctl -s all I could see the STATES table with hostnames instead of ip
> addresses. It would make troubleshooting a lot easier
> espcially when the
> STATES table starts to get real big.
I had this trouble a while back and wrote a perl script (I called it
p-pfclt.pl) to do the name resolution.
Trying to do it inside pfctl itself (using config file directives) is
probably not a good idea (feature bloat).
---
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
use Socket;
sub get_name($);
my %host;
while(<>) {
if( /^(.*) (\d+\.\d+\.\d+\.\d+):(\d+) (.*) (\d+\.\d+\.\d+\.\d+):(\d+)
(.*)$/ ) {
print "$1 ",
get_name($2),
":$3 $4 ",
get_name($5),
":$6 $7\n";
} else {
print "She's sucking mud..\n";
}
}
sub get_name($) {
my $ip = shift;
if( ! defined $host{$ip} ) {
if( my $n = gethostbyaddr(inet_aton($ip), AF_INET) ) {
$host{$ip} = $n;
} else {
$host{$ip} = $ip;
}
}
return $host{$ip};
}
---
Use it like:
pfctl -s state | p-pfctl.pl
ciao
dave
---
Dave Edwards
samba performance redux
am having trouble getting samba on my 4.1-release machine to deliver more than 3-7 MBps transfer speed. this is horribly slow, even on 100 Mbps, and i'm hoping there are folks out there who can assist me in tuning this properly. the following is set in smb.conf read raw = yes write raw = yes oplocks = yes max xmit = 65535 dead time = 15 getwd cache = yes ... socket options = IPTOS_LOWDELAY TCP_NODELAY SO_SNDBUF=8192 SO_RCVBUF=8192 besides this it's entirely default. several hosts on the network will be upgraded to gigabit soon and it would be nice to get more than 3-7 MBps transfers. if anybody feels this inquiry is better suited for the samba mailing lists do let me know. cheers, jake --
Re: Creating bridge problem
The nic I'm trying to bind to (fxp1) DOES work in non bridge mode, I
can ping machines through fxp1 so I know I don't have a problem with
that card.
Here is my dmesg.
OpenBSD 4.1 (GENERIC.RAID) #0: Thu Sep 13 18:41:29 PDT 2007
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC.RAID
cpu0: Intel Pentium III ("GenuineIntel" 686-class) 1 GHz
cpu0:
FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,SER,MMX,FXSR,SSE
real mem = 2146988032 (2096668K)
avail mem = 1951846400 (1906100K)
using 4278 buffers containing 107474944 bytes (104956K) of memory
mainbus0 (root)
bios0 at mainbus0: AT/286+ BIOS, date 03/15/01, BIOS32 rev. 0 @
0xfd8e0, SMBIOS rev. 2.31 @ 0xe4010 (57 entries)
bios0: Quanta Computer Inc. SU6 Server
pcibios0 at bios0: rev 2.1 @ 0xfd8e0/0x720
pcibios0: PCI IRQ Routing Table rev 1.0 @ 0xfdf20/192 (10 entries)
pcibios0: no compatible PCI ICU found: ICU vendor 0x product 0x
pcibios0: Warning, unable to fix up PCI interrupt routing
pcibios0: PCI bus #0 is the last bus
bios0: ROM list: 0xc/0x8000 0xc8000/0x5200 0xe4000/0x4000!
acpi at mainbus0 not configured
cpu0 at mainbus0
pci0 at mainbus0 bus 0: configuration mode 1 (no bios)
pchb0 at pci0 dev 0 function 0 "ServerWorks CNB20LE Host" rev 0x06
pchb1 at pci0 dev 0 function 1 "ServerWorks CNB20LE Host" rev 0x06
pci1 at pchb1 bus 1
fxp0 at pci0 dev 7 function 0 "Intel 8255x" rev 0x08, i82559: irq 11,
address 00:c0:9f:04:1b:34
inphy0 at fxp0 phy 1: i82555 10/100 PHY, rev. 4
fxp1 at pci0 dev 9 function 0 "Intel 8255x" rev 0x08, i82559: irq 10,
address 00:c0:9f:04:1b:33
inphy1 at fxp1 phy 1: i82555 10/100 PHY, rev. 4
fxp2 at pci0 dev 10 function 0 "Intel 8255x" rev 0x08, i82559: irq 7,
address 00:c0:9f:04:1b:32
inphy2 at fxp2 phy 1: i82555 10/100 PHY, rev. 4
ahc0 at pci0 dev 11 function 0 "Adaptec AIC-7892 U160" rev 0x02: irq 5
scsibus0 at ahc0: 16 targets
sd0 at scsibus0 targ 0 lun 0: SCSI3 0/direct fixed
sd0: 70136MB, 78753 cyl, 2 head, 911 sec, 512 bytes/sec, 143638992 sec total
sd1 at scsibus0 targ 1 lun 0: SCSI3 0/direct fixed
sd1: 70136MB, 78753 cyl, 2 head, 911 sec, 512 bytes/sec, 143638992 sec total
safte0 at scsibus0 targ 8 lun 0: SCSI2 3/processor fixed
vga1 at pci0 dev 12 function 0 "ATI Rage XL" rev 0x27
wsdisplay0 at vga1 mux 1: console (80x25, vt100 emulation)
wsdisplay0: screen 1-5 added (80x25, vt100 emulation)
piixpm0 at pci0 dev 15 function 0 "ServerWorks OSB4" rev 0x50: polling
iic0 at piixpm0
pciide0 at pci0 dev 15 function 1 "ServerWorks OSB4 IDE" rev 0x00: DMA
atapiscsi0 at pciide0 channel 0 drive 0
scsibus1 at atapiscsi0: 2 targets
cd0 at scsibus1 targ 0 lun 0: SCSI0 5/cdrom removable
cd0(pciide0:0:0): using PIO mode 4, DMA mode 2
pciide0: couldn't map native-PCI interrupt
isa0 at mainbus0
isadma0 at isa0
pckbc0 at isa0 port 0x60/5
pckbd0 at pckbc0 (kbd slot)
pckbc0: using irq 1 for kbd slot
wskbd0 at pckbd0: console keyboard, using wsdisplay0
pcppi0 at isa0 port 0x61
midi0 at pcppi0:
spkr0 at pcppi0
npx0 at isa0 port 0xf0/16: reported by CPUID; using exception 16
pccom0 at isa0 port 0x3f8/8 irq 4: ns16550a, 16 byte fifo
fdc0 at isa0 port 0x3f0/6 irq 6 drq 2
fd0 at fdc0 drive 0: 1.44MB 80 cyl, 2 head, 18 sec
biomask f36d netmask ffed ttymask ffef
pctr: 686-class user-level performance counters enabled
mtrr: Pentium Pro MTRR support
Kernelized RAIDframe activated
ahc0: target 0 using 16bit transfers
ahc0: target 0 synchronous at 80.0MHz DT, offset = 0x7f
ahc0: target 1 using 16bit transfers
ahc0: target 1 synchronous at 80.0MHz DT, offset = 0x7f
cd0(atapiscsi0:0:0): Check Condition (error 0x70) on opcode 0x0
SENSE KEY: Not Ready
ASC/ASCQ: Medium Not Present
raid0 (root): (RAID Level 1) total number of sectors is 143428224
(70033 MB) as root
dkcsum: sd0 matches BIOS drive 0x80
dkcsum: sd1 matches BIOS drive 0x81
swapmount: no device
carp: pfsync0 demoted group carp to 129
carp: pfsync0 demoted group pfsync to 1
carp: pfsync0 demoted group carp to 0
carp: pfsync0 demoted group pfsync to 0
pfsync: failed to receive bulk update status
On 9/15/07, Nick Holland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jake Conk wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > For some reason when I try to add my bridge interface to one of my
> > cards it just hangs. My commands are:
> >
> > ifconfig bridge0 create
> > ifconfig bridge0 add fxp1
> >
> > And it just hangs pretty much forever until i Ctrl-C it... If I put in
> > my /etc/hostname.bridge0 file...
> >
> > add fxp1
> > up
> >
> > ...then on my screen it would say it couldn't add fxp1 to bridge0...
> >
> > Anyone know what i'm doing wrong?
>
> yeah, not providing enough info. :)
>
> Most likely, the problem isn't the bridge, it's the NIC and the system
> not liking each other for some reason.
>
> Does the NIC work in a non-bridged mode? (I bet it doesn't).
>
> dmesg, dangit! :)
>
> Nick.
WiFi card for IBSS/ad-hoc mode?
Hello guys, what is the best supported by OpenBSD project Subj now? ; thank you very much. Done a lot of tests with ral(4). -- Sergey Prysiazhnyi
Re: Wasting our Freedom
> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a > > derivative work from > > receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable > > elements in that work. > > Of course you can. No you can't. > What rights do you have to BSD-licenced works, made available > (under BSD) to MS exclusively? You only get the binary object... You are equating what rights I have with my ability to exercise those rights. They are not the same thing. For example, I once bought the rights to publically display the movie "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". To my surprise, the rights to public display did not include an actual copy of the film. In any event, I never claimed that anyone has rights to a protectable element that they do not possess a lawful copy of. That's a complete separate issue and one that has nothing to do with what's being discussed here because these are all cases where you have the work. > You know, this is quite common practice - instead of assigning > copyright, you can grant a BSD-style licence (for some fee, > something like "do what you want but I will do what I want with > my code"). Sure, *you* can grant a BSD-style license to any protectable elements *you* authored. But unless your recpients can obtain a BSD-style license to all protectable elements in the work from their respective authors, they cannot modify or distribute it. *You* cannot grant any rights to protectable elements authored by someone else, unless you have a relicensing agreement. Neither the GPL nor the BSD is one of those. > >> If A sold a BSD licence to B only and this B sold a proprietary > >> licence (for a derived work) to C, C (without that clause) wouldn't > >> have a BSD licence to the original work. This is BTW common scenario. > > > > C most certainly would have a BSD license, should he choose to > > comply with > > terms, to every protectable element that is in both the > > original work and > > the work he received. > But he may have received only binary program image - or the source > under NDA. > Sure, NDA doesn't cover public information, but BSD doesn't mean public. > Now what? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you just trying to be deliberately dense or waste time? Is it not totally obvious how the principles I explain apply to a case like that? Only someone who signs an NDA must comply with it. If you signed an NDA, you must comply with it. An NDA can definitely subtract rights. It's a complex question whether an NDA can subtract GPL rights, but again, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Sure, you can have the right from me to do X and still not be allowed to do X because you agreed with someone else not to do it. So what? > > C has no right to license any protectable element he did not author to > > anyone else. He cannot set the license terms for those elements to C. > Sure, the licence covers the >>>entire work<<<, not some "elements". This is a misleading statement. The phrase "entire work" has two senses. The license definitely does not cover the "entire work" in the sense of every protectable element in the work unless each individual author of those elements chose to offer that element under that license. If by "entire work", you mean any compilation or derivative work copyright the "final" author has, then yes, that's available under whatever license the "final" author places it under. But that license does not actually permit you to distribute the work. This is really complicated and I wish I had a clear way to explain it. Suppose I write a work and then you modify it. Assume your modification includes adding new protectable elements to that work. When someone distributes that new derivative work, they are distributing protectable elements authored by both you and me. Absent a relicensing agreement, they must obtain some rights from you and some rights from me to do that. You cannot license the protectable elements that I authored that are still in the resulting derivative work. > > Neither the BSD nor the GPL ever give you the right to change the actual > > license a work is offered under by the original author. > > Of course, that's a very distant thing. Exactly. Every protectable element in the final work is licensed by the original author to every recipient who takes advantage of the license offer. > >> BTW: a work by multiple authors is a different thing than a work > >> derived from another. > > > > In practice it doesn't matter. > > Of course it does. Only author of a (derived) work can licence > it, in this case he/she could change the licence back to BSD, > or sell it to MS (if not based on GPL etc). Only the author of any protectable element can license it, whether it's in a derivated work or by itself. You are seriously confused if you think that just because you create a derivative work that includes my protectable elements you can then license the element
Re: Wasting our Freedom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 04:40:38PM -0700: > On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Jacob Meuser wrote: >> so the linux community is morally equivilent to a corporation? >> that's what it sounds like you are all legally satisfied with. > > if it's legal it's legal. it's not a matter of the Linux community being > satisfied with it, it's a matter of the BSD people desiring it based on > their selection of license (and the repeated statements that this feature > of the BSD license being an advantage compared to the GPL makes it clear > that this isn't an unknown side effect, it's an explicit desire). Indeed, that argument is often paraphrased in a way that makes it hard to understand. What i heard people say is not "If people make derivative works based on BSD code, they should make them less free instead of fully free", but it is: "If people caring nothing about free software in the first place are building their own commercial systems anyway, they should rather reuse BSD code than hacking up their own bricolage of bug-ridden insecure stuff." Granted, that's a different approach than taken by the GPL, which essentially says "... anyway, they deserve to be on their own." > so the Linux community is following the desires of the BSD community > by following their license but the BSD community is unhappy, why? Be careful not to confuse "desires" with "legal requirements"... :-( Given BSD code, BSD-licensed substantial improvements make happier than restrictively licensed substantial improvements make happier than derived non-free closed-source software make happier than license violations. Besides, the Linux communities neither qualify as "caring nothing about free software" nor as "hacking up their own bricolage of bug-ridden insecure stuff" (hopefully ;-). So that argument simply doesn't apply to you. Probably, that's why Jacob talked about "morally equivalent to a corporation". > you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the > code, but brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok > and Linux evil? many people honestly don't understand the logic > behind this. please explain it. Several people have already explained this nicely; the degree of happiness may also depend on the level of cooperation and understanding you expect from the people building on the code, given their own intentions and goals. I may well be thankful towards an enemy just for not killing me, but at the same time sad about a friend leaving me out in the rain. ( This just being stated in general; i'm not sure what the state of discussions in the various Linux communities is just now. )
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:06:37PM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote: > The only remaining issue is whether Nick & Jiri have enough > original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright. > > I believe this needs to be resolved between Reyk and Nick and Jiri. > > The main reason of Theo's message, linked earlier, was the > lack of response on this issue. It seems that the SFLC is > dismissing this issue, and thus stalling its resolution by the > developers. OK, so all of this flaming, and digging up of "licenses ripped off", and chaff thrown up in the air, and moaning and bewailing about "theft", is now down to these two lines regarding Nick and Jiri: > * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [snip rest of BSD license] It's under a BSD license; what material difference does those two lines make, for goodness sake? It's under a BSD license, so it's not like anything won't be "given back". Whether or not they have made enough for changes is really a question for the lawyers, and may differ from one jurisdiction to another --- but whether or not they have now, or maybe will not make until later --- does it really make a difference? Who gets hurt if someone gets they get a bit more credit than they deserve? Certainly the most important thing is that Reyk is given proper credit, right? - Ted
Re: Wasting our Freedom
"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a derivative work from > receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable > elements in that work. Of course you can. What rights do you have to BSD-licenced works, made available (under BSD) to MS exclusively? You only get the binary object... You know, this is quite common practice - instead of assigning copyright, you can grant a BSD-style licence (for some fee, something like "do what you want but I will do what I want with my code"). >> If A sold a BSD licence to B only and this B sold a proprietary >> licence (for a derived work) to C, C (without that clause) wouldn't >> have a BSD licence to the original work. This is BTW common scenario. > > C most certainly would have a BSD license, should he choose to comply with > terms, to every protectable element that is in both the original work and > the work he received. But he may have received only binary program image - or the source under NDA. Sure, NDA doesn't cover public information, but BSD doesn't mean public. Now what? > C has no right to license any protectable element he did not author to > anyone else. He cannot set the license terms for those elements to C. Sure, the licence covers the >>>entire work<<<, not some "elements". > Neither the BSD nor the GPL ever give you the right to change the actual > license a work is offered under by the original author. Of course, that's a very distant thing. >> BTW: a work by multiple authors is a different thing than a work >> derived from another. > > In practice it doesn't matter. Of course it does. Only author of a (derived) work can licence it, in this case he/she could change the licence back to BSD, or sell it to MS (if not based on GPL etc). > Would you argue that I can license Disney's "The Lion King" movie to you if > I promise not to sue you over any (no) rights that I possess to it? Sure you can :-) that doesn't mean it would protect me from Disney, but you can. > You are confusing licenses of two very different types. The BSD and GPL > licenses only cover modification and distribution, two rights you do not get > to MS Windows at all. *Use* is not restricted under copyright. I'm told in the USA use = copying from disk to RAM = distribution, isn't it true? :-) It doesn't matter of course. > There is simply nothing remotely comparable to the BSD or GPL license in the > case of MS Windows. There is no grant of additional rights beyond those you > get automatically with lawful possession (such as use). I don't compare them (though you can). You don't get a licence for "original elements" in MS-Windows, do you? > If MS wished to grant someone the right to modify or redistribute Windows, > that person would also need to obtain the right to modify or distribute > protectable elements not authored by Microsoft. The only way they could > obtain those rights, assuming Microsoft didn't have written relicensing > agreements, is from the original author under the original licenses. Yes, but it isn't automatic. Imagine you have received something from MS, under more permissive licence (I think such things did happen). How do you, for example, recognice boundaries of the elements, IOW what additional rights do you have to each line in the code or pixel in the font? The file itself only states: (C) MS portions (C) e.g. Bitstream licenced under their special agreement What extra rights do you receive from Bitstream? Perhaps you should ask them if they have given you some licence? :-) Or another example, redistributable runtime libraries. What extra rights do you have? What you write is true for GPL, but it doesn't mean it's true everytime. It's just that clause in the GPL. -- Krzysztof Halasa
Re: Wasting our Freedom
2007/9/18, Can E. Acar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Theodore Tso wrote: > > > Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which > > have still not been accepted), the HAL code is under a pure BSD > > license (ath5k_hw.c). Other portions are dual licensed, but not the > > HAL --- if people would only take a look at > > > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=tree;f=drivers/net/wireless;h=2d6caeba0924c34b9539960b9ab568ab3d193fc8;hb=everything > > > > from latest ath5k_hw.c: > > * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [snip rest of BSD license] ath5k_regdom.c and ath5k_regdom.h seem to be missing the no warranty part of the license. I am not sure if this is a problem though. Cheers, Dries
Re: Problem installing openBSD 4.0 on intel S3000AH
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:28:47 +0700, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: don't worry, I will give 4.1 I try, since I also like my machine up-to-date :D Thanks Y'all, On 2007/09/18 04:47, Insan Praja SW wrote: I tested the motherboard using 3.9 obsd, and it works like charm.. if you can move back to the 18-month-old code of a soon-to-be -unsupported release, can't you at least try booting 4.1 or preferably a snapshot and give some feedback so developers know if there's anything that needs looking at? -- Insan Praja SW
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sep 17, 2007, at 4:24 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: > Instead, however, they approached me with rage, > trying to blame the FSF for whatever happened. I don't have to take > that, and I don't have to cater to them. It's more disturbing to me at 55 than it was at 35 that the free software - open source community is prone to fits of sectarian (verbal) violence. I've grown up in the past twenty years. I hope somebody else in this crowd has!!! -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: [Possibly OT] 16-bit Assembly Programming
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tobias Weingartner wrote: [...] > One thing your teacher may not know is that x86 assembly includes the > 32-bit environment, and (now) also a 64-bit environment. However, running > 16-bit code under OpenBSD i386 is going to be somewhat difficult. We don't > bother supplying 16-bit services, and only consume 16-bit services (from the > bios) for a few things necessary. It is hard, and somewhat error prone. Linux has a thing called elksemu. It is, basically, a binary loader that will allow you to run 16-bit ELKS binaries on 32-bit Linux. (ELKS is a now-moribund port of a Linux subset to 8086 class machines, using modified Minix binaries.) It intercepts int 0x80 and converts the 16-bit ELKS syscalls to 32-bit Linux ones. So, write(0, "Hello, world!\n", 14) becomes: mov ax, 0 mov bx, _label mov cx, 14 int 0x80 ...which is, I believe, exactly what the OP wanted. elksemu does all the dirty work with the vm86() syscall, which was put in for dosemu. I know that dosemu works, or at least worked, on NetBSD and FreeBSD - --- does OpenBSD have this functionality? - -- b bb o=o=o< o=o=o=o= o=o=o= o<o=o=o= bbb http://www.cowlark.com bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb b b "There does not now, nor will there ever, exist a programming language in b which it is the least bit hard to write bad programs." --- Flon's Axiom Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG7wDdf9E0noFvlzgRAgIeAJ9tDWiILb5ZvOHdQMFKt3IJx498DQCdHnvX LCkFDYMfs7Boc07yqcTSVZw= =/XPv -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Problem installing openBSD 4.0 on intel S3000AH
On 2007/09/18 04:47, Insan Praja SW wrote: > I tested the motherboard using 3.9 obsd, and it works like charm.. if you can move back to the 18-month-old code of a soon-to-be -unsupported release, can't you at least try booting 4.1 or preferably a snapshot and give some feedback so developers know if there's anything that needs looking at?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
The only thing I know about this "incident" is that OpenBSD developers are angry at someone I don't know, over events whose details I don't know. If they had approached me in a friendly way, asking me to look at the issue and formulate an opinion, as a favor or for the good of the community, I would have investigated at least to find out what my opinion should be. Instead, however, they approached me with rage, trying to blame the FSF for whatever happened. I don't have to take that, and I don't have to cater to them.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Adrian Bunk wrote on Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:57:14PM +0200: > But stating in your licence that noone has to give back but then > complaining to some people on ethical grounds that they should give > back is simply dishonest. > > Is your intention to allow people to include your code into GPL'ed code > and never give back, or is your intention that this shouldn't happen? > > And whatever your intention is should be stated in your licence. As this is a recurring argument in the present discussion, let's address it, even though it lies somewhat beside the main topic. What i wish and what i try to enforce by legal contracts are two completely different things. In particular, it is _not_ a smart idea to try to enforce all one's wishes by legal means. For example, i wish that as much as possible of the code i write be freely available such that others can use it, too, and i wish that others write useful code and make it free such that i can use it. When i publish code, i wish bugfixes to be fed back to me, and i hope that others might free their derivative works, too. Besides, i might hope that people at large behave in human and rational ways and refrain from doing harm to others. In particular i might wish the fruits of my work not to be abused to harm or oppress people. Quite probably, lots of software developers share similar wishes, whatever licenses they happen to be employing. But this doesn't imply i should be putting any of the above into the license for my code. Once people attach additional conditions to their licences, sooner or later i get stuck when trying to combine different code covered by different licences. However well intentioned, in practice, those additional conditions habitually turn out to be incompatible - even when, regarded seperately, all of them might appear to make some sense. Now doubtless, the two main additional conditions imposed by the GPL - derivative works may only be distributed if they are made as open and as free as the original - are among those making the most sense of all the additional conditions you might imagine, in the sense that nearly any developer of free software will wish that anybody holding the copyright on a derivative work would make that free. Still, when trying to combine code with different licences, even the GPL at times turns out to be a bother. This does not only apply to the case of non-free closed-source commercial code, but also to cases where authors intended to make their code free, but, be it by inexperience or because they failed to restrain themselves, unfortunately added some uncommon condition to the license. Combining such code with ISC or BSD code is hardly ever problem, combining such code with GPL code may well be. Thus, even when wishing derivative works to be free in their turn, i still see a strong theoretical and a strong practical argument to choose the ISC license over the GPL: Theoretically, it's just the categorical imperative: If everybody would be adding her or his favorite condition to her or his license, we would not end up in free software, but in chaos. Practically, i'm quite fed up with GPL license incompatibility issues always popping up at the most inconvenient places, and still more, with all those license compatibility discussions. With the ISC license, there are no incompatibility issues and no incompatibility discussions, it just works. Of course, i lose the option to sue people to open up derivative works, but i keep the hope that some people (especially those engaged in free software themselves) understand and keep up the spirit, and above all, i avoid lots of legalese worries. Ultimately, it's kind of a trade-off. To summarize, there are valid reasons to wish that people would make derivative works free, but to not require it in the license. Just like there are valid reasons to wish that people should not use the code for waging war, but to not require that in the license.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:23:41PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: >> Because they put their copyright plus license on code that they barely >> modified. If they would have added substantial work into the OpenHAL code >> and by doing that creating something new I would not say much. > > Number 1, some of the Linux wireless developers screwed up earlier > versions. No denying that, the problems were pointed out during the > patch reviewed problem, AND THEY WERE FIXED. Not all, see below: > Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which > have still not been accepted), the HAL code is under a pure BSD > license (ath5k_hw.c). Other portions are dual licensed, but not the > HAL --- if people would only take a look at > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=tree;f=drivers/net/wireless;h=2d6caeba0924c34b9539960b9ab568ab3d193fc8;hb=everything > from latest ath5k_hw.c: * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [snip rest of BSD license] The only remaining issue is whether Nick & Jiri have enough original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright. I believe this needs to be resolved between Reyk and Nick and Jiri. The main reason of Theo's message, linked earlier, was the lack of response on this issue. It seems that the SFLC is dismissing this issue, and thus stalling its resolution by the developers. The rest is, as you say, history. Can -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.
Re: Problem installing openBSD 4.0 on intel S3000AH
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:52:11 +0700, Matiss Miglans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi.. I tested the motherboard using 3.9 obsd, and it works like charm.. Hi! I Have that motherboard with 4.0 Snapshot (I don't remember the date) and all works good. 1. There were problems with second gigabit port. 2. There were problems with ACPI, and the system was unstable( Try to compile anything). But With this snapshot all works great. I haven't tried 4.1 or later snapshots. Matiss Insan Praja SW wrote: Dear all, I have recently facing a problem when installing openBSD 4.0 on intel S3000AH, it seems that the embedded gigabit ethernet (em1) is causing this, since openBSD installer trap a kernel panic message when it tried to load the module. In some discussion, to troubleshoot this is to change vparam.h. Since I am no programmer, would anyone be kind enough to help me with this. dmesg: em1 at pci3 dev 0 function 0 "Intel PRO/1000MT (82573e)" rev 0x03uvm_fault(0xd0691180, 0x1f000, 0, 1) -> fatal page fault (6) in supervisor mode trap type 6 code 0 eip d02b0a10 cs 8 eflags 10202 cr2 1ff07 cp0 panic: trap type 6, code-0, pc-d02b0a10 -- Insan Praja SW
Re: Mini PCI card for hostap mode
On 9/17/07, Steve B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can anyone recommend a vendor that carries mini PCI > cards that support hostap mode under OpenBSD? man (4) ral is a good place to start. I bought a MSI MN54G recently which worked.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:23:41PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > Because they put their copyright plus license on code that they barely > modified. If they would have added substantial work into the OpenHAL code > and by doing that creating something new I would not say much. Number 1, some of the Linux wireless developers screwed up earlier versions. No denying that, the problems were pointed out during the patch reviewed problem, AND THEY WERE FIXED. Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which have still not been accepted), the HAL code is under a pure BSD license (ath5k_hw.c). Other portions are dual licensed, but not the HAL --- if people would only take a look at http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=tree;f=drivers/net/wireless;h=2d6caeba0924c34b9539960b9ab568ab3d193fc8;hb=everything And yet, the BSD folks seem to continue to nurse the above mantra (which was true, but quickly corrected) combined with the "and the Linux folks aren't listening", which is manifestly not true. We might not agree with everything you are saying, and we might think you're being highly hypocritical, but we are listening. > All the comercial code I have ever seen did not do this stunt of adding a > new copyright and license to barely modified files. Perhaps the "evil" > companies have more ethics or better understanding of copyright. In the original BSD 4.3 code, if I recall correctly, /bin/true was 12 lines of AT&T copyright and the standard "this is proprietary non-published trade secret" legalease with the standard threats of bazillions and bazillions of damage due to AT&T's irreparable harm if the file was ever disclosed followed by "exit 0". :-) Personally, I find that issues of copyright are much more easily discussed if people keep a sense of balance and humor. - Ted
Mini PCI card for hostap mode
I'd like to add a PCI card to by OBSD box in order to gain wireless support (translation - lazy me wants to work from the couch). The local non-profit for which I volunteer has tons of PC stuff donated but none of the PCI wireless that have come in are capable of hostap mode. Recently someone donated a couple fo Mikrotik RB11 mini PCI to PCI adapters. I thought I'd go buy a mini PCI card that was hostap compatible but they are a bit harder to find than I thought. Can anyone recommend a vendor that carries mini PCI cards that support hostap mode under OpenBSD? Steve
Define hosts lookup for pf.conf
Hello, I was wondering if there was a way to name hosts in pf.conf so when I did a pfctl -s all I could see the STATES table with hostnames instead of ip addresses. It would make troubleshooting a lot easier espcially when the STATES table starts to get real big. Thanks a lot, Pedro Granada Spain -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Define-hosts-lookup-for-pf.conf-tf4469900.html#a12744788 Sent from the openbsd user - misc mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Theodore Tso writes: hardly > Of course you don't need a license to *use* the derived work. You never need > a license to use a work. (In the United States. Some countries word this a > bit differently but get the same effect.) Really? I thought you need a licence to use, say, MS Windows. Even to possess a copy. But I don't know about USA, I'm told there are strange things happening there :-) > If, however, you wanted to get the right to modify or distribute a > derivative work, you would need to obtain the rights to every protectable > element in that work. Of course. > Read GPL section 6, particularly this part: "Each time you redistribute the > Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically > receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify > the Program subject to > these terms and conditions." Seems fine, your point? In addition to the rights from you (to the whole derived work), the recipient receives rights to the original work, from original author. It makes perfect sense, making sure the original author can't sue you like in the SCO case. If A sold a BSD licence to B only and this B sold a proprietary licence (for a derived work) to C, C (without that clause) wouldn't have a BSD licence to the original work. This is BTW common scenario. > To distribute a derivative work that contains protectable elements from > multiple authors, you are distributing all of those elements and need the > rights to all of them. You need a license to each element and in the absence > of any relicensing arrangements (which the GPL and BSD license are not), > only the original author can grant that to you. Of course. BTW: a work by multiple authors is a different thing than a work derived from another. > It is a common confusion that just because the final author has copyright in > the derivative work, that means he can license the work. Of course he (and only he) can. It doesn't mean the end users can't receive additional rights. Come on, licence = promise not to sue. Why would the copyright holder be unable to promise not to sue? It just doesn't make sense. > He cannot license > anyone else's creative contributions absent a relicensing arrangement. Sure, he can licence only his work, perhaps derived work. Look at MS Windows - it's a work created by a single company, though derived from other works, it's (C) MS and you get a licence for the whole MS Windows from only MS. You may have some additional rights and MS may have to acknowledge additional contributors, based on their licences granted by those contributors (such as using the original UCB licence). -- Krzysztof Halasa
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:09:08PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote: > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:32:35 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Your licence puts you in the position that you always depend on the > > goodwill of the persons from whom you want to get code back. > > The BSD license promotes goodwill. > > The GPL license promotes and enforces viral control. How hypocritical that > the Linux community fights so hard against the "evils" of corporate greed, > while it has no qualms about accepting their NDAs, binary blobs, and > non-redistributable drivers. It will bend over backwards for closed-source > vendors, but won't extend the olive branch to Free Software brethren. Your accusation the Linux community had no problems with "binary blobs and non-redistributable drivers" is quite far away from the truth. > Jason Dixon cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
ACPI Security
Hi misc@, I just came across these notes on ACPI: http://lwn.net/2001/0704/kernel.php3 (search down for "acpi") and got wondering what OpenBSD's take on securing ACPI is. Can AML code actually be an attack vector, or are there safeguards in place in OpenBSD against that? I tried searching the archives but strangely came up with nothing. Thanks -Nick
Re: SMP Support?
Also Paul, Now that is working do me a favor and try to compile the userland and kernel with that bsd.mp acpi enable kernel. Also, try if possible to make transfer of huge files between two boxes well connected to try to at a minimum get close to 100Mb/sec of transfer, or more if you have Gb access. In my case, it will crash every time still. Then the compile is ok with bsd, but still crash with bsd.mp in some cases. I am curious to know if that specific to my hardware, or if others have the same problem. Thanks Daniel.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:20:39AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > Theodore Tso writes: > > > Now, you don't need a licence from the original author to use > > the derived work. The author of the derived work only needs > > a licence from the original author to create a derived work. > > Do you think Microsoft users have licences from authors of > > the works MS Windows etc. are based on? :-) I didn't write the above; please be careful with your attributions. - Ted
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Kryzstof Halasa writes: > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Theodore Tso writes: > > hardly A apologize for the error in attribution. > > Of course you don't need a license to *use* the derived work. > > You never need > > a license to use a work. (In the United States. Some countries > > word this a > > bit differently but get the same effect.) > Really? I thought you need a licence to use, say, MS Windows. > Even to possess a copy. But I don't know about USA, I'm told > there are strange things happening there :-) No, you do not need a license to use MS Windows. Microsoft may choose to compel you to agree to a license in exchange for allowing you to install a copy, but that is not quite the same thing. If you read United States copyright law, you will see that *use* is not one of the rights reserved to the copyright holder. Every lawful possessor of a work may use it in the ordinary way, assuming they did not *agree* to some kind of restriction. > > If, however, you wanted to get the right to modify or distribute a > > derivative work, you would need to obtain the rights to every > > protectable > > element in that work. > Of course. > > Read GPL section 6, particularly this part: "Each time you > > redistribute the > > Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically > > receives a license from the original licensor to copy, > > distribute or modify > > the Program subject to > > these terms and conditions." > Seems fine, your point? My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a derivative work from receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable elements in that work. > In addition to the rights from you (to the whole derived work), > the recipient receives rights to the original work, from original > author. > It makes perfect sense, making sure the original author can't sue > you like in the SCO case. > > If A sold a BSD licence to B only and this B sold a proprietary > licence (for a derived work) to C, C (without that clause) wouldn't > have a BSD licence to the original work. This is BTW common scenario. C most certainly would have a BSD license, should he choose to comply with terms, to every protectable element that is in both the original work and the work he received. C has no right to license any protectable element he did not author to anyone else. He cannot set the license terms for those elements to C. Again, read GPL section 6. (And this is true for the BSD license as well, at least in the United States, because it's the only way such a license could work.) Neither the BSD nor the GPL ever give you the right to change the actual license a work is offered under by the original author. In fact, they could not give you this right under US copyright law. Modify the license *text* is not the same thing as modifying the license. > > To distribute a derivative work that contains protectable elements from > > multiple authors, you are distributing all of those elements > > and need the > > rights to all of them. You need a license to each element and > > in the absence > > of any relicensing arrangements (which the GPL and BSD license are not), > > only the original author can grant that to you. > Of course. > > BTW: a work by multiple authors is a different thing than a work > derived from another. In practice it doesn't matter. All that matters is that you have a single fixed form or expression that contains creative elements contributed by different people potentially under different licenses. The issues of whether it's a derivative work or a combined work and whether the distributor has made sufficient protectable elements to assert their own copy really has no effect on any of the issues that matter here. > > It is a common confusion that just because the final author has > > copyright in > > the derivative work, that means he can license the work. > Of course he (and only he) can. It doesn't mean the end users can't > receive additional rights. No, he can't. He can only license those protectable elements that he authored. There is no way you can license protectable elements authored by another absent a relicenseing agreement. The GPL is explicitly not a relicensing agreement, see section 6. The BSD license is implicitly not a relicensing agreement. > Come on, licence = promise not to sue. Why would the copyright > holder be unable to promise not to sue? It just doesn't make sense. A license is not just a promise not to sue, it's an *enforceable* *committment* not to sue. It's an explicit grant of permission against legal rights. Would you argue that I can license Disney's "The Lion King" movie to you if I promise not to sue you over any (no) rights that I possess to it? > > He cannot license > > anyone else's creative contributions absent a relicensing arrangement. > > Sure, he can licence only his work, perhaps derived work. Right. > Look at MS Windows - it's a work created by a single com
Re: SMP Support?
Paul Taulborg wrote: Booya! Updated my BIOS to the latest version (44), and applied the patch that was kindly provided to me here: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=118975639013313&w=2 I also enabled acpi0 in the kernel by default (required to see the other processors), and tada! I had to apply the patch above, as it would die with "out of bounds" error. I will let you know if I run into any stability issues, but am really happy to get this working! Thanks for all the help! Please do not forget to send the feedback requested back to Chris. Find the email in the URL above. mkdir mymachine cd mymachine cp /var/run/dmesg.boot . sudo acpidump -o mymachine > mymachine.aml cd .. tar zcf mymachine.tgz mymachine
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:44:28 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:09:08PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote: >> The GPL license promotes and enforces viral control. How hypocritical >> that the Linux community fights so hard against the "evils" of corporate >> greed, while it has no qualms about accepting their NDAs, binary blobs, >> and non-redistributable drivers. It will bend over backwards for >> closed-source vendors, but won't extend the olive branch to Free Software >> brethren. > > Your accusation the Linux community had no problems with "binary blobs > and non-redistributable drivers" is quite far away from the truth. I never said they don't have any problems. They have plenty of problems. They refuse to do anything proactive about them. -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:32:35 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your licence puts you in the position that you always depend on the > goodwill of the persons from whom you want to get code back. The BSD license promotes goodwill. The GPL license promotes and enforces viral control. How hypocritical that the Linux community fights so hard against the "evils" of corporate greed, while it has no qualms about accepting their NDAs, binary blobs, and non-redistributable drivers. It will bend over backwards for closed-source vendors, but won't extend the olive branch to Free Software brethren. -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:32:35PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: | > I'm not making any arguments against any (commercial) user of BSD | > licenced code on moral (or legal or other) grounds that they should | > give back. I am (and I think others too, but I do not wish to speak | > for them) trying to make an argument based on the 'share'-nature of | > the GPL that doesn't give back the freedom of BSD licenced code. | | GPL has a "share and protect" nature. Yes, and I was talking about the 'share' part. The protect part is fine with me, I understand the reasoning behind it. I would not choose it as my own licence, but that is a matter of personal choice. | > I'm clearly not saying you must give back, legally [but still, IANAL]. | > I'm saying you should give back as freely as you received, out of | > respect. Someone else already mentioned it : Just because you can take | > BSD licenced code and do (almost) whatever you wish, doesn't mean you | > should. Leave that up to the Big Evil Corps (the ones that also use | > GPL'ed code without giving back, btw). | | If a corporation violates the terms of the GPL lawyers and courts can | force them to do so. The exact same is true for the BSD Licence. If a corporation (or anyone else for that matter) violates the terms of the BSD licence, courts can make them stop these violations. It's just easier to violate the GPL, because it has more restrictions. [I'm still not a lawyer, btw] Big Evil Corps can however use GPL'ed code without giving back and without violating the GPL. Also the same as with the BSD licence. | BSD people tend to consider the BSD licence as being more free than the | GPL because it allows to take without having to give back. | | When people then demand getting code back based on "ethics" or "morale" | they are using the wrong licence. Why ? BSD people give their code away for free. They put hard work into writing quality software and they have their own ethics or morale. They do not *demand* getting code back, at least I have not seen any indication of such demands. So then why are they using the wrong licence ? I was merely pointing out a matter of mutual respect. | Your licence puts you in the position that you always depend on the | goodwill of the persons from whom you want to get code back. And the people using the BSD licence are completely aware of this [I assume, again I do not wish to speak for anyone but myself]. At least I was surprised that fellow open source / free software developers are not giving back. I've come to expect this from certain companies, but to me the free and open software community as a whole (here I'm lumping everyone and their mother together, I know) should have some respect towards eachother and the licence they choose and acknowledge the contributions of other parties, giving back as freely as they've been given. Not because it is required but because it's just right. The GPL requires I give changes I distribute back under the same licence. But if I ever were to change such a program, I would not give these changes back because of this requirement but because it just makes sense. | And BTW: | Many contributions to the Linux kernel come from people payed by | Big Evil Corps. [1] There's also contributions to OpenBSD from people paid by Big Evil Corps. The same is true for Net- and FreeBSD. Of course, not all Big Evil Corps are, in fact, Evil. | First of all, for some developers it wouldn't make a difference whether | their code was published under the terms of the GPL or under the terms | of the BSD licence. | | And there are many people who are aware when code comes from *BSD and | that giving code back in these cases would be friendly. Of course, like I said, on a case-by-case basis, there's nothing to lose. Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd -- >[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ +++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/ [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:34:58AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:55:54PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > Wohoho! Slow here please. NDA have nothing to do with licenses and > > especially with copyright. NetApp even though their stuff is under their > > copyright and license does hopefully not modify the copyrights of imported > > BSD/ISC code. That would be against the law and I hope their leagal > > departement is smart enough to not do this mistake especially because the > > BSD license those not hinder them in any way. > > Yes, NDA doesn't have anything to do with license and copyrights, and > I never said that NetApp is modfying a copyright; but they *are* > putting a proprietary copyright license on their modifications --- > which is exactly what the Linux wireless developers had proposed to do > (modulo mistakes about removing copyright notices and attribution > which have already been acknowledged and fixed), except instead of > using a proprietary license which means you'll never see the WAFL > sources (at least without signing an NDA and acknowledging their > proprietary copyright license over their changes), it will be under a > GPL license with which you have philosophical differences, but still > allows you to see the source. > You assume a lot about what NetApp did. While they can use BSD licensed code in their system without any issue they can not slam a new copyright on that code unless the changes create a derivative work. If you just do an adaption of the code you have no right to add an additional copyright. You need to make substantial extensions to the original work. Now adapting code to make it run under linux is in my opinion not a substantial work. It can be compared to translate a book to a different language -- which neither allows you to assign copyright on the result. I very much doubt that WAFL is a simple adaption of UFS/FFS. So it should be clear that this work has it's own copyright. Maybe some parts of their code is using BSD work that they just adapted. On that code they can not add an additional copyright as the modifications are not substantial enough. > > Finally most companies know they benefit from open source and give often > > the code changes most likely bugfixes to this imported code back. > > Unlike most GPL people we're happy with that especially we do not require > > them to release any of their own code. Sure their WAFL file system is cool > > but even in my wildest dreams I would not require them to publish their > > code just because the used some of my code. > > So why are you complaining when people want to use some of your code > and put the combined work under a mixed BSD/GPL license? You can't > use WAFL; you can't use the GPL'ed enhancements. What's the > difference between those two cases? Somehow a mixed BSD/Proprietary > license is better? > Because they put their copyright plus license on code that they barely modified. If they would have added substantial work into the OpenHAL code and by doing that creating something new I would not say much. All the comercial code I have ever seen did not do this stunt of adding a new copyright and license to barely modified files. Perhaps the "evil" companies have more ethics or better understanding of copyright. -- :wq Claudio
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:38:46PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: | > Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST | > give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that "hey, | > they don't require it, so we don't have to". | >... | | The GPL doesn't require to give back under a licence that gives less | protection for the code than the GPL does. It does not, I may not have been explicit but this is what I was alluding to. It was, in fact, what I was pointing out. Your preferred licence doesn't require it, so you don't do it. [and by you, I do not mean you in person] | If you take the BSD licence seriously you don't request to get anything | back on moral grounds. I do take the BSD licence serious and I do not request to get anything back on any BSD-grounds (moral, legal, other). I was referring to the GPL's "you must share" attitude that isn't reciprocal. I'm not making any arguments against any (commercial) user of BSD licenced code on moral (or legal or other) grounds that they should give back. I am (and I think others too, but I do not wish to speak for them) trying to make an argument based on the 'share'-nature of the GPL that doesn't give back the freedom of BSD licenced code. | If you take the GPL seriously you don't want your modifications being | available with less protection. If you have respect for both licences and you don't want your code available with less protection, rewrite. BSD developers have done so for various GPL licenced programs. After having used GPL licenced code for some time, some developer decides that he prefers another licence and does a rewrite. Linux Kernel Developers have it easier in this respect. They do not have to rewrite - they can take BSD licenced code and use it in their kernel without changing the licence or needing a rewrite [or so I've understood - IANAL]. If you use someone else's code, show this fellow free software / open source developer some respect and give back as freely as you received. This respect is enforced in the GPL, the BSD doesn't even mention it. BSD folks tend to have lots of respect for good code and they try to respect licences [not making any observations about other folks or other subjects here, this is based on my personal observations] I'm clearly not saying you must give back, legally [but still, IANAL]. I'm saying you should give back as freely as you received, out of respect. Someone else already mentioned it : Just because you can take BSD licenced code and do (almost) whatever you wish, doesn't mean you should. Leave that up to the Big Evil Corps (the ones that also use GPL'ed code without giving back, btw). | In reality, where it makes sense technically, it's quite likely that an | author will make his modifications, or even a completely self-written | driver, also available under the terms of the BSD licence when asked in | a friendly way. This, of course, would be perfect. But in all fairness, why then release anything under the GPL ? Please, don't get me wrong, I respect the GPL and the Linux kernel and especially each developers choice of licence, but I doubt it's that easy (of course, on a case-by-case basis, there's nothing to lose). Cheers, Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd -- >[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ +++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/ [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: sudo & wheel group
Chris wrote: I am finding that I need to add joeuser to use pkg_* tools, tcpdump as well. Is this the right way to do this? You might as well give joeuser root password if you give him access to pkg_add and pkg_delete tools. package framework has ability to run scripts as root. All joeuser needs to do is create his own package.tgz and run pkg_add $HOME/package.tgz. I agree with others in this thread: your security design is flawed. * Work towards alternative solutions when possible (i.e. can joeuser run Ethereal from the client machine to get the network traffic instead of tcpdump on the server?) * Give read access if all they need is read-only. * Don't push sysadmin work on the ?web developer (joeuser)? package management is a perfect example. tcp dumps slightly less so. * Mount does not necessarily require root. See mount and sysctl.conf man pages for conditions and sysctl settings. If you still want to go the sudo route after the comments you have received, that is your decision. You can create server, user and command groups in sudoers to help keep your sudoers file sane. See man page for exact syntax. -Keith
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:02:30PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:38:46PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > | > Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST > | > give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that "hey, > | > they don't require it, so we don't have to". > | >... > | > | The GPL doesn't require to give back under a licence that gives less > | protection for the code than the GPL does. > > It does not, I may not have been explicit but this is what I was > alluding to. It was, in fact, what I was pointing out. Your preferred > licence doesn't require it, so you don't do it. [and by you, I do not > mean you in person] > > | If you take the BSD licence seriously you don't request to get anything > | back on moral grounds. > > I do take the BSD licence serious and I do not request to get anything > back on any BSD-grounds (moral, legal, other). I was referring to the > GPL's "you must share" attitude that isn't reciprocal. > > I'm not making any arguments against any (commercial) user of BSD > licenced code on moral (or legal or other) grounds that they should > give back. I am (and I think others too, but I do not wish to speak > for them) trying to make an argument based on the 'share'-nature of > the GPL that doesn't give back the freedom of BSD licenced code. GPL has a "share and protect" nature. > | If you take the GPL seriously you don't want your modifications being > | available with less protection. > > If you have respect for both licences and you don't want your code > available with less protection, rewrite. BSD developers have done so > for various GPL licenced programs. After having used GPL licenced code > for some time, some developer decides that he prefers another licence > and does a rewrite. Linux Kernel Developers have it easier in this > respect. They do not have to rewrite - they can take BSD licenced code > and use it in their kernel without changing the licence or needing a > rewrite [or so I've understood - IANAL]. > > If you use someone else's code, show this fellow free software / open > source developer some respect and give back as freely as you received. > This respect is enforced in the GPL, the BSD doesn't even mention it. > BSD folks tend to have lots of respect for good code and they try to > respect licences [not making any observations about other folks or > other subjects here, this is based on my personal observations] > > I'm clearly not saying you must give back, legally [but still, IANAL]. > I'm saying you should give back as freely as you received, out of > respect. Someone else already mentioned it : Just because you can take > BSD licenced code and do (almost) whatever you wish, doesn't mean you > should. Leave that up to the Big Evil Corps (the ones that also use > GPL'ed code without giving back, btw). If a corporation violates the terms of the GPL lawyers and courts can force them to do so. BSD people tend to consider the BSD licence as being more free than the GPL because it allows to take without having to give back. When people then demand getting code back based on "ethics" or "morale" they are using the wrong licence. Your licence puts you in the position that you always depend on the goodwill of the persons from whom you want to get code back. And BTW: Many contributions to the Linux kernel come from people payed by Big Evil Corps. [1] > | In reality, where it makes sense technically, it's quite likely that an > | author will make his modifications, or even a completely self-written > | driver, also available under the terms of the BSD licence when asked in > | a friendly way. > > This, of course, would be perfect. But in all fairness, why then > release anything under the GPL ? Please, don't get me wrong, I respect > the GPL and the Linux kernel and especially each developers choice of > licence, but I doubt it's that easy (of course, on a case-by-case > basis, there's nothing to lose). First of all, for some developers it wouldn't make a difference whether their code was published under the terms of the GPL or under the terms of the BSD licence. And there are many people who are aware when code comes from *BSD and that giving code back in these cases would be friendly. I for one consider it important that the Linux kernel is protected by the GPL - but whether some contribution I send also becomes available under a different licence I don't care that much. > Cheers, > > Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd cu Adrian [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/222773/ -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Re: Problem with Intel 4-port NIC
On 2007/09/17 13:43, slug bait wrote: > Bingo! I figured out that it was a problem with the checksum offloading > shortly after my original email but I had NO clue how to fix it. it's not actually caused by offloading, but offloading means that transfers from the nic to the motherboard aren't protected by the standard network checksums, so they pass through to userland with bad data (rather than getting rejected in the network stack). > Everything is working now and I hope I NEVER have to open these 1U cases > again. Jamming the SATA connectors back in after they're covered by the NIC > makes me cry. ;) (-:
Re: netstart location
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 20:17 -0400, Nick Guenther wrote: > Besides tradition, is there any particular reason that netstart is in > /etc? This has always confused me, I'd think it would be in /sbin. > Further, why is it not exectuable? You can always symlink it to /sbin and change the permissions to executable after the install is done. -- Shawn K. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Problem with Intel 4-port NIC
Bingo! I figured out that it was a problem with the checksum offloading shortly after my original email but I had NO clue how to fix it. Everything is working now and I hope I NEVER have to open these 1U cases again. Jamming the SATA connectors back in after they're covered by the NIC makes me cry. ;) On 9/17/07, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2007/09/17 11:09, slug bait wrote: > > I am currently having problems with my new OpenBSD-4.1 firewall. I have > > installed a PCI-X 4-port Intel Gigabit Ethernet card, but something > appears > > to be broken. The 4 interfaces are detected as em0-3 while the two > on-board > > GB NICs are bge0 and bge1. > > Find a spare jumper, open the box up, remove the NIC (yeah, I know. > you're going to love me when you have to put it back if it's in a 1U > case...) > to access JPXA1 (between the heatsink-covered HT-1000 and the ATI GPU), > put the jumper on 1-2 becuase it's broken at 133MHz (gotta love that > checksum offloading)... > > While you're there, you may also want to move JPL1 to disable the > BCM5704C bge(4) unless you really need them (next to the slot for the > IPMI riser). > > If the box is somewhere with inconvenient access you may also want to > put a jumper on JP2 (front, near the fan header) to force power on > (the BIOS options about this are ... somewhat lacking) > > > bios0 at mainbus0: AT/286+ BIOS, date 03/26/07, BIOS32 rev. 0 @ 0xf0010, > > lucky you - mine won't POST with that version unless CMOS is clear > first (every boot), yum... > > I still *mostly* prefer them to X2100 though...
Re: SMP Support?
On 9/16/07, Daniel Ouellet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Taulborg wrote: > > I appologize for not including this, here is the dmesg of a successful > > boot of the amd 4.2 DEFAULT kernel: > > Paul, > > Not sure all the tests you did, but first do not run AMD64 on Intel > processor. I would do this first thing if you haven't done already. there is no reason why this wouldn't work. if it prints the copyright, it's compatible.
Re: altq priq Anomaly (Solved)
On 7/22/07, Daniel Melameth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/22/07, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2007/07/20 15:20, Daniel Melameth wrote: > > > then go back to the broken behavior sometime later. A reboot of the box > > > or > > > removing altq is the only way to resolve the issue, temporarily. I've > > > tried > > > both priq and cbq, adjusting tbrsize, recompiling the kernel with a higher > > > HZ value and using different hardware and different Internet connections, > > > but the issue persists. > > > > Try a snapshot, i386 moved to the new timecounter code after 4.1. > > > > Though I note there is also an XXX about variable cpu frequency (in > > sys/altq/altq_subr.c) which might affect you if you adjust cpu speed > > (manually or by apmd). > > Thanks for taking the time to reply. I can't readily do a snapshot > now, but since I am using apmd, I'll try this avenue first and see > what happens. Thanks to Stuart's review of the altq code, I have, finally, resolved this issue which has affected me for years. Disabling apmd did not resolve the issue, but disabling the Dynamically Switchable setting for CPU Frequency in the BIOS appears to have addressed this problem. I have been using the system for a couple of months now and altq has been very solid.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: | It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the | BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD | licence is that it does not require you to give back. | | Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you do not | require getting anything back but you then argue on moral grounds that | something has to be given back. Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that "hey, they don't require it, so we don't have to". It may be perfectly legal, but it's "interesting" to say the least. No, you do not have to give back. But weren't you open source / free software developers ? Why did you pick the GPL ? Because you didn't want someone to run of with your code ? You wanted code to be given back ? Why not do it yourself ? By not giving back you're giving a strange signal. Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd PS: Yes, I know .. but your "giving back" attaches new strings that weren't there in the first place. -- >[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ +++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/ [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: sudo & wheel group
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Matthew Szudzik wrote: > What's a laptop user to do? Run as root -- why not? Be careful. Limit PATH. Keep the cat off the keyboard. (This can be pesky if you're using vi at the time.) Open a root xterm, make the background some weird color, use a font and size you don't normally use. You might try setting a deadman to log it out automatically after N seconds of inactivity at the prompt. (man ksh, see the TMOUT variable). Set window-manager attributes so it's "always on top" and can't be "shaded" or "iconified" if you want to be paranoid. Measure twice, cut once; you know the drill. Dave
Re: sudo & wheel group
Chris, Hrmm... Chris> Sorry for being vague. Ok, I have these in /etc/sudoers for joeuser. Chris> joeuser is also in the wheel group. [...] Chris> I am finding that I need to add joeuser to use pkg_* tools, tcpdump as Chris> well. Chris> Chris> Is this the right way to do this? Um, these are a *lot* of privileges for a bunch of random users on a multi-user system. These should not generally be given to users like this. How many users are you running on these systems? Why do they need control of the daemons, your startup scripts, and many other important files? When you give a setup like this, it looks to be more about a single user trying to work (say, on a laptop) using OpenBSD as a workstation? I can not recall if you already provided this information, but, here are some questions: 1) How many users are on this system? 2) How many need to run these commands? 3) In what environment is this system running [server room, multi-user workstation, laptop, personal computer]? Most of these are commands that should only be run by specific groups of users, who are dealing with isolated parts of the system. If this is a single-user workstation or roaming machine, then one group, wheel, and the appopriate user thrown into that group, given permissions to run anything as root, will probably suffice, because one expects this user to treat his own account as securely as the root account. On the other hand, if you have multiple admins, who are in charge of different areas of the machine, then you probably want to set up groups for each of these classes of users, and then set sudo permissions based on this. Another suggestion is to always require a password when running a sudo command. After the first entry, you can have a delay before asking for the password again if the system goes idle, but this helps on two counts: the user has a chance to double check his work, and if the user leaves his computer logged in for some reason, someone else getting into it probably won't readily have the password, and may save a bit of trouble. It looks like a lot of these commands have to do with the web server. The way I have it setup on my machine is that I have a few users given permissions (because they belong to the webadmin group), to edit web files, do various things. I could give them permissions as well to edit select system files, but I'm afraid that's not my goal. It might be yours, though. Bottom line, I only expect a single-user workstation/laptop to require an user to run all these various commands, and that user would be the main administrator anyways. Hence, wheel group will work fine, and why not grant any command? -- ((name "Aaron Hsu") (email/xmpp "[EMAIL PROTECTED]") (phone "703-597-7656") (site "http://www.aaronhsu.com";)) [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:25:14AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > And if you choose the GPL the code you distribute will be under the GPL
> > *only* forever [1], so what value would be in shipping terms that are
> > void?
>
> Not true. You cannot chose the license that applies to other people's code.
> The code you distribute contains protectable elements from different authors.
> Each element is still offered under whatever license the original author
> offered it under.
>
> You cannot affect the license grant from the author to the lawful possessor
> of code you did not author.
>
> The code you *contribute* will be under the GPL *only* forever. But the code
> you distribute will contain elements from different authors offered under
> different licenses.
>...
The licence text we are talking about disagrees with what you claim:
<-- snip -->
/*-
* Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
* All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
*notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
*without modification.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer
*similar to the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer below ("Disclaimer") and any
*redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially
*similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution.
* 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names
*of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
*from this software without specific prior written permission.
*
* Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
* GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
* Software Foundation.
*
* NO WARRANTY
* ...
<-- snip -->
We are talking about dual-licenced code, not about BSD licenced code
incorporated into GPL'ed code.
That other people can distribute the original dual-licenced code
dual-licenced or BSD-only, and that you can get the code under this
licences from there, is without a doubt. But *the author* allowed me to
choose the licence when *I distribute it*.
> DS
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Re: Problem with Intel 4-port NIC
On 2007/09/17 11:09, slug bait wrote: > I am currently having problems with my new OpenBSD-4.1 firewall. I have > installed a PCI-X 4-port Intel Gigabit Ethernet card, but something appears > to be broken. The 4 interfaces are detected as em0-3 while the two on-board > GB NICs are bge0 and bge1. Find a spare jumper, open the box up, remove the NIC (yeah, I know. you're going to love me when you have to put it back if it's in a 1U case...) to access JPXA1 (between the heatsink-covered HT-1000 and the ATI GPU), put the jumper on 1-2 becuase it's broken at 133MHz (gotta love that checksum offloading)... While you're there, you may also want to move JPL1 to disable the BCM5704C bge(4) unless you really need them (next to the slot for the IPMI riser). If the box is somewhere with inconvenient access you may also want to put a jumper on JP2 (front, near the fan header) to force power on (the BIOS options about this are ... somewhat lacking) > bios0 at mainbus0: AT/286+ BIOS, date 03/26/07, BIOS32 rev. 0 @ 0xf0010, lucky you - mine won't POST with that version unless CMOS is clear first (every boot), yum... I still *mostly* prefer them to X2100 though...
Re: SMP Support?
load averages: 0.30, 0.08, 0.03 05:22:12 15 processes: 14 idle, 1 on processor CPU0 states: 0.3% user, 0.0% nice, 0.7% system, 0.1% interrupt, 98.9% idle CPU1 states: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.1% system, 0.0% interrupt, 99.9% idle CPU2 states: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 99.9% idle CPU3 states: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% idle Memory: Real: 8232K/44M act/tot Free: 1937M Swap: 0K/2055M used/tot Booya! Updated my BIOS to the latest version (44), and applied the patch that was kindly provided to me here: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=118975639013313&w=2 I also enabled acpi0 in the kernel by default (required to see the other processors), and tada! I had to apply the patch above, as it would die with "out of bounds" error. I will let you know if I run into any stability issues, but am really happy to get this working! Thanks for all the help! On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Daniel Ouellet wrote: Paul Taulborg wrote: I went through every option in the BIOS, and there is nothing at all related to ACPI. :( Your BIOS is version 35, and there is a very long list of BIOS upgrades from Intel. The latest one for this board, if I am not mistaken is 44 and you have 35. bios0: vendor Intel Corporation version "S3000.86B.02.00.0035.111020061326" date 11/10/2006 May be a good idea to check it out: http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?agr=N&ProductID=2569&DwnldID=13871&strOSs=All&OSFullName=All%20Operating%20Systems&lang=eng I am not saying it will fix your problem, but if I was you, I would try it and see. Worst case, if you don't like it, you can flash the old one back. Just a thought. Daniel
Re: sudo & wheel group
On 9/17/07, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, I have these in /etc/sudoers for joeuser. > joeuser is also in the wheel group. Why are you adding wheel group membership? Root access through sudo(8) does not require the user to be a member of wheel, but su(8) does. Jim
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Theodore Tso writes: > Now, you don't need a licence from the original author to use > the derived work. The author of the derived work only needs > a licence from the original author to create a derived work. > Do you think Microsoft users have licences from authors of > the works MS Windows etc. are based on? :-) Of course you don't need a license to *use* the derived work. You never need a license to use a work. (In the United States. Some countries word this a bit differently but get the same effect.) If, however, you wanted to get the right to modify or distribute a derivative work, you would need to obtain the rights to every protectable element in that work. If the work were under a GPL or BSD type license, only the original author of each individual element could grant you such a license. Read GPL section 6, particularly this part: "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." To distribute a derivative work that contains protectable elements from multiple authors, you are distributing all of those elements and need the rights to all of them. You need a license to each element and in the absence of any relicensing arrangements (which the GPL and BSD license are not), only the original author can grant that to you. It is a common confusion that just because the final author has copyright in the derivative work, that means he can license the work. He cannot license anyone else's creative contributions absent a relicensing arrangement. The GPL is explicit that it is not such a license. That's what the "from the original licensor" language in section 6 means. The BSD license is not explicit, but it couldn't work any other way. When you receive a Linux kernel distribution, you receive a GPL license to every protectable element in that work from that element's individual author. Nobody can license the kernel as a whole to you. DS
Re: Wasting our Freedom
> And if you choose the GPL the code you distribute will be under the GPL > *only* forever [1], so what value would be in shipping terms that are > void? Not true. You cannot chose the license that applies to other people's code. The code you distribute contains protectable elements from different authors. Each element is still offered under whatever license the original author offered it under. You cannot affect the license grant from the author to the lawful possessor of code you did not author. The code you *contribute* will be under the GPL *only* forever. But the code you distribute will contain elements from different authors offered under different licenses. > And if the author intended to have the BSD licence text kept intact when > his code gets incorporated into GPL'ed code, why didn't he simply make > his code BSD-only? In fact the only difference between BSD-only code and > BSD/GPL dual-licenced code is that you can't remove the BSD licence text > for the former when incorporating it into GPL'ed code... That's true. DS
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:15:05PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > | It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the > | BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD > | licence is that it does not require you to give back. > | > | Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you do not > | require getting anything back but you then argue on moral grounds that > | something has to be given back. > > Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST > give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that "hey, > they don't require it, so we don't have to". >... The GPL doesn't require to give back under a licence that gives less protection for the code than the GPL does. If you take the BSD licence seriously you don't request to get anything back on moral grounds. If you take the GPL seriously you don't want your modifications being available with less protection. In reality, where it makes sense technically, it's quite likely that an author will make his modifications, or even a completely self-written driver, also available under the terms of the BSD licence when asked in a friendly way. > Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd >... cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Re: openbgp bug?
* Erich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 17:27]: > on our router with 2 uplinks we had the following scenario. > > one uplink interface didnt came up at boote due an misconfiguration in > /etc/hostname.fxp0, > no problem so far, the other interface did work ok, the bgp session started > there. > after manual configuration of the second interface and the follwing actions > the new routes from the second uplink where not inserted into the RIB. > the follwing actions have been taken: > > 1. manual configuration of the interface, bpg peer was reachable > afterwords. > 2. bgpctl reload > 3. bgpctl neighor 2teruplinkprovider up > 4. bgpctl fib decouple > 5. bgpctl fib couple > > nothing helped so far, but a complete restart of the bgpd did it a last, is > this a normal behavior? of course not. when routes ar enot inserted into the fib, you'll want to check "bgpctl show nexthop" output. It'll pretty certainly show you the nexthop in question as invalid. there is a good chance it already gives a hint why the nexthop is unreachable (by showing you eitehr the interface information or the "via 1.2.3.4" info). you then want to check "route get $nexthop". That all said, I do remember interface indexes were missing on some rtmsgs, and I think that could cause such behaviour. It is long fixed - chances are good it was after 4.0 tho (but before 4.1 for sure) -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
question on spamd blacklisted hosts
Running OBSD 4.0 here. I was under the impression that spamd only did greylisting and dynamic whitelisting. Static blacklisting available via spamd-setup (and pseudo-whitelisting; of some of those blacklisted hosts). But not dynamic blacklisting. I occasionally get log messages like: spamd[12128]: (BLACK) 65.216.123.37: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I searched my spamdb table (static blacklist) and the IP address above is not in there. What am I missing? -- Juan Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca
Re: sudo & wheel group
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:52:06AM -0400, Matthew Szudzik wrote: > > If you're in operator, you can at least shutdown or reboot your system > > with /sbin/shutdown (which is setuid root and executable by those in > > operator). > > But (as I mentioned in the message), shutdown makes a very annoying beep. > When shutting down the laptop in a hushed boardroom or lecture hall, the > beep is unacceptable. And anyway, the shutdown command is overkill, I > don't need to notify other users of the shutdown, since I'm the only user. > I don't have an openbsd box I can try on right now, but I think that if you mute the beeps you won't be hearing it when shutting down (which means that since it is unacceptable in your lecture hall, you should mute it when your session starts). Also, I don't think that notification of logged in users is that much of an overkill if you compare to what happens when you do the shutdown. Gilles
Re: bgpd usage
* Gregory Edigarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 17:12]: > Just a pure interest: has somebody bgpd in production for, say, 2 or 3 > fullview routing? I have 6 routers with bgpd but they are IBGP, and > therefore does not do fullview routing. there are many way bigger installations than that. I have multiple full feeds myself as well. -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
Problem with Intel 4-port NIC
I am currently having problems with my new OpenBSD-4.1 firewall. I have
installed a PCI-X 4-port Intel Gigabit Ethernet card, but something appears
to be broken. The 4 interfaces are detected as em0-3 while the two on-board
GB NICs are bge0 and bge1.
The first symptom I noticed was the inability to ssh to or from the em0
interface on the host after installation. Connections to and from the
on-board interfaces (bge0/1) work perfectly, but everything on the emX
interfaces is broken. Further tests with apache/ftp/etc. produced similar
results. I have replaced the switch (Netgear JGS524) with no effect.
Are there any known issues with this type of network card or this
configuration?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ ssh -v [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OpenSSH_4.7p1, OpenSSL 0.9.8e 23 Feb 2007
debug1: Reading configuration data /etc/ssh/ssh_config
debug1: Connecting to 192.168.100.254 [192.168.100.254]
debug1: Connection established.
debug1: identity file /home/xaphan/.ssh/identity type -1
debug1: identity file /home/xaphan/.ssh/id_rsa type -1
debug1: identity file /home/xaphan/.ssh/id_dsa type -1
debug1: Remote protocol version 2.0, remote software version OpenSSH_4.7
debug1: match: OpenSSH_4.7 pat OpenSSH*
debug1: Enabling compatibility mode for protocol 2.0
debug1: Local version string SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_4.7
debug1: SSH2_MSG_KEXINIT sent
debug1: SSH2_MSG_KEXINIT received
debug1: kex: server->client aes128-cbc hmac-md5 none
debug1: kex: client->server aes128-cbc hmac-md5 none
debug1: SSH2_MSG_KEX_DH_GEX_REQUEST(1024<1024<8192) sent
debug1: expecting SSH2_MSG_KEX_DH_GEX_GROUP
debug1: SSH2_MSG_KEX_DH_GEX_INIT sent
debug1: expecting SSH2_MSG_KEX_DH_GEX_REPLY
debug1: checking without port identifier
The authenticity of host '[192.168.100.254] ([192.168.100.254])' can't be
established.
RSA key fingerprint is f1:51:1f:c3:51:22:f4:91:08:84:0a:52:1e:b0:79:b6.
Are you sure you want to continue connecting (yes/no)? yes
Warning: Permanently added '[192.168.100.254]' (RSA) to the list of known
hosts.
hash mismatch
debug1: ssh_rsa_verify: signature incorrect
key_verify failed for server_host_key
dmesg:
OpenBSD 4.1 (GENERIC.MP) #1225: Sat Mar 10 19:23:18 MST 2007
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC.MP
cpu0: Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 165 ("AuthenticAMD" 686-class,
1024KB L2 cache) 1.80 GHz
cpu0:
FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2
,HTT,SSE3
cpu0: AMD erratum 89 present, BIOS upgrade may be required
real mem = 2146922496 (2096604K)
avail mem = 1952145408 (1906392K)
using 4278 buffers containing 107470848 bytes (104952K) of memory
mainbus0 (root)
bios0 at mainbus0: AT/286+ BIOS, date 03/26/07, BIOS32 rev. 0 @ 0xf0010,
SMBIOS rev. 2.4 @ 0xfb8d0 (50
entries)
bios0: Supermicro H8SSL
pcibios0 at bios0: rev 2.1 @ 0xf/0x1
pcibios0: PCI IRQ Routing Table rev 1.0 @ 0xf5030/160 (8 entries)
pcibios0: no compatible PCI ICU found: ICU vendor 0x1166 product 0x0205
pcibios0: PCI bus #3 is the last bus
bios0: ROM list: 0xc/0x8000 0xc8000/0x2000! 0xca000/0x1600
0xcb800/0x1600 0xcd000/0x1000
acpi at mainbus0 not configured
mainbus0: Intel MP Specification (Version 1.4)
cpu0 at mainbus0: apid 0 (boot processor)
cpu0: AMD erratum 89 present, BIOS upgrade may be required
cpu0: apic clock running at 199 MHz
cpu1 at mainbus0: apid 1 (application processor)
cpu1: Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 165 ("AuthenticAMD" 686-class,
1024KB L2 cache) 1.80 GHz
cpu1:
FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2
,HTT,SSE3
cpu1: AMD erratum 89 present, BIOS upgrade may be required
mainbus0: bus 0 is type PCI
mainbus0: bus 1 is type PCI
mainbus0: bus 2 is type PCI
mainbus0: bus 3 is type PCI
mainbus0: bus 4 is type ISA
ioapic0 at mainbus0: apid 2 pa 0xfec0, version 11, 16 pins
ioapic1 at mainbus0: apid 3 pa 0xfec01000, version 11, 16 pins
ioapic2 at mainbus0: apid 4 pa 0xfec02000, version 11, 16 pins
pci0 at mainbus0 bus 0: configuration mode 1 (no bios)
ppb0 at pci0 dev 1 function 0 "ServerWorks HT-1000 PCI" rev 0x00
pci1 at ppb0 bus 1
ppb1 at pci1 dev 13 function 0 "ServerWorks HT-1000 PCIX" rev 0xb2
pci2 at ppb1 bus 2
ppb2 at pci2 dev 1 function 0 "Pericom PI7C21P100 PCIX-PCIX" rev 0x01
pci3 at ppb2 bus 3
em0 at pci3 dev 4 function 0 "Intel PRO/1000MT QP (82546GB)" rev 0x03: apic
3 int 4 (irq 7), address 0
0:1b:21:03:b5:18
em1 at pci3 dev 4 function 1 "Intel PRO/1000MT QP (82546GB)" rev 0x03: apic
3 int 5 (irq 9), address 0
0:1b:21:03:b5:19
em2 at pci3 dev 6 function 0 "Intel PRO/1000MT QP (82546GB)" rev 0x03: apic
3 int 6 (irq 9), address 0
0:1b:21:03:b5:1a
em3 at pci3 dev 6 function 1 "Intel PRO/1000MT QP (82546GB)" rev 0x03: apic
3 int 7 (irq 9), address 0
0:1b:21:03:b5:1b
bge0 at pci2 dev 3 function 0 "Broadcom BCM5704C" rev 0x10, BCM5704 B0
(0x2100): apic 3 int 8 (irq 9),
address 00:30:48:60:e1:22
brgphy0 at bge0 phy 1: BCM5704 10/100/1000baseT PHY, re
Re: Bug in the wireless wpi driver ?
Catalin Stoian wrote: Ah, it was midnight when I wrote this. I truly meant ls instead of cat, sorry. I just wanted to show that that firmware package is installed correctly, ignore that part if you want. And I don't understand what you mean with the radio thing. Neither cat nor ls will show pkg was installed; only that you downloaded it. Try: $ pkg_info | grep wpi wpi-firmware-2.14.4 Firmware binary image for wpi driver The "radio thing" means check your laptop for a physical switch or Fn-key sequence that will turn your radio (wpi device) on/off. On some laptops there is a physical switch that will turn off/on both wireless network and bluetooth at the same time. Frank
Re: bgpd usage
On 2007/09/17 17:23, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > Just a pure interest: has somebody bgpd in production for, say, 2 or 3 > fullview routing? yes.
Re: sudo & wheel group
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Chris wrote: > On 9/17/07, Darrin Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > problem is. This is why people keep asking you to explain the problem > > more. > > Sorry for being vague. Ok, I have these in /etc/sudoers for joeuser. > joeuser is also in the wheel group. > > joeuser server = NOPASSWD: /sbin/mount, /usr/libexec/locate.updatedb mount can be leveraged to full root. > joeuser server = NOPASSWD: /usr/local/bin/vim /var/www/conf/httpd.conf > joeuser server = NOPASSWD: /usr/local/bin/vim /etc/rc.local Both of these commands, if done with vi, probably allow joe to launch a root shell, ex command :!sh I don't think vim has any better protections. This was, at one time, a common hole in programs like chpass(1). And, of course, joe can execute arbitrary commands through rc.local. > joeuser server = NOPASSWD: /usr/sbin/apachectl Some sort of cleverness with groups might eliminate this one. > joeuser server = NOPASSWD: /usr/bin/tail -f /var/www/logs/access_log > joeuser server = NOPASSWD: /usr/bin/tail -f /var/www/logs/error_log Just make these readable by group wheel. > joeuser server = NOPASSWD: /usr/local/bin/vim /etc/motd > joeuser server = NOPASSWD: /usr/local/bin/vim /etc/pf.conf Same comments as about previous vi-as-root. Make these files rw by group wheel, and no sudo is needed. Changes might be needed to /etc, too. Consider making /etc/motd a symbolic link to a file that joe can edit without privilege. This might work with pf.conf, too, but I dunno -- maybe pf chokes if ownership isn't right? Try an experiment. > I am finding that I need to add joeuser to use pkg_* tools, tcpdump as well. > > Is this the right way to do this? No, not unless you trust joe with full root. Dave -- "America ... might become dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit." -- John Quincy Adams, July 4, 1821
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Jacob Meuser wrote: when I see the linux community start to take credit for works they did not create and I see the linux community respond to warnings that people in the community are going overboard and jeopardizing the linux community, which we do all benefit from, with a more or less "whatever" attitude, it makes me sad. it would be like losing a friend. I don't like losing friends, so I get vocal. All very nicely said. I'd like to add that an insult implicit in the attempt to remove the BSD license is that it says to the original authors, "we plan to improve this code, and when we do you'll never again be able to ship it as BSD." They weren't the words, but that's what you get when you think to the future. Although opinions seem still to be divided, I think everyone has been reminded that just because you can doesn't mean you should. I don't understand why the linux community can't seem to say, The one shining light in this whole sorry Atheros saga is that it's now all history; the only people still talking about it are people not directly involved. The matter could now rest...
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Am Montag 17 September 2007 15:15 schrieb Jason Dixon: > > The GPL places additional restrictions on code. It is therefore less > free than the BSD. > > Free code + restrictions = non-free code. The legal restriction that people must not enter your house uninvited by smashing the door adds to your freedom, don't you think so? Hans
Re: authpf issue
James Mackinnon wrote: Hi all I am trying to get authpf up and running but am having an issue I have the users shell set as authpf but on login I am getting -authpf: non-interactive session connection for authpf Any suggestions? assuming you've carefully gone through the two setup examples below http://home.nuug.no/~peter/pf/en/vegard.authpf.html http://openbsd.org/faq/pf/authpf.html you should be good to go. set /usr/sbin/authpf as the user's shell, put the rules in pf.conf and /etc/authpf/authpf.rules or similar, touch /etc/authpf/authpf.conf and you're off. check that your authpf.rules parses correctly with pfctl -nf. cheers, jake James -- James Mackinnon President Devantec Inc. 1.902.371.0283 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.devantec.com --
openbgp bug?
hi, on our router with 2 uplinks we had the following scenario. one uplink interface didnt came up at boote due an misconfiguration in /etc/hostname.fxp0, no problem so far, the other interface did work ok, the bgp session started there. after manual configuration of the second interface and the follwing actions the new routes from the second uplink where not inserted into the RIB. the follwing actions have been taken: 1. manual configuration of the interface, bpg peer was reachable afterwords. 2. bgpctl reload 3. bgpctl neighor 2teruplinkprovider up 4. bgpctl fib decouple 5. bgpctl fib couple nothing helped so far, but a complete restart of the bgpd did it a last, is this a normal behavior? im using the bgpd version which was shipped with openbsd 4.0, a little bit older, but did a good job so far. mfg erich **
Re: openbgp bug?
On 2007/09/17 16:22, Erich wrote: > im using the bgpd version which was shipped with openbsd 4.0, a little bit > older, but did a good job so far. I definitely recommend updating, 4.1-stable is probably the best choice for you (at least, until 4.2 is out).
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Or that > "OpenBSD != Linux kernel" > > was wrong since although they are not equal, they are related since they > are both open source operating systems. BTW: never heard someone is using the FreeBSD version of Linux? I did, not once :-) -- Krzysztof Halasa
Re: sudo & wheel group
On 2007/09/17 09:52, Matthew Szudzik wrote: > But (as I mentioned in the message), shutdown makes a very annoying beep. You might find this useful: $ grep bell /usr/src/etc/wsconsctl.conf #keyboard.bell.volume=0 # mute keyboard beep
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 01:22:28AM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote: >... > Saying something like: > "Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU" > > is quite similar to saying: > "Windows != Microsoft" > > In both cases, the pairs of terms may not be "equal" but they are > certainly related. Also in both cases, the former term is most often > considered part of the latter term. Just as the Linux kernel is under > the GPL of the FSF/GNU, equally Windows is under EULA of Microsoft. You > are correct in stating a distinction technically exists, yet in common > language of everyday people, the terms are interchangeable even though > it is pedantically incorrect to do so. >... You could equally say that "OpenBSD != University of California, Berkeley" was wrong since OpenBSD uses the licence of the UCB. [1] Or that "OpenBSD != NetBSD" was wrong since OpenBSD is just a spinoff of NetBSD, and for everyday people all the *BSD operating systems are anyway the same. Or that "OpenBSD != Linux kernel" was wrong since although they are not equal, they are related since they are both open source operating systems. Or even that "OpenBSD != FSF" was wrong. In case you wonder about the latter, check at [2] whose project's project leaders won the FSF's Award for the Advancement of Free Software and whose project's project leader did not. The FSF and the Linux kernel community have some relationship, but they are quite distinct communities with different views on some things. As an example, Linus Torvalds made clear some years ago that the kernel is GPLv2 only and will stay GPLv2 forever. This makes it impossible to move the kernel to the FSF's new GPLv3. If you have such differences in mind it sounds ridiculous when people don't differentiate between the FSF and the Linux kernel community. > kind regards, > jcr cu Adrian [1] I don't know the background of the 2-clause BSD licence, but at least for the 3-clause and 4-clause BSD licences this was true [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Award_for_the_Advancement_of_Free_Software -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
bgpd usage
Hi, Just a pure interest: has somebody bgpd in production for, say, 2 or 3 fullview routing? I have 6 routers with bgpd but they are IBGP, and therefore does not do fullview routing. -- With best regards, Gregory Edigarov
Re: A simple about the openbsd kernel
On 9/17/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:39:12AM -0400, Nick Guenther wrote: > > security features make the internet a safer place to be. If you are > > working for a company, the BSD license is probably more favourable to > > you because it pushes less burden on your company (unlike the GPL, > > which would have you running around making sure you managed providing > > all the source code to anyone who wanted it, or else didn't copy any > > code from any GPL base when making your additions). > > Please don't raise FUD. It's not a burden at all to add the source code > to the CD that contains said equipment's documentation > > At first sight, it looks like you're defending the option of removing > freedom to the user-owners of said equipment. Sorry Rui, that's not what I was trying to do. Let's not import all the other drama over here (and I'm not being facetious, I really wasn't meaning to). No it's not a lot of extra trouble to include the source code, but it is a lot of trouble to manage including the source code. At least, it certainly seems like companies have failed miserably at this before. -Nick
Re: sudo & wheel group
> If you're in operator, you can at least shutdown or reboot your system > with /sbin/shutdown (which is setuid root and executable by those in > operator). But (as I mentioned in the message), shutdown makes a very annoying beep. When shutting down the laptop in a hushed boardroom or lecture hall, the beep is unacceptable. And anyway, the shutdown command is overkill, I don't need to notify other users of the shutdown, since I'm the only user.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
"Can E. Acar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Do you believe re-arranging code, renaming functions, splitting code > to multiple files, adding some adaptation code is original enough > to be a derivative work and deserve its own copyright? "Deserve"? The copyright is automatic, the author (of the derivative work) may like it or not. -- Krzysztof Halasa
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Hannah Schroeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Right. You may add nearly any copyright *on your own significant > additions/changes*. Such as a patch? Hardly IMHO, a patch is not a work but an output of an automated tool. The copyright is not about fragments of works. You may add a copyright _notice_, not a copyright (a right). The author of a derived work automatically has copyright to the whole derived work, not only to the "fragments" he has created. MS Windows is "Copyright Microsoft", not "Microsoft and others". You can add any licence (not copyright, as it's automatic) to your (derived or not) work. If it's a derived work, you must comply with the original licence(s). Of course, the original work is copyrighted by its original author and licenced under its original conditions, and nobody is able to change that. Now, you don't need a licence from the original author to use the derived work. The author of the derived work only needs a licence from the original author to create a derived work. Do you think Microsoft users have licences from authors of the works MS Windows etc. are based on? :-) You do need a licence from the original author to use the original work, e.g. unmodified original work distributed by third party. I.e., you don't need a licence to use MS Windows from the retail shop, you need it from MS. Is it that hard to understand? > However, BSD/ISC explicitly requires to retain the > BSD/ISC terms, too (applicable to the original part of the combined > work). Where exactly? Have you seen MS EULA maybe? Such requirement would be impossible to fullfit. > No. The derivative work altogether has a *mixed* license. BSD/ISC for > the parts that are original, the other (restrictive, GPL, whatever) > license for the modifications/additions. Look at MS EULA, does MS Windows in your opinion have such a mixed licence too? :-) -- Krzysztof Halasa
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:20:19AM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> Hi!
Hi Hannah!
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:13:51PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> >> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
> >> >>...
> >> >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
> >> >> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.
>
> >> >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
> >> >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...
>
> >> JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
> >> dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden
> >> by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's
> >> *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or
> >> in one of the licenses.
>
> >Dual licenced code by definition explicitely states that you can choose
> >the licence - otherwise it wouldn't be called dual-licenced.
>
> It does state you can choose which terms to follow, indeed, of course.
> But that does *not* imply removing the other terms altogether.
On which legal grounds do you base this statement?
And if you choose the GPL the code you distribute will be under the GPL
*only* forever [1], so what value would be in shipping terms that are
void?
And if the author intended to have the BSD licence text kept intact when
his code gets incorporated into GPL'ed code, why didn't he simply make
his code BSD-only? In fact the only difference between BSD-only code and
BSD/GPL dual-licenced code is that you can't remove the BSD licence text
for the former when incorporating it into GPL'ed code...
> >> Neither GPL nor BSD/ISC allow relicensing in their well-known wordings.
>
> >Noone said otherwise.
>
> Removing the terms you choose not to follow in one instance *is*
> relicensing.
If anything can be called relicencing, then the act of choosing one of
the licence. And this happens one level above the actual licences, and
the licence texts don't matter for this act.
> >> If you think that's questionable, you should at least provide arguments
> >> (and be ready to have your interpretation of the law and the licenses
> >> tested before court).
>
> >The licence in question was:
>
> ><-- snip -->
>
> >/*-
> > * Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
> > * All rights reserved.
> > *
> > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> > * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> > * are met:
> > * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> > *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
> > *without modification.
> > * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer
> > *similar to the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer below ("Disclaimer") and any
> > *redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially
> > *similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution.
> > * 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names
> > *of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
> > *from this software without specific prior written permission.
> > *
> > * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
> > * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
> > * Software Foundation.
> > *
> > * NO WARRANTY
> > * ...
>
> ><-- snip -->
>
> >Theo claimed it would "break the law" [1] to choose the GPL for
> >_this_ code. [2]
>
> I re-read Theo's mail and still think the factual issues Theo states are
> probably right. Value judgements like "you should give code back" (when
> the license doesn't require it) are of course debatable (I tend to agree
> with Theo there too, but it's no mandatory requirement of course).
>
> Theo did *not* claim it breaks the law if you choose to obey by the
> terms of the GPL in said dual-licensing. Theo *did* claim (in my eyes,
> probably rightfully, and if it should ever be needed with respect to
> code related to OpenBSD, I could try to give a few bucks in support of
> having that claim legally verified) it's illegal to remove the license
> you chose to not follow in one instance of redistribution. IIRC the
> softwarefreedom.org people involved agreed with Theo's assessment in
> that instance.
You confuse two completely different situations.
The SFLC talks about how to incorporate *not* dual-licenced
BSD-only code into GPL'ed code.
> >[...]
>
> >> But the BSDl does not allow you to relicense the original code, even
> >> while it allows you to license copyrightable additions/modifications
> >> under different terms with few restrictions.
>
> >> However, you say "regarding ethics
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:55:54PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > Wohoho! Slow here please. NDA have nothing to do with licenses and > especially with copyright. NetApp even though their stuff is under their > copyright and license does hopefully not modify the copyrights of imported > BSD/ISC code. That would be against the law and I hope their leagal > departement is smart enough to not do this mistake especially because the > BSD license those not hinder them in any way. Yes, NDA doesn't have anything to do with license and copyrights, and I never said that NetApp is modfying a copyright; but they *are* putting a proprietary copyright license on their modifications --- which is exactly what the Linux wireless developers had proposed to do (modulo mistakes about removing copyright notices and attribution which have already been acknowledged and fixed), except instead of using a proprietary license which means you'll never see the WAFL sources (at least without signing an NDA and acknowledging their proprietary copyright license over their changes), it will be under a GPL license with which you have philosophical differences, but still allows you to see the source. > Finally most companies know they benefit from open source and give often > the code changes most likely bugfixes to this imported code back. > Unlike most GPL people we're happy with that especially we do not require > them to release any of their own code. Sure their WAFL file system is cool > but even in my wildest dreams I would not require them to publish their > code just because the used some of my code. So why are you complaining when people want to use some of your code and put the combined work under a mixed BSD/GPL license? You can't use WAFL; you can't use the GPL'ed enhancements. What's the difference between those two cases? Somehow a mixed BSD/Proprietary license is better? - Ted
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:33:52AM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote: > On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:27 AM, Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:31 -0400 >> Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Sure it does. My code under BSD license continues to remain free, >>> regardless of what Company X(1) does with their *copy* of my code. >>> The only restrictions on my code is that copyright and attribution >>> must remain intact. All users of my code have the same rights, >>> regardless of what Company X does with their *copy*. >>> >>> The GPL places additional restrictions on code. It is therefore less >>> free than the BSD. >>> >>> Free code + restrictions = non-free code. >>> >>> (1) GPL advocates deep-down really like the BSD license. >>> Unfortunately, they keep getting hung up on the idea of the Evil >>> Corporation (TM) "stealing" my code. Nobody has stolen anything. >>> That corporation is entitled to the same rights as Joe User. Neither >>> EC or JU are required to redistribute any of their changes to their >>> *copy* of my code. They are only required to keep attribution >>> intact. Does that make MY CODE any less free? OF COURSE NOT! >> >> Your post is incredibly ironic considering how up in arms all the >> BSD folks are right now. Many of them claiming that their code >> is being "stolen". > > They did not KEEP ATTRIBUTION INTACT. This was a mistake in one patch that had never been merged, and this mistake has been corrected once it was discovered. > Jason Dixon cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:27 AM, Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:31 -0400 Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sure it does. My code under BSD license continues to remain free, regardless of what Company X(1) does with their *copy* of my code. The only restrictions on my code is that copyright and attribution must remain intact. All users of my code have the same rights, regardless of what Company X does with their *copy*. The GPL places additional restrictions on code. It is therefore less free than the BSD. Free code + restrictions = non-free code. (1) GPL advocates deep-down really like the BSD license. Unfortunately, they keep getting hung up on the idea of the Evil Corporation (TM) "stealing" my code. Nobody has stolen anything. That corporation is entitled to the same rights as Joe User. Neither EC or JU are required to redistribute any of their changes to their *copy* of my code. They are only required to keep attribution intact. Does that make MY CODE any less free? OF COURSE NOT! Your post is incredibly ironic considering how up in arms all the BSD folks are right now. Many of them claiming that their code is being "stolen". They did not KEEP ATTRIBUTION INTACT. --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Re: sudo & wheel group
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:33:59PM -0400, Matthew Szudzik wrote: | /sbin/halt | Does anyone currently use the operator group for anything, or is it just a | historical vestige? Would there be anything wrong with giving the | operator enough hardware access to run the commands above? If you're in operator, you can at least shutdown or reboot your system with /sbin/shutdown (which is setuid root and executable by those in operator). That's at least one of your list ;) Cheers, Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd PS: if you feel you must use halt; alias halt="/sbin/shutdown -h now" -- >[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ +++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/ [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:31 -0400 Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure it does. My code under BSD license continues to remain free, > regardless of what Company X(1) does with their *copy* of my code. > The only restrictions on my code is that copyright and attribution > must remain intact. All users of my code have the same rights, > regardless of what Company X does with their *copy*. > > The GPL places additional restrictions on code. It is therefore less > free than the BSD. > > Free code + restrictions = non-free code. > > (1) GPL advocates deep-down really like the BSD license. > Unfortunately, they keep getting hung up on the idea of the Evil > Corporation (TM) "stealing" my code. Nobody has stolen anything. > That corporation is entitled to the same rights as Joe User. Neither > EC or JU are required to redistribute any of their changes to their > *copy* of my code. They are only required to keep attribution > intact. Does that make MY CODE any less free? OF COURSE NOT! Your post is incredibly ironic considering how up in arms all the BSD folks are right now. Many of them claiming that their code is being "stolen". Instead of worrying about Evil Corporation "stealing" their code, they're worrying about Evil GPL folks "stealing". Why don't you take a moment to email them with a reminder that whatever GPL group X does with their *copy*, all users of the code have the same rights. If they really believe in the BSD license they will then calm down and we can all go back to work. Regards, S.
Re: Bug in the wireless wpi driver ?
Ah, it was midnight when I wrote this. I truly meant ls instead of cat, sorry. I just wanted to show that that firmware package is installed correctly, ignore that part if you want. And I don't understand what you mean with the radio thing. On 9/17/07, Darren Spruell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/16/07, Catalin Stoian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I did a fresh install of OpenBSD-CURRENT on my new laptop, an Acer > > Aspire 5610 that comes with an Intel 3945 wireless adapter. But it > > seems I can't use the adapter with OpenBSD.Following the wpi manpage, > > I installed the wpi-firmware-2.14.1.5.tgz file with pkg_add, and it > > seemed to install fine. > > > > # cat /var/db/pkg > > wpi-firmware-2.14.1.5.tgz > > ??? > > /var/db/pkg/ is a directory... > > $ ls -ld /var/db/pkg > drwxr-xr-x 101 root wheel 3072 Sep 9 22:09 /var/db/pkg > > ...and the contents of that directory would be other directories, > package names, without the .tgz suffix. > > Don't know about your device problems, but that stuff (above) is weird. > > DS
authpf issue
Hi all I am trying to get authpf up and running but am having an issue I have the users shell set as authpf but on login I am getting -authpf: non-interactive session connection for authpf Any suggestions? James -- James Mackinnon President Devantec Inc. 1.902.371.0283 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.devantec.com --
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sep 17, 2007, at 8:57 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 02:29]: you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the code, but brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux evil? NetApp does not pretend to be free and open and save the world etc GPL and BSD are two different philosophies of freedom. Some people (e.g. me) consider the BSD licence a less free licence since it doesn't defend that the code stays free. Sure it does. My code under BSD license continues to remain free, regardless of what Company X(1) does with their *copy* of my code. The only restrictions on my code is that copyright and attribution must remain intact. All users of my code have the same rights, regardless of what Company X does with their *copy*. The GPL places additional restrictions on code. It is therefore less free than the BSD. Free code + restrictions = non-free code. (1) GPL advocates deep-down really like the BSD license. Unfortunately, they keep getting hung up on the idea of the Evil Corporation (TM) "stealing" my code. Nobody has stolen anything. That corporation is entitled to the same rights as Joe User. Neither EC or JU are required to redistribute any of their changes to their *copy* of my code. They are only required to keep attribution intact. Does that make MY CODE any less free? OF COURSE NOT! --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote: > > >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt > > >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal... > > > > JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the > > dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden > > by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's > > *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or > > in one of the licenses. > > > > Neither GPL nor BSD/ISC allow relicensing in their well-known wordings. > > > > If you think that's questionable, you should at least provide arguments > > (and be ready to have your interpretation of the law and the licenses > > tested before court). > > Hannah, > > What is going on whenever someone changes a code is that they make a > "derivative work". Whether or not you can even make a derivative > work, and under what terms the derivitive work can be licensed, is > strictly up to the license of the original. For example, the BSD > license says: > > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions > are met > > Note the "with or without modification". This is what allows people > to change BSD licensed code and redistribute said changes. The > conditions specified by the BSD license do not mention anything about > licening terms --- just that if you meet these three conditions, you > are allowed to redistribute them. So for example, this is what allows > Network Appliances to take BSD code, change it, and add a restrictive, > proprietary copyright. > > So for code which is single-licensed under a BSD license, someone can > create a new derived work, and redistribute it under a more > restrictive license --- either one as restrictive as NetApp's (where > no one is allowed to get binary unless they are a NetApp customer, or > source only after signing an NDA), or a GPL license. It is not a > relicencing, per se, since the original version of the file is still > available under the original copyright; it is only the derived work > which is under the more restrictive copyright. > Wohoho! Slow here please. NDA have nothing to do with licenses and especially with copyright. NetApp even though their stuff is under their copyright and license does hopefully not modify the copyrights of imported BSD/ISC code. That would be against the law and I hope their leagal departement is smart enough to not do this mistake especially because the BSD license those not hinder them in any way. Now comes the funny part, as the BSD code in NetApp is available from public sources -- for example from OpenBSD -- it is actually not covered by the NDA. NDAs can only cover information that is not publicly available -- you can only forbit disclosure of information that is secret in the first place. Finally most companies know they benefit from open source and give often the code changes most likely bugfixes to this imported code back. Unlike most GPL people we're happy with that especially we do not require them to release any of their own code. Sure their WAFL file system is cool but even in my wildest dreams I would not require them to publish their code just because the used some of my code. -- :wq Claudio
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 02:29]: > > you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the code, but > > brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux evil? > > NetApp does not pretend to be free and open and save the world etc GPL and BSD are two different philosophies of freedom. Some people (e.g. me) consider the BSD licence a less free licence since it doesn't defend that the code stays free. Some people consider the BSD licence more free since NetApp or Linux or Microsoft can take your code and never gove back. Although I don't agree with it, I can understand the rationale of the latter. But stating in your licence that noone has to give back but then complaining to some people on ethical grounds that they should give back is simply dishonest. Is your intention to allow people to include your code into GPL'ed code and never give back, or is your intention that this shouldn't happen? And whatever your intention is should be stated in your licence. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Hannah Schroeter wrote: > The original issue *was* about illegal relicensing (i.e. not just > choosing which terms to follow, but removing the other terms > altogether). You are confusing two completely different issues. One is about removing license notices, the other is about relicensing. One has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. No amount of changing license notices affects the license a recipient gets to any code that the license changer did not contribute. You cannot, in the sense of it being legally impossible, affect the license your recipients get to code you did not author. Relicensing is simply impossible under either the BSD license or the GPL license. Neither grants you any relicensing rights. Remove the BSD license from a dual-licensed work doesn't relicense anything. Everyone who gets the work still gets a dual license from the original author. > It does state you can choose which terms to follow, indeed, of course. > But that does *not* imply removing the other terms altogether. Of course not. But since the GPL does not require you to keep a BSD license notice intact and the BSD license does not require you to keep a GPL license notice intact, the result is that you do have the right to remove the other license's terms altogether. Note that this has no effect whatsoever on the rights anyone actually gets. Rights come from licenses, not license notices. If you were right, a dual-licensed work would not be GPL compatible. Since the GPL prohibits the use of any mechanism to prohibit modification to the work (other than the inability to remove the GPL itself). > Removing the terms you choose not to follow in one instance *is* > relicensing. Umm, no. That's so obviously mind-bogglingly crazy that I don't even know where to start. Let's try a hypothetical: I download the entire Linux kernel and remove every single GPL license notice and replace it with a public domain notice. I then distribute the result. Am I relicensing the Linux kernel? Isn't it obvious that I'm not. I *can't*. I have no right to change the license under which other people's code is offered. When you change a license notice, that has no effect on the actual license anyone gets to anyone else's work. You license notice changes can only affect licenses that *you* grant. Nothing requires a license that exists to be documented in the accompanying file. There is nothing in copyright law that is offended by the idea that someone might remove a license notification even though the license still applies so long as the license only *adds* rights. The only reason we can't remove the GPL license from the Linux kernel is because the GPL says so. > As said above, the accusations, if you read them correctly, were not > wrong, but spot on right. Unless someone proves that dual-licensing as > in "you may follow terms A or terms B at your choice" implicitly implies > being allowed to remove A altogether should you choose B. You are confusing licenses with license notices. The GPL says you must keep GPL license notices intact. Otherwise, it gives you complete freedom to modify. This means that if you choose the GPL, you gain (from the GPL) the right to remove the BSD license *NOTICE*. This has no effect on anyone's substantive rights though. Removing license notices has no effect on actual licenses. DS
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 01:18:05PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote: > >So for code which is single-licensed under a BSD license, someone can > >create a new derived work, and redistribute it under a more > >restrictive license --- either one as restrictive as NetApp's (where > >no one is allowed to get binary unless they are a NetApp customer, or > >source only after signing an NDA), or a GPL license. It is not a > >relicencing, per se, since the original version of the file is still > >available under the original copyright; it is only the derived work > >which is under the more restrictive copyright. > > No. The derivative work altogether has a *mixed* license. BSD/ISC for > the parts that are original, the other (restrictive, GPL, whatever) > license for the modifications/additions. Yes, agreed. I was being sloppy. In actual practice, the GPL is more restrictive, aod so the terms of the GPL are what tend to have more effect, but you are absolutely correct. > *If* you choose to distribute source along with the binaries, the part > of the source that's original is BSD/ISC licensed even in the derivative > work (though one may put *the additions/modifications* under restrictive > conditions, e.g. of commercial non-disclosure type source licensing). Yes, although actually, the place where the BSD license must be honored is in a binary distribution, since the BSD license and copyright attribution must be distributed as part of the binary distribution. (Even Microsoft does this when they use BSD code.) For a source distribution, retaining the copyright attribution and permission statement in the comments is sufficient to meet the BSD license requirements, and since the open source world normally deals mostly with source, we sometimes get sloppy with how we phrase things. Regards, - Ted
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:47:43AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: > Your problem seems to be with the BSD licence, > and the power to alter that licence lies in the BSD community. I hope you can understand that this mentality is _exactly_ what has some in the BSD community so upset. when I see the linux community start to take credit for works they did not create and I see the linux community respond to warnings that people in the community are going overboard and jeopardizing the linux community, which we do all benefit from, with a more or less "whatever" attitude, it makes me sad. it would be like losing a friend. I don't like losing friends, so I get vocal. I don't understand why the linux community can't seem to say, "We can accept BSD licensed code. There's no need to add the GPL to it." and maybe even, "Although we strongly prefer the GPL, respect for other licenses is every bit as important as respect for the GPL." I could be wrong, but I strongly believe that if the above was truly accepted and believed by the community, the actions that started and spread this whole debacle^Wdebate would not have happened in the first place. look, the GPL legally forces others to keep the same license. the BSD community is asking the linux community do the same. and when the linux community refuses, what do you expect the recourse to be? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On 9/15/07, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please omit me from the cc list on these messages. > Are you joking? Where is you stand on ethics and freedom of software now? Are you just another politician with great swelling words of emptiness? I did sent a mail to misc@ and if you have not seen it here is an excerpt below. I really pity your followers who have a leader who remains dumb and cannot bark when he sees the theif!!! And you claim to guard freedom of software!!! Isn't this pure mockery??? Apart from your words and all the philosophy masala you spew out what is your stand when it comes to a real issue like this? == 1) Richard Stallman who presented an award publically to Theo for "his selfless commitment to Free Software " has so far said nothing about this incident. Stallman presented an award to Theo in Public. For what? This is an issue Theo has been speaking in public for a long time now. And I think Stalman has a moral responsibility to say either the Linux Developers are right and Theo is wrong or vice versa. If Theo is right then Stallman has the moral responsibility to aid him to fight against the viloations. Or else I think the award giving and stuff like that is just a farce. His Silence in this matter is "Marvelous" given th fact that he does demonstrations against companies for the cause of Freedom and Justice etc. 2) Linus cannot tolerate including the BSD Licenced Software in his kernel as said by some of his own kernel developers. Can he accept them once the BSD Licence clause is Just removed? There might be a reason for the first. But He has a moral responsibility to speak about this matter too. He has to say either his developers are right nd he endorse their actions or that his developers made a mistake and they should back out. His silence on this issue is also marvelous. Alan cox has made clear his stand that what the Linux Developers have done is perfectly legal, if not moral or ethical. I just wonder if this silence is because they want to have the cake and eat it too. I.e they want to do the wrong thing and support it in private but as well as keep up their image of being for the free software movement in public. I think people who are involved in this and have spoken in support for this are now embarrassed about it because the whole world have seen their stupidity and caught them pants down. Where as they would not extend even a small finger of mercy to a developer who made a mistake with their GPL code earlier but would tear him in pieces in public they now do worse things deliberately and act like thugs who are backed up by lawyers. Their leaders remain mute even after many day since the folly is exposed. I am not much concerned about a few guys who speak in support of this indecent act because they don't understand it even after being explained several times by several people from all angles BUT I am quite concerned about this trend from their leaders like Stalman and Linus. Their silence is quite irresponsible! Maybe they are still thinking about a way to deal with this stupidity in public without their skin being hurt. Thank you so much Kind Regards Siju
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Hello! On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: >[...] >What is going on whenever someone changes a code is that they make a >"derivative work". Only if the additions/changes are significant enough to be copyrightable on their own. >Whether or not you can even make a derivative >work, and under what terms the derivitive work can be licensed, is >strictly up to the license of the original. For example, the BSD >license says: > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions > are met >Note the "with or without modification". This is what allows people >to change BSD licensed code and redistribute said changes. The >conditions specified by the BSD license do not mention anything about >licening terms --- just that if you meet these three conditions, you >are allowed to redistribute them. So for example, this is what allows >Network Appliances to take BSD code, change it, and add a restrictive, >proprietary copyright. Right. You may add nearly any copyright *on your own significant additions/changes*. However, BSD/ISC explicitly requires to retain the BSD/ISC terms, too (applicable to the original part of the combined work). >So for code which is single-licensed under a BSD license, someone can >create a new derived work, and redistribute it under a more >restrictive license --- either one as restrictive as NetApp's (where >no one is allowed to get binary unless they are a NetApp customer, or >source only after signing an NDA), or a GPL license. It is not a >relicencing, per se, since the original version of the file is still >available under the original copyright; it is only the derived work >which is under the more restrictive copyright. No. The derivative work altogether has a *mixed* license. BSD/ISC for the parts that are original, the other (restrictive, GPL, whatever) license for the modifications/additions. *If* you choose to distribute source along with the binaries, the part of the source that's original is BSD/ISC licensed even in the derivative work (though one may put *the additions/modifications* under restrictive conditions, e.g. of commercial non-disclosure type source licensing). >[... dual-licensing issues etc. already handled in other mails ...] Kind regards, Hannah.
Effective Time Management; Crowne Plaza Muscat, Oman; 12th-13th November 2007
EFFECTIVE TIME MANAGEMENT Crowne Plaza Muscat, Oman; 12 th - 13th November 2007 WHY NEEDED Improving Time Management capability has been a popular training subject for many years, for three very simple reasons: ' In the modern business life we are faced with an ever increasing number of tasks to do, to an ever increasing standard but within continuously shrinking time limits. We are forced to do more, do better, do quicker!!! ' The pace will get worse as each year goes by. So we will have to do even more, to an even higher standard, in much less time. ' The continuous struggle to balance private life and work life. WORKSHOP DETAILS ' Duration: Two Days, 12th-13th November 2007; 8:30am-4:30pm; ' Fees: Rial Omani 525 (includes programme materials, lunch & breaks at the venue); ' Presenter:Barry Kyriacou (PeopleAchieve); ' Venue: Crowne Plaza Muscat, Oman. WHO SHOULD PARTICIPATE Managers, Team Leaders and staff from all business areas and departments who wish to become more organised and have a professional attitude in achieving their work objectives. WHAT WILL BE COVERED As a result of this workshop, individuals will be better able to: ' Determine individual goals (business & personal) ' Focus on the areas that will deliver results ' Direct efforts towards achieving organisational goals ' Prioritise tasks and activities ' Plan their day more effectively ' Reduce time lost to "time stealers" ' Deal with emails more efficiently ' Organise their office and desk effectively Please contact us for further information & registration Precept Management Consultancy P.O. Box 255, Ruwi, PC 112, Sultanate of Oman Telephone: +968 24497123 Fax: +968 24497222 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Website: www.preceptmanagement.com WORKSHOP DAY 1 0900 - 0945Introduction Goals of the Workshop The importance of managing time and workload Benefits of a more organised approach Available tools The Flapsi-Hapsi methodology An alternative model and its benefits Proactive vs. Reactive Time Management 0945 - 1045Goal Setting Why we need goals The methodology of setting SMART goals Workshop - practice in SMART goals Latest developments in setting goals Reasons for not achieving goals due to human behaviour & how to overcome them Achieving work-home balance 1045 - 1100Coffee Break 1100 - 1200Focusing Effort - Key Areas of Responsibility The Key Areas-Categories-Tasks model What are Key Areas of Responsibility Methodology for defining them Exercise - each participant specifies his key areas Each Key Area breaks down into Categories Exercise - each participant breaks down a few of his Key Areas into Categories Each Category breaks down into Tasks Exercise - Each participant breaks down a few of his Categories into Tasks 1200 - 1300Managing Time - Planning Your Day Planning your day - how and when Difficult jobs - when to do them Your body clock and how to take advantage of it Scheduling meetings Evaluating how much time you actually have Planning for the unexpected Little things that save time Handling Elephant Tasks Taking work home 1300 - 1400Lunch 1400 - 1430Planning Your Day...continued 1430 - 1545Time Stealers Our main time-stealers and their effect on our productivity Workshop - each time studies one main time stealer and makes suggestions on how to overcome it (amongst others: saying NO to others, handling phone call, the drop-in visitor) 1345 - 1600Coffee Break 1600 - 1700Communicating with Emails The modern way of communicating Discussion - advantages and disadvantages Handling incoming emails Rules for making your outgoing emails shorter and more effective DAY 2 0900 - 1045Prioritising Tasks To-Do lists Defining Important tasks and Urgent tasks The 4 types of tasks The Important vs. Urgent model (by Stephen Covey) Deciding the priority of each task Which should we do first The Time Analysis tool 1045 - 1100Coffee Break 1100 - 1230Effective Meetings When is a meeting worth having? Preparing for a meeting The agenda The role of the chairperson The meeting ground rules Focus is important Importance of taking minutes Role-play in meetings 1230 - 1300Procrastination What is procrastination? Main reasons for postponing a task Ways to overcome procrastination 1300 - 1400Lunch 1400 - 1600Exercise in Time & Workload Management Each team has to achieve a specific objective in competition with the other teams and within a set time limit. To succeed, each team must use the tools and methodologies on time and workload management that have been presented during the training Main Messages and Discussion 1600 - 1615Coffee Break 1615 - 1700Desk Management & Finale Organising your work area Organising your desk Where to place telephones, computers, etc Handling paperwork and in/out trays To register online, please click here. THE COMPANY Organisations are struggling to find new ways to achieve strategic advantage in an increas
Re: sudo & wheel group
* Matthew Szudzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 04:41]: > Does anyone currently use the operator group for anything sure, taking dump(8)s -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
Re: Wasting our Freedom
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 02:29]: > you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the code, but > brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux evil? NetApp does not pretend to be free and open and save the world etc -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:13:51PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
>> >>...
>> >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
>> >> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.
>> >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
>> >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...
>> JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
>> dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden
>> by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's
>> *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or
>> in one of the licenses.
>Dual licenced code by definition explicitely states that you can choose
>the licence - otherwise it wouldn't be called dual-licenced.
It does state you can choose which terms to follow, indeed, of course.
But that does *not* imply removing the other terms altogether.
>> Neither GPL nor BSD/ISC allow relicensing in their well-known wordings.
>Noone said otherwise.
Removing the terms you choose not to follow in one instance *is*
relicensing.
>> If you think that's questionable, you should at least provide arguments
>> (and be ready to have your interpretation of the law and the licenses
>> tested before court).
>The licence in question was:
><-- snip -->
>/*-
> * Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
> * All rights reserved.
> *
> * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> * are met:
> * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
> *without modification.
> * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer
> *similar to the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer below ("Disclaimer") and any
> *redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially
> *similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution.
> * 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names
> *of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
> *from this software without specific prior written permission.
> *
> * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
> * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
> * Software Foundation.
> *
> * NO WARRANTY
> * ...
><-- snip -->
>Theo claimed it would "break the law" [1] to choose the GPL for
>_this_ code. [2]
I re-read Theo's mail and still think the factual issues Theo states are
probably right. Value judgements like "you should give code back" (when
the license doesn't require it) are of course debatable (I tend to agree
with Theo there too, but it's no mandatory requirement of course).
Theo did *not* claim it breaks the law if you choose to obey by the
terms of the GPL in said dual-licensing. Theo *did* claim (in my eyes,
probably rightfully, and if it should ever be needed with respect to
code related to OpenBSD, I could try to give a few bucks in support of
having that claim legally verified) it's illegal to remove the license
you chose to not follow in one instance of redistribution. IIRC the
softwarefreedom.org people involved agreed with Theo's assessment in
that instance.
>[...]
>> But the BSDl does not allow you to relicense the original code, even
>> while it allows you to license copyrightable additions/modifications
>> under different terms with few restrictions.
>> However, you say "regarding ethics" and just go back to the legal level.
>> Is it really ethical, if you consider both Linux and OpenBSD part of one
>> OSS "community", to share things only in one direction? To take the
>> reverse engineered HAL but to not allow OpenBSD to take some
>> modifications back?
>Is it really ethical to use a licence that does not require to give
>back, but then demand that something has to be given back?
IMO Theo didn't demand (as in try to enforce with legal pressure), but
state it'd be the *morally* right thing to do even if *not* legally
required (which isn't debated).
>Why don't you use a licence that expresses your intentions in a legally
>binding way?
Because BSD people don't want to enforce it in every thinkable case. And
BSD people don't want to enforce it using as much text as the GPL needs.
But still I think it'd be the (morally!) right thing to do with respect
to the Atheros HAL even if *not* legally bound to do so.
>[...]
>But the truth is a bit less harsh:
>In reality most Linux kernel developers might not mind to give back -
>and e.g. much of the ACPI code is BSD/GPL dual-licenced, and there
>doesn't se
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Hi! On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:11:05PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote: >On Sunday 16 September 2007 16:39:26 Hannah Schroeter wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: >> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote: >> >>... >> >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel >> >> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process. >> >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt >> >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal... >> JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the >> dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden >> by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's >> *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or >> in one of the licenses. >That advice wasn't regarding relicensing. Dual-licensed code allows >distribution and use under either license. If I get BSD/GPL code, I can >follow the GPL exclusively and I don't have to follow the BSD license at all. >And the alternative is also true. (ie: follow the BSD license exclusively and >ignore the GPL) >It's not "relicensing" - it's following *WHICH* of the offered terms are more >agreeable. The original issue *was* about illegal relicensing (i.e. not just choosing which terms to follow, but removing the other terms altogether). >I'll just snip the rest, since you seem confused. Refrain from personal attacks. Regards, Hannah.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Jacob Meuser wrote: On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: reimplement them. Why don't you go and try asking NetApp for sources to WAFL, and claim that they have "moral" duty to give the code back, and see how quickly you get laughed out of the office? which is _exactly_ what you guys are doing. so the linux community is morally equivilent to a corporation? that's what it sounds like you are all legally satisfied with. A difference between linux and corporations: Linux actually gives changed source code back - just not with a BSD licence on it. So you can at least see what the linux community did, and do the same. Although not by direct copying. But why complain when the linux community do what the BSD licence lets them? If you think the linux community is abusing a loophole in the licence, why don't you just close the hole? For example, require that changes made to your code when used in the linux kernel must be made available under a BSD licence also. Still possible to use the code anywhere, but with a guarantee of getting stuff back. Your problem seems to be with the BSD licence, and the power to alter that licence lies in the BSD community. Helge Hafting
Re: Problem installing openBSD 4.0 on intel S3000AH
Hi! I Have that motherboard with 4.0 Snapshot (I don't remember the date) and all works good. 1. There were problems with second gigabit port. 2. There were problems with ACPI, and the system was unstable( Try to compile anything). But With this snapshot all works great. I haven't tried 4.1 or later snapshots. Matiss Insan Praja SW wrote: Dear all, I have recently facing a problem when installing openBSD 4.0 on intel S3000AH, it seems that the embedded gigabit ethernet (em1) is causing this, since openBSD installer trap a kernel panic message when it tried to load the module. In some discussion, to troubleshoot this is to change vparam.h. Since I am no programmer, would anyone be kind enough to help me with this. dmesg: em1 at pci3 dev 0 function 0 "Intel PRO/1000MT (82573e)" rev 0x03uvm_fault(0xd0691180, 0x1f000, 0, 1) -> fatal page fault (6) in supervisor mode trap type 6 code 0 eip d02b0a10 cs 8 eflags 10202 cr2 1ff07 cp0 panic: trap type 6, code-0, pc-d02b0a10
