Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Hello, On Fri, 06.10.2006 at 15:12:47 -0600, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Even today the Linux kernel tree is full of non-free components, for > example firmwares. Let's not talk about GPL and source and all that. > Yes, there are problems there. But even more basic problems exist, > because these particular firmwares don't even terms granting > re-distribution rights to Linus and the other vendors! These are not > just files which violate the GPL concepts their community stands for > -- copyright law actually considers them to be STOLEN (because no > distribution rights are granted). But don't take my word for it. Go > read the debian.vote mailing list. thank you for bringing this up. That list shows that "some" Linux people are actually very well aware of the problems, and try to do something about it. OTOH it also shows that they have rather limited success so far. See http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007. Joining forces in educating vendors and the general public could, or should, help the cause. Best, --Toni++
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Hello chefren, On Fri, 06.10.2006 at 00:46:11 +0200, chefren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The argument against GPL that works best for me during "discussions" > about it is that GPL is BSD with Digital Rights Management. sorry, but this is a blatant lie. Arguing this way will hopefully get you *NO* success whatsoever, but a sound backslash instead. Having said that, I think I understand the differences between these two licenses fairly well, and surely well above what Joe Average User is expected to understand. They both have their specific places and good philosophies behind them. > Even GPL zealots have an extremely bad feeling while hearing "DRM", > again and again funny to see their faces while it sinks in. Every sane and at least minimally social person should have extremely bad feelings while hearing "DRM" (if they understand what DRM actually is about). --Toni++
" Learn to swim with sharks." [Was: Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])]
On 10/09/06 17:39, steve szmidt wrote: Learn to swim with sharks... =Very= stupid remark. Let's take "shark" number one: Theo. This shark doesn't bite or swallow, gives away the results of lots of his personal work and thinking, higly dedicated to do things as well as he can. Is extremely busy, on the edge of what he can handle as a human being. What you probably try to say is that people get rude reactions over here if they post stupid remarks. Do you know a better way to stop people posting stupid remarks while keeping this list open for anyone interested? If people keep posting stupid things "because they try to swim with the sharks" they can expect only one thing: more extreme reactions. This is the only known way a truly open list like this can be regulated and kept open. If you believe there is another way, please shut up about it here, start a list yourselves and prove it works. +++chefren
Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])
On Monday 09 October 2006 03:52, Marius Van Deventer - Umzimkulu wrote: > > You know what I can't stand... Bullying! That's what's going on > > here. Eh, no doubt you are right. I've not followed the thread, but I know that if people are not bullied here something is wrong. This is by far the worst list I've been on, but I hang on inspite of it. Being close to pulse has it's advantages... Having lived in Cape Town for a few years I know you guys are probably tough Boers, and either way can take care of yourselves. Which is really all you can hope for here. Learn to swim with sharks... -- Steve Szmidt "To enjoy the right of political self-government, men must be capable of personal self-government - the virtue of self-control. A people without decency cannot be secure in its liberty. From the Declaration Principles
Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])
On Oct 9, 2006, at 1:52 AM, Marius Van Deventer - Umzimkulu wrote: > Wees geduldig en dink oor wat jy se. That could pretty much be applied to most conversationalists in this list :-) Now knock it off! This is way too much fun to read and I have work to do. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> Han Boetes
> Sent: 07 October 2006 09:02 PM
> To: misc@openbsd.org
> Subject: Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re:
Intel's
> Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])
>
> You know what I can't stand... Bullying! That's what's going on
> here.
>
> I'm the operator on an #openbsd channel, and I know exactly what
> happens when somebody start ranting about how {GPL, Windows,
> Linux, FreeBSD,...} sucks. Another guy is a happy user and before
> you know it you have a flamewar going on.
>
> So whenever somebody brings up a sensitive subject like that, I
> say something like `This channel is for people who love OpenBSD,
> not for people that hate XXX'
>
> That's how I keep the peace, the channel friendly and the
> discussions interesting.
>
> And I do the same the other way around when people start whining
> about BSD related stuff.
>
> But when I defend with rational arguments and in a polite way the
> merrits of the GPL percieved as by many developers and companies
> _without_ insulting the BSD license, but merely by pointing out a
> practical problem, I get flamed, insulted, threatened and called a
> troll!
>
> That... is bullying! That is a what people do who _want_ flamewars
> and insults to keep flying.
>
> So you think the GPL is fair game? Go ahead, remove all the
> GPL-licensed code from OpenBSD!
>
> All I want is respect for the opinion the other guys, just like I
> defend *BSD when someone starts ranting against it!
>
>
>
> # Han
Han.
Verskoon die dialek, ek is Afrikaans.
Jou woorde was "Restrictions on freedom is a good thing".
Jy moet erken dai hierdie woorde in opposisie is met die BSD lisensie.
Dit is hoekom almal vir jou kwaad is, omdat dit duidelik is dat jy die
GPL bo die BSD lisensie ag.
Die hele rede vir die bestaan van BSD is die lisensie.
Jou woorde skep beelde van OpenBSD onder 'n GPL lisensie, en dit word
hewig teengestaan hier.
Die ander lede baklei slegs vir iets waaring hulle glo, die basis van
die werk wat hulle doen. Wees geduldig en dink oor wat jy se.
Marius.
OT [e: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]]
On 10/7/06 7:26 AM, Han Boetes wrote: You lie. You insult. You threaten. I'd love to meet _you_ in person too. Again top posting. What are the author's words about that? http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html " Respond below the questions " Well, Han might argue Theo didn't pose a question. However the quotingguide states also: " Reply below each paragraph " Sigh... +++chefren
Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])
Can you please take your rants elsewhere?
> You know what I can't stand... Bullying! That's what's going on
> here.
>
> I'm the operator on an #openbsd channel, and I know exactly what
> happens when somebody start ranting about how {GPL, Windows,
> Linux, FreeBSD,...} sucks. Another guy is a happy user and before
> you know it you have a flamewar going on.
>
> So whenever somebody brings up a sensitive subject like that, I
> say something like `This channel is for people who love OpenBSD,
> not for people that hate XXX'
>
> That's how I keep the peace, the channel friendly and the
> discussions interesting.
>
> And I do the same the other way around when people start whining
> about BSD related stuff.
>
> But when I defend with rational arguments and in a polite way the
> merrits of the GPL percieved as by many developers and companies
> _without_ insulting the BSD license, but merely by pointing out a
> practical problem, I get flamed, insulted, threatened and called a
> troll!
>
> That... is bullying! That is a what people do who _want_ flamewars
> and insults to keep flying.
>
> So you think the GPL is fair game? Go ahead, remove all the
> GPL-licensed code from OpenBSD!
>
> All I want is respect for the opinion the other guys, just like I
> defend *BSD when someone starts ranting against it!
>
>
>
> # Han
Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])
You know what I can't stand... Bullying! That's what's going on
here.
I'm the operator on an #openbsd channel, and I know exactly what
happens when somebody start ranting about how {GPL, Windows,
Linux, FreeBSD,...} sucks. Another guy is a happy user and before
you know it you have a flamewar going on.
So whenever somebody brings up a sensitive subject like that, I
say something like `This channel is for people who love OpenBSD,
not for people that hate XXX'
That's how I keep the peace, the channel friendly and the
discussions interesting.
And I do the same the other way around when people start whining
about BSD related stuff.
But when I defend with rational arguments and in a polite way the
merrits of the GPL percieved as by many developers and companies
_without_ insulting the BSD license, but merely by pointing out a
practical problem, I get flamed, insulted, threatened and called a
troll!
That... is bullying! That is a what people do who _want_ flamewars
and insults to keep flying.
So you think the GPL is fair game? Go ahead, remove all the
GPL-licensed code from OpenBSD!
All I want is respect for the opinion the other guys, just like I
defend *BSD when someone starts ranting against it!
# Han
Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])
HITLER HITLER HITLER On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 09:24:39AM -0600, Tyler Mace wrote: > Come on now people; you're upset that this debate is even being held, > yet you fuel it's fire with your senseless replies. Arguing with a troll > makes you a troll. Ban the guy, ignore the guy, 'shut the guy up', I > don't care how you do it but for the sake of how this shit is reflecting > on the openbsd community and for the sake of my sanity, please end this > childish thread. > > Breen Ouellette wrote: > >Han Boetes wrote: > >>You lie. > >>You insult. > >>You threaten. > >> > >>I'd love to meet _you_ in person too. > > > >Well I have met him (Theo) in person several times, and I think he's a > >pretty stand up guy. I've never known him to lie, but insults and > >threats usually flow freely when he feels the behaviour of others > >warrants it. > > > >I don't know you, Han, but you have been on this list long enough to > >know that most of the time your opinion is in the minority, sometimes > >even a minority of one. There's nothing wrong with that, you are > >allowed your opinions in those places that value freedom, and many of > >us on this list come from such places. However, given the long list of > >threads where your opinion is not shared by most of us, you may want > >to think about self-imposing a limit of technical discussion only > >while on OpenBSD lists. This is Theo's sandbox (I know there are > >others in the project, but Theo is the manager, lets not start that > >argument again), which means he is gracious enough to allow you to > >remain even though he has made it obvious that he doesn't appreciate > >your opinions. If nothing else, he is true to his word about being > >open. Most others would have banned you by now. > > > >I don't want to discuss this with you because there is nothing > >positive that would come from such a discussion. I'm just trying to > >point out that there is nothing being gained any time you clash with > >the list. Hopefully you will see reason in restricting the content of > >your posts. If not you will simply be added to my block list, as I > >suspect others have already done, which will not benefit you in any way. > > > >Breeno
Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])
Come on now people; you're upset that this debate is even being held, yet you fuel it's fire with your senseless replies. Arguing with a troll makes you a troll. Ban the guy, ignore the guy, 'shut the guy up', I don't care how you do it but for the sake of how this shit is reflecting on the openbsd community and for the sake of my sanity, please end this childish thread. Breen Ouellette wrote: Han Boetes wrote: You lie. You insult. You threaten. I'd love to meet _you_ in person too. Well I have met him (Theo) in person several times, and I think he's a pretty stand up guy. I've never known him to lie, but insults and threats usually flow freely when he feels the behaviour of others warrants it. I don't know you, Han, but you have been on this list long enough to know that most of the time your opinion is in the minority, sometimes even a minority of one. There's nothing wrong with that, you are allowed your opinions in those places that value freedom, and many of us on this list come from such places. However, given the long list of threads where your opinion is not shared by most of us, you may want to think about self-imposing a limit of technical discussion only while on OpenBSD lists. This is Theo's sandbox (I know there are others in the project, but Theo is the manager, lets not start that argument again), which means he is gracious enough to allow you to remain even though he has made it obvious that he doesn't appreciate your opinions. If nothing else, he is true to his word about being open. Most others would have banned you by now. I don't want to discuss this with you because there is nothing positive that would come from such a discussion. I'm just trying to point out that there is nothing being gained any time you clash with the list. Hopefully you will see reason in restricting the content of your posts. If not you will simply be added to my block list, as I suspect others have already done, which will not benefit you in any way. Breeno
Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])
Han Boetes wrote: You lie. You insult. You threaten. I'd love to meet _you_ in person too. Well I have met him (Theo) in person several times, and I think he's a pretty stand up guy. I've never known him to lie, but insults and threats usually flow freely when he feels the behaviour of others warrants it. I don't know you, Han, but you have been on this list long enough to know that most of the time your opinion is in the minority, sometimes even a minority of one. There's nothing wrong with that, you are allowed your opinions in those places that value freedom, and many of us on this list come from such places. However, given the long list of threads where your opinion is not shared by most of us, you may want to think about self-imposing a limit of technical discussion only while on OpenBSD lists. This is Theo's sandbox (I know there are others in the project, but Theo is the manager, lets not start that argument again), which means he is gracious enough to allow you to remain even though he has made it obvious that he doesn't appreciate your opinions. If nothing else, he is true to his word about being open. Most others would have banned you by now. I don't want to discuss this with you because there is nothing positive that would come from such a discussion. I'm just trying to point out that there is nothing being gained any time you clash with the list. Hopefully you will see reason in restricting the content of your posts. If not you will simply be added to my block list, as I suspect others have already done, which will not benefit you in any way. Breeno
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
You lie. You insult. You threaten. I'd love to meet _you_ in person too. Theo de Raadt wrote: > Han is some asshole who comes onto our list about every 2-3 weeks and > spouts some very vague bullshit to distract people. He wants every > argument to become a vague license argument. He refuses to leave our > lists. At times, I have times wished that someone would go visit him > in person and shut him up. I find it hard to admit this, but people > as uneducated and rude as him are rare. # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Han is some asshole who comes onto our list about every 2-3 weeks and spouts some very vague bullshit to distract people. He wants every argument to become a vague license argument. He refuses to leave our lists. At times, I have times wished that someone would go visit him in person and shut him up. I find it hard to admit this, but people as uneducated and rude as him are rare. > Look at it, he is quoting me out of context. That's not a silly > escape, that's a fact. Maybe to you quoting out of context is a > legitimate way to fight a discussion, to me it's not. > > Felipe Scarel wrote: > > Is that all you can say to defend your point of view? If you are wrong > > (and you probably are), you should admit it, not repeat "quote out of > > context" as a silly escape. > > > > # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Look at it, he is quoting me out of context. That's not a silly escape, that's a fact. Maybe to you quoting out of context is a legitimate way to fight a discussion, to me it's not. Felipe Scarel wrote: > Is that all you can say to defend your point of view? If you are wrong > (and you probably are), you should admit it, not repeat "quote out of > context" as a silly escape. # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Is that all you can say to defend your point of view? If you are wrong (and you probably are), you should admit it, not repeat "quote out of context" as a silly escape. On 10/6/06, Han Boetes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: quote out of context Rod.. Whitworth wrote: > On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 03:50:38 +0159, Han Boetes wrote: > > > In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, otherwise > > it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms is a good > > thing. > > Bullshit! > > Now don't quote me that specious crap about how free speech is limited > by no freedom to falsely cry "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. > > That is the refuge of philosophy 101 students or shitheads who only > advance it so that they can gloat about the stupidity of someone who > did not recognise the trick. > > You are free to spout whatever crap you espouse. You never > fought for that right but I won't deny you that right. > > Somebody may call you to account for abusing that freedom. > > Like now. > > Your puerile confusion of freedoms of speech or thought with free > software (as we know it) does not do more than deomonstrate your lack > of maturity and a need for some training of your brain's crap detector. > If it is not atrophied, that is. > > I was an IBM Linux instructor until a couple of years ago and I can > tell you for certain that your (wishful) thinking about why they (IBM) > espouse Linux is wildly astray. Try again. > > But not here, please. You have woffled on too long and I am waeried of > watching your twaddle go by. > > > > > > > From the land "down under": Australia. > Do we look from up over? > > Do NOT CC me - I am subscribed to the list. > Replies to the sender address will fail except from the list-server. > Your IP address will also be greytrapped for 24 hours after any > attempt. > I am continually amazed by the people who run OpenBSD who don't take > this advice. I always expected a smarter class. I guess not. > # Han -- Felipe Brant Scarel PATUX/OpenBSD Project Leader (http://www.patux.cic.unb.br)
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
quote out of context Rod.. Whitworth wrote: > On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 03:50:38 +0159, Han Boetes wrote: > > > In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, otherwise > > it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms is a good > > thing. > > Bullshit! > > Now don't quote me that specious crap about how free speech is limited > by no freedom to falsely cry "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. > > That is the refuge of philosophy 101 students or shitheads who only > advance it so that they can gloat about the stupidity of someone who > did not recognise the trick. > > You are free to spout whatever crap you espouse. You never > fought for that right but I won't deny you that right. > > Somebody may call you to account for abusing that freedom. > > Like now. > > Your puerile confusion of freedoms of speech or thought with free > software (as we know it) does not do more than deomonstrate your lack > of maturity and a need for some training of your brain's crap detector. > If it is not atrophied, that is. > > I was an IBM Linux instructor until a couple of years ago and I can > tell you for certain that your (wishful) thinking about why they (IBM) > espouse Linux is wildly astray. Try again. > > But not here, please. You have woffled on too long and I am waeried of > watching your twaddle go by. > > > > > > > From the land "down under": Australia. > Do we look from up over? > > Do NOT CC me - I am subscribed to the list. > Replies to the sender address will fail except from the list-server. > Your IP address will also be greytrapped for 24 hours after any > attempt. > I am continually amazed by the people who run OpenBSD who don't take > this advice. I always expected a smarter class. I guess not. > # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 03:50:38 +0159, Han Boetes wrote: >In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, otherwise >it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms is a good >thing. Bullshit! Now don't quote me that specious crap about how free speech is limited by no freedom to falsely cry "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. That is the refuge of philosophy 101 students or shitheads who only advance it so that they can gloat about the stupidity of someone who did not recognise the trick. You are free to spout whatever crap you espouse. You never fought for that right but I won't deny you that right. Somebody may call you to account for abusing that freedom. Like now. Your puerile confusion of freedoms of speech or thought with free software (as we know it) does not do more than deomonstrate your lack of maturity and a need for some training of your brain's crap detector. If it is not atrophied, that is. I was an IBM Linux instructor until a couple of years ago and I can tell you for certain that your (wishful) thinking about why they (IBM) espouse Linux is wildly astray. Try again. But not here, please. You have woffled on too long and I am waeried of watching your twaddle go by. >From the land "down under": Australia. Do we look from up over? Do NOT CC me - I am subscribed to the list. Replies to the sender address will fail except from the list-server. Your IP address will also be greytrapped for 24 hours after any attempt. I am continually amazed by the people who run OpenBSD who don't take this advice. I always expected a smarter class. I guess not.
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
> > > Its complete and utter nonsense actually. The linux kernel is used in > > > closed source products all the time, it has no effect there just like it > > > > Please show us one example of a closed source Linux device. > > Sure, the broadcom wireless device inside the linksys routers. Yes, they > are "open source devices", you can get the linux distribution from linksys, > but good luck getting source for their blobs. Another example is the Zaurus. From sharp it runs Linux. It has SD/SDIO support, but as a .o file, linked against the kernel. Sharp never published source for the SD/SDIO support. Noone even said anything about it. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of other examples, I am sorry to say. Even today the Linux kernel tree is full of non-free components, for example firmwares. Let's not talk about GPL and source and all that. Yes, there are problems there. But even more basic problems exist, because these particular firmwares don't even terms granting re-distribution rights to Linus and the other vendors! These are not just files which violate the GPL concepts their community stands for -- copyright law actually considers them to be STOLEN (because no distribution rights are granted). But don't take my word for it. Go read the debian.vote mailing list. So please don't come our lists arguying that we are breaking pseudo-rules we never made promises about, when you are coming as a representative of a community of people who break laws.
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
"Martin Schrvder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2006/10/6, Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Its complete and utter nonsense actually. The linux kernel is used in > > closed source products all the time, it has no effect there just like it > > Please show us one example of a closed source Linux device. They are all over the place, tons of random little devices are running some form of linux. Very few seem to be actually obeying all the rules of the GPL. Half of the devices Dlink ships for instance. > On the contrary closed source Linux systems have been forced (even in > court) to deliver the sources. This is impossible with BSD. No, some have been pressured with the threat of court, and sorta gave in. But they still keep portions closed, they just put up the source for the kernel, which you could already get anyways. They still keep drivers secret little blobs. Dlink has agreed to C&D because of the courts in Germany, but they have not opened up the source to the device in question. Nobody can be forced to "deliver the sources", GPL or BSD. At best they can be forced to C&D, and pay court costs. They can *choose* to GPL their code instead if they prefer that option. If the GPL has helped out linux so much by forcing companies to open up their code, then please feel free to point out what code that is. IBM and SGI may have GPLed a couple filesystems, but they were not forced to, and linux was already plenty popular by then. Adam
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Martin Schrvder wrote: > 2006/10/6, Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Its complete and utter nonsense actually. The linux kernel is used in > > closed source products all the time, it has no effect there just like it > > Please show us one example of a closed source Linux device. Sure, the broadcom wireless device inside the linksys routers. Yes, they are "open source devices", you can get the linux distribution from linksys, but good luck getting source for their blobs. > On the contrary closed source Linux systems have been forced (even in > court) to deliver the sources. This is impossible with BSD. Some yes, at the expense of other freedoms. -- [100~Plax]sb16i0A2172656B63616820636420726568746F6E61207473754A[dZ1!=b]salax
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
On 10/06/06 03:01, Han Boetes wrote: Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article: http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd Since it's polite, to point and factual. That pages contains the sentence "I don't think we fully understand exactly when each license's effects truly have the most effect." That "we" is not that polite and it might seem to the point and factual to you, this sentence ruins most of it. Instead of your rant which contains insults and lies. Please explain (off-list is OK). +++chefren
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
2006/10/6, Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Its complete and utter nonsense actually. The linux kernel is used in closed source products all the time, it has no effect there just like it Please show us one example of a closed source Linux device. On the contrary closed source Linux systems have been forced (even in court) to deliver the sources. This is impossible with BSD. Best Martin
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Now that is a very good way to show the world how good the BSD license is. :-) Eric Furman wrote: > Please SHUT THE F*** UP and go away, Han. > The GPL is a total fraud. And as Theo has already > pointed out, this is not the place to debate it. > All you are doing is pissing people off. > > On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 05:53:13 +0200, "Han Boetes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: > > Lars Hansson wrote: > > > Han Boetes wrote: > > > > Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article: > > > > > > > > http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd > > > > > > > > Since it's polite, to point and factual. > > > > > > Yes, it's so factual that he fail to mention/understand that the > > > BSD license *is* GPL compatible. > > > > So? > > > > > The reasoning pretty much goes: > > > > > > * Linux rocketed to fame because of the GPL (a statement that is > > > in itself highly questionable) > > > * It's an important advantage to use GPL-compatible licences (an > > > opinion, not a fact) > > > * The BSD license has hurt the BSD projects because its not GPL- > > > compatible (which it IS) > > > > > > Congratulations, your reasoning is self-contradicting. > > > > You really should read it again, you really misread it. > > > > > > # Han > # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Please SHUT THE F*** UP and go away, Han. The GPL is a total fraud. And as Theo has already pointed out, this is not the place to debate it. All you are doing is pissing people off. On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 05:53:13 +0200, "Han Boetes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Lars Hansson wrote: > > Han Boetes wrote: > > > Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article: > > > > > > http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd > > > > > > Since it's polite, to point and factual. > > > > Yes, it's so factual that he fail to mention/understand that the > > BSD license *is* GPL compatible. > > So? > > > The reasoning pretty much goes: > > > > * Linux rocketed to fame because of the GPL (a statement that is > > in itself highly questionable) > > * It's an important advantage to use GPL-compatible licences (an > > opinion, not a fact) > > * The BSD license has hurt the BSD projects because its not GPL- > > compatible (which it IS) > > > > Congratulations, your reasoning is self-contradicting. > > You really should read it again, you really misread it. > > > # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Lars Hansson wrote: > Han Boetes wrote: > > Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article: > > > > http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd > > > > Since it's polite, to point and factual. > > Yes, it's so factual that he fail to mention/understand that the > BSD license *is* GPL compatible. So? > The reasoning pretty much goes: > > * Linux rocketed to fame because of the GPL (a statement that is > in itself highly questionable) > * It's an important advantage to use GPL-compatible licences (an > opinion, not a fact) > * The BSD license has hurt the BSD projects because its not GPL- > compatible (which it IS) > > Congratulations, your reasoning is self-contradicting. You really should read it again, you really misread it. # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Lars Hansson wrote: > Han Boetes wrote: > > In your definition of freedom you'd have the freedom to hurt > > somebody else. > > > > Good thing the GPL prohibits that kind of stuff, right? So that no-one > can use Linux to spy on the populace or use Linux to track down > "dissidents". Oh wait, it doesn't prevent that. Quote out of context. # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Han Boetes wrote: Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article: http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd Since it's polite, to point and factual. Yes, it's so factual that he fail to mention/understand that the BSD license *is* GPL compatible. The reasoning pretty much goes: * Linux rocketed to fame because of the GPL (a statement that is in itself highly questionable) * It's an important advantage to use GPL-compatible licences (an opinion, not a fact) * The BSD license has hurt the BSD projects because its not GPL-compatible (which it IS) Congratulations, your reasoning is self-contradicting. --- Lars Hansson
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Han Boetes wrote: In your definition of freedom you'd have the freedom to hurt somebody else. Good thing the GPL prohibits that kind of stuff, right? So that no-one can use Linux to spy on the populace or use Linux to track down "dissidents". Oh wait, it doesn't prevent that. --- Lars Hansson
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Harpalus a Como wrote: > On 10/5/06, Han Boetes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rod.. Whitworth wrote: > > > It says "Yes, companies could voluntarily cooperate without > > > a license forcing them to. The *BSDs try to depend on > > > this. But it today's cutthroat market, that's more like the > > > "Prisoner's Dilemma". In the dilemma, it's better to > > > cooperate; but since the other guy might choose to not > > > cooperate, and exploit your naivete, you may choose to not > > > cooperate. A way out of this dilemma is to create a > > > situation where you must cooperate, and the GPL does that." > > > > > > Look at the last line. MUST. Must != Freedom. > > > > In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, > > otherwise it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms > > is a good thing. For example freedom is most defined as `the > > freedom to do whatever you wish as long as it does not hurt > > somebody else,' well that last part `as long as it does not > > hurt anybody else' is what the GPL is about. > > > > In your definition of freedom you'd have the freedom to hurt > > somebody else. > > Your "freedom" is forced. Companies and individuals have no > choice in the matter, because it's required by the license. We > have the freedom to vote, but we aren't forced to do so. You > don't seem to realize that it's not freedom if it's forced at > the end of a proverbial GPL gun. Exactly! It's forced! # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Ted Unangst wrote: > On 10/5/06, Han Boetes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, > > otherwise it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms > > is a good thing. For example freedom is most defined as `the > > freedom to do whatever you wish as long as it does not hurt > > somebody else,' well that last part `as long as it does not > > hurt anybody else' is what the GPL is about. > > as rational human beings, i'm sure the openbsd developers knew > what they were doing when they decided they wanted to write bsd > code. coughing up the same old gpl bullshit isn't going to > change anything. I don't care what license _you_ choose, I never said anything that. All I said is what the GPL license is about. Oh, it's tedu misunderstanding people on purpose again. I'll never learn. > > In your definition of freedom you'd have the freedom to hurt > > somebody else. > > what else is a baby-mulching machine good for? # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
On 10/5/06, Han Boetes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, otherwise it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms is a good thing. For example freedom is most defined as `the freedom to do whatever you wish as long as it does not hurt somebody else,' well that last part `as long as it does not hurt anybody else' is what the GPL is about. as rational human beings, i'm sure the openbsd developers knew what they were doing when they decided they wanted to write bsd code. coughing up the same old gpl bullshit isn't going to change anything. In your definition of freedom you'd have the freedom to hurt somebody else. what else is a baby-mulching machine good for?
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Your "freedom" is forced. Companies and individuals have no choice in the matter, because it's required by the license. We have the freedom to vote, but we aren't forced to do so. You don't seem to realize that it's not freedom if it's forced at the end of a proverbial GPL gun. On 10/5/06, Han Boetes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rod.. Whitworth wrote: > > It says "Yes, companies could voluntarily cooperate without a > > license forcing them to. The *BSDs try to depend on this. But it > > today's cutthroat market, that's more like the "Prisoner's > > Dilemma". In the dilemma, it's better to cooperate; but since > > the other guy might choose to not cooperate, and exploit your > > naivete, you may choose to not cooperate. A way out of this > > dilemma is to create a situation where you must cooperate, and > > the GPL does that." > > > > Look at the last line. MUST. Must != Freedom. > > In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, otherwise > it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms is a good > thing. For example freedom is most defined as `the freedom to do > whatever you wish as long as it does not hurt somebody else,' well > that last part `as long as it does not hurt anybody else' is what > the GPL is about. > > In your definition of freedom you'd have the freedom to hurt > somebody else. > > > > # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Rod.. Whitworth wrote: > It says "Yes, companies could voluntarily cooperate without a > license forcing them to. The *BSDs try to depend on this. But it > today's cutthroat market, that's more like the "Prisoner's > Dilemma". In the dilemma, it's better to cooperate; but since > the other guy might choose to not cooperate, and exploit your > naivete, you may choose to not cooperate. A way out of this > dilemma is to create a situation where you must cooperate, and > the GPL does that." > > Look at the last line. MUST. Must != Freedom. In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, otherwise it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms is a good thing. For example freedom is most defined as `the freedom to do whatever you wish as long as it does not hurt somebody else,' well that last part `as long as it does not hurt anybody else' is what the GPL is about. In your definition of freedom you'd have the freedom to hurt somebody else. # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 03:00:52 +0159, Han Boetes wrote: >Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article: > > http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd > >Since it's polite, to point and factual. > >Instead of your rant which contains insults and lies. > It says "Yes, companies could voluntarily cooperate without a license forcing them to. The *BSDs try to depend on this. But it today's cutthroat market, that's more like the "Prisoner's Dilemma". In the dilemma, it's better to cooperate; but since the other guy might choose to not cooperate, and exploit your naivete, you may choose to not cooperate. A way out of this dilemma is to create a situation where you must cooperate, and the GPL does that." Look at the last line. MUST. Must != Freedom. Ve haff vays off making you co-operate R/ >From the land "down under": Australia. Do we look from up over? Do NOT CC me - I am subscribed to the list. Replies to the sender address will fail except from the list-server. Your IP address will also be greytrapped for 24 hours after any attempt. I am continually amazed by the people who run OpenBSD who don't take this advice. I always expected a smarter class. I guess not.
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Han Boetes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article: > > http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd Wow, I feel dumber for having read that. > Since it's polite, to point and factual. Its complete and utter nonsense actually. The linux kernel is used in closed source products all the time, it has no effect there just like it has no effect for BSDs. Linux got marketshare from a particlarly well known lawsuit that made many people avoid the BSDs, and a big group of people interested in nothing but gaining marketshare, which is not a typical BSD concern. The licenses have nothing to do with it. Adam
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article: http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd Since it's polite, to point and factual. Instead of your rant which contains insults and lies. And no, I'm not a GPL fanboy, I license most of my stuff under the BSD license, but I do have respect for the work and opinions of others. chefren wrote: > On 10/5/06 5:05 AM, Travers Buda wrote: > > Thats not very smart of intel, considering that OpenBSD is writing the > > best drivers for them with a BSD liscense for FREE! > > In general Intel is definitely one of the smartest companies in this > world, I don't like them that much personally but highly respect them > for almost all their work. You can scream in this small church about > license details but at this moment the world sees no difference > between varieties of open source. Even basic "open source" is a very > big step for companies and it's very hard to explain differences > between GPL and BSD and the clue behind the enormous success of > OpenSSH. Most GPL fans think they understand the philosophies and > differences between GPL and BSD and strongly tend to ignore the basic > results of the licenses, they think "Linux is bigger than FreeBSD so > GPL is better than BSD"). If I try to explain that only BSD is "no > strings attached" they say "but the BSD license requires you to copy > the name of the authoring person only copy left is without any > strings. And there I have to explain that in most civil countries > =everything is copyrighted= even for many years after the passing away > of the authoring person so its basically the law that requires some > sign that proves it's copy-left and only the author can claim. If the > claim is left, even after years someone might rightfully claim and ask > for real money if you use "unsigned" code. > > This is all far to complicated for 99% of the people in this world. > > The argument against GPL that works best for me during "discussions" > about it is that GPL is BSD with Digital Rights Management. Even GPL > zealots have an extremely bad feeling while hearing "DRM", again and > again funny to see their faces while it sinks in. # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
On Oct 5, 2006, at 4:39 PM, David T Harris wrote: When you say that the GPL is related to DRM, The point is that like DRM the GPL restricts what you can do and how you can use the code. The BSD license doesn't. what do you mean? I mean how is GPL related to DRM? Generally I try to avoid licensing discussions and what not and just focus on the technology, but I'm just curious in this regard. I know GPL3 has a lot dealing with DRM (or so I've heard) but GPL2 doesn't (supposedly, I really don't know). They do not preach that their God will rouse them a little before the nuts work loose.
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
> When you say that the GPL is related to DRM, > what do you mean? I mean how is GPL related to DRM? > Generally I try to avoid licensing discussions and > what not and just focus on the technology, but > I'm just curious in this regard. > > I know GPL3 has a lot dealing with DRM (or so I've heard) > but GPL2 doesn't (supposedly, I really don't know). Please -- let's not do that discussion here.
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
When you say that the GPL is related to DRM, what do you mean? I mean how is GPL related to DRM? Generally I try to avoid licensing discussions and what not and just focus on the technology, but I'm just curious in this regard. I know GPL3 has a lot dealing with DRM (or so I've heard) but GPL2 doesn't (supposedly, I really don't know).
GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
On 10/5/06 5:05 AM, Travers Buda wrote: Thats not very smart of intel, considering that OpenBSD is writing the best drivers for them with a BSD liscense for FREE! In general Intel is definitely one of the smartest companies in this world, I don't like them that much personally but highly respect them for almost all their work. You can scream in this small church about license details but at this moment the world sees no difference between varieties of open source. Even basic "open source" is a very big step for companies and it's very hard to explain differences between GPL and BSD and the clue behind the enormous success of OpenSSH. Most GPL fans think they understand the philosophies and differences between GPL and BSD and strongly tend to ignore the basic results of the licenses, they think "Linux is bigger than FreeBSD so GPL is better than BSD"). If I try to explain that only BSD is "no strings attached" they say "but the BSD license requires you to copy the name of the authoring person only copy left is without any strings. And there I have to explain that in most civil countries =everything is copyrighted= even for many years after the passing away of the authoring person so its basically the law that requires some sign that proves it's copy-left and only the author can claim. If the claim is left, even after years someone might rightfully claim and ask for real money if you use "unsigned" code. This is all far to complicated for 99% of the people in this world. The argument against GPL that works best for me during "discussions" about it is that GPL is BSD with Digital Rights Management. Even GPL zealots have an extremely bad feeling while hearing "DRM", again and again funny to see their faces while it sinks in. +++chefren
