Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
> but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend. think you'll struggle to find people here who claim to defend freedom. personally, i'm a believer and practitioner, i leave the "defending" to the mis-guided and the hypocrites.
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 02:32:05PM +0200, Siegbert Marschall wrote: > > You don't seem to get the fact that I'm not even talking about what's > > more or less free (in your definition). The BSD has fewer requirements, > > but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend. > > > ROTFL. I almost wetted my keyboard with the remains in the bottle of > water I was just about to drink... > > > but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend. > > Exactly. That's freedom. Being able to choose, even to choose to abandon > freedom. Freedom of choice. > > Keep on writing I am beginning to enjoy the show, you are getting better > at playing the clown Rui. > Please, don't encourage him :( Gilles
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
> You don't seem to get the fact that I'm not even talking about what's > more or less free (in your definition). The BSD has fewer requirements, > but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend. > ROTFL. I almost wetted my keyboard with the remains in the bottle of water I was just about to drink... > but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend. Exactly. That's freedom. Being able to choose, even to choose to abandon freedom. Freedom of choice. Keep on writing I am beginning to enjoy the show, you are getting better at playing the clown Rui. -sm
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: 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: 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 06:34:03PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote: > As ironic as it may seem, with today being the long anticipated release > of the very first working decompiler, the world of open source drivers > is going to get very interesting in the near future. In a few hours, > possibly days, after I've installed, read the docs and got a feel for > this thing, I could easily build a source code representation from the > vendor released Atheros binary windows drivers. Yep, all of the vendor > secret sauce and all of the vendor work-arounds for silicon bugs will > be sitting right in front of me to read... I advise against using it, as it will create an extremely muddy legal scenario over anything you write related to the code produced by that decompiler. I wish it wasn't so, but then I wished there were no proprietary drivers either :) > Rui, you're a bright guy and you've made an admirable attempt to posit > your views as well as support them with your reasoning but it's really > time to stop. I hope we can agree to disagree on a few things and still > go have a beer as friends one of these days. Even those who resort to insults can hope that from me, I don't dwell in the past, so you, who've been most polite of all, don't have anything to worry :) Rui -- You are what you see. Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 40th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:34:36PM -0400, William Boshuck wrote: > The evidence indicates that Rui is not, in fact, a human > being, but the latest (and possibly the most impressive > to date) application of the Dada Engine. I can mail you some biological evidence, if you want ;) *giggle* Rui -- Umlaut Zebra o?=ber alles! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 40th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Saturday 15 September 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:25:38PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote: > > > I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version > > > has the freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't > > > allow some users to loose freedom... > > > > Hello again Rui, > > > > the US. Over here, if you own a copy of a program, you can modify > > it as much as you want > > Good luck doing so without any source code. > > > Of course, you are free to have strong feelings about whatever you > > like, and hold opinions based on flawed understanding, but as long > > as you insist on remaining uneducated about the laws, you are > > failing yourself and failing your supposed "duty" to make things > > clear. Please stop. > > You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the > freedom to change a program because he has no access to the source > code. > > You stop. > > Rui Actually Rui, what we have here is a perspective gap. You think of things as a typical day-job programmer where your whole world is source code. I think of things as a reverse engineer where everything (source, executables, hardware) can be inspected, understood and controlled exactly as I see fit. If you had done the least bit of homework about the person you were chatting with, you would have realized I am far more educated in the field of reverse engineering than most people you might meet. Unlike most people, I actually do know what can and cannot be done without source code. In fact, my license for the newest and most cutting edge tool in the field arrived in my inbox this morning; it's called the "Hex-Rays Decompiler" and it's a brand new plugin for the IDA Pro Disassembler. As it's name implies, it can build a high level source code representation from nothing more than a binary. I've been involved with reverse engineering on a professional level for over a decade, and more than twice that as a hobbyist. For *me* bending a binary to my will is not magic, and certainly isn't a big deal. But like all code, it does take time and effort. Also, the result of modification of a binary can be more fragile than working with source simply because there are more ways to get it wrong. But again like all code, if you take the time to do it right, there is no problem. Modifying a binary is certainly not magic and is certainly not difficult. Uneducated, snot nosed kids regularly "reverse engineer" shareware and successfully disable copyright protection schemes. Search the web for the term "crack" and you'll see what I mean. Also you should realize the skill set of most of these software protection crackers is pathetic at best. When you get into real reverse engineering, such as reimplementation (or recovery), documentation, augmentation, integration, auditing, analysis, modeling and similar, the skill level required is exponentially increased but it's still not magic and it's still perfectly doable. Though over the years I've managed to learn (and forget) the instruction sets and architectures of more systems than most people can name, I'm by no means special. In fact when it comes to useful talent, I'm on the lower rung of the ladder in comparison to many of the people on this list. If you ask any of the openbsd developers on this list if they thought I was a godly coder of some sort, they would all laugh hysterically at such an absurd suggestion. And so would I. Whether you wish to accept it or not, each of us are only as powerless to change binary programs as we want to be. If you or anyone decides to be powerless, I don't hold it against you mainly because I actually know the pain, agony and near obsessive-compulsive level of dedication it takes to be anything other than powerless. As ironic as it may seem, with today being the long anticipated release of the very first working decompiler, the world of open source drivers is going to get very interesting in the near future. In a few hours, possibly days, after I've installed, read the docs and got a feel for this thing, I could easily build a source code representation from the vendor released Atheros binary windows drivers. Yep, all of the vendor secret sauce and all of the vendor work-arounds for silicon bugs will be sitting right in front of me to read... Rui, you're a bright guy and you've made an admirable attempt to posit your views as well as support them with your reasoning but it's really time to stop. I hope we can agree to disagree on a few things and still go have a beer as friends one of these days. kind regards, jcr
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 08:19:39AM +1000, Damien Miller wrote: > On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 09:54:10PM +1000, Damien Miller wrote: > > > On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > > > > > > You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom > > > > to > > > > change a program because he has no access to the source code. > > > > > > You seem to be entirely missing the irony of making this statement > > > in the context of an argument about software _reverse engineered from > > > a binary blob_. > > > > You seem to be entirely missing the fact that it requires extraordinary > > skill, which used in the defense of your arguments contradicts the freedom > > for all you defend, since it's only avialable to a select few, even among > > the already scarce select few programmers among the human beings. > > I don't know which of "my arguments" you are talking about in your > pontificating rant, because this is the first time I have ever replied to > you. > > Last too. The evidence indicates that Rui is not, in fact, a human being, but the latest (and possibly the most impressive to date) application of the Dada Engine. -b
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 09:54:10PM +1000, Damien Miller wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > > > > You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to > > > change a program because he has no access to the source code. > > > > You seem to be entirely missing the irony of making this statement > > in the context of an argument about software _reverse engineered from > > a binary blob_. > > You seem to be entirely missing the fact that it requires extraordinary > skill, which used in the defense of your arguments contradicts the freedom > for all you defend, since it's only avialable to a select few, even among > the already scarce select few programmers among the human beings. I don't know which of "my arguments" you are talking about in your pontificating rant, because this is the first time I have ever replied to you. Last too.
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Great attitude! As the main spokesperson for GNU this is exactly what you should do. Run run run!! You are in essence saying: go ahead break the law, I'll look the other way. Bravo! I am totally impressed by your ethics ramblings. On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 10:09:19PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > Please omit me from the cc list on these messages.
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
> Most people think it's magic, and most don't understand that I've always had the impression that OpenBSD is NOT "most people" They seem to be people who think it's actually worthwhile knowing what they are talking about. Seems like most people on this list think that you are incredibly dense and stupid. So at least as far as this thread is concerned, you seem to be an oxymoron (assuming you are that bright;)
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 03:53:02PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 12:33:02PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:25:38PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote: > > > > I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has > > > > the freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow > > > > some users to loose freedom... > > > > Hello again Rui, > > > > the US. Over here, if you own a copy of a program, you can modify it as > > > much as you want > > > Good luck doing so without any source code. > > > > Of course, you are free to have strong feelings about whatever you like, > > > and hold opinions based on flawed understanding, but as long as you > > > insist on remaining uneducated about the laws, you are failing yourself > > > and failing your supposed "duty" to make things clear. Please stop. > > > You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to > > change a program because he has no access to the source code. > > > You stop. > > Nonsense. It's similar to how powerless non-programmer people feel when > they report a bug and get told to fix it `since they have the source'. Most people think it's magic, and most don't understand that it may be as simple as adding a couple of lines (eg: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118232405007254&w=2) Compare adding that feature in C with adding that feature in machine code and then tell me how it is similar. > And don't get me started on all the linux code that is full of magic > constants, was written under NDAs, and is about as useful as binary blobs > for the people who do NOT have access to the NDA documentation... Yeah, it's a shame, fortunately the pressure seems to be working out (vide ATI). > ... or the people who don't care that ATI/nvidia doesn't give their 3D specs > as long as they provide binary drivers that work under linux/i386. Yup, very common, unfortunately. Rui -- Grudnuk demand sustenance! Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
This definitly has to be a joke :) You're pulling my leg, mister! ;) On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 09:13:31AM -0500, Tony Abernethy wrote: > So you admit you are incompetent. > > If you were really competent you would be able to read the blinking lights > and alter running programs via the swwitches. > > By the way, there is a difference between reading and writing. > But then, you seem to actually be THAT incompetent. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 8:48 AM > > To: Tony Abernethy > > Cc: misc@openbsd.org > > Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words > > > > On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:25:29AM -0500, Tony Abernethy wrote: > > > Damien Miller wrote: > > > > To: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra > > > > Cc: J.C. Roberts; misc@openbsd.org > > > > Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words > > > > > > > > On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > > > > > > > > You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without > > > > the freedom > > > > > to change a program because he has no access to the source code. > > > > > > > > You seem to be entirely missing the irony of making this > > statement > > > > in the context of an argument about software _reverse engineered > > > > from a binary blob_. > > > > > > > > > > Obviously he's never read machine code ;) > > > > I've written it, and swore never again to do so unless life > > depends on it. You have to be extremely skilled and with an > > excessive ammount of free time to make an argument based on > > that defense. > > > > Whilst the first case is a compliment, the second not really > > (but not an insult either). > > > > > Has the state of the art gone down that badly in the last > > forty-odd years? > > > Even I know better, > > > and there's people on this list that actually know something. > > > > Yeah sure, like OpenBSD is 100% written in machine code *giggle* > > > > Rui > > > > -- > > Grudnuk demand sustenance! > > Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 > > + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown > > Whatever you > > + do will be insignificant, > > | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi > > + So let's do it...? > > -- Frink! Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
So you admit you are incompetent. If you were really competent you would be able to read the blinking lights and alter running programs via the swwitches. By the way, there is a difference between reading and writing. But then, you seem to actually be THAT incompetent. > -Original Message- > From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 8:48 AM > To: Tony Abernethy > Cc: misc@openbsd.org > Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words > > On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:25:29AM -0500, Tony Abernethy wrote: > > Damien Miller wrote: > > > To: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra > > > Cc: J.C. Roberts; misc@openbsd.org > > > Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words > > > > > > On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > > > > > > You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without > > > the freedom > > > > to change a program because he has no access to the source code. > > > > > > You seem to be entirely missing the irony of making this > statement > > > in the context of an argument about software _reverse engineered > > > from a binary blob_. > > > > > > > Obviously he's never read machine code ;) > > I've written it, and swore never again to do so unless life > depends on it. You have to be extremely skilled and with an > excessive ammount of free time to make an argument based on > that defense. > > Whilst the first case is a compliment, the second not really > (but not an insult either). > > > Has the state of the art gone down that badly in the last > forty-odd years? > > Even I know better, > > and there's people on this list that actually know something. > > Yeah sure, like OpenBSD is 100% written in machine code *giggle* > > Rui > > -- > Grudnuk demand sustenance! > Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 > + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown > Whatever you > + do will be insignificant, > | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi > + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 12:33:02PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:25:38PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote: > > > I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has > > > the freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow > > > some users to loose freedom... > > Hello again Rui, > > the US. Over here, if you own a copy of a program, you can modify it as > > much as you want > Good luck doing so without any source code. > > Of course, you are free to have strong feelings about whatever you like, > > and hold opinions based on flawed understanding, but as long as you > > insist on remaining uneducated about the laws, you are failing yourself > > and failing your supposed "duty" to make things clear. Please stop. > You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to > change a program because he has no access to the source code. > You stop. Nonsense. It's similar to how powerless non-programmer people feel when they report a bug and get told to fix it `since they have the source'. Just because *you* can't reverse-engineer stuff doesn't mean other people cannot. And don't get me started on all the linux code that is full of magic constants, was written under NDAs, and is about as useful as binary blobs for the people who do NOT have access to the NDA documentation... ... or the people who don't care that ATI/nvidia doesn't give their 3D specs as long as they provide binary drivers that work under linux/i386.
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:25:29AM -0500, Tony Abernethy wrote: > Damien Miller wrote: > > To: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra > > Cc: J.C. Roberts; misc@openbsd.org > > Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words > > > > On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > > > > You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without > > the freedom > > > to change a program because he has no access to the source code. > > > > You seem to be entirely missing the irony of making this > > statement in the context of an argument about software > > _reverse engineered from a binary blob_. > > > > Obviously he's never read machine code ;) I've written it, and swore never again to do so unless life depends on it. You have to be extremely skilled and with an excessive ammount of free time to make an argument based on that defense. Whilst the first case is a compliment, the second not really (but not an insult either). > Has the state of the art gone down that badly in the last forty-odd years? > Even I know better, > and there's people on this list that actually know something. Yeah sure, like OpenBSD is 100% written in machine code *giggle* Rui -- Grudnuk demand sustenance! Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
> as if that would make all past wrong > arguments become true. Your subjunctive is derailed. Tweedledee is getting tweedledummer and dummer
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 09:54:10PM +1000, Damien Miller wrote: > On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > > You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to > > change a program because he has no access to the source code. > > You seem to be entirely missing the irony of making this statement > in the context of an argument about software _reverse engineered from > a binary blob_. You seem to be entirely missing the fact that it requires extraordinary skill, which used in the defense of your arguments contradicts the freedom for all you defend, since it's only avialable to a select few, even among the already scarce select few programmers among the human beings. Rui -- P'tang! Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:11:38AM -0500, Tony Abernethy wrote: > > Good luck doing so without any source code. > Teehee Teehee. No luck required. > It does however take a wee bit of skill and competence. > Actually, for exacting work, the source is a liability. > The source tends to make assorted bugs vanish. > > > You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without > > the freedom to change a program because he has no access to > > the source code. > Presumably you speak from your own experience and your own powerlessness. > If a programmer is competent, the programmer does not need the source and > the programmer does not even need to know the language. Assorted malware is > done without having the source. Very well it seems. > > To EASILY change something, the source is needed. > Acutally, the entire build environment is needed. > Just having the source is easily less modifyable than having an operable > binary. So your defense of that position is that the bar to freedom should be raisable at will just because some extremely few people can do that? That's rich. If life was *so* easy like you say, then you don't need specs, do you? You are so "in" the league that you can just go get ATI/NVIDIA's binary drivers and write a working one for OpenBSD. Go ahead! Make all OpenBSD users happy for having a free driver writen from modification of the binary version to a free one. ddate really chose an appropriate expression: -- All Hail Discordia! Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 12:58:36PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to > > change a program because he has no access to the source code. > > That is only because you are uneducated in the art of assembly and more > importantly there in the art of disassembly. That you are powerless > doesn't mean that other people are not. You'll never end trying to search for any far fetched point where you can be right, as if that would make all past wrong arguments become true. How funny. So you defend that freedom is only for a select few... At least you showed some honesty! -- Kallisti! Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Damien Miller wrote: > To: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra > Cc: J.C. Roberts; misc@openbsd.org > Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words > > On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > > You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without > the freedom > > to change a program because he has no access to the source code. > > You seem to be entirely missing the irony of making this > statement in the context of an argument about software > _reverse engineered from a binary blob_. > Obviously he's never read machine code ;) Has the state of the art gone down that badly in the last forty-odd years? Even I know better, and there's people on this list that actually know something.
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
> Good luck doing so without any source code. Teehee Teehee. No luck required. It does however take a wee bit of skill and competence. Actually, for exacting work, the source is a liability. The source tends to make assorted bugs vanish. > You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without > the freedom to change a program because he has no access to > the source code. Presumably you speak from your own experience and your own powerlessness. If a programmer is competent, the programmer does not need the source and the programmer does not even need to know the language. Assorted malware is done without having the source. Very well it seems. To EASILY change something, the source is needed. Acutally, the entire build environment is needed. Just having the source is easily less modifyable than having an operable binary. You're way out of your league here, sonny boy.
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:25:38PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote: >>> I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has >>> the freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow >>> some users to loose freedom... >> Hello again Rui, >> >> the US. Over here, if you own a copy of a program, you can modify it as >> much as you want > > Good luck doing so without any source code. Did you read the subject line in the last week? It states something about Atheros, remember that some very nice chap has reverse engineered the HAL for the Atheros and then donated that to the Open Source community under a nice license? Then some people thought it was fun to simply remove his name, change his license and break his copyright on something he worked very hard for. >> Of course, you are free to have strong feelings about whatever you like, >> and hold opinions based on flawed understanding, but as long as you >> insist on remaining uneducated about the laws, you are failing yourself >> and failing your supposed "duty" to make things clear. Please stop. > > You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to > change a program because he has no access to the source code. That is only because you are uneducated in the art of assembly and more importantly there in the art of disassembly. That you are powerless doesn't mean that other people are not. Greets, Jeroen [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to > change a program because he has no access to the source code. You seem to be entirely missing the irony of making this statement in the context of an argument about software _reverse engineered from a binary blob_.
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 05:29:31PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > >I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has the > >freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow some users > >to loose freedom... > > You make the point of using BLOB so well, Thank you! > > Looking forward to see you fight for documentation freedom and no NDA > that reduce and eliminate freedom. I fully support that fight! > But, lets not loose sight that a violation of a copyright was done, and > as it look from the outside was endorse here. > > Richard, I am s surprise by your silence as violation of copyright > are done by a movement you fight so hard to create long ago. I can't say > what to make of it. I ca't talk for Richard, but I see no "movement" doing such thing, apart from a few guys, who I should point out that I don't think they really share the Free Software ideals, in the Linux kernel community did those violations. And only on some files which were *not* dual licensed. Rui -- Wibble. Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 10:09:41AM -0700, Greg Thomas wrote: > On 9/14/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: > > > | I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble. > > > > > > Your exact words are "that's in the preamble, which establishes the > > > spirit" (I left them in my reply so you can see for yourself). So the > > > spirit is established. I can play wordgames just as easily as you, > > > let's not go that route, OK ? > > > > > > A spirit is established. Try to stick with the spirit, OK ? > > > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users. If one user > > looses freedom, the spirit is broken. So YOU stick with the spirit, OK? > > Hahahahahahahahahaha, how can you not see the IRONY AND HYPOCRISY in > that statement? Damn, dude, what reality do you live in? You are a > joker. Apparently you can't but resort to insults, surely you jest? Rui -- Wibble. Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:25:38PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote: > > I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has > > the freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow > > some users to loose freedom... > > Hello again Rui, > > the US. Over here, if you own a copy of a program, you can modify it as > much as you want Good luck doing so without any source code. > Of course, you are free to have strong feelings about whatever you like, > and hold opinions based on flawed understanding, but as long as you > insist on remaining uneducated about the laws, you are failing yourself > and failing your supposed "duty" to make things clear. Please stop. You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to change a program because he has no access to the source code. You stop. Rui -- Umlaut Zebra o?=ber alles! Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 00:30 -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
> Obviously you have missed some of my commentaries on the GPL vs. BSD
> philosophy. I don't hate the GPL. I dislike it compared to the BSD
> alternative in general (I dislike milk chocolate compared to dark
> chocolate, too, but either beats the heck out of, uh, most things. :)
> but the short version is, it boils down to which you fear more:
> Big Companies using your code and thus, you as a developer, without
> pay or allowing you to use their code.
> -- or --
> Big Companies NOT using your code, and rolling their own (inferior,
> incompatible, inconsistent, proprietary) crap instead.
A lot of big companies simply don't care. If there exists code they can
use without having to hire programmers, and without having to share
their modifications to the rest of the community, great. (And it still
amazes me that at least some big companies treat having to share under
the same conditions which let them get the code to begin with, to be
such a big deal.)
> I can make a pretty convincing case for either. However, as much as
> I'd dislike seeing Microsoft take OpenBSD code and ideas without
> compensation of any kind, I'd much prefer they use the code and ideas
> to not using 'em. But that's me. Not all may agree, and that's a
> good thing.
I'm sure they'd love to do it! Large companies like Microsoft *love* BSD
code. They can grab it, and at most, they have to give credit to the
developers in their advertisements and put the standard "AS IS" blurb in
the documentation.
> Your tone is similar to that of people who refuse to condemn the acts
> of vandals or killers simply because they are (loosely and self-
> proclaimed) of the same arbitrary group as they are. "An attack on
> them is an an attack on me, and we can't have that!"
I'm not saying the arbitrary removal of the original license from code
is wrong. I *am*, however, very much against the inexcusable slander of
the GNU project based on the views of a few (unfortunately)
less-than-scrupulous people.
> > Even though BSD-style licenses are compatible with the
> > GPL, there are perfectly acceptable social goals achieved only by
> > releasing under the GPL or a similar license.
>
> holy shit.
>
> The ends ("perfectly acceptable social goals") justify the means
> (theft of intellectual property)?
I never said this. If this is what you believe, state it as your own.
--
Shawn K. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 11:39 +, Sebastien Carlier wrote: > Rui, > > On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users. > > You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free* > than the GPL because the BSD license imposes *fewer requirements* > on distribution. > > Do you seriously believe people have to be coerced into being "free"? If you call the power to handcuff users to your customized code based on a BSD-licensed original an additional "freedom", then you're right, and you should be working for Microsoft, Apple, or some other company that makes their profits by putting walls between computer users. I don't call that a freedom. That's no more a right than the right to keep another human being as a slave. We (in the US) got rid of that particular broken system over a century ago, and for good reason. -- Shawn K. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Please omit me from the cc list on these messages.
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: > Paul de Weerd wrote: >> >> Scenario A, this code is released under the BSD license. You can take >> it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone. >> >> Scenario B, this code is released under the GPL license. You can take >> it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone. >> >> Where is the difference ? How did you avoid the social failure you >> spoke of ? >> >> I'll tell you where the difference is (with an example). You can sell >> your changed version in scenario A but you can not sell it in scenario >> B (given the 'never share your changes with anyone'-part). But you can >> use it all you like. >> > You can sell it in both scenarios. > What you can not do in Scenario B is sell modified versions of someone > else's code without providing source. When code is GPL licensed and you sell it (and thus re-distribute it), you will have to provide the source code, including modifications if any, by at least providing a way for people to request it and then of course actually get it. This is what has caught Linksys and a number of other GPL-code users as they are violating the license. The only way you are not obliged to provide the source in the case of GPL is when you are not re-distributing it. Eg when you have a company of 300k people and you only use the code+patches internally, all is fine and you can have your souped up gcc compiler or whatever. If another party (eg a customer) buys the thing though, you have to provide the option to let them get the source of you. > Neither the BSD not GPL licenses do much to limit what you do for your > own use. Correct. Though the moment you sell, you are re-distributing and then you will have to ;) [..] > Though for the life of me I can not understand why allowing a third > party to modify your work, refuse to share their modifications with > anyone and then > resell something that is primarily your work for their profit, is > somehow more free. Because it allows those people to actually USE your code in their products. With GPL it is not an option as they will have to disclose their work. > But the whole argument is just stupid. If you create something that is > copyrighted, as the author you are completely free to decide exactly what > rights beyond those of copyright you wish to extend. > > One license is better than the other only to the extent that it better > reflects the wishes of the author. I can fully agree with that ;) Stripping off the license from another authors work though that still is illegal. > As the author you can omit the license entirely - and just include > Copyright 2007 by Me. That preserves all available freedoms to the > author and entirely prohibits redistribution without permission. > Actually you can even omit the copyright notice too. Don't you just love the Bern convention :) Though any courtcase where it is not specified might easily be stapled as 'the copyright was not there so we can't know who owns it'. Thus wherever possible always tag ones files with a (c) this is also handy for determining prior art etc. Greets, Jeroen [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:06:56 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: >There's no blind so bad as that which refuses to see. There's nothing I >can do to change that. Pot, Kettle, Black. R/ "Write a wise saying and your name will live on forever." - Anonymous
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Friday 14 September 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 02:29:44PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:24:25PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > | > On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > | > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all > > | > > users. > > | > > > | > You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more > > | > free* than the GPL because the BSD license imposes *fewer > > | > requirements* on distribution. > > | > > | You don't seem to get the fact that I'm not even talking about > > | what's more or less free (in your definition). The BSD has fewer > > | requirements, but it allows some users to not have the freedoms > > | you claim to defend. > > > > And no, it does not. > > I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has > the freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow > some users to loose freedom... Hello again Rui, Though copyright laws and even more so, reverse engineering laws, vary around the world, I'll try to explain to you how things work here in the US. Over here, if you own a copy of a program, you can modify it as much as you want with the exception of circumventing copyright protection mechanisms due the DMCA. Prior to the enactment of the DMCA, you could do anything you wanted with your copy of the work. Though you may see "no reverse engineering" clauses in many commercial licenses, they actually are null and void because you have the right to modify your copy of the work. Of course, most commercial software forbids redistribution, so you cannot redistribute your modified version of the work/program, but the only thing stopping you from modifying a closed source binary application is your own ability. In the US, and in many countries, you have the right to modify any work to suit your personal needs. It's the law and no license terms can remove your right, so it is impossible for an end user to lose freedom. Though you are right that ordinary people have a responsibility to know the law and that lawyers are merely paid experts, you have none the less failed in your responsibility. You have obviously never bothering to read any of the copyright laws on any nation, or any of the relevant case law or findings, or any of the international treaties regarding copyrights. Of course, you are free to have strong feelings about whatever you like, and hold opinions based on flawed understanding, but as long as you insist on remaining uneducated about the laws, you are failing yourself and failing your supposed "duty" to make things clear. Please stop. jcr
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On 9/14/07, David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sebastien Carlier wrote: > > So, you are indeed taking the point of view that there is "good freedom" > > and "bad freedom", and that coercion is needed to allow "good freedom" > > to prevail. I am glad you said so since it is totally related to what > > follows. > > > > > Total freedom without coercion is anarchy. I never mentioned "total freedom"; I don't think it could be achieved, and I didn't mean to imply that it is desirable. What I wrote above was meant to call attention to the fact that there are different kinds of freedom motivated by different ethical principles or political agendas, and that claiming that the less restrictive BSD license is "a social failure that the GPL aims to end" is a call for heavier coercion machinery. Is this really going to end a "social failure"? > By adopting a copyright and a license BSD has rejected anarchy and > accepted the coercive force of the law. Repeatedly there have been > cries on this list to force the Linux/GPL developers into complying > with the BSD License. Yes, I understand. > The BSD License defines obeying copyright law, complying with the > license and crediting the original authors as acceptable restrictions > on one's freedoms. I support this entirely. > Failing to preserve a copyright/license/credit is a BSD example of a > "Bad Freedom" Again, agreed. > The only distinction between a BSD License and the GPL is the > author's view of which freedoms are good and which are bad. The point I wanted to make (but apparently failed) is that the GPL seems to encourage a more authoritarian and fanatical mindset than the BSD licenses, for which mutual decent regard would seem to suffice in most cases (perhaps I am a naive here), and which rewards developers by ensuring that they get due credit for their work. >If you are really claiming that BSD Licenses offer "total freedom", I am not, and there is a world between "total freedom" and armies of lawyers serving hidden agendas. The BSD licenses explicitly state which rights are granted and under what conditions, in a clear and concise way. It can not possibly be understood as "totally free", and I am as shocked as you are that some people think that they are entitled to take the rights granted by a license while disregarding the conditions imposed by the author(s). >make's no distinctions between the values of different freedoms, >and is completely non-coercive then why are BSD developers upset over >The Atheros HAL ? >The anger is because more freedom has been taken than your license >offered. I feel that the anger is entirely justified; I am sorry that my message was so unclear that it could be understood as meaning totally the opposite of what I meant to communicate. My sole grief against the GPL is its vulnerability to manipulation of well-meaning developers. > You can not have total freedom absent coercion, and copyright's and > licenses. > They are incompatible. Agreed. You can have a license that is short enough and clear enough that lawyers don't need to get involved at every step, that relies more on mutual respect than on coercion, and that gives users as much freedom as is fair for the author(s). I find that the BSD licenses achieve this, and this is part of why I switched to OpenBSD. The unequaled quality of the code and documentation was another strong motivation, and I expect to contribute code in the near future. -- Sebastien
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has the freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow some users to loose freedom... You make the point of using BLOB so well, Thank you! Looking forward to see you fight for documentation freedom and no NDA that reduce and eliminate freedom. But, lets not loose sight that a violation of a copyright was done, and as it look from the outside was endorse here. Richard, I am s surprise by your silence as violation of copyright are done by a movement you fight so hard to create long ago. I can't say what to make of it. Best, Daniel
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Thursday 13 September 2007, Marco Peereboom wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 07:09:09AM -0400, Nick Holland wrote: > > Free software: It's all about the price. > > The rest of the talk about "freedom", etc. is just trying to keep > > them from looking like cheap, greedy bastards. > > At least for an awful lot of 'em. > > I have to point out that I have been told on this list by a GPL fan > that the dictionary definition of freedom isn't correct. He was so > friendly to ask me who the hell I was to tell him what freedom means. > Freedom for him did mean free + random rules. > > For all the great things the GPL has done its followers really could > do some reading on that whole "definition of words" thing. RMS_Jones: "It's free as in koolaid." SadVictim: "Umm... no thanks." RMS_Jones: "Then I'll force you to drink it."
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Sebastien Carlier wrote: So, you are indeed taking the point of view that there is "good freedom" and "bad freedom", and that coercion is needed to allow "good freedom" to prevail. I am glad you said so since it is totally related to what follows. Total freedom without coercion is anarchy. By adopting a copyright and a license BSD has rejected anarchy and accepted the coercive force of the law. Repeatedly there have been cries on this list to force the Linux/GPL developers into complying with the BSD License. The BSD License defines obeying copyright law, complying with the license and crediting the original authors as acceptable restrictions on one's freedoms. Failing to preserve a copyright/license/credit is a BSD example of a "Bad Freedom" The only distinction between a BSD License and the GPL is the author's view of which freedoms are good and which are bad. If you are really claiming that BSD Licenses offer "total freedom", make's no distinctions between the values of different freedoms, and is completely non-coercive then why are BSD developers upset over The Atheros HAL ? The anger is because more freedom has been taken than your license offered. You can not have total freedom absent coercion, and copyright's and licenses. They are incompatible. -- Dave Lynch DLA Systems Software Development:Embedded Linux 717.627.3770 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dlasys.net fax: 1.253.369.9244Cell: 1.717.587.7774 Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too numerous to list. "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." Albert Einstein
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Paul de Weerd wrote: Scenario A, this code is released under the BSD license. You can take it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone. Scenario B, this code is released under the GPL license. You can take it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone. Where is the difference ? How did you avoid the social failure you spoke of ? I'll tell you where the difference is (with an example). You can sell your changed version in scenario A but you can not sell it in scenario B (given the 'never share your changes with anyone'-part). But you can use it all you like. You can sell it in both scenarios. What you can not do in Scenario B is sell modified versions of someone else's code without providing source. Neither the BSD not GPL licenses do much to limit what you do for your own use. Any individual or business can use the code as they please for their own internal purposes. If your definition of freedom is the permitting others to profit from your efforts WITHOUT atleast sharing their efforts with you Then BSD licenses are more free. If your definition of Freedom is ensuring that the freedoms you offered to everyone you distributed to must be extended to anyone they re-distribute to then the GPL is more free. Though for the life of me I can not understand why allowing a third party to modify your work, refuse to share their modifications with anyone and then resell something that is primarily your work for their profit, is somehow more free. But the whole argument is just stupid. If you create something that is copyrighted, as the author you are completely free to decide exactly what rights beyond those of copyright you wish to extend. One license is better than the other only to the extent that it better reflects the wishes of the author. As the author you can omit the license entirely - and just include Copyright 2007 by Me. That preserves all available freedoms to the author and entirely prohibits redistribution without permission. Actually you can even omit the copyright notice too. -- Dave Lynch DLA Systems Software Development:Embedded Linux 717.627.3770 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dlasys.net fax: 1.253.369.9244Cell: 1.717.587.7774 Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too numerous to list. "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." Albert Einstein
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
I have never claimed to be all that smart, so maybe I don't understand something. But I am wondering what this squabble over what this license says or what that license says is all about. My understanding of copywrite law is that the author of a work owns the copywrite. Therefore, that owner can decide if he wants to license that work or not, and gets to decide under what conditions he wants to license that work. The next guy that comes along can't just change that license because he wants to. Only the owner of the work can change the license of that work. The fact that the particular work in question has two licenses does not matter in the least. The owner of the work decided to put those two licenses there and the only person who can change that (legally) is the owner of the work. This seems so simple. Why is this so hard to understand? I have a car, I put the license plate on that car, I let my friend drive the car all he wants. It doesn't mean he can take my plate off the car and put his on it and claim that he owns the car. That would be stealing the car. I guess it's not a perfect example, but it's not too far off. s
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On 9/14/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 02:29:44PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:24:25PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > | > On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > | > > > > | > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users. > > | > > > | > You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free* > > | > than the GPL because the BSD license imposes *fewer requirements* > > | > on distribution. > > | > > | You don't seem to get the fact that I'm not even talking about what's > > | more or less free (in your definition). The BSD has fewer requirements, > > | but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend. > > > > And no, it does not. > > I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has the > freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow some users > to loose freedom... > Ability and freedom are not synonyms. I don't understand why you GPL folks need to change the meanings of words to get your points across. Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On 9/14/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: > > | I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble. > > > > Your exact words are "that's in the preamble, which establishes the > > spirit" (I left them in my reply so you can see for yourself). So the > > spirit is established. I can play wordgames just as easily as you, > > let's not go that route, OK ? > > > > A spirit is established. Try to stick with the spirit, OK ? > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users. If one user > looses freedom, the spirit is broken. So YOU stick with the spirit, OK? > Hahahahahahahahahaha, how can you not see the IRONY AND HYPOCRISY in that statement? Damn, dude, what reality do you live in? You are a joker. Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 04:06:56PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: | On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 02:29:44PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: | > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:24:25PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: | > | > On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: | > | > > | > | > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users. | > | > | > | > You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free* | > | > than the GPL because the BSD license imposes *fewer requirements* | > | > on distribution. | > | | > | You don't seem to get the fact that I'm not even talking about what's | > | more or less free (in your definition). The BSD has fewer requirements, | > | but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend. | > | > And no, it does not. | | I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has the | freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow some users | to loose freedom... If this modified version is released under the BSD license, it's under the BSD license and therefor the user has this right. If it's released under another license (with the copyright notice still intact of course), it's no longer released under the BSD license so your point is moot. Software released under the BSD license gives the user certain rights. Software released under another license may restrict some of these rights. | > What is released under the BSD license is more free (which is not what | > you are talking about). But all the users of the code released under | > the BSD license have the same freedoms. There's no difference for | > 'some' users, they're all the same .. even if 'some' users create baby | > mulching machines from your code. | | I think it is clear you don't grasp anything beying mere eyesight. What | about binary derivatives, do users who receive them have the freedom to | modify the program? That's rich! If the code is released under the BSD license then YES ! Is this very hard to grasp ? | > I know what argument you are trying to make, but you're not making it. | | There's no blind so bad as that which refuses to see. There's nothing I | can do to change that. Yeah, read on... | > What is released under a BSD license is free software | | Yes. Most definitely. | | > (in my | > definition more free than what is released under the GPL). All users | > of said code have the same freedoms (and the same duties : DO NOT | > REMOVE THE LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT NOTICE). | | No, that's merely all users who receive a copy from you. Not those | afterwards. Those users have no guarantee at all. If I restrict the rights of my users, there's new restrictions - yes. If I give (or sell) the code under a BSD license then those users get the same rights. Say, weren't you arguing this exact case some days ago ? | > Scenario A, this code is released under the BSD license. You can take | > it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone. | > | > Scenario B, this code is released under the GPL license. You can take | > it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone. | > | > Where is the difference ? How did you avoid the social failure you | > spoke of ? | | Try going one step beyond mere eyesight. The moment a copy is given to | someone else, in each scenario: | | Scenario A, a copy can (and frequently is) given without source code. | the receiver of said copy has lost freedom, allowed by BSD Exactly. | Scenario B, a copy can (and frequently is) given without source code. | the receiver of said copy has lost freedom, but since it is | forbidden by the GNU GPL, it is a copyright violation and | the giver is running into serious trouble... Exactly. So, that's pretty good. Looks like you read what I wrote hereunder. | > I'll tell you where the difference is (with an example). You can sell | > your changed version in scenario A but you can not sell it in scenario | > B (given the 'never share your changes with anyone'-part). But you can | > use it all you like. this part (where I say exactly what you just said) | Do you really think you are not allowed to charge money for distributin | copies of GPL'ed software? Who do you trust who told it to you? Are you | really that credulous? So .. maybe you did not read what I wrote ? And you call me blind ? "given the 'never share your changes with anyone'-part" .. isn't that *EXACTLY* what I said ? Let me spell it out for you *AGAIN* : You can not sell your changed version [in binary format] while keeping your changes to yourself. Again, I am making your argument and now you are just repeating me. Where did you get the notion that I would think you're not allowed to charge money for distributing copies of GPL'ed software ? I actually read the GPL once, you know. If I want to keep my changes to myself, under the GPL I can not sell my own version of the program. This is what you've been ranting about al
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 02:29:44PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:24:25PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: | > On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: | "Fewer words", eh? -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 02:29:44PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:24:25PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > | > On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > | > > > | > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users. > | > > | > You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free* > | > than the GPL because the BSD license imposes *fewer requirements* > | > on distribution. > | > | You don't seem to get the fact that I'm not even talking about what's > | more or less free (in your definition). The BSD has fewer requirements, > | but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend. > > And no, it does not. I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has the freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow some users to loose freedom... > What is released under the BSD license is more free (which is not what > you are talking about). But all the users of the code released under > the BSD license have the same freedoms. There's no difference for > 'some' users, they're all the same .. even if 'some' users create baby > mulching machines from your code. I think it is clear you don't grasp anything beying mere eyesight. What about binary derivatives, do users who receive them have the freedom to modify the program? That's rich! > I know what argument you are trying to make, but you're not making it. There's no blind so bad as that which refuses to see. There's nothing I can do to change that. > What is released under a BSD license is free software Yes. Most definitely. > (in my > definition more free than what is released under the GPL). All users > of said code have the same freedoms (and the same duties : DO NOT > REMOVE THE LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT NOTICE). No, that's merely all users who receive a copy from you. Not those afterwards. Those users have no guarantee at all. > Scenario A, this code is released under the BSD license. You can take > it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone. > > Scenario B, this code is released under the GPL license. You can take > it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone. > > Where is the difference ? How did you avoid the social failure you > spoke of ? Try going one step beyond mere eyesight. The moment a copy is given to someone else, in each scenario: Scenario A, a copy can (and frequently is) given without source code. the receiver of said copy has lost freedom, allowed by BSD Scenario B, a copy can (and frequently is) given without source code. the receiver of said copy has lost freedom, but since it is forbidden by the GNU GPL, it is a copyright violation and the giver is running into serious trouble... > I'll tell you where the difference is (with an example). You can sell > your changed version in scenario A but you can not sell it in scenario > B (given the 'never share your changes with anyone'-part). But you can > use it all you like. Do you really think you are not allowed to charge money for distributin copies of GPL'ed software? Who do you trust who told it to you? Are you really that credulous? Rui -- Wibble. Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:50:45PM +, Sebastien Carlier wrote: > Your point is that the BSD license is a "wrong" because it gives people > too much freedom. You just stated this again, even more clearly than in > your earlier message. No, I never said the BSD license is wrong, you said that, not me. What I say is that it doesn't fulfill the goal of preserving freedom for all users. That is the GPL's goal, and the only restrictions it has aim to prevent anyone from reducing the rights granted by the GNU GPL. > > In my point of view, that is a social failure, which the GPL aims to end. > > So, you are indeed taking the point of view that there is "good freedom" > and "bad freedom", and that coercion is needed to allow "good freedom" > to prevail. I am glad you said so since it is totally related to what > follows. No, again it is you who's saying those horrible things. I never said that. In my point of view, I don't like to see anyone removing freedom from other users, hence I grant rights with the condition they aren't removed. I think that's fair, and not protecting that is a social failure. Something that has failed is quite different from something that is bad. Many excellent things have failed in such a way along history. > We agree that we disagree, please could you stop the noise? You're adding noise too. If you are sincere about wanting to end noise don't reply. Rui -- Frink! Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
* Bob Beck [2007-09-14 08:14]: > * Craig Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-14 02:58]: > > Daniel Ouellet wrote: > Doesn't this simply sound like making free software developers > and users lose their freedoms and work they've authored? Who wins? > probably the people who want to sell legal advice to people about > complying with the GPL. I guess it's great if you're a lawyer. And before you think this is too far fetched - consider that the GPL v3, unlike the others, drags patent stuff into the muck. Whether or not you believe in this - because it's there means a lot more work for lawyers with any company that uses this code and has patents. If I were a lawyer I would see more use of the GPL v3 as being a definate bull market for my services. As opposed to something like the BSD and isc licenses which are simple and based in copyright laws that are more or less recognized internationally. Go look at an ISC/BSD license. then read the GPL v2, Then read the GPL v3 - which one do you think is going to make companies buy more lawyer time? If you were a lawyer which one would you rather have a buch of naiive computer geeks slapping all over code that later on companies want to work with? -Bob
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
* Craig Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-14 02:58]: > Daniel Ouellet wrote: > > > >Look to me if a corporation wanted to kill the open source, they > >couldn't pick a better way to do it and here the GPL is walking right > >into it! Or may be some guys are well paid to create the problem and > >destroy from inside what they can't kill from outside. > > Off topic, but there's a thought.. > Or maybe they wish to screw up both the BSD license and works licensed under the the GPL (v2) as linux uses it - so they can push forward the GPL v3 - which Linus doesn't like and won't distribute linux under. Let's not forget who the SFLC really is. They are an FSF spinoff. I'd love to belive they are who they say they are - an unbiased champion of free software of all types. But when one of the primary people involved in it is the author of the GPL version 3, and they start acting in ways like this that seem to be giving the people they are supposed to be advising very bad advice, I can't help but think there might be a hidden agenda there. I mean, what better way to promote a complex, vague legal document like the GPL v3 than creating acrimony between users of both the established and relatively simple licensing methods and then stepping up and saying "see see, we're lawyers, and this complex legal document is the way to fix it - put this on your code - you don't need to understand the implications or details, we say it's better, we're lawyers" Doesn't this simply sound like making free software developers and users lose their freedoms and work they've authored? Who wins? probably the people who want to sell legal advice to people about complying with the GPL. I guess it's great if you're a lawyer. -Bob
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On 9/14/07, Nick Holland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 07:09 -0400, Nick Holland wrote: > >> GNUspeak: > > > > These are definitely not the views of the GNU project. They *might* be > > views of the self-styled "Linux nerds" that think they are "k00l" and > > "eleet" because they read Slashdot, but to imply the GNU project > > espouses these views is, quite frankly, slanderous. > > Then why don't they fight it? > Why isn't Stallman or Torvalds or other prominents standing up and > saying, "This is wrong! This is not what we are about!" > I started using computers on DOS, then MS Windows, then moved on to Linux, then FreeBSD and then OpenBSD. I have never hated any community and I am quite thankful for what ever education and help I have received from them all. I don't know much about Stallman ( didn't care to study too ) except that he stands for some definition of freedom and he awarded Theo a while back with an award from his foundation. I don't know much about Linus either except that he wrote and maintains the Linux Kernel and for some reason he would not allow BSD code into it which puts some of the Linux Kernel developers in a big difficulty. The difficulty is that what ever good code which can be legally used by them cannot be used if it has a BSD Licence just because Linus doesn't like it. And that these developers very much want to use these BSD code that they persistently try to contact the authors of these BSD code and ask them to dual Licence it. I just wonder if they want to use this code so badly why do't they just cotact Linus and ask him to change his position. It is better to contact one person and talk to him rather than go behind all the various developers of the BSD code. Now I realize that having failed to convince Linus or the BSD developers some Linux developers who wants to use the BSD Code have just removed the BSD Licence so it will be OK with Linus and hired a bunch of lawyers to some how justify their action in court thinking that the BSD developers will not bother to spend large sums of money and fight in court. What is amazing to me in this regard are these two things? 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 thery 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 tupidity in public without their skin being hurt. Thank you so much Kind Regards Siju
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:24:25PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: | > On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: | > > | > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users. | > | > You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free* | > than the GPL because the BSD license imposes *fewer requirements* | > on distribution. | | You don't seem to get the fact that I'm not even talking about what's | more or less free (in your definition). The BSD has fewer requirements, | but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend. And no, it does not. What is released under the BSD license is more free (which is not what you are talking about). But all the users of the code released under the BSD license have the same freedoms. There's no difference for 'some' users, they're all the same .. even if 'some' users create baby mulching machines from your code. I know what argument you are trying to make, but you're not making it. What is released under a BSD license is free software (in my definition more free than what is released under the GPL). All users of said code have the same freedoms (and the same duties : DO NOT REMOVE THE LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT NOTICE). | In my point of view, that is a social failure, which the GPL aims to end. And in my previous e-mail, I tried pointing out that the GPL does very little to end this. Unfortunately, you decided to not respond to the arguments I made but in stead you replied with wordgames. For arguments sake, lets say I've written a program that is of use to many. Scenario A, this code is released under the BSD license. You can take it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone. Scenario B, this code is released under the GPL license. You can take it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone. Where is the difference ? How did you avoid the social failure you spoke of ? I'll tell you where the difference is (with an example). You can sell your changed version in scenario A but you can not sell it in scenario B (given the 'never share your changes with anyone'-part). But you can use it all you like. Please, don't let others make your argument for you. You look rather silly that way. [1] I warmly welcome your new wordgames. [2] Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd [1]: that was another insult. [2]: that too. -- >[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ +++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/ [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On 2007-09-14 12:24:25, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:24:25 +0100 > From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Sebastien Carlier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Paul de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, misc@openbsd.org, > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:39:10AM +, Sebastien Carlier wrote: > > Rui, > > > > On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > > > > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users. > > > > You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free* > > than the GPL because the BSD license imposes *fewer requirements* > > on distribution. > > You don't seem to get the fact that I'm not even talking about what's > more or less free (in your definition). The BSD has fewer requirements, > but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend. More word plays the confuse the dicussion, Eris would be proud of you. Your point is that the BSD license is a "wrong" because it gives people too much freedom. You just stated this again, even more clearly than in your earlier message. > In my point of view, that is a social failure, which the GPL aims to end. So, you are indeed taking the point of view that there is "good freedom" and "bad freedom", and that coercion is needed to allow "good freedom" to prevail. I am glad you said so since it is totally related to what follows. > > Do you seriously believe people have to be coerced into being > > "free"? > > Can you be a serious person and not divert arguments to totally unrelated > stuff? 10x. See above. Rinse and repeat. Also, it apparently didn't dawn on you that I was invoking Godwin's Law. We agree that we disagree, please could you stop the noise? -- Sebastien
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Actually I do get the point that you are not talking about. In my point of view, the GPL has NOT kept you from being a social failure. You are what you see --- I sincerely hope not. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Rui Miguel Silva Seabra > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 6:24 AM > To: Sebastien Carlier; Paul de Weerd; misc@openbsd.org; > Richard Stallman > Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:39:10AM +, Sebastien Carlier wrote: > > Rui, > > > > On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > > > > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users. > > > > You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free* > > than the GPL because the BSD license imposes *fewer > requirements* on > > distribution. > > You don't seem to get the fact that I'm not even talking > about what's more or less free (in your definition). The BSD > has fewer requirements, but it allows some users to not have > the freedoms you claim to defend. > > In my point of view, that is a social failure, which the GPL > aims to end. > > > Do you seriously believe people have to be coerced into > being "free"? > > Can you be a serious person and not divert arguments to > totally unrelated stuff? 10x. > > Rui > > -- > You are what you see. > Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 > + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown > Whatever you > + do will be insignificant, > | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi > + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
I stopped and thought. You are confused. All your issues are confused. My insane opinion is much more valid than yours. Are you Tweedledee or Tweedledum? Do you even know who you are? > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Rui Miguel Silva Seabra > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 6:51 AM > To: Jeroen Massar > Cc: Paul de Weerd; Richard Stallman; misc@openbsd.org > Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:27:51AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: > > >> | I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble. > > >> > > >> Your exact words are "that's in the preamble, which > establishes the > > >> spirit" (I left them in my reply so you can see for > yourself). So > > >> the spirit is established. I can play wordgames just as > easily as > > >> you, let's not go that route, OK ? > > >> > > >> A spirit is established. Try to stick with the spirit, OK ? > > > > > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all > users. If > > > one user looses freedom, the spirit is broken. So YOU > stick with the spirit, OK? > > > > And by removing the BSD license you are thus removing freedom. > > Please stop and think, you're confusing issues. > > Rui > > -- > P'tang! > Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 > + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown > Whatever you > + do will be insignificant, > | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi > + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:27:51AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: > >> | I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble. > >> > >> Your exact words are "that's in the preamble, which establishes the > >> spirit" (I left them in my reply so you can see for yourself). So the > >> spirit is established. I can play wordgames just as easily as you, > >> let's not go that route, OK ? > >> > >> A spirit is established. Try to stick with the spirit, OK ? > > > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users. If one user > > looses freedom, the spirit is broken. So YOU stick with the spirit, OK? > > And by removing the BSD license you are thus removing freedom. Please stop and think, you're confusing issues. Rui -- P'tang! Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:39:10AM +, Sebastien Carlier wrote: > Rui, > > On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users. > > You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free* > than the GPL because the BSD license imposes *fewer requirements* > on distribution. You don't seem to get the fact that I'm not even talking about what's more or less free (in your definition). The BSD has fewer requirements, but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend. In my point of view, that is a social failure, which the GPL aims to end. > Do you seriously believe people have to be coerced into being "free"? Can you be a serious person and not divert arguments to totally unrelated stuff? 10x. Rui -- You are what you see. Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Rui, On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users. You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free* than the GPL because the BSD license imposes *fewer requirements* on distribution. Do you seriously believe people have to be coerced into being "free"? -- Sebastien
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
No, according to your last email copncerning the introduction to the GPL, the purpose is to make people daft and unsorted. Are you Tweedledee or Tweedledum? Please sort yourself. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Rui Miguel Silva Seabra > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:13 AM > To: Paul de Weerd > Cc: Richard Stallman; misc@openbsd.org > Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: > > | I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble. > > > > Your exact words are "that's in the preamble, which establishes the > > spirit" (I left them in my reply so you can see for > yourself). So the > > spirit is established. I can play wordgames just as easily as you, > > let's not go that route, OK ? > > > > A spirit is established. Try to stick with the spirit, OK ? > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all > users. If one user looses freedom, the spirit is broken. So > YOU stick with the spirit, OK? > > Rui > > -- > Or is it? > Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 > + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown > Whatever you > + do will be insignificant, > | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi > + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: >> | I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble. >> >> Your exact words are "that's in the preamble, which establishes the >> spirit" (I left them in my reply so you can see for yourself). So the >> spirit is established. I can play wordgames just as easily as you, >> let's not go that route, OK ? >> >> A spirit is established. Try to stick with the spirit, OK ? > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users. If one user > looses freedom, the spirit is broken. So YOU stick with the spirit, OK? And by removing the BSD license you are thus removing freedom. Did you notice that? That is what has been repeated to you already a number of times. Greets, Jeroen [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Daft? Nobody here defended that (the GPL)? Are you tweedledee or tweedledum? > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Rui Miguel Silva Seabra > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 4:33 AM > To: Tony Abernethy > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; misc@openbsd.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 04:53:23AM -0400, Tony Abernethy wrote: > > GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE > >Version 2, June 1991 > > > > Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > > 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA > > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim > copies of this > > license document, but changing it is not allowed. > > > > Seems extremely unlikely that this would give a license to > change other license or copyright documents. Or that could > possible be the intended effect. I doubt it would be > legal/ethical/whatever to take something GPL-licensed and > re-license it as BSD-licensed (except with explicit consent > of the copyright/etc owner(s)). > > Are you intentionally daft? Nobody here defended that. You > seem to have your issues confused. Sort yourself, please. > > Rui > > -- > Hail Eris! > Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 > + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown > Whatever you > + do will be insignificant, > | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi > + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: > | I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble. > > Your exact words are "that's in the preamble, which establishes the > spirit" (I left them in my reply so you can see for yourself). So the > spirit is established. I can play wordgames just as easily as you, > let's not go that route, OK ? > > A spirit is established. Try to stick with the spirit, OK ? The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users. If one user looses freedom, the spirit is broken. So YOU stick with the spirit, OK? Rui -- Or is it? Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 08:42:13AM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: | > | 1. that's in the preamble, which establishes the spirit | > | 2. 4 paragraphs below you read: | > | | > | The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and | > | modification follow. | > | | > | 3. later on you learn the "precise term" which is "under the terms of this | > |License" | > | | > | So no, you're wrong. Don't bother defending your point of view, it's a waste | > | of time to both of us, more to you who will write it. :) | > | > First you establish a spirit. Then you go on totally ignoring this | > spirit in your "precise terms". Exactly why would you establish this | > spirit in the first place ? | | You just get so rabid when things don't play like you want it to... Where do I get rabid ? Which things don't play like I want it to ? I'm not the one claiming you're wrong just because I say you are, I don't ask you to not waste time replying because it would be senseless of you to do so, since you're wrong anyway. | I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble. Your exact words are "that's in the preamble, which establishes the spirit" (I left them in my reply so you can see for yourself). So the spirit is established. I can play wordgames just as easily as you, let's not go that route, OK ? A spirit is established. Try to stick with the spirit, OK ? | The spirit of the license is for everyone to have software freedom, not just | those who don't close up the source code. One of the ways it makes it so, is to | force passing on the same rights. It suggests to pass on the rights you receive, which is a commendable suggestion. As a user of BSD-licensed software I am totally in favour of this suggestion. The BSD license just does not force you to do this. And indeed, some companies take BSD licensed code and, in full compliance with the license, dont share their changes. It may not be the nice thing to do, but they have the right to do so. And since these companies are not generally known for being Open Source or Free Software advocates, there's nothing unexpected in this happening. There are, on the other hand, companies that do take BSD licensed code and share alike. Claudio Jeker posted an example not too long ago. They're not forced to do this, but they do it anyway, in the spirit of Free Software. And the GPL doesn't force you to do this either. If you take GPL licensed code, change it, and use it with your changes there is not a single word in the license that forces you to set that software (with the changes you made) free. Right up until the moment that you distribute the changed version, you can keep the sourcecode to your changes completely proprietary. | You try to clinge on these expression as trying to validate the absurd notion | that it forces to maintain dual licensing. It's false. If you chose the GNU GPL | as the license, then the rights that must be passed on are those granted by the | GNU GPL. Responsabilities too. Actually, I wasn't even talking about dual licensing issues. I was talking about the GPL which says you should share code under with same rights you got them. To me, this means "I get it with less restrictions than GPL, so I must share it with less restrictions." This is not in the BSD license, you can take the code and choose not to share, as you've so eloquently pointed out (to us, who already know). It's in the GPL. It may not be in the "precise terms", but it is in the spirit of the license. | > It's in the license, right ? | | The license is not to be read just at your convenience. There's more text, and | it clearly says "the precise terms follow". Don't ignore them when it's more | convenient to you. I'm not ignoring it. I'm pointing out that it's in the license. The spirit you were talking about is in the license. Like you are trying to tell me not to ignore your "precise terms", I'm trying to tell you not to ignore the spirit. I'm not ignoring the "precise terms", I'll take the GPL'ed code and patch it without ever sharing a single bit of my changes if I feel like it. But in the spirit of the GPL and the spirit of the BSD license, I'll share my changes, under the same license I received the code. | > I may be wrong there, but *that* is so utterly, completely and totally | > wrong that it is mindbogging why there is so much code released under | > so much verbiage which we now call the GPL. | > | > "You are my brother in spirit, but i'll steal from you anyway and | > totally ignore the spirit." | > | > You're not about free software. | | Of course not, I'm about the freedom of all users to run, study and modify, | as well as distribute (modified or not). Software is not a human being, and | Free Software is merely a tool to empower people. Again, playing wordgames. I was insulting you. You claim to be an advocate of free software, freedom to use software. By completely ignoring the wishes of other free software developers you are not living up
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 04:53:23AM -0400, Tony Abernethy wrote: > GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE >Version 2, June 1991 > > Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies > of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. > > Seems extremely unlikely that this would give a license to change other > license or copyright documents. Or that could possible be the intended > effect. I doubt it would be legal/ethical/whatever to take something > GPL-licensed and re-license it as BSD-licensed (except with explicit consent > of the copyright/etc owner(s)). Are you intentionally daft? Nobody here defended that. You seem to have your issues confused. Sort yourself, please. Rui -- Hail Eris! Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. Seems extremely unlikely that this would give a license to change other license or copyright documents. Or that could possible be the intended effect. I doubt it would be legal/ethical/whatever to take something GPL-licensed and re-license it as BSD-licensed (except with explicit consent of the copyright/etc owner(s)). I wonder what the reaction would be if everybody started releasing their own demented and perverted versions of the GPL ;) >On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 10:25:44PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: >| > | While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to >BSD-licensed >| > | code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar "share >| > | alike" license, based upon what I understand of copyright law, it's >| > | perfectly legal. Even though BSD-style licenses are compatible with the >| > | GPL, there are perfectly acceptable social goals achieved only by >| > | releasing under the GPL or a similar license. >| > >| > I'd say that it goes against the GPL. Yes, the GPL, not the BSD >| > license (or the ISC license), GPL. Theo already quoted the relevant >| > bits, but I'll quote them again : >| > >| > For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether >| > gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that >| > you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the >| > source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their >| > rights. >| >| 1. that's in the preamble, which establishes the spirit >| 2. 4 paragraphs below you read: >| >| The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and >| modification follow. >| >| 3. later on you learn the "precise term" which is "under the terms of this >|License" >| >| So no, you're wrong. Don't bother defending your point of view, it's a >waste >| of time to both of us, more to you who will write it. :) > >First you establish a spirit. Then you go on totally ignoring this >spirit in your "precise terms". Exactly why would you establish this >spirit in the first place ? > >It's in the license, right ? You say yourself that it establishes >spirit. Why not uphold this spirit ? It goes against *the spirit* of >the GPL, so I would pose that it goes against the GPL and that perhaps >the "precise terms" are misworded, missing the spirit as set forth in >the preamble. > >I may be wrong there, but *that* is so utterly, completely and totally >wrong that it is mindbogging why there is so much code released under >so much verbiage which we now call the GPL. > >"You are my brother in spirit, but i'll steal from you anyway and >totally ignore the spirit." > >You're not about free software. > >Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd > >-- >>[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ >+++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] > http://www.weirdnet.nl/ > >[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 07:48:46AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > I have to point out that I have been told on this list by a GPL fan that > the dictionary definition of freedom isn't correct. He was so friendly > to ask me who the hell I was to tell him what freedom means. Freedom > for him did mean free + random rules. > For all the great things the GPL has done its followers really could do > some reading on that whole "definition of words" thing. They still haven't caught up. 1984 was hip about 23 years ago. Now, it's so passi. But then, what do you expect from a movement whose founder still lives in 1968 ?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Daniel Ouellet wrote: Look to me if a corporation wanted to kill the open source, they couldn't pick a better way to do it and here the GPL is walking right into it! Or may be some guys are well paid to create the problem and destroy from inside what they can't kill from outside. Off topic, but there's a thought..
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Nick Holland wrote: Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 07:09 -0400, Nick Holland wrote: GNUspeak: These are definitely not the views of the GNU project. They *might* be views of the self-styled "Linux nerds" that think they are "k00l" and "eleet" because they read Slashdot, but to imply the GNU project espouses these views is, quite frankly, slanderous. Then why don't they fight it? Why isn't Stallman or Torvalds or other prominents standing up and saying, "This is wrong! This is not what we are about!" _VERY_GOOD_QUESTION_ Sometimes silence is golden. Other times its just plain yellow. (For those that have English as a 2nd language; "The color yellow has traditionally been associated with cowardice, treachery, inconstancy and jealousy." http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/myellowbellied.html)
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 01:29:43AM +0200, Reiner Jung wrote: > what have this to do with Microsoft? I assume nothing. Don't let us mix up > this topic. It's an adaptation of an expression, it means don't bother me, go see if I'm at (someplace I definitely am not). > The question here is not Microsoft again OpenBSD, Linux or ..., > the point is that here nobody should give any interpretation without > licensed to practice law. So let the specialist decide on the topic. (...) Frankly, why do you only get rabid like that at people who don't share your opinion? Why don't you go say that to people who write the opposite of what I say? They're not lawyers either... are you simply one-sided? Looks like it... Rui -- This statement is false. Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 08:12:55AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 10:25:44PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > | > | While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to BSD-licensed > | > | code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar "share > | > | alike" license, based upon what I understand of copyright law, it's > | > | perfectly legal. Even though BSD-style licenses are compatible with the > | > | GPL, there are perfectly acceptable social goals achieved only by > | > | releasing under the GPL or a similar license. > | > > | > I'd say that it goes against the GPL. Yes, the GPL, not the BSD > | > license (or the ISC license), GPL. Theo already quoted the relevant > | > bits, but I'll quote them again : > | > > | > For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether > | > gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that > | > you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the > | > source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their > | > rights. > | > | 1. that's in the preamble, which establishes the spirit > | 2. 4 paragraphs below you read: > | > | The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and > | modification follow. > | > | 3. later on you learn the "precise term" which is "under the terms of this > |License" > | > | So no, you're wrong. Don't bother defending your point of view, it's a waste > | of time to both of us, more to you who will write it. :) > > First you establish a spirit. Then you go on totally ignoring this > spirit in your "precise terms". Exactly why would you establish this > spirit in the first place ? You just get so rabid when things don't play like you want it to... I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble. The spirit of the license is for everyone to have software freedom, not just those who don't close up the source code. One of the ways it makes it so, is to force passing on the same rights. You try to clinge on these expression as trying to validate the absurd notion that it forces to maintain dual licensing. It's false. If you chose the GNU GPL as the license, then the rights that must be passed on are those granted by the GNU GPL. Responsabilities too. > It's in the license, right ? The license is not to be read just at your convenience. There's more text, and it clearly says "the precise terms follow". Don't ignore them when it's more convenient to you. > I may be wrong there, but *that* is so utterly, completely and totally > wrong that it is mindbogging why there is so much code released under > so much verbiage which we now call the GPL. > > "You are my brother in spirit, but i'll steal from you anyway and > totally ignore the spirit." > > You're not about free software. Of course not, I'm about the freedom of all users to run, study and modify, as well as distribute (modified or not). Software is not a human being, and Free Software is merely a tool to empower people. You don't have any problems with people locking other people out of code, but when it's to ensure everyone has access, except you because *you* don't want to, then it's all bad. This is shallow, IMHO. Fortunately I value OpenBSD because it's Free Software with a lot of technical merit, and not for words like yours. I even got the company I work at to buy CD's (sometimes they don't). To finalise, the FSF has said it doesn't want anything to do with this polemic, so I don't see the point in adding Richard to the cc except to make a fool of yourself. Bye -- Hail Eris! Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
lol it's always bullshit when it's not convenient to you, right? On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 06:28:12PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > Now if you'd advice people with something better than bullshit it might > be worth it. You have proven time and time again that you have no grasp > whatsoever on copyright law. You have absolutely no clue and it is my > duty to clarify this to the community. -- P'tang! Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 10:25:44PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: | > | While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to BSD-licensed | > | code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar "share | > | alike" license, based upon what I understand of copyright law, it's | > | perfectly legal. Even though BSD-style licenses are compatible with the | > | GPL, there are perfectly acceptable social goals achieved only by | > | releasing under the GPL or a similar license. | > | > I'd say that it goes against the GPL. Yes, the GPL, not the BSD | > license (or the ISC license), GPL. Theo already quoted the relevant | > bits, but I'll quote them again : | > | > For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether | > gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that | > you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the | > source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their | > rights. | | 1. that's in the preamble, which establishes the spirit | 2. 4 paragraphs below you read: | | The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and | modification follow. | | 3. later on you learn the "precise term" which is "under the terms of this |License" | | So no, you're wrong. Don't bother defending your point of view, it's a waste | of time to both of us, more to you who will write it. :) First you establish a spirit. Then you go on totally ignoring this spirit in your "precise terms". Exactly why would you establish this spirit in the first place ? It's in the license, right ? You say yourself that it establishes spirit. Why not uphold this spirit ? It goes against *the spirit* of the GPL, so I would pose that it goes against the GPL and that perhaps the "precise terms" are misworded, missing the spirit as set forth in the preamble. I may be wrong there, but *that* is so utterly, completely and totally wrong that it is mindbogging why there is so much code released under so much verbiage which we now call the GPL. "You are my brother in spirit, but i'll steal from you anyway and totally ignore the spirit." You're not about free software. Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd -- >[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ +++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/ [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 07:09 -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
>> GNUspeak:
>
> These are definitely not the views of the GNU project. They *might* be
> views of the self-styled "Linux nerds" that think they are "k00l" and
> "eleet" because they read Slashdot, but to imply the GNU project
> espouses these views is, quite frankly, slanderous.
Then why don't they fight it?
Why isn't Stallman or Torvalds or other prominents standing up and
saying, "This is wrong! This is not what we are about!"
Sure, there is no way they can get involved in every little issue that
comes up, but the GNU and FSF are all about their license they are very
proud of and defend strongly. I'd expect something out of 'em on this,
as the morality, ethics -- and yes, the law -- are so clear, and their
casual indifference towards another license is too likely to end up
blowing up on 'em in the future.
(my first response was going to be, "this isn't about the official
views of the GNU project", but then...they have been strangely silent).
>> "Give back to the community!" (which really means, "I'm the community,
>> gimme, gimme, gimme!")
>
> There may be some in the free software movement that think like this,
> but this is far from a majority view.
Of the PROGRAMMERS, sure. Duh. Thats' why they do it. Pretty much
by definition, people who give stuff away are..uh..givers. :) If
that's what you mean by the "free software movement", fine.
However, most of the people using the word "community" include the vast
number of users. I'm talking about the takers. Those who leach without
ever giving back. I think if I count the number of people posting
horribly offensive "You should do it MY way, and cater to MY needs
because I want you to" messages to misc@ to those that actually
contribute code (or any other kind of support) to the OpenBSD project,
you would see you are wrong.
Note: I'm not talking about people asking questions, even dumb or un-
researched question. I'm talking about those who say we are doing
something "wrong" who've never attempted to do better. The people
who say "OpenBSD would be more popular if ". The
people who post politely worded but ever-so-offensive messages that
make developers say to themselves, "Why do I do this? Certainly not
for him".
>> "Free as in Freedom!" (but "Free as in no monetary charge" beats
>> the hell out of taking a stand)
>
> Again, Richard Stallman's famous speech makes it clear monetary charge
> is not the reason for the free software movement.
I'm not talking about Richard Stallman, I'm talking about the people
who quote him and chant his words, then live very contrary to them.
I.e., not words of the prophet, but the actions of the "followers".
People wrap themselves in pretty words, then go out and screw each
other when it is convenient.
(Ok, I'm no fan of RMS. Or ESR. But I'm not talking about 'em.)
>> Free software: It's all about the price.
>> The rest of the talk about "freedom", etc. is just trying to keep
>> them from looking like cheap, greedy bastards.
>> At least for an awful lot of 'em.
>
> You know, it's fine if you hate the GPL. But I'll be damned if I just
> sit here and let you spread outright Goddamned *lies* about the free
> software movement and the people that represent it.
are you implying that the GPL & FSF *is* the free software movement?
Sorry, but I happen to ALSO represent it.
Obviously you have missed some of my commentaries on the GPL vs. BSD
philosophy. I don't hate the GPL. I dislike it compared to the BSD
alternative in general (I dislike milk chocolate compared to dark
chocolate, too, but either beats the heck out of, uh, most things. :)
but the short version is, it boils down to which you fear more:
Big Companies using your code and thus, you as a developer, without
pay or allowing you to use their code.
-- or --
Big Companies NOT using your code, and rolling their own (inferior,
incompatible, inconsistent, proprietary) crap instead.
I can make a pretty convincing case for either. However, as much as
I'd dislike seeing Microsoft take OpenBSD code and ideas without
compensation of any kind, I'd much prefer they use the code and ideas
to not using 'em. But that's me. Not all may agree, and that's a
good thing.
What I do hate is hypocrisy.
People who preach the love of God, and kill those who preach it slightly
differently.
People who say God is all powerful, then feel the need to "defend" him.
People in an auto-town who slap a UAW Union "NO SCAB PAPERS" bumper
sticker on their car made by non-union workers ("Solidarity for me!")
People who say "PROTECT MY CODE" while they steal someone else's.
GPL is so far down that list, it can't be called "hate". Not even an
annoyance really. UNLESS it gets slapped on someone's code without
their permission and against their wishes. That's not hating the GPL
in general, just the actions of some who pretend to support it.
(I love chocolate, but I hate to see it gro
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Steve Szmidt wrote: > On Thursday 13 September 2007 16:19, Theo de Raadt wrote: >> > > Reyk can take them to court over this, but he must do it before the >> > > year 2047. >> > >> > Except he took most of it from Sam Leffler who said it is OK to license >> > under the GPL. So while it's good to see you defending your code, it was >> > not entirely yours to start with. >> >> Reyk's work (the replacement HAL) is in seperate files -- it is a >> seperately copyrighted work. > > OK, I see that Reyk wrote it after Sam would not release it. I see that Sam > seemed happy to dual license it. Though it looks clear that Jiri Slaby was > wrong in stripping the license, which subsequently was not accepted by any > repository. No, Sam's code and Reyk's code are completely different. Sam has an open source driver and a closed source binary blob, the HAL. Reyk reverse engineered the HAL and wrote an open source replacement. Sam DID NOT open the HAL code, it is still a closed binary object. Can you see now why Reyk's code is so critical? Otherwise GPL and BSD developers have to include a binary object into the kernel, which is out of their control. They can not fix bugs in there and make sure it works with present and future kernels. NetBSD had to change their *KERNEL INTERNALS* just to be "compatible" with this one BLOB!: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118818182531027&w=2 So, please go read the Theo's messages again. http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118965266709012&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118963284332223&w=2 Multiple versions of wrong handling of copyrights have been done, by several people. All those steps have been published in public repositories. Some pulled back, some still there, Please do not spread incorrect information any more. > This action does not however represent the "GPL community" from what I can > see. Stealing work from one or the other has not been evident other than some > people being confused as to what came from where. Which is the chicken and > which is the egg kind of thing. Yes, this does NOT represent the GPL community. It is a mistake done by a GPL project that is either clueless in terms of how copyrights work, and/or got some bad legal advice. However, what they did is wrong, and the situation is *still* not resolved after all this time. What does represent the GPL community is their inability to deal with such problems. They think that OpenBSD people defending their own copyrights are the "enemies". They fail to see that proper respect to copyrights and an ethical understanding and collaboration between open source projects is vital to the survival of *their* GPL projects. > It is generalities which has bunches of people up in arms which of course > happens when there is not enough specificity. It is pretty safe to say that > most people are honest, but where misunderstanding can occur, it will. I have not seen one coherent response from the "community" that is "up in arms" that hints that they understand the problem. So, this "misunderstanding" looks like a common problem with the bunch. Can -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Now if you'd advice people with something better than bullshit it might be worth it. You have proven time and time again that you have no grasp whatsoever on copyright law. You have absolutely no clue and it is my duty to clarify this to the community. On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:58:43PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:50:31AM +0200, Reiner Jung wrote: > > as you are not a lawyer, you should stop to interpret any law, copyright > > questions or give any legal advice from your own interpretation. > > Go see if I'm employed by Microsoft, will you? > > It's in every citizen's duty to know about the law. Lawyers are merely > experts who deal with it for a living. > > > This will > > give a wrong assumption to the story. When there is a statement needed, > > please let talk the legals and until they give advise, you should stop your > > own legal advice. > > > > Maybe you don't notice it, but a wrong advice can people bring in trouble. > > Which is why on such absurd statements, like the one I corrected, I find it > is a duty to clarify. > > Regards, > Rui > > -- > Or not. > Today is Sweetmorn, the 37th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 > + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown > + Whatever you do will be insignificant, > | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi > + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Rui, what have this to do with Microsoft? I assume nothing. Don't let us mix up this topic. The question here is not Microsoft again OpenBSD, Linux or ..., the point is that here nobody should give any interpretation without licensed to practice law. So let the specialist decide on the topic. As I assume you are not aware of the law in Europe and maybe not the law in Portugal, please stop to discuss until we have the facts. Everything else will end in nowhere. When you are able to show any court decision about this topic, which can prove the facts, it will be fine. Otherwise let us wait for the facts. When you not notice, the hole "license" issue help not the Open Source community, it support the closed source vendors to argue again OSS. When this is your target, then continue. Have a nice evening. Regards Reiner On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:58:43 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:50:31AM +0200, Reiner Jung wrote: >> as you are not a lawyer, you should stop to interpret any law, copyright >> questions or give any legal advice from your own interpretation. > > Go see if I'm employed by Microsoft, will you? > > It's in every citizen's duty to know about the law. Lawyers are merely > experts who deal with it for a living. > >> This will >> give a wrong assumption to the story. When there is a statement needed, >> please let talk the legals and until they give advise, you should stop > your >> own legal advice. >> >> Maybe you don't notice it, but a wrong advice can people bring in > trouble. > > Which is why on such absurd statements, like the one I corrected, I find > it > is a duty to clarify. > > Regards, > Rui > > -- > Or not. > Today is Sweetmorn, the 37th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 > + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown > + Whatever you do will be insignificant, > | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi > + So let's do it...? -- Regards Reiner Jung Open Source Community and Business Consultant The-Ganghttp://www.the-gang.net/ Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jabber [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Community Company
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:50:31AM +0200, Reiner Jung wrote: > as you are not a lawyer, you should stop to interpret any law, copyright > questions or give any legal advice from your own interpretation. Go see if I'm employed by Microsoft, will you? It's in every citizen's duty to know about the law. Lawyers are merely experts who deal with it for a living. > This will > give a wrong assumption to the story. When there is a statement needed, > please let talk the legals and until they give advise, you should stop your > own legal advice. > > Maybe you don't notice it, but a wrong advice can people bring in trouble. Which is why on such absurd statements, like the one I corrected, I find it is a duty to clarify. Regards, Rui -- Or not. Today is Sweetmorn, the 37th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Rui, as you are not a lawyer, you should stop to interpret any law, copyright questions or give any legal advice from your own interpretation. This will give a wrong assumption to the story. When there is a statement needed, please let talk the legals and until they give advise, you should stop your own legal advice. Maybe you don't notice it, but a wrong advice can people bring in trouble. Regards Reiner On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:25:44 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> | While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to > BSD-licensed >> | code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar "share >> | alike" license, based upon what I understand of copyright law, it's >> | perfectly legal. Even though BSD-style licenses are compatible with > the >> | GPL, there are perfectly acceptable social goals achieved only by >> | releasing under the GPL or a similar license. >> >> I'd say that it goes against the GPL. Yes, the GPL, not the BSD >> license (or the ISC license), GPL. Theo already quoted the relevant >> bits, but I'll quote them again : >> >> For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether >> gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights > that >> you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the >> source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their >> rights. > > 1. that's in the preamble, which establishes the spirit > 2. 4 paragraphs below you read: > > The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and > modification follow. > > 3. later on you learn the "precise term" which is "under the terms of this >License" > > So no, you're wrong. Don't bother defending your point of view, it's a > waste > of time to both of us, more to you who will write it. :) > > Rui > > -- > P'tang! > Today is Sweetmorn, the 37th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 > + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown > + Whatever you do will be insignificant, > | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi > + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Thursday 13 September 2007 16:19, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > Reyk can take them to court over this, but he must do it before the > > > year 2047. > > > > Except he took most of it from Sam Leffler who said it is OK to license > > under the GPL. So while it's good to see you defending your code, it was > > not entirely yours to start with. > > Reyk's work (the replacement HAL) is in seperate files -- it is a > seperately copyrighted work. OK, I see that Reyk wrote it after Sam would not release it. I see that Sam seemed happy to dual license it. Though it looks clear that Jiri Slaby was wrong in stripping the license, which subsequently was not accepted by any repository. This action does not however represent the "GPL community" from what I can see. Stealing work from one or the other has not been evident other than some people being confused as to what came from where. Which is the chicken and which is the egg kind of thing. It is generalities which has bunches of people up in arms which of course happens when there is not enough specificity. It is pretty safe to say that most people are honest, but where misunderstanding can occur, it will. -- Steve Szmidt "They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On 9/13/07, Jeremy C. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have the printed, comb-binded, March 1987 Sixth Edition, version 18 of > the GNU Emacs Manual. It includes the 1985/1986 version of the GNU > Manifesto which says on page 244: > > If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative > programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they > restrict the use of these programs. > > The use of GPL itself is known to be restrictive to many. There are many > documented examples of this. > > (Should programmers using GPL be "punished"?? :) I think this is going out of context to the original issue, and only serves to muddy things up. Please go to the appropriate place to discuss licensing. -Tai -- "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > > "Free as in Freedom!" (but "Free as in no monetary charge" beats > > the hell out of taking a stand) > > Again, Richard Stallman's famous speech makes it clear monetary charge > is not the reason for the free software movement. At least at one time (and maybe still today), his goal was to destroy programmer's livelihoods. I have the printed, comb-binded, March 1987 Sixth Edition, version 18 of the GNU Emacs Manual. It includes the 1985/1986 version of the GNU Manifesto which says on page 244: If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs. The use of GPL itself is known to be restrictive to many. There are many documented examples of this. (Should programmers using GPL be "punished"?? :) Is there any legitimate example of OpenBSD's preferred license being restrictive to anyone? (I really am curious about this.)
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
I have been very quiet on this for weeks now, but this really start to piss me off at the highest level! The bottom line is original work was stolen and copyrights are not respected period! Dance as much as you want around it, hide behind lawyers, word definition twisted, false pretend, what not! The facts remains. Any half brain, even with a lobotomy on top of that can get that! Even a monkey knows when you give him a banana and when he steal it! I guess this gives us a reference point here to compare it to. This really make me loose any kind of respect what so ever for the FSF, SFLC, GNU and what I will have to call now the Evil GPL side all together. It never been my favorite choice, but I respected it before and understood why someone would pick that license, now, more and more not only do I dislike it, lost respect for it's use and now start to hate it badly too. Where will it stop! I for now now know for sure. I will never release anything under GPL EVER!!! Or even promote it's use. I see no good from it and no good intentions either from it's defenders anymore. Look to me they are pretending to protect against the evil Micro$oft empire and others, but look to me big time now that even Micro$oft is the nice guy here. Even Solaris and Sun finally start to see the light and come slowly on the right side. At a minimum, the evil Micro$oft like GPL clan likes to call them, respect the copyrights and you can see it in in their code! This piss me off so bad now that you can count me in as a partial funding source should Reyk decide to get his rights corrected and to put back the open source community where it should be. Working together for the greater good, not against one an other for the benefit of the corporation. I am sure for once they are enjoying this very much, and make no mistakes about it. The corporation have a lots more to gain to see this going down the tube, so I would see very much that they would be interested to finance such a case to discredit, destroy and remove the open source for their ways, and then get back to a "hold you by the balls" situation like it was many years ago! I guess this "Robbery" by higher "drain wash power" theft on one side, forget what they are fighting for! Just reminds me of many wars in the history, many times it's start for some stupid issue between two higher dictator refusing to see the common goods for their people and then after 20 years of fighting by others, everyone hate the other side, but they have no clue why they are fighting for and just keep killing, and none can tell you why it actually started! But the two dictator enjoy more power and control in the end. You want to control the mass, don't educate them, give them something to focus their thoughts and force them to fights without having the time to look back and you control them for ever. Look to me if a corporation wanted to kill the open source, they couldn't pick a better way to do it and here the GPL is walking right into it! Or may be some guys are well paid to create the problem and destroy from inside what they can't kill from outside. There was a lots of press a few years ago on how Linux was killing Micro$oft and it wasn't good for innovations and all that bullshit. Look to me, not that much anymore as it just couldn't kill it and more and more people was joining in anyway as a freedom choice. What happen to that now! Then just do what was done a very long time ago. Kill it from inside then. "Le cheval de Troie" Take your pick! Best, Daniel PS: Sorry for this writing and I do not want to write again on this. But rights are broken and stolen and it's wrong and needs to be corrected period!
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
> | While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to BSD-licensed > | code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar "share > | alike" license, based upon what I understand of copyright law, it's > | perfectly legal. Even though BSD-style licenses are compatible with the > | GPL, there are perfectly acceptable social goals achieved only by > | releasing under the GPL or a similar license. > > I'd say that it goes against the GPL. Yes, the GPL, not the BSD > license (or the ISC license), GPL. Theo already quoted the relevant > bits, but I'll quote them again : > > For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether > gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that > you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the > source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their > rights. 1. that's in the preamble, which establishes the spirit 2. 4 paragraphs below you read: The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow. 3. later on you learn the "precise term" which is "under the terms of this License" So no, you're wrong. Don't bother defending your point of view, it's a waste of time to both of us, more to you who will write it. :) Rui -- P'tang! Today is Sweetmorn, the 37th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Shawn K. Quinn Wrote: > You know, it's fine if you hate the GPL. But I'll be damned if I just > sit here and let you spread outright Goddamned *lies* about the free > software movement and the people that represent it. GPL is just a license, hate is a too strong word for it. We usually prefer to point out that it is not free (enough). There are people that represent the free software movement, and there are people that take the words of the GNU project and twist the meanings to suit themselves. This is what Nick illustrated, and quite nicely, I think. > I'm not cheap. I'm not greedy. All I am after, is the freedom to use my > computer the way I want to without Microsoft, Apple, Google, AOL, Adobe, > Real, or other large companies being able to step in and say "no you > can't do that, it's not in our (financial) best interests to let you". > For me, it's always been about freedom. I would think for most of the > free software movement that truly knows what's going on, it *is* about > freedom. Why take it so personally. It is not GPL or GNU that is being attacked here. There are always those that are misled or even malicious in every community. Sometimes it is just a lack of knowledge, or being overeager to achieve the goals. Such problems should be pointed out so that they can be fixed. What surprises me the most is the resistance from the community to recognize that something they did was wrong. There seems to be a lack of independent thought, most people are blindly repeating each other without forming an opinion themselves. Those people that care about freedom and open source and GNU is supposed to be an intelligent, open minded, community right? Otherwise they would just use Windows or whatever. > While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to BSD-licensed > code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar "share > alike" license, based upon what I understand of copyright law, it's > perfectly legal. Even though BSD-style licenses are compatible with the > GPL, there are perfectly acceptable social goals achieved only by > releasing under the GPL or a similar license. You are talking about derivative works here. Not every modification is considered original and comprehensive enough to deserve its own copyright. Otherwise, it would be just a matter of re-arranging and splitting code, renaming functions and variables, and there, you have a BSD licensed gcc (bcc?) Think about it ... Can -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 02:08:21PM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: | On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 07:09 -0400, Nick Holland wrote: | > GNUspeak: | | These are definitely not the views of the GNU project. They *might* be | views of the self-styled "Linux nerds" that think they are "k00l" and | "eleet" because they read Slashdot, but to imply the GNU project | espouses these views is, quite frankly, slanderous. | | > "Give back to the community!" (which really means, "I'm the community, | > gimme, gimme, gimme!") | | There may be some in the free software movement that think like this, | but this is far from a majority view. I doubt you have numbers to back this up (just like I doubt anyone else has numbers to back up Nicks remark, btw). | > "Free as in Freedom!" (but "Free as in no monetary charge" beats | > the hell out of taking a stand) | | Again, Richard Stallman's famous speech makes it clear monetary charge | is not the reason for the free software movement. I may know the wrong people, but for me, most linux users I know are in it for the low price and the 'fuck microsoft' attitude. They don't really care about freedom. They have the freedom (and the money) to pick and choose any OS and software they like, be it GPL licensed, BSD licensed or EULA-plastered MS-code. They enjoy the finger they think they flick at microsoft by using linux but they'll install all the binary-only software they want in a heartbeat if it suits their needs. RMS' free software movement may not be about finances, but both you and I don't know what Joe Blow the Linux user is in it for. I can only speak for myself and the people I've spoken to about this, and in my little world, Nicks words match more closely what I've heard than yours. | > Free software: It's all about the price. | > The rest of the talk about "freedom", etc. is just trying to keep | > them from looking like cheap, greedy bastards. | > At least for an awful lot of 'em. | | You know, it's fine if you hate the GPL. But I'll be damned if I just | sit here and let you spread outright Goddamned *lies* about the free | software movement and the people that represent it. Note Nicks "At least for an awful lot of 'em". I've come to think the same *in my part of the world*. It's not lies, it's what Nick (probably, I don't want to put words in Nicks mouth) and I have found. I know there are Linux users who're in it for the freedom. Quite a lot are, I suppose. | I'm not cheap. I'm not greedy. All I am after, is the freedom to use my | computer the way I want to without Microsoft, Apple, Google, AOL, Adobe, | Real, or other large companies being able to step in and say "no you | can't do that, it's not in our (financial) best interests to let you". | For me, it's always been about freedom. I would think for most of the | free software movement that truly knows what's going on, it *is* about | freedom. I'm not cheap or greedy either. I try to support OpenBSD development as much as I can. I try to test patches, I try to fix bugs (since I usually am unable to, I write up a bugreport), I buy the releases and t-shirts, I make financial donations and I send hardware around the world when developers ask for it. I do work for one of the companies you mentioned but I won't say your remark is slanderous or an outright lie. But I do hope you can appreciate that, at least for my employer, my view is different from yours. And for the people I know, my view is different from yours too. We may both be in favour of software freedom in one form or antoher, but our opinions can still be different. No need to cry wolf when someone says something you don't like. | While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to BSD-licensed | code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar "share | alike" license, based upon what I understand of copyright law, it's | perfectly legal. Even though BSD-style licenses are compatible with the | GPL, there are perfectly acceptable social goals achieved only by | releasing under the GPL or a similar license. I'd say that it goes against the GPL. Yes, the GPL, not the BSD license (or the ISC license), GPL. Theo already quoted the relevant bits, but I'll quote them again : For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. Your 'perfectly acceptable social goals' which can only be achieved by releasing code under the GPL are fine by me. I respect these goals even though they're not my own. But why not write your own code then ? The BSD license is permissive enough to have code released under it be incorporated in GPL licensed software. Why must the BSD licensed code be the vehicle for your 'perfectly acceptable social goals' ? And why, then, can bugfixes etc. not be fed back to the origi
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 04:07:38PM -0400, steve szmidt wrote: > On Wednesday 12 September 2007 22:57, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > Reyk can take them to court over this, but he must do it before the > > year 2047. > > Except he took most of it from Sam Leffler who said it is OK to license under > the GPL. So while it's good to see you defending your code, it was not > entirely yours to start with. > > Thus you see all the "horrible" GPL community "rip" you off. > You are so wrong that it is not even funny anymore. Reyk's OpenHAL code was completely reverse engeneered because Sam Leffler's HAL code was closed source. So how can it be based on his code if it is not available? -- :wq Claudio
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
> > Reyk can take them to court over this, but he must do it before the > > year 2047. > > Except he took most of it from Sam Leffler who said it is OK to license under > the GPL. So while it's good to see you defending your code, it was not > entirely yours to start with. Reyk's work (the replacement HAL) is in seperate files -- it is a seperately copyrighted work. Stop trolling and learn the how the law works.
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Wednesday 12 September 2007 22:57, Theo de Raadt wrote: > Reyk can take them to court over this, but he must do it before the > year 2047. Except he took most of it from Sam Leffler who said it is OK to license under the GPL. So while it's good to see you defending your code, it was not entirely yours to start with. Thus you see all the "horrible" GPL community "rip" you off. -- Steve Szmidt "They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
> 2) Like, duh, I understand perfectly well what his point is: to slander > the GNU project and its users. I re-read the message several times > before replying. out in the slashdot crowd, there is a trend to say anything neccessary to get what they want, including explaining away actual law and ethics. how do they get to the point of saying such things? it is a gimme gimme gimme culture. the letters written in the GPL and the BSD and the laws that underpin those licenses mean nothing in the face of gimme gimme gimme. if the GPL had words which would take away from them, they would attempt to explain those words away. noone is slandering those users. they're calling them what they are -- greedy and self-serving and wrong.
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 12:32 -0700, Darren Spruell wrote: > Before you embark on your storm in a teacup, re-read (and re-read > again if you still don't get it) Nick's message. It's clear you > missed/misunderstood half of the points he was making. 1) I'm on the list, no need to CC me. 2) Like, duh, I understand perfectly well what his point is: to slander the GNU project and its users. I re-read the message several times before replying. -- Shawn K. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On 9/13/07, Shawn K. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 07:09 -0400, Nick Holland wrote: > > GNUspeak: > > These are definitely not the views of the GNU project. They *might* be > views of the self-styled "Linux nerds" that think they are "k00l" and > "eleet" because they read Slashdot, but to imply the GNU project > espouses these views is, quite frankly, slanderous. > > > "Give back to the community!" (which really means, "I'm the community, > > gimme, gimme, gimme!") > > There may be some in the free software movement that think like this, > but this is far from a majority view. > > > "Free as in Freedom!" (but "Free as in no monetary charge" beats > > the hell out of taking a stand) > > Again, Richard Stallman's famous speech makes it clear monetary charge > is not the reason for the free software movement. > > > Free software: It's all about the price. > > The rest of the talk about "freedom", etc. is just trying to keep > > them from looking like cheap, greedy bastards. > > At least for an awful lot of 'em. > > You know, it's fine if you hate the GPL. But I'll be damned if I just > sit here and let you spread outright Goddamned *lies* about the free > software movement and the people that represent it. > > I'm not cheap. I'm not greedy. All I am after, is the freedom to use my > computer the way I want to without Microsoft, Apple, Google, AOL, Adobe, > Real, or other large companies being able to step in and say "no you > can't do that, it's not in our (financial) best interests to let you". > For me, it's always been about freedom. I would think for most of the > free software movement that truly knows what's going on, it *is* about > freedom. Before you embark on your storm in a teacup, re-read (and re-read again if you still don't get it) Nick's message. It's clear you missed/misunderstood half of the points he was making. DS
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 07:09 -0400, Nick Holland wrote: > GNUspeak: These are definitely not the views of the GNU project. They *might* be views of the self-styled "Linux nerds" that think they are "k00l" and "eleet" because they read Slashdot, but to imply the GNU project espouses these views is, quite frankly, slanderous. > "Give back to the community!" (which really means, "I'm the community, > gimme, gimme, gimme!") There may be some in the free software movement that think like this, but this is far from a majority view. > "Free as in Freedom!" (but "Free as in no monetary charge" beats > the hell out of taking a stand) Again, Richard Stallman's famous speech makes it clear monetary charge is not the reason for the free software movement. > Free software: It's all about the price. > The rest of the talk about "freedom", etc. is just trying to keep > them from looking like cheap, greedy bastards. > At least for an awful lot of 'em. You know, it's fine if you hate the GPL. But I'll be damned if I just sit here and let you spread outright Goddamned *lies* about the free software movement and the people that represent it. I'm not cheap. I'm not greedy. All I am after, is the freedom to use my computer the way I want to without Microsoft, Apple, Google, AOL, Adobe, Real, or other large companies being able to step in and say "no you can't do that, it's not in our (financial) best interests to let you". For me, it's always been about freedom. I would think for most of the free software movement that truly knows what's going on, it *is* about freedom. While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to BSD-licensed code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar "share alike" license, based upon what I understand of copyright law, it's perfectly legal. Even though BSD-style licenses are compatible with the GPL, there are perfectly acceptable social goals achieved only by releasing under the GPL or a similar license. -- Shawn K. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On 9/13/07, Claudio Jeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The FSF should take a deep breath and apologize to Reyk, apologize to > > Theo, apologize to OpenBSD and apologize to the open source community at > > large. > > > > While reading this I got a mail that OpenSolaris released the adapted > version of our malo(4) driver. > > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/laptop/wireless/malo/ > > Second sentence on the page is: > This driver is based on the source code from OpenBSD, and is provided > under the same BSD-type License. Bravo. DS
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 07:48:46AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 07:09:09AM -0400, Nick Holland wrote: > > Free software: It's all about the price. > > The rest of the talk about "freedom", etc. is just trying to keep > > them from looking like cheap, greedy bastards. > > At least for an awful lot of 'em. > > I have to point out that I have been told on this list by a GPL fan that > the dictionary definition of freedom isn't correct. He was so friendly > to ask me who the hell I was to tell him what freedom means. Freedom > for him did mean free + random rules. > > For all the great things the GPL has done its followers really could do > some reading on that whole "definition of words" thing. > > This copyright thing is a complete debacle and shows just how > disingenuous some of the linux people are. There is no way I buy that > the lawyers involved do not understand what they are doing. As a fan of > the following quote: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately > explained by incompetence" -- Napoleon Bonaparte > I do not buy that the FSF (yes I said it) lawyers do not understand > copyright law. Nobody with a degree in law is that stupid therefore I > have to conclude that there is malice involved. > > The FSF should take a deep breath and apologize to Reyk, apologize to > Theo, apologize to OpenBSD and apologize to the open source community at > large. > While reading this I got a mail that OpenSolaris released the adapted version of our malo(4) driver. http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/laptop/wireless/malo/ Second sentence on the page is: This driver is based on the source code from OpenBSD, and is provided under the same BSD-type License. So companies are bad and only "true" open source is good. Ja ja, sure. -- :wq Claudio
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 07:09:09AM -0400, Nick Holland wrote: > Free software: It's all about the price. > The rest of the talk about "freedom", etc. is just trying to keep > them from looking like cheap, greedy bastards. > At least for an awful lot of 'em. I have to point out that I have been told on this list by a GPL fan that the dictionary definition of freedom isn't correct. He was so friendly to ask me who the hell I was to tell him what freedom means. Freedom for him did mean free + random rules. For all the great things the GPL has done its followers really could do some reading on that whole "definition of words" thing. This copyright thing is a complete debacle and shows just how disingenuous some of the linux people are. There is no way I buy that the lawyers involved do not understand what they are doing. As a fan of the following quote: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence" -- Napoleon Bonaparte I do not buy that the FSF (yes I said it) lawyers do not understand copyright law. Nobody with a degree in law is that stupid therefore I have to conclude that there is malice involved. The FSF should take a deep breath and apologize to Reyk, apologize to Theo, apologize to OpenBSD and apologize to the open source community at large.
Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
Theo de Raadt wrote:
> I recognize that writeup about the Atheros / Linux / SFLC story is a
> bit complex, so I wrote a very simple explanation to someone, and they
> liked it's clarity so much that they asked me to post it for everyone.
> Here it is (with a few more changes)
>
> -
> starting premise:
>
>you can already use the code as it is
>
> steps taken:
>
> 1. pester developer for a year to get it under another license.
>- get told no, repeatedly
>
> 2. climb over ethical fence
>
> 3. remove his license
>- get caught, look a bit stupid
>
> 4. wrap his license with your own
>- get caught, look really stupid
>
> 5. assert copyright under author's license, without original work
>- get caught, look even more stupid
>
> Right now the wireless linux developers -- aided by an entire team of
> evidently unskilled lawyers -- are at step 5, and we don't know what
> will happen next. We wait, to see what will happen.
>
> Reyk can take them to court over this, but he must do it before the
> year 2047.
As you indicated in a previous posting, this does seem to point a
way to accomplish the long-desired goal of a BSD-licensed compiler
set, doesn't it? Heck, using this process, I can become a coder!
src/, here I come!
Not sure why anyone is surprised here. They have long demonstrated
their (re)definitions of commonly used words and phrases. GNUspeak:
"Open Source is THE WAY!" (unless, of course, there's a binary blob
around, which is more than sufficient)
"Give back to the community!" (which really means, "I'm the community,
gimme, gimme, gimme!")
"Free as in Freedom!" (but "Free as in no monetary charge" beats
the hell out of taking a stand)
"Respect our license!" (your license is not worth the bits its stored
in)
GPL is the way! It's our way, we'll make it your way, too.
"Theo's a loud-mouthed jerk!" ("but we'll happily benefit from his
work, while we pretend to be the nice guys")
"Hardware vendors should respect alternative OSs!" (Ok, they support
mine, that's good enough)
"OS Diversity is good!" (but "My distro's bigger than yours!" Damn,
guys, if that's the goal, Windows wins, everyone else is a loser)
Not that certain other "free" software people are all that much
different from the Linux fannerds.
Free software: It's all about the price.
The rest of the talk about "freedom", etc. is just trying to keep
them from looking like cheap, greedy bastards.
At least for an awful lot of 'em.
Nick.
The Atheros story in much fewer words
I recognize that writeup about the Atheros / Linux / SFLC story is a bit complex, so I wrote a very simple explanation to someone, and they liked it's clarity so much that they asked me to post it for everyone. Here it is (with a few more changes) - starting premise: you can already use the code as it is steps taken: 1. pester developer for a year to get it under another license. - get told no, repeatedly 2. climb over ethical fence 3. remove his license - get caught, look a bit stupid 4. wrap his license with your own - get caught, look really stupid 5. assert copyright under author's license, without original work - get caught, look even more stupid Right now the wireless linux developers -- aided by an entire team of evidently unskilled lawyers -- are at step 5, and we don't know what will happen next. We wait, to see what will happen. Reyk can take them to court over this, but he must do it before the year 2047.
