Re: [opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade [OT]
John Summerfield wrote: On Thursday 22 March 2007 12:37, M Harris wrote: Fanatical ranting with never persuade anyone with the ability to think, to question. I dislike attacks based purely on the way in which an argument is presented more than fanatical rantings. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade
On Friday 23 March 2007 21:07, M Harris wrote: On Friday 23 March 2007 16:08, Robert Smits wrote: hi Bob, thanks for your comments, And I think that the distinctions being made between Free and Open Source are not worth fighting over. When you read the definition of Open Source at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php and then look at the FSF at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html for their definition of Free software it certainly doesn't look like there is very much, if any practical difference. You are correct in that from a practical standpoint there is not much difference, at least as far as good open software goes. You are also correct that the difference is not worth fighting over. However, you might consider that the difference (freedom) is still worth fighting for. The practical aspects of open source have been touted (for good business reason) and have largely been successful; however, freedom is seldom mentioned... and that is not a mute point. The practical ends are very similar... good open software; However, the motivations (goals and values) of each are markedly different... and it is those very goals and values of free software that are under attack by M$--- exacerbated via capitulation by Novell. What is worth fighting over is the right to use, to create, and to modify non-proprietary software. You insist there is this vast difference between Open Source and Free Software - I don't see such a vast difference. The difference is freedom. Not all open source software is free (as in freedom) nor are the goals and values of free software advocates necessarily promoted via open source software. I highly recommend this article by RMS explaining why open source is missing the point of Free Software: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html (good, that saved me five pages of paraphrasing) When I look at the article you point to, I see that RMS defines free software thus: When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. When I look at the definition of Open Source, it says the following: Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: 1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. This certainly appears to meet the first and fourth freedom of RMS's statements about running and redistribution. 2. Source Code The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicised means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. This appears to meet the requirement that we have the freedom to study it, since we get the source code. 3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. Here we appear to have the right to modify and make changes and re-distribute the software. I've left the rest of the definition here for the sake of completeness, but as far as I can see, none of the other provisions are in any way opposed to the four freedoms announced by RMS. What freedom is missing? 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of patch files with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. 7. Distribution of License The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is
Re: [opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The Saturday 2007-03-24 at 08:48 -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote: And many more examples. My country oficial tax program runs only in windows. Take it or leave it... So I keep a windows partition. Have to. And, since you are required to maintain a windoz install, you are allowed a deduction of the purchase cost and your time-to-install, are you not? :^) You gotta be kiddin. :-P Actually, I can pop into a tax office and they will do the papers and calculations for free. If you can trust them... - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGBxTntTMYHG2NR9URAnoLAJ9fHak/Qur95EL8AzCS/iBCsv4zwgCcD22o oQogEOp8zjjHdh2jAAqLo2Q= =L+lw -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2007-03-23 at 22:31 -0700, David Brodbeck wrote: I respect the sort of purity of principle you're going for, here, but it's a bit like declaring that you will only drive cars that run on hydrogen. It's noble, but you won't be taking many trips. What good is ideologically pure software that no one uses because it's impractical? ... etc To put it short: I agree with all what you said in this email. but very few open-source accounting packages. There are dozens of different open-source window managers but no industrial-quality CAD programs. And many more examples. My country oficial tax program runs only in windows. Take it or leave it... So I keep a windows partition. Have to. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGBQJNtTMYHG2NR9URAmj0AJwKx+wHauPQkXz4SJPQfUaAg9nB/gCdHox9 VxRexcy0IpQcgLmhhOLgfuw= =20Jf -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade
* Carlos E. R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [03-24-07 06:52]: [...] And many more examples. My country oficial tax program runs only in windows. Take it or leave it... So I keep a windows partition. Have to. And, since you are required to maintain a windoz install, you are allowed a deduction of the purchase cost and your time-to-install, are you not? :^) -- Patrick ShanahanRegistered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org@ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 OpenSUSE Linux http://en.opensuse.org/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade
On Thursday 22 March 2007 10:54, M Harris wrote: ... it is essential to differentiate two important camps within the F/OSS community. There are those who champion open source software. There are also those who champion free (as in freedom) software... like myself, and like the FSF. The two are related, but the two are vastly different in terms of motivation and affiliation. And I think that the distinctions being made between Free and Open Source are not worth fighting over. When you read the definition of Open Source at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php and then look at the FSF at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html for their definition of Free software it certainly doesn't look like there is very much, if any practical difference. What is worth fighting over is the right to use, to create, and to modify non-proprietary software. You insist there is this vast difference between Open Source and Free Software - I don't see such a vast difference. What I do see is that fighting about whether Free or Open Source is the correct model diverts people from dealing with the real enemy - those that want us all in a proprietary, locked down world of copywrongs and patents and DRM. The M$-Novell deal might be good in the short term for OSS, and maybe even for Novell... but the M$-Novell deal is detrimental to free (as in freedom) software. I could care less about interoperability--- doesn't affect me. Well interoperability does affect many of the rest of us. We don't live in a world where there aren't real costs to adopting free or open-source software. Interoperability removes barriers to adoption of free or open-source software. The more people who have and use free or open-source software, the more allies we can enlist in overcoming the proprietary world. The question is not whether a piece of software is open source or not... the question is also not whether some IT manager has to hassle with Linux being able to work seamlessly with the knot-headed M$ product line... the real question is whether software is free, and whether software users have freedom--- freedom of choice and freedom useage. The question ought to be whether people can do the work they need to do with free or open-source software or not. If they cannot - either because the software hasn't been written in an free or open-source software version or the free or open-source software version doesn't do what the user needs then they are much less likely to adopt free or open-source software and instead will stick to the proprietary versions. That's why I'm glad to see, for example, the ability to read the new M$ Office file format for documents being supported in Open Office. Because I NEED the ability, at work, on my Linux computer, to read files sent by those still stuck in the M$ world. It's not because I want to generate them it's because I need to be able to read them. So interoperability is really useful even if all the software you use is non-proprietary. M$ has strategically targeted freedom, and she is going to leverage Novell against that agenda. This is not just about embrace, extend, extinguish sad to say. This issue goes way beyond that this time around... the goal is to destroy freedom... this is something against which the FSF has devoted many hard long hours to fight and is still faithful to fight for. This is not religious zeal... its about choice and propriety--- freedom of expression, and freedom of extention, and freedom of innovation. I'm not arguing against the view that M$ has that kind of long range agenda. I don't, however, see that the Novell - M$ agreement moves us down that road. Linus may not be on a crusade... but the FSF is. Novell isn't on a crusade either... they're just dressed out to make a buck like everyone else. And your point is that being a crusader lends you credibility? The FSF is on a crusade--- and the crusaders are not fighting windmills. OSS will not be hurt in the slightest at this point. OSS has finally hit critical mass--- there is no stopping that now. However, freedom is still very much hanging in the balance. The GPLv3 is not perfect, but it is closing in on the real issues, and it *is* going to make a difference. Unfortunately, what it may also do is further excaberate the divisions in the non-proprietary software community. If many of those, like Linus, can't agree to use GPLv3 in its present form, are we going to see more energy dissipated in arguing about which distro can use which software instead of enabling all distros to better combat M$ and Apple? Computer systems should be free tools... not owned/controlled by Ballmer Gates. I suspect you mean that everyone should be able to freely choose whatever software they want to use on their computer, and in that I completely concur. If you mean that everyone should get computers at no cost,
Re: [opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade
On Friday 23 March 2007 16:08, Robert Smits wrote: hi Bob, thanks for your comments, And I think that the distinctions being made between Free and Open Source are not worth fighting over. When you read the definition of Open Source at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php and then look at the FSF at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html for their definition of Free software it certainly doesn't look like there is very much, if any practical difference. You are correct in that from a practical standpoint there is not much difference, at least as far as good open software goes. You are also correct that the difference is not worth fighting over. However, you might consider that the difference (freedom) is still worth fighting for. The practical aspects of open source have been touted (for good business reason) and have largely been successful; however, freedom is seldom mentioned... and that is not a mute point. The practical ends are very similar... good open software; However, the motivations (goals and values) of each are markedly different... and it is those very goals and values of free software that are under attack by M$--- exacerbated via capitulation by Novell. What is worth fighting over is the right to use, to create, and to modify non-proprietary software. You insist there is this vast difference between Open Source and Free Software - I don't see such a vast difference. The difference is freedom. Not all open source software is free (as in freedom) nor are the goals and values of free software advocates necessarily promoted via open source software. I highly recommend this article by RMS explaining why open source is missing the point of Free Software: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html (good, that saved me five pages of paraphrasing) What I do see is that fighting about whether Free or Open Source is the correct model diverts people from dealing with the real enemy - those that want us all in a proprietary, locked down world of copywrongs and patents and DRM. That is not without some truth; which is why we must state again and again that the enemy is *not* open source proponents (as such) but proprietary software. Its like having a problem in the family... both partners (spouses) need to focus on the problem and not make the other spouse into the problem. Well interoperability does affect many of the rest of us. We don't live in a world where there aren't real costs to adopting free or open-source software. Interoperability removes barriers to adoption of free or open-source software. The more people who have and use free or open-source software, the more allies we can enlist in overcoming the proprietary world. I understand this as well; however, think beyond M$ to MP3 or Flash. We should *never* capitulate to the enemy over their formats... if the format is closed we don't use it--- period. If I can't read your format... I don't need your format. If more folks stood their ground on this point *everyone* would begin using *free* formats, and *free* software. To use RMS' analogy (tired as it is) think free access (as in freedom) instead of price (as in free beer). The question ought to be whether people can do the work they need to do with free or open-source software or not. If they cannot - either because the software hasn't been written in an free or open-source software version or the free or open-source software version doesn't do what the user needs then they are much less likely to adopt free or open-source software and instead will stick to the proprietary versions. This is where we (respectfully) part company. *My* work must *never* depend upon closed formats or closed (proprietary) software... it never will again... period. (ever!) Those who give up essential liberty to gain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety--- Ben Franklin. Freedom is worth more to me than that. But everyone must make this decision for themselves. Every task must have an open alternative... if it doesn't exist yet, then it is high time to invent it. That's why I'm glad to see, for example, the ability to read the new M$ Office file format for documents being supported in Open Office. Because I NEED the ability, at work, on my Linux computer, to read files sent by those still stuck in the M$ world. It's not because I want to generate them it's because I need to be able to read them. So interoperability is really useful even if all the software you use is non-proprietary. This is an example of interoperability that is beneficial. The *format* is free (as in freedom) and free software (as in freedom) can be used to read the *free* format. Great! If this is what is meant by interoperability (as an example) then fine. The problem comes in when interoperability means that open source software contains
Re: [opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade
M Harris wrote: I understand this as well; however, think beyond M$ to MP3 or Flash. We should *never* capitulate to the enemy over their formats... if the format is closed we don't use it--- period. If I can't read your format... I don't need your format. If more folks stood their ground on this point *everyone* would begin using *free* formats, and *free* software. To use RMS' analogy (tired as it is) think free access (as in freedom) instead of price (as in free beer). I respect the sort of purity of principle you're going for, here, but it's a bit like declaring that you will only drive cars that run on hydrogen. It's noble, but you won't be taking many trips. What good is ideologically pure software that no one uses because it's impractical? Even people who don't use proprietary formats *anymore* inevitably have old documents in those formats. And they have to exchange documents with people who only know how to use closed-source formats. If an HR department demands my resume as a DOC file I'm probably not going to get a job by arguing with them. ;) Every task must have an open alternative... if it doesn't exist yet, then it is high time to invent it. And there's part of the rub. What open source packages get written depends entirely on what people find fun and interesting, because open source developers don't usually get paid to write open source software. This is why, for example, there are dozens of open-source music players but very few open-source accounting packages. There are dozens of different open-source window managers but no industrial-quality CAD programs. The open-source software world's ability to draw cool-looking screen savers knows no bounds, but the best open-source word processors are still playing catchup with MS Office. People aren't going to do the boring stuff for free. Why would they? ...the M$ history has such a depth and scope that no one can deny that their intentions *this* time are also probably evil. When I hear language like this all I can think of is the run-up to the Iraq war. RMS and his ilk, like George Bush, believe the world divides neatly into two camps. People are either for OSS, or they're The Enemy. In the real world it's a lot more complicated. Extremism never solves problems, it only creates them. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade
M Harris wrote: On Wednesday 21 March 2007 22:22, Peter Van Lone wrote: snip It just seems to me that there is a kind of religious intensity that is out of place -- the world is destined to have both F/OSS and proprietary (closed source) software. There has to be a mechanism for allowing these two approaches to software development and licensing, to co-exist peacefully. To interoperate to all of our advantage. The statement is a contradiction in terms. Interoperability is only relevant during the transition... once the transition is complete M$ and their entire product line are irrelevant. At this point interoperability is only relevant at the enterprise level (which, by the way was the target of the M$-Novell deal). In my home and business M$ is completely irrelevant today. Personally, I want the influence of linux to grow, and that of Microsoft to diminish. I want to see linux become the predominate (or, most influential) desktop OS. I believe that in order to become an order of magnatude more influential than it is currently (especially on the desktop) that it will have to penetrate both the corp and home user worlds. **This won't happen without some changes --- changes that are resisted by stallwarts in the community.** **This** is already happening right before your eyes... and its because of the stallwarts in the community. I understand the outrage of the FSF people concerning what they see as Novell essentially giving into greivous thuggary in the form of Microsoft's patent and other bullying. Richard Stallman and Bruce Perens (both titans and honorable people) are emphatic in their belief that **proprietary software and software patents** are just wrong headed and ... plain wrong. RMS is completely vindicated... M$ has become our worst nightmare and RMS predicted that final conclusion years ago. **Its** wrong not because RMS is pigheaded, but because its wrong. But while I get the Cathedral and the Bazarre and I accept that for many projects and in many ways, an OPEN model of development is just better and makes more sense ... while I get that, I also accept and understand that proprietary software itself is not evil. Proprietary software is an outdated protectionist evil, the fruit of jealousy and greed. The very nature of open (free) (call it righteous, call it true) software is that it not only functions, it communicates and propagates the art... centered in a sharing caring spirit with the community interests upheld first... and also carried forward with a certain spirit of humility--- begging for honest critique and challenging others to better it and carry it still further. I have never been able to accept true believers and beliefs in anything. I think everything, --- and particularly things like commerce and trading and human organizations and belief systems and governments and legal systems and contracts and --- are necessarily colored in shades of grey. Shades of grey... sigh What fellowship has light with darkness? Walk in the darkness, or walk in the light. Grey choices are just degrees of 'less' light. And I also -- though this is harder to swallow and even to say -- don't think that Microsoft itself is evil. I think, often wrong. Often, bad for the industry. Often (and never really punished) illegal and immoral in it's conduct. snip You just defined corporate evil bubba. And M$ is evil---end of story. Personally, as to Novell's deal with Microsoft, I think it was a first. And therefore awkward and not ... ideal. And, likely, needed to happen in some guise at some time. Can Microsoft be trusted? Well ... no, not if you mean by trust that Microsoft will abandon it's plans to subvert linux and F/OSS in general. But on the other hand, does the agreement actually acomplish ANYTHING, other than communicate safety to corporate accounts? I don't think so. Dance with the devil... lose your soul. It is not a legal precedent that can effectively be used. The most that can be said is that it gave Ballmer a stage upon which to howl. Ballmer is going to howl himself into an early grave if he isn't careful... So ... I am waiting to hear more voices like Linus Torvalds, who wants to keep away from the labels of evil, the true believing mantras that seem to hold sway as the main voices from the community right now. RMS has convictions... and I respect him for them. I share some of those same convictions. I respect and admire the principles and passions of the community. I just also happen to believe, that pure F/OSS can co-exist with proprietary software and companies. And, actually, I believe that for linux to penetrate even deeper into the corp world (especially in the desktop) that alliances like the Novell/Microsoft alliance will be key. Nope. It is happening and the only key role M$ has played is to be so evil that the
Re: [opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 11:03 +0100, Jan Karjalainen wrote: Me, I just don't care about proprietary software. It's not evil or immoral, it just doesn't matter. I think that Open Source can do better, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is by working on Open Source, but it's not a crusade -- it's just a superior way of ^^ working together and generating code. It is almost prophetical. I recall reading books by Alvin Toffler in the 70's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Toffler), Future Shock and The third Wave, later Previews and Premises (only the works before 83 were r-evolutionary; the later works became a political slant). It remains a question of time till the 'lock-in' of customers by organisations are broken. It will be a matter of costs. OS's have to become part of the PC-System, just as a motor is part of the automobile. Some may have fun at playing around with modding (and maybe a bit 'religious' about it), but 90% will just drive from A to B (A-religious most of the time). They could not care what is under the hood. BTW, Pre-installed bundling is misunderstood as a sort of 'free-software', but for which the customer pays anyway without realising it. It's a clever marketing trick, but many are looking for reduction of costs; bundling may fall prey to it. But, what makes a difference are the social components OSS provide on a global basis. No company world wide can put such resources together as freely organised 'dedicated to the cause' groups of people, enjoying the fact that they have all the same passion; e.g. OSS. They are not doing it for a paycheck. They are passionate, as 'hobbyists' were about their hobbies in previous generations. Today they are mostly specialists, using their skills to create something that addresses the need to self-actualisation. Organisational Industrial psychologists know that this sort of motivation is the ultimate point of personal development in the occupational environment. Most organisations try to achieve it, most do not succeed, because share-holder value is the driving force. So, these specialists with a drive to self-actualise invest all possible time beyond that what they need to earn a living into such projects. Previously, the churches, community work, political parties, hobbies, etc. got the attention; today those who do not participate in such activities because there was nothing in these standard activities the interested them, get involved in things like social software and OSS. Here is where Linus has a point. Open Source can do better, and will do better eventually. Because it is open, everyone can do a quality check, even improve it and get the recognition for it - world-wide! No closed source team of even dozens of people can do it, because there is no way of ensuring to have the best programmers have an opportunity to look into it. Even the best ones can also improve on hints and requirements from newbies; who have no access in closed source at all. The down side is time. Most enthusiasts also have multiple activities and jobs to be a normal human being that has to work to eat, sleep and have fun. When being able to earn a living and being able to do OSS work full time can be somehow brought together, it will cause a paradigm shift. This is what Toffler talked about. It is happening on the quiet, but has major impact on the future. Who as managed to marry earning a living and doing OSS full time? Share it with us, so we can develop a new way of doing things ..., or as Linus says: .. a superior way of working together :-) LandoSr. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade
On 3/22/07, Jan Karjalainen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to agree with Linus on this one, here's his statement from the article mentioned above: Me, I just don't care about proprietary software. It's not evil or immoral, it just doesn't matter. I think that Open Source can do better, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is by working on Open Source, but it's not a crusade -- it's just a superior way of working together and generating code. yes ... I believe the model is better, and eventually most software will be open source. Probably not all software, but the dominate method will be OSS. To focus all this energy describing non-oss process as evil and defining ourselves in it's terms its just bad form and beside the point. Relax, be happy, let the OSS process do it's thing over time. It will win because it just works better and makes more sense. M. Harrish, I respect many of the things you say and your participation on the list -- you have directly helped me in the past and know much more about linux and software in general than do it -- but I believe that your approach to this issue is wrong and more harmful to OSS than otherwise. religious ferver is inappropriate, everywhere. It stops a thinking mind, and divides the world into un-reasonably simple components, and concieves fantastical imaginary battles between wholly irreconsilable players ... it's untrue at least as much as it is true. JMO Peter -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade
* M Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] [03-22-07 00:39]: On Wednesday 21 March 2007 22:22, Peter Van Lone wrote: snip It just seems to me that there is a kind of religious intensity that is out of place -- the world is destined to have both F/OSS and proprietary (closed source) software. There has to be a mechanism for allowing these two approaches to software development and licensing, to co-exist peacefully. To interoperate to all of our advantage. Didn't you write the following: From: M Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: opensuse@opensuse.org Subject: [opensuse] Off Topic List ? Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:15:29 -0500 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there an off topic list officially? I went out to the openSUSE site and looked through the mailing lists... but don't find it... if it exists. and then again: Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:55:32 -0500 From: M Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [opensuse-offtopic] How 'bout them Packers? Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Packers ROCK! (can't believe I finally got subscribed to this offtopic list... ) Now I can take stuff offtopic when I tick-off someone on-topic with a topic that's off... ... I'm off now... AND doesn't it apply, or just words? -- Patrick ShanahanRegistered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org@ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 OpenSUSE Linux http://en.opensuse.org/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade
On Thursday 22 March 2007 07:25, Peter Van Lone wrote: M. Harrish, I respect many of the things you say and your participation on the list -- snip but I believe that your approach to this issue is wrong and more harmful to OSS than otherwise. I respect your opinion Peter. ... and sorry Pat, this thread is on-topic, ... it is essential to differentiate two important camps within the F/OSS community. There are those who champion open source software. There are also those who champion free (as in freedom) software... like myself, and like the FSF. The two are related, but the two are vastly different in terms of motivation and affiliation. The M$-Novell deal might be good in the short term for OSS, and maybe even for Novell... but the M$-Novell deal is detrimental to free (as in freedom) software. I could care less about interoperability--- doesn't affect me. The question is not whether a piece of software is open source or not... the question is also not whether some IT manager has to hassle with Linux being able to work seamlessly with the knot-headed M$ product line... the real question is whether software is free, and whether software users have freedom--- freedom of choice and freedom useage. M$ has strategically targeted freedom, and she is going to leverage Novell against that agenda. This is not just about embrace, extend, extinguish sad to say. This issue goes way beyond that this time around... the goal is to destroy freedom... this is something against which the FSF has devoted many hard long hours to fight and is still faithful to fight for. This is not religious zeal... its about choice and propriety--- freedom of expression, and freedom of extention, and freedom of innovation. Linus may not be on a crusade... but the FSF is. Novell isn't on a crusade either... they're just dressed out to make a buck like everyone else. The FSF is on a crusade--- and the crusaders are not fighting windmills. OSS will not be hurt in the slightest at this point. OSS has finally hit critical mass--- there is no stopping that now. However, freedom is still very much hanging in the balance. The GPLv3 is not perfect, but it is closing in on the real issues, and it *is* going to make a difference. Computer systems should be free tools... not owned/controlled by Ballmer Gates. Unfortunately for Novell most of the Linux community have viewed the sleeping arrangements between Novell and M$ as detrimental to freedom and as harmful to the free software movement. Fortunately for the community it doesn't really matter... because we are never again going to be left without a free software choice. In the final analysis the dudes left standing at half past noon when the dust clears at the OK corral are going to be the dudes that supported freedom. -- Kind regards, M Harris -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade
On Thursday 22 March 2007 12:37, M Harris wrote: snip It just seems to me that there is a kind of religious intensity that is out of place -- the world is destined to have both F/OSS and proprietary (closed source) software. There has to be a mechanism for allowing these two approaches to software development and licensing, to co-exist peacefully. To interoperate to all of our advantage. The statement is a contradiction in terms. Interoperability is only relevant snip An excellent example of a fanatic at work. I give now quarter because I am Right. No other point of view has any validity, is is JUST PLAIN WRONG. I could do that too, but I prefer to discuss the matter. Sometimes, I am wrong. Oftentimes, there is merit in my opponents point of view. He might be wrong, but I can't tell that before listening and understanding what he has to say. Then, perhaps we can discuss it further and maybe come to an agreement: if not, then we can part on good terms, each understanding the other. Fanatical ranting with never persuade anyone with the ability to think, to question. -- Cheers John Summerfield -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade
On Thursday 22 March 2007 11:33:17 pm John Summerfield wrote: An excellent example of a fanatic at work. I give now quarter because I am Right. No other point of view has any validity, is is JUST PLAIN WRONG. I could do that too, but I prefer to discuss the matter. Sometimes, I am wrong. Oftentimes, there is merit in my opponents point of view. He might be wrong, but I can't tell that before listening and understanding what he has to say. Then, perhaps we can discuss it further and maybe come to an agreement: if not, then we can part on good terms, each understanding the other. Fanatical ranting with never persuade anyone with the ability to think, to question. 'Not the point. One must be able to think logically - something that is becoming more rare daily. Fred -- Remember, a consumer is a customer with no choice. DRM 'manages access' in the same way that jail 'manages freedom.' -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade
On Thursday 22 March 2007 22:33, John Summerfield wrote: I could do that too, but I prefer to discuss the matter. Then discuss it... what is your view?... or did you just want to belly up to the name calling bar...? Fanatical ranting with never persuade anyone yeah, right... tell that to the guy who said, Give me liberty, or give me death!---Patrick Henry (or), He who gives up essential liberty to gain a temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.---Ben Franklin ... when they resort to name calling you've won the argument ... Did you have an opinion on the thread topic? I should add to the previous discussion a disclaimer which may appease the flame-throwers (possibly) and that is the point that RMS makes from time to time--- that although the goals and values of open source vs free software are quite different... by and large the end results seem to be compatible to a certain degree... at least they both lead to the production of good software. The point being that as a free software champion I do not look at open source proponents as the enemy... the enemy is proprietary software. But when open source proponents capitulate to the enemy, then at least a rant is warranted. (creates discussion and makes people think) -- Kind regards, M Harris -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade
The article linked below is titled Why I 'Absolutely Love' GPL Version 2 --- and the interview is why I absolutely love Linus Torvalds. http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20070320/tc_cmp/198002077 I have long been troubled by some aspects of the angst and anger around Novell when they first purchased Suse, and especially since the fateful Novell/Microsoft deal. It just seems to me that there is a kind of religious intensity that is out of place -- the world is destined to have both F/OSS and proprietary (closed source) software. There has to be a mechanism for allowing these two approaches to software development and licensing, to co-exist peacefully. To interoperate to all of our advantage. Personally, I want the influence of linux to grow, and that of Microsoft to diminish. I want to see linux become the predominate (or, most influential) desktop OS. I believe that in order to become an order of magnatude more influential than it is currently (especially on the desktop) that it will have to penetrate both the corp and home user worlds. This won't happen without some changes --- changes that are resisted by stallwarts in the community. I understand the outrage of the FSF people concerning what they see as Novell essentially giving into greivous thuggary in the form of Microsoft's patent and other bullying. Richard Stallman and Bruce Perens (both titans and honorable people) are emphatic in their belief that proprietary software and software patents are just wrong headed and ... plain wrong. But while I get the Cathedral and the Bazarre and I accept that for many projects and in many ways, an OPEN model of development is just better and makes more sense ... while I get that, I also accept and understand that proprietary software itself is not evil. I have never been able to accept true believers and beliefs in anything. I think everything, --- and particularly things like commerce and trading and human organizations and belief systems and governments and legal systems and contracts and --- are necessarily colored in shades of grey. And I also -- though this is harder to swallow and even to say -- don't think that Microsoft itself is evil. I think, often wrong. Often, bad for the industry. Often (and never really punished) illegal and immoral in it's conduct. But they are also dominant in the marketplace, and we need to do business with them. This is NOT a battle of Good VS Evil. This is NOT the living explication of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. It just is not. Personally, as to Novell's deal with Microsoft, I think it was a first. And therefore awkward and not ... ideal. And, likely, needed to happen in some guise at some time. Can Microsoft be trusted? Well ... no, not if you mean by trust that Microsoft will abandon it's plans to subvert linux and F/OSS in general. But on the other hand, does the agreement actually acomplish ANYTHING, other than communicate safety to corporate accounts? I don't think so. It is not a legal precedent that can effectively be used. The most that can be said is that it gave Ballmer a stage upon which to howl. So ... I am waiting to hear more voices like Linus Torvalds, who wants to keep away from the labels of evil, the true believing mantras that seem to hold sway as the main voices from the community right now. I respect and admire the principles and passions of the community. I just also happen to believe, that pure F/OSS can co-exist with proprietary software and companies. And, actually, I believe that for linux to penetrate even deeper into the corp world (especially in the desktop) that alliances like the Novell/Microsoft alliance will be key. I think the real tragedy, should it occur, is for the GPL 3 to compel a split in linux ... or to effectively kill Suse linux. It think that would be horrid, and a mistake, and ... would do great great harm to F/OSS in the long run. I am hoping that cooler heads prevail. I am hoping that Novell figures out how to approach the FSF folks to begin a dialogue, and that the parties find a way to agree where they can and continue on, disagreeing where they must. I am hoping that there are strong voices from amongst the Suse community that will reach out and counsel and encourage sane and reasonable behaviour. I am hoping we can end the crusade, and begin the rennaisance. Just my opinions and hopes. Peter -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 22:22, Peter Van Lone wrote: snip It just seems to me that there is a kind of religious intensity that is out of place -- the world is destined to have both F/OSS and proprietary (closed source) software. There has to be a mechanism for allowing these two approaches to software development and licensing, to co-exist peacefully. To interoperate to all of our advantage. The statement is a contradiction in terms. Interoperability is only relevant during the transition... once the transition is complete M$ and their entire product line are irrelevant. At this point interoperability is only relevant at the enterprise level (which, by the way was the target of the M$-Novell deal). In my home and business M$ is completely irrelevant today. Personally, I want the influence of linux to grow, and that of Microsoft to diminish. I want to see linux become the predominate (or, most influential) desktop OS. I believe that in order to become an order of magnatude more influential than it is currently (especially on the desktop) that it will have to penetrate both the corp and home user worlds. **This won't happen without some changes --- changes that are resisted by stallwarts in the community.** **This** is already happening right before your eyes... and its because of the stallwarts in the community. I understand the outrage of the FSF people concerning what they see as Novell essentially giving into greivous thuggary in the form of Microsoft's patent and other bullying. Richard Stallman and Bruce Perens (both titans and honorable people) are emphatic in their belief that **proprietary software and software patents** are just wrong headed and ... plain wrong. RMS is completely vindicated... M$ has become our worst nightmare and RMS predicted that final conclusion years ago. **Its** wrong not because RMS is pigheaded, but because its wrong. But while I get the Cathedral and the Bazarre and I accept that for many projects and in many ways, an OPEN model of development is just better and makes more sense ... while I get that, I also accept and understand that proprietary software itself is not evil. Proprietary software is an outdated protectionist evil, the fruit of jealousy and greed. The very nature of open (free) (call it righteous, call it true) software is that it not only functions, it communicates and propagates the art... centered in a sharing caring spirit with the community interests upheld first... and also carried forward with a certain spirit of humility--- begging for honest critique and challenging others to better it and carry it still further. I have never been able to accept true believers and beliefs in anything. I think everything, --- and particularly things like commerce and trading and human organizations and belief systems and governments and legal systems and contracts and --- are necessarily colored in shades of grey. Shades of grey... sigh What fellowship has light with darkness? Walk in the darkness, or walk in the light. Grey choices are just degrees of 'less' light. And I also -- though this is harder to swallow and even to say -- don't think that Microsoft itself is evil. I think, often wrong. Often, bad for the industry. Often (and never really punished) illegal and immoral in it's conduct. snip You just defined corporate evil bubba. And M$ is evil---end of story. Personally, as to Novell's deal with Microsoft, I think it was a first. And therefore awkward and not ... ideal. And, likely, needed to happen in some guise at some time. Can Microsoft be trusted? Well ... no, not if you mean by trust that Microsoft will abandon it's plans to subvert linux and F/OSS in general. But on the other hand, does the agreement actually acomplish ANYTHING, other than communicate safety to corporate accounts? I don't think so. Dance with the devil... lose your soul. It is not a legal precedent that can effectively be used. The most that can be said is that it gave Ballmer a stage upon which to howl. Ballmer is going to howl himself into an early grave if he isn't careful... So ... I am waiting to hear more voices like Linus Torvalds, who wants to keep away from the labels of evil, the true believing mantras that seem to hold sway as the main voices from the community right now. RMS has convictions... and I respect him for them. I share some of those same convictions. I respect and admire the principles and passions of the community. I just also happen to believe, that pure F/OSS can co-exist with proprietary software and companies. And, actually, I believe that for linux to penetrate even deeper into the corp world (especially in the desktop) that alliances like the Novell/Microsoft alliance will be key. Nope. It is happening and the only key role M$ has played is to be so evil that the
