>(offlist)
Not.
>I would really appeciate some evidence of this...
Fine. You're correct that the GPL and the BSD came out in the same year. In any
case, there was, as I've said, plenty of "free software" (although few
licenses) a decade and more before any of this.
Now that I've agreed that I
On 1/28/07, Corey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BSDL contains an inherent self-destruct gene, GPL contains a built-in
propagation gene.
And Non-Free Software contains a built-in propagation gene which
cannot evolve its medium (technology) as quickly as the license-gene
for Free Software can.
But
(offlist)
On 27/01/07, David Schlesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This is simply untrue.
The fact is, as originally stated, that the BSD preceded the GPL (by two
years or ten)
I would really appeciate some evidence of this.
Here my evidence that the original BSD license was first used in
On 27/01/07, Gabriel Ambuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
you're free to give up freedoms whenever you like.
Freedom is not the same as choice.
A choice of masters is not freedom.
If you chose to give up freedom, you are no longer free.
Even if most people don't recognize that giving up softw
On Saturday 27 January 2007 08:38, Gabriel Ambuehl wrote:
> On Saturday 27 January 2007 16:10:43 Declan Naughton wrote:
> > But I prefer copyleft - the idea of using the law to try and make sure
> > freedom doesn't go away, to giving others the freedom to take it away.
>
> If others take code unde
On 1/27/07, David Schlesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
More importantly (and very relevantly to this list) you can't compete for
consumers on a basis of "Not as good, but _more free_." If completely open
phones are going to achieve any sort of dominance, then the same kind of
work will have to
>As you point out, with Apple taking BSD software and 'competing
>against BSD', the market share for vanilla BSD is reduced. You can't
>however know whether in the medium-long term this is an 'overall good'
>which sped up Freedom through other interactions in the future or an
>overall bad. Apple ge
On 1/27/07, Renaissance Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well you managed to miss the point of my *metaphor* (not straw man),
even though I spelt it out for you:
"The point is real "freedom" is measured on a "whole picture" basis,
not on an individual basis."
A metaphor is simply a linguistic mod
>> How are you "less free" as a result?
>
>Apple's iPhone, for instance, contains open source software, but
>because it's totally reliant on un-free software I can't add VoIP via
>WiFi to it for instance, effectively nullifying the freedom aspect of
>the free software component for its users.
Well you managed to miss the point of my *metaphor* (not straw man),
even though I spelt it out for you:
"The point is real "freedom" is measured on a "whole picture" basis,
not on an individual basis."
How are you "less free" as a result?
Apple's iPhone, for instance, contains open source
...
> I hear North Korea's nice ,,,
HITLER!
There ! Goodwin's law has been served. Now can you pleease move this
flamewar somewhere else ?
I hope this mailing list has a moderator - otherwise, this thread is bound to
repeat itself :/.
___
OpenMok
No, the problem appears to be that:
1) you don't understand the meaning of the word notion
2) you're mistaking my explanation of capitalist realities for
feelings towards those realities.
Renaissance Man
On 27 Jan 2007, at 4:50 pm, David Schlesinger wrote:
On 1/27/07, David Schlesinger <[EMA
On 1/27/07, David Schlesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Yeah, and maybe the people who fought for an America free from Britian
>should've just gotten on a boat or swam elsewhere.
I don't see the relevance of your response at all, I'm afraid.
Mr. Man there seems to be having problems with the
Are you sure you should be on a children's mailing list somewhere?
Renaissance Man
On 27 Jan 2007, at 4:16 pm, David Schlesinger wrote:
Yawn. So quit. Move to the people's republic of your choice and
live in proletarian harmony, giving according to your means and
receiving according to your
On 1/27/07, David Schlesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>because
>capitalists organisations involve authoritative decision making and
>the person in authority, paying my wage, tells me I have to be there.
Yawn. So quit. Move to the people's republic of your choice and live in
proletarian
>> If others take code under the BSDL and put it into a closed system, freedom
>> doesn't go away at all. It just doesn't necessarily extend any further.
>
>It has gone away for the users of that system.
...who are, of course, being forced to use said system at gunpoint.
Really, what's it to you?
>If I am free to beat someone up that does not mean the sum total of
>freedom for society is increased.
Sorry, pointlessness alert. There's _never_ a "freedom" to beat someone up,
and--outside of the very limited contexts of, e.g., law enforcement or military
activities--no one can grant one,
>because
>capitalists organisations involve authoritative decision making and
>the person in authority, paying my wage, tells me I have to be there.
Yawn. So quit. Move to the people's republic of your choice and live in
proletarian harmony, giving according to your means and receiving accord
On 1/27/07, Gabriel Ambuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 27 January 2007 16:10:43 Declan Naughton wrote:
> But I prefer copyleft - the idea of using the law to try and make sure
> freedom doesn't go away, to giving others the freedom to take it away.
If others take code under the BSDL
On 27/01/07, Gabriel Ambuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 27 January 2007 16:10:43 Declan Naughton wrote:
> But I prefer copyleft - the idea of using the law to try and make sure
> freedom doesn't go away, to giving others the freedom to take it away.
If others take code under the BSDL
On 27 Jan 2007, at 3:36 pm, Gabriel Ambuehl wrote:
For example, if you take on a job, you surrender freedom of
movement for parts of the day, too, in exchange for something you
want, usually mostly your salary.
I've worked for myself at times and during that time I had complete
freedom of
On 27 Jan 2007, at 2:59 pm, David Schlesinger wrote:
The page Mr. Crossland cites actually offers no particular
rationale as to why GPL is "better" than BSD, other than dark
mutterings about the possibility of someone's using code in "non-
free software".
Is that not a freedom one can legi
On Saturday 27 January 2007 15:58:46 Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik wrote:
> > (You've let us know you're not a developer; it's becoming clear you
> > have no greater level of understanding of legal issues.)
>
> I won't comment on this as IANAL.
This is entirely right (albeit IANAL either). For example,
On Saturday 27 January 2007 16:10:43 Declan Naughton wrote:
> But I prefer copyleft - the idea of using the law to try and make sure
> freedom doesn't go away, to giving others the freedom to take it away.
If others take code under the BSDL and put it into a closed system, freedom
doesn't go away
On 1/27/07, Mikhail Gusarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Twas brillig at 15:10:43 27.01.2007 UTC+00 when Declan Naughton did gyre and
gimble:
DN> But I prefer copyleft - the idea of using the law to try and make
DN> sure freedom doesn't go away, to giving others the freedom to
DN> take it awa
Twas brillig at 15:10:43 27.01.2007 UTC+00 when Declan Naughton did gyre and
gimble:
DN> But I prefer copyleft - the idea of using the law to try and make
DN> sure freedom doesn't go away, to giving others the freedom to
DN> take it away.
Well, it's your problem, not others one.
--
JID: [E
On 1/27/07, David Schlesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>BSD people appreciate software companies like Apple coming along,
>changing the code, and releasing *non-free*.
That is a freedom which the BSD license allows.
Yes it is.
But I prefer copyleft - the idea of using the law to try an
On 1/27/07 3:33 AM, "Mikhail Gusarov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Please don't think your opponents are ignoramus. Nearly everyone here
> knows very well both the position of BSD people, and essences of GNU
> homilies.
Personally, I'd be a lot more impressed if Mr. Crossland were able to
artic
On 3:30:45 pm 2007-01-27 "David Schlesinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >This is simply untrue.
>
> The fact is, as originally stated, that the BSD preceded the GPL (by
> two years or ten)
http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/
I think they were at most at the same time not one preceded the ot
>This is simply untrue.
The fact is, as originally stated, that the BSD preceded the GPL (by two years
or ten) and that "free" or "open source" software certainly existed well before
the FSF did. I received system distributions for DECsystem-10s in the 70s,
entirely in source form...
>The free
>BSD people appreciate software companies like Apple coming along,
>changing the code, and releasing *non-free*.
That is a freedom which the BSD license allows.
You're not against _freedom_, are you?
___
OpenMoko community mailing list
community@lists.
On 27/01/07, Gabriel Ambuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 27 January 2007 12:23:52 Dave Crossland wrote:
> > And besides, the BSDL predates the GPLv1 by a decade.
> This is simply untrue.
>
> I have done some research on this:
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=%22at%26t+source+licen
BSD people appreciate software companies like Apple coming along,
changing the code, and releasing *non-free*.
On 1/27/07, Mikhail Gusarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Twas brillig at 11:23:52 27.01.2007 UTC+00 when Dave Crossland did gyre and
gimble:
DC> The freedom to become less free is a p
On Saturday 27 January 2007 12:23:52 Dave Crossland wrote:
> > And besides, the BSDL predates the GPLv1 by a decade.
> This is simply untrue.
>
> I have done some research on this:
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=%22at%26t+source+license%22+BSD
>
> "In 1989 the "Networking Tape 1" was release
Twas brillig at 11:23:52 27.01.2007 UTC+00 when Dave Crossland did gyre and
gimble:
DC> The freedom to become less free is a paradox.
DC> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html explains why
DC> copyleft licenses like the GPL are better than permissive free
DC> software licenses lik
On 24/01/07, Gabriel Ambuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And besides, the BSDL predates the GPLv1 by a decade.
This is simply untrue.
I have done some research on this:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=%22at%26t+source+license%22+BSD
"In 1989 the "Networking Tape 1" was released; this was t
I think we've heard the viewpoints of both sides...
In my humble opinion, this whole discussion (while it showed some good
viewpoints on both sides) is a bit premature. We haven't seen any
documentation from the Openmoko team that suggests that they use one
notation or the other.
As Sean already
Are you denying that you lied about people "making demands"? No one
has made any "demands." It is not a personal attack to point out that
this is a bald faced lie.
It appears farcical that you keep adding to this thread while
complaining that it is being continued. If you don't like the
d
>It might help things if you didn't continue to make bald face lies David.
>
Not as much it would ³help things² if you¹d stop behaving like a
four-year-old, and stop wasting everyone¹s time with exactly the sort of
³personal attacks² you were whining about just a couple of days ago. You
(still) se
On 24 Jan 2007, at 7:13 pm, David Schlesinger wrote:
Where did I, or anybody else, DEMAND that OpenMoko give credit to
GNU?
Dave Crossland's demanded it on a couple of occasions. Go back and
reread his latest messages, particularly his message of 6:13 am
this morning.
It might help thin
On 24/01/07, Gabriel Ambuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 24 January 2007 17:15, Dave Crossland wrote:
> I feel it is misleading to describe code distributed in the 1960s and
> 70s as 'free software' - because software freedom was not recognised
> or enshrined.
Ok, now that's just bei
On 1/24/07, David Schlesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/24/07 11:03 AM, "Declan Naughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/24/07, David Schlesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 1/24/07 10:20 AM, "Declan Naughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> As far as I am aware, OpenMoko is not
On 1/24/07 11:03 AM, "Declan Naughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/24/07, David Schlesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 1/24/07 10:20 AM, "Declan Naughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> As far as I am aware, OpenMoko is not using the GNU/CMU Mach kernel..
>>
>> No, they're certai
On 1/24/07, David Schlesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/24/07 10:20 AM, "Declan Naughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As far as I am aware, OpenMoko is not using the GNU/CMU Mach kernel..
No, they're certainly not. However, "GNU" _is_ and they're failing to give
appropriate credit to th
On 1/24/07 10:20 AM, "Declan Naughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As far as I am aware, OpenMoko is not using the GNU/CMU Mach kernel..
No, they're certainly not. However, "GNU" _is_ and they're failing to give
appropriate credit to the "principal developer" of their system. So on what
basis
On 1/24/07, Raymond Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Declan Naughton wrote:
> On 1/24/07, David Schlesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 1/24/07 9:51 AM, "Declan Naughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > On 1/24/07, David Schlesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >> Better still, tell yo
Declan Naughton wrote:
On 1/24/07, David Schlesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/24/07 9:51 AM, "Declan Naughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/24/07, David Schlesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Better still, tell you what: since you're all about the "ethics"
here, go
>> and get t
On 1/24/07, David Schlesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/24/07 9:51 AM, "Declan Naughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/24/07, David Schlesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Better still, tell you what: since you're all about the "ethics" here, go
>> and get the folks at "GNU" to chang
On 1/24/07 9:51 AM, "Declan Naughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/24/07, David Schlesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Better still, tell you what: since you're all about the "ethics" here, go
>> and get the folks at "GNU" to change the name of their system to "GNU/Mach"
>> and _then_ come
On 1/24/07, David Schlesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Better still, tell you what: since you're all about the "ethics" here, go
and get the folks at "GNU" to change the name of their system to "GNU/Mach"
and _then_ come back to talk to _us_.
I might ask about that alright.
Why don't you ha
On Wednesday 24 January 2007 17:15, Dave Crossland wrote:
> I feel it is misleading to describe code distributed in the 1960s and
> 70s as 'free software' - because software freedom was not recognised
> or enshrined.
Ok, now that's just being ridiculous.
And besides, the BSDL predates the GPLv1
Could you just drop this line of discussion, or pursue it off-list...? If
they refer to it as "Linux" they'll be in line with pretty much every major
_Linux_ distribution out there.
On 1/24/07 6:11 AM, "Dave Crossland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> On 23/01/07, David Ford <[EMAIL PRO
Gosh, why does this fail to surprise me?
Didn't you get to say your piece already? Why don't you harass the Ubuntu
folks with this, hm? There are many more folks calling it "Linux" than
"GNU/Linux", and very few people who seem to care strongly about your
over-developed sense of "history" and "eth
On 23/01/07, David Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- Free software existed before GNU
- Free software philosophies and movements existed before GNU
- Free software will continue to exist after GNU
- Free software philosophies and movements will continue to exist after GNU
- GNU is not the One Tr
Hi Sean,
On 23/01/07, David Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You must be reading a different link. Sean's email most clearly states
"in the form of a user's manual that will give credit to GNU." He also
clearly stated "We'll just call it OpenMoko."
Could you confirm that if FIC writes that Ope
what's worse than that? a) someone that walked into the middle of it
and badmouths one side as worst for going on and on about it when we
shut up and the other side was the one going on and on about it and b)
someone that posts the below paragraph that has nothing to do with the
current conver
You must be reading a different link. Sean's email most clearly states
"in the form of a user's manual that will give credit to GNU." He also
clearly stated "We'll just call it OpenMoko."
It's very amusing how the GNU camp facts just sort of twist and bend
like grass in the wind.
-david
p.s
On Monday 22 January 2007 20:07, David Ford wrote:
> p.s. the more people blabber about GNU, the more I try to remove it from
> my system and support non-GNU replacements.
>
That's obviously your prerogative, by all means.
But... wow, talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water.
I'm c
the only thing worse than someone that goes on and on about how gnu is
the only way to be etc is someone that goes on and on and on about how
those people are wrong and annoying.. IMO this thread is as dead as a
doornail..
On 1/23/07, David Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Most sales droids I kno
Let's call it Linux and be done with it.
Declan Naughton wrote:
Let's just call it GNU/Linux and be done with it.
___
OpenMoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Most sales droids I know wouldn't even have a clue about either GNU or
Linux :-D
-david
Andreas Kostyrka wrote:
* Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070122 21:37]:
That also wouldn't be accurate. The droid, refering to
wikipedia-stable, might instead say:
"So, it's something _different_
I believe we already saw Sean's reply to you and he said "GNU" would be
credited in the documentation.
-david
p.s. the more people blabber about GNU, the more I try to remove it from
my system and support non-GNU replacements. this is called the point of
where proselytizing is no longer info
Dave Crossland wrote:
I get it, okay? I disagree. Telling me that "GNU" is a "principal
developer" doesn't make it so and opinions clearly vary here.
So, why don't you let those of use who choose to use a more commonly
accepted, no less accurate, and more generally understood name simply do
so?
Nor does it give you (or your side of the fence) the right to make
statements as fact that the other side clearly disagrees with and
continue to imply they are fact.
Such statements are just as inflammatory and to repeatedly state them is
a thinly veiled personal attack.
I stopped talking ab
From:
http://www.linuxtogo.org/gowiki/OpenMoko/Debate-GNU-Linux
"This debate cannot be won, by either side. Sometimes intelligent
people disagree, this is A Good Thing."
Actually I thought it was pretty clear from Sean's comment on the
matter that, with regard to OpenMoko, that GNU/Linux do
On 1/22/07, David Schlesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It simply never ends, does it?
One can hope :-)
Next time I get another argument on this subject in my inbox, I'm
going to simply email this back-to-sender, not the entire list:
http://www.linuxtogo.org/gowiki/OpenMoko/Debate-GNU-Linux
Let's just call it GNU/Linux and be done with it.
On 1/22/07, David Schlesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Feel entirely free to call it "GNU/Linux", "Bob/Linux", "Jim/Linux" or
> whatever you like, okay. But _please_ stop proselytizing.
>Dude, why so prickly? I am not sure why this disc
> Feel entirely free to call it "GNU/Linux", "Bob/Linux", "Jim/Linux" or
> whatever you like, okay. But _please_ stop proselytizing.
>Dude, why so prickly? I am not sure why this discussion is making you
>so agitated..? We are having a discussion, and if you want it to stop,
>just... stop? :-)
I'
* Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070122 21:37]:
> That also wouldn't be accurate. The droid, refering to
> wikipedia-stable, might instead say:
>
> "So, it's something _different_ than Linux?"
> "Well, not really. GNU/Linux is the whole system; Linux is one part of
> the system, and it is a v
On 22/01/07, MR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just joined the mailing list but if the point of this thread is
about whether the manual/box/website for openmoko should refer to it
using Linux or GNU/Linux then I am 100% whole heartedly behind
GNU/Linux.
That's originally what this thead was about
On 22/01/07, David Schlesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I like to be accurate and know what I am talking about, and I like
>others to be too :-)
It simply never ends, does it?
Well, this *is* the internet ;-)
Feel entirely free to call it "GNU/Linux", "Bob/Linux", "Jim/Linux" or
whatever
> Don't troll the thread with inflammatory arguments and personal
attacks.
Maybe you could identify for me where I've been making these "personal
attacks". As I seem to recall, _you've_ been the one casting aspersions
on people's intentions, intelligence and reading comprehension. What
I've done i
On 22 Jan 2007, at 7:49 pm, MR wrote:
Actually, I think it would be far better just to call it "mokOS" or
something.
Mr Integrity,
You might like to review these threads MR:
http://lists.openmoko.org/pipermail/community/2007-January/001720.html
http://lists.openmoko.org/pipermail/community/2
I just joined the mailing list but if the point of this thread is
about whether the manual/box/website for openmoko should refer to it
using Linux or GNU/Linux then I am 100% whole heartedly behind
GNU/Linux..
If there were the possibility of replacing the kernel with say a cut
down bsd kernel (ju
David, if you're not interested in the topic take note of the subject
in your inbox and stop reading the thread. Don't troll the thread
with inflammatory arguments and personal attacks.
You may have made up your mind but there are clearly other people who
would like to continue the discussi
>I like to be accurate and know what I am talking about, and I like
>others to be too :-)
It simply never ends, does it?
Feel entirely free to call it "GNU/Linux", "Bob/Linux", "Jim/Linux" or
whatever you like, okay. But _please_ stop proselytizing.
Have you ever noticed how folks with a zealot-
On 22/01/07, Marcel de Jong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/21/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If more people are aware of why freedom and community matter, then
> they will buy more products that support freedom and community, like
> more Neos.
How does adding three more letter
(sorry for the premature post)
On 22/01/07, Andreas Kostyrka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Renaissance Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070122 01:38]:
> I actually become aware of the FS movement via the GNU
> moniker, so it worked on me. For many years I was only aware
> of the OS movement (through know
On 22/01/07, Andreas Kostyrka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Renaissance Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070122 01:38]:
> I actually become aware of the FS movement via the GNU
> moniker, so it worked on me. For many years I was only aware
> of the OS movement (through knowing about "Linux").
Guess you w
On 1/22/07, Marcel de Jong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How does adding three more letters and a / increase people's knowledge
on free and open software?
The whole idea of calling the system GNU/Linux rather than Linux is a
campaign of education. People that have heard of Linux and not GNU can
lo
* Renaissance Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070122 01:38]:
> I actually become aware of the FS movement via the GNU moniker, so it worked
> on me. For many years I was only aware of the OS movement (through knowing
> about "Linux").
Guess you wasn't to much interested in the license of the software y
I actually become aware of the FS movement via the GNU moniker, so it
worked on me. For many years I was only aware of the OS movement
(through knowing about "Linux").
Renaissance Man
On 22 Jan 2007, at 12:13 am, Marcel de Jong wrote:
Hello all,
On this recent discussion on yes/no GNU/Lin
Hello all,
On this recent discussion on yes/no GNU/Linux, I saw this and that
popped up a question for me:
On 1/21/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If more people are aware of why freedom and community matter, then
they will buy more products that support freedom and community, li
83 matches
Mail list logo
