>>> Look guy, we either provide open access to _all_ science and technology >>> at the lowest possible denominator to every human being on the planet or >>> this little Darwinian experiment called the human species is going to >>> come to a quick and very unceremonious end. >> It is always suspicious if something is valid for _all_ whatever. And >> mostly that is just wrong. The claim is often right, the wrong part is >> that it would be valid for _all_ .
> I can see you feel the same way since I am not sure what you find > harmful about open access to all for humanity, with such a reply in a > project like open-graphics. I never said something like that. If you reread my words you will find "suspicious" but also "mostly". > Are you saying open-graphics isn't worth doing unless it can be limited > to a certain few? Nope. Never said that. >>> The rules and the way for effective competition and fair trade is laid >>> out in how every piece of science and technology that is either enabled >>> with LINUX or how it was designed 10 years ago to how it is being >>> designed RIGHT NOW. >> Linux is designed right now by Linus Torvalds. He is the only one that >> decides what goes into Linux and what does not. > Well, LINUS holds the copyrights. > > He doesn't hold the right to tell you what you can and cannot put into a > LINUX kernel. He holds the right to tell you what you can put in _the_ Linux kernel. Sure you can have your own, but the development model of Linux includes Linus is the one who decides. And for Linux that has been good in the last years. For some processes a beloved dictator can be the perfect solution. For other things it might not be good to have a central person who decides. >>> Every social form currently in existence should be redesigned around the >>> engineering direction and properties that are enforced using the GNU >>> Version 2 license. Equal opportunity for all, no barriers to >>> participation and excellence based on peer review and feed back is the >>> only technology allowed to live, because technology only has one >>> purpose. >> So Version 1 and Version 3 are also bad? The BSD license also gives >> "equal opportunity for all" as does M$'s license. The Copyleft clause of >> the GPL is a barrier for participation, at least for some people. > I think with respect to the community, and LINUX as a copyright, GNU > Version 2 was selected by LINUS. > > You know he gave it some thought before he picked it and I am sure he > consulted with some about it. > > So that is a question you will have to ask LINUS. Your words have been "Every social form ...should be redesigned around... the GNU Version 2 license." So your decision to say Version 2 and not around the GPL License, or around the BSD License, or around Creative Commons License,.. Linus decided that he wants the GPL Version 2 for his Linux Kernel. He knows that for other projects other licenses are more suitable. >>> To serve the human race. >>> >>> Right now technology is being used to destroy, crush and create war for >>> a bunch of damn greedy western institutions. >> I don't want to destroy your view of the world. But part of the reason >> for GPL Version 3 was to prevent the technology to be used for things >> that the FSF does not like,.. And I have heard that the military also >> uses Open Source Software, and not only your own army but those of other >> countries too. >> >> So if you are not joking, then please think twice before posting >> statement about the live and death of the whole species. > However, I would like to state my beef is with creating a fair economic > system with fair rules for all, not a utopia. Fair trade has been > replaced with Free Trade. Remember those Royalty I was talking about Lars? A fair economic system is still an utopia. Neither Capitalism nor Communism are fair systems outside of theories. > But there is hope Lars. The creation of LINUX was done using a non > centralized authority or human community. It is called the Internet. In > essence, the application of LINUX and GNU rules of V2 has created a > system called the internet which has some interesting properties. One > that is relevant to this discussion is the ability for people to self > organize without central authority to accomplish a given task or produce > a product. Ok wait. Who created what? "The creation of LINUX was done using a non centralized authority or human community. It is called the Internet." Ok I get that Linux was created by that european guy Linus using this Communication system of the US that was designed to survive a nuklear attack so that after the fist nuke the US could destroy the rest of the world. Thats understood. But then "In essence, the application of LINUX and GNU rules of V2 has created a system called the internet" wait now Linux and GNU created the internet ? ;-) > "I can just see it now: This is Homeland Security, in order to protect > all of you we must destroy the internet! Please report any neighbor > using free software or anything not approved by our corporate sponsors > or this office. If they code something, say something!" :-) They will not destroy the internet they will use it as their best tool to control the people. They will force everybody to have an Facebook account,.. > But GNU Version 3 is still young, and it is too soon to tell. Laws and licenses are not like wine. They don't need to age. They are effective immediately. Perhaps you should be a bit more pedantic... But we should not discuss politics, on this list. The question is how to move forward. And I think the same as you. It will be a long way to an completely open system. And we should take Linux and other Open Source and Open Hardware Projects as indicators of what works and what doesn't. We should help, use and cooperate with projects that are free and open. They might have some strange concepts, they might use binary blobs, they might do other things that are not complaint with the ideal situation of an open system. We should point that out and should support the open part of their efforts. For the Specific project http://lkcl.net/articles/fsf_endorseable_processor.html my impression is it has been started by people that are just feed up with the whole ATI/AMD - NVIDIA mess on their PCs. If they could do what they plan that would be a good thing. They are currently looking for investors, so if you have money to spare check them out. But the chance that they fail is probably big. If they would want / need/ ask for technical help that would be something where the Members of Open-graphics could help. But besides that all we can do is wait and see if they succeed. Perhaps they create something free and open that we can use, or we can learn from them what doesn't work,.. Thats only my 2cents. Lars @Gregory if you want to discuss politics with me then do it off list. _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
