I have read it twice now, and I *STILL* do not see what chip they are planning on using. Hey, I have to call B.S. on this. It would be nice if it were true.
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Lars Poetter <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> 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) >
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
