date:20070917

* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-17 02:29]:
 you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the code, but 
 brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux evil? 

NetApp does not pretend to be free and open and save the world etc

-- 
Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg  Amsterdam

Re: sudo wheel group

* Matthew Szudzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-17 04:41]:
 Does anyone currently use the operator group for anything

sure, taking dump(8)s

-- 
Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg  Amsterdam

Effective Time Management; Crowne Plaza Muscat, Oman; 12th-13th November 2007

2007-09-17 Thread Precept Management Consultancy

EFFECTIVE  TIME  MANAGEMENT
Crowne Plaza Muscat, Oman; 12 th - 13th November 2007
WHY NEEDED
Improving Time Management capability has been a popular training subject for
many years, for three very simple reasons:
'  In the modern business life we are faced with an ever increasing number
of tasks to do, to an ever increasing standard but within continuously
shrinking time limits.  We are forced to do more, do better, do quicker!!!
'  The pace will get worse as each year goes by.  So we will have to do
even more, to an even higher standard, in much less time.
'  The continuous struggle to balance private life and work life.
WORKSHOP DETAILS
'  Duration: Two Days, 12th-13th November 2007; 8:30am-4:30pm;
'  Fees:   Rial Omani 525 (includes programme materials, lunch
 breaks at the venue);
'  Presenter:Barry Kyriacou (PeopleAchieve);
'  Venue: Crowne Plaza Muscat, Oman.
WHO SHOULD PARTICIPATE
Managers, Team Leaders and staff from all business areas and departments who
wish to become more organised and have a professional attitude in achieving
their work objectives.
WHAT WILL BE COVERED
As a result of this workshop, individuals will be better able to:
'  Determine individual goals (business  personal)
'  Focus on the areas that will deliver results
'  Direct efforts towards achieving organisational goals
'  Prioritise tasks and activities
'  Plan their day more effectively
'  Reduce time lost to time stealers
 ' Deal with emails more efficiently
'  Organise their office and desk effectively

Please contact us for further information  registration
Precept Management Consultancy
P.O. Box 255, Ruwi, PC 112, Sultanate of Oman
Telephone:  +968 24497123  Fax: +968 24497222
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Website:  www.preceptmanagement.com

WORKSHOP
DAY 1
0900 - 0945Introduction
Goals of the Workshop
The importance of managing time and workload
Benefits of a more organised approach
Available tools
The Flapsi-Hapsi methodology
An alternative model and its benefits
Proactive vs. Reactive Time Management
0945 - 1045Goal Setting
Why we need goals
The methodology of setting SMART goals
Workshop - practice in SMART goals
Latest developments in setting goals
Reasons for not achieving goals due to human behaviour  how to overcome them
Achieving work-home balance
1045 - 1100Coffee Break
1100 - 1200Focusing Effort - Key Areas of Responsibility
The Key Areas-Categories-Tasks model
What are Key Areas of Responsibility
Methodology for defining them
Exercise - each participant specifies his key areas
Each Key Area breaks down into Categories
Exercise - each participant breaks down a few of his Key Areas into
Categories
Each Category breaks down into Tasks
Exercise - Each participant breaks down a few of his Categories into Tasks
1200 - 1300Managing Time - Planning Your Day
Planning your day - how and when
Difficult jobs - when to do them
Your body clock and how to take advantage of it
Scheduling meetings
Evaluating how much time you actually have
Planning for the unexpected
Little things that save time
Handling Elephant Tasks
Taking work home
1300 - 1400Lunch
1400 - 1430Planning Your Day...continued
1430 - 1545Time Stealers
Our main time-stealers and their effect on our productivity
Workshop - each time studies one main time stealer and makes suggestions on
how to overcome it (amongst others:  saying NO to others, handling phone call,
the drop-in visitor)
1345 - 1600Coffee Break
1600 - 1700Communicating with Emails
The modern way of communicating
Discussion - advantages and disadvantages
Handling incoming emails
Rules for making your outgoing emails shorter and more effective
DAY 2
0900 - 1045Prioritising Tasks
To-Do lists
Defining Important tasks and Urgent tasks
The 4 types of tasks
The Important vs. Urgent model (by Stephen Covey)
Deciding the priority of each task
Which should we do first
The Time Analysis tool
1045 - 1100Coffee Break
1100 - 1230Effective Meetings
When is a meeting worth having?
Preparing for a meeting
The agenda
The role of the chairperson
The meeting ground rules
Focus is important
Importance of taking minutes
Role-play in meetings
1230 - 1300Procrastination
What is procrastination?
Main reasons for postponing a task
Ways to overcome procrastination
1300 - 1400Lunch
1400 - 1600Exercise in Time  Workload Management
Each team has to achieve a specific objective in competition with the other
teams and within a set time limit.  To succeed, each team must use the tools
and methodologies on time and workload management that have been presented
during the training
Main Messages and Discussion
1600 - 1615Coffee Break
1615 - 1700Desk Management  Finale
Organising your work area
Organising your desk
Where to place telephones, computers, etc
Handling paperwork and in/out trays


To register online, please click here.

THE COMPANY
Organisations are struggling to find new ways to achieve strategic advantage
in an increasingly

Re: Wasting our Freedom

2007-09-17 Thread Hannah Schroeter

Hello!

On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
[...]

What is going on whenever someone changes a code is that they make a
derivative work.

Only if the additions/changes are significant enough to be copyrightable
on their own.

Whether or not you can even make a derivative
work, and under what terms the derivitive work can be licensed, is
strictly up to the license of the original.  For example, the BSD
license says:

  Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
  modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
  are met

Note the with or without modification.  This is what allows people
to change BSD licensed code and redistribute said changes.  The
conditions specified by the BSD license do not mention anything about
licening terms --- just that if you meet these three conditions, you
are allowed to redistribute them.  So for example, this is what allows
Network Appliances to take BSD code, change it, and add a restrictive,
proprietary copyright.

Right. You may add nearly any copyright *on your own significant
additions/changes*. However, BSD/ISC explicitly requires to retain the
BSD/ISC terms, too (applicable to the original part of the combined
work).

So for code which is single-licensed under a BSD license, someone can
create a new derived work, and redistribute it under a more
restrictive license --- either one as restrictive as NetApp's (where
no one is allowed to get binary unless they are a NetApp customer, or
source only after signing an NDA), or a GPL license.  It is not a
relicencing, per se, since the original version of the file is still
available under the original copyright; it is only the derived work
which is under the more restrictive copyright.   

No. The derivative work altogether has a *mixed* license. BSD/ISC for
the parts that are original, the other (restrictive, GPL, whatever)
license for the modifications/additions.

*If* you choose to distribute source along with the binaries, the part
of the source that's original is BSD/ISC licensed even in the derivative
work (though one may put *the additions/modifications* under restrictive
conditions, e.g. of commercial non-disclosure type source licensing).

[... dual-licensing issues etc. already handled in other mails ...]

Kind regards,

Hannah.

Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words

2007-09-17 Thread Siju George

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: Wasting our Freedom

2007-09-17 Thread Jacob Meuser

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:47:43AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:

 Your problem seems to be with the BSD licence,
 and the power to alter that licence lies in the BSD community.

I hope you can understand that this mentality is _exactly_ what has
some in the BSD community so upset.

when I see the linux community start to take credit for works they
did not create and I see the linux community respond to warnings
that people in the community are going overboard and jeopardizing
the linux community, which we do all benefit from, with a more or
less whatever attitude, it makes me sad.  it would be like losing
a friend.  I don't like losing friends, so I get vocal.

I don't understand why the linux community can't seem to say, We
can accept BSD licensed code.  There's no need to add the GPL to
it.  and maybe even, Although we strongly prefer the GPL,
respect for other licenses is every bit as important as respect
for the GPL.

I could be wrong, but I strongly believe that if the above was
truly accepted and believed by the community, the actions that
started and spread this whole debacle^Wdebate would not have
happened in the first place.

look, the GPL legally forces others to keep the same license.
the BSD community is asking the linux community do the same.
and when the linux community refuses, what do you expect the
recourse to be?

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

Re: Wasting our Freedom

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 01:18:05PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
 So for code which is single-licensed under a BSD license, someone can
 create a new derived work, and redistribute it under a more
 restrictive license --- either one as restrictive as NetApp's (where
 no one is allowed to get binary unless they are a NetApp customer, or
 source only after signing an NDA), or a GPL license.  It is not a
 relicencing, per se, since the original version of the file is still
 available under the original copyright; it is only the derived work
 which is under the more restrictive copyright.   
 
 No. The derivative work altogether has a *mixed* license. BSD/ISC for
 the parts that are original, the other (restrictive, GPL, whatever)
 license for the modifications/additions.

Yes, agreed.  I was being sloppy.  In actual practice, the GPL is more
restrictive, aod so the terms of the GPL are what tend to have more
effect, but you are absolutely correct.

 *If* you choose to distribute source along with the binaries, the part
 of the source that's original is BSD/ISC licensed even in the derivative
 work (though one may put *the additions/modifications* under restrictive
 conditions, e.g. of commercial non-disclosure type source licensing).

Yes, although actually, the place where the BSD license must be
honored is in a binary distribution, since the BSD license and
copyright attribution must be distributed as part of the binary
distribution.  (Even Microsoft does this when they use BSD code.)

For a source distribution, retaining the copyright attribution and
permission statement in the comments is sufficient to meet the BSD
license requirements, and since the open source world normally deals
mostly with source, we sometimes get sloppy with how we phrase things.

Regards,

- Ted

Re: Wasting our Freedom

Hannah Schroeter wrote:

 The original issue *was* about illegal relicensing (i.e. not just
 choosing which terms to follow, but removing the other terms
 altogether).

You are confusing two completely different issues. One is about removing
license notices, the other is about relicensing. One has nothing whatsoever
to do with the other.

No amount of changing license notices affects the license a recipient gets
to any code that the license changer did not contribute. You cannot, in the
sense of it being legally impossible, affect the license your recipients get
to code you did not author.

Relicensing is simply impossible under either the BSD license or the GPL
license. Neither grants you any relicensing rights.

Remove the BSD license from a dual-licensed work doesn't relicense anything.
Everyone who gets the work still gets a dual license from the original
author.

 It does state you can choose which terms to follow, indeed, of course.
 But that does *not* imply removing the other terms altogether.

Of course not. But since the GPL does not require you to keep a BSD license
notice intact and the BSD license does not require you to keep a GPL license
notice intact, the result is that you do have the right to remove the other
license's terms altogether. Note that this has no effect whatsoever on the
rights anyone actually gets. Rights come from licenses, not license notices.

If you were right, a dual-licensed work would not be GPL compatible. Since
the GPL prohibits the use of any mechanism to prohibit modification to the
work (other than the inability to remove the GPL itself).

 Removing the terms you choose not to follow in one instance *is*
 relicensing.

Umm, no. That's so obviously mind-bogglingly crazy that I don't even know
where to start. Let's try a hypothetical:

I download the entire Linux kernel and remove every single GPL license
notice and replace it with a public domain notice. I then distribute the
result. Am I relicensing the Linux kernel?

Isn't it obvious that I'm not. I *can't*. I have no right to change the
license under which other people's code is offered.

When you change a license notice, that has no effect on the actual license
anyone gets to anyone else's work. You license notice changes can only
affect licenses that *you* grant.

Nothing requires a license that exists to be documented in the accompanying
file. There is nothing in copyright law that is offended by the idea that
someone might remove a license notification even though the license still
applies so long as the license only *adds* rights.

The only reason we can't remove the GPL license from the Linux kernel is
because the GPL says so.

 As said above, the accusations, if you read them correctly, were not
 wrong, but spot on right. Unless someone proves that dual-licensing as
 in you may follow terms A or terms B at your choice implicitly implies
 being allowed to remove A altogether should you choose B.

You are confusing licenses with license notices. The GPL says you must keep
GPL license notices intact. Otherwise, it gives you complete freedom to
modify. This means that if you choose the GPL, you gain (from the GPL) the
right to remove the BSD license *NOTICE*.

This has no effect on anyone's substantive rights though. Removing license
notices has no effect on actual licenses.

DS

Re: Wasting our Freedom

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-17 02:29]:
  you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the code, but 
  brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux evil? 
 
 NetApp does not pretend to be free and open and save the world etc

GPL and BSD are two different philosophies of freedom.

Some people (e.g. me) consider the BSD licence a less free licence 
since it doesn't defend that the code stays free.

Some people consider the BSD licence more free since NetApp or Linux or 
Microsoft can take your code and never gove back.

Although I don't agree with it, I can understand the rationale of the 
latter.

But stating in your licence that noone has to give back but then 
complaining to some people on ethical grounds that they should give
back is simply dishonest.

Is your intention to allow people to include your code into GPL'ed code 
and never give back, or is your intention that this shouldn't happen?

And whatever your intention is should be stated in your licence.

cu
Adrian

-- 

   Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   Only a promise, Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: Wasting our Freedom

2007-09-17 Thread Claudio Jeker

On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
 On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
  The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt 
  who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...
  
  JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
  dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden
  by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's
  *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or
  in one of the licenses.
  
  Neither GPL nor BSD/ISC allow relicensing in their well-known wordings.
  
  If you think that's questionable, you should at least provide arguments
  (and be ready to have your interpretation of the law and the licenses
  tested before court).
 
 Hannah,
 
 What is going on whenever someone changes a code is that they make a
 derivative work.  Whether or not you can even make a derivative
 work, and under what terms the derivitive work can be licensed, is
 strictly up to the license of the original.  For example, the BSD
 license says:
 
   Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
   modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
   are met
 
 Note the with or without modification.  This is what allows people
 to change BSD licensed code and redistribute said changes.  The
 conditions specified by the BSD license do not mention anything about
 licening terms --- just that if you meet these three conditions, you
 are allowed to redistribute them.  So for example, this is what allows
 Network Appliances to take BSD code, change it, and add a restrictive,
 proprietary copyright.
 
 So for code which is single-licensed under a BSD license, someone can
 create a new derived work, and redistribute it under a more
 restrictive license --- either one as restrictive as NetApp's (where
 no one is allowed to get binary unless they are a NetApp customer, or
 source only after signing an NDA), or a GPL license.  It is not a
 relicencing, per se, since the original version of the file is still
 available under the original copyright; it is only the derived work
 which is under the more restrictive copyright.   
 

Wohoho! Slow here please. NDA have nothing to do with licenses and
especially with copyright. NetApp even though their stuff is under their
copyright and license does hopefully not modify the copyrights of imported
BSD/ISC code. That would be against the law and I hope their leagal
departement is smart enough to not do this mistake especially because the
BSD license those not hinder them in any way.

Now comes the funny part, as the BSD code in NetApp is available
from public sources -- for example from OpenBSD -- it is actually not
covered by the NDA. NDAs can only cover information that is not
publicly available -- you can only forbit disclosure of information that
is secret in the first place.

Finally most companies know they benefit from open source and give often
the code changes most likely bugfixes to this imported code back.
Unlike most GPL people we're happy with that especially we do not require
them to release any of their own code. Sure their WAFL file system is cool
but even in my wildest dreams I would not require them to publish their
code just because the used some of my code.
-- 
:wq Claudio

Re: Wasting our Freedom


On Sep 17, 2007, at 8:57 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:


On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:

* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-17 02:29]:
you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the  
code, but
brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux  
evil?


NetApp does not pretend to be free and open and save the world etc


GPL and BSD are two different philosophies of freedom.

Some people (e.g. me) consider the BSD licence a less free licence
since it doesn't defend that the code stays free.


Sure it does.  My code under BSD license continues to remain free,  
regardless of what Company X(1) does with their *copy* of my code. 
The only restrictions on my code is that copyright and attribution  
must remain intact.  All users of my code have the same rights,  
regardless of what Company X does with their *copy*.


The GPL places additional restrictions on code.  It is therefore less  
free than the BSD.


Free code + restrictions = non-free code.


(1) GPL advocates deep-down really like the BSD license.   
Unfortunately, they keep getting hung up on the idea of the Evil  
Corporation (TM) stealing my code.  Nobody has stolen anything.   
That corporation is entitled to the same rights as Joe User.  Neither  
EC or JU are required to redistribute any of their changes to their  
*copy* of my code.  They are only required to keep attribution  
intact.  Does that make MY CODE any less free?  OF COURSE NOT!


---
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net

authpf issue

2007-09-17 Thread James Mackinnon

Hi all

I am trying to get authpf up and running but am having an issue

I have the users shell set as authpf but on login I am getting

-authpf: non-interactive session connection for authpf

Any suggestions?

James


--
James Mackinnon
President
Devantec Inc.
1.902.371.0283
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.devantec.com
--

Re: Bug in the wireless wpi driver ?

2007-09-17 Thread Catalin Stoian

Ah, it was midnight when I wrote this. I truly meant ls instead of
cat, sorry. I just wanted to show that that firmware package is
installed correctly, ignore that part if you want. And I don't
understand what you mean with the radio thing.

On 9/17/07, Darren Spruell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 9/16/07, Catalin Stoian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I did a fresh install of OpenBSD-CURRENT on my new laptop, an Acer
  Aspire 5610 that comes with an Intel 3945 wireless adapter. But it
  seems I can't use the adapter with OpenBSD.Following the wpi manpage,
  I installed the wpi-firmware-2.14.1.5.tgz file with pkg_add, and it
  seemed to install fine.
 
  # cat /var/db/pkg
  wpi-firmware-2.14.1.5.tgz

 ???

 /var/db/pkg/ is a directory...

 $ ls -ld /var/db/pkg
 drwxr-xr-x  101 root  wheel  3072 Sep  9 22:09 /var/db/pkg

 ...and the contents of that directory would be other directories,
 package names, without the .tgz suffix.

 Don't know about your device problems, but that stuff (above) is weird.

 DS

Re: Wasting our Freedom

2007-09-17 Thread Sean

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:31 -0400
Jason Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Sure it does.  My code under BSD license continues to remain free,  
 regardless of what Company X(1) does with their *copy* of my code. 
 The only restrictions on my code is that copyright and attribution  
 must remain intact.  All users of my code have the same rights,  
 regardless of what Company X does with their *copy*.
 
 The GPL places additional restrictions on code.  It is therefore less  
 free than the BSD.
 
 Free code + restrictions = non-free code.
 
 (1) GPL advocates deep-down really like the BSD license.   
 Unfortunately, they keep getting hung up on the idea of the Evil  
 Corporation (TM) stealing my code.  Nobody has stolen anything.   
 That corporation is entitled to the same rights as Joe User.  Neither  
 EC or JU are required to redistribute any of their changes to their  
 *copy* of my code.  They are only required to keep attribution  
 intact.  Does that make MY CODE any less free?  OF COURSE NOT!
 

Your post is incredibly ironic considering how up in arms all the
BSD folks are right now.  Many of them claiming that their code
is being stolen.

Instead of worrying about Evil Corporation stealing their code,
they're worrying about Evil GPL folks stealing.   Why don't you
take a moment to email them with a reminder that whatever GPL group X
does with their *copy*, all users of the code have the same rights.
If they really believe in the BSD license they will then calm down
and we can all go back to work.

Regards,
S.

Re: sudo wheel group

On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:33:59PM -0400, Matthew Szudzik wrote:
|  /sbin/halt

SNIP

| Does anyone currently use the operator group for anything, or is it just a
| historical vestige?  Would there be anything wrong with giving the
| operator enough hardware access to run the commands above?

If you're in operator, you can at least shutdown or reboot your system
with /sbin/shutdown (which is setuid root and executable by those in
operator).

That's at least one of your list ;)

Cheers,

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

PS: if you feel you must use halt; alias halt=/sbin/shutdown -h now

--
[++-]+++.+++[---].+++[+
+++-].++[-]+.--.[-]
 http://www.weirdnet.nl/

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

Re: Wasting our Freedom


On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:27 AM, Sean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:31 -0400
Jason Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Sure it does.  My code under BSD license continues to remain free,
regardless of what Company X(1) does with their *copy* of my code.
The only restrictions on my code is that copyright and attribution
must remain intact.  All users of my code have the same rights,
regardless of what Company X does with their *copy*.

The GPL places additional restrictions on code.  It is therefore less
free than the BSD.

Free code + restrictions = non-free code.

(1) GPL advocates deep-down really like the BSD license.
Unfortunately, they keep getting hung up on the idea of the Evil
Corporation (TM) stealing my code.  Nobody has stolen anything.
That corporation is entitled to the same rights as Joe User.  Neither
EC or JU are required to redistribute any of their changes to their
*copy* of my code.  They are only required to keep attribution
intact.  Does that make MY CODE any less free?  OF COURSE NOT!


Your post is incredibly ironic considering how up in arms all the
BSD folks are right now.  Many of them claiming that their code
is being stolen.


They did not KEEP ATTRIBUTION INTACT.

---
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net

Re: Wasting our Freedom

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:33:52AM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
 On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:27 AM, Sean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:31 -0400
 Jason Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Sure it does.  My code under BSD license continues to remain free,
 regardless of what Company X(1) does with their *copy* of my code.
 The only restrictions on my code is that copyright and attribution
 must remain intact.  All users of my code have the same rights,
 regardless of what Company X does with their *copy*.

 The GPL places additional restrictions on code.  It is therefore less
 free than the BSD.

 Free code + restrictions = non-free code.

 (1) GPL advocates deep-down really like the BSD license.
 Unfortunately, they keep getting hung up on the idea of the Evil
 Corporation (TM) stealing my code.  Nobody has stolen anything.
 That corporation is entitled to the same rights as Joe User.  Neither
 EC or JU are required to redistribute any of their changes to their
 *copy* of my code.  They are only required to keep attribution
 intact.  Does that make MY CODE any less free?  OF COURSE NOT!

 Your post is incredibly ironic considering how up in arms all the
 BSD folks are right now.  Many of them claiming that their code
 is being stolen.

 They did not KEEP ATTRIBUTION INTACT.

This was a mistake in one patch that had never been merged, and this 
mistake has been corrected once it was discovered.

 Jason Dixon

cu
Adrian

-- 

   Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   Only a promise, Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: Wasting our Freedom

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:55:54PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
 Wohoho! Slow here please. NDA have nothing to do with licenses and
 especially with copyright. NetApp even though their stuff is under their
 copyright and license does hopefully not modify the copyrights of imported
 BSD/ISC code. That would be against the law and I hope their leagal
 departement is smart enough to not do this mistake especially because the
 BSD license those not hinder them in any way.

Yes, NDA doesn't have anything to do with license and copyrights, and
I never said that NetApp is modfying a copyright; but they *are*
putting a proprietary copyright license on their modifications ---
which is exactly what the Linux wireless developers had proposed to do
(modulo mistakes about removing copyright notices and attribution
which have already been acknowledged and fixed), except instead of
using a proprietary license which means you'll never see the WAFL
sources (at least without signing an NDA and acknowledging their
proprietary copyright license over their changes), it will be under a
GPL license with which you have philosophical differences, but still
allows you to see the source.

 Finally most companies know they benefit from open source and give often
 the code changes most likely bugfixes to this imported code back.
 Unlike most GPL people we're happy with that especially we do not require
 them to release any of their own code. Sure their WAFL file system is cool
 but even in my wildest dreams I would not require them to publish their
 code just because the used some of my code.

So why are you complaining when people want to use some of your code
and put the combined work under a mixed BSD/GPL license?  You can't
use WAFL; you can't use the GPL'ed enhancements.  What's the
difference between those two cases?  Somehow a mixed BSD/Proprietary
license is better?

- Ted

Re: Wasting our Freedom

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:20:19AM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
 Hi!

Hi Hannah!

 On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:13:51PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
 On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
  On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
  On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
  ...
   First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
   developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.
 
  The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt 
  who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...
 
  JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
  dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden
  by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's
  *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or
  in one of the licenses.
 
 Dual licenced code by definition explicitely states that you can choose 
 the licence - otherwise it wouldn't be called dual-licenced.
 
 It does state you can choose which terms to follow, indeed, of course.
 But that does *not* imply removing the other terms altogether.

On which legal grounds do you base this statement?

And if you choose the GPL the code you distribute will be under the GPL 
*only* forever [1], so what value would be in shipping terms that are 
void?

And if the author intended to have the BSD licence text kept intact when 
his code gets incorporated into GPL'ed code, why didn't he simply make 
his code BSD-only? In fact the only difference between BSD-only code and 
BSD/GPL dual-licenced code is that you can't remove the BSD licence text 
for the former when incorporating it into GPL'ed code...

  Neither GPL nor BSD/ISC allow relicensing in their well-known wordings.
 
 Noone said otherwise.
 
 Removing the terms you choose not to follow in one instance *is*
 relicensing.

If anything can be called relicencing, then the act of choosing one of 
the licence. And this happens one level above the actual licences, and 
the licence texts don't matter for this act.

  If you think that's questionable, you should at least provide arguments
  (and be ready to have your interpretation of the law and the licenses
  tested before court).
 
 The licence in question was:
 
 --  snip  --
 
 /*-
  * Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
  * All rights reserved.
  *
  * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
  * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
  * are met:
  * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
  *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
  *without modification.
  * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer
  *similar to the NO WARRANTY disclaimer below (Disclaimer) and any
  *redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially
  *similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution.
  * 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names
  *of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
  *from this software without specific prior written permission.
  *
  * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
  * GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 as published by the Free
  * Software Foundation.
  *
  * NO WARRANTY
  * ...
 
 --  snip  --
 
 Theo claimed it would break the law [1] to choose the GPL for
 _this_ code. [2]
 
 I re-read Theo's mail and still think the factual issues Theo states are
 probably right. Value judgements like you should give code back (when
 the license doesn't require it) are of course debatable (I tend to agree
 with Theo there too, but it's no mandatory requirement of course).
 
 Theo did *not* claim it breaks the law if you choose to obey by the
 terms of the GPL in said dual-licensing. Theo *did* claim (in my eyes,
 probably rightfully, and if it should ever be needed with respect to
 code related to OpenBSD, I could try to give a few bucks in support of
 having that claim legally verified) it's illegal to remove the license
 you chose to not follow in one instance of redistribution. IIRC the
 softwarefreedom.org people involved agreed with Theo's assessment in
 that instance.

You confuse two completely different situations.

The SFLC talks about how to incorporate *not* dual-licenced
BSD-only code into GPL'ed code.

 [...]
 
  But the BSDl does not allow you to relicense the original code, even
  while it allows you to license copyrightable additions/modifications
  under different terms with few restrictions.
 
  However, you say regarding ethics and just go back to the legal level.
  Is it really ethical, if you consider both Linux and OpenBSD part of one
  OSS community, to share things only in one direction? To take the

Re: Wasting our Freedom

Hannah Schroeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Right. You may add nearly any copyright *on your own significant
 additions/changes*.

Such as a patch? Hardly IMHO, a patch is not a work but an output
of an automated tool. The copyright is not about fragments of works.

You may add a copyright _notice_, not a copyright (a right).
The author of a derived work automatically has copyright to the
whole derived work, not only to the fragments he has created.
MS Windows is Copyright Microsoft, not Microsoft and others.

You can add any licence (not copyright, as it's automatic) to your
(derived or not) work. If it's a derived work, you must comply with
the original licence(s).

Of course, the original work is copyrighted by its original author
and licenced under its original conditions, and nobody is able to
change that.

Now, you don't need a licence from the original author to use
the derived work. The author of the derived work only needs
a licence from the original author to create a derived work.
Do you think Microsoft users have licences from authors of
the works MS Windows etc. are based on? :-)

You do need a licence from the original author to use the original
work, e.g. unmodified original work distributed by third party.
I.e., you don't need a licence to use MS Windows from the retail
shop, you need it from MS.

Is it that hard to understand?

 However, BSD/ISC explicitly requires to retain the
 BSD/ISC terms, too (applicable to the original part of the combined
 work).

Where exactly?
Have you seen MS EULA maybe?
Such requirement would be impossible to fullfit.

 No. The derivative work altogether has a *mixed* license. BSD/ISC for
 the parts that are original, the other (restrictive, GPL, whatever)
 license for the modifications/additions.

Look at MS EULA, does MS Windows in your opinion have such a mixed
licence too? :-)
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa

Re: Wasting our Freedom

Can E. Acar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Do you believe re-arranging code, renaming functions, splitting code
 to multiple files, adding some adaptation code is original enough
 to be a derivative work and deserve its own copyright?

Deserve? The copyright is automatic, the author (of the
derivative work) may like it or not.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa

Re: sudo wheel group

2007-09-17 Thread Matthew Szudzik

 If you're in operator, you can at least shutdown or reboot your system
 with /sbin/shutdown (which is setuid root and executable by those in
 operator).

But (as I mentioned in the message), shutdown makes a very annoying beep.  
When shutting down the laptop in a hushed boardroom or lecture hall, the 
beep is unacceptable.  And anyway, the shutdown command is overkill, I 
don't need to notify other users of the shutdown, since I'm the only user.

Re: A simple about the openbsd kernel

2007-09-17 Thread Nick Guenther

On 9/17/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:39:12AM -0400, Nick Guenther wrote:
  security features make the internet a safer place to be. If you are
  working for a company, the BSD license is probably more favourable to
  you because it pushes less burden on your company (unlike the GPL,
  which would have you running around making sure you managed providing
  all the source code to anyone who wanted it, or else didn't copy any
  code from any GPL base when making your additions).

 Please don't raise FUD. It's not a burden at all to add the source code
 to the CD that contains said equipment's documentation

 At first sight, it looks like you're defending the option of removing
 freedom to the user-owners of said equipment.

Sorry Rui, that's not what I was trying to do. Let's not import all
the other drama over here (and I'm not being facetious, I really
wasn't meaning to). No it's not a lot of extra trouble to include the
source code, but it is a lot of trouble to manage including the source
code.
At least, it certainly seems like companies have failed miserably at
this before.

-Nick

bgpd usage

2007-09-17 Thread Gregory Edigarov


Hi,

Just a pure interest: has somebody bgpd in production for, say, 2 or 3 
fullview routing?  I have 6 routers with bgpd but they are IBGP, and 
therefore does not do fullview routing.


--
With best regards,
   Gregory Edigarov

Re: sudo wheel group

On 2007/09/17 09:52, Matthew Szudzik wrote:
 But (as I mentioned in the message), shutdown makes a very annoying beep.  

You might find this useful:

$ grep bell /usr/src/etc/wsconsctl.conf 
#keyboard.bell.volume=0 # mute keyboard beep

Re: openbgp bug?

On 2007/09/17 16:22, Erich wrote:
 im using the bgpd version which was shipped with openbsd 4.0, a little bit 
 older, but did a good job so far.

I definitely recommend updating, 4.1-stable is probably the best
choice for you (at least, until 4.2 is out).

openbgp bug?

2007-09-17 Thread Erich


hi,

on our router with 2 uplinks we had the following scenario.

one uplink interface didnt came up at boote due an misconfiguration in 
/etc/hostname.fxp0,
no problem so far, the other interface did work ok, the bgp session 
started there.

after manual configuration of the second interface and the follwing actions
the new routes from the second uplink where not inserted into the RIB.
the follwing actions have been taken:

1. manual configuration of the interface, bpg peer was reachable afterwords.
2. bgpctl reload
3. bgpctl neighor 2teruplinkprovider up
4. bgpctl fib decouple
5. bgpctl fib couple

nothing helped so far, but a complete restart of the bgpd did it a last, is 
this a normal behavior?

im using the bgpd version which was shipped with openbsd 4.0, a little bit 
older, but did a good job so far.

mfg

erich 






**

Re: authpf issue

2007-09-17 Thread Jacob Yocom-Piatt


James Mackinnon wrote:

Hi all

I am trying to get authpf up and running but am having an issue

I have the users shell set as authpf but on login I am getting

-authpf: non-interactive session connection for authpf

Any suggestions?

  


assuming you've carefully gone through the two setup examples below

http://home.nuug.no/~peter/pf/en/vegard.authpf.html
http://openbsd.org/faq/pf/authpf.html

you should be good to go.

set /usr/sbin/authpf as the user's shell, put the rules in pf.conf and 
/etc/authpf/authpf.rules or similar, touch /etc/authpf/authpf.conf and 
you're off. check that your authpf.rules parses correctly with pfctl -nf.


cheers,
jake


James


--
James Mackinnon
President
Devantec Inc.
1.902.371.0283
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.devantec.com
--

Re: Wasting our Freedom

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 01:22:28AM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
...
 Saying something like:
 Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU 
 
 is quite similar to saying:
 Windows != Microsoft
 
 In both cases, the pairs of terms may not be equal but they are 
 certainly related. Also in both cases, the former term is most often 
 considered part of the latter term. Just as the Linux kernel is under 
 the GPL of the FSF/GNU, equally Windows is under EULA of Microsoft. You 
 are correct in stating a distinction technically exists, yet in common 
 language of everyday people, the terms are interchangeable even though 
 it is pedantically incorrect to do so.
...

You could equally say that
  OpenBSD != University of California, Berkeley

was wrong since OpenBSD uses the licence of the UCB. [1]

Or that
  OpenBSD != NetBSD

was wrong since OpenBSD is just a spinoff of NetBSD, and for everyday 
people all the *BSD operating systems are anyway the same.

Or that
  OpenBSD != Linux kernel

was wrong since although they are not equal, they are related since they 
are both open source operating systems.

Or even that
  OpenBSD != FSF

was wrong.

In case you wonder about the latter, check at [2] whose project's 
project leaders won the FSF's Award for the Advancement of Free Software 
and whose project's project leader did not.

The FSF and the Linux kernel community have some relationship, but they 
are quite distinct communities with different views on some things.

As an example, Linus Torvalds made clear some years ago that the kernel 
is GPLv2 only and will stay GPLv2 forever. This makes it impossible to 
move the kernel to the FSF's new GPLv3. If you have such differences in 
mind it sounds ridiculous when people don't differentiate between the 
FSF and the Linux kernel community.

 kind regards,
 jcr

cu
Adrian

[1] I don't know the background of the 2-clause BSD licence, but at 
least for the 3-clause and 4-clause BSD licences this was true
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Award_for_the_Advancement_of_Free_Software

-- 

   Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   Only a promise, Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: Wasting our Freedom

Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Or that
   OpenBSD != Linux kernel

 was wrong since although they are not equal, they are related since they 
 are both open source operating systems.

BTW: never heard someone is using the FreeBSD version of Linux?
I did, not once :-)
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa

Re: Wasting our Freedom

2007-09-17 Thread Hans-Jürgen Koch

Am Montag 17 September 2007 15:15 schrieb Jason Dixon:

 
 The GPL places additional restrictions on code.  It is therefore less  
 free than the BSD.
 
 Free code + restrictions = non-free code.

The legal restriction that people must not enter your house uninvited
by smashing the door adds to your freedom, don't you think so?

Hans

Re: Wasting our Freedom

2007-09-17 Thread David Newall


Jacob Meuser wrote:

when I see the linux community start to take credit for works they
did not create and I see the linux community respond to warnings
that people in the community are going overboard and jeopardizing
the linux community, which we do all benefit from, with a more or
less whatever attitude, it makes me sad.  it would be like losing
a friend.  I don't like losing friends, so I get vocal.
  


All very nicely said.

I'd like to add that an insult implicit in the attempt to remove the BSD 
license is that it says to the original authors, we plan to improve 
this code, and when we do you'll never again be able to ship it as 
BSD.  They weren't the words, but that's what you get when you think to 
the future.


Although opinions seem still to be divided, I think everyone has been 
reminded that just because you can doesn't mean you should.



I don't understand why the linux community can't seem to say,


The one shining light in this whole sorry Atheros saga is that it's now 
all history; the only people still talking about it are people not 
directly involved.  The matter could now rest...

Re: sudo wheel group

2007-09-17 Thread Woodchuck

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Chris wrote:

 On 9/17/07, Darrin Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  problem is. This is why people keep asking you to explain the problem
  more.
 
 Sorry for being vague. Ok, I have these in /etc/sudoers for joeuser.
 joeuser is also in the wheel group.
 
 joeuser server = NOPASSWD: /sbin/mount, /usr/libexec/locate.updatedb

mount can be leveraged to full root.

 joeuser server = NOPASSWD: /usr/local/bin/vim /var/www/conf/httpd.conf
 joeuser server = NOPASSWD: /usr/local/bin/vim /etc/rc.local

Both of these commands, if done with vi, probably allow joe to
launch a root shell, ex command :!sh  I don't think vim has any
better protections.

This was, at one time, a common hole in programs like chpass(1).

And, of course, joe can execute arbitrary commands through rc.local.

 joeuser server = NOPASSWD: /usr/sbin/apachectl

Some sort of cleverness with groups might eliminate this one.

 joeuser server = NOPASSWD: /usr/bin/tail -f /var/www/logs/access_log
 joeuser server = NOPASSWD: /usr/bin/tail -f /var/www/logs/error_log

Just make these readable by group wheel.

 joeuser server = NOPASSWD: /usr/local/bin/vim /etc/motd
 joeuser server = NOPASSWD: /usr/local/bin/vim /etc/pf.conf

Same comments as about previous vi-as-root.  Make these files
rw by group wheel, and no sudo is needed. Changes might be needed
to /etc, too.  Consider making /etc/motd a symbolic link to a
file that joe can edit without privilege.  This might work with
pf.conf, too, but I dunno -- maybe pf chokes if ownership isn't
right?  Try an experiment.

 I am finding that I need to add joeuser to use pkg_* tools, tcpdump as well.
 
 Is this the right way to do this?

No, not unless you trust joe with full root.

Dave
-- 
America ... might become dictatress of the world.
 She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.
-- John Quincy Adams,  July 4, 1821

Re: bgpd usage

On 2007/09/17 17:23, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
 Just a pure interest: has somebody bgpd in production for, say, 2 or 3 
 fullview routing?

yes.

Re: Bug in the wireless wpi driver ?

2007-09-17 Thread Frank Bax


Catalin Stoian wrote:

Ah, it was midnight when I wrote this. I truly meant ls instead of
cat, sorry. I just wanted to show that that firmware package is
installed correctly, ignore that part if you want. And I don't
understand what you mean with the radio thing.



Neither cat nor ls will show pkg was installed; only that you downloaded 
it.  Try:


$ pkg_info | grep wpi
wpi-firmware-2.14.4 Firmware binary image for wpi driver

The radio thing means check your laptop for a physical switch or 
Fn-key sequence that will turn your radio (wpi device) on/off.  On some 
laptops there is a physical switch that will turn off/on both wireless 
network and bluetooth at the same time.


Frank

Problem with Intel 4-port NIC

2007-09-17 Thread slug bait

I am currently having problems with my new OpenBSD-4.1 firewall.  I have
installed a PCI-X 4-port Intel Gigabit Ethernet card, but something appears
to be broken.  The 4 interfaces are detected as em0-3 while the two on-board
GB NICs are bge0 and bge1.

The first symptom I noticed was the inability to ssh to or from the em0
interface on the host after installation. Connections to and from the
on-board interfaces (bge0/1) work perfectly, but everything on the emX
interfaces is broken. Further tests with apache/ftp/etc. produced similar
results.  I have replaced the switch (Netgear JGS524) with no effect.

Are there any known issues with this type of network card or this
configuration?

 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ ssh -v [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OpenSSH_4.7p1, OpenSSL 0.9.8e 23 Feb 2007
debug1: Reading configuration data /etc/ssh/ssh_config
debug1: Connecting to 192.168.100.254 [192.168.100.254]
debug1: Connection established.
debug1: identity file /home/xaphan/.ssh/identity type -1
debug1: identity file /home/xaphan/.ssh/id_rsa type -1
debug1: identity file /home/xaphan/.ssh/id_dsa type -1
debug1: Remote protocol version 2.0, remote software version OpenSSH_4.7
debug1: match: OpenSSH_4.7 pat OpenSSH*
debug1: Enabling compatibility mode for protocol 2.0
debug1: Local version string SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_4.7
debug1: SSH2_MSG_KEXINIT sent
debug1: SSH2_MSG_KEXINIT received
debug1: kex: server-client aes128-cbc hmac-md5 none
debug1: kex: client-server aes128-cbc hmac-md5 none
debug1: SSH2_MSG_KEX_DH_GEX_REQUEST(102410248192) sent
debug1: expecting SSH2_MSG_KEX_DH_GEX_GROUP
debug1: SSH2_MSG_KEX_DH_GEX_INIT sent
debug1: expecting SSH2_MSG_KEX_DH_GEX_REPLY
debug1: checking without port identifier
The authenticity of host '[192.168.100.254] ([192.168.100.254])' can't be
established.
RSA key fingerprint is f1:51:1f:c3:51:22:f4:91:08:84:0a:52:1e:b0:79:b6.
Are you sure you want to continue connecting (yes/no)? yes
Warning: Permanently added '[192.168.100.254]' (RSA) to the list of known
hosts.
hash mismatch
debug1: ssh_rsa_verify: signature incorrect
key_verify failed for server_host_key



dmesg:

OpenBSD 4.1 (GENERIC.MP) #1225: Sat Mar 10 19:23:18 MST 2007
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC.MP
cpu0: Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 165 (AuthenticAMD 686-class,
1024KB L2 cache) 1.80 GHz
cpu0:
FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2
,HTT,SSE3
cpu0: AMD erratum 89 present, BIOS upgrade may be required
real mem  = 2146922496 (2096604K)
avail mem = 1952145408 (1906392K)
using 4278 buffers containing 107470848 bytes (104952K) of memory
mainbus0 (root)
bios0 at mainbus0: AT/286+ BIOS, date 03/26/07, BIOS32 rev. 0 @ 0xf0010,
SMBIOS rev. 2.4 @ 0xfb8d0 (50
 entries)
bios0: Supermicro H8SSL
pcibios0 at bios0: rev 2.1 @ 0xf/0x1
pcibios0: PCI IRQ Routing Table rev 1.0 @ 0xf5030/160 (8 entries)
pcibios0: no compatible PCI ICU found: ICU vendor 0x1166 product 0x0205
pcibios0: PCI bus #3 is the last bus
bios0: ROM list: 0xc/0x8000 0xc8000/0x2000! 0xca000/0x1600
0xcb800/0x1600 0xcd000/0x1000
acpi at mainbus0 not configured
mainbus0: Intel MP Specification (Version 1.4)
cpu0 at mainbus0: apid 0 (boot processor)
cpu0: AMD erratum 89 present, BIOS upgrade may be required
cpu0: apic clock running at 199 MHz
cpu1 at mainbus0: apid 1 (application processor)
cpu1: Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 165 (AuthenticAMD 686-class,
1024KB L2 cache) 1.80 GHz
cpu1:
FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2
,HTT,SSE3
cpu1: AMD erratum 89 present, BIOS upgrade may be required
mainbus0: bus 0 is type PCI
mainbus0: bus 1 is type PCI
mainbus0: bus 2 is type PCI
mainbus0: bus 3 is type PCI
mainbus0: bus 4 is type ISA
ioapic0 at mainbus0: apid 2 pa 0xfec0, version 11, 16 pins
ioapic1 at mainbus0: apid 3 pa 0xfec01000, version 11, 16 pins
ioapic2 at mainbus0: apid 4 pa 0xfec02000, version 11, 16 pins
pci0 at mainbus0 bus 0: configuration mode 1 (no bios)
ppb0 at pci0 dev 1 function 0 ServerWorks HT-1000 PCI rev 0x00
pci1 at ppb0 bus 1
ppb1 at pci1 dev 13 function 0 ServerWorks HT-1000 PCIX rev 0xb2
pci2 at ppb1 bus 2
ppb2 at pci2 dev 1 function 0 Pericom PI7C21P100 PCIX-PCIX rev 0x01
pci3 at ppb2 bus 3
em0 at pci3 dev 4 function 0 Intel PRO/1000MT QP (82546GB) rev 0x03: apic
3 int 4 (irq 7), address 0
0:1b:21:03:b5:18
em1 at pci3 dev 4 function 1 Intel PRO/1000MT QP (82546GB) rev 0x03: apic
3 int 5 (irq 9), address 0
0:1b:21:03:b5:19
em2 at pci3 dev 6 function 0 Intel PRO/1000MT QP (82546GB) rev 0x03: apic
3 int 6 (irq 9), address 0
0:1b:21:03:b5:1a
em3 at pci3 dev 6 function 1 Intel PRO/1000MT QP (82546GB) rev 0x03: apic
3 int 7 (irq 9), address 0
0:1b:21:03:b5:1b
bge0 at pci2 dev 3 function 0 Broadcom BCM5704C rev 0x10, BCM5704 B0
(0x2100): apic 3 int 8 (irq 9),
 address 00:30:48:60:e1:22
brgphy0 at bge0 phy 1: BCM5704 10/100/1000baseT PHY, rev. 0
bge1 at pci2 dev 3

Re: bgpd usage

* Gregory Edigarov [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-17 17:12]:
 Just a pure interest: has somebody bgpd in production for, say, 2 or 3 
 fullview routing?  I have 6 routers with bgpd but they are IBGP, and 
 therefore does not do fullview routing.

there are many way bigger installations than that.

I have multiple full feeds myself as well.

-- 
Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg  Amsterdam

Re: sudo wheel group

2007-09-17 Thread Gilles Chehade

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:52:06AM -0400, Matthew Szudzik wrote:
  If you're in operator, you can at least shutdown or reboot your system
  with /sbin/shutdown (which is setuid root and executable by those in
  operator).
 
 But (as I mentioned in the message), shutdown makes a very annoying beep.  
 When shutting down the laptop in a hushed boardroom or lecture hall, the 
 beep is unacceptable.  And anyway, the shutdown command is overkill, I 
 don't need to notify other users of the shutdown, since I'm the only user.
 

I don't have an openbsd box I can try on right now, but I think that if you
mute the beeps you won't be hearing it when shutting down (which means that
since it is unacceptable in your lecture hall, you should mute it when your
session starts).

Also, I don't think that notification of logged in users is that much of an
overkill if you compare to what happens when you do the shutdown.

Gilles

question on spamd blacklisted hosts

2007-09-17 Thread Juan Miscaro

Running OBSD 4.0 here.

I was under the impression that spamd only did greylisting and dynamic
whitelisting.  Static blacklisting available via spamd-setup (and
pseudo-whitelisting; of some of those blacklisted hosts).

But not dynamic blacklisting.

I occasionally get log messages like:

 spamd[12128]: (BLACK) 65.216.123.37: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

I searched my spamdb table (static blacklist) and the IP address above
is not in there.

What am I missing?

--
Juan


  Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the 
boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca

Re: openbgp bug?

* Erich [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-17 17:27]:
 on our router with 2 uplinks we had the following scenario.

 one uplink interface didnt came up at boote due an misconfiguration in 
 /etc/hostname.fxp0,
 no problem so far, the other interface did work ok, the bgp session started 
 there.
 after manual configuration of the second interface and the follwing actions
 the new routes from the second uplink where not inserted into the RIB.
 the follwing actions have been taken:

 1. manual configuration of the interface, bpg peer was reachable 
 afterwords.
 2. bgpctl reload
 3. bgpctl neighor 2teruplinkprovider up
 4. bgpctl fib decouple
 5. bgpctl fib couple

 nothing helped so far, but a complete restart of the bgpd did it a last, is 
 this a normal behavior?

of course not.
when routes ar enot inserted into the fib, you'll want to check bgpctl 
show nexthop output. It'll pretty certainly show you the nexthop in 
question as invalid. there is a good chance it already gives a hint why 
the nexthop is unreachable (by showing you eitehr the interface 
information or the via 1.2.3.4 info). you then want to check route 
get $nexthop.

That all said, I do remember interface indexes were missing on some 
rtmsgs, and I think that could cause such behaviour. It is long fixed - 
chances are good it was after 4.0 tho (but before 4.1 for sure)

-- 
Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg  Amsterdam

Re: Wasting our Freedom

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:15:05PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
 On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
 | It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the 
 | BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD 
 | licence is that it does not require you to give back.
 | 
 | Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you do not 
 | require getting anything back but you then argue on moral grounds that
 | something has to be given back.
 
 Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST
 give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that hey,
 they don't require it, so we don't have to.
...

The GPL doesn't require to give back under a licence that gives less 
protection for the code than the GPL does.

If you take the BSD licence seriously you don't request to get anything 
back on moral grounds.

If you take the GPL seriously you don't want your modifications being 
available with less protection.

In reality, where it makes sense technically, it's quite likely that an 
author will make his modifications, or even a completely self-written 
driver, also available under the terms of the BSD licence when asked in 
a friendly way.

 Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
...

cu
Adrian

-- 

   Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   Only a promise, Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: Wasting our Freedom

 And if you choose the GPL the code you distribute will be under the GPL
 *only* forever [1], so what value would be in shipping terms that are
 void?

Not true. You cannot chose the license that applies to other people's code.
The code you distribute contains protectable elements from different authors.
Each element is still offered under whatever license the original author
offered it under.

You cannot affect the license grant from the author to the lawful possessor of
code you did not author.

The code you *contribute* will be under the GPL *only* forever. But the code
you distribute will contain elements from different authors offered under
different licenses.

 And if the author intended to have the BSD licence text kept intact when
 his code gets incorporated into GPL'ed code, why didn't he simply make
 his code BSD-only? In fact the only difference between BSD-only code and
 BSD/GPL dual-licenced code is that you can't remove the BSD licence text
 for the former when incorporating it into GPL'ed code...

That's true.

DS

Re: Wasting our Freedom

Theodore Tso writes:

 Now, you don't need a licence from the original author to use
 the derived work. The author of the derived work only needs
 a licence from the original author to create a derived work.
 Do you think Microsoft users have licences from authors of
 the works MS Windows etc. are based on? :-)

Of course you don't need a license to *use* the derived work. You never need
a license to use a work. (In the United States. Some countries word this a
bit differently but get the same effect.)

If, however, you wanted to get the right to modify or distribute a
derivative work, you would need to obtain the rights to every protectable
element in that work. If the work were under a GPL or BSD type license, only
the original author of each individual element could grant you such a
license.

Read GPL section 6, particularly this part: Each time you redistribute the
Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically
receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify
the Program subject to
these terms and conditions.

To distribute a derivative work that contains protectable elements from
multiple authors, you are distributing all of those elements and need the
rights to all of them. You need a license to each element and in the absence
of any relicensing arrangements (which the GPL and BSD license are not),
only the original author can grant that to you.

It is a common confusion that just because the final author has copyright in
the derivative work, that means he can license the work. He cannot license
anyone else's creative contributions absent a relicensing arrangement.

The GPL is explicit that it is not such a license. That's what the from the
original licensor language in section 6 means. The BSD license is not
explicit, but it couldn't work any other way.

When you receive a Linux kernel distribution, you receive a GPL license to
every protectable element in that work from that element's individual
author. Nobody can license the kernel as a whole to you.

DS

Re: sudo wheel group

2007-09-17 Thread James Hartley

On 9/17/07, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Ok, I have these in /etc/sudoers for joeuser.
 joeuser is also in the wheel group.

Why are you adding wheel group membership?  Root access through
sudo(8) does not require the user to be a member of wheel, but su(8)
does.

Jim

Re: SMP Support?

2007-09-17 Thread Paul Taulborg

load averages:  0.30,  0.08,  0.03 
05:22:12

15 processes:  14 idle, 1 on processor
CPU0 states:  0.3% user,  0.0% nice,  0.7% system,  0.1% interrupt, 98.9% 
idle
CPU1 states:  0.0% user,  0.0% nice,  0.1% system,  0.0% interrupt, 99.9% 
idle
CPU2 states:  0.0% user,  0.0% nice,  0.0% system,  0.0% interrupt, 99.9% 
idle
CPU3 states:  0.0% user,  0.0% nice,  0.0% system,  0.0% interrupt,  100% 
idle

Memory: Real: 8232K/44M act/tot  Free: 1937M  Swap: 0K/2055M used/tot


Booya! Updated my BIOS to the latest version (44), and applied the patch 
that was kindly provided to me here:

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-techm=118975639013313w=2

I also enabled acpi0 in the kernel by default (required to see the other 
processors), and tada!


I had to apply the patch above, as it would die with out of bounds 
error.


I will let you know if I run into any stability issues, but am really 
happy to get this working! Thanks for all the help!



On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Daniel Ouellet wrote:


Paul Taulborg wrote:
I went through every option in the BIOS, and there is nothing at all 
related to ACPI. :(


Your BIOS is version 35, and there is a very long list of BIOS upgrades from 
Intel. The latest one for this board, if I am not mistaken is 44 and you have 
35.



bios0: vendor Intel Corporation version
S3000.86B.02.00.0035.111020061326 date 11/10/2006


May be a good idea to check it out:

http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?agr=NProductID=2569DwnldID=13871strOSs=AllOSFullName=All%20Operating%20Systemslang=eng

I am not saying it will fix your problem, but if I was you, I would try it 
and see. Worst case, if you don't like it, you can flash the old one back.


Just a thought.

Daniel

Re: Problem with Intel 4-port NIC

On 2007/09/17 11:09, slug bait wrote:
 I am currently having problems with my new OpenBSD-4.1 firewall.  I have
 installed a PCI-X 4-port Intel Gigabit Ethernet card, but something appears
 to be broken.  The 4 interfaces are detected as em0-3 while the two on-board
 GB NICs are bge0 and bge1.

Find a spare jumper, open the box up, remove the NIC (yeah, I know.
you're going to love me when you have to put it back if it's in a 1U case...)
to access JPXA1 (between the heatsink-covered HT-1000 and the ATI GPU),
put the jumper on 1-2 becuase it's broken at 133MHz (gotta love that
checksum offloading)...

While you're there, you may also want to move JPL1 to disable the
BCM5704C bge(4) unless you really need them (next to the slot for the
IPMI riser).

If the box is somewhere with inconvenient access you may also want to
put a jumper on JP2 (front, near the fan header) to force power on
(the BIOS options about this are ... somewhat lacking)

 bios0 at mainbus0: AT/286+ BIOS, date 03/26/07, BIOS32 rev. 0 @ 0xf0010,

lucky you - mine won't POST with that version unless CMOS is clear
first (every boot), yum...

I still *mostly* prefer them to X2100 though...

Re: sudo wheel group

2007-09-17 Thread Woodchuck

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Matthew Szudzik wrote:

 What's a laptop user to do?

Run as root -- why not?

Be careful.  Limit PATH.  Keep the cat off the keyboard.  (This
can be pesky if you're using vi at the time.)

Open a root xterm, make the background some weird color, use a font
and size you don't normally use.  You might try setting a deadman
to log it out automatically after N seconds of inactivity at the
prompt.  (man ksh, see the TMOUT variable).  Set window-manager
attributes so it's always on top and can't be shaded or
iconified if you want to be paranoid.

Measure twice, cut once; you know the drill.

Dave

Re: Wasting our Freedom

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:25:14AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
 
  And if you choose the GPL the code you distribute will be under the GPL 
  *only* forever [1], so what value would be in shipping terms that are 
  void?
 
 Not true. You cannot chose the license that applies to other people's code. 
 The code you distribute contains protectable elements from different authors. 
 Each element is still offered under whatever license the original author 
 offered it under.
 
 You cannot affect the license grant from the author to the lawful possessor 
 of code you did not author.
 
 The code you *contribute* will be under the GPL *only* forever. But the code 
 you distribute will contain elements from different authors offered under 
 different licenses.
...

The licence text we are talking about disagrees with what you claim:

--  snip  --

/*-
 * Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
 * All rights reserved.
 *
 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
 * are met:
 * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
 *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
 *without modification.
 * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer
 *similar to the NO WARRANTY disclaimer below (Disclaimer) and any
 *redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially
 *similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution.
 * 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names
 *of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
 *from this software without specific prior written permission.
 *
 * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
 * GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 as published by the Free
 * Software Foundation.
 *
 * NO WARRANTY
 * ...

--  snip  --

We are talking about dual-licenced code, not about BSD licenced code 
incorporated into GPL'ed code.

That other people can distribute the original dual-licenced code 
dual-licenced or BSD-only, and that you can get the code under this 
licences from there, is without a doubt. But *the author* allowed me to 
choose the licence when *I distribute it*.

 DS

cu
Adrian

-- 

   Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   Only a promise, Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: Wasting our Freedom

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the
| BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD
| licence is that it does not require you to give back.
|
| Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you do not
| require getting anything back but you then argue on moral grounds that
| something has to be given back.

Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST
give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that hey,
they don't require it, so we don't have to.

It may be perfectly legal, but it's interesting to say the least.
No, you do not have to give back. But weren't you open source / free
software developers ? Why did you pick the GPL ? Because you didn't
want someone to run of with your code ? You wanted code to be given
back ? Why not do it yourself ? By not giving back you're giving a
strange signal.

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

PS: Yes, I know .. but your giving back attaches new strings that
weren't there in the first place.

--
[++-]+++.+++[---].+++[+
+++-].++[-]+.--.[-]
 http://www.weirdnet.nl/

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

Re: altq priq Anomaly (Solved)

2007-09-17 Thread Daniel Melameth

On 7/22/07, Daniel Melameth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 7/22/07, Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On 2007/07/20 15:20, Daniel Melameth wrote:
   then go back to the broken behavior sometime later.  A reboot of the box 
   or
   removing altq is the only way to resolve the issue, temporarily.  I've 
   tried
   both priq and cbq, adjusting tbrsize, recompiling the kernel with a higher
   HZ value and using different hardware and different Internet connections,
   but the issue persists.
 
  Try a snapshot, i386 moved to the new timecounter code after 4.1.
 
  Though I note there is also an XXX about variable cpu frequency (in
  sys/altq/altq_subr.c) which might affect you if you adjust cpu speed
  (manually or by apmd).

 Thanks for taking the time to reply.  I can't readily do a snapshot
 now, but since I am using apmd, I'll try this avenue first and see
 what happens.

Thanks to Stuart's review of the altq code, I have, finally, resolved
this issue which has affected me for years.  Disabling apmd did not
resolve the issue, but disabling the Dynamically Switchable setting
for CPU Frequency in the BIOS appears to have addressed this problem.
I have been using the system for a couple of months now and altq has
been very solid.

Re: SMP Support?

2007-09-17 Thread Ted Unangst

On 9/16/07, Daniel Ouellet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Paul Taulborg wrote:
  I appologize for not including this, here is the dmesg of a successful
  boot of the amd 4.2 DEFAULT kernel:

 Paul,

 Not sure all the tests you did, but first do not run AMD64 on Intel
 processor. I would do this first thing if you haven't done already.

there is no reason why this wouldn't work.  if it prints the
copyright, it's compatible.

Re: Problem with Intel 4-port NIC

2007-09-17 Thread slug bait

Bingo!  I figured out that it was a problem with the checksum offloading
shortly after my original email but I had NO clue how to fix it.

Everything is working now and I hope I NEVER have to open these 1U cases
again.  Jamming the SATA connectors back in after they're covered by the NIC
makes me cry.  ;)

On 9/17/07, Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On 2007/09/17 11:09, slug bait wrote:
  I am currently having problems with my new OpenBSD-4.1 firewall.  I have
  installed a PCI-X 4-port Intel Gigabit Ethernet card, but something
 appears
  to be broken.  The 4 interfaces are detected as em0-3 while the two
 on-board
  GB NICs are bge0 and bge1.

 Find a spare jumper, open the box up, remove the NIC (yeah, I know.
 you're going to love me when you have to put it back if it's in a 1U
 case...)
 to access JPXA1 (between the heatsink-covered HT-1000 and the ATI GPU),
 put the jumper on 1-2 becuase it's broken at 133MHz (gotta love that
 checksum offloading)...

 While you're there, you may also want to move JPL1 to disable the
 BCM5704C bge(4) unless you really need them (next to the slot for the
 IPMI riser).

 If the box is somewhere with inconvenient access you may also want to
 put a jumper on JP2 (front, near the fan header) to force power on
 (the BIOS options about this are ... somewhat lacking)

  bios0 at mainbus0: AT/286+ BIOS, date 03/26/07, BIOS32 rev. 0 @ 0xf0010,

 lucky you - mine won't POST with that version unless CMOS is clear
 first (every boot), yum...

 I still *mostly* prefer them to X2100 though...

Re: netstart location

2007-09-17 Thread Shawn K. Quinn

On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 20:17 -0400, Nick Guenther wrote:
 Besides tradition, is there any particular reason that netstart is in
 /etc? This has always confused me, I'd think it would be in /sbin.
 Further, why is it not exectuable?

You can always symlink it to /sbin and change the permissions to
executable after the install is done.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Problem with Intel 4-port NIC

On 2007/09/17 13:43, slug bait wrote:
 Bingo!  I figured out that it was a problem with the checksum offloading
 shortly after my original email but I had NO clue how to fix it.

it's not actually caused by offloading, but offloading means that
transfers from the nic to the motherboard aren't protected by the
standard network checksums, so they pass through to userland with
bad data (rather than getting rejected in the network stack).

 Everything is working now and I hope I NEVER have to open these 1U cases
 again.  Jamming the SATA connectors back in after they're covered by the NIC
 makes me cry.  ;)

(-:

Re: sudo wheel group

2007-09-17 Thread Keith Richardson


Chris wrote:

I am finding that I need to add joeuser to use pkg_* tools, tcpdump as well.

Is this the right way to do this?

  
You might as well give joeuser root password if you give him access to 
pkg_add and pkg_delete tools.


package framework has ability to run scripts as root.  All joeuser needs 
to do is create his own package.tgz and run pkg_add $HOME/package.tgz.



I agree with others in this thread: your security design is flawed.  

* Work towards alternative solutions when possible (i.e. can joeuser run 
Ethereal from the client machine to get the network traffic instead of 
tcpdump on the server?)

* Give read access if all they need is read-only.
* Don't push sysadmin work on the ?web developer (joeuser)?  package 
management is a perfect example.  tcp dumps slightly less so.
* Mount does not necessarily require root.  See mount and sysctl.conf 
man pages for conditions and sysctl settings. 



If you still want to go the sudo route after the comments you have 
received, that is your decision.  You can create server, user and 
command groups in sudoers to help keep your sudoers file sane.  See man 
page for exact syntax. 


-Keith

Re: Wasting our Freedom

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:02:30PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
 On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:38:46PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
 |  Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST
 |  give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that hey,
 |  they don't require it, so we don't have to.
 | ...
 | 
 | The GPL doesn't require to give back under a licence that gives less 
 | protection for the code than the GPL does.
 
 It does not, I may not have been explicit but this is what I was
 alluding to. It was, in fact, what I was pointing out. Your preferred
 licence doesn't require it, so you don't do it. [and by you, I do not
 mean you in person]
 
 | If you take the BSD licence seriously you don't request to get anything 
 | back on moral grounds.
 
 I do take the BSD licence serious and I do not request to get anything
 back on any BSD-grounds (moral, legal, other). I was referring to the
 GPL's you must share attitude that isn't reciprocal.
 
 I'm not making any arguments against any (commercial) user of BSD
 licenced code on moral (or legal or other) grounds that they should
 give back. I am (and I think others too, but I do not wish to speak
 for them) trying to make an argument based on the 'share'-nature of
 the GPL that doesn't give back the freedom of BSD licenced code.

GPL has a share and protect nature.

 | If you take the GPL seriously you don't want your modifications being 
 | available with less protection.
 
 If you have respect for both licences and you don't want your code
 available with less protection, rewrite. BSD developers have done so
 for various GPL licenced programs. After having used GPL licenced code
 for some time, some developer decides that he prefers another licence
 and does a rewrite. Linux Kernel Developers have it easier in this
 respect. They do not have to rewrite - they can take BSD licenced code
 and use it in their kernel without changing the licence or needing a
 rewrite [or so I've understood - IANAL].
 
 If you use someone else's code, show this fellow free software / open
 source developer some respect and give back as freely as you received.
 This respect is enforced in the GPL, the BSD doesn't even mention it.
 BSD folks tend to have lots of respect for good code and they try to
 respect licences [not making any observations about other folks or
 other subjects here, this is based on my personal observations]
 
 I'm clearly not saying you must give back, legally [but still, IANAL].
 I'm saying you should give back as freely as you received, out of
 respect. Someone else already mentioned it : Just because you can take
 BSD licenced code and do (almost) whatever you wish, doesn't mean you
 should. Leave that up to the Big Evil Corps (the ones that also use
 GPL'ed code without giving back, btw).

If a corporation violates the terms of the GPL lawyers and courts can 
force them to do so.

BSD people tend to consider the BSD licence as being more free than the
GPL because it allows to take without having to give back.

When people then demand getting code back based on ethics or morale 
they are using the wrong licence.

Your licence puts you in the position that you always depend on the 
goodwill of the persons from whom you want to get code back.

And BTW:
Many contributions to the Linux kernel come from people payed by
Big Evil Corps. [1]

 | In reality, where it makes sense technically, it's quite likely that an 
 | author will make his modifications, or even a completely self-written 
 | driver, also available under the terms of the BSD licence when asked in 
 | a friendly way.
 
 This, of course, would be perfect. But in all fairness, why then
 release anything under the GPL ? Please, don't get me wrong, I respect
 the GPL and the Linux kernel and especially each developers choice of
 licence, but I doubt it's that easy (of course, on a case-by-case
 basis, there's nothing to lose).

First of all, for some developers it wouldn't make a difference whether
their code was published under the terms of the GPL or under the terms
of the BSD licence.

And there are many people who are aware when code comes from *BSD and 
that giving code back in these cases would be friendly.

I for one consider it important that the Linux kernel is protected by 
the GPL - but whether some contribution I send also becomes available 
under a different licence I don't care that much.

 Cheers,
 
 Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

cu
Adrian

[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/222773/

-- 

   Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   Only a promise, Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: Wasting our Freedom

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:38:46PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
|  Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST
|  give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that hey,
|  they don't require it, so we don't have to.
| ...
|
| The GPL doesn't require to give back under a licence that gives less
| protection for the code than the GPL does.

It does not, I may not have been explicit but this is what I was
alluding to. It was, in fact, what I was pointing out. Your preferred
licence doesn't require it, so you don't do it. [and by you, I do not
mean you in person]

| If you take the BSD licence seriously you don't request to get anything
| back on moral grounds.

I do take the BSD licence serious and I do not request to get anything
back on any BSD-grounds (moral, legal, other). I was referring to the
GPL's you must share attitude that isn't reciprocal.

I'm not making any arguments against any (commercial) user of BSD
licenced code on moral (or legal or other) grounds that they should
give back. I am (and I think others too, but I do not wish to speak
for them) trying to make an argument based on the 'share'-nature of
the GPL that doesn't give back the freedom of BSD licenced code.

| If you take the GPL seriously you don't want your modifications being
| available with less protection.

If you have respect for both licences and you don't want your code
available with less protection, rewrite. BSD developers have done so
for various GPL licenced programs. After having used GPL licenced code
for some time, some developer decides that he prefers another licence
and does a rewrite. Linux Kernel Developers have it easier in this
respect. They do not have to rewrite - they can take BSD licenced code
and use it in their kernel without changing the licence or needing a
rewrite [or so I've understood - IANAL].

If you use someone else's code, show this fellow free software / open
source developer some respect and give back as freely as you received.
This respect is enforced in the GPL, the BSD doesn't even mention it.
BSD folks tend to have lots of respect for good code and they try to
respect licences [not making any observations about other folks or
other subjects here, this is based on my personal observations]

I'm clearly not saying you must give back, legally [but still, IANAL].
I'm saying you should give back as freely as you received, out of
respect. Someone else already mentioned it : Just because you can take
BSD licenced code and do (almost) whatever you wish, doesn't mean you
should. Leave that up to the Big Evil Corps (the ones that also use
GPL'ed code without giving back, btw).

| In reality, where it makes sense technically, it's quite likely that an
| author will make his modifications, or even a completely self-written
| driver, also available under the terms of the BSD licence when asked in
| a friendly way.

This, of course, would be perfect. But in all fairness, why then
release anything under the GPL ? Please, don't get me wrong, I respect
the GPL and the Linux kernel and especially each developers choice of
licence, but I doubt it's that easy (of course, on a case-by-case
basis, there's nothing to lose).

Cheers,

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

--
[++-]+++.+++[---].+++[+
+++-].++[-]+.--.[-]
 http://www.weirdnet.nl/

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

Re: Wasting our Freedom

2007-09-17 Thread Claudio Jeker

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:34:58AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
 On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:55:54PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
  Wohoho! Slow here please. NDA have nothing to do with licenses and
  especially with copyright. NetApp even though their stuff is under their
  copyright and license does hopefully not modify the copyrights of imported
  BSD/ISC code. That would be against the law and I hope their leagal
  departement is smart enough to not do this mistake especially because the
  BSD license those not hinder them in any way.
 
 Yes, NDA doesn't have anything to do with license and copyrights, and
 I never said that NetApp is modfying a copyright; but they *are*
 putting a proprietary copyright license on their modifications ---
 which is exactly what the Linux wireless developers had proposed to do
 (modulo mistakes about removing copyright notices and attribution
 which have already been acknowledged and fixed), except instead of
 using a proprietary license which means you'll never see the WAFL
 sources (at least without signing an NDA and acknowledging their
 proprietary copyright license over their changes), it will be under a
 GPL license with which you have philosophical differences, but still
 allows you to see the source.
 

You assume a lot about what NetApp did. While they can use BSD licensed
code in their system without any issue they can not slam a new copyright
on that code unless the changes create a derivative work.
If you just do an adaption of the code you have no right to add an
additional copyright. You need to make substantial extensions to the
original work. Now adapting code to make it run under linux is in my
opinion not a substantial work. It can be compared to translate a book to
a different language -- which neither allows you to assign copyright on
the result.
I very much doubt that WAFL is a simple adaption of UFS/FFS. So it should
be clear that this work has it's own copyright. Maybe some parts of their
code is using BSD work that they just adapted. On that code they can not
add an additional copyright as the modifications are not substantial
enough.

  Finally most companies know they benefit from open source and give often
  the code changes most likely bugfixes to this imported code back.
  Unlike most GPL people we're happy with that especially we do not require
  them to release any of their own code. Sure their WAFL file system is cool
  but even in my wildest dreams I would not require them to publish their
  code just because the used some of my code.
 
 So why are you complaining when people want to use some of your code
 and put the combined work under a mixed BSD/GPL license?  You can't
 use WAFL; you can't use the GPL'ed enhancements.  What's the
 difference between those two cases?  Somehow a mixed BSD/Proprietary
 license is better?
 

Because they put their copyright plus license on code that they barely
modified. If they would have added substantial work into the OpenHAL code
and by doing that creating something new I would not say much.

All the comercial code I have ever seen did not do this stunt of adding a
new copyright and license to barely modified files. Perhaps the evil
companies have more ethics or better understanding of copyright.

-- 
:wq Claudio

Re: Wasting our Freedom

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:32:35PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
|  I'm not making any arguments against any (commercial) user of BSD
|  licenced code on moral (or legal or other) grounds that they should
|  give back. I am (and I think others too, but I do not wish to speak
|  for them) trying to make an argument based on the 'share'-nature of
|  the GPL that doesn't give back the freedom of BSD licenced code.
|
| GPL has a share and protect nature.

Yes, and I was talking about the 'share' part. The protect part is
fine with me, I understand the reasoning behind it. I would not choose
it as my own licence, but that is a matter of personal choice.

|  I'm clearly not saying you must give back, legally [but still, IANAL].
|  I'm saying you should give back as freely as you received, out of
|  respect. Someone else already mentioned it : Just because you can take
|  BSD licenced code and do (almost) whatever you wish, doesn't mean you
|  should. Leave that up to the Big Evil Corps (the ones that also use
|  GPL'ed code without giving back, btw).
|
| If a corporation violates the terms of the GPL lawyers and courts can
| force them to do so.

The exact same is true for the BSD Licence. If a corporation (or
anyone else for that matter) violates the terms of the BSD licence,
courts can make them stop these violations. It's just easier to
violate the GPL, because it has more restrictions. [I'm still not a
lawyer, btw]

Big Evil Corps can however use GPL'ed code without giving back and
without violating the GPL. Also the same as with the BSD licence.

| BSD people tend to consider the BSD licence as being more free than the
| GPL because it allows to take without having to give back.
|
| When people then demand getting code back based on ethics or morale
| they are using the wrong licence.

Why ? BSD people give their code away for free. They put hard work
into writing quality software and they have their own ethics or
morale. They do not *demand* getting code back, at least I have not
seen any indication of such demands. So then why are they using the
wrong licence ? I was merely pointing out a matter of mutual respect.

| Your licence puts you in the position that you always depend on the
| goodwill of the persons from whom you want to get code back.

And the people using the BSD licence are completely aware of this [I
assume, again I do not wish to speak for anyone but myself]. At least
I was surprised that fellow open source / free software developers are
not giving back. I've come to expect this from certain companies, but
to me the free and open software community as a whole (here I'm
lumping everyone and their mother together, I know) should have some
respect towards eachother and the licence they choose and acknowledge
the contributions of other parties, giving back as freely as they've
been given. Not because it is required but because it's just right.

The GPL requires I give changes I distribute back under the same
licence. But if I ever were to change such a program, I would not give
these changes back because of this requirement but because it just
makes sense.

| And BTW:
| Many contributions to the Linux kernel come from people payed by
| Big Evil Corps. [1]

There's also contributions to OpenBSD from people paid by Big Evil
Corps. The same is true for Net- and FreeBSD. Of course, not all Big
Evil Corps are, in fact, Evil.

| First of all, for some developers it wouldn't make a difference whether
| their code was published under the terms of the GPL or under the terms
| of the BSD licence.
|
| And there are many people who are aware when code comes from *BSD and
| that giving code back in these cases would be friendly.

Of course, like I said, on a case-by-case basis, there's nothing to
lose.

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

--
[++-]+++.+++[---].+++[+
+++-].++[-]+.--.[-]
 http://www.weirdnet.nl/

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

Re: Wasting our Freedom

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:32:35 +0200, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Your licence puts you in the position that you always depend on the
 goodwill of the persons from whom you want to get code back.

The BSD license promotes goodwill.

The GPL license promotes and enforces viral control.  How hypocritical that the 
Linux community fights so hard against the evils of corporate greed, while it 
has no qualms about accepting their NDAs, binary blobs, and non-redistributable 
drivers.  It will bend over backwards for closed-source vendors, but won't 
extend the olive branch to Free Software brethren.

-- 
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net

Re: Wasting our Freedom

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:44:28 +0200, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:09:08PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:

 The GPL license promotes and enforces viral control.  How hypocritical
 that the Linux community fights so hard against the evils of corporate
 greed, while it has no qualms about accepting their NDAs, binary blobs,
 and non-redistributable drivers.  It will bend over backwards for
 closed-source vendors, but won't extend the olive branch to Free Software
 brethren.
 
 Your accusation the Linux community had no problems with binary blobs
 and non-redistributable drivers is quite far away from the truth.

I never said they don't have any problems.  They have plenty of problems.  They 
refuse to do anything proactive about them.

-- 
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net

Re: SMP Support?

2007-09-17 Thread Daniel Ouellet


Paul Taulborg wrote:
Booya! Updated my BIOS to the latest version (44), and applied the patch 
that was kindly provided to me here:

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-techm=118975639013313w=2

I also enabled acpi0 in the kernel by default (required to see the other 
processors), and tada!


I had to apply the patch above, as it would die with out of bounds error.

I will let you know if I run into any stability issues, but am really 
happy to get this working! Thanks for all the help!


Please do not forget to send the feedback requested back to Chris. Find 
the email in the URL above.


mkdir mymachine
cd mymachine
cp /var/run/dmesg.boot .
sudo acpidump -o mymachine  mymachine.aml
cd ..
tar zcf mymachine.tgz mymachine

Re: Wasting our Freedom

Kryzstof Halasa writes:

 David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Theodore Tso writes:

 hardly

A apologize for the error in attribution.

  Of course you don't need a license to *use* the derived work.
  You never need
  a license to use a work. (In the United States. Some countries
  word this a
  bit differently but get the same effect.)

 Really? I thought you need a licence to use, say, MS Windows.
 Even to possess a copy. But I don't know about USA, I'm told
 there are strange things happening there :-)

No, you do not need a license to use MS Windows. Microsoft may choose to
compel you to agree to a license in exchange for allowing you to install a
copy, but that is not quite the same thing.

If you read United States copyright law, you will see that *use* is not one
of the rights reserved to the copyright holder. Every lawful possessor of a
work may use it in the ordinary way, assuming they did not *agree* to some
kind of restriction.

  If, however, you wanted to get the right to modify or distribute a
  derivative work, you would need to obtain the rights to every
  protectable
  element in that work.

 Of course.

  Read GPL section 6, particularly this part: Each time you
  redistribute the
  Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically
  receives a license from the original licensor to copy,
  distribute or modify
  the Program subject to
  these terms and conditions.

 Seems fine, your point?

My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a derivative work from
receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable
elements in that work.

 In addition to the rights from you (to the whole derived work),
 the recipient receives rights to the original work, from original
 author.
 It makes perfect sense, making sure the original author can't sue
 you like in the SCO case.

 If A sold a BSD licence to B only and this B sold a proprietary
 licence (for a derived work) to C, C (without that clause) wouldn't
 have a BSD licence to the original work. This is BTW common scenario.

C most certainly would have a BSD license, should he choose to comply with
terms, to every protectable element that is in both the original work and
the work he received.

C has no right to license any protectable element he did not author to
anyone else. He cannot set the license terms for those elements to C.

Again, read GPL section 6. (And this is true for the BSD license as well, at
least in the United States, because it's the only way such a license could
work.)

Neither the BSD nor the GPL ever give you the right to change the actual
license a work is offered under by the original author. In fact, they could
not give you this right under US copyright law. Modify the license *text* is
not the same thing as modifying the license.

  To distribute a derivative work that contains protectable elements from
  multiple authors, you are distributing all of those elements
  and need the
  rights to all of them. You need a license to each element and
  in the absence
  of any relicensing arrangements (which the GPL and BSD license are not),
  only the original author can grant that to you.

 Of course.

 BTW: a work by multiple authors is a different thing than a work
 derived from another.

In practice it doesn't matter. All that matters is that you have a single
fixed form or expression that contains creative elements contributed by
different people potentially under different licenses. The issues of whether
it's a derivative work or a combined work and whether the distributor has
made sufficient protectable elements to assert their own copy really has no
effect on any of the issues that matter here.

  It is a common confusion that just because the final author has
  copyright in
  the derivative work, that means he can license the work.

 Of course he (and only he) can. It doesn't mean the end users can't
 receive additional rights.

No, he can't. He can only license those protectable elements that he
authored.

There is no way you can license protectable elements authored by another
absent a relicenseing agreement. The GPL is explicitly not a relicensing
agreement, see section 6. The BSD license is implicitly not a relicensing
agreement.

 Come on, licence = promise not to sue. Why would the copyright
 holder be unable to promise not to sue? It just doesn't make sense.

A license is not just a promise not to sue, it's an *enforceable*
*committment* not to sue. It's an explicit grant of permission against legal
rights.

Would you argue that I can license Disney's The Lion King movie to you if
I promise not to sue you over any (no) rights that I possess to it?

  He cannot license
  anyone else's creative contributions absent a relicensing arrangement.

 Sure, he can licence only his work, perhaps derived work.

Right.

 Look at MS Windows - it's a work created by a single company, though
 derived from other works, it's (C) MS and you get a licence for the
 whole MS

Re: Wasting our Freedom

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:20:39AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
 
 Theodore Tso writes:
 
  Now, you don't need a licence from the original author to use
  the derived work. The author of the derived work only needs
  a licence from the original author to create a derived work.
  Do you think Microsoft users have licences from authors of
  the works MS Windows etc. are based on? :-)

I didn't write the above; please be careful with your attributions.

- Ted

Re: SMP Support?

2007-09-17 Thread Daniel Ouellet


Also Paul,

Now that is working do me a favor and try to compile the userland and 
kernel with that bsd.mp acpi enable kernel.


Also, try if possible to make transfer of huge files between two boxes 
well connected to try to at a minimum get close to 100Mb/sec of 
transfer, or more if you have Gb access.


In my case, it will crash every time still.

Then the compile is ok with bsd, but still crash with bsd.mp in some cases.

I am curious to know if that specific to my hardware, or if others have 
the same problem.


Thanks

Daniel.

ACPI Security

2007-09-17 Thread Nick Guenther

Hi misc@,

I just came across these notes on ACPI:
http://lwn.net/2001/0704/kernel.php3 (search down for acpi) and got
wondering what OpenBSD's take on securing ACPI is. Can AML code
actually be an attack vector, or are there safeguards in place in
OpenBSD against that?
I tried searching the archives but strangely came up with nothing.

Thanks
-Nick

Re: Wasting our Freedom

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:09:08PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
 On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:32:35 +0200, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Your licence puts you in the position that you always depend on the
  goodwill of the persons from whom you want to get code back.
 
 The BSD license promotes goodwill.
 
 The GPL license promotes and enforces viral control.  How hypocritical that 
 the Linux community fights so hard against the evils of corporate greed, 
 while it has no qualms about accepting their NDAs, binary blobs, and 
 non-redistributable drivers.  It will bend over backwards for closed-source 
 vendors, but won't extend the olive branch to Free Software brethren.

Your accusation the Linux community had no problems with binary blobs 
and non-redistributable drivers is quite far away from the truth.

 Jason Dixon

cu
Adrian

-- 

   Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   Only a promise, Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: Wasting our Freedom

David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Theodore Tso writes:

hardly

 Of course you don't need a license to *use* the derived work. You never need
 a license to use a work. (In the United States. Some countries word this a
 bit differently but get the same effect.)

Really? I thought you need a licence to use, say, MS Windows.
Even to possess a copy. But I don't know about USA, I'm told
there are strange things happening there :-)

 If, however, you wanted to get the right to modify or distribute a
 derivative work, you would need to obtain the rights to every protectable
 element in that work.

Of course.

 Read GPL section 6, particularly this part: Each time you redistribute the
 Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically
 receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify
 the Program subject to
 these terms and conditions.

Seems fine, your point?
In addition to the rights from you (to the whole derived work),
the recipient receives rights to the original work, from original
author.
It makes perfect sense, making sure the original author can't sue
you like in the SCO case.

If A sold a BSD licence to B only and this B sold a proprietary
licence (for a derived work) to C, C (without that clause) wouldn't
have a BSD licence to the original work. This is BTW common scenario.

 To distribute a derivative work that contains protectable elements from
 multiple authors, you are distributing all of those elements and need the
 rights to all of them. You need a license to each element and in the absence
 of any relicensing arrangements (which the GPL and BSD license are not),
 only the original author can grant that to you.

Of course.

BTW: a work by multiple authors is a different thing than a work
derived from another.

 It is a common confusion that just because the final author has copyright in
 the derivative work, that means he can license the work.

Of course he (and only he) can. It doesn't mean the end users can't
receive additional rights.

Come on, licence = promise not to sue. Why would the copyright
holder be unable to promise not to sue? It just doesn't make sense.

 He cannot license
 anyone else's creative contributions absent a relicensing arrangement.

Sure, he can licence only his work, perhaps derived work.

Look at MS Windows - it's a work created by a single company, though
derived from other works, it's (C) MS and you get a licence for the
whole MS Windows from only MS.

You may have some additional rights and MS may have to acknowledge
additional contributors, based on their licences granted by those
contributors (such as using the original UCB licence).
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa

Mini PCI card for hostap mode

2007-09-17 Thread Steve B

I'd like to add a PCI card to by OBSD box in order to gain wireless support
(translation - lazy me wants to work from the couch). The local non-profit
for which I volunteer has tons of PC stuff donated but none of the PCI
wireless that have come in are capable of hostap mode. Recently someone
donated a couple fo Mikrotik RB11 mini PCI to PCI adapters. I thought I'd go
buy a mini PCI card that was hostap compatible but they are a bit harder to
find than I thought. Can anyone recommend a vendor that carries mini PCI
cards that support hostap mode under OpenBSD?

Steve

Define hosts lookup for pf.conf

2007-09-17 Thread pichi

Hello,

I was wondering if there was a way to name hosts in pf.conf so when I did a
pfctl -s all I could see the STATES table with hostnames instead of ip
addresses. It would make troubleshooting a lot easier espcially when the
STATES table starts to get real big.

Thanks a lot,

Pedro
Granada Spain
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Define-hosts-lookup-for-pf.conf-tf4469900.html#a12744788
Sent from the openbsd user - misc mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Mini PCI card for hostap mode

2007-09-17 Thread Karsten McMinn

On 9/17/07, Steve B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Can anyone recommend a vendor that carries mini PCI
 cards that support hostap mode under OpenBSD?

man (4) ral is a good place to start. I bought a MSI MN54G
recently which worked.

Re: Problem installing openBSD 4.0 on intel S3000AH

2007-09-17 Thread Insan Praja SW

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:52:11 +0700, Matiss Miglans [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
wrote:

Hi..
I tested the motherboard using 3.9 obsd, and it works like charm..

Hi!
I Have that motherboard with 4.0 Snapshot (I don't remember the date)  
and all works good.


1. There were problems with second gigabit port.
2. There were problems with ACPI, and the system was unstable( Try to  
compile anything).


But With this snapshot all works great.

I haven't tried 4.1 or later snapshots.

Matiss




Insan Praja SW wrote:

Dear all,
I have recently facing a problem when installing openBSD 4.0 on intel  
S3000AH, it seems that the embedded gigabit ethernet (em1) is causing  
this, since openBSD installer trap a kernel panic message when it tried  
to load the module. In some discussion, to troubleshoot this is to  
change vparam.h. Since I am no programmer, would anyone be kind enough  
to help me with this.


dmesg:
em1 at pci3 dev 0 function 0 Intel PRO/1000MT (82573e) rev
0x03uvm_fault(0xd0691180, 0x1f000, 0, 1) -
fatal page fault (6) in supervisor mode
trap type 6 code 0 eip d02b0a10 cs 8 eflags 10202 cr2 1ff07 cp0
panic: trap type 6, code-0, pc-d02b0a10






--
Insan Praja SW

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:23:41PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
Because they put their copyright plus license on code that they barely
modified. If they would have added substantial work into the OpenHAL code
and by doing that creating something new I would not say much.

Number 1, some of the Linux wireless developers screwed up earlier
versions. No denying that, the problems were pointed out during the
patch reviewed problem, AND THEY WERE FIXED.

Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which
have still not been accepted), the HAL code is under a pure BSD
license (ath5k_hw.c). Other portions are dual licensed, but not the
HAL --- if people would only take a look at

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=tree;f=drivers/net/wireless;h=2d6caeba0924c34b9539960b9ab568ab3d193fc8;hb=everything

And yet, the BSD folks seem to continue to nurse the above mantra
(which was true, but quickly corrected) combined with the and the
Linux folks aren't listening, which is manifestly not true. We might
not agree with everything you are saying, and we might think you're
being highly hypocritical, but we are listening.

All the comercial code I have ever seen did not do this stunt of adding a
new copyright and license to barely modified files. Perhaps the evil
companies have more ethics or better understanding of copyright.

In the original BSD 4.3 code, if I recall correctly, /bin/true was 12
lines of ATT copyright and the standard this is proprietary
non-published trade secret legalease with the standard threats of
bazillions and bazillions of damage due to ATT's irreparable harm if
the file was ever disclosed followed by exit 0. :-)

Personally, I find that issues of copyright are much more easily
discussed if people keep a sense of balance and humor.

- Ted

Re: Wasting our Freedom

2007-09-17 Thread Can E. Acar

Theodore Tso wrote:
 On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:23:41PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
 Because they put their copyright plus license on code that they barely
 modified. If they would have added substantial work into the OpenHAL code
 and by doing that creating something new I would not say much.
 
 Number 1, some of the Linux wireless developers screwed up earlier
 versions.  No denying that, the problems were pointed out during the
 patch reviewed problem, AND THEY WERE FIXED.

Not all, see below:

 Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which
 have still not been accepted), the HAL code is under a pure BSD
 license (ath5k_hw.c).  Other portions are dual licensed, but not the
 HAL --- if people would only take a look at
 
 http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=tree;f=drivers/net/wireless;h=2d6caeba0924c34b9539960b9ab568ab3d193fc8;hb=everything
 

from latest ath5k_hw.c:

* Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[snip rest of BSD license]

The only remaining issue is whether Nick  Jiri have enough
original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright.

I believe this needs to be resolved between Reyk and Nick and Jiri.

The main reason of Theo's message, linked earlier, was the
lack of response on this issue. It seems that the SFLC is
dismissing this issue, and thus stalling its resolution by the
developers.

The rest is, as you say, history.

Can

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
But, in practice, there is.

Re: Wasting our Freedom

2007-09-17 Thread Ingo Schwarze

Adrian Bunk wrote on Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:57:14PM +0200:

 But stating in your licence that noone has to give back but then 
 complaining to some people on ethical grounds that they should give
 back is simply dishonest.
 
 Is your intention to allow people to include your code into GPL'ed code 
 and never give back, or is your intention that this shouldn't happen?
 
 And whatever your intention is should be stated in your licence.

As this is a recurring argument in the present discussion, let's
address it, even though it lies somewhat beside the main topic.
What i wish and what i try to enforce by legal contracts are two
completely different things.  In particular, it is _not_ a smart
idea to try to enforce all one's wishes by legal means.

For example, i wish that as much as possible of the code i write be
freely available such that others can use it, too, and i wish that
others write useful code and make it free such that i can use it.
When i publish code, i wish bugfixes to be fed back to me, and i
hope that others might free their derivative works, too.  Besides,
i might hope that people at large behave in human and rational ways
and refrain from doing harm to others.  In particular i might wish
the fruits of my work not to be abused to harm or oppress people.
Quite probably, lots of software developers share similar wishes,
whatever licenses they happen to be employing.

But this doesn't imply i should be putting any of the above into
the license for my code.  Once people attach additional conditions
to their licences, sooner or later i get stuck when trying to
combine different code covered by different licences.  However well
intentioned, in practice, those additional conditions habitually
turn out to be incompatible - even when, regarded seperately, all
of them might appear to make some sense.

Now doubtless, the two main additional conditions imposed by the GPL -
derivative works may only be distributed if they are made as open and
as free as the original - are among those making the most sense of all
the additional conditions you might imagine, in the sense that nearly
any developer of free software will wish that anybody holding the
copyright on a derivative work would make that free.  Still, when
trying to combine code with different licences, even the GPL at times
turns out to be a bother.  This does not only apply to the case of
non-free closed-source commercial code, but also to cases where
authors intended to make their code free, but, be it by inexperience
or because they failed to restrain themselves, unfortunately added
some uncommon condition to the license.  Combining such code with ISC
or BSD code is hardly ever problem, combining such code with GPL code
may well be.

Thus, even when wishing derivative works to be free in their turn,
i still see a strong theoretical and a strong practical argument to
choose the ISC license over the GPL: Theoretically, it's just the
categorical imperative: If everybody would be adding her or his
favorite condition to her or his license, we would not end up in
free software, but in chaos.  Practically, i'm quite fed up with
GPL license incompatibility issues always popping up at the most
inconvenient places, and still more, with all those license
compatibility discussions.  With the ISC license, there are no
incompatibility issues and no incompatibility discussions, it just
works.  Of course, i lose the option to sue people to open up
derivative works, but i keep the hope that some people (especially
those engaged in free software themselves) understand and keep up
the spirit, and above all, i avoid lots of legalese worries.
Ultimately, it's kind of a trade-off.

To summarize, there are valid reasons to wish that people would make
derivative works free, but to not require it in the license.  Just
like there are valid reasons to wish that people should not use the
code for waging war, but to not require that in the license.

Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words

2007-09-17 Thread Richard Stallman

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: Problem installing openBSD 4.0 on intel S3000AH

On 2007/09/18 04:47, Insan Praja SW wrote:
 I tested the motherboard using 3.9 obsd, and it works like charm..

if you can move back to the 18-month-old code of a soon-to-be
-unsupported release, can't you at least try booting 4.1 or
preferably a snapshot and give some feedback so developers know
if there's anything that needs looking at?

Re: [Possibly OT] 16-bit Assembly Programming

2007-09-17 Thread David Given

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Tobias Weingartner wrote:
[...]
 One thing your teacher may not know is that x86 assembly includes the
 32-bit environment, and (now) also a 64-bit environment.  However, running
 16-bit code under OpenBSD i386 is going to be somewhat difficult.  We don't
 bother supplying 16-bit services, and only consume 16-bit services (from
the
 bios) for a few things necessary.  It is hard, and somewhat error prone.

Linux has a thing called elksemu. It is, basically, a binary loader that will
allow you to run 16-bit ELKS binaries on 32-bit Linux. (ELKS is a
now-moribund
port of a Linux subset to 8086 class machines, using modified Minix
binaries.)
It intercepts int 0x80 and converts the 16-bit ELKS syscalls to 32-bit Linux
ones.

So, write(0, Hello, world!\n, 14) becomes:

mov ax, 0
mov bx, _label
mov cx, 14
int 0x80

...which is, I believe, exactly what the OP wanted.

elksemu does all the dirty work with the vm86() syscall, which was put in for
dosemu. I know that dosemu works, or at least worked, on NetBSD and FreeBSD
- --- does OpenBSD have this functionality?

- --
bbb o=o=o o=o=o=o=o=o=o=oo=o=o=
 bbb
http://www.cowlark.com
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
b
b There does not now, nor will there ever, exist a programming language in
b which it is the least bit hard to write bad programs. --- Flon's Axiom
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG7wDdf9E0noFvlzgRAgIeAJ9tDWiILb5ZvOHdQMFKt3IJx498DQCdHnvX
LCkFDYMfs7Boc07yqcTSVZw=
=/XPv
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words

2007-09-17 Thread Jack J. Woehr

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: Problem installing openBSD 4.0 on intel S3000AH

2007-09-17 Thread Insan Praja SW

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:28:47 +0700, Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
wrote:
don't worry, I will give 4.1 I try, since I also like my machine  
up-to-date :D

Thanks Y'all,

On 2007/09/18 04:47, Insan Praja SW wrote:

I tested the motherboard using 3.9 obsd, and it works like charm..


if you can move back to the 18-month-old code of a soon-to-be
-unsupported release, can't you at least try booting 4.1 or
preferably a snapshot and give some feedback so developers know
if there's anything that needs looking at?





--
Insan Praja SW

Re: Wasting our Freedom

2007-09-17 Thread Dries Schellekens

2007/9/18, Can E. Acar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Theodore Tso wrote:

  Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which
  have still not been accepted), the HAL code is under a pure BSD
  license (ath5k_hw.c).  Other portions are dual licensed, but not the
  HAL --- if people would only take a look at
 
  http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=tree;f=drivers/net/wireless;h=2d6caeba0924c34b9539960b9ab568ab3d193fc8;hb=everything
 

 from latest ath5k_hw.c:

 * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [snip rest of BSD license]

ath5k_regdom.c and ath5k_regdom.h seem to be missing the no warranty
part of the license. I am not sure if this is a problem though.


Cheers,

Dries

Re: Wasting our Freedom

David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a derivative work from
 receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable
 elements in that work.

Of course you can.
What rights do you have to BSD-licenced works, made available
(under BSD) to MS exclusively? You only get the binary object...

You know, this is quite common practice - instead of assigning
copyright, you can grant a BSD-style licence (for some fee,
something like do what you want but I will do what I want with
my code).

 If A sold a BSD licence to B only and this B sold a proprietary
 licence (for a derived work) to C, C (without that clause) wouldn't
 have a BSD licence to the original work. This is BTW common scenario.

 C most certainly would have a BSD license, should he choose to comply with
 terms, to every protectable element that is in both the original work and
 the work he received.

But he may have received only binary program image - or the source
under NDA.
Sure, NDA doesn't cover public information, but BSD doesn't mean public.
Now what?

 C has no right to license any protectable element he did not author to
 anyone else. He cannot set the license terms for those elements to C.

Sure, the licence covers the entire work, not some elements.

 Neither the BSD nor the GPL ever give you the right to change the actual
 license a work is offered under by the original author.

Of course, that's a very distant thing.

 BTW: a work by multiple authors is a different thing than a work
 derived from another.

 In practice it doesn't matter.

Of course it does. Only author of a (derived) work can licence
it, in this case he/she could change the licence back to BSD,
or sell it to MS (if not based on GPL etc).

 Would you argue that I can license Disney's The Lion King movie to you if
 I promise not to sue you over any (no) rights that I possess to it?

Sure you can :-) that doesn't mean it would protect me from Disney,
but you can.

 You are confusing licenses of two very different types. The BSD and GPL
 licenses only cover modification and distribution, two rights you do not get
 to MS Windows at all. *Use* is not restricted under copyright.

I'm told in the USA use = copying from disk to RAM = distribution,
isn't it true? :-)
It doesn't matter of course.

 There is simply nothing remotely comparable to the BSD or GPL license in the
 case of MS Windows. There is no grant of additional rights beyond those you
 get automatically with lawful possession (such as use).

I don't compare them (though you can). You don't get a licence for
original elements in MS-Windows, do you?

 If MS wished to grant someone the right to modify or redistribute Windows,
 that person would also need to obtain the right to modify or distribute
 protectable elements not authored by Microsoft. The only way they could
 obtain those rights, assuming Microsoft didn't have written relicensing
 agreements, is from the original author under the original licenses.

Yes, but it isn't automatic. Imagine you have received something
from MS, under more permissive licence (I think such things did
happen). How do you, for example, recognice boundaries of the
elements, IOW what additional rights do you have to each line in
the code or pixel in the font?

The file itself only states:
(C) MS
portions (C) e.g. Bitstream
licenced under their special agreement

What extra rights do you receive from Bitstream? Perhaps you should
ask them if they have given you some licence? :-)

Or another example, redistributable runtime libraries. What extra
rights do you have?

What you write is true for GPL, but it doesn't mean it's true
everytime. It's just that clause in the GPL.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa

Re: Wasting our Freedom

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:06:37PM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
 The only remaining issue is whether Nick  Jiri have enough
 original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright.
 
 I believe this needs to be resolved between Reyk and Nick and Jiri.
 
 The main reason of Theo's message, linked earlier, was the
 lack of response on this issue. It seems that the SFLC is
 dismissing this issue, and thus stalling its resolution by the
 developers.

OK, so all of this flaming, and digging up of licenses ripped off,
and chaff thrown up in the air, and moaning and bewailing about
theft, is now down to these two lines regarding Nick and Jiri:

 * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [snip rest of BSD license]

It's under a BSD license; what material difference does those two
lines make, for goodness sake?  It's under a BSD license, so it's not
like anything won't be given back.  Whether or not they have made
enough for changes is really a question for the lawyers, and may
differ from one jurisdiction to another --- but whether or not they
have now, or maybe will not make until later --- does it really make a
difference?  Who gets hurt if someone gets they get a bit more credit
than they deserve?  Certainly the most important thing is that Reyk is
given proper credit, right?

- Ted

Re: Wasting our Freedom

2007-09-17 Thread Ingo Schwarze

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 04:40:38PM -0700:
 On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Jacob Meuser wrote:

 so the linux community is morally equivilent to a corporation?
 that's what it sounds like you are all legally satisfied with.

 if it's legal it's legal. it's not a matter of the Linux community being 
 satisfied with it, it's a matter of the BSD people desiring it based on 
 their selection of license (and the repeated statements that this feature 
 of the BSD license being an advantage compared to the GPL makes it clear 
 that this isn't an unknown side effect, it's an explicit desire).

Indeed, that argument is often paraphrased in a way that makes it
hard to understand.  What i heard people say is not If people make
derivative works based on BSD code, they should make them less free
instead of fully free, but it is: If people caring nothing about
free software in the first place are building their own commercial
systems anyway, they should rather reuse BSD code than hacking up
their own bricolage of bug-ridden insecure stuff.

Granted, that's a different approach than taken by the GPL, which
essentially says ... anyway, they deserve to be on their own.

 so the Linux community is following the desires of the BSD community
 by following their license but the BSD community is unhappy, why?

Be careful not to confuse desires with legal requirements...  :-(

Given BSD code, BSD-licensed substantial improvements
make happier than restrictively licensed substantial improvements
make happier than derived non-free closed-source software
make happier than license violations.

Besides, the Linux communities neither qualify as caring nothing
about free software nor as hacking up their own bricolage of
bug-ridden insecure stuff (hopefully ;-).  So that argument
simply doesn't apply to you.  Probably, that's why Jacob talked
about morally equivalent to a corporation.

 you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the
 code, but brag about NetApp useing the code.  what makes NetApp ok
 and Linux evil?  many people honestly don't understand the logic
 behind this.  please explain it.

Several people have already explained this nicely; the degree
of happiness may also depend on the level of cooperation and
understanding you expect from the people building on the code,
given their own intentions and goals.  I may well be thankful
towards an enemy just for not killing me, but at the same time
sad about a friend leaving me out in the rain.

( This just being stated in general; i'm not sure what the state
  of discussions in the various Linux communities is just now. )

Re: Wasting our Freedom