Re: No Blob without Puffy
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 07:52:35PM -0600, Tony Abernethy wrote: Lars D. Nooden wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Dave Anderson wrote: You've left out the extremely important fact that many vendors interpret acceptance of blobs by any free OS as validating their position of not releasing adequate documentation -- so accepting blobs (even when there's no other choice) actively harms the anti-blob campaign. It harms more than just the campaign, it harms anyone wanting to maintain a modicum of options further down the road in regards to hardware lifecycles, operating system and kernel lifecycles, and last but not least security. One anecdote regarding insecurity of mysterious binaries / BLOBs: A local privilege escation has been known to exist, unfixed, for several years in nvidia's binary drivers: http://lwn.net/Articles/204541/ However, if you can't audit (and subsequently compile) all the code, including the applications, libraries, compilers and OS, then you've got nothing secure and nothing that can be made secure - regardless of anecdotes, no amount of assurances, claims, hand waving, shouting, smoke, noise etc. from vendors. Don't take my word for it, read what the ACM had to say about it: http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/ But it's not just 'security' that is at risk. The lifecycle of both the operating system/kernel and the hardware that rely on the continued availability of the BLOBs become dependent on the BLOBs producers. Those are groups which may or may not continue to have interests and motivations which overlap yours. If your hardware or system needs a BLOB to run, then the BLOB-maker has you on a leash. Endorsing BLOBs puts *all* hardware, systems, and security at risk through active effort, which is reprehensible. To have one system accepting them, makes it all that much harder to keep them off. Think digital scab. Tolerating BLOBs or failing to eliminate BLOBs, are simply balless passive means of putting the above at risk. To put it another way, it's possible to gain control (political, economical, technical) of systems that get locked into BLOBs either passively or actively and encroachment into one system/distro can be used to marginalize the others. I lurk on this list and occasionally kibbitz. Various effects make OpenBSD a very efficient leading indicator. It works essentially thus. If the hardware gives OpenBSD trouble, it will tend to give everybody else trouble sooner or later. OpenBSD just finds out earlier. The same is with software. Compiling and running on OpenBSD seems to be one method of finding bugs in programs along with electric fence etc. CL
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:43:06AM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote: Tell me, would you let Microsoft for example, access your servers to see if they work well? I don't think so. But again, you might already do that via BLOB. You just don't know. Interesting story about a security breach. Did this ever happen with a firmware for a wireless chipset? Or directly in the wireless chip? Or, even funnier, in the CPU or the northbridge? Technically it's definitely possible. CL
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 10:03:14AM -0400, Dan Farrell wrote: I second that. danno -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of chefren Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 7:34 PM To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: No Blob without Puffy On 3/19/07 4:48 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: You are so uninformed that it isn't even funny to pick on you. Karel clocks on the wrong edge and is by far the worst educated asocial asshole I have met on this list. Easy man, you need to get laid. CL +++chefren
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On 3/25/07, Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 10:03:14AM -0400, Dan Farrell wrote: On 3/19/07 4:48 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: You are so uninformed that it isn't even funny to pick on you. Karel clocks on the wrong edge and is by far the worst educated asocial asshole I have met on this list. Easy man, you need to get laid. Easy man, you were chastised, you ran away for a week, now you're back. There's no need to make stupid (and this really is stupid, and inane, and couldn't-you-do-any-better) insults. Just go back to asking and helping people like everyone else and you'll be fine. -Nick
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Please take this up on lists where it is more relevant. OpenBSD is not going to participate in a campaign that calls non-free things free. We don't tell lies like the other BSD's do. On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 06:04:12PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote: Hi Pawel, Pawel Jakub Dawidek schrieb am Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 03:02:47PM +0100: On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 12:38:05PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: So isn't it rather hypocritical to have a anti-Blob campaign, backed by projects which embrace the Blob? So isn't it rather hypocritical to claim GPL license is bad and BSD license is good and ship operating system with GPLed code? How do you feel about having pro-GPL operating system? Why do you lie to your users by having 'BSD' in operating system's name? Your analogy does not apply at all: [...] Unfortunately you miss the point of my analogy. We have GPLed code. We would like to get rid of it, but this is not possible just yet. Does that automatically means that we are pro-GPL? That we lie having 'BSD' in OS name? No, it means this is one of our goals, it is just not high priority and we don't feel guilty. This is how it is. The same for binary-only drivers. We would love to have everything open-source, but this is not possible currently. We want to move in this direction, of course, but we also want our users to use their hardware, to have stable, scalable OS, etc. I'm one of those users with my atheros-based wireless card I'm using right now. I know what I'm doing. I don't feel less safe. I don't audit every single driver I use. And I'm happy to use OS which gives me the choice. Hearing all those insults from Theo about all those great BSD people is just sad. Sam Leffler is one of the most valuable open-source developers in the history of BSD and UNIX in general, keep that in mind. I just can't belive how easy people forget about all this. Ah, right, this is called fanaticism. -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 05:43:19PM +0100, Timo Schoeler wrote: in the sense of freedom, FreeBSD (among others) is a ultra-cheap whore, as this fat pengiun is. Hehe:) As Borat use to say very nice:) The problem is that in world's history the worst and the biggest source of evilness ever is fanaticism (religious, political and now what? software?). -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 06:04:12PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote: Hi Pawel, Pawel Jakub Dawidek schrieb am Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 03:02:47PM +0100: On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 12:38:05PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: So isn't it rather hypocritical to have a anti-Blob campaign, backed by projects which embrace the Blob? So isn't it rather hypocritical to claim GPL license is bad and BSD license is good and ship operating system with GPLed code? How do you feel about having pro-GPL operating system? Why do you lie to your users by having 'BSD' in operating system's name? Your analogy does not apply at all: [...] Unfortunately you miss the point of my analogy. We have GPLed code. We would like to get rid of it, but this is not possible just yet. Does that automatically means that we are pro-GPL? That we lie having 'BSD' in OS name? No, it means this is one of our goals, it is just not high priority and we don't feel guilty. This is how it is. The same for binary-only drivers. We would love to have everything open-source, but this is not possible currently. We want to move in this direction, of course, but we also want our users to use their hardware, to have stable, scalable OS, etc. I'm one of those users with my atheros-based wireless card I'm using right now. I know what I'm doing. I don't feel less safe. I don't audit every single driver I use. And I'm happy to use OS which gives me the choice. Hearing all those insults from Theo about all those great BSD people is just sad. Sam Leffler is one of the most valuable open-source developers in the history of BSD and UNIX in general, keep that in mind. I just can't belive how easy people forget about all this. Ah, right, this is called fanaticism. -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: No Blob without Puffy
What a steaming pile, On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 08:07:19AM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 06:04:12PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote: [...] Unfortunately you miss the point of my analogy. We have GPLed code. We would like to get rid of it, but this is not possible just yet. Does that automatically means that we are pro-GPL? That we lie having 'BSD' in OS name? No, it means this is one of our goals, it is just not high priority and we don't feel guilty. This is how it is. The same for I don't know how this involves GPL at all, the two issues have nothing at all to do with each other. One can still read the GPL code, one can still distribute GPL code with some annoying restrictions, a blob is an entirely different matter. binary-only drivers. We would love to have everything open-source, but this is not possible currently. We want to move in this direction, of course, but we also want our users to use their hardware, to have stable, scalable OS, etc. I'm one of those users with my atheros-based Please you imply that one cannot have a functional system without using blobs, which is patently false. By choosing to use blobs, your project is actively hindering the development of proper drivers, and as such should be called on it. wireless card I'm using right now. I know what I'm doing. I don't feel less safe. I don't audit every single driver I use. And I'm happy to use OS which gives me the choice. Hearing all those insults from Theo about all those great BSD people is just sad. Sam Leffler is one of the most valuable open-source developers in the history of BSD and UNIX in general, keep that in mind. I just can't belive how easy people forget about all this. Ah, right, this is called fanaticism. Whining, name calling grow up.
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 10:54 -0500, Matthew Weigel wrote: No, there's not a difference. Theo said he was willing to take the emails public; this Daniel guy took him at his word, and made them public. The only foul I see is Theo threatening to take Daniel's emails public in the first place. I disagree. I think it was appropriate in this case to show the world exactly how hypocritical this supposed no blob campaign really is. Sometimes sunlight really is the best disinfectant. It wouldn't have been the first time Theo published e-mails; from what I have observed, he doesn't do so without good cause. -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:54:41 -0400, Gordon Willem Klok wrote: I'm one of those users with my atheros-based wireless card I'm using right now. I know what I'm doing. I don't feel less safe. I don't audit every single driver I use. And I'm happy to use OS which gives me the choice. I'm one of the other users with an atheros wireless card in an IBM Thinkpad I'm using right now on another desk. And I know what I'm doing and I feel really safe because I'm happily using an OS which really gives me lots of choice and doesn't force blobs down my throat. OpenBSD. BTW the fact that some people are great programmers doesn't mean that they are great judges of ethics or art or politics or anything outside their area of expertise. Judging their nous about other subjects by their code is like taking corporate investment advice from a teenage rockstar. That comment doesn't imply that they cannot have any other skills like being clueful about really open code. It is just the case that you cannot imply it where no evidence exists. R/ From the land down under: Australia. Do we look umop apisdn from up over?
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! It is right there in the signature.
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! It is right there in the signature. Come on Marco, real evil persons do not need to brag about it in their signature. He's, at best, a misguided minor evil. Miod
Re: No Blob without Puffy
I second that. danno -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of chefren Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 7:34 PM To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: No Blob without Puffy On 3/19/07 4:48 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: You are so uninformed that it isn't even funny to pick on you. Karel clocks on the wrong edge and is by far the worst educated asocial asshole I have met on this list. +++chefren
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On 3/20/07, Daniel Ouellet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This discussion is for the most part not going anywhere and looks like dirty laundry between various party. Yes. I already post proof on this list a few months ago of how bad BLOB are with proof that if push to shove, I would argue that even the stock exchange commission might be interested to know in some cases. You mean this right: http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2006-04/1157.html ? In my own case, I discover in my expensive commercial product purchase a few years ago and fully licenses with yearly 20% purchase price recurring support cost on it, that without my knowledge and even my explicit agreement, that private informations were send to that company each night! When raise hell on it, was send left and right with no clear answer, but keeping pushing was told that it will be disable in my license. Now a few months later, after all daily data is block, I get from that same company emails saying To ensure your * platform is performing properly, .. to view the performance of your system. You will be contacted . Support engineer to access your respective system to capture performance data. Now tell me. Are they really interested in making sure my systems are working properly??? Draw your own conclusions? My gosh, what company is this? There's no reason to protect them, tell us. -Nick
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Shawn K. Quinn wrote: It wouldn't have been the first time Theo published e-mails; from what I have observed, he doesn't do so without good cause. Sure. I was addressing only the point that *Daniel* did something wrong by publishing the private emails, after Theo indicated he was willing to take the whole matter public. Now, the exchange as posted by Daniel appears to me to simply affirm Theo's initial description of the exchange, so I don't understand *why* he posted it... -- Matthew Weigel hacker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Nick ! wrote: I already post proof on this list a few months ago of how bad BLOB are with proof that if push to shove, I would argue that even the stock exchange commission might be interested to know in some cases. You mean this right: http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2006-04/1157.html ? Yes, that's part of it. Now tell me. Are they really interested in making sure my systems are working properly??? Draw your own conclusions? My gosh, what company is this? There's no reason to protect them, tell us. If you want to find out, you can by digging in the archive. It's there, but I can't tell you sorry! Not yet anyway, hopefully soon.
Re: No Blob without Puffy
SW [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Free as in FreeBSD (and NetBSD and DragonFly BSD etc.). War is peace, freedom is freebsd... //art
Re: No Blob without Puffy
* SW [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-03-19 03:21]: Free as in FreeBSD ahh, I finally get it. dry like water hot like ice free like freebsd -- 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: No Blob without Puffy
Artur Grabowski wrote: SW [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Free as in FreeBSD (and NetBSD and DragonFly BSD etc.). War is peace, freedom is freebsd... freedom is regime change, war is profit. //art
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 11:35:14AM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote: * SW [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-03-19 03:21]: Free as in FreeBSD ahh, I finally get it. dry like water hot like ice free like freebsd FreeBSD is released under BSD licence and therefore is free software, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software CL -- 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: No Blob without Puffy
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 12:06:31AM +0100, SW wrote: I have a feeling that the campaign means We don't want vendors to require us to use a blob but we'll ocassionally use them when we have to other way, while Theo means I don't want vendors to require us to use a blob and I refuse to use them even when no other way. And that the heated words stem from the subtle difference. Politics instead of developing. It's the vendors who decide about the blobs and they may or may not take your complaints into account. Your invested time may or may not return. If you don't like the blobs, here are the tools to get rid of them: http://geda.seul.org/tools/gschem/index.html http://geda.seul.org/tools/pcb/index.html http://datasheetarchive.com/ http://www.ribbonsoft.com/qcad.html http://www.brlcad.org/ There's not really much difference between writing software or writing hardware, it's merely a psychological barrier, software hackers are scared of tampering with hardware because they are not used to. The costs of prototypes are negligible compared to the cost of time involved - and this time is high both in software and hardware hacking. With these tools, your invested time will return for sure. CL Hi, this is the conversation I had with Theo: 1. mail, 12.03.2007 01:29 Dear Theo, allBSD is currently prepairing for the Stop Blob! campaign an we have a poster ready here: http://www.allbsd.de/src/Kampagnen/StopBlob/StopBlob-en-Poster.pdf This is already translated into some languages, more are to come soon and I'm currently writing a flyer that will be translated too in as many languages as possible. Any objections/ideas? Best regadrs, Daniel 2. mail from Theo, 12.03.2007 02:34: I don't know why you are using a BSD daemon, when the two BSD's that use Daemon imagery are the ones that ACCEPT blobs, in particular, Sam Leffler's atheros driver. So I absolutely do not see how you think you can go stealing our campaign for your own use! WE are the only people of the ones that you claim to represent who are actually standing up for this issue. If you put those other project's names on there, that's unbelieveably disrespectful of our efforts. FreeBSD *specifically* has vendor drivers in it, and has developers who work at vendors. Not just Sam, but they also have an employee of NVidia who they consider a developer, and who now makes changes to the ethernet driver everyone got from us, without even replying to mails from our developers who wrote it! No. I entirely object to what you are doing here. You are trying to make it look like those other projects are anti-blob, when they are NOT. 3. mail from Theo, 12.03.2007 03:00: Did you even think about the fact that there are only two operating systems that ship without blobs? OpenBSD Debian (and derived systems) FreeBSD and NetBSD are not on the list of blob-less operating systems. Both of them ship with at least one blob, compiled directly into the kernel. Their developers have NEVER helped us fight for documentation, or fight the blob. They've made a couple vague words sometimes, but then gone back to their American ways and talked about the need to sometimes compromise. They have UNDERMINED our efforts to fight the blob, and now you want to include them in a poster about it? I think you are not thinking your campaign through very well at all. 4. mail from me to Theo, 13.03.2007 01:16: Theo de Raadt qrote: I don't know why you are using a BSD daemon, when the two BSD's that use Daemon imagery are the ones that ACCEPT blobs, in particular, Sam Leffler's atheros driver. So I absolutely do not see how you think you can go stealing our campaign for your own use! WE are the only people of the ones that you claim to represent who are actually standing up for this issue. If you put those other project's names on there, that's unbelieveably disrespectful of our efforts. FreeBSD *specifically* has vendor drivers in it, and has developers who work at vendors. Not just Sam, but they also have an employee of NVidia who they consider a developer, and who now makes changes to the ethernet driver everyone got from us, without even replying to mails from our developers who wrote it! No. I entirely object to what you are doing here. You are trying to make it look like those other projects are anti-blob, when they are NOT. Hi Theo, in short: This campaign was startet after a long discussion internally and we couldn't find ANY BSD-guy from whatever BSD that claimed Blobs or NDAs are a good idea. We have a large number of individuals using and contributing to all BSDs and this is not a campaign pointing fingers to certain people using Blobs. This is a campaign to rise public awareness that Blobs are a bad idea and they should support ALL BSDs fighting against it. We all need free documentation
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 12:38:05PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: So isn't it rather hypocritical to have a anti-Blob campaign, backed by projects which embrace the Blob? So isn't it rather hypocritical to claim GPL license is bad and BSD license is good and ship operating system with GPLed code? How do you feel about having pro-GPL operating system? Why do you lie to your users by having 'BSD' in operating system's name? I'm sure you get the point, but I'm also sure you won't admit it. Anyway, I just had to do it, because... Daniel Seuffert got very angry, and instead of removing operating systems which are pro-Blob from an anti-Blob posted, they instead deleted us. Isn't that just incredible? The only incredible thing I find in this thread is how easy for you is to insult such a great BSD advocate as Daniel Seuffert is. PS. This e-mail is for Theo. The only reason I'm sending it to the list is to publicly support Daniel, who is doing a great job for BSD systems in many areas. Feel free not to respond. -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Not if he makes his saving throw! I bet you he has a cloak of infinite karma too. So not hit-points lost! On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:57:58AM +, Jason George wrote: Hi, this is the conversation I had with Theo: You just made private emails public, almost certainly without the permission of the other parties involved. Please deduct any and all karma points you thought you had.
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 11:35:14AM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote: * SW [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-03-19 03:21]: Free as in FreeBSD ahh, I finally get it. dry like water hot like ice free like freebsd FreeBSD is released under BSD licence and therefore is free software, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software FreeBSD contributes to the blobification of the world and contains non-free drivers, see: http://www.blahonga.org/UnfreeSoftware.html //art
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Jason George wrote: This was sabre-rattling. Daniel made a pre-emptive tactical strike. There's a big difference. No, there's not a difference. Theo said he was willing to take the emails public; this Daniel guy took him at his word, and made them public. The only foul I see is Theo threatening to take Daniel's emails public in the first place. -- Matthew Weigel hacker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Karel Kulhavy wrote: On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 12:06:31AM +0100, SW wrote: I have a feeling that the campaign means We don't want vendors to require us to use a blob but we'll ocassionally use them when we have to other way, while Theo means I don't want vendors to require us to use a blob and I refuse to use them even when no other way. Here is the root of the problem/disagreement/difference as I see it. OS's that accept blobs are giving the vendors proof that supplying blobs only rather than true documentation is enough to get their hardware supported in free OSes. I think that statement is enough, but to restate: FreeBSD, by accepting blobs to enable hardware support via any vendor or any developer, is hurting the anti-blob movement because the vendors now have less incentive to release real documentation since the blob was enough to get their hardware supported under FreeBSD. Best, Chris
Re: No Blob without Puffy
I thought it was free as in beer, but because of the blobs, not necessarily free as in you can do whatever you want with it... Because what can you do with a blob? Are you allowed to use a blob anywhere you want, in any situation? Are you allowed to crack open a blob and use parts of its code to re-write your own software/drivers? Are you even allowed to have documentation regarding a blob? These are all defined by license restrictions... that restrict your freedom concerning the use of the blob. So IMHO FreeBSD is only free to obtain... but not fully 'free' to use in any way you want. Please follow the simple formula- License Restriction = Not Free. You've been so involved in this discussion I thought you wouldn't need this simplistic review... or maybe you're just trolling. Danno -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karel Kulhavy Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:27 AM To: OpenBSD Subject: Re: No Blob without Puffy On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 11:35:14AM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote: * SW [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-03-19 03:21]: Free as in FreeBSD ahh, I finally get it. dry like water hot like ice free like freebsd FreeBSD is released under BSD licence and therefore is free software, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software CL -- 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: No Blob without Puffy
On 3/19/07, Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 12:06:31AM +0100, SW wrote: I have a feeling that the campaign means We don't want vendors to require us to use a blob but we'll ocassionally use them when we have to other way, while Theo means I don't want vendors to require us to use a blob and I refuse to use them even when no other way. This is a very good summary of the situation Karel. With this summary in mind: is it worth it for either side to get as worked up as they have been? -Nick
Re: No Blob without Puffy
You are so uninformed that it isn't even funny to pick on you. On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 03:04:46PM +0100, Karel Kulhavy wrote: On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 12:06:31AM +0100, SW wrote: I have a feeling that the campaign means We don't want vendors to require us to use a blob but we'll ocassionally use them when we have to other way, while Theo means I don't want vendors to require us to use a blob and I refuse to use them even when no other way. And that the heated words stem from the subtle difference. Politics instead of developing. It's the vendors who decide about the blobs and they may or may not take your complaints into account. Your invested time may or may not return. If you don't like the blobs, here are the tools to get rid of them: http://geda.seul.org/tools/gschem/index.html http://geda.seul.org/tools/pcb/index.html http://datasheetarchive.com/ http://www.ribbonsoft.com/qcad.html http://www.brlcad.org/ There's not really much difference between writing software or writing hardware, it's merely a psychological barrier, software hackers are scared of tampering with hardware because they are not used to. The costs of prototypes are negligible compared to the cost of time involved - and this time is high both in software and hardware hacking. With these tools, your invested time will return for sure. CL Hi, this is the conversation I had with Theo: 1. mail, 12.03.2007 01:29 Dear Theo, allBSD is currently prepairing for the Stop Blob! campaign an we have a poster ready here: http://www.allbsd.de/src/Kampagnen/StopBlob/StopBlob-en-Poster.pdf This is already translated into some languages, more are to come soon and I'm currently writing a flyer that will be translated too in as many languages as possible. Any objections/ideas? Best regadrs, Daniel 2. mail from Theo, 12.03.2007 02:34: I don't know why you are using a BSD daemon, when the two BSD's that use Daemon imagery are the ones that ACCEPT blobs, in particular, Sam Leffler's atheros driver. So I absolutely do not see how you think you can go stealing our campaign for your own use! WE are the only people of the ones that you claim to represent who are actually standing up for this issue. If you put those other project's names on there, that's unbelieveably disrespectful of our efforts. FreeBSD *specifically* has vendor drivers in it, and has developers who work at vendors. Not just Sam, but they also have an employee of NVidia who they consider a developer, and who now makes changes to the ethernet driver everyone got from us, without even replying to mails from our developers who wrote it! No. I entirely object to what you are doing here. You are trying to make it look like those other projects are anti-blob, when they are NOT. 3. mail from Theo, 12.03.2007 03:00: Did you even think about the fact that there are only two operating systems that ship without blobs? OpenBSD Debian (and derived systems) FreeBSD and NetBSD are not on the list of blob-less operating systems. Both of them ship with at least one blob, compiled directly into the kernel. Their developers have NEVER helped us fight for documentation, or fight the blob. They've made a couple vague words sometimes, but then gone back to their American ways and talked about the need to sometimes compromise. They have UNDERMINED our efforts to fight the blob, and now you want to include them in a poster about it? I think you are not thinking your campaign through very well at all. 4. mail from me to Theo, 13.03.2007 01:16: Theo de Raadt qrote: I don't know why you are using a BSD daemon, when the two BSD's that use Daemon imagery are the ones that ACCEPT blobs, in particular, Sam Leffler's atheros driver. So I absolutely do not see how you think you can go stealing our campaign for your own use! WE are the only people of the ones that you claim to represent who are actually standing up for this issue. If you put those other project's names on there, that's unbelieveably disrespectful of our efforts. FreeBSD *specifically* has vendor drivers in it, and has developers who work at vendors. Not just Sam, but they also have an employee of NVidia who they consider a developer, and who now makes changes to the ethernet driver everyone got from us, without even replying to mails from our developers who wrote it! No. I entirely object to what you are doing here. You are trying to make it look like those other projects are anti-blob, when they are NOT. Hi Theo, in short: This campaign was startet after a long discussion internally and we couldn't find ANY BSD-guy from whatever BSD that claimed Blobs or NDAs are a good idea. We have a large number of individuals using and
Re: No Blob without Puffy
** Reply to message from Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:04:46 +0100 On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 12:06:31AM +0100, SW wrote: I have a feeling that the campaign means We don't want vendors to require us to use a blob but we'll ocassionally use them when we have to other way, while Theo means I don't want vendors to require us to use a blob and I refuse to use them even when no other way. And that the heated words stem from the subtle difference. Politics instead of developing. It's the vendors who decide about the blobs and they may or may not take your complaints into account. Your invested time may or may not return. You've left out the extremely important fact that many vendors interpret acceptance of blobs by any free OS as validating their position of not releasing adequate documentation -- so accepting blobs (even when there's no other choice) actively harms the anti-blob campaign. Dave -- Dave Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 12:38:05PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: So isn't it rather hypocritical to have a anti-Blob campaign, backed by projects which embrace the Blob? So isn't it rather hypocritical to claim GPL license is bad and BSD license is good and ship operating system with GPLed code? How do you feel about having pro-GPL operating system? Why do you lie to your users by having 'BSD' in operating system's name? I'm sure you get the point, but I'm also sure you won't admit it. Anyway, I just had to do it, because... wow, this is an unbelievably dumb statement. the whole obsession with the drivers as opposed to the userland stuff is due to the extent to which an exploit can run amok. if you don't trust some GPL userland code, you can systrace it, etc, and be relatively sure you're not going to get blasted. this is why you don't hear ppl ranting about GPL code in the packages, etc. your whole analogy is irrelevant. Daniel Seuffert got very angry, and instead of removing operating systems which are pro-Blob from an anti-Blob posted, they instead deleted us. Isn't that just incredible? The only incredible thing I find in this thread is how easy for you is to insult such a great BSD advocate as Daniel Seuffert is. PS. This e-mail is for Theo. The only reason I'm sending it to the list is to publicly support Daniel, who is doing a great job for BSD systems in many areas. Feel free not to respond. nobody is questioning how great a BSD advocate Daniel is, only that his effort with this poster and the related advocacy is deeply flawed. to include OSes on such a poster which foster continued blob generation is absurd. nobody's perfect and this happens to have been a mistake on Daniel's part, IMO. -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: No Blob without Puffy
In epistula a Matthew Weigel [EMAIL PROTECTED] die horaque Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:54:24 -0500: Jason George wrote: This was sabre-rattling. Daniel made a pre-emptive tactical strike. There's a big difference. No, there's not a difference. Theo said he was willing to take the emails public; this Daniel guy took him at his word, and made them public. The only foul I see is Theo threatening to take Daniel's emails public in the first place. there really *was* (in ancient times? where the term 'politician' was not an insult?) and should be a difference. people with a total lack of so called 'soft skills' won't see them, tho, but that is neither Theo's problem nor anyone else's. -- Matthew Weigel hacker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Jason George wrote: This was sabre-rattling. Daniel made a pre-emptive tactical strike. There's a big difference. No, there's not a difference. Theo said he was willing to take the emails public; this Daniel guy took him at his word, and made them public. The only foul I see is Theo threatening to take Daniel's emails public in the first place. No, you should re-read the thread. Willingness to release emails is significantly different that actually releasing. The willingness to use a tactical nuclear weapon on an adversarial nation state is significantly different that actually pushing the button to launch said device. The exposed willingness and the clout to back it up is invariably meant to cause the other side to back down. Yes, it is clearly a scare tactic. There's a fundamental concept in negotiations and it's allowing the other party to opportunity to save face. This happens all the time in business, legal and geopolitical discussions. Even the most hardcore lawyers and diplomats know this. Daniel's immediate out was to either not release the poster or to use other language in the promotion of his cause. That was his opportunity to save face. He chose not to try to negotiate to a compromised solution when clearly his tack was going to have a negative impact on at least one other party.
Re: No Blob without Puffy
In epistula a Pawel Jakub Dawidek [EMAIL PROTECTED] die horaque Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:02:47 +0100: On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 12:38:05PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: So isn't it rather hypocritical to have a anti-Blob campaign, backed by projects which embrace the Blob? So isn't it rather hypocritical to claim GPL license is bad and BSD license is good and ship operating system with GPLed code? How do you feel about having pro-GPL operating system? Why do you lie to your users by having 'BSD' in operating system's name? I'm sure you get the point, but I'm also sure you won't admit it. Anyway, I just had to do it, because... Daniel Seuffert got very angry, and instead of removing operating systems which are pro-Blob from an anti-Blob posted, they instead deleted us. Isn't that just incredible? The only incredible thing I find in this thread is how easy for you is to insult such a great BSD advocate as Daniel Seuffert is. did i miss the sarcasm tags here? Daniel Seuffert shoots himself as well as others, both sympathising and not sympathising people, into the foot. mid-term as well as long-term. so where's the 'great BSD advocate'? is everything here *(-1)? PS. This e-mail is for Theo. The only reason I'm sending it to the list is to publicly support Daniel, who is doing a great job for BSD systems in many areas. Feel free not to respond. i felt more than *FREE* (in the *real* sense of freedom) to respond. and i see the need for spam filters to get some algorithms to react to nonsense, too. in the sense of freedom, FreeBSD (among others) is a ultra-cheap whore, as this fat pengiun is. accept it and live with it, or leave crying. nobody will care. -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Hi Pawel, Pawel Jakub Dawidek schrieb am Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 03:02:47PM +0100: On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 12:38:05PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: So isn't it rather hypocritical to have a anti-Blob campaign, backed by projects which embrace the Blob? So isn't it rather hypocritical to claim GPL license is bad and BSD license is good and ship operating system with GPLed code? How do you feel about having pro-GPL operating system? Why do you lie to your users by having 'BSD' in operating system's name? Your analogy does not apply at all: - The proclaimed aim of the 'No blobs!' campaign is getting hardware documentation, thus ultimately enabling all free operating systems to become or remain blob-free: So it is about abolishing blobs. It is not just about the personal opinion whether blobs are free enough or about the personal choice whether to use blobs or not. A hardware manufacturer pressing blobs on his client is disrespectful with respect to his clients. An operating system shipping with the blobs enabled is endangering its users, and it is encouraging vendors to ship blobs. - There is no 'No GPL!' campaign whatsoever. I'm not aware of any plans to get all free software GPL-free. Or to abolish GPL code. To the contrary, i do remember Theo acknowledging that he is building on RMS' and other's work, and that it will stay like that for now, if not for good. A full, working toolchain is not easily dismissed without good reason. Indeed many of the OpenBSD developers hold the opinion that the GPL is not free enough and personally choose to use an other license for their code. But that's all there is to it. A software author writing GPL code is not being disrespectful againt anybody (though he could make his code more useful with a less contorted license). An operating system being built on a GNU toolchain is not endangering its users. Please try to not view conflicts in a fried and enemy-style, but take care to precisely address the point at hand. Yours, Ingo
Re: No Blob without Puffy
In epistula a Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] die horaque Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:27:29 +0100: On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 11:35:14AM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote: * SW [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-03-19 03:21]: Free as in FreeBSD ahh, I finally get it. dry like water hot like ice free like freebsd FreeBSD is released under BSD licence and therefore is free software, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software CL ah, then Wikipedia's definition of 'free' is wrong. The US is a democracy, isn't it? does the majority back the Iraq invasion? :) FreeBSD may be -- as GNU/Linux -- 'free as in beer', you can get it (almost) for free (you have to pay your DSL line/electricity to download it, or media and shipping, etc). But try to brew your own beer -- then GNU/Linux and FreeBSD biogenetic engineers will teach you what 'freedom' is. SCNR
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Yeah but what die is he rolling? I'm tired of rolling a six-sided die against blobs and hobgoblins when all the level 23 developer-clerics are using a 20-sided die... simply not fair!!! danno -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marco Peereboom Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 11:00 AM To: Jason George Cc: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: No Blob without Puffy Not if he makes his saving throw! I bet you he has a cloak of infinite karma too. So not hit-points lost! On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:57:58AM +, Jason George wrote: Hi, this is the conversation I had with Theo: You just made private emails public, almost certainly without the permission of the other parties involved. Please deduct any and all karma points you thought you had.
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Timo Schoeler wrote: people with a total lack of so called 'soft skills' won't see them, tho, but that is neither Theo's problem nor anyone else's. Give me a break. If anyone posted here saying that they would post some private correspondence with Theo unless he took some action, misc@ would be all over them. -- Matthew Weigel hacker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On 3/19/07, Pawel Jakub Dawidek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So isn't it rather hypocritical to claim GPL license is bad and BSD license is good and ship operating system with GPLed code? How do you feel about having pro-GPL operating system? Why do you lie to your users by having 'BSD' in operating system's name? for those that care, openbsd's license policy is very clear. http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html this page is linked to from the word free on the front page. it also hasn't changed in a long time. now, if you go to http://www.freebsd.org/about.html, you'll find the freebsd is free section. it's funny that free of charge is linked, but comes with full source code is not.
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Dave Anderson wrote: You've left out the extremely important fact that many vendors interpret acceptance of blobs by any free OS as validating their position of not releasing adequate documentation -- so accepting blobs (even when there's no other choice) actively harms the anti-blob campaign. It harms more than just the campaign, it harms anyone wanting to maintain a modicum of options further down the road in regards to hardware lifecycles, operating system and kernel lifecycles, and last but not least security. One anecdote regarding insecurity of mysterious binaries / BLOBs: A local privilege escation has been known to exist, unfixed, for several years in nvidia's binary drivers: http://lwn.net/Articles/204541/ However, if you can't audit (and subsequently compile) all the code, including the applications, libraries, compilers and OS, then you've got nothing secure and nothing that can be made secure - regardless of anecdotes, no amount of assurances, claims, hand waving, shouting, smoke, noise etc. from vendors. Don't take my word for it, read what the ACM had to say about it: http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/ But it's not just 'security' that is at risk. The lifecycle of both the operating system/kernel and the hardware that rely on the continued availability of the BLOBs become dependent on the BLOBs producers. Those are groups which may or may not continue to have interests and motivations which overlap yours. If your hardware or system needs a BLOB to run, then the BLOB-maker has you on a leash. Endorsing BLOBs puts *all* hardware, systems, and security at risk through active effort, which is reprehensible. To have one system accepting them, makes it all that much harder to keep them off. Think digital scab. Tolerating BLOBs or failing to eliminate BLOBs, are simply balless passive means of putting the above at risk. To put it another way, it's possible to gain control (political, economical, technical) of systems that get locked into BLOBs either passively or actively and encroachment into one system/distro can be used to marginalize the others. So to put it as kindly as I can, only people somewhere on the spectrum between stupid and troll would be advocating acceptance or tolerance of BLOBs. It's an act of harm that affects more than just the system with the BLOB. -Lars Lars NoodC)n ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Ensure access to your data now and in the future http://opendocumentfellowship.org/about_us/contribute
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:59:51 -0400, Dan Farrell wrote: I thought it was free as in beer, but because of the blobs, not necessarily free as in you can do whatever you want with it... Because what can you do with a blob? Are you allowed to use a blob anywhere you want, in any situation? Are you allowed to crack open a blob and use parts of its code to re-write your own software/drivers? Are you even allowed to have documentation regarding a blob? These are all defined by license restrictions... that restrict your freedom concerning the use of the blob. So IMHO FreeBSD is only free to obtain... but not fully 'free' to use in any way you want. Please follow the simple formula- License Restriction = Not Free. You've been so involved in this discussion I thought you wouldn't need this simplistic review... or maybe you're just trolling. Yes, he is just trolling. And for the other mentally challenged who think that FREEbsd has any real freedom, cop this quote from their website: While you might expect an operating system with these features to sell for a high price, FreeBSD is available free of charge and comes with full source code. If you would like to purchase or download a copy to try out, more information is available. Full source code? For all the blobs? Really? Or do you accept entries in the Obfuscated Code Contest as real, usable, and fixable if needed, source? From the land down under: Australia. Do we look umop apisdn from up over?
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On 3/19/07 4:48 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: You are so uninformed that it isn't even funny to pick on you. Karel clocks on the wrong edge and is by far the worst educated asocial asshole I have met on this list. +++chefren
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:26:18 -0500 Matthew Weigel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Timo Schoeler wrote: people with a total lack of so called 'soft skills' won't see them, tho, but that is neither Theo's problem nor anyone else's. Give me a break. If anyone posted here saying that they would post some private correspondence with Theo unless he took some action, misc@ would be all over them. -- Matthew Weigel hacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] you didn't get the point, again; q.e.d. let's stop abusing electrons :)
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Wikipedia's wrong?!?!?!?!?!?! What about the term 'truthiness'? Don't tell me Wikipedia's wrong about that, too? ;) danno ps- 2006-03-01 The Colbert Report, episode 58 Arianna Huffington challenges host Stephen Colbert on his claim that he had coined the word truthiness. She cited Wikipedia, claiming that he had merely popularized the term. Regarding her source, Colbert, in character, responded: Fuck them.[2] First non-news nationally-broadcast television program to cite Wikipedia in a debate. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Timo Schoeler Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 12:17 PM To: Karel Kulhavy Cc: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: No Blob without Puffy In epistula a Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] die horaque Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:27:29 +0100: On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 11:35:14AM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote: * SW [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-03-19 03:21]: Free as in FreeBSD ahh, I finally get it. dry like water hot like ice free like freebsd FreeBSD is released under BSD licence and therefore is free software, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software CL ah, then Wikipedia's definition of 'free' is wrong. The US is a democracy, isn't it? does the majority back the Iraq invasion? :) FreeBSD may be -- as GNU/Linux -- 'free as in beer', you can get it (almost) for free (you have to pay your DSL line/electricity to download it, or media and shipping, etc). But try to brew your own beer -- then GNU/Linux and FreeBSD biogenetic engineers will teach you what 'freedom' is. SCNR
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: So isn't it rather hypocritical to claim GPL license is bad and BSD license is good and ship operating system with GPLed code? No. How do you feel about having pro-GPL operating system? I don't know, I run OpenBSD. --- Lars Hansson
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Lars D. Nooden wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Dave Anderson wrote: You've left out the extremely important fact that many vendors interpret acceptance of blobs by any free OS as validating their position of not releasing adequate documentation -- so accepting blobs (even when there's no other choice) actively harms the anti-blob campaign. It harms more than just the campaign, it harms anyone wanting to maintain a modicum of options further down the road in regards to hardware lifecycles, operating system and kernel lifecycles, and last but not least security. One anecdote regarding insecurity of mysterious binaries / BLOBs: A local privilege escation has been known to exist, unfixed, for several years in nvidia's binary drivers: http://lwn.net/Articles/204541/ However, if you can't audit (and subsequently compile) all the code, including the applications, libraries, compilers and OS, then you've got nothing secure and nothing that can be made secure - regardless of anecdotes, no amount of assurances, claims, hand waving, shouting, smoke, noise etc. from vendors. Don't take my word for it, read what the ACM had to say about it: http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/ But it's not just 'security' that is at risk. The lifecycle of both the operating system/kernel and the hardware that rely on the continued availability of the BLOBs become dependent on the BLOBs producers. Those are groups which may or may not continue to have interests and motivations which overlap yours. If your hardware or system needs a BLOB to run, then the BLOB-maker has you on a leash. Endorsing BLOBs puts *all* hardware, systems, and security at risk through active effort, which is reprehensible. To have one system accepting them, makes it all that much harder to keep them off. Think digital scab. Tolerating BLOBs or failing to eliminate BLOBs, are simply balless passive means of putting the above at risk. To put it another way, it's possible to gain control (political, economical, technical) of systems that get locked into BLOBs either passively or actively and encroachment into one system/distro can be used to marginalize the others. I lurk on this list and occasionally kibbitz. Various effects make OpenBSD a very efficient leading indicator. It works essentially thus. If the hardware gives OpenBSD trouble, it will tend to give everybody else trouble sooner or later. OpenBSD just finds out earlier. So to put it as kindly as I can, only people somewhere on the spectrum between stupid and troll would be advocating acceptance or tolerance of BLOBs. It's an act of harm that affects more than just the system with the BLOB. -Lars Lars NoodC)n ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Ensure access to your data now and in the future http://opendocumentfellowship.org/about_us/contribute
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Hi all, Sorry for the size of this email, but this issue drives me nuts. This discussion is for the most part not going anywhere and looks like dirty laundry between various party. Campaign for no BLOB start by refusing BLOB period. No one will do goodwill if not force to do so. That's human nature at large with few exceptions, but definitely corporation nature BIG TIME! Never ear of the corporate Jello mentality? No matter how hard you push on one side of the jiggleling good looking served plate on your table, as soon as you stop pushing, it takes is original form back, unless you cut part of it. Same for BLOBs. Unless you cut them out, they will keep coming back. Show how BLOB are bad, refuse them, buy hardware that don't need BLOB. If a product don't sale, they get replace on the free market, that's just how it is. Company are after market share, if they don't sale, they will change. So, make them change! I already post proof on this list a few months ago of how bad BLOB are with proof that if push to shove, I would argue that even the stock exchange commission might be interested to know in some cases. In my own case, I discover in my expensive commercial product purchase a few years ago and fully licenses with yearly 20% purchase price recurring support cost on it, that without my knowledge and even my explicit agreement, that private informations were send to that company each night! When raise hell on it, was send left and right with no clear answer, but keeping pushing was told that it will be disable in my license. But why was it there in the first place I asked? Did I have a choice? I didn't even know it. I didn't trust that answer, put firewall filtering everything coming OUT of it and collecting stats on it as well to proof my point and to fully discover really how it was working, oppose to what the technical manual said it was work. With logs in hands, send to them, that same company discovered that some informations was leaking to some other employee, or may be ex employee of that same company that they were not aware of. How you call that for miss use BLOBs and why they shouldn't be allow. You have no clue what's in them and what they do, because you can't see the code from it! Now a few months later, after all daily data is block, I get from that same company emails saying in the line of (some part was deliberately remove to protect the identity here) To ensure your * platform is performing properly, .. to view the performance of your system. You will be contacted . Support engineer to access your respective system to capture performance data. They never cared before, each time troubles were send to them, stupid answers were provided in most cases, no solutions come out of it and we are left to fix it ourselves via work around. Even when proof of problems were provided, nothing was done to fix it! Now tell me. Are they really interested in making sure my systems are working properly??? Draw your own conclusions? They never been before, but when all blobs were block from sending private data from my business and my customers to them, a few months later under pretenses of making sure all works well, they request access to the systems? Tell me, would you let Microsoft for example, access your servers to see if they work well? I don't think so. But again, you might already do that via BLOB. You just don't know. If they were really proactive about performance of my systems, first of all they would have make it obvious that they were doing that. Then they would give you reports of it as well wouldn't they? Look to me if someone was doing this legally or to help their customers in a proactive way, I bet you that a marketing guy would make a big fuss about it to sale it to you and use it to show you they care about you don't you think? Buy our systems, we proactively monitor all aspect of it and provide you feedback on the well being of your systems for your and your customers benefit. I know a few IT manager that would jump to that and be so happy to report to their managers all the good that come out of this, etc. Sorry, I don't buy it! So, putting BLOB in your systems, is a way for any outsiders to have access to your systems without you knowing it, regardless how you look at it! OK, I grant you, it is not such a way in all cases, but do you know that? Plus you have no clue what these BLOB are doing! I challenge you, anyone that accept BLOB in your systems without questioning it, to proof that no private informations doesn't leak from your systems and that you don't have a back door into your systems without you knowing it. Or at best a remote hole ready to be discover and not fix in the future as that same provider wouldn't care. How long will it takes before you discover that you are running BLOB, knowingly or not that have remote holes in them. Some users complained that some security
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Hi, this is the conversation I had with Theo: 1. mail, 12.03.2007 01:29 Dear Theo, allBSD is currently prepairing for the Stop Blob! campaign an we have a poster ready here: http://www.allbsd.de/src/Kampagnen/StopBlob/StopBlob-en-Poster.pdf This is already translated into some languages, more are to come soon and I'm currently writing a flyer that will be translated too in as many languages as possible. Any objections/ideas? Best regadrs, Daniel 2. mail from Theo, 12.03.2007 02:34: I don't know why you are using a BSD daemon, when the two BSD's that use Daemon imagery are the ones that ACCEPT blobs, in particular, Sam Leffler's atheros driver. So I absolutely do not see how you think you can go stealing our campaign for your own use! WE are the only people of the ones that you claim to represent who are actually standing up for this issue. If you put those other project's names on there, that's unbelieveably disrespectful of our efforts. FreeBSD *specifically* has vendor drivers in it, and has developers who work at vendors. Not just Sam, but they also have an employee of NVidia who they consider a developer, and who now makes changes to the ethernet driver everyone got from us, without even replying to mails from our developers who wrote it! No. I entirely object to what you are doing here. You are trying to make it look like those other projects are anti-blob, when they are NOT. 3. mail from Theo, 12.03.2007 03:00: Did you even think about the fact that there are only two operating systems that ship without blobs? OpenBSD Debian (and derived systems) FreeBSD and NetBSD are not on the list of blob-less operating systems. Both of them ship with at least one blob, compiled directly into the kernel. Their developers have NEVER helped us fight for documentation, or fight the blob. They've made a couple vague words sometimes, but then gone back to their American ways and talked about the need to sometimes compromise. They have UNDERMINED our efforts to fight the blob, and now you want to include them in a poster about it? I think you are not thinking your campaign through very well at all. 4. mail from me to Theo, 13.03.2007 01:16: Theo de Raadt qrote: I don't know why you are using a BSD daemon, when the two BSD's that use Daemon imagery are the ones that ACCEPT blobs, in particular, Sam Leffler's atheros driver. So I absolutely do not see how you think you can go stealing our campaign for your own use! WE are the only people of the ones that you claim to represent who are actually standing up for this issue. If you put those other project's names on there, that's unbelieveably disrespectful of our efforts. FreeBSD *specifically* has vendor drivers in it, and has developers who work at vendors. Not just Sam, but they also have an employee of NVidia who they consider a developer, and who now makes changes to the ethernet driver everyone got from us, without even replying to mails from our developers who wrote it! No. I entirely object to what you are doing here. You are trying to make it look like those other projects are anti-blob, when they are NOT. Hi Theo, in short: This campaign was startet after a long discussion internally and we couldn't find ANY BSD-guy from whatever BSD that claimed Blobs or NDAs are a good idea. We have a large number of individuals using and contributing to all BSDs and this is not a campaign pointing fingers to certain people using Blobs. This is a campaign to rise public awareness that Blobs are a bad idea and they should support ALL BSDs fighting against it. We all need free documentation and we all want it. This campaign is totally unrelated to the one started with OpenBSD 3.9 and the poster for it and we haven't used anything from it, so there's absolutely no stealing our campaign. And no, nobody is unrespectful here. And btw it's not our own use. We want to help all BSDs in getting more documentation. Yes, there are 4 Blobs in FreeBSD-Generic, NetBSD maybe 1 but I would better subscribe it as a firmware modul, MirOS none, DragonFly none afaik. But this is a bad idea and a lot of FreeBSD-people sharing that view. But this is BSD and freedom of choice. If somebody wants to use NVidia drivers or the like it's his own risk, not mine or ours. Don't complain, tell why it's wrong. And for that very purpose I'm writing the flyer following soon. The BSD deamon was used because it's the only symbol shared by all BSDs and it looks nice, people liked the first poster draft a lot when we showed it 2 weeks ago in Chemnitz (the poster was changed in between after that experience). You claim you don't get any support from the other BSDs and now a group of other BSD-users starts that campaign and you complain. Where's the beef? Best regards, Daniel 5. mail from Theo, 13.03.2007 02:36: in short: This campaign was startet after a long discussion internally and we couldn't find
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Hi, this is the conversation I had with Theo: You just made private emails public, almost certainly without the permission of the other parties involved. Please deduct any and all karma points you thought you had.
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On Mar 18, 2007, at 7:06 PM, SW wrote: snip a formerly private email thread I read your entire thread, and find it appalling that not only will you take someone's private email and broadcast it, but that it incriminates you on all counts. You admit that FreeBSD continues to ship BLOBs, but you wish to keep them on your campaign against BLOBs. Don't you see the hypocrisy in this action? -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Re: No Blob without Puffy
That was the conversation in detail, nothing altered, nothing left out, read and draw your own conclusions. Conclusion: you are not contributing to the problem at all. Sorry, I'm not angry, I'm focused and productive. Nope, not productive at all in my opinion. Theo is right on the mark about you.
Re: No Blob without Puffy
SW [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry, I'm not angry, I'm focused and productive. Best regards, Daniel I think it is disingenuous to include those BSDs which have blobs on such a flyer, especially in a position at the bottom which implies sponsorship or support of such a campaign when they are actively in violation of it's stated purpose. How about you put their logos under the hammer? -- Sincerely, Craig Brozefsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] Free Scheme/Lisp Software http://www.red-bean.com/~craig Less matter, more form! - Bruno Schulz ignazz, I am truly korrupted by yore sinful tzourceware. -jb what a klon - neko
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On 3/18/07, SW [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I havent't told you I would write that and you haven't seen the unfinished flyer yet. You are assuming that I will tell lies, which I will not. I will tell people which Blobs are used in each BSD and that this is wrong imho. I'm not in a position to lie about anything, neither to you nor any other person. ... Sorry, this is personal without any evidence/argument. I'll have to agree with Theo on this one. You're definetly spreading a lie with that flyer. Anyone who reads the flyer as it is will probably assume that the 4 BSDs are against blobs. When it's not really a fact. Maybe the greatest part of freebsd and netbsd community is against blobs, but that's not what the flyer is saying, it's saying that the projects are against blobs. That's what those symbols represent, isn't it? And that's obviously not true, since freebsd and netbsd ship with blobs. It's not like they have no choice, there are big projects that ship their products without blobs. You may write nice documents explaining what a blob is and which systems have and which do not. The problem is that the flyer is not telling us that, it's suggesting that those 4 BSDs are against blob, and therefore they don't have blobs. It may even trick people into installing freebsd or netbsd thinking they're installing blob-free software and therefore contributing to make the world free of blob.
Re: No Blob without Puffy
-Original Message- From: Jason Dixon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: No Blob without Puffy On Mar 18, 2007, at 7:06 PM, SW wrote: snip a formerly private email thread I read your entire thread, and find it appalling that not only will you take someone's private email and broadcast it, but that it incriminates you on all counts. You admit that FreeBSD continues to ship BLOBs, but you wish to keep them on your campaign against BLOBs. Don't you see the hypocrisy in this action? -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net 1. We have nothing to hide. Theo wrote he would post the mails in public, I told him to do so. There's nothing private in those mails. Everybody has a right to know what was going on, read every bit. 2. I asked Theo if OpenBSD has objections to this campaign. Theo wrote that only BSDs with no Blobs should be on the poster. That's OpenBSD policy. FreeBSD and NetBSD have a different policy. Theo wanted OpenBSD removed from that poster, we did it. Theo claimed that Stop Blob! is OpenBSD intellectual property so we changed it to No Blob!. If OpenBSD wants to improve the Stop Blob! campaign please stop complaining and contribute. I wish OpenBSD the very best and hope they will be able to succeed in any way. 3. FreeBSD has Blobs, there's no need for admitting, read the FreeBSD cvs, this is not a secret. 4. You think the only way to fight Blobs is totally abandon them. All the other BSDs have a different opinion. Because we have a different opinion how too achieve something (we all want free documentation) doesn't mean we like Blobs, NDAs or something. Yes, I am a FreeBSD-guy to the bone and I don't like Blobs nor that I am using them. And I will not do any sort of armchair quarterbacking. I will fight and tell the public what's going on and why I don't like it. 5. OpenBSD thinks there should be no possibility whatsoever to use Blobs. FreeBSD thinks it's up to the user to decide what's best for him. And maybe that will include competition between Open Source BSD-licensed drivers and Blobs. You can use Nvidia graphics drivers in FreeBSD and you can use xorg. You can use NVE or NFE soon. That's freedom of choice, Free as in FreeBSD (and NetBSD and DragonFly BSD etc.). 6. Go on with your fight for free documentation but please stop fighting all other BSDs. It will lead to absolutely no good. All the best for OpenBSD, Daniel
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On Mar 18, 2007, at 9:31 PM, SW wrote: 1. We have nothing to hide. Theo wrote he would post the mails in public, I told him to do so. There's nothing private in those mails. Everybody has a right to know what was going on, read every bit. I did, and suggest you do the same. 2. I asked Theo if OpenBSD has objections to this campaign. Theo wrote that only BSDs with no Blobs should be on the poster. That's OpenBSD policy. FreeBSD and NetBSD have a different policy. Theo wanted OpenBSD removed from that poster, we did it. Theo claimed that Stop Blob! is OpenBSD intellectual property so we changed it to No Blob!. If OpenBSD wants to improve the Stop Blob! campaign please stop complaining and contribute. I wish OpenBSD the very best and hope they will be able to succeed in any way. What does FreeBSD's policy have to do with anything. It's *YOUR* campaign, you should determine your own policy. Presumably, if your goal is to STOP BLOBs, then why would you include FreeBSD as a sponsor, since they include BLOBs in their distribution? 3. FreeBSD has Blobs, there's no need for admitting, read the FreeBSD cvs, this is not a secret. Again, why are you being hypocritical by including a BLOB-friendly OS in your campaign? You're part of the problem, not the solution. 4. You think the only way to fight Blobs is totally abandon them. All the other BSDs have a different opinion. Because we have a different opinion how too achieve something (we all want free documentation) doesn't mean we like Blobs, NDAs or something. Yes, I am a FreeBSD-guy to the bone and I don't like Blobs nor that I am using them. And I will not do any sort of armchair quarterbacking. I will fight and tell the public what's going on and why I don't like it. Hypocrite. 5. OpenBSD thinks there should be no possibility whatsoever to use Blobs. FreeBSD thinks it's up to the user to decide what's best for him. And maybe that will include competition between Open Source BSD-licensed drivers and Blobs. You can use Nvidia graphics drivers in FreeBSD and you can use xorg. You can use NVE or NFE soon. That's freedom of choice, Free as in FreeBSD (and NetBSD and DragonFly BSD etc.). Hypocrite. 6. Go on with your fight for free documentation but please stop fighting all other BSDs. It will lead to absolutely no good. You're wrong. And you're the problem. BY INCLUDING THEM IN YOUR CAMPAIGN AGAINST BLOBS, YOU CONDONE THEIR ACTIONS. -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Re: No Blob without Puffy
SW writes: That's freedom of choice, Free as in FreeBSD (and NetBSD and DragonFly BSD etc.). That's free? Whoever told you that was your enemy. ;)
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Jason George wrote: Hi, this is the conversation I had with Theo: You just made private emails public, almost certainly without the permission of the other parties involved. I dunno, Daniel indicates Theo wrote the following: If you release that poster which uses our slogan in such an incredibly false way, I will come out swinging. I will probably post all these emails. -- Matthew Weigel hacker unique idempot.ent
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, Jason Dixon wrote: Again, why are you being hypocritical by including a BLOB-friendly OS in your campaign? You're part of the problem, not the solution. Actually, I think that by listing only blob-distributing OSs on their poster the campaign has a very funny subtextual meaning. -d
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Greetings, Can just everybody - PLEASE, drop this thread! No need to waste bandwidth, it was sorted out by THEO. Regards, Ioan Jason Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/19 11:52 am On Mar 18, 2007, at 7:06 PM, SW wrote: snip a formerly private email thread I read your entire thread, and find it appalling that not only will you take someone's private email and broadcast it, but that it incriminates you on all counts. You admit that FreeBSD continues to ship BLOBs, but you wish to keep them on your campaign against BLOBs. Don't you see the hypocrisy in this action? -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Re: No Blob without Puffy
SW wrote: Hi, this is the conversation I had with Theo: snip Your `No Blob!' poster, complete with logos of BSD systems that ship with blobs, will feel right at home beside my `Trustworthy Computing Initiative' and `Mission Accomplished' banners. A true laughing-stock in the making. Trust me, this isn't just Theo and the big, bad openbsd ogres being hardasses about blobs. This is just a stupid and misleading campaign.
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On 3/18/07, SW [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5. OpenBSD thinks there should be no possibility whatsoever to use Blobs. FreeBSD thinks it's up to the user to decide what's best for him. And maybe that will include competition between Open Source BSD-licensed drivers and Blobs. You can use Nvidia graphics drivers in FreeBSD and you can use xorg. You can use NVE or NFE soon. That's freedom of choice, Free as in FreeBSD (and NetBSD and DragonFly BSD etc.). When you install FreeBSD you are bound to install Atheros blob (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I could figure out from freebsd documentation), unless you do a little research and customization before. No warnings pop up to the user, he might even don't know he's running a blob. There's nothing even on the handbook (at least I didn't find it). Where's the freedom? On 3/18/07, Matthew Weigel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You just made private emails public, almost certainly without the permission of the other parties involved. I dunno, Daniel indicates Theo wrote the following: If you release that poster which uses our slogan in such an incredibly false way, I will come out swinging. I will probably post all these emails. That was more of a threat than a permission.
Re: No Blob without Puffy
SW [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 6. Go on with your fight for free documentation but please stop fighting all other BSDs. It will lead to absolutely no good. Wow, talk about missing the point. You have to fight FreeBSD to fight for free documentation, because FreeBSD is fighting to stop anyone from ever getting free documentation. You can't fight for something without also fighting against the people who oppose it. FreeBSD is actively opposing open hardware documentation. They are the enemy. They need to be fought. Adam
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Hi, this is the conversation I had with Theo: You just made private emails public, almost certainly without the permission of the other parties involved. I dunno, Daniel indicates Theo wrote the following: If you release that poster which uses our slogan in such an incredibly false way, I will come out swinging. I will probably post all these emails. This was sabre-rattling. Daniel made a pre-emptive tactical strike. There's a big difference. So much for the concept of using strong language as a deterrent during discussions and negotiations if the point is lost on the counter-party...
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 02:06:50PM -0500, K K wrote: It'd be great if Theo could make a clear statement on Puffy, the same as Marshall Kirk McKusick has for the daemon. I had cause to use a variant of Marshall's beastie for a project which was marginally within his published guidelines, and had no problem getting permission. On 3/16/07, Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it true that Puffy is not here because of Theo's concerns about his copyrighted Puffy logo? http://misc.allbsd.de/Kampagnen/NoBlob/NoBlob-en-Poster.jpg Not only is puffy not there, the word OpenBSD is also absent, and Theo has explained exactly what happened. It's not about the blowfish at all. I also couldn't use Puffy logo on Ronja because then I wouldn't be able to talk about OpenBSD negatively if it came out there is some serious problem with Ronja and OpenBSD together. I think Theo should stop being paranoid about his Puffy. Puffy is not something you steal from a bowl and it disappears. I also have a Ronja logo which is under GFDL and noone is stealing it and damaging me. The same for the Linux Tux I have the feeling. Not quite how trademark law works, see http://preview.tinyurl.com/2crjgc The problem is that the Puffy is an artist work, governed by the copyright / author rights stuff. I asked Theo about still being able to criticize the project freely as I want, and he told me that I can't. What Theo says is consistent with what the website says: However, it is our intent that anyone be able to use these images to represent OpenBSD in a positive light http://openbsd.org/art1.html See? Positive light. Theo explained he needs it to protect his project and that it's required by law that he acts so protective. To me this appears absurd, but Theo has the copyright and he can tell where Puffy can be used and where not. I have ordered a Puffy sticker to stick on my snowboard, that doesn't have any legal hitches, I'll post a picture when I put it there :) Specifically, it appears you could legally use Puffy on a Ronja logo It wasn't even on Ronja logo it was just in the list of software used. to indicate compatibility, and you could still feel free to talk about OpenBSD negatively, even under Canadian trademark law. Trademark is not a problem, the problem lies in the copyright. In the No blob case, the issue would be that using *any* OpenBSD mark would suggest sponsorship or endorsement, puffy or no puffy. And Theo has made it clear how he feels about endorsing that specific campaign. So it's not about Puffy copyright, but about Theo not likes the campaign? Well then it makes sense. CL Jack J. Woehr writes: Handling the deadly pufferfish is very dangerous, and best left to experts! The only legal imports to the US are pre-processed and flash frozen, with all tetrodotoxin safely removed. Fugu is good food. IANAL, YMMV
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 12:38:05PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: Is it true that Puffy is not here because of Theo's concerns about his copyrighted Puffy logo? http://misc.allbsd.de/Kampagnen/NoBlob/NoBlob-en-Poster.jpg No. That is false. Whoever told you that lied to you. That was written in this post on a Swiss IT news portal: http://www.symlink.ch/comments.pl?sid=07/03/15/1557213threshold=-1commentsort=0mode=threadpid=9 If you don't understand German, I can try to translate (I don't understand wel): Oh, that's even better. allbsd.de has started a Stop Blob campaign. While the other BSD's can identify themselves with it, Theo thought that they would put his intellectual property to danger, steal ideas and use the Puffy fish illegitimately on the poster. (The e-mail went on the allbsd-misc mailing list but I can't find an archive link at the moment.) The campaign is now called NoBlob http://misc.allbsd.de/Kampagnen/NoBlob/ I also couldn't use Puffy logo on Ronja because then I wouldn't be able to talk about OpenBSD negatively if it came out there is some serious problem with Ronja and OpenBSD together. There is a serious problem with what allbsd is doing. They first approached me on the 13th with a campaign using our Stop the Blob slogan. That is something OpenBSD takes very seriously, yet at the bottom of the poster you can see a list of operating systems which specifically use a Blob, and actually those projects work against us when we take on vendors pushing Blobs. Of course the first Blob to mention is the Atheros driver in all those operating systems. I wanted to use Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 in my laptop to connect to wireless network in my work. I found out from the manpage it requires nonfree firmware files (is this a blob?). Instead of downloading them, I dropped an e-mail to the address mentioned in the manpage saying like they can stick their blob up their ass. I can use a wire connectivity for most of the time. Should I need a wireless connections, there are other methods than IPW 2100. I think it's just right to categorically refuse blobs even when the users cannot use their hardware. They should avoid hardware crippleware. My fault that I didn't. But more and more of these Blob's are making it into FreeBSD all the time. The Nvidia driver (though now they are using our nvidia driver, I just wonder what happens if every commercial manufacturer starts requiring a blob? Will OpenBSD stop existing? Or will you adapt a pro-blob policy? Or will someone pop up and design a free hardware design for that product category? and they have a nvidia employee on their team who commits things to that driver without talking to anyone). And the same thing is happening to lots of other drivers in FreeBSD. FreeBSD apparently has a signed agreement with Nvidia over the accelerated video driver, and So you have absolutely no signed NDA agreements? I guess that creates a reluctance amongst them to fight Nvidia with us for ethernet drivers. The same has happened with other things like Adaptec RAID. FreeBSD developers actively side with the vendors when we demand documentation. So isn't it rather hypocritical to have a anti-Blob campaign, backed by projects which embrace the Blob? After being shown the first version of the art (showing our slogan, and all the BSD's down below), I told allbsd that (1) they cannot misuse our slogan like that (2) I felt their whole campaign was hypocritical Daniel Seuffert got very angry, and instead of removing operating systems which are pro-Blob from an anti-Blob posted, they instead deleted us. Isn't that just incredible? It's just an ordinary political practice. Talks about morality and truth are used in a straightforward manner to get better sales without a regard to actual consistency or correcntess. I think Theo should stop being paranoid about his Puffy. Puffy is not something you steal from a bowl and it disappears. I also have a Ronja logo which is under GFDL and noone is stealing it and damaging me. The same for the Linux Tux I have the feeling. You've got it wrong. Now it makes sense. The adoption rate of a product typically goes up with how crap it is. So your explanation is more plausible than theirs because FreeBSD has higher adoption. CL
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Hi Karel, Karel Kulhavy wrote on Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 10:38:11AM +0100: On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 12:38:05PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: Someone asked: Is it true that Puffy is not here because of Theo's concerns about his copyrighted Puffy logo? http://misc.allbsd.de/Kampagnen/NoBlob/NoBlob-en-Poster.jpg No. That is false. Whoever told you that lied to you. That was written in this post on a Swiss IT news portal: http://www.symlink.ch/comments.pl?sid=07/03/15/1557213 \ threshold=-1commentsort=0mode=threadpid=9 Oh please, don't be absurd. That bulletin board posting is so obviously sarcastic that you just cannot take it seriously. Besides, even if it could be serious: When trying to understand Theo's ideas, it should be well known that it's no good trying to start from what Thorsten might be thinking about them (not judging the rest of Thorsten's work and ideas in any way). If you don't understand German well and know little about the people involved, then at least you have been jumping to conclusions. Concerning the rest of your questions: All this has been discussed an re-discussed ad nauseum. Please do make an effort to find some information yourself before asking, or you will start getting on people's nerves, even if you do not intend to. Two hints: 1. Do not confuse firmware blobs with kernel space driver blobs. These are two completely different kinds of animals. 2. Avoid the discussion of purely hypothetical situations (like no hardware specs for any hardware on the market). Rather try to focus on real problems. Yours, Ingo
Re: No Blob without Puffy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 snip Please do make an effort to find some information yourself before asking, or you will start getting on people's nerves, even if you do not intend to. Start? snip iD8DBQFF/AzH5B7p9jYarz8RAm2BAJ9ak/sun5B61mKN/jIF0GqMJbiy0gCfSsbx 9USyHH/QNgeX53vWKUovjxI= =f4Os -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: No Blob without Puffy
But more and more of these Blob's are making it into FreeBSD all the time. The Nvidia driver (though now they are using our nvidia driver, I just wonder what happens if every commercial manufacturer starts requiring a blob? Will OpenBSD stop existing? Or will you adapt a pro-blob policy? Or will someone pop up and design a free hardware design for that product category? If it wasn't for a few specific developers in the pro-Blob FreeBSD community accepting these NDA's this battle would have been over a long time ago. By that I mean we'd be back to the way things were in 1987, when all hardware documentation was freely spread by vendors to whoever wanted it. and they have a nvidia employee on their team who commits things to that driver without talking to anyone). And the same thing is happening to lots of other drivers in FreeBSD. FreeBSD apparently has a signed agreement with Nvidia over the accelerated video driver, and So you have absolutely no signed NDA agreements? Not one. OpenBSD does not have any NDA's signed with anyone. Some developers privately may have NDA's signed here or there, but I actively discourage them from doing so, and assist in conversations with vendors. When we tell vendors that we won't accept NDA's, most times the hardware and documentation still arrives.
No Blob without Puffy
Is it true that Puffy is not here because of Theo's concerns about his copyrighted Puffy logo? http://misc.allbsd.de/Kampagnen/NoBlob/NoBlob-en-Poster.jpg I also couldn't use Puffy logo on Ronja because then I wouldn't be able to talk about OpenBSD negatively if it came out there is some serious problem with Ronja and OpenBSD together. I think Theo should stop being paranoid about his Puffy. Puffy is not something you steal from a bowl and it disappears. I also have a Ronja logo which is under GFDL and noone is stealing it and damaging me. The same for the Linux Tux I have the feeling. CL
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On Mar 16, 2007, at 12:18 PM, Karel Kulhavy wrote: I think Theo should stop being paranoid about his Puffy. You don't understand! Theo's just trying to protect us. Handling the deadly pufferfish is very dangerous, and best left to experts! -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On 3/16/07, Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it true that Puffy is not here because of Theo's concerns about his copyrighted Puffy logo? http://misc.allbsd.de/Kampagnen/NoBlob/NoBlob-en-Poster.jpg I also couldn't use Puffy logo on Ronja because then I wouldn't be able to talk about OpenBSD negatively if it came out there is some serious problem with Ronja and OpenBSD together. I think Theo should stop being paranoid about his Puffy. Puffy is not something you steal from a bowl and it disappears. I also have a Ronja logo which is under GFDL and noone is stealing it and damaging me. The same for the Linux Tux I have the feeling. Oh, goodness. I, for one, am glad that Theo is more concerned with making a solid OS than worriying about how ubiquitous the project's mascot is. Greg
Re: No Blob without Puffy
Is it true that Puffy is not here because of Theo's concerns about his copyrighted Puffy logo? http://misc.allbsd.de/Kampagnen/NoBlob/NoBlob-en-Poster.jpg No. That is false. Whoever told you that lied to you. I also couldn't use Puffy logo on Ronja because then I wouldn't be able to talk about OpenBSD negatively if it came out there is some serious problem with Ronja and OpenBSD together. There is a serious problem with what allbsd is doing. They first approached me on the 13th with a campaign using our Stop the Blob slogan. That is something OpenBSD takes very seriously, yet at the bottom of the poster you can see a list of operating systems which specifically use a Blob, and actually those projects work against us when we take on vendors pushing Blobs. Of course the first Blob to mention is the Atheros driver in all those operating systems. But more and more of these Blob's are making it into FreeBSD all the time. The Nvidia driver (though now they are using our nvidia driver, and they have a nvidia employee on their team who commits things to that driver without talking to anyone). And the same thing is happening to lots of other drivers in FreeBSD. FreeBSD apparently has a signed agreement with Nvidia over the accelerated video driver, and I guess that creates a reluctance amongst them to fight Nvidia with us for ethernet drivers. The same has happened with other things like Adaptec RAID. FreeBSD developers actively side with the vendors when we demand documentation. So isn't it rather hypocritical to have a anti-Blob campaign, backed by projects which embrace the Blob? After being shown the first version of the art (showing our slogan, and all the BSD's down below), I told allbsd that (1) they cannot misuse our slogan like that (2) I felt their whole campaign was hypocritical Daniel Seuffert got very angry, and instead of removing operating systems which are pro-Blob from an anti-Blob posted, they instead deleted us. Isn't that just incredible? I think Theo should stop being paranoid about his Puffy. Puffy is not something you steal from a bowl and it disappears. I also have a Ronja logo which is under GFDL and noone is stealing it and damaging me. The same for the Linux Tux I have the feeling. You've got it wrong.
Re: No Blob without Puffy
It'd be great if Theo could make a clear statement on Puffy, the same as Marshall Kirk McKusick has for the daemon. I had cause to use a variant of Marshall's beastie for a project which was marginally within his published guidelines, and had no problem getting permission. On 3/16/07, Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it true that Puffy is not here because of Theo's concerns about his copyrighted Puffy logo? http://misc.allbsd.de/Kampagnen/NoBlob/NoBlob-en-Poster.jpg Not only is puffy not there, the word OpenBSD is also absent, and Theo has explained exactly what happened. It's not about the blowfish at all. I also couldn't use Puffy logo on Ronja because then I wouldn't be able to talk about OpenBSD negatively if it came out there is some serious problem with Ronja and OpenBSD together. I think Theo should stop being paranoid about his Puffy. Puffy is not something you steal from a bowl and it disappears. I also have a Ronja logo which is under GFDL and noone is stealing it and damaging me. The same for the Linux Tux I have the feeling. Not quite how trademark law works, see http://preview.tinyurl.com/2crjgc Specifically, it appears you could legally use Puffy on a Ronja logo to indicate compatibility, and you could still feel free to talk about OpenBSD negatively, even under Canadian trademark law. In the No blob case, the issue would be that using *any* OpenBSD mark would suggest sponsorship or endorsement, puffy or no puffy. And Theo has made it clear how he feels about endorsing that specific campaign. Jack J. Woehr writes: Handling the deadly pufferfish is very dangerous, and best left to experts! The only legal imports to the US are pre-processed and flash frozen, with all tetrodotoxin safely removed. Fugu is good food. IANAL, YMMV
Re: No Blob without Puffy
* Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-03-16 12:20]: Is it true that Puffy is not here because of Theo's concerns about his copyrighted Puffy logo? http://misc.allbsd.de/Kampagnen/NoBlob/NoBlob-en-Poster.jpg Hunh? a No Blob poster with FreeBSD on it? that's a fucking joke. they're the biggest vendor whores around putting blob drivers in their os! heck they're one of the biggest reasons it remains a problem! I also couldn't use Puffy logo on Ronja because then I wouldn't be able to talk about OpenBSD negatively if it came out there is some serious problem with Ronja and OpenBSD together. I think Theo should stop being paranoid about his Puffy. Puffy is not something you steal from a bowl and it disappears. I also have a Ronja logo which is under GFDL and noone is stealing it and damaging me. The same for the Linux Tux I have the feeling. Not having the background on what Theo has or hasn't done I wouldn't know, but frankly, I wouldn't want to see OpenBSD on anything so misguided. Putting FreeBSD on a No Blob poster is like putting the Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon logos on a poster about reducing global CO2 emissions. If you have nothing better to do that look at campaigns at least find a campaign where it appears the people doing it understand this issues. this one is relatively obvious that they don't - at all - Or maybe they're sponsored by Altheros and Nvidious for all I know. -Bob
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On Friday 16 March 2007 12:56, Bob Beck wrote: If you have nothing better to do that look at campaigns at least find a campaign where it appears the people doing it understand this issues. Can you actually name a technical campaign besides openbsd that actually understands both the relevant issues and their eventual impacts? sad but true jcr
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On Friday 16 March 2007 12:56, Bob Beck wrote: If you have nothing better to do that look at campaigns at least find a campaign where it appears the people doing it understand this issues. Can you actually name a technical campaign besides openbsd that actually understands both the relevant issues and their eventual impacts? I can. About 20 people in Debian. OK, it's not a whole problem, but there are about 20 people there who are trying to build up to the same principles. Last year it was about half as many people. They are building a voice, as time goes by. Their voice is gaining, and I think it will gain even more in the near future because of the locked-down-blob linux-based cell phone situation that is about to kick the entire Linux community in their collective ass. We'll see.
