Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
Hi, On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 11:43:35AM -0500, Nick Guenther wrote: According to the GNU license, anyone using a GNU GPL license in their software application must ship the sources or a written notice on where to get sources. Since web applications are applications, all web applications and html pages that are powered by GNU scripts must ship the sources (or a written notice) each time someone requests the web page inside their web browser. Web developers are not doing this. No one has noticed. In fairness, these charges seem overzealous; deliberately misinterpretting the spirit of the GPL. I don't know, though, so I'd like it to be cleared up; as I understand it, a web app doesn't count as publishing; people just using code like that are under no obligation to publish it, and it's just the author/vendor who is obligated to provide source. Though, I suppose RMS (a hypothetical, consistent RMS) mght argue that if you are providing a web app piece of software, then if your users cannot edit your site on you (modify software they use) then you are violating the Four Freedoms and the GPL. Is any of that anywhere near reality? there was an article in the current issue of the german Linux Magazin, it covers the use of GPLv2'ed web applications regarding Software as a Service, Application Service Providing and Free Software. According to this article, the GPL(v2) does not consider this kind of use of Free Software as distribution. Because of that, the FSF designed the Affero General Public License (AGPL) [1]. Additionally, the article says that in GPLv3, they make use of the term convey which also didn't consider the kind of distribution that happens with a web application as a distribution of software, therefore they started a AGPLv3 [2]. hth Sebastian [1] http://linux-magazin.de/heft_abo/ausgaben/2008/01/freier_zugriff?category=0 [2] http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html [3] http://gplv3.fsf.org/agplv3-dd2-guide.html [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
wow how completely uninteresting. How about kicking the lawyers out and writing some code instead? I know its a weird concept. On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 05:24:24PM +0100, Sebastian Raible wrote: Hi, On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 11:43:35AM -0500, Nick Guenther wrote: According to the GNU license, anyone using a GNU GPL license in their software application must ship the sources or a written notice on where to get sources. Since web applications are applications, all web applications and html pages that are powered by GNU scripts must ship the sources (or a written notice) each time someone requests the web page inside their web browser. Web developers are not doing this. No one has noticed. In fairness, these charges seem overzealous; deliberately misinterpretting the spirit of the GPL. I don't know, though, so I'd like it to be cleared up; as I understand it, a web app doesn't count as publishing; people just using code like that are under no obligation to publish it, and it's just the author/vendor who is obligated to provide source. Though, I suppose RMS (a hypothetical, consistent RMS) mght argue that if you are providing a web app piece of software, then if your users cannot edit your site on you (modify software they use) then you are violating the Four Freedoms and the GPL. Is any of that anywhere near reality? there was an article in the current issue of the german Linux Magazin, it covers the use of GPLv2'ed web applications regarding Software as a Service, Application Service Providing and Free Software. According to this article, the GPL(v2) does not consider this kind of use of Free Software as distribution. Because of that, the FSF designed the Affero General Public License (AGPL) [1]. Additionally, the article says that in GPLv3, they make use of the term convey which also didn't consider the kind of distribution that happens with a web application as a distribution of software, therefore they started a AGPLv3 [2]. hth Sebastian [1] http://linux-magazin.de/heft_abo/ausgaben/2008/01/freier_zugriff?category=0 [2] http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html [3] http://gplv3.fsf.org/agplv3-dd2-guide.html [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
Lars NoodC)n wrote: Argh, the GPL is so ridiculously complex; nobody understands it. Many do, though. For me it's rather straight forward, as is the BSD license. There are many ways to look at the positive goals of the GPL, but they're not relevant here, since OpenBSD is already set on the BSD license. The principles represented by the GPL are fairly simple. The complexity arise because the GPL strives to acheive those principles in a legally enforceable manner. The BSD/ISC License aspires to acheive less, and presumes that a clear statement of principles, is the equivalent of legally enforceable. Yet despite its clarity and simplicity, It is still atleast as misrepresented and misunderstood as the GPL. -- -- Dave Lynch DLA Systems Software Development:Embedded Linux 717.627.3770 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dlasys.net fax: 1.253.369.9244Cell: 1.717.587.7774 Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too numerous to list. Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. Albert Einstein
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 08:27:33PM -0800, Ray Percival wrote: X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (3B48b) Fancy X-Mailer, but isn't non-free and full of patents ;)? So, what Stallman seems to be saying is that preventing users from running the software they choose is more important than respecting patents. Slavery is freedom. And the fact is that OpenBSD does not include any non-free software, unlike all the Linuxes and other BSDs with binary blobs, evil licenses, and non-free stuff in the base system. reyk
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
On Dec 10, 2007, at 2:14 AM, Reyk Floeter wrote: On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 08:27:33PM -0800, Ray Percival wrote: X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (3B48b) Fancy X-Mailer, but isn't non-free and full of patents ;)? Yes, it is. Very much so. Also means I don't have to get off the couch when I want to send a quick missive while watching Family Guy. RMS would think I'm a very very bad man. But my personal tradeoff for when non-free is OK does, in point of fact, sit a bit towards the non- free side of his. But I've always been a heretic and always will. So, what Stallman seems to be saying is that preventing users from running the software they choose is more important than respecting patents. Slavery is freedom. And the fact is that OpenBSD does not include any non-free software, unlike all the Linuxes and other BSDs with binary blobs, evil licenses, and non-free stuff in the base system. Which is why the jokes about him saying that OpenBSD isn't free enough or whatever write themselves. Irony is delicious. But dead horses and flogs are no fun and I should have kept my big mouth shut. reyk
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 03:15:46AM +0100, Rico Secada wrote: Hi. I have just listed to the interview of Richard Stallman on BSDTalk: http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/2007/10/bsdtalk132-richard-stallman.html In the interview he states: I am unhappy with the various distributions of BSD, because all of them include, in their installation systems, the ports system, they all include some non-free programs. And as a result I can't recommend any of them. If what you say is true, Stallman is completely out of touch with reality, since every OS out there makes it possible to install non-free software... to the notable exception of GNU hurd, which doesn't work anyway. Until I've listened to that interview, I'll assume you've taken that quote out of context. What's probably more detrimental to Stallman is that we don't subscribe to his political views, which is something he's perfectly able to say. But just saying the BSD include non-free software is such a petty argument, hell, it's even below RMS level...
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
Lars NoodC)n wrote: In regards to RMS, I have yet to see critique of his ideas, especially n the mainstream media. Some infamous 'mainstream media' critique: http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=Please-Stop-Using-GNU-Licenses http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=GNU-Software-Freedom http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=Closed-Source-Consulting http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=Projects-Restrict-Binaries-but-Offer-Sources http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=Open-Source-Service-Scared-Him http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=GNU-GPL http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=Open-Source-University-Scared-Professor http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=Richard-Stallman-Charges-Money-For-Speech http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=How-To-Restrict-GNU-Source-Code http://z505.com/GNU-Violation-Press-Release1.htm I still respect him, for all the useful source code he has given us. After all, BSD still uses GCC and such - and some of you use Emacs. Regards, L505
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
As usual you just said absolutely nothing. Don't you get tired of your own drivel? We do; very very tired. Your views (whatever they are) are incompatible here so why repeating and contorting the argument over and over again? Its simple you take dictionary definitions, toss them, redefine a word, argue argue argue. Great go do that all day long elsewhere where they like to listen to your raping of the language your are expressing yourself in. Your arguments are stupid and retarded we know. It is time for you to get that through your head. Even if you invented time travel people here still would treat you like an imbecile. On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 07:24:19AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 11:57:53PM -0600, Travers Buda wrote: Yes this is quite silly. Stallman insists on free software, and distributions are only acceptable if they shove that software down the users throats in the stead of something else, thus restricting the users freedom. illegal logical conclusion: core dumped Users can always install whatever they can, if it is compatible at all, but a most extremely honourable distribution of software won't teach users that non-free is ok by giving an example: not distributing it. If they want to, it's only their choice. Where is freedom restricted here? Besides, nobody is forcing you to install any of the ports. Neither to use a 100% free software distribution, it's your prorrogative to chose a slaver. Forced freedom, that's just a blatent contradiction. Of course, logic teaches one thing... that from the absurd you can deduce anything... A ^ !A - ABS Have I summised it well? Can we let this one go now? Nopes, you didn't. Yes, you in particular should let it go now. always going to be someone respected taking shots at you. Talking about it gets noting accomplished. Neither does bullshitting about it. Rui -- Umlaut Zebra |ber alles! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 52nd day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
On 12/10/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 11:57:53PM -0600, Travers Buda wrote: Yes this is quite silly. Stallman insists on free software, and distributions are only acceptable if they shove that software down the users throats in the stead of something else, thus restricting the users freedom. illegal logical conclusion: core dumped Users can always install whatever they can, if it is compatible at all, but a most extremely honourable distribution of software won't teach users that non-free is ok by giving an example: not distributing it. Since when was propaganda honourable? always going to be someone respected taking shots at you. Talking about it gets noting accomplished. Neither does bullshitting about it. Exactly. -Nick
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
After reading the pearls of human thought described below, I've just
chmod 000 {L,z}505
This guy's just too smart and he's able to see things no one can
Better spend my time on a copy of Solitaire that came free
on my windows machine. :)
I do not agree 100% with Stallman. I've met with him once. He's a
visionary man, but I myself do not share all of his visions...
He wrote emacs. He wrote gcc. He even suggested the BSD team to
do a cooperative work over the Internet 10 years ago or so...
What did you do, L505?
Do I have something against GNU? Did they catch me and am I trying to
get back at them? Absolutely not. I have never had trouble with GNU
and never spoken to the foundation about any issues. The reason I am
pointing this out is simply because I have common sense and I am a
philosopher myself. As a philosopher myself, I find their philosophies
make no sense and have no merit.
In fact, I feel sorry for Richard Stallman because I know what he is
trying to do with his license and I know what he is intending with it.
He just isn't as smart as me..
I speak truth, Richard speaks nonsense. I am smarter than him.
On 12/10/07, L [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lars NoodC)n wrote:
In regards to RMS, I have yet to see critique of his ideas, especially n
the mainstream media.
Some infamous 'mainstream media' critique:
snip
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
On 12/10/07, L [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lars NoodC)n wrote: In regards to RMS, I have yet to see critique of his ideas, especially n the mainstream media. Some infamous 'mainstream media' critique: [..more of the same: ..] http://z505.com/GNU-Violation-Press-Release1.htm According to the GNU license, anyone using a GNU GPL license in their software application must ship the sources or a written notice on where to get sources. Since web applications are applications, all web applications and html pages that are powered by GNU scripts must ship the sources (or a written notice) each time someone requests the web page inside their web browser. Web developers are not doing this. No one has noticed. In fairness, these charges seem overzealous; deliberately misinterpretting the spirit of the GPL. I don't know, though, so I'd like it to be cleared up; as I understand it, a web app doesn't count as publishing; people just using code like that are under no obligation to publish it, and it's just the author/vendor who is obligated to provide source. Though, I suppose RMS (a hypothetical, consistent RMS) mght argue that if you are providing a web app piece of software, then if your users cannot edit your site on you (modify software they use) then you are violating the Four Freedoms and the GPL. Is any of that anywhere near reality? Argh, the GPL is so ridiculously complex; nobody understands it. The main attraction open source has for me is that I *don't have to think about licensing shit*, and GNU (especially now with GPLv3) miss that goal completely. -Nick
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
Can we please stop this thread now because it is really not interesting at all. --- Lars Hansson
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
Nick Guenther wrote: In fairness, these charges seem overzealous; deliberately misinterpretting the spirit of the GPL. That's actually pretty common and successful tactic of the MSFTers that frequent FreeBSD and troll here occasionaly, too. ... I don't know, though, so I'd like it to be cleared up; as I understand it, a web app doesn't count as publishing; people just using code like that are under no obligation to publish it, and it's just the author/vendor who is obligated to provide source... I actually listed to Richard's interview earlier today http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/2007/10/bsdtalk132-richard-stallman.html About 10 minutes into it he brings up problems with the DMCA (for those in the EU, there is the EUCD), which apply very much to OpenBSD. About 22 minutes into the interview his praise of BSD leads into a perfect set up to pitch the core of OpenBSD to a wider audience. Though, I suppose RMS (a hypothetical, consistent RMS) mght argue that if you are providing a web app piece of software, then if your users cannot edit your site on you (modify software they use) then you are violating the Four Freedoms and the GPL. Is any of that anywhere near reality? No. That's been gone over countless times: you are not obliged to take other people's edits to your code. Argh, the GPL is so ridiculously complex; nobody understands it. Many do, though. For me it's rather straight forward, as is the BSD license. There are many ways to look at the positive goals of the GPL, but they're not relevant here, since OpenBSD is already set on the BSD license. ... The main attraction open source has for me is that I *don't have to think about licensing shit*, and GNU (especially now with GPLv3) miss that goal completely. Again, that's why there are several licenses. In some situations, BSD-style license most suited to the task, in others, the GPL ones. Having a way to sift out the non-free stuff during a search of the ports tree would be useful. -Lars -Lars
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
Lars NoodC)n wrote: Having a way to sift out the non-free stuff during a search of the ports tree would be useful. PERMIT_*=(not Yes)
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
Steve Shockley wrote: Lars NoodC)n wrote: Having a way to sift out the non-free stuff during a search of the ports tree would be useful. PERMIT_*=(not Yes) Thanks. http://www.openbsd.org/checklist.html -Lars
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 02:01:19PM -0500, Steve Shockley wrote: Lars NoodC)n wrote: Having a way to sift out the non-free stuff during a search of the ports tree would be useful. PERMIT_*=(not Yes) [depending on your definition of '(non-)free'] -- [++-]+++.+++[---].+++[+ +++-].++[-]+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
I believe the religious nut is talking about software in ports/packages. He seems to see unfree software as something morally wrong, and as a result, won't recommend any distribution that lets it's users even INSTALL non-free software. Same reason he doesn't like Debian, even though they're one of the few distributions to play along with his whole GNU/Linux thing. There's no binary blobs or unfree software in base, but things such as Opera, ADOM et al are in ports. On Dec 9, 2007 9:15 PM, Rico Secada [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. I have just listed to the interview of Richard Stallman on BSDTalk: http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/2007/10/bsdtalk132-richard-stallman.html In the interview he states: I am unhappy with the various distributions of BSD, because all of them include, in their installation systems, the ports system, they all include some non-free programs. And as a result I can't recommend any of them. As I have understood, this isn't true about OpenBSD, or am I wrong? Rico.
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
Rico Secada wrote: In the interview he states: I am unhappy with the various distributions of BSD, because all of them include, in their installation systems, the ports system, they all include some non-free programs. And as a result I can't recommend any of them. Include is an incorrect word choice. For example, the OpenBSD ports system includes Opera, but you won't find Opera on the OpenBSD CD or FTP site. For kicks, I did a little digging. From http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions (listed in the comments in the article) they list Dynebolic as consist[ing] entirely of free software. However, according to their site (http://muse.dyne.org/), their live CD contains MuSE, which contains LAME, which OpenBSD doesn't distribute because it's patent-encumbered (http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html). So, what Stallman seems to be saying is that preventing users from running the software they choose is more important than respecting patents.
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
So, what Stallman seems to be saying is that preventing users from running the software they choose is more important than respecting patents. Slavery is freedom.
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
Exactly. Distributions need systems to prevent users from installing nasty unfree software. Something like...DRM. Oh wait.. On Dec 9, 2007 11:27 PM, Ray Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, what Stallman seems to be saying is that preventing users from running the software they choose is more important than respecting patents. Slavery is freedom.
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
GPL is non-free so go figure what it means. This horse is pretty dead so lets leave it rot in piece. On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 03:15:46AM +0100, Rico Secada wrote: Hi. I have just listed to the interview of Richard Stallman on BSDTalk: http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/2007/10/bsdtalk132-richard-stallman.html In the interview he states: I am unhappy with the various distributions of BSD, because all of them include, in their installation systems, the ports system, they all include some non-free programs. And as a result I can't recommend any of them. As I have understood, this isn't true about OpenBSD, or am I wrong? Rico.
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
* Kevin Stam [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-09 23:41:28]: Exactly. Distributions need systems to prevent users from installing nasty unfree software. Something like...DRM. Oh wait.. On Dec 9, 2007 11:27 PM, Ray Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, what Stallman seems to be saying is that preventing users from running the software they choose is more important than respecting patents. Slavery is freedom. Yes this is quite silly. Stallman insists on free software, and distributions are only acceptable if they shove that software down the users throats in the stead of something else, thus restricting the users freedom. Besides, nobody is forcing you to install any of the ports. Forced freedom, that's just a blatent contradiction. Have I summised it well? Can we let this one go now? There's always going to be someone respected taking shots at you. Talking about it gets noting accomplished. -- Travers Buda
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
Thanks for reminding about BSD-talk. There is a lot of good stuff there in the archives. Rico Secada wrote: ... As I have understood, this isn't true about OpenBSD, or am I wrong? Maybe there is some problematic stuff in the Ports. -Lars
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
Steve Shockley wrote: ... more important than respecting patents. You need to differentiate there between legitimate patents and US-style software patents (which include also business methods, formulas, and algorithms). Let's not throw away our analytical ability here. In regards to RMS, I have yet to see critique of his ideas, especially n the mainstream media. Being obnoxious is different than being wrong. Most, as in this thread, tend to simple concede defeat by launching name calling and other distractions. Though even in physical life there are 'tards who would attempt to use a chisel and a flathead screwdriver interchangeably. They, like license, do different things. And depending on your goal, may not be suitable. A license is a tool. Get over it. Tools are there to accomplish different goals. Many projects even provide a choice of licenses. I myself have on occasion asked project to use licenses different from what they had at the time. Sometimes I've asked for (and gotten) BSD-style, other times GPL-style. Depends on what *I* need it for. The license is a supplemental tool. There is even a fair amount of overlap between GPL and BSD, especially if viewed from the perspective of MS-style 'shared' source licenses, they are nearly identical. However, the BSD-style licenses have one purpose. GPL have another purpose. Regards -Lars
Re: About non-free software in OpenBSD
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 11:57:53PM -0600, Travers Buda wrote: Yes this is quite silly. Stallman insists on free software, and distributions are only acceptable if they shove that software down the users throats in the stead of something else, thus restricting the users freedom. illegal logical conclusion: core dumped Users can always install whatever they can, if it is compatible at all, but a most extremely honourable distribution of software won't teach users that non-free is ok by giving an example: not distributing it. If they want to, it's only their choice. Where is freedom restricted here? Besides, nobody is forcing you to install any of the ports. Neither to use a 100% free software distribution, it's your prorrogative to chose a slaver. Forced freedom, that's just a blatent contradiction. Of course, logic teaches one thing... that from the absurd you can deduce anything... A ^ !A - ABS Have I summised it well? Can we let this one go now? Nopes, you didn't. Yes, you in particular should let it go now. always going to be someone respected taking shots at you. Talking about it gets noting accomplished. Neither does bullshitting about it. Rui -- Umlaut Zebra |ber alles! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 52nd day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
