Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
On 2018-11-13, Markus Wichmann wrote: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 01:14:38PM -0800, Michael Forney wrote: >> Usually how it works is either the display server itself needs to be >> setuid to open those input devices, or some other program (commonly >> systemd-logind) needs to open it on its behalf. I believe Xorg with >> systemd disabled will need to be setuid because of this. >> > > I lack the words to describe how broken I think it is, to make an > application setuid because you couldn't be arsed to set file permissions > properly. Or at least, the words to do so in a civilised manner. Well, you usually don't want just any process to be able to open your keyboard device and read events from it; just the display server and only when the VT it is running on is active. This is especially true on a multi-user system. So, you want opening input devices to be privileged or federated in some way. There is also a problem with DRM, since while you can become master (required for modesetting) implicitly if no other process is master, you need CAP_SYS_ADMIN to be able to issue the ioctls to drop/regain master. This makes it impossible to do VT switching properly as non-root (see https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/6184 for example).
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
This is very cool :-) Sent from my iPhone > On 14 Nov 2018, at 20:37, Kurt Van Dijck > wrote: > >> On ma, 12 nov 2018 13:14:38 -0800, Michael Forney wrote: >> >> Xorg seems to work similarly, and you might be able to avoid libudev >> and retain hotplug support by writing a "netlink" config backend here: >> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/tree/config > > Long ago, I wrote such handler, to remove udev and save 5 seconds boot > time for an embedded device. > I'm still using that now on my laptop, never had problems. > > https://github.com/kurt-vd/xorg-server/commit/a569b9972b7dfdbc1b2a53e161ec3e3bcb6195cf > > It comes with a helper program just to add/remove input devices with > options. That helper is called from any script you like, and you can > tune options for each device. > > https://gitlab.com/kvandijck/x11hotplug.git > > I found such approach superior over adding direct netlink support to > xorg, due to the ability to touch the options of each individual device > before it enters xorg. > I've seen the xorg syntax to modify device options using udev, what a > beast! > > Well, I can find my solution superior, I'm looking forward to your > comments, since you also want to drop udev. > > Kind regards, > Kurt >
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
On ma, 12 nov 2018 13:14:38 -0800, Michael Forney wrote: > > Xorg seems to work similarly, and you might be able to avoid libudev > and retain hotplug support by writing a "netlink" config backend here: > https://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/tree/config Long ago, I wrote such handler, to remove udev and save 5 seconds boot time for an embedded device. I'm still using that now on my laptop, never had problems. https://github.com/kurt-vd/xorg-server/commit/a569b9972b7dfdbc1b2a53e161ec3e3bcb6195cf It comes with a helper program just to add/remove input devices with options. That helper is called from any script you like, and you can tune options for each device. https://gitlab.com/kvandijck/x11hotplug.git I found such approach superior over adding direct netlink support to xorg, due to the ability to touch the options of each individual device before it enters xorg. I've seen the xorg syntax to modify device options using udev, what a beast! Well, I can find my solution superior, I'm looking forward to your comments, since you also want to drop udev. Kind regards, Kurt
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 01:14:38PM -0800, Michael Forney wrote: > Usually how it works is either the display server itself needs to be > setuid to open those input devices, or some other program (commonly > systemd-logind) needs to open it on its behalf. I believe Xorg with > systemd disabled will need to be setuid because of this. > I lack the words to describe how broken I think it is, to make an application setuid because you couldn't be arsed to set file permissions properly. Or at least, the words to do so in a civilised manner. Ciao, Markus
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
Sent from my iPhone > On 13 Nov 2018, at 03:02, Eon S. Jeon wrote: > >> On 11/12/18 8:25 PM, Alessandro Pistocchi wrote: >> I just want people to be able to do proprietary software no questions asked. >> Some of my users may not know anything about copyleft and do stuff that is >> wrong without knowing it and I don’t want this to happen to them. > > That doesn't sound like an okay approach. > > All developers must learn to respect copyright, because they're collaborating > with others. It's a basic rule that every participants must know beforehand. > Of course, if you're targeting non-professionals, it makes sense to choose > loose licenses. Agreed in principle that professionals should know a bit about licenses. However I don’t feel like it’s my role to educate people about licenses. That’s probably for lawyers, who are of course way more competent than me regarding licenses. I just want something as simple as possible for this project. What do you mean exactly by mine not sounding “like an ok approach” ? I am targeting different kinds of people from this point of view. Some of them may be professionals and some of them may not. I don’t want a kid or a young person getting in trouble because he or she did a beautiful thing but used the wrong license. As long as I am fully respecting the terms of the licenses of what I am using, I don’t feel like I am doing anything wrong. Besides, when people see what they cannnot get without GPL/LGPL libraries, they may actually see how much it matters and make their own mind about which way they want to go in life regarding this matter. Also, consider that even amongst so called “professionals” there is a lot of ignorance about licenses. I work in software as a programmer ( not in open source unfortunately ), and I’ve heard people saying all kinds of crap about licenses. Ultimately, licenses are to be dealt with by law professionals. > > Also, business entities are legally *more* responsible than individuals. They > are the ones who must ask questions, not wait to be questioned. "I didn't > know" doesn't work for businesses. But then, they will find a way no matter > the situation (like working around GPL contamination), so it's pretty silly > to worry about them. I am not too sure about this. I fully agree that licenses should be respected but not too sure about the rest. And there is nothing wrong in “working around GPL contamination”, as long as that is done within the license terms. > > TBH, choosing open source license is really just a matter of preference, > until you face a problem (like Cedega ripping of Wine[1]). Just don't try to > fix any hypothetical problems. I remember also all the discussion regarding “tivoization” after that company digitally signed some software together with gpl libraries. I believe that that was one of the main reasons why GPL3 has been created and promoted. What you call “GPL contamination” is actually a real problem in some areas of software. And having a solution to that is a good thing. Even a tiny thing like I am trying to do here. I believe that people should be able to choose what they want to use and how. With GPL, despite the ideals behind it that originated it, people have no real viable choice in some areas. Software has become so complex that you cannot even think of replacing any GPL library with a proprietary one. Sometimes there are no replacements available. > > [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedega_(software)#Controversy >
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
Thanks :-) Sent from my iPhone > On 13 Nov 2018, at 00:11, Michael Forney wrote: > >> On 2018-11-12, Alessandro Pistocchi wrote: >> What is swc? > > My wayland compositor library: https://github.com/michaelforney/swc > >> Where can I find oasis? Would you be interested in helping a bit if I needed >> help starting from oasis and removing gpl/lgpl stuff? I am ok with gpl apps >> but not with libs... > > https://github.com/michaelforney/oasis > > I won't be removing GPL/LGPL packages just because of the license, but > you don't have to install them if you don't want them. You can also > just comment out what you don't want in pkg/gen.lua to make sure they > don't get pulled in by something. The core set of packages (required > for bootstrap and basic system operation) doesn't use any GPL/LGPL > libraries, but does include some GPL applications (bc, e2fsprogs, git, > iproute2, kbd, util-linux) and plan9port (Lucent Public License 1.02). > > Going through the package list, the libraries will likely have > problems with are: > - libelf from elfutils (LGPLv3), required to build linux > - efivar (LGPLv2.1), required by efibootmgr (GPLv2) > - libfuse (LGPLv2.1), required by sshfs (GPLv2) > - libnl (LGPLv2.1), required by wpa_supplicant (BSD-3, but libnl is > linked statically, so also LGPLv2.1) > - jbig2dec (AGPLv3), required by mupdf (AGPLv3) > - ffmpeg (LGPLv2.1 or GPLv2, depending on what's enabled), required by > mpv (also GPLv2 or LGPLv2.1 depending on what's enabled). > - alsa-lib (LGPLv2.1), required by alsa-utils (GPLv2) and mpv > > (licenses were determined by looking briefly at https://repology.org/) >
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
On 11/12/18 8:25 PM, Alessandro Pistocchi wrote: I just want people to be able to do proprietary software no questions asked. Some of my users may not know anything about copyleft and do stuff that is wrong without knowing it and I don’t want this to happen to them. That doesn't sound like an okay approach. All developers must learn to respect copyright, because they're collaborating with others. It's a basic rule that every participants must know beforehand. Of course, if you're targeting non-professionals, it makes sense to choose loose licenses. Also, business entities are legally *more* responsible than individuals. They are the ones who must ask questions, not wait to be questioned. "I didn't know" doesn't work for businesses. But then, they will find a way no matter the situation (like working around GPL contamination), so it's pretty silly to worry about them. TBH, choosing open source license is really just a matter of preference, until you face a problem (like Cedega ripping of Wine[1]). Just don't try to fix any hypothetical problems. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedega_(software)#Controversy
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
On 2018-11-12, Alessandro Pistocchi wrote: > What is swc? My wayland compositor library: https://github.com/michaelforney/swc > Where can I find oasis? Would you be interested in helping a bit if I needed > help starting from oasis and removing gpl/lgpl stuff? I am ok with gpl apps > but not with libs... https://github.com/michaelforney/oasis I won't be removing GPL/LGPL packages just because of the license, but you don't have to install them if you don't want them. You can also just comment out what you don't want in pkg/gen.lua to make sure they don't get pulled in by something. The core set of packages (required for bootstrap and basic system operation) doesn't use any GPL/LGPL libraries, but does include some GPL applications (bc, e2fsprogs, git, iproute2, kbd, util-linux) and plan9port (Lucent Public License 1.02). Going through the package list, the libraries will likely have problems with are: - libelf from elfutils (LGPLv3), required to build linux - efivar (LGPLv2.1), required by efibootmgr (GPLv2) - libfuse (LGPLv2.1), required by sshfs (GPLv2) - libnl (LGPLv2.1), required by wpa_supplicant (BSD-3, but libnl is linked statically, so also LGPLv2.1) - jbig2dec (AGPLv3), required by mupdf (AGPLv3) - ffmpeg (LGPLv2.1 or GPLv2, depending on what's enabled), required by mpv (also GPLv2 or LGPLv2.1 depending on what's enabled). - alsa-lib (LGPLv2.1), required by alsa-utils (GPLv2) and mpv (licenses were determined by looking briefly at https://repology.org/)
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
Sent from my iPhone > On 12 Nov 2018, at 22:14, Michael Forney wrote: > >> On 2018-11-12, Markus Wichmann wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 11:17:49AM +, Alessandro Pistocchi wrote: >>> I would use some help to make it work with X ( does it work with >>> Wayland? ). There are not many docs I found about it... >> >> Ah, that old chestnut. As far as I know, the X input driver "evdev" >> depends on the paths of the event devices being in /dev/input, and on >> you having read access to them. I don't know if smdev puts them there by >> default, nor how it sets the permissions on those files. Also, there's a >> dependency on libudev in there somewhere. I don't know if that can pick >> up files from smdev. > > I don't know about smdev, but if your /dev is a devtmpfs, the kernel > will create those devices automatically with permissions 600 > root:root. I run a system without any hotplug daemon, just > CONFIG_DEVTMPFS and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT, and a script that runs at > startup to set /dev/dri/* to 660 root:video and /dev/snd/* to 660 > root:audio. Thanks. This will help :-) > >> The files should be named according to the links in /sys/class/input. >> You should also be able to see the error messages in X11's log file. >> That should tell you what's wrong. And if all else fails: strace. >> >> I have no experience with Wayland but I suppose it requires a similar >> setup. Not having read permission on a device file is a showstopper no >> matter the codebase. > > Usually how it works is either the display server itself needs to be > setuid to open those input devices, or some other program (commonly > systemd-logind) needs to open it on its behalf. I believe Xorg with > systemd disabled will need to be setuid because of this. > > Wayland compositors work the same way. They either run setuid so they > can open devices themselves, communicate with systemd-logind to get > device FDs, or with some parent setuid "launcher" program which opens > the devices for them. For swc, I went with the third approach. What is swc? > > Regarding hotplugging and libudev, most wayland compositors use > libinput to handle input devices, which uses libudev to detect when > devices are added or removed. I believe libudev *does* work without > udevd running (not completely sure). However, you can also just listen > to netlink uevents to do the same thing. I maintain a branch of > libinput that does exactly this: > https://github.com/michaelforney/libinput/blob/master/src/netlink-seat.c This is exactly what I wanted :-) > > Xorg seems to work similarly, and you might be able to avoid libudev > and retain hotplug support by writing a "netlink" config backend here: > https://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/tree/config > :-) >>> I want to have a windowing system, compilers and libraries mainly. >>> Also I need make and I would like to have flex and bison. Maybe a web >>> browser and a graphical IDE for source code editing but I am not even >>> sure about that. >> >> I was going to ask "Why not just use sta.li?" but that project >> apparently doesn't exist anymore. >> >> And that is pretty much exactly what I want from a distribution as well, >> and I just use Debian (you know you can just remove systemd from Debian, >> right?) > > My own oasis project has all of those components and was inspired by > sta.li, though avoiding GPL has not been a primary goal. It has some > main components that are GPL including gcc, e2fsprogs, git, iproute2, > kbd, fuse, and netsurf. > Where can I find oasis? Would you be interested in helping a bit if I needed help starting from oasis and removing gpl/lgpl stuff? I am ok with gpl apps but not with libs...
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
On 2018-11-12, Markus Wichmann wrote: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 11:17:49AM +, Alessandro Pistocchi wrote: >> I would use some help to make it work with X ( does it work with >> Wayland? ). There are not many docs I found about it... > > Ah, that old chestnut. As far as I know, the X input driver "evdev" > depends on the paths of the event devices being in /dev/input, and on > you having read access to them. I don't know if smdev puts them there by > default, nor how it sets the permissions on those files. Also, there's a > dependency on libudev in there somewhere. I don't know if that can pick > up files from smdev. I don't know about smdev, but if your /dev is a devtmpfs, the kernel will create those devices automatically with permissions 600 root:root. I run a system without any hotplug daemon, just CONFIG_DEVTMPFS and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT, and a script that runs at startup to set /dev/dri/* to 660 root:video and /dev/snd/* to 660 root:audio. > The files should be named according to the links in /sys/class/input. > You should also be able to see the error messages in X11's log file. > That should tell you what's wrong. And if all else fails: strace. > > I have no experience with Wayland but I suppose it requires a similar > setup. Not having read permission on a device file is a showstopper no > matter the codebase. Usually how it works is either the display server itself needs to be setuid to open those input devices, or some other program (commonly systemd-logind) needs to open it on its behalf. I believe Xorg with systemd disabled will need to be setuid because of this. Wayland compositors work the same way. They either run setuid so they can open devices themselves, communicate with systemd-logind to get device FDs, or with some parent setuid "launcher" program which opens the devices for them. For swc, I went with the third approach. Regarding hotplugging and libudev, most wayland compositors use libinput to handle input devices, which uses libudev to detect when devices are added or removed. I believe libudev *does* work without udevd running (not completely sure). However, you can also just listen to netlink uevents to do the same thing. I maintain a branch of libinput that does exactly this: https://github.com/michaelforney/libinput/blob/master/src/netlink-seat.c Xorg seems to work similarly, and you might be able to avoid libudev and retain hotplug support by writing a "netlink" config backend here: https://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/tree/config >> I want to have a windowing system, compilers and libraries mainly. >> Also I need make and I would like to have flex and bison. Maybe a web >> browser and a graphical IDE for source code editing but I am not even >> sure about that. > > I was going to ask "Why not just use sta.li?" but that project > apparently doesn't exist anymore. > > And that is pretty much exactly what I want from a distribution as well, > and I just use Debian (you know you can just remove systemd from Debian, > right?) My own oasis project has all of those components and was inspired by sta.li, though avoiding GPL has not been a primary goal. It has some main components that are GPL including gcc, e2fsprogs, git, iproute2, kbd, fuse, and netsurf.
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
Alessandro Pistocchi wrote: Hi everyone, Hi, I am working on a project to remove gpl stuff from Linux userspace ( I am ok with GPL executables but not with GPL or LGPL libraries ) and I see that your projects tend towards more open licenses. You probably should be replacing GNU stuff with alternatives. The license is only bad because it's GNU, because it's unreadable, and because it's very limiting. Particularly, I want to replace udev with smdev. I was wondering if anybody would be interested in helping me. I guess it's not that hard, all smdev does is making nodes in /dev. udev just adds useless layers on top of that. My aim is to create a Linux distribution that is simple to get started with but at the same time is a credible alternative to windows and macos as a desktop machine. That is, Ubuntu. suckless is apriori incompatible with most computer users; it's even mentioned on the Philosophy page, if it's not obvious enough. On the other hand, even a stay-at-home mom can use Ubuntu. I want something like a modern version of a home computer like the Amiga was many years ago but with current features like GPU and all the goodies we have now. That is, DragonFlyBSD. -- caóc
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
Thanks :-) I will look into xforms Sent from my iPhone On 12 Nov 2018, at 19:18, Hadrien Lacour wrote: >>> On 12 Nov 2018, at 05:28, Markus Wichmann wrote: >> Please, do tell if you find such a library. The ones I found were either >> the wrong language (Tk, Qt, FLTK), or hopelessly obtuse (gtk). Or pretty >> much no assistance at all (xaw, motif). > > I never used it, but someone showed xforms (http://xforms-toolkit.org/) to me > and it looks nice. >
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
> > On 12 Nov 2018, at 05:28, Markus Wichmann wrote: > Please, do tell if you find such a library. The ones I found were either > the wrong language (Tk, Qt, FLTK), or hopelessly obtuse (gtk). Or pretty > much no assistance at all (xaw, motif). I never used it, but someone showed xforms (http://xforms-toolkit.org/) to me and it looks nice.
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 11:17:49AM +, Alessandro Pistocchi wrote: > On 12 Nov 2018, at 05:28, Markus Wichmann wrote: > > > > That's why you have an iPhone? > > You would be surprised. I still use an old phone with the numeric keys > as a mobile phone. > Those are great: If you get mugged, you can try dialling 911 in your pocket. Try doing that with touch screen buttons. > > I would use some help to make it work with X ( does it work with > Wayland? ). There are not many docs I found about it... > Ah, that old chestnut. As far as I know, the X input driver "evdev" depends on the paths of the event devices being in /dev/input, and on you having read access to them. I don't know if smdev puts them there by default, nor how it sets the permissions on those files. Also, there's a dependency on libudev in there somewhere. I don't know if that can pick up files from smdev. The files should be named according to the links in /sys/class/input. You should also be able to see the error messages in X11's log file. That should tell you what's wrong. And if all else fails: strace. I have no experience with Wayland but I suppose it requires a similar setup. Not having read permission on a device file is a showstopper no matter the codebase. > > Well, that means all of nothing. Walking can be a credible > > alternative to driving in some circumstances, but not if the > > distance is 400km. What do you want out of a desktop machine? > > I want to have a windowing system, compilers and libraries mainly. > Also I need make and I would like to have flex and bison. Maybe a web > browser and a graphical IDE for source code editing but I am not even > sure about that. > I was going to ask "Why not just use sta.li?" but that project apparently doesn't exist anymore. And that is pretty much exactly what I want from a distribution as well, and I just use Debian (you know you can just remove systemd from Debian, right?) > > > > Also, are you aware that creating and maintaining a Linux distribution > > is a whole lot of work? The city of Munich recently discovered this, and > > that's why they are switching back to Windows. That, and corruption of > > course; this is public admin we're talking about. > > Yes if you want a lot of functionality to manage a city. > Doing what I am trying to do is way way simpler and could never be > used by the city of Munich without a lot of additional work. > I was mostly referring to the need to keep your software up-to-date, if for no other reason then to benefit from security patches. This appears to have been the biggest failing of the two lads who lead the project. See, with Debian, an army of maintainers does all the work for me, and I just need to "apt-get upgrade" once in a while. And then delete systemd again. > > Ok sorry, wrong example. > > Like I said above, I want a windowing system, compilers, libraries, > and IDE and a library to make desktop apps as easily as possible. I > want to be able to make and play games and to experiment with coding. > Please, do tell if you find such a library. The ones I found were either the wrong language (Tk, Qt, FLTK), or hopelessly obtuse (gtk). Or pretty much no assistance at all (xaw, motif). Ciao, Markus
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
Sent from my iPhone > On 12 Nov 2018, at 13:29, Hadrien Lacour wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 11:25:44AM +, Alessandro Pistocchi wrote: >> >> >>> On 12 Nov 2018, at 10:05, Hadrien Lacour wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 09:43:12PM -0700, Anthony J. Bentley wrote: Markus Wichmann writes: > Why would you do something so pointless? First of all, licences only > matter if you plan on redistribution, so most here won't care. Second, > all the GPL demands is that you distribute the source, which any good > distribution should do, anyway, right? GPL also demands that you not combine the code with GPL-incompatible terms, even if those terms are free themselves. A ridiculous requirement that violates the spirit and practice of free software. >>> >>> Even if this discussion is pointless, I'll humour the list; attacking the >>> methods and not the goal (which is to eradicate proprietary software) >>> without >>> proposing an alternative methode is at best fallacious. >>> >>> On the other hand, I'd like to ask why would someone use a non copylefted >>> license? Almost all the time (especially for applications, not libraries), >>> the >>> main reason is intellectual masturbation, not a concrete goal like GPL's >>> one. >>> >> >> I think I wrote I am ok with GPL applications ( and in fact I am using them >> ). >> >> I just want people to be able to do proprietary software no questions asked. >> >> Some of my users may not know anything about copyleft and do stuff that is >> wrong without knowing it and I don’t want this to happen to them. >> >> > > Then you're honest, at least. GPL (and copyleft in general) is indeed for > those > who despise proprietary software and will exert some effort to at least try to > remove it (that obviously includes not allowing them to use your > applications). > Yes, I am honest. I generally like the idea of having open source software but at the same time I am in favour of leaving the choice to the people with what they may want to do with their own software and the GPL/LGPL poses limits that are not always acceptable. Also, I would like open source to be relatively simple to modify because that is the reason for having open source in the first place I think. There are several pieces of open source software that are quite hard to go through due to complexity that are not really necessary and that’s what I like about suckless.org projects. I am sorry, I did not know that you guys were so inclined towards making proprietary software irrelevant. I respect that and I really meant nothing wrong. I think it’s a very valid effort. My idea is to create a system where people can really choose what they want from this point of view: if they are going proprietary that’s cool, if they go open source that’s cool too, as long as they don’t try to force everyone to go open source as well. For example I use a lot macos and iOS for work but I also know that these systems are too closed in many ways for my taste. I am not an apple fanboy. The Linux kernel uses the GPL 2 in a very good way and they intentionally have exceptions for user space and they intentionally say that GPL2 is ok for them but GPL3 is not. I have seen a talk about this where Linus was talking about licensing and funnily enough his opinion was pretty close to mine.
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 11:25:44AM +, Alessandro Pistocchi wrote: > > > > On 12 Nov 2018, at 10:05, Hadrien Lacour wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 09:43:12PM -0700, Anthony J. Bentley wrote: > >> Markus Wichmann writes: > >>> Why would you do something so pointless? First of all, licences only > >>> matter if you plan on redistribution, so most here won't care. Second, > >>> all the GPL demands is that you distribute the source, which any good > >>> distribution should do, anyway, right? > >> > >> GPL also demands that you not combine the code with GPL-incompatible > >> terms, even if those terms are free themselves. A ridiculous requirement > >> that violates the spirit and practice of free software. > >> > > > > Even if this discussion is pointless, I'll humour the list; attacking the > > methods and not the goal (which is to eradicate proprietary software) > > without > > proposing an alternative methode is at best fallacious. > > > > On the other hand, I'd like to ask why would someone use a non copylefted > > license? Almost all the time (especially for applications, not libraries), > > the > > main reason is intellectual masturbation, not a concrete goal like GPL's > > one. > > > > I think I wrote I am ok with GPL applications ( and in fact I am using them ). > > I just want people to be able to do proprietary software no questions asked. > > Some of my users may not know anything about copyleft and do stuff that is > wrong without knowing it and I don’t want this to happen to them. > > Then you're honest, at least. GPL (and copyleft in general) is indeed for those who despise proprietary software and will exert some effort to at least try to remove it (that obviously includes not allowing them to use your applications).
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
> On 12 Nov 2018, at 10:05, Hadrien Lacour wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 09:43:12PM -0700, Anthony J. Bentley wrote: >> Markus Wichmann writes: >>> Why would you do something so pointless? First of all, licences only >>> matter if you plan on redistribution, so most here won't care. Second, >>> all the GPL demands is that you distribute the source, which any good >>> distribution should do, anyway, right? >> >> GPL also demands that you not combine the code with GPL-incompatible >> terms, even if those terms are free themselves. A ridiculous requirement >> that violates the spirit and practice of free software. >> > > Even if this discussion is pointless, I'll humour the list; attacking the > methods and not the goal (which is to eradicate proprietary software) without > proposing an alternative methode is at best fallacious. > > On the other hand, I'd like to ask why would someone use a non copylefted > license? Almost all the time (especially for applications, not libraries), the > main reason is intellectual masturbation, not a concrete goal like GPL's one. > I think I wrote I am ok with GPL applications ( and in fact I am using them ). I just want people to be able to do proprietary software no questions asked. Some of my users may not know anything about copyleft and do stuff that is wrong without knowing it and I don’t want this to happen to them.
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
> On 12 Nov 2018, at 09:19, David Demelier wrote:
>
> Le 12/11/2018 à 07:27, Alexander Huemer a écrit :
>> If you don't like the GPL, why use the Linux kernel in the first place?
>> Go with {Free,Open,Net}BSD and live happily ever after.
>
> Unfortunately in matter of hardware support, Linux is definitely the best
> selection for now.
Exactly. OpenBSD people were talking about the cpu bugs that led to spectre and
meltdown security vulnerabilities many years ago. However I read that they were
not involved in the discussion about it until much later.
The linux guys were involved way sooner.
>
> Lot of people try to get rid of GPL code just because of the license. See
> OpenBSD and FreeBSD which have switched to clang. They even had a special gnu
> directory for easier removal for those who wants to do proprietary stuff with
> that their systems.
That’s something I am doing as well.
>
> I completely understand the idea of driving away from GNU/GPL when you really
> want to provide flexibility and opensource to the mass. To me GPL is only
> useful for users, not for developers.
>
> My $0.02.
Would you be interested in helping me ?
>
> --
> David
>
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
Yeah, help with setting up X would be very nice. How much work would it be to use it with wayland? > On 12 Nov 2018, at 05:57, Platon Ryzhikov wrote: > > > > 12.11.2018, 08:29, "Markus Wichmann" : >> What's to help? You download the source, install it, remove udev from >> your init system and add smdev to it. Maybe add some configuration, but >> the defaults seem to work pretty well. > > I tried to do that in systemd-free Arch-based distro. In general smdev > reconfiguration (along with using nldev) allows to enable most of computer > functionality. The one thing i still haven't succeed is input in X: i mean, i > can start X but it has no reaction to keyboard and mouse. >
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
> On 12 Nov 2018, at 05:28, Markus Wichmann wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 03:01:02AM +0100, Alessandro Pistocchi wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> > > Hi Alessandro, > >> I am new to suckless.org. I have seen some of your projects and I >> think I share a vision with you guys to make things as simple as >> possible but not simpler. >> > > That's why you have an iPhone? You would be surprised. I still use an old phone with the numeric keys as a mobile phone. > >> I am working on a project to remove gpl stuff from Linux userspace ( I >> am ok with GPL executables but not with GPL or LGPL libraries ) and I >> see that your projects tend towards more open licenses. >> > > Why would you do something so pointless? First of all, licences only > matter if you plan on redistribution, so most here won't care. Second, > all the GPL demands is that you distribute the source, which any good > distribution should do, anyway, right? > > The reason some here choose to replace GPL'ed code with alternatives is > less the licence and more the code quality. The utilities from GNU are > correct and all, but some here don't understand why it is necessary for > the true program to have command line options. > > And for some reason, featuritis and GPL seem to be correlated. I won't > look for the causality here, though. > >> Particularly, I want to replace udev with smdev. >> >> I was wondering if anybody would be interested in helping me. >> > > What's to help? You download the source, install it, remove udev from > your init system and add smdev to it. Maybe add some configuration, but > the defaults seem to work pretty well. I would use some help to make it work with X ( does it work with Wayland? ). There are not many docs I found about it... > >> My aim is to create a Linux distribution that is simple to get started >> with but at the same time is a credible alternative to windows and >> macos as a desktop machine. >> > > Well, that means all of nothing. Walking can be a credible alternative > to driving in some circumstances, but not if the distance is 400km. What > do you want out of a desktop machine? I want to have a windowing system, compilers and libraries mainly. Also I need make and I would like to have flex and bison. Maybe a web browser and a graphical IDE for source code editing but I am not even sure about that. > > Also, are you aware that creating and maintaining a Linux distribution > is a whole lot of work? The city of Munich recently discovered this, and > that's why they are switching back to Windows. That, and corruption of > course; this is public admin we're talking about. Yes if you want a lot of functionality to manage a city. Doing what I am trying to do is way way simpler and could never be used by the city of Munich without a lot of additional work. > >> I want something like a modern version of a home computer like the >> Amiga was many years ago but with current features like GPU and all >> the goodies we have now. >> > > And what does that all entail? From some perspective, Linux running a > terminal program is just a modern version of DOS; an opinion I don't > share, but that is bandied about regardless. But what is "a modern > Amiga" to you? I'm afraid I was born too late for that one. Ok sorry, wrong example. Like I said above, I want a windowing system, compilers, libraries, and IDE and a library to make desktop apps as easily as possible. I want to be able to make and play games and to experiment with coding. > >> Best, Alessandro Pistocchi >> >> Sent from my iPhone > > Ciao, > Markus >
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
Hi all, first of all apologies. My email clearly did not attract much of your interest and you generally did not like it. Let me answer the best that I can to your emails. Sent from my iPhone > On 12 Nov 2018, at 11:29, Anthony J. Bentley wrote: > > Hadrien Lacour writes: >>> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 09:43:12PM -0700, Anthony J. Bentley wrote: >>> Markus Wichmann writes: Why would you do something so pointless? First of all, licences only matter if you plan on redistribution, so most here won't care. Second, all the GPL demands is that you distribute the source, which any good distribution should do, anyway, right? >>> >>> GPL also demands that you not combine the code with GPL-incompatible >>> terms, even if those terms are free themselves. A ridiculous requirement >>> that violates the spirit and practice of free software. >>> That is one big reason why I want to do it. >> >> Even if this discussion is pointless, I'll humour the list; attacking the >> methods and not the goal (which is to eradicate proprietary software) without >> proposing an alternative methode is at best fallacious. > > The obvious alternative is to use one of the many decades-old licenses > that do in fact allow code to be combined with practically any other > reasonable license. Eradicating proprietary software is far more effort > than it's worth, whereas making it irrelevant is eminently achievable. That is something I completely agree with. I thought I wrote in my email that I am ok with GPL executables. Not with libraries though. The problem I have is that people are getting a bit crazy with GPL3 in my opinion and it could even get worse in the future, to the point that you may find yourself in the position of not even being able to use some essential libs due to licensing. > >> On the other hand, I'd like to ask why would someone use a non copylefted >> license? Almost all the time (especially for applications, not libraries), th >> e >> main reason is intellectual masturbation, not a concrete goal like GPL's one. > > The reason I use non-copyleft licenses is so every person and project > using other free licenses can use, copy, modify, and distribute my code. > I agree with again: copyleft is a bit of a virus and it does not really give people freedom and choice. In my opinion, it gives them a new religion to believe in and as long as people believe in it, it gives them freedom and choice.
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
Hadrien Lacour writes: > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 09:43:12PM -0700, Anthony J. Bentley wrote: > > Markus Wichmann writes: > > > Why would you do something so pointless? First of all, licences only > > > matter if you plan on redistribution, so most here won't care. Second, > > > all the GPL demands is that you distribute the source, which any good > > > distribution should do, anyway, right? > > > > GPL also demands that you not combine the code with GPL-incompatible > > terms, even if those terms are free themselves. A ridiculous requirement > > that violates the spirit and practice of free software. > > > > Even if this discussion is pointless, I'll humour the list; attacking the > methods and not the goal (which is to eradicate proprietary software) without > proposing an alternative methode is at best fallacious. The obvious alternative is to use one of the many decades-old licenses that do in fact allow code to be combined with practically any other reasonable license. Eradicating proprietary software is far more effort than it's worth, whereas making it irrelevant is eminently achievable. > On the other hand, I'd like to ask why would someone use a non copylefted > license? Almost all the time (especially for applications, not libraries), th > e > main reason is intellectual masturbation, not a concrete goal like GPL's one. The reason I use non-copyleft licenses is so every person and project using other free licenses can use, copy, modify, and distribute my code.
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 09:43:12PM -0700, Anthony J. Bentley wrote: > Markus Wichmann writes: > > Why would you do something so pointless? First of all, licences only > > matter if you plan on redistribution, so most here won't care. Second, > > all the GPL demands is that you distribute the source, which any good > > distribution should do, anyway, right? > > GPL also demands that you not combine the code with GPL-incompatible > terms, even if those terms are free themselves. A ridiculous requirement > that violates the spirit and practice of free software. > Even if this discussion is pointless, I'll humour the list; attacking the methods and not the goal (which is to eradicate proprietary software) without proposing an alternative methode is at best fallacious. On the other hand, I'd like to ask why would someone use a non copylefted license? Almost all the time (especially for applications, not libraries), the main reason is intellectual masturbation, not a concrete goal like GPL's one.
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
Le 12/11/2018 à 07:27, Alexander Huemer a écrit :
If you don't like the GPL, why use the Linux kernel in the first place?
Go with {Free,Open,Net}BSD and live happily ever after.
Unfortunately in matter of hardware support, Linux is definitely the
best selection for now.
Lot of people try to get rid of GPL code just because of the license.
See OpenBSD and FreeBSD which have switched to clang. They even had a
special gnu directory for easier removal for those who wants to do
proprietary stuff with that their systems.
I completely understand the idea of driving away from GNU/GPL when you
really want to provide flexibility and opensource to the mass. To me GPL
is only useful for users, not for developers.
My $0.02.
--
David
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 09:43:12PM -0700, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> Markus Wichmann writes:
> > Why would you do something so pointless? First of all, licences only
> > matter if you plan on redistribution, so most here won't care. Second,
> > all the GPL demands is that you distribute the source, which any good
> > distribution should do, anyway, right?
>
> GPL also demands that you not combine the code with GPL-incompatible
> terms, even if those terms are free themselves. A ridiculous requirement
> that violates the spirit and practice of free software.
If you don't like the GPL, why use the Linux kernel in the first place?
Go with {Free,Open,Net}BSD and live happily ever after.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
12.11.2018, 08:29, "Markus Wichmann" : > What's to help? You download the source, install it, remove udev from > your init system and add smdev to it. Maybe add some configuration, but > the defaults seem to work pretty well. I tried to do that in systemd-free Arch-based distro. In general smdev reconfiguration (along with using nldev) allows to enable most of computer functionality. The one thing i still haven't succeed is input in X: i mean, i can start X but it has no reaction to keyboard and mouse.
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
Markus Wichmann writes: > Why would you do something so pointless? First of all, licences only > matter if you plan on redistribution, so most here won't care. Second, > all the GPL demands is that you distribute the source, which any good > distribution should do, anyway, right? GPL also demands that you not combine the code with GPL-incompatible terms, even if those terms are free themselves. A ridiculous requirement that violates the spirit and practice of free software.
Re: [dev] GPL free Linux
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 03:01:02AM +0100, Alessandro Pistocchi wrote: > Hi everyone, > Hi Alessandro, > I am new to suckless.org. I have seen some of your projects and I > think I share a vision with you guys to make things as simple as > possible but not simpler. > That's why you have an iPhone? > I am working on a project to remove gpl stuff from Linux userspace ( I > am ok with GPL executables but not with GPL or LGPL libraries ) and I > see that your projects tend towards more open licenses. > Why would you do something so pointless? First of all, licences only matter if you plan on redistribution, so most here won't care. Second, all the GPL demands is that you distribute the source, which any good distribution should do, anyway, right? The reason some here choose to replace GPL'ed code with alternatives is less the licence and more the code quality. The utilities from GNU are correct and all, but some here don't understand why it is necessary for the true program to have command line options. And for some reason, featuritis and GPL seem to be correlated. I won't look for the causality here, though. > Particularly, I want to replace udev with smdev. > > I was wondering if anybody would be interested in helping me. > What's to help? You download the source, install it, remove udev from your init system and add smdev to it. Maybe add some configuration, but the defaults seem to work pretty well. > My aim is to create a Linux distribution that is simple to get started > with but at the same time is a credible alternative to windows and > macos as a desktop machine. > Well, that means all of nothing. Walking can be a credible alternative to driving in some circumstances, but not if the distance is 400km. What do you want out of a desktop machine? Also, are you aware that creating and maintaining a Linux distribution is a whole lot of work? The city of Munich recently discovered this, and that's why they are switching back to Windows. That, and corruption of course; this is public admin we're talking about. > I want something like a modern version of a home computer like the > Amiga was many years ago but with current features like GPU and all > the goodies we have now. > And what does that all entail? From some perspective, Linux running a terminal program is just a modern version of DOS; an opinion I don't share, but that is bandied about regardless. But what is "a modern Amiga" to you? I'm afraid I was born too late for that one. > Best, Alessandro Pistocchi > > Sent from my iPhone Ciao, Markus
