Hello chefren,
On Fri, 06.10.2006 at 00:46:11 +0200, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The argument against GPL that works best for me during discussions
about it is that GPL is BSD with Digital Rights Management.
sorry, but this is a blatant lie.
Arguing this way will hopefully get you *NO*
Hello,
On Fri, 06.10.2006 at 15:12:47 -0600, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even today the Linux kernel tree is full of non-free components, for
example firmwares. Let's not talk about GPL and source and all that.
Yes, there are problems there. But even more basic problems exist,
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
Han Boetes
Sent: 07 October 2006 09:02 PM
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re:
Intel's
Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])
You know what I can't
On Oct 9, 2006, at 1:52 AM, Marius Van Deventer - Umzimkulu wrote:
Wees geduldig en dink oor wat jy se.
That could pretty much be applied to most conversationalists in this
list :-)
Now knock it off! This is way too much fun to read and I have work to
do.
--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of
On Monday 09 October 2006 03:52, Marius Van Deventer - Umzimkulu wrote:
You know what I can't stand... Bullying! That's what's going on
here.
Eh, no doubt you are right. I've not followed the thread, but I know that if
people are not bullied here something is wrong. This is by far the worst
On 10/09/06 17:39, steve szmidt wrote:
Learn to swim with sharks...
=Very= stupid remark.
Let's take shark number one: Theo.
This shark doesn't bite or swallow, gives away the results of lots of
his personal work and thinking, higly dedicated to do things as well
as he can. Is extremely
Han Boetes wrote:
You lie.
You insult.
You threaten.
I'd love to meet _you_ in person too.
Well I have met him (Theo) in person several times, and I think he's a
pretty stand up guy. I've never known him to lie, but insults and
threats usually flow freely when he feels the behaviour of
Come on now people; you're upset that this debate is even being held,
yet you fuel it's fire with your senseless replies. Arguing with a troll
makes you a troll. Ban the guy, ignore the guy, 'shut the guy up', I
don't care how you do it but for the sake of how this shit is reflecting
on the
HITLER HITLER HITLER
On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 09:24:39AM -0600, Tyler Mace wrote:
Come on now people; you're upset that this debate is even being held,
yet you fuel it's fire with your senseless replies. Arguing with a troll
makes you a troll. Ban the guy, ignore the guy, 'shut the guy up', I
You know what I can't stand... Bullying! That's what's going on
here.
I'm the operator on an #openbsd channel, and I know exactly what
happens when somebody start ranting about how {GPL, Windows,
Linux, FreeBSD,...} sucks. Another guy is a happy user and before
you know it you have a flamewar
Can you please take your rants elsewhere?
You know what I can't stand... Bullying! That's what's going on
here.
I'm the operator on an #openbsd channel, and I know exactly what
happens when somebody start ranting about how {GPL, Windows,
Linux, FreeBSD,...} sucks. Another guy is a happy
On 10/7/06 7:26 AM, Han Boetes wrote:
You lie.
You insult.
You threaten.
I'd love to meet _you_ in person too.
Again top posting.
What are the author's words about that?
http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html
Respond below the questions
Well, Han might argue Theo didn't
2006/10/6, Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Its complete and utter nonsense actually. The linux kernel is used in
closed source products all the time, it has no effect there just like it
Please show us one example of a closed source Linux device.
On the contrary closed source Linux systems have been
On 10/06/06 03:01, Han Boetes wrote:
Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article:
http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd
Since it's polite, to point and factual.
That pages contains the sentence
I don't think we fully understand exactly when each license's
effects
Martin Schrvder wrote:
2006/10/6, Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Its complete and utter nonsense actually. The linux kernel is used in
closed source products all the time, it has no effect there just like it
Please show us one example of a closed source Linux device.
Sure, the broadcom
Martin Schrvder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2006/10/6, Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Its complete and utter nonsense actually. The linux kernel is used in
closed source products all the time, it has no effect there just like it
Please show us one example of a closed source Linux device.
They are
Its complete and utter nonsense actually. The linux kernel is used in
closed source products all the time, it has no effect there just like it
Please show us one example of a closed source Linux device.
Sure, the broadcom wireless device inside the linksys routers. Yes, they
are
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 03:50:38 +0159, Han Boetes wrote:
In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, otherwise
it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms is a good
thing.
Bullshit!
Now don't quote me that specious crap about how free speech is limited
by no freedom to falsely
quote out of context
Rod.. Whitworth wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 03:50:38 +0159, Han Boetes wrote:
In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, otherwise
it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms is a good
thing.
Bullshit!
Now don't quote me that specious crap
Is that all you can say to defend your point of view? If you are wrong
(and you probably are), you should admit it, not repeat quote out of
context as a silly escape.
On 10/6/06, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quote out of context
Rod.. Whitworth wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 03:50:38 +0159,
Look at it, he is quoting me out of context. That's not a silly
escape, that's a fact. Maybe to you quoting out of context is a
legitimate way to fight a discussion, to me it's not.
Felipe Scarel wrote:
Is that all you can say to defend your point of view? If you are wrong
(and you probably
Han is some asshole who comes onto our list about every 2-3 weeks and
spouts some very vague bullshit to distract people. He wants every
argument to become a vague license argument. He refuses to leave our
lists. At times, I have times wished that someone would go visit him
in person and shut
You lie.
You insult.
You threaten.
I'd love to meet _you_ in person too.
Theo de Raadt wrote:
Han is some asshole who comes onto our list about every 2-3 weeks and
spouts some very vague bullshit to distract people. He wants every
argument to become a vague license argument. He refuses to
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 03:54:36PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Intel may just be worried that there _might_ be a problem they don't
know about and are trying to protect themselves.
may just be?
I imagine that there
are plenty of opportunities for someone to either willfully or
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 11:13:05 -0500
Damian Wiest [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I didn't mean to apologize for them. Just making
some guesses
at how Intel is rationalizing the decision to not release
information.
Personally, I
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 11:18:49 -0700
Spruell, Darren-Perot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bunk. Rationalizing their decisions openly does nothing more than
reinforce that their decisions are right and logical. It does nothing
to change behavior. It reinforces behavior.
The best reason, which has
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 14:51:30 -0500
Travers Buda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But like you and
Theo just pointed out is that intel only understands the language of
money. Thats good to know. I won't waste my breath, nor my money. =)
Errr, I won't waste my breath _here_.
Travers Buda
On 10/5/06 5:05 AM, Travers Buda wrote:
Thats not very smart of intel, considering that OpenBSD is writing the
best drivers for them with a BSD liscense for FREE!
In general Intel is definitely one of the smartest companies in this
world, I don't like them that much personally but highly
When you say that the GPL is related to DRM,
what do you mean? I mean how is GPL related to DRM?
Generally I try to avoid licensing discussions and
what not and just focus on the technology, but
I'm just curious in this regard.
I know GPL3 has a lot dealing with DRM (or so I've heard)
but
When you say that the GPL is related to DRM,
what do you mean? I mean how is GPL related to DRM?
Generally I try to avoid licensing discussions and
what not and just focus on the technology, but
I'm just curious in this regard.
I know GPL3 has a lot dealing with DRM (or so I've heard)
On Oct 5, 2006, at 4:39 PM, David T Harris wrote:
When you say that the GPL is related to DRM,
The point is that like DRM the GPL restricts what you can do and how
you can use the code. The BSD license doesn't.
what do you mean? I mean how is GPL related to DRM?
Generally I try to avoid
Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article:
http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd
Since it's polite, to point and factual.
Instead of your rant which contains insults and lies.
And no, I'm not a GPL fanboy, I license most of my stuff under the
BSD license, but I do have
Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article:
http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd
Wow, I feel dumber for having read that.
Since it's polite, to point and factual.
Its complete and utter nonsense actually. The linux kernel is used
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 03:00:52 +0159, Han Boetes wrote:
Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article:
http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd
Since it's polite, to point and factual.
Instead of your rant which contains insults and lies.
It says Yes, companies could voluntarily
Rod.. Whitworth wrote:
It says Yes, companies could voluntarily cooperate without a
license forcing them to. The *BSDs try to depend on this. But it
today's cutthroat market, that's more like the Prisoner's
Dilemma. In the dilemma, it's better to cooperate; but since
the other guy might
Your freedom is forced. Companies and individuals have no choice in the
matter, because it's required by the license. We have the freedom to vote,
but we aren't forced to do so. You don't seem to realize that it's not
freedom if it's forced at the end of a proverbial GPL gun.
On 10/5/06, Han
On 10/5/06, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, otherwise
it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms is a good
thing. For example freedom is most defined as `the freedom to do
whatever you wish as long as it does not hurt somebody
Ted Unangst wrote:
On 10/5/06, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my world freedom is something you have to fight for,
otherwise it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms
is a good thing. For example freedom is most defined as `the
freedom to do whatever you wish as long as
Harpalus a Como wrote:
On 10/5/06, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rod.. Whitworth wrote:
It says Yes, companies could voluntarily cooperate without
a license forcing them to. The *BSDs try to depend on
this. But it today's cutthroat market, that's more like the
Prisoner's
Han Boetes wrote:
In your definition of freedom you'd have the freedom to hurt
somebody else.
Good thing the GPL prohibits that kind of stuff, right? So that no-one
can use Linux to spy on the populace or use Linux to track down
dissidents. Oh wait, it doesn't prevent that.
---
Lars
Han Boetes wrote:
Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article:
http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd
Since it's polite, to point and factual.
Yes, it's so factual that he fail to mention/understand that the BSD
license *is* GPL compatible.
The reasoning pretty much
Lars Hansson wrote:
Han Boetes wrote:
In your definition of freedom you'd have the freedom to hurt
somebody else.
Good thing the GPL prohibits that kind of stuff, right? So that no-one
can use Linux to spy on the populace or use Linux to track down
dissidents. Oh wait, it doesn't
Lars Hansson wrote:
Han Boetes wrote:
Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article:
http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd
Since it's polite, to point and factual.
Yes, it's so factual that he fail to mention/understand that the
BSD license *is* GPL compatible.
So?
Please SHUT THE F*** UP and go away, Han.
The GPL is a total fraud. And as Theo has already
pointed out, this is not the place to debate it.
All you are doing is pissing people off.
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 05:53:13 +0200, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Lars Hansson wrote:
Han Boetes wrote:
Now that is a very good way to show the world how good the BSD
license is. :-)
Eric Furman wrote:
Please SHUT THE F*** UP and go away, Han.
The GPL is a total fraud. And as Theo has already
pointed out, this is not the place to debate it.
All you are doing is pissing people off.
On Fri, 6
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 08:39:37PM -0600, Breen Ouellette wrote:
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
a) Intel doesn't own the technology, but licensed it from another
vendor. The licensing terms don't allow Intel to release full
details.
b) Intel has agreements with other
Intel may just be worried that there _might_ be a problem they don't
know about and are trying to protect themselves.
may just be?
I imagine that there
are plenty of opportunities for someone to either willfully or
accidentally introduce patented technologies, for which Intel does not
On Oct 4, 2006, at 1:37 PM, Damian Wiest wrote:
Rather than releasing
information and potentially having to deal with an intellectual
property
issue, Intel just doesn't release the information.
There's a yang inside the yin. Their not releasing the info is a
wonderful cleanroom
defense
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 02:37:09PM -0500, Damian Wiest wrote:
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 08:39:37PM -0600, Breen Ouellette wrote:
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
a) Intel doesn't own the technology, but licensed it from another
vendor. The licensing terms don't allow Intel to release full
Breen Ouellette wrote:
PS - before I get accused of being a 'commie' in this latest
round of discussions regarding bad corporate behaviour, I'd just
like to say that it was my understanding that believing the law
should not be broken is not how you define a communist.
Anything which is
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Intel may just be worried that there _might_ be a problem
they don't
know about and are trying to protect themselves. I imagine
that there
are plenty of opportunities for someone to either willfully or
accidentally introduce
Breen Ouellette wrote:
Han Boetes wrote:
Anything which is favourable to you, but not to corperations may
get you called communist. If you are that easily subdued you
might as well donate your money directly to the corporations.
Yes I am a communist, since I believe we should take
On 10/4/06, Spruell, Darren-Perot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Good point to make. Intel doesn't want consumers to know that; they want
everyone to *think* they are getting cutting edge technology innovation,
thus justifying the premium money you drop on any product with the Intel
name on it.
Theo et al. say: don't buy intel hardware--our drivers are going to be
lacking/buggy because we can't get docs.
Thats not very smart of intel, considering that OpenBSD is writing the
best drivers for them with a BSD liscense for FREE! Said driver is
not just limited to OpenBSD; you could make
a) Intel doesn't own the technology, but licensed it from another
vendor. The licensing terms don't allow Intel to release full
details.
b) Intel has agreements with other customers/vendors to not release
information about a particular piece of hardware.
c) Intel doesn't feel
On 03/10/06, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a) Intel doesn't own the technology, but licensed it from another
vendor. The licensing terms don't allow Intel to release full
details.
b) Intel has agreements with other customers/vendors to not release
information
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
a) Intel doesn't own the technology, but licensed it from another
vendor. The licensing terms don't allow Intel to release full
details.
b) Intel has agreements with other customers/vendors to not release
information about a particular piece of
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
d) There are so many patents issued for obvious techniques used in
computer peripheral chips that releasing documentation might tempt
an ethically challenged company to sue them for royalties.
Intel has been on record as stating that patent issues are now a
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 11:14:37AM -0700, Brian wrote:
[snip]
What does Intel gain by not being open? I am puzzled. I am not an engineer,
so is there something that I am overlooking?
Cheers,
Brian
I can think of a few possibilities:
a) Intel doesn't own the technology, but licensed
59 matches
Mail list logo
