Re: Richard Stallman...
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 05:49:42PM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote: Why didn't you answer my mail Rui ? You are a troll. Either I did and you missed it, or it wasn't the answer you'd expect or I found it so irrelevant it didn't even raise any bell. Anyways, most of your emails have been so rude that in afterthought I shouldn't even honour you with a reply. Rui -- Fnord. Today is Setting Orange, the 5th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 Celebrate Mungday + 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: Richard Stallman...
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 08:47:16AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote: On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:53:30AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 05:49:42PM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote: Why didn't you answer my mail Rui ? You are a troll. Either I did and you missed it, or it wasn't the answer you'd expect or I found it so irrelevant it didn't even raise any bell. You have not answered at all, you have answered to other people so that you could dodge my embarassing question instead of explaining why it is different to do the exact same thing when you are from the FSF. I'm not from the FSF. According to YOU, it is okay to have emacs and gcc run on a proprietary system as it allows more people to run free software. How is it that it is wrong to allow more people to run a free system by giving them links to proprietary software if it encourages them to keep their free system instead of switching to a proprietary one ? 1) ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/ isn't links 2) using more free software is better than not running it at all 3) incentivating usage of non-free software on free software operating systems doesn't incentivate the creation of free software replacements 4) FYI I think the wine project is counter-productive as it enables running non-free software on free software operating systems, and as such de-incentivates the creation of replacements. 4.1) but it's free software and its authors have their own independence. By providing emacs and gcc for windows you encourage people to run just a few free applications with proprietary system and (many) tools, while we just give people the freedom to install a proprietary application on top of a free system with free tools. Look, OpenBSD is aggressive enough that people who need such non-free software likely won't even run it on OpenBSD, so what you're saying is that to the convenience of a few people who don't care for freedom of all users, you distribute non-free software. Anyways, most of your emails have been so rude that in afterthought I shouldn't even honour you with a reply. I try hard to keep my emails insult-free, saying that they are rude for helping you avoid embarassing questions is what makes you a troll. Just like your friend Stallman, you play on words and act like a victim if a person points at the flaws in your reasonning, grow up. No, I am a victim and your (generically, not specifically you) attitude actually makes my relation with OpenBSD very frustrating. Rui -- Wibble. Today is Setting Orange, the 5th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 Celebrate Mungday + 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: Richard Stallman...
Oh, the real troll just arrived (one more list where he get's to the kill file). On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 07:52:34PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: On Jan 5, 2008 6:53 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I'm not from the FSF. Yeah, yeah. You're a kind of Richard Bruce Dick Cheney of National Association for Free Software, aren't you? A kind of fsf er.. fsa.pt (National) guy. No? http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=pt_entrurl=http%3a%2f%2fansol.org%2ffilosofia Which is a totally disparate entity from the FSF, and only exists through the work of volunteers. It promotes Free Software, be it any BSD operating system or GNU/Linux one, or any other Free Software program. Rui -- This statement is false. Today is Setting Orange, the 5th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 Celebrate Mungday + 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: Richard Stallman...
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 01:51:22PM -0500, Eliah Kagan wrote: On Jan 5, 2008 12:53 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: 4) FYI I think the wine project is counter-productive as it enables running non-free software on free software operating systems, and as such de-incentivates the creation of replacements. 4.1) but it's free software and its authors have their own independence. (...) discouraging development of free replacements to software? What would you need to know to actually know that Wine was ultimately counterproductive, or ultimately productive? When it comes right down The world is not made of such extremes, fortunately. It is counterproductive in so far as to promoting the development of Free Software that replaces proprietary programs running on Windows. If this is not clear to you, please help me be more clear. Rui -- Umlaut Zebra |ber alles! Today is Setting Orange, the 5th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 Celebrate Mungday + 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: Richard Stallman...
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 10:28:19AM -0800, Ray Percival wrote: don't like you. You think we rank up there with baby killers. I will NEVER understand how that works so just FOAD and we can all be happy. I think that ranking you mention is 100% your interpretation. :) Rui -- Or is it? Today is Sweetmorn, the 6th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: Richard Stallman...
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 06:34:49PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: Blah blah blah my feelers are hurt. Do I need to mail you some maxi pads? Now that you mention it, shortly after this idiotic flame I started receiving tons of spam. I wonder if they're related... Rui -- Or is it? Today is Sweetmorn, the 6th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: Richard Stallman...
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 12:34:45PM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote: According to YOU, it is okay to have emacs and gcc run on a proprietary system as it allows more people to run free software. How is it that it is wrong to allow more people to run a free system by giving them links to proprietary software if it encourages them to keep their free system instead of switching to a proprietary one ? 1) ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/ isn't links ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/ only contains software that can legally be redistributed, not to mention that it is a repository for software that a user *explicitely* installs, not something that is part of the OS. Yes. But even if it's legally redistributable, the question remains wether it's free software or not. Fortunately OpenBSD is Free Software. Unfortunately it recommends and distributes proprietary software on it's servers (and it wasn't because some user wrote some text on a wiki page). 2) using more free software is better than not running it at all 3) incentivating usage of non-free software on free software operating systems doesn't incentivate the creation of free software replacements this is a word play. I know people who used OpenBSD for a while and stopped using it because a proprietary application they depended on was not available; and i know people who would use Linux/OpenBSD/whatever if emacs/gcc were not available and made so easy to use on Windows, because gcc is centric to their business and emacs integrates it so well. Now THIS is wordplay and pure speculation. If GCC wasn't available or made so easy to use, they'd merely use another one. The reason they don't use a Free Software operating system as nothing to do with the availability of GCC. Mostly its some stupid reason like managemente dictates usage of tool X which only works on Windows, for instance. If the proprietary application was available, the lost openbsd users would be using *far more* free applications than the ones that are currently using emacs/gcc on Windows. Only if they were using it like those sissy pseudo-fans of Free Software which changed to Apple MacOS X just because it's unix (erms...) and pretty, and works and has the apps. That is: they'd use it without any soul. 4) FYI I think the wine project is counter-productive as it enables running non-free software on free software operating systems, and as such de-incentivates the creation of replacements. 4.1) but it's free software and its authors have their own independence. I don't follow the wine project and I don't know how well it works, but getting Windows applications to run under a free system looks very productive to me. It means that I can remove Windows from my workstation without preventing my girlfriend from doing her work or changing her habits. And as a strange side-effect, she would be using a free system and many other free utilities. There needs to be soul into the decision, or else it's just like choosing clothing. Does she use OpenBSD because she wants to use a Free Software operating system? If so, what have you done to help her get rid of her dependency on proprietary software? Will she keep using it if (let's hope not) you ever break up? By providing emacs and gcc for windows you encourage people to run just a few free applications with proprietary system and (many) tools, while we just give people the freedom to install a proprietary application on top of a free system with free tools. Look, OpenBSD is aggressive enough that people who need such non-free software likely won't even run it on OpenBSD, so what you're saying is that to the convenience of a few people who don't care for freedom of all users, you distribute non-free software. I have not said such a thing and you are playing words again to prove some point. If an OpenBSD user needs a package for work and does not find it, he will switch to another system because he needs his work done. Maybe for the desktop case, but then you have a whole sleuth of problems which users have a harder time dealing with than some software (like hardware support which in part because of NDA development *puah* supports a few more hardware). The packages in our ftp are packages we are legally allowed to distribute and are not part of the system. Users need to explicitely install them if they want so. Now, please, I suggest you get familiar with the goals and policy pages because you tend to mix OpenBSD goals with the ones from the FSF. Nopes, for what I read they're mostly the same, and these clear cut proprietary cases are hysterically extreme points of view. Anyways, most of your emails have been so rude that in afterthought I shouldn't even honour you with a reply. I try hard to keep my emails insult-free, saying that they are rude for
Re: Richard Stallman...
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:31:00AM -0700, L wrote: Hypocrite thoughts are constructed in your mind the way you want to see it.. the same way CULTS want you to see that their cult is right about EVERYTHING and every other religion and church is wrong. You seem to abuse the word hypocrisy. None of the definitions I find in any dictionary fir your accusations. As such, I can't take your definition or accusations of cults seriously, as you seem to be quite an angry convict of some sort of cult too. Rui -- This statement is false. Today is Sweetmorn, the 6th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: Richard Stallman...
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 07:46:08PM -0500, Eliah Kagan wrote: When you say the world is not made of such extremes, do you mean you think the long-term effects of something are always unquantifiable? The long term effects of anything are always something left to optimism or pessimism, according to each PoV, short of mathmatical formulas. That these specifically are unquantifiable? Indeed, if you could be more clear, that would be helpful. I think they're unquantifyable. Suppose someone is unable to use Wine to run a proprietary program on a free operating system. As a result, they never use the free operating system. So they never use all the free programs that are part of that operating system. Well most of those programs fulfill a function that is also fulfilled (or sought to be fulfilled) by proprietary programs. So by enabling them to use their proprietary program in conjunction with a free operating system, they are also using many free alternatives to many other proprietary programs. This seems to promote development of software that replaces proprietary programs. People seldom evolute in harsh steps. Before I learned of free software, I only thought GNU/Linux as useful for college. Windows was invaluable for the games. After some time I noticed I didn't have enough space for my music collection and I hadn't booted on Windows for months in a row... never again. This was... about ten years ago... give or take an year. Never went back. There are also quite a few free programs that run only on Windows. (Being able to redistribute a program and its source and modify and redistribute the source doesn't somehow cause it to be instantly ported to other platforms by the grace of God.) These programs can be run on other operating systems with Wine. They can be ported to run on other operating systems with winelib. I didn't say Wine is evil, just counter-productive. And it's totally my own opinion. Its fortunate success, as Free Software, may have enabled some users to use more Free Software, but it may also have enabled some users to continue using non-free software, even when replacements exist. What I'm saying is that the matter of what supports replacing proprietary software with free software is complicated and merits a more textured analysis. In response, you seem to be saying that I hold a black-and-white view. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me (though you have managed to quote me in a way that makes it look like I hold and black-and-white view, I will assume that this was not intentional). Hms, you used the ultimately this ultimately that expression, sorry if I took you for holding that BaW PoV! Rui -- Umlaut Zebra |ber alles! Today is Sweetmorn, the 6th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: Richard Stallman...
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 06:18:34PM -0700, L wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:31:00AM -0700, L wrote: Hypocrite thoughts are constructed in your mind the way you want to see it.. the same way CULTS want you to see that their cult is right about EVERYTHING and every other religion and church is wrong. You seem to abuse the word hypocrisy. None of the definitions I find in any dictionary fir your accusations. As such, I can't take your definition or accusations of cults seriously, as you seem to be quite an angry convict of some sort of cult too. Rui http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_q8.html *81 http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_a8.html#ca_hypocrisy. Hypocrisy* Cult members, including the leader, project their own sins and crimes onto people outside of the cult: I don't take that as a definition of hypocrisy, but as a list of the hypocrisies commonly found in cults. BTW, one would say that the accusations of cult did not start from me (or Richard), so I'd say you accusers fall straight on the above all that's included in that link: We are not a cult -- all of those other groups are. We work very hard to make sure that our group doesn't turn into a cult like them. Rui -- Grudnuk demand sustenance! Today is Sweetmorn, the 6th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: FW: Real men don't attack straw men
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:00:55PM +, Miod Vallat wrote: Rui Miguel Silva is continually making you guys remove [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the cc's of your messages. FYI, I continually remove people from the CC on mailing-list posts. Yet you have no idea whether these people are subscribed to these mailing lists. If they are not, why do their emails get into the mailing list? Some moderator enjoys letting flames come up? That's even more interesting... I consider it rude to receive duplicate email. Isn't it rude to prevent people from receiving answers they are seeking? Not everyone not subscribed to this list will end his/her messages with a ``please cc: me as I am not subscribed'' notice, because they expect people to do the right thing. Which is ``reply to all''. Their problem. Rui -- Frink! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: FW: Real men don't attack straw men
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:15:08PM +0530, Siju George wrote: On Jan 4, 2008 1:03 AM, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rui Miguel Silva is continually making you guys remove from the cc's of your messages. Who knows? Perhaps He gets Paid for it, and for this violent defense of insanity from all the misused funds of FSF Perhaps you're a paranoid dellusional individual? Otherwise why should he repeatedly say some thin that is not proprietary as proprietary even after being informed by tedu and others? Because for me it is proprietary when I can't run it in a commercial context. That is an OpenBSD site which has software, like for instance zangband, which is proprietary and is compiled and distributed from: ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.2/packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1-no_x11.tgz How many times do we have to tell you it's NOT proprietary, and It's not illegal/prohibbted to distribute Zangband. Yes it is, if you distribute it in a commercial context. Go the hell away you troll! You are the troll. Rui -- Hail Eris! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: FW: Real men don't attack straw men
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 07:08:12PM -0700, L wrote: That is an insult! Why are you being so mean to Marco? Right, his extreme insults are meaningless and unprovocative. And why are you being so mean to me too? I read this list too! You are insulting me! Right, did the hat fit? Because I said some not all or even most. Anything can be taken as an insult. Specially insults. Did you know that people who speak the truth are insulting at times? People that do not put up with bull are very hard people at times? There's a difference between not putting up with bull and throwing bull along with insults. That seems to be Marco's favourite writing style. Did you know skillful liars are very nice people? Did you know cults drag people into their cults by being very nice and calm and positive? If you mean that only people who are cult-draggers are nice, calm and positive, then I hate the reality you live in. You've just insulted most of my friends, should they ever read you. Rui -- P'tang! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 08:20:50AM +0200, Dusty wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra only ever contributes to this list when its in a flame war, and always to take up a contrary point of view. He has proved only one thing. Trolls do exist and their primary form of communication is to point and grunt. What Rui says is so stupid, its not even wrong. Please Rui, dont reply, you'll only prove my point. Go troll somewhere else. You insult in public and ask for no answer? You might as well ask gravity to give up by itself. Firstly, your accusation that I only participate in flame-wars is blatantly false. Secondly, most of my posts on the flame-wars where trying to clear-up false statements from some people. Thirdly, some of my posts on the flame-wars where trying to show how FSF's Free Software definition is the same as BSD's. Finally, the rudeness of some people who only resort to insults and false accusations is appalling. I expected better from people who develop such an awesome OS. Rui -- Hail Eris! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: FW: Real men don't attack straw men
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 09:56:03AM +0100, Karl Sjodahl - dunceor wrote: This is a unmoderated list and unsubscribed people can mail to it. If one doesn't want to hear what outsiders want to say, then perhaps posting should be restricted to list members. Rui -- This statement is false. Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 07:19:03AM -0600, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote: i couldn't help but notice his initials are RMSS, not so far from RMS. perhaps this is a nome de plume for that other weaselly contrarian, mr. stallman. Yet you couldn't help notice the relation with the name as being more relevant than whatever passed through your mind? Yet, I'm the asshole ? Rui -- Umlaut Zebra |ber alles! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: FW: Real men don't attack straw men
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 05:44:59PM +0530, Siju George wrote: :-) that was to the guy who called you a troll right? I said perhaps you are a paid FSF mercenary or as you accused me delusional :-) I wish I was paid to only work on Free Software, I'd be much more productive. Rui -- Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: Richard Stallman...
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 07:35:16PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: Could we all please stop responding to his emails as well as emails from trollers like Rui Seabra? F.Y. You are the troll. Rui -- Keep the Lasagna flying! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: FW: Real men don't attack straw men
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:26:12PM -0800, Ted Unangst wrote: On Jan 4, 2008 1:22 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Otherwise why should he repeatedly say some thin that is not proprietary as proprietary even after being informed by tedu and others? Because for me it is proprietary when I can't run it in a commercial context. you clearly don't know what proprietary means. if you don't understand the big words, stop using them. you also totally failed to comprehend the license. No, I understood it quite well. what i find even more hysterical is your claim that running a 5 year old rogue clone is needed to get your work done. What I find even more hysterical is your lack of english comprehension, for what I said is that restrictions against commercial usage make it proprietary, not that I need that piece of software. Rui -- Or not. Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: FW: Real men don't attack straw men
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:49:45PM -0800, Ted Unangst wrote: On Jan 4, 2008 2:31 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I find even more hysterical is your lack of english comprehension, for what I said is that restrictions against commercial usage make it proprietary, not that I need that piece of software. you still don't get to make up new definitions for proprietary. Neither do you, so you could spare everyone by not keeping this thread going. Rui -- Umlaut Zebra |ber alles! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: Real men don't attack straw men
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 08:19:38PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: Nobody out here is going to listen to what you're going to say, and you are going to go on and on about how you were justified in labeling OpenBSD as not compliant with your interpretation of the word free, which we don't give a farthing for. He only doesn't want to *recommend* OpenBSD because of the ports tree distributing some (however few exceptions those are) proprietary software. He's not labelling OpenBSD non-free, just non-free-friendly because some non-free are distributed in the ports site. Now, you may disagree with his non-recommendation, but you're misinterperting what's being said completely, and perhaps giving a worse judgement of his words than what he did (depending on the point of view). Rui (ps: if someone wants to answer back with insults just shove it, ok? I'm a fan of the Free Software operating system called OpenBSD and it's policy on pro-active security) -- Fnord. Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: Real men don't attack straw men
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:38:08AM -0500, Stuart VanZee wrote: From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra He's not labelling OpenBSD non-free, just non-free-friendly because some non-free are distributed in the ports site. And yet, you still don't have it quite right. Saying that the ports system distributes software is not correct. The ports system only distributes some make files and a few patches (all free). I'm not talking about the CVS tree, I'm talking about http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386.html I'm sorry for the abuse of language if you want to make a strong difference between port and package. That is an OpenBSD site which has software, like for instance zangband, which is proprietary and is compiled and distributed from: ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.2/packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1-no_x11.tgz These make files contain links to where to download said evil software and make them easy to install... This is no mere link to a file, it's plain forward availability of a conveniently pre-compiled package which is installable and is tantamount to a recommendation. should the user choose to. Since I'm (at least) smart enough not to install proprietary software, I don't have a strong problem with it, but for someone like RMS who want's to be able to recommend strictly Free Software operating systems, this can be seen as a severe drawback. I don't understand such violent answers from some people, they are as unproportional as some of their claims are false. choose to run IE on OpenBSD if he wanted to. So I ask you: How does that limit freedom? When you promote the usage of proprietary software, you're promoting a network effect that ends-up with more people being less free: those who chose to entrust others with their good judgement because they are not knowledgeable enough to make the decision just by themselves and get to accept your recommendations. Then some pages which only work with IE are now accessible, and maybe more people will use IE instead of Free Software browsers, and where does this road lead to? No good, IMHO. Best, -- All Hail Discordia! Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: Real men don't attack straw men
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:04:44AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote: On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:53:26PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Since I'm (at least) smart enough not to install proprietary software, I don't have a strong problem with it, but for someone like RMS who want's to be able to recommend strictly Free Software operating systems, this can be seen as a severe drawback. Just a few questions then: - Why is it so easy to use gcc and emacs from Windows XP without ever having to even know about gNewSense ? I'd lie if I said I knew gNewSense before Stallman came to troll here, and I've been working with people who make a great use of gcc and emacs on Windows. Can't this be seen as a severe drawback ? No, they are using more Free Software than before. The opposit is a drawback, IMHO, because more people is using proprietary software. - What makes you think you are smarter than anybody just because you don't install proprietary software ? Not smarter, at least smart enough on this subject not to do that. and impose my choices on them. Do you see what I mean? I do, but you didn't see what I meant. Maybe I wasn't clear enough for you. Rui -- Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: Real men don't attack straw men
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:22:35AM -0700, L wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:04:44AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote: On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:53:26PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Since I'm (at least) smart enough not to install proprietary software, I don't have a strong problem with it, but for someone like RMS who want's to be able to recommend strictly Free Software operating systems, this can be seen as a severe drawback. Just a few questions then: - Why is it so easy to use gcc and emacs from Windows XP without ever having to even know about gNewSense ? I'd lie if I said I knew gNewSense before Stallman came to troll here, and I've been working with people who make a great use of gcc and emacs on Windows. Can't this be seen as a severe drawback ? No, they are using more Free Software than before. The opposit is a drawback, IMHO, because more people is using proprietary software. No, people that have an OpenBSD CD to install the OS have the chance to use MORE free software than before. That's got nothing to do with what was talked about. It's not about the OpenBSD cd, but about having ... http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386.html ... distributing proprietary software, which is tantamount to a recommendation that is RMS's problem with OpenBSD. Nothing else... even the extremely rude personalities of some of the people here wouldn't stop him from recommending OpenBSD if it wasn't for that. That small (it's only a few packages) problem could be easily fixed and get OpenBSD listed at FSF's page. Don't act like children in a tantrum, who seldom listen to reason. GCC for ms WIndows does not even REQUIRE thinking first. Everyone knows GCC is a great Windows Proprietary compiler to create proprietary software.. it's just a cheaper compiler than MS VC. It is so easy to get or make GCC on windows, because Stallman knows his figurehead will increase in size if he encourages everyone and anyone to use GCC for proprietary closed source use. This list is actually the first place I read of widespread use of GCC for making proprietary software. Since so many lies are said about what RMS promotes or not, I don't feel confident in taking your word for it (specially since you seem to resort easily into insults). No, you are a hypocrite to. Have you been brainwashed? I am going to add the 'cult strategies' and brainwashing warnings to the GNG website. You've all been fooled by the cute animals on the GNU site. SNAP OUT OF IT. IN fact, you are a troll.. why am I replying? This just goes ON, and ON, and ON, and ON. /me smiles... such a troll I must be, who's replacing proprietary packet filters with OpenBSD everywhere I can. Rui -- Or not. Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: FW: Real men don't attack straw men
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:05:37PM -0500, Stuart VanZee wrote: Wow... it is incredibly telling that you chose a game, a pretty obscure one at that as far as I can tell, to base your argument on. The world will fall because OpenBSD recommends that people install a game... a game that is free to copy and use for non- commercial use (I looked it up), and you had to go through almost the ENTIRE package collection all the way to the Zs before you could find such a pitiful example. Because they are such pitiful cases, they could be easily removed and remove Stallman's objections to list OpenBSD at the recommended Free Software operating systems, right? More promotion of OpenBSD would be good, right? Stopping this childish-tantrum regarding the FSF would also be very much more productive. This discussion all started because Mr. Stallman very publicly stated that OpenBSD was non-free and distributed non-free software in it's ports tree. He didn't say OpenBSD was non-free, but that it distributed non-free Software. Looking at ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.2/packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1.tgz ... seems to me pretty a pretty clear case. I am pretty sure he had no knowledge of zangband and it's non-free license. He was talking about non-free software in the ports tree. BTW, I think he was (as I frequently happen to by abuse of language) referring to the packages site, e.g.: http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386.html Best, Rui -- Grudnuk demand sustenance! Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: FW: Real men don't attack straw men
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 01:23:21PM -0500, William Boshuck wrote: Richard Stallman referred to certain URLs in certain Makefiles in the ports tree---not the collection of packages, after (in the interview which indirectly prompted this thread) confusing OpenBSD's ports tree with its installation system. He did not refer to the packages collection in the statement in question. I seem to have read somewhere he asked for an adenda clarifying the situation, was it referred to these? I seem to have understood it to be the packages distribution. This discussion all started because Mr. Stallman very publicly stated that OpenBSD was non-free and distributed non-free software in it's ports tree. He didn't say OpenBSD was non-free, but that it distributed non-free Software. He said that it include[s] in [its] installation system ... non-free software. I'm willing to bet he got bad information or missed the ports/packages components. People ain't computers. Rui -- Wibble. Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: FW: Real men don't attack straw men
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:33:26PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: Rui Miguel Silva is continually making you guys remove [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the cc's of your messages. FYI, I continually remove people from the CC on mailing-list posts. I consider it rude to receive duplicate email. If you are going to flame rms, it is best to keep him cc'd. That's the spirit, no doubpt about that. No solving differences, flame away. *sheesh* Rui -- Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: FW: Real men don't attack straw men
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:34:24PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: It would be nice if people would stop defending non defensible hypocritical positions. His arguments are a misleading hyperbole. Your attitude is also indefensible and ostentiously hypocritical, with a rudeness that only adds value to every single word you write. Many times you falsely misrepresented what people say, either by lack of english understanding or by intention. None of them bore well on your character. Rui -- Kallisti! Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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: OpenBSD supported servers ?
On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 07:48:26AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: Who is we? Right, of course... I won't do it alone, because to do it alone all I have needed is quite well served by http://www.armorlogic.com/openbsd_information_server_compatibility_list.html But apparently there are more people interested in server lists, so 'we' would mean people interested in that, if you didn't understand it, that is. You are all talk but no do. Typical GPL debater. You are all flame. Typical from the insubstantiate... Rui -- Pzat! Today is Setting Orange, the 68th 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: OpenBSD supported servers ?
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:37:34PM +0530, Selva Raj wrote: I am looking for a HP or IBM server which can run OpenBSD Operating System out of the box? Any suggestions will be great useful to me. Dear Selva, The following list has been useful for me, but I can't make any promises about it's reliability: http://www.armorlogic.com/openbsd_information_server_compatibility_list.html Regards, Rui -- Pzat! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 62nd 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: OpenBSD supported servers ?
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:53:37AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2007/12/20 11:28, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:37:34PM +0530, Selva Raj wrote: I am looking for a HP or IBM server which can run OpenBSD Operating System out of the box? Any suggestions will be great useful to me. Dear Selva, The following list has been useful for me, but I can't make any promises about it's reliability: http://www.armorlogic.com/openbsd_information_server_compatibility_list.html A lot of the models on that list are no longer available new, and many of the problems mentioned are fixed in 4.2 or -current. Yes. Maybe we could compile a more updated list, which would include also the progress along releases of OpenBSD as communicated by people? Maybe patches to the FAQ... Rui -- All Hail Discordia! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 62nd 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: rhetorical strategies
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:17:46PM -0600, Gregg Reynolds wrote: For GPL-licensed software I recommend the term covenant(ed) software. So-called free software, as rms uses the term, is totally dependent on the GPL, which leverages the State's monopoly on violence to compel modifiers of the software to offer their mods to the public. Free Software as Richard Stallman uses the term is BSD. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The GPL is merely a covenant license which closes the (mathmatical definition alike) ring of Free Software so all operations don't create a derivate outside that definition. Operations that use Free Software and result in non-Free Software (outside the ring) are undesireable on his (and others like me) point of view, which is why he created the GPL, to close the ring. So you should re-evaluate your assumptions, for the consequence of such rationalization over false presumptions creates unnecessary divisions in the community. Best, Rui -- Or not. Today is Sweetmorn, the 59th 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: rhetorical strategies
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 06:52:56AM -0700, L wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:17:46PM -0600, Gregg Reynolds wrote: For GPL-licensed software I recommend the term covenant(ed) software. So-called free software, as rms uses the term, is totally dependent on the GPL, which leverages the State's monopoly on violence to compel modifiers of the software to offer their mods to the public. Free Software as Richard Stallman uses the term is BSD. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The GPL is merely a covenant license which closes the (mathmatical definition alike) ring of Free Software so all operations don't create a derivate outside that definition. Ring of Stallmanism, not free software. No, the ring of Free Software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation, which is exactly the same kind of Free used in the OpenBSD context. You may think otherwise, but you should better give evidence instead of insult, if you want to be taken seriously. Some definitions of free: Not under control of another, having liberty, independent Able to move in any direction, loose. etc. Pulled right from a dictionary 'free' != 'free software', but anyway: 1) software is always under the control of another by law 2) software isn't alive, it's not software who needs the freedom, it's people 3) with zangband people are under the control of the zangband authors 4) with zangband, people haven't the independence to move in the direction of profit etc... I exercise my right to free speech, to be able to say that free software shall not be called free software unless it follows the dictionary term. The FSF definiton does follow your dictionary definition. As I said, it is *the* *same* as BSD's. What stops me from starting my OWN PERSONAL freedom definition on my site and my own PERSONAL 'freedom ring' that only allows people to join who have followed MY conditions? That is not freedom, that is Larsism or 505ism according to my own PERSONAL opinions. You don't seem to understand that the GPL is a ring closure license for GPL'ed Free Software, not for all Free Software. The day you stop and cultivate yourself you'll avoid braindead statements like the one below: YOU HAVE ALL BEEN BRAINWASHED. THOSE CUTE ANIMALS ON THE GNU WEBSITE WERE A PROPAGANDA TACTIC. Cheers. Rui -- You are what you see. Today is Sweetmorn, the 59th 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: rhetorical strategies
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:30:32AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: blah blah blah As usual you keep repeating what you said before but it _still_ does not make it so. It's not that you disagree that 1000g = 1Kg, it's how rudely you can bash those who agree so. Rui -- Fnord. Today is Sweetmorn, the 59th 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: Real men don't attack straw men
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:54:47AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo. You too. I still remember cheering when I read http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00460.html * From: Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:11:00 -0600 * Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am just curious - why exactly were all the DJB ports dropped? Precisely because of what the commit message says: Removed qmail; license does not permit modification [camield 2001-08-14] Sadly you're too quick to launch the 'hypocrit' word... http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1.tgz-long.html According to Sourceforge: http://sourceforge.net/projects/zangband License: Other/Proprietary License Rui -- Today is Pungenday, the 56th 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: Real men don't attack straw men
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 12:59:27PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: Richard, you are a total hypocrite. You are in here creating a fuss about our software, saying it is non-free, when you are doing exactly the same thing yourself. Please see http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/faq2.html And ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/ What's that, there? Free Software. Emacs *binaries* for *Windows* Supplied right by Richard's http and ftp mirrors. Yes, Emacs for people who aren't as fortunate as you or I am. Richard, I may be unfriendly, but you are a lying hypocritical asshole. I believe Richard might have been misinformed about ports, while you... ... should know better. It's the difference between helping people run more Free Software vs spreading proprietary software. Talking about lies, or hypocrisy is nothing more than petty insulting. Rui -- All Hail Discordia! Today is Boomtime, the 55th 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: Real men don't attack straw men
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:30:28PM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote: while we do provide a free operating system, http://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.html makes it total clear that you are a hypocrite and a liar. And makes it total clear that you are the hypocrite and a liar. Choice quotes from that page: Microsoft Windows is a clear and instructive example of non-free software. Using free software on Microsoft Windows (or any non-free operating system) is the first step towards freedom, but it does not get you all the way there. So the next step is to replace Windows with a free operating system such as GNU/Linux[1]. However, on this page we're concerned with the first step. [1] Now I see why you have such animosity towards this page... -- P'tang! Today is Boomtime, the 55th 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: Real men don't attack straw men
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 04:49:34PM -0500, STeve Andre' wrote: On Tuesday 11 December 2007 14:00:43 Richard Stallman wrote: Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD? Because he tends to be unfriendly. Now *that* I find humorous. I find it Kafka-esque, your inability to reccomend OpenBSD because of some unfree items in the ports tree. Effectively you are taking away the right of people to choose the software they wish to use. It is me, who finds it humurous that you consider a recommendation as taking away the right of people choosing the software they wish to use. If I recommend you not to jump into a well, am I taking your liberty to jump into it? It would be quite funny to see how bits bytes, my only interaction with you, could ever prevent you from a refreshing bath :) Your definition of free is replete with chains; you would deny the freedom of choice in the name of freedom. That is bizarre... Rui -- All Hail Discordia! Today is Setting Orange, the 53rd 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 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: Code signing in OpenBSD
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 12:37:19PM +0800, Lars Hansson wrote: On Dec 6, 2007 2:46 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Come on... twice a year and get the benefit of not being excluded from company policies which require digital signature of software downloaded through the internet. It's not really OpenBSD's problem that some companies implement pointless security policies. I'm not discussing wether its pointless or not, maybe you don't want OpenBSD to be used at all? Rui -- Grudnuk demand sustenance! Today is Setting Orange, the 48th 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: Code signing in OpenBSD
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 02:23:41PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: blah blah blah have you ever wondered why openbsd doesn't do binary updates? I'm not talking about updates, I can read C. maybe you are now going to be able to figure out why we don't need complex signing mechanisms. You're ignoring that it is perhaps quite insane to expect anyone to verify every single line of code, and a (so far very much deserved) trust is given to the developers. Which is why I would very much like to be absolutely sure the CD I bought brought the release the developers intended to publish. This is not about downloading OpenBSD, but of having a quite measurable degree of trust that what you have is what you were supposed to have. Btw, it would be much better to use a hashing algorithm stronger than MD5, even on the file signed by an OpenPGP or X.509 certificate. Rui -- Wibble. Today is Setting Orange, the 48th 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: Code signing in OpenBSD
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 11:59:31AM -0500, Nick Guenther wrote: I'm surprised that OpenBSD (the most secure OS I know of) does not use it, that's all I'm saying. I also thought there would be a real reason for not doing so and there may in fact be and I may just be unaware of it. OpenBSD is the most secure OS, the devs know what they are doing.. and they've rejected this as uneccessary. I don't see what is the problem with blessing a fingerprint of the binaries with a PKI signature, which would mean that *these* are the binaries the devs intended to release. Come on... twice a year and get the benefit of not being excluded from company policies which require digital signature of software downloaded through the internet. You can check the MD5 files for the main distribution, and for packages.. well the official OpenBSD mirrors are all trustworthy--if they aren't, it will be discovered and they will no longer be official mirrors. This isn't a great answer, I know. Definitely not a great answer, as there are vectors of attack which cover the client acessing the mirror and not the mirror in itself, like changing on-the-fly the md5sums to match the bad binaries, etc... A digital signature would enable the non-repudiation of the fingerprints file (at least), giving a moderate level of assurance that attack vectors would have to concentrate on upstream development servers (where the devs *really* know what they are doing). Rui -- Hail Eris! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 47th 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: Code signing in OpenBSD
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 11:23:28AM -0800, Ted Unangst wrote: On 12/5/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Come on... twice a year and get the benefit of not being excluded from company policies which require digital signature of software downloaded through the internet. sign it yourself, then download it. problem solved. Forgive them, for they know not what they say... *sigh* :) Rui -- Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 47th 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: License Violation - ksh
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 01:37:53PM -0700, Bob Beck wrote: * Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-03 06:19]: No harm done just stupidity perpetuated. Kind of like fox news. Dunno about no harm done there marco - Saying fox news doesn't do any harm is like saying Joesph Goebels didn't to any harm - only perpetuated stupidity.. perpeduated stupidity can be damn harmful. I call Godwin's law! (specially because you're most unfortunately diminishing Gobbels' evil actions with that comparison). Rui -- Hail Eris! Today is Pungenday, the 46th 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: CARP problem
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 11:10:32AM +0200, Heinrich Rebehn wrote: What happens: 1. I boot frw1, it becomes MASTER on all carps - good. 2. I boot frw2, it becomes BACKUP on all carps except carp0, which becomes MASTER - bad. Any ideas? Do you have pass quick for carp and pfsync *before* antispoof and block rules, and on *all* carp interfaces? Rui -- Grudnuk demand sustenance! Today is Sweetmorn, the 4th 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: carp devices master/backup behavior
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:44:53PM +0200, Erich wrote: hi, i have successfully setup a carp setup with 10 carp devices. on box is master and another box is backup, so if the master fails the backup box takes over. i have sysctl net.inet.carp.preempt=1 and the backup box announces with advskew 100. most of the time everything is fine, but after several reboots of the master sytem the backup system is in a state where the carp devices are in a mixed state. carp3 and carp4 for example are still MASTER and the rest of the interfaces has gone back to BACKUP state like they should. they are all in the same carp group. ideas what to check? Are you sure you're allowing carp to pass on all carpdev interfaces? Rui -- Grudnuk demand sustenance! Today is Sweetmorn, the 52nd day of Bureaucracy 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: OBSD's perspective on SELinux
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 04:31:22PM +0100, Brian Candler wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 10:54:06PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 06:47:46PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote:
OBSD is UNIX, .. SELinux is Linux. If you want a secure, efficient,
compact OS done by folks you can trust and actually talk to, use OBSD; if
you want 'fairly secure Linux' [which has had thousands of hand in it
including NSA, as mentioned previousy], use OpenSUSE with ***AppArmor***.
Simple and easy to implement, even by less senior Admins.
Can you say root can only run this and that application when su'ed from
that guy, and may not open any net connection, but open this file and none
else in OpenBSD? If so, how can I do it? :)
You solve the problem a different way:
- You don't give the guy root access, but their own userid
The guy can be some stupid binary software with an if(uid!=root) bail();
- You set file permissions so this userid can read only the file of interest
none else = find / -type f -exec chmod o-r \{\} \; is a lot of overkill
- You use pf rules so that this user ID cannot send network packets
- If this guy needs root for something (e.g. to bind to port 80), then you
write a three-line setuid root wrapper which binds to port 80 for them.
If you have a lot of this to do, then consider an 'open server' which
returns the open file descriptor.
All in all, forms of doing it all, but doing all you described creates a lot
more work than creating an SELinux policy :)
Best,
Rui
--
Umlaut Zebra o?=ber alles!
Today is Boomtime, the 48th day of Bureaucracy 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: OBSD's perspective on SELinux
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 11:49:20AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote: In security, complex != good. Yes, which is one of the reasons I personally believe Visa's PCI is an extortion sham. However, some hugely influential entities happen to require those complexities, and no reason on the world will convince anyone (who doesn't know but decides) on the virtues of the KISS principle. Rui -- Frink! Today is Boomtime, the 48th day of Bureaucracy 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: OBSD's perspective on SELinux
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 06:47:46PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: OBSD is UNIX, .. SELinux is Linux. If you want a secure, efficient, compact OS done by folks you can trust and actually talk to, use OBSD; if you want 'fairly secure Linux' [which has had thousands of hand in it including NSA, as mentioned previousy], use OpenSUSE with ***AppArmor***. Simple and easy to implement, even by less senior Admins. Can you say root can only run this and that application when su'ed from that guy, and may not open any net connection, but open this file and none else in OpenBSD? If so, how can I do it? :) SELinux is **NOT** ready for primetime, unless it's changed tremenduously in the past couple of years. Last time we tried it, management was totally arcane and the machines would lock up on a regular (monthly) basis. It wasn't worth the time to troubleshoot so we went with AppArmor for that application. A couple of years is a long time, in terms of software, so I'd expect such instabilities, if SELinux is the culprit, to be fixed. But I won't deny it's learning curve is extremely steep. So steep indeed that most of the time it's easier to have carefully laid out standard unix permissions associated with sudo and specific users for specific software. The *need* for things like SELinux exists in some niche markets where higher levels of security are necessary. Remember: OpenBSD still doesn't have a digitally signed code distribution, and in some places that means it can't enter! Stupid, I know, but not too stupid for the blame game rules, which sort of ignore the secure by design initiatives. Rui -- All Hail Discordia! Today is Sweetmorn, the 47th day of Bureaucracy 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: digitally signed distribution (was: OBSD's perspective on SELinux)
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 12:35:54AM +0200, Joachim Schipper wrote: On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 10:54:06PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Remember: OpenBSD still doesn't have a digitally signed code distribution, and in some places that means it can't enter! Stupid, I know, but not too stupid for the blame game rules, which sort of ignore the secure by design initiatives. Sure it does, just pull from CVS over SSH and compile your own. Only requires trusting one download, ever, and that can be verified by downloading from n servers from m distinct network locations, and verifying that the checksums match. I do get what you are hinting at, but it's not an insurmountable issue. It depends on the rules. If they say it must be digitally signed... one may be SOL :| -- Wibble. Today is Sweetmorn, the 47th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:34:36PM -0400, William Boshuck wrote: The evidence indicates that Rui is not, in fact, a human being, but the latest (and possibly the most impressive to date) application of the Dada Engine. I can mail you some biological evidence, if you want ;) *giggle* Rui -- Umlaut Zebra o?=ber alles! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 40th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 06:34:03PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote: As ironic as it may seem, with today being the long anticipated release of the very first working decompiler, the world of open source drivers is going to get very interesting in the near future. In a few hours, possibly days, after I've installed, read the docs and got a feel for this thing, I could easily build a source code representation from the vendor released Atheros binary windows drivers. Yep, all of the vendor secret sauce and all of the vendor work-arounds for silicon bugs will be sitting right in front of me to read... I advise against using it, as it will create an extremely muddy legal scenario over anything you write related to the code produced by that decompiler. I wish it wasn't so, but then I wished there were no proprietary drivers either :) Rui, you're a bright guy and you've made an admirable attempt to posit your views as well as support them with your reasoning but it's really time to stop. I hope we can agree to disagree on a few things and still go have a beer as friends one of these days. Even those who resort to insults can hope that from me, I don't dwell in the past, so you, who've been most polite of all, don't have anything to worry :) Rui -- You are what you see. Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 40th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:25:38PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote: I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has the freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow some users to loose freedom... Hello again Rui, the US. Over here, if you own a copy of a program, you can modify it as much as you want Good luck doing so without any source code. Of course, you are free to have strong feelings about whatever you like, and hold opinions based on flawed understanding, but as long as you insist on remaining uneducated about the laws, you are failing yourself and failing your supposed duty to make things clear. Please stop. You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to change a program because he has no access to the source code. You stop. Rui -- Umlaut Zebra o?=ber alles! Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 10:09:41AM -0700, Greg Thomas wrote: On 9/14/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: | I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble. Your exact words are that's in the preamble, which establishes the spirit (I left them in my reply so you can see for yourself). So the spirit is established. I can play wordgames just as easily as you, let's not go that route, OK ? A spirit is established. Try to stick with the spirit, OK ? The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users. If one user looses freedom, the spirit is broken. So YOU stick with the spirit, OK? Hahahahahahahahahaha, how can you not see the IRONY AND HYPOCRISY in that statement? Damn, dude, what reality do you live in? You are a joker. Apparently you can't but resort to insults, surely you jest? Rui -- Wibble. Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 05:29:31PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has the freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow some users to loose freedom... You make the point of using BLOB so well, Thank you! Looking forward to see you fight for documentation freedom and no NDA that reduce and eliminate freedom. I fully support that fight! But, lets not loose sight that a violation of a copyright was done, and as it look from the outside was endorse here. Richard, I am s surprise by your silence as violation of copyright are done by a movement you fight so hard to create long ago. I can't say what to make of it. I ca't talk for Richard, but I see no movement doing such thing, apart from a few guys, who I should point out that I don't think they really share the Free Software ideals, in the Linux kernel community did those violations. And only on some files which were *not* dual licensed. Rui -- Wibble. Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 12:58:36PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to change a program because he has no access to the source code. That is only because you are uneducated in the art of assembly and more importantly there in the art of disassembly. That you are powerless doesn't mean that other people are not. You'll never end trying to search for any far fetched point where you can be right, as if that would make all past wrong arguments become true. How funny. So you defend that freedom is only for a select few... At least you showed some honesty! -- Kallisti! Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:11:38AM -0500, Tony Abernethy wrote: Good luck doing so without any source code. Teehee Teehee. No luck required. It does however take a wee bit of skill and competence. Actually, for exacting work, the source is a liability. The source tends to make assorted bugs vanish. You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to change a program because he has no access to the source code. Presumably you speak from your own experience and your own powerlessness. If a programmer is competent, the programmer does not need the source and the programmer does not even need to know the language. Assorted malware is done without having the source. Very well it seems. To EASILY change something, the source is needed. Acutally, the entire build environment is needed. Just having the source is easily less modifyable than having an operable binary. So your defense of that position is that the bar to freedom should be raisable at will just because some extremely few people can do that? That's rich. If life was *so* easy like you say, then you don't need specs, do you? You are so in the league that you can just go get ATI/NVIDIA's binary drivers and write a working one for OpenBSD. Go ahead! Make all OpenBSD users happy for having a free driver writen from modification of the binary version to a free one. ddate really chose an appropriate expression: -- All Hail Discordia! Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 09:54:10PM +1000, Damien Miller wrote: On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to change a program because he has no access to the source code. You seem to be entirely missing the irony of making this statement in the context of an argument about software _reverse engineered from a binary blob_. You seem to be entirely missing the fact that it requires extraordinary skill, which used in the defense of your arguments contradicts the freedom for all you defend, since it's only avialable to a select few, even among the already scarce select few programmers among the human beings. Rui -- P'tang! Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:25:29AM -0500, Tony Abernethy wrote: Damien Miller wrote: To: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra Cc: J.C. Roberts; misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to change a program because he has no access to the source code. You seem to be entirely missing the irony of making this statement in the context of an argument about software _reverse engineered from a binary blob_. Obviously he's never read machine code ;) I've written it, and swore never again to do so unless life depends on it. You have to be extremely skilled and with an excessive ammount of free time to make an argument based on that defense. Whilst the first case is a compliment, the second not really (but not an insult either). Has the state of the art gone down that badly in the last forty-odd years? Even I know better, and there's people on this list that actually know something. Yeah sure, like OpenBSD is 100% written in machine code *giggle* Rui -- Grudnuk demand sustenance! Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
This definitly has to be a joke :) You're pulling my leg, mister! ;) On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 09:13:31AM -0500, Tony Abernethy wrote: So you admit you are incompetent. If you were really competent you would be able to read the blinking lights and alter running programs via the swwitches. By the way, there is a difference between reading and writing. But then, you seem to actually be THAT incompetent. -Original Message- From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 8:48 AM To: Tony Abernethy Cc: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:25:29AM -0500, Tony Abernethy wrote: Damien Miller wrote: To: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra Cc: J.C. Roberts; misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to change a program because he has no access to the source code. You seem to be entirely missing the irony of making this statement in the context of an argument about software _reverse engineered from a binary blob_. Obviously he's never read machine code ;) I've written it, and swore never again to do so unless life depends on it. You have to be extremely skilled and with an excessive ammount of free time to make an argument based on that defense. Whilst the first case is a compliment, the second not really (but not an insult either). Has the state of the art gone down that badly in the last forty-odd years? Even I know better, and there's people on this list that actually know something. Yeah sure, like OpenBSD is 100% written in machine code *giggle* Rui -- Grudnuk demand sustenance! Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy 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...? -- Frink! Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 03:53:02PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 12:33:02PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:25:38PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote: I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has the freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow some users to loose freedom... Hello again Rui, the US. Over here, if you own a copy of a program, you can modify it as much as you want Good luck doing so without any source code. Of course, you are free to have strong feelings about whatever you like, and hold opinions based on flawed understanding, but as long as you insist on remaining uneducated about the laws, you are failing yourself and failing your supposed duty to make things clear. Please stop. You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to change a program because he has no access to the source code. You stop. Nonsense. It's similar to how powerless non-programmer people feel when they report a bug and get told to fix it `since they have the source'. Most people think it's magic, and most don't understand that it may be as simple as adding a couple of lines (eg: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=118232405007254w=2) Compare adding that feature in C with adding that feature in machine code and then tell me how it is similar. And don't get me started on all the linux code that is full of magic constants, was written under NDAs, and is about as useful as binary blobs for the people who do NOT have access to the NDA documentation... Yeah, it's a shame, fortunately the pressure seems to be working out (vide ATI). ... or the people who don't care that ATI/nvidia doesn't give their 3D specs as long as they provide binary drivers that work under linux/i386. Yup, very common, unfortunately. Rui -- Grudnuk demand sustenance! Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 08:12:55AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 10:25:44PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: | | While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to BSD-licensed | | code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar share | | alike license, based upon what I understand of copyright law, it's | | perfectly legal. Even though BSD-style licenses are compatible with the | | GPL, there are perfectly acceptable social goals achieved only by | | releasing under the GPL or a similar license. | | I'd say that it goes against the GPL. Yes, the GPL, not the BSD | license (or the ISC license), GPL. Theo already quoted the relevant | bits, but I'll quote them again : | |For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether | gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that | you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the | source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their | rights. | | 1. that's in the preamble, which establishes the spirit | 2. 4 paragraphs below you read: | | The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and | modification follow. | | 3. later on you learn the precise term which is under the terms of this |License | | So no, you're wrong. Don't bother defending your point of view, it's a waste | of time to both of us, more to you who will write it. :) First you establish a spirit. Then you go on totally ignoring this spirit in your precise terms. Exactly why would you establish this spirit in the first place ? You just get so rabid when things don't play like you want it to... I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble. The spirit of the license is for everyone to have software freedom, not just those who don't close up the source code. One of the ways it makes it so, is to force passing on the same rights. You try to clinge on these expression as trying to validate the absurd notion that it forces to maintain dual licensing. It's false. If you chose the GNU GPL as the license, then the rights that must be passed on are those granted by the GNU GPL. Responsabilities too. It's in the license, right ? The license is not to be read just at your convenience. There's more text, and it clearly says the precise terms follow. Don't ignore them when it's more convenient to you. I may be wrong there, but *that* is so utterly, completely and totally wrong that it is mindbogging why there is so much code released under so much verbiage which we now call the GPL. You are my brother in spirit, but i'll steal from you anyway and totally ignore the spirit. You're not about free software. Of course not, I'm about the freedom of all users to run, study and modify, as well as distribute (modified or not). Software is not a human being, and Free Software is merely a tool to empower people. You don't have any problems with people locking other people out of code, but when it's to ensure everyone has access, except you because *you* don't want to, then it's all bad. This is shallow, IMHO. Fortunately I value OpenBSD because it's Free Software with a lot of technical merit, and not for words like yours. I even got the company I work at to buy CD's (sometimes they don't). To finalise, the FSF has said it doesn't want anything to do with this polemic, so I don't see the point in adding Richard to the cc except to make a fool of yourself. Bye -- Hail Eris! Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 01:29:43AM +0200, Reiner Jung wrote: what have this to do with Microsoft? I assume nothing. Don't let us mix up this topic. It's an adaptation of an expression, it means don't bother me, go see if I'm at (someplace I definitely am not). The question here is not Microsoft again OpenBSD, Linux or ..., the point is that here nobody should give any interpretation without licensed to practice law. So let the specialist decide on the topic. (...) Frankly, why do you only get rabid like that at people who don't share your opinion? Why don't you go say that to people who write the opposite of what I say? They're not lawyers either... are you simply one-sided? Looks like it... Rui -- This statement is false. Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 04:53:23AM -0400, Tony Abernethy wrote: GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. Seems extremely unlikely that this would give a license to change other license or copyright documents. Or that could possible be the intended effect. I doubt it would be legal/ethical/whatever to take something GPL-licensed and re-license it as BSD-licensed (except with explicit consent of the copyright/etc owner(s)). Are you intentionally daft? Nobody here defended that. You seem to have your issues confused. Sort yourself, please. Rui -- Hail Eris! Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: | I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble. Your exact words are that's in the preamble, which establishes the spirit (I left them in my reply so you can see for yourself). So the spirit is established. I can play wordgames just as easily as you, let's not go that route, OK ? A spirit is established. Try to stick with the spirit, OK ? The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users. If one user looses freedom, the spirit is broken. So YOU stick with the spirit, OK? Rui -- Or is it? Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:27:51AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: | I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble. Your exact words are that's in the preamble, which establishes the spirit (I left them in my reply so you can see for yourself). So the spirit is established. I can play wordgames just as easily as you, let's not go that route, OK ? A spirit is established. Try to stick with the spirit, OK ? The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users. If one user looses freedom, the spirit is broken. So YOU stick with the spirit, OK? And by removing the BSD license you are thus removing freedom. Please stop and think, you're confusing issues. Rui -- P'tang! Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:39:10AM +, Sebastien Carlier wrote: Rui, On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users. You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free* than the GPL because the BSD license imposes *fewer requirements* on distribution. You don't seem to get the fact that I'm not even talking about what's more or less free (in your definition). The BSD has fewer requirements, but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend. In my point of view, that is a social failure, which the GPL aims to end. Do you seriously believe people have to be coerced into being free? Can you be a serious person and not divert arguments to totally unrelated stuff? 10x. Rui -- You are what you see. Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:50:45PM +, Sebastien Carlier wrote: Your point is that the BSD license is a wrong because it gives people too much freedom. You just stated this again, even more clearly than in your earlier message. No, I never said the BSD license is wrong, you said that, not me. What I say is that it doesn't fulfill the goal of preserving freedom for all users. That is the GPL's goal, and the only restrictions it has aim to prevent anyone from reducing the rights granted by the GNU GPL. In my point of view, that is a social failure, which the GPL aims to end. So, you are indeed taking the point of view that there is good freedom and bad freedom, and that coercion is needed to allow good freedom to prevail. I am glad you said so since it is totally related to what follows. No, again it is you who's saying those horrible things. I never said that. In my point of view, I don't like to see anyone removing freedom from other users, hence I grant rights with the condition they aren't removed. I think that's fair, and not protecting that is a social failure. Something that has failed is quite different from something that is bad. Many excellent things have failed in such a way along history. We agree that we disagree, please could you stop the noise? You're adding noise too. If you are sincere about wanting to end noise don't reply. Rui -- Frink! Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 02:29:44PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:24:25PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: | On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: | | The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users. | | You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free* | than the GPL because the BSD license imposes *fewer requirements* | on distribution. | | You don't seem to get the fact that I'm not even talking about what's | more or less free (in your definition). The BSD has fewer requirements, | but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend. And no, it does not. I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has the freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow some users to loose freedom... What is released under the BSD license is more free (which is not what you are talking about). But all the users of the code released under the BSD license have the same freedoms. There's no difference for 'some' users, they're all the same .. even if 'some' users create baby mulching machines from your code. I think it is clear you don't grasp anything beying mere eyesight. What about binary derivatives, do users who receive them have the freedom to modify the program? That's rich! I know what argument you are trying to make, but you're not making it. There's no blind so bad as that which refuses to see. There's nothing I can do to change that. What is released under a BSD license is free software Yes. Most definitely. (in my definition more free than what is released under the GPL). All users of said code have the same freedoms (and the same duties : DO NOT REMOVE THE LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT NOTICE). No, that's merely all users who receive a copy from you. Not those afterwards. Those users have no guarantee at all. Scenario A, this code is released under the BSD license. You can take it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone. Scenario B, this code is released under the GPL license. You can take it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone. Where is the difference ? How did you avoid the social failure you spoke of ? Try going one step beyond mere eyesight. The moment a copy is given to someone else, in each scenario: Scenario A, a copy can (and frequently is) given without source code. the receiver of said copy has lost freedom, allowed by BSD Scenario B, a copy can (and frequently is) given without source code. the receiver of said copy has lost freedom, but since it is forbidden by the GNU GPL, it is a copyright violation and the giver is running into serious trouble... I'll tell you where the difference is (with an example). You can sell your changed version in scenario A but you can not sell it in scenario B (given the 'never share your changes with anyone'-part). But you can use it all you like. Do you really think you are not allowed to charge money for distributin copies of GPL'ed software? Who do you trust who told it to you? Are you really that credulous? Rui -- Wibble. Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
| While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to BSD-licensed | code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar share | alike license, based upon what I understand of copyright law, it's | perfectly legal. Even though BSD-style licenses are compatible with the | GPL, there are perfectly acceptable social goals achieved only by | releasing under the GPL or a similar license. I'd say that it goes against the GPL. Yes, the GPL, not the BSD license (or the ISC license), GPL. Theo already quoted the relevant bits, but I'll quote them again : For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. 1. that's in the preamble, which establishes the spirit 2. 4 paragraphs below you read: The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow. 3. later on you learn the precise term which is under the terms of this License So no, you're wrong. Don't bother defending your point of view, it's a waste of time to both of us, more to you who will write it. :) Rui -- P'tang! Today is Sweetmorn, the 37th day of Bureaucracy 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: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:50:31AM +0200, Reiner Jung wrote: as you are not a lawyer, you should stop to interpret any law, copyright questions or give any legal advice from your own interpretation. Go see if I'm employed by Microsoft, will you? It's in every citizen's duty to know about the law. Lawyers are merely experts who deal with it for a living. This will give a wrong assumption to the story. When there is a statement needed, please let talk the legals and until they give advise, you should stop your own legal advice. Maybe you don't notice it, but a wrong advice can people bring in trouble. Which is why on such absurd statements, like the one I corrected, I find it is a duty to clarify. Regards, Rui -- Or not. Today is Sweetmorn, the 37th day of Bureaucracy 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: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 01:53:53AM +1000, Sunnz wrote: 2007/9/3, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Then a choice of licenses is offered to the receiver. If he only uses the software, neither affects him, but if he distributes, he either does it under the terms of the GPL v2 or under the terms of the BSD, or just as dual licensed. Actually, strictly speaking, the word *alternatively* might be interpreted in a more radical way as meaning you can't distribute in a dual licensed form, but I don't subscribe that. Hi. My understanding is: 1) BSD/ISC and GPL Licenses are just a set of condition that you need to satisfy should you like to re-distribute its code. Two sets, actually, that interssect for the most portion of them. 2) Dual License means you need to satisfy conditions of either BSD/ISC, or GPL. So basically, all it tells you is that you are granted to re-distribute the source code under certain conditions, that however does not grant you any permission to alter its copyright notice, right? If the person chooses to use the GNU GPL they have to respect the GNU GPL's conditions, not the BSD ones. Anyway, it's a moot point since the SFLC found a much more polite way of converting to the GNU GPL without needing to remove it. Rui -- Wibble. Today is Boomtime, the 28th day of Bureaucracy 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: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 11:37:00AM -0500, Daniel A. Ramaley wrote: On Saturday 01 September 2007 17:49, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:40:53PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can get http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative Wow. Let's all go practice law with a dictionary. ? But you mentioned dictionaries first... You do realize that when it comes to legal documents, such as licenses, that general-purpose dictionaries are inadequate, right? If you want to look up legal terms, you need a law dictionary. I think that if one is ignorant enough of law that one needs to consult a legal dictionary for more than one or two terms in order to understand a document, then perhaps it would be best to either do a lot of studying to become more knowledgeable, or find someone with more legal training to interpret the document. As a layperson with little in-depth knowledge of legal code, that's how i see things anyway. I think that if *alternative* means both at the same time in any reputable dictionary (legal or not), then I'm on a parallel reality for sure. Other than that, you're just being pretentious. Rui -- Or not. Today is Boomtime, the 28th day of Bureaucracy 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: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 09:41:04PM +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote: I think that if *alternative* means both at the same time in any reputable dictionary (legal or not), Show those. Besides this, it is WRONG. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative Hence the meaning of ALTERNATIVE: NOT all at the same time. Maybe you need a Heisenberg experience to understand? Are you lying intentionally? NOT all at the same time is far from the definition of the word in that page (which I had already linked to). 1. A situation which allows a choice between two or more possibilities. 2. A choice between two or more possibilities. 3. One of several things which can be chosen. All implying only one, and not both. then I'm on a parallel reality for sure. Obviously, yes. Glad to. Other than that, you're just being pretentious. Please, let this thread die. Glad you're helping it. Rui -- Hail Eris, Hack Linux! Today is Boomtime, the 28th day of Bureaucracy 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: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Hi Sunnz, On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 04:32:20AM +1000, Sunnz wrote: If the person chooses to use the GNU GPL they have to respect the GNU GPL's conditions, not the BSD ones. GNU GPL, however, only grants the right to re-distribute (under certain conditions), but not re-license, right? No, the GNU GPL grants you the rights to 0. run it for any purpose 1. study modify it 2. reditribution of pristine copies 3. redistribution of derivatives All this just like the BSD. However, unlike the BSD, it does so in a reciprocal level: if you redistribute in the conditions of 2. or 3. you must license it under these (the GNU GPL's) terms. BTW, if satisfying requires in GPL would imply satisfaction of BSDL anyway, no? It's closer to include than imply, if you want to use these terms, since satisfying the BSDL means allowing proprietary derivatives, which the GPL aims to forbid. Rui -- Kallisti! Today is Boomtime, the 28th day of Bureaucracy 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: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 12:35:18AM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote: The basis of your argument appears to be that you interpret the last paragraph above (starting with Alternatively) as explicit permission to replace all of the previous material (starting with Redistribution and use) with the GPLv2. Is this inference correct? The basis of your argument is thinking the copyright notice is anything more than (c) years, Fu Bar is mandatory and unchangeable. It is incorrect. The copyright notice is *only* (c) years, Fu Bar All rest is informational. Then a choice of licenses is offered to the receiver. If he only uses the software, neither affects him, but if he distributes, he either does it under the terms of the GPL v2 or under the terms of the BSD, or just as dual licensed. Actually, strictly speaking, the word *alternatively* might be interpreted in a more radical way as meaning you can't distribute in a dual licensed form, but I don't subscribe that. If he does distribute under the GNU GPL v2 and doesn't remove the licensed under the BSD, he's not being honest. IANAL, so I'm not going to speculate on the correct legal interpretation of this text; I will grant that, if it were ordinary speech, I can see how someone who tried hard enough could believe that interpretation. Actually, you do really have to try hard to justify *your* interpretation, since the meaning of *alternatively* and what a copyright notice is, is a little beyond reality. the license text in this case is, at the very least, behaving unethically. I actually think it's unethical to give a gift virtually without strings attached and then crying like a baby because people don't give back anything. Rui -- Hail Eris, Hack Linux! Today is Sweetmorn, the 27th day of Bureaucracy 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: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:46:30PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two licenses. The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth. And... you are a judge? Theo, be as unreasonable as you want. I am not being unreasonable. You are not a judge, so stop acting like you are one. You don't know the full story. I do not know the full story either. But you are being a real prick on the lists here acting as if you have everything all figured out, you, the judge. I'm not the one calling people names. I wanted to understand the facts but nobody here wants to acknowledge that 3 of those files have *alternative* licensing. I agree fully with you all in the other 5 files which are not dual licensed. The full story I needed to know is clear on those 8 files involved in the diff on lkml you shows us, what I wanted to know is your understanding. I see now you seem to pretend that GPLv2 can't be chosen for those 3 files. The copyright notice tells the user he can choose between two licenses. If you choose the GNU GPL vs, you can't later on change to BSD or proprietary for that would be a copyright violation. *Copyright notice != license* I am glad you are so sure, so confident. Are you placing money on the outcome? Many many other people are NOT SO SURE AT ALL. Sure, let's make a gentleman's bet. If on those three files that are dual licensed, I'm wrong, I'll donate 50 EUR to OpenBSD. I also encourage those who agree with me to do so as well. If you're wrong, you'll say sorry, publicly, ok? Again, I'm talking only about the 3 files that are dual licensed, since on the other 5 I agree with you, fully. Rui -- P'tang! Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy 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: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 11:17:40AM +0200, Siegbert Marschall wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two licenses. The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth. And... you are a judge? Theo, be as unreasonable as you want. The copyright notice tells the user he can choose between two licenses. If you choose the GNU GPL vs, you can't later on change to BSD or proprietary for that would be a copyright violation. *Copyright notice != license* no. the copyright notice tells you that you can use GPL2 for distribution, not that you can choose it. Maybe my choice of words wasn't clear enough. The copyright notice tells you that *alternatively* (this means if you don't want to use the BSD) under the terms of the GNU GPL v2. Alternative implies choice, you choose which alternative you want. Rui -- Fnord. Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy 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: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your changes) ^^^ That is false, only if software is distributed. or alternatively you can choose the BSD and either give your patches back or not. Either give your patches back or not is also available on the GNU GPL as long as you don't distribute software. Still, you can't remove either of the licenses, you have to pass on the rights you have gotten from the original copyright holder down to anybody else you are giving this too. Well, no. The original copyright holder gave you a choice: either BSD or GPL And especially if you would be giving the file down to the author only under GPL your are limiting their freedom, which is not the intent of the original copyright holder and also something you fortunately can't be doing. Tough luck. If you don't like the licensing, then don't use the code at all, don't even look at it. Likewise, if you don't like the GPL, don't let it be a choice for other users. If your problem is that people don't give back, go knock on certain vendors who profit from OpenSSH without contributin anything back. Oh wait... they don't have to, have they? :) Rui -- Or is it? Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy 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: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 02:05:09PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:19:01PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Hi, In order to make my mind about this subject... You're complaining solely of the changes in files: * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.h But not in files: * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h Right? To my eyes what he did about the first files is wrong but without malice. I think he took a small sample for the whole, which he shouldn't. In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. IMO no. For dual-licensing using or, you may exert the rights granted by either of the licenses. This is not the case. http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157 The word is alternatively, not logical or. Regards, Rui -- P'tang! Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy 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: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:12:18PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote in the other one: On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your changes) ^^^ That is false, only if software is distributed. There is nothing false in that sentence. Indeed the 'when distributed' part might be good to add, but that happens, the second you start using ^ Has to, if you want it to be a true statement. Either give your patches back or not is also available on the GNU GPL as long as you don't distribute software. Which thus means you can only per the license use the software yourself. Which is fine as nobody will use it then except you yourself and nobody will even know about the fact that you did patch it. The moment though that you do give it to somebody else you are forced to. And it is a good thing, which has fostered sharing code. Still, you can't remove either of the licenses, you have to pass on the rights you have gotten from the original copyright holder down to anybody else you are giving this too. Well, no. The original copyright holder gave you a choice: either BSD or GPL Yes, you have the choice, but you still can't remove either of them. Everyone who gets a copy of the work also gets the same rights. You are confusing the effects of the GNU GPL with other things. Only the GNU GPL parts have to be distributed under its terms. Parts licensed under the BSD *only* don't make anyone do so. The copyright notice is not the license, it's merely informational, and no longer required since 1989 by the Berne Convention. http://www.washburn.edu/copyright/glossary/ For that matter, the GPL license in there is pretty much useless as the BSD one allows full rights already. Well, some developers think that the power to remove freedom to others is too much a grant, and opted for the GNU GPL v2 license. But that was exactly the point why these things are dual-licensed, to make all the GPL folks happy, while they simply don't understand that the code is dual-licensed and that the one with the least restrictions will be used by the people who want to use it. Well, the one with the least restrictions can be chosen by those who want to use it. You can do one of three things: don't choose and just pass along choose the first one choose the second one Which is what the copyright notice said. I simply slam BSD on everything that I want to make available so that people can use it however they want. GPL licensing has no advantages at all over BSD, it only has a disadvantage: that people can't use your code if they want to. People can use my code if they want to. If they want to distribute it around... there's a string attached: you can't make it proprietary off my back. I have no problem with people not contributing back, as I receive enough patches for my code, because people know they get credited properly for their work. I do have a problem with some people who think that they can change licenses which are not theirs to change. As I said, that was only done on the 5 files that were not dual licensed, and in those files, I agree fully with you. Rui -- Pzat! Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy 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: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 02:07:59PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote: Hello! On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:59:17PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. ^^^ Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: alternatively But you also received the right to chose either or. So if you have to pass that on, too. Haha, show me proof. Where does it say so? Come on, don't hide behind assumptions. Where it the text below does it say so? Don't give me any interpretation blablabla, just put some ^^^ underneath the words... * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] * All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer, *without modification. * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer *similar to the NO WARRANTY disclaimer below (Disclaimer) and any *redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially *similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution. * 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names *of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived *from this software without specific prior written permission. * * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the * GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 as published by the Free * Software Foundation. -- Pzat! Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy 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: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:25:13PM +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: You may, of course, license your own contributions (that are significant enough to be copyrightable themselves) under only one license. So what license will the derived work (consisted of dual-licensed base code and GPL-only modifications) have? It depends. In the case of BSD XOR GNU GPL v2 (which is what happens in 3 of the files changed) the contributor can: * dual license his changes * contribute them under the BSD * contribute them under the GNU GPL v2 Regards, Rui -- Pzat! Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy 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: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 06:15:27PM +0200, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the ^ (all line) * GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 as published by the Free ^ (all line) * Software Foundation. This part grants you the right to distribute the software under the terms of the GPL. That means you receive the right to distribute the software under the terms of the GPL. This means you receive the right. This means this right is one right of all the rights you received. Hey, didn't (1) talk about the rights you received? Now I wonder if the right you just received is a right you received. But that's only if you chose the GNU GPL v2 licensing mode of the two available to you. And the rights and duties you must pass along are those of the GNU GPL v2 and not others. What some are saying is that the copyright notice mandates the usage of both licenses, and that is as absurd as they come. Rui -- Or not. Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy 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: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Hi, In order to make my mind about this subject... You're complaining solely of the changes in files: * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.h But not in files: * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h Right? To my eyes what he did about the first files is wrong but without malice. I think he took a small sample for the whole, which he shouldn't. In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. But it is incorrect in my point of view to have done so on the former 5 files. I hope it's those 5 files everyone is crying foul about... Rui -- You are what you see. Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 25th day of Bureaucracy 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: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. ^^^ Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: alternatively The GPL says that passing on only a selection of rights is not fair. Don't trust my words, though, go read the GPL yourself. I think that while I'm not an expert in law, over ten years of involvement with Free Software, namely about 6 of them on the board of directors of a Free Software association in Portugal have given me quite some experience with it. If the user chose to use the GPL v2 rights, those are the rights he has. The GNU GPL actually says you must license under the same terms as this license, not as the copyright notice (which gives you a choice of license to use). I'd be happy to give you as much support as I can, since I kind of enjoy OpenBSD more than the most popular GNU/Linux distributions on a couple of particularly important details to my line of professional work. Since I actually love all Free Software, either reciprocal style or non reciprocal and it shocks me the amount of shameless FUD both sides sometime launch. So if you want, we can friendly chat more about this. If I ever pass around your vicinity I would love to offer you a beverage of your choice at the nearest spot you like :) Best, Rui -- P'tang! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 25th day of Bureaucracy 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: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:08:46PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. ^^^ Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? You received the full rights granted by copyright law as a recipient, PLUS the ones granted by the entire document. But, you did not receive the right to modify the author's license document. ^ Which is one of two, at the mutually exclusive choice of the user. In the case of the three files I see nothing bad done. If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: alternatively The word alternatively means replace? It might mean select, but does it really mean replace in-line? What dictionary are you using? If something is not clear in a legal document, who are you to decide what it actually means? That's the author and the courts who work that out, sorry. Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can get http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative Noun alternative (plural alternatives) 1. A situation which allows a choice between two or more possibilities. 2. A choice between two or more possibilities. 3. One of several things which can be chosen. If he chose alternative B, the GNU GPLv2, he's bound by the GNU GPLv2 terms, and not the BSD ones, or even both at the same time. As such, any derivative from his choice on has to be on the same terms he got, namely the GNU GPL v2 The GPL says that passing on only a selection of rights is not fair. Don't trust my words, though, go read the GPL yourself. I think that while I'm not an expert in law, over ten years of involvement with Free Software, namely about 6 of them on the board of directors of a Free Software association in Portugal have given me quite some experience with it. If the user chose to use the GPL v2 rights, those are the rights he has. The GNU GPL actually says you must license under the same terms as this license, not as the copyright notice (which gives you a choice of license to use). In another place the GPL says you must pass on the rights you have. When things are inconsistant, courts decide. Not you. Section 6 is pretty clear, to me... Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and ^^ conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' ^^ exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. I'd be happy to give you as much support as I can, since I kind of enjoy OpenBSD more than the most popular GNU/Linux distributions on a couple of particularly important details to my line of professional work. Since I actually love all Free Software, either reciprocal style or non reciprocal and it shocks me the amount of shameless FUD both sides sometime launch. Well, it sure isn't reciprocal right about now from with this GPL use, is it. So we are the reciprocal group now. We give them code, and they don't give it back. How's that for using the license backwards? On the 5 files that are not dual licensed, we agree. On the other 3 ones... I'm sorry, they felt they needed to make sure nobody would deprive other users of the code they distribute. Isn't that rude? On the 5 files, yes. On the other ones, not really. On the other three ones what seems to me is we offered it under two possible sets of conditions, you chose one we don't like, so we cry foul. This is what seems rude to me, and I was trying to understand if it was a problem with all files or just the 5 ones I noticed that weren't dual licensed (in which case I fully agree with you). Best, Rui -- Umlaut Zebra o?=ber alles! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 25th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:40:53PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can get http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative Noun alternative (plural alternatives) 1. A situation which allows a choice between two or more possibilities. 2. A choice between two or more possibilities. 3. One of several things which can be chosen. Wow. Let's all go practice law with a dictionary. ? But you mentioned dictionaries first... The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two licenses. The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth. Rui -- You are what you see. Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 25th day of Bureaucracy 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: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:56:44PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:29:11PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? Both! That's not what the copyright notice of the files * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h said. It said it was licensed under the BSD ters. *Alternatively* on the GNU GPLv2. Its alternatively not at the same time You received the full rights granted by copyright law as a recipient, PLUS the ones granted by the entire document. But, you did not receive the right to modify the author's license document. ^ Which is one of two, at the mutually exclusive choice of the user. In the case of the three files I see nothing bad done. If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: alternatively That is not true at all. You have to adhere to ALL licenses. This is not even remotely a slippery slope. You are making shit up to match your argument. It is true in this files, and that's what I'm talking about. * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h Please stop rudely calling me a liar, ok? You have neither the right nor truth on your side to do that. blah blah blah. You have to adhere to both licenses. Alternatively means nothing in this sentence. Yes, I suppose ignorance is power too... Section 6 is pretty clear, to me... Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and ^^ conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' Exactly; you need to adhere to all licenses. What part isn't clear? That's section 6 of the GPL. These terms are the terms of the GPL if you chose the GPL. Your agreement is not relevant. The law is. Sure, take them to court, it's your money. However I suggest english 101 first. -- P'tang! Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy 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: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two licenses. The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth. And... you are a judge? Theo, be as unreasonable as you want. The copyright notice tells the user he can choose between two licenses. If you choose the GNU GPL vs, you can't later on change to BSD or proprietary for that would be a copyright violation. *Copyright notice != license* Rui -- Wibble. Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy 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: OT Strange Punishment
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 08:32:25PM -0300, Rafael Almeida wrote: The main problem I see here is the government incentivating the purshase of Microsoft product. It's kinda dumb paying the guy pay to a company that has nothing to do witht he whole thing as a punishment for your crimes. It would make sense if the government charged him for using some government OS. Besides the point that I consider restricting someone from acessing a computer to be tantamount to gagging, it is perverse that a convicted monopolist be beneficiated in such a way. Rui -- Keep the Lasagna flying! Today is Boomtime, the 23rd day of Bureaucracy 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: Is there any bug with bnx which would cause vlans fail?
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 12:28:51PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: In the switch: interface GigabitEthernet0/3 switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q switchport trunk allowed vlan 1,101,1280 switchport mode trunk no ip address interface GigabitEthernet0/6 switchport access vlan 101 no ip address I am now fairly certain the problem is on OpenBSD's side (either my configuration is wrong, or there is a bug!). I'm this certain because merely defining the same on a GNU/Linux box, it worked on the first try: ifconfig eth1 up vconfig add eth1 101 ifconfig eth1.101 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.240 Machine A pinged machine B and vice-versa, traffic flowed through the vlan virtual interface. Can anyone share some profound insight, please? :) In machine A: cat /etc/hostname.bnx0 up cat /etc/hostname.bnx1 up cat /etc/hostname.trunk0 trunkproto failover trunkport bnx0 trunkport bnx1 cat /etc/hostname.vlan101 vlan 101 vlandev trunk0 inet 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.240 NONE In machine B: cat /etc/hostname.bnx0 inet 192.168.0.7 255.255.255.240 NONE Machine A is connected to GigabitEthernet0/3 Machine B is connected to GigabitEthernet0/6 They can't ping each other. I don't see any traffic (not even arps) when I use tcpdump -pni vlan101 Here comes dmesg on the HPDL360G5 machines: OpenBSD 4.1 (GENERIC) #1435: Sat Mar 10 19:07:45 MST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC cpu0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5160 @ 3.00GHz (GenuineIntel 686-class) 3.01 GHz cpu0: FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,SBF,SSE3,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,EST,TM2,CX16,xTPR real mem = 2145316864 (2095036K) avail mem = 1950748672 (1905028K) using 4278 buffers containing 107388928 bytes (104872K) of memory mainbus0 (root) bios0 at mainbus0: AT/286+ BIOS, date 12/31/99, BIOS32 rev. 0 @ 0xf, SMBIOS rev. 2.3 @ 0xee000 (67 entries) bios0: HP ProLiant DL360 G5 pcibios0 at bios0: rev 3.0 @ 0xf/0x2000 pcibios0: PCI BIOS has 9 Interrupt Routing table entries pcibios0: PCI Interrupt Router at 000:31:0 (Intel 6321ESB LPC rev 0x00) pcibios0: PCI bus #22 is the last bus bios0: ROM list: 0xc/0xb000 0xcc400/0x4000! 0xd0400/0x1800 0xe6000/0x2000! acpi at mainbus0 not configured ipmi0 at mainbus0: version 2.0 interface KCS iobase 0xca2/2 spacing 1 cpu0 at mainbus0 pci0 at mainbus0 bus 0: configuration mode 1 (no bios) pchb0 at pci0 dev 0 function 0 vendor Intel, unknown product 0x25d8 rev 0xb1 ppb0 at pci0 dev 2 function 0 Intel 5000 PCIE rev 0xb1 pci1 at ppb0 bus 9 ppb1 at pci1 dev 0 function 0 Intel 6321ESB PCIE rev 0x01 pci2 at ppb1 bus 10 ppb2 at pci2 dev 0 function 0 Intel 6321ESB PCIE rev 0x01 pci3 at ppb2 bus 11 ppb3 at pci2 dev 1 function 0 Intel 6321ESB PCIE rev 0x01 pci4 at ppb3 bus 14 ppb4 at pci2 dev 2 function 0 Intel 6321ESB PCIE rev 0x01 pci5 at ppb4 bus 15 ppb5 at pci1 dev 0 function 3 Intel 6321ESB PCIE-PCIX rev 0x01 pci6 at ppb5 bus 16 ppb6 at pci0 dev 3 function 0 Intel 5000 PCIE rev 0xb1 pci7 at ppb6 bus 6 ciss0 at pci7 dev 0 function 0 Hewlett-Packard Smart Array rev 0x01: irq 5 ciss0: 1 LD, HW rev 1, FW 2.08/2.08 scsibus0 at ciss0: 1 targets sd0 at scsibus0 targ 0 lun 0: HP, LOGICAL VOLUME, 2.08 SCSI3 0/direct fixed sd0: 69973MB, 69973 cyl, 64 head, 32 sec, 512 bytes/sec, 143305920 sec total ppb7 at pci0 dev 4 function 0 Intel 5000 PCIE rev 0xb1 pci8 at ppb7 bus 19 ppb8 at pci0 dev 5 function 0 Intel 5000 PCIE rev 0xb1 pci9 at ppb8 bus 22 ppb9 at pci0 dev 6 function 0 vendor Intel, unknown product 0x25e6 rev 0xb1 pci10 at ppb9 bus 2 ppb10 at pci10 dev 0 function 0 ServerWorks PCIE-PCIX rev 0xc3 pci11 at ppb10 bus 3 bnx0 at pci11 dev 0 function 0 Broadcom BCM5708 rev 0x12: irq 10 ppb11 at pci0 dev 7 function 0 Intel 5000 PCIE rev 0xb1 pci12 at ppb11 bus 4 ppb12 at pci12 dev 0 function 0 ServerWorks PCIE-PCIX rev 0xc3 pci13 at ppb12 bus 5 bnx1 at pci13 dev 0 function 0 Broadcom BCM5708 rev 0x12: irq 10 pchb1 at pci0 dev 16 function 0 Intel 5000 Error Reporting rev 0xb1 pchb2 at pci0 dev 16 function 1 Intel 5000 Error Reporting rev 0xb1 pchb3 at pci0 dev 16 function 2 Intel 5000 Error Reporting rev 0xb1 pchb4 at pci0 dev 17 function 0 Intel 5000 Reserved rev 0xb1 pchb5 at pci0 dev 19 function 0 Intel 5000 Reserved rev 0xb1 pchb6 at pci0 dev 21 function 0 Intel 5000 FBD rev 0xb1 pchb7 at pci0 dev 22 function 0 Intel 5000 FBD rev 0xb1 uhci0 at pci0 dev 29 function 0 Intel 6321ESB USB rev 0x09: irq 5 usb0 at uhci0: USB revision 1.0 uhub0 at usb0 uhub0: Intel UHCI root hub, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub0: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered uhci1 at pci0 dev 29 function 1 Intel 6321ESB USB rev 0x09: irq 7 usb1 at uhci1: USB revision 1.0 uhub1 at usb1 uhub1: Intel UHCI root hub, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub1: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered uhci2 at pci0 dev 29 function 2 Intel 6321ESB USB rev
Re: Is there any bug with bnx which would cause vlans fail?
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 09:50:31AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: Have you tried a -current snapshot at all? sys/dev/pci/if_bnx.c 1.49 may be relevant. description: revision 1.49 date: 2007/05/21 10:05:03; author: reyk; state: Exp; lines: +4 -3 fix bnx vlan tagging in the rx path; do not attach the vlan tag twice if the firmware has been told to keep it and copy the tag in network byte order in the other case. ok mcbride@ dlg@ = ooo... I thought I could be hitting a bug, damn, I hate compiling under qemu and that's the close I can do with a network access :| Rui -- P'tang! Today is Sweetmorn, the 45th day of Confusion 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: Is there any bug with bnx which would cause vlans fail?
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:04:29AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2007/07/10 10:12, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 09:50:31AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: Have you tried a -current snapshot at all? sys/dev/pci/if_bnx.c 1.49 may be relevant. description: revision 1.49 date: 2007/05/21 10:05:03; author: reyk; state: Exp; lines: +4 -3 fix bnx vlan tagging in the rx path; do not attach the vlan tag twice if the firmware has been told to keep it and copy the tag in network byte order in the other case. ok mcbride@ dlg@ = ooo... I thought I could be hitting a bug, damn, I hate compiling under qemu and that's the close I can do with a network access :| Can't you download a snapshot kernel on some other box and transfer it some way that doesn't involve vlans on bnx? (USB memory stick, USB nic, change the switch port to untagged, crossover-cable, etc..) I didn't know that. Thanks, I'll try it first. Rui -- Or not. Today is Sweetmorn, the 45th day of Confusion 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: Is there any bug with bnx which would cause vlans fail?
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 02:36:57PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:04:29AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2007/07/10 10:12, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 09:50:31AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: Have you tried a -current snapshot at all? sys/dev/pci/if_bnx.c 1.49 may be relevant. description: revision 1.49 date: 2007/05/21 10:05:03; author: reyk; state: Exp; lines: +4 -3 fix bnx vlan tagging in the rx path; do not attach the vlan tag twice if the firmware has been told to keep it and copy the tag in network byte order in the other case. ok mcbride@ dlg@ = ooo... I thought I could be hitting a bug, damn, I hate compiling under qemu and that's the close I can do with a network access :| Can't you download a snapshot kernel on some other box and transfer it some way that doesn't involve vlans on bnx? (USB memory stick, USB nic, change the switch port to untagged, crossover-cable, etc..) I didn't know that. Thanks, I'll try it first. yay! it seems to have worked as advertised on TV ;) Thank you, Stuart! -- You are what you see. Today is Sweetmorn, the 45th day of Confusion 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...?
Is there any bug with bnx which would cause vlans fail?
Hi, In the switch: interface GigabitEthernet0/3 switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q switchport trunk allowed vlan 1,101,1280 switchport mode trunk no ip address interface GigabitEthernet0/6 switchport access vlan 101 no ip address In machine A: cat /etc/hostname.bnx0 up cat /etc/hostname.bnx1 up cat /etc/hostname.trunk0 trunkproto failover trunkport bnx0 trunkport bnx1 cat /etc/hostname.vlan101 vlan 101 vlandev trunk0 inet 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.240 NONE In machine B: cat /etc/hostname.bnx0 inet 192.168.0.7 255.255.255.240 NONE Machine A is connected to GigabitEthernet0/3 Machine B is connected to GigabitEthernet0/6 They can't ping each other. I don't see any traffic (not even arps) when I use tcpdump -pni vlan101 Here comes dmesg on the HPDL360G5 machines: OpenBSD 4.1 (GENERIC) #1435: Sat Mar 10 19:07:45 MST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC cpu0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5160 @ 3.00GHz (GenuineIntel 686-class) 3.01 GHz cpu0: FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,SBF,SSE3,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,EST,TM2,CX16,xTPR real mem = 2145316864 (2095036K) avail mem = 1950748672 (1905028K) using 4278 buffers containing 107388928 bytes (104872K) of memory mainbus0 (root) bios0 at mainbus0: AT/286+ BIOS, date 12/31/99, BIOS32 rev. 0 @ 0xf, SMBIOS rev. 2.3 @ 0xee000 (67 entries) bios0: HP ProLiant DL360 G5 pcibios0 at bios0: rev 3.0 @ 0xf/0x2000 pcibios0: PCI BIOS has 9 Interrupt Routing table entries pcibios0: PCI Interrupt Router at 000:31:0 (Intel 6321ESB LPC rev 0x00) pcibios0: PCI bus #22 is the last bus bios0: ROM list: 0xc/0xb000 0xcc400/0x4000! 0xd0400/0x1800 0xe6000/0x2000! acpi at mainbus0 not configured ipmi0 at mainbus0: version 2.0 interface KCS iobase 0xca2/2 spacing 1 cpu0 at mainbus0 pci0 at mainbus0 bus 0: configuration mode 1 (no bios) pchb0 at pci0 dev 0 function 0 vendor Intel, unknown product 0x25d8 rev 0xb1 ppb0 at pci0 dev 2 function 0 Intel 5000 PCIE rev 0xb1 pci1 at ppb0 bus 9 ppb1 at pci1 dev 0 function 0 Intel 6321ESB PCIE rev 0x01 pci2 at ppb1 bus 10 ppb2 at pci2 dev 0 function 0 Intel 6321ESB PCIE rev 0x01 pci3 at ppb2 bus 11 ppb3 at pci2 dev 1 function 0 Intel 6321ESB PCIE rev 0x01 pci4 at ppb3 bus 14 ppb4 at pci2 dev 2 function 0 Intel 6321ESB PCIE rev 0x01 pci5 at ppb4 bus 15 ppb5 at pci1 dev 0 function 3 Intel 6321ESB PCIE-PCIX rev 0x01 pci6 at ppb5 bus 16 ppb6 at pci0 dev 3 function 0 Intel 5000 PCIE rev 0xb1 pci7 at ppb6 bus 6 ciss0 at pci7 dev 0 function 0 Hewlett-Packard Smart Array rev 0x01: irq 5 ciss0: 1 LD, HW rev 1, FW 2.08/2.08 scsibus0 at ciss0: 1 targets sd0 at scsibus0 targ 0 lun 0: HP, LOGICAL VOLUME, 2.08 SCSI3 0/direct fixed sd0: 69973MB, 69973 cyl, 64 head, 32 sec, 512 bytes/sec, 143305920 sec total ppb7 at pci0 dev 4 function 0 Intel 5000 PCIE rev 0xb1 pci8 at ppb7 bus 19 ppb8 at pci0 dev 5 function 0 Intel 5000 PCIE rev 0xb1 pci9 at ppb8 bus 22 ppb9 at pci0 dev 6 function 0 vendor Intel, unknown product 0x25e6 rev 0xb1 pci10 at ppb9 bus 2 ppb10 at pci10 dev 0 function 0 ServerWorks PCIE-PCIX rev 0xc3 pci11 at ppb10 bus 3 bnx0 at pci11 dev 0 function 0 Broadcom BCM5708 rev 0x12: irq 10 ppb11 at pci0 dev 7 function 0 Intel 5000 PCIE rev 0xb1 pci12 at ppb11 bus 4 ppb12 at pci12 dev 0 function 0 ServerWorks PCIE-PCIX rev 0xc3 pci13 at ppb12 bus 5 bnx1 at pci13 dev 0 function 0 Broadcom BCM5708 rev 0x12: irq 10 pchb1 at pci0 dev 16 function 0 Intel 5000 Error Reporting rev 0xb1 pchb2 at pci0 dev 16 function 1 Intel 5000 Error Reporting rev 0xb1 pchb3 at pci0 dev 16 function 2 Intel 5000 Error Reporting rev 0xb1 pchb4 at pci0 dev 17 function 0 Intel 5000 Reserved rev 0xb1 pchb5 at pci0 dev 19 function 0 Intel 5000 Reserved rev 0xb1 pchb6 at pci0 dev 21 function 0 Intel 5000 FBD rev 0xb1 pchb7 at pci0 dev 22 function 0 Intel 5000 FBD rev 0xb1 uhci0 at pci0 dev 29 function 0 Intel 6321ESB USB rev 0x09: irq 5 usb0 at uhci0: USB revision 1.0 uhub0 at usb0 uhub0: Intel UHCI root hub, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub0: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered uhci1 at pci0 dev 29 function 1 Intel 6321ESB USB rev 0x09: irq 7 usb1 at uhci1: USB revision 1.0 uhub1 at usb1 uhub1: Intel UHCI root hub, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub1: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered uhci2 at pci0 dev 29 function 2 Intel 6321ESB USB rev 0x09: irq 10 usb2 at uhci2: USB revision 1.0 uhub2 at usb2 uhub2: Intel UHCI root hub, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub2: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered uhci3 at pci0 dev 29 function 3 Intel 6321ESB USB rev 0x09: irq 10 usb3 at uhci3: USB revision 1.0 uhub3 at usb3 uhub3: Intel UHCI root hub, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub3: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered ehci0 at pci0 dev 29 function 7 Intel 6321ESB USB rev 0x09: irq 5 usb4 at ehci0: USB revision 2.0 uhub4 at usb4 uhub4: Intel EHCI root hub, rev 2.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub4: 8 ports with 8 removable, self powered ppb13 at pci0 dev 30 function 0 Intel 82801BA AGP rev 0xd9 pci14 at ppb13 bus 1
Re: Intel Core 2
Thanks very much! On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:24:01AM +0200, Johan P. Lindstrvm wrote: rough translation from swedish to english of: ...
Re: ssh hangs from Ubunty Feisty 7.04 to OpenBSD
Ter, 2007-04-24 C s 11:32 -0400, Steven Harms escreveu: I can verify that ssh between Ubuntu 7.04 and openbsd is completely working. Your issue is with your /etc/ssh_config. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I second this verification. Rui -- + 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...? [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: bcw(4) is gone
Seg, 2007-04-09 C s 18:29 +0100, Jeroen Massar escreveu: GPL is good though if you want to force people to give back the code to you so that you can use it in your own dual-licensed projects. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the way both the GPL and generic copyright work. * Nobody is forced to publish derivative works (as long as they keep them inside doors, eg. internal usage in a company) * Dual licensing in the way you suggest would be a copyright violation. Rui -- + 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...? [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: GPL is free for forcing people to free code when they publish, not free as in free to do what you want, which is actually what free as in BSD, and real freedom ends at the tip of my nose
[correct the subject] ;) Qua, 2007-04-11 C s 14:26 +0100, Jeroen Massar escreveu: [set the topic to make it nice and clear, this has nothing to do with bcw(4) for a long time now, actually the whole thread avoided it] Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Seg, 2007-04-09 C s 18:29 +0100, Jeroen Massar escreveu: GPL is good though if you want to force people to give back the code to you so that you can use it in your own dual-licensed projects. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the way both the GPL and generic copyright work. * Nobody is forced to publish derivative works (as long as they keep them inside doors, eg. internal usage in a company) * Dual licensing in the way you suggest would be a copyright violation. Did you actually read what I wrote, as the above two points where in my text, but you deleted that from your reply. You might want to read the snipped text too :) I actually made a difference between the original copyright owner (who is allowed to do anything they like with the code) and somebody adding their stuff, who can't relicense it. As for the first 'point' you are trying to make, also covered in my text... What you also said is actually fully irrelevant, since I'm correcting one phrase which has TWO incorrect things, one of them a copyright violation. You can't dual-license other people's GPL'ed contributions. PS: Please realize that some people want a different kind of freedom than that other people want, respect that: take your pick, go GPL or BSD, but don't try to force your religion on other people. You might end up getting Jehova's witnesses on your neck ;) Please realize that I didn't raise that issue, *you* did. I merely focused on two quite simple technical details which you failed to understand: one of the GPL and another of copyright law. Rui -- + 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...? [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
