Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 12, 2008 1:49 AM, Reid Nichol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thus the combined work, THE WHOLE POINT OF WRITING IT, is under the GPL. That IS what you just said. Which is forcing me into a license for my project that I don't want. We require you to use, for your program that contains our code, a license that protects the essential freedom for all its users. That defends real freedom. Stallmanism cult wants you to believe in something that is true only in the GNU Republic. Uncopyrightable aggregations[1] aside for a moment, you, as a sole author of a compilation (this term includes collective works), do have all the rights in compilation work. That's one difference (among others) between compilations and derivative works. Your compilation copyright is totally independent from copyrights on constituent works. But in the GNU Republic, the copyr^Hleft act has created fascinatingly fuzzy regime for software (quanta mismatch and all that, see below). It's not about expression (as in literary works per Berne Convention which says that computer program works are to be protected as literary works) modulo the AFC test[2] (to filter out unprotectable elements) like in the rest of the world. Rather, as Eben The dotCommunist Manifesto Moglen has nicely put it (in slight disagreement with RMS): http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/bangalore-rms-transcript - Q10c: Lets say I have a program that uses free libraries, which are... Richard Stallman: Well, linking them together like that is clearly combining them. The rules, based on the existing GPL, are too complicated for me to try to recite them to you. All I can say is, yes, the GPL makes conditions in that case. Q10d: That means any such use is a violation of the GPL? Richard Stallman: Some kinds may be permitted. That's why I'm saying it depends on details, very much. But linking components together is certainly combining them. Eben Moglen: Richard, can I make a comment here? Here's the problem. The problem that you're facing in asking the question, and the problem that Richard is facing in trying to answer it. When you try to take two disciplines of thought that use different primitive quanta - different units of meaning - there's not going to be a congruent mapping between one vocabulary and the other - as there is no guarantee that there is a one-to-one match between words in Hindi and words in English. The problem is that the unit of meaning in copyright law is the work, whatever the work is. That's the unit in which copyright law speaks. So the author, or authors, of a work have certain exclusive rights, including the rights to control modification and distribution. GPL says, we give most of those rights to the user, in the work, rather than withholding them, as proprietary users do. What's the unit of a program? Not the work. Computer science has defined many quanta of meaning in computer program since I began decades ago. The subroutine, the function, the module, the object. Each of those is a unit of meaning in a language of computer activity, but it's not the work under copyright law. Between the the quantum: work, and the quantum: module, library, file, function, object, procedure, there is not a one-to-one mapping, and the consequence is that when we attempt to exert our intention in copyright law, we only speak in terms of the work. We must use the vocabulary of copyright. Since that doesn't map neatly to the vocabulary of computer programming, no matter what that vocabulary happens to be, given the dominant paradigm of program construction, there is guaranteed to be a zone of uncertainty. Richard Stallman: I disagree. I wouldn't say that you're wrong. What you're saying is right, but there's something even deeper to be said, which is that what you're saying is not a problem. It sounds like you're describing a problem, but in fact, criteria... because of the fact that in a program you can express the same thing in many different ways, and you can rewrite it to use many different ways to communicate, any kind of criteria drawn up in terms of the technical boundaries that exist in programs would be a bad criterion because it would be too easy to play games with it. If there were a criterion about files, well, it's easy to move something from one file to another. If the criteria were about subroutines, it's easy to split up a subroutine. You see what I mean? Any criteria formulated in terms of the technical entities of programming would be too easy to game around. Eben Moglen: As when, for example, people tried to draw a line between static linking and dynamic linking under GPL version two, and we had to keep telling people that whatever the boundary of the work is under copyright law, it doesn't depend upon whether resolution occurs at link time or run time. Right? Those kinds of technical decisions, whatever they are, don't map neatly into the language of
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
1. Stallman states that Linux current version is partially non-free. *1 A program can't be partially non-free. A program is free if users have the four freedoms, if not, it is non-free. The users of Linux does not have the freedom to access the source code of parts of it (freedom 1). 2. Stallman states that Torvald's version of Linux is non-free. *2 There is no free version of Linux. Free operative systems which use modified versions of Linux exist, but since those modifications are not adopted by Torvalds's project (Linux), the term GNU/Linux can't refer to a free version of it. Even modifying the meaning of the name Linux to refeer to any of those free operative systems doesn't work, since Torvald's version of Linux surpass by far the number of users that any such operative system has. So the term GNU/Linux is not even practically OK. 3. Stallman states that the name of Gobuntu (a GNU/Linux operative system more free that any popular GNU/Linux operative system) is so close to Ubuntu that, practically speaking, it is not feasible to recommend Gobuntu without recommending Ubuntu. *3 GNU/Linux is the preferred term for referring to a free operative system for the Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project. Yet they find OK the fact that they are using the name of a non-free kernel. 4. Stallman states that GNU developers didn't develop GNU just to make it a technical triumph, or just to have a success. Their goal was to win freedom, for they and for us. *4 They failed the moment they considered Linux, a non-free program, fitted well as the kernel of its project; sufficiently well to not do any serious development on its own kernel. Hurd offers the GNU Project the option to release the much awaited GNU operative system now. If winning freedom is the goal, then an inmature free kernel is not a problem. And, ironically, the immature state of Hurd is because of Linux. Active and continuous development on Hurd does not ocurr because it isn't needed by the GNU Project. If Linux hadn't been used in the first place by the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation, Hurd would be quite mature after 18 years of its birth, and the free operative system envisioned by Stallman back in 1983 would be a reality. 5. The foundation directed by Stallman removes Linux from its Free Software Directory but does not disassociate from it. Be a real man, Richard, replace Linux with Hurd, fork Linux, or stop the hypocrisy. Either way, answer publicly, and not off-list. *1 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html *2 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/134377 *3 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/134522 *4 http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;211669437;pp;2
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
2008/1/12, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In that case, buying a Windows computer would be Ok, as long as you don't update the version of Windows software that is on it... when you want a newer version of Windows, just get a new computer. It is normal for users to install software on a PC. Perhaps many users never install anything and use only the software that was delivered. But it is not abnormal to install software. But it is abnormal to install firmware? Please explain, what's normal and what's not? For the masses it is quite abnormal to install Linux, let alone gNewsense... does it that mean ethics isn't important for such OS's? Oh, you said somewhere along the lines of updating firmware... | That is a borderline case. One possible resolution is that it is ok | to use this hardware, but updating the firmware is a bad thing. So say you buy a WinPC, and it is perfectly fine to use this hardware as is, provided you don't update Windows? -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Sunnz ha scritto: 2008/1/12, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In that case, buying a Windows computer would be Ok, as long as you don't update the version of Windows software that is on it... when you want a newer version of Windows, just get a new computer. It is normal for users to install software on a PC. Perhaps many users never install anything and use only the software that was delivered. But it is not abnormal to install software. But it is abnormal to install firmware? Please explain, what's normal and what's not? For the masses it is quite abnormal to install Linux, let alone gNewsense... does it that mean ethics isn't important for such OS's? Oh, you said somewhere along the lines of updating firmware... | That is a borderline case. One possible resolution is that it is ok | to use this hardware, but updating the firmware is a bad thing. So say you buy a WinPC, and it is perfectly fine to use this hardware as is, provided you don't update Windows? I think, it's enough. Change at least the topic...After all, everyone have personal concept of this situation... Mr. Stallman, please, shut up. Some people give us proofs that you looks like an hypocrite. Isn't real? It's only a de Raadt fantasy or better a openbsd-misc reader fantasy? Are you a liar? You trust every word you say in your interviews? I dont think so... You're a politic Mr stallman, for my point of view... I really hope in your better world, but, sometimes, from your mouth, like everyone, going out bullshit. Kind regards, Francesco Vollero PS= Sorry for my english, i'm italian at all...
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thus the combined work, THE WHOLE POINT OF WRITING IT, is under the GPL. That IS what you just said. Which is forcing me into a license for my project that I don't want. We require you to use, for your program that contains our code, a license that protects the essential freedom for all its users. That defends real freedom. You mean your twisted definition of freedom. Btw, your own FAQ states that I can't BSD my code if I link to a GPL'd lib. Contrary to what you said I might add. I think you need to read your own FAQ. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html And find out what freedom actually means: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom I would comment further, and on other things, but I believe that you're too far gone to warrant any more time spent on this. At least from me and as it seems others as well. That is, until you gain some sanity. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
2008/1/9, Paul de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:06:56PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: | Yet, this firmware can be upgraded and OpenBSD will | automatically do this if it detects older firmware on your NIC. You | can choose another operating system that does not upgrade the firmware | and the hardware may work fine for your use case. Should the firmware | be free software ? It's inside the hardware and on your other | operating system you are not installing software on it. | | That is a borderline case. One possible resolution is that it is ok | to use this hardware, but updating the firmware is a bad thing. This can not seriously be what you really believe. The non-free firmware that comes pre-installed on the hardware is OK, but updating it yourself is not ? If you wanted to use this newer version of the firmware, you would buy another piece of the same hardware with the newer version installed ? In that case, buying a Windows computer would be Ok, as long as you don't update the version of Windows software that is on it... when you want a newer version of Windows, just get a new computer. That's what the average consumer does by the way, they don't 'usually install their own OS on the computer', and that they simply buy a new computer with Vista preinstalled... so much for badvista... -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On 1/9/08 1:49 AM, Steve Shockley wrote: Marco Peereboom wrote: I don't think so. We check for this before we buy hardware. I'd bet money that you have hardware that requires driver assist. I doubt it; if he needs to use a device that doesn't meet his criteria for free (like a cell phone), he just has someone else carry it around for him. That absolves him from all responsibility without any inconvenience. Most chips require bits to be stored in registers (addresses) to get them do what they need to do. In the 80's manufacturers started with delivering chips that hadn't all registers in the address space of the processor and subsequent writes to the same address were necessary after a reset condition to get the chip working (this spared physical address lines and thus expensive pins on the chip). Even if a blob needs to be stored on a chip it's often by sending subsequent writes to the same address. Sometimes this goes the other way around, with DMA, the chip reads a block of outside adresses (flash memory or memory filled by the main processor). Sometimes a memory besides the chip is attached with a serial connection (i2c etc, saves pins!). I have certainly not mentioned all way's to get required setup data to chips. But in general: After start the CPU reads the first bytes of the bios and starts setting up at least all chips on the motherboard with data from the bios etc etc etc... +++chefren
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
[...] Linux is not free software. [...] Linux [...] is on the ok side of the line. Therefore: if there's only one popular kernel that GNU can use in its project, then it's OK to use it, even if it's not free software. Unpopular stuff like gNewSense have to be thought about, probably by a marketing team inside GNU/FSF, while popular non-free software is chosen. I'll put this clear, once again: every time the GNU Project or the Free Software Foundation talks about GNU/Linux in a positive way, they're promoting a non-free software kernel. There's no way to talk about Linux without promoting it, except the FSF forks its own copy of Linux and uses a name that has nothing to do with it. Period. And in case you thought about, a Q: Isn't Linux non-free software? A: Yes, it is; everytime we talk about Linux, we are talking about a version that's not from Linus Torvalds text somewhere in GNU/FSF's Web site does not do any good at all. Your personal ad* says that you value truth [...] more than \success\, right? Well, then sacrifice Linux's popularity for the sake of the FSF's purpose. I find it funny that the FSF did remove Linux from the Free Software Directory but is afraid to disassociate from it. That _is_ hypocritical. Be a Real Men, Richard. Original quotes: Torvalds' version of Linux is not free software Mentioning Linux is referring to something well-known that people have already heard of, which is on the ok side of the line. * http://www.stallman.org/extra/personal.html
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, when people use the word free, even within a particular context, anyone would be able to understand what that person was talking about within an acceptable level of error. I don't think so -- that is too much to ask. In any area, the meaning of freedom involves filling in details which are not obvious in advance. It seems simple while you stay at the abstract level; it becomes hard when you address the details. You're confusing full understanding with an intuitive meaning. People can get what's going on at a high level, without having a wtf when looking at the details, because the spirit of free is retained. The details merely being the implements. But, with your usage, this is not retained, AGAIN, see below. But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain my freedom to BSD license my code. Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is straightforward. You put the revised BSD license on your file, you package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you release it all. The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL, but anyone can use code from your file under the revised BSD license. This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to release the combination under the GPL. Thus the combined work, THE WHOLE POINT OF WRITING IT, is under the GPL. That IS what you just said. Which is forcing me into a license for my project that I don't want. How does that equal freedom for me again? Are you deliberately missing the point? best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 8, 2008 3:10 AM, Marc Balmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dusty wrote: WHY, please really, tell me WHY you do not do your own research. Everybody on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own research?!?!?!?!!? Honestly I am not interested why this moron does not do any research. He seems to be a case for the psychiatrists. In my first mail itself I requested him to check for 1) Bipolar Disorder 2) Hypothyroidism And I was serious!
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and the FSF for OpenBSD? If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement. What planet are you on? best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that
method
because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too.
However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not
always
checked. Sometimes I just took his word for it. The problems
that
have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly,
corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully
with
them.
You contradict yourself. You say it's efficient and accurate and
then point out its inefficiency inaccuracy. I find it stunning
that you can reconcile this.
There is nothing to reconcile -- you have combined two statements
about two different things, so the resulting contradiction didn't
come from me.
You said:
My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that method
because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too.
But, we have seen very much inaccuracy from things that you've said was
researched. I recall OpenSolaris being among them in this thread.
This is something that you've had to go back, check on and change, etc.
This means that your research methods are inefficient because you have
to do them over and over.
Wow, look at that! The two statements are actually related!
When I want research, I ask people to do it. That is efficient, and
we have not seen any errors in it.
See above. I will also recommend that you re-read much of this thread
because there are... many more examples.
In the case of AROS, it's possible I did not ask anyone to do
research. I might have just taken the developers' word that the
system is free. It was years ago and I do not know what happened.
\begin{sarcasm}
Taking someone's word for it. Yah, that's responsible...
\end{sarcasm}
Btw, not keeping an endorsement list up to date is wildly irresponsible
for a person in your position. If you don't have the time or energy to
maintain a list, then don't have one.
However, most of these problems had nothing to do with quality of
research, because they did not arise until after I had decided to
endorse a program.
I want you to seriously think about this statement and why it is
horribly wrong. Consider it homework in critical thinking. Something
which you sorely need.
Research can only check the present, not the
future. For instance, the reference to unrar on BLAG's site was in a
wiki; it was posted by a user in the recent past. (It is possible
that this happened with AROS too.) Likewise for the GNU/Darwin
problem. I think this occurred in several others too.
If you're checking wiki sites instead of reading the licenses
themselves?!?!? Just stunning.
My conclusion is that I should do more detailed discussions with the
developers of the FSF-endorsed systems about these specific possible
problems and how to avoid them.
What, like actually do research? Are you sure you're up to it?
best regards,
Reid Nichol
President Bush says:
War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 08 00:13:19, Reid Nichol wrote: --- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and the FSF for OpenBSD? If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement. Are you deaf or what? NOBODY CARES whether you endorse (or recommend? or suggest?) OpenBSD, nobody asks for that, and nobody wants it. OpenBSD's goals and policies are clearly stated on the project's web page, and whether they are consistent with being on RMS's list is a non-issue on here, at best. You have made your non-point a THOUSAND TIMES already: OpenBSD has a ports system, which lets you install non-free software. (that's true, and nobody has a problem with that; unlike your medialized statement that obsd contains non-free software). So having made your non-point, why don't go away now? No really, WHY?
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
L wrote: Karthik Kumar wrote: Firmware are not free enough when they have a license that does not allow them to be redistributed with the system. You are talking of free as in freedom and not price, right? If the whole point was to avoid paying $$$ in OpenBSD, my bad. The GNG foundation speaks of free as in sex, not cost. Ah, like playing flipper: If you do it well, you dont have to pay the second time?
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On 06/01/2008, at 9:47 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: Would you be so kind as to tell me the precise URLs where you found those quotes? If not, I will look for someone else who will do that for me. You know that saying, if you want something done right, you do it yourself? I'd be adhering to that, especially in cases where I put forth such controversial opinion in such a public display. Such an outspoken person should be well informed, lest he keeps choking on his own toe jam. Are you too good for Google? http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Run+GNOME+in+a+VMWare+Player+in+a+Linux+virtual+machine.+site%3Atorrent.gnome.org If you'd even bothered to go to the front page already quoted to you, you'd notice that that is where it is.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:47:10 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I don't think OpenBSD users understand what you mean by recommend non-free software, I explained it earlier in this thread. so if you could, please, give an example by showing where OpenBSD (web-site?) says that it recommend non-free software and the URL. In OpenBSD the recommendation for certain non-free programs is in the recipes for installing them. It is not a recommendation. This has already been explained to you many many times. It is only a recommendation in your deluded twisted mind. Now please shut up and go away.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 8, 2008 5:09 PM, Janne Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: L wrote: Karthik Kumar wrote: Firmware are not free enough when they have a license that does not allow them to be redistributed with the system. You are talking of free as in freedom and not price, right? If the whole point was to avoid paying $$$ in OpenBSD, my bad. The GNG foundation speaks of free as in sex, not cost. Yup! Free SEX can cost you your life some times! Especially now when you have those preventive things with the virus already in it. but it rhymes GnewSex, GnewSense!
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Gobuntu also has the problem that its name is so close to Ubuntu that people would get them confused. Practically speaking it is not feasible to recommend Gobuntu without recommending Ubuntu. But you _do_ recommend _Linux_ even when Torvalds' version of Linux is not free software! And let me put this perfectly clear to you: Linus Torvalds develops _Linux_. Period. GNU/Linux means GNU (http://gnu.org/ packages, free software) and Linux (http://kernel.org/, non-free software). GNU promotes itself with a non-free software kernel, they don't even change one letter of it. Because _Linux_, is popular. Richard, in case you didn't know, _almost all_ Linux users (yes, I don't care if they run GNU or don't) run Torvald's version (also known as Linux because it is the official version). So you are not doing any good to them if you use the them GNU/Linux, you're not sending a message to stop using Torvald's version which _is_ non-free software. I can see you trying to come with some argument to keep Linux (the registered trademark) as your flag, because you're nothing without it. Nothing. Face it. Real men don't depend on names nor mascots. Go promote gNewSense and remove any mention of Linux in stallman.org, fsf.org and gnu.org, because you, and the Free Software Foundation are _promoting_ (as in the dictionary entry) non-free software. So please, ask someone to change the Free Software Free Society message to remove this part: Fortunately, people do not have to assent to these restrictions on their freedom. Instead, they can reject Microsoft Windows Vista in favor of a free software operating system, now widely used and available in a form called **GNU/Linux**. Here is the link: http://badvista.fsf.org/freesoftwarefreesociety/free-software-free-society/ If you don't have ethics, if you think in numbers, then you will mostly ignore this message with a childish argument. But if you do, start again, completely disassociate from the name Linux, and clearly state in your Web sites (gnu.org, stallman.org, fsf.org) why you are doing that. _That_ would help free software users. Greetings!
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:18:10 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Didn't you do that right from the start when you came to our lists to post the wrong conclusions you draw from your un-researched assumptions? That is not what happened. I stated an accurate conclusion based on recent research. I expressed it with words that were not clear. I've explained the details several times, so I won't repeat now. You haven't explained anything. You've just twisted words. Now please STFU and go away. You are irrelevant.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 21:52:18 +0530, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Perhaps you're *USING* these 4 files to install the adobe flash player on your machine (your example a little bit later in this mail seems to indicate you have at least installed it). That's non-free software you've installed, but you are free to do so. Then, to you, those four small files are not so useless, are they ? Okay, I didn't install it. But it's like saying 'There is no proof that the Makefiles won't work unless at least one person has installed them and verified. In any case, I put forward the argument that the Makefiles are useless because no single person has reported a successful install with them. BooHoo! But you're not complaining that these (FREE) files are useless. There's almost 5000 ports in the tree now, you are not using them all (you're not even using all the ports for free programs) so there's a lot more to complain about if that was your gripe. I've made an effort to reply to your argument but we were discussing the free-ness of OpenBSD, not the usefulness. Please stick to the subject and do not try to divert the discussion to unrelated matters. No, i'm talking about the usefulness of your supposedly free (and useful) makefiles in installing nonfree software. Here's a nice trick. On any OpenBSD system simply do the following : ftp http://tinyurl.com/83kyc Have you performed the above step too? Shame on you for using Microsoft PowerPoint .. or whatever it is you people use. Et voila ! You now have non-free software on your system. It is the Microsoft PowerPoint Viewer (it's gratis (doesn't cost money) but it's not open source). You did this with free software (ftp from OpenBSD) ! Ohnoes ! That software (OpenBSD ftp) isn't free, I can use it to download non-free software ! Boohoo. Now explain again how this makes OpenBSD any less free. After your 'make install' in /usr/ports/www/opera-flashplugin, *YOU* have installed libflashplayer.so on your system. Why does that make OpenBSD any less free ? Like I already replied to someone: They put a cigarette pack in OpenBSD with the warning: 'Smoking causes Cancer'. They say it's there but you're not supposed to smoke it. It's not going to harm you unless you smoke it. Do you see the analogy? Yes, but do you? It's called *FREEDOM*. Your analogy in no way encourages or endorses cigarette smoking. But for a better analogy the cigarette pack is not there. There is just a URL to a page with the cigarette pack. Now go away you stupid f* troll.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:09:42 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: - vendor A sells hardware that requires a firmware - OpenBSD wants to support that hardware and needs the firmware to be shipped, say in /etc/firmware/, to have the hardware work out of the box - vendor A says if a customer wants the firmware, he must go to out website and fill a registration form online. - OpenBSD does not ship the firmware because it is not free enough. In that case, it would be illegal for you to distribute the firmware, so naturally you don't. No argument there. But what about the different case where the company permits redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source code. Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case? You've already had this explained to you you effing moron. Firmware != part of OS Now please go away.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:07:02PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: No it does not. During boot a Linux kernel will check AND UPDATE microcode to CPUs if necessary. I did not know that. That is not good. I will have to think about what we should do about this. Perhaps remove that capability from our version of Linux. Because you don't research these things. You rant and rave without knowing your facts. This is what makes it impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you. I am pretty sure you would have stopped talking to me if I was just driveling. You are twisting the meaning around again. Let's look at what happened here, because the pattern has occurred again and againt. You mentioned facts I did not know. Then you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I was deliberately ignoring them. Won't you please check your conclusions before you accuse? You make an argument. I assume that you know what you are talking about. This is where the communication breakdown happens. I make sure I inform myself about a topic before I make grand accusations or form an opinion. You keep using ignorance as an excuse; I keep assuming you actually did your research. That is the pattern that emerges. It is probably time to go check all the FSF infrastructure because I bet you'll find a lot of parts that require OS assist to load firmware. I don't think so. We check for this before we buy hardware. I'd bet money that you have hardware that requires driver assist.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On 01/07/08 18:16, Richard Stallman wrote: When I want research, I ask people to do it. That is efficient, and we have not seen any errors in it. And what about the research that should have made gNewSense up to your standards? The intention of good research is enough to prevent any errors in it I presume? Once you understand Richard Stallman you are truly in open source heaven! You want to write good code? No understanding or experience needed, just intend to do it! At least Richard will believe you and spread the word about it. +++chefren
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:16:04 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and the FSF for OpenBSD? If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement. They don't need or want your endorsement. They just want an apology for misrepresenting them. Which you have failed to do. All you do is twist words to make it look like you did nothing wrong. STFU and go away.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 9, 2008 12:36 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes but after your list of recommended OSes and Software please give a list of Software and OSes you *actually use* for example like debian. I use gNewSense. Nothing else? Be Frank.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:31:16 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: But what about the different case where the company permits redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source code. Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case? Of course and going by your description it is nothing but hardware at that point No, that description refers to a different case. so there is no ethics violation (whatever that means since you refuse to explain it). It is just like micro code and a circuit. I think firmware is equivalent to a circuit if it is inside the hardware and users don't install software there. Here we are talking about firmware which users always do install. (That is the reason why anyone would consider distributing it with an operating system.) So that is not equivalent to a circuit. Please Richard, educate yourself about firmware and stop making yourself look like a complete moron. BTW, STFU and go away.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:31:11 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: This has been discussed many times and it shouldn't take long for you or your minions to find out that we do not care about the source of firmware which doesn't load into OpenBSD. The people who do searches for me are helpful volunteers. I can ask them to look for something, but I try not to impose on them if there is an easier way. For a question about OpenBSD policies, it is better for me to ask this list for the answer, than to ask someone else to hunt for the answer. Thanks for stating the policy. If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason why I should not endorse OpenBSD. The systems I endorse try to exclude such firmware. Then the systems you endorse (which? does anyone know?) won't work on any modern hardware. God, you are a stupid effing moron. Please STFU and go away.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:14:59 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say recommend in this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion here) to be something that most people would express as not deliberately erect barriers against. The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description for what I am saying. Many of the people on this list were told that I want OpenBSD to erect barriers against installing non-free programs. And their words show that they think this means designing the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible. (I have not suggested such a thing.) My usage of the recommend fits in normal usage. If you include program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider. Perhaps implicitly recommend would be a clearer description of this particular case. But it's not implicit at all. Do you know the meaning of that word? What the fuck did they teach you at MIT? Please STFU and go away.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 8, 2008 9:07 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: equating firmwares with blobs is an RMS-thing, In Linux terminology, blobs means firmware and only firmware. It appears that the word has a different meaning in OpenBSD terminology. Thus, we had a failure of communication. In about 5 minutes of research using google, lets see what i could come up with And lets see, wiki seems a nice place to look .. oh .. look what i found ... In computing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing, a *binary blob* is an object file http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_Code loadedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linkerinto the kernel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_%28computer_science%29 of a free http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software or open sourcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software operating system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system without publicly available source code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code. The term is not usually applied to code running outside the kernel, for example BIOShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOScode, firmware http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware images, or userlandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Userland_%28computing%29programs. Sorry? Binary Blob loaded into a kernel? didnt know firmware got loaded into a kernel ... Oh oh, look, IS NOT USUALLY APPLIED (except if you're RMS) to code running ... FIRMWARE [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_blobs ] Whats that? Binary blob? Sorry, the only other kind of blob has to do with objects in relational databases .. I'm sure there is no resemblance to firmware, drivers or anything related here... What say you now?
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Marco Peereboom wrote: I don't think so. We check for this before we buy hardware. I'd bet money that you have hardware that requires driver assist. I doubt it; if he needs to use a device that doesn't meet his criteria for free (like a cell phone), he just has someone else carry it around for him. That absolves him from all responsibility without any inconvenience.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 8, 2008 8:07 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This may be *your* usual interpretation of the revised BSD license Eben Moglen says that it is nearly universal among lawyers. As this is a legal issue, I have confidence in him. Yeah, yeah. You have confidence in Eben Moglen[1]. But let's examine for example http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html Licenses are not contracts says self-proclaimed world's leading experts on copyright law as applied to software Eben Moglen about the GPL. Now, apart from governmental permits (not contracts indeed) licenses like driver licenses, fishing licenses from local municipalities, gun dealership, public lottery permits, etc. to do something regulated by government (may I just note that neither GNU.ORG nor FSF.OGR is a governmental entity) and in the context of intellectual property[2] licenses, consider (starting with United States Supreme Court): Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the circumstances; but the relation between the parties thereafter in respect of any suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not an unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner. De Forest Radio Tel. Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, (1927) Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by ordinary principles of state contract law.' McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (Fed. Cir. 1995) Normal rules of contract construction are generally applied in construing copyright agreements. Nimmer on Copyright sec. 10.08. Under Wisconsin law, contracts are to be construed as they are written. When the language is plain and unambiguous, a reviewing court must construe the contract as it stands. In construing the contract, terms are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning. (citations omitted). Kennedy v. Nat'l Juvenile Det. Ass'n, 187 F.3d 690, (7th Cir. 1999) Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. '' 101-1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the relevant state law to interpret them. Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F3d 749, (7th Cir. 2006) However, implicit in a nonexclusive license is the promise not to sue for copyright infringement. See In re CFLC, Inc., 89 F.3d 673, 677 (9th Cir. 1996), citing De Forest Radio Telephone Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, 242 (1927) (finding that a nonexclusive license is, in essence, a mere waiver of the right to sue the licensee for infringement); see also Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 558 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that the granting of a nonexclusive license may be oral or by conduct and a such a license creates a waiver of the right to sue in copyright, but not the right to sue for breach of contract). Jacobsen v. Katzer, No. 3:06-cv-01905, (N.D. Cal. 2007) BTW, the last one is about Artistic License being a contract (just like any other copyright license). Heck, and as for the GPL itself: http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf On behalf of the people JUDGMENT ... The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract... contractual relationship between the authors and Defendant ... incorporated into the contract by virtue of the preamble of the GPL ... Plaintiff, or the licensors from whom Plaintiff derives his right, have not violated any contractual obligations themselves ... Defendant, who violated contractual obligations http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf MySQL's counter-complaint asserting breach of GPL license contract (COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)) and asking for declaratory (court to declare GPL terminated) and injunctive (court to preliminary and permanently enjoin Progress/NuSphere from copying, modifying, sublicensing, or distributing the MySQL(TM) Program) relief (plus damages, of course). IBM's SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM (Breach of the GNU General Public License) against SCO... SCO accepted the terms of the GPL... IBM is entitled to a declaration that SCO's rights under the GPL terminated, an injunction prohibiting SCO from its continuing and threatened breaches of the GPL and an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial (Pretty much the same as MySQL's claim above), BTW. From IBM's memorandum: SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC 20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is well settled that nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp., 612 N.E.2d 289, 292 (N.Y. 1993) (Nominal damages are always available in breach of contract action.). Also worth noting (from IBM's brief regarding the GPL contract breach): the Court need not reach the choice of law issue because Utah law and New York law are in accord on the issues that
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 8, 2008 9:07 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: equating firmwares with blobs is an RMS-thing, In Linux terminology, blobs means firmware and only firmware. It appears that the word has a different meaning in OpenBSD terminology. Thus, we had a failure of communication. Rubbish! Did the FSF tell you that?
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:06:56PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: | Now you have found a second reason for not recommending OpenBSD. It | (legally) distributes binary firmwares for certain pieces of hardware. | Again, you make a distinction that many here say does not exist. | | The distinction clearly exists. They are not the same. No. It is not because you say there is a distinction that this distinction exists. The same holds for me (or anyone else, for that matter). This is why I provide ample arguments to show why they are the same. Stating They are not the same. does not make it true. | There's been a trend in hardware development. First, hardware was just | that : a couple of circuits connected on a pcb. Then, hardware got | firmware, a small bit of unchangeable software the hardware vendor | integrated with the circuits. An upgrade of this firmware meant | replacing the circuit holding this firmware. We moved from ROMs to | EEPROMs, allowing people with specialized hardware to update this | firmware without replacing actual hardware. Next step was a piece of | non-volatile memory (flash memory of some sort) containing the | firmware, easier to upgrade but not always required (since the | hardware comes with firmware installed by default). Today, we see many | pieces of hardware with a small amount of RAM where the device driver | loads the firmware upon device attachment. | | That's like walking from Paris to Geneva, and saying that since all | your steps were short, there cannot be a frontier. No, it is nothing like walking from Paris to Geneva. I can point to you on a map exactly where the border between France and Switzerland is and crossing this border has nothing to do with the ethics of free software. | The ROM is clearly equivalent to a circuit. The firmware you load | into a RAM is clearly software on your machine. Precisely where to | draw the line is a tricky question, but there has to be one. No, the ROM is clearly a piece of software. It's Read Only Memory, it has been programmed with firmware once. Do you really believe that the medium dictates the freeness of the software ? Firmware is just another piece of software. It was written by someone in some programming language, compiled into a binary format and is in some way shape or form distributed with the hardware. How the hardware loads this piece of software is dictated by the storage medium. | Yet, this firmware can be upgraded and OpenBSD will | automatically do this if it detects older firmware on your NIC. You | can choose another operating system that does not upgrade the firmware | and the hardware may work fine for your use case. Should the firmware | be free software ? It's inside the hardware and on your other | operating system you are not installing software on it. | | That is a borderline case. One possible resolution is that it is ok | to use this hardware, but updating the firmware is a bad thing. This can not seriously be what you really believe. The non-free firmware that comes pre-installed on the hardware is OK, but updating it yourself is not ? If you wanted to use this newer version of the firmware, you would buy another piece of the same hardware with the newer version installed ? | Another possible resolution is that the fact that they widely release | upgrades for the firmware is enough to make this hardware bad. I want | to think about this more before I reach a conclusion. I do not see how the details of how firmware upgrades are distributed come into play here. You're better off if no new firmware is released ? You can use a piece of hardware until the vendor releases new firmware ? Let's look at another example. Some hardware vendor sells a particular type of NIC. The NIC has firmware installed on it in a piece of ROM. The firmware works fine and does exactly what the vendor wants. To make the production of this particular NIC cheaper, the vendor decides to move to RAM with the driver loading *the exact same firmware* in that RAM. The software hasn't changed. The license hasn't change. Please explain to me how ethics changed. If you were in the store and had the option between the ROM-based and the RAM-based version, according to you it makes a difference which one you buy ? ROM-based is ethical, RAM-based is not ? Really - there is no difference when it comes to the ethics of things. You argue that driver-loadable firmware must come with source under a permissive license but when the same firmware is already programmed on the NIC it's OK. I'm arguing that these are the same - from an ethical point of view. The firmware (ROM or RAM) does not come with source released under a permissive license. | I conclude that what you consider ethical or not depends on how easy | something is to accomplish. However, ethics has nothing to do with | ease of action. | | In some cases it does. Whether you
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote: If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement. I don't recall seeing any of them claiming that. Many of the messages have argued (or even demanded) that I change my criteria and endorse OpenBSD. In the past two days, several people tried to argue that I should change my position regarding firmware. AFAICT most of the people on this list are users, not developers. I don't recall anyone I recognize as being a developer demanding that you endorse OpenBSD. Developers certainly have demanded that you change what you say about OpenBSD, since what you have said is misleading. They've also pointed out apparent inconsistencies between how you treat OpenBSD and how you treat more-favored systems. But that's quite different from demanding an endorsement. Dave -- Dave Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote: You've apparently been reading a very different set of responses from the ones I've read. AFAICT from their messages, most of the people responding here to this issue agree with me. Most of the people responding here, yes, but that doesn't mean _most people_ would see it that way. Not necessarily, but since you've provided no evidence whatsoever that anyone other than FSFers agrees with you the way to bet is that the general public would mostly agree with me. The group participating here is a lot more diverse than just the FSF. Many of the people on this list were told that I want OpenBSD to erect barriers against installing non-free programs. That's the only plausible conclusion I can draw from your own words. I would not call this a barrier against installing those programs. I'm sure you wouldn't, but it is one nonetheless. AFAICT from your messages, the absolute minimum that would satisfy you is for OpenBSD to never mention anywhere, in any manner (except perhaps a negative one), anything which is non-free (by your definition). That's a little more than my standard. Many applications talk about some non-free programs in passing. I don't object to that. But you see what _kind_ of thing I'm concerned about. Since this would require explicitly rejecting any proposed addition to the ports collection which would install something which is 'non-free', Yes. you do require erecting barriers. I would not call this a barrier. But, whatever we call it, at least you understand concretely what I mean. It's something which makes it harder for the user to install a 'non-free' program than it is for him to install a 'free' program. That's the essence of a barrier. Claiming anything else is, at best, weasel-wording. One reason I do not want to call this a barrier is that it suggests other things. Many people thought I objected to the general capability of the ports system to install any program. That misunderstanding seems to come words like barrier. Dave -- Dave Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:07:03PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: Man you are hard to talk to. You keep making stuff up and don't reply to questions people ask you. I even tried to ask you politely. You keep making stuff up is a rather harsh accusation. (Also, it isn't true.) I am much easier t talk to if you don't attack. I am not attacking you. I am assuming you do your part of thinking and research while you talk to me. If you'd work for me I would have fired you for this. One is only allowed so many I didn't know and didn't try to figure it out issues. I am not being an ass; I am trying to talk intelligently about these topics. Don't blame me for being unable to converse with you. I am trying but we are not talking at the same level. I apparently have too many expectations for you.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 8, 2008 6:47 PM, Andris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you _do_ recommend _Linux_ even when Torvalds' version of Linux is not free software! And let me put this perfectly clear to you: Linus Torvalds develops _Linux_. Period. GNU/Linux means GNU (http://gnu.org/ packages, free software) and Linux (http://kernel.org/, non-free software). GNU promotes itself with a non-free software kernel, they don't even change one letter of it. Because _Linux_, is popular. Yeah, RMS likes to bitch about calling Linux GNU/Linux but it should really be BSD/GNU/Linux. How about that Richard? Wijnand
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 08:56:33AM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote: | @Paul: No matter how many fucking emails you send, you will never be | able to reason it out, you moron. I'm glad you've resorted to namecalling. That'll surely help you find the non-free files in OpenBSD. Please remember to send them to this list when you do find 'em. Until then, YOU ARE WRONG. Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd PS: I just *LOVE* your reasoning ! Makes you look all smart and stuff. -- [++-]+++.+++[---].+++[+ +++-].++[-]+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods? My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that method because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too. However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always checked. Sometimes I just took his word for it. The problems that have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly, corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully with them. You contradict yourself. You say it's efficient and accurate and then point out its inefficiency inaccuracy. I find it stunning that you can reconcile this. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, but when you redefine free to mean something specific, you redefine your own language. It's normal to develop criteria for what free means in specific activities. Consider, for instance, free elections. Human rights organizations and election monitors have worked out specific criteria for what that should mean in practice. But, when people use the word free, even within a particular context, anyone would be able to understand what that person was talking about within an acceptable level of error. The problem with your definition is that this is not so. Your definition does not stay true to the spirit of the word (as used in reality). But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain my freedom to BSD license my code. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Stay on list or stay out of my inbox. --- Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a more serious note: everybody who criticizes the other of non-free software must come clean first: No clean, no talk. Sophistry. If there is problems in logic, etc then one need not be of a certain type (with respect to what you're saying) to realize that nor point it out. To say so is asinine (above as well). I already poiinted out that both sides need to do something than accuse the other of non-free. Didn't my first reply say 'everybody'. Then someone made it 'somebody' apparently biasing that statement. Which is why I fought back against that argument. Does that answer your question? Well, I didn't actually ask a question. But, (we'll call them) the OpenBSD people have supported there arguments (which I'd say is more than just accusing). Whereas the other side has not. You'd know this if you would have read at least some of the thread before you put in your (non) two cents. For the record, somebody is within everybody. So, when you say everybody, one can reply with a counter example of somebody to such a sweeping statement. You also didn't reply to what I wrote. You made something up and replied to that. In all honesty, I really believe that you really *really* need to read those links that I sent. Please, go do that now or at your earliest convenience. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
--- Roberto J. Dohnert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and the FSF for OpenBSD? When I choose an OS I don't go to Richard and the FSF, I choose the OS I want to use whether its Kubuntu or PCLinuxOS for the desktop (with all the non-free software that makes my heart sing), OpenBSD for my server and NetBSD for my Firewall. I never consulted anyone on my two Windows machines either, Richard Stallman and the FSF have NEVER endorsed a BSD or UNIX system, so why should that change now? I'm sure some of you care what Richard and the FSF think but in the long run. Does it really matter? To me this thread has spiraled out of control with no give or take from either side and its equatable to trying to convince Bill and Steve to open source Windows. I definitely care what RMS thinks. I most certainly care that his nutter values, etc NOT be associated with OpenBSD. I would request the devs make not one move to satiate his extremist desires. But, to spend that time doing what they have always done; make OpenBSD better and better and... best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Stay on list or stay out of my inbox. --- Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 6, 2008 7:23 AM, Reid Nichol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which OpenBSD does. You have failed to show otherwise. To show that OpenBSD follows them as goals? Ah, perhaps. :-) And you've continued to try... and failed utterly. I use ports. I am not dumb. :P The goals do not specify to encourage people to use non-free software, but I see that happening anyway. Where? Are you refering to the FAQ? Are you aware of what FAQ means? Yes, I do. You can join a channel like: freenode #openbsd. When something goes wrong and you ask questions, the first thing you're told is to read the FAQ and the man page. What's your point? Besides, I'm not anti campaigining for OpenBSD. Remember, I want both sides to clear off this bs. This thread could possibly be the end, as we know it. I hope you understand. Read my earlier posts: they were neutral; I cry FUD where I see it. The end? What? I read them and the ones since... I won't reply further on that because others have said what I would have (and more) much better. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 08:56:33AM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 You see, rms? You were right. OpenBSD has lots of trolls who: a. Don't find out about the person who is emailing b. Make assumptions about the person in a. most of us found out you were a troll since your very first mail, no assumption, you looked like an idiot and turned out to be one. c. Just troll all day and have no work to do d. Bitch about everything else because of c. e. Get more people to do d. hilarious. For each mail I replied to you, you replied to several other peoples to troll, logic tells me that you spent far more time trolling than I spent setting the record straight. You need to get a life, really. f. Are just the biggest b*** to the core ever You were right for all the right reasons. [...] @Gilles: Maybe if your current employers saw your current emails they would wonder what they are paying you for. [...] My employers don't care about what I do on evening and week-ends. ... and this kind of comments doesn't make you less of an idiot you know ;-) Gilles -- Gilles Chehade
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 7, 2008 12:44 PM, Reid Nichol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods? My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that method because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too. However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always checked. Sometimes I just took his word for it. That is why People here called on you to do some research before resorting to slandering genuine free projects and condoning non-free ones thus making yourself look stupid before those who really think. If you did really check the facts for yourself you would have cause less confusion. So the things you need to do immediately are 1) Develop a habit of researching and learning before you comment on anything. 2) Choose the appropriate words during Interviews. As it is said Evil thrives on ambiguity!! The problems that have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly, corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully with them. Who is the them? The FSF Folks who give you wrong information? Well You should take a clear consistent stand first. The your followers have at least a little chance for doing same. Out here the most craziest people I have seen are those who cry/flame/fight with Zeal for FSF and Stallman who know nothing about what FSF and Stallman stands for. But it is clear now. When even Stallman does not know what he stands for or what the FSF stands for in a consistent light and have to resort to word play and word spin I can only pity the followers. You contradict yourself. You say it's efficient and accurate and then point out its inefficiency inaccuracy. I find it stunning that you can reconcile this. I am sure he will have an excuse for this contradiction too. Like. A Straight Line is an *arc*, An arc of a circle with infinite radius But the problem is when it comes to practicality nobody has seen a circle like that yet fully!!!
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
This has been discussed many times and it shouldn't take long for you or your minions to find out that we do not care about the source of firmware which doesn't load into OpenBSD. The people who do searches for me are helpful volunteers. I can ask them to look for something, but I try not to impose on them if there is an easier way. For a question about OpenBSD policies, it is better for me to ask this list for the answer, than to ask someone else to hunt for the answer. Thanks for stating the policy. If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason why I should not endorse OpenBSD. The systems I endorse try to exclude such firmware.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
But what about the different case where the company permits redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source code. Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case? Of course and going by your description it is nothing but hardware at that point No, that description refers to a different case. so there is no ethics violation (whatever that means since you refuse to explain it). It is just like micro code and a circuit. I think firmware is equivalent to a circuit if it is inside the hardware and users don't install software there. Here we are talking about firmware which users always do install. (That is the reason why anyone would consider distributing it with an operating system.) So that is not equivalent to a circuit.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
http://torrent.gnome.org/ Would you be so kind as to tell me the precise URLs where you found those quotes? That is a host; I figured it would have lots of pages. Your message today hinted that maybe you meant the front page. So I looked there, and found them there. Thanks. I will raise the issue with the Gnome developers, and I hope they will change it.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason why I should not endorse OpenBSD. The systems I endorse try to exclude such firmware. Oh come on now THRUSH! You really are an irritating cunt. Can't you read? The use of a search engine even by an imbecilic moron, such as yourself, would have shown this page: http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39 OpenBSD remains blob-free You sack of lazy commie scum. Do you work for google?
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 7, 2008, at 3:31 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason why I should not endorse OpenBSD. The systems I endorse try to exclude such firmware. Then, sir, you're truly shit out of luck in endorsing any Linux kernel out there.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
In OpenBSD the recommendation for certain non-free programs is in the recipes for installing them. Oh, no URL? I could ask someone to find a specific URL, but why take the trouble? The OpenBSD developers have acknowledged that contains ports for non-free programs. There is no dispute about that question. In gNewsense the recommendation for certain non-free programs is in the _inclusion_ of such non-free parts in their distribution You have not presented any evidence that there are non-free programs in gNewSense. If you could supply the URL of one, that would really change something, because the gNewSense developers would get rid of it. My supplying the URL or name of a non-free program's port in OpenBSD would do no good, because the developers are happy to have such ports and would not remove it. I am not going to spend the time, or ask someone else to do so, just for an idle request. If the OpenBSD developers were to undertake to remove such ports, then I would get you some names.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: This has been discussed many times and it shouldn't take long for you or your minions to find out that we do not care about the source of firmware which doesn't load into OpenBSD. The people who do searches for me are helpful volunteers. I can ask them to look for something, but I try not to impose on them if there is an easier way. For a question about OpenBSD policies, it is better for me to ask this list for the answer, than to ask someone else to hunt for the answer. Thanks for stating the policy. Unlike your fellows we are not your helpful volunteers and it is a lack of respect from you to assume our time is less precious than yours. If you do want to learn about the policy and stop spreading lies and disinformation, all you have to do is READ A DAMN PAGE that explains it all. I am not even giving you that link again, I've done so several times in the last days. I think that you need to take your fingers out of your ass and learn how you can use them to type the url of a search engine. People took time of their own to write pages which explain just the things you want to know, the least you could do is to read instead of assuming. If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason why I should not endorse OpenBSD. The systems I endorse try to exclude such firmware. Endorsment from the FSF and you means nothing, Mr Stallman. It's been far obvious in this thread that you do not even know what you endorse and you do not even have an opinion of your own. It is just amazing that people trust your huge and bloated license, while you don't seem to be able to even read a simple page. It makes one wonder if you are really behind it or if it's your friends that wrote it and are using you as their mascot. Unless you take time to read the existing documentation, I think we don't need to go further as you are clueless to any matter related to OpenBSD. Gilles -- Gilles Chehade
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Alberto Gonzalez is that you? On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 11:18:10PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: Didn't you do that right from the start when you came to our lists to post the wrong conclusions you draw from your un-researched assumptions? That is not what happened. I stated an accurate conclusion based on recent research. I expressed it with words that were not clear. I've explained the details several times, so I won't repeat now.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 7, 2008 5:01 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason why I should not endorse OpenBSD. The systems I endorse try to exclude such firmware. Yes but after your list of recommended OSes and Software please give a list of Software and OSes you *actually use* for example like debian. And also tell the people though I don't recommend them I still use them and state the reson for using those. That would be truthful. The other one of just giving your recommended list and deceiving people is just malice.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:16AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: | But what about the different case where the company permits | redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source | code. Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case? | | Of course and going by your description it is nothing but hardware at | that point | | No, that description refers to a different case. | | so there is no ethics violation (whatever that means since | you refuse to explain it). It is just like micro code and a circuit. | | I think firmware is equivalent to a circuit if it is inside the | hardware and users don't install software there. | | Here we are talking about firmware which users always do install. | (That is the reason why anyone would consider distributing it with an | operating system.) So that is not equivalent to a circuit. Richard, You say your actions are based on ethics. You recommend certain systems (eg gNewSense) because they are 'ethical' and you do not recommend others (eg OpenBSD) because they are not (they don't behave), in your view, ethical. Initially, you could not recommend OpenBSD because the ports system recommends the use of non-free software. Despite the fact that many here (on this list) do not consider this to be a recommendation I agree that it is in line with your stated views. And even though your views are to me (and many others on this list) in sharp contradiction with your actions (supporting non-free systems in the copyleft software packages GCC and Emacs), you consider these to be quite different situations (yet you admit that supporting non-free systems in free software and grants legitimacy to these non-free systems). I'll repeat again here that I am not opposing supporting non-free systems in free software packages. Now you have found a second reason for not recommending OpenBSD. It (legally) distributes binary firmwares for certain pieces of hardware. Again, you make a distinction that many here say does not exist. There's been a trend in hardware development. First, hardware was just that : a couple of circuits connected on a pcb. Then, hardware got firmware, a small bit of unchangeable software the hardware vendor integrated with the circuits. An upgrade of this firmware meant replacing the circuit holding this firmware. We moved from ROMs to EEPROMs, allowing people with specialized hardware to update this firmware without replacing actual hardware. Next step was a piece of non-volatile memory (flash memory of some sort) containing the firmware, easier to upgrade but not always required (since the hardware comes with firmware installed by default). Today, we see many pieces of hardware with a small amount of RAM where the device driver loads the firmware upon device attachment. Lets have a close look at the case where firmware is stored in non-volatile memory. You purchase an Intel EtherExpress PRO/100 network interface card. Firmware is in the hardware on a piece of flash memory. Yet, this firmware can be upgraded and OpenBSD will automatically do this if it detects older firmware on your NIC. You can choose another operating system that does not upgrade the firmware and the hardware may work fine for your use case. Should the firmware be free software ? It's inside the hardware and on your other operating system you are not installing software on it. Should hardware vendors go back to non-user-upgradeable firmware so you can recommend their hardware ? Even if the only reason they do it is because they do not want to distribute the firmware as free software, with full source under a permissive license yet still want your endorsement ? Your stance is that somewhere in this timeline of hardware development ethics came into play. At first, firmware does not need to be free software since it is hard for a user to change it (although determined users can (and in the past have) change(d) the firmware ROMs by themselves). Now that device drivers load firmware each time the machine boots you consider it an ethical issue. I conclude that what you consider ethical or not depends on how easy something is to accomplish. However, ethics has nothing to do with ease of action. To you it may be easy to copy software or to look at the source code and understand what it does, to take it, change it, and use it in its changed form. Very many computer users do not consider this easy at all. To them, a computer is still some sort of magical device enabling them to browse the internet, play a game or use productivity software. Yet, these computer illiterates should (according to your views) use free software because non-free software is unethical. You want to educate the user about the ethics of free software, give them freedoms they will not be able to exploit. This, I think, is what your views are. However, when people on this mailing list suggest that hardware should be 'open' or 'free', you claim this is not
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 7, 2008 8:31 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have not presented any evidence that there are non-free programs in gNewSense. gNewsSense bugs 31, 100, 103, 108: 31: license problems - cdrecord (no open date) http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00031 100: Helix Player recommends nonfree software (open since 20070708) http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00100 103: Xfree86 includes software under non-free licenses (open since 20070718) http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00103 108: cdrtools package suspected not to be free (open since 20070815) http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00108 Open, Richard, means that this issues have not been resolved. Greetings!
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 05:55:52AM -0600, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 06:44:48 + Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 08:39:35PM -0600, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:28:39 -0800 (PST) Reid Nichol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well OpenBSD is fine here. But, are you sure about RMS? Because he has been contradicting himself all over the place in this thread alone. Richard appears to be falling into a single point of failure setup. Its like the Drug Czar concept where a single man is given enormous powers and his individual weaknessess, however small and insignificant, become a mechanism for prying open the whole system. not the same at all. RMS is not an appointed figurehead. he is the founder of the system he represents. the only setup is Richard's own inability to be convincingly accurate and consistent. that is neither small nor insignificant. Some men are born to greatness, some achive greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. Power is power, all the same. maybe, but that's not the point. the logic of the system is much more closely tied to the logic of the founder of that system than the logic of a figurehead that was appointed long after the creation of the system. Dhu -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 7, 2008 9:19 PM, Craig Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh come on now THRUSH! You really are an irritating cunt. Can't you read? The use of a search engine even by an imbecilic moron, such as yourself, would have shown this page: http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39 OpenBSD remains blob-free You sack of lazy commie scum. Do you work for google? Name-calling was awesome...when I was 10 years old. Seriously, can we PLEASE let this fucking thread die? Having the last word on a mailing list flamewar is meaningless. You're not going to change RMS opinions on anything and he's not going to change the opinion of anyone here. It doesn't matter what I or anyone else here think of his ideas or how hypocritical they may be or even if he was wrong or right. We're WAY past the point where that mattered. For everyones sanity just leave it alone. --- Lars Hansson
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Marco Peereboom wrote: Alberto Gonzalez is that you? at least in this case the excuse is somewhat valid, as richard is certainly old enough for the claim of i cannot recall to hold water. perhaps he should see a doctor about this? in the case that richard is not in the initial stages of senility, he really should be a good boy and do his homework before he posts. if i were to post such misinformed inflammatory statements as richard has recently i would expect that my audience would lose confidence in my ability to lead. this is not leadership-grade behavior or rhetoric and if you expect to be regarded of any kind of leader you should suck it up, admit your follies, and, at the very least, exit the discussion since this is not your list. the FSF must be very proud to have such a distinguished over-the-hill habitual error maker and social genius among their ranks! talk about an off-balance-sheet asset :P On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 11:18:10PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: Didn't you do that right from the start when you came to our lists to post the wrong conclusions you draw from your un-researched assumptions? That is not what happened. I stated an accurate conclusion based on recent research. I expressed it with words that were not clear. I've explained the details several times, so I won't repeat now.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
equating firmwares with blobs is an RMS-thing, it enables him to destroy the good by comparing it to the perfect Firmware runs on the hardware, not in the kernel. On Jan 7, 2008 1:31 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This has been discussed many times and it shouldn't take long for you or your minions to find out that we do not care about the source of firmware which doesn't load into OpenBSD. The people who do searches for me are helpful volunteers. I can ask them to look for something, but I try not to impose on them if there is an easier way. For a question about OpenBSD policies, it is better for me to ask this list for the answer, than to ask someone else to hunt for the answer. Thanks for stating the policy. If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason why I should not endorse OpenBSD. The systems I endorse try to exclude such firmware.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
dropped misc by accident On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:16AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: But what about the different case where the company permits redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source code. Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case? Of course and going by your description it is nothing but hardware at that point No, that description refers to a different case. No it does not. During boot a Linux kernel will check AND UPDATE microcode to CPUs if necessary. It is exactly the same case. You are twisting the meaning around again. so there is no ethics violation (whatever that means since you refuse to explain it). It is just like micro code and a circuit. I think firmware is equivalent to a circuit if it is inside the hardware and users don't install software there. What you are saying is that hardware is hardware if it contains the flash part. If you have an identical piece of hardware that requires OS assist to load the SAME firmware onto it it is software. Which is these a lot because flash is expensive and therefore you leave the firmware on disk and load it at boot time. The user has nothing to do with this; he/she does not perform any actions. It is probably time to go check all the FSF infrastructure because I bet you'll find a lot of parts that require OS assist to load firmware. Here we are talking about firmware which users always do install. (That is the reason why anyone would consider distributing it with an operating system.) So that is not equivalent to a circuit. Then what is a circuit? What did you study at MIT (not a mean questions I am honestly curious)? Man you are hard to talk to. You keep making stuff up and don't reply to questions people ask you. I even tried to ask you politely.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Richard Stallman wrote: My supplying the URL or name of a non-free program's port in OpenBSD would do no good, because the developers are happy to have such ports and would not remove it. I am not going to spend the time, or ask someone else to do so, just for an idle request. If the OpenBSD developers were to undertake to remove such ports, then I would get you some names. Please help me understand the issue. You stated that the research has already been done. It was done before the interview, that's why you made the statement. You must have one or more examples of non-free program's in OpenBSD's ports. If you don't have the list then surely your research assistant has the list. I would like to review the license for these non-free programs. I want to learn and understand the issues. Oscar
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
As long as this thread has been running, the only plausible reasons I can think of for you not to repeat your claimed accurate conclusion is either that you do not remember what this claimed accurate conclusion was or that this claimed accurate conclusion wold now be yet another falsehood. I've said it here so many times that I have decided not to repeat it every time someone doesn't know.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and the FSF for OpenBSD? If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On 1/7/08, Craig Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason why I should not endorse OpenBSD. The systems I endorse try to exclude such firmware. Oh come on now THRUSH! You really are an irritating cunt. Can't you read? The use of a search engine even by an imbecilic moron, such as yourself, would have shown this page: http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39 OpenBSD remains blob-free You're confused. RMS is commenting on the contents of OpenBSD's /etc/firmware directory, not on its kernel's device drivers.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
But, when people use the word free, even within a particular context, anyone would be able to understand what that person was talking about within an acceptable level of error. I don't think so -- that is too much to ask. In any area, the meaning of freedom involves filling in details which are not obvious in advance. It seems simple while you stay at the abstract level; it becomes hard when you address the details. But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain my freedom to BSD license my code. Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is straightforward. You put the revised BSD license on your file, you package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you release it all. The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL, but anyone can use code from your file under the revised BSD license. This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to release the combination under the GPL.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods? My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that method because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too. However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always checked. Sometimes I just took his word for it. The problems that have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly, corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully with them. You contradict yourself. You say it's efficient and accurate and then point out its inefficiency inaccuracy. I find it stunning that you can reconcile this. There is nothing to reconcile -- you have combined two statements about two different things, so the resulting contradiction didn't come from me. When I want research, I ask people to do it. That is efficient, and we have not seen any errors in it. In the case of AROS, it's possible I did not ask anyone to do research. I might have just taken the developers' word that the system is free. It was years ago and I do not know what happened. However, most of these problems had nothing to do with quality of research, because they did not arise until after I had decided to endorse a program. Research can only check the present, not the future. For instance, the reference to unrar on BLAG's site was in a wiki; it was posted by a user in the recent past. (It is possible that this happened with AROS too.) Likewise for the GNU/Darwin problem. I think this occurred in several others too. My conclusion is that I should do more detailed discussions with the developers of the FSF-endorsed systems about these specific possible problems and how to avoid them.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 7, 2008 7:16 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods? My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that method because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too. However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always checked. Sometimes I just took his word for it. The problems that have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly, corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully with them. You contradict yourself. You say it's efficient and accurate and then point out its inefficiency inaccuracy. I find it stunning that you can reconcile this. There is nothing to reconcile -- you have combined two statements about two different things, so the resulting contradiction didn't come from me. When I want research, I ask people to do it. That is efficient, and we have not seen any errors in it. In the case of AROS, it's possible I did not ask anyone to do research. I might have just taken the developers' word that the system is free. It was years ago and I do not know what happened. However, most of these problems had nothing to do with quality of research, because they did not arise until after I had decided to endorse a program. Research can only check the present, not the future. For instance, the reference to unrar on BLAG's site was in a wiki; it was posted by a user in the recent past. (It is possible that this happened with AROS too.) Likewise for the GNU/Darwin problem. I think this occurred in several others too. My conclusion is that I should do more detailed discussions with the developers of the FSF-endorsed systems about these specific possible problems and how to avoid them Your conclusion should that you need to do your own research. WHY, please really, tell me WHY you do not do your own research. Everybody on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own research?!?!?!?!!?
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say recommend in this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion here) to be something that most people would express as not deliberately erect barriers against. The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description for what I am saying. Many of the people on this list were told that I want OpenBSD to erect barriers against installing non-free programs. And their words show that they think this means designing the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible. (I have not suggested such a thing.) My usage of the recommend fits in normal usage. If you include program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider. Perhaps implicitly recommend would be a clearer description of this particular case.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Richard Stallman wrote: If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement. Methinks this is an OpenBSD list not a FSF list Are you always this obnoxious to people you are visiting? From what I've seen from you on this thread, an endorsement from you would be a liability. Best I can tell, nobody is arguing with you that would require some degree of compos mentis on your part.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:16:04PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and the FSF for OpenBSD? If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement. We don't argue that you owe us an endorsement, we set the record straight so that people get the facts right, something you can't understand. Please, learn how to read, then we can have an educated talk. -- Gilles Chehade
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:16:04PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and the FSF for OpenBSD? If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement. We only want an apology Richard. You said things about our project that were very unfriendly and not true. Apologize and admit you were wrong and I promise I'll leave this alone. Until then I will not let you have the last word on a project that I spend a considerable amount of my personal resources on. You stop talking/slandering OpenBSD and we'll stop talking to and about you. How is that for a deal?
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:15:59PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: But, when people use the word free, even within a particular context, anyone would be able to understand what that person was talking about within an acceptable level of error. I don't think so -- that is too much to ask. In any area, the meaning of freedom involves filling in details which are not obvious in advance. It seems simple while you stay at the abstract level; it becomes hard when you address the details. But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain my freedom to BSD license my code. Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is straightforward. You put the revised BSD license on your file, you package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you release it all. The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL, but anyone can use code from your file under the revised BSD license. This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to release the combination under the GPL. This is not true. A file that is BSD/ISC licensed can NOT have its license changed without consent from the original author. You can have a bunch of GPL goo around it but that will NOT (I repeat NOT) change the license on the BSD/ISC licensed file. I can't believe you keep saying this. This is not legal and by repeating it people actually believe this. This is disingenuous at best. I personally am very interested when the GPL will finally hit the courts so that we can get a firm legal interpretation and we can stop this silly debate. My money is on the viral clause being ruled unenforcible or even unconstitutional.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description for what I am saying. Many of the people on this list were told that I want OpenBSD to erect barriers against installing non-free programs. And their words show that they think this means designing the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible. (I have not suggested such a thing.) My usage of the recommend fits in normal usage. If you include program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider. Not really. OpenBSD doesn't recommend any of the ports. What it does is makes things available for people to install. Anyone can submit and maintain a port for the project, if they so desire. The fact is, OpenBSD doesn't recommend any of the ports or packages, but makes the structure available for its users simply as a convenience. Oxford American Dictionary... recommend |K rekIKmend| verb [ trans. ] 1 put forward (someone or something) with approval as being suitablefor a particular purpose or role : George had recommended some local architects | a book I recommended to a friend of mine. b advise or suggest (something) as a course of action : some doctors recommend putting a board under the mattress | [with clause ] the report recommended that criminal charges be brought. b [ trans. ] advise (someone) to do something : you are strongly recommended to seek professional advice. b make (someone or something) appealing or desirable : the house had much to recommend it. 2 ( recommend someone/something to) archaic commend or entrust someone or something to (someone) : I devoutly recommended my spirit to its maker. If you'd bothered researching yourself, you may have read this: http://openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Intro Perhaps implicitly recommend would be a clearer description of this particular case. Not really, no. Many of the ports are not available as packages. As has been repeatedly explained.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Richard Stallman wrote: But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain my freedom to BSD license my code. Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is straightforward. You put the revised BSD license on your file, you package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you release it all. The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL, but anyone can use code from your file under the revised BSD license. This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to release the combination under the GPL. Richard, I am strongly stun by this statement from you. In short, should I understand and read into this that no matter what, with all the ethics emails you sent in the last few days and all the spirit of collaborations and the big freedom talks, that no matter what, if anyone in the GPL side find any applications under a BSD license and love it, they would import it under GPL and add bug fix, may be new features and what not and as such never appreciate what was gracefully given out of good will and be as genuine about as to offer the bug fix upstream in the same BSD spirit? That's very important to me to fully understand from you, so please respond to that please! Regardless of our differences and goals and what not. We may disagree on many things, but still I would expect that you would be as genuine as the original Author for a complete software or application you find useful to you and respect that Author wish to release under BSD and as such keep your possible bug fix and feature additions under that same BSD license, unless there is HUGE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES, by witch I mean more then 50% to take a number that could be somewhat justifiable to do so may be, where in that case, releasing it under GPL, may be somewhat acceptable, but I reserve my thoughts on the subject at the moment as I sure can't come to peace with that just yet! You always justify it by using that company would be allow to use it so why not the GPL. The company are required to give credit and in the end it may be all one would get, and that's fine. But the biggest differences here that no one ever address in this differences is what is the open source and why? We want open source so that others can look at it and improve it and get peer review! So, in the end the product improve in quality, stability, security, etc. A company may have 1, 5, or 10 developers on staff, or may be even 100, of thousands like Microsoft. So, many, sadly, wouldn't contribute back. That's accepted. But in the open source world, where we all benefit from huge amount of eye balls and all fight for free code, I can't see why we couldn't all share in the same spirit as the Author and if that Author decide to use BSD, why not return him the favor and send bug fix under the BSD and keep it as such. We are talking two totally different world here between the corporate world and the open source world. If I release a software under BSD and you import it under GPL, put bug fix in there and then release it publicly, I sure hell do see that as fair as I have given it to you in the first place and I would expect you as being a member of the open source community not to fight against me, but collaborate with me and as such allow me to use your bug fix as an example and include them in my software under BSD license as it was originally release as to not lock myself out. That's really the ethical question at stake I guess when you talk about freedom for this code here. Using the corporation way of doing it as a justification is wrong. Don't you think someone release the code source of any application he/she may write to actually benefit others and him/hereself as well by benefiting of huge poll of eye balls! You can't get that in any corporations at all, but sure sure can get that on the Internet. I would even go as far as saying that someone looking at your code in a corporation may, or may not be as incline to make the final product as good as it could be, because of corporate pressure, time limits, and what not. But someone on the Internet that actually look at the code would do so, because of personal interest and inclination to that code as well as most likely higher quality to understand that code by choice, oppose to be force to do so. In that case, the end result benefit all and that's how I see it. If I release a software under a BSD license, I would expect you to send bug fix and possible feature or what not upstream in appreciation of what was given freely to you and as such a way from you to say thank you for what was given to you in the first place and respecting my license of choice. Hope this help you understand, even if I have very limited hope you would. Just consider it and see the reason why as well. Best, Daniel
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 7, 2008 6:15 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain my freedom to BSD license my code. Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is straightforward. You put the revised BSD license on your file, you package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you release it all. The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL, but anyone can use code from your file under the revised BSD license. This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to release the combination under the GPL. This may be *your* usual interpretation of the revised BSD license but there is nothing in the revised BSD license allowing relicensing under the GPL. Hint: See Leicester v. Warner Bros., 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1501, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8366 (C.D. Cal. 1998), aff'd, 232 F.3d 1212 (2d Cir. 2000). In Leicester, a real estate developer employed an artist to create sculptural elements for inclusion in the courtyard of a building under construction in Los Angeles. The artist granted the owner the exclusive right to make three-dimensional copies of the work, and a non-exclusive right to make two-dimensional or pictorial copies. The developer allowed a motion picture company to film the sculptural elements as part of a movie. The artist sued the motion picture company, claiming infringement, on the grounds that the developer did not have the right to sub-license his non-exclusive right to make two-dimensional or pictorial copies. During the course of the litigation, the developer was granted a sub-license by the building's architect, who the court found to be a co-owner with the artist of some of the elements. The court found that the architect could not grant a sub-license to the developer because a non-exclusive license could not be sub-licensed. ... 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8366. regards, alexander.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote: Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and the FSF for OpenBSD? If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement. I don't recall seeing any of them claiming that. Many of them _have_ (quite reasonably) objected to your spreading misinformation about OpenBSD. And making statements which are true only if common words are given non-standard meanings certainly amounts to spreading misinformation. Dave -- Dave Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On 1/7/08, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement. Quite right. As far as I can tell, they're not interested in your endorsement; I'm not sure what gave you the idea they are. However, they are very interested in FUD prevention, and FUD is what you get when one party tries to co-opt ordinary language for private ends. So we can hardly be surprised when they object to your characterization of their work as non-free. Such a slanderous characterization is a far cry from merely declining to endorse. Old joke: Doctor, nobody likes me! You gotta help me, you big fat slob! -gregg
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 7, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Dusty wrote: On Jan 7, 2008 7:16 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I want research, I ask people to do it. That is efficient, and we have not seen any errors in it. Your conclusion should that you need to do your own research. WHY, please really, tell me WHY you do not do your own research. Everybody on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own research?!?!?!?!!? Plausible deniability. --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote: IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say recommend in this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion here) to be something that most people would express as not deliberately erect barriers against. The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description for what I am saying. You've apparently been reading a very different set of responses from the ones I've read. AFAICT from their messages, most of the people responding here to this issue agree with me. Many of the people on this list were told that I want OpenBSD to erect barriers against installing non-free programs. That's the only plausible conclusion I can draw from your own words. AFAICT from your messages, the absolute minimum that would satisfy you is for OpenBSD to never mention anywhere, in any manner (except perhaps a negative one), anything which is non-free (by your definition). Since this would require explicitly rejecting any proposed addition to the ports collection which would install something which is 'non-free', you do require erecting barriers. And their words show that they think this means designing the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible. (I have not suggested such a thing.) My usage of the recommend fits in normal usage. Sorry, but that's nonsense. Mentioning and recommending are very different things, and what OpenBSD does is no more than mentioning. If you include program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider. Perhaps implicitly recommend would be a clearer description of this particular case. It would be closer to reality, but would still massively overstate the case. Dave -- Dave Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
In gmane.os.openbsd.misc, you wrote: If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason why I should not endorse OpenBSD. The systems I endorse try to exclude such firmware. Try or Do? So, if we try, and I think the OpenBSD record speaks for itself on that front, we are ethical? When we try to get the docs, and fail, and fall back to a binary blob that happens to be licensed in such a way that we can redistribute it, and that happens to come with documentation on how to interface to it, we are ethical? As long as we try? But if the binary blob is licensed appropriately (able to redistribute/etc), and we don't try to get the source code to the blob, we're not ethical anymore? By following the law, we're not ethical? If I get this right, binary == not free? Even if a license allows you to redistribute and/or do anything you want with it? What exactly does free mean to you? I'm so lost. -Toby. -- [100~Plax]sb16i0A2172656B63616820636420726568746F6E61207473754A[dZ1!=b]salax
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
In gmane.os.openbsd.misc, you wrote: Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods? My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that method because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too. Please do what all researchers do. State the origin of where you got your research. Please stop plagarising all those people that do this work for you, and start giving references as to where and from whom you are using this research from. However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always checked. Sometimes I just took his word for it. The problems that have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly, corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully with them. That is one of the problems wrt using sources and not being able to reference them. Anyone worth their salt will make sure that their research is sound, and that the research they base their conclusions and their own research on is also sound. Something about a deck of cards and building a house out of them... -Toby. -- [100~Plax]sb16i0A2172656B63616820636420726568746F6E61207473754A[dZ1!=b]salax
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Dusty wrote: WHY, please really, tell me WHY you do not do your own research. Everybody on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own research?!?!?!?!!? Honestly I am not interested why this moron does not do any research. He seems to be a case for the psychiatrists.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On 1/7/08, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We only want an apology Richard. You said things about our project that were very unfriendly and not true. Apologize and admit you were wrong and I promise I'll leave this alone. So if Richard sends an email stating I am sorry for using ambiguous words when discussing the inclusion of Makefiles for non-free programs in OpenBSD's ports system, you'll be happy and this series of threads can die?
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
I have had a short term memory problem almost my whole life. I have been on medication because of it. This means I find it almost impossible to learn to code and have to re-read any documentation when I have to do even the simplest task. I've been using openbsd for about 10 years now. Whenever up upgrade it, reinstall it, or do any normal maintenance on it I have to re-read the FAQ and other documentation. I even have a P3 i reinstall every -release just to keep in the habit. My point is I would die, or explode, or just cease to exist if I had to rely on others to do my research. I live in South Africa where internet services lack like nowhere else on earth. I can still google. I'm even pretty good at it. Richard, you have no excuse. The government are not interested in you, I promise. If i can do it so can you. I encourage you, try it once. Just try it one time. You'll love it!! All the pretty pictures and big words!!! If a big black van rolls up outside your house and people with guns and sunglasses, in suits, get out .. well .. I'll publicly apologise for being wrong. But i doubt that'll happen. http://www.google.com http://www.google.com/bsd go on, click it, you know you want to!!! On Jan 7, 2008 11:40 PM, Marc Balmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dusty wrote: WHY, please really, tell me WHY you do not do your own research. Everybody on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own research?!?!?!?!!? Honestly I am not interested why this moron does not do any research. He seems to be a case for the psychiatrists.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Richard Stallman 7-Jan-08 17:14 IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say recommend in this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion here) to be something that most people would express as not deliberately erect barriers against. The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description for what I am saying. Many of the people on this list were told that I want OpenBSD to erect barriers against installing non-free programs. And their words show that they think this means designing the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible. (I have not suggested such a thing.) My usage of the recommend fits in normal usage. If you include program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider. Perhaps implicitly recommend would be a clearer description of this particular case. No, Richard, it would not. Recommend means (and I quote the Concise Oxford Dictionary): advise course of action, treatment, person to do, that thing should be done. We do not recommend that someone install any particular ports. Think of the ports system as a set of recipes, of how to install other people's software. A particular person would not make everything from a recipe book: they may be allergic to nuts, or not like mushrooms, or have a gluten intollerance... if they do, the recipe book does not force them to make that meal, there is no reason why the existence of a wheat-based recipe would stop a celiac suffer from buying the book. Some of the programs that ports enables users to install are not free. Some are appallingly written. We make no claims about software for which ports exist (a frequently asked queston on this list is whether they are audited, the frequently- given answer is, of course, no.) We do not recommend any ports. OpenBSD is a complete operating system, with enough components to suit many people with requiring ports. The ports system provides choice, and options for people. Nothing is recommended. To be clear: each port is a recipe that says at least one person has found that [...] (set of instructions) will enable you to install this third-party software on OpenBSD. If ports were recommendations, why would there be so many editors, or so many web browsers? The ports system is about choice, not about recommendations (or otherwise) from OpenBSD developers. Maybe if there were 20 ports they would be recommendations, but there are over 4,500 ports. We do not make recommendations about any of these. In fact, our only claim w.r.t. ports is that the licences for the software allow us to distributes the ports (and packages, where made). And where licences have been unclear we have removed ports from the system. Please now stop this Thanks Tom
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 7, 2008 12:14 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say recommend in this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion here) to be something that most people would express as not deliberately erect barriers against. The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description for what I am saying. Many of the people on this list were told that I want OpenBSD to erect barriers against installing non-free programs. And their words show that they think this means designing the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible. (I have not suggested such a thing.) My usage of the recommend fits in normal usage. If you include program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider. Providing a list of programs that can be installed constitutes an implicit recommendation for each one of them? That means if I said you can choose to run OS A or OS B on your computer (and let's assume for now that those are the ONLY OSes that will run on the hardware), I am therefore recommending both as equally valid options. In other words, unless I specifically say I recommend NOT running OS B, then I am implicitly recommending both. If free means the freedom to choose to do what you want, then you have the right to know what all of your options are. There is a reason courts often say the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. One can answer the truth about something, but only mention part of the truth and/or add in non-true information. Just because it was partially true, doesn't mean it is completely true. In the same way, not providing one all of the options available to them means they are not completely free to make their own decision. Now, if said list provides a list of programs that will run, but then says but only program X is fully supported, THAT would constitute an implicit recommendation. Alternatively, if one or more programs on that list is listed as not recommended, then all of the other ones without that annotation are being implicitly recommended. But perhaps I have some twisted logic going on here and I'm way off the mark. In that case, I'd like to know where I went wrong in my thinking.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:14:59PM -0500, Richard Salmon wrote: IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say recommend in this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion here) to be something that most people would express as not deliberately erect barriers against. The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description for what I am saying. Many of the people on this list were told that I want OpenBSD to erect barriers against installing non-free programs. And their words show that they think this means designing the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible. (I have not suggested such a thing.) My usage of the recommend fits in normal usage. If you include program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider. Perhaps implicitly recommend would be a clearer description of this particular case. Once again: Likewise, the inclusion of platform BAR in a list of platforms on which a program FOO may be installed, as well as the availability of binaries for the FOO to run on BAR, implicitly recommends BAR as a choice of platform on which to run FOO, for people and/or enterprises to consider. (Those who would know have informed us that such a situation for gcc and emacs has prompted numerous migrations to Windows. So far nobody has informed us of numerous migrations from free software to non-free software prompted by the ports tree.) In each case recommends is inaccurate insofar as its content partakes of encouragement and the like. It has been pointed out, some time ago and on at least two occasions, that the most accurate way to describe the situation is to say that the ports tree facilitates the installation and maintenance of third party software, not all of which is free. It is clear to anybody who knows what is the ports tree that it is the most accurate description. Of course it is a separate matter to want to use an accurate description (even if it is short, clear and not technical). On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, you did admit I should more precisely have said that the OpenBSD ports system includes instructions for fetching, building and installing specific non-free programs. (in: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=119757178526484). Then, on Fri, 14 Dec 2007, you did promise As a courtesy to the OpenBSD developers, and avoid the risk of confusion, I will try from now on to state this in a more precise way. (in: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=119767255302887).
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
2008/1/8, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman
and the
FSF for OpenBSD?
If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
I don't think _anyone_ have ever argued that you owe them an
endorsement here, and I don't think anyone care at all!!! What
everybody is argue what the things you _said_ about OpenBSD.
0, They don't like OpenBSD to be called non-free.
1, They don't like it when you say OpenBSD { includes, contains,
recommends, suggests} non-free software.
2, They do not agree what the mere inclusion of url and receipt to
build and maintain non-free software is in anyway of { including,
containing, recommending, suggesting} the actual non-free software
itself.
3, They do not consider that the firmware to be part of their
software, but rather the part of a device that runs by itself
separated from the rest of the system.
You probably have never done #0, but when you are doing #1 people do
think of you doing #0.
You are doing #1 because of #2... but unless you can convince people
about #2 and #3, we will always be endlessly argue on things based on
those 2 disagreement.
You should either accept that people are not going to agree with you
on #2 and #3, or find better ways to convince them... otherwise we are
not going to go anywhere, other than having a flame-fest then go home
and believe whatever you believed before.
--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Jason Dixon wrote: Everybody on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own research?!?!?!?!!? Plausible deniability. More like deniable plausibility.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 5, 2008, at 11:22 PM, Karthik Kumar wrote: Secure by default. Ship with nothing and call it secure. Wow! Maybe it shouldn't start the network by default, huh? Then that's secure, isn't it? Start no daemons, start no shells: ZOMG!!! it's secure :P Oddly, I find this more sensible than start with everything wide open and on, because a user doesn't know what he might need. OpenBSD got pwned a year ago with another remote hole. I hope they find enough so they can stop bragging about 'Secure by default'. Do you realize that many people just can not live with 'default'? Look: people do use OpenBSD for things other than plain old fvwm with xterm. And keeping security as a goal is not just for a stupid dubious marketing campaign. Default works pretty well for me: [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s password: Last login: Sat Jan 5 15:29:22 2008 from 10.10.13.22 OpenBSD 4.1-current (GENERIC) #328: Wed Jul 11 20:22:58 MDT 2007 Welcome to OpenBSD: The proactively secure Unix-like operating system. Please use the sendbug(1) utility to report bugs in the system. Before reporting a bug, please try to reproduce it with the latest version of the code. With bug reports, please try to ensure that enough information to reproduce the problem is enclosed, and if a known fix for it exists, include that as well. $ pkg_info -ac Information for inst:lzo-1.08p1 Comment: portable speedy lossless data compression library Information for inst:openvpn-2.0.6p0 Comment: easy-to-use, robust, and highly configurable VPN Information for inst:pftop-0.6 Comment: curses-based real time state and rule display for pf $
Re: FW: Real men don't attack straw men
BUT I WILL STILL GO ON SPREADING THE LIE THAT OpenBSD CONTAINS NON-FREE SOFTWARE SO PEOPLE ARE MISLEAD I never intentionally said such a thing. It was a misunderstanding, because I chose words that were subject to misinterpretation. I appreciate having been informed about the unclear statement. To prevent any further misunderstanding, I have had a clarifying note posted in the page with the interview. I don't object to general-purpose tools just for being general. How about OpenBSD ports system a general purpose tool given by developers to the users? I think the general-purpose ports system framework is fine. What I do not want to recommend are the specific ports for specific non-free programs.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Developing a program ( real software ) for a non-free platform is big encouragement by loud communication ( actions speak better than words ) to use or continue using that non-free platform. There are two issues here: the practical effects, and the message conveyed. The practical effects are mixed. Making free apps run on non-free systems paves the way for some users to migrate to free systems, and for some users eliminates a motivation to migrate. So it has both good and bad effects. I don't know which effect is bigger, but I speculate that the good effect is bigger over all. The negative effect is limited to power users, people who might switch systems as if it were an easy thing to do. Most users are reluctant to change operating systems at all. The part of the practical effect that is negative is something we cannot prevent. If we were to delete the Windows support from Emacs or GCC, that would not stop people from running Emacs or GCC on Windows. The sort of people that would choose an operating system on this basis could easily maintain and redistribute such code. The other issue is the message we convey. That is something we can control, but it also shows the difference between these two cases. Providing a recipe to install a non-free program is very direct and clear support for its use. Making your free program work with something non-free if that's already installed is not such a direct message of support. It makes sense to treat the two cases differently.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Richard Stallman wrote: I appreciate the work that OpenBSD has done in this area. It is an important contribution to our community. Curious that it should take this long to obtain that admission from you. Lies and insults are a strange way of showing appreciation.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 6, 2008 9:43 AM, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 6, 2008 4:25 AM, Gilles Chehade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:42:16AM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote: Firmware are not free enough when they have a license that does not allow them to be redistributed with the system. You are talking of free as in freedom and not price, right? If the whole point was to avoid paying $$$ in OpenBSD, my bad. What has money to do with this ? You sound like you have issues understanding, so I will make it as simple as I can, please take the time to read a few times, and make sure you get it, before replying to this mail: - vendor A sells hardware that requires a firmware - OpenBSD wants to support that hardware and needs the firmware to be shipped, say in /etc/firmware/, to have the hardware work out of the box - vendor A says if a customer wants the firmware, he must go to out website and fill a registration form online. - OpenBSD does not ship the firmware because it is not free enough. See ? This is an example, it is unrelated to money, and you still failed to show us ONE point where we don't stick to our goals. So registration form = non-free. yes it is in the case. what's your problems is? if i have purchaised hardware of this vendor (and with e.g notebooks WRT wifi there is no much of a choise), why should i have trouble and *find a way* to go to vendor's site to fill some dumb form (what for? i already paid them) and then donwlonad the firmware and get my device running. instead they could allow OpenBSD to redistrubute it in a form as it is, and i could use my device the second kernel initializes the device. that would be freedom for me, user of the hardware. but the vendor wants to restrict my freedom by making me going to the site otherwise i won't be able to use the device. i have no choise. is it so complicated so it needs to be chewed and put to your mouth so i could finally get it? You failed to prove how it was not free. I asked if it required OpenBSD to pay money to a vendor, or the issue was about something else besides the money. I don't see the registration form being a problem here. Maybe they might simply take down your name and address for contact details or whatever. I don't see why a registration form must be non-free here. the one who failed here is you. how old are you? you sound childish. The answer, as I have found out, to all my previous questions is the notions of god that we have etched into our minds. This is where all my questions end and I walk the path I know. it sounds like you stopped learning and perhaps there is no point to talk to you.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Karthik Kumar On Jan 6, 2008 1:52 PM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Karthik Kumar wrote: So registration form = non-free. You failed to prove how it was not free. Maybe your information is worthless. Mine isn't. So it is about the money. :-) The value of your information. Ah. No. It is about whose information is worthless.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Karthik Kumar wrote: No. It is a reply to someone who said it was not the money. about the money??? --- what money? There is no money involeved with the free registrations Or is the free registration, and the desire to avoid such, somehow about the money that desn't exist? that desn't change hands?
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 6, 2008 1:39 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Developing a program ( real software ) for a non-free platform is big encouragement by loud communication ( actions speak better than words ) to use or continue using that non-free platform. There are two issues here: the practical effects, and the message conveyed. The practical effects are mixed. Making free apps run on non-free systems paves the way for some users to migrate to free systems, and for some users eliminates a motivation to migrate. So it has both good and bad effects. I don't know which effect is bigger, but I speculate that the good effect is bigger over all. The negative effect is limited to power users, people who might switch systems as if it were an easy thing to do. Most users are reluctant to change operating systems at all. A bad effect is that people still use non-free systems. They should stop relying on that. The part of the practical effect that is negative is something we cannot prevent. If we were to delete the Windows support from Emacs or GCC, that would not stop people from running Emacs or GCC on Windows. The sort of people that would choose an operating system on this basis could easily maintain and redistribute such code. No, but it would encourage people to being more BSD or GNU/Linux like. The other issue is the message we convey. That is something we can control, but it also shows the difference between these two cases. Providing a recipe to install a non-free program is very direct and clear support for its use. Making your free program work with something non-free if that's already installed is not such a direct message of support. It makes sense to treat the two cases differently. I see no difference in both cases. When the ideal is the same. Encourage only free software. -- Karthik http://guilt.bafsoft.net
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 5, 2008, at 11:54 PM, Karthik Kumar wrote: openvpn 2.0.x is in the ports: not by default. PF is not enabled by default. Deliberately ignoring the point doesn't make it any less relevant.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:58:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote: | On another hand we are not GNU/GPL and we don't mind our users installing | non free software if it is what they want. The FAQ is where this needs to | be documented for users to get their job done faster. | | | If you don't mind users using non-free software, you shouldn't be | putting the 'Free. ' in 'Free. Functional. Secure.'; You shouldn't be | fighting those blob vendors and call them nasty names; Rather, You really have no clue about what the portstree and the packages do in OpenBSD, do you ? OpenBSD is Free, Functional and Secure. This is not required from software you install from packages or via the ports tree. It's the OS that is free. Try to understand : all of OpenBSD is Free. Everything. Nothing in OpenBSD is not free (barring bugs, but I believe those have been eradicated by now). The kernel is free, binaries and manpages are free, the ports tree is free, software used to install packages (pkg_add) is free, free free free. You can get them at no extra charge (apart from you internet connection fee + storage cost etc.) so the OS is free as in gratis or without charge. You can look at the source of the kernel, binaries, manpages, portstree, pkg_add and change them to your liking so the OS is free as in freedom : you have the freedom to use and change it as you like. OpenBSD got to be free because it fights blob vendors and calls them nasty names. This keeps the OS Free (no restricting your freedom) and Functional (it actually works on the hardware) and Secure (no blobs running on your CPU/in your kernel that may do whatever). And another cool part : OpenBSD does not restrict you (aka, gives you the freedom) in what software you wish to install and run on your system, be it free or non-free. That's another point for the 'free' part : freedom to install non-free software (if you chose to do so) (also, it's another point for the 'functional' part, but that goes without saying). You may consider running non-free software stupid / dumb / silly. Sure, fine. I would (in general) consider doing an 'sudo rm -rf /' stupid / dump / silly, but OpenBSD lets you do it. Nowhere is it written that the Free operating system OpenBSD wants its users to only run Free software. It is written, however, that OpenBSD *ITSELF* wants to be free. Free for all to use and re-use as they see fit. | probably document how to use such drivers and firmware 'faster'. Then | you shouldn't be making a claim that 'OpenBSD supports openness'. If | you can manipulate your reasons for making this ethical, you shouldn't | be calling others names. And you shouldn't bring back ethics' dead | body around your neck. No amount of word twisting is going to change the facts here. OpenBSD is FREE. Here's a challenge : Go to the cvs repository of OpenBSD (it's at http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/ if you want a web interface) and point out any one file that is not free. Keep in mind that what is stored in that repository is OpenBSD (other, non-free software that you can install on OpenBSD is *NOT* OpenBSD). Until you find such a file, please refrain from your silly remarks about OpenBSD being non-free or how ethics are involved : you obviously have no clue. | And the rest who do should avoid red herring arguments and accept what | they are doing. In other words, they should say: 'I am wrong. I will | fix the problem at my end. Your turn now.' I don't see anybody doing | it. Don't you see how you're not doing anything but complaining? It | doesn't make this any different. So, in closing : You are wrong, please fix the problem at your end, it's our turn now. Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd -- [++-]+++.+++[---].+++[+ +++-].++[-]+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/
