Re: FOSS Open Hardware Documentation
What was the long term fall out of this? Sell out to Oracle, etc. On 2007-08-28 Tue 10:43 AM |, Theo de Raadt wrote: On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 04:08:02PM +0100, Edd Barrett wrote: On 28/08/07, Craig Skinner - Sun Microsystems - Linlithgow - Scotland Yay! Action at last. Wow! This is great news. Better late than never, but damn is it late. Indeed, that is the correct sentiment regarding Sun's action here. The facts of the industry are simply this: Approximately 95% of machine parts are documented (whether they are documented well or not is a totally seperate question). Starting roughly around 1990, Sun put themselves on the path of supplying only the absolute minimum documentation for their machine parts. Meanwhile, the PC really took off, and all the documentation for PC parts has always been out there (minus a few special cases that we have had to fight for). DEC released pretty much all the documentation for the Alpha right from the start, and later a few people pressured HP to release pretty much all the HPPA documentation. That left the largest straggler in the industry: Sun. And the case is that Sun has always had the documentation in-house; because of solid engineering principles in-house they document everything, perhaps because their hardware and software groups are seperated so much. Apple also has done a poor job of documenting their hardware, but looking at the quality of their hardware (with entirely pointless divergences between models that come out 3 months apart) we can guess that maybe we don't want to see them. Finally, there are a few American chip makers that resist the status quo, like Marvell and (to a lesser degree) Broadcom. Even Intel tries to play the open game now. Then there are a handful of (increasingly irrelevant) American wireless chipset manufacturers. But in general there are fewer and fewer closed vendors. But Sun had no excuse for this behaviour in 1990, and it is incredible that only now they will try to redeem it. So I don't say bravo, but I say about time. They don't get any points from me, because they are so late. I give the most credit to Craig Skinner who started the conversation at Sun with us (he found the right place to push Sun -- right at the top), and David Gwynne for continuing the soft pressure through the last couple of months. My biggest hope is that Sun's cleanup process does not delete too much information from the pages... like descriptions of hardware bugs and the workarounds needed for best effort operation. Because we already know that some revisions of Sun hardware have brutally bad bugs that ... even sometimes cannot be worked around.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 01/16/08 03:41, Richard Stallman wrote: If I read and read between the lines you clearly admit you are not satisfied with the current GPLvX more restrictions will follow. We will change the GPL as needed to deal with future threats. I'm satisfied with GPL v3 now, but our enemies are clever. I have to presume that they will pull some surprises. What's surprising or difficult to envision about web services? And where does the word enemies come from? You made up rules, people obey them and they still can be your enemies regarding these rules? What's so difficult about admitting that the rules are not sound and GPLvX should be quite different to make them sound, for example without the DRM ruling, to make sure nobody who obeys the rules can become an ennemy? If I see your first line above I understand, but maybe better to ask it directly: How come you cannot fix a license for once and for all? Because the world does not stand still. When I wrote GPL2, I did not envision tivoization or the Novell-Microsoft pact, so it does not defend against them. GPLv3 does. So you Balkanize GPL further. And GPLvX doesn't defend against web services. What can you do and what possibilities do you see to enforce it? Am I right that it could end with the FSF looking over the shoulder of anybody who uses GPL to see if something is changed or added while being used for a third party? That is very vague, but it doesn't sound like something I would want to do. You should have peace with the fact that the source code =is= open source, published. You don't respect that, you clearly want too to take privacy of programmers as much down as you can think of. Clearly no respect for programmers, not funny to see. +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:10:01PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: If users don't normally install microcode in the CPU, then ethically it may as well be a circuit. It is not built as a circuit, but that's a different question. That may as well be an ethically confusing sentence. If users don't normally install ice cream in the banana, then ethically it may as well be a fruit. Oh My Gnu!... We shall not endorse restaurants which serve pre-compiled banana split for dessert to innocent guests when those guests ask for it, unless the restaurant provides them with the complete recipe and all ingredients!
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
I really tried resisting replying to this but this is simply too much. On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 06:27:24AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: And who controls GPL? What will you do when all GPL software and subsequent developments are kept on servers out of reach of users (BSD situation...)? You are making an extreme projection, which I doubt will happen. I am going to urge people to avoid using servers to do their own computing. I am not making an extreme projection. The FSF for all intents and purposes outlived its usefulness 10 years ago. It was reinvented to remain relevant. It'll fade away just like any other organization that has no real use anymore. Then what? To remain in power the FSF needs to collect ownership of as much software as possible. That's where things like GPLv3 come in because your organization is losing control. Retain control as long as possible! However, as regards the release of source code for those modified, we've already taken a step to deal with that. We have already published the GNU Affero GPL which deals with the issue that someone might use an improved version on a public server and never release his changes. This is such a dumb argument that I don't even know where to start. The anti-tivo argument is shallow because there is no difference between a TiVo that boots linux and a CPU that needs micro code. The they will close the code argument is 100% a farce; one can not close code, it is still out there on the mirrors; licenses can not retroactively be revoked. You have regurgitated some lame arguments on ethics however you clearly don't subscribe to them. Then you go around and claim ignorance on topics that you are supposed to be an expert on. Your arguments have therefore lost all credibility. I can go on and point out all fallacies in your arguments but I am pretty sure we have covered that ad nauseam. What will be in GPLv4? GPLv4 will be basically the same as all previous versions: it will grant the four freedoms to everyone, and protect them for everyone, as best as we can achieve. We will change only details. Those so called freedoms are covered by copyright law. You really don't need a 1 word license. The only thing you are trying to protect is the relevance of the FSF. Why more rights to the user than to the creator? By the creator, do you mean the author of a program? When the author releases a program under the GNU GPL, he gives users a subset of his legal rights. So your question is based on a misunderstanding. No it is not. Copyright takes good care of author. The GPL revokes copyright holders rights and therefore is a bad license for people authoring software. It is however a fantastic license for large corporations to give away code without giving it away. This is an awesome marketing tool. As usual your arguments are backwards. You say you protect one group but really you are protecting self interests. Why do you Balkanize the open source community without any sound reason? There is no such thing as the open source community. Open source supporters are part of the free software community, which was built by the free software movement starting in 1983. This sentence does not even make sense. If I read this correctly you are claiming 100% credit of all Open and Free software (man do I hate these made up words) efforts because you started a foundation that has something to do with FOSS. The only credit you get to claim is the fact that there was no user space available when Linus launched Linux and it filled a nice niche. There was all kinds of open/free/gratis code available long before you came up with the FSF. You got to piggy back Linus' work and the fear of the outcome of the BSD legal battle in California. You didn't do that much; you were simply lucky that at that time you had something that did something. All this grandeur that *you* did it is quite frankly delusional. You got lucky, that's it. If balkanize refers to incompatible licenses, that would not happen if everyone followed our licensing recommendations. If all free software were released under GPL version N or later, as we recommend, then all free software would be license-compatible. This is the most insulting thing you have said so far. Now you are challenging everyone's intelligence who does not agree with your license. Wow, I really thought that I had heard it all from you. I know this will sound foreign to you but are you aware that the GPL is not everyone's first choice? Are you aware that large corporations are using the GPL to pretend to be open source friendly? The GPL has a virus clause and by that definition it is a balkanizing license. People will not agree with you and by throwing a tantrum saying boohoo you should agree with my license is childish at best and power mongering for your irrelevant foundation at worst. All your code are belong to FSF!
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 1/14/08 7:58 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 06:27:24AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: What will be in GPLv4? GPLv4 will be basically the same as all previous versions: it will grant the four freedoms to everyone, and protect them for everyone, as best as we can achieve. We will change only details. Those so called freedoms are covered by copyright law. You really don't need a 1 word license. My idea. And every new word can hide a new bug or even more, so the version count will get much higher than 4. Less code is by design the only thing that gives more clarity and security... The only thing you are trying to protect is the relevance of the FSF. It's clear that one of Richard Stallman's main goals is further Balkanizing the open source community. Divide and conquer, a primitive and mean way to proceed with this idealistic matter. Really very sad that such an influential person uses this kind of methods. But yes, you may Richard, you may. This is a BSD list, nobody here holds you with your primitive pursuit of happiness. .. [ All your code are belong to FSF! The funniest remark in this sad thread. ] +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 01/14/08 12:27, Richard Stallman wrote: And who controls GPL? What will you do when all GPL software and subsequent developments are kept on servers out of reach of users (BSD situation...)? You are making an extreme projection, which I doubt will happen. I see more revenue from our services, where we keep up servers for others, every moment. People who bought servers from us in the past would love to hire them, and yes yes yes, with maintenance. I am going to urge people to avoid using servers to do their own computing. You need programs for that, most new programs are offered as web services, out of reach of your GPLv0/1/2/3. .. What will be in GPLv4? GPLv4 will be basically the same as all previous versions: it will grant the four freedoms to everyone, and protect them for everyone, as best as we can achieve. We will change only details. If I read and read between the lines you clearly admit you are not satisfied with the current GPLvX more restrictions will follow. If I see your first line above I understand, but maybe better to ask it directly: How come you cannot fix a license for once and for all? I admit the BSD license has changed somewhat in time, it became =less= restrictive. You clearly want more restrictions. Am I right that it could end with the FSF looking over the shoulder of anybody who uses GPL to see if something is changed or added while being used for a third party? I presume you would love it if also scripts that connect GPLvX programs will automatically be GPLvX too? Why more rights to the user than to the creator? By the creator, do you mean the author of a program? Yes, or the creator of a change or extra line to a program. Someone who creates something in general. Preferable pushing the edge! When the author releases a program under the GNU GPL, he gives users a subset of his legal rights. So your question is based on a misunderstanding. Since you mention the word misunderstanding: Why don't you mention that (s)he also gives the clear =restriction= to open up all further changes? Why do you Balkanize the open source community without any sound reason? There is no such thing as the open source community. There is .., to your opionion I may hope?? I cannot remember anyone else denying that there is an open source community. People and companies who deliver publicly available sourcecode with various less or more restrictive licenses form the open source community. Open source supporters are part of the free software community, which was built by the free software movement starting in 1983. I know a lot of open source supporters who want no connection at all with the movement you started (don't ask around her at [EMAIL PROTECTED]), if only for your denying above of any =restrictions= in the GPLvX. Your publishings only uses pluses and no minuses concerning freedoms. Every of your four freedoms have accompanying restrictions equally big/bold if you like it or not. If you keep denying that it's not difficult to envision: Every subsequent GPLvX version will undoubtedly be more restrictive while you will need to scream louder and louder that it brings more freedom. Compare that with BSD, simple message, no screaming necessary, no serious changes in the license to be foreseen, its decent. If balkanize refers to incompatible licenses, that would not happen if everyone followed our licensing recommendations. If all free software were released under GPL version N or later, as we recommend, then all free software would be license-compatible. Did you recommend that since version 0 of GPL? I doubt so, that would have awakened more people at the right moment. Now with GPLv4 in the works people start thinking hey where will it end up? Who knows what will be in GPLv5? Is it possible that GPLv5 will be 100% compatible with the 2 clause BSD license? It's clear you doubt most GPLv0/1/2/3 will be behind servers but let's think and say it is so. In that situation for both users and programmers there is no difference between BSD and GPLv0/2/3 !!! My estimate is that the open source community will still take up and produce clever ideas and produce open source code. If it's not published (open) it doesn't exist and cannot be build upon by the community (world!). On the other hand, if most code is used for services on servers, there is often almost no way to check if GPLvX is used. Enforcing GPLvX in a services world seems a little bit clueless to me. You will need investigating searches by the police et cetera. You want too much and without a sound reason, only Balkanizes the community. BSD is good enough for the users of open source and clearly better for programmers and companies who use and produce code. Gives them maximum privacy and a better chance of earning money with it. +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 1/13/08 9:35 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: By taking them away from the developer and putting them under auspices of the FSF. I would never write a single line of code with a gun to my head and that is what the GPL does. The GPL doesn't take any code away from its author, it doesn't put code under the auspices of the FSF, and it doesn't force anyone to write anything. People who release their source code under the GNU GPL give you permission to use their code in other GPL-covered programs. And who controls GPL? What will you do when all GPL software and subsequent developments are kept on servers out of reach of users (BSD situation...)? What will be in GPLv4? Why do you Balkanize the open source community without any sound reason? It appears your hatred for the GPL has blinded you to the reality of the GPL. Why more rights to the user than to the creator? What is blinding about that? +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Jan 13, 2008 9:53 AM, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/13/08 9:35 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: By taking them away from the developer and putting them under auspices of the FSF. I would never write a single line of code with a gun to my head and that is what the GPL does. The GPL doesn't take any code away from its author, it doesn't put code under the auspices of the FSF, and it doesn't force anyone to write anything. People who release their source code under the GNU GPL give you permission to use their code in other GPL-covered programs. And who controls GPL? What will you do when all GPL software and subsequent developments are kept on servers out of reach of users (BSD situation...)? What will be in GPLv4? Why do you Balkanize the open source community without any sound reason? It appears your hatred for the GPL has blinded you to the reality of the GPL. Why more rights to the user than to the creator? What is blinding about that? +++chefren Why don't you answer publicly, like you where doing before, Richard?
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
By taking them away from the developer and putting them under auspices of the FSF. I would never write a single line of code with a gun to my head and that is what the GPL does. You got it the wrong way around Richard. On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 08:57:39AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Where the GPL is temporary safety in trade of Essential Liberty. The GPL protects the four essential liberties for every user. That's the whole point of it. Non-copyleft licenses permit non-free copies and non-free versions, which deny users the essential freedoms. The GPL does not. In haiku form: Using GPL Is encroaching on our rights To encroach on yours
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
bofh wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 1:52 PM, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:07:50AM -0500, Kevin Wilcox wrote: Daniel then brought up the idea of CD sales. Something you can buy and put an exact digital replica of online. are sure about that? and what about the sticker(s) that come with the CDs? and the artwork on the insert? and the preprinted installation instructions? This is beyond silly. FSF/GNU used to sell tapes of GPLed stuff too. I'm sure it came with pre-printed instructions as well. No idea about artwork or stickers however. But splitting hairs is not useful. No, he makes a very valid point. The stickers/artwork/installation instructions are all copyrighted material and the purchaser of the CD set is not licensed to redistribute that material. So, if you are making digital replicas and selling them, that's a big no-no and not what I was talking about. My quoted statement was about the content of the CD itself. I had forgotten why I had originally made my own OpenBSD CDs - the *layout* of the master set is copyrighted as well. You can't legally rip and redistribute the purchased CD set (well, unless you're Theo or he licenses it to you in such a way that you are allowed to do so). While it doesn't affect the broader scope of my argument (you can make money selling software that is already freely available), it does affect that particular statement. kmw
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:34:46 -0500, Kevin Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: bofh wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 1:52 PM, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:07:50AM -0500, Kevin Wilcox wrote: Daniel then brought up the idea of CD sales. Something you can buy and put an exact digital replica of online. are sure about that? and what about the sticker(s) that come with the CDs? and the artwork on the insert? and the preprinted installation instructions? This is beyond silly. FSF/GNU used to sell tapes of GPLed stuff too. I'm sure it came with pre-printed instructions as well. No idea about artwork or stickers however. But splitting hairs is not useful. No, he makes a very valid point. The stickers/artwork/installation instructions are all copyrighted material and the purchaser of the CD set is not licensed to redistribute that material. So, if you are making digital replicas and selling them, that's a big no-no and not what I was talking about. My quoted statement was about the content of the CD itself. I had forgotten why I had originally made my own OpenBSD CDs - the *layout* of the master set is copyrighted as well. You can't legally rip and redistribute the purchased CD set (well, unless you're Theo or he licenses it to you in such a way that you are allowed to do so). While it doesn't affect the broader scope of my argument (you can make money selling software that is already freely available), it does affect that particular statement. While it doesn't affect the broader scope of my argument (you can make money selling software that is already freely available), it does affect that particular statement. OK, I will explain it to you because I am tired of you *not* *getting* *it*. The software is simultaneously available as a CD (actually DVD) set you can purchase and as a free download. There are so few people that need to buy the CD's that it is irrelevant to this point. OpenBSD is not making money from selling software. When you buy the CD's you are knowingly doing so to help support the project. You don't *have* to buy them. You can get the software for free. When you buy the CD's you are really buying an idea. This is totally different than the concept given in the GPL link that was given earlier in this thread about allowing you to sell your software that is GPL'ed. Apples and Oranges.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:20:58 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: If you want to see what we really say about this, visit that URL and read the whole three paragraphs. You mean what you say about it this week. The text in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market has been there for years. The GNU philosophy and policies I've stated here were established years ago. So it looks like you've made a false accusation based on pure guesswork. OK, maybe I exaggerated a little. For that I'll apologize. I accidentally said something which appeared to criticize OpenBSD falsely. When I understood the confusion, I apologized and corrected it. How about making an effort to avoid such errors? This, however is a completely false statement. You didn't accidentally say anything and by your standards it did criticize OpenBSD. There was no appearance about it. Also, you have yet to apologize. All you've done is twist words just like you've done above. You have corrected nothing. All you've done is twist words. If you've apologized privatively to Theo that's great, but you have also insulted the entire OBSD community and I believe we all should see it. Thanks for your attention.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 1/10/08 6:18 PM, Eric Furman wrote: OK, I will explain it to you because I am tired of you *not* *getting* *it*. The software is simultaneously available as a CD (actually DVD) Please stop/halt/finish/end... It's a CD set, 3 CD's in a DVD box. set you can purchase and as a free download. There are so few people that need to buy the CD's that it is irrelevant to this point. Buying the CD set and OpenBSD goodies is =very relevant=. Please buy more or at least donate money. OpenBSD is not making money from selling software. When you buy the CD's you are knowingly doing so to help support the project. You don't *have* to buy them. You can get the software for free. When you buy the CD's you are really buying an idea. No you buy a case, CD's artwork, printed paper... And there is sofware as a bonus too. We more or less need the CD's since we develop sotware on a data isle and don't want any connections to the internet ever. When we buy the official release it's very difficult for an attacker to infiltrate the code on the CD set, that's a serious plus. +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 12:11:46AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can stop the GPL propaganda here. We have wasted enough time rehashing it. You are not going to convince anybody here that some random person has more rights than the author of the software. The end, get over it, walk it off. I'm not out to convince anyone that anyone has any more rights than anyone else. What I *was* doing was bringing that particular portion of the conversation back to more than just baseless bashing of a particular license. It isn't baseless you are simply blind to it because you are convinced that the GPL is the best thing evah! The GPL essentially strips the author of his/her rights. So here you are slaving away writing some code that you give away and then on top of that you have to forfeit your labor in favor of users. I hate to tell you this but that is the wrong way around. If enough people realize this they will either stop giving code away or switch licenses. The only beneficiaries of such a license are large corporations. The newer the GPL version the better in fact. Now you can give away code without giving it away. You can essentially prevent other companies to use it (TiVo clause) and some more rights to be given up on the patent clauses. We can debate the merit of the people vs companies here but it was either an unforeseen circumstance or a clever business trick. I put my money on the unforeseen one. If I was to start a company that had some software I'd buy the open source crowd by making my code GPLv3 and yet keep all my patents and code safe; put real IP in hardware and sell sell sell. This is not what the RMS/FSF tells you do. They say things like it's free! you are doing society a favor! non-gpl code is evil and unethical etc. These slogans are nothing but cover ups for the growing empire that is the FSF (yes lots of people forfeit their rights to them not knowing what they are giving up and no benefit to boot). RMS tried with circle talk to convince people and lost many acolytes in the process. GNU FSF are disingenuous organizations that are and unable to read a dictionary. That makes people angry so stop parroting their manure here. Yes, there has been quite a bit of manure slung by *both* sides. I prefer to stay out of that particular gutter. I personally don't care what anyone thinks of RMS, GNU *or* FSF. I'm an ardent supporter of none of the above. That is not how I see this. One side came to slander (not the first time either) and the other side kept correcting the slanderer. There might have been some strong words going back and forth but only one side was wrong. Lets call it self-defense. A few more cronies also tried and failed at convincing anyone of the GPL teachings. Yes we get your point and we think it is stupid. No need to discuss it or try to explain it again. We get it. They're not my teachings or teachings to which I particularly subscribe. I would maintain that most of the more popular licenses have their pros - ultimately it depends on who or what you want to protect. Popular does not mean good. VHS anyone? As I said before the GPL is sold on false premises and unfortunately a lot of people stop thinking by the time they hear free as in beer, can't be closed, unethical code etc. These slogans are not true and are used to sell something that is of no benefit to the author. Roughly the same way that communism was sold to the people. That is where the FSF stands today. They outlived their usefulness and really should have closed shop but instead they reinvented themselves with new goals. This also happens in the business world. For example, In the past unions created some real benefit for workers and today are shills for someone in power. Let me quote my man Franklin: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Where the GPL is temporary safety in trade of Essential Liberty. Don't paint me with the RMS/GNU brush because I refused to stand by and watch *blatantly* false accusations be made. There is a big difference between correcting those accusations and *supporting* the recipient of the accusations. Then don't stand by them by not replying to this. By adding to this thread you picked a side like it or not. kmw
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Tony Abernethy wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not out to convince anyone that anyone has any more rights than anyone else. HOWEVER, the original author DOES have more rights than anyone else. In particular, the original author says who has what rights. You have no say in the matter. Your opinion does not count. Hi Tony. I'm not going to argue against that. The author, as creator of the piece of work and originator of the copyright, does have more rights. It's true. I'm just not out to *convince* anyone of it. kmw
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Tony Abernethy wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was pointing out that you could release the alpha/beta/testing software under whatever license you choose that will keep it from being re-distributed Huh??? What kind of release is not re-distributed? By redistribute I do not mean the author distributes it again, I mean the recipient then acts as a distributor. Just because I have an alpha release of some software doesn't mean I have the right to redistribute that software. Those rights are determined by my license agreement. kmw
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Marco Peereboom wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 12:11:46AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not out to convince anyone that anyone has any more rights than anyone else. What I *was* doing was bringing that particular portion of the conversation back to more than just baseless bashing of a particular license. It isn't baseless you are simply blind to it because you are convinced that the GPL is the best thing evah! What have you been smoking and can a brotha get a hit? I am not a particularly large fan of the GPL. It's not my first choice of license but I can see where it has its uses. It also has its fair share of issues and those issues are fair reasons for attack. Bash it for its legitimate flaws, though, and not by making sensationalist claims that aren't true. The GPL essentially strips the author of his/her rights. So here you are slaving away writing some code that you give away and then on top of that you have to forfeit your labor in favor of users. I hate to tell you this but that is the wrong way around. I'm not making any statements to the contrary. If you choose to give your code away then that's your own mistake. Why would you hate to have to tell me that? That is not how I see this. One side came to slander (not the first time either) and the other side kept correcting the slanderer. There might have been some strong words going back and forth but only one side was wrong. Lets call it self-defense. Yes, RMS slandered. Tell him he's wrong, that the comment was incorrect and that his argument is bollocks. Rally the troops for self-defense. That's the right thing to do. Attack the GPL for its flaws. That's the right thing to do. I'm not denouncing either of these acts. What I *am* denouncing are some of the sensationalist claims that were incorrect. They're not my teachings or teachings to which I particularly subscribe. I would maintain that most of the more popular licenses have their pros - ultimately it depends on who or what you want to protect. Popular does not mean good. VHS anyone? That's why I intentionally said more popular. Lots of things are popular but complete rubbish. Somewhere along the line each of the more popular licenses scratched an itch for some developer or organization and others felt that *something* about the license was useful to them - the license had it's pros. Let me quote my man Franklin: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Where the GPL is temporary safety in trade of Essential Liberty. That's quite a broad stretch to make and I both agree and disagree. I think it boils down to what it is you're trying to protect. Nice use of Ben. Don't paint me with the RMS/GNU brush because I refused to stand by and watch *blatantly* false accusations be made. There is a big difference between correcting those accusations and *supporting* the recipient of the accusations. Then don't stand by them by not replying to this. By adding to this thread you picked a side like it or not. Let's use your own quotation from Franklin. By not replying I am foregoing my own Liberty in exchange for a bit of temporary safety in not being painted with that brush. I choose, instead, to exercise the ability to reply and say that this is not an us or them situation and that I refuse to allow myself to be painted that colour. I've chosen no side. If that means I get cut down by yours because you want to make it a with us or against us argument, fine. If that means I get cut down by RMS/GNU/FSF because they want to make it a with us or against us argument, fine. *I don't care*. I choose to remain a neutral third party that can see the benefits (and detriments) of the different licenses. You can't lump someone as your enemy simply because they aren't full of fervour for your cause. kmw -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 1/9/08 3:13 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 1:20 AM, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] This man has no respect for programmers, clearly doesn't understand why money was invented and how a market can be a very reasonable way to let people earn money. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software users in general, as a market. This is not to say we're against markets. It's misleading to call GNU GNU it should be called BSD/GNU. (Thanks to Wijnand for pointing at this.) BSD/GPL BSD/GPLvX Somewhat more typing but good PR. +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 08 Jan 2008 20:21:08 -0500, Daniel Hagerty [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Eric Furman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read. You might get one wanker to pay for it, but if it comes in non-binary with all the source what's to stop them from posting it on the internet and everybody else getting it for free? Good question. Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Profits from CD sales are the primary income source for the OpenBSD project -- in essence selling these CD-ROM units ensures that OpenBSD will continue to make another release six months from now. Maybe this guy can explain it to you. OK, *that* was the most retarded thing I have ever read. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Jan 8, 2008 7:20 PM, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read. You might get one wanker to pay for it, but if it comes in non-binary with all the source what's to stop them from posting it on the internet and everybody else getting it for free? Following Richard Stallman's theories everyone may make money with his creation/work except a programmer. Richard Stallman /says/ a programmer may earn money 1 time and than the code should be free after that. Why he says so is clueless, he clearly cannot explain how a programmer should make money if it's about a lot of work that is just a little feature for a lot of people, such a programmer should go around and ask a milion users a cent before he lets them test the code. Because the moment he let other people test it, the code should be for grabs too. Richard want's such a programmer to spam the world about a little feature to get money for it. Though - it must be said - RedHat certain employs a number of GPL programmers. As do IBM, and even Microsoft. -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity. -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted. -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0feature=related
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:30:52 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software users in general, as a market. This is not to say we're against markets. If you want to see what we really say about this, visit that URL and read the whole three paragraphs. You mean what you say about it this week. Blah blah blah. If you're not issuing and apology to OBSD then STFU and go away. They don't want or need your endorsement just an apology for misrepresenting them.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Eric Furman wrote: On 08 Jan 2008 20:21:08 -0500, Daniel Hagerty [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Eric Furman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read. You might get one wanker to pay for it, but if it comes in non-binary with all the source what's to stop them from posting it on the internet and everybody else getting it for free? Good question. Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Profits from CD sales are the primary income source for the OpenBSD project -- in essence selling these CD-ROM units ensures that OpenBSD will continue to make another release six months from now. Maybe this guy can explain it to you. OK, *that* was the most retarded thing I have ever read. You're comparing apples and oranges. No, he's not. Stallman said I'm not against buying software from developers (as long as it is free software). That is the baseline for your This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read comment. You make a valid point, what is to keep someone from taking the source that they'd bought and putting an exact digital replica online. This implies that you can't make money selling the source to software that could potentially be had sans gratis on the 'net. Daniel then brought up the idea of CD sales. Something you can buy and put an exact digital replica of online. By your implication that you can't make money selling the source to potentially sans gratis, it's also implied that you shouldn't be able to make money with CD sales of *definite* sans gratis software because someone could either buy the CD and make a .iso version available online or you could just get the software sans gratis anyway. Since you're missing the analogy I'd say you probably didn't intend to imply that. For those of us that read the implication there, though, the analogy makes perfect sense. kmw -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Eric Furman wrote: *BULLSHIT*. You have so completely missed the point it is to laugh. Apples and Oranges. Remember OBSD isn't GPL'ed There's no need to continue this on the list because you don't get the analogy so I'm replying directly. I didn't say that OBSD is GPL'ed, did I? I said that selling software that's available at no cost (GPL software someone has bought and re-released to the public) is no different than selling software that's available at no cost (an OpenBSD CD versus the .iso format available to the public). In both cases you are taking software that is freely (cost) available and selling it via some physical medium. I even stated that it was just something that I had picked up as an implication and that for those of us that interpreted your statement in that fashion, the analogy made sense. How is that bs? I've no qualms being someone's laughing stock because they fail to understand something so feel free to laugh away. My regret is that I failed to sufficiently explain the analogy, and why at least a few of us felt it was appropriate, in a manner you could understand the first time. If you still do not understand the analogy, and why I agree with Daniel that it was an appropriate one, please feel free to email me directly and we can discuss it. There's no point in continuing to butt heads on the list. kmw
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:01:52 -0500, Kevin Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Eric Furman wrote: *BULLSHIT*. You have so completely missed the point it is to laugh. Apples and Oranges. Remember OBSD isn't GPL'ed There's no need to continue this on the list because you don't get the analogy so I'm replying directly. Then why did you cc the list? I didn't say that OBSD is GPL'ed, did I? I said that selling software No, but you are making comparisons. OBSD doesn't follow GPL's rules. that's available at no cost (GPL software someone has bought and re-released to the public) is no different than selling software that's available at no cost (an OpenBSD CD versus the .iso format available to the public). In both cases you are taking software that is freely (cost) available and selling it via some physical medium. Yes, but the *intentions* are completely different. I even stated that it was just something that I had picked up as an implication and that for those of us that interpreted your statement in that fashion, the analogy made sense. How is that bs? I've no qualms being someone's laughing stock because they fail to understand something so feel free to laugh away. My regret is that I failed to sufficiently explain the analogy, and why at least a few of us felt it was appropriate, in a manner you could understand the first time. *I* understand perfectly, but because you have swallowed a lot of GNU baloney you don't get my original point and I don't feel like wasting my time explaining it to you. If you still do not understand the analogy, and why I agree with Daniel that it was an appropriate one, please feel free to email me directly and we can discuss it. There's no point in continuing to butt heads on the list. I know why you agree with him. No further discussion is necessary.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:07:50 -0500, Kevin Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Eric Furman wrote: On 08 Jan 2008 20:21:08 -0500, Daniel Hagerty [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Eric Furman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read. You might get one wanker to pay for it, but if it comes in non-binary with all the source what's to stop them from posting it on the internet and everybody else getting it for free? Good question. Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Profits from CD sales are the primary income source for the OpenBSD project -- in essence selling these CD-ROM units ensures that OpenBSD will continue to make another release six months from now. Maybe this guy can explain it to you. OK, *that* was the most retarded thing I have ever read. You're comparing apples and oranges. No, he's not. Stallman said I'm not against buying software from developers (as long as it is free software). That is the baseline for your This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read comment. You make a valid point, what is to keep someone from taking the source that they'd bought and putting an exact digital replica online. This implies that you can't make money selling the source to software that could potentially be had sans gratis on the 'net. Daniel then brought up the idea of CD sales. Something you can buy and put an exact digital replica of online. By your implication that you can't make money selling the source to potentially sans gratis, it's also implied that you shouldn't be able to make money with CD sales of *definite* sans gratis software because someone could either buy the CD and make a .iso version available online or you could just get the software sans gratis anyway. Since you're missing the analogy I'd say you probably didn't intend to imply that. For those of us that read the implication there, though, the analogy makes perfect sense. *BULLSHIT*. You have so completely missed the point it is to laugh. Apples and Oranges. Remember OBSD isn't GPL'ed
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 01/09/08 16:44, Kevin Wilcox wrote: I don't think either of you have a firm grasp of what's being said with regards to selling free software. Or of the GPL in general. http://webster.com/dictionary/selling http://webster.com/dictionary/free http://webster.com/dictionary/software The use of the word free has nothing to do with price, it is that the recipient of a piece of software has the freedom to modify the software as they see necessary so that it does what they want it to do. If you mean that, don't use the word free. To accomplish this, they should receive the source to said software. That's what the GPLv2 is all about - providing the recipient of a piece of software with the source code to that software and the freedom to modify it as they desire. Sorry, after reading and understanding GPL itself I never put much time in understanding subsequent versions... But I do understand that the word free, as in http://webster.com/dictionary/free Has nothing to do with it. Nice to know. It is only once they decide to *further distribute* the software that they are restricted. At that point the only restrictions placed on them is that they provide the source - thereby giving the recipient the same rights bestowed upon them by *their* provider. Come on, what a details, if it's not free as in http://webster.com/dictionary/free and is about open source software as in: http://webster.com/dictionary/software none of the subscribers of this list is interested any more. I'm sorry if this shocks you. No one has said that you can't charge whatever you like for your software *or* that you have to give the code away to the world - they are saying that if you provide a binary then you should provide the recipients of that binary with the corresponding source and the right to change it and distribute it as they see fit. Well, I presume that after GPLv4 were you wrote now No one should be written Richard Stallman and his cronies. Richard Stallman's ideas clearly point at robbing software writers, if software writers hide their work behind webservices he will definitely introduce GPLv4 for it. .. In no way is anyone saying you can't make a comfortable living writing code and that you have to go through life as a beggar. If my profession is writing software and I was so stupid to start concentrating on GPL software it's very difficult to make a living. I know RichardCo like to point at a handful of jobs at IBM+Redhat+Microsoft but I cannot take that serious at all. +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 01/09/08 15:30, Richard Stallman wrote: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software users in general, as a market. This is not to say we're against markets. If you want to see what we really say about this, visit that URL and read the whole three paragraphs. OK here are all paragraphs: Market It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software users in general, as a market. If people exchange things it's about a market. Please don't try to change definitions like you do with free. What you call free software has clearly =more= stings attached than you would suppose if you look up the word free in the dictionaries. The word misleading should be replaced by something like against our beliefs. Please let the webmaster of the site fix that. No problem if he fixes the by L donated security problem first. This is not to say we're against markets. If you try to change the meaning of words you are basically against something. You are =against= free software and =against= markets for software. Be honest! Didn't your parents told you so? If you have a free software support business, then you have clients, and you trade with them in a market. Not according to GPLvX, if you supply a fix to GPL code you cannot trade it more than 1 time, all other possible clients have a free ride after that, that has nothing to do with a market. Please understand, I have no problems with it but I think programmers should have a free choice for each programming work() they do. Let each client pay, let one client pay and give it away for the rest, etc. As long as you respect their freedom, we wish you success in your market. He! When I use your definitions I get a parse error!!! What you call freedom is freedom with DRM, and everyone knows DRM spoils markets. Your wish for succes is clueless, meaningless, and perhaps plain evil. But the free software movement is a social movement, not a business, and the success it aims for is not a market success. Please get your facts straight with reality In practice the social thing doesn't count for the creators of free software. We are trying to serve the public by giving it freedom---not competing to take them away from a rival. To equate this campaign for freedom to a business' campaign for mere success is to diminish the significance of freedom. All blurp, the only thing that real counts is code. Preferably functional elegantly written secure code and for outsiders preferable free, BSD licensed code, without the GNU GPLvX DRM. Can't you understand a programmer, for himself, prefers to start with BSD license? I presume this is a stupid question because Richard Stallman seems to have has a hole or something in his brain. That makes him loop the word social in all kind of ways but the words emphatic and individual are missing. I start believing Richard Stallmans brain is compiled by GCC. It behaves like what we see with OpenBSD copiled with GCC, someone has shot at it with a shotgun, few bit's on strange places are flipped. +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
chefren wrote: On 1/9/08 12:54 AM, Eric Furman wrote: This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read. You might get one wanker to pay for it, but if it comes in non-binary with all the source what's to stop them from posting it on the internet and everybody else getting it for free? You got the point, Richard doesn't respect creators. He wants every programmer to go through life as beggar like he does himself. Giving in that that's impossible, that you cannot raise children that way doesn't matter to him. Following Richard Stallman's theories everyone may make money with his creation/work except a programmer. Richard Stallman /says/ a programmer may earn money 1 time and than the code should be free after that. Why he says so is clueless, he clearly cannot explain how a programmer should make money if it's about a lot of work that is just a little feature for a lot of people, such a programmer should go around and ask a milion users a cent before he lets them test the code. Because the moment he let other people test it, the code should be for grabs too. Richard want's such a programmer to spam the world about a little feature to get money for it. This man has no respect for programmers, clearly doesn't understand why money was invented and how a market can be a very reasonable way to let people earn money. I don't think either of you have a firm grasp of what's being said with regards to selling free software. Or of the GPL in general. The use of the word free has nothing to do with price, it is that the recipient of a piece of software has the freedom to modify the software as they see necessary so that it does what they want it to do. To accomplish this, they should receive the source to said software. That's what the GPLv2 is all about - providing the recipient of a piece of software with the source code to that software and the freedom to modify it as they desire. It is only once they decide to *further distribute* the software that they are restricted. At that point the only restrictions placed on them is that they provide the source - thereby giving the recipient the same rights bestowed upon them by *their* provider. No one has said that you can't charge whatever you like for your software *or* that you have to give the code away to the world - they are saying that if you provide a binary then you should provide the recipients of that binary with the corresponding source and the right to change it and distribute it as they see fit. While that *can* present a situation where you sell software to PERSON_A and PERSON_A distributes the code to whomever they choose, it's a perfectly reasonable assumption that that is not likely to occur in a high-end software field because no corporation or organization will want to give away something for which they had to pay top dollar. Testing the software has nothing to do (as far as licensing goes) with a final, released GPL product. You can release the alpha and beta releases under whatever license you want to. Just license the final product under the GPL. In no way is anyone saying you can't make a comfortable living writing code and that you have to go through life as a beggar. Disclaimer: In no way am I suggesting that anyone should use the GPL over another license. When I talk about releasing code under the GPL in previous paragraphs I am speaking for hypothetical situations. I have only been involved with GPL software for a limited time, 4-5 years, so my understanding of GPL/v2 may be incorrect. kmw -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:07:50AM -0500, Kevin Wilcox wrote: Daniel then brought up the idea of CD sales. Something you can buy and put an exact digital replica of online. are sure about that? and what about the sticker(s) that come with the CDs? and the artwork on the insert? and the preprinted installation instructions? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
You can stop the GPL propaganda here. We have wasted enough time rehashing it. You are not going to convince anybody here that some random person has more rights than the author of the software. The end, get over it, walk it off. RMS tried with circle talk to convince people and lost many acolytes in the process. GNU FSF are disingenuous organizations that are and unable to read a dictionary. That makes people angry so stop parroting their manure here. A few more cronies also tried and failed at convincing anyone of the GPL teachings. Yes we get your point and we think it is stupid. No need to discuss it or try to explain it again. We get it. On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:44:44AM -0500, Kevin Wilcox wrote: chefren wrote: On 1/9/08 12:54 AM, Eric Furman wrote: This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read. You might get one wanker to pay for it, but if it comes in non-binary with all the source what's to stop them from posting it on the internet and everybody else getting it for free? You got the point, Richard doesn't respect creators. He wants every programmer to go through life as beggar like he does himself. Giving in that that's impossible, that you cannot raise children that way doesn't matter to him. Following Richard Stallman's theories everyone may make money with his creation/work except a programmer. Richard Stallman /says/ a programmer may earn money 1 time and than the code should be free after that. Why he says so is clueless, he clearly cannot explain how a programmer should make money if it's about a lot of work that is just a little feature for a lot of people, such a programmer should go around and ask a milion users a cent before he lets them test the code. Because the moment he let other people test it, the code should be for grabs too. Richard want's such a programmer to spam the world about a little feature to get money for it. This man has no respect for programmers, clearly doesn't understand why money was invented and how a market can be a very reasonable way to let people earn money. I don't think either of you have a firm grasp of what's being said with regards to selling free software. Or of the GPL in general. The use of the word free has nothing to do with price, it is that the recipient of a piece of software has the freedom to modify the software as they see necessary so that it does what they want it to do. To accomplish this, they should receive the source to said software. That's what the GPLv2 is all about - providing the recipient of a piece of software with the source code to that software and the freedom to modify it as they desire. It is only once they decide to *further distribute* the software that they are restricted. At that point the only restrictions placed on them is that they provide the source - thereby giving the recipient the same rights bestowed upon them by *their* provider. No one has said that you can't charge whatever you like for your software *or* that you have to give the code away to the world - they are saying that if you provide a binary then you should provide the recipients of that binary with the corresponding source and the right to change it and distribute it as they see fit. While that *can* present a situation where you sell software to PERSON_A and PERSON_A distributes the code to whomever they choose, it's a perfectly reasonable assumption that that is not likely to occur in a high-end software field because no corporation or organization will want to give away something for which they had to pay top dollar. Testing the software has nothing to do (as far as licensing goes) with a final, released GPL product. You can release the alpha and beta releases under whatever license you want to. Just license the final product under the GPL. In no way is anyone saying you can't make a comfortable living writing code and that you have to go through life as a beggar. Disclaimer: In no way am I suggesting that anyone should use the GPL over another license. When I talk about releasing code under the GPL in previous paragraphs I am speaking for hypothetical situations. I have only been involved with GPL software for a limited time, 4-5 years, so my understanding of GPL/v2 may be incorrect. kmw -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Jan 9, 2008 1:52 PM, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:07:50AM -0500, Kevin Wilcox wrote: Daniel then brought up the idea of CD sales. Something you can buy and put an exact digital replica of online. are sure about that? and what about the sticker(s) that come with the CDs? and the artwork on the insert? and the preprinted installation instructions? This is beyond silly. FSF/GNU used to sell tapes of GPLed stuff too. I'm sure it came with pre-printed instructions as well. No idea about artwork or stickers however. But splitting hairs is not useful. -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity. -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted. -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0feature=related
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 1/9/08 9:10 PM, bofh wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 1:52 PM, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:07:50AM -0500, Kevin Wilcox wrote: Daniel then brought up the idea of CD sales. Something you can buy and put an exact digital replica of online. are sure about that? and what about the sticker(s) that come with the CDs? and the artwork on the insert? and the preprinted installation instructions? This is beyond silly. FSF/GNU used to sell tapes of GPLed stuff too. I'm sure it came with pre-printed instructions as well. No idea about artwork or stickers however. But splitting hairs is not useful. With OpenBSD the stickers, printed installation and artwork are copyright Theo de Raadt. You cannot legally sell your own copies of the CD set or use artwork for commercial purposes without permissions of Theo. +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Jan 9, 2008 3:29 PM, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/9/08 9:10 PM, bofh wrote: This is beyond silly. FSF/GNU used to sell tapes of GPLed stuff too. I'm sure it came with pre-printed instructions as well. No idea about artwork or stickers however. But splitting hairs is not useful. With OpenBSD the stickers, printed installation and artwork are copyright Theo de Raadt. You cannot legally sell your own copies of the CD set or use artwork for commercial purposes without permissions of Theo. I don't get your point. When you buy the CD, the CD is what you're buying. The artwork comes with it. So does the sticker. So does that thin plastic wrapper. And the CD case. But you are not buying the CD set for those things. You are buying it for the source code and binaries on the CD, and to support OpenBSD. If you _are_ buying the CDs only for the stickers, then obviously this point does not apply to you. -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity. -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted. -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0feature=related
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:10:07PM -0500, bofh wrote: I don't get your point. then please clear you mind and go back and reread my post. I did not say anything about GNU/FSF but somehow that came up in your reply. I can only assume that you were caught up in arguing and not really paying attention to the two sentences I quoted or my response. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], chefren wrote: It's misleading to call GNU GNU it should be called BSD/GNU. BSD/GPL BSD/GPLvX Somewhat more typing but good PR. Again, I surely hope you jest? Please don't associate me or anything I currently code on with the GPL. Why would you want to? Seriously? Use the GPL if that is what you wish, but why taint what BSD is with the GPL, even the mention of GPL? To get publicity? Someone said that 'there ain't no such thing as bad publicity', a stupid statement if I ever heard one. From the PR standpoint, even thinking about BSD/GPL or BSD/GNU is almost absurd. Anyhow, my $0.02 worth, -Toby. -- [100~Plax]sb16i0A2172656B63616820636420726568746F6E61207473754A[dZ1!=b]salax
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kevin Wilcox wrote: Testing the software has nothing to do (as far as licensing goes) with a final, released GPL product. You can release the alpha and beta releases under whatever license you want to. Just license the final product under the GPL. If the testing software was originally licensed with the GPL, this is not true. The license does not cease to exist (nor copyright law) just because you are only distributing an alpha or beta product. -Toby. -- [100~Plax]sb16i0A2172656B63616820636420726568746F6E61207473754A[dZ1!=b]salax
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Wednesday 09 January 2008 21:10, bofh wrote: You are buying it for the source code and binaries on the CD [snip] If you _are_ buying the CDs only for the stickers Exactly. Buy them because you want to. There is no obligation.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Jan 9, 2008 8:10 PM, pedro la peu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 09 January 2008 21:10, bofh wrote: You are buying it for the source code and binaries on the CD [snip] If you _are_ buying the CDs only for the stickers Exactly. Buy them because you want to. There is no obligation. It may be useful for you to go back up thread and read what's going on. -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity. -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted. -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0feature=related
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kevin Wilcox wrote: Testing the software has nothing to do (as far as licensing goes) with a final, released GPL product. You can release the alpha and beta releases under whatever license you want to. Just license the final product under the GPL. If the testing software was originally licensed with the GPL, this is not true. The license does not cease to exist (nor copyright law) just because you are only distributing an alpha or beta product. Right. The original comment was that once you put the code out for testing then it was immediately available to the world. I was pointing out that you could release the alpha/beta/testing software under whatever license you choose that will keep it from being re-distributed but still release the final code as GPL. I should have clarified when making the above statement. kmw
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
You can stop the GPL propaganda here. We have wasted enough time rehashing it. You are not going to convince anybody here that some random person has more rights than the author of the software. The end, get over it, walk it off. I'm not out to convince anyone that anyone has any more rights than anyone else. What I *was* doing was bringing that particular portion of the conversation back to more than just baseless bashing of a particular license. RMS tried with circle talk to convince people and lost many acolytes in the process. GNU FSF are disingenuous organizations that are and unable to read a dictionary. That makes people angry so stop parroting their manure here. Yes, there has been quite a bit of manure slung by *both* sides. I prefer to stay out of that particular gutter. I personally don't care what anyone thinks of RMS, GNU *or* FSF. I'm an ardent supporter of none of the above. A few more cronies also tried and failed at convincing anyone of the GPL teachings. Yes we get your point and we think it is stupid. No need to discuss it or try to explain it again. We get it. They're not my teachings or teachings to which I particularly subscribe. I would maintain that most of the more popular licenses have their pros - ultimately it depends on who or what you want to protect. Don't paint me with the RMS/GNU brush because I refused to stand by and watch *blatantly* false accusations be made. There is a big difference between correcting those accusations and *supporting* the recipient of the accusations. kmw
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:01:52 -0500, Kevin Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: There's no need to continue this on the list because you don't get the analogy so I'm replying directly. Then why did you cc the list? I have to publicly apologize for that. I originally hit reply-all, wrote my reply and put in the above statement with the intent to remove RMS and the list. I caught a mistake further down in my reply and, after fixing it, completely forgot to remove the CC to the list. My apologies. kmw
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:07:50AM -0500, Kevin Wilcox wrote: Daniel then brought up the idea of CD sales. Something you can buy and put an exact digital replica of online. are sure about that? and what about the sticker(s) that come with the CDs? and the artwork on the insert? and the preprinted installation instructions? From the faq at http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq3.html - The official OpenBSD CD-ROM layout is copyright Theo de Raadt. Theo does not permit people to redistribute images of the official OpenBSD CDs. I stand corrected. kmw
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was pointing out that you could release the alpha/beta/testing software under whatever license you choose that will keep it from being re-distributed Huh??? What kind of release is not re-distributed? Calling a redistribution release does not make it other than release. Unless sublicensing rights are granted (probably explicitly in writing sort of thingee) there is no implicit right to sublicense regardless of what you call it. If the licensee is an organization, members of that organization, in line with their association with the organization, have the associated rights. When I have clients A and B, I can use A's stuff on A's work and B's stuff on B's work, but I cannot take advantage of A's stuff to do B's work or B's stuff to do A's work.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not out to convince anyone that anyone has any more rights than anyone else. HOWEVER, the original author DOES have more rights than anyone else. In particular, the original author says who has what rights. You have no say in the matter. Your opinion does not count.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 2008/01/07 16:44, bofh wrote: On Jan 7, 2008 11:39 AM, Sunnz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wondering... what could be the worse thing that could happen if the firmware is badly written, say for a wireless device? Could it be possible to bring the whole system down? Or would it just crash the device itself, as if the hardware had a defect? http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/09/19/david-maynor-publishes-details-of-macbook-wifi-hack You have kernel level access. That is not in firmware, it's in the driver.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:01:56AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2008/01/07 16:44, bofh wrote: On Jan 7, 2008 11:39 AM, Sunnz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wondering... what could be the worse thing that could happen if the firmware is badly written, say for a wireless device? Could it be possible to bring the whole system down? Or would it just crash the device itself, as if the hardware had a defect? http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/09/19/david-maynor-publishes-details-of-macbook-wifi-hack You have kernel level access. That is not in firmware, it's in the driver. Stuart makes an important disctintion here. In case anyone is not clear on this, these little firmware blobs get squirted into some hardware and that's where interaction with the system ends. They effectively replace onboard EPROM/Flash, and for practical purposes can be considered part of the hardware. This is very different from a driver, which interfaces with the kernel. Therefore they are part of the OS. BLOBs in drivers leave you with an untrustworthy system. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 01/07/08 18:15, Richard Stallman wrote: So... 'ethically' the TiVo ma as well be a circuit, since users don't usually install software on it? Users did install software on it, and that's why Tivo tivoized it. So... Your intentioned thinking that gNewSense is clear holds up while if the Tivoly guys defend their product against what they as creators clearly think of as misuse of the product, that doesn't count? I might have an interesting thought for you: Almost all more or less complicated chips these days have more and more software on them, as you showed you know. That software is clearly intended to make those chips non-hackable from outside because of various reasons. I now start presuming this all is strongly against your standards, those chips are tivolized and the buyers of the chips should demand hackable versions of the software? Or will it be handled in GPLv4? +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 01/07/08 12:31, Richard Stallman wrote: Those quotes do not show gNewSense includes non-free software. What's interesting is that they admit they cannot find all blobs without truly reading and understanding the code, they lack people for it. They say they can't reliably find all the binary-only firmware. Nobody's perfect. What matters is that they are doing their best, and that they fix problems that are reported to them. Let's see what happens: I report the whole gNewSense project is not according to it's goals. That's all I can ask of anyone. Richard, you publicly state that gNewSence is up to your standards. If to your standards it's OK if a few people who admit they are incompetent say we have done our best to get it clean, while others say we know that with Ubuntu, our source, new sub standard code is inserted on a regular basis I get again the idea Richard Stallman is morally defect. Richard Stallman: You know gNewSense is by far not conform what you tell people about it. You bring it as an alternative and it is not. +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:07:13PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: All their answers that we have discussed here have been accurate. I've explained the facts here in detail many times, so I won't repeat. So why did you have to retract several endorsements? Why did you have to change your wording? I'd be inclined to suspect my research team if I'd been forced to change so many things around.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:07:54PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: Users did install software on it, and that's why Tivo tivoized it. Nope. I bought my TiVo and it was ready to go. We are talking about two different questions. All I do is pay $5 a month and select programs I want to see. I did NOTHING that has to do with firmware. I believe you. However, my point is that Tivo blocked the installation of other versions because it expected some users to try to do so. Not all users, but some. And the TiVo can be easily hacked. Plenty of websites that explain how. Clearly TiVo didn't try at all to prevent people from playing with it. Oh and they made their source code available as per the GPLv2 license. They didn't break any of your laws so why are you trying to punish the good guys? Also I still don't understand the difference between a cell phone and a TiVo. As far as your argument go they are basically circuits.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:07:11PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: They say they can't reliably find all the binary-only firmware. Nobody's perfect. Why not? We found all of them and made sure they have proper licenses on them. The job you did is easier, because you only need to check the license of the binary. We need to determine whether the binary data is a program that was compiled from other source code. How so? It is only ROM code and therefore part of the hardware according to you. And I am sure you are aware of this but firmware is code compiled from source. Just making sure I answer the second part of your sentence.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:31:20 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Since plants can be easily replicated, why are we buying food from farmers? I'm not against buying software from developers (as long as it is free software). See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html. This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read. You might get one wanker to pay for it, but if it comes in non-binary with all the source what's to stop them from posting it on the internet and everybody else getting it for free?
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Jan 8, 2008 8:06 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. That is kind of against buying software from developers, don't you think? You are quoting from selling.html. The page clearly says we are not ethically against buying software from developers. Yeah, yeah. When someone gives a conflicting message he or she can avoid accepting responsibility for the negative message if called on it. Sort of. Hey RMS, don't you know that according to the panel of judges led by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Easterbrook (Frank Hoover Easterbrook (born 1948) is Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He has been Chief Judge since November 2006, and has been a judge on the court since 1985. Easterbrook is noted for his use of economic analysis of law, his legalist approach to judicial interpretation, for his clear writing style, and for being one of the most prolific judges of his generation. Easterbrook is one of the most prolific and most cited appellate judges in America.): http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbrshofile=06-2454_008.pdf [GPL contributors can't charge -- no software commerce] Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge. ? regards, alexander.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Alexander Terekhov wrote: On Jan 8, 2008 8:06 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. That is kind of against buying software from developers, don't you think? You are quoting from selling.html. The page clearly says we are not ethically against buying software from developers. http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbrshofile=06-2454_008.pdf [GPL contributors can't charge -- no software commerce] ... ? regards, alexander. I would be very scared to be in a court of law after selling copies of any sort of GNU software. He changed his definition of free to contradict his original definitions, and he continually changes his website slightly to trick people even more, over the years. If his website was clear and sensible, then people wouldn't question his site so much and there wouldn't be so much controversy. When he realized free software it wasn't going to work... he manipulated the free word since he wanted the GNU project to become more popular amongst proprietary, commercial, and employed developers. This is Stallmanism. What is interesting is that cults do the same thing.. changing definitions. The cult may also redefine many common words or phrases to ... the cult has its own language. The cult invents new terminology or euphemisms for many things. The cult may also redefine many common words to mean ... As the new member brings his thinking into conformity with the cult's thinking, and absorbs the values of the cult, he will redefine himself with cult terms . cults and sects often redefine standard... terms to ... When we use the word cult and cultic teaching, we are making reference to distorted teachings ... redefine the... Cults and culktic systems ALWAYS redefine .. terminology. ...the message of each cult ...will redefine ...in such a way as to narrow the doorway to heaven ...
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Richard Stallman wrote: There are no copiers for hardware and it has no source code. O RLY? http://fabathome.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page http://www.reprap.org/bin/view/Main/WebHome http://www.poptech.com/popcasts/popcasts.aspx?lang=viewcastid=154 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loom On 01/01/2008, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You might visit a foundry. They've been around for rather a long time. Take a look at a dressmaker's pattern ...
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 1/9/08 12:54 AM, Eric Furman wrote: On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:31:20 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Since plants can be easily replicated, why are we buying food from farmers? I'm not against buying software from developers (as long as it is free software). See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html. This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read. You might get one wanker to pay for it, but if it comes in non-binary with all the source what's to stop them from posting it on the internet and everybody else getting it for free? You got the point, Richard doesn't respect creators. He wants every programmer to go through life as beggar like he does himself. Giving in that that's impossible, that you cannot raise children that way doesn't matter to him. Following Richard Stallman's theories everyone may make money with his creation/work except a programmer. Richard Stallman /says/ a programmer may earn money 1 time and than the code should be free after that. Why he says so is clueless, he clearly cannot explain how a programmer should make money if it's about a lot of work that is just a little feature for a lot of people, such a programmer should go around and ask a milion users a cent before he lets them test the code. Because the moment he let other people test it, the code should be for grabs too. Richard want's such a programmer to spam the world about a little feature to get money for it. This man has no respect for programmers, clearly doesn't understand why money was invented and how a market can be a very reasonable way to let people earn money. +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Jan 9, 2008 1:20 AM, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] This man has no respect for programmers, clearly doesn't understand why money was invented and how a market can be a very reasonable way to let people earn money. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software users in general, as a market. This is not to say we're against markets. :-) regards, alexander.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Eric Furman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read. You might get one wanker to pay for it, but if it comes in non-binary with all the source what's to stop them from posting it on the internet and everybody else getting it for free? Good question. Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Profits from CD sales are the primary income source for the OpenBSD project -- in essence selling these CD-ROM units ensures that OpenBSD will continue to make another release six months from now. Maybe this guy can explain it to you.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 03:13:03AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 1:20 AM, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] This man has no respect for programmers, clearly doesn't understand why money was invented and how a market can be a very reasonable way to let people earn money. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software users in general, as a market. OMG market!! Evil word!! Oh wait everything is a market including charity, religion, open software, proprietary software, hardware etc. GPL/FSF politics are absurd. I have no other word for it. It is nothing but circle talk meant to confuse simpletons in doing what isn't in their best interest. You know, like voting republican when you make $18,000 a year. Use big words and play on guilt to make them followers. Absurd I tell you!!
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
I want to add one quote that came to mind a little later... Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. -- Voltaire On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 09:37:29PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 03:13:03AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 1:20 AM, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] This man has no respect for programmers, clearly doesn't understand why money was invented and how a market can be a very reasonable way to let people earn money. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software users in general, as a market. OMG market!! Evil word!! Oh wait everything is a market including charity, religion, open software, proprietary software, hardware etc. GPL/FSF politics are absurd. I have no other word for it. It is nothing but circle talk meant to confuse simpletons in doing what isn't in their best interest. You know, like voting republican when you make $18,000 a year. Use big words and play on guilt to make them followers. Absurd I tell you!!
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Since plants can be easily replicated, why are we buying food from farmers? I'm not against buying software from developers (as long as it is free software). See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
A few computer users are in a position manufacture hardware, but computer users in general do not have that capability. (Meanwhile, manufacturing does not work by copying a sample; copying as such is not doable.) A few software users are in a position to code software.. but not many code software very well. The analogy doesn't work. The reason why is left as an exercise for the reader.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Those quotes do not show gNewSense includes non-free software. What's interesting is that they admit they cannot find all blobs without truly reading and understanding the code, they lack people for it. They say they can't reliably find all the binary-only firmware. Nobody's perfect. What matters is that they are doing their best, and that they fix problems that are reported to them. That's all I can ask of anyone. Gilles' message seems to say that OpenBSD policy is to allow binary-only firmware. Is that correct?
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
I find it impolite that you partially removed my questions and only responded to some of them. I asked you if you please could respond to all paragraphs. People raise many issues in these messages. My idea of politeness does not say I have to respond to every question that someone asks. I also don't think I have an obligation to be polite to you after the hostility you have shown.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Jan 7, 2008 12:31 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since plants can be easily replicated, why are we buying food from farmers? I'm not against buying software from developers (as long as it is free software). See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html. With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. That is kind of against buying software from developers, don't you think? regards, alexander.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:24AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: I find it impolite that you partially removed my questions and only responded to some of them. I asked you if you please could respond to all paragraphs. People raise many issues in these messages. My idea of politeness does not say I have to respond to every question that someone asks. I also don't think I have an obligation to be polite to you after the hostility you have shown. Ah I see, criticism of failing to researched topics you are debating is hostility. I'd love to have you as an employee. If you get bent out of shape every time someone calls you on a fallacy or error then life is very hostile. It is unfortunate that you do not tolerate criticism. It kind of comes with the job as figurehead. You might want to try to find a less hostile crowd then by speaking to people about closing code that understand what that means because around here we don't. We tend to use a dictionary and reason to level set a conversation around here.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:52AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: Those quotes do not show gNewSense includes non-free software. What's interesting is that they admit they cannot find all blobs without truly reading and understanding the code, they lack people for it. They say they can't reliably find all the binary-only firmware. Nobody's perfect. Why not? We found all of them and made sure they have proper licenses on them. Why can we do it and the others can not? What matters is that they are doing their best, and that they fix problems that are reported to them. That's all I can ask of anyone. Yeah doing your best really counts. Kind of a Dr. that did his best but killed the patient. HE TRIED!! Gilles' message seems to say that OpenBSD policy is to allow binary-only firmware. Is that correct? You have been told the answer several times and again you fail to do your own research. Also in OpenBSD we have a shut up and hack attitude. We tell our users to do their own research and that we don't hold hands. Time has come to tell you to do the same. The OpenBSD website goes into great detail explaining all this and there are many email archives that debate this topic. Go find them. Do some work on your own instead of relying on helpful volunteers that unfortunately have misinterpreted just about everything they have researched for you. You obviously are infallible.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Richard Stallman wrote: Gilles' message seems to say that OpenBSD policy is to allow binary-only firmware. Is that correct? Binary firmware that's legally redistributable is distributed in OpenBSD, Yes. But you need to wrap your head around what that means for OpenBSD. Modern technologies like Wireless cards are little complex computers, some time ago, vendors decided it would be easier to ship the firmware inside of the Proprietary Windows driver and upload it onto the card at initialization time. (Instead of storing it permanently on internal flash/ROM memory.) These firmwares are just the same as Microcode in modern processors, It's NOT tainting the kernel at all... unlike binary blob drivers that are very common in the Linux/(And even the FreeBSD) communities. The contents of the firmware is nobody's business... every firmware in /etc/firmware has a companion text licence beside it, the average size of these firmware binaries is like less then ~50 Kilobytes. Seriously Richard, You need to educate yourself more... you're completely disconnected from modern technologies, and you're preaching obsolete nonsense. -Nix Fan.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 1/7/08, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah doing your best really counts. Kind of a Dr. that did his best but killed the patient. HE TRIED!! The consequences of a doctor making a mistake while trying to save a patient's life are more severe than those of a gNewSense developer accidentally distributing non-free software.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Isn't this attitude more than a bit short-sighted? I certainly understand the benefits of reserving one's resources for dealing with issues that can happen, but many of the technology-related problems we have today are arguably due (at least in large part) to people ignoring them as not possible until they had already become established practice (and so, almost impossible to undo). I agree that it is useful to begin thinking about these issues now. I don't think that we need to start rejecting non-free hardware today, because the issue is moot now. But that day may come. With luck, by the time that is necessary, it will also be feasible.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:24AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: I find it impolite that you partially removed my questions and only responded to some of them. I asked you if you please could respond to all paragraphs. People raise many issues in these messages. My idea of politeness does not say I have to respond to every question that someone asks. I also don't think I have an obligation to be polite to you after the hostility you have shown. To say this now is out of line. While Marco may have displayed impatience from time to time, more recently he has shown no little forbearance in his attempts to help you become informed with respect to hardware/software/firmware/blobs.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
7 Jan 2008 07:58:04 -0800, Unix Fan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: These firmwares are just the same as Microcode in modern processors, It's NOT tainting the kernel at all... unlike binary blob drivers that are very common in the Just wondering... what could be the worse thing that could happen if the firmware is badly written, say for a wireless device? Could it be possible to bring the whole system down? Or would it just crash the device itself, as if the hardware had a defect? -- 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: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
So... 'ethically' the TiVo ma as well be a circuit, since users don't usually install software on it? Users did install software on it, and that's why Tivo tivoized it.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Should you do more then say that, maybe put a webpage encouraging open hardware development? I mean to write an article about the issue of free hardware designs some day when I have some time.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:15:05PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: I mean to write an article about the issue of free hardware designs some day when I have some time. Please make sure you research the topic before you do. -Toby. -- [100~Plax]sb16i0A2172656B63616820636420726568746F6E61207473754A[dZ1!=b]salax
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:15:05PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: I mean to write an article about the issue of free hardware designs some day when I have some time. Please make sure you research the topic before you do. And feel free to send a draft here so we can correct the research,
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Nope. I bought my TiVo and it was ready to go. All I do is pay $5 a month and select programs I want to see. I did NOTHING that has to do with firmware. Again you are using double standards. GPLv3 is silly after listening to you rant. On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:15:21PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: So... 'ethically' the TiVo ma as well be a circuit, since users don't usually install software on it? Users did install software on it, and that's why Tivo tivoized it.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:15:05PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: Should you do more then say that, maybe put a webpage encouraging open hardware development? I mean to write an article about the issue of free hardware designs some day when I have some time. Do you plan to read some documentation before or should we expect just another pile of uninformed crap ? -- Gilles Chehade
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 7 Jan 2008 07:58:04 -0800, Unix Fan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Modern technologies like Wireless cards are little complex computers, some time ago, vendors decided it would be easier to ship the firmware inside of the Proprietary Windows driver and upload it onto the card at initialization time. (Instead of storing it permanently on internal flash/ROM memory.) To RMS, binary-only firmware is unethical (and in the case of Linux such inclusion violates the GPL... man oh man, surprise surprise): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FreeSoftwareAnalysis/FSF - From: Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: License questions Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 13:45:49 -0500 * Sourceless firmware is currently allowed in Fedora as long as it is redistributable. Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BinaryFirmware for more information on this. Is this considered to be allowed by FSF? The question is whether it qualifies as free software. Firmware is software, and non-free firmware is non-free software. (Which processor the software runs on is just a detail.) Since these programs are binary-only, they are clearly not free software. (They are also not open-source.) Their inclusion in Linux itself is a violation of the GPL, but the Linux developers don't seem inclined to enforce the GPL against that violation. At present, essentially all GNU/Linux distros include the non-free firmware, because it was too hard to remove. So we decided to overlook the issue for the time being, and not reject distros on this account. This applies to Fedora the same as to other distros. However, progress is being made on removing non-free firmware from Linux. As this becomes feasible, and after some more time goes by, we will no longer want to make an exception for this category of non-free software. - regards, alexander.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 07:58:19AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: Gilles' message seems to say that OpenBSD policy is to allow binary-only firmware. Is that correct? I did not SEEM to say anything. I told you to fucking read the pages that are freely available online, but you seem unfamiliar with the concepts of reading and getting facts right. Let me summarize it for you: OpenBSD ships an operating system that is entirely free and which has all of its source code available. ANY code executed by OpenBSD can be audited and is available in source code. Now, be careful because it is where you usually get lost, firmware is not a piece of code loaded in the kernel. It is not an object which exports a callback, just as it is not a driver. It is something that is *unrelated* to OpenBSD and which JUST GETS LOADED INTO THE HARDWARE. Please, read the paragraph above a couple times. Gilles -- Gilles Chehade
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Sunnz wrote: 7 Jan 2008 07:58:04 -0800, Unix Fan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: These firmwares are just the same as Microcode in modern processors, It's NOT tainting the kernel at all... unlike binary blob drivers that are very common in the Just wondering... what could be the worse thing that could happen if the firmware is badly written, say for a wireless device? Could it be possible to bring the whole system down? Or would it just crash the device itself, as if the hardware had a defect? On some architectures, some devices have access to all of main memory -- so malicious firmware could do just about anything. And most devices can at least lock up a bus and so hang the system. But this is true of _all_ device firmware, whether it's loaded by the system, upgradable (e.g., EEPROM) or permanent (e.g., ROM) -- it's just easier to provide a malicious firmware file for loading than it is to convince someone to replace a ROM chip. Even for a pure-hardware device, with no firmware at all, you still have to trust the manufacturer to avoid bugs which can harm the system as a whole. Dave -- Dave Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
* Sunnz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-07 19:53]: 7 Jan 2008 07:58:04 -0800, Unix Fan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: These firmwares are just the same as Microcode in modern processors, It's NOT tainting the kernel at all... unlike binary blob drivers that are very common in the Just wondering... what could be the worse thing that could happen if the firmware is badly written, say for a wireless device? Could it be possible to bring the whole system down? Or would it just crash the device itself, as if the hardware had a defect? please explain the difference between a) that firmware sitting in flash memory on the device b) that same firmware sitting in /etc/firmware/ and being loaded into the device by OpenBSD (I can tell you two: b) is easier to update, and b) is harder to get the necessary distribution rights for) -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg Amsterdam
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Sunnz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just wondering... what could be the worse thing that could happen if the firmware is badly written, say for a wireless device? Could it be possible to bring the whole system down? Or would it just crash the device itself, as if the hardware had a defect? anecdotal evidence suggests that badly written firmware for a wireless network circuit (wpi comes to mind, that's a device with firmware the user has to install manually) is indeed capable of creating instability in more than just its own driver (possibly by confusing other parts of the networking code). Some of us have found that to be incrementally better than the device not working at all, but if badly designed devices like those can be avoided, all the better. Sometimes the user is simply stuck with the equipment they have, with no reasonable chance to replace it. -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.datadok.no/ http://www.nuug.no/ Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Alexander Terekhov wrote: On Jan 7, 2008 12:31 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since plants can be easily replicated, why are we buying food from farmers? I'm not against buying software from developers (as long as it is free software). See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html. I'm not against buying grapes from people, as long as they are free grapes. That means the grapes cannot be restricted through seedless scams, or by scams that demand payment of the grapes themselves. By offering seedless grapes to people - we cannot grow and replicate our own grapes freely. But 99 percent of seedless grape buyers and shareware buyers don't care. It is all in your mind that only software replication freedom is important. It is all in your mind. You should take your GNU sunglasses off. With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. That is kind of against buying software from developers, don't you think? regards, alexander. One can still hold people hostage for consulting. Instead of recording the consulting on audio tapes that are easy to copy, one simply restricts the consulting by only offering it to those who can pay. Instead of speaking to people and using your free voice which does not cost you any money, simply demand payment before saying a word. Especially on cruise ships which are terrible places to speak. Or pretend you are charging for the airline ticket, not the speech itself. This loop hole makes all software non-free, since free consulting is not available to those who cannot afford to pay someone on cruise ships and watch me insert flowers into my nose for pleasure. http://www.google.ca/search?q=rhinophytophilia
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Jan 7, 2008 11:39 AM, Sunnz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wondering... what could be the worse thing that could happen if the firmware is badly written, say for a wireless device? Could it be possible to bring the whole system down? Or would it just crash the device itself, as if the hardware had a defect? http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/09/19/david-maynor-publishes-details-of-macbook-wifi-hack You have kernel level access. -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity. -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted. -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0feature=related
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
From the look of Stallman's message, it seems as if he thinks copying software is totally free, which in reality it costs a bit more than just plain free. That's often true. (And even if it doesn't cost you money, it may take some of your time.) But I don't think that changes the issue. Zero-cost or small cost isn't the crucial distinction. The crucial point is that copying software is practical and feasible for computer users in general. We can and do copy software, unless someone goes out of his way to stop us. In the case of hardware, it would mean it is too expensive to copy... which it could be... so does that mean freedom to copy something became irrelevant as the cost of copying becomes relatively expensive? When something is impractical to copy, then the question of whether we are free to do so is purely academic, and I see no reason to fight about it. When something is feasible to copy, then the question of whether we are free to do so makes a real difference.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
2008/1/6, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: From the look of Stallman's message, it seems as if he thinks copying software is totally free, which in reality it costs a bit more than just plain free. That's often true. (And even if it doesn't cost you money, it may take some of your time.) But I don't think that changes the issue. Zero-cost or small cost isn't the crucial distinction. The crucial point is that copying software is practical and feasible for computer users in general. We can and do copy software, unless someone goes out of his way to stop us. In the case of hardware, it would mean it is too expensive to copy... which it could be... so does that mean freedom to copy something became irrelevant as the cost of copying becomes relatively expensive? When something is impractical to copy, then the question of whether we are free to do so is purely academic, and I see no reason to fight about it. When something is feasible to copy, then the question of whether we are free to do so makes a real difference. The key-phrase I noticed in your message are computer users in general. That itself has problems. Do you mean home computer users? From what I know, most large companies, including hardware vendors, and governments uses computers as well, so they are too computer users, thus copy hardware aren't impractical for every computer users in general. So I take it you are referring to home/small business computer users? Oh, don't forget that there are people who will produce the hardware for your given documentation at a practical cost even for the average home user, as stated earlier. -- 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: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
By using and endorsing gNewSense??? It seems you really don't read what's going on there, people working on it more or less scream out it's an impossible mission the way it's setup now and the project goals are not met for the foreseeable future. I don't read the gNewSense discussion lists -- I don't have time. But I did read the pages that someone forwarded to this list yesterday, and I saw nothing shocking in them. They simply acknowledge that mistakes are possible. I spoke with the developer of GNU/Darwin, and he said that the presence of ports for non-free programs was a mistake and he will remove them. Thanks to whoever mentioned the problem here.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote: In the case of hardware, it would mean it is too expensive to copy... which it could be... so does that mean freedom to copy something became irrelevant as the cost of copying becomes relatively expensive? When something is impractical to copy, then the question of whether we are free to do so is purely academic, and I see no reason to fight about it. When something is feasible to copy, then the question of whether we are free to do so makes a real difference. Isn't this attitude more than a bit short-sighted? I certainly understand the benefits of reserving one's resources for dealing with issues that can happen, but many of the technology-related problems we have today are arguably due (at least in large part) to people ignoring them as not possible until they had already become established practice (and so, almost impossible to undo). Dave -- Dave Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Richard Stallman wrote: In the case of hardware, it would mean it is too expensive to copy... which it could be... so does that mean freedom to copy something became irrelevant as the cost of copying becomes relatively expensive? When something is impractical to copy, then the question of whether we are free to do so is purely academic, and I see no reason to fight about it. When something is feasible to copy, then the question of whether we are free to do so makes a real difference. This is an academic issue for now, and it is not easy, or possibly even possible to have open hardware at this point, however, right and wrong should never be tempered by this. If it's wrong to have closed software, it should be wrong to have closed hardware. (especially since the line between hardware and software is very blurred these days) Should you do more then say that, maybe put a webpage encouraging open hardware development? Probably not, you're right, your time is too valuable to push it.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
That itself has problems. Do you mean home computer users? From what I know, most large companies, including hardware vendors, and governments uses computers as well, so they are too computer users, thus copy hardware aren't impractical for every computer users in general. A few computer users are in a position manufacture hardware, but computer users in general do not have that capability. (Meanwhile, manufacturing does not work by copying a sample; copying as such is not doable.)
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Really? All those wifi/raid/cpu/etc cards/chips out there that need firmware, you think they're not a mix of both microcontroller code and other binary bits that configure an ASIC or FPGA? I am not a hardware expert; I don't know sort of hardware the firmware blobs run on. I will presume you're right. He is right. Hardware these days basically runs code. I think we are talking about different questions. The word firmware implies a program of some kind. I thought he was talking about what _kind_ of hardware that program runs on. Now you seem to be saying that all hardware is programmable. I don't know if that is true, but it's a different question (and doesn't seem crucial to the issue). Now what was a pure hardware device changes into a pure software device. I am not entirely sure what that means, but I am not surprised that an algorithm can be implemented in software or in hardware. I don't think that is relevant to my way of looking at the issue, though. This is just one example and there are many more beautifully blurred examples. Your argument is a fallacy with modern hardware. I don't see any fallacy. I do not assume that there is only one way to implement a given algorithm, so the fact that that isn't so is no problem. Whether it runs on a computer or an FPGA, either way it's a program. So the next crucial question is, do users normally install programs on that device? I am sure that at MIT they taught you that a finite sate machine can be moved from hardware to software and vice versa. It can, but that's not what I'm talking about. The reason why it is then later moved to silicon is for speed and marketing purposes (yes, you know making money with development). So you say that developing hardware is unethical until you have the physical hardware? No, I am not talking about how to develop anything. There seem to be many misunderstandings in this particular conversation. Also modern CPUs run microcode. Does this make them unethical? Not in my view. And this is why: Whether it runs on a computer or an FPGA, either way it's a program. So the next crucial question is, do users normally install programs on that device? If users don't normally install microcode in the CPU, then ethically it may as well be a circuit. It is not built as a circuit, but that's a different question. I really would like to understand how writing software for a living measures up with lets say war or rape. I have nothing against getting paid to write software, as such. I criticize non-free software, software that doesn't respect users' essential freedoms, but that has nothing to do with whether the programmer gets paid. Getting paid to write free software (which many people do) is fine. Writing non-free software is bad even if it is unpaid. But it is not as bad as killing or rape. If you were literally in a position where you would die if you don't write proprietary software, such as if someone pointed a gun at you and ordered you to do so, I would not hold it against you. But when people say they need to write non-free software in order to eat, they are generally exaggerating. Lots of people don't know how to write software at all, and the condition usually is not fatal. I also would like to understand a little bit better why hardware is exempt from being unethical (make sure you explain ethics first so that I can truly understand this). There are no copiers for hardware, so the question of whether you are free to copy it is moot. As for modification, in most cases you're allowed to modify a piece of hardware (if you own it) to the extent it is feasible, but that extent is rather limited.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
I have nothing against getting paid to write software, as such. I criticize non-free software, software that doesn't respect users' essential freedoms, but that has nothing to do with whether the programmer gets paid. Getting paid to write free software (which many people do) is fine. Writing non-free software is bad even if it is unpaid. Putting a restriction on software, such as charging money for development of it.. or consulting of it, is not free software.. because it severely restricts access to these people who need the free consulting and free speeches on cruise ships. Furthermore... the FOUR FREEDOMS you mention are not in the dictionary under free. It is only your opinion.. and there fore is not free software.. it is Stallmanist Software. Your philosophies are not the official free philosophies... they are just Stallmanist ones.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Richard Stallman wrote: That itself has problems. Do you mean home computer users? From what I know, most large companies, including hardware vendors, and governments uses computers as well, so they are too computer users, thus copy hardware aren't impractical for every computer users in general. A few computer users are in a position manufacture hardware, but computer users in general do not have that capability. (Meanwhile, manufacturing does not work by copying a sample; copying as such is not doable.) A few software users are in a position to code software.. but not many code software very well. Out of all the computer users using computers, not many code software, relative to the amount of people that use and abuse software as if it was a seedless grape they were eating. In fact most software programmers suck at programming.. and that is why we have so much bloatware. It takes great great skill, and thousands of hours of investment to be a useful, good programmer. As with hardware, only a few are really capable of producing the software. IMO, it is just as easy to garden plants, than to grow software. I'd argue that growing apple trees is much easier than software development... just that apple trees require space to grow. Apple trees require this space to grow, but they make up for this disadvantage by being much easier to code. There is no coding of an apple tree.. other than planting it and knowing to prune it. L505
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
I find it impolite that you partially removed my questions and only responded to some of them. I asked you if you please could respond to all paragraphs. I am struggling with what ethics mean to you. Could you explain that please? And if you don't mid could you reply to the original email and answer all paragraphs? On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:10:01PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: Really? All those wifi/raid/cpu/etc cards/chips out there that need firmware, you think they're not a mix of both microcontroller code and other binary bits that configure an ASIC or FPGA? I am not a hardware expert; I don't know sort of hardware the firmware blobs run on. I will presume you're right. He is right. Hardware these days basically runs code. I think we are talking about different questions. The word firmware implies a program of some kind. I thought he was talking about what _kind_ of hardware that program runs on. Now you seem to be saying that all hardware is programmable. I don't know if that is true, but it's a different question (and doesn't seem crucial to the issue). Now what was a pure hardware device changes into a pure software device. I am not entirely sure what that means, but I am not surprised that an algorithm can be implemented in software or in hardware. I don't think that is relevant to my way of looking at the issue, though. This is just one example and there are many more beautifully blurred examples. Your argument is a fallacy with modern hardware. I don't see any fallacy. I do not assume that there is only one way to implement a given algorithm, so the fact that that isn't so is no problem. Whether it runs on a computer or an FPGA, either way it's a program. So the next crucial question is, do users normally install programs on that device? I am sure that at MIT they taught you that a finite sate machine can be moved from hardware to software and vice versa. It can, but that's not what I'm talking about. The reason why it is then later moved to silicon is for speed and marketing purposes (yes, you know making money with development). So you say that developing hardware is unethical until you have the physical hardware? No, I am not talking about how to develop anything. There seem to be many misunderstandings in this particular conversation. Also modern CPUs run microcode. Does this make them unethical? Not in my view. And this is why: Whether it runs on a computer or an FPGA, either way it's a program. So the next crucial question is, do users normally install programs on that device? If users don't normally install microcode in the CPU, then ethically it may as well be a circuit. It is not built as a circuit, but that's a different question. I really would like to understand how writing software for a living measures up with lets say war or rape. I have nothing against getting paid to write software, as such. I criticize non-free software, software that doesn't respect users' essential freedoms, but that has nothing to do with whether the programmer gets paid. Getting paid to write free software (which many people do) is fine. Writing non-free software is bad even if it is unpaid. But it is not as bad as killing or rape. If you were literally in a position where you would die if you don't write proprietary software, such as if someone pointed a gun at you and ordered you to do so, I would not hold it against you. But when people say they need to write non-free software in order to eat, they are generally exaggerating. Lots of people don't know how to write software at all, and the condition usually is not fatal. I also would like to understand a little bit better why hardware is exempt from being unethical (make sure you explain ethics first so that I can truly understand this). There are no copiers for hardware, so the question of whether you are free to copy it is moot. As for modification, in most cases you're allowed to modify a piece of hardware (if you own it) to the extent it is feasible, but that extent is rather limited.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Paul Greidanus wrote: Richard Stallman wrote: In the case of hardware, it would mean it is too expensive to copy... which it could be... so does that mean freedom to copy something became irrelevant as the cost of copying becomes relatively expensive? When something is impractical to copy, then the question of whether we are free to do so is purely academic, and I see no reason to fight about it. When something is feasible to copy, then the question of whether we are free to do so makes a real difference. This is an academic issue for now, and it is not easy, or possibly even possible to have open hardware at this point, however, right and wrong should never be tempered by this. If it's wrong to have closed software, it should be wrong to have closed hardware. (especially since the line between hardware and software is very blurred these days) Should you do more then say that, maybe put a webpage encouraging open hardware development? Probably not, you're right, your time is too valuable to push it. Or yeast, and trees, which can replicated - and plants, and anything with a stencil or a template, such as a tool like a socket, or clothing fabric. Since plants can be easily replicated, why are we buying food from farmers? Answer: because farmers need to make a living and they happen to charge us for the plants... they COULD charge us for something else, like their fuel.. but that is a loop hole. Someone may say that farming food is much harder than farming software - but vegetables require no system administration, and are therefore superior - as they are automatic growing/replication machines without any salaries required to mess with the system administration and coding. Furthermore, software cannot be eaten - and food freedom is more important than software since the entire world is nearly hungry. Someone may say that selling food is ethical... as food doesn't contain source code. But food could or should contain source seeds and soil instructions and other important data if we need to replicate the food. That is, it should contain those things if we apply GPL/GNU style philosophy. The cross breeding abilities of the food is also important - and clear instructions could/should be shipped with the food as to how the person crosbred so and so plants to get this particular breed of food. We are not given instructions how to plant the seeds or the best growing conditions and soil to use today, though. Why? because most food eaters do not care about the food source code. Yes a few of them care.. but not many. As with software.. the same thing happens - there are only a tiny small percentage of people that care about the source code of the software. Yes it is nice to have the source.. but it is not UNETHICAL to ship someone a banana without the seeds, especially if the person eating the banana did not need the seeds. Grapes, are a better example Grapes do not require seeds since they get between are teeth. Shipping GNU sources and long licenses with code gets in people's teeth too. That big annoying license that pops up.. and the big download of the sources.. can annoy 90 percent of people that don't care to see such stuff. Shareware.. is like a grape without seeds and without a big list of instructions and history of the seeds and soil. Shareware, is still edible and ethical as a seedless grape is. As long as the grape will not kill me or harm me.. of course. And many many shareware programs do not harm us.. just as seedless grapes do not. (I do not want to get into a conversation about Monsanto.. though). Hardware is also superior to software in other ways - than just replicative abilities. I don't quite understand why everyone is so obsessed with replicative abilities. No matter how replicative software is, that does not make it as powerful as a table.. which lasts 20 years without any software maintenance. Therefore one could argue that a table, made of trees, should be free because of its superior power to hold up objects in thin air.. which software cannot do. Since software cannot hold objects up in thin air, it is lacking this magical quality. Just like how tables are lacking the magical quality of replicative power. Why is there so much focus on replicative power.. when freedom could be related to not just replicative power? No matter how replicative software is.. it will not ever be able to feed a physical person or hold up an object in thin air. It's hard to see where I am coming from, because many people are so focused and set on this idea that the software is free because it is replicative. But if we turn the tables and say that the tables are free because the table holds objects in thin air.. a magical quality that software does not have... we can then start charging for software, but demand tables be given away free in cost and speech L505
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
What if I give a dog a computer system.. and he uses it to bark at. The dog finds it entertaining. The dog would not understand the source code if it was offered. The program that the dog barks at while Mom and Pop are out shopping, is closed source. It does not matter that it is closed source. The program is just a seedless grape. Mom and Pop come home with some seedless grapes and eat them. Then they realize that most software users are dumb dogs who don't understand source code.. and therefore seedless grapes, i.e. shareware... is not unethical or harmful. Mom and pop want to eat their seedless grapes.. just as some people want to buy shareware and never look at the sources. Not unethical.. just that they don't need the seeds, and they don't need the sources. For those elite crowd that can understand source code... and for those elite gardeners and farmers that do understand the seeds in grapes.. sure it is beneficial to have the source code and seeds shipped. But most people, just want to buy seedless grapes at the store.. so they can get on with real work. Having the seeds is cool.. and some dogs may even find the source code cool. But it is not unethical or harmful.. to not ship the source and seeds in all cases. I could see arguing that it is not as NICE to not have sources shipped.. especially to those elite crowd who do understand grape seeds and source. But unethical and harmful? Not so. L505 Richard Stallman wrote: Really? All those wifi/raid/cpu/etc cards/chips out there that need firmware, you think they're not a mix of both microcontroller code and other binary bits that configure an ASIC or FPGA? I am not a hardware expert; I don't know sort of hardware the firmware blobs run on. I will presume you're right. He is right. Hardware these days basically runs code. I think we are talking about different questions. The word firmware implies a program of some kind. I thought he was talking about what _kind_ of hardware that program runs on. Now you seem to be saying that all hardware is programmable. I don't know if that is true, but it's a different question (and doesn't seem crucial to the issue). Now what was a pure hardware device changes into a pure software device. I am not entirely sure what that means, but I am not surprised that an algorithm can be implemented in software or in hardware. I don't think that is relevant to my way of looking at the issue, though. This is just one example and there are many more beautifully blurred examples. Your argument is a fallacy with modern hardware. I don't see any fallacy. I do not assume that there is only one way to implement a given algorithm, so the fact that that isn't so is no problem. Whether it runs on a computer or an FPGA, either way it's a program. So the next crucial question is, do users normally install programs on that device? I am sure that at MIT they taught you that a finite sate machine can be moved from hardware to software and vice versa. It can, but that's not what I'm talking about. The reason why it is then later moved to silicon is for speed and marketing purposes (yes, you know making money with development). So you say that developing hardware is unethical until you have the physical hardware? No, I am not talking about how to develop anything. There seem to be many misunderstandings in this particular conversation. Also modern CPUs run microcode. Does this make them unethical? Not in my view. And this is why: Whether it runs on a computer or an FPGA, either way it's a program. So the next crucial question is, do users normally install programs on that device? If users don't normally install microcode in the CPU, then ethically it may as well be a circuit. It is not built as a circuit, but that's a different question. I really would like to understand how writing software for a living measures up with lets say war or rape. I have nothing against getting paid to write software, as such. I criticize non-free software, software that doesn't respect users' essential freedoms, but that has nothing to do with whether the programmer gets paid. Getting paid to write free software (which many people do) is fine. Writing non-free software is bad even if it is unpaid. But it is not as bad as killing or rape. If you were literally in a position where you would die if you don't write proprietary software, such as if someone pointed a gun at you and ordered you to do so, I would not hold it against you. But when people say they need to write non-free software in order to eat, they are generally exaggerating. Lots of people don't know how to write software at all, and the condition usually is not fatal. I also would like to understand a little bit better why hardware is exempt
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
I know you guys have interesting analogies, but cloning plants is not the same as copying source code. On 1/6/08, L [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Greidanus wrote: Richard Stallman wrote: In the case of hardware, it would mean it is too expensive to copy... which it could be... so does that mean freedom to copy something became irrelevant as the cost of copying becomes relatively expensive? When something is impractical to copy, then the question of whether we are free to do so is purely academic, and I see no reason to fight about it. When something is feasible to copy, then the question of whether we are free to do so makes a real difference. This is an academic issue for now, and it is not easy, or possibly even possible to have open hardware at this point, however, right and wrong should never be tempered by this. If it's wrong to have closed software, it should be wrong to have closed hardware. (especially since the line between hardware and software is very blurred these days) Should you do more then say that, maybe put a webpage encouraging open hardware development? Probably not, you're right, your time is too valuable to push it. Or yeast, and trees, which can replicated - and plants, and anything with a stencil or a template, such as a tool like a socket, or clothing fabric. Since plants can be easily replicated, why are we buying food from farmers? Answer: because farmers need to make a living and they happen to charge us for the plants... they COULD charge us for something else, like their fuel.. but that is a loop hole. Someone may say that farming food is much harder than farming software - but vegetables require no system administration, and are therefore superior - as they are automatic growing/replication machines without any salaries required to mess with the system administration and coding. Furthermore, software cannot be eaten - and food freedom is more important than software since the entire world is nearly hungry. Someone may say that selling food is ethical... as food doesn't contain source code. But food could or should contain source seeds and soil instructions and other important data if we need to replicate the food. That is, it should contain those things if we apply GPL/GNU style philosophy. The cross breeding abilities of the food is also important - and clear instructions could/should be shipped with the food as to how the person crosbred so and so plants to get this particular breed of food. We are not given instructions how to plant the seeds or the best growing conditions and soil to use today, though. Why? because most food eaters do not care about the food source code. Yes a few of them care.. but not many. As with software.. the same thing happens - there are only a tiny small percentage of people that care about the source code of the software. Yes it is nice to have the source.. but it is not UNETHICAL to ship someone a banana without the seeds, especially if the person eating the banana did not need the seeds. Grapes, are a better example Grapes do not require seeds since they get between are teeth. Shipping GNU sources and long licenses with code gets in people's teeth too. That big annoying license that pops up.. and the big download of the sources.. can annoy 90 percent of people that don't care to see such stuff. Shareware.. is like a grape without seeds and without a big list of instructions and history of the seeds and soil. Shareware, is still edible and ethical as a seedless grape is. As long as the grape will not kill me or harm me.. of course. And many many shareware programs do not harm us.. just as seedless grapes do not. (I do not want to get into a conversation about Monsanto.. though). Hardware is also superior to software in other ways - than just replicative abilities. I don't quite understand why everyone is so obsessed with replicative abilities. No matter how replicative software is, that does not make it as powerful as a table.. which lasts 20 years without any software maintenance. Therefore one could argue that a table, made of trees, should be free because of its superior power to hold up objects in thin air.. which software cannot do. Since software cannot hold objects up in thin air, it is lacking this magical quality. Just like how tables are lacking the magical quality of replicative power. Why is there so much focus on replicative power.. when freedom could be related to not just replicative power? No matter how replicative software is.. it will not ever be able to feed a physical person or hold up an object in thin air. It's hard to see where I am coming from, because many people are so focused and set on this idea that the software is free because it is replicative. But if we turn the tables and say that the tables are free because the table holds objects in thin air.. a magical quality
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 1/6/08 11:46 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: By using and endorsing gNewSense??? It seems you really don't read what's going on there, people working on it more or less scream out it's an impossible mission the way it's setup now and the project goals are not met for the foreseeable future. I don't read the gNewSense discussion lists -- I don't have time. But I did read the pages that someone forwarded to this list yesterday, and I saw nothing shocking in them. They simply acknowledge that mistakes are possible. You are looking at the details mistakes there are not interesting, not everyone is morally defect in this world! What's interesting is that they admit they cannot find all blobs without truly reading and understanding the code, they lack people for it. They haven't seen any users question/discussion for a really long time. And above all But using a distribution which bases on a quite good distribution (in the sense of freeness) and adds non-free components looks like a bad decision. (It's about Ubuntu, based on Debian, that adds non-free components without questions being asked.) http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2007-11/msg00042.html with: I don't know how to find binary blobs. I dont' know what they look like in the source, so I'm almost totally useless as to determining non-license freedom - Brian's Builder tools are very limited to the version of the kernel gNewSense uses and will have to be re-tooled to handle the newer versions that future versions will be built. Because of this, despite our PFV we're still not 100% sure that user's freedoms are fully protected. and Brian Brazil: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2007-11/msg00047.html Fundamentally, I don't believe a technical solution will help to resolve what is essentially a legal and social issue. While it would be nice to have an automated tool to verify licenses, the area as a whole has a large number of people with greatly differing visions of what freedom is and isn't. Add in things like detecting non-free items embedded in otherwise free code and you've got something that is, at best, a very meaty research project. Or: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2007-11/msg00044.html We clearly have relied too much on the Debian copyright file, so I suppose a big help would be an automated way of classifying or clustering files in a package based on their license comments. This is from less than 2 months ago. You clearly cannot holdup that gNewSense is up to your standards, even the basics are not in place. You don't have a good source. Based on GPLvX you don't have the people to get it in place within years. If your ideas about software are so important for you as you say you would step over to OpenBSD today and live to your principles for the rest of your life without saying again and again I will ask I will check I made a small mistake, can you point me at, they told me, I don't think the words quoted are my exact words., I don't personally do most of our web site maintenance, I will discuss. +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
2008/1/7, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If users don't normally install microcode in the CPU, then ethically it may as well be a circuit. It is not built as a circuit, but that's a different question. So... 'ethically' the TiVo ma as well be a circuit, since users don't usually install software on it? -- 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
