Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Andrés]

1. Stallman states that Linux current version is partially non-free. *1

A program can't be partially non-free. A program is free if users have
the four freedoms, if not, it is non-free. The users of Linux does not
have the freedom to access the source code of parts of it (freedom 1).

2. Stallman states that Torvald's version of Linux is non-free. *2

There is no free version of Linux. Free operative systems which use
modified versions of Linux exist, but since those modifications are
not adopted by Torvalds's project (Linux), the term GNU/Linux can't
refer to a free version of it.

Even modifying the meaning of the name Linux to refeer to any of those
free operative systems doesn't work, since Torvald's "version" of
Linux surpass by far the number of users that any such operative
system has. So the term GNU/Linux is not even practically "OK".

3. Stallman states that the name of Gobuntu (a GNU/Linux operative
system more free that any popular GNU/Linux operative system) is so
close to Ubuntu that, practically speaking, it is not feasible to
recommend Gobuntu without recommending Ubuntu. *3

GNU/Linux is the preferred term for referring to a free operative
system for the Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project. Yet they
find OK the fact that they are using the name of a non-free kernel.

4. Stallman states that GNU developers didn't develop GNU just to make
it a technical triumph, or just to have a success. Their goal was to
win freedom, for they and for us. *4

They failed the moment they considered Linux, a non-free program,
fitted well as the kernel of its project; sufficiently well to not do
any serious development on its own kernel.

Hurd offers the GNU Project the option to release the much awaited GNU
operative system now. If winning freedom is the goal, then an inmature
free kernel is not a problem. And, ironically, the immature state of
Hurd is because of Linux. Active and continuous development on Hurd
does not ocurr because it isn't needed by the GNU Project. If Linux
hadn't been used in the first place by the GNU Project and the Free
Software Foundation, Hurd would be quite mature after 18 years of its
birth, and the free operative system envisioned by Stallman back in
1983 would be a reality.

5. The foundation directed by Stallman removes Linux from its Free
Software Directory but does not disassociate from it.




Be a real man, Richard, replace Linux with Hurd, fork Linux, or stop
the hypocrisy.

Either way, answer publicly, and not off-list.




*1
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html

*2
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/134377

*3
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/134522

*4
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;211669437;pp;2

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Alexander Terekhov]

On Jan 12, 2008 1:49 AM, Reid Nichol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thus the combined work, THE WHOLE POINT OF WRITING IT, is under
> > the GPL.  That IS what you just said.  Which is forcing me into a
> > license for my project that I don't want.
> >
> > We require you to use, for your program that contains our code,
> > a license that protects the essential freedom for all its users.
> > That defends real freedom.

Stallmanism cult wants you to believe in something that is "true" only
in the GNU Republic. Uncopyrightable aggregations[1] aside for a
moment, you, as a sole author of a compilation (this term includes
collective works), do have all the rights in compilation work. That's
one difference (among others) between compilations and derivative
works. Your compilation copyright is totally independent from
copyrights on constituent works.

But in the GNU Republic, the copyr^Hleft act has created fascinatingly
fuzzy regime for software ("quanta" mismatch and all that, see below).
 It's not about expression (as in literary works per Berne Convention
which says that computer program works are to be protected as literary
works) modulo the AFC test[2] (to filter out unprotectable elements)
like in the rest of the world. Rather, as Eben The dotCommunist
Manifesto Moglen has nicely put it (in slight disagreement with RMS):

http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/bangalore-rms-transcript

-
Q10c: Lets say I have a program that uses free libraries, which are...

Richard Stallman: Well, linking them together like that is clearly
combining them. The rules, based on the existing GPL, are too
complicated for me to try to recite them to you. All I can say is, yes,
the GPL makes conditions in that case.

Q10d: That means any such use is a violation of the GPL?

Richard Stallman: Some kinds may be permitted. That's why I'm saying it
depends on details, very much. But linking components together is
certainly combining them.

Eben Moglen: Richard, can I make a comment here? Here's the problem.
The problem that you're facing in asking the question, and the problem
that Richard is facing in trying to answer it. When you try to take two
disciplines of thought that use different primitive quanta - different
units of meaning - there's not going to be a congruent mapping between
one vocabulary and the other - as there is no guarantee that there is a
one-to-one match between words in Hindi and words in English.

The problem is that the unit of meaning in copyright law is the work,
whatever the work is. That's the unit in which copyright law speaks. So
the author, or authors, of a work have certain exclusive rights,
including the rights to control modification and distribution. GPL
says, we give most of those rights to the user, in the work, rather
than withholding them, as proprietary users do.

What's the unit of a program? Not the work. Computer science has
defined many quanta of meaning in computer program since I began
decades ago. The subroutine, the function, the module, the object. Each
of those is a unit of meaning in a language of computer activity, but
it's not the work under copyright law.

Between the the quantum: work, and the quantum: module, library, file,
function, object, procedure, there is not a one-to-one mapping, and the
consequence is that when we attempt to exert our intention in copyright
law, we only speak in terms of the work. We must use the vocabulary of
copyright. Since that doesn't map neatly to the vocabulary of computer
programming, no matter what that vocabulary happens to be, given the
dominant paradigm of program construction, there is guaranteed to be a
zone of uncertainty.

Richard Stallman: I disagree. I wouldn't say that you're wrong. What
you're saying is right, but there's something even deeper to be said,
which is that what you're saying is not a problem. It sounds like
you're describing a problem, but in fact, criteria... because of the
fact that in a program you can express the same thing in many different
ways, and you can rewrite it to use many different ways to communicate,
any kind of criteria drawn up in terms of the technical boundaries that
exist in programs would be a bad criterion because it would be too easy
to play games with it.

If there were a criterion about files, well, it's easy to move
something from one file to another. If the criteria were about
subroutines, it's easy to split up a subroutine. You see what I mean?
Any criteria formulated in terms of the technical entities of
programming would be too easy to game around.

Eben Moglen: As when, for example, people tried to draw a line between
static linking and dynamic linking under GPL version two, and we had to
keep telling people that whatever the boundary of the work is under
copyright law, it doesn't depend upon whether resolution occurs at link
time or run time. Right? Those kinds of technical decisions, whatever
they are, don't map neatly into

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Reid Nichol]

--- Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus the combined work, THE WHOLE POINT OF WRITING IT, is under
> the GPL.  That IS what you just said.  Which is forcing me into a
> license for my project that I don't want.
> 
> We require you to use, for your program that contains our code,
> a license that protects the essential freedom for all its users.
> That defends real freedom.


You mean your twisted definition of freedom.  Btw, your own FAQ states
that I can't BSD my code if I link to a GPL'd lib.  Contrary to what
you said I might add.  I think you need to read your own FAQ.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

And find out what freedom actually means:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom

I would comment further, and on other things, but I believe that you're
too far gone to warrant any more time spent on this.  At least from me
and as it seems others as well.  That is, until you gain some sanity.


best regards,
Reid Nichol

President Bush says:

War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength


  

Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[raven]

Sunnz ha scritto:

2008/1/12, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
  

In that case, buying a Windows computer would be Ok, as long as you
don't update the version of Windows software that is on it... when you
want a newer version of Windows, just get a new computer.

It is normal for users to install software on a PC.
Perhaps many users never install anything and use only the
software that was delivered.  But it is not abnormal to install
software.






But it is abnormal to install firmware? Please explain, what's normal
and what's not?

For the masses it is quite abnormal to install Linux, let alone
gNewsense... does it that mean ethics isn't important for such OS's?

Oh, you said somewhere along the lines of updating firmware...

| That is a borderline case.  One possible resolution is that it is ok
| to use this hardware, but updating the firmware is a bad thing.

So say you buy a WinPC, and it is perfectly fine to use this hardware
as is, provided you don't update Windows?

  

I think, it's enough.
Change at least the topic...After all, everyone have personal concept of 
this situation...

Mr. Stallman, please, shut up.
Some people give us proofs that you looks like an hypocrite. Isn't real? 
It's only a de Raadt fantasy or better a openbsd-misc reader fantasy? 
Are you a liar?

You trust every word you say in your interviews?

I dont think so... You're a politic Mr stallman, for my point of view...
I really hope in your better world, but, sometimes, from your mouth, 
like everyone, going out bullshit.


Kind regards,
Francesco Vollero



PS= Sorry for my english, i'm italian at all...

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Sunnz]

2008/1/12, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In that case, buying a Windows computer would be Ok, as long as you
> don't update the version of Windows software that is on it... when you
> want a newer version of Windows, just get a new computer.
>
> It is normal for users to install software on a PC.
> Perhaps many users never install anything and use only the
> software that was delivered.  But it is not abnormal to install
> software.
>
>
>

But it is abnormal to install firmware? Please explain, what's normal
and what's not?

For the masses it is quite abnormal to install Linux, let alone
gNewsense... does it that mean ethics isn't important for such OS's?

Oh, you said somewhere along the lines of updating firmware...

| That is a borderline case.  One possible resolution is that it is ok
| to use this hardware, but updating the firmware is a bad thing.

So say you buy a WinPC, and it is perfectly fine to use this hardware
as is, provided you don't update Windows?

-- 
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Sunnz]

2008/1/9, Paul de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:06:56PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> | Yet, this firmware can be upgraded and OpenBSD will
> | automatically do this if it detects older firmware on your NIC. You
> | can choose another operating system that does not upgrade the firmware
> | and the hardware may work fine for your use case. Should the firmware
> | be free software ? It's inside the hardware and on your other
> | operating system you are not installing software on it.
> |
> | That is a borderline case.  One possible resolution is that it is ok
> | to use this hardware, but updating the firmware is a bad thing.
>
> This can not seriously be what you really believe. The non-free
> firmware that comes pre-installed on the hardware is OK, but updating
> it yourself is not ? If you wanted to use this newer version of the
> firmware, you would buy another piece of the same hardware with the
> newer version installed ?
>
>

In that case, buying a Windows computer would be Ok, as long as you
don't update the version of Windows software that is on it... when you
want a newer version of Windows, just get a new computer.

That's what the average consumer does by the way, they don't 'usually
install their own OS on the computer', and that they simply buy a new
computer with Vista preinstalled... so much for badvista...


-- 
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Andrés]

"[...] Linux is not free software".
"[...] Linux [...] is on the ok side of the line".

Therefore: if there's only one popular kernel that GNU can use in its
project, then it's OK to use it, even if it's not free software.

Unpopular stuff like gNewSense have to be thought about, probably by a
marketing team inside GNU/FSF, while popular non-free software is
chosen.

I'll put this clear, once again: every time the GNU Project or the
Free Software Foundation talks about GNU/Linux in a positive way,
they're promoting a non-free software kernel. There's no way to talk
about Linux without promoting it, except the FSF forks its own copy of
Linux and uses a name that has nothing to do with it. Period.

And in case you thought about, a "Q: Isn't Linux non-free software? A:
Yes, it is; everytime we talk about Linux, we are talking about a
version that's not from Linus Torvalds" text somewhere in GNU/FSF's
Web site does not do any good at all.

Your personal ad* says that you value "truth [...] more than
\"success\"", right? Well, then sacrifice Linux's popularity for the
sake of the FSF's purpose.

I find it funny that the FSF did remove Linux  from the Free Software
Directory but is afraid to disassociate from it. That _is_
hypocritical.

Be a Real Men, Richard.



Original quotes:

"Torvalds' version of Linux is not free software"

"Mentioning Linux is referring to something well-known that people
have already heard of, which is on the ok side of the line."

*
http://www.stallman.org/extra/personal.html

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[chefren]

On 1/9/08 1:49 AM, Steve Shockley wrote:

Marco Peereboom wrote:

I don't think so.  We check for this before we buy hardware.


I'd bet money that you have hardware that requires driver assist.


I doubt it; if he needs to use a device that doesn't meet his criteria 
for "free" (like a cell phone), he just has someone else carry it around 
for him.  That absolves him from all responsibility without any 
inconvenience.


Most chips require bits to be stored in registers (addresses) to get them do 
what they need to do. In the 80's manufacturers started with delivering chips 
that hadn't all registers in the address space of the processor and subsequent 
writes to the same address were necessary after a reset condition to get the 
chip working (this spared physical address lines and thus expensive pins on 
the chip).


Even if a blob needs to be stored on a chip it's often by sending subsequent 
writes to the same address. Sometimes this goes the other way around, with 
DMA, the chip reads a block of outside adresses (flash memory or memory filled 
by the main processor). Sometimes a memory besides the chip is attached with a 
serial connection (i2c etc, saves pins!). I have certainly not mentioned all 
way's to get required setup data to chips. But in general: After start the CPU 
 reads the first bytes of the bios and starts setting up at least all chips 
on the motherboard with data from the bios etc etc etc...


+++chefren

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Wijnand Wiersma]

On Jan 8, 2008 6:47 PM, Andris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But you _do_ recommend _Linux_ even when "Torvalds' version of Linux
> is not free software"! And let me put this perfectly clear to you:
> Linus Torvalds develops _Linux_. Period. GNU/Linux means GNU
> (http://gnu.org/ packages, free software) and Linux
> (http://kernel.org/, non-free software). GNU promotes itself with a
> non-free software kernel, they don't even change one letter of it.
> Because _Linux_, is popular.

Yeah, RMS likes to bitch about calling Linux GNU/Linux but it should
really be BSD/GNU/Linux.
How about that Richard?

Wijnand

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Marco Peereboom]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:07:03PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Man you are hard to talk to.  You keep making stuff up and don't reply
> to questions people ask you.  I even tried to ask you politely.
> 
> "You keep making stuff up" is a rather harsh accusation.  (Also, it
> isn't true.)  I am much easier t talk to if you don't attack.

I am not attacking you.  I am assuming you do your part of thinking and
research while you talk to me.  If you'd work for me I would have fired
you for this.  One is only allowed so many "I didn't know and didn't try
to figure it out" issues.  I am not being an ass; I am trying to talk
intelligently about these topics.

Don't blame me for being unable to converse with you.  I am trying but
we are not talking at the same level.  I apparently have too many
expectations for you.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Dave Anderson]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:

>You've apparently been reading a very different set of responses from
>the ones I've read.  AFAICT from their messages, most of the people
>responding here to this issue agree with me.
>
>Most of the people responding here, yes, but that doesn't
>mean _most people_ would see it that way.

Not necessarily, but since you've provided no evidence whatsoever that
anyone other than FSFers agrees with you the way to bet is that the
general public would mostly agree with me.  The group participating here
is a lot more diverse than just the FSF.

>>   Many of the people on this list were told that
>>I want OpenBSD to "erect barriers against" installing non-free
>>programs.
>
>That's the only plausible conclusion I can draw from your own words.
>
>I would not call this a "barrier against installing" those programs.

I'm sure you wouldn't, but it is one nonetheless.

>AFAICT from your messages, the absolute minimum that would satisfy you
>is for OpenBSD to never mention anywhere, in any manner (except perhaps
>a negative one), anything which is non-free (by your definition).
>
>That's a little more than my standard.  Many applications talk
>about some non-free programs in passing.  I don't object to that.
>But you see what _kind_ of thing I'm concerned about.
>
>Since this would require explicitly rejecting any proposed addition to
>the ports collection which would install something which is 'non-free',
>
>Yes.
>
>you do require erecting barriers.
>
>I would not call this a "barrier".  But, whatever we call it, at
>least you understand concretely what I mean.

It's something which makes it harder for the user to install a
'non-free' program than it is for him to install a 'free' program.
That's the essence of a barrier.  Claiming anything else is, at best,
weasel-wording.

>One reason I do not want to call this a "barrier" is that it suggests
>other things.  Many people thought I objected to the general capability
>of the ports system to install any program.  That misunderstanding
>seems to come words like "barrier".

Dave

-- 
Dave Anderson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Dusty]

On Jan 8, 2008 9:07 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>equating firmwares with blobs is an RMS-thing,
>
> In Linux terminology, "blobs" means firmware and only firmware.  It
> appears that the word has a different meaning in OpenBSD terminology.
> Thus, we had a failure of communication.
>

Rubbish! Did the FSF tell you that?

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Paul de Weerd]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:06:56PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
| Now you have found a second reason for not recommending OpenBSD. It
| (legally) distributes binary firmwares for certain pieces of hardware.
| Again, you make a distinction that many here say does not exist.
| 
| The distinction clearly exists.  They are not the same.

No. It is not because you say there is a distinction that this
distinction exists. The same holds for me (or anyone else, for that
matter). This is why I provide ample arguments to show why they are
the same. Stating "They are not the same." does not make it true.

| There's been a trend in hardware development. First, hardware was just
| that : a couple of circuits connected on a pcb. Then, hardware got
| "firmware", a small bit of unchangeable software the hardware vendor
| integrated with the circuits. An upgrade of this firmware meant
| replacing the circuit holding this firmware. We moved from ROMs to
| EEPROMs, allowing people with specialized hardware to update this
| firmware without replacing actual hardware. Next step was a piece of
| non-volatile memory (flash memory of some sort) containing the
| firmware, easier to upgrade but not always required (since the
| hardware comes with firmware installed by default). Today, we see many
| pieces of hardware with a small amount of RAM where the device driver
| loads the firmware upon device attachment.
| 
| That's like walking from Paris to Geneva, and saying that since all
| your steps were short, there cannot be a frontier.

No, it is nothing like walking from Paris to Geneva. I can point to
you on a map exactly where the border between France and Switzerland
is and crossing this border has nothing to do with the ethics of free
software.

| The ROM is clearly equivalent to a circuit.  The firmware you load
| into a RAM is clearly software on your machine.  Precisely where to
| draw the line is a tricky question, but there has to be one.

No, the ROM is clearly a piece of software. It's Read Only Memory, it
has been programmed with firmware once. Do you really believe that the
medium dictates the freeness of the software ? Firmware is just
another piece of software. It was written by someone in some
programming language, compiled into a binary format and is in some way
shape or form distributed with the hardware. How the hardware loads
this piece of software is dictated by the storage medium.

| Yet, this firmware can be upgraded and OpenBSD will
| automatically do this if it detects older firmware on your NIC. You
| can choose another operating system that does not upgrade the firmware
| and the hardware may work fine for your use case. Should the firmware
| be free software ? It's inside the hardware and on your other
| operating system you are not installing software on it.
| 
| That is a borderline case.  One possible resolution is that it is ok
| to use this hardware, but updating the firmware is a bad thing.

This can not seriously be what you really believe. The non-free
firmware that comes pre-installed on the hardware is OK, but updating
it yourself is not ? If you wanted to use this newer version of the
firmware, you would buy another piece of the same hardware with the
newer version installed ?

| Another possible resolution is that the fact that they widely release
| upgrades for the firmware is enough to make this hardware bad.  I want
| to think about this more before I reach a conclusion.

I do not see how the details of how firmware upgrades are distributed
come into play here. You're better off if no new firmware is
released ? You can use a piece of hardware until the vendor releases
new firmware ?

Let's look at another example. Some hardware vendor sells a particular
type of NIC. The NIC has firmware installed on it in a piece of ROM.
The firmware works fine and does exactly what the vendor wants. To
make the production of this particular NIC cheaper, the vendor decides
to move to RAM with the driver loading *the exact same firmware* in
that RAM.

The software hasn't changed. The license hasn't change. Please explain
to me how ethics changed.

If you were in the store and had the option between the ROM-based and
the RAM-based version, according to you it makes a difference which
one you buy ? ROM-based is ethical, RAM-based is not ? Really - there
is no difference when it comes to the ethics of things. You argue that
driver-loadable firmware must come with source under a permissive
license but when the same firmware is already programmed on the NIC
it's OK. I'm arguing that these are the same - from an ethical point
of view. The firmware (ROM or RAM) does not come with source released
under a permissive license.

| I conclude that what you consider ethical or not depends on how easy
| something is to accomplish. However, ethics has nothing to do with
| ease of action.
| 
| In some cases it does.  Whether yo

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Dave Anderson]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:

>>If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
>>should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
>
>I don't recall seeing any of them claiming that.
>
>Many of the messages have argued (or even demanded) that I
>change my criteria and endorse OpenBSD.  In the past two days,
>several people tried to argue that I should change my position
>regarding firmware.

AFAICT most of the people on this list are users, not developers.  I
don't recall anyone I recognize as being a developer demanding that you
endorse OpenBSD.

Developers certainly have demanded that you change what you say about
OpenBSD, since what you have said is misleading.  They've also pointed
out apparent inconsistencies between how you treat OpenBSD and how you
treat more-favored systems.  But that's quite different from demanding
an endorsement.

Dave

-- 
Dave Anderson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Alexander Terekhov]

On Jan 8, 2008 8:07 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This may be *your* "usual interpretation of the revised BSD license"
>
> Eben Moglen says that it is nearly universal among lawyers.
> As this is a legal issue, I have confidence in him.
>

Yeah, yeah. You have confidence in Eben Moglen[1]. But let's examine for
example

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

"Licenses are not contracts"

says self-proclaimed "world's leading experts on copyright law as
applied to software" Eben Moglen about the GPL.

Now, apart from governmental permits (not contracts indeed) licenses
like driver licenses, fishing licenses from local municipalities, gun
dealership, public lottery permits, etc. to do something regulated by
government (may I just note that neither GNU.ORG nor FSF.OGR  is a
governmental entity) and in the context of "intellectual property"[2]
licenses, consider (starting with United States Supreme Court):

"Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a
reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the
circumstances; but the relation between the parties thereafter in
respect of any suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not an
unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner."
De Forest Radio Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, (1927)

"Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by
ordinary principles of state contract law.'"
McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (Fed. Cir. 1995)

"Normal rules of contract construction are generally applied in
construing copyright agreements. Nimmer on Copyright sec. 10.08. Under
Wisconsin law, contracts are to be construed as they are written. When
the language is plain and unambiguous, a reviewing court must construe
the contract as it stands. In construing the contract, terms are to be
given their plain and ordinary meaning." (citations omitted).
Kennedy v. Nat'l Juvenile Det. Ass'n, 187 F.3d 690, (7th Cir. 1999)

"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. '' 101-1332,
grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal
courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the
relevant state law to interpret them."
Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F3d 749,
(7th Cir. 2006)

"However, implicit in a nonexclusive license is the promise not to sue
for copyright infringement. See In re CFLC, Inc., 89 F.3d 673, 677
(9th Cir. 1996), citing De Forest Radio Telephone Co. v. United
States, 273 U.S. 236, 242 (1927) (finding that a nonexclusive license
is, in essence, a mere waiver of the right to sue the licensee for
infringement); see also Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d
555, 558 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that the granting of a nonexclusive
license may be oral or by conduct and a such a license creates a
waiver of the right to sue in copyright, but not the right to sue for
breach of contract)."
Jacobsen v. Katzer, No. 3:06-cv-01905, (N.D. Cal. 2007)

BTW, the last one is about Artistic License being a contract (just
like any other copyright license).

Heck, and as for the GPL itself:

http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf

"On behalf of the people JUDGMENT ... The GPL grants anyone who enters
into such contract... contractual relationship between the authors and
Defendant ... incorporated into the contract by virtue of the preamble
of the GPL ...  Plaintiff, or the licensors from whom Plaintiff
derives his right, have not violated any contractual obligations
themselves ... Defendant, who violated contractual obligations"

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf

MySQL's counter-complaint asserting breach of GPL license contract
("COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)") and asking for
declaratory (court to declare GPL terminated) and injunctive (court to
preliminary and permanently enjoin Progress/NuSphere from "copying,
modifying, sublicensing, or distributing the MySQL(TM) Program")
relief (plus damages, of course).

IBM's SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM (Breach of the GNU General Public License)
against SCO... "SCO accepted the terms of the GPL... IBM is entitled
to a declaration that SCO's rights under the GPL terminated, an
injunction prohibiting SCO from its continuing and threatened breaches
of the GPL and an award of damages in an amount to be determined at
trial" (Pretty much the same as MySQL's claim above), BTW. From IBM's
memorandum:

"SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the
Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC
20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is "well settled"
that nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); Kronos,
Inc. v. AVX Corp., 612 N.E.2d 289, 292 (N.Y. 1993)  ("Nominal damages
are always available in breach of contract action".). "

Also worth noting (from IBM's brief regarding the GPL contract breach):

"the Court need not reach the choice of law issue because Utah law and
New Yor

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Steve Shockley]

Marco Peereboom wrote:

I don't think so.  We check for this before we buy hardware.


I'd bet money that you have hardware that requires driver assist.


I doubt it; if he needs to use a device that doesn't meet his criteria 
for "free" (like a cell phone), he just has someone else carry it around 
for him.  That absolves him from all responsibility without any 
inconvenience.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Dusty]

On Jan 8, 2008 9:07 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>equating firmwares with blobs is an RMS-thing,
>
> In Linux terminology, "blobs" means firmware and only firmware.  It
> appears that the word has a different meaning in OpenBSD terminology.
> Thus, we had a failure of communication.


In about 5 minutes of research using google, lets see what i could come up
with

And lets see, wiki seems a nice place to look .. oh .. look what i found ...
"In computing , a *binary blob* is
an object file 
loadedinto the
kernel  of a
free  or open
source operating
system  without publicly
available source code . The term
is not usually applied to code running outside the kernel, for example
BIOScode,
firmware  images, or
userlandprograms."
Sorry? Binary Blob loaded into a kernel? didnt know firmware got loaded into
a kernel ...
Oh oh, look, "IS NOT USUALLY APPLIED (except if you're RMS) to code running
... FIRMWARE "
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_blobs ]

Whats that? Binary blob? Sorry, the only other kind of blob has to do with
objects in relational databases .. I'm sure there is no resemblance to
firmware, drivers or anything related here...

What say you now?

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Eric Furman]

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:14:59 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say "recommend"
> in
> this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion
> here) to be something that most people would express as "not
> deliberately erect barriers against".
> 
> The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description
> for what I am saying.  Many of the people on this list were told that
> I want OpenBSD to "erect barriers against" installing non-free
> programs.  And their words show that they think this means designing
> the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible.  (I
> have not suggested such a thing.)
> 
> My usage of the "recommend" fits in normal usage.  If you include
> program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly
> that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider.
> 
> Perhaps "implicitly recommend" would be a clearer description of this
> particular case.

But it's not implicit at all. Do you know the meaning of that word?
What the fuck did they teach you at MIT? Please STFU and go away.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Eric Furman]

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:31:11 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> This has been discussed many times
> and it shouldn't take long for you or your minions to find out that
> we do not
> care about the source of firmware which doesn't load into OpenBSD.
> 
> The people who do searches for me are helpful volunteers.  I can ask
> them to look for something, but I try not to impose on them if there
> is an easier way.  For a question about OpenBSD policies, it is better
> for me to ask this list for the answer, than to ask someone else to
> hunt for the answer.
> 
> Thanks for stating the policy.
> 
> If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
> binary-only firmware, which isn't free.  This would be a second reason
> why I should not endorse OpenBSD.  The systems I endorse try to
> exclude such firmware.

Then the systems you endorse (which? does anyone know?) won't work
on any modern hardware. God, you are a stupid effing moron.
Please STFU and go away.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Eric Furman]

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:31:16 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> > But what about the different case where the company permits
> > redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source
> > code.  Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case?
> 
> Of course and going by your description it is nothing but hardware at
> that point
> 
> No, that description refers to a different case.
> 
>  so there is no ethics violation (whatever that means since
> you refuse to explain it).  It is just like micro code and a circuit.
> 
> I think firmware is equivalent to a circuit if it is inside the
> hardware and users don't install software there.
> 
> Here we are talking about firmware which users always do install.
> (That is the reason why anyone would consider distributing it with an
> operating system.)  So that is not equivalent to a circuit.

Please Richard, educate yourself about firmware and stop making
yourself look like a complete moron.
BTW, STFU and go away.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Siju George]

On Jan 9, 2008 12:36 AM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Yes but after your list of recommended OSes and Software please give a
>list of Software and OSes you *actually use* for example like debian.
>
> I use gNewSense.


Nothing else?
Be Frank.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Eric Furman]

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:16:04 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard
> Stallman and the 
> FSF for OpenBSD?
> 
> If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
> should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.

They don't need or want your endorsement. They just want an apology
for misrepresenting them. Which you have failed to do.
All you do is twist words to make it look like you did nothing wrong.
STFU and go away.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[chefren]

On 01/07/08 18:16, Richard Stallman wrote:

> When I want research, I ask people to do it.  That is efficient, and
> we have not seen any errors in it.

And what about the research that should have made gNewSense up to your
standards?


The intention of good research is enough to prevent any errors in it I
presume?


Once you understand Richard Stallman you are truly in open source heaven!

You want to write good code? No understanding or experience needed,
just intend to do it! At least Richard will believe you and spread the
word about it.

+++chefren

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Marco Peereboom]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:07:02PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> No it does not.  During boot a Linux kernel will check AND UPDATE
> microcode to CPUs if necessary.
> 
> I did not know that.  That is not good.  I will have to think about
> what we should do about this.  Perhaps remove that capability from
> our version of Linux.

Because you don't research these things.  You rant and rave without
knowing your facts.  This is what makes it impossible to have a
meaningful conversation with you.  I am pretty sure you would have
stopped talking to me if I was just driveling.

> 
>   You are twisting the meaning around again.
> 
> Let's look at what happened here, because the pattern has occurred
> again and againt.
> 
> You mentioned facts I did not know.  Then you immediately jumped to
> the conclusion that I was deliberately ignoring them.  Won't you
> please check your conclusions before you accuse?

You make an argument.  I assume that you know what you are talking about.

This is where the communication breakdown happens.  I make sure I inform
myself about a topic before I make grand accusations or form an opinion.
You keep using ignorance as an excuse; I keep assuming you actually did
your research.  That is the pattern that emerges.

> 
> It is probably time to go check all the FSF infrastructure because I bet
> you'll find a lot of parts that require OS assist to load firmware.
> 
> I don't think so.  We check for this before we buy hardware.

I'd bet money that you have hardware that requires driver assist.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Eric Furman]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 21:52:18 +0530, "Karthik Kumar"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Perhaps you're *USING* these 4 files to install the adobe flash player
> > on your machine (your example a little bit later in this mail seems to
> > indicate you have at least installed it). That's non-free software
> > you've installed, but you are free to do so. Then, to you, those four
> > small files are not so useless, are they ?
> >
> 
> Okay, I didn't install it. But it's like saying 'There is no proof
> that the Makefiles won't work unless at least one person has installed
> them and verified". In any case, I put forward the argument that the
> Makefiles are useless because no single person has reported a
> successful install with them. BooHoo!
> 
> > But you're not complaining that these (FREE) files are useless.
> > There's almost 5000 ports in the tree now, you are not using them all
> > (you're not even using all the ports for free programs) so there's a
> > lot more to complain about if that was your gripe. I've made an effort
> > to reply to your argument but we were discussing the free-ness of
> > OpenBSD, not the usefulness. Please stick to the subject and do not
> > try to divert the discussion to unrelated matters.
> 
> No, i'm talking about the usefulness of your supposedly free (and
> useful) makefiles in installing nonfree software.
> 
> >
> > Here's a nice trick. On any OpenBSD system simply do the following :
> >
> > ftp http://tinyurl.com/83kyc
> >
> 
> Have you performed the above step too? Shame on you for using
> Microsoft PowerPoint .. or whatever it is you people use.
> 
> > Et voila ! You now have non-free software on your system. It is the
> > Microsoft PowerPoint Viewer (it's gratis (doesn't cost money) but it's
> > not open source). You did this with free software (ftp from OpenBSD) !
> > Ohnoes ! That software (OpenBSD ftp) isn't free, I can use it to
> > download non-free software !
> >
> > Boohoo. Now explain again how this makes OpenBSD any less free.
> >
> > After your 'make install' in /usr/ports/www/opera-flashplugin, *YOU*
> > have installed libflashplayer.so on your system. Why does that make
> > OpenBSD any less free ?
> >
> 
> Like I already replied to someone: They put a cigarette pack in
> OpenBSD with the warning: 'Smoking causes Cancer'. They say it's there
> but you're not supposed to smoke it. It's not going to harm you unless
> you smoke it. Do you see the analogy?

Yes, but do you? 
It's called *FREEDOM*. Your analogy in no way
encourages or endorses cigarette smoking.
But for a better analogy the cigarette pack is not there.
There is just a URL to a page with the cigarette pack.
Now go away you stupid f* troll.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Eric Furman]

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:09:42 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> > > - vendor A sells hardware that requires a firmware
> > >
> > > - OpenBSD wants to support that hardware and needs the firmware
> > > to be shipped, say in /etc/firmware/, to have the
> > > hardware work out of the box
> > >
> > > - vendor A says "if a customer wants the firmware, he must go
> > > to out website and fill a registration form online".
> > >
> > > - OpenBSD does not ship the firmware because it is not free
> > > enough.
> 
> In that case, it would be illegal for you to distribute the firmware,
> so naturally you don't.  No argument there.
> 
> But what about the different case where the company permits
> redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source
> code.  Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case?

You've already had this explained to you you effing moron.
Firmware != part of OS
Now please go away.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Eric Furman]

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:18:10 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
>   Didn't you do that right from the start when you came
> to our lists to post the wrong conclusions you draw from your
> un-researched assumptions?
> 
> That is not what happened.  I stated an accurate conclusion based on
> recent research.  I expressed it with words that were not clear.
> 
> I've explained the details several times, so I won't repeat now.

You haven't explained anything. You've just twisted words.
Now please STFU and go away. You are irrelevant.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Eric Furman]

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:47:10 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> I don't think OpenBSD users understand what you mean by "recommend
> non-free software",
> 
> I explained it earlier in this thread.
> 
>   so if you could, please, give an example by
> showing where OpenBSD (web-site?) says that it recommend non-free
> software and the URL.
> 
> In OpenBSD the recommendation for certain non-free programs
> is in the recipes for installing them.

It is not a recommendation. This has already been explained to you
many many times. It is only a recommendation in your
deluded twisted mind. Now please shut up and go away.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Andrés]

"Gobuntu also has the problem that its name is so close to Ubuntu that
people would get them confused. Practically speaking it is not
feasible to recommend Gobuntu without recommending Ubuntu."

But you _do_ recommend _Linux_ even when "Torvalds' version of Linux
is not free software"! And let me put this perfectly clear to you:
Linus Torvalds develops _Linux_. Period. GNU/Linux means GNU
(http://gnu.org/ packages, free software) and Linux
(http://kernel.org/, non-free software). GNU promotes itself with a
non-free software kernel, they don't even change one letter of it.
Because _Linux_, is popular.

Richard, in case you didn't know, _almost all_ Linux users (yes, I
don't care if they run GNU or don't) run "Torvald's version" (also
known as "Linux" because it is the official "version"). So you are not
doing any good to them if you use the them "GNU/Linux", you're not
sending a message to stop using Torvald's version which _is_ non-free
software.

I can see you trying to come with some argument to keep Linux (the
registered trademark) as your flag, because you're nothing without it.
Nothing. Face it. Real men don't depend on names nor mascots. Go
promote gNewSense and remove any mention of Linux in stallman.org,
fsf.org and gnu.org, because you, and the Free Software Foundation are
_promoting_ (as in the dictionary entry) non-free software.

So please, ask someone to change the "Free Software Free Society"
message to remove this part:

"Fortunately, people do not have to assent to these restrictions on
their freedom. Instead, they can reject Microsoft Windows Vista in
favor of a free software operating system, now widely used and
available in a form called **GNU/Linux**."

Here is the link:
http://badvista.fsf.org/freesoftwarefreesociety/free-software-free-society/

If you don't have ethics, if you think in numbers, then you will
mostly ignore this message with a childish argument. But if you do,
start again, completely disassociate from the name "Linux", and
clearly state in your Web sites (gnu.org, stallman.org, fsf.org) why
you are doing that.

_That_ would help free software users.

Greetings!

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Siju George]

On Jan 8, 2008 5:09 PM, Janne Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> L wrote:
> > Karthik Kumar wrote:
> >>> Firmware are not free enough when they have a license that does not
> >>> allow them to be redistributed with the system.
> >> You are talking of free as in freedom and not price, right? If the
> >> whole point was to avoid paying $$$ in OpenBSD, my bad.
> >
> > The GNG foundation speaks of free as in sex,  not cost.
>

Yup! Free SEX can cost you your life some times!
Especially now when you have those preventive things with the virus
already in it.

but it rhymes GnewSex, GnewSense!

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Shane J Pearson]

On 06/01/2008, at 9:47 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:


Would you be so kind as to tell me the precise URLs where you
found those quotes?  If not, I will look for someone else who
will do that for me.


You know that saying, "if you want something done right, you do it  
yourself"?


I'd be adhering to that, especially in cases where I put forth such  
controversial opinion in such a public display. Such an outspoken  
person should be well informed, lest he keeps choking on his own toe  
jam.



Are you too good for Google?

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Run+GNOME+in+a+VMWare+Player+in+a+Linux+virtual+machine.+site%3Atorrent.gnome.org

If you'd even bothered to go to the front page already quoted to you,  
you'd notice that that is where it is.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Janne Johansson]

L wrote:

Karthik Kumar wrote:

Firmware are not free enough when they have a license that does not
allow them to be redistributed with the system.

You are talking of free as in freedom and not price, right? If the
whole point was to avoid paying $$$ in OpenBSD, my bad.  


The GNG foundation speaks of free as in sex,  not cost.


Ah, like playing flipper: If you do it well, you dont have to pay the 
second time?

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Jan Stary]

On Jan 08 00:13:19, Reid Nichol wrote:
> --- Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard
> > Stallman and the FSF for OpenBSD?
> > 
> > If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
> > should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.

Are you deaf or what? NOBODY CARES whether you "endorse" (or
"recommend"? or "suggest"?) OpenBSD, nobody asks for that, and nobody
wants it. OpenBSD's goals and policies are clearly stated on the
project's web page, and whether they are consistent with "being on RMS's
list" is a non-issue on here, at best.

You have made your non-point a THOUSAND TIMES already: OpenBSD
has a ports system, which lets you install non-free software.
(that's true, and nobody has a problem with that; unlike your
medialized statement that obsd contains non-free software).

So having made your non-point, why don't go away now?
No really, WHY?

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Reid Nichol]

--- Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
> > 
> > My method is to ask other people to do it for me.  I use that
> method
> > because it is efficient.  Its results are accurate, too.
> > 
> > However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not
> always
> > checked.  Sometimes I just took his word for it.  The problems
> that
> > have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly,
> > corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully
> with
> > them.
> 
> You contradict yourself.  You say it's efficient and accurate and
> then point out its inefficiency inaccuracy.  I find it stunning
> that you can reconcile this.
> 
> There is nothing to reconcile -- you have combined two statements
> about two different things, so the resulting contradiction didn't
> come from me.

You said:
"""
My method is to ask other people to do it for me.  I use that method
because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too.
"""

But, we have seen very much inaccuracy from things that you've said was
researched.  I recall OpenSolaris being among them in this thread. 
This is something that you've had to go back, check on and change, etc.
 This means that your research methods are inefficient because you have
to do them over and over.

Wow, look at that!  The two statements are actually related!


> When I want research, I ask people to do it.  That is efficient, and
> we have not seen any errors in it.

See above.  I will also recommend that you re-read much of this thread
because there are... many more examples.


> In the case of AROS, it's possible I did not ask anyone to do
> research.  I might have just taken the developers' word that the
> system is free.  It was years ago and I do not know what happened.

\begin{sarcasm}
Taking someone's word for it.  Yah, that's responsible...
\end{sarcasm}

Btw, not keeping an endorsement list up to date is wildly irresponsible
for a person in your position.  If you don't have the time or energy to
maintain a list, then don't have one.


> However, most of these problems had nothing to do with quality of
> research, because they did not arise until after I had decided to
> endorse a program.

I want you to seriously think about this statement and why it is
horribly wrong.  Consider it homework in critical thinking.  Something
which you sorely need.


> Research can only check the present, not the
> future.  For instance, the reference to unrar on BLAG's site was in a
> wiki; it was posted by a user in the recent past.  (It is possible
> that this happened with AROS too.)  Likewise for the GNU/Darwin
> problem.  I think this occurred in several others too.

If you're checking wiki sites instead of reading the licenses
themselves?!?!?  Just stunning.


> My conclusion is that I should do more detailed discussions with the
> developers of the FSF-endorsed systems about these specific possible
> problems and how to avoid them.

What, like actually do research?  Are you sure you're up to it?

best regards,
Reid Nichol

President Bush says:

War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength


  

Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Reid Nichol]

--- Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard
> Stallman and the 
> FSF for OpenBSD?
> 
> If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
> should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.


What planet are you on?

best regards,
Reid Nichol

President Bush says:

War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength


  

Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Reid Nichol]

--- Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But, when people use the word "free," even within a particular
> context, anyone would be able to understand what that person was
> talking about within an acceptable level of error.
> 
> I don't think so -- that is too much to ask.  In any area, the
> meaning of freedom involves filling in details which are not
> obvious in advance.  It seems simple while you stay at the abstract
> level; it becomes hard when you address the details.

You're confusing full understanding with an intuitive meaning.  People
can "get" what's going on at a high level, without having a "wtf" when
looking at the details, because the spirit of "free" is retained.  The
details merely being the implements.

But, with your usage, this is not retained, AGAIN, see below.


> But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can
> statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still
> retain my freedom to BSD license my code.
> 
> Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is
> straightforward.  You put the revised BSD license on your file, you
> package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you
> release it all.  The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL,
> but anyone can use code from your file under the revised BSD license.
> 
> This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to
> release the combination under the GPL.


Thus the combined work, THE WHOLE POINT OF WRITING IT, is under the
GPL.  That IS what you just said.  Which is forcing me into a license
for my project that I don't want.  How does that equal freedom for me
again?

Are you deliberately missing the point?

best regards,
Reid Nichol

President Bush says:

War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength


  

Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Siju George]

On Jan 8, 2008 3:10 AM, Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dusty wrote:
>
> > WHY, please really, tell me WHY you do not do your own research. Everybody
> > on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own
> > research?!?!?!?!!?
>
> Honestly I am not interested why this moron does not do any research.
> He seems to be a case for the psychiatrists.
>

In my first mail itself I requested him to check for

1) Bipolar Disorder
2) Hypothyroidism

And I was serious!

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Steve Shockley]

Jason Dixon wrote:

Everybody
on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own
research?!?!?!?!!?


Plausible deniability.


More like deniable plausibility.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Sunnz]

2008/1/8, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman 
> and the
> FSF for OpenBSD?
>
> If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
> should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
>
>

I don't think _anyone_ have ever argued that you owe them an
endorsement here, and I don't think anyone care at all!!! What
everybody is argue what the things you _said_ about OpenBSD.

0, They don't like OpenBSD to be called non-free.

1, They don't like it when you say OpenBSD { includes, contains,
recommends, suggests} non-free software.

2, They do not agree what the mere inclusion of url and receipt to
build and maintain non-free software is in anyway of  { including,
containing, recommending, suggesting} the actual non-free software
itself.

3, They do not consider that the firmware to be part of their
software, but rather the part of a device that runs by itself
separated from the rest of the system.

You probably have never done #0, but when you are doing #1 people do
think of you doing #0.

You are doing #1 because of #2... but unless you can convince people
about #2 and #3, we will always be endlessly argue on things based on
those 2 disagreement.

You should either accept that people are not going to agree with you
on #2 and #3, or find better ways to convince them... otherwise we are
not going to go anywhere, other than having a flame-fest then go home
and believe whatever you believed before.

-- 
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[William Boshuck]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:14:59PM -0500, Richard Salmon wrote:
> IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say "recommend" in
> this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion
> here) to be something that most people would express as "not
> deliberately erect barriers against".
> 
> The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description
> for what I am saying.  Many of the people on this list were told that
> I want OpenBSD to "erect barriers against" installing non-free
> programs.  And their words show that they think this means designing
> the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible.  (I
> have not suggested such a thing.)
> 
> My usage of the "recommend" fits in normal usage.  If you include
> program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly
> that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider.
> 
> Perhaps "implicitly recommend" would be a clearer description of this
> particular case.

Once again:  Likewise, the inclusion of platform BAR in a list
of platforms on which a program FOO may be installed, as well
as the availability of binaries for the FOO to run on BAR,
implicitly recommends BAR as a choice of platform on which to
run FOO, for people and/or enterprises to consider.  (Those
who would know have informed us that such a situation for
gcc and emacs has prompted numerous migrations to Windows. So
far nobody has informed us of numerous migrations from free
software to non-free software prompted by the ports tree.)

In each case "recommends" is inaccurate insofar as its content
partakes of encouragement and the like.  It has been pointed
out, some time ago and on at least two occasions, that the most
accurate way to describe the situation is to say that the ports
tree facilitates the installation and maintenance of third party
software, not all of which is free.  It is clear to anybody who
knows what is the ports tree that it is the most accurate
description.

Of course it is a separate matter to want to use an accurate
description (even if it is short, clear and not technical).

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, you did admit
> I should more precisely have said that the OpenBSD ports system
> includes instructions for fetching, building and installing
> specific non-free programs. 
(in: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119757178526484).

Then, on Fri, 14 Dec 2007, you did promise
> As a courtesy to the OpenBSD developers, and avoid the risk
> of confusion, I will try from now on to state this in a more
> precise way.
(in: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119767255302887).

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Gary Baluha]

On Jan 7, 2008 12:14 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say "recommend" in
>this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion
>here) to be something that most people would express as "not
>deliberately erect barriers against".
>
> The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description
> for what I am saying.  Many of the people on this list were told that
> I want OpenBSD to "erect barriers against" installing non-free
> programs.  And their words show that they think this means designing
> the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible.  (I
> have not suggested such a thing.)
>
> My usage of the "recommend" fits in normal usage.  If you include
> program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly
> that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider.
>

Providing a list of programs that can be installed constitutes an implicit
recommendation for each one of them?  That means if I said you can choose to
run OS A or OS B on your computer (and let's assume for now that those are
the ONLY OSes that will run on the hardware), I am therefore recommending
both as equally valid options.  In other words, unless I specifically say "I
recommend NOT running OS B", then I am implicitly recommending both.  If
"free" means the freedom to choose to do what you want, then you have the
right to know what all of your options are.

There is a reason courts often say "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth".  One can answer the truth about something, but only mention
part of the truth and/or add in non-true information.  Just because it was
partially true, doesn't mean it is completely true.  In the same way, not
providing one all of the options available to them means they are not
completely free to make their own decision.

Now, if said list provides a list of programs that will run, but then says
"but only program X is fully supported", THAT would constitute an implicit
recommendation.  Alternatively, if one or more programs on that list is
listed as "not recommended", then all of the other ones without that
annotation are being implicitly recommended.

But perhaps I have some twisted logic going on here and I'm way off the
mark.  In that case, I'd like to know where I went wrong in my thinking.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Tom Cosgrove]

>>> Richard Stallman 7-Jan-08 17:14 >>>
>
> IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say "recommend" in
> this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion
> here) to be something that most people would express as "not
> deliberately erect barriers against".
>
> The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description
> for what I am saying.  Many of the people on this list were told that
> I want OpenBSD to "erect barriers against" installing non-free
> programs.  And their words show that they think this means designing
> the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible.  (I
> have not suggested such a thing.)
>
> My usage of the "recommend" fits in normal usage.  If you include
> program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly
> that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider.
>
> Perhaps "implicitly recommend" would be a clearer description of this
> particular case.

No, Richard, it would not.

Recommend means (and I quote the Concise Oxford Dictionary): "advise
course of action, treatment, person to do, that thing should be done".

We do not recommend that someone install any particular ports.

Think of the ports system as a set of recipes, of how to install other
people's software.

A particular person would not make everything from a recipe book: they
may be allergic to nuts, or not like mushrooms, or have a gluten
intollerance... if they do, the recipe book does not force them to
make that meal, there is no reason why the existence of a wheat-based
recipe would stop a celiac suffer from buying the book.

Some of the programs that ports enables users to install are not free.
Some are appallingly written.

We make no claims about software for which ports exist (a frequently
asked queston on this list is whether they are audited, the frequently-
given answer is, of course, "no".)

We do not recommend any ports.  OpenBSD is a complete operating
system, with enough components to suit many people with requiring ports.
The ports system provides choice, and options for people.  Nothing is
recommended.  To be clear: each port is a recipe that says "at least
one person has found that [...] (set of instructions) will enable you
to install this third-party software on OpenBSD".

If ports were recommendations, why would there be so many editors, or
so many web browsers?  The ports system is about choice, not about
recommendations (or otherwise) from OpenBSD developers.  Maybe if there
were 20 ports they would be recommendations, but there are over 4,500
ports.  We do not make recommendations about any of these.

In fact, our only claim w.r.t. ports is that the licences for the
software allow us to distributes the ports (and packages, where made).
And where licences have been unclear we have removed ports from the system.

Please now stop this

Thanks

Tom

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Dusty]

I have had a short term memory problem almost my whole life. I have been on
medication because of it. This means I find it almost impossible to learn to
code and have to re-read any documentation when I have to do even the
simplest task.
I've been using openbsd for about 10 years now. Whenever up upgrade it,
reinstall it, or do any normal maintenance on it I have to re-read the FAQ
and other documentation. I even have a P3 i reinstall every -release just to
keep in the habit.
My point is I would die, or explode, or just cease to exist if I had to rely
on others to do my research.
I live in South Africa where internet services lack like nowhere else on
earth.
I can still google. I'm even pretty good at it.
Richard, you have no excuse. The government are not interested in you, I
promise. If i can do it so can you. I encourage you, try it once. Just try
it one time. You'll love it!! All the pretty pictures and big words!!!
If a big black van rolls up outside your house and people with guns and
sunglasses, in suits, get out .. well .. I'll publicly apologise for being
wrong. But i doubt that'll happen.
http://www.google.com
http://www.google.com/bsd
go on, click it, you know you want to!!!

On Jan 7, 2008 11:40 PM, Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Dusty wrote:
>
> > WHY, please really, tell me WHY you do not do your own research.
> Everybody
> > on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own
> > research?!?!?!?!!?
>
> Honestly I am not interested why this moron does not do any research.
> He seems to be a case for the psychiatrists.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Matthew Dempsky]

On 1/7/08, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We only want an apology Richard.  You said things about our project that
> were very unfriendly and not true.  Apologize and admit you were wrong
> and I promise I'll leave this alone.

So if Richard sends an email stating "I am sorry for using ambiguous
words when discussing the inclusion of Makefiles for non-free programs
in OpenBSD's ports system", you'll be happy and this series of threads
can die?

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Marc Balmer]

Dusty wrote:


WHY, please really, tell me WHY you do not do your own research. Everybody
on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own
research?!?!?!?!!?


Honestly I am not interested why this moron does not do any research.
He seems to be a case for the psychiatrists.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[weingart]

In gmane.os.openbsd.misc, you wrote:
>  >   Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
> 
>  My method is to ask other people to do it for me.  I use that method
>  because it is efficient.  Its results are accurate, too.

Please do what all researchers do.  State the origin of where you got
your research.  Please stop plagarising all those people that do this
work for you, and start giving references as to where and from whom
you are using this research from.


>  However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always
>  checked.  Sometimes I just took his word for it.  The problems that
>  have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly,
>  corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully with
>  them.

That is one of the problems wrt using sources and not being able to
reference them.  Anyone worth their salt will make sure that their
research is sound, and that the research they base their conclusions
and their own research on is also sound.  Something about a deck of
cards and building a house out of them...


-Toby.
-- 
 [100~Plax]sb16i0A2172656B63616820636420726568746F6E61207473754A[dZ1!=b]salax

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[weingart]

In gmane.os.openbsd.misc, you wrote:
> 
>  If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
>  binary-only firmware, which isn't free.  This would be a second reason
>  why I should not endorse OpenBSD.  The systems I endorse try to
>  exclude such firmware.

Try or Do?  So, if we try, and I think the OpenBSD record speaks for
itself on that front, we are ethical?  When we try to get the docs,
and fail, and fall back to a binary blob that happens to be licensed
in such a way that we can redistribute it, and that happens to come
with documentation on how to interface to it, we are ethical?  As long
as we try?  But if the binary blob is licensed appropriately (able to
redistribute/etc), and we don't try to get the source code to the blob,
we're not ethical anymore?  By following the law, we're not ethical?


If I get this right, binary == not free?  Even if a license allows you
to redistribute and/or do anything you want with it?  What exactly does
"free" mean to you?


I'm so lost.

-Toby.
-- 
 [100~Plax]sb16i0A2172656B63616820636420726568746F6E61207473754A[dZ1!=b]salax

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Dave Anderson]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:

>IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say "recommend" in
>this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion
>here) to be something that most people would express as "not
>deliberately erect barriers against".
>
>The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description
>for what I am saying.

You've apparently been reading a very different set of responses from
the ones I've read.  AFAICT from their messages, most of the people
responding here to this issue agree with me.

>   Many of the people on this list were told that
>I want OpenBSD to "erect barriers against" installing non-free
>programs.

That's the only plausible conclusion I can draw from your own words.
AFAICT from your messages, the absolute minimum that would satisfy you
is for OpenBSD to never mention anywhere, in any manner (except perhaps
a negative one), anything which is non-free (by your definition).
Since this would require explicitly rejecting any proposed addition to
the ports collection which would install something which is 'non-free',
you do require erecting barriers.

>   And their words show that they think this means designing
>the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible.  (I
>have not suggested such a thing.)
>
>My usage of the "recommend" fits in normal usage.

Sorry, but that's nonsense.  "Mentioning" and "recommending" are very
different things, and what OpenBSD does is no more than mentioning.

>   If you include
>program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly
>that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider.
>
>Perhaps "implicitly recommend" would be a clearer description of this
>particular case.

It would be closer to reality, but would still massively overstate the
case.

Dave

-- 
Dave Anderson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Jason Dixon]

On Jan 7, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Dusty wrote:


On Jan 7, 2008 7:16 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


When I want research, I ask people to do it.  That is efficient, and

we have not seen any errors in it.


Your conclusion should that you need to do your own research.
WHY, please really, tell me WHY you do not do your own research.  
Everybody

on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own
research?!?!?!?!!?


Plausible deniability.


---
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Gregg Reynolds]

On 1/7/08, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
> should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
>
Quite right.  As far as I can tell, they're not interested in your
endorsement; I'm not sure what gave you the idea they are.  However,
they are very interested in FUD prevention, and FUD is what you get
when one party tries to co-opt ordinary language for private ends.  So
we can hardly be surprised when they object to your characterization
of their work as "non-free".  Such a slanderous characterization is a
far cry  from merely declining to endorse.

Old joke:  "Doctor, nobody likes me!  You gotta help me, you big fat slob!"

-gregg

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Dave Anderson]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:

>Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and 
> the
>FSF for OpenBSD?
>
>If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
>should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.

I don't recall seeing any of them claiming that.  Many of them _have_
(quite reasonably) objected to your spreading misinformation about
OpenBSD.  And making statements which are true only if common words are
given non-standard meanings certainly amounts to spreading
misinformation.

Dave

-- 
Dave Anderson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Alexander Terekhov]

On Jan 7, 2008 6:15 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can
>statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain
>my freedom to BSD license my code.
>
> Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is
> straightforward.  You put the revised BSD license on your file, you
> package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you release
> it all.  The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL, but anyone can
> use code from your file under the revised BSD license.
>
> This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to
> release the combination under the GPL.

This may be *your* "usual interpretation of the revised BSD license"
but there is nothing in the revised BSD license allowing "relicensing"
under the GPL. Hint:

See Leicester v. Warner Bros., 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1501, 1998 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 8366 (C.D. Cal. 1998), aff'd, 232 F.3d 1212 (2d Cir. 2000). In
Leicester,  a real estate developer employed an artist to create
sculptural elements for inclusion in the courtyard of a building under
construction in Los Angeles. The artist granted the owner the
exclusive right to make three-dimensional copies of the work, and a
non-exclusive right to make two-dimensional or pictorial copies. The
developer allowed a motion picture company to film the sculptural
elements as part of a movie. The artist sued the motion picture
company, claiming infringement, on the grounds that the developer did
not have the right to sub-license his non-exclusive right to make
two-dimensional or pictorial copies. During the course of the
litigation, the developer was granted a "sub-license" by the
building's architect, who the court found to be a co-owner with the
artist of some of the elements. The court found that the architect
could not grant a sub-license to the developer because a non-exclusive
license could not be sub-licensed. ... 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8366.

regards,
alexander.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Daniel Ouellet]

Richard Stallman wrote:

But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can
statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain
my freedom to BSD license my code.

Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is
straightforward.  You put the revised BSD license on your file, you
package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you release
it all.  The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL, but anyone can
use code from your file under the revised BSD license.

This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to
release the combination under the GPL.


Richard,

I am strongly stun by this statement from you. In short, should I 
understand and read into this that no matter what, with all the ethics 
emails you sent in the last few days and all the spirit of 
collaborations and the big freedom talks, that no matter what, if anyone 
in the GPL side find any applications under a BSD license and love it, 
they would import it under GPL and add bug fix, may be new features and 
what not and as such never appreciate what was gracefully given out of 
good will and be as genuine about as to offer the bug fix upstream in 
the same BSD spirit?


That's very important to me to fully understand from you, so please 
respond to that please!


Regardless of our differences and goals and what not. We may disagree on 
many things, but still I would expect that you would be as genuine as 
the original Author for a complete software or application you find 
useful to you and respect that Author wish to release under BSD and as 
such keep your possible bug fix and feature additions under that same 
BSD license, unless there is "HUGE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES", by witch I mean 
more then 50% to take a number that could be somewhat justifiable to do 
so may be, where in that case, releasing it under GPL, may be somewhat 
acceptable, but I reserve my thoughts on the subject at the moment as I 
sure can't come to peace with that just yet!


You always justify it by using that company would be allow to use it so 
why not the GPL. The company are required to give credit and in the end 
it may be all one would get, and that's fine.


But the biggest differences here that no one ever address in this 
differences is what is the open source and why?


We want open source so that others can look at it and improve it and get 
peer review! So, in the end the product improve in quality, stability, 
security, etc. A company may have 1, 5, or 10 developers on staff, or 
may be even 100, of thousands like Microsoft. So, many, sadly, wouldn't 
contribute back. That's accepted.


But in the open source world, where we all benefit from huge amount of 
eye balls and all fight for free code, I can't see why we couldn't all 
share in the same spirit as the Author and if that Author decide to use 
BSD, why not return him the favor and send bug fix under the BSD and 
keep it as such.


We are talking two totally different world here between the corporate 
world and the open source world.


If I release a software under BSD and you import it under GPL, put bug 
fix in there and then release it publicly, I sure hell do see that as 
fair as I have given it to you in the first place and I would expect you 
as being a member of the open source community not to fight against me, 
but collaborate with me and as such allow me to use your bug fix as an 
example and include them in my software under BSD license as it was 
originally release as to not lock myself out.


That's really the ethical question at stake I guess when you talk about 
freedom for this code here. Using the corporation way of doing it as a 
justification is wrong.


Don't you think someone release the code source of any application 
he/she may write to actually benefit others and him/hereself as well by 
benefiting of huge poll of eye balls!


You can't get that in any corporations at all, but sure sure can get 
that on the Internet. I would even go as far as saying that someone 
looking at your code in a corporation may, or may not be as incline to 
make the final product as good as it could be, because of corporate 
pressure, time limits, and what not. But someone on the Internet that 
actually look at the code would do so, because of personal interest and 
inclination to that code as well as most likely higher quality to 
understand that code by choice, oppose to be force to do so. In that 
case, the end result benefit all and that's how I see it.


If I release a software under a BSD license, I would expect you to send 
bug fix and possible feature or what not upstream in appreciation of 
what was given freely to you and as such a way from you to say thank you 
for what was given to you in the first place and respecting my license 
of choice.


Hope this help you understand, even if I have very limited hope you would.

Just consider it and see the reason why as well.

Best,

Daniel

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[johan beisser]

On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description
> for what I am saying.  Many of the people on this list were told that
> I want OpenBSD to "erect barriers against" installing non-free
> programs.  And their words show that they think this means designing
> the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible.  (I
> have not suggested such a thing.)
>
> My usage of the "recommend" fits in normal usage.  If you include
> program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly
> that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider.

Not really. OpenBSD doesn't "recommend" any of the ports. What it does
is makes things available for people to install. Anyone can submit and
maintain a port for the project, if they so desire. The fact is,
OpenBSD doesn't "recommend" any of the ports or packages, but makes
the structure available for its users simply as a convenience.

Oxford American Dictionary...

recommend |KrekIKmend|
verb [ trans. ]
1 put forward (someone or something) with approval as being
suitablefor a particular purpose or role : George had recommended some
local architects | a book I recommended to a friend of mine.
b" advise or suggest (something) as a course of action : some doctors
recommend putting a board under the mattress | [with clause ] the
report recommended that criminal charges be brought.
b" [ trans. ] advise (someone) to do something : you are strongly
recommended to seek professional advice.
b" make (someone or something) appealing or desirable : the house had
much to recommend it.
2 ( recommend someone/something to) archaic commend or entrust someone
or something to (someone) : I devoutly recommended my spirit to its
maker.

If you'd bothered researching yourself, you may have read this:

http://openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Intro

> Perhaps "implicitly recommend" would be a clearer description of this
> particular case.

Not really, no. Many of the ports are not available as packages. As
has been repeatedly explained.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Marco Peereboom]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:15:59PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> But, when people use the word "free," even within a particular context,
> anyone would be able to understand what that person was talking about
> within an acceptable level of error.
> 
> I don't think so -- that is too much to ask.  In any area, the meaning
> of freedom involves filling in details which are not obvious in
> advance.  It seems simple while you stay at the abstract level; it
> becomes hard when you address the details.
> 
> But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can
> statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain
> my freedom to BSD license my code.
> 
> Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is
> straightforward.  You put the revised BSD license on your file, you
> package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you release
> it all.  The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL, but anyone can
> use code from your file under the revised BSD license.
> 
> This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to
> release the combination under the GPL.

This is not true.  A file that is BSD/ISC licensed can NOT have its
license changed without consent from the original author.  You can have
a bunch of GPL goo around it but that will NOT (I repeat NOT) change the
license on the BSD/ISC licensed file.  I can't believe you keep saying
this.  This is not legal and by repeating it people actually believe
this.  This is disingenuous at best.

I personally am very interested when the GPL will finally hit the courts
so that we can get a firm legal interpretation and we can stop this
silly debate.  My money is on the viral clause being ruled unenforcible
or even unconstitutional.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Marco Peereboom]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:16:04PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman 
> and the 
> FSF for OpenBSD?
> 
> If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
> should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.

We only want an apology Richard.  You said things about our project that
were very unfriendly and not true.  Apologize and admit you were wrong
and I promise I'll leave this alone.  Until then I will not let you have
the last word on a project that I spend a considerable amount of my
personal resources on.  You stop talking/slandering OpenBSD and we'll
stop talking to and about you.  How is that for a deal?

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Gilles Chehade]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:16:04PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman 
> and the 
> FSF for OpenBSD?
> 
> If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
> should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
> 

We don't argue that you owe us an endorsement, we set the record straight
so that people get the facts right, something you can't understand.

Please, learn how to read, then we can have an educated talk.

-- 
Gilles Chehade

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Tony Abernethy]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
> should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
> 
Methinks this is an OpenBSD list not a FSF list
Are you always this obnoxious to people you are visiting?

>From what I've seen from you on this thread,
an endorsement from you would be a liability.

Best I can tell, nobody is arguing with you
that would require some degree of compos mentis on your part.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Richard Stallman]

IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say "recommend" in
this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion
here) to be something that most people would express as "not
deliberately erect barriers against".

The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description
for what I am saying.  Many of the people on this list were told that
I want OpenBSD to "erect barriers against" installing non-free
programs.  And their words show that they think this means designing
the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible.  (I
have not suggested such a thing.)

My usage of the "recommend" fits in normal usage.  If you include
program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly
that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider.

Perhaps "implicitly recommend" would be a clearer description of this
particular case.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Dusty]

On Jan 7, 2008 7:16 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
>>
>> My method is to ask other people to do it for me.  I use that method
>> because it is efficient.  Its results are accurate, too.
>>
>> However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always
>> checked.  Sometimes I just took his word for it.  The problems that
>> have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly,
>> corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully with
>> them.
>
>You contradict yourself.  You say it's efficient and accurate and then
>point out its inefficiency inaccuracy.  I find it stunning that you can
>reconcile this.
>
> There is nothing to reconcile -- you have combined two statements
> about two different things, so the resulting contradiction didn't come
> from me.
>
> When I want research, I ask people to do it.  That is efficient, and
> we have not seen any errors in it.
>
> In the case of AROS, it's possible I did not ask anyone to do
> research.  I might have just taken the developers' word that the
> system is free.  It was years ago and I do not know what happened.
>
> However, most of these problems had nothing to do with quality of
> research, because they did not arise until after I had decided to
> endorse a program.  Research can only check the present, not the
> future.  For instance, the reference to unrar on BLAG's site was in a
> wiki; it was posted by a user in the recent past.  (It is possible
> that this happened with AROS too.)  Likewise for the GNU/Darwin
> problem.  I think this occurred in several others too.
>
> My conclusion is that I should do more detailed discussions with the
> developers of the FSF-endorsed systems about these specific possible
> problems and how to avoid them


Your conclusion should that you need to do your own research.
WHY, please really, tell me WHY you do not do your own research. Everybody
on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own
research?!?!?!?!!?

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Richard Stallman]

> Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
> 
> My method is to ask other people to do it for me.  I use that method
> because it is efficient.  Its results are accurate, too.
> 
> However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always
> checked.  Sometimes I just took his word for it.  The problems that
> have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly,
> corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully with
> them.

You contradict yourself.  You say it's efficient and accurate and then
point out its inefficiency inaccuracy.  I find it stunning that you can
reconcile this.

There is nothing to reconcile -- you have combined two statements
about two different things, so the resulting contradiction didn't come
from me.

When I want research, I ask people to do it.  That is efficient, and
we have not seen any errors in it.

In the case of AROS, it's possible I did not ask anyone to do
research.  I might have just taken the developers' word that the
system is free.  It was years ago and I do not know what happened.

However, most of these problems had nothing to do with quality of
research, because they did not arise until after I had decided to
endorse a program.  Research can only check the present, not the
future.  For instance, the reference to unrar on BLAG's site was in a
wiki; it was posted by a user in the recent past.  (It is possible
that this happened with AROS too.)  Likewise for the GNU/Darwin
problem.  I think this occurred in several others too.

My conclusion is that I should do more detailed discussions with the
developers of the FSF-endorsed systems about these specific possible
problems and how to avoid them.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Richard Stallman]

But, when people use the word "free," even within a particular context,
anyone would be able to understand what that person was talking about
within an acceptable level of error.

I don't think so -- that is too much to ask.  In any area, the meaning
of freedom involves filling in details which are not obvious in
advance.  It seems simple while you stay at the abstract level; it
becomes hard when you address the details.

But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can
statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain
my freedom to BSD license my code.

Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is
straightforward.  You put the revised BSD license on your file, you
package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you release
it all.  The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL, but anyone can
use code from your file under the revised BSD license.

This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to
release the combination under the GPL.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Matthew Dempsky]

On 1/7/08, Craig Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >
> > If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
> > binary-only firmware, which isn't free.  This would be a second reason
> > why I should not endorse OpenBSD.  The systems I endorse try to
> > exclude such firmware.
> >
>
> Oh come on now THRUSH! You really are an irritating cunt.
>
> Can't you read?
>
> The use of a search engine even by an imbecilic moron, such as yourself,
> would have shown this page:
>
> http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39
>
> "OpenBSD remains blob-free"

You're confused.  RMS is commenting on the contents of OpenBSD's
/etc/firmware directory, not on its kernel's device drivers.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Richard Stallman]

Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and 
the 
FSF for OpenBSD?

If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Richard Stallman]

As long as this thread has been running, the only plausible reasons
I can think of for you not to repeat your claimed accurate conclusion
is either that you do not remember what this claimed accurate conclusion was

or that this claimed accurate conclusion wold now be yet another falsehood.

I've said it here so many times that I have decided not to repeat it
every time someone doesn't know.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Oscar Knight]

Richard Stallman wrote:

My supplying the URL or name of a non-free program's port in OpenBSD
would do no good, because the developers are happy to have such ports
and would not remove it.

I am not going to spend the time, or ask someone else to do so, just
for an idle request.  If the OpenBSD developers were to undertake to
remove such ports, then I would get you some names.


Please help me understand the issue.

You stated that the research has already been done.  It was done before 
the interview, that's why you made the statement.  You must have one or 
more examples of non-free program's in OpenBSD's ports.  If you don't 
have the list then surely your research assistant has the list.  I would 
like to review the license for these non-free programs.  I want to learn 
and understand the issues.


Oscar

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Marco Peereboom]

dropped misc by accident

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:16AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > But what about the different case where the company permits
> > redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source
> > code.  Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case?
> 
> Of course and going by your description it is nothing but hardware at
> that point
> 
> No, that description refers to a different case.

No it does not.  During boot a Linux kernel will check AND UPDATE
microcode to CPUs if necessary.  It is exactly the same case.  You are
twisting the meaning around again.

> 
>  so there is no ethics violation (whatever that means since
> you refuse to explain it).  It is just like micro code and a circuit.
> 
> I think firmware is equivalent to a circuit if it is inside the
> hardware and users don't install software there.

What you are saying is that hardware is hardware if it contains the
flash part.  If you have an identical piece of hardware that requires
OS assist to load the SAME firmware onto it it is software.  Which is
these a lot because flash is expensive and therefore you leave the
firmware on disk and load it at boot time.  The user has nothing to do
with this; he/she does not perform any actions.

It is probably time to go check all the FSF infrastructure because I bet
you'll find a lot of parts that require OS assist to load firmware.

> 
> Here we are talking about firmware which users always do install.
> (That is the reason why anyone would consider distributing it with an
> operating system.)  So that is not equivalent to a circuit.

Then what is a circuit?

What did you study at MIT (not a mean questions I am honestly curious)?

Man you are hard to talk to.  You keep making stuff up and don't reply
to questions people ask you.  I even tried to ask you politely.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Dusty]

equating firmwares with blobs is an RMS-thing, it enables him to destroy the
good by comparing it to the perfect
Firmware runs on the hardware, not in the kernel.

On Jan 7, 2008 1:31 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>This has been discussed many times
>and it shouldn't take long for you or your minions to find out that we
> do not
>care about the source of firmware which doesn't load into OpenBSD.
>
> The people who do searches for me are helpful volunteers.  I can ask
> them to look for something, but I try not to impose on them if there
> is an easier way.  For a question about OpenBSD policies, it is better
> for me to ask this list for the answer, than to ask someone else to
> hunt for the answer.
>
> Thanks for stating the policy.
>
> If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
> binary-only firmware, which isn't free.  This would be a second reason
> why I should not endorse OpenBSD.  The systems I endorse try to
> exclude such firmware.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Jacob Yocom-Piatt]

Marco Peereboom wrote:

Alberto Gonzalez is that you?

  



at least in this case the excuse is somewhat valid, as richard is 
certainly old enough for the claim of "i cannot recall" to hold water. 
perhaps he should see a doctor about this?


in the case that richard is not in the initial stages of senility, he 
really should be a good boy and do his homework before he posts. if i 
were to post such misinformed inflammatory statements as richard has 
recently i would expect that my audience would lose confidence in my 
ability to lead. this is not leadership-grade behavior or rhetoric and 
if you expect to be regarded of any kind of leader you should suck it 
up, admit your follies, and, at the very least, exit the discussion 
since this is not your list.


the FSF must be very proud to have such a distinguished over-the-hill 
habitual error maker and social "genius" among their ranks! talk about 
an off-balance-sheet asset :P




On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 11:18:10PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
  

  Didn't you do that right from the start when you came
to our lists to post the wrong conclusions you draw from your
un-researched assumptions?

That is not what happened.  I stated an accurate conclusion based on
recent research.  I expressed it with words that were not clear.

I've explained the details several times, so I won't repeat now.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Lars Hansson]

On Jan 7, 2008 9:19 PM, Craig Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh come on now THRUSH! You really are an irritating cunt.
>
> Can't you read?
>
> The use of a search engine even by an imbecilic moron, such as yourself,
> would have shown this page:
>
> http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39
>
> "OpenBSD remains blob-free"
>
>
> You sack of lazy commie scum. Do you work for google?

Name-calling was awesome...when I was 10 years old.
Seriously, can we PLEASE let this fucking thread die? Having the last
word on a mailing list flamewar is meaningless.
You're not going to change RMS opinions on anything and he's not going
to change the opinion of anyone here.
It doesn't matter what I or anyone else here think of his ideas or how
hypocritical they may be or even if he was wrong or right. We're WAY past
the point where that mattered.
For everyones sanity just leave it alone.

---
Lars Hansson

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Jacob Meuser]

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 05:55:52AM -0600, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 06:44:48 +
> Jacob Meuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 08:39:35PM -0600, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> > > On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:28:39 -0800 (PST)
> > > Reid Nichol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Well OpenBSD is fine here.  But, are you sure about RMS?  Because he
> > > > has been contradicting himself all over the place in this thread alone.
> > > 
> > > Richard appears to be falling into a "single point of failure" setup.  
> > > Its like the "Drug Czar" concept where a single man is given enormous
> > > powers and his individual weaknessess, however small and insignificant, 
> > > become a mechanism for prying open the whole system.
> > 
> > not the same at all.  RMS is not an appointed figurehead.  he is the
> > founder of the system he represents.
> > 
> > the only setup is Richard's own inability to be convincingly accurate
> > and consistent.  that is neither small nor insignificant.
> > 
> 
> "Some men are born to greatness, some achive greatness, 
> and some have greatness thrust upon them."
> 
> Power is power, all the same.

maybe, but that's not the point.

the logic of the system is much more closely tied to the logic
of the founder of that system than the logic of a figurehead
that was appointed long after the creation of the system.

> 
> Dhu
> 
> 
> > -- 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
> 

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Andrés]

On Jan 7, 2008 8:31 AM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You have not presented any evidence that there are non-free programs
> in gNewSense.

gNewsSense bugs 31, 100, 103, 108:

31: license problems - cdrecord (no open date)
http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00031

100: Helix Player recommends nonfree software (open since 20070708)
http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00100

103: Xfree86 includes software under non-free licenses (open since
20070718)
http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00103

108: cdrtools package suspected not to be free (open since 20070815)
http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00108

Open, Richard, means that this issues have not been resolved.

Greetings!

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Paul de Weerd]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:16AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
| > But what about the different case where the company permits
| > redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source
| > code.  Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case?
| 
| Of course and going by your description it is nothing but hardware at
| that point
| 
| No, that description refers to a different case.
| 
|  so there is no ethics violation (whatever that means since
| you refuse to explain it).  It is just like micro code and a circuit.
| 
| I think firmware is equivalent to a circuit if it is inside the
| hardware and users don't install software there.
| 
| Here we are talking about firmware which users always do install.
| (That is the reason why anyone would consider distributing it with an
| operating system.)  So that is not equivalent to a circuit.

Richard,

You say your actions are based on ethics. You recommend certain
systems (eg gNewSense) because they are 'ethical' and you do not
recommend others (eg OpenBSD) because they are not (they don't
behave), in your view, ethical.

Initially, you could not recommend OpenBSD because the ports system
"recommends" the use of non-free software. Despite the fact that many
here (on this list) do not consider this to be a "recommendation" I
agree that it is in line with your stated views. And even though your
views are to me (and many others on this list) in sharp contradiction
with your actions (supporting non-free systems in the copyleft
software packages GCC and Emacs), you consider these to be quite
different situations (yet you admit that supporting non-free systems
in free software and grants legitimacy to these non-free systems).

I'll repeat again here that I am not opposing supporting non-free
systems in free software packages.

Now you have found a second reason for not recommending OpenBSD. It
(legally) distributes binary firmwares for certain pieces of hardware.
Again, you make a distinction that many here say does not exist.

There's been a trend in hardware development. First, hardware was just
that : a couple of circuits connected on a pcb. Then, hardware got
"firmware", a small bit of unchangeable software the hardware vendor
integrated with the circuits. An upgrade of this firmware meant
replacing the circuit holding this firmware. We moved from ROMs to
EEPROMs, allowing people with specialized hardware to update this
firmware without replacing actual hardware. Next step was a piece of
non-volatile memory (flash memory of some sort) containing the
firmware, easier to upgrade but not always required (since the
hardware comes with firmware installed by default). Today, we see many
pieces of hardware with a small amount of RAM where the device driver
loads the firmware upon device attachment.

Lets have a close look at the case where firmware is stored in
non-volatile memory. You purchase an Intel EtherExpress PRO/100
network interface card. Firmware is in the hardware on a piece of
flash memory. Yet, this firmware can be upgraded and OpenBSD will
automatically do this if it detects older firmware on your NIC. You
can choose another operating system that does not upgrade the firmware
and the hardware may work fine for your use case. Should the firmware
be free software ? It's inside the hardware and on your other
operating system you are not installing software on it. Should
hardware vendors go back to non-user-upgradeable firmware so you can
recommend their hardware ? Even if the only reason they do it is
because they do not want to distribute the firmware as free software,
with full source under a permissive license yet still want your
endorsement ?

Your stance is that somewhere in this timeline of hardware development
ethics came into play. At first, firmware does not need to be free
software since it is hard for a user to change it (although determined
users can (and in the past have) change(d) the firmware ROMs by
themselves). Now that device drivers load firmware each time the
machine boots you consider it an ethical issue.

I conclude that what you consider ethical or not depends on how easy
something is to accomplish. However, ethics has nothing to do with
ease of action. To you it may be easy to copy software or to look at
the source code and understand what it does, to take it, change it,
and use it in its changed form. Very many computer users do not
consider this easy at all. To them, a computer is still some sort of
"magical device" enabling them to browse the internet, play a game or
use productivity software. Yet, these "computer illiterates" should
(according to your views) use free software because non-free software
is unethical. You want to educate the user about the ethics of free
software, give them freedoms they will not be able to exploit. This, I
think, is what your views are.

However, when people on this mailing list suggest that hardware should
be 'open' or 'free', you claim this is

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Siju George]

On Jan 7, 2008 5:01 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
> binary-only firmware, which isn't free.  This would be a second reason
> why I should not endorse OpenBSD.  The systems I endorse try to
> exclude such firmware.
>
>

Yes but after your list of recommended OSes and Software please give a
list of Software and OSes you *actually use* for example like debian.

And also tell the people though I don't recommend them I still use
them and state the reson for using those.

That would be truthful.
The other one of just giving your recommended list and deceiving
people is just malice.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Marco Peereboom]

Alberto Gonzalez is that you?

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 11:18:10PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>   Didn't you do that right from the start when you came
> to our lists to post the wrong conclusions you draw from your
> un-researched assumptions?
> 
> That is not what happened.  I stated an accurate conclusion based on
> recent research.  I expressed it with words that were not clear.
> 
> I've explained the details several times, so I won't repeat now.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Gilles Chehade]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> This has been discussed many times
> and it shouldn't take long for you or your minions to find out that we do 
> not
> care about the source of firmware which doesn't load into OpenBSD.
> 
> The people who do searches for me are helpful volunteers.  I can ask
> them to look for something, but I try not to impose on them if there
> is an easier way.  For a question about OpenBSD policies, it is better
> for me to ask this list for the answer, than to ask someone else to
> hunt for the answer.
>
> Thanks for stating the policy.
> 

Unlike your fellows we are not your helpful volunteers and it is a lack of
respect from you to assume our time is less precious than yours. If you do
want to learn about the policy and stop spreading lies and disinformation,
all you have to do is READ A DAMN PAGE that explains it all. I am not even
giving you that link again, I've done so several times in the last days. I
think that you need to take your fingers out of your ass and learn how you
can use them to type the url of a search engine.

People took time of their own to write pages which explain just the things
you want to know, the least you could do is to read instead of assuming. 


> If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
> binary-only firmware, which isn't free.  This would be a second reason
> why I should not endorse OpenBSD.  The systems I endorse try to
> exclude such firmware.

Endorsment from the FSF and you means nothing, Mr Stallman. It's been far
obvious in this thread that you do not even know what you endorse and you
do not even have an opinion of your own. 

It is just amazing that people trust your huge and bloated license, while
you don't seem to be able to even read a simple page. It makes one wonder
if you are really behind it or if it's your friends that wrote it and are
using you as their mascot.

Unless you take time to read the existing documentation, I think we don't
need to go further as you are clueless to any matter related to OpenBSD.

Gilles

-- 
Gilles Chehade

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Richard Stallman]

> In OpenBSD the recommendation for certain non-free programs
> is in the recipes for installing them.
>

Oh, no URL?

I could ask someone to find a specific URL, but why take the trouble?
The OpenBSD developers have acknowledged that contains ports for
non-free programs.  There is no dispute about that question.

In gNewsense the recommendation for certain non-free programs is in
the _inclusion_ of such non-free parts in their distribution

You have not presented any evidence that there are non-free programs
in gNewSense.

If you could supply the URL of one, that would really change
something, because the gNewSense developers would get rid of it.

My supplying the URL or name of a non-free program's port in OpenBSD
would do no good, because the developers are happy to have such ports
and would not remove it.

I am not going to spend the time, or ask someone else to do so, just
for an idle request.  If the OpenBSD developers were to undertake to
remove such ports, then I would get you some names.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[johan beisser]

On Jan 7, 2008, at 3:31 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:


If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
binary-only firmware, which isn't free.  This would be a second reason
why I should not endorse OpenBSD.  The systems I endorse try to
exclude such firmware.


Then, sir, you're truly shit out of luck in endorsing any Linux kernel  
out there.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Craig Skinner]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
> binary-only firmware, which isn't free.  This would be a second reason
> why I should not endorse OpenBSD.  The systems I endorse try to
> exclude such firmware.
> 

Oh come on now THRUSH! You really are an irritating cunt.

Can't you read?

The use of a search engine even by an imbecilic moron, such as yourself,
would have shown this page:

http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39

"OpenBSD remains blob-free"


You sack of lazy commie scum. Do you work for google?

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Richard Stallman]

> http://torrent.gnome.org/
>
> Would you be so kind as to tell me the precise URLs where you
> found those quotes?

That is a host; I figured it would have lots of pages.

Your message today hinted that maybe you meant the front page.
So I looked there, and found them there.  Thanks.

I will raise the issue with the Gnome developers, and I hope they
will change it.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Richard Stallman]

> But what about the different case where the company permits
> redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source
> code.  Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case?

Of course and going by your description it is nothing but hardware at
that point

No, that description refers to a different case.

   so there is no ethics violation (whatever that means since
you refuse to explain it).  It is just like micro code and a circuit.

I think firmware is equivalent to a circuit if it is inside the
hardware and users don't install software there.

Here we are talking about firmware which users always do install.
(That is the reason why anyone would consider distributing it with an
operating system.)  So that is not equivalent to a circuit.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Richard Stallman]

This has been discussed many times
and it shouldn't take long for you or your minions to find out that we do 
not
care about the source of firmware which doesn't load into OpenBSD.

The people who do searches for me are helpful volunteers.  I can ask
them to look for something, but I try not to impose on them if there
is an easier way.  For a question about OpenBSD policies, it is better
for me to ask this list for the answer, than to ask someone else to
hunt for the answer.

Thanks for stating the policy.

If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
binary-only firmware, which isn't free.  This would be a second reason
why I should not endorse OpenBSD.  The systems I endorse try to
exclude such firmware.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Siju George]

On Jan 7, 2008 12:44 PM, Reid Nichol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
> >
> > My method is to ask other people to do it for me.  I use that method
> > because it is efficient.  Its results are accurate, too.
> >
> > However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always
> > checked.  Sometimes I just took his word for it.
>>

That is why People here called on you to do some research before
resorting to slandering genuine free projects and condoning non-free
ones thus making yourself look stupid before those who really think.

If you did really check the facts for yourself you would have cause
less confusion.

So the things you need to do immediately are

1) Develop a habit of researching and learning before you comment on anything.
2) Choose the appropriate words during Interviews.

As it is said "Evil thrives on ambiguity"!!


>>The problems that
> > have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly,
> > corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully with
> > them.
>

Who is the them?
The FSF Folks who give you wrong information?
Well You should take a clear consistent stand first.
The your followers have at least a little chance for doing same.

Out here the most craziest people I have seen are those who
cry/flame/fight with Zeal for FSF and Stallman who know nothing about
what FSF and Stallman stands for.

But it is clear now.
When even Stallman does not know what he stands for or what the FSF
stands for in a consistent light and have to resort to word play and
word spin I can only pity the followers.


> You contradict yourself.  You say it's efficient and accurate and then
> point out its inefficiency inaccuracy.  I find it stunning that you can
> reconcile this.
>

I am sure he will have an excuse for this contradiction too.
Like.

"A Straight Line is an *arc*, An arc of a circle with infinite radius"

But the problem is when it comes to practicality nobody has seen a
circle like that yet fully!!!

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Gilles Chehade]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 08:56:33AM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> You see, rms? You were right. OpenBSD has lots of trolls who:
> 
> a. Don't find out about the person who is emailing
> b. Make assumptions about the person in a.

most of us found out you were a troll since your very first mail,
no assumption, you looked like an idiot and turned out to be one.


> c. Just troll all day and have no work to do
> d. Bitch about everything else because of c.
> e. Get more people to do d.

hilarious. For each mail I replied to you, you replied to several
other peoples to troll, logic tells me that you spent far more
time trolling than I spent setting the record straight. You need
to get a life, really.


> f. Are just the biggest b*** to the core ever
> 
> You were right for all the right reasons.
> 
> [...]
>
> @Gilles: Maybe if your current employers saw your current emails they
> would wonder what they are paying you for.
>
> [...]
>

My employers don't care about what I do on evening and week-ends. 
... and this kind of comments doesn't make you less of an idiot you know ;-)

Gilles

-- 
Gilles Chehade

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Reid Nichol]

Stay on list or stay out of my inbox.


--- Karthik Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2008 7:23 AM, Reid Nichol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Which OpenBSD does.  You have failed to show otherwise.
> >
> 
> To show that OpenBSD follows them as goals? Ah, perhaps. :-)

And you've continued to try... and failed utterly.


> > > I use ports. I am not dumb. :P The goals do not specify "to
> encourage
> > > people to use non-free software", but I see that happening
> anyway.
> >
> > Where?  Are you refering to the FAQ?  Are you aware of what FAQ
> means?
> >
> 
> Yes, I do. You can join a channel like: freenode #openbsd. When
> something goes wrong and you ask questions, the first thing you're
> told is to read the FAQ and the man page.

What's your point?


> Besides, I'm not anti campaigining for OpenBSD. Remember, I want both
> sides to clear off this bs. This thread could possibly be the end, as
> we know it. I hope you understand. Read my earlier posts: they were
> neutral; I cry FUD where I see it.

The end?  What?

I read them and the ones since... I won't reply further on that because
others have said what I would have (and more) much better.



best regards,
Reid Nichol

President Bush says:

War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength


  

Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Reid Nichol]

--- "Roberto J. Dohnert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard
> Stallman and the 
> FSF for OpenBSD?  When I choose an OS I don't go to Richard and the
> FSF, I 
> choose the OS I want to use whether its Kubuntu or PCLinuxOS for the
> desktop 
> (with all the non-free software that makes my heart sing), OpenBSD
> for my 
> server and NetBSD for my Firewall.  I never consulted anyone on my
> two 
> Windows machines either,  Richard Stallman and the FSF have NEVER
> endorsed a 
> BSD or UNIX system, so why should that change now?  I'm sure some of
> you care 
> what Richard and the FSF think but in the long run.  Does it really
> matter?  
> To me this thread has spiraled out of control with no give or take
> from 
> either side and its equatable to trying to convince Bill and Steve to
> open 
> source Windows.
> 
> 


I definitely care what RMS thinks.  I most certainly care that his
nutter values, etc NOT be associated with OpenBSD.

I would request the devs make not one move to satiate his extremist
desires.  But, to spend that time doing what they have always done;
make OpenBSD better and better and...

best regards,
Reid Nichol

President Bush says:

War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength


  

Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Reid Nichol]

Stay on list or stay out of my inbox.


--- Karthik Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > On a more serious note: everybody who criticizes the other of
> > > > > non-free software must come clean first: No clean, no talk.
> > > >
> > > > Sophistry.  If there is problems in logic, etc then one need
> not be
> > > of
> > > > a certain type (with respect to what you're saying) to realize
> that
> > > nor
> > > > point it out.  To say so is asinine (above as well).
> > > >
> 
> I already poiinted out that both sides need to do something than
> accuse the other of non-free. Didn't my first reply say 'everybody'.
> Then someone made it 'somebody' apparently biasing that statement.
> Which is why I fought back against that argument. Does that answer
> your question?

Well, I didn't actually ask a question.

But, (we'll call them) the OpenBSD people have supported there
arguments (which I'd say is more than just accusing).  Whereas "the
other side" has not.  You'd know this if you would have read at least
some of the thread before you put in your (non) two cents.

For the record, somebody is within everybody.  So, when you say
everybody, one can reply with a counter example of somebody to such a
sweeping statement.

You also didn't reply to what I wrote.  You made something up and
replied to that.

In all honesty, I really believe that you really *really* need to read
those links that I sent.  Please, go do that now or at your earliest 
convenience.

best regards,
Reid Nichol

President Bush says:

War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength


  

Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Reid Nichol]

--- Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> No, but when you redefine "free" to mean something specific, you
> redefine
> your own language.
> 
> It's normal to develop criteria for what "free" means in specific
> activities.  Consider, for instance, "free elections".  Human rights
> organizations and election monitors have worked out specific criteria
> for what that should mean in practice.

But, when people use the word "free," even within a particular context,
anyone would be able to understand what that person was talking about
within an acceptable level of error.  The problem with your definition
is that this is not so.  Your definition does not stay true to the
spirit of the word (as used in reality).

But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can
statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain
my freedom to BSD license my code.


best regards,
Reid Nichol

President Bush says:

War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength


  

Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Reid Nichol]

--- Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
> 
> My method is to ask other people to do it for me.  I use that method
> because it is efficient.  Its results are accurate, too.
> 
> However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always
> checked.  Sometimes I just took his word for it.  The problems that
> have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly,
> corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully with
> them.

You contradict yourself.  You say it's efficient and accurate and then
point out its inefficiency inaccuracy.  I find it stunning that you can
reconcile this.


best regards,
Reid Nichol

President Bush says:

War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength


  

Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Paul de Weerd]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 08:56:33AM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
| @Paul: No matter how many fucking emails you send, you will never be
| able to reason it out, you moron.

I'm glad you've resorted to namecalling. That'll surely help you find
the non-free files in OpenBSD. Please remember to send them to this
list when you do find 'em. Until then, YOU ARE WRONG.

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

PS: I just *LOVE* your reasoning ! Makes you look all smart and stuff.

-- 
>[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+
+++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-]
 http://www.weirdnet.nl/ 

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Tony Abernethy]

Ray Percival wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2008, at 22:54, "Roberto J. Dohnert"  
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard  
> > Stallman and the
> > FSF for OpenBSD?
> 
> Nobody involved in this thread wants this endorsement and it is not  
> about getting him to change his mind. The point is, simply, to call  
> him on his bullshit. 
> 
Precisely.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Kurt B. Kaiser]

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> As I've said, I think it's acceptable for free applications to run on
> non-free platforms (and say that they do), because this doesn't
> recommend the installation of those non-free platforms.  But free
> systems should not recommend, suggest, or offer to install non-free
> apps.

As has been explained a number of times, to install the software in
question, one has to first manually find, install, and configure the
ports tree and then browse though it to find the specific build
instructions.  One must then make and install the software from data
downloaded from the web.  I don't think this constitutes a process to
"recommend, suggest, or offer to install" as those words are commonly
understood.

Most people don't bother installing the ports tree, as the majority of the
applications software, all of which is unencumbered, is available as
binary packages.  These are easily installed directly using pkg_add. (*)

In any case, modifying the ports tree to eliminate the offending items
would be less than an hour's work.  Thus, OpenBSD is less than one hour
from perfection, even by your lights.  Does any GNU/Linux system really
meet this level of freedom?


> I follow these principles without discriminating between people
> or groups.
>
> Thus, I think it is legitimate for apps to run on Windows, so I apply
> this to both GNU applications and OpenBSD-related applications such as
> OpenSSH.  I recognize that this can have the negative effect of
> reducing the pressure for people to move away from Windows, but I don't
> think that alone is a reason to reject apps that can run on Windows.

GNU/Linux systems are available from Wal-Mart and Dell, and 'Linux' is a
household word understood by children and great-grandmothers.  Also,
there are many older systems which run beautifully with GNU/Linux (and
even better with OpenBSD!) and which should not be recycled just so
their owners can move to Vista, which they don't want or need.

I understand your strategy and I think it's been a good choice, but for
five years ago.  This discussion has raised issues which suggest that
it's well past the time to start removing these incentives.

People are ready.  The world is ready.

Also, it's clearly no longer necessary to support embedded cross
development on proprietary platforms to encourage the use of free tools.
As an FSF Associate Member, I request that you consider phasing it out.

Time to start reeling in the bait!  Do you have the ability to do that?

-- 
KBK



(*) Quoting the FAQ (http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Ports):

"IMPORTANT NOTE: The ports tree is meant for advanced users. Everyone is
encouraged to use the pre-compiled binary packages. Do NOT ask beginner
questions on the mailing lists like "How can I get the ports tree
working?". If you have questions about the ports tree, it is assumed
that you have read the manual pages and this FAQ, and that you are able
to work with it."

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Ray Percival]

On Jan 6, 2008, at 22:54, "Roberto J. Dohnert"  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard  
Stallman and the

FSF for OpenBSD?


Nobody involved in this thread wants this endorsement and it is not  
about getting him to change his mind. The point is, simply, to call  
him on his bullshit. 

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Roberto J. Dohnert]

Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and the 
FSF for OpenBSD?  When I choose an OS I don't go to Richard and the FSF, I 
choose the OS I want to use whether its Kubuntu or PCLinuxOS for the desktop 
(with all the non-free software that makes my heart sing), OpenBSD for my 
server and NetBSD for my Firewall.  I never consulted anyone on my two 
Windows machines either,  Richard Stallman and the FSF have NEVER endorsed a 
BSD or UNIX system, so why should that change now?  I'm sure some of you care 
what Richard and the FSF think but in the long run.  Does it really matter?  
To me this thread has spiraled out of control with no give or take from 
either side and its equatable to trying to convince Bill and Steve to open 
source Windows.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Tony Abernethy]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> That is not what happened.  I stated an accurate conclusion based on
> recent research.  I expressed it with words that were not clear.
> 
> I've explained the details several times, so I won't repeat now.
> 
Funny thing about details
When they are accurate they can be repeated and repeated,
easily and generally without inducing errors.
When the details and conclusions were always fuzzy,
they keep coming up differently 
that is if you remeber enough to know what you did say.

As long as this thread has been running, the only plausible reasons
I can think of for you not to repeat your claimed accurate conclusion
is either that you do not remember what this claimed accurate conclusion was

or that this claimed accurate conclusion wold now be yet another falsehood.

There might be a point to freedom in software, but from everything I've
seen, you have only succeeded int making your position look silly and
preposterous.
Your idea of "freedom" seems to be that everyone subscribe blindly to your
(and exclusively your) (I have no idea what)

For any rational sense of freedom, OpenBSD seems to me to fit. You do not.
Essentially, your tyranny is not my freedom.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Sunnz]

2008/1/7, V. Karthik Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> You see, rms? You were right. OpenBSD has lots of trolls who:
>

No he does not see... he is not subscribed to misc...

Here's the rest of your message...

> a. Don't find out about the person who is emailing
> b. Make assumptions about the person in a.
> c. Just troll all day and have no work to do
> d. Bitch about everything else because of c.
> e. Get more people to do d.
> f. Are just the biggest b*** to the core ever
>
> You were right for all the right reasons.
>
> 
> @L: Go fuck yourself. I don't find your humor funny at all.
> @Marco: Maybe a lawyer ought to analyze your arguments. Maybe he would
> tell you what is wrong with your fucking logic and ask you: "Did you
> understand, sir?". And maybe you would shut up then.
> @Gilles: Maybe if your current employers saw your current emails they
> would wonder what they are paying you for.
> @Tony, Ray: Don't you F* read? Someone used ftp for Microsoft
> PowerPoint, and it wasn't me.
> @Paul: No matter how many fucking emails you send, you will never be
> able to reason it out, you moron.
>
> Do yourself a favor and get off OpenBSD.
> 
> Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFHgZvpRzTnZfDdIE8RAiOmAKCJlXn6OBuZtSap72LnLwTrF373LQCgrnTY
> Fb8CvqIYQC0Vwjz0fH10a+Y=
> =BI2U
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>


-- 
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Richard Stallman]

No, but when you redefine "free" to mean something specific, you redefine
your own language.

It's normal to develop criteria for what "free" means in specific
activities.  Consider, for instance, "free elections".  Human rights
organizations and election monitors have worked out specific criteria
for what that should mean in practice.

  When you refuse to endorse some free OSes because
they allow proprietary software to be installed, you are walking a damn
fine line.

That is not the reason why I do not endorse OpenBSD.  I've explained
several times, so I won't go into detail yet again.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Richard Stallman]

Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?

My method is to ask other people to do it for me.  I use that method
because it is efficient.  Its results are accurate, too.

However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always
checked.  Sometimes I just took his word for it.  The problems that
have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly,
corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully with
them.

Why are you replying on
everybody else to point these things you to you?

Because that's the efficient way to do it.  This is a matter of fixing
bugs.  I don't read the source code of Emacs over again each month
looking for bugs.  That would be prohibitively difficult.  So I wait
for people to report bugs.  It's the same for these problems.

Pretty much everybody i know will check their email just before going to bed
and pretty just after they wake up. Why do you take so long then? Why are
you so disconnected from this computer world?

I get so much email that the process of checking my email takes all day.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Richard Stallman]

  Didn't you do that right from the start when you came
to our lists to post the wrong conclusions you draw from your
un-researched assumptions?

That is not what happened.  I stated an accurate conclusion based on
recent research.  I expressed it with words that were not clear.

I've explained the details several times, so I won't repeat now.

Re: Real men don't attack straw men

[Ray Percival]

On Jan 6, 2008, at 20:02, "Tony Abernethy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


V. Karthik Kumar wrote:


You see, rms? You were right. OpenBSD has lots of trolls who:


Curious, the contents indicate this is addressed to RMS.
The mail headers indicate otherwise.
This is obviously by one of the trolls.

Quite often, beople are judged by the emails they send
and by the intelligence or lack there of which is exhibited.

When you are addressing RMS, do you expect him to read your
reply from misc@openbsd.org or is there some
undisclosed covert channel of communication to him?

not much work, really --- kinda like smashing cockroaches.

Nuke em from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.