Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Hello chefren, On Fri, 06.10.2006 at 00:46:11 +0200, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The argument against GPL that works best for me during discussions about it is that GPL is BSD with Digital Rights Management. sorry, but this is a blatant lie. Arguing this way will hopefully get you *NO* success whatsoever, but a sound backslash instead. Having said that, I think I understand the differences between these two licenses fairly well, and surely well above what Joe Average User is expected to understand. They both have their specific places and good philosophies behind them. Even GPL zealots have an extremely bad feeling while hearing DRM, again and again funny to see their faces while it sinks in. Every sane and at least minimally social person should have extremely bad feelings while hearing DRM (if they understand what DRM actually is about). --Toni++
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Hello, On Fri, 06.10.2006 at 15:12:47 -0600, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even today the Linux kernel tree is full of non-free components, for example firmwares. Let's not talk about GPL and source and all that. Yes, there are problems there. But even more basic problems exist, because these particular firmwares don't even terms granting re-distribution rights to Linus and the other vendors! These are not just files which violate the GPL concepts their community stands for -- copyright law actually considers them to be STOLEN (because no distribution rights are granted). But don't take my word for it. Go read the debian.vote mailing list. thank you for bringing this up. That list shows that some Linux people are actually very well aware of the problems, and try to do something about it. OTOH it also shows that they have rather limited success so far. See http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007. Joining forces in educating vendors and the general public could, or should, help the cause. Best, --Toni++
Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
Han Boetes
Sent: 07 October 2006 09:02 PM
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re:
Intel's
Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])
You know what I can't stand... Bullying! That's what's going on
here.
I'm the operator on an #openbsd channel, and I know exactly what
happens when somebody start ranting about how {GPL, Windows,
Linux, FreeBSD,...} sucks. Another guy is a happy user and before
you know it you have a flamewar going on.
So whenever somebody brings up a sensitive subject like that, I
say something like `This channel is for people who love OpenBSD,
not for people that hate XXX'
That's how I keep the peace, the channel friendly and the
discussions interesting.
And I do the same the other way around when people start whining
about BSD related stuff.
But when I defend with rational arguments and in a polite way the
merrits of the GPL percieved as by many developers and companies
_without_ insulting the BSD license, but merely by pointing out a
practical problem, I get flamed, insulted, threatened and called a
troll!
That... is bullying! That is a what people do who _want_ flamewars
and insults to keep flying.
So you think the GPL is fair game? Go ahead, remove all the
GPL-licensed code from OpenBSD!
All I want is respect for the opinion the other guys, just like I
defend *BSD when someone starts ranting against it!
# Han
Han.
Verskoon die dialek, ek is Afrikaans.
Jou woorde was Restrictions on freedom is a good thing.
Jy moet erken dai hierdie woorde in opposisie is met die BSD lisensie.
Dit is hoekom almal vir jou kwaad is, omdat dit duidelik is dat jy die
GPL bo die BSD lisensie ag.
Die hele rede vir die bestaan van BSD is die lisensie.
Jou woorde skep beelde van OpenBSD onder 'n GPL lisensie, en dit word
hewig teengestaan hier.
Die ander lede baklei slegs vir iets waaring hulle glo, die basis van
die werk wat hulle doen. Wees geduldig en dink oor wat jy se.
Marius.
Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])
On Oct 9, 2006, at 1:52 AM, Marius Van Deventer - Umzimkulu wrote: Wees geduldig en dink oor wat jy se. That could pretty much be applied to most conversationalists in this list :-) Now knock it off! This is way too much fun to read and I have work to do. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])
On Monday 09 October 2006 03:52, Marius Van Deventer - Umzimkulu wrote: You know what I can't stand... Bullying! That's what's going on here. Eh, no doubt you are right. I've not followed the thread, but I know that if people are not bullied here something is wrong. This is by far the worst list I've been on, but I hang on inspite of it. Being close to pulse has it's advantages... Having lived in Cape Town for a few years I know you guys are probably tough Boers, and either way can take care of yourselves. Which is really all you can hope for here. Learn to swim with sharks... -- Steve Szmidt To enjoy the right of political self-government, men must be capable of personal self-government - the virtue of self-control. A people without decency cannot be secure in its liberty. From the Declaration Principles
Learn to swim with sharks. [Was: Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])]
On 10/09/06 17:39, steve szmidt wrote: Learn to swim with sharks... =Very= stupid remark. Let's take shark number one: Theo. This shark doesn't bite or swallow, gives away the results of lots of his personal work and thinking, higly dedicated to do things as well as he can. Is extremely busy, on the edge of what he can handle as a human being. What you probably try to say is that people get rude reactions over here if they post stupid remarks. Do you know a better way to stop people posting stupid remarks while keeping this list open for anyone interested? If people keep posting stupid things because they try to swim with the sharks they can expect only one thing: more extreme reactions. This is the only known way a truly open list like this can be regulated and kept open. If you believe there is another way, please shut up about it here, start a list yourselves and prove it works. +++chefren
Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])
Han Boetes wrote: You lie. You insult. You threaten. I'd love to meet _you_ in person too. Well I have met him (Theo) in person several times, and I think he's a pretty stand up guy. I've never known him to lie, but insults and threats usually flow freely when he feels the behaviour of others warrants it. I don't know you, Han, but you have been on this list long enough to know that most of the time your opinion is in the minority, sometimes even a minority of one. There's nothing wrong with that, you are allowed your opinions in those places that value freedom, and many of us on this list come from such places. However, given the long list of threads where your opinion is not shared by most of us, you may want to think about self-imposing a limit of technical discussion only while on OpenBSD lists. This is Theo's sandbox (I know there are others in the project, but Theo is the manager, lets not start that argument again), which means he is gracious enough to allow you to remain even though he has made it obvious that he doesn't appreciate your opinions. If nothing else, he is true to his word about being open. Most others would have banned you by now. I don't want to discuss this with you because there is nothing positive that would come from such a discussion. I'm just trying to point out that there is nothing being gained any time you clash with the list. Hopefully you will see reason in restricting the content of your posts. If not you will simply be added to my block list, as I suspect others have already done, which will not benefit you in any way. Breeno
Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])
Come on now people; you're upset that this debate is even being held, yet you fuel it's fire with your senseless replies. Arguing with a troll makes you a troll. Ban the guy, ignore the guy, 'shut the guy up', I don't care how you do it but for the sake of how this shit is reflecting on the openbsd community and for the sake of my sanity, please end this childish thread. Breen Ouellette wrote: Han Boetes wrote: You lie. You insult. You threaten. I'd love to meet _you_ in person too. Well I have met him (Theo) in person several times, and I think he's a pretty stand up guy. I've never known him to lie, but insults and threats usually flow freely when he feels the behaviour of others warrants it. I don't know you, Han, but you have been on this list long enough to know that most of the time your opinion is in the minority, sometimes even a minority of one. There's nothing wrong with that, you are allowed your opinions in those places that value freedom, and many of us on this list come from such places. However, given the long list of threads where your opinion is not shared by most of us, you may want to think about self-imposing a limit of technical discussion only while on OpenBSD lists. This is Theo's sandbox (I know there are others in the project, but Theo is the manager, lets not start that argument again), which means he is gracious enough to allow you to remain even though he has made it obvious that he doesn't appreciate your opinions. If nothing else, he is true to his word about being open. Most others would have banned you by now. I don't want to discuss this with you because there is nothing positive that would come from such a discussion. I'm just trying to point out that there is nothing being gained any time you clash with the list. Hopefully you will see reason in restricting the content of your posts. If not you will simply be added to my block list, as I suspect others have already done, which will not benefit you in any way. Breeno
Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])
HITLER HITLER HITLER On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 09:24:39AM -0600, Tyler Mace wrote: Come on now people; you're upset that this debate is even being held, yet you fuel it's fire with your senseless replies. Arguing with a troll makes you a troll. Ban the guy, ignore the guy, 'shut the guy up', I don't care how you do it but for the sake of how this shit is reflecting on the openbsd community and for the sake of my sanity, please end this childish thread. Breen Ouellette wrote: Han Boetes wrote: You lie. You insult. You threaten. I'd love to meet _you_ in person too. Well I have met him (Theo) in person several times, and I think he's a pretty stand up guy. I've never known him to lie, but insults and threats usually flow freely when he feels the behaviour of others warrants it. I don't know you, Han, but you have been on this list long enough to know that most of the time your opinion is in the minority, sometimes even a minority of one. There's nothing wrong with that, you are allowed your opinions in those places that value freedom, and many of us on this list come from such places. However, given the long list of threads where your opinion is not shared by most of us, you may want to think about self-imposing a limit of technical discussion only while on OpenBSD lists. This is Theo's sandbox (I know there are others in the project, but Theo is the manager, lets not start that argument again), which means he is gracious enough to allow you to remain even though he has made it obvious that he doesn't appreciate your opinions. If nothing else, he is true to his word about being open. Most others would have banned you by now. I don't want to discuss this with you because there is nothing positive that would come from such a discussion. I'm just trying to point out that there is nothing being gained any time you clash with the list. Hopefully you will see reason in restricting the content of your posts. If not you will simply be added to my block list, as I suspect others have already done, which will not benefit you in any way. Breeno
Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])
You know what I can't stand... Bullying! That's what's going on
here.
I'm the operator on an #openbsd channel, and I know exactly what
happens when somebody start ranting about how {GPL, Windows,
Linux, FreeBSD,...} sucks. Another guy is a happy user and before
you know it you have a flamewar going on.
So whenever somebody brings up a sensitive subject like that, I
say something like `This channel is for people who love OpenBSD,
not for people that hate XXX'
That's how I keep the peace, the channel friendly and the
discussions interesting.
And I do the same the other way around when people start whining
about BSD related stuff.
But when I defend with rational arguments and in a polite way the
merrits of the GPL percieved as by many developers and companies
_without_ insulting the BSD license, but merely by pointing out a
practical problem, I get flamed, insulted, threatened and called a
troll!
That... is bullying! That is a what people do who _want_ flamewars
and insults to keep flying.
So you think the GPL is fair game? Go ahead, remove all the
GPL-licensed code from OpenBSD!
All I want is respect for the opinion the other guys, just like I
defend *BSD when someone starts ranting against it!
# Han
Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])
Can you please take your rants elsewhere?
You know what I can't stand... Bullying! That's what's going on
here.
I'm the operator on an #openbsd channel, and I know exactly what
happens when somebody start ranting about how {GPL, Windows,
Linux, FreeBSD,...} sucks. Another guy is a happy user and before
you know it you have a flamewar going on.
So whenever somebody brings up a sensitive subject like that, I
say something like `This channel is for people who love OpenBSD,
not for people that hate XXX'
That's how I keep the peace, the channel friendly and the
discussions interesting.
And I do the same the other way around when people start whining
about BSD related stuff.
But when I defend with rational arguments and in a polite way the
merrits of the GPL percieved as by many developers and companies
_without_ insulting the BSD license, but merely by pointing out a
practical problem, I get flamed, insulted, threatened and called a
troll!
That... is bullying! That is a what people do who _want_ flamewars
and insults to keep flying.
So you think the GPL is fair game? Go ahead, remove all the
GPL-licensed code from OpenBSD!
All I want is respect for the opinion the other guys, just like I
defend *BSD when someone starts ranting against it!
# Han
OT [e: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]]
On 10/7/06 7:26 AM, Han Boetes wrote: You lie. You insult. You threaten. I'd love to meet _you_ in person too. Again top posting. What are the author's words about that? http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html Respond below the questions Well, Han might argue Theo didn't pose a question. However the quotingguide states also: Reply below each paragraph Sigh... +++chefren
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
2006/10/6, Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Its complete and utter nonsense actually. The linux kernel is used in closed source products all the time, it has no effect there just like it Please show us one example of a closed source Linux device. On the contrary closed source Linux systems have been forced (even in court) to deliver the sources. This is impossible with BSD. Best Martin
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
On 10/06/06 03:01, Han Boetes wrote: Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article: http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd Since it's polite, to point and factual. That pages contains the sentence I don't think we fully understand exactly when each license's effects truly have the most effect. That we is not that polite and it might seem to the point and factual to you, this sentence ruins most of it. Instead of your rant which contains insults and lies. Please explain (off-list is OK). +++chefren
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Martin Schrvder wrote: 2006/10/6, Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Its complete and utter nonsense actually. The linux kernel is used in closed source products all the time, it has no effect there just like it Please show us one example of a closed source Linux device. Sure, the broadcom wireless device inside the linksys routers. Yes, they are open source devices, you can get the linux distribution from linksys, but good luck getting source for their blobs. On the contrary closed source Linux systems have been forced (even in court) to deliver the sources. This is impossible with BSD. Some yes, at the expense of other freedoms. -- [100~Plax]sb16i0A2172656B63616820636420726568746F6E61207473754A[dZ1!=b]salax
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Martin Schrvder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2006/10/6, Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Its complete and utter nonsense actually. The linux kernel is used in closed source products all the time, it has no effect there just like it Please show us one example of a closed source Linux device. They are all over the place, tons of random little devices are running some form of linux. Very few seem to be actually obeying all the rules of the GPL. Half of the devices Dlink ships for instance. On the contrary closed source Linux systems have been forced (even in court) to deliver the sources. This is impossible with BSD. No, some have been pressured with the threat of court, and sorta gave in. But they still keep portions closed, they just put up the source for the kernel, which you could already get anyways. They still keep drivers secret little blobs. Dlink has agreed to CD because of the courts in Germany, but they have not opened up the source to the device in question. Nobody can be forced to deliver the sources, GPL or BSD. At best they can be forced to CD, and pay court costs. They can *choose* to GPL their code instead if they prefer that option. If the GPL has helped out linux so much by forcing companies to open up their code, then please feel free to point out what code that is. IBM and SGI may have GPLed a couple filesystems, but they were not forced to, and linux was already plenty popular by then. Adam
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Its complete and utter nonsense actually. The linux kernel is used in closed source products all the time, it has no effect there just like it Please show us one example of a closed source Linux device. Sure, the broadcom wireless device inside the linksys routers. Yes, they are open source devices, you can get the linux distribution from linksys, but good luck getting source for their blobs. Another example is the Zaurus. From sharp it runs Linux. It has SD/SDIO support, but as a .o file, linked against the kernel. Sharp never published source for the SD/SDIO support. Noone even said anything about it. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of other examples, I am sorry to say. Even today the Linux kernel tree is full of non-free components, for example firmwares. Let's not talk about GPL and source and all that. Yes, there are problems there. But even more basic problems exist, because these particular firmwares don't even terms granting re-distribution rights to Linus and the other vendors! These are not just files which violate the GPL concepts their community stands for -- copyright law actually considers them to be STOLEN (because no distribution rights are granted). But don't take my word for it. Go read the debian.vote mailing list. So please don't come our lists arguying that we are breaking pseudo-rules we never made promises about, when you are coming as a representative of a community of people who break laws.
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 03:50:38 +0159, Han Boetes wrote: In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, otherwise it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms is a good thing. Bullshit! Now don't quote me that specious crap about how free speech is limited by no freedom to falsely cry Fire! in a crowded theatre. That is the refuge of philosophy 101 students or shitheads who only advance it so that they can gloat about the stupidity of someone who did not recognise the trick. You are free to spout whatever crap you espouse. You yourself never fought for that right but I won't deny you that right. Somebody may call you to account for abusing that freedom. Like now. Your puerile confusion of freedoms of speech or thought with free software (as we know it) does not do more than deomonstrate your lack of maturity and a need for some training of your brain's crap detector. If it is not atrophied, that is. I was an IBM Linux instructor until a couple of years ago and I can tell you for certain that your (wishful) thinking about why they (IBM) espouse Linux is wildly astray. Try again. But not here, please. You have woffled on too long and I am waeried of watching your twaddle go by. plonk EOF From the land down under: Australia. Do we look umop apisdn from up over? Do NOT CC me - I am subscribed to the list. Replies to the sender address will fail except from the list-server. Your IP address will also be greytrapped for 24 hours after any attempt. I am continually amazed by the people who run OpenBSD who don't take this advice. I always expected a smarter class. I guess not.
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
quote out of context Rod.. Whitworth wrote: On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 03:50:38 +0159, Han Boetes wrote: In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, otherwise it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms is a good thing. Bullshit! Now don't quote me that specious crap about how free speech is limited by no freedom to falsely cry Fire! in a crowded theatre. That is the refuge of philosophy 101 students or shitheads who only advance it so that they can gloat about the stupidity of someone who did not recognise the trick. You are free to spout whatever crap you espouse. You yourself never fought for that right but I won't deny you that right. Somebody may call you to account for abusing that freedom. Like now. Your puerile confusion of freedoms of speech or thought with free software (as we know it) does not do more than deomonstrate your lack of maturity and a need for some training of your brain's crap detector. If it is not atrophied, that is. I was an IBM Linux instructor until a couple of years ago and I can tell you for certain that your (wishful) thinking about why they (IBM) espouse Linux is wildly astray. Try again. But not here, please. You have woffled on too long and I am waeried of watching your twaddle go by. plonk EOF From the land down under: Australia. Do we look umop apisdn from up over? Do NOT CC me - I am subscribed to the list. Replies to the sender address will fail except from the list-server. Your IP address will also be greytrapped for 24 hours after any attempt. I am continually amazed by the people who run OpenBSD who don't take this advice. I always expected a smarter class. I guess not. # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Is that all you can say to defend your point of view? If you are wrong (and you probably are), you should admit it, not repeat quote out of context as a silly escape. On 10/6/06, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: quote out of context Rod.. Whitworth wrote: On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 03:50:38 +0159, Han Boetes wrote: In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, otherwise it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms is a good thing. Bullshit! Now don't quote me that specious crap about how free speech is limited by no freedom to falsely cry Fire! in a crowded theatre. That is the refuge of philosophy 101 students or shitheads who only advance it so that they can gloat about the stupidity of someone who did not recognise the trick. You are free to spout whatever crap you espouse. You yourself never fought for that right but I won't deny you that right. Somebody may call you to account for abusing that freedom. Like now. Your puerile confusion of freedoms of speech or thought with free software (as we know it) does not do more than deomonstrate your lack of maturity and a need for some training of your brain's crap detector. If it is not atrophied, that is. I was an IBM Linux instructor until a couple of years ago and I can tell you for certain that your (wishful) thinking about why they (IBM) espouse Linux is wildly astray. Try again. But not here, please. You have woffled on too long and I am waeried of watching your twaddle go by. plonk EOF From the land down under: Australia. Do we look umop apisdn from up over? Do NOT CC me - I am subscribed to the list. Replies to the sender address will fail except from the list-server. Your IP address will also be greytrapped for 24 hours after any attempt. I am continually amazed by the people who run OpenBSD who don't take this advice. I always expected a smarter class. I guess not. # Han -- Felipe Brant Scarel PATUX/OpenBSD Project Leader (http://www.patux.cic.unb.br)
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Look at it, he is quoting me out of context. That's not a silly escape, that's a fact. Maybe to you quoting out of context is a legitimate way to fight a discussion, to me it's not. Felipe Scarel wrote: Is that all you can say to defend your point of view? If you are wrong (and you probably are), you should admit it, not repeat quote out of context as a silly escape. # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Han is some asshole who comes onto our list about every 2-3 weeks and spouts some very vague bullshit to distract people. He wants every argument to become a vague license argument. He refuses to leave our lists. At times, I have times wished that someone would go visit him in person and shut him up. I find it hard to admit this, but people as uneducated and rude as him are rare. Look at it, he is quoting me out of context. That's not a silly escape, that's a fact. Maybe to you quoting out of context is a legitimate way to fight a discussion, to me it's not. Felipe Scarel wrote: Is that all you can say to defend your point of view? If you are wrong (and you probably are), you should admit it, not repeat quote out of context as a silly escape. # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
You lie. You insult. You threaten. I'd love to meet _you_ in person too. Theo de Raadt wrote: Han is some asshole who comes onto our list about every 2-3 weeks and spouts some very vague bullshit to distract people. He wants every argument to become a vague license argument. He refuses to leave our lists. At times, I have times wished that someone would go visit him in person and shut him up. I find it hard to admit this, but people as uneducated and rude as him are rare. # Han
Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 03:54:36PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: Intel may just be worried that there _might_ be a problem they don't know about and are trying to protect themselves. may just be? I imagine that there are plenty of opportunities for someone to either willfully or accidentally introduce patented technologies, for which Intel does not hold a license, into their commercial products. imagine Rather than releasing information and potentially having to deal with an intellectual property issue, Intel just doesn't release the information. No facts? None at all? Just theories as to why they might have to not give things away? All phrased to let them get away with it? That's a lot of apologies you are making for a vendor who sells you broken hardware. Sorry, I didn't mean to apologize for them. Just making some guesses at how Intel is rationalizing the decision to not release information. Personally, I don't buy their products. -Damian
Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 11:13:05 -0500 Damian Wiest [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, I didn't mean to apologize for them. Just making some guesses at how Intel is rationalizing the decision to not release information. Personally, I don't buy their products. I'm speaking to everyone here. Rationalizing their decisions is probably a good thing. If you can put yourself in their shoes then you can probably devise some better reasons why they should help us. Bunk. Rationalizing their decisions openly does nothing more than reinforce that their decisions are right and logical. It does nothing to change behavior. It reinforces behavior. The best reason, which has been given, is that in not doing so, Intel will realize a financial impact for their decision. At their size, it is insignificant; but the great thing about a public corporation is that even insignificant financial losses are noticed by boards of directors and shareholders; if it's not maximizing profits, it's a bad thing, and loss of support from a formidable and growing open source sector is not maximizing profits. Especially when it is obvious that the small sector in question has further-reaching influence that you'd originally realized, it is in your best interest to cooperate and be open (remember? They said that's what they already said they were doing). Quit playing officer friendly for Intel; they don't need it, and it's not helping matters. DS
Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 11:18:49 -0700 Spruell, Darren-Perot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bunk. Rationalizing their decisions openly does nothing more than reinforce that their decisions are right and logical. It does nothing to change behavior. It reinforces behavior. The best reason, which has been given, is that in not doing so, Intel will realize a financial impact for their decision. By rationalizing, I did not mean justifying. =) It's unjust to sell broken products under the guise of being open source friendly. By rationalizing, I meant understanding their reasons. But like you and Theo just pointed out is that intel only understands the language of money. Thats good to know. I won't waste my breath, nor my money. =) Travers Buda
Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 14:51:30 -0500 Travers Buda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But like you and Theo just pointed out is that intel only understands the language of money. Thats good to know. I won't waste my breath, nor my money. =) Errr, I won't waste my breath _here_. Travers Buda
GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
On 10/5/06 5:05 AM, Travers Buda wrote: Thats not very smart of intel, considering that OpenBSD is writing the best drivers for them with a BSD liscense for FREE! In general Intel is definitely one of the smartest companies in this world, I don't like them that much personally but highly respect them for almost all their work. You can scream in this small church about license details but at this moment the world sees no difference between varieties of open source. Even basic open source is a very big step for companies and it's very hard to explain differences between GPL and BSD and the clue behind the enormous success of OpenSSH. Most GPL fans think they understand the philosophies and differences between GPL and BSD and strongly tend to ignore the basic results of the licenses, they think Linux is bigger than FreeBSD so GPL is better than BSD). If I try to explain that only BSD is no strings attached they say but the BSD license requires you to copy the name of the authoring person only copy left is without any strings. And there I have to explain that in most civil countries =everything is copyrighted= even for many years after the passing away of the authoring person so its basically the law that requires some sign that proves it's copy-left and only the author can claim. If the claim is left, even after years someone might rightfully claim and ask for real money if you use unsigned code. This is all far to complicated for 99% of the people in this world. The argument against GPL that works best for me during discussions about it is that GPL is BSD with Digital Rights Management. Even GPL zealots have an extremely bad feeling while hearing DRM, again and again funny to see their faces while it sinks in. +++chefren
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
When you say that the GPL is related to DRM, what do you mean? I mean how is GPL related to DRM? Generally I try to avoid licensing discussions and what not and just focus on the technology, but I'm just curious in this regard. I know GPL3 has a lot dealing with DRM (or so I've heard) but GPL2 doesn't (supposedly, I really don't know).
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
When you say that the GPL is related to DRM, what do you mean? I mean how is GPL related to DRM? Generally I try to avoid licensing discussions and what not and just focus on the technology, but I'm just curious in this regard. I know GPL3 has a lot dealing with DRM (or so I've heard) but GPL2 doesn't (supposedly, I really don't know). Please -- let's not do that discussion here.
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
On Oct 5, 2006, at 4:39 PM, David T Harris wrote: When you say that the GPL is related to DRM, The point is that like DRM the GPL restricts what you can do and how you can use the code. The BSD license doesn't. what do you mean? I mean how is GPL related to DRM? Generally I try to avoid licensing discussions and what not and just focus on the technology, but I'm just curious in this regard. I know GPL3 has a lot dealing with DRM (or so I've heard) but GPL2 doesn't (supposedly, I really don't know). They do not preach that their God will rouse them a little before the nuts work loose.
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article: http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd Since it's polite, to point and factual. Instead of your rant which contains insults and lies. And no, I'm not a GPL fanboy, I license most of my stuff under the BSD license, but I do have respect for the work and opinions of others. chefren wrote: On 10/5/06 5:05 AM, Travers Buda wrote: Thats not very smart of intel, considering that OpenBSD is writing the best drivers for them with a BSD liscense for FREE! In general Intel is definitely one of the smartest companies in this world, I don't like them that much personally but highly respect them for almost all their work. You can scream in this small church about license details but at this moment the world sees no difference between varieties of open source. Even basic open source is a very big step for companies and it's very hard to explain differences between GPL and BSD and the clue behind the enormous success of OpenSSH. Most GPL fans think they understand the philosophies and differences between GPL and BSD and strongly tend to ignore the basic results of the licenses, they think Linux is bigger than FreeBSD so GPL is better than BSD). If I try to explain that only BSD is no strings attached they say but the BSD license requires you to copy the name of the authoring person only copy left is without any strings. And there I have to explain that in most civil countries =everything is copyrighted= even for many years after the passing away of the authoring person so its basically the law that requires some sign that proves it's copy-left and only the author can claim. If the claim is left, even after years someone might rightfully claim and ask for real money if you use unsigned code. This is all far to complicated for 99% of the people in this world. The argument against GPL that works best for me during discussions about it is that GPL is BSD with Digital Rights Management. Even GPL zealots have an extremely bad feeling while hearing DRM, again and again funny to see their faces while it sinks in. # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article: http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd Wow, I feel dumber for having read that. Since it's polite, to point and factual. Its complete and utter nonsense actually. The linux kernel is used in closed source products all the time, it has no effect there just like it has no effect for BSDs. Linux got marketshare from a particlarly well known lawsuit that made many people avoid the BSDs, and a big group of people interested in nothing but gaining marketshare, which is not a typical BSD concern. The licenses have nothing to do with it. Adam
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 03:00:52 +0159, Han Boetes wrote: Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article: http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd Since it's polite, to point and factual. Instead of your rant which contains insults and lies. It says Yes, companies could voluntarily cooperate without a license forcing them to. The *BSDs try to depend on this. But it today's cutthroat market, that's more like the Prisoner's Dilemma. In the dilemma, it's better to cooperate; but since the other guy might choose to not cooperate, and exploit your naivete, you may choose to not cooperate. A way out of this dilemma is to create a situation where you must cooperate, and the GPL does that. Look at the last line. MUST. Must != Freedom. Ve haff vays off making you co-operate R/ From the land down under: Australia. Do we look umop apisdn from up over? Do NOT CC me - I am subscribed to the list. Replies to the sender address will fail except from the list-server. Your IP address will also be greytrapped for 24 hours after any attempt. I am continually amazed by the people who run OpenBSD who don't take this advice. I always expected a smarter class. I guess not.
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Rod.. Whitworth wrote: It says Yes, companies could voluntarily cooperate without a license forcing them to. The *BSDs try to depend on this. But it today's cutthroat market, that's more like the Prisoner's Dilemma. In the dilemma, it's better to cooperate; but since the other guy might choose to not cooperate, and exploit your naivete, you may choose to not cooperate. A way out of this dilemma is to create a situation where you must cooperate, and the GPL does that. Look at the last line. MUST. Must != Freedom. In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, otherwise it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms is a good thing. For example freedom is most defined as `the freedom to do whatever you wish as long as it does not hurt somebody else,' well that last part `as long as it does not hurt anybody else' is what the GPL is about. In your definition of freedom you'd have the freedom to hurt somebody else. # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Your freedom is forced. Companies and individuals have no choice in the matter, because it's required by the license. We have the freedom to vote, but we aren't forced to do so. You don't seem to realize that it's not freedom if it's forced at the end of a proverbial GPL gun. On 10/5/06, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rod.. Whitworth wrote: It says Yes, companies could voluntarily cooperate without a license forcing them to. The *BSDs try to depend on this. But it today's cutthroat market, that's more like the Prisoner's Dilemma. In the dilemma, it's better to cooperate; but since the other guy might choose to not cooperate, and exploit your naivete, you may choose to not cooperate. A way out of this dilemma is to create a situation where you must cooperate, and the GPL does that. Look at the last line. MUST. Must != Freedom. In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, otherwise it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms is a good thing. For example freedom is most defined as `the freedom to do whatever you wish as long as it does not hurt somebody else,' well that last part `as long as it does not hurt anybody else' is what the GPL is about. In your definition of freedom you'd have the freedom to hurt somebody else. # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
On 10/5/06, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, otherwise it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms is a good thing. For example freedom is most defined as `the freedom to do whatever you wish as long as it does not hurt somebody else,' well that last part `as long as it does not hurt anybody else' is what the GPL is about. as rational human beings, i'm sure the openbsd developers knew what they were doing when they decided they wanted to write bsd code. coughing up the same old gpl bullshit isn't going to change anything. In your definition of freedom you'd have the freedom to hurt somebody else. what else is a baby-mulching machine good for?
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Ted Unangst wrote: On 10/5/06, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, otherwise it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms is a good thing. For example freedom is most defined as `the freedom to do whatever you wish as long as it does not hurt somebody else,' well that last part `as long as it does not hurt anybody else' is what the GPL is about. as rational human beings, i'm sure the openbsd developers knew what they were doing when they decided they wanted to write bsd code. coughing up the same old gpl bullshit isn't going to change anything. I don't care what license _you_ choose, I never said anything that. All I said is what the GPL license is about. Oh, it's tedu misunderstanding people on purpose again. I'll never learn. In your definition of freedom you'd have the freedom to hurt somebody else. what else is a baby-mulching machine good for? # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Harpalus a Como wrote: On 10/5/06, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rod.. Whitworth wrote: It says Yes, companies could voluntarily cooperate without a license forcing them to. The *BSDs try to depend on this. But it today's cutthroat market, that's more like the Prisoner's Dilemma. In the dilemma, it's better to cooperate; but since the other guy might choose to not cooperate, and exploit your naivete, you may choose to not cooperate. A way out of this dilemma is to create a situation where you must cooperate, and the GPL does that. Look at the last line. MUST. Must != Freedom. In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, otherwise it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms is a good thing. For example freedom is most defined as `the freedom to do whatever you wish as long as it does not hurt somebody else,' well that last part `as long as it does not hurt anybody else' is what the GPL is about. In your definition of freedom you'd have the freedom to hurt somebody else. Your freedom is forced. Companies and individuals have no choice in the matter, because it's required by the license. We have the freedom to vote, but we aren't forced to do so. You don't seem to realize that it's not freedom if it's forced at the end of a proverbial GPL gun. Exactly! It's forced! # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Han Boetes wrote: In your definition of freedom you'd have the freedom to hurt somebody else. Good thing the GPL prohibits that kind of stuff, right? So that no-one can use Linux to spy on the populace or use Linux to track down dissidents. Oh wait, it doesn't prevent that. --- Lars Hansson
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Han Boetes wrote: Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article: http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd Since it's polite, to point and factual. Yes, it's so factual that he fail to mention/understand that the BSD license *is* GPL compatible. The reasoning pretty much goes: * Linux rocketed to fame because of the GPL (a statement that is in itself highly questionable) * It's an important advantage to use GPL-compatible licences (an opinion, not a fact) * The BSD license has hurt the BSD projects because its not GPL-compatible (which it IS) Congratulations, your reasoning is self-contradicting. --- Lars Hansson
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Lars Hansson wrote: Han Boetes wrote: In your definition of freedom you'd have the freedom to hurt somebody else. Good thing the GPL prohibits that kind of stuff, right? So that no-one can use Linux to spy on the populace or use Linux to track down dissidents. Oh wait, it doesn't prevent that. Quote out of context. # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Lars Hansson wrote: Han Boetes wrote: Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article: http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd Since it's polite, to point and factual. Yes, it's so factual that he fail to mention/understand that the BSD license *is* GPL compatible. So? The reasoning pretty much goes: * Linux rocketed to fame because of the GPL (a statement that is in itself highly questionable) * It's an important advantage to use GPL-compatible licences (an opinion, not a fact) * The BSD license has hurt the BSD projects because its not GPL- compatible (which it IS) Congratulations, your reasoning is self-contradicting. You really should read it again, you really misread it. # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Please SHUT THE F*** UP and go away, Han. The GPL is a total fraud. And as Theo has already pointed out, this is not the place to debate it. All you are doing is pissing people off. On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 05:53:13 +0200, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Lars Hansson wrote: Han Boetes wrote: Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article: http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd Since it's polite, to point and factual. Yes, it's so factual that he fail to mention/understand that the BSD license *is* GPL compatible. So? The reasoning pretty much goes: * Linux rocketed to fame because of the GPL (a statement that is in itself highly questionable) * It's an important advantage to use GPL-compatible licences (an opinion, not a fact) * The BSD license has hurt the BSD projects because its not GPL- compatible (which it IS) Congratulations, your reasoning is self-contradicting. You really should read it again, you really misread it. # Han
Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense]
Now that is a very good way to show the world how good the BSD license is. :-) Eric Furman wrote: Please SHUT THE F*** UP and go away, Han. The GPL is a total fraud. And as Theo has already pointed out, this is not the place to debate it. All you are doing is pissing people off. On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 05:53:13 +0200, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Lars Hansson wrote: Han Boetes wrote: Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article: http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd Since it's polite, to point and factual. Yes, it's so factual that he fail to mention/understand that the BSD license *is* GPL compatible. So? The reasoning pretty much goes: * Linux rocketed to fame because of the GPL (a statement that is in itself highly questionable) * It's an important advantage to use GPL-compatible licences (an opinion, not a fact) * The BSD license has hurt the BSD projects because its not GPL- compatible (which it IS) Congratulations, your reasoning is self-contradicting. You really should read it again, you really misread it. # Han # Han
Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 08:39:37PM -0600, Breen Ouellette wrote: Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote: a) Intel doesn't own the technology, but licensed it from another vendor. The licensing terms don't allow Intel to release full details. b) Intel has agreements with other customers/vendors to not release information about a particular piece of hardware. c) Intel doesn't feel that it's worth the cost to provide information for driver developers. d) There are so many patents issued for obvious techniques used in computer peripheral chips that releasing documentation might tempt an ethically challenged company to sue them for royalties. Intel has been on record as stating that patent issues are now a significant problem for them. -wolfgang That's just their way of saying that AMD is patenting technology that Intel has to licence, and that is just so very terrible for them. I mean, shame on AMD for taking the shiny toy away from Intel. :) And seriously, is Intel insinuating that they are using patented technology without licencing it? That seems rather bogus to me. Ignorance of breaking the law does not waive their liability under the law, and if they get caught in this kind of lie then I hope the legal system stomps all over them. It would serve them right. If Intel doesn't like the patent system, then they can lobby against it. But they are just a hair's width shy of admitting guilt if they actually make arguments like the one attributed above. Breeno PS - before I get accused of being a 'commie' in this latest round of discussions regarding bad corporate behaviour, I'd just like to say that it was my understanding that believing the law should not be broken is not how you define a communist. Intel may just be worried that there _might_ be a problem they don't know about and are trying to protect themselves. I imagine that there are plenty of opportunities for someone to either willfully or accidentally introduce patented technologies, for which Intel does not hold a license, into their commercial products. Rather than releasing information and potentially having to deal with an intellectual property issue, Intel just doesn't release the information. -Damian
Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense
Intel may just be worried that there _might_ be a problem they don't know about and are trying to protect themselves. may just be? I imagine that there are plenty of opportunities for someone to either willfully or accidentally introduce patented technologies, for which Intel does not hold a license, into their commercial products. imagine Rather than releasing information and potentially having to deal with an intellectual property issue, Intel just doesn't release the information. No facts? None at all? Just theories as to why they might have to not give things away? All phrased to let them get away with it? That's a lot of apologies you are making for a vendor who sells you broken hardware.
Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense
On Oct 4, 2006, at 1:37 PM, Damian Wiest wrote: Rather than releasing information and potentially having to deal with an intellectual property issue, Intel just doesn't release the information. There's a yang inside the yin. Their not releasing the info is a wonderful cleanroom defense if they ever try to sue the reverse engineerers! -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 02:37:09PM -0500, Damian Wiest wrote: On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 08:39:37PM -0600, Breen Ouellette wrote: Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote: a) Intel doesn't own the technology, but licensed it from another vendor. The licensing terms don't allow Intel to release full details. b) Intel has agreements with other customers/vendors to not release information about a particular piece of hardware. c) Intel doesn't feel that it's worth the cost to provide information for driver developers. d) There are so many patents issued for obvious techniques used in computer peripheral chips that releasing documentation might tempt an ethically challenged company to sue them for royalties. Intel has been on record as stating that patent issues are now a significant problem for them. -wolfgang That's just their way of saying that AMD is patenting technology that Intel has to licence, and that is just so very terrible for them. I mean, shame on AMD for taking the shiny toy away from Intel. :) And seriously, is Intel insinuating that they are using patented technology without licencing it? That seems rather bogus to me. Ignorance of breaking the law does not waive their liability under the law, and if they get caught in this kind of lie then I hope the legal system stomps all over them. It would serve them right. If Intel doesn't like the patent system, then they can lobby against it. But they are just a hair's width shy of admitting guilt if they actually make arguments like the one attributed above. Breeno PS - before I get accused of being a 'commie' in this latest round of discussions regarding bad corporate behaviour, I'd just like to say that it was my understanding that believing the law should not be broken is not how you define a communist. Intel may just be worried that there _might_ be a problem they don't know about and are trying to protect themselves. I imagine that there are plenty of opportunities for someone to either willfully or accidentally introduce patented technologies, for which Intel does not hold a license, into their commercial products. Rather than releasing information and potentially having to deal with an intellectual property issue, Intel just doesn't release the information. WTF! Why are you trying to protect a company that has more patents than employees (okey I did not count them). Do you think that any company will succeed with a patent claim against Intel? The best thing they will get is a counter claim. If the company is small it's over -- David against Goliath does not work in the US law system. For larger companies the normal outcome is a mutual licensing of each others patents (or part of them). So not releasing docu because of patents is a straw-man argument. Especially since a docu for writing a driver just needs to describe the basic functionality of the card. The DMA engine and the register set and btw. networking chipsets (wireless or not) are not rocket science. -- :wq Claudio
Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense
Breen Ouellette wrote: PS - before I get accused of being a 'commie' in this latest round of discussions regarding bad corporate behaviour, I'd just like to say that it was my understanding that believing the law should not be broken is not how you define a communist. Anything which is favourable to you, but not to corperations may get you called communist. If you are that easily subdued you might as well donate your money directly to the corporations. Yes I am a communist, since I believe we should take proper care of this planet instead of filling the pockets of a few wealty people with paper. # Han
Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Intel may just be worried that there _might_ be a problem they don't know about and are trying to protect themselves. I imagine that there are plenty of opportunities for someone to either willfully or accidentally introduce patented technologies, for which Intel does not hold a license, into their commercial products. Rather than releasing information and potentially having to deal with an intellectual property issue, Intel just doesn't release the information. So not releasing docu because of patents is a straw-man argument. Especially since a docu for writing a driver just needs to describe the basic functionality of the card. The DMA engine and the register set and btw. networking chipsets (wireless or not) are not rocket science. Good point to make. Intel doesn't want consumers to know that; they want everyone to *think* they are getting cutting edge technology innovation, thus justifying the premium money you drop on any product with the Intel name on it. The fact is, they are not performing miracle work with what they produce. In reality, they produce stuff that has bugs, like everyone else, and not releasing docs helps them hide that fact. The only way to write reliable driver support is to get enough documentation to build off of. Stop buying into their marketing drivel. We've been around this carousel before; as a consumer, it partly sickens me to see the user base coming to an vendor's defense to excuse them from these simple facts. I wouldn't be so empassioned about this one except for one reason; it's getting increasingly harder to buy systems these days that don't ship with some Intel component in them, and in the case of wireless support, it sucks having to deal with them. Intel's positioned themselves as a market leader, so now it's time they reciprocate some of that by supporting the community that lines their pockets. DS
Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense
Breen Ouellette wrote: Han Boetes wrote: Anything which is favourable to you, but not to corperations may get you called communist. If you are that easily subdued you might as well donate your money directly to the corporations. Yes I am a communist, since I believe we should take proper care of this planet instead of filling the pockets of a few wealty people with paper. While I have nothing against your embracing communism, as I believe everyone should have the right to hold the beliefs they see fit, I do not believe that communism is about taking proper care of this planet instead of filling the pockets of a few wealty people with paper. I have seen communism first hand in China and it still amounts to giving a select few enormous power over the many. Whether people are wealthy through money or control of the military, human greed and ambition make labels like capitalism and communism irrelevant, as there will always be people trying to get to the top of the system, no matter what that system may be. If communism is about taking proper care of the planet then China wouldn't be accelerating toward becoming the dirtiest place on the earth right now. Also, I am sick of being called a communist whenever I suggest that corporations should be held to task. I don't trust anyone or anything, so if you want to label me so that I fit into your small minded world, then get it right and call me PARANOID. (not aimed directly at you Han, just generally at those who wish to label me) This philosophical discussion is outside of the scope of misc@ and very unlikely to go anywhere productive, so I am pulling myself out of it. Please don't reply. Thanks. Why do you insult communism by mentioning fascism and then say I should not even reply? I'd rather have you don't reply. # Han
Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense
On 10/4/06, Spruell, Darren-Perot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Good point to make. Intel doesn't want consumers to know that; they want everyone to *think* they are getting cutting edge technology innovation, thus justifying the premium money you drop on any product with the Intel name on it. Yep. Some things just don't seem to change. Take a look at this note from from Van Jacobsen from the days when Sun 3/60 were fast machines, wherein he describes how AMD's lance chip outperforms Intel's 82586: http://www.kohala.com/start/vanj.88oct24.txt ...and after some guessing on what's happening, gives this pithy thought: This may or may not be what's going on: life is too short to spend debugging Intel parts so I really don't care to investigate further. That was 18 years ago and things don't seem to have changed... Philip Guenther
Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense
Theo et al. say: don't buy intel hardware--our drivers are going to be lacking/buggy because we can't get docs. Thats not very smart of intel, considering that OpenBSD is writing the best drivers for them with a BSD liscense for FREE! Said driver is not just limited to OpenBSD; you could make your baby-killing machine wireless! It's curious. Would you turn away a customer who wants a product because they want the user's manual as well? Travers Buda
Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense
a) Intel doesn't own the technology, but licensed it from another vendor. The licensing terms don't allow Intel to release full details. b) Intel has agreements with other customers/vendors to not release information about a particular piece of hardware. c) Intel doesn't feel that it's worth the cost to provide information for driver developers. d) There are so many patents issued for obvious techniques used in computer peripheral chips that releasing documentation might tempt an ethically challenged company to sue them for royalties. Intel has been on record as stating that patent issues are now a significant problem for them. -wolfgang -- Wolfgang S. Rupprechthttp://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/
Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense
On 03/10/06, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a) Intel doesn't own the technology, but licensed it from another vendor. The licensing terms don't allow Intel to release full details. b) Intel has agreements with other customers/vendors to not release information about a particular piece of hardware. c) Intel doesn't feel that it's worth the cost to provide information for driver developers. d) There are so many patents issued for obvious techniques used in computer peripheral chips that releasing documentation might tempt an ethically challenged company to sue them for royalties. Intel has been on record as stating that patent issues are now a significant problem for them. If Intel releases documentation, wouldn't it work the other way around, too? FreeBSD RelEng people are famous for mentioning that an old release of FreeBSD was used to invalidate a patent: In September 2003, we know of a case where FreeBSD 1.1 was used in a court of law to invalidate a bogus software patent. Cheers, Constantine.
Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote: a) Intel doesn't own the technology, but licensed it from another vendor. The licensing terms don't allow Intel to release full details. b) Intel has agreements with other customers/vendors to not release information about a particular piece of hardware. c) Intel doesn't feel that it's worth the cost to provide information for driver developers. d) There are so many patents issued for obvious techniques used in computer peripheral chips that releasing documentation might tempt an ethically challenged company to sue them for royalties. Intel has been on record as stating that patent issues are now a significant problem for them. -wolfgang That's just their way of saying that AMD is patenting technology that Intel has to licence, and that is just so very terrible for them. I mean, shame on AMD for taking the shiny toy away from Intel. :) And seriously, is Intel insinuating that they are using patented technology without licencing it? That seems rather bogus to me. Ignorance of breaking the law does not waive their liability under the law, and if they get caught in this kind of lie then I hope the legal system stomps all over them. It would serve them right. If Intel doesn't like the patent system, then they can lobby against it. But they are just a hair's width shy of admitting guilt if they actually make arguments like the one attributed above. Breeno PS - before I get accused of being a 'commie' in this latest round of discussions regarding bad corporate behaviour, I'd just like to say that it was my understanding that believing the law should not be broken is not how you define a communist.
Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote: d) There are so many patents issued for obvious techniques used in computer peripheral chips that releasing documentation might tempt an ethically challenged company to sue them for royalties. Intel has been on record as stating that patent issues are now a significant problem for them. Funny how that doesn't seem to be an issue for many other companies making similar products, at least not to the extent of preventing them from releasing documentation. Also, this does not really matter for firmware redistribution. --- Lars Hansson
Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 11:14:37AM -0700, Brian wrote: [snip] What does Intel gain by not being open? I am puzzled. I am not an engineer, so is there something that I am overlooking? Cheers, Brian I can think of a few possibilities: a) Intel doesn't own the technology, but licensed it from another vendor. The licensing terms don't allow Intel to release full details. b) Intel has agreements with other customers/vendors to not release information about a particular piece of hardware. c) Intel doesn't feel that it's worth the cost to provide information for driver developers. I suspect that in most cases it's a matter of will rather than any technical or legal obstacles. -Damian
