Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 12/12/14 15:36, Theo de Raadt wrote: >> On 12/12/14 15:25, Martin Brandenburg wrote: >>> Riley Baird wrote: >>> On 07/12/14 23:42, Kaspars Bankovskis wrote: > Your changes to the system will be very small, and most of the time > you'll be just renaming 'openbsd' to something else, and syncing back > changes from upstream. If you have time for that, lucky you. But there > are more useful things to do, don't you think so? It shouldn't be that hard if I only merge security fixes, and do an upgrade with each major point release. >>> >>> Haha. Not when you change the name. Do you know how much software >>> decides what to do based on what uname returns? Too much. >> >> I am pretty sure that OpenBSD cannot use its trademark rights to force >> derivative distributions to change the output of uname. I just won't >> change that. > > Oh really. Essentially those words show how little respect you have > for the developers and the community, and you really show that your > agenda is setup to work against us. I don't believe that this is a trademark infringement or an affront to the developers and the community. (It is common practice in the world of Linux distributions, such that we can all be compatible with each other.) I'd like to discuss this in greater detail privately. > Please leave these mailing lists. You've said your piece, and it is > pointless because now it will just turn into a noisy fight. So just > leave, show the last bit of respect and leave. Okay, I really didn't want to continue the discussion on this list but I felt that everyone was entitled to a response since they'd taken the time to write to me.
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 08/12/14 01:07, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote: > Riley Baird said: >> However, remember that if someone doesn't know much about OpenBSD, they >> will either: a) think that OpenBSD does not contain binary-only firmware >> due to the "Blob-Busters" marketing or b) not know where to look to >> remove it should they wish to > > This information is easily available to anyone interested via online > manual pages for affected drivers. If user is not knowledgable enough > to verify whether his hardware can be used without proprietary firmware, > you are doing misservice. They can always add it themselves, thus ensuring that they only have the proprietary firmware that they want on their system. > P.S.: how are you going to cope with hardware that already contains > firmware and does not require loading it at initialization time? Or is > this kind of firmware OK according to your definition of free? I can't really do much to stop that. It is not okay with my definition of free, but due to practical concerns I am still using it. When I don't need to, I won't. Look how many bugs - with potential security implications - have been found in the Intel Core 2 microcode: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/79098-intel-core-2-duo-has-nonfixable-bugs-openbsd-founder-alleges
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
> On 12/12/14 15:25, Martin Brandenburg wrote: > > Riley Baird wrote: > > > >> On 07/12/14 23:42, Kaspars Bankovskis wrote: > >>> Your changes to the system will be very small, and most of the time > >>> you'll be just renaming 'openbsd' to something else, and syncing back > >>> changes from upstream. If you have time for that, lucky you. But there > >>> are more useful things to do, don't you think so? > >> > >> It shouldn't be that hard if I only merge security fixes, and do an > >> upgrade with each major point release. > > > > Haha. Not when you change the name. Do you know how much software > > decides what to do based on what uname returns? Too much. > > I am pretty sure that OpenBSD cannot use its trademark rights to force > derivative distributions to change the output of uname. I just won't > change that. Oh really. Essentially those words show how little respect you have for the developers and the community, and you really show that your agenda is setup to work against us. Please leave these mailing lists. You've said your piece, and it is pointless because now it will just turn into a noisy fight. So just leave, show the last bit of respect and leave.
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 12/12/14 15:25, Martin Brandenburg wrote: > Riley Baird wrote: > >> On 07/12/14 23:42, Kaspars Bankovskis wrote: >>> Your changes to the system will be very small, and most of the time >>> you'll be just renaming 'openbsd' to something else, and syncing back >>> changes from upstream. If you have time for that, lucky you. But there >>> are more useful things to do, don't you think so? >> >> It shouldn't be that hard if I only merge security fixes, and do an >> upgrade with each major point release. > > Haha. Not when you change the name. Do you know how much software > decides what to do based on what uname returns? Too much. I am pretty sure that OpenBSD cannot use its trademark rights to force derivative distributions to change the output of uname. I just won't change that. > Not to mention that for some reason the only firmware you're worried > about is the kind you know about. Are you refusing to buy hardware that > has a firmware burned into a ROM? For that matter, are you refusing to > buy hardware that has a closed-source circuit layout? When this is practical to do so, yes, I will. > You're planning on spending a significant amount of time doing something > that is not only completely useless but also illogical in your own > idealogy. > > -- Martin
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 08/12/14 01:00, Luiz Roberto dos Santos wrote: > At 7 Dec 2014 12:42:41 + (UTC) from Kaspars Bankovskis > : >> there are more useful things to do, don't you think so? > Agree. Riley, I think you don't get the point here. The firmware blob are > *not* running on the system, but on device. > Why do you don't create just a script to remove these's files if you want? > Why create a entire "new" system for this? Why does it matter where the blobs are running? Removing the files would be a lot less effort for me personally, but more effort for others. The more effort they have to put in, the less likely they are to act.
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
Riley Baird wrote: > On 07/12/14 23:42, Kaspars Bankovskis wrote: > > Your changes to the system will be very small, and most of the time > > you'll be just renaming 'openbsd' to something else, and syncing back > > changes from upstream. If you have time for that, lucky you. But there > > are more useful things to do, don't you think so? > > It shouldn't be that hard if I only merge security fixes, and do an > upgrade with each major point release. Haha. Not when you change the name. Do you know how much software decides what to do based on what uname returns? Too much. Not to mention that for some reason the only firmware you're worried about is the kind you know about. Are you refusing to buy hardware that has a firmware burned into a ROM? For that matter, are you refusing to buy hardware that has a closed-source circuit layout? You're planning on spending a significant amount of time doing something that is not only completely useless but also illogical in your own idealogy. -- Martin
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 08/12/14 00:36, Bryan Steele wrote: > On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 07:35:03PM +1100, Riley Baird wrote: >> I agree entirely. For this reason, I think it would be best to keep >> system internals (e.g. uname, includes, etc.) using the name OpenBSD >> with only the main user-visible parts changed to a new name. >> >> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has >> excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the >> binary-only microcode included. > > This is silly, all the firmware in /etc/firmware allows free > distribution and what isn't is installed via fw_update(1). You > can easily pkg_delete what you don't like. Why does free distribution matter? > If you're worried about scary evil "Microcode", then you probably > shouldn't run a modern Intel or AMD machine, not including all the > firmware on flash or ROM, your BIOS likely loaded CPU microcode that > is almost entirely undocumented magic. There are efforts to create a free BIOS for Intel and AMD machines: http://www.coreboot.org/ This still doesn't solve the CPU microcode problem, but when open hardware comes, and I need to buy a new computer, I'll be buying the open hardware CPU. Just because we don't have perfection now, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get closer to it.
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 07/12/14 23:42, Kaspars Bankovskis wrote: > Your changes to the system will be very small, and most of the time > you'll be just renaming 'openbsd' to something else, and syncing back > changes from upstream. If you have time for that, lucky you. But there > are more useful things to do, don't you think so? It shouldn't be that hard if I only merge security fixes, and do an upgrade with each major point release.
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 07/12/14 23:37, Martin Schröder wrote: > 2014-12-06 9:45 GMT+01:00 Riley Baird > : >> I have a few questions about OpenBSD's trademark policy. (I tried >> looking, but I couldn't find a document.) > > Is OpenBSD actually a registered trademark? The USPTO doesn't list it. > FreeBSD is, though. A trademark doesn't have to be registered to be enforced (but you will have a much better case if it is).
[OT] Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
Hi, Jorge Gabriel Lopez Paramount wrote: I'm in the middle of leaving Debian after almost 15 years of using it, due to the systemd affair. And as you might guess it has not been easy, I have enough (personal) systems and experience invested to leave Debian only for a tantrum, but there is no easy way to install a new system and avoid systemd, and I guess this will become worse over time. Had I an one-command option to avoid or drop systemd, I might not be here. me too. That systemd choice is really a pity. I will keep debian as a system to test my code on before releasing it, but my interest in it as an OS wanted. But this is becoming quite off-topic. Just to "share the pain". Riccardo
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
> After a private conversation with Theo, I've decided that I'm not going > to respond to any of your emails for 4-6 days. You'll still get a > response, but just not now. :) Riley, you seem to take yourself far more seriously then the rest of us do.
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
After a private conversation with Theo, I've decided that I'm not going to respond to any of your emails for 4-6 days. You'll still get a response, but just not now. :)
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
I think the same, if running a command after installing it will make your system free enough, what is the need of a fork? I think that if you publish a web page with that information the OpenBSD community would not take that as an offense. I'm in the middle of leaving Debian after almost 15 years of using it, due to the systemd affair. And as you might guess it has not been easy, I have enough (personal) systems and experience invested to leave Debian only for a tantrum, but there is no easy way to install a new system and avoid systemd, and I guess this will become worse over time. Had I an one-command option to avoid or drop systemd, I might not be here. Best regards, Jorge. Luiz Roberto dos Santos wrote: >At 7 Dec 2014 12:42:41 + (UTC) from Kaspars Bankovskis >: >>there are more useful things to do, don't you think so? >Agree. Riley, I think you don't get the point here. The firmware blob are >*not* running on the system, but on device. >Why do you don't create just a script to remove these's files if you want? Why >create a entire "new" system for this?
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
Adam Thompson writes: > On 14-12-07 06:37 AM, Martin Schröder wrote: >> Is OpenBSD actually a registered trademark? The USPTO doesn't list it. >> FreeBSD is, though. > The answer appears to be "no", as CIPO doesn't list it, either. > My guess is that keeping the lights on (literally) was a higher priority > than paying the annual registration fee. > I'm reasonably confident that if someone were to step up to not only > fund the trademark application (looks like >$500/yr /in perpetuity/ in > IPO fees alone???), but find a trademark agent willing to do the work > /pro bono/, and spend the time filling out the paperwork, etc. etc., > etc. then it could probably happen fairly rapidly. > I believe it would have to be done through the Canadian office > (http://cipo.gc.ca/) since both Theo and the Foundation are based in Canada. > AFAIK Canada does not yet comply with the Madrid Protocol, the Nice > Agreement or the Singapore Treaty, so that registration would only be > good in Canada. An international application would probably be best > done through the USPTO, which incurs similar costs. For the record, I get enough use out of OpenBSD that in case Mr. De Raadt (or some other appropriate person from the OpenBSD Foundation) desires me to do so, I am happy to research and shepherd the OpenBSD trademark in the US; although I am not currently familiar with USPTO regulations/procedures in general, I have considerable experience dealing with bureaucracy--formerly, I was a member of the US Army and I worked for around five years as an employee of a state government, and was specifically tasked in both instances with interpreting (and in some cases, writing) bureaucratic policy. (I work for a private company now, and am much, MUCH happier.) I am not, however, willing to pay the required fees out of my own account, without reimbursement. I have five children who must, in fact, be fed, it turns out. Carson
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 09:37:13 -0600 Adam Thompson wrote: > On 14-12-07 06:37 AM, Martin Schröder wrote: > > Is OpenBSD actually a registered trademark? The USPTO doesn't list > > it. FreeBSD is, though. > The answer appears to be "no", as CIPO doesn't list it, either. > My guess is that keeping the lights on (literally) was a higher > priority than paying the annual registration fee. > > I'm reasonably confident that if someone were to step up to not only > fund the trademark application (looks like >$500/yr /in perpetuity/ > in IPO fees alone???), but find a trademark agent willing to do the > work /pro bono/, and spend the time filling out the paperwork, etc. > etc., etc. then it could probably happen fairly rapidly. It's not $500/year. You need to pay a registration fee, then I think 5 or 6 years later submit an application that you're still using it, then every 10 years after that, renew. Something like that, anyway. IIRC each of these is somewhere in the $500 ballpark, but they don't happen every year. Legal fees vary according to difficulty. "Obshrenkoroid" would be much easier to trademark than "Troubleshooters.Com" (reg #s 2984611 and 2210851), which in turn is much easier to trademark than "Radio". I'd imagine a resourceful person could read a bunch of trademark apps on USPTO.gov, and then do the "Obshrenkoroid" trademark him/herself. I'd imagine that you'd need some pretty good lawyers spending a lot of time to trademark "Radio" for almost any purpose. I spoze theoretically you could trademark Radio brand dog food, but it wouldn't be easy. SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 14-12-07 06:37 AM, Martin Schröder wrote: > Is OpenBSD actually a registered trademark? The USPTO doesn't list it. > FreeBSD is, though. The answer appears to be "no", as CIPO doesn't list it, either. My guess is that keeping the lights on (literally) was a higher priority than paying the annual registration fee. I'm reasonably confident that if someone were to step up to not only fund the trademark application (looks like >$500/yr /in perpetuity/ in IPO fees alone???), but find a trademark agent willing to do the work /pro bono/, and spend the time filling out the paperwork, etc. etc., etc. then it could probably happen fairly rapidly. I believe it would have to be done through the Canadian office (http://cipo.gc.ca/) since both Theo and the Foundation are based in Canada. AFAIK Canada does not yet comply with the Madrid Protocol, the Nice Agreement or the Singapore Treaty, so that registration would only be good in Canada. An international application would probably be best done through the USPTO, which incurs similar costs. Also, where do you stop? Does the logo need to be protected as well? What about the dæmon character? Or the audio track for every release? The source code is, I think, the only thing that's obvious - both the BSD license and years of jurisprudence about that license establish its situation. -- -Adam Thompson athom...@athompso.net
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
Riley Baird said: > However, remember that if someone doesn't know much about OpenBSD, they > will either: a) think that OpenBSD does not contain binary-only firmware > due to the "Blob-Busters" marketing or b) not know where to look to > remove it should they wish to This information is easily available to anyone interested via online manual pages for affected drivers. If user is not knowledgable enough to verify whether his hardware can be used without proprietary firmware, you are doing misservice. P.S.: how are you going to cope with hardware that already contains firmware and does not require loading it at initialization time? Or is this kind of firmware OK according to your definition of free? -- Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
At 7 Dec 2014 12:42:41 + (UTC) from Kaspars Bankovskis : >there are more useful things to do, don't you think so? Agree. Riley, I think you don't get the point here. The firmware blob are *not* running on the system, but on device. Why do you don't create just a script to remove these's files if you want? Why create a entire "new" system for this?
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 07:35:03PM +1100, Riley Baird wrote: > I agree entirely. For this reason, I think it would be best to keep > system internals (e.g. uname, includes, etc.) using the name OpenBSD > with only the main user-visible parts changed to a new name. > > As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has > excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the > binary-only microcode included. This is silly, all the firmware in /etc/firmware allows free distribution and what isn't is installed via fw_update(1). You can easily pkg_delete what you don't like. If you're worried about scary evil "Microcode", then you probably shouldn't run a modern Intel or AMD machine, not including all the firmware on flash or ROM, your BIOS likely loaded CPU microcode that is almost entirely undocumented magic. Hilarious.. -Bryan.
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
Your changes to the system will be very small, and most of the time you'll be just renaming 'openbsd' to something else, and syncing back changes from upstream. If you have time for that, lucky you. But there are more useful things to do, don't you think so?
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
2014-12-06 9:45 GMT+01:00 Riley Baird : > I have a few questions about OpenBSD's trademark policy. (I tried > looking, but I couldn't find a document.) Is OpenBSD actually a registered trademark? The USPTO doesn't list it. FreeBSD is, though. Best Martin
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Riley Baird wrote: > On 07/12/14 21:51, Joel Rees wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Riley Baird >> [...] >>> I see your point, but I'm just wondering - if you are recommending that >>> I get a lawyer, is that because such a distro would upset the OpenBSD >>> community so much that someone would try to take legal action against me? >> >> That's not what I'm thinking about, no. (But I am not a voice for this >> community, either.) >> >> "Intellectual property" is easy to get confused by, in no small part >> because the current laws and practices are essentially attempting to >> undo several centuries of progress making laws and reality match. >> Sometimes you do what seems to make sense and it has the opposite >> effect of what you intended. > > I really can't afford a lawyer. Which is really unfortunate, because it > would probably make the situation clearer. Well anyway, you probably want to spend some time reading up on the subject. Wikipedia, at any particular point in time, is not a bad place to start, but it's definitely not a good place to end. You need to read actually law and case studies to start seeing what really happens, and to start forming useful opinions about what it all means and testing your ideas against the legal record. Kind of like learning to read code. >>> [...] >> I would rather describe it as "use of diplomacy". > > I was trying to give a compliment, not an insult :) I'll save my insults > for later :P This is kind of unrelated, but Torvalds gave Nvidia the > finger and said "Nvidia, fuck you" during a speech because of binary > drivers: http://www.wired.com/2012/06/torvalds-nvidia-linux/ Now, Nvidia > is starting to contribute to the open-source Nouveau driver project. I think we see the dramatic moments and tend to forget about the build-up and the follow-up, where the real diplomacy gets applied. That's where the work is really done, and, of course, it's not just Theo and Linus at work. Lots of people helping. -- Joel Rees Be careful when you look at conspiracy. Look first in your own heart, and ask yourself if you are not your own worst enemy. Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well.
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 07/12/14 21:51, Joel Rees wrote: > On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Riley Baird > wrote: >> I have a few questions about OpenBSD's trademark policy. (I tried >> looking, but I couldn't find a document.) >> >> 1. What is OpenBSD's stance on allowing derivative distros to keep the >> name "OpenBSD" throughout the system? > > It's a ton of work to change the name. I'm curious why you want to > create a derivative distro? Besides all kinds of subtle breakage in > the base system, many ports will break/stop working properly. I agree entirely. For this reason, I think it would be best to keep system internals (e.g. uname, includes, etc.) using the name OpenBSD with only the main user-visible parts changed to a new name. >>> >>> Don't think too far ahead. but do talk to a lawyer if you decide to >>> try to publish a derivative. >>> >>> (I think you do understand that you have to leave the opyright notices >>> as they are, but that's not the worst of the problems. If you have the >>> money for an hour or two of consultation, you should find a good >>> lawyer to talk it over with. Won't solve every problem, but it will >>> leave you in a better position to seek solutions.) >> >> I see your point, but I'm just wondering - if you are recommending that >> I get a lawyer, is that because such a distro would upset the OpenBSD >> community so much that someone would try to take legal action against me? > > That's not what I'm thinking about, no. (But I am not a voice for this > community, either.) > > "Intellectual property" is easy to get confused by, in no small part > because the current laws and practices are essentially attempting to > undo several centuries of progress making laws and reality match. > Sometimes you do what seems to make sense and it has the opposite > effect of what you intended. I really can't afford a lawyer. Which is really unfortunate, because it would probably make the situation clearer. >> I don't want to do anything that would hurt the community, so if >> feelings about this are that strong, then I won't do it. But really, I >> think that taking legal action over something like this is an overreaction. >> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the binary-only microcode included. >>> >>> The openbsd team has a pretty good track record at deciding which >>> binary blobs can be put up with. They also have a relatively good >>> track record with persuading companies to open up their source. >>> >>> Relatively. :-( >>> >>> I'm not sure, but I'd guess no one else in the libre/opensource >>> community can claim a better record. >> >> Agreed. Thanks for that! (Especially, I like Theo's method of screaming >> at manufacturers - because surprisingly, it *actually worked*.) >> > > That's not quite the way I remember it. > > I would rather describe it as "use of diplomacy". I was trying to give a compliment, not an insult :) I'll save my insults for later :P This is kind of unrelated, but Torvalds gave Nvidia the finger and said "Nvidia, fuck you" during a speech because of binary drivers: http://www.wired.com/2012/06/torvalds-nvidia-linux/ Now, Nvidia is starting to contribute to the open-source Nouveau driver project.
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Riley Baird wrote: > I have a few questions about OpenBSD's trademark policy. (I tried > looking, but I couldn't find a document.) > > 1. What is OpenBSD's stance on allowing derivative distros to keep the > name "OpenBSD" throughout the system? It's a ton of work to change the name. I'm curious why you want to create a derivative distro? Besides all kinds of subtle breakage in the base system, many ports will break/stop working properly. >>> >>> I agree entirely. For this reason, I think it would be best to keep >>> system internals (e.g. uname, includes, etc.) using the name OpenBSD >>> with only the main user-visible parts changed to a new name. >> >> Don't think too far ahead. but do talk to a lawyer if you decide to >> try to publish a derivative. >> >> (I think you do understand that you have to leave the opyright notices >> as they are, but that's not the worst of the problems. If you have the >> money for an hour or two of consultation, you should find a good >> lawyer to talk it over with. Won't solve every problem, but it will >> leave you in a better position to seek solutions.) > > I see your point, but I'm just wondering - if you are recommending that > I get a lawyer, is that because such a distro would upset the OpenBSD > community so much that someone would try to take legal action against me? That's not what I'm thinking about, no. (But I am not a voice for this community, either.) "Intellectual property" is easy to get confused by, in no small part because the current laws and practices are essentially attempting to undo several centuries of progress making laws and reality match. Sometimes you do what seems to make sense and it has the opposite effect of what you intended. > I don't want to do anything that would hurt the community, so if > feelings about this are that strong, then I won't do it. But really, I > think that taking legal action over something like this is an overreaction. > >>> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has >>> excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the >>> binary-only microcode included. >> >> The openbsd team has a pretty good track record at deciding which >> binary blobs can be put up with. They also have a relatively good >> track record with persuading companies to open up their source. >> >> Relatively. :-( >> >> I'm not sure, but I'd guess no one else in the libre/opensource >> community can claim a better record. > > Agreed. Thanks for that! (Especially, I like Theo's method of screaming > at manufacturers - because surprisingly, it *actually worked*.) > That's not quite the way I remember it. I would rather describe it as "use of diplomacy". -- Joel Rees Be careful when you look at conspiracy. Look first in your own heart, and ask yourself if you are not your own worst enemy. Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well.
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 07/12/14 21:32, Brad Smith wrote:
> On 12/07/14 05:18, Riley Baird wrote:
>> On 07/12/14 20:52, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 08:29:48PM +1100, Riley Baird wrote:
>>>
On 07/12/14 20:20, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
> Riley Baird said:
>> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has
>> excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the
>> binary-only microcode included.
>
> Isn't it easier to just do
>
> # cd /mnt/etc; tar czf firmware{.tgz,}; rm -R firmware
>
> from bsd.rd after installer exits?
Yes, it definitely would be. You'd also need to change the installer
script such that fw_update is not run on first boot. I've removed the
firmware from my own system already. Also, it would be nice to be able
to build the source tree without requiring the firmware files to exist.
However, remember that if someone doesn't know much about OpenBSD, they
will either: a) think that OpenBSD does not contain binary-only
firmware
due to the "Blob-Busters" marketing or b) not know where to look to
remove it should they wish to
>>>
>>> The blobs we do not like are pieces of code running inside the kernel.
>>>
>>> Code running on a device is a completely different category.
>>
>> True, but the press releases never even mentioned the microcode, which
>> is kind of confusing given the normal usage of the word "binary blob".
>
> "Blobs are vendor-compiled binary drivers without any source code."
>
> That couldn't be more clear what the projects meaning of blobs is.
> Microcode won't be mentioned when it is already pretty clear what the
> meaning is. Nothing to be confused about there at all. That is your
> interpretation of the meaning and not the common use.
Since I interpreted the meaning incorrectly, it is likely that others
did as well. In any case, I'm sure that we can all agree that ideally
the microcode would come with source. Some people are going to take that
idealism further, and decide not to use the microcode. I don't see the
harm in helping these people, whether it be through a derivative distro,
or even a question in the installation scripts. (I wrote a patch for an
installer question a couple of months ago, if you're interested.)
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 12/07/14 05:18, Riley Baird wrote:
On 07/12/14 20:52, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 08:29:48PM +1100, Riley Baird wrote:
On 07/12/14 20:20, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
Riley Baird said:
As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has
excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the
binary-only microcode included.
Isn't it easier to just do
# cd /mnt/etc; tar czf firmware{.tgz,}; rm -R firmware
from bsd.rd after installer exits?
Yes, it definitely would be. You'd also need to change the installer
script such that fw_update is not run on first boot. I've removed the
firmware from my own system already. Also, it would be nice to be able
to build the source tree without requiring the firmware files to exist.
However, remember that if someone doesn't know much about OpenBSD, they
will either: a) think that OpenBSD does not contain binary-only firmware
due to the "Blob-Busters" marketing or b) not know where to look to
remove it should they wish to
The blobs we do not like are pieces of code running inside the kernel.
Code running on a device is a completely different category.
True, but the press releases never even mentioned the microcode, which
is kind of confusing given the normal usage of the word "binary blob".
"Blobs are vendor-compiled binary drivers without any source code."
That couldn't be more clear what the projects meaning of blobs is.
Microcode won't be mentioned when it is already pretty clear what the
meaning is. Nothing to be confused about there at all. That is your
interpretation of the meaning and not the common use.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 07/12/14 20:52, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 08:29:48PM +1100, Riley Baird wrote:
>
>> On 07/12/14 20:20, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
>>> Riley Baird said:
As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has
excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the
binary-only microcode included.
>>>
>>> Isn't it easier to just do
>>>
>>> # cd /mnt/etc; tar czf firmware{.tgz,}; rm -R firmware
>>>
>>> from bsd.rd after installer exits?
>>
>> Yes, it definitely would be. You'd also need to change the installer
>> script such that fw_update is not run on first boot. I've removed the
>> firmware from my own system already. Also, it would be nice to be able
>> to build the source tree without requiring the firmware files to exist.
>>
>> However, remember that if someone doesn't know much about OpenBSD, they
>> will either: a) think that OpenBSD does not contain binary-only firmware
>> due to the "Blob-Busters" marketing or b) not know where to look to
>> remove it should they wish to
>
> The blobs we do not like are pieces of code running inside the kernel.
>
> Code running on a device is a completely different category.
True, but the press releases never even mentioned the microcode, which
is kind of confusing given the normal usage of the word "binary blob".
I realise that this usage may have been propagated by the FSF, and on
many, many things they are insane (e.g. OpenBSD's ports tree, the GFDL),
but given that - for better or for worse - firmware is included in the
common usage of the word, it would make sense to clarify.
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
I have a few questions about OpenBSD's trademark policy. (I tried looking, but I couldn't find a document.) 1. What is OpenBSD's stance on allowing derivative distros to keep the name "OpenBSD" throughout the system? >>> >>> It's a ton of work to change the name. I'm curious why you want to >>> create a derivative distro? Besides all kinds of subtle breakage in >>> the base system, many ports will break/stop working properly. >> >> I agree entirely. For this reason, I think it would be best to keep >> system internals (e.g. uname, includes, etc.) using the name OpenBSD >> with only the main user-visible parts changed to a new name. > > Don't think too far ahead. but do talk to a lawyer if you decide to > try to publish a derivative. > > (I think you do understand that you have to leave the opyright notices > as they are, but that's not the worst of the problems. If you have the > money for an hour or two of consultation, you should find a good > lawyer to talk it over with. Won't solve every problem, but it will > leave you in a better position to seek solutions.) I see your point, but I'm just wondering - if you are recommending that I get a lawyer, is that because such a distro would upset the OpenBSD community so much that someone would try to take legal action against me? I don't want to do anything that would hurt the community, so if feelings about this are that strong, then I won't do it. But really, I think that taking legal action over something like this is an overreaction. >> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has >> excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the >> binary-only microcode included. > > The openbsd team has a pretty good track record at deciding which > binary blobs can be put up with. They also have a relatively good > track record with persuading companies to open up their source. > > Relatively. :-( > > I'm not sure, but I'd guess no one else in the libre/opensource > community can claim a better record. Agreed. Thanks for that! (Especially, I like Theo's method of screaming at manufacturers - because surprisingly, it *actually worked*.)
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 12/07/14 04:29, Riley Baird wrote: However, remember that if someone doesn't know much about OpenBSD, they will either: a) think that OpenBSD does not contain binary-only firmware due to the "Blob-Busters" marketing or b) not know where to look to remove it should they wish to Your interpretation of the "marketing" is flawed. The "marketing" about blobs was about device drivers in the kernel only. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 08:29:48PM +1100, Riley Baird wrote:
> On 07/12/14 20:20, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
> > Riley Baird said:
> >> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has
> >> excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the
> >> binary-only microcode included.
> >
> > Isn't it easier to just do
> >
> > # cd /mnt/etc; tar czf firmware{.tgz,}; rm -R firmware
> >
> > from bsd.rd after installer exits?
>
> Yes, it definitely would be. You'd also need to change the installer
> script such that fw_update is not run on first boot. I've removed the
> firmware from my own system already. Also, it would be nice to be able
> to build the source tree without requiring the firmware files to exist.
>
> However, remember that if someone doesn't know much about OpenBSD, they
> will either: a) think that OpenBSD does not contain binary-only firmware
> due to the "Blob-Busters" marketing or b) not know where to look to
> remove it should they wish to
The blobs we do not like are pieces of code running inside the kernel.
Code running on a device is a completely different category.
-Otto
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
Hi, Riley, On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Riley Baird wrote: > On 07/12/14 09:05, Daniel Dickman wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 3:45 AM, Riley Baird >> wrote: >>> I have a few questions about OpenBSD's trademark policy. (I tried >>> looking, but I couldn't find a document.) >>> >>> 1. What is OpenBSD's stance on allowing derivative distros to keep the >>> name "OpenBSD" throughout the system? >> >> It's a ton of work to change the name. I'm curious why you want to >> create a derivative distro? Besides all kinds of subtle breakage in >> the base system, many ports will break/stop working properly. > > I agree entirely. For this reason, I think it would be best to keep > system internals (e.g. uname, includes, etc.) using the name OpenBSD > with only the main user-visible parts changed to a new name. Don't think too far ahead. but do talk to a lawyer if you decide to try to publish a derivative. (I think you do understand that you have to leave the opyright notices as they are, but that's not the worst of the problems. If you have the money for an hour or two of consultation, you should find a good lawyer to talk it over with. Won't solve every problem, but it will leave you in a better position to seek solutions.) > As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has > excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the > binary-only microcode included. The openbsd team has a pretty good track record at deciding which binary blobs can be put up with. They also have a relatively good track record with persuading companies to open up their source. Relatively. :-( I'm not sure, but I'd guess no one else in the libre/opensource community can claim a better record. -- Joel Rees Be careful when you look at conspiracy. Look first in your own heart, and ask yourself if you are not your own worst enemy. Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well.
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 07/12/14 20:20, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
> Riley Baird said:
>> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has
>> excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the
>> binary-only microcode included.
>
> Isn't it easier to just do
>
> # cd /mnt/etc; tar czf firmware{.tgz,}; rm -R firmware
>
> from bsd.rd after installer exits?
Yes, it definitely would be. You'd also need to change the installer
script such that fw_update is not run on first boot. I've removed the
firmware from my own system already. Also, it would be nice to be able
to build the source tree without requiring the firmware files to exist.
However, remember that if someone doesn't know much about OpenBSD, they
will either: a) think that OpenBSD does not contain binary-only firmware
due to the "Blob-Busters" marketing or b) not know where to look to
remove it should they wish to
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
Riley Baird said:
> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has
> excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the
> binary-only microcode included.
Isn't it easier to just do
# cd /mnt/etc; tar czf firmware{.tgz,}; rm -R firmware
from bsd.rd after installer exits?
--
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 07/12/14 19:59, Brad Smith wrote: > On 12/07/14 03:35, Riley Baird wrote: >> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has >> excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the >> binary-only microcode included. > > Doesn't really make any sense why. But either way hopefully you're > not using common hardware like AMD GPUs or Intel Wifi otherwise that > is pretty crippling. I'd personally rather choose to activate a device that required binary-only firmware after realising that it doesn't work, because at least then I know what I'm getting myself into. I had Intel Wifi for a period of time on Debian, and I had to install the package for it myself. I'd always felt uneasy about it, and now whenever I buy wireless hardware for Linux, I ensure that I'll buy one that will work with the open ath9k. That being said, this should be less of a problem with OpenBSD, since a large portion of its use is in server applications, when you should really be using ethernet anyway.
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 07/12/14 19:53, Kaspars Bankovskis wrote: > On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 07:35:03PM +1100, Riley Baird wrote: >> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has >> excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the >> binary-only microcode included. > > What exactly do you mean by that? Look in sys/dev/microcode. This is the firmware required for some devices to operate, and is loaded into the device on boot. It is clear that this was not written in assembly; rather, it has been compiled, and we are only getting the output. You could argue that this is better than hardware where the firmware is physically on the hardware, because at least the blobs we load onto the hardware can be reverse engineered, and to a certain degree you would be right. Except nobody actually reverse engineers them. ath9k for Linux has open-source firmware thanks to atheros, and this has actually been modified for various interesting applications.
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 12/07/14 03:35, Riley Baird wrote: As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the binary-only microcode included. Doesn't really make any sense why. But either way hopefully you're not using common hardware like AMD GPUs or Intel Wifi otherwise that is pretty crippling. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 07:35:03PM +1100, Riley Baird wrote: > As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has > excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the > binary-only microcode included. What exactly do you mean by that?
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 07/12/14 09:05, Daniel Dickman wrote: > On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 3:45 AM, Riley Baird > wrote: >> I have a few questions about OpenBSD's trademark policy. (I tried >> looking, but I couldn't find a document.) >> >> 1. What is OpenBSD's stance on allowing derivative distros to keep the >> name "OpenBSD" throughout the system? > > It's a ton of work to change the name. I'm curious why you want to > create a derivative distro? Besides all kinds of subtle breakage in > the base system, many ports will break/stop working properly. I agree entirely. For this reason, I think it would be best to keep system internals (e.g. uname, includes, etc.) using the name OpenBSD with only the main user-visible parts changed to a new name. As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the binary-only microcode included.
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 07/12/14 09:35, Adam Thompson wrote: > On 14-12-06 03:20 PM, Riley Baird wrote: >> Okay, I'll change the name. What I'm wondering is, which mentions of >> the OpenBSD name should I change? For example, you said before that >> the OpenBSD name may not be removed from the license headers of source >> files. So far, I can see that I would have to change the default motd, >> the installation scripts, Theo's welcome root mail and xdm. Is there >> anything that I have missed? > > You might want to ask on the BitRig mailing lists/forums/whatevers, > since I believe they would have already had to tackle this. Thanks, I've looked through the Bitrig commit messages and I think that I've found what I'm looking for! If I actually get around to making the derivative, and I leave some mentions of OpenBSD where I shouldn't have, and this bothers the OpenBSD project, and someone tells me that it does, then I will be happy to correct it. :)
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 14-12-06 03:20 PM, Riley Baird wrote: Okay, I'll change the name. What I'm wondering is, which mentions of the OpenBSD name should I change? For example, you said before that the OpenBSD name may not be removed from the license headers of source files. So far, I can see that I would have to change the default motd, the installation scripts, Theo's welcome root mail and xdm. Is there anything that I have missed? You might want to ask on the BitRig mailing lists/forums/whatevers, since I believe they would have already had to tackle this. -- -Adam Thompson athom...@athompso.net
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
> Not sure what you mean by "throughout the system" -- it's case-by-case. > If you see a copyright with the OpenBSD.org email address, you keep > that, per the license. If your end result is clearly not OpenBSD and > something is referring to the overall product, you SHOULD change it, > since the overall product isn't OpenBSD anymore. Okay, I'll change the name. What I'm wondering is, which mentions of the OpenBSD name should I change? For example, you said before that the OpenBSD name may not be removed from the license headers of source files. So far, I can see that I would have to change the default motd, the installation scripts, Theo's welcome root mail and xdm. Is there anything that I have missed? > What isn't in the license: support your product, don't send people to > the OpenBSD mail lists for support. You may not be violating the > license, but we'll be very unhappy with you, and we'll let people know. > If you find a problem that comes from OpenBSD, replicate it on OpenBSD > and report that. Good point about the mailing lists. I'll get people to contact me for support first, then I'll confirm that the problem still exists in OpenBSD and finally I'll ask the OpenBSD mailing lists if I can't solve the problem myself. > But again...if you have any questions, hire a lawyer. It isn't hard to > do right. Isn't hard to do wrong, either... Advice on the 'net is > cheap and often wrong. :) I doubt that hiring a lawyer would be necessary. I fully intend to comply with OpenBSD's policies, and from reading the mailing lists about past situations like this, it appears that OpenBSD is not likely to sue me if I make a good faith mistake, only if I refuse to correct it. :P
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 07/12/14 01:59, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > On 2014-12-06, Nick Holland wrote: > >>> I have a few questions about OpenBSD's trademark policy. >> >> Short answer: follow the license. > > The license governs _copyright_. The _trademark_ is a wholly > different beast. Exactly correct. Take Firefox for an example. It is under the trilicense of MPL/LGPL/GPL, but Debian had to change all references to Firefox to "Iceweasel", because Mozilla claims that if *any* patches are applied to the product, it may no longer be called Firefox unless all of the patches are approved by Mozilla. For that reason, it is often good to clarify trademark policy.
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 2014-12-06, Nick Holland wrote: >> I have a few questions about OpenBSD's trademark policy. > > Short answer: follow the license. The license governs _copyright_. The _trademark_ is a wholly different beast. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy
On 12/06/14 03:44, Riley Baird wrote: > I have a few questions about OpenBSD's trademark policy. (I tried > looking, but I couldn't find a document.) > > 1. What is OpenBSD's stance on allowing derivative distros to keep the > name "OpenBSD" throughout the system? Short answer: follow the license. Read it over and over until you understand what it means. Hire a lawyer if you have any questions. The license is on the top of almost every source file (and you will see some differences in different source files...EACH FILE's license has to be respected in what you do with that file). Not sure what you mean by "throughout the system" -- it's case-by-case. If you see a copyright with the OpenBSD.org email address, you keep that, per the license. If your end result is clearly not OpenBSD and something is referring to the overall product, you SHOULD change it, since the overall product isn't OpenBSD anymore. > 2. If it needs to be changed, which parts of the system would you > require the change in? again... follow the license. If it ISN'T OpenBSD anymore, don't call it OpenBSD. > 3. From other discussions on the mailing list, it seems that the "Puffy" > logo is restricted, so I imagine it would be necessary to change the > default xdm configuration, but nothing else. depends what you are doing. FOLLOW THE LICENSE. What isn't in the license: support your product, don't send people to the OpenBSD mail lists for support. You may not be violating the license, but we'll be very unhappy with you, and we'll let people know. If you find a problem that comes from OpenBSD, replicate it on OpenBSD and report that. But again...if you have any questions, hire a lawyer. It isn't hard to do right. Isn't hard to do wrong, either... Advice on the 'net is cheap and often wrong. :) Nick.
