login
Search
Is it true that Puffy is not here because of Theo's concerns about his copyrighted Puffy logo? http://misc.allbsd.de/Kampagnen/NoBlob/NoBlob-en-Poster.jpg I also couldn't use Puffy logo on Ronja because then I wouldn't be able to talk about OpenBSD negatively if it came out there is some serious problem with Ronja and OpenBSD together. I think Theo should stop being paranoid about his Puffy. Puffy is not something you steal from a bowl and it disappears. I also have a Ronja logo which is under GFDL and noone is stealing it and damaging me. The same for the Linux Tux I have the feeling. CL<
You don't understand! Theo's just trying to protect us. Handling the deadly pufferfish is very dangerous, and best left to experts! -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. jwoehr@absolute-performance.com 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Oh, goodness. I, for one, am glad that Theo is more concerned with making a solid OS than worriying about how ubiquitous the project's mascot is. Greg
There is a serious problem with what allbsd is doing. They first approached me on the 13th with a campaign using our "Stop the Blob" slogan. That is something OpenBSD takes very seriously, yet at the bottom of the poster you can see a list of operating systems which specifically use a Blob, and actually those projects work against us when we take on vendors pushing Blobs. Of course the first Blob to mention is the Atheros driver in all those operating systems. But more and more of these Blob's are making it into FreeBSD all the time. The Nvidia driver (though now they are using our nvidia driver, and they have a nvidia employee on their team who commits things to that driver without talking to anyone). And the same thing is happening to lots of other drivers in FreeBSD. FreeBSD apparently has a signed agreement with Nvidia over the accelerated video driver, and I guess that creates a reluctance amongst them to fight Nvidia with us for ethernet drivers. The same has happened with other things like Adaptec RAID. FreeBSD developers actively side with the vendors when we demand documentation. So isn't it rather hypocritical to have a anti-Blob campaign, backed by projects which embrace the Blob? After being shown the first version of the art (showing our slogan, and all the BSD's down below), I told allbsd that (1) they cannot misuse our slogan like that (2) I felt their whole campaign was hypocritical Daniel Seuffert got very angry, and instead of removing operating systems which are pro-Blob from an anti-Blob posted, they instead deleted us. You've got it wrong.
That was written in this post on a Swiss IT news portal: http://www.symlink.ch/comments.pl?sid=07/03/15/1557213&threshold=-1&commentsor... If you don't understand German, I can try to translate (I don't understand wel): "Oh, that's even better. allbsd.de has started a "Stop Blob" campaign. While the other BSD's can identify themselves with it, Theo thought that they would put his intellectual property to danger, steal ideas and use the Puffy fish illegitimately on the poster. (The e-mail went on the allbsd-misc mailing list but I can't find an archive link at the moment.) The campaign is now called NoBlob http://misc.allbsd.de/Kampagnen/NoBlob/ I wanted to use Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 in my laptop to connect to wireless network in my work. I found out from the manpage it requires nonfree firmware files (is this a blob?). Instead of downloading them, I dropped an e-mail to the address mentioned in the manpage saying like they can stick their blob up their ass. I can use a wire connectivity for most of the time. Should I need a wireless connections, there are other methods than IPW 2100. I think it's just right to categorically refuse blobs even when the users cannot use their hardware. They should avoid hardware crippleware. My fault I just wonder what happens if every commercial manufacturer starts requiring a blob? Will OpenBSD stop existing? Or will you adapt a pro-blob policy? Or will It's just an ordinary political practice. Talks about morality and truth are used in a straightforward manner to get better sales without a regard to actual Now it makes sense. The adoption rate of a product typically goes up with how crap it is. So your explanation is more plausible than theirs because FreeBSD has higher adoption. CL<
Hi Karel, Oh please, don't be absurd. That bulletin board posting is so obviously sarcastic that you just cannot take it seriously. Besides, even if it could be serious: When trying to understand Theo's ideas, it should be well known that it's no good trying to start from what Thorsten might be thinking about them (not judging the rest of Thorsten's work and ideas in any way). If you don't understand German well and know little about the people involved, then at least you have been jumping to conclusions. Concerning the rest of your questions: All this has been discussed an re-discussed ad nauseum. Please do make an effort to find some information yourself before asking, or you will start getting on people's nerves, even if you do not intend to. Two hints: 1. Do not confuse firmware blobs with kernel space driver blobs. These are two completely different kinds of animals. 2. Avoid the discussion of purely hypothetical situations (like "no hardware specs for any hardware on the market"). Rather try to focus on real problems. Yours, Ingo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 <snip> iD8DBQFF/AzH5B7p9jYarz8RAm2BAJ9ak/sun5B61mKN/jIF0GqMJbiy0gCfSsbx 9USyHH/QNgeX53vWKUovjxI= =f4Os -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
If it wasn't for a few specific developers in the pro-Blob FreeBSD community accepting these NDA's this battle would have been over a long time ago. By that I mean we'd be back to the way things were in 1987, when all hardware documentation was freely spread by vendors to Not one. OpenBSD does not have any NDA's signed with anyone. Some developers privately may have NDA's signed here or there, but I actively discourage them from doing so, and assist in conversations with vendors. When we tell vendors that we won't accept NDA's, most times the hardware and documentation still arrives.
So isn't it rather hypocritical to claim GPL license is bad and BSD license is good and ship operating system with GPLed code? How do you feel about having pro-GPL operating system? Why do you lie to your users by having 'BSD' in operating system's name? I'm sure you get the point, but I'm also sure you won't admit it. The only incredible thing I find in this thread is how easy for you is to insult such a great BSD advocate as Daniel Seuffert is. PS. This e-mail is for Theo. The only reason I'm sending it to the list is to publicly support Daniel, who is doing a great job for BSD systems in many areas. Feel free not to respond. -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl pjd@FreeBSD.org http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
In epistula a Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> die horaque Mon, 19 did i miss the <sarcasm> tags here? Daniel Seuffert shoots himself as well as others, both sympathising and not sympathising people, into the foot. mid-term as well as long-term. i felt more than *FREE* (in the *real* sense of freedom) to respond. and i see the need for spam filters to get some algorithms to react to nonsense, too. in the sense of freedom, FreeBSD (among others) is a ultra-cheap whore, as this fat pengiun is.
Hehe:) As Borat use to say "very nice":) The problem is that in world's history the worst and the biggest source of evilness ever is fanaticism (religious, political and now what? software?). -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl pjd@FreeBSD.org http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Come on Marco, real evil persons do not need to brag about it in their signature. He's, at best, a misguided minor evil. Miod
Hi Pawel, Your analogy does not apply at all: - The proclaimed aim of the 'No blobs!' campaign is getting hardware documentation, thus ultimately enabling all free operating systems to become or remain blob-free: So it is about abolishing blobs. It is not just about the personal opinion whether blobs are free enough or about the personal choice whether to use blobs or not. A hardware manufacturer pressing blobs on his client is disrespectful with respect to his clients. An operating system shipping with the blobs enabled is endangering its users, and it is encouraging vendors to ship blobs. - There is no 'No GPL!' campaign whatsoever. I'm not aware of any plans to get all free software GPL-free. Or to abolish GPL code. To the contrary, i do remember Theo acknowledging that he is building on RMS' and other's work, and that it will stay like that for now, if not for good. A full, working toolchain is not easily dismissed without good reason. Indeed many of the OpenBSD developers hold the opinion that the GPL is not free enough and personally choose to use an other license for their code. But that's all there is to it. A software author writing GPL code is not being disrespectful againt anybody (though he could make his code more useful with a less contorted license). An operating system being built on a GNU toolchain is not endangering its users. Please try to not view conflicts in a "fried and enemy"-style, but take care to precisely address the point at hand. Yours, Ingo
[...] Unfortunately you miss the point of my analogy. We have GPLed code. We would like to get rid of it, but this is not possible just yet. Does that automatically means that we are pro-GPL? That we lie having 'BSD' in OS name? No, it means this is one of our goals, it is just not high priority and we don't feel guilty. This is how it is. The same for binary-only drivers. We would love to have everything open-source, but this is not possible currently. We want to move in this direction, of course, but we also want our users to use their hardware, to have stable, scalable OS, etc. I'm one of those users with my atheros-based wireless card I'm using right now. I know what I'm doing. I don't feel less safe. I don't audit every single driver I use. And I'm happy to use OS which gives me the choice. Hearing all those insults from Theo about all those great BSD people is just sad. Sam Leffler is one of the most valuable open-source developers in the history of BSD and UNIX in general, keep that in mind. I just can't belive how easy people forget about all this. Ah, right, this is called fanaticism. -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl pjd@FreeBSD.org http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Please take this up on lists where it is more relevant. OpenBSD is not going to participate in a campaign that calls non-free things free.
What a steaming pile, I don't know how this involves GPL at all, the two issues have nothing at all to do with each other. One can still read the GPL code, one can still distribute GPL code Please you imply that one cannot have a functional system without using blobs, which is patently false. By choosing to use blobs, your project is actively hindering the development of proper drivers, and as such Whining, name calling grow up.
I'm one of the other users with an atheros wireless card in an IBM Thinkpad I'm using right now on another desk. And I know what I'm doing and I feel really safe because I'm happily using an OS which really gives me lots of choice and doesn't force blobs down my throat. OpenBSD. BTW the fact that some people are great programmers doesn't mean that they are great judges of ethics or art or politics or anything outside their area of expertise. Judging their nous about other subjects by their code is like taking corporate investment advice from a teenage rockstar. That comment doesn't imply that they cannot have any other skills like being clueful about really open code. It is just the case that you cannot imply it where no evidence exists. Do we look <umop apisdn> from up over?
wow, this is an unbelievably dumb statement. the whole obsession with the drivers as opposed to the userland stuff is due to the extent to which an exploit can run amok. if you don't trust some GPL userland code, you can systrace it, etc, and be relatively sure you're not going to get blasted. this is why you don't hear ppl ranting nobody is questioning how great a BSD advocate Daniel is, only that his effort with this poster and the related advocacy is deeply flawed. to include OSes on such a poster which foster continued blob generation is absurd. nobody's perfect and this happens to have been a mistake on
for those that care, openbsd's license policy is very clear. http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html this page is linked to from the word "free" on the front page. it also hasn't changed in a long time. now, if you go to http://www.freebsd.org/about.html, you'll find the freebsd is free section. it's funny that "free of charge" is linked, but "comes with full source code" is not.
It'd be great if Theo could make a clear statement on Puffy, the same as Marshall Kirk McKusick has for the daemon. I had cause to use a variant of Marshall's beastie for a project which was marginally within his published guidelines, and had no problem getting permission. Not only is puffy not there, the word "OpenBSD" is also absent, and Theo has explained exactly what happened. It's not about the blowfish Not quite how trademark law works, see http://preview.tinyurl.com/2crjgc Specifically, it appears you could legally use Puffy on a Ronja logo "to indicate compatibility", and you could still feel free to "talk about OpenBSD negatively", even under Canadian trademark law. In the "No blob" case, the issue would be that using *any* OpenBSD mark would "suggest sponsorship or endorsement", puffy or no puffy. And Theo has made it clear how he feels about endorsing that specific campaign. The only legal imports to the US are pre-processed and flash frozen, with all tetrodotoxin safely removed. Fugu is good food. IANAL, YMMV
The problem is that the Puffy is an artist work, governed by the copyright / author rights stuff. I asked Theo about still being able to criticize the project freely as I want, and he told me that I can't. What Theo says is consistent with what the website says: "However, it is our intent that anyone be able to use these images to represent OpenBSD in a positive light" http://openbsd.org/art1.html See? "Positive light". Theo explained he needs it to protect his project and that it's required by law that he acts so protective. To me this appears absurd, but Theo has the copyright and he can tell where Puffy can be used and where not. I have ordered a Puffy sticker to stick on my snowboard, that doesn't have any So it's not about Puffy copyright, but about Theo not likes the campaign? Well then it makes sense.
Hunh? a "No Blob" poster with FreeBSD on it? that's a fucking joke. they're the biggest vendor whores around putting blob drivers in their os! heck they're one of the biggest Not having the background on what Theo has or hasn't done I wouldn't know, but frankly, I wouldn't want to see OpenBSD on anything so misguided. Putting FreeBSD on a No Blob poster is like putting the Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon logos on a poster about reducing global CO2 emissions. If you have nothing better to do that look at "campaigns" at least find a campaign where it appears the people doing it understand this issues. this one is relatively obvious that they don't - at all - Or maybe they're sponsored by Altheros and Nvidious for all I know. -Bob
Can you actually name a technical campaign besides openbsd that actually understands both the relevant issues and their eventual impacts? sad but true jcr
I can. About 20 people in Debian. OK, it's not a whole problem, but there are about 20 people there who are trying to build up to the same principles. Last year it was about half as many people. They are building a voice, as time goes by. Their voice is gaining, and I think it will gain even more in the near future because of the locked-down-blob linux-based cell phone situation that is about to kick the entire Linux community in their collective ass. We'll see.
