I recognize that writeup about the Atheros / Linux / SFLC story is a

bit complex, so I wrote a very simple explanation to someone, and they

liked it's clarity so much that they asked me to post it for everyone.

Here it is (with a few more changes)
-----

starting premise:
   you can already use the code as it is
steps taken:
1. pester developer for a year to get it under another license.

   - get told no, repeatedly
2. climb over ethical fence
3. remove his license

   - get caught, look a bit stupid
4. wrap his license with your own

   - get caught, look really stupid
5. assert copyright under author's license, without original work

   - get caught, look even more stupid
Right now the wireless linux developers -- aided by an entire team of

evidently unskilled lawyers -- are at step 5, and we don't know what

will happen next.  We wait, to see what will happen.
Reyk can take them to court over this, but he must do it before the

year 2047.

Except he took most of it from Sam Leffler who said it is OK to license under

the GPL. So while it's good to see you defending your code, it was not

entirely yours to start with.
Thus you see all the "horrible" GPL community "rip" you off. 
-- 
Steve Szmidt
"They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety

deserve neither liberty nor safety."

                                Benjamin Franklin

You are so wrong that it is not even funny anymore. Reyk's OpenHAL code was

completely reverse engeneered because Sam Leffler's HAL code was closed

source. So how can it be based on his code if it is not available?

Reyk's work (the replacement HAL) is in seperate files -- it is a

seperately copyrighted work.
Stop trolling and learn the how the law works.

OK, I see that Reyk wrote it after Sam would not release it. I see that Sam

seemed happy to dual license it. Though it looks clear that Jiri Slaby was

wrong in stripping the license, which subsequently was not accepted by any

repository.
This action does not however represent the "GPL community" from what I can

see. Stealing work from one or the other has not been evident other than some

people being confused as to what came from where. Which is the chicken and

which is the egg kind of thing.
It is generalities which has bunches of people up in arms which of course

happens when there is not enough specificity. It is pretty safe to say that

most people are honest, but where misunderstanding can occur, it will.
-- 
Steve Szmidt
"They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety

deserve neither liberty nor safety."

                                Benjamin Franklin

I have been very quiet on this for weeks now, but this really start to

piss me off at the highest level!
The bottom line is original work was stolen and copyrights are not

respected period!
Dance as much as you want around it, hide behind lawyers, word

definition twisted, false pretend, what not! The facts remains. Any half

brain, even with a lobotomy on top of that can get that! Even a monkey

knows when you give him a banana and when he steal it! I guess this

gives us a reference point here to compare it to.
This really make me loose any kind of respect what so ever for the FSF,

SFLC, GNU and what I will have to call now the Evil GPL side all

together. It never been my favorite choice, but I respected it before

and understood why someone would pick that license, now, more and more

not only do I dislike it, lost respect for it's use and now start to

hate it badly too. Where will it stop! I for now now know for sure. I

will never release anything under GPL EVER!!! Or even promote it's use.

I see no good from it and no good intentions either from it's defenders

anymore.
Look to me they are pretending to protect against the evil Micro$oft

empire and others, but look to me big time now that even Micro$oft is

the nice guy here.
Even Solaris and Sun finally start to see the light and come slowly on

the right side. At a minimum, the evil Micro$oft like GPL clan likes to

call them, respect the copyrights and you can see it in in their code!
This piss me off so bad now that you can count me in as a partial

funding source should Reyk decide to get his rights corrected and to put

back the open source community where it should be.
Working together for the greater good, not against one an other for the

benefit of the corporation. I am sure for once they are enjoying this

very much, and make no mistakes about it. The corporation have a lots

more to gain to see this going down the tube, so I would see very much

that they would be interested to finance such a c...
[ message continues ]

Off topic, but there's a thought......

Or maybe they wish to screw up both the BSD license and works

licensed under the the GPL (v2) as linux uses it - so they can push

forward the GPL v3 - which Linus doesn't like and won't distribute

linux under. 
	Let's not forget who the SFLC really is. They are an FSF spinoff.

I'd love to belive they are who they say they are - an unbiased

champion of free software of all types. But when one of the primary

people involved in it is the author of the GPL version 3, and they

start acting in ways like this that seem to be giving the people they

are supposed to be advising very bad advice, I can't help but think

there might be a hidden agenda there. 
	I mean, what better way to promote a complex, vague legal

document like the GPL v3 than creating acrimony between users of

both the established and relatively simple licensing methods and

then stepping up and saying "see see, we're lawyers, and this complex

legal document is the way to fix it - put this on your code - you

don't need to understand the implications or details, we say it's

better, we're lawyers"
	Doesn't this simply sound like making free software developers

and users lose their freedoms and work they've authored? Who wins?

probably the people who want to sell legal advice to people about

complying with the GPL. I guess it's great if you're a lawyer.
	-Bob

And before you think this is too far fetched - consider that the

GPL v3, unlike the others, drags patent stuff into the muck. Whether or

not you believe in this - because it's there means a lot more work for

lawyers with any company that uses this code and has patents. 
	If I were a lawyer I would see more use of the GPL v3 as being a

definate bull market for my services.  As opposed to something like the

BSD and isc licenses which are simple and based in copyright laws that

are more or less recognized internationally.
	Go look at an ISC/BSD license. then read the GPL v2, Then read the

GPL v3 - which one do you think is going to make companies buy more

lawyer time?  If you were a lawyer which one would you rather have a buch

of naiive computer geeks slapping all over code that later on companies

want to work with?
	-Bob

As you indicated in a previous posting, this does seem to point a

way to accomplish the long-desired goal of a BSD-licensed compiler

set, doesn't it?  Heck, using this process, I can become a coder!

src/, here I come!
Not sure why anyone is surprised here.  They have long demonstrated

their (re)definitions of commonly used words and phrases.  GNUspeak:
"Open Source is THE WAY!"  (unless, of course, there's a binary blob

around, which is more than sufficient)
"Give back to the community!" (which really means, "I'm the community,

gimme, gimme, gimme!")
"Free as in Freedom!"  (but "Free as in no monetary charge" beats

the hell out of taking a stand)
"Respect our license!" (your license is not worth the bits its stored

in)
GPL is the way!  It's our way, we'll make it your way, too.
"Theo's a loud-mouthed jerk!" ("but we'll happily benefit from his

work, while we pretend to be the nice guys")
"Hardware vendors should respect alternative OSs!"  (Ok, they support

mine, that's good enough)
"OS Diversity is good!"  (but "My distro's bigger than yours!"  Damn,

guys, if that's the goal, Windows wins, everyone else is a loser)
Not that certain other "free" software people are all that much

different from the Linux fannerds.
Free software: It's all about the price.

The rest of the talk about "freedom", etc. is just trying to keep

them from looking like cheap, greedy bastards.

At least for an awful lot of 'em.
Nick.

These are definitely not the views of the GNU project. They *might* be

views of the self-styled "Linux nerds" that think they are "k00l" and

"eleet" because they read Slashdot, but to imply the GNU project
There may be some in the free software movement that think like this,
Again, Richard Stallman's famous speech makes it clear monetary charge
You know, it's fine if you hate the GPL. But I'll be damned if I just

sit here and let you spread outright Goddamned *lies* about the free

software movement and the people that represent it.
I'm not cheap. I'm not greedy. All I am after, is the freedom to use my

computer the way I want to without Microsoft, Apple, Google, AOL, Adobe,

Real, or other large companies being able to step in and say "no you

can't do that, it's not in our (financial) best interests to let you".

For me, it's always been about freedom. I would think for most of the

free software movement that truly knows what's going on, it *is* about

freedom.
While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to BSD-licensed

code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar "share

alike" license, based upon what I understand of copyright law, it's

perfectly legal. Even though BSD-style licenses are compatible with the

GPL, there are perfectly acceptable social goals achieved only by

releasing under the GPL or a similar license.
--

Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@speakeasy.net>

Then why don't they fight it?

Why isn't Stallman or Torvalds or other prominents standing up and

saying, "This is wrong!  This is not what we are about!"
Sure, there is no way they can get involved in every little issue that

comes up, but the GNU and FSF are all about their license they are very

proud of and defend strongly.  I'd expect something out of 'em on this,

as the morality, ethics -- and yes, the law -- are so clear, and their

casual indifference towards another license is too likely to end up

blowing up on 'em in the future.
(my first response was going to be, "this isn't about the official
Of the PROGRAMMERS, sure.  Duh.  Thats' why they do it.  Pretty much

by definition, people who give stuff away are..uh..givers. :)  If

that's what you mean by the "free software movement", fine.
However, most of the people using the word "community" include the vast

number of users.  I'm talking about the takers.  Those who leach without

ever giving back.  I think if I count the number of people posting

horribly offensive "You should do it MY way, and cater to MY needs

because I want you to" messages to misc@ to those that actually

contribute code (or any other kind of support) to the OpenBSD project,

you would see you are wrong.
Note: I'm not talking about people asking questions, even dumb or un-

researched question.  I'm talking about those who say we are doing

something "wrong" who've never attempted to do better.  The people

who say "OpenBSD would be more popular if <stupid advice here>".  The

people who post politely worded but ever-so-offensive messages that

make developers say to themselves, "Why do I do this?  Certainly not
I'm not talking about Richard Stallman, I'm talking about the people

who quote him and chant his words, then live very contrary to them.
I.e., not words of the prophet, but the actions of the "followers".

People wrap themselves in pretty words, then go out and screw each

other when it is convenient.
are you implying that the GPL &am...
[ message continues ]

A lot of big companies simply don't care. If there exists code they can

use without having to hire programmers, and without having to share

their modifications to the rest of the community, great. (And it still

amazes me that at least some big companies treat having to share under

the same conditions which let them get the code to begin with, to be
I'm sure they'd love to do it! Large companies like Microsoft *love* BSD

code. They can grab it, and at most, they have to give credit to the

developers in their advertisements and put the standard "AS IS" blurb in
I'm not saying the arbitrary removal of the original license from code

is wrong. I *am*, however, very much against the inexcusable slander of

the GNU project based on the views of a few (unfortunately)
I never said this. If this is what you believe, state it as your own.
--

Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@speakeasy.net>

I started using computers on DOS, then MS Windows, then moved on to

Linux, then FreeBSD and then OpenBSD.
I have never hated any community and I am quite thankful for what ever

education and help I have received from them all.
I don't know much about Stallman ( didn't care to study too ) except

that he stands for some definition of freedom and he awarded Theo a

while back with an award from his foundation.
I don't know much about Linus either except that he wrote and

maintains the Linux Kernel and for some reason he would not allow BSD

code into it which puts some of the Linux Kernel developers in a big

difficulty. The difficulty is that what ever good code which can be

legally used by them cannot be used if it has a BSD Licence just

because Linus doesn't like it. And that these developers very much

want to use these BSD code that they persistently try to contact the

authors of these BSD code and ask them to dual Licence it. I just

wonder if they want to use this code so badly why do't they just

cotact Linus and ask him to change his position. It is better to

contact one person and talk to him rather than go behind all the

various developers of the BSD code.
Now I realize that having failed to convince Linus or the BSD

developers some Linux developers who wants to use the BSD Code have

just removed the BSD Licence so it will be OK with Linus and hired a

bunch of lawyers to some how justify their action in court thinking

that the BSD developers will not bother to spend large sums of money

and fight in court.
What is amazing to me in this regard are these two things?
1) Richard Stallman who presented an award publically to Theo for "his

selfless commitment to Free Software " has so far said nothing about

this incident.
Stallman presented an award to Theo in Public.

For what?

This is an issue Theo has been speaking in public for a long time now.

And I think Stalman has a moral responsibility to say either the Linux

Developers are right and Theo is wrong or vice versa....
[ message continues ]

_VERY_GOOD_QUESTION_
Sometimes silence is golden.
Other times its just plain yellow.
(For those that have English as a 2nd language; "The color yellow has

traditionally been associated with cowardice, treachery, inconstancy and

jealousy." http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/myellowbellied.html)

At least at one time (and maybe still today), his goal was to destroy

programmer's livelihoods.
I have the printed, comb-binded, March 1987 Sixth Edition, version 18 of

the GNU Emacs Manual. It includes the 1985/1986 version of the GNU

Manifesto which says on page 244:
    If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative

    programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they

    restrict the use of these programs.
The use of GPL itself is known to be restrictive to many. There are many

documented examples of this.
(Should programmers using GPL be "punished"?? :)
Is there any legitimate example of OpenBSD's preferred license being

restrictive to anyone? (I really am curious about this.)

I think this is going out of context to the original issue, and only

serves to muddy things up.  Please go to the appropriate place to

discuss licensing.
-Tai

--

"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity."

-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.

On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 02:08:21PM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

| On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 07:09 -0400, Nick Holland wrote:

| > GNUspeak:

|

| These are definitely not the views of the GNU project. They *might* be

| views of the self-styled "Linux nerds" that think they are "k00l" and

| "eleet" because they read Slashdot, but to imply the GNU project

| espouses these views is, quite frankly, slanderous.

|

| > "Give back to the community!" (which really means, "I'm the community,

| > gimme, gimme, gimme!")

|

| There may be some in the free software movement that think like this,

| but this is far from a majority view.
I doubt you have numbers to back this up (just like I doubt anyone

else has numbers to back up Nicks remark, btw).
| > "Free as in Freedom!"  (but "Free as in no monetary charge" beats

| > the hell out of taking a stand)

|

| Again, Richard Stallman's famous speech makes it clear monetary charge

| is not the reason for the free software movement.
I may know the wrong people, but for me, most linux users I know are

in it for the low price and the 'fuck microsoft' attitude. They don't

really care about freedom. They have the freedom (and the money) to

pick and choose any OS and software they like, be it GPL licensed, BSD

licensed or EULA-plastered MS-code. They enjoy the finger they think

they flick at microsoft by using linux but they'll install all the

binary-only software they want in a heartbeat if it suits their needs.
RMS' free software movement may not be about finances, but both you

and I don't know what Joe Blow the Linux user is in it for. I can

only speak for myself and the people I've spoken to about this, and in

my little world, Nicks words match more closely what I've heard than

yours.
| > Free software: It's all about the price.

| > The rest of the talk about "freedom", etc. is just trying to keep

| > them from looking like cheap, greedy bastards.

| > At least for an awful lot of 'em.

|

| You know, it's fine if yo...
[ message continues ]

1. that's in the preamble, which establishes the spirit

2. 4 paragraphs below you read:
	The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and

	modification follow.
3. later on you learn the "precise term" which is "under the terms of this

   License"
So no, you're wrong. Don't bother defending your point of view, it's a waste

of time to both of us, more to you who will write it. :)
Rui
--

P'tang!

Today is Sweetmorn, the 37th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 10:25:44PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

| > | While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to

BSD-licensed

| > | code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar "share

| > | alike" license, based upon what I understand of copyright law, it's

| > | perfectly legal. Even though BSD-style licenses are compatible with the

| > | GPL, there are perfectly acceptable social goals achieved only by

| > | releasing under the GPL or a similar license.

| >

| > I'd say that it goes against the GPL. Yes, the GPL, not the BSD

| > license (or the ISC license), GPL. Theo already quoted the relevant

| > bits, but I'll quote them again :

| >

| >       For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether

| >     gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that

| >     you have.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the

| >     source code.  And you must show them these terms so they know their

| >     rights.

|

| 1. that's in the preamble, which establishes the spirit

| 2. 4 paragraphs below you read:

|

| 	The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and

| 	modification follow.

|

| 3. later on you learn the "precise term" which is "under the terms of this

|    License"

|

| So no, you're wrong. Don't bother defending your point of view, it's a

waste

| of time to both of us, more to you who will write it. :)
First you establish a spirit. Then you go on totally ignoring this

spirit in your "precise terms". Exactly why would you establish this

spirit in the first place ?
It's in the license, right ? You say yourself that it establishes

spirit. Why not uphold this spirit ? It goes against *the spirit* of

the GPL, so I would pose that it goes against the GPL and that perhaps

the "precise terms" are misworded, missing the spirit as set forth in

the preamble.
I may be wrong there, but *that* is so utterly, completely and totally...
[ message continues ]

You just get so rabid when things don't play like you want it to...

I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble.
The spirit of the license is for everyone to have software freedom, not just

those who don't close up the source code. One of the ways it makes it so, is to

force passing on the same rights.
You try to clinge on these expression as trying to validate the absurd notion

that it forces to maintain dual licensing. It's false. If you chose the GNU GPL

as the license, then the rights that must be passed on are those granted by the
The license is not to be read just at your convenience. There's more text, and

it clearly says "the precise terms follow". Don't ignore them when it's more
Of course not, I'm about the freedom of all users to run, study and modify,

as well as distribute (modified or not). Software is not a human being, and

Free Software is merely a tool to empower people.
You don't have any problems with people locking other people out of code, but

when it's to ensure everyone has access, except you because *you* don't want to,

then it's all bad. This is shallow, IMHO.
Fortunately I value OpenBSD because it's Free Software with a lot of technical

merit, and not for words like yours. I even got the company I work at to buy

CD's (sometimes they don't).
To finalise, the FSF has said it doesn't want anything to do with this polemic,

so I don't see the point in adding Richard to the cc except to make a fool of

yourself.
Bye
--

Hail Eris!

Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 08:42:13AM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

| > | 1. that's in the preamble, which establishes the spirit

| > | 2. 4 paragraphs below you read:

| > |

| > | 	The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and

| > | 	modification follow.

| > |

| > | 3. later on you learn the "precise term" which is "under the terms of

this

| > |    License"

| > |

| > | So no, you're wrong. Don't bother defending your point of view, it's a

waste

| > | of time to both of us, more to you who will write it. :)

| >

| > First you establish a spirit. Then you go on totally ignoring this

| > spirit in your "precise terms". Exactly why would you establish this

| > spirit in the first place ?

|

| You just get so rabid when things don't play like you want it to...
Where do I get rabid ? Which things don't play like I want it to ? I'm

not the one claiming you're wrong just because I say you are, I don't

ask you to not waste time replying because it would be senseless of

you to do so, since you're wrong anyway.
| I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble.
Your exact words are "that's in the preamble, which establishes the

spirit" (I left them in my reply so you can see for yourself). So the

spirit is established. I can play wordgames just as easily as you,

let's not go that route, OK ?
A spirit is established. Try to stick with the spirit, OK ?
| The spirit of the license is for everyone to have software freedom, not

just

| those who don't close up the source code. One of the ways it makes it so, is

to

| force passing on the same rights.
It suggests to pass on the rights you receive, which is a commendable

suggestion. As a user of BSD-licensed software I am totally in favour

of this suggestion. The BSD license just does not force you to do

this. And indeed, some companies take BSD licensed code and, in full

compliance with the license, dont share their changes. It may not be

the nice thing to do, but...
[ message continues ]

The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users. If one user

looses freedom, the spirit is broken. So YOU stick with the spirit, OK?
Rui
--

Or is it?

Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

Hahahahahahahahahaha, how can you not see the IRONY AND HYPOCRISY in

that statement?  Damn, dude, what reality do you live in?  You are a

joker.
Greg

--

Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that:

http://ticketmastersucks.org
Dethink to survive - Mclusky

Apparently you can't but resort to insults, surely you jest?
Rui
--

Wibble.

Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

Rui,
You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free*

than the GPL because the BSD license imposes *fewer requirements*

on distribution.
Do you seriously believe people have to be coerced into being "free"?
--

Sebastien

If you call the power to handcuff users to your customized code based on

a BSD-licensed original an additional "freedom", then you're right, and

you should be working for Microsoft, Apple, or some other company that

makes their profits by putting walls between computer users.
I don't call that a freedom. That's no more a right than the right to

keep another human being as a slave. We (in the US) got rid of that

particular broken system over a century ago, and for good reason.
--

Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@speakeasy.net>

You don't seem to get the fact that I'm not even talking about what's

more or less free (in your definition). The BSD has fewer requirements,

but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend.
Can you be a serious person and not divert arguments to totally unrelated

stuff? 10x.
Rui
--

You are what you see.

Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

ROTFL. I almost wetted my keyboard with the remains in the bottle of
Exactly. That's freedom. Being able to choose, even to choose to abandon

freedom. Freedom of choice.
Keep on writing I am beginning to enjoy the show, you are getting better

at playing the clown Rui.
-sm

> but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend.
think you'll struggle to find people here who claim to defend freedom.

personally, i'm a believer and practitioner, i  leave the "defending"

to the mis-guided and the hypocrites.

Please, don't encourage him :(
Gilles

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:24:25PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

| > On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

| > >

| > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users.

| >

| > You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free*

| > than the GPL because the BSD license imposes *fewer requirements*

| > on distribution.

|

| You don't seem to get the fact that I'm not even talking about what's

| more or less free (in your definition). The BSD has fewer requirements,

| but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend.
And no, it does not.
What is released under the BSD license is more free (which is not what

you are talking about). But all the users of the code released under

the BSD license have the same freedoms. There's no difference for

'some' users, they're all the same .. even if 'some' users create baby

mulching machines from your code.
I know what argument you are trying to make, but you're not making it.

What is released under a BSD license is free software (in my

definition more free than what is released under the GPL). All users

of said code have the same freedoms (and the same duties : DO NOT

REMOVE THE LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT NOTICE).
| In my point of view, that is a social failure, which the GPL aims to end.
And in my previous e-mail, I tried pointing out that the GPL does very

little to end this. Unfortunately, you decided to not respond to the

arguments I made but in stead you replied with wordgames.
For arguments sake, lets say I've written a program that is of use to

many.
Scenario A, this code is released under the BSD license. You can take

it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone.
Scenario B, this code is released under the GPL license. You can take

it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone.
Where is the difference ? How did you avoid the social failure you

spoke of ?
I'll tell you where the difference is (with an ex...
[ message continues ]

Please omit me from the cc list on these messages.

Are you joking?

Where is you stand on ethics and freedom of software now?
Are you just another politician with great swelling words of emptiness?
I did sent a mail to misc@ and if you have not seen it here is an excerpt below.
I really pity your followers who have a leader who remains dumb and

cannot bark when he sees the theif!!! And you claim to guard freedom

of software!!!

Isn't this pure mockery???
Apart from your words and all the philosophy masala you spew out what

is your stand when it comes to a real issue like this?
==================================================================
1) Richard Stallman who presented an award publically to Theo for "his

selfless commitment to Free Software " has so far said nothing about

this incident.
Stallman presented an award to Theo in Public.

For what?

This is an issue Theo has been speaking in public for a long time now.

And I think Stalman has a moral responsibility to say either the Linux

Developers are right and Theo is wrong or vice versa.

If Theo is right then Stallman has the moral responsibility to aid him

to fight against the viloations. Or else I think the award giving and

stuff like that is just a farce.
His Silence in this matter is "Marvelous" given th fact that he does

demonstrations against companies for the cause of Freedom and Justice

etc.
2) Linus cannot tolerate including the BSD Licenced Software in his

kernel as said by some of his own kernel developers. Can he accept

them once the BSD Licence clause is Just removed? There might be a

reason for the first. But He has a moral responsibility to speak about

this matter too. He has to say either his developers are right nd he

endorse their actions or that his developers made a mistake and they

should back out.
His silence on this issue is also marvelous.
Alan cox has made clear his stand that what the Linux Developers have

done is perfectly legal, if not moral or ethical.
I just wonder if this silence is because they want to have the cake

a...
[ message continues ]

The only thing I know about this "incident" is that OpenBSD developers

are angry at someone I don't know, over events whose details I don't

know.
If they had approached me in a friendly way, asking me to look at the

issue and formulate an opinion, as a favor or for the good of the

community, I would have investigated at least to find out what my

opinion should be.  Instead, however, they approached me with rage,

trying to blame the FSF for whatever happened.  I don't have to take

that, and I don't have to cater to them.

It's more disturbing to me at 55 than it was at 35 that the free

software - open

source community is prone to fits of sectarian (verbal) violence.

I've grown up in

the past twenty years. I hope somebody else in this crowd has!!!
--

Jack J. Woehr

Director of Development

Absolute Performance, Inc.

jwoehr@absolute-performance.com

303-443-7000 ext. 527

Great attitude!  As the main spokesperson for GNU this is exactly what

you should do.  Run run run!!
You are in essence saying: go ahead break the law, I'll look the other

way.  Bravo!  I am totally impressed by your ethics ramblings.

You can sell it in both scenarios.

What you can not do in Scenario B is sell modified versions of someone

else's code without providing source.
Neither the BSD not GPL licenses do much to limit what you do for your

own use.

Any individual or business can use the code as they please for their own

internal purposes.
If your definition of freedom is the permitting others to profit from

your efforts WITHOUT atleast sharing their efforts with you

Then BSD licenses are more free.
If your definition of Freedom is ensuring that the freedoms you offered

to everyone you distributed to must be extended to anyone they

re-distribute to

then the GPL is more free.
Though for the life of me I can not understand why allowing a third

party to modify your work, refuse to share their modifications with

anyone and then

resell something that is primarily your work for their profit, is

somehow more free.
But the whole argument is just stupid. If you create something that is

copyrighted, as the author you are completely free to decide exactly what

rights beyond those of copyright you wish to extend.
One license is better than the other only to the extent that it better

reflects the wishes of the author.

As the author you can omit the license entirely - and just include

Copyright 2007 by Me. That preserves all available freedoms to the

author and entirely prohibits redistribution without permission.

Actually you can even omit the copyright notice too.
--

Dave Lynch 					  	    DLA Systems

Software Development:  				         Embedded Linux

717.627.3770 	       dhlii@dlasys.net 	  http://www.dlasys.net

fax: 1.253.369.9244 			           Cell: 1.717.587.7774

Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too numerous to list.
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."

Albert Einstein

When code is GPL licensed and you sell it (and thus re-distribute it),

you will have to provide the source code, including modifications if

any, by at least providing a way for people to request it and then of

course actually get it. This is what has caught Linksys and a number of

other GPL-code users as they are violating the license.
The only way you are not obliged to provide the source in the case of

GPL is when you are not re-distributing it. Eg when you have a company

of 300k people and you only use the code+patches internally, all is fine

and you can have your souped up gcc compiler or whatever. If another

party (eg a customer) buys the thing though, you have to provide the
Correct. Though the moment you sell, you are re-distributing and then

you will have to ;)
Because it allows those people to actually USE your code in their

products. With GPL it is not an option as they will have to disclose
I can fully agree with that ;) Stripping off the license from another
Don't you just love the Bern convention :)

Though any courtcase where it is not specified might easily be stapled

as 'the copyright was not there so we can't know who owns it'. Thus

wherever possible always tag ones files with a (c) <year> <author> this

is also handy for determining prior art etc.
Greets,

 Jeroen
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has the

freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow some users
I think it is clear you don't grasp anything beying mere eyesight. What

about binary derivatives, do users who receive them have the freedom to
There's no blind so bad as that which refuses to see. There's nothing I
No, that's merely all users who receive a copy from you. Not those
Try going one step beyond mere eyesight. The moment a copy is given to

someone else, in each scenario:
Scenario A, a copy can (and frequently is) given without source code.

            the receiver of said copy has lost freedom, allowed by BSD
Scenario B, a copy can (and frequently is) given without source code.

	    the receiver of said copy has lost freedom, but since it is

	    forbidden by the GNU GPL, it is a copyright violation and
Do you really think you are not allowed to charge money for distributin

copies of GPL'ed software? Who do you trust who told it to you? Are you

really that credulous?
Rui
--

Wibble.

Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

Pot, Kettle, Black.
R/
"Write a wise saying and your name will live on forever."  - Anonymous

Hello again Rui,
Though copyright laws and even more so, reverse engineering laws, vary

around the world, I'll try to explain to you how things work here in

the US. Over here, if you own a copy of a program, you can modify it as

much as you want with the exception of circumventing copyright

protection mechanisms due the DMCA. Prior to the enactment of the DMCA,

you could do anything you wanted with your copy of the work.
Though you may see "no reverse engineering" clauses in many commercial

licenses, they actually are null and void because you have the right to

modify your copy of the work. Of course, most commercial software

forbids redistribution, so you cannot redistribute your modified

version of the work/program, but the only thing stopping you from

modifying a closed source binary application is your own ability.
In the US, and in many countries, you have the right to modify any work

to suit your personal needs. It's the law and no license terms can

remove your right, so it is impossible for an end user to lose freedom.
Though you are right that ordinary people have a responsibility to know

the law and that lawyers are merely paid experts, you have none the

less failed in your responsibility. You have obviously never bothering

to read any of the copyright laws on any nation, or any of the relevant

case law or findings, or any of the international treaties regarding

copyrights.
Of course, you are free to have strong feelings about whatever you like,

and hold opinions based on flawed understanding, but as long as you

insist on remaining uneducated about the laws, you are failing yourself

and failing your supposed "duty" to make things clear. Please stop.
jcr

You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to

change a program because he has no access to the source code.
You stop.
Rui
--

Umlaut Zebra o?=ber alles!

Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

Actually Rui, what we have here is a perspective gap. You think of

things as a typical day-job programmer where your whole world is source

code. I think of things as a reverse engineer where everything (source,

executables, hardware) can be inspected, understood and controlled

exactly as I see fit.
If you had done the least bit of homework about the person you were

chatting with, you would have realized I am far more educated in the

field of reverse engineering than most people you might meet. Unlike

most people, I actually do know what can and cannot be done without

source code. In fact, my license for the newest and most cutting edge

tool in the field arrived in my inbox this morning; it's called

the "Hex-Rays Decompiler" and it's a brand new plugin for the IDA Pro

Disassembler. As it's name implies, it can build a high level source

code representation from nothing more than a binary.
I've been involved with reverse engineering on a professional level for

over a decade, and more than twice that as a hobbyist. For *me* bending

a binary to my will is not magic, and certainly isn't a big deal. But

like all code, it does take time and effort. Also, the result of

modification of a binary can be more fragile than working with source

simply because there are more ways to get it wrong. But again like all

code, if you take the time to do it right, there is no problem.
Modifying a binary is certainly not magic and is certainly not

difficult. Uneducated, snot nosed kids regularly "reverse engineer"

shareware and successfully disable copyright protection schemes. Search

the web for the term "crack" and you'll see what I mean. Also you

should realize the skill set of most of these software protection

crackers is pathetic at best.
When you get into real reverse engineering, such as reimplementation (or

recovery), documentation, augmentation, integration, auditing,

analysis, modeling and similar, the skill level required is

exponentially increased but it's stil...
[ message continues ]

I advise against using it, as it will create an extremely muddy legal

scenario over anything you write related to the code produced by that

decompiler.
I wish it wasn't so, but then I wished there were no proprietary drivers
Even those who resort to insults can hope that from me, I don't dwell in

the past, so you, who've been most polite of all, don't have anything to

worry :)
Rui
--

You are what you see.

Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 40th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

Nonsense. It's similar to how powerless non-programmer people feel when

they report a bug and get told to fix it `since they have the source'.
Just because *you* can't reverse-engineer stuff doesn't mean other people

cannot.
And don't get me started on all the linux code that is full of magic

constants, was written under NDAs, and is about as useful as binary blobs

for the people who do NOT have access to the NDA documentation...

... or the people who don't care that ATI/nvidia doesn't give their 3D specs

as long as they provide binary drivers that work under linux/i386.

Most people think it's magic, and most don't understand that it may be as

simple as adding a couple of lines (eg:

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118232405007254&w=2)
Compare adding that feature in C with adding that feature in machine code and
Yup, very common, unfortunately.
Rui
--

Grudnuk demand sustenance!

Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

> Most people think it's magic, and most don't understand that

I've always had the impression that OpenBSD is NOT "most people"

They seem to be people who think it's actually worthwhile knowing what they

are talking about.
Seems like most people on this list think that you are incredibly dense and

stupid.

So at least as far as this thread is concerned, you seem to be an oxymoron

(assuming you are that bright;)

> Good luck doing so without any source code.

Teehee Teehee. No luck required.

It does however take a wee bit of skill and competence.

Actually, for exacting work, the source is a liability.

Presumably you speak from your own experience and your own powerlessness.

If a programmer is competent, the programmer does not need the source and

the programmer does not even need to know the language. Assorted malware is

done without having the source. Very well it seems.
To EASILY change something, the source is needed.

Acutally, the entire build environment is needed.

Just having the source is easily less modifyable than having an operable

binary.
You're way out of your league here, sonny boy.

So your defense of that position is that the bar to freedom should be raisable

at will just because some extremely few people can do that?
That's rich. If life was *so* easy like you say, then you don't need specs,

do you? You are so "in" the league that you can just go get ATI/NVIDIA's

binary drivers and write a working one for OpenBSD.
Go ahead! Make all OpenBSD users happy for having a free driver writen

from modification of the binary version to a free one.
ddate really chose an appropriate expression:
--

All Hail Discordia!

Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

Did you read the subject line in the last week? It states something

about Atheros, remember that some very nice chap has reverse engineered

the HAL for the Atheros and then donated that to the Open Source

community under a nice license? Then some people thought it was fun to

simply remove his name, change his license and break his copyright on
That is only because you are uneducated in the art of assembly and more

importantly there in the art of disassembly. That you are powerless

doesn't mean that other people are not.
Greets,

 Jeroen
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

You'll never end trying to search for any far fetched point where you can

be right, as if that would make all past wrong arguments become true.
How funny. So you defend that freedom is only for a select few...
At least you showed some honesty!
--

Kallisti!

Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

Your subjunctive is derailed.
Tweedledee is getting tweedledummer and dummer

You seem to be entirely missing the irony of making this statement

in the context of an argument about software _reverse engineered from

a binary blob_.

You seem to be entirely missing the fact that it requires extraordinary

skill, which used in the defense of your arguments contradicts the freedom

for all you defend, since it's only avialable to a select few, even among

the already scarce select few programmers among the human beings.
Rui
--

P'tang!

Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

I don't know which of "my arguments" you are talking about in your

pontificating rant, because this is the first time I have ever replied to

you.
Last too.

The evidence indicates that Rui is not, in fact, a human

being, but the latest (and possibly the most impressive

to date) application of the Dada Engine.
-b

I can mail you some biological evidence, if you want ;)
*giggle*
Rui
--

Umlaut Zebra o?=ber alles!

Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 40th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

Obviously he's never read machine code ;)
Has the state of the art gone down that badly in the last forty-odd years?

Even I know better,

and there's people on this list that actually know something.

I've written it, and swore never again to do so unless life depends on

it. You have to be extremely skilled and with an excessive ammount of

free time to make an argument based on that defense.
Whilst the first case is a compliment, the second not really (but not an
Yeah sure, like OpenBSD is 100% written in machine code *giggle*
Rui
--

Grudnuk demand sustenance!

Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

So you admit you are incompetent.
If you were really competent you would be able to read the blinking lights

and alter running programs via the swwitches.
By the way, there is a difference between reading and writing.

This definitly has to be a joke :) You're pulling my leg, mister! ;)
--

Frink!

Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

blah blah blah blah blah blah

You make the point of using BLOB so well, Thank you!
Looking forward to see you fight for documentation freedom and no NDA

that reduce and eliminate freedom.
But, lets not loose sight that a violation of a copyright was done, and

as it look from the outside was endorse here.
Richard, I am soooo surprise by your silence as violation of copyright

are done by a movement you fight so hard to create long ago. I can't say

what to make of it.
Best,
Daniel

I ca't talk for Richard, but I see no "movement" doing such thing, apart from

a few guys, who I should point out that I don't think they really share the

Free Software ideals, in the Linux kernel community did those violations.

And only on some files which were *not* dual licensed.
Rui
--

Wibble.

Today is Pungenday, the 39th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

Ability and freedom are not synonyms.  I don't understand why you GPL

folks need to change the meanings of words to get your points across.
Greg
--

Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that:

http://ticketmastersucks.org
Dethink to survive - Mclusky

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 04:06:56PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

| On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 02:29:44PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:

| > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:24:25PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

| > | > On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

| > | > >

| > | > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users.

| > | >

| > | > You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free*

| > | > than the GPL because the BSD license imposes *fewer requirements*

| > | > on distribution.

| > |

| > | You don't seem to get the fact that I'm not even talking about what's

| > | more or less free (in your definition). The BSD has fewer requirements,

| > | but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend.

| >

| > And no, it does not.

|

| I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has the

| freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow some users

| to loose freedom...
If this modified version is released under the BSD license, it's under

the BSD license and therefor the user has this right. If it's released

under another license (with the copyright notice still intact of

course), it's no longer released under the BSD license so your point

is moot. Software released under the BSD license gives the user

certain rights. Software released under another license may restrict

some of these rights.
| > What is released under the BSD license is more free (which is not what

| > you are talking about). But all the users of the code released under

| > the BSD license have the same freedoms. There's no difference for

| > 'some' users, they're all the same .. even if 'some' users create baby

| > mulching machines from your code.

|

| I think it is clear you don't grasp anything beying mere eyesight. What

| about binary derivatives, do users who receive them have the freedom to

| modify the program? Tha...
[ message continues ]

"Fewer words", eh?
--

Jack J. Woehr

Director of Development

Absolute Performance, Inc.

jwoehr@absolute-performance.com

303-443-7000 ext. 527

More word plays the confuse the dicussion, Eris would be proud of you.
Your point is that the BSD license is a "wrong" because it gives people

too much freedom.  You just stated this again, even more clearly than in
So, you are indeed taking the point of view that there is "good freedom"

and "bad freedom", and that coercion is needed to allow "good freedom"

to prevail.  I am glad you said so since it is totally related to what
See above.  Rinse and repeat.
Also, it apparently didn't dawn on you that I was invoking Godwin's Law.
We agree that we disagree, please could you stop the noise?
--

Sebastien

Total freedom without coercion is anarchy.

    By adopting a copyright and a license BSD has rejected anarchy and

    accepted the coercive force of the law. Repeatedly there have been

    cries on this list to force the Linux/GPL developers into complying

with the BSD License.
    The BSD License defines obeying copyright law, complying with the

license and crediting the

    original authors as acceptable restrictions on one's freedoms.

    Failing to preserve a copyright/license/credit is a BSD example of a

"Bad Freedom"
    The only distinction between a BSD License and the GPL is the

author's view of

    which freedoms are good and which are bad. 
   If you are really claiming that BSD Licenses offer "total freedom",

   make's no distinctions between the values of different freedoms,

   and is completely non-coercive then why are BSD developers upset over

The Atheros HAL ?

   The anger is because more freedom has been taken than your license

offered.
    You can not have total freedom absent coercion, and copyright's and

licenses.

     They are incompatible.
--

Dave Lynch 					  	    DLA Systems

Software Development:  				         Embedded Linux

717.627.3770 	       dhlii@dlasys.net 	  http://www.dlasys.net

fax: 1.253.369.9244 			           Cell: 1.717.587.7774

Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too numerous to list.
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."

Albert Einstein

I never mentioned "total freedom"; I don't think it could be achieved,

and I didn't mean to imply that it is desirable.
What I wrote above was meant to call attention to the fact that there

are different kinds of freedom motivated by different ethical

principles or political agendas, and that claiming that the less

restrictive BSD license is "a social failure that the GPL aims to end"

is a call for heavier coercion machinery.  Is this really going to end
The point I wanted to make (but apparently failed) is that the GPL

seems to encourage a more authoritarian and fanatical mindset than the

BSD licenses, for which mutual decent regard would seem to suffice in

most cases (perhaps I am a naive here), and which rewards developers
I am not, and there is a world between "total freedom" and armies of

lawyers serving hidden agendas.
The BSD licenses explicitly state which rights are granted and under

what conditions, in a clear and concise way.  It can not possibly be

understood as "totally free", and I am as shocked as you are that some

people think that they are entitled to take the rights granted by a
I feel that the anger is entirely justified; I am sorry that my

message was so unclear that it could be understood as meaning totally

the opposite of what I meant to communicate.
My sole grief against the GPL is its vulnerability to manipulation of
Agreed.  You can have a license that is short enough and clear enough

that lawyers don't need to get involved at every step, that relies

more on mutual respect than on coercion, and that gives users as much

freedom as is fair for the author(s).  I find that the BSD licenses

achieve this, and this is part of why I switched to OpenBSD.  The

unequaled quality of the code and documentation was another strong

motivation, and I expect to contribute code in the near future.
--

Sebastien

No, I never said the BSD license is wrong, you said that, not me.
What I say is that it doesn't fulfill the goal of preserving freedom for all

users. That is the GPL's goal, and the only restrictions it has aim to prevent
No, again it is you who's saying those horrible things. I never said that.

In my point of view, I don't like to see anyone removing freedom from other

users, hence I grant rights with the condition they aren't removed. I think

that's fair, and not protecting that is a social failure.
Something that has failed is quite different from something that is bad. Many
You're adding noise too. If you are sincere about wanting to end noise don't

reply.
Rui
--

Frink!

Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

Actually I do get the point that you are not talking about.

In my point of view, the GPL has NOT kept you from being a social failure.

No, according to your last email copncerning the introduction to the GPL,

the purpose is to make people daft and unsorted.
Are you Tweedledee or Tweedledum?

And by removing the BSD license you are thus removing freedom.
Did you notice that? That is what has been repeated to you already a

number of times.
Greets,

 Jeroen
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

Please stop and think, you're confusing issues.
Rui
--

P'tang!

Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

I stopped and thought.

You are confused.

All your issues are confused.

My insane opinion is much more valid than yours.

Are you Tweedledee or Tweedledum?

Rui,
as you are not a lawyer, you should stop to interpret any law, copyright

questions or give any legal advice from your own interpretation. This will

give a wrong assumption to the story. When there is a statement needed,

please let talk the legals and until they give advise, you should stop your

own legal advice. 
Maybe you don't notice it, but a wrong advice can people bring in trouble.
Regards

Reiner
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:25:44 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@1407.org>

Go see if I'm employed by Microsoft, will you?
It's in every citizen's duty to know about the law. Lawyers are merely
Which is why on such absurd statements, like the one I corrected, I find it

is a duty to clarify.
Regards,

Rui
--

Or not.

Today is Sweetmorn, the 37th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

Now if you'd advice people with something better than bullshit it might

be worth it.  You have proven time and time again that you have no grasp

whatsoever on copyright law.  You have absolutely no clue and it is my

duty to clarify this to the community.

lol it's always bullshit when it's not convenient to you, right?
--

P'tang!

Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

and you are a troll. can you please troll around somewhere else, you

are wasting precious magnetic domains.
eris will not set you free, she will eat you alive.
-sm

Rui,
what have this to do with Microsoft? I assume nothing. Don't let us mix up

this topic. The question here is not Microsoft again OpenBSD, Linux or ...,

the point is that here nobody should give any interpretation without

licensed to practice law. So let the specialist decide on the topic. 
As I assume you are not aware of the law in Europe and maybe not the law in

Portugal, please stop to discuss until we have the facts. Everything else

will end in nowhere. 
When you are able to show any court decision about this topic, which can

prove the facts, it will be fine. Otherwise let us wait for the facts. 
When you not notice, the hole "license" issue help not the Open Source

community, it support the closed source vendors to argue again OSS. When

this is your target, then continue. 
Have a nice evening. 
Regards

Reiner
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:58:43 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@1407.org>

--

Regards

Reiner Jung

Open Source Community and Business Consultant
The-Gang                http://www.the-gang.net/
Email                   rjung@the-gang.net

Jabber                  reiner@the-gang.net

IRC                    rjfn@freenode.net

                         rjfn@irc.keyboard-monkeys.org
The Community Company

It's an adaptation of an expression, it means don't bother me, go see if I'm
(...)
Frankly, why do you only get rabid like that at people who don't share your

opinion? Why don't you go say that to people who write the opposite of what

I say? They're not lawyers either... are you simply one-sided? Looks like it...
Rui

--

This statement is false.

Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

Before you embark on your storm in a teacup, re-read (and re-read

again if you still don't get it) Nick's message. It's clear you

missed/misunderstood half of the points he was making.
DS

1) I'm on the list, no need to CC me.
2) Like, duh, I understand perfectly well what his point is: to slander

the GNU project and its users. I re-read the message several times

before replying.
--

Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@speakeasy.net>

out in the slashdot crowd, there is a trend to say anything neccessary

to get what they want, including explaining away actual law and

ethics.
how do they get to the point of saying such things?
it is a gimme gimme gimme culture.
the letters written in the GPL and the BSD and the laws that underpin

those licenses mean nothing in the face of gimme gimme gimme.  if the

GPL had words which would take away from them, they would attempt to

explain those words away.
noone is slandering those users.  they're calling them what they

are -- greedy and self-serving and wrong.

I have to point out that I have been told on this list by a GPL fan that

the dictionary definition of freedom isn't correct.  He was so friendly

to ask me who the hell I was to tell him what freedom means.  Freedom

for him did mean free + random rules.
For all the great things the GPL has done its followers really could do

some reading on that whole "definition of words" thing.
This copyright thing is a complete debacle and shows just how

disingenuous some of the linux people are.  There is no way I buy that

the lawyers involved do not understand what they are doing.  As a fan of

the following quote: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately

explained by incompetence" -- Napoleon Bonaparte

I do not buy that the FSF (yes I said it) lawyers do not understand

copyright law.  Nobody with a degree in law is that stupid therefore I

have to conclude that there is malice involved.
The FSF should take a deep breath and apologize to Reyk, apologize to

Theo, apologize to OpenBSD and apologize to the open source community at

large.

RMS_Jones: "It's free as in koolaid."

SadVictim: "Umm... no thanks."

RMS_Jones: "Then I'll force you to drink it."

They still haven't caught up. 1984 was hip about 23 years ago. Now, it's

so passi.
But then, what do you expect from a movement whose founder still lives in

1968 ?

While reading this I got a mail that OpenSolaris released the adapted

version of our malo(4) driver.
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/laptop/wireless/malo/
Second sentence on the page is:

This driver is based on the source code from OpenBSD, and is provided

under the same BSD-type License.
So companies are bad and only "true" open source is good. Ja ja, sure.

Bravo.
DS