Aparently difficult and interesting questions don't get answers until

they're posted to a list..
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/DEFANGED which had a name of Open-Hardware.26774DEFANGED-eml]

I'm curious how you can recomend an OS, like gNewSense that only runs on

    non-free hardware, that

    has required non-free software to be used in it's creation?
How do you do these things?  Perhaps I do them the same way.
The term "non-free hardware" is misleading, because the issues that

divide free software from non-free software do not apply to hardware.

There are no copiers for hardware and it has no source code.
As for Intels use of non-ree software, I am sorry for them, and I hope

that someday they will be able to move to free software.

There are a small number of people that command respect in the IT industry

and as far as I know, Richard and Theo are two such people.  I am sure that

if people like you began to endorse open source hardware more people would

move in that direction.  I remember reading a quote from Sun about modern

hardware becoming more like software all the time which was why they decided

to release a processor as open source.  Even if this were not the case I

find it surprising to read you distinguish what should and should not be

classed as free (if one can kick it there is no need for it to be free).

What does it matter if a product is hardware or software as to my mind the

same principles apply in both cases.  What about the software that runs on a

given piece of hardware such as BIOS, etc.
A.

> As for Intels use of non-ree software, I am sorry for them, and I hope

    > that someday they will be able to move to free software.

    >

    Yet you still support them, and require gNewsense users to use Intel/AMD

    hardware?
I do not boycott companies for using non-free software.

There is no reason why I should do so.  Are you in favor of such

a boycott?
I encourage people to make gNewSense run on other computer

architectures, but I don't think it is particularly urgent.

I don't, however, I don't claim to live by the same free vs non-free

    rules, I use what works for me.
Since these principles are not yours, you could very well have

misunderstood them.  So you are criticizing me for something that

neither you nor I says is wrong.  What's the point?
    There is a free copier of hardware: you, me, or anyone with a certian

    amount of skill, and the required wires and other parts.  This is how

    the entire home PC business started, the whole homebrew market. 
That's true for some kinds of hardware, to a limited extemt.  But

building copies by hand is very different from having a copier that

will copy them automatically.  I don't consider them ethically the

same.
    Hardware has source code.  Virtually every major piece of a computer is

    written and modelled in Verilog or VHDL these days, which is bytes on a

    disk, in ASCII characters, which sounds pretty much like code. 
"Source code" and "plans" are not the same thing.  What makes software

source code special is that a program can compile it into a working

executable.  To turn the plans for a chip into a working chip, you need

a fab line that costs millions of dollars.
Some day, if we all have personal fabs that can make chips, and robots

that can assemble them into computers, the situation for chips will be

much more like the situation for software today.  In that situation it

might very well be important to campaign agains non-free chips and

non-free computers.  But in today's situation there is no reason

to do so.
    Technology can allow for "free" hardware, just as well as it can for

    hardware.  If there is "open-source" and "free" hardware designs and

    code, anyone with a FPGA, or availability of various other technologies

    can take this hardware design, make changes, and make it better.
You are talking about programs for FPGAs.  Those are software, and if

they run on platforms where it is normal to install different

software, then they should ...
[ message continues ]

Ok, please let me paraphrase this:
  If something is harder to copy, it is ethically ok to have a different

  standard for this piece of technology.
Seriously, that's what you're saying above.  Because hardware may have

to be copied by hand, you consider them ethically not the same.  That's

nuts.  But on a more cool note, RMS considers the copy-protection

cracking I did in the 80's on an ethically different level.  Not sure
First of all, VHDL/Verilog are source code.  Don't look anything like a

plan.  Also, you don't need your very own fab.  There are plenty of fabs

out there that will gladly take your source/plan and turn it into a nice

chip or two for you.  It's even semi-affordable if you stick to the larger

feature sizes.  I believe if you have a look at the EFF web sites, you'll

even find an early implementation of such a thing.  It was called the DES
Again, for a nominal fee, you do have this available today.  There are

companies in various countries that have both the ability and technology

to copy whole designs for you.  Hell, they'll even debug, fix, and upgrade
Most FPGA vendors have products that allow you to compile your FPGA

into ASIC masks that you can submit to your favourite foundry.  The

restrictions are usually minor, especially if your design was done

properly to begin with.
Have a look at www.opencores.org if you want to see a small part of what
Really?  All those wifi/raid/cpu/etc cards/chips out there that need

"firmware", you think they're not a mix of both microcontroller code and

other binary bits that configure an ASIC or FPGA?  Also, just because

*YOU* don't install software on a microwave oven, does not mean that *I*

do not wish to.
(Feel free to substitute "car engine computer" for "microwave oven", and

think about being able to get 95 mpg by changing your car's programming,

if you need incentive...)
-Toby.

--

 [100~Plax]sb16i0A2172656B63616820636420726568746F6E61207473754A[dZ1!=b]salax

>  But I think the FPGAs in products are more like the possible computer

    >  in my microwave oven: nobody installs software in them, so they might

    >  as well be circuits.
    Really?  All those wifi/raid/cpu/etc cards/chips out there that need

    "firmware", you think they're not a mix of both microcontroller code and

    other binary bits that configure an ASIC or FPGA?
I am not a hardware expert; I don't know sort of hardware the firmware

blobs run on.  I will presume you're right.
Whether it runs on a computer or an FPGA, either way it's a program.

So the next crucial question is, do users normally install programs on

that device?  For some devices, the answer is no.  However, if the

firmware is stored in a file on the disk, and the system downloads it

into the device, the answer to that question is yes.
That is the case where I object to the non-free firmware blobs.

He is right.  Hardware these days basically runs code.  You take several

cores and put together an ASIC that does specialized work.  For example

I know of an iSCSI vendor that took a processing core, an I2C core, a

UART core, a PCI bridge core (and some other minor ones) and made a nice

ASIC that runs iSCSI in hardware.  They even took a well known BSD

TCP/IP stack and converted it to pure hardware (thats code -> hardware).

Now if you have more than 1024 connections on that iSCSI core (which

incidentally also works a TCP Offload Engine aka TOE) then the

connections get offloaded to HBA/NIC code.  Now what was a pure hardware

device changes into a pure software device.  This is just one example

and there are many more beautifully blurred examples.  Your argument is
I am sure that at MIT they taught you that a finite sate machine can be

moved from hardware to software and vice versa.  All new hardware

whether it is a specialized ASIC or a general purpose cpu is deigned and

run in software first.  This is therefore obviously a pure software

function.  The reason why it is then later moved to silicon is for speed

and marketing purposes (yes, you know making money with development).

So you say that developing hardware is unethical until you have the

physical hardware?
And the reason is that software is cheap and hardware isn't?  I get paid

the same whether I am writing code or doing hardware (I do both for a

living).  So the company that I work for values the code that I write

roughly the same as the hardware that I "make".  Doesn't this therefore

value hardware roughly the same as software from a development cost

perspective?
Also modern CPUs run microcode.  Does this make them "unethical"?
I am sorry but I am completely lost as to what your philosophy is.

Could you please do me (and presumably this list) a big favor and

explain what ethics mean to you.  I really would like to understand how

writing software for a living measures up with lets say war or rape.
I also would ...
[ message continues ]

On Jan 5, 2008 5:57 PM, Marco Peereboom <slash@peereboom.us> wrote:
God pointed his finger at his anointed prophet Richard Stallman
http://linux.ues.edu.sv/servidor/maracosas/bruno2d/richard-stallman.jpg
and intoned "Thou art the leader of all things programmed. Go forth and

spread the word".
And R.M.S. ventured forth and spake "Let there be copyleft"! And there

was copyleft and the Lord saw that it was good.
The Lord then commanded, "Collect donations from your gullible

worshipers and venture forth to all the countries of the world and

sample the lavish food and wine whilst delivering the word.
regards,

alexander.

>     Really?  All those wifi/raid/cpu/etc cards/chips out there that need

    >     "firmware", you think they're not a mix of both microcontroller code and

    >     other binary bits that configure an ASIC or FPGA?

    >

    > I am not a hardware expert; I don't know sort of hardware the firmware

    > blobs run on.  I will presume you're right.
    He is right.  Hardware these days basically runs code.
I think we are talking about different questions.  The word firmware

implies a program of some kind.  I thought he was talking about what

_kind_ of hardware that program runs on.  Now you seem to be saying

that all hardware is programmable.  I don't know if that is true, but

it's a different question (and doesn't seem crucial to the issue).
      Now what was a pure hardware

    device changes into a pure software device.
I am not entirely sure what that means, but I am not surprised that an

algorithm can be implemented in software or in hardware.  I don't think

that is relevant to my way of looking at the issue, though.
						 This is just one example

    and there are many more beautifully blurred examples.  Your argument is

    a fallacy with modern hardware.
I don't see any fallacy.  I do not assume that there is only one way

to implement a given algorithm, so the fact that that isn't so is no

problem.
    > Whether it runs on a computer or an FPGA, either way it's a program.

    > So the next crucial question is, do users normally install programs on

    > that device?
    I am sure that at MIT they taught you that a finite sate machine can be

    moved from hardware to software and vice versa.
It can, but that's not what I'm talking about.
    The reason why it is then later moved to silicon is for speed

    and marketing purposes (yes, you know making money with development).

    So you say that developing hardware is unethical until you have the

    physical hardware?
No, I am not talking about how to develop anything...
[ message continues ]

That may as well be an ethically confusing sentence.
If users don't normally install ice cream in the banana, then ethically

it may as well be a fruit.
Oh My Gnu!...
We shall not endorse restaurants which serve pre-compiled banana split

for dessert to innocent guests when those guests ask for it, unless the

restaurant provides them with the complete recipe and all ingredients!

So why did you create gplv3?  isn't that just another circuit that

you'll never load software on?
I am sorry but your arguments are circular and not consistent.

So... 'ethically' the TiVo ma as well be a circuit, since users don't

usually install software on it?
--

Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

So... 'ethically' the TiVo ma as well be a circuit, since users don't

    usually install software on it?
Users did install software on it, and that's why Tivo tivoized it.

So...
Your intentioned thinking that gNewSense is clear holds up while if

the Tivoly guys defend their product against what they as creators

clearly think of as misuse of the product, that doesn't count?
I might have an interesting thought for you: Almost all more or less

complicated chips these days have more and more software on them, as

you showed you know. That software is clearly intended to make those

chips non-hackable from outside because of various reasons.
I now start presuming this all is strongly against your standards,

those chips are "tivolized" and the buyers of the chips should demand

hackable versions of the software?
Or will it be handled in GPLv4?
+++chefren

Nope.  I bought my TiVo and it was ready to go.  All I do is pay $5 a

month and select programs I want to see.  I did NOTHING that has to do

with firmware.  Again you are using double standards.  GPLv3 is silly

after listening to you rant.

What if I give a dog a computer system.. and he uses it to bark at.
The dog finds it entertaining. The dog would not understand the source

code if it was offered.
The program that the dog barks at while Mom and Pop are out shopping, is

closed source.

It does not matter that it is closed source. The program is just a

seedless grape.
Mom and Pop come home with some seedless grapes and eat them.
Then they realize that most software users are dumb dogs who don't

understand source code.. and therefore seedless grapes, i.e.

shareware... is not unethical or harmful. Mom and pop want to eat their

seedless grapes.. just as some people want to buy shareware and never

look at the sources. Not unethical.. just that they don't need the

seeds, and they don't need the sources.
For those elite crowd that can understand source code... and for those

elite gardeners and farmers that do understand the seeds in grapes..

sure it is beneficial to have the source code and seeds shipped.
But most people, just want to buy seedless grapes at the store.. so they

can get on with real work.
Having the seeds is cool.. and some dogs may even find the source code

cool. But it is not unethical or harmful.. to not ship the source and

seeds in all cases.
I could see arguing that it is not as NICE to not have sources shipped..

especially to those elite crowd who do understand grape seeds and source.
But unethical and harmful? Not so.
L505

Putting a restriction on software, such as charging money for

development of it.. or consulting of it, is not free software.. because

it severely restricts access to these people who need the free

consulting and free speeches on cruise ships.
Furthermore... the FOUR FREEDOMS you mention are not in the dictionary

under "free". It is only your opinion.. and there fore is not free

software.. it is Stallmanist Software. Your philosophies are not the

official free philosophies... they are just Stallmanist ones.

I find it impolite that you partially removed my questions and only

responded to some of them.  I asked you if you please could respond to

all paragraphs.
I am struggling with what ethics mean to you.  Could you explain that

please?
And if you don't mid could you reply to the original email and answer

all paragraphs?

I find it impolite that you partially removed my questions and only

    responded to some of them.  I asked you if you please could respond to

    all paragraphs.
People raise many issues in these messages.  My idea of politeness

does not say I have to respond to every question that someone asks.
I also don't think I have an obligation to be polite to you

after the hostility you have shown.

To say this now is out of line.  While Marco may have

displayed impatience from time to time, more recently

he has shown no little forbearance in his attempts to

help you become informed with respect to

hardware/software/firmware/blobs.

Ah I see, criticism of failing to researched topics you are debating is

hostility.  I'd love to have you as an employee.  If you get bent out of

shape every time someone calls you on a fallacy or error then life is

very hostile.
It is unfortunate that you do not tolerate criticism.  It kind of comes

with the job as figurehead.  You might want to try to find a less

hostile crowd then by speaking to people about "closing code" that

understand what that means because around here we don't.  We tend to use

a dictionary and reason to level set a conversation around here.

If something is harder to copy, it is ethically ok to have a different

      standard for this piece of technology.
    Seriously, that's what you're saying above.  Because hardware may have

    to be copied by hand, you consider them ethically not the same.
Yes, that's my position, for 20 years or more.  I think that's the

right place to make the distinction: between "you can copy it

yourself" and "somebody can build more of them".
    First of all, VHDL/Verilog are source code.  Don't look anything like a

    plan.
The crucial thing about source code is that you can compile it and run

it.  (And also that you can edit it -- which can be done with

VHDL/Verilog code.)
	   Also, you don't need your very own fab.  There are plenty of fabs

    out there that will gladly take your source/plan and turn it into a nice

    chip or two for you.  It's even semi-affordable if you stick to the larger

    feature sizes.
I don't think this brings us to the point where hardware plans become

morally equivalent to software.
Perhaps in the future there will come a time when we can all copy

computer hardware, or all produce computer hardware from plans (in

VHDL or whatever form).  At that point I will conclude that we should

insist on making hardware from free plans.
In the mean time, however, I don't think we need to do this.

I'm reading this right, the decision as to if something is right and wrong,

ethical and non-ethical, is a function of how easy it is? 
Freedom is only important if you don't have to pay for it?
Wow.

From the looks of it, it is how cheap and easy something can be done.
Remember that copying software is not free, even if you don't pay for

the software itself. You still need some medium such a CD or hard disk

which you have to pay for, and the electricity for doing the actual

copying of the bits of data, it is just really cheap to do so.
From the look of Stallman's message, it seems as if he thinks copying

software is totally free, which in reality it costs a bit more than

just plain free.
In the case of hardware, it would mean it is too expensive to copy...

which it could be... so does that mean freedom to copy something

became irrelevant as the cost of copying becomes relatively expensive?
--

Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

>From the look of Stallman's message, it seems as if he thinks copying

    software is totally free, which in reality it costs a bit more than

    just plain free.
That's often true.  (And even if it doesn't cost you money, it may

take some of your time.)  But I don't think that changes the issue.

Zero-cost or small cost isn't the crucial distinction.
The crucial point is that copying software is practical and feasible

for computer users in general.   We can and do copy software, unless

someone goes out of his way to stop us.
    In the case of hardware, it would mean it is too expensive to copy...

    which it could be... so does that mean freedom to copy something

    became irrelevant as the cost of copying becomes relatively expensive?
When something is impractical to copy, then the question of whether we

are free to do so is purely academic, and I see no reason to fight

about it.  When something is feasible to copy, then the question of

whether we are free to do so makes a real difference.

Isn't this attitude more than a bit short-sighted?  I certainly

understand the benefits of reserving one's resources for dealing with

issues that "can happen", but many of the technology-related problems we

have today are arguably due (at least in large part) to people ignoring

them as "not possible" until they had already become established

practice (and so, almost impossible to undo).
	Dave
--

Dave Anderson

<dave@daveanderson.com>

Isn't this attitude more than a bit short-sighted?  I certainly

    understand the benefits of reserving one's resources for dealing with

    issues that "can happen", but many of the technology-related problems we

    have today are arguably due (at least in large part) to people ignoring

    them as "not possible" until they had already become established

    practice (and so, almost impossible to undo).
I agree that it is useful to begin thinking about these issues now.  I

don't think that we need to start rejecting non-free hardware today,

because the issue is moot now.  But that day may come.
With luck, by the time that is necessary, it will also be feasible.

The key-phrase I noticed in your message are "computer users in general".
That itself has problems. Do you mean home computer users? From what I

know, most large companies, including hardware vendors, and

governments uses computers as well, so they are too "computer users",

thus copy hardware aren't impractical for every "computer users in

general".
So I take it you are referring to home/small business computer users?
Oh, don't forget that there are people who will produce the hardware

for your given documentation at a practical cost even for the average

home user, as stated earlier.
--

Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

That itself has problems. Do you mean home computer users? From what I

    know, most large companies, including hardware vendors, and

    governments uses computers as well, so they are too "computer users",

    thus copy hardware aren't impractical for every "computer users in

    general".
A few computer users are in a position manufacture hardware, but

computer users in general do not have that capability.  (Meanwhile,

manufacturing does not work by copying a sample; copying as such is

not doable.)

A few software users are in a position to code software.. but not many

code software very well. Out of all the computer users using computers,

not many code software, relative to the amount of people that use and

abuse software as if it was a seedless grape they were eating. In fact

most software programmers suck at programming.. and that is why we have

so much bloatware.
It takes great great skill, and thousands of hours of investment to be a

useful, good programmer. As with hardware, only a few are really capable

of producing the software.
IMO, it is just as easy to garden plants, than to grow software. I'd

argue that growing apple trees is much easier than software

development... just that apple trees require space to grow. Apple trees

require this space to grow, but they make up for this disadvantage by

being much easier to code. There is no coding of an apple tree.. other

than planting it and knowing to prune it.
L505

> A few computer users are in a position manufacture hardware, but

    > computer users in general do not have that capability.  (Meanwhile,

    > manufacturing does not work by copying a sample; copying as such is

    > not doable.)
    A few software users are in a position to code software.. but not many

    code software very well.
The analogy doesn't work.  The reason why is left as an exercise for

the reader.

This is an academic issue for now, and it is not easy, or possibly even

possible to have open hardware at this point, however, right and wrong

should never be tempered by this. 
If it's wrong to have closed software, it should be wrong to have closed

hardware.  (especially since the line between hardware and software is

very blurred these days)
Should you do more then say that, maybe put a webpage encouraging open

hardware development? Probably not, you're right, your time is too

valuable to push it.

Should you do more then say that, maybe put a webpage encouraging open

    hardware development?
I mean to write an article about the issue of free hardware designs

some day when I have some time.

Do you plan to read some documentation before or should we expect just

another pile of uninformed crap ?
--

Gilles Chehade

Please make sure you research the topic before you do.
-Toby.

--

 [100~Plax]sb16i0A2172656B63616820636420726568746F6E61207473754A[dZ1!=b]salax

And feel free to send a draft here so we can correct the research,

Or yeast, and trees, which can replicated - and plants, and anything

with a stencil or a template, such as a tool like a socket, or clothing

fabric.
Since plants can be easily replicated, why are we buying food from farmers?
Answer: because farmers need to make a living and they happen to charge

us for the plants... they COULD charge us for something else, like their

fuel.. but that is a loop hole.
Someone may say that farming food is much harder than farming software -

but vegetables require no system administration, and are therefore

superior - as they are automatic growing/replication machines without

any salaries required to mess with the system administration and coding.
Furthermore,  software cannot be eaten - and food freedom is more

important than software since the entire world is nearly hungry.
Someone may say that selling food is ethical... as food doesn't contain

source code. But food could or should contain "source seeds" and "soil

instructions" and other important data if we need to replicate the food.

That is, it should contain those things if we apply GPL/GNU style

philosophy. The cross breeding abilities of the food is also important -

and clear instructions could/should be shipped with the food as to how

the person crosbred so and so plants to get this particular breed of

food. We are not given instructions how to plant the seeds or the best

growing conditions and soil to use today, though. Why? because most food

eaters do not care about the food source code. Yes a few of them care..

but not many.
As with software.. the same thing happens - there are only a tiny small

percentage of people that care about the source code of the software.

Yes it is nice to have the source.. but it is not UNETHICAL to ship

someone a banana without the seeds, especially if the person eating the

banana did not need the seeds. Grapes,  are a better example.... Grapes

do not require seeds since they get between are teeth. Shipping GNU

sources and long ...
[ message continues ]

Since plants can be easily replicated, why are we buying food from farmers?
I'm not against buying software from developers (as long as it is free

software).  See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:31:20 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read.

You might get one wanker to pay for it, but if it comes

in non-binary with all the source what's to stop them

from posting it on the internet and everybody else

getting it for free?

You got the point, Richard doesn't respect creators. He wants every programmer

to go through life as beggar like he does himself. Giving in that that's

impossible, that you cannot raise children that way doesn't matter to him.
Following Richard Stallman's theories everyone may make money with his

creation/work except a programmer. Richard Stallman /says/ a programmer may

earn money 1 time and than the code should be free after that.
Why he says so is clueless, he clearly cannot explain how a programmer should

make money if it's about a lot of work that is just a little feature for a lot

of people, such a programmer should go around and ask a milion users a cent

before he lets them test the code. Because the moment he let other people test

it, the code should be for grabs too. Richard want's such a programmer to spam

the world about a little feature to get money for it.
This man has no respect for programmers, clearly doesn't understand why money

was invented and how a market can be a very reasonable way to let people earn

money.
+++chefren

I don't think either of you have a firm grasp of what's being said with

regards to selling free software. Or of the GPL in general.
The use of the word free has nothing to do with price, it is that the

recipient of a piece of software has the freedom to modify the software

as they see necessary so that it does what they want it to do. To

accomplish this, they should receive the source to said software. That's

what the GPLv2 is all about - providing the recipient of a piece of

software with the source code to that software and the freedom to modify

it as they desire. It is only once they decide to *further distribute*

the software that they are restricted. At that point the only

restrictions placed on them is that they provide the source - thereby

giving the recipient the same rights bestowed upon them by *their* provider.
No one has said that you can't charge whatever you like for your

software *or* that you have to give the code away to the world - they

are saying that if you provide a binary then you should provide the

recipients of that binary with the corresponding source and the right to

change it and distribute it as they see fit.
While that *can* present a situation where you sell software to PERSON_A

and PERSON_A distributes the code to whomever they choose, it's a

perfectly reasonable assumption that that is not likely to occur in a

high-end software field because no corporation or organization will want

to give away something for which they had to pay top dollar.
Testing the software has nothing to do (as far as licensing goes) with a

final, released GPL product. You can release the alpha and beta releases

under whatever license you want to. Just license the final product under

the GPL.
In no way is anyone saying "you can't make a comfortable living writing

code" and that you have to go through life as a beggar.
Disclaimer: In no way am I suggesting that anyone should use the GPL

over another license. When I talk about releasing code under the GPL in

previous ...
[ message continues ]

You can stop the GPL propaganda here.  We have wasted enough time

rehashing it.  You are not going to convince anybody here that some

random person has more rights than the author of the software.  The end,

get over it, walk it off.
RMS tried with circle talk to convince people and lost many acolytes in

the process.  GNU & FSF are disingenuous organizations that are and

unable to read a dictionary.  That makes people angry so stop parroting

their manure here.
A few more cronies also tried and failed at convincing anyone of the

GPL teachings.  Yes we get your point and we think it is stupid.  No

need to discuss it or try to explain it again.  We get it.

I'm not out to convince anyone that anyone has any more rights than anyone

else. What I *was* doing was bringing that particular portion of the

conversation back to more than just baseless bashing of a particular
Yes, there has been quite a bit of manure slung by *both* sides. I prefer

to stay out of that particular gutter. I personally don't care what anyone
They're not my teachings or teachings to which I particularly subscribe. I

would maintain that most of the "more popular" licenses have their pros -

ultimately it depends on who or what you want to protect.
Don't paint me with the RMS/GNU brush because I refused to stand by and

watch *blatantly* false accusations be made. There is a big difference

between correcting those accusations and *supporting* the recipient of the

accusations.
kmw

It isn't baseless you are simply blind to it because you are convinced

that the GPL is the best thing evah!
The GPL essentially strips the author of his/her rights.  So here you

are slaving away writing some code that you give away and then on top of

that you have to forfeit your labor in favor of users.  I hate to tell

you this but that is the wrong way around.  If enough people realize

this they will either stop giving code away or switch licenses.
The only beneficiaries of such a license are large corporations.  The

newer the GPL version the better in fact.  Now you can give away code

without giving it away.  You can essentially prevent other companies to

use it (TiVo clause) and some more rights to be given up on the patent

clauses.  We can debate the merit of the people vs companies here but it

was either an unforeseen circumstance or a clever business trick.  I put

my money on the unforeseen one.  If I was to start a company that had

some software I'd buy the open source crowd by making my code GPLv3 and

yet keep all my patents and code safe; put real IP in hardware and sell

sell sell.
This is not what the RMS/FSF tells you do.  They say things like it's

free!  you are doing society a favor! non-gpl code is evil and unethical

etc.  These slogans are nothing but cover ups for the growing empire

that is the FSF (yes lots of people forfeit their rights to them not
That is not how I see this.  One side came to slander (not the first

time either) and the other side kept correcting the slanderer.  There

might have been some strong words going back and forth but only one side
Popular does not mean good.  VHS anyone?
As I said before the GPL is sold on false premises and unfortunately a

lot of people stop thinking by the time they hear "free as in beer",

"can't be closed", "unethical code" etc.  These slogans are not true and

are used to sell something that is of no benefit to the author.  Roughly

the same way that communism was sold to the people.  That is where the

FSF ...
[ message continues ]

What have you been smoking and can a brotha get a hit?
I am not a particularly large fan of the GPL. It's not my first choice

of license but I can see where it has its uses. It also has its fair

share of issues and those issues are fair reasons for attack. Bash it

for its legitimate flaws, though, and not by making sensationalist
I'm not making any statements to the contrary. If you choose to give

your code away then that's your own mistake. Why would you hate to have
Yes, RMS slandered. Tell him he's wrong, that the comment was incorrect

and that his argument is bollocks. Rally the troops for self-defense.

That's the right thing to do.
Attack the GPL for its flaws. That's the right thing to do.
I'm not denouncing either of these acts. What I *am* denouncing are some
That's why I intentionally said "more popular". Lots of things are

"popular" but complete rubbish. Somewhere along the line each of the

"more popular" licenses scratched an itch for some developer or

organization and others felt that *something* about the license was
That's quite a broad stretch to make and I both agree and disagree. I

think it boils down to what it is you're trying to protect.
Let's use your own quotation from Franklin. By not replying I am

foregoing my own Liberty in exchange for a bit of temporary safety in

not being painted with that brush.
I choose, instead, to exercise the ability to reply and say that this is

not an "us or them" situation and that I refuse to allow myself to be

painted that colour. I've chosen no side. If that means I get cut down

by yours because you want to make it a "with us or against us" argument,

fine. If that means I get cut down by RMS/GNU/FSF because they want to

make it a "with us or against us" argument, fine. *I don't care*. I

choose to remain a neutral third party that can see the benefits (and

detriments) of the different licenses.
You can't lump someone as your enemy simply because they aren't full of

fervour for your cause.
kmw
-- 
...
[ message continues ]

HOWEVER, the original author DOES have more rights than anyone else.

In particular, the original author says who has what rights.

You have no say in the matter.

Your opinion does not count.

Hi Tony. I'm not going to argue against that. The author, as creator of

the piece of work and originator of the copyright, does have more

rights. It's true. I'm just not out to *convince* anyone of it.
kmw

http://webster.com/dictionary/selling
http://webster.com/dictionary/free
Sorry, after reading and understanding GPL itself I never put much

time in "understanding" subsequent versions...
But I do understand that the word "free", as in
http://webster.com/dictionary/free
Come on, what a details, if it's not free as in
http://webster.com/dictionary/free
and is about open source software as in:
http://webster.com/dictionary/software
none of the subscribers of this list is interested any more. I'm sorry
Well, I presume that after GPLv4 were you wrote now "No one" should be

written "Richard Stallman and his cronies".
Richard Stallman's ideas clearly point at robbing software writers, if

software writers "hide" their work behind webservices he will

definitely introduce GPLv4 for it.
If my profession is writing software and I was so stupid to start

concentrating on GPL software it's very difficult to make a living. I

know Richard&Co like to point at a handful of jobs at

IBM+Redhat+Microsoft but I cannot take that serious at all.
+++chefren

Though - it must be said - RedHat certain employs a number of GPL

programmers. As do IBM, and even Microsoft.
--

http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk

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

Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.

"Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or

internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory

where smoking on the job is permitted."  -- Gene Spafford

learn french:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related

On Jan 9, 2008 1:20 AM, chefren <chefren@pi.net> wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market
"It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the

software users in general, as a "market".
regards,

alexander.

It's misleading to call "GNU" "GNU" it should be called "BSD/GNU".
(Thanks to Wijnand for pointing at this.)
BSD/GPL

BSD/GPLvX
Somewhat more typing but good PR.
+++chefren

OMG market!! Evil word!!
Oh wait everything is a market including charity, religion, open

software, proprietary software, hardware etc.  GPL/FSF politics are

absurd.  I have no other word for it.  It is nothing but circle talk

meant to confuse simpletons in doing what isn't in their best interest.

You know, like voting republican when you make $18,000 a year.  Use big

words and play on guilt to make them followers.  Absurd I tell you!!

I want to add one quote that came to mind a little later...
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power

to make you commit injustices.  -- Voltaire

"With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in

order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who

has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access."
That is kind of against buying software from developers, don't you think?
regards,

alexander.

I'm not against buying grapes from people, as long as they are free

grapes. That means the grapes cannot be restricted through seedless

scams,  or by scams that demand payment of the grapes themselves.  By

offering seedless grapes to people - we cannot grow and replicate our

own grapes freely. But 99 percent of seedless grape buyers and shareware

buyers don't care. It is all in your mind that only software replication

freedom is important. It is all in your mind. You should take your GNU 
One can still hold people hostage for consulting. Instead of recording

the consulting on audio tapes that are easy to copy, one simply

restricts the consulting by only offering it to those who can pay.

Instead of speaking to people and using your free voice which does not

cost you any money, simply demand payment before saying a word.

Especially on cruise ships which are terrible places to speak. Or

pretend you are charging for the airline ticket, not the speech itself.

This loop hole makes all software non-free, since free consulting is not

available to those who cannot afford to pay someone on cruise ships and

watch me insert flowers into my nose for pleasure.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=rhinophytophilia

I don't, however, I don't claim to live by the same free vs non-free

    rules, I use what works for me.
I think you have misinterpreted the principles that I believe in and

live by.  I hope my explanations will help.

You certainly don't live by what you preach. You are pointed at not one but

various facts to the contrary.
It would be good if you admitted so and stepped over to the only software

distribution that is to your standards.
 > I hope my explanations will help.
Not one bit. To the contrary, this is an eye opener for lots of people who

thought you have sound principles, they now see that the "important" part is

clueless.
You should give in that it is clueless to put the DRM bit in BSD that makes it

  GPL and sets programmers and companies less free than they could be.
And if you look at results of your church you can see that religious DRM bit

isn't necessary at all, churchless, more scientific, OpenBSD allows people to

live to your standards =and= all other standards.
+++chefren

You certainly don't live by what you preach. You are pointed at not one but

    various facts to the contrary.
I do practice my own principles, but when you compare the two

you have to be careful not to alter the principles in your own mind.

If you do that, you could easily discover an apparent contradiction

which doesn't really come from me.  That is what you have done.

By using and endorsing gNewSense???
It seems you really don't read what's going on there, people working on it

more or less scream out it's an impossible mission the way it's setup now and

the project goals are not met for the foreseeable future.
As long as gNewSense is not clean, you should not use it and point at =real=

alternatives.
For example the OpenBSD distribution. You can simply warn your believers that

they should never install something other that from the 3 distribution CDs and

you would practice your own principles.
You are warned for free so many times for so many facts on this list about why

you don't practice your own principles that we can do nothing else than

conclude you are a liar.
Unnecessary and thus pathetic!
+++chefren

By using and endorsing gNewSense???
    It seems you really don't read what's going on there, people working on it

    more or less scream out it's an impossible mission the way it's setup now and

    the project goals are not met for the foreseeable future.
I don't read the gNewSense discussion lists -- I don't have time.  But

I did read the pages that someone forwarded to this list yesterday,

and I saw nothing shocking in them.  They simply acknowledge that

mistakes are possible.
I spoke with the developer of GNU/Darwin, and he said that the

presence of ports for non-free programs was a mistake and he will

remove them.  Thanks to whoever mentioned the problem here.

You are looking at the details mistakes there are not interesting, not

everyone is morally defect in this world!
What's interesting is that they admit they cannot find all blobs without truly

reading and understanding the code, they lack people for it. They haven't seen

any users question/discussion for a really long time. And above all "But using

a distribution which bases on a quite good distribution (in the sense of

freeness) and adds non-free components looks like a bad decision."
(It's about Ubuntu, based on Debian, that adds non-free components without

questions being asked.)
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2007-11/msg00042.html
and Brian Brazil:
Or:
This is from less than 2 months ago.
You clearly cannot holdup that gNewSense is up to your standards, even the

basics are not in place. You don't have a good source. Based on GPLvX you

don't have the people to get it in place within years.
If your ideas about software are so important for you as you say you would

step over to OpenBSD today and live to your principles for the rest of your

life without saying again and again "I will ask" "I will check" "I made a

small mistake", "can you point me at", "they told me", "I don't think the

words quoted are my exact words.", "I don't personally do most of our web site

maintenance", "I will discuss".
+++chefren

Those quotes do not show gNewSense includes non-free software.
    What's interesting is that they admit they cannot find all blobs without truly

    reading and understanding the code, they lack people for it.
They say they can't reliably find all the binary-only firmware.

Nobody's perfect.
What matters is that they are doing their best, and that they fix

problems that are reported to them.  That's all I can ask of anyone.
Gilles' message seems to say that OpenBSD policy is to allow

binary-only firmware.  Is that correct?

Let's see what happens: I report the whole gNewSense project is not
Richard, you publicly state that gNewSence is up to your standards.
If to your standards it's OK if a few people who admit they are

incompetent say "we have done our best to get it clean", while others

say "we know that with Ubuntu, our source, new sub standard code is

inserted on a regular basis" I get again the idea "Richard Stallman is

morally defect".
Richard Stallman: You know gNewSense is by far not conform what you

tell people about it. You bring it as an alternative and it is not.
+++chefren

Why not?  We found all of them and made sure they have proper licenses
Yeah doing your best really counts.  Kind of a Dr. that did his best but
You have been told the answer several times and again you fail to do

your own research.  Also in OpenBSD we have a "shut up and hack"

attitude.  We tell our users to do their own research and that we don't

hold hands.  Time has come to tell you to do the same.  The OpenBSD

website goes into great detail explaining all this and there are many

email archives that debate this topic.  Go find them.  Do some work on

your own instead of relying on helpful volunteers that unfortunately

have misinterpreted just about everything they have researched for you.

You obviously are infallible.

I did not SEEM to say anything. I told you to fucking read the pages that

are freely available online, but you seem unfamiliar with the concepts of

reading and getting facts right.
Let me summarize it for you:
OpenBSD ships an operating system that is entirely free and which has all

of its source code available. ANY code executed by OpenBSD can be audited

and is available in source code.
Now, be careful because it is where you usually get lost, firmware is not

a piece of code loaded in the kernel. It is not an object which exports a

callback, just as it is not a driver. It is something that is *unrelated*

to OpenBSD and which JUST GETS LOADED INTO THE HARDWARE.
Please, read the paragraph above a couple times.
Gilles
--

Gilles Chehade

The consequences of a doctor making a mistake while trying to save a

patient's life are more severe than those of a gNewSense developer

accidentally distributing non-free software.

Is this "hope" reasonable or logical?
Totally not. Intel just wants the best software they can afford to get their

chips as fast and as good as possible to market.
They are not interested if the chip design software is or isn't open, they

want the best they can afford. (If it was free they would spend money to

people to make it even better and as much out of reach from rivaling companies

like AMD...)
And there is little difference with normal users, they just want software they

can afford and that works. If software is cheap, because of GPL or BSD

licences that helps but no more than that.
Licenses are mainly interesting for developers, the donators, Richard wants

them tied up with GPLvX, BSD let's them free and users don't care as long as

it works and they can afford the support they need.
+++chefren

> As for Intels use of non-free software, I am sorry for them, and I hope

    > that someday they will be able to move to free software.
    Is this "hope" reasonable or logical?
    Totally not. Intel just wants the best software they can afford to get their

    chips as fast and as good as possible to market.
Since I do not make decisions for them, I can only say that I am

disappointed with their values.  But even if Intel does not value

freedom very much, they may someday have freedom if free software

is sufficiently accepted in the world around them.

Software cannot be placed on the floor like a table for 20 years.

There is no 20 year varnish that one can put on software like they can

with a table made of wood.
For more information, see also

http://z505.com/gng/ftf.htm
Software has replicative abilities.. while wood has the ability to

magically hold things on it in thin air, such as plates and silverware.

Software cannot hold plates and silverware.. and there are no machines

for software to make them into objects that hold plates and silverware.

Because there are no machines to make software hold silverware and

plates, and because software cannot be put on the floor and left for 20

years.. it is okay to CHARGE for software code.. but not for tables.

Tables have these magical qualities that software doesn't - holding

plates and spoons. Software has the magical quality of replicating.. but

it doesn't have the magical quality of being able to put varnish on it

and sit on the floor for 20 years.
Furthermore, our table freedom is in much much greater jeopardy than

software.. because tables are required to eat. Software is not required

to eat.
Wood can also be replicated, and people with axes can have free exercise

while cutting the tree down. There is no need for charging for wood

tables.. one can simply charge for his Axe time that he spent.

Furthermore, many Axe men enjoy cutting and getting free exercise

without the need to be compensated.. and then only the fuel to transport

the wood needs to be charged for.. but the table itself shal never ever

be purchased, as it is unethical to sell a table.. and after all seeds

can be replicated so trees grow. And the table takes much much less work

to varnish than it does to maintain software that constantly has more 
I am sorry for GCC being used on Windows operating systems.. by linking

GCC to Windows or by pointing out to people that it is okay to use GCC

on windows, we are destroying our freedom. This is like a Microsoft

endorsement.. endorsing the GNU p...
[ message continues ]

Most of us on this list are happy to see software and hardware that

is open source.
Might i most respectfully suggest that this is not the best venue to

promote this. We agree on a lot of points. 
Dr Stallman i now see the dogged determination that has made you effective,

however i have to note that this is not the best venue to make this fight. I am

sure there are more companies out there you could help push to free their hardware

or software.
--- Marina Brown

Return-Path: <owner-misc+M62763@openbsd.org>

X-Original-To: marina@surferz.net

Delivered-To: marina@surferz.net

Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])

	by mail.surferz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDA7B149CB6

	for <marina@surferz.net>; Tue,  1 Jan 2008 16:33:12 -0500 (EST)

Received: from mail.surferz.net ([127.0.0.1])

	by localhost (mail.surferz.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 01692-04-28

	for <marina@surferz.net>; Tue, 1 Jan 2008 16:32:57 -0500 (EST)

Received: from shear.ucar.edu (lists.openbsd.org [192.43.244.163])

	by mail.surferz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF7F149736

	for <marina@surferz.net>; Tue,  1 Jan 2008 16:32:18 -0500 (EST)

Received: from openbsd.org (localhost.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1])

	by shear.ucar.edu (8.14.1/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m01LS4Pw025278; Tue, 1 Jan 2008 14:28:04 -0700 (MST)

Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [140.186.70.10])

	by shear.ucar.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m01LOYXn016757

	for <misc@openbsd.org>; Tue, 1 Jan 2008 14:24:34 -0700 (MST)

Received: from rms

	by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <rms@gnu.org>) id 1J9ob9-0005Sz-GD; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 16:24:31 -0500

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15

From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>

To: Paul Greidanus <paul.greidanus@ualberta.ca>

Cc: misc@openbsd.org

In-reply-to: <4779FE6F.9080403@ualberta.ca> (message from Paul Greidanus on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 01:48:47 -0700)

Subject: Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]

Reply-To...
[ message continues ]

He's not a doctor. In any sense of the word. Honorary degrees don't

You might visit a foundry.

They've been around for rather a long time.
Take a look at a dressmaker's pattern ...

O RLY?

http://fabathome.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

http://www.reprap.org/bin/view/Main/WebHome

http://www.poptech.com/popcasts/popcasts.aspx?lang=&viewcastid=154

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loom

And it would have worked better if I included the actual message:
Hi Richard,
I've been marginally following the discussion on OpenBSD and FSF and of

the noise related.

I'm curious how you can recomend an OS, like gNewSense that only runs on

non-free hardware, that

has required non-free software to be used in it's creation?  Every time

you buy a product from Intel, a portion of that money goes to companies

like Cadence and Mentor Graphics.  Now this is non-free in a monetary

sense, but there are also ethical freedom implications.
There are tools that can replace these non-free programs, like gEDA,

which can be used to build processors and components, like are available

on opencores.net and opensparc.net. (I don't know about these as far as

free..)  Currently Ubuntu works on ultraSparc-III, while gNewSense does

not.  This is telling people that they need to support non-free

software, to even use your free software recomendations?
I do understand that hardware is more difficult and expensive to copy

and distriubute then software, but ethical objections should not be

limited by difficulty.  If there is enough demand for a company to

produce a "free" system, then the market should provide a company who

can make money by building this hardware.  The definition of free here

would be where the hardware is 100% available for download,

specifications, HDL, design, firmware, everything, and licensed to fit

with your definition of free.

I've looked briefly, and I was unable to find a reference to this from

you anywhere, you seem to be satisfied fighting this on the superficial

immediate code-execution front, and leaving the nested software required

for hardware creation alone.
Thanks for your thoughts back on this,
Paul

Speaking of FSF.. What if I want to start MY OWN foundation that

guarantees 7 freedoms, or 2 freedoms according to my personal opinion

and philosophy on freedom? And what if I wanted to call it FSF because

according to ME, that was free software? That is my personal opinion

only, of what freedom is. Rather instead of it being called FSF, it is

called by my sur name... the Stallmanist Foundation or the Stallmanism

Philosophy. It is NOT the 'free software foundation' since it is only a

personal opinion. It is not a 'strawberry plant' just because I think

raspberries look just like strawberries in my personal opinion.
Mary's freedom might be different than Jane's freedom.. so one girl's

free philosophy might not be the same as another's free philosophy.
The free software foundation shall not be called free software

foundation.. it shall be called Stallmanist Foundation and the

philosophies are to be outlined as Stallmanism.. not free software. Make

this change immediately in communications and conversation. Do not call

any GNU software 'free software' please, everyone.
If anyone sees the term 'free software' being used, please correct them

and make a big point about it being incorrect and unethical.

One must call it Stallmanism, truthfully and ethically.
For more info,  see GNG (gng is not gnu, and gng is not gng).
Trees in the forest are free.. no one said that trees had to be owned by

some government.. they are ours, if we put up a FTF (free tree foundation).
If I take a tree, and turn it into a table.. this table will last me 20

years before it needs a repaint or re-varnish.
Much more free than software. No charging for the table. Only charge for

the gas it took to get the table from Point A to Point B. Do not

purchase tables from your store. It is unethical because you do not

receive tree seeds nor should you pay for proprietary wood that doesn't

even tell you which trees they used to build the table. Only pay a

consultant for shipping the table...
[ message continues ]

The free software foundation shall not be called free software

    foundation.. it shall be called Stallmanist Foundation and the

    philosophies are to be outlined as Stallmanism.. not free software.
If you want to campaign for a philosophical stand about software and

trees, you are entitled to do so.  I don't think we will change the

name of the free software movement for you, though.  Sorry.

Uhmm. Care to share your perspective regarding the name in light of

the following recollections from Michael Zeleny, RMS?
http://google.com/group/rec.arts.books/msg/cf1768c0e213d438?dmode=source
"As a personal note, back in 1985, I was deceptively expelled from the

Free Software Foundation, to which I gave its name, by the underhanded

dealing of Richard Stallman, whose allies took exception to my argument

that "Free" meant just what it said.
[...]
is most gratifying to see the open source movement finally outgrow the

ideology of Frenetics, which was the name RMS had originally favored

for his private charity."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/msg/a558fd18a4e90340?dmode...
"Once upon a time, RMS wanted software to be as free as air.  Based on

this claim, I suggested that he name a repository for the same, "Free

Software Foundation".  Had I known that "free as air" meant something

else altogether, our misunderstanding would have been avoided."
TIA.
regards,

alexander.

I believe your questions were not very interesting for OpenBSD, that is about

a code base with absolute freedom, no strings attached.
For most OpenBSD liking people it is no problem to ask money for whatever, no

problem to use proprietary software, no problem to use proprietary hardware.
Just one thing is clear: OpenBSD as a project doesn't accept unnecessary

attached strings, neighther signing "non disclosure documents" nor code with

silly licences (GPLvX, DBJ, etc).
OpenBSD is not a church and best compared to science, individuals are doing

their best to donate better code, openness and free are important aspects of

it. If someone uses proprietary software tools to find buffer overflows, no

problem with that as long as the OpenBSD code itself remains free.
I'm still waiting for a reply of Richard to a private remark: "If I repair

your garbeled hard disk myself with GPL tools I presume that's OK, but if I

send you a proprietary script that does the same it's morally wrong?"
Richard's church, like any church, clearly has some interesting goals, clearly

met best by what the OpenBSD project produces. So the easiest way for Richard

to get his "gNewSense" project meeting the church's goals  is by each half

year stripping the OpenBSD tree of a few links with a GPLv3 script. (Richard

likes GPL, the average OpenBSD supporter thinks it's morally wrong to build a

GPL shell around BSD but doesn't really mind!)
Now he untruthfully says to his followers that gNewSense meets his goals while

as far as I know most of the quite large driver list that Theo sent in today

has no blob-free Linux equivalents. I presume that gNewSense users will have a

lot of trouble to find hardware to work with. Really far less work for his

followers to meet the churches goals by installing OpenBSD and delete just a

few directories or use the files in them with some care.
+++chefren
(Who always asks people talking about GPLv3: And what will be in GPLv4?)