Why does the community continue to make pacts with a company that steals from its rivals, makes pacts with M$, and refuses to clearly GPL and open source its work on drivers, there is a clear difference between their use of GPL files, and what the GPL says they can do. You cannot expect embedded kernel developers to GPL, if you excuse Nvidia, its a vain hope to grab M$ users, but in the long run it destroys the community.
Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 03:57:06 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
To respond first to your subject, GPL'd code is given to everyone to do what
they wish with, subject to certain very specific and narrow limitations.
>Why does the community continue to make pacts with a company that steals
>from its rivals, makes pacts with M$, and refuses to clearly GPL and open
>source its work on drivers,
What type of "pact" are you talking about?
>there is a clear difference between their use of
>GPL files, and what the GPL says they can do.
I presume you're talking about the inclusion of GPL'd header files into
non-GPL'd code that is then distributed without source code? IMO, if the
header file only includes things like structs and thin macros, that's
insufficient to consider the compilation a derived work.
You are welcome to argue for stronger and stronger copyright law enforcement
and narrower and narrower constructions of fair use and first sale doctrines.
However, IMO, it would be the stupidest possible thing the open source
community could ever do.
>You cannot expect embedded
>kernel developers to GPL, if you excuse Nvidia, its a vain hope to grab M$
>users, but in the long run it destroys the community.
I don't expect anyone to GPL unless they think they get more benefit from
GPLing than the potential harm done. People GPL code because they want to
'donate' it to improve the open source movement, community, and code base.
Attempting to arm twist such donations is worse than foolish. You think the
open source community should be a bunch of bullies? Convince people open
source is best, and avoid them if they don't agree.
DS
I hate feeding lawyers
NVidia produce excellent gnu/linux/xfree drivers for their video cards,
so I buy and use their hardware. Anybody else read Peter Hamiltons
Misspent Youth yet ? Really quite interesting... But we've all done this
argument to death hundreds of times, and linux-kernel doesn't care!
While we're so off topic, Happy New Year to all fellow gnu/linux hackers!
Le mar 31/12/2002 ? 11:51, Andrew Walrond a ?crit :
> I hate feeding lawyers
> NVidia produce excellent gnu/linux/xfree drivers for their video cards,
?!? Since when does NVidia produce GNU (or even GPL) drivers ? That's
very new to me, could you provide a link ?
Xav
> > I hate feeding lawyers
> > NVidia produce excellent gnu/linux/xfree drivers for their video cards,
>
> ?!? Since when does NVidia produce GNU (or even GPL) drivers ? That's
> very new to me, could you provide a link ?
Are drivers for Alpha, Sparc, or anything else with a pci slot apart
from an X86 machine available?
John.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> Why does the community continue to make pacts with a company that
> steals from its rivals, makes pacts with M$, and refuses to clearly GPL
> and open source its work on drivers, there is a clear difference between
> their use of GPL files, and what the GPL says they can do. You cannot
> expect embedded kernel developers to GPL, if you excuse Nvidia, its a
> vain hope to grab M$ users, but in the long run it destroys the
> community.
>
> Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
Well let's see:
You have no money to hire lawyers.
You whine about an issue, that people with lawyers will roast you alive.
Are you a customer of Nvidia?
If you are not, you have no legal ground to invoke GPL PERIOD!
If you are a customer, check to see that they have a GPL/GNU wrapper which
is open source and attachs a clean LGPL library object, iirc.
Since, there is still a legal and valid LGPL regardless of what FSF has to
say, there are revisions of GPL which permit various usages. Now there
are people like yourself who, again have no money, have no lawyers, have
a whine, and whimpers over issues that stretch beyond the general scope.
Recall the kernel is capable of rejecting non-gpl binary modules; yet it
does not! Regardless of the original intent or scope of the "tainting
process", it created more grey than clarity.
Now until the kernel forcable rejects loading binary closed source
modules, it defaults to quietly approved of the concept regardless what
you think, feel, or care.
Now what is not clear?
If the kernel forces vendors to choose between closed source support or
loose the competive edge in their market space, enjoy hunting for the old
dusty video cards from the past. You just limited the scope of hardware
which will run on Linux with any usability.
Now given the kernel is now so well mixed between people in the past,
current, and dead developers (sigh Leonard Z :-(( ), how are you going to
hurd all togather to agree on a single point?
So you submitted a patch, whippty flip ... neither you or I control the
license of the kernel. If Linus does not like the content of a patch or a
file generated, well it is toast. Also where does it state a patch is
defined as "GPL patch"?
Think a little harder first, cause I and many others will be on the side
of slapping down your arguements about preventing binary modules from
being loaded. Key point! "LOADED" not "LINKED". For the meatballs who
think that dumping /proc/kcore is an effective way of generating a newly
linked file, remember you created the file, not the owners of the module.
Prove you can boot a cat /proc/kcore > vmlinux and you have now linked a
closed source object with an open source kernel. Using your logic from
above, you are now the offending person to GPL. You committed the act of
linking the two permanetly.
Time for bed, ranting is over ...
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
I doubt this would 'destroy the community'...
Do I like it? Nope.
But here is the way I look at it...
Nvidia provides the driver, and it works. it means I can use their cards in
Linux.
the Linux drivers, are in my opinion far more superior than the Window$
drivers.
After all, you do get the kernel module source code....
Another thing you must realise is that these companies want to stay in
buisness and
just the fact that Nvidia has a linux driver probably torques m$ off as it is
they do not want to upset this company, lets face it, they are barbaric and
they are cabable of
bringing hardware makers to their knees if they wanted to.
They even have a *BSD driver now....
I like Nvidia, because they provide me with a driver that I can use, and it
works.
I also recall reading that they have code in their driver(s) that belongs to a
third party, making it
hard to release the source to the driver without upsetting the third party.
perhaps one day, they will be able to.
I dont think we should fault them, at least they give us something, we need to
focus on the companies that
give us NOTHING.
end of rant :)
Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Why does the community continue to make pacts with a company that
> > steals from its rivals, makes pacts with M$, and refuses to clearly GPL
> > and open source its work on drivers, there is a clear difference between
> > their use of GPL files, and what the GPL says they can do. You cannot
> > expect embedded kernel developers to GPL, if you excuse Nvidia, its a
> > vain hope to grab M$ users, but in the long run it destroys the
> > community.
> >
> > Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
>
> Well let's see:
>
> You have no money to hire lawyers.
> You whine about an issue, that people with lawyers will roast you alive.
>
> Are you a customer of Nvidia?
> If you are not, you have no legal ground to invoke GPL PERIOD!
> If you are a customer, check to see that they have a GPL/GNU wrapper which
> is open source and attachs a clean LGPL library object, iirc.
>
> Since, there is still a legal and valid LGPL regardless of what FSF has to
> say, there are revisions of GPL which permit various usages. Now there
> are people like yourself who, again have no money, have no lawyers, have
> a whine, and whimpers over issues that stretch beyond the general scope.
>
> Recall the kernel is capable of rejecting non-gpl binary modules; yet it
> does not! Regardless of the original intent or scope of the "tainting
> process", it created more grey than clarity.
>
> Now until the kernel forcable rejects loading binary closed source
> modules, it defaults to quietly approved of the concept regardless what
> you think, feel, or care.
>
> Now what is not clear?
>
> If the kernel forces vendors to choose between closed source support or
> loose the competive edge in their market space, enjoy hunting for the old
> dusty video cards from the past. You just limited the scope of hardware
> which will run on Linux with any usability.
>
> Now given the kernel is now so well mixed between people in the past,
> current, and dead developers (sigh Leonard Z :-(( ), how are you going to
> hurd all togather to agree on a single point?
>
> So you submitted a patch, whippty flip ... neither you or I control the
> license of the kernel. If Linus does not like the content of a patch or a
> file generated, well it is toast. Also where does it state a patch is
> defined as "GPL patch"?
>
> Think a little harder first, cause I and many others will be on the side
> of slapping down your arguements about preventing binary modules from
> being loaded. Key point! "LOADED" not "LINKED". For the meatballs who
> think that dumping /proc/kcore is an effective way of generating a newly
> linked file, remember you created the file, not the owners of the module.
>
> Prove you can boot a cat /proc/kcore > vmlinux and you have now linked a
> closed source object with an open source kernel. Using your logic from
> above, you are now the offending person to GPL. You committed the act of
> linking the two permanetly.
>
> Time for bed, ranting is over ...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andre Hedrick
> LAD Storage Consulting Group
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Regards,
Mark Rutherford
[email protected]
I'll rephrase
Nvidia produce drivers *for use with* gnu/linux/xfree systems
But then you knew what I meant didn't you? Or are you a lawyer? ;)
Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Le mar 31/12/2002 ? 11:51, Andrew Walrond a ?crit :
>
>>I hate feeding lawyers
>>NVidia produce excellent gnu/linux/xfree drivers for their video cards,
>
>
> ?!? Since when does NVidia produce GNU (or even GPL) drivers ? That's
> very new to me, could you provide a link ?
>
> Xav
>
Hi John,
> Are drivers for Alpha, Sparc, or anything else with a pci slot apart
> from an X86 machine available?
Unfortunately, that wouldn't be enought. There are lots of PCI graphics
cards available, which still only work in an X86 (and in most cases Alpha)
machines, although there is an open source driver. The reason is that they
need the initialisation code in their PCI BIOS, which is X86, binary code.
Alpha works around this by using an X86 emulator in their PAL code.
--jochen
> > Are drivers for Alpha, Sparc, or anything else with a pci slot apart
> > from an X86 machine available?
>
> Unfortunately, that wouldn't be enought. There are lots of PCI graphics
> cards available, which still only work in an X86 (and in most cases Alpha)
> machines, although there is an open source driver. The reason is that they
> need the initialisation code in their PCI BIOS, which is X86, binary
> code.
Sorry, I didn't really explain what I meant very well. I realise that
it's not just a case of getting the driver to compile on other
architectures, what I meant was that if the driver is open source then
anybody is free to work on the support for non-X86 boxes. If it's
closed source, then only the manufacturer can work on it.
> Alpha works around this by using an X86 emulator in their PAL code.
That's interesting, I didn't know that. How complete is it? Does it
just emulate a subset of X86 instructions that are enough for 90% of
initialisation code?
John.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, David Schwartz wrote:
> I don't expect anyone to GPL unless they think they get more benefit from
> GPLing than the potential harm done. People GPL code because they want to
> 'donate' it to improve the open source movement, community, and code base.
> Attempting to arm twist such donations is worse than foolish. You think the
> open source community should be a bunch of bullies? Convince people open
> source is best, and avoid them if they don't agree.
Certainly anyone who has had a problem, posted an oops, and been told that
no one will even look at a dump from a system with the nvidia driver might
think they were being bullied...
--
bill davidsen <[email protected]>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Mark Rutherford wrote:
> the Linux drivers, are in my opinion far more superior than the Window$
> drivers.
> After all, you do get the kernel module source code....
No you do not.
You get source to the code that shims a big binary object file into
whatever kernel you compile against.
> I dont think we should fault them, at least they give us something,
> we need to focus on the companies that give us NOTHING.
they havnt given us anything.
> end of rant :)
regards,
--
Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra
[email protected]
Warning: /never/ send email to [email protected] or [email protected]
Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Mark Rutherford wrote:
>
> > the Linux drivers, are in my opinion far more superior than the Window$
> > drivers.
> > After all, you do get the kernel module source code....
>
> No you do not.
>
> You get source to the code that shims a big binary object file into
> whatever kernel you compile against.
I stand corrected here... (silence)
>
>
> > I dont think we should fault them, at least they give us something,
> > we need to focus on the companies that give us NOTHING.
>
> they havnt given us anything.
well, change 'us' to 'Linux users'
why? well we can use our expensive hardware.
to some, thats all that matters.
personally, I would like to see the code :)
>
> > end of rant :)
>
> regards,
> --
> Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra
> [email protected]
> Warning: /never/ send email to [email protected] or [email protected]
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Regards,
Mark Rutherford
[email protected]
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Mark Rutherford wrote:
> well, change 'us' to 'Linux users'
> why? well we can use our expensive hardware.
"what you get for christmas?"
"a lump of coal"
at least you get /something/. however, you didnt get what counts,
programming info for the card.
PS: do you think Linux PPC or Alpha users are happy that NVidia
provide drivers?
> to some, thats all that matters.
> personally, I would like to see the code :)
regards,
--
Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra
[email protected]
Warning: /never/ send email to [email protected] or [email protected]
Paul Jakma wrote
> "what you get for christmas?"
>
> "a lump of coal"
>
> at least you get /something/. however, you didnt get what counts,
> programming info for the card.
I, and many other Linux users, do not consider nVidia's drivers to be "a
lump of coal." What "counts" is being able to use my hardware effectively.
Closed-source drivers may not be ideal, but few things in life are.
Even the conservative Debian distribution (which I use) has the nVidia
drivers available in the distribution.
In order of preference (for me):
1) High-quality drivers with open source
2) High-quality drivers with closed source
3) Poor-quality drivers with open source
4) Poor-quality drivers with closed source
Out of four possibilities, we're getting the next-to-best thing. Certainly,
I'd *like* to have the specs for nVidia's cards -- but given competition
between nVidia and ATI, I don't see that happening. One advantage nVidia has
(small as it may be) is high-quality drivers for Linux; it's one reason my
Linux systems have TNT2 and GeForce 4 cards installed.
Note that my Windows boxes run ATI cards; I'm not an nVidia shill.
One of Linux's historical weaknesses (when compared to the competition) is
video support. While I urge nVidia to open their specifications (and in the
end think it would be in their best interest), I'm also very pleased that
they provide high-performance drivers for free (as in beer).
..Scott
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Professional programming for science and engineering;
Interesting and unusual bits of very free code.
Yea, I'm happy I can use my NVidia hardware with linux-x86, however I have no chance of adding render-to-texture support or various other extensions that would make MY life a heck of a lot easier in the longrun. Note that all of those WGL extensions are NOT supported under linux, and somehow, the seem pretty dang important.
On that note, NVidia hasn't done -nothing- as I've heard some people suggest. They havn't even done nothing for the open source community.
They've made their hardware run on many/most current versions of linux-x86. This encourages more end-user class people with NVidia hardware to use linux. Depending on who you are and what your goals are (i.e. world domination?) this may be a good thing for the community.
I really hate it when people have a knee-jerk reaction to providing binary-only support one way or the other.
There are obvious disadvantages to a binary-only driver/distribution, however you shouldn't overlook that the fact that it works it all is important too! (And yea, I'd like to have the source open too, That should be apparant from my first paragraph)
-Roberto JP
[email protected]
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Mark Rutherford <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:49:49 -0500
>I doubt this would 'destroy the community'...
>Do I like it? Nope.
>But here is the way I look at it...
>Nvidia provides the driver, and it works. it means I can use their cards in
>Linux.
>the Linux drivers, are in my opinion far more superior than the Window$
>drivers.
>After all, you do get the kernel module source code....
>Another thing you must realise is that these companies want to stay in
>buisness and
>just the fact that Nvidia has a linux driver probably torques m$ off as it is
>they do not want to upset this company, lets face it, they are barbaric and
>they are cabable of
>bringing hardware makers to their knees if they wanted to.
>They even have a *BSD driver now....
>I like Nvidia, because they provide me with a driver that I can use, and it
>works.
>I also recall reading that they have code in their driver(s) that belongs to a
>third party, making it
>hard to release the source to the driver without upsetting the third party.
>perhaps one day, they will be able to.
>I dont think we should fault them, at least they give us something, we need to
>focus on the companies that
>give us NOTHING.
>
>end of rant :)
>
>
>
>Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > Why does the community continue to make pacts with a company that
>> > steals from its rivals, makes pacts with M$, and refuses to clearly GPL
>> > and open source its work on drivers, there is a clear difference between
>> > their use of GPL files, and what the GPL says they can do. You cannot
>> > expect embedded kernel developers to GPL, if you excuse Nvidia, its a
>> > vain hope to grab M$ users, but in the long run it destroys the
>> > community.
>> >
>> > Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
>>
>> Well let's see:
>>
>> You have no money to hire lawyers.
>> You whine about an issue, that people with lawyers will roast you alive.
>>
>> Are you a customer of Nvidia?
>> If you are not, you have no legal ground to invoke GPL PERIOD!
>> If you are a customer, check to see that they have a GPL/GNU wrapper which
>> is open source and attachs a clean LGPL library object, iirc.
>>
>> Since, there is still a legal and valid LGPL regardless of what FSF has to
>> say, there are revisions of GPL which permit various usages. Now there
>> are people like yourself who, again have no money, have no lawyers, have
>> a whine, and whimpers over issues that stretch beyond the general scope.
>>
>> Recall the kernel is capable of rejecting non-gpl binary modules; yet it
>> does not! Regardless of the original intent or scope of the "tainting
>> process", it created more grey than clarity.
>>
>> Now until the kernel forcable rejects loading binary closed source
>> modules, it defaults to quietly approved of the concept regardless what
>> you think, feel, or care.
>>
>> Now what is not clear?
>>
>> If the kernel forces vendors to choose between closed source support or
>> loose the competive edge in their market space, enjoy hunting for the old
>> dusty video cards from the past. You just limited the scope of hardware
>> which will run on Linux with any usability.
>>
>> Now given the kernel is now so well mixed between people in the past,
>> current, and dead developers (sigh Leonard Z :-(( ), how are you going to
>> hurd all togather to agree on a single point?
>>
>> So you submitted a patch, whippty flip ... neither you or I control the
>> license of the kernel. If Linus does not like the content of a patch or a
>> file generated, well it is toast. Also where does it state a patch is
>> defined as "GPL patch"?
>>
>> Think a little harder first, cause I and many others will be on the side
>> of slapping down your arguements about preventing binary modules from
>> being loaded. Key point! "LOADED" not "LINKED". For the meatballs who
>> think that dumping /proc/kcore is an effective way of generating a newly
>> linked file, remember you created the file, not the owners of the module.
>>
>> Prove you can boot a cat /proc/kcore > vmlinux and you have now linked a
>> closed source object with an open source kernel. Using your logic from
>> above, you are now the offending person to GPL. You committed the act of
>> linking the two permanetly.
>>
>> Time for bed, ranting is over ...
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Andre Hedrick
>> LAD Storage Consulting Group
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>--
>Regards,
>Mark Rutherford
>[email protected]
>
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to [email protected]
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
* Dan Egli <[email protected]>:
Thanks for the fullquote
> I don't think there is a person on this listt that would not prefer to
> have the source to the nVidia drivers. I know I would. However, I also
> know that releasing the complete spec to their GPU would be suicide
> because, as has been pointed out earlier, ATI could get ahold of the
> information and use it to exploit any weakness in nVidia's GPU. Plus
> they could start to incorporate nVidia's instructions into THEIR GPUs
> and boom. ATI releases a card that has all of their features, plus does
> 99.5% of what an nVidia card does also. Responce from the computer
If ATI's so keen on having that data, they would be reverse
engineering nvidia's drivers.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt (Im Auftrag des Referat V a) [email protected]
Charite Campus Mitte Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
Referat V a - Kommunikationsnetze - Fax. +49 (0)30-450 570-916
Why you can't find your system administrators:
(S)he's off round the building trying to find who has tured off which router, or have they just unplugged our link to the outside world. --Ian (God they both happened in one week) Dobbie [email protected]
Roberto Peon wrote:
>Yea, I'm happy I can use my NVidia hardware with linux-x86, however I have no chance of adding render-to-texture support or various other extensions that would make MY life a heck of a lot easier in the longrun. Note that all of those WGL extensions are NOT supported under linux, and somehow, the seem pretty dang important.
>
>On that note, NVidia hasn't done -nothing- as I've heard some people suggest. They havn't even done nothing for the open source community.
>
>They've made their hardware run on many/most current versions of linux-x86. This encourages more end-user class people with NVidia hardware to use linux. Depending on who you are and what your goals are (i.e. world domination?) this may be a good thing for the community.
>
>I really hate it when people have a knee-jerk reaction to providing binary-only support one way or the other.
>
>There are obvious disadvantages to a binary-only driver/distribution, however you shouldn't overlook that the fact that it works it all is important too! (And yea, I'd like to have the source open too, That should be apparant from my first paragraph)
>
>
>
>-Roberto JP
>[email protected]
>
>
>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>From: Mark Rutherford <[email protected]>
>Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:49:49 -0500
>
>
>
>>I doubt this would 'destroy the community'...
>>Do I like it? Nope.
>>But here is the way I look at it...
>>Nvidia provides the driver, and it works. it means I can use their cards in
>>Linux.
>>the Linux drivers, are in my opinion far more superior than the Window$
>>drivers.
>>After all, you do get the kernel module source code....
>>Another thing you must realise is that these companies want to stay in
>>buisness and
>>just the fact that Nvidia has a linux driver probably torques m$ off as it is
>>they do not want to upset this company, lets face it, they are barbaric and
>>they are cabable of
>>bringing hardware makers to their knees if they wanted to.
>>They even have a *BSD driver now....
>>I like Nvidia, because they provide me with a driver that I can use, and it
>>works.
>>I also recall reading that they have code in their driver(s) that belongs to a
>>third party, making it
>>hard to release the source to the driver without upsetting the third party.
>>perhaps one day, they will be able to.
>>I dont think we should fault them, at least they give us something, we need to
>>focus on the companies that
>>give us NOTHING.
>>
>>end of rant :)
>>
>>
>>
>>Andre Hedrick wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Why does the community continue to make pacts with a company that
>>>>steals from its rivals, makes pacts with M$, and refuses to clearly GPL
>>>>and open source its work on drivers, there is a clear difference between
>>>>their use of GPL files, and what the GPL says they can do. You cannot
>>>>expect embedded kernel developers to GPL, if you excuse Nvidia, its a
>>>>vain hope to grab M$ users, but in the long run it destroys the
>>>>community.
>>>>
>>>>Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Well let's see:
>>>
>>>You have no money to hire lawyers.
>>>You whine about an issue, that people with lawyers will roast you alive.
>>>
>>>Are you a customer of Nvidia?
>>>If you are not, you have no legal ground to invoke GPL PERIOD!
>>>If you are a customer, check to see that they have a GPL/GNU wrapper which
>>>is open source and attachs a clean LGPL library object, iirc.
>>>
>>>Since, there is still a legal and valid LGPL regardless of what FSF has to
>>>say, there are revisions of GPL which permit various usages. Now there
>>>are people like yourself who, again have no money, have no lawyers, have
>>>a whine, and whimpers over issues that stretch beyond the general scope.
>>>
>>>Recall the kernel is capable of rejecting non-gpl binary modules; yet it
>>>does not! Regardless of the original intent or scope of the "tainting
>>>process", it created more grey than clarity.
>>>
>>>Now until the kernel forcable rejects loading binary closed source
>>>modules, it defaults to quietly approved of the concept regardless what
>>>you think, feel, or care.
>>>
>>>Now what is not clear?
>>>
>>>If the kernel forces vendors to choose between closed source support or
>>>loose the competive edge in their market space, enjoy hunting for the old
>>>dusty video cards from the past. You just limited the scope of hardware
>>>which will run on Linux with any usability.
>>>
>>>Now given the kernel is now so well mixed between people in the past,
>>>current, and dead developers (sigh Leonard Z :-(( ), how are you going to
>>>hurd all togather to agree on a single point?
>>>
>>>So you submitted a patch, whippty flip ... neither you or I control the
>>>license of the kernel. If Linus does not like the content of a patch or a
>>>file generated, well it is toast. Also where does it state a patch is
>>>defined as "GPL patch"?
>>>
>>>Think a little harder first, cause I and many others will be on the side
>>>of slapping down your arguements about preventing binary modules from
>>>being loaded. Key point! "LOADED" not "LINKED". For the meatballs who
>>>think that dumping /proc/kcore is an effective way of generating a newly
>>>linked file, remember you created the file, not the owners of the module.
>>>
>>>Prove you can boot a cat /proc/kcore > vmlinux and you have now linked a
>>>closed source object with an open source kernel. Using your logic from
>>>above, you are now the offending person to GPL. You committed the act of
>>>linking the two permanetly.
>>>
>>>Time for bed, ranting is over ...
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>Andre Hedrick
>>>LAD Storage Consulting Group
>>>
>>>-
>>>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>>>the body of a message to [email protected]
>>>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>>>
>>>
>>--
>>Regards,
>>Mark Rutherford
>>[email protected]
>>
>>
>>-
>>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>>the body of a message to [email protected]
>>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>>
>>
>>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to [email protected]
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
<lurk mode off>
<Soap Box On>
I don't think there is a person on this listt that would not prefer to
have the source to the nVidia drivers. I know I would. However, I also
know that releasing the complete spec to their GPU would be suicide
because, as has been pointed out earlier, ATI could get ahold of the
information and use it to exploit any weakness in nVidia's GPU. Plus
they could start to incorporate nVidia's instructions into THEIR GPUs
and boom. ATI releases a card that has all of their features, plus does
99.5% of what an nVidia card does also. Responce from the computer
community: Why buy a nVidia card when ATI's cards do the same thing and
more. Result: nVidia folds and goes out of business. Not a favorable
result IMHO. Would I like to see the code to the driver? YES. Do I
consider it a major slap in the face that I cannot see it? Absolutely
NOT. nVidia's drivers, while closed source, do work VERY well. I use
nVidia cards in all my machines (except one machine that is soo old it
doesn't have an AGP port, so I use an old Matrox Millenium in that box).
I'm an open source advocate. I like seeing things open source. But I
also realise that this is not a realistic goal for many companies in the
current state of the world.
<Soap Box Off>
<lurk mode on>
--- Dan
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 10:03:14 -0500 (EST), Bill Davidsen wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, David Schwartz wrote:
>>II don't expect anyone to GPL unless they think they get more benefit
>>from
>>GPLing than the potential harm done. People GPL code because they want to
>>'donate' it to improve the open source movement, community, and code base.
>>Attempting to arm twist such donations is worse than foolish. You think the
>>open source community should be a bunch of bullies? Convince people open
>>source is best, and avoid them if they don't agree.
>Certainly anyone who has had a problem, posted an oops, and been told that
>no one will even look at a dump from a system with the nvidia driver might
>think they were being bullied...
There's a difference between people thinking they are being bullied and
being a bunch of bullies. ;)
I would hope that the situation would be explained politely -- kind of like
this: "Unfortunately, with closed-source software, only someone who has the
source code can debug it. If you can replicate the problem without any
closed-source drivers, we'll do our best to help you. But if you can only
replicate the problem with a closed-source module installed, odds are the
problem is in that module, and even if it wasn't, we couldn't track it down."
That doesn't really seem like bullying and helps to clarify the
disadvantages of using closed-source software.
DS
>Recall the kernel is capable of rejecting non-gpl binary modules; yet it
>does not! Regardless of the original intent or scope of the "tainting
>process", it created more grey than clarity.
Nothing would stop someone from distributing a kernel that did not reject
those drivers. The GPL doesn't permit you to add additional restrictions to
it, so you can't add a clause prohibiting such distribution.
>Now until the kernel forcable rejects loading binary closed source
>modules, it defaults to quietly approved of the concept regardless what
>you think, feel, or care.
There would just be a set of patches to bypass that rejection. Every major
distribution would distribute kernels with those patches. You can't GPL code
and at the same time control how it is used.
As I argued in my previous post, it would be suicidal for any advocate of
open source to attempt to broaden the scope of what constitutes a 'derived
work' or narrow the scope of fair use or first sale type doctrines.
Hey, we're almost back on topic for this list. Happy new year.
DS
Andre Hedrick <[email protected]> writes:
> Are you a customer of Nvidia?
> If you are not, you have no legal ground to invoke GPL PERIOD!
Which country has such weird copyright laws?
> If you are a customer, check to see that they have a GPL/GNU wrapper which
> is open source and attachs a clean LGPL library object, iirc.
I don't think we have LGPL code in the kernel, but of course I can be
wrong here.
Anyway, NVidia has binary driver being a kernel component and XFree86
driver. While XFree86 driver may or may not be subject to X11 license,
the kernel part (an object file which is then linked to a kernel module
glue code) does not seem to be derived from kernel code.
> Since, there is still a legal and valid LGPL regardless of what FSF has to
> say, there are revisions of GPL which permit various usages.
Still, LGPL has nothing to do with it. The kernel code is licensed
under version 2 of GPL (or maybe later version, but there isn't any).
Having or not having money has nothing to do with it either.
> Now until the kernel forcable rejects loading binary closed source
> modules, it defaults to quietly approved of the concept regardless what
> you think, feel, or care.
Kernel behaviour is not related to legal issues.
> If the kernel forces vendors to choose between closed source support or
> loose the competive edge in their market space, enjoy hunting for the old
> dusty video cards from the past. You just limited the scope of hardware
> which will run on Linux with any usability.
Forget it. The kernel itselt can't force anyone to do anything. That is
the license that matters.
BTW: Of course, vendors are free to produce drivers for their hardware.
Have you seen such a closed-source driver which was working correctly?
I haven't.
> So you submitted a patch, whippty flip ... neither you or I control the
> license of the kernel. If Linus does not like the content of a patch or a
> file generated, well it is toast. Also where does it state a patch is
> defined as "GPL patch"?
IANAL, but I'd assume a patch doesn't change the license for a product
(a file etc), unless stated otherwise.
> Think a little harder first, cause I and many others will be on the side
> of slapping down your arguements about preventing binary modules from
> being loaded. Key point! "LOADED" not "LINKED".
A module has to be linked when it's loaded. But it, of course, doesn't
matter - the GPL doesn't prevent you from linking GPL code to anything
you want, unless you want to distribute such a beast.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
Network Administrator
If i was a "bully" I would be getting what I want... Could this be corporate manipulation, now I know how apple feels.
Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 11:11:18 -0800 David Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote:
no Nvidias drivers arent like coal because coal is useful for fires, what happens when Nvidia decide those cards are too old? But just new enough to not show the competition their code, Nvidia are a drain on the community with nothing useful to show for it.
Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:05:35 -0500 "Scott Robert Ladd" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 03:13:00AM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> no Nvidias drivers arent like coal because coal is useful for fires, what
> happens when Nvidia decide those cards are too old? But just new enough
> to not show the competition their code, Nvidia are a drain on the community
> with nothing useful to show for it.
>
> Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
>
Then why complain about it? Don't buy NVidia cards! if you don't like
what they're doing with the code and the drivers, don't buy or use their
product. Simple as that. There's always ATI, SiS, and many other cards with
fully GPL coded drivers for it. Just because one may think that NVidia is the
best card out on the market, doesn't mean (unfortunately) they have to
accomodate every OS that uses it, and do it the same way that every other
company does. You have a choice, but also, so do they.
I have an SiS 315E card in my box, and it works great, and haven't
looked at any other card since installing it.
BL.
--
Brad Littlejohn | Email: [email protected]
Unix Systems Administrator, | [email protected]
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
AND NOBODY HAS TO BEG ANYTHING FROM NVIDIA, OR GAIN THEIR SUPPORT, not for their price, the GPLs SOUL PURPOSE.
Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 05:01:12 +0000 <[email protected]> wrote:
First off, could you please your MUA to use 80 columns? having to
manually put in carriage returns to read your mail gets rather tedious...
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 05:01:12AM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> read up on why the GPL exists, its not to protect a billion dollar
company, its to protect honest contributors from having their work stolen
by big buisness like just what happened when Nvidia used various GPLd
HEADER FILES IN ITS MODULES AND KEPT SOURCE CLOSED. by "DEAD HORSE".
I know why the GPL exists.. however, that does not mean or indicate
that a company could not use the GPL for their own reasons. They a) wrote
their own code, b) may have used headers that were GPL'ed, but does not mean
or insinuate that just because they use GPL'd headers that they must have
their SOURCE open. Many companies use GPL'd material, for their own purposes,
and not have to have their own personal source open. You may want to read into
the actual documentation for the GPL and LGPL.
Besides.. Who is an honest contributor who worked on NVidia's own
module? Did anyone outside NVidia write it? no. NVidia wrote it, NVidia
released it, it's NVidia's IP. you're confusing Headers with the actual code.
Like Snoop Dogg said. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
BL.
> (authenticated bits=0)
> by smtp.wmich.edu (8.1336/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h014mi8l003760;
> Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:48:45 -0500 (EST)
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:48:44 -0500
> From: Ed Sweetman <[email protected]>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021218
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: A Guy Called Tyketto <[email protected]>
> CC: [email protected], [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
> References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
> In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Return-Path: [email protected]
>
> A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 03:13:00AM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >>no Nvidias drivers arent like coal because coal is useful for fires, what
> >>happens when Nvidia decide those cards are too old? But just new enough
> >>to not show the competition their code, Nvidia are a drain on the
> >>community with nothing useful to show for it.
> >>
> >>Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
> >>
> >
> >
> > Then why complain about it? Don't buy NVidia cards! if you don't
> > like what they're doing with the code and the drivers, don't buy or use
> >their product. Simple as that. There's always ATI, SiS, and many other
> >cards with fully GPL coded drivers for it. Just because one may think that
> >NVidia is the best card out on the market, doesn't mean (unfortunately)
> >they have to accomodate every OS that uses it, and do it the same way that
> >every other company does. You have a choice, but also, so do they.
> >
> > I have an SiS 315E card in my box, and it works great, and haven't
> >looked at any other card since installing it.
> >
> > BL.
> Note: "you" is everyone complaining about nvidia not gpl'ing their drivers.
>
> Gotta agree with that. You get along much better in life not believing
> you deserve this and that. Nobody owes you driver support because they
> make hardware. And bullying companies to do so makes you no better than
> they are when they bully other companies out of business, buy them out
> and use their advanced ideas in their crappy products.
>
>
> Apparently nvidia is the graphics leader because people dont know how to
> write accelerated graphics code for nvidia chipsets. And apparently it
> has little to do with engineering the card and chips and manufacturing
> those pieces and assembling them. And apparently they're better
> protected by software laws from someone stealing their hard work and
> making products without having to spend R&D on it than laws on copying
> various hardware patents and such.
>
> going to a company and telling them they have to agree with your beliefs
> is a quick way to get absolutely nothing. Nvidia has survived before
> linux became the big deal on wallstreet and news. They can survive quite
> well with windows users alone. They dont need linux user support. So
> how is trying to boycott nvidia products up in anger and sending angry
> emails going to help you get what you want? You dont have the market
> power needed to make that work. It just makes companies see linux as a
> bunch of spoiled brats complaining when they dont get what they want and
> throwing a tantrum.
>
> We allow certain binary-only modules in the linux kernel. That has been
> long established and it's the end of the story. This is brought up
> like every year and it ends the same way. You dont like what nvidia does
> then dont buy their stuff, but going around and trying to tell other
> people to do so is counterproductive and foolish. We dont have the
> leverage and pretending you do makes every step closer we were to
> gaining support inside nvidia turn into a step backwards. Why should
> they give their drivers away gpl? What is the gain in that? Show them
> the gain and hope they come around.
>
> What are their motives in not going gpl? has anyone asked them that?
> People assume it's out of security for their product but there is no
> precident for them to be worried about that and it sounds silly.
>
> If you are bothered by the license the drivers you use are under then
> why did you buy nvidia in the first place? I always buy my hardware
> based on linux support. If i had hardware that wasn't well supported or
> needed special binary modules i'd trade it with a friend or sell it on
> ebay and get something that didn't. With a new nvidia card you cant go
> saying you're too poor to get anything else. So you get a piece of
> hardware that you know is not supported by gpl drivers well and then
> complain about it?
>
> There is always the old way of reverse engineering the hardware and
> continuing the gpl nvidia driver support. It's much harder but it's
> still done. The need for gpl support must not be that high to get people
> motivated to dive into that mess yet so I dont see much motivation on
> nvidia's side to change how they do things.
>
> ok. dead horse 0 people 1. no doubt a rematch will proceed.
--
Brad Littlejohn | Email: [email protected]
Unix Systems Administrator, | [email protected]
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 05:08:36AM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> AND NOBODY HAS TO BEG ANYTHING FROM NVIDIA, OR GAIN THEIR SUPPORT, not for their price, the GPLs SOUL PURPOSE.
>
> Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
One other thing. No-one GAVE NVidia GPL'd material. It's available for
them to use it, just like it is for us. If you have a problem with that, you
may want to take it up with GNU, the FSF, and RMS, if you want to deal with
all the slack. But that's your fight, not ours.
BL.
--
Brad Littlejohn | Email: [email protected]
Unix Systems Administrator, | [email protected]
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
They are stealing by changing GPL files, and not giving the source, its not for personal use so they are DISTRIBUTING it, and INCLUDING IT. BUT they dont give out their DERIVED source. I work with C everyday and when you put in a header file you are including it, all kernel headers are GPL. I read the license 4 times a day and have since 1995.
Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 21:13:42 -0800 A Guy Called Tyketto <[email protected]> wrote:
It matters not whether it was gave or taken, GPL=GPL either way, I shall contact MR. Stallman, as and when I get some legal advice, I AM DEFENDING THE GPL, YOU ARE BULLYING, SUBVERTING AND TWISTING THE GPL. I am a staunch advocate of the FSF.
Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 21:15:18 -0800 A Guy Called Tyketto <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 05:30:18AM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> They are stealing by changing GPL files, and not giving the source, its
And just how the smeg do you KNOW they're CHANGING these files, aye?
Do you have some super secret K-9 nose that the rest of us don't, and can
tell? Have you reverse engineered the binary to see? Please, enlighten us.
not for personal use so they are DISTRIBUTING it, and INCLUDING IT.
This does not make sense. You're saying they're changing GPL'd files,
though they can use them any way they choose, as long as they notify the
original author of the changes they made. Whether they redistribute the CODE,
is up to them. They chose not to. As long as they have notified those who
wrote the headers, no GPL violation has been made.
BUT they dont give out their DERIVED source.
Once again, there is no clause in the GPL that states they MUST give
out the code. All they need to do is notify the author. Also, They MUST give
out the code, if they've MODIFIED the headers. You'd be stewing and eating
your boots for dinner if NVidia released the code, and you found no headers to
be modified. their code, they can do anything they want. But for the headers,
all they'd need to do for changing their code, is to keep a current version of
the headers from the kernel, and program their C code to their content. Once
again, No. GPL. Violation.
I work with C everyday and when you put in a header file you are including it,
all kernel headers are GPL. I read the license 4 times a day and have
since 1995.
And we don't deal with C at all. The kernel is programmed in COBOL,
ADA, Modula-2, Mumps, and Pick. Hell, I just might port it part of it over to
Logo. Oh damn.. Apple will sue me for that.. Let's port it to C! I'll learn
it, with my trusty Visual C, and Borland C compilers! </sarcasm>
BL.
--
Brad Littlejohn | Email: [email protected]
Unix Systems Administrator, | [email protected]
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
You must understand the GNU/LINUX community is being manipulated by NVidia.
Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:55:35 -0800 David Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 05:45:06AM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> It matters not whether it was gave or taken, GPL=GPL either way, I shall contact MR. Stallman, as and when I get some legal advice, I AM DEFENDING THE GPL, YOU ARE BULLYING, SUBVERTING AND TWISTING THE GPL. I am a staunch advocate of the FSF.
>
Good luck! Tell RMS he still owes me dinner, and be sure to bring a
video camera along with you! You just might win $10,000 for it, on America's
Funniest Home Videos! ;)
BL.
--
Brad Littlejohn | Email: [email protected]
Unix Systems Administrator, | [email protected]
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
It's obvious that you are not going to listen to anyone who disagrees with
you so would you please stop filling our mailboxes?
This is not a new discussion. In past discussions it has been decided that
just including header files is not enough to make something a derived
work. you don't agree with that so you are going to go make a pest of
yourself. spare us the further e-mail.
Linus made a statement in the last couple of months about binary-only
modules for the kernel. please go read that before you go further.
David Lang
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 [email protected] wrote:
> Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 05:51:28 +0000
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
> Subject: RE:Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source
> drivers?
>
> You must understand the GNU/LINUX community is being manipulated by NVidia.
>
> Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
>
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:55:35 -0800 David Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
you are incorrect about how the GPL works you are attempting to anger me but I dont care, go and learn, finish school, then annoy me.
Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 21:51:45 -0800 A Guy Called Tyketto <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 05:59:12AM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> you are incorrect about how the GPL works you are attempting to anger me
but I dont care, go and learn, finish school, then annoy me.
>
I am? I'm sorry. I did not mean to anger someone who is more
experienced and sagely than a mere fool such as myself. I suppose I'll throw
away my Bachelor's degree in Comp. Sci from '96, all the C programs I've coded
since 91, all the logo since '81, as well as the projects I'm currently
working on. I am such a fool. Back to programming Zaxxon on my Apple IIe for
me. Perhaps even Karateka.. or Spy Hunter.
BTW: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html . Bookmark it. And come
back when you have a better MUA. It's starting to remind me of WebTV.
BL.
P.S.
Kryten: There's something familiar about you, too.. I get a name...
Smee... Smeeg Heeeeeed!!
Rimmer: Smeghead?
Kryten: That's it!
Rimmer: He remembers me!!
--
Brad Littlejohn | Email: [email protected]
Unix Systems Administrator, | [email protected]
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
Tyketto !!!!
AMEN !!!!
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
> First off, could you please your MUA to use 80 columns? having to
> manually put in carriage returns to read your mail gets rather tedious...
>
> On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 05:01:12AM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
<snip>
>
> I know why the GPL exists.. however, that does not mean or indicate
> that a company could not use the GPL for their own reasons. They a) wrote
> their own code, b) may have used headers that were GPL'ed, but does not mean
> or insinuate that just because they use GPL'd headers that they must have
> their SOURCE open. Many companies use GPL'd material, for their own purposes,
> and not have to have their own personal source open. You may want to read into
> the actual documentation for the GPL and LGPL.
>
> Besides.. Who is an honest contributor who worked on NVidia's own
> module? Did anyone outside NVidia write it? no. NVidia wrote it, NVidia
> released it, it's NVidia's IP. you're confusing Headers with the actual code.
>
> Like Snoop Dogg said. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 11:21:43PM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> Tyketto !!!!
>
> AMEN !!!!
>
> Andre Hedrick
> LAD Storage Consulting Group
>
>
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>
> > First off, could you please your MUA to use 80 columns? having to
> > manually put in carriage returns to read your mail gets rather tedious...
> >
We've already done the rounds on his choice of low-priority
emailer regarding long lines (no <enter> key; yet somehow he
can start a new paragraph) and broken threads. He said
earlier in the (broken by him) thread that these messages
of his aren't worth paying for bandwidth.
I'm not a big fan of kill-files but...
:0
* ^X-Mailer: Liberate TVMail
/dev/null
--
________________________________________________________________
J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address: [email protected]
Remember Cernan and Schmitt
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 [email protected] wrote:
> They are stealing by changing GPL files, and not giving the source, its
Before you call Nvidia a "THEIF", look in the mirror and read the legal
license associated with the drivers you have, and you do not have
hardware.
http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=legal_info
The attached EULA is what you forgot to read, or maybe forgot understand.
International Offices
England:
Theale Court, 11-13 High Street
Theale, Reading, Berkshire, RG7
5AH
England
Tel: +44 (118) 903 3000
Fax: +44 (118) 930 5691
> not for personal use so they are DISTRIBUTING it, and INCLUDING IT. BUT
> they dont give out their DERIVED source. I work with C everyday and when
> you put in a header file you are including it, all kernel headers are
Well recall you said it was time for you to consult your
"lawyer"/"solicitor", well lets see if I can help you do it faster.
I am tired of your rants about NVIDIA and the commerial viability of
binary library objects with public source wrappers.
With any luck you can be the person to win or loose the case and make GPL
viable or not.
Are you willing to take the risk?
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
Hell.Surfers,
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 [email protected] wrote:
> You must understand the GNU/LINUX community is being manipulated by NVidia.
NVIDIA Corporate Office:
2701 San Tomas Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Tel: 408-486-2000
Fax: 408-486-2200
[email protected]
Directions to Corporate Office
> Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
GO FOR IT!
I will love to see the fall out.
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
OK....
I have a suggestion..
We all concede (with the exception of a few) that Nvidia did nothing wrong with
including headers in their driver.
I dont think they did...
I use their product, and it works well for me.
I would LOVE to see Nvidia open source, but that might just drive a nail in the
right place for them.. and they go under.
We cannot force our ideas on a company, all they will do is turn and walk away.
We can show them our way, if they like it, good. if not, we tried.
I think we have tried, and I think Nvidia is well aware of our way here.
Now, on to the suggestion!
lets let this thread die. its been argued before, over and over.
please?
Andre Hedrick wrote:
> Hell.Surfers,
>
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 [email protected] wrote:
>
> > You must understand the GNU/LINUX community is being manipulated by NVidia.
>
> NVIDIA Corporate Office:
> 2701 San Tomas Expressway
> Santa Clara, CA 95050
> Tel: 408-486-2000
> Fax: 408-486-2200
> [email protected]
> Directions to Corporate Office
>
> > Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
>
> GO FOR IT!
>
> I will love to see the fall out.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andre Hedrick
> LAD Storage Consulting Group
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Regards,
Mark Rutherford
[email protected]
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> Why does the community continue to make pacts with a company that steals
> from its rivals, makes pacts with M$, and refuses to clearly GPL and
Ohhhh, a conspiracy theory. I like conspiracy theories.
Do tell, what exactly is the conspiracy here and who are
the parties involved ?
> open source its work on drivers, there is a clear difference between
> their use of GPL files, and what the GPL says they can do. You cannot
> expect embedded kernel developers to GPL, if you excuse Nvidia, its a
> vain hope to grab M$ users, but in the long run it destroys the
> community.
Copyright law is pretty explicit about the situations the GPL
applies to. If something can be reasonably considered to be
a "derivative work" of a GPL work, the GPL applies and the
new work needs to be GPL.
However, if the new work is NOT a derivative of a GPL work,
the author of that new work gets to choose the license freely.
The border gets determined by inclusion of a copyrightable
piece of GPL code. Really small fragments of code and simple
defines aren't copyrightable, just like you can't copyright a
single musical note, but only a song. If nvidia's driver only
uses some simple declarations from include files and no large
(>7 lines? >10lines? what's large?) inline functions AND the
nvidia driver uses only the standard interfaces to hook into the
Linux kernel, then it's not a derivative work and nvidia gets
to choose the license.
Feel free to get upset or eat your boots at any time you want,
it's not going to change copyright law.
cheers,
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>
NVidia would not go under, but if they did, you would still have drivers for it.
Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 11:13:28 -0500 Mark Rutherford <[email protected]> wrote:
the eula is irrelevent, it should be GPL, oh and I read the drivers on a computer with an geforce card. which i now own;)
Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:38:58 -0800 (PST) Andre Hedrick <[email protected]> wrote:
John Bradford <[email protected]> writes:
> > Alpha works around this by using an X86 emulator in their PAL code.
>
> That's interesting, I didn't know that. How complete is it? Does it
> just emulate a subset of X86 instructions that are enough for 90% of
> initialisation code?
AFAIK it only emulates 16-bit real mode, which is what the bios code
is. I've never seen a card that failed to work because of this.
--
M?ns Rullg?rd
[email protected]
Paul Jakma <[email protected]> writes:
> PS: do you think Linux PPC or Alpha users are happy that NVidia
> provide drivers?
Being an Alpha user, I can assure you that for me nvidia's drivers are
worth nothing. Even if they did work, I would want the complete specs
for the chip. There's usually something you can do with them.
--
M?ns Rullg?rd
[email protected]
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 [email protected] wrote:
> the eula is irrelevent, it should be GPL, oh and I read the drivers on
> a computer with an geforce card. which i now own;)
>
> Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
>
Well, I am glad you now own a "geforce card".
You are now a customer.
You can now execute your rants about the binary drivers with Nvidia.
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
Note to self, never be stupid enough to comment on data or information
from "Hell.Surfers", again !!! Somebody LART me please!
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Mark Rutherford wrote:
> I would LOVE to see Nvidia open source,
> We cannot force our ideas on a company, all they will do is turn and walk away.
> We can show them our way, if they like it, good. if not, we tried.
Nvidia is a smart company, otherwise they wouldn't be in
business today. I'm sure they'll switch to the GPL only
once it will be in their advantage to do so and no sooner.
When would it be an advantage for them ?
The moment there is a GPL graphics library (at the right
system level, of course) that's so good Nvidia won't be
able to resist using that library could be such a moment.
A new project for Hell.Surfers ? ;)
regards,
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Copyright law is pretty explicit about the situations the GPL
> applies to. If something can be reasonably considered to be a
> "derivative work" of a GPL work, the GPL applies and the new work
> needs to be GPL.
and:
> but only a song. If nvidia's driver only uses some simple
> declarations from include files and no large (>7 lines? >10lines?
> what's large?) inline functions AND the nvidia driver uses only the
> standard interfaces to hook into the Linux kernel, then it's not a
> derivative work and nvidia gets to choose the license.
It has long been held that linking to GPL code is suffient to
consitute 'derived work' status, hence the existence of the LGPL.
The NVidia shim makes use of several kernel subsystems, the PCI
device layer, the VM, the module system (well really, the kernel
makes of use of the functions the module provides :) ), IRQ
subsystem, the VFS, etc.. These systems are rather large bodies of
code - without which the NVidia kernel driver could not work.
So I am not quite sure on what basis one could argue the NVidia
driver is not a derivative work, and hence it seems to me the NVidia
driver is technically in material breach of GPL.
You seem to be basing your opinion on:
"the nvidia driver uses only the standard interfaces to hook into
the Linux kernel"
How are the standard interfaces not covered by the GPL?
I know Linus' has often posted to l-k that he doesnt care about
binary only modules as long as they stick to the exported interfaces.
However, are all the kernel developers agreed on this? And if so, can
this exception be formalised and put into the COPYING file? If not,
then is NVidia not in breach of the kernel's licence?
> Rik
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] [email protected] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to [email protected]
Fortune:
Programmers do it bit by bit.
On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 00:31, Paul Jakma wrote:
> So I am not quite sure on what basis one could argue the NVidia
> driver is not a derivative work, and hence it seems to me the NVidia
> driver is technically in material breach of GPL.
I would assume Nvidia's view is based on US caselaw on what constitutes
a 'derived work'. The boundaries of copyright are not set by the GPL
authors
well libc uses the kernel headers and basicly all userspace programs use
libc so that makes oracle a derivitive work of the kernel??????
luckly that's not how things actually work.
David Lang
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Paul Jakma wrote:
> Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 00:31:13 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Paul Jakma <[email protected]>
> To: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source
> drivers?
>
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > Copyright law is pretty explicit about the situations the GPL
> > applies to. If something can be reasonably considered to be a
> > "derivative work" of a GPL work, the GPL applies and the new work
> > needs to be GPL.
>
> and:
>
> > but only a song. If nvidia's driver only uses some simple
> > declarations from include files and no large (>7 lines? >10lines?
> > what's large?) inline functions AND the nvidia driver uses only the
> > standard interfaces to hook into the Linux kernel, then it's not a
> > derivative work and nvidia gets to choose the license.
>
> It has long been held that linking to GPL code is suffient to
> consitute 'derived work' status, hence the existence of the LGPL.
>
> The NVidia shim makes use of several kernel subsystems, the PCI
> device layer, the VM, the module system (well really, the kernel
> makes of use of the functions the module provides :) ), IRQ
> subsystem, the VFS, etc.. These systems are rather large bodies of
> code - without which the NVidia kernel driver could not work.
>
> So I am not quite sure on what basis one could argue the NVidia
> driver is not a derivative work, and hence it seems to me the NVidia
> driver is technically in material breach of GPL.
>
> You seem to be basing your opinion on:
>
> "the nvidia driver uses only the standard interfaces to hook into
> the Linux kernel"
>
> How are the standard interfaces not covered by the GPL?
>
> I know Linus' has often posted to l-k that he doesnt care about
> binary only modules as long as they stick to the exported interfaces.
> However, are all the kernel developers agreed on this? And if so, can
> this exception be formalised and put into the COPYING file? If not,
> then is NVidia not in breach of the kernel's licence?
>
> > Rik
>
> regards,
> --
> Paul Jakma [email protected] [email protected] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
> warning: do not ever send email to [email protected]
> Fortune:
> Programmers do it bit by bit.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, David Lang wrote:
>
> > well libc uses the kernel headers and basicly all userspace programs
> > use libc so that makes oracle a derivitive work of the kernel??????
>
> libc neednt neccessarily use the kernel headers, it needs to use only
> headers that are compatible. Also, though it might use kernel headers,
> the headers it provides for other programmes to be compiled against it
> are not kernel headers.
>
> further, the kernel's licence explicitely exempts the 'normal system
> calls', and kernel headers describing these can quite arguably be
> considered to fall within this exemption.
this is exactly the reasoning that nvidia uses to justify their use of the
headers.
you can't have it both ways.
David Lang
> > luckly that's not how things actually work.
>
> unfortunately, its not at all clear.
>
> > David Lang
>
> regards,
> --
> Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra
> [email protected]
> Warning: /never/ send email to [email protected] or [email protected]
>
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, David Lang wrote:
> well libc uses the kernel headers and basicly all userspace programs
> use libc so that makes oracle a derivitive work of the kernel??????
libc neednt neccessarily use the kernel headers, it needs to use only
headers that are compatible. Also, though it might use kernel headers,
the headers it provides for other programmes to be compiled against it
are not kernel headers.
further, the kernel's licence explicitely exempts the 'normal system
calls', and kernel headers describing these can quite arguably be
considered to fall within this exemption.
> luckly that's not how things actually work.
unfortunately, its not at all clear.
> David Lang
regards,
--
Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra
[email protected]
Warning: /never/ send email to [email protected] or [email protected]
On 2 Jan 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
> I would assume Nvidia's view is based on US caselaw on what
> constitutes a 'derived work'. The boundaries of copyright are not
> set by the GPL authors
indeed, and apparently its not at all a black-and-white area. to that
end, i'll point to the following thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg05725.html
and the paper it links to, "derived software defined" (no idea whether
its accurate):
http://www.pbwt.com/Attorney/files/ravicher_1.pdf
and as IANAL, i'll shut up now.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra
[email protected]
Warning: /never/ send email to [email protected] or [email protected]
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, David Lang wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Paul Jakma wrote:
> > further, the kernel's licence explicitely exempts the 'normal system
> > calls', and kernel headers describing these can quite arguably be
> > considered to fall within this exemption.
>
> this is exactly the reasoning that nvidia uses to justify their use of the
> headers.
a kernel module does not make of use of the calls the exemption refers
to. it calls exported /kernel/ functions.
> you can't have it both ways.
>
> David Lang
regards,
--
Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra
[email protected]
Warning: /never/ send email to [email protected] or [email protected]
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 12:31:13AM +0000, Paul Jakma wrote:
> The NVidia shim makes use of several kernel subsystems, the PCI
> device layer, the VM, the module system (well really, the kernel
> makes of use of the functions the module provides :) ), IRQ
> subsystem, the VFS, etc.. These systems are rather large bodies of
> code - without which the NVidia kernel driver could not work.
Well, no, look at the "nm" dump of the object file. It's got a lot of
proprietary code that came from what looks like commerical libraries
that they don't own. Back when they wrote the original drive, the GPL
equivalents of DRM, AGP, etc... sucked so they had to write their own
stuff just to get anything basic working.
> driver is not a derivative work, and hence it seems to me the NVidia
> driver is technically in material breach of GPL.
Their portability layer wraps the low level calls into their own
terminology and portability API. It's fairly outside of the linux kernel
itself, internally the object file looks very Win32ish.
Obviously a GPL rewrite of this would entail a lot of replicated effort
and would also depend on things that are incomplete, non-existent and
don't have a lot direct interest from the GPL community. 3D isn't a hot
commodity in Linux, FreeBSD unlike with dedicated SGI machines (although
faded).
It's a very practical solution to do it this way.
> So I am not quite sure on what basis one could argue the NVidia
>
> You seem to be basing your opinion on:
>
> "the nvidia driver uses only the standard interfaces to hook into
> the Linux kernel"
>
> How are the standard interfaces not covered by the GPL?
All I saw where kernel header files include in the sources, nothing
more. They have to support multipule architecture and OSes so keeping
this stuff outside of the driver is a good thing. The GPL-ly stuff is
publically available as source files.
> I know Linus' has often posted to l-k that he doesnt care about
> binary only modules as long as they stick to the exported interfaces.
> However, are all the kernel developers agreed on this? And if so, can
> this exception be formalised and put into the COPYING file? If not,
> then is NVidia not in breach of the kernel's licence?
I'd rather have the experts do it at NVidia, than a half completed open
source implementation that isn't terribly optimized.
Matrix multiplies, T&L, etc... communication between user and kernel
space that provides this to the OpenGL libraries are all exotic. I'm glad
that nobody has to deal with this stuff directly and that a vendor is
willing to provide support for it.
bill
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Bill Huey wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 12:31:13AM +0000, Paul Jakma wrote:
> > subsystem, the VFS, etc.. These systems are rather large bodies of
> > code - without which the NVidia kernel driver could not work.
>
> Well, no, look at the "nm" dump of the object file. It's got a lot of
> proprietary code
indeed. that doesnt change the fact that this large body of NVidia
specific code still must make use of large parts of linux code
(through function calls).
> It's a very practical solution to do it this way.
yes, but the legalities of it are rather grey.
> > How are the standard interfaces not covered by the GPL?
>
> All I saw where kernel header files include in the sources, nothing
> more.
indeed, and if that were the only issue it would be clear there is no
issue. however, it must make use of linux code at runtime through
function calls - as linux makes use of the NVidia proprietary code by
calling the functions it provides.
> I'd rather have the experts do it at NVidia, than a half completed
> open source implementation that isn't terribly optimized.
I run systems that use many GPL and fully open drivers that are quite
well optimised. Some of these drivers were written by the vendor's
"experts" and are distributed seperately - still GPL though.
Sometimes one has a choice between drivers written by the vendor and
drivers written by (non-expert???) "community" authors, and often one
finds the vendor driver is the one that isn't terribly optimised.
> Matrix multiplies, T&L, etc...
none of this stuff is done in kernel (least it shouldnt be). Its done
in user-space libraries.
The XFree licence allows binary only modules, indeed XFree 4 was
designed to make distribution of (possibly binary) modules as easy as
possible.
There isnt that much magic the NVidia kernel modules ought to be
doing really.
> communication between user and kernel space that provides this to
> the OpenGL libraries are all exotic. I'm glad that nobody has to
> deal with this stuff directly and that a vendor is willing to
> provide support for it.
aha.. yes, all that complicated hardware stuff - you dont really want
those linux kernel amatuers writing that.
> bill
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] [email protected] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to [email protected]
Fortune:
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
The NVidia driver is derivative, a lot of people put trust in the GPL and I am one, im currently picking a solicitor, NVidia will either win or lose, if I lose, M$ win may soon be a lot like Linux.
Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 17:37:36 -0800 Bill Huey (Hui) <[email protected]> wrote:
"or later" perhaps copyright could be defined, and headers added to derivative?
Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
On 02 Jan 2003 01:57:01 +0000 Alan Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 02:57:48AM +0000, Paul Jakma wrote:
> yes, but the legalities of it are rather grey.
It didn't seem that bad to me, it was all pretty abstracted outside of
their code. The glue layer to their object file is GPLed and therefore
public so that should be fine from what I can see.
> indeed, and if that were the only issue it would be clear there is no
> issue. however, it must make use of linux code at runtime through
> function calls - as linux makes use of the NVidia proprietary code by
> calling the functions it provides.
Like what ? PCI IO poking functions ? Things that do mmap() trickery ?
That's pretty freaking basic. There wasn't anything terribly invasive
about the driver and source that I saw.
> Sometimes one has a choice between drivers written by the vendor and
> drivers written by (non-expert???) "community" authors, and often one
> finds the vendor driver is the one that isn't terribly optimised.
But this is computationally critical 3D. I mean, what kind of 3D vendor
would intentionally let something like that slide on x86 platforms ?
> > Matrix multiplies, T&L, etc...
>
> none of this stuff is done in kernel (least it shouldnt be). Its done
> in user-space libraries.
That stuff is done in hardware these days, not software. I mean, how would
anybody know what they're using. Why replicate that volume of functionality
when it already works well.
It simply doesn't make sense. I'm sure when decent AGP/DRM support is in
place they can start removing that stuff out of the Linux binary and
then make more of that publically available.
There motivations where to simply protect themselve by not releasing
proprietary code.
> The XFree licence allows binary only modules, indeed XFree 4 was
> designed to make distribution of (possibly binary) modules as easy as
> possible.
>
> There isnt that much magic the NVidia kernel modules ought to be
> doing really.
Notification of event completion from the (just guessing) who knows what
opcode operations the chip is doing, fast draw context switching, who knows.
These things are starting to look like FPU coprocessors, circa 1990, these
days.
Different hardware has differing needs. If it's pretty freaking exotic, then
let it to those folks handle it and the glue layer to userspace. It's not
like folks in GPL community write entire 3D frameworks for this casually.
High performance 3D is a Linux priority at this time. No real games or
heavy 3D apps that use crazy chips stuff...
> > communication between user and kernel space that provides this to
> > the OpenGL libraries are all exotic. I'm glad that nobody has to
> > deal with this stuff directly and that a vendor is willing to
> > provide support for it.
>
> aha.. yes, all that complicated hardware stuff - you dont really want
> those linux kernel amatuers writing that.
Well, having a generic kernel person, regardless of who they are, messing
with 3d chips and interfacing it with their OpenGL libs isn't a light topic.
This crap is heavy. So yes, its a good thing they've done this. What the
hell do you think this is ? an Ethernet driver ?
bill
no winmodem equivalent. Ive backwards enginneered one of those...:-)
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 21:58:59 -0800 Bill Huey (Hui) <[email protected]> wrote:
GPL aside (it could be argued forever...):
I regularly use several kernel modules that provide a GPL component that
interfaces the module to the kernel, and a closed source object file that
is dynamically loaded as a kernel module at run time.
If I did not have these modules, I would not be able to use Linux as my
host operating system.
So... to those (Hell.Surfers especially it seems) who believe that they
are doing good by making a scene... realize that while you may succeed
in improving the integrity of the GPL, you will also succeed in convincing
companies that it may be more expensive than it is worth to provide their
hardware or software for Linux. That may mean that I will be forced to
stop using Linux at work, and possibly forced to stop using Linux at home.
Perhaps I am a minority. Are you willing to bet the future of Linux on it?
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
On Wed Jan 01, 2003 at 05:37:36PM -0800, Bill Huey wrote:
> Obviously a GPL rewrite of this would entail a lot of replicated effort
> and would also depend on things that are incomplete, non-existent and
> don't have a lot direct interest from the GPL community. 3D isn't a hot
> commodity in Linux, FreeBSD unlike with dedicated SGI machines (although
> faded).
Ahh, but replicated effort is something that open source people
do very well at indeed. If nvidia provided non-functional GPL
source code with all the proprietary 3rd party bits ripped out,
I would expect a hoard of developers would jump at the chance to
fixup the non-functional mess, clean it up, reimplement all the
missing proprietary bits. I'd bet you $20 US we could have a
functional driver within 2 weeks. And have a high quality driver
roughly equal to their proprietary one within 6 months. Thats
the way things work around these parts of the net. I bought a
copy of Quake when they GPLd their code to show support. I
similarly bought a copy of Quake II after they GPLd their code.
If Nvidia released their code under the GPL, I'd buy one of their
cards. As is, I'm sticking with my ATI card...
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
if libc used compatible headers, they would be derivative....
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 01:29:59 +0000 (GMT) Paul Jakma <[email protected]> wrote:
in a way, yes.
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 17:08:26 -0800 (PST) David Lang <[email protected]> wrote:
linus cant alter the GPL, which is gooooood :-), he cant change the license at all... Imagine the people that would sue :-).
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 00:31:13 +0000 (GMT) Paul Jakma <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 11:12:33PM -0700, Erik Andersen wrote:
> missing proprietary bits. I'd bet you $20 US we could have a
> functional driver within 2 weeks. And have a high quality driver
> roughly equal to their proprietary one within 6 months. Thats
That's being too idealistic, IMO. And hearing somebody like me
say that, well...uh...;)
> the way things work around these parts of the net. I bought a
> copy of Quake when they GPLd their code to show support. I
> similarly bought a copy of Quake II after they GPLd their code.
> If Nvidia released their code under the GPL, I'd buy one of their
> cards. As is, I'm sticking with my ATI card...
I think folks have to identify if the company is doing this
intentionally to hold into something irrationally or just because
of legal reasons. If it's just legal reasons, then i'll give them
slack.
bill
There is (was) an effort for opensource 3d drivers (including nvidia
ones), infact i rember they got quake II and III working in 32bit color
mode, if i rember correctly. If you go grieff, then go visit
http://utah-glx.sourceforge.net/ and help out. Make the drivers better
then the nvidia ones (ya right!) so they will be forced to use your code
on other paltforms (and then nvidia would be forced to use it, and thus
open up their code). I'll see you in two years, when you fully complete
the drivers? Ok, bye.
P.S: I think the code there is under a BSD (BSDish, MITish licence,
...).
I say we start a driver based on the UTAHs. MR. Anderson had a good schedule :), knock knock neo... ;-))
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 23:12:33 -0700 Erik Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu Jan 02, 2003 at 06:48:33AM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> I say we start a driver based on the UTAHs. MR. Anderson had
> a good schedule :), knock knock neo... ;-))
And I live in Utah. ;-) Seriously though, that schedule would
only be feasible given enough human resources -- and given either
source code or proper docs for their chipsets, which relies on
Nvidia playing nice and kindly choosing to share.
Relying on guesswork and/or reverse engineering without proper
vendor cooperation, which is exactly the case with the Utah GLX
driver, it'll take a much longer time and will likely not attract
the same amount of human resources as a result.
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
Well, i dunno how i got drawed into to (well i do). Your right, but i'm
just trying to find a usefull solution for me having to download and
shift though a ~500kb discussion leading noware (drawing my conclusion
from the past here). I don't think Hell.Surfers is going to accomplish
anything here, besides angering a whole bunch of people (am i right?).
Sooner or later, some one is going to come up with the idea of
--attempting to-- banning him from the mailing list (just like RMS
before), and thats again accompilished nothing. And damn it, i'd love to
have opensource (or freesoftware, whatever the politicaly correct thing
is :) ) nvidia drivers, so i could attempt to fix the Twin view
flakinies, have the nvidia drivers use the kernel nvidia fb, and have
dual head console, etc.
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 23:56:03 -0700
Erik Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> bla bla bla
Well, i dunno how i got drawed into to (well i do). Your right, but i'm
just trying to find a usefull solution for me having to download and
shift though a ~500kb discussion leading noware (drawing my conclusion
from the past here). I don't think Hell.Surfers is going to accomplish
anything here, besides angering a whole bunch of people (am i right?).
Sooner or later, some one is going to come up with the idea of
--attempting to-- banning him from the mailing list (just like RMS
before), and thats again accompilished nothing. And damn it, i'd love to
have opensource (or freesoftware, whatever the politicaly correct thing
is :) ) nvidia drivers, so i could attempt to fix the Twin view
flakinies, have the nvidia drivers use the kernel nvidia fb, and have
dual head console, etc.
P.S: I hope this isn't a double, since the last email was no go.
Erik Andersen <[email protected]> writes:
>Ahh, but replicated effort is something that open source people
>do very well at indeed. If nvidia provided non-functional GPL
>source code with all the proprietary 3rd party bits ripped out,
>I would expect a hoard of developers would jump at the chance to
>fixup the non-functional mess, clean it up, reimplement all the
>missing proprietary bits. I'd bet you $20 US we could have a
>functional driver within 2 weeks. And have a high quality driver
>roughly equal to their proprietary one within 6 months. Thats
>the way things work around these parts of the net. I bought a
Ahhh, yes. I know. Replace "nvidia" with "netscape" and "driver" with
"browser" and reread your paragraph. I remember having read exactly
the same thing when netscape told us that they will "open the source
to the navigator".
And where were we six months later?
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Mark Rutherford wrote:
>
> > I would LOVE to see Nvidia open source,
> > We cannot force our ideas on a company, all they will do is turn and walk away.
> > We can show them our way, if they like it, good. if not, we tried.
>
> Nvidia is a smart company, otherwise they wouldn't be in
> business today. I'm sure they'll switch to the GPL only
> once it will be in their advantage to do so and no sooner.
>
> When would it be an advantage for them ?
>
> The moment there is a GPL graphics library (at the right
> system level, of course) that's so good Nvidia won't be
> able to resist using that library could be such a moment.
>
> A new project for Hell.Surfers ? ;)
Mr Surfers has already showed up at the KGI development team, but as I
think his attitude doesn't quite fit in the team, I have not encouraged
him to help.
But yes, there is a GPL graphics kernel module / library (KGI & GGI) that
should run on linux and any BSD real soon now. The Radeon and Matrox
drivers are in place, already. The 3D accelleration framework is in place,
but the GGI GL implementation is not yet existing.
For those who want to take a look: the website (http://www.kgi-project.org) is
outdated, we lost contact with the maintainer :( Please take a look at the
kgi-wip project at sourceforge (CVS only) and at irc.openprojects.net #kgi
Jos
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Milosz Tanski wrote:
> be forced to use it, and thus open up their code). I'll see you in
> two years, when you fully complete the drivers? Ok, bye.
NVidia would not release the neccessary specs to the project to allow
them to write acceptable drivers. That is why they are so lacking -
but its amazing they even got that far.
> P.S: I think the code there is under a BSD (BSDish, MITish licence,
> ...).
XFree licence, yes. Which allows binary only modules.
regards
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] [email protected] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to [email protected]
Fortune:
The best things in life go on sale sooner or later.
On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 06:34, Milosz Tanski wrote:
> There is (was) an effort for opensource 3d drivers (including nvidia
> ones), infact i rember they got quake II and III working in 32bit color
> mode, if i rember correctly. If you go grieff, then go visit
> http://utah-glx.sourceforge.net/ and help out. Make the drivers better
> then the nvidia ones (ya right!) so they will be forced to use your code
> on other paltforms (and then nvidia would be forced to use it, and thus
> open up their code). I'll see you in two years, when you fully complete
> the drivers? Ok, bye.
>
> P.S: I think the code there is under a BSD (BSDish, MITish licence,
Utah-GLX supports the older Nvidia cards, and works in XFree86 4.2 at
least - although since its based on an older Mesa not all stuff works
well with it.
Alan
Hes trolling... these sorts of things are such a muddy mess in the US that
it's a coin toss whether any lawsuit will win.
He should stop talking about it and just do it and in the meantime
us would be better off just black holing his email. I doubt hes going to
go through with it and I question how much money someone who has to get
his internet access off a TV settop box really has enough money to pay for
the planned lawsuit anyhow.
Can we all stop feeding the trolls now?
Gerhard
cat >> ~/.procmailrc << _END_
:0 W
* ^X-Mailing-List.*linux-kernel@vger\.kernel\.org
* ^(((From):)|( )).*Hell.Surfers@cwctv\.net
/dev/null
_END_
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Milosz Tanski wrote:
> Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 02:06:44 -0500
> From: Milosz Tanski <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]@gnuppy.monkey.org, [email protected],
> [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source
> drivers?
>
> Well, i dunno how i got drawed into to (well i do). Your right, but i'm
> just trying to find a usefull solution for me having to download and
> shift though a ~500kb discussion leading noware (drawing my conclusion
> from the past here). I don't think Hell.Surfers is going to accomplish
> anything here, besides angering a whole bunch of people (am i right?).
> Sooner or later, some one is going to come up with the idea of
> --attempting to-- banning him from the mailing list (just like RMS
> before), and thats again accompilished nothing. And damn it, i'd love to
> have opensource (or freesoftware, whatever the politicaly correct thing
> is :) ) nvidia drivers, so i could attempt to fix the Twin view
> flakinies, have the nvidia drivers use the kernel nvidia fb, and have
> dual head console, etc.
>
--
Gerhard Mack
[email protected]
<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.
unfortuanately it requires patches, doesnt have a clear license, has bad coding style, the docs suck, im stuck to my eyeballs in cirrus code, and well, its not very clean, requires two input layer hacks, im writing docs that dont get completed cause the api, well, it sucks, aside from that, ive got a nice ggi acorn emulator...
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 10:57:54 +0100 (CET) Jos Hulzink <[email protected]> wrote:
not in the us, in the uk, i have nothing to lose.
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 12:33:22 -0500 (EST) Gerhard Mack <[email protected]> wrote:
>How are the standard interfaces not covered by the GPL?
Surely you aren't arguing that someone can copyright
int open(const char *, int);
Are you?
There's the battle and there's the war. The GPL is the battle. If you argue
that any code that goes anywhere near anyone else's code is a derived work,
you may win the battle by buttressing the GPL, but you will lose the war.
The open source community wasn't the first to use 'int open(const char *,
int)'. If you want to argue that this is an interface that can be
copyrighted, then we're all screwed.
Defending fair use and first sale type doctrines and rejecting shrink wrap
agreements is far more important than defending the GPL.
Using someone else's header file to develop code is *use*, not distribution.
That's what header files are for -- that's how you *use* them, by including
them. If someone wants to substitute more stringent restrictions, then they
can do that by contract.
DS
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 [email protected] wrote:
> "or later" perhaps copyright could be defined, and headers added to
> derivative?
Luckily copyright holders cannot define the scope of copyright
law. This doesn't just include the (often illegal) EULAs of
proprietary software companies, but also the very strict
interpretation "some people" have of the GPL.
Both proprietary EULAs and the GPL have to work within the law
and cannot add anything illegal under the law.
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>
I regularly use several kernel modules that provide a GPL component that
interfaces the module to the kernel, and a closed source object file that
is dynamically loaded as a kernel module at run time.
If I did not have these modules, I would not be able to use Linux as my
host operating system.
Many enthusiasts the "Linux" operating system take the popularity of
the system (or of the kernel, Linux) as the supreme goal; but why
should the popularity of any one operating system or program be so
important? That isn't what really matters.
We developed the GNU system for the sake of freedom, and freedom is
what really matters. The GNU/Linux system today is important because
it offers a road to freedom. But it doesn't guarantee you will arrive
there. If you use non-free drivers, you go just part way along the
road and never arrive at freedom. That defeats the purpose. To
achieve freedom, we need to insist on free drivers (and free
applications).
Erik Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
If nvidia provided non-functional GPL
source code with all the proprietary 3rd party bits ripped out,
I would expect a hoard of developers would jump at the chance to
fixup the non-functional mess, clean it up, reimplement all the
missing proprietary bits. I'd bet you $20 US we could have a
functional driver within 2 weeks.
If NVidia cooperates with us this much, we should certainly pick up
the ball from there, and I am sure we will manage to go the rest of
the way. But don't bet on 2 weeks. Softare always takes twice as
long as you expect ;-). If it takes a whole month month to be able to
use NVidia hardware in freedom, I won't complain about the delay.
But we could make do with even less cooperation than that. If they
just provide the necessary specs to a person who wants to extend the
free drivers that exist, that would be sufficient. It might take more
than 4 weeks to write the code, but surely not more than a few months.
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:32:30PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> But we could make do with even less cooperation than that. If they
> just provide the necessary specs to a person who wants to extend the
> free drivers that exist, that would be sufficient.
Yeah, if only the company that has invested millions in trying to scratch
out a place to stand, if only they would give us their intellectual
property for free, if only, why then we could steal that IP and give it
to other people. And it would take us less time to do it if they would
only cooperate. Why won't they cooperate?
How dare they not give of the fruits of their labors for free.
Give it up, Stallman, we live in a capitalistic world. The Russians
tried communism and it didn't work. It won't work here either, the
kernel folks aren't that stupid. Some people actually do learn from
history.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I regularly use several kernel modules that provide a GPL component that
> interfaces the module to the kernel, and a closed source object file that
> is dynamically loaded as a kernel module at run time.
>
> If I did not have these modules, I would not be able to use Linux as my
> host operating system.
>
> Many enthusiasts the "Linux" operating system take the popularity of
> the system (or of the kernel, Linux) as the supreme goal; but why
> should the popularity of any one operating system or program be so
> important? That isn't what really matters.
You forget a key aspect, the "GNU system Suite" needs a frame work to
function.
> We developed the GNU system for the sake of freedom, and freedom is
> what really matters. The GNU/Linux system today is important because
> it offers a road to freedom. But it doesn't guarantee you will arrive
Let people travel the road of choice, and not dictate they have to ride
a bobsled straight to HELL^W(your definition of freedom) with you pushing
all the way down.
> there. If you use non-free drivers, you go just part way along the
> road and never arrive at freedom. That defeats the purpose. To
> achieve freedom, we need to insist on free drivers (and free
> applications).
Your definition of FREEDOM STINKS!
FREEDOM == CHOICE !
If people want to use "non-free drivers", they choose to execute the
freedom to do so. Now, what is clearly stated in your text is, FREEDOM
means the vendor of the "non-free drivers" has NONE!
If people want to have "free drivers" then contribute them.
What I see is a lot of people wait for new technology to be supported,
yet do nothing to enable the ones who have access and are willing to take
the risks of dealing with the vendors who are paranoid.
> If NVidia cooperates with us this much, we should certainly pick up
What if they decide to thumb the nose at you?
What if they decide to withdraw their drivers?
Is your ego of "my way or no way" or "it is my license, I dictate its use"
or .... fill in the blank, sigh ... never mind.
You bang a drum of fair use for everything else which does not have GPL
stamped and pounded into it. Maybe you should allow a little fair use in
your world of the license. Oh, I am dreaming and so now to the rant!
> the ball from there, and I am sure we will manage to go the rest of
> the way. But don't bet on 2 weeks. Softare always takes twice as
> long as you expect ;-). If it takes a whole month month to be able to
> use NVidia hardware in freedom, I won't complain about the delay.
<RANT RANT DOUBLE_RANT>
Execise your CHOICE and FREEDOM is yours.
FREEDOM to pick and use hardware which is not natively supported.
FREEDOM to use protocols which are not support.
FREEDOM to use drivers which do the task you desire.
or enjoy your CAPTIVITY with a loss of CHOICE.
CAPTIVITY, well there is the FREEDOM to use what is supported open.
CAPTIVITY, well this is not supported, no options available.
CAPTIVITY, no drivers capable, we suffer down time to wait for a
sucker^Whacker^Wcodepoet^Wwhatever will slave for us.
</RANT /RANT /DOUBLE_RANT>
> But we could make do with even less cooperation than that. If they
> just provide the necessary specs to a person who wants to extend the
> free drivers that exist, that would be sufficient. It might take more
> than 4 weeks to write the code, but surely not more than a few months.
Gee, it has taken 12 years to get to where we are now.
Is everything today which is in the kernel "fully functional" ?
Come on Richard, this is not your "printer".
It is something of beauty wrappered with a tarbaby in front of a briar
patch. Ease up with the sticky fingered tarbaby, the briar patch is
enough of a boundary.
Next go pick and use words out of BLACK's LAW.
You risk it all with out drawing crisp clear lines.
All it takes is for one loss in court and the fear of legal action is
history. The court battle may not fall in a circuit which is friendly to
your choice of words in the license.
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Thu Jan 02, 2003 at 08:06:12PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:32:30PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > But we could make do with even less cooperation than that. If they
> > just provide the necessary specs to a person who wants to extend the
> > free drivers that exist, that would be sufficient.
>
> Yeah, if only the company that has invested millions in trying to scratch
> out a place to stand, if only they would give us their intellectual
> property for free, if only, why then we could steal that IP and give it
> to other people. And it would take us less time to do it if they would
> only cooperate. Why won't they cooperate?
>
> How dare they not give of the fruits of their labors for free.
Unless I am terribly mistaken, Nvidia is a _hardware_ company.
Their IP is a piece of silicon, fans, connectors, and resistors
that you go to the store and _buy_. If you go visit pricewatch,
it becomes immediately clear they are certainly not giving away
their graphics cards for free. No one (not even rms) would
expect them to give away their hardware for free. It takes money
to design and produce such products, and they deserve a fair
chance to make $$$ for their efforts.
If they are worried their competitors might try to do the same
nifty things with competing hardware, they should patent the
methods used by their nifty 3D hardware. And if you go take a
look, Nvidia has done exactly that. They have a big pile of
patents protecting their hardware and 3D methods from being
ripped off. I'll leave my usual rant on software and algorithm
patents for another day, but given their pile of patents, I
expect any driver specs and software they release would be
useless to anyone but those that have purchased the right to use
their IP (by buying one of their cards). So how exactly do they
lose by giving out the details needed for proper drivers, or by
providing source under the GPL?
I can see your arguments above as perhaps relevant to a software
company (cough, BK, cough), but this is not relevant to a hardware
company like Nvidia. Unless their hardware is just an expensive
placebo, and they really do _everything_ in software (dunno)?
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 04:06, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:32:30PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > But we could make do with even less cooperation than that. If they
> > just provide the necessary specs to a person who wants to extend the
> > free drivers that exist, that would be sufficient.
>
> Give it up, Stallman, we live in a capitalistic world. The Russians
> tried communism and it didn't work. It won't work here either, the
> kernel folks aren't that stupid. Some people actually do learn from
> history.
It won't work? Most of the software you use is Free Software. I don't
see anyone using Linux and not using Free software. I use only software
that is Free, and I'm not limited by doing it, in any sense. And it
won't work? It IS working.
And I don't buy NVIDIA hardware.
--
Marco Monteiro
"You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you
spend too much time reading this sort of trash."
--/.
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:00:42PM -0700, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Thu Jan 02, 2003 at 08:06:12PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:32:30PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > > But we could make do with even less cooperation than that. If they
> > > just provide the necessary specs to a person who wants to extend the
> > > free drivers that exist, that would be sufficient.
> >
> > Yeah, if only the company that has invested millions in trying to scratch
> > out a place to stand, if only they would give us their intellectual
> > property for free, if only, why then we could steal that IP and give it
> > to other people. And it would take us less time to do it if they would
> > only cooperate. Why won't they cooperate?
> >
> > How dare they not give of the fruits of their labors for free.
>
> Unless I am terribly mistaken, Nvidia is a _hardware_ company.
> Their IP is a piece of silicon, fans, connectors, and resistors
> that you go to the store and _buy_. If you go visit pricewatch,
> it becomes immediately clear they are certainly not giving away
> their graphics cards for free. No one (not even rms) would
> expect them to give away their hardware for free. It takes money
> to design and produce such products, and they deserve a fair
> chance to make $$$ for their efforts.
>
> If they are worried their competitors might try to do the same
> nifty things with competing hardware, they should patent the
> methods used by their nifty 3D hardware.
It's virtually impossible to patent every aspect of a product, be it
software or hardware. I'm well aware of the tradeoffs, and I know that
every company gambles to some extent. You simply can't cover all the
bases, you don't really know in advance which of the cool ideas will
pay off. Sometimes it's the bad ideas which pay off.
Given that patents don't cover everything, disclosing how your product
works is doing nothing except helping your competition. If you don't
disclose, you buy time. What you are suggesting is that Nvidia give up
that time. In return for what? Your whining? Wow, that's inspiring.
<RANT>
I am REALLY REALLY fed up with all the armchair quarterbacks on this list.
If you all think you have it so figured out, then get off your ass and
go start a company. Give out full access to all of your IP, give out
everything that you have been asking for, and make your company survive.
Oh, having a little trouble getting VC while you give away your IP?
Oh darn. Don't forget to patent everything at $15K/patent. What,
the VC people won't give you the money for that because you gave away
your IP. Huh. Guess that wasn't such a winning plan after all, was it.
Jeez, didn't make payroll this week either, did ya? But it all sounded
so good when you were telling other people how to do it. What went wrong?
It is oh-so-easy to sit around and say "this is what should be done".
Try being on the other end of that statement for a while and then
tell us how it should be done.
Stop whining, start doing, and until you've done so, shut the f*ck up.
</RANT>
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On 3 Jan 2003, Marco Monteiro wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 04:06, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:32:30PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > > But we could make do with even less cooperation than that. If they
> > > just provide the necessary specs to a person who wants to extend the
> > > free drivers that exist, that would be sufficient.
> >
> > Give it up, Stallman, we live in a capitalistic world. The Russians
> > tried communism and it didn't work. It won't work here either, the
> > kernel folks aren't that stupid. Some people actually do learn from
> > history.
>
> It won't work? Most of the software you use is Free Software. I don't
> see anyone using Linux and not using Free software. I use only software
> that is Free, and I'm not limited by doing it, in any sense. And it
> won't work? It IS working.
>
> And I don't buy NVIDIA hardware.
Excellent you exercise your freedom of choice.
Now do not take away anyone elses and all is cool.
What is so hard about that?
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
At 08:06 PM 1/2/2003 -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:32:30PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > But we could make do with even less cooperation than that. If they
> > just provide the necessary specs to a person who wants to extend the
> > free drivers that exist, that would be sufficient.
>
>Yeah, if only the company that has invested millions in trying to scratch
>out a place to stand, if only they would give us their intellectual
>property for free, if only, why then we could steal that IP and give it
>to other people. And it would take us less time to do it if they would
>only cooperate. Why won't they cooperate?
>
>How dare they not give of the fruits of their labors for free.
<yank>
You're just saying that to justify your evil BK license ;-)
</yank> (hey, somebody was _gonna_ do it)
Seriously though, just what is it that graphic CPU makers are
protecting? I can't imagine "how to program our spiffy CPU'" docs exposing
anything important to their competition. Imagine Intel or AMD trying that
tactic for _their_ next CPU. What makes graphics CPUs so special?
-Mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 17:04, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Seriously though, just what is it that graphic CPU makers are
> protecting? I can't imagine "how to program our spiffy CPU'" docs exposing
> anything important to their competition. Imagine Intel or AMD trying that
> tactic for _their_ next CPU. What makes graphics CPUs so special?
Giving away the technical detail probably shows where they are infringing
other people's patents.
I _hate_ intellectual property.
Brad
- --
http://linux.conf.au. 22-25Jan2003. Perth, Aust. I'm registered. Are you?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE+FS3QW6pHgIdAuOMRAijcAJ4yMN+FzR3O/XoVOh2mfoVvvw0j1QCgoOOB
+IouTHjgefoy0BMxUvyQhWc=
=YLWT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Brad Hards wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 17:04, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Seriously though, just what is it that graphic CPU makers are
> > protecting? I can't imagine "how to program our spiffy CPU'" docs exposing
> > anything important to their competition. Imagine Intel or AMD trying that
> > tactic for _their_ next CPU. What makes graphics CPUs so special?
>
> Giving away the technical detail probably shows where they are infringing
> other people's patents.
You could not hit the core point of this issue any harder!
This is one of the reason I have to sign all those massive restrictive
NDA's in order to obtain the SPEC's to publish "FREE SOURCE", and
currently having to write off the expenses for the legalese to make sure I
do not get trapped.
If you get to close, you get tatooed with NDA's.
I can heat my house for the winter in a few years when the first round of
NDAs expire!
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:32:30PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> We developed the GNU system for the sake of freedom, and freedom is
> what really matters. The GNU/Linux system today is important because
> it offers a road to freedom. But it doesn't guarantee you will arrive
> ...
You don't seem to mind the fact that my freedom to use Linux would be
hampered if you successfully prove that closed source modules for
Linux are illegal.
If open source is so good, companies with closed source products will
change. Have some faith in your own set of ideals and stop trying to
jam it down other peoples' throats.
Here is another factor to consider. Copyrights and patents are all nice
and dandy, but unless you can make a court case that proves that you,
or the 'violated party' is *LOSING MONEY*, the case would likely be
thrown out of court. What money are you losing by nVidia using closed
source modules for their proprietary hardware? nVidia believes it is
protecting its own interests. You believe that they don't deserve this
right, and that any company that doesn't agree with you doesn't deserve
to use Linux.
I can see all the freedom in the air. It is overpowering.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 21:00, Erik Andersen wrote:
> If they are worried their competitors might try to do the same
> nifty things with competing hardware, they should patent the
> methods used by their nifty 3D hardware. And if you go take a
> look, Nvidia has done exactly that.
Hehe, maybe the issue is just that... other people's patents :-)
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> We developed the GNU system for the sake of freedom, and freedom is
> what really matters.
IMHO such freedom should leave the option of not having free
drivers to companies like Nvidia.
Mind you that their freedom is more than compensated for by
our freedom to decide to not buy their hardware and use hardware
which does have free drivers instead.
Have some faith in freedom, Richard...
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 08:39:55AM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> IMHO such freedom should leave the option of not having free
> drivers to companies like Nvidia.
>
> Mind you that their freedom is more than compensated for by
> our freedom to decide to not buy their hardware and use hardware
> which does have free drivers instead.
>
> Have some faith in freedom, Richard...
The real issue about freedom is that people should be able to use
parts of the GNU systems without having to add a GNU/ prefix to all
their naming schemes.. :)
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> The real issue about freedom is that people should be able to use
> parts of the GNU systems without having to add a GNU/ prefix to all
> their naming schemes.. :)
You have the freedom. 8)
On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 05:12, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On 3 Jan 2003, Marco Monteiro wrote:
>
> >
> > It won't work? Most of the software you use is Free Software. I don't
> > see anyone using Linux and not using Free software. I use only software
> > that is Free, and I'm not limited by doing it, in any sense. And it
> > won't work? It IS working.
> >
> > And I don't buy NVIDIA hardware.
>
> Excellent you exercise your freedom of choice.
> Now do not take away anyone elses and all is cool.
> What is so hard about that?
Nothing, indeed! But what is wrong about those who strive to make
software Free for all?
What Stallman and others do is to incentive people to make Free
Software. I ask you, here and now, "Please, make all software that you
write Free." What is wrong with this? I'm not taking away your freedom
with this request. Then I say "I won't use your software because it is
not Free.", and "Don't use software that is not Free." Again, what is
the problem? It is really a good thing. Without all the Free Software
there was and is, Linux would be a fraction of what is today. Without
the GNU system, I, for one, would surely not run Linux!
We must let people fight their battles. And the Free Software battle is
a noble one!
--
Marco Monteiro
"If I cannot share it then I will not install it.
If it requires me to mistreat others I would say no to it."
--Richard Stallman
Yes but....
I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2
years and cost $X million to develop.
Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding
my people? Am I a bad person charging for my work?
Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy
people giving everything away for free!
Andrew
> im currently picking a solicitor, NVidia will either win or lose, if I lose, M$ win > may soon be a lot like Linux.
If you lose, you also create a precedent case
what REALLY offensive cases could make use of
in the future.
(I'd advise re-reading Antigone from Sophokles
before starting your Holy Battle...)
Sab
Andrew Walrond wrote:
>
> Yes but....
>
> I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2
> years and cost $X million to develop.
>
> Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding
> my people?
> Am I a bad person charging for my work?
No.
>
> Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy
> people giving everything away for free!
>
Nobody give everything away from free. Free software, in particular,
runs
on boxes that cost money. And people sell service and support.
The problem with nvidia isn't that they charge money. The problem
is that their product comes with strange restrictions.
Everybody accepts that a nvidia cards cost money - chips and boards
certainly aren't free. They even provide drivers for their card
for free. They can trivially do this because they make their
money on selling the hardware.
The problems are:
1) The drivers are closed-source, so we can't fix the bugs. (Yes,
there are bugs, and no, nvidia don't fix them immediately. So
it'd be nice for us who understand C to fix this ourselves.
Releasing the code don't won't cost nvidia because they aren't
making money on it. They might actually sell _more_ hardware
if they released the code. So keeping it secret don't make sense
even from a extreme greediness viewpoint. Such a driver can't
be made to work with a competing product either with a few tweaks.
2) Still, they _may_ have reasons not to release the code, perhaps
a patended algorithm or some such. They could at least release the
specs for their card, so a free driver could be written from scratch.
But they don't do that either - strange. Some manufacturers _do_
this, with no ill effects. They get a slightly bigger market because
their equipment is ok with the free software world.
This is very much like selling cars were the gas tank is locked, and
you don't have the key. The gas stations have keys, but only
some of them. So you can't fill anywhere.
Or a tv that don't work on thursdays. Silly in the extreme,
annoying for the user and no benefit for the manufacturer.
Helge Hafting
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Andrew Walrond wrote:
> >
> > Yes but....
> >
> > I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2
> > years and cost $X million to develop.
> >
> > Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding
> > my people?
>
> > Am I a bad person charging for my work?
> No.
> >
> > Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy
> > people giving everything away for free!
> >
> Nobody give everything away from free. Free software, in particular,
> runs
> on boxes that cost money. And people sell service and support.
>
> The problem with nvidia isn't that they charge money. The problem
> is that their product comes with strange restrictions.
>
> Everybody accepts that a nvidia cards cost money - chips and boards
> certainly aren't free. They even provide drivers for their card
> for free. They can trivially do this because they make their
> money on selling the hardware.
>
> The problems are:
> 1) The drivers are closed-source, so we can't fix the bugs. (Yes,
> there are bugs, and no, nvidia don't fix them immediately. So
> it'd be nice for us who understand C to fix this ourselves.
> Releasing the code don't won't cost nvidia because they aren't
> making money on it. They might actually sell _more_ hardware
> if they released the code. So keeping it secret don't make sense
> even from a extreme greediness viewpoint. Such a driver can't
> be made to work with a competing product either with a few tweaks.
>
> 2) Still, they _may_ have reasons not to release the code, perhaps
> a patended algorithm or some such. They could at least release the
> specs for their card, so a free driver could be written from scratch.
> But they don't do that either - strange. Some manufacturers _do_
> this, with no ill effects. They get a slightly bigger market because
> their equipment is ok with the free software world.
Another possibility is that they used some propriatary software libraries
which have restrictions. Didn't someone see some strings which suggested
that?
>
> This is very much like selling cars were the gas tank is locked, and
> you don't have the key. The gas stations have keys, but only
> some of them. So you can't fill anywhere.
> Or a tv that don't work on thursdays. Silly in the extreme,
> annoying for the user and no benefit for the manufacturer.
>
> Helge Hafting
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
Helge Hafting wrote:
> Andrew Walrond wrote:
>
>>Am I a bad person charging for my work?
>
> No.
Goodie!
>
>>Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy
>>people giving everything away for free!
>>
>
> Nobody give everything away from free. Free software, in particular,
> runs
> on boxes that cost money. And people sell service and support.
>
But I don't sell service, or support. I sell *software*
Am I bad again ?
> The problem with nvidia isn't that they charge money. The problem
> is that their product comes with strange restrictions.
>
Ah - I see
>
> The problems are:
> 1) The drivers are closed-source, so we can't fix the bugs. (Yes,
> there are bugs, and no, nvidia don't fix them immediately. So
> it'd be nice for us who understand C to fix this ourselves.
> Releasing the code don't won't cost nvidia because they aren't
> making money on it. They might actually sell _more_ hardware
> if they released the code. So keeping it secret don't make sense
> even from a extreme greediness viewpoint. Such a driver can't
> be made to work with a competing product either with a few tweaks.
>
Oh. But I don't give you the source code to my game. Crikey - How are
going to debug it if it breaks??? Am I bad again ?
> 2) Still, they _may_ have reasons not to release the code, perhaps
> a patended algorithm or some such. They could at least release the
> specs for their card, so a free driver could be written from scratch.
> But they don't do that either - strange. Some manufacturers _do_
> this, with no ill effects. They get a slightly bigger market because
> their equipment is ok with the free software world.
>
Gosh, they are naughty aren't they. But I can't release the source
either, because little jonnie and his mates will all copy it and I'll go
bust and I'll lose my house and my wife will leave me. Oh what a dilema!
Am I a bad man ?
> This is very much like selling cars were the gas tank is locked, and
> you don't have the key. The gas stations have keys, but only
> some of them. So you can't fill anywhere.
> Or a tv that don't work on thursdays. Silly in the extreme,
> annoying for the user and no benefit for the manufacturer.
>
> Helge Hafting
>
Thanks for explaining that.
I'm gonna hand myself in. I can hardly believe how bad I am. BAD Andrew.
Bad bad bad!
[Tongue so firmly in cheek that it hurts ;) Sorry Helge - I know you
mean well!]
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> Yes but....
>
> I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2
> years and cost $X million to develop.
>
> Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding
> my people? Am I a bad person charging for my work?
Absolutely not.
> Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of
> happy people giving everything away for free!
>
> Andrew
regards,
--
Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra
[email protected]
Warning: /never/ send email to [email protected] or [email protected]
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Rik van Riel wrote:
> IMHO such freedom should leave the option of not having free drivers
> to companies like Nvidia.
Indeed, so why not add an exemption into the kernel's licence for
binary only modules that only use module exported interfaces? The
FSF's FAQ on the GPL even covers this.
that would remove the whole "is it a derived work?" grey area we're
talking about.
> Have some faith in freedom, Richard...
good call.
but make it explicit in the kernel's licence.
> Rik
regards,
--
Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra
[email protected]
Warning: /never/ send email to [email protected] or [email protected]
On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 15:52, Paul Jakma wrote:
> Indeed, so why not add an exemption into the kernel's licence for
> binary only modules that only use module exported interfaces? The
> FSF's FAQ on the GPL even covers this.
unfortionatly that's impossible.
First of all *all* copyright holders of the kernel would need to agree
to it. Second, it would make it impossible for the kernel to just
incorporate other GPL code (like we do all the time, including FSF code)
"NEURONET" <[email protected]> writes:
>> im currently picking a solicitor, NVidia will either win or lose, if I lose, M$ win > may soon be a lot like Linux.
>If you lose, you also create a precedent case
>what REALLY offensive cases could make use of
>in the future.
>(I'd advise re-reading Antigone from Sophokles
>before starting your Holy Battle...)
Come on, "Hells.Surfer" might watch the video but he wouldn't even
understand half of the words used in that book. And he might even miss
the punch line. =%-)
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Mike Galbraith wrote:
| At 08:06 PM 1/2/2003 -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
| >On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:32:30PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
| > > But we could make do with even less cooperation than that. If they
| > > just provide the necessary specs to a person who wants to extend the
| > > free drivers that exist, that would be sufficient.
| >
| >Yeah, if only the company that has invested millions in trying to scratch
| >out a place to stand, if only they would give us their intellectual
| >property for free, if only, why then we could steal that IP and give it
| >to other people. And it would take us less time to do it if they would
| >only cooperate. Why won't they cooperate?
| >
| >How dare they not give of the fruits of their labors for free.
|
| <yank>
| You're just saying that to justify your evil BK license ;-)
| </yank> (hey, somebody was _gonna_ do it)
|
| Seriously though, just what is it that graphic CPU makers are
| protecting? I can't imagine "how to program our spiffy CPU'" docs exposing
| anything important to their competition. Imagine Intel or AMD trying that
| tactic for _their_ next CPU. What makes graphics CPUs so special?
Imagine them doing that for their current CPU.
That's what Nvidia is doing, isn't it?
At a LinuxWorld panel 2-3 years ago, Nicholas Petreley (sp?) chaired a
group discussion about this. There were 2 competing sound chip
manufacturers represented, and they denied any interest in each other's
hardware.
However, if one of them was well-documented, then someone could
get info on their current product. Well, that _could_
be a bad thing for company #2 and put company #2 on a road that was one
generation later than the first company was now designing/building.
So in one scenario it could end up as a negative for the "copying"
company.
--
~Randy
On Fri Jan 03, 2003 at 02:48:40PM +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> Oh. But I don't give you the source code to my game. Crikey - How are
> going to debug it if it breaks??? Am I bad again ?
You are comparing apples and oranges. Software and hardware are
fundamentally different. Nobody can download a graphics card and
email copies to 50 of their friends.
Your game (a piece of software) is the product. For Nvidia,
their card (a piece of hardware) is the product. Nobody is
suggesting Nvidia should give away all their hardware and chip
designs and GPL them. That would of course be ludicrous.
The only thing that is hoped for is that Nvidia might choose to
release specs on their cards so folks can talk to their hardware.
Sortof like how Intel and AMD and many other hardware companies
releases specs on their chips so people can do whatever they want
with them. Where would Linux be if Intel had never released the
specs for their i386 chip? Has releasing the specs for their
CPUs hit Intel? Nope. Because they have a boatload of patents
and a boatload of lawyers. Similarly, Nvidia also has a boatload
of patents and a boatload of lawyers... But thus far, they have
not chosen to release specs. Thats their choice. But as a
result of their choice, I choose to buy other hardware.
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 12:51:04 +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote:
>Yes but....
>I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2
>years and cost $X million to develop.
>Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding
>my people? Am I a bad person charging for my work?
>Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy
>people giving everything away for free!
You can't with the GPL, because it presents you with a "take it or leave it"
package deal. But you could with a different license.
What you do is you base your game off of whatever open source code gets you
the furthest. The game itself, of course, is closed source. After your first
few months of sales, you contribute some of the code you wrote back to the
open source community.
Why shouldn't you? It hurts you not one bit and it's free publicity. Heck,
after a few year, maybe you open source the whole game.
The next person to write a game can start where you left off to some extent.
He can develop a better game for less money, and he can contribute more code
back to the community. Eventually, there may be enough code in the comnunity
to develop such complex games entirely open source.
However, with a license like the GPL, every game has to be developed on a
proprietary base. You simply can't afford to put any money into an open
source base. So every game has to start back from square one, or the most
advanced proprietary base that can be found.
Everybody loses except the person who makes the proprietary base or engine
you started with. I think working to make all software better and cheaper is
much more noble goal than working to arm twist other people into giving you
their code.
And the best part is, you can work to strengthen fair use, first sale, and
oppose the validity of shrink wrap licenses. You can argue for a narrower
definition of a derived work. In fact, you can at least *try* to win the
legal war.
DS
On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 12:51, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> Yes but....
>
> I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2
> years and cost $X million to develop.
>
> Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding
> my people? Am I a bad person charging for my work?
No, not you. Bad is the people you work for: the code you write is not
yours.
I don't play games much. But I remember when I did; I know people who
do, now. I would say that around 95% of the games I see being played are
pirated. I know person who, without buying a single game have 500+ CDs
with games. I bought 12 games, until 4 or 5 years ago. Before buying, I
played each one of them: I liked the game and, naturally, I bought it,
to support the guys who made it.
If I see a Free Software game that I like and play, I will support the
producers. It is not because I don't have the software for free (as in
'free' bear) that I buy it; I can get any game for free (or for the
price of the CDs).
I believe that other ways of selling Free Software would be as much or
more profitable for those who make games. (But not for distributors, and
that is the problem, because they rule the market.) Of course I'm not
going to tell you what other ways there are, because then you would know
as much as I and I would lose that advantage. ;) And maybe these other
ways of selling Free Software could serve as a filter for crappy games,
which is good.
> Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy
> people giving everything away for free!
>
> Andrew
You still don't understand the diference between the 'free' and 'Free
for Freedom'.
--
Marco Monteiro
"All the world's a stage and most of us are desperately unrehearsed."
--Sean O'Casey
On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 16:16, David Schwartz wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 12:51:04 +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote:
>
> >Yes but....
>
> >I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2
> >years and cost $X million to develop.
>
> >Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding
> >my people? Am I a bad person charging for my work?
>
> >Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy
> >people giving everything away for free!
>
> You can't with the GPL, because it presents you with a "take it or leave it"
> package deal. But you could with a different license.
>
> What you do is you base your game off of whatever open source code gets you
> the furthest. The game itself, of course, is closed source. After your first
> few months of sales, you contribute some of the code you wrote back to the
> open source community.
>
> Why shouldn't you? It hurts you not one bit and it's free publicity. Heck,
> after a few year, maybe you open source the whole game.
>
> The next person to write a game can start where you left off to some extent.
> He can develop a better game for less money, and he can contribute more code
> back to the community. Eventually, there may be enough code in the comnunity
> to develop such complex games entirely open source.
>
> However, with a license like the GPL, every game has to be developed on a
> proprietary base. You simply can't afford to put any money into an open
> source base. So every game has to start back from square one, or the most
> advanced proprietary base that can be found.
>
> Everybody loses except the person who makes the proprietary base or engine
> you started with. I think working to make all software better and cheaper is
> much more noble goal than working to arm twist other people into giving you
> their code.
>
> And the best part is, you can work to strengthen fair use, first sale, and
> oppose the validity of shrink wrap licenses. You can argue for a narrower
> definition of a derived work. In fact, you can at least *try* to win the
> legal war.
>
> DS
>
>
That is not right. The problem is that all people think that you can't
sell a game if it is Free Software. If the game is good you can. People
buy paintings and public domain classic music...
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Marco Monteiro
"All the world's a stage and most of us are desperately unrehearsed."
--Sean O'Casey
> However, with a license like the GPL, every game has to be developed on a
> proprietary base. You simply can't afford to put any money into an open
> source base. So every game has to start back from square one, or the most
> advanced proprietary base that can be found.
Back in the heyday of attention to open source, I spent hours and hours
and hours on the phone with Raymond trying to get the OSI to come up with
a "business source license" which would address some of these issues.
think there is a strong need for something like that, but the GPL
fanatics are desperate to paint the world as black or white and force
people into an entirely open or entirely closed choice. The reason they
want to do this is that they know darn well that it is always the middle
of the road compromise which wins, and they don't want to compromise.
So we get these endless tirades about how the GPL is the One True Way
and anything else is Evil.
It was most unfortunate that I couldn't get anywhere with ESR. If he and
the OSI had come up with some compromises, rather than just pandering to a
small but vocal group, I think that he would have cemented a significant
place in history. I am positive that the world will eventually move in
directions where there is some sort of compromise, maybe something like
you get N years of closed use and then the old stuff has to be opened,
whatever. The world already understands that you need to make money to
survive and the world is starting to understand that there is value in
having things be open.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 09:13:52 -0700, Erik Andersen wrote:
>On Fri Jan 03, 2003 at 02:48:40PM +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote:
>>Oh. But I don't give you the source code to my game. Crikey - How are
>>going to debug it if it breaks??? Am I bad again ?
>You are comparing apples and oranges. Software and hardware are
>fundamentally different. Nobody can download a graphics card and
>email copies to 50 of their friends.
Not today, but perhaps in a few dozen years. What can be done with FPGAs
today is already pretty amazing.
>Your game (a piece of software) is the product. For Nvidia,
>their card (a piece of hardware) is the product. Nobody is
>suggesting Nvidia should give away all their hardware and chip
>designs and GPL them. That would of course be ludicrous.
The video card is not nVidia's entire product. The software that comes with
it and the support they provide is also part of that product.
The performance you get from the video card is the product. Just a new
driver version can sometimes provide markedly improved performance. So nVidia
is probably doing things in their driver that could also speed up other
people's graphics cards.
>The only thing that is hoped for is that Nvidia might choose to
>release specs on their cards so folks can talk to their hardware.
That's a more reasonable argument. I accept the possibility that nVidia's
drivers may contain huge amounts of investment that they don't want to let
out to help their competition. Fine, keep the drivers closed source. Just
tell us what the interfaces are and we'll make our own drivers. Maybe they're
afraid ours will be better. ;)
I guess they could possibly argue that the interfaces themselves are the
result of large amounts of work that would significantly benefit their
competitors. I don't know if that's really the case though.
>Sort of like how Intel and AMD and many other hardware companies
>releases specs on their chips so people can do whatever they want
>with them. Where would Linux be if Intel had never released the
>specs for their i386 chip? Has releasing the specs for their
>CPUs hit Intel? Nope. Because they have a boatload of patents
>and a boatload of lawyers. Similarly, Nvidia also has a boatload
>of patents and a boatload of lawyers... But thus far, they have
>not chosen to release specs. Thats their choice. But as a
>result of their choice, I choose to buy other hardware.
By the way, I haven't given up on open source hardware. I think it can be
done with today's technology and is only becoming more and more possible as
technology improves.
DS
On 3 Jan 2003, Marco Monteiro wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 12:51, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> > Yes but....
> >
> > I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2
> > years and cost $X million to develop.
> >
> > Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding
> > my people? Am I a bad person charging for my work?
>
> No, not you. Bad is the people you work for: the code you write is not
> yours.
So since I work for myself and own my own companies, thus I own the code
and I own the decision of what is published, I am the bad person?
Thanks! Look how much I have given away, gee it is nothing.
Only 80% or more of all IDE chipsets, I personally wrote.
I am not allowed to make money to feed my family, pay from the cost of
membership to standards, pay for the cost of joining working groups for
new technology, pay for the cost of travel to the fore mentioned.
Yet you bitch and whine and hold your hand out for me to do it for free?
Well everything has a cost.
You know I still have plans to open source a version of a current product
after I make some money and recover the 18 months of development, hardware
cost, travel, trade show, future membership dues. Why, because it is the
right thing to do, and it will benefit me in the long run, and the open
source. It also will raise the bar for what people expect.
So I am bad, gee thanks.
Remember that the next time you buy a chipset that is not supported.
I will look for a check in the mail from you to pay for the support
services.
> You still don't understand the diference between the 'free' and 'Free
> for Freedom'.
I understand that "FREE" does not pay the mortgage, pay for food, or pay
employees, or anything else. So you think GPL is welfare for the
underclass, nice.
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
> Remember that the next time you buy a chipset that is not supported.
> I will look for a check in the mail from you to pay for the support
> services.
Andre, Andre, Andre. Have I taught you nothing?!? Accept no checks,
only small unmarked bills in a brown paper bag.
:-)
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > Remember that the next time you buy a chipset that is not supported.
> > I will look for a check in the mail from you to pay for the support
> > services.
>
> Andre, Andre, Andre. Have I taught you nothing?!? Accept no checks,
> only small unmarked bills in a brown paper bag.
Yeah, well I already did work for the SPOOKS of the cloak-n-dagger world
the help deal with world terrorism and have yet to be paid! I do
electronic wire transfers in two stages now.
One to a front bank that relays to the second real one.
Pissy people who try to get their money back by rewinding the tapes!
I guess I will spend the profits on sharks, instead of maybe funding
projects. See there are people who will do the right thing. The part
people do not get is, they only do it when it benefits them also.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> > > Remember that the next time you buy a chipset that is not supported.
> > > I will look for a check in the mail from you to pay for the support
> > > services.
> >
> > Andre, Andre, Andre. Have I taught you nothing?!? Accept no checks,
> > only small unmarked bills in a brown paper bag.
>
> Yeah, well I already did work for the SPOOKS of the cloak-n-dagger world
> the help deal with world terrorism and have yet to be paid! I do
> electronic wire transfers in two stages now.
I should mention it is The Department of Treasury's Criminal Investigation
Division of the Internal Revenue Service who can not pay their BILLS!
This is in concert with all the partners in the Intelligence gathering
communitities, who are indirectly to blame for not paying their bills.
Then again who cares.
Later!
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
You don't understand "free" in this context. You're talking about free as
in price, we're talking about free as in freedom.
Educate yourself, then come back and discuss freedom.
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> Yes but....
>
> I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2
> years and cost $X million to develop.
>
> Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding
> my people? Am I a bad person charging for my work?
>
> Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy
> people giving everything away for free!
>
> Andrew
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> You don't understand "free" in this context. You're talking about free as
> in price, we're talking about free as in freedom.
>
> Educate yourself, then come back and discuss freedom.
How about understanding "freedom" has a price and that price is not "free".
The price is to do it yourself, or pay someone else to do it.
Regardless there are associated costs, so the context is correct.
You choose stop at the idea of "freedom" no the cost of granting the
"freedom".
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
Jon Portnoy wrote:
> You don't understand "free" in this context. You're talking about free as
> in price, we're talking about free as in freedom.
>
> Educate yourself, then come back and discuss freedom.
Please don't be so naive as to imply that there is no
coorelation between the freedom to download, compile, use,
and distribute source, and the freedom of not having to
pay for the source or binary.
While some enlightened few may donate a few bucks here and
there to free projects, the vast majority do not, and I do not
ever expect that to change.
For instance: I wrote a vlan module for linux once. And put up
a pay-pal donation cup. I have received two donations of 50c each
in three years. It actually amuses me that I got that much, and I
do not want anyone who reads this to even think of donating more. :)
And please don't mention the 'support model'. This may work
for a few market segments serving big businesses, but it does not
appear to work at all for end-user applications.
>
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:
>
>
>>Yes but....
>>
>>I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2
>>years and cost $X million to develop.
>>
>>Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding
>>my people? Am I a bad person charging for my work?
>>
>>Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy
>>people giving everything away for free!
>>
>>Andrew
>>
>>-
>>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>>the body of a message to [email protected]
>>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
Ben Greear <[email protected]> <Ben_Greear AT excite.com>
President of Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
ScryMUD: http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 02:42:14PM +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> This is very much like selling cars were the gas tank is locked, and
> you don't have the key. The gas stations have keys, but only
> some of them. So you can't fill anywhere.
> Or a tv that don't work on thursdays. Silly in the extreme,
> annoying for the user and no benefit for the manufacturer.
Balderdash! It is like selling a car with free professional
maintenance, but no manuals to allow you to repair your own car. :-)
It might be true that nVidia is actually limiting their market. Since
that results in loss of money to nVidia, and not to you, it really isn't
any of our call. If they are not yet comfortable with the GPL, then that
is the way it is. _I'm_ not comfortable with the GPL -- although that is
mostly Richard Stallman's fault, as I liked the GPL before he opened his
mouth...
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 07:57:52AM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> | Seriously though, just what is it that graphic CPU makers are
> | protecting? I can't imagine "how to program our spiffy CPU'" docs exposing
> | anything important to their competition. Imagine Intel or AMD trying that
> | tactic for _their_ next CPU. What makes graphics CPUs so special?
> Imagine them doing that for their current CPU.
> That's what Nvidia is doing, isn't it?
It would be the same if Intel came with its own operating system, or if
nVidia hardware came without drivers.
As it is, it really *isn't* the same.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
Ah, so I'm not bad then - just confused!
Just to confirm then;
I am free to develop computer games, keep the source code closed, sell
the software for cash, and I'm just a fine and dandy chap and Richard
Stallman will be my bestest mate?
Fab! I'm so happy.
[ For non British among you:
Irony \I"ron*y\, n.[L. ironia, Gr. ? dissimulation, fr. ? a
dissembler in speech, fr. ? to speak; perh. akin to E. word:
cf. F. ironie.]
1. Dissimulation; ignorance feigned for the purpose of
confounding or provoking an antagonist.
2. A sort of humor, ridicule, or light sarcasm, which adopts
a mode of speech the meaning of which is contrary to the
literal sense of the words.
]
Jon Portnoy wrote:
> Educate yourself, then come back and discuss freedom.
You're having a laugh mate. :)
What I see is a lot of people wait for new technology to be supported,
yet do nothing to enable the ones who have access and are willing to take
the risks of dealing with the vendors who are paranoid.
Yes, that is a shame. How can we change that? We have to spread the
word through our community that encouraging and rewarding Nvidia is
self-destructive until they cooperate with our freedom.
What if they decide to thumb the nose at you?
I believe that is what they are doing now. (Please correct me
if I'm wrong--I would be glad to hear it.)
What if they decide to withdraw their drivers?
We would not lose any free software that way, and it might increase
the impetus for people to work improving on the free drivers. In the
long run, this would be for the best.
If people want to use "non-free drivers", they choose to execute the
freedom to do so. Now, what is clearly stated in your text is, FREEDOM
means the vendor of the "non-free drivers" has NONE!
Making a program non-free is denying other people the freedom to
study, change and/or redistribute it. It is an act of domination. To
speak of the "freedom" to dominate others is to stretch the concept of
freedom into a Russell paradox.
> The clear part of your statement is your attitude toward our
> community. You express derision for the very idea of asking a company
> to contribute to free software. We are fortunate that Netscape, Sun,
> and IBM, and the people who won their partial cooperation, did not
> take your advice.
News flash: it's a well documented fact that there was nobody at Sun who
before or since has spent as much time as I have trying to free up Sun's
code.
Take a look at http://www.bitmover.com/lm/papers/srcos.html which Bob Young
credits as having a large influence on how Red Hat was set up, also well
documented.
Tell me again that I don't understand free software and that I'm against it
and all you do is make yourself look even more foolish. Whether you want
to resemble one of the wackos on soapbox in Hyde Park is up to you, but
that's what you look like.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
If "have faith in freedom" means to assume it will take care of
itself, that is always bad advice.
History shows that people who don't defend their freedom tend to lose
it. There are many opportunities to lose one's freedom. Businesses
even create them, hoping you will take the bait--many people do. The
price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
One way we can defend our freedom is by refusing to buy the hardware
that needs non-free drivers. To make this pressure effective, we need
to do it consistently; a haphazard boycott by occasional individuals
won't be felt.
Our community is not organized to do this consistently. Most of the
people in our community have never thought about whether using
non-free drivers is a good idea; they probably don't even realize
there is a difference. It isn't their fault--they hardly have a
chance to find out, because few individuals or organizations in our
community try to inform them.
If anyone is interested in doing substantial work on a project to help
the users identify which hardware to use, please write to me.
You don't seem to mind the fact that my freedom to use Linux would be
hampered if you successfully prove that [non-free] modules for
Linux are illegal.
I'm not trying to prove this--as I see it, Linus gave permission for
them, which means they are legal. I regret his decision to do this,
but I cannot change it.
But let's suppose that that were changed. It would not affect your
"freedom" to use Linux (and GNU/Linux), only whether it runs on a
certain computer. It is true that this might mean a practical
sacrifice--you might have to get a different kind of computer, for
instance. I don't see that as a horrible thing. We look for
computers that work with free drivers; you can too.
You don't really have freedom now, if you need a non-free module. In
the long run, your best chance of being able to use a fully free
GNU/Linux system on the hardware you use is if we stand firm together
for the freedom of the system.
If open source is so good, companies with closed source products will
change.
I don't support the open source movement, but I know what they say
about this. They say that open source usually leads to more powerful
and reliable software. Nothing assures us that will persuade all
companies to adopt the practice. You have simplified their position
to a point where they would not recognize it.
You seem to be saying that we should sit back and let these inevitable
forces either convince all companies to make software free--or not.
If we had such a passive attitude, no free system would exist.
GNU/Linux exists because of people who were willing to work to have
freedom. Freedom does not yet prevail, and we have plenty more work
to do to make that happen. And after we fully have freedom, we will
still have to work, to make sure we don't lose it.
Yeah, if only the company that has invested millions in trying to scratch
out a place to stand, if only they would give us their intellectual
property for free,
The term "intellectual property" lumps together copyrights, patents,
trademarks and other more obscure areas of law, all of which are
totally different. (See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html.)
Its main use is to obfuscate the difference between these areas and
discourage careful clear thinking.
The clear part of your statement is your attitude toward our
community. You express derision for the very idea of asking a company
to contribute to free software. We are fortunate that Netscape, Sun,
and IBM, and the people who won their partial cooperation, did not
take your advice.
Of all the programs in our community, your hostility falls most
squarely on kernels, since kernels are where most drivers go. Every
Linux developer should take note of the wishes you have just implied
for the future development of Linux.
Give it up, Stallman, we live in a capitalistic world. The Russians
tried communism and it didn't work.
The free software movement has always existed within Capitalism, and
fits within the Capitalist system. Our views have little in common
with Communism--we encourage business as long as it respects other
people's freedom to cooperate. Nothing could be more different from
the command economy that failed than the decentralized free software
community.
Inaccurate though it is, our enemies sometimes call us Communists.
Perhaps because Communism is easier to attack than our real views.
It is the world of proprietary software and other non-free information
that resembles the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union made strenuous
efforts to prevent and punish forbidden copying. The US today is
using analogous repressive methods to do the same thing. See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html.
On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 17:45, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On 3 Jan 2003, Marco Monteiro wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 12:51, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> > > Yes but....
> > >
> > > I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2
> > > years and cost $X million to develop.
> > >
> > > Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding
> > > my people? Am I a bad person charging for my work?
> >
> > No, not you. Bad is the people you work for: the code you write is not
> > yours.
>
> So since I work for myself and own my own companies, thus I own the code
> and I own the decision of what is published, I am the bad person?
>
> Thanks! Look how much I have given away, gee it is nothing.
> Only 80% or more of all IDE chipsets, I personally wrote.
> I am not allowed to make money to feed my family, pay from the cost of
> membership to standards, pay for the cost of joining working groups for
> new technology, pay for the cost of travel to the fore mentioned.
>
> Yet you bitch and whine and hold your hand out for me to do it for free?
>
> Well everything has a cost.
>
> You know I still have plans to open source a version of a current product
> after I make some money and recover the 18 months of development, hardware
> cost, travel, trade show, future membership dues. Why, because it is the
> right thing to do, and it will benefit me in the long run, and the open
> source. It also will raise the bar for what people expect.
>
> So I am bad, gee thanks.
>
> Remember that the next time you buy a chipset that is not supported.
> I will look for a check in the mail from you to pay for the support
> services.
>
> > You still don't understand the diference between the 'free' and 'Free
> > for Freedom'.
>
> I understand that "FREE" does not pay the mortgage, pay for food, or pay
> employees, or anything else. So you think GPL is welfare for the
> underclass, nice.
I ask you some questions.
You make software. You have a business model, to make money, where you
sell software. The software that you sell is NOT Free. Imagine, now,
that you change the business model, continuing to make money, where the
software you produce is Free. Wouldn't it be better?
In the end, the fundamental question is: Wouldn't it be a better world
if all software was Free and people continued to make money in other
ways? You know the advantages and disadvantages of Free Software, so
answer this question and you will understand my point of view.
Of course, I understand your point of view too. You think you can't make
money any other way other than sell non-Free Software. But maybe, just
maybe, that is possible, even for those that make games and don't see
any other possibility.
You understand now why I say that Free Software is good and non-Free
Software is bad?
I'm a pacifist. If I where called to fight, I would not do it. I would
not fight for my country, because I don't believe in war, no matter
what. I believe no one should fight. You may say it is a bad position:
my country can be invaded, etc. and I must defende it. I say NO, I WILL
NOT FIGHT. I am convicted that no one should fight and I tell every body
they should not fight. I tell you: Don't fight. I believe the world
would be better if there were no wars. Most people would probably say
that I'm a fool, or maybe a wimp, but that is my philosophy.
The same with Free Software. I believe in Free Software, I think that
every body should make their software Free. Maybe I'm just an asshole,
but if I am, at least, I'm an asshole with convictions. And I'm
convinced that the world would be a better place if ALL software was
Free Software.
--
Marco Monteiro
Long rant but it's a worthwhile read if you want to know why I don't
agree with Richard.
> You seem to be saying that we should sit back and let these inevitable
> forces either convince all companies to make software free--or not.
> If we had such a passive attitude, no free system would exist.
> GNU/Linux exists because of people who were willing to work to have
> freedom. Freedom does not yet prevail, and we have plenty more work
> to do to make that happen. And after we fully have freedom, we will
> still have to work, to make sure we don't lose it.
The problem with your point of view is that you are assuming that somehow
progress will continue to be made once you have that freedom. Let's just
look at that for a minute and see if that makes sense.
Postulate that all the software in the world is GPLed. All of it. That's
your goal as far as I can make out, but let's not argue about if it is or
is not, it doesn't matter.
Anyone who wants to build on that software can, there is almost perfect
code reuse. Again, something I think you want, certainly a nice idea.
Because all the software is freely available, this sets an upper bound
on how much any company can charge for it. If the amount they charge
for gathering it up and making a distribution, for example, is low
enough that other people look at it and think that's too little money
for that much work, then their prices will hold. On the other hand,
if they are charging twice that, another company can spring up which
grabs the software and sells it for the lower price, a price low enough
that no cheaper company can come in. Obviously, the first company either
drops their prices or goes out of business.
I think this too is what you want, it seems great, people are paying a
small amount of money to get the software, a much, much smaller amount
than they would be paying if the software were closed. Case in point:
Microsoft. Nobody would be paying what they charge if they didn't have
to do so. But people would certainly pay $20 or $50 for a CD full of
Windows + Office + whatever. But not much more and they'd pay for one CD
and then install it many many times, so the effective revenue per machine
would be less than one cent in an organization of any size.
So what's wrong with that picture, it seems fantastic? A world where we
can all share each other's work, the prices are low, anyone can tinker,
anyone can package, sounds great.
The problem is that the amount of money being generated is very small
compared to what software companies get under the closed source model.
So what? What's wrong with that? Well, under that model, none of the
software companies can afford to pay for any development out of the
distribution revenue, if they were charging more than it took to pay for
the people to build the distribution then someone would undercut them,
there is nothing they can do to prevent that. That same argument works
for the support model or anything else. It doesn't matter what model
you pick, if you charge more than it costs to do the work plus a very
slim profit margin, that presents an attractive opportunity for someone
else to set up shop.
We can argue about this until the cows come up but it's simple economics.
If there is no barrier to entry and a supplier is charging more it
costs, a cheaper supplier will enter the market and force the price down.
Even the most green MBA understands this and I don't think I need to tell
you that the VC's all understand this. For the sake of discussion, let's
assume that you agree with that statement (if you don't, don't bother
to argue with me, I'll ignore you, I'm not here to teach basic economics).
So we've established that in an all free world, even though some money
will change hands, it can't be significantly more than what it costs
to perform whatever service is being provided. In other words, there
is no extra money.
Is that a problem? I think so. If you look at the history of the free
software movement, it has been a history of imitation rather than one of
innovation (sorry to sound like Bill Gates but he has a point here).
Almost everything done in the free software world is a rewrite of
something that already existed. The GNU folks have made it clear for
years that what they wanted are free versions of the applications they
consider to be useful. They don't spend much time talking about anything
innovative, they talk about filling in the gaps where there is no free
version of Word or whatever. Over and over, RMS says "you would better
to not use $APP but instead dedicate some time to rewriting $APP so we
have a free version". That's not innovation, that's imitation.
Leaving aside the inevitable argument about whether or not the free
software world is or is not innovative, let's look at what it takes
to produce new things. The problem is that none of us have a real
crystal ball. We don't know which ideas will take hold in the market
and which won't. We can guess and maybe get lucky, but in general the
guesses are wrong much more than they are right. Look at the history
of startups. With all the screening that VC's do, all the due diligence,
we still have failures of at least 9/10 and these days more like 99/100.
For every Ebay or Google there are hundreds of startups which started
about the same time as Ebay or Google but are are long and forgotten.
If we look at the entire software development world as one big system,
what history shows us is that the vast majority of the effort is wasted,
only 1% of it succeeds (1%, 10%, pick your number, the vast majority of
it fails).
Let's say it is 10% of it that succeeds. Under the world RMS is proposing,
not only is there no money to pay for the startup costs of that 10%, there
is no money to pay for the 90% that doesn't succeed. Not from within the
system, the only way that money can exist is if it is from people outside
of the software world, every penny in the software world is spoken for.
Let's say that I'm wrong, we can come up with enough extra money to pay
for the 10% which is going to succeed. The problem is that we don't
know in advance wich 10% will succeed, which means that we are really
only funding 1/10th of the startups. Which slows down innovation to
1/10th the speed.
I don't know about you, but that's not a world I want to live in. Google
wouldn't exist in Richard's world, I know that for a fact. Sergey and
Larry would have gone into some other field, they are ambitious people.
Ditto for Ebay, Amazon, and any number of other companies which have
become institutions.
You may or may not still be reading, you may or may not agree, but my
view is that Richard's proposed world is a very bleak sort of place.
There won't be any companies coming out with new ideas to copy, there
won't be the frenetic pace of innovation, it will be a sort of gray
place, like selling washing machines. I don't know about you, but I
like the world we live in. Yeah, the fact that Microsoft has the money
really sucks but if that's the price I have to pay to get things like
Google and Ebay and Amazon and Shutterfly and <fill in your favorite
new software company here>, that's OK with me. You might want think
about whether you would trade all of that for Richard's utopian world.
Maybe you would, I wouldn't and I don't think very many other people
would either.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Richard,
I admire your staunch stand; I don't always agree with it, but I admire you
nonetheless. I've been in the social justice business myself (and still am,
to a new degree); it ain't easy. In fact, I burned out a while back, and
decided to take a little rest.
Five years is long enough for rest, I guess.
> Making a program non-free is denying other people the freedom to
> study, change and/or redistribute it. It is an act of domination.
Quite true. nVidia wishes to maintain control -- to dominate -- the market
for video cards. As such, they are reluctant to reveal details of their
product which might be useful to a competitor. In a system that looks at
benefit-loss in terms of dollars-euros-yen, there is no incentive for nVidia
to open their drivers or provide proprietary information.
Cash-strapped Universities accept corporate sponsorships, only to lose the
freedom to publish new discoveries. Drug companies keep their research
private, rather than combin efforts with other companies to produce better
medicines. These same problems underly draconian laws that have twisted
copyrights and patents into corporate "assets." From deforesting the planet
to the fight for "GNU/Linux", it all comes down to one thing: corporate
dominance of society.
And Linux is the best thing that ever happend to GNU.
Why?
Because outside a few technorati "in the know", few people had *heard* of
free software until Linux caught on. The term GNU/Linux is correct both
technically and morally, but the *term* is less important than the theme.
Linux has opened a door for the promotion of free ideals in the general
population -- a truly remarkable event!
Counterpoint: Linux would not exist without GNU.
The relationship of GNU and Linux should be mutually symbiotic, not
confrontational. Would you be happy if it were called Linux/GNU, for
example? Or does GNU need to be first for some symbolic or emotional reason?
The goal is not the self-promotion of GNU, but the advancement of
intellectual freedom. Instead of being ignored by nVidia, they are meeting
us part way -- and that's better than not meeting them at all! nVidia
produce good hardware, and they provide a free (as in beer) driver that in
turn attracts people to use Linux/GNU. Those people increase the audience
that hears about the value of intellectual freedom, and they (assuming they
*are* educated by us) put market pressure on nVidia to release
free-as-in-freedom drivers.
In other words, we use market forces to open windows of opportunity, through
which we illuminate the masses who were unreachable before.
Confrontation builds walls; wedges break them down.
-- Scott Robert Ladd
I just can't let anything this silly go by..
On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 16:19, Marco Monteiro wrote:
> I ask you some questions.
>
> You make software. You have a business model, to make money, where you
> sell software. The software that you sell is NOT Free. Imagine, now,
> that you change the business model, continuing to make money, where the
> software you produce is Free. Wouldn't it be better?
It'd be even better if you could change the business model so that you
made MORE money without having to even go through the effort of making
software, or even doing much of anything at all. But (as you may
recall) that business model imploded rather dramatically last year or
so...
> In the end, the fundamental question is: Wouldn't it be a better world
> if all software was Free and people continued to make money in other
> ways? You know the advantages and disadvantages of Free Software, so
> answer this question and you will understand my point of view.
Anyone who opens a statement with "wouldn't it be a better world..." has
usually just found another variant on "..if wishing really hard for
something made it come true?" This is no different.
> Of course, I understand your point of view too. You think you can't make
> money any other way other than sell non-Free Software. But maybe, just
> maybe, that is possible, even for those that make games and don't see
> any other possibility.
>
> You understand now why I say that Free Software is good and non-Free
> Software is bad?
Yep. Because you have wishes and horses confused. (Or, possibly, were
hit on the head recently.) Want to get them detangled? Explain how he
can recoup his millions of dollars worth of game development by giving
it away; don't just say "it'd be swell if you did, and the world would
be better, honest" but say HOW. As in "it'd be swell if you did, and
you can feed your family by <stealing/working in fast food/selling
someone else's game instead/....>"
> I'm a pacifist. If I where called to fight, I would not do it. I would
> not fight for my country, because I don't believe in war, no matter
> what. I believe no one should fight. You may say it is a bad position:
> my country can be invaded, etc. and I must defende it. I say NO, I WILL
> NOT FIGHT. I am convicted that no one should fight and I tell every body
> they should not fight. I tell you: Don't fight. I believe the world
> would be better if there were no wars. Most people would probably say
> that I'm a fool, or maybe a wimp, but that is my philosophy.
> The same with Free Software. I believe in Free Software, I think that
> every body should make their software Free. Maybe I'm just an asshole,
> but if I am, at least, I'm an asshole with convictions. And I'm
> convinced that the world would be a better place if ALL software was
> Free Software.
Um. Heh. I'm gonna leave this to stand, there's very little I can add
that wouldn't reduce its humour.
> --
> Marco Monteiro
> While some would argue that this leaves you open to piracy. Let's be
> honest how many pirates compile anything.
A prominent open source supporter once told me that "putting software out
there with any open source license is like putting it out there in the
public domain".
The pirates absolutely know how to compile things and they do.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
I almost missed the best laugh I've had in a while. Thanks
so much. I'm sure it wasn't intentional on your part and i
don't wish to belittle your poor English but you might wish
to work on it. It is not my habit to make fun of the
mistakes of others.
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 09:19:49PM +0000, Marco Monteiro wrote:
> I ask you some questions.
>
> You make software. You have a business model, to make money, where you
> sell software. The software that you sell is NOT Free. Imagine, now,
> that you change the business model, continuing to make money, where the
> software you produce is Free. Wouldn't it be better?
>
> In the end, the fundamental question is: Wouldn't it be a better world
> if all software was Free and people continued to make money in other
> ways? You know the advantages and disadvantages of Free Software, so
> answer this question and you will understand my point of view.
>
> Of course, I understand your point of view too. You think you can't make
> money any other way other than sell non-Free Software. But maybe, just
> maybe, that is possible, even for those that make games and don't see
> any other possibility.
>
> You understand now why I say that Free Software is good and non-Free
> Software is bad?
>
> I'm a pacifist. If I where called to fight, I would not do it. I would
> not fight for my country, because I don't believe in war, no matter
> what. I believe no one should fight. You may say it is a bad position:
> my country can be invaded, etc. and I must defende it. I say NO, I WILL
> NOT FIGHT. I am convicted that no one should fight and I tell every body
> they should not fight. I tell you: Don't fight. I believe the world
> would be better if there were no wars. Most people would probably say
> that I'm a fool, or maybe a wimp, but that is my philosophy.
> The same with Free Software. I believe in Free Software, I think that
> every body should make their software Free. Maybe I'm just an asshole,
> but if I am, at least, I'm an asshole with convictions. And I'm
> convinced that the world would be a better place if ALL software was
> Free Software.
I think he meant "everybody". The word "everyone" would
have completely avoided the double entendre. I should note
that in a draft you could be convicted. Not every country
tolerates conscientious objectors and even the U.S. has
rather stringent requirements for that status. And no, i
don't consider anyone who actually stands by such principles
when the going gets tough a wimp.
--
________________________________________________________________
J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address: [email protected]
Remember Cernan and Schmitt
Larry McVoy wrote:
>>However, with a license like the GPL, every game has to be developed on a
>>proprietary base. You simply can't afford to put any money into an open
>>source base. So every game has to start back from square one, or the most
>>advanced proprietary base that can be found.
>>
>>
>
>Back in the heyday of attention to open source, I spent hours and hours
>and hours on the phone with Raymond trying to get the OSI to come up with
>a "business source license" which would address some of these issues.
>think there is a strong need for something like that, but the GPL
>fanatics are desperate to paint the world as black or white and force
>people into an entirely open or entirely closed choice. The reason they
>want to do this is that they know darn well that it is always the middle
>of the road compromise which wins, and they don't want to compromise.
>So we get these endless tirades about how the GPL is the One True Way
>and anything else is Evil.
>
>It was most unfortunate that I couldn't get anywhere with ESR. If he and
>the OSI had come up with some compromises, rather than just pandering to a
>small but vocal group, I think that he would have cemented a significant
>place in history. I am positive that the world will eventually move in
>directions where there is some sort of compromise, maybe something like
>you get N years of closed use and then the old stuff has to be opened,
>whatever. The world already understands that you need to make money to
>survive and the world is starting to understand that there is value in
>having things be open.
>
Well the 2 most obvious licenses would be usage based and escrow like.
1) In a usage based license you would be required to posses a license
to use the software. You would posses the source, permission to make
modification, and permission to use the resulting binaries. Ideally the
license would also allow redistribution of patches, and reselling licenses.
This is the sort of license I think Microsoft should be persuing with
their larger customers. Giving your customer source, with the ability
to use modified binaries is just silly. As far as games go you can see
how this would work and stimulate sales just by looking at the mod
community for Tribes, or Quake. Or the use of the various 3D engines by
3rd parties.
While some would argue that this leaves you open to piracy. Let's be
honest how many pirates compile anything. At most they disable the copy
protection with hex-editor.
2)Escrow licenses are fairly common in business today for various types
of custom software. In essence the source is held by a 3rd party and
given to the customer if the licenser is in breach of contract. I can
easily see a license not requiring a third party, but simply stating
that the source would be released upon the software becoming
unsupported, after a time frame, or if the vendor failed to address a
certain class of bug within a time frame.
There is no such thing as obsolete hardware.
Merely hardware that other people don't want.
(The Second Rule of Hardware Acquisition)
Sam Flory <[email protected]>
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> The term "intellectual property" lumps together copyrights, patents,
> trademarks and other more obscure areas of law, all of which are
> totally different. (See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html.)
> Its main use is to obfuscate the difference between these areas and
> discourage careful clear thinking.
How about expanding the acronym IP to mean "intellectual patrimony" ?
This reflects on both sides of the copyright deal and the patent
system:
1) the work/invention was created by somebody, who should be
compensated as an encouragement to share the work/invention
with the rest of humankind
2) ultimately the work/invention belongs to all of mankind and
not to the author/inventor ... after all, the work/invention
is based on thousands of years of cultural and technical
development, the vast majority of which is used without any
restrictions or royalties (eg. the wheel)
3) future generations should be able to use the new intellectual
patrimony without any restriction, just like we are able to
use old intellectual patrimony without any restrictions
kind regards,
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If "have faith in freedom" means to assume it will take care of
> itself, that is always bad advice.
Agreed.
> One way we can defend our freedom is by refusing to buy the hardware
> that needs non-free drivers. To make this pressure effective,
Absolutely agreed, this way we might even give nvidia an actual
reason to open up their driver. Infinitely better than whining
about nvidia doing something they have all right to do...
regards,
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>
On January 3, 2003 04:26 pm, Larry McVoy wrote:
> If we look at the entire software development world as one big system,
> what history shows us is that the vast majority of the effort is wasted,
> only 1% of it succeeds (1%, 10%, pick your number, the vast majority of
> it fails).
Larry, in general I agree with you, but there are a number of things
that you've touched upon which I feel need a bit of a debate.
1. Immitation vs. Inovation
The free software world has started from 0 relatively recently.
It is to be expected that we first fill in the gaps that are
known to be useful, before we start experimenting. I don't think
this is a major case against us. As for money that is fueling
research, this is not quite so. It works well in telecom, it
has a poor record in drug companies, it has a lousy record in
software. For how much money MS has, what have they innovated?
2. Research & Money
It seems to me that history has proven that the open ways of the
scientific community has generated _order_ of magnitude more
research than the closed business model. Not to mention mathematics.
Software is a lot more like mathematics than a construction company.
What have all this money produced in software that's we didn't do
for free? You see, it is hard for me to say this since I am a
'rightist': I believe in the free market, capitalism, etc. But it
certainly looks to me that software works out better in the open.
And if that's the case, how do we avoid the bleak world you're painting?
In all honesty, I don't know. But it might not be as ba as you make it
to be. It might end up like science today: it doesn't pay to be a
scientist, but I guess it's fun so people do it. Yeah, you will not have
as much money to test all sort of silly ideas (the 99% that fails), but
tell me, what do we get out of that? In a free software world, if there
is a need for something, it will get done. Maybe not now, but in 6 month,
or 1 year. Big deal. We don't need a Big Brother to invest large amounts
of money to convince us that we _need_ his useless program.
3. All free software
This, you know, we'll never happen. We have free software mostly in the
world of consumer software, and really, it's only a handful of companies
(MS mostly) that will lose if this turns free. But the vast majority of
sofware is developed in house, for a client, and that can stay proprietary.
We're talking mostly infrastructure (OS, X, Office) that need to be free.
And we all benefit from it. The software that the banks use can stay
proprietary and continue being shit as it is now. There's no inovation going
on there, just mony thrown out the window.
--
Dimi.
Absolutely.
Putting out the source for a game would be financial suicide. Unlike
(most) corporations, Kids don't understand or care about licenses. The
trouble with digital data as we all know is that it is infinitely
perfectly reproducible. In my industry (games), that includes binaries :(
Of course I and probably many others are moving to a new model for our
games. I'm probably being more radical than most; Open Source client
software. Useless of course without a connection to my server side code :)
It's the first game I've produced that is pirate proof.
Somewhat like Larry's business model I think?
Larry McVoy wrote:
>> While some would argue that this leaves you open to piracy. Let's be
>>honest how many pirates compile anything.
>
>
> A prominent open source supporter once told me that "putting software out
> there with any open source license is like putting it out there in the
> public domain".
>
> The pirates absolutely know how to compile things and they do.
Richard,
I am going to sell and ship binary only models which is solely a protocol.
One which is in a working group and is not an offical document but will be
ratified soon.
I will not release the source code period. It is not a derived work.
It can and will be capable of running it on other unixs as well has have a
version for microsoft and maybe apple.
The API and boundary will execute all kernel operations and calls outside
of the core protocol. There is no hardware period. It is pure software.
I am prepared to show the the source of the API callers; however, given
the anal nature of the review I expect. I need a few more days to extract
every damn possible kernel function or caller that is even close to my
property. The object generated from that file will then be linked with a
private closed source library, which may or may not be setup under LGPL.
This would be the Library GPL and not the updated Lesser GPL.
But I am not prepared to set this position yet.
Are you prepared to SUE me ?
Are you prepared to SUE others like me ?
Are you prepared to SUE every company in Silicon Valley for embedded ?
Are you prepared to SUE every settop box vendor ?
Either, put up or walk on this issue.
Fear, Threats, and Intimidation resulting from a willful grey zone so
clearly and cleverly designed by yourself is not acceptable.
Since I am in a position of loosing revenue today because of this silly
issue of usage of headers and not any inline code inside them, I will seek
counter damages if I am forced into litigation.
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
Andrew Walrond wrote:
> Absolutely.
>
> Putting out the source for a game would be financial suicide. Unlike
> (most) corporations, Kids don't understand or care about licenses. The
> trouble with digital data as we all know is that it is infinitely
> perfectly reproducible. In my industry (games), that includes binaries :(
I simply question the idea that someone would need or want to download
the source, and compile it for the purposes of piracy. The current
state of things seems to indicate the absence of source doesn't prevent
piracy. I suspect that I can find a usable pirated copy of virtually
any popular software on the net. This because copy protection doesn't
work against any intelligent and determined person. It works against
the really lazy, and stupid who wouldn't be able, or want to compile a
program any way.
>
>
> Of course I and probably many others are moving to a new model for our
> games. I'm probably being more radical than most; Open Source client
> software. Useless of course without a connection to my server side
> code :)
>
> It's the first game I've produced that is pirate proof.
>
> Somewhat like Larry's business model I think?
>
>
> Larry McVoy wrote:
>
>>> While some would argue that this leaves you open to piracy. Let's
>>> be honest how many pirates compile anything.
>>
>>
>>
>> A prominent open source supporter once told me that "putting software
>> out
>> there with any open source license is like putting it out there in the
>> public domain".
>>
>> The pirates absolutely know how to compile things and they do.
>
Yes but why bother. You don't need the source code to pirate software.
--
There is no such thing as obsolete hardware.
Merely hardware that other people don't want.
(The Second Rule of Hardware Acquisition)
Sam Flory <[email protected]>
From: "Samuel Flory" <[email protected]>
> I simply question the idea that someone would need or want to download
> the source, and compile it for the purposes of piracy. The current
> state of things seems to indicate the absence of source doesn't prevent
> piracy. I suspect that I can find a usable pirated copy of virtually
> any popular software on the net. This because copy protection doesn't
> work against any intelligent and determined person. It works against
> the really lazy, and stupid who wouldn't be able, or want to compile a
> program any way.
There is a logic fallacy here, Samuel. Absence of source not preventing
theft has nothing to do with the level and kind of theft if the source
is placed out there for competitors to steal. When the hardware playing
field is more or less even and the OS playing field is more or less even
the only particular value added for games or for small marketplace code
comes from wringing superior performance out of the provided components.
When I place a piece of software out for purchase that features a new
innovation in the use of a given hardware platform my competitors look
it over intently, "How'd she do that?" I am pretty sure they can figure
it out quickly enough. But, I still have a 3 to 6 month lead time to pay
for the roof over my head before the competitors are selling the same
feature. If I give then my source code that lead time goes away and I
am left flipping burgers to pay for a coding habit. Trust me, it ain't
going to go down that way. If a benefactor cares to pay for my
innovations and release them with source immediately then I am willing
to play the game. I am not after world domination. I just want to pay
for my food and housing and some hobbies so that my life is worth
living. I'm just not willing to give away what should be creating a
life for me. That way of living is an exotic form of suicide. As a
software consultant my income is getting paid for my work. If I release
that code to the public immediately it is ready for release I don't
have an income. Both my stomach and the IRS get disappointed. The
latter I can happily deal with. The former is more bother than I can
handle.
{^_^} Joanne, [email protected]
On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 21:37, Disconnect wrote:
> > I'm a pacifist. If I where called to fight, I would not do it. I would
> > not fight for my country, because I don't believe in war, no matter
> > what. I believe no one should fight. You may say it is a bad position:
> > my country can be invaded, etc. and I must defende it. I say NO, I WILL
> > NOT FIGHT. I am convicted that no one should fight and I tell every body
> > they should not fight. I tell you: Don't fight. I believe the world
> > would be better if there were no wars. Most people would probably say
> > that I'm a fool, or maybe a wimp, but that is my philosophy.
> > The same with Free Software. I believe in Free Software, I think that
> > every body should make their software Free. Maybe I'm just an asshole,
> > but if I am, at least, I'm an asshole with convictions. And I'm
> > convinced that the world would be a better place if ALL software was
> > Free Software.
>
> Um. Heh. I'm gonna leave this to stand, there's very little I can add
> that wouldn't reduce its humour.
I'm happy you found it funny. At least it serves the purpose of amusing
someone. :)
--
Marco Monteiro <[email protected]>
Hear hear!
RMS, I've heckled you in person on this subject, so now I'm going to do it
online too.
One aspect of freedom you carefully ignore is that of the writers of code
to do what they will with it. Now, in general I and my company do place
our code under whichever free license makes sense for the particular
project, as a matter of principle. So we have produced code under GPL
(linux kernel and emacs variants), BSD licenses (network protocols, BSD
kernel, python libraries), patches to both python and perl under their own
licenses, and even MPL code with the 'original developer' rights
deliberately given to another company to maintain and distribute. We are
not hostile to free software, but neither are we to the right of original
authors to make their own decisions.
But sometimes we can't make things free, either because it comes to close
to core IP which we are legally bound to protect, or because it's a derived
work of something we bought and don't ourselves have the right to
redistribute. Often this is hardware support code, sometimes it compiles
into hardware (embedded FPGAs). Even so, if we can we make it open-source,
closed-distribution (in other words, to get the code you must have bought
the license to the original IP). This preserves as much freedom as we
ourselves have been given the option to.
Linus has made it quite clear in the past that his position on binary
modules is that they are explicitly allowed, but that the maintainers of
such a thing 'get everything they deserve' in terms of maintenance hassle.
Which is fair enough, the developers of the GPL kernel don't need the
hassle of maintaining APIs to the degree that would guarantee backwards
compatibility for pure binary modules. To keep the kernel as good as it is
and continue improving it, that is necessary.
To explicitly allow binary modules implies that the module loading process
is not linking in the terms of the GPL. The *only* grey area is the status
of inline functions and assembler in the hearder files, and clever
construction of a module's shim driver can deal with that one.
Andre, what I see you doing here is exactly what NVIDIA already did, which
is (L)GPL the interface to the kernel and keep the core algorithms
proprietary. I don't know what your constraints are, but it doesn't
matter, you are entitled to do that. Even if it is simply that you want to
make money off the code. I take it that it's an iSCSI target for the Linux
VFS or block device layer? That would be very cool, and certainly worth
basing a company on.
I understand from a former NVIDIA employee that NVIDIA are not able to GPL
the whole driver since some of it is not their code; I suspect that some of
the non-NVIDIA code actually belongs to Microsoft. So they have opened it
up to the extent possible for them.
Nowhere in any of this do I see anyone doing anything that is actually
wrong. By sueing either Andre or NVIDIA, Richard, you'd be the one
committing the wrong, by taking away either Andre's freedom to decide on
his business plans, or the communities access to NVIDIAs hardware, which
they have provided with considerable goodwill. And both Andre's goodwill
and NVIDIAs are of considerable value to the community.
Neither of these are good test cases for the spirit of the GPL; the past
events of, for instance, vendors refusing to release source for betas of a
Linux distribution, are far more to the point.
And a test case based on kernel binary modules would be very destructive to
the free software community. First because it is likely to cause a mass
exodus of vendors from Linux. Where would they go? BSD, of course, where
no such issue can arise, as well as a variety of purely proprietary
systems. But more importantly, it would reinforce the whole concept of
intellectual property in a manner that, in the end, will result in an even
more hostile to freedom environment. I think it is important for the free
software community to remember that the freedom of all creators of ideas is
vitally important, and for us not to contribute to the shackles being
placed on music, literature, and science. For ultimately, they are more
important than software alone.
Andrew
--On Friday, January 03, 2003 15:01:51 -0800 Andre Hedrick
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> I am going to sell and ship binary only models which is solely a protocol.
> One which is in a working group and is not an offical document but will be
> ratified soon.
>
> I will not release the source code period. It is not a derived work.
> It can and will be capable of running it on other unixs as well has have a
> version for microsoft and maybe apple.
>
> The API and boundary will execute all kernel operations and calls outside
> of the core protocol. There is no hardware period. It is pure software.
> I am prepared to show the the source of the API callers; however, given
> the anal nature of the review I expect. I need a few more days to extract
> every damn possible kernel function or caller that is even close to my
> property. The object generated from that file will then be linked with a
> private closed source library, which may or may not be setup under LGPL.
>
> This would be the Library GPL and not the updated Lesser GPL.
> But I am not prepared to set this position yet.
>
> Are you prepared to SUE me ?
> Are you prepared to SUE others like me ?
> Are you prepared to SUE every company in Silicon Valley for embedded ?
> Are you prepared to SUE every settop box vendor ?
>
> Either, put up or walk on this issue.
>
> Fear, Threats, and Intimidation resulting from a willful grey zone so
> clearly and cleverly designed by yourself is not acceptable.
>
> Since I am in a position of loosing revenue today because of this silly
> issue of usage of headers and not any inline code inside them, I will seek
> counter damages if I am forced into litigation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andre Hedrick
> LAD Storage Consulting Group
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
jdow wrote:
>From: "Samuel Flory" <[email protected]>
>
>
>
>> I simply question the idea that someone would need or want to download
>>the source, and compile it for the purposes of piracy. The current
>>state of things seems to indicate the absence of source doesn't prevent
>>piracy. I suspect that I can find a usable pirated copy of virtually
>>any popular software on the net. This because copy protection doesn't
>>work against any intelligent and determined person. It works against
>>the really lazy, and stupid who wouldn't be able, or want to compile a
>>program any way.
>>
>>
>
>There is a logic fallacy here, Samuel. Absence of source not preventing
>theft has nothing to do with the level and kind of theft if the source
>is placed out there for competitors to steal.
>
There is no logical fallacy as I was talking in terms of consumer
level piracy.
> When the hardware playing
>field is more or less even and the OS playing field is more or less even
>the only particular value added for games or for small marketplace code
>comes from wringing superior performance out of the provided components.
>When I place a piece of software out for purchase that features a new
>innovation in the use of a given hardware platform my competitors look
>it over intently, "How'd she do that?" I am pretty sure they can figure
>it out quickly enough. But, I still have a 3 to 6 month lead time to pay
>for the roof over my head before the competitors are selling the same
>feature. If I give then my source code that lead time goes away and I
>am left flipping burgers to pay for a coding habit.
>
Don't get me wrong I understand this. This is why I feel most games
would tend toward an escrow license if they tended toward any sort of
open license. You could claim this as a trend by citing Doom, and
Quake. Few games have a shelf life much beyond 6 months.
That said I've never bought a game because it had a certain feature.
(Other than the ability to pause and issue orders in RTS.)
>Trust me, it ain't
>going to go down that way. If a benefactor cares to pay for my
>innovations and release them with source immediately then I am willing
>to play the game. I am not after world domination. I just want to pay
>for my food and housing and some hobbies so that my life is worth
>living. I'm just not willing to give away what should be creating a
>life for me. That way of living is an exotic form of suicide. As a
>software consultant my income is getting paid for my work. If I release
>that code to the public immediately it is ready for release I don't
>have an income. Both my stomach and the IRS get disappointed. The
>latter I can happily deal with. The former is more bother than I can
>handle.
>
>
I think you are taking this discussion a bit more serious than me.
I'm just theorizing where trends are (or could be) heading. Of course
my livelihood has always been dependent on selling hardware;-)
--
There is no such thing as obsolete hardware.
Merely hardware that other people don't want.
(The Second Rule of Hardware Acquisition)
Sam Flory <[email protected]>
Larry,
I know your post was directed at RMS, however I felt inspired to respond :)
Perhaps there is an alternate outcome to the future you see, bare with me.
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
> The problem with your point of view is that you are assuming that somehow
> progress will continue to be made once you have that freedom. Let's just
> look at that for a minute and see if that makes sense.
>
> Postulate that all the software in the world is GPLed. All of it. That's
> your goal as far as I can make out, but let's not argue about if it is or
> is not, it doesn't matter.
>
> Anyone who wants to build on that software can, there is almost perfect
> code reuse. Again, something I think you want, certainly a nice idea.
Add to this:
No Software patents or greatly shorting the length of
software patents.
All hardware specs are published.
>
> Because all the software is freely available, this sets an upper bound
> on how much any company can charge for it. If the amount they charge
> for gathering it up and making a distribution, for example, is low
> enough that other people look at it and think that's too little money
> for that much work, then their prices will hold. On the other hand,
> if they are charging twice that, another company can spring up which
> grabs the software and sells it for the lower price, a price low enough
> that no cheaper company can come in. Obviously, the first company either
> drops their prices or goes out of business.
You seem to view software like a chair or a box of legos? Something that
is designed, implemented and then sold. This is the predominant view,
perhaps software can be thought of as simply:
Ideas + Skill + Time + Natural Resources.
[Snip]
> If there is no barrier to entry and a supplier is charging more it
> costs, a cheaper supplier will enter the market and force the price down.
> Even the most green MBA understands this and I don't think I need to tell
> you that the VC's all understand this. For the sake of discussion, let's
> assume that you agree with that statement (if you don't, don't bother
> to argue with me, I'll ignore you, I'm not here to teach basic economics).
>
> So we've established that in an all free world, even though some money
> will change hands, it can't be significantly more than what it costs
> to perform whatever service is being provided. In other words, there
> is no extra money.
>
Am I correct in thinking that your two primary goals in relation to
software development are?:
1) For _individuals_ to make a good/great living.
2) Software is constantly improved/evolves and that new and innovative
ideas have fertile ground to develop in.
If so, I believe we are in complete agreement thus far.
> Leaving aside the inevitable argument about whether or not the free
> software world is or is not innovative, let's look at what it takes
> to produce new things. The problem is that none of us have a real
> crystal ball. We don't know which ideas will take hold in the market
> and which won't. We can guess and maybe get lucky, but in general the
> guesses are wrong much more than they are right. Look at the history
> of startups. With all the screening that VC's do, all the due diligence,
> we still have failures of at least 9/10 and these days more like 99/100.
> For every Ebay or Google there are hundreds of startups which started
> about the same time as Ebay or Google but are are long and forgotten.
>
[Snip]
In a world where all software is "Free Software" does it not make more
sense to view the "costs" of software development as being equal to
ideas+time+skill+available resources?
You must have the idea/problem/design to begin a software project.
You must have the time and skill available to complete the design or solve
the problem.
Reusable code decreases the amount of time and perhaps skill required to
complete software tasks.
I would argue that most of the problems you see in a 100% "Free
Software" World come from a large Enterprise/corporate mind set, where large
Sums of VC money is required to fund projects. I see a
possible future where software development is seen much like getting your
roof repaired, or adding a new room on to your house. It's
labor+materials. With the advantage that in software world materials are
reusable, the tools are plentiful and affordable (well most anyways). In
this World it's the software developers who are sought after... not the
VC money.
Could this Free Software world support Microsoft or it's ilk? No. Could
it feed the families of millions of software developers? I believe so.
Shane R. Stixrud
if i were a big monopolistic company that has recently (openly) began
to worry about the threat of linux taking some of my market share, i
would create an explosive topic on the kernel mailing list and begin
dividing up the developers using political agenda such as this. little
by little, the cracks in the foundation would start giving way to
larger debates. finally, simple ideology would create a divide that
causes the developers to choose "sides" and then fragmentation would
occur. the ultimate outcome: the unix syndrome. perhaps this is not
such a case, but it may as well be from what i have read. sometimes
not giving your opinion is worth more than winning a debate. think
about it.
billy
=====
"there's some milk in the fridge that's about to go bad...
and there it goes..." -bobby
On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 18:38, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> You don't understand "free" in this context. You're talking about free as
> in price, we're talking about free as in freedom.
>
> Educate yourself, then come back and discuss freedom.
No .. then go somewhere else and discuss it. This is the kernel
development list not a cross between a bad US talk show and the muppets
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 03:30:32PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > You don't seem to mind the fact that my freedom to use Linux would be
> > hampered if you successfully prove that [non-free] modules for
> > Linux are illegal.
> I'm not trying to prove this--as I see it, Linus gave permission for
> them, which means they are legal. I regret his decision to do this,
> but I cannot change it.
You can't "regret" a decision that somebody else has made. To "regret"
something means to feel sorry for something. You don't have anything to
be sorry about.
> But let's suppose that that were changed. It would not affect your
> "freedom" to use Linux (and GNU/Linux), only whether it runs on a
> certain computer. It is true that this might mean a practical
> sacrifice--you might have to get a different kind of computer, for
> instance. I don't see that as a horrible thing. We look for
> computers that work with free drivers; you can too.
You are limited the scope of this discussion to hardware. For an
example of a software module that I regularly use in my every day job,
consider the MVFS module used to allow dynamic file system access to
ClearCase views. The MVFS module comes with the ClearCase distribution
as a small bit of open source glue, and a closed source object file
that implements MVFS.
> You don't really have freedom now, if you need a non-free module. In
> the long run, your best chance of being able to use a fully free
> GNU/Linux system on the hardware you use is if we stand firm together
> for the freedom of the system.
I have the freedom to use Linux and ClearCase. If closed source modules
were to be disallowed, it would be illegal for me to use this configuration,
and I would be forced to use HP-UX or Solaris, and not Linux.
> You seem to be saying that we should sit back and let these inevitable
> forces either convince all companies to make software free--or not.
> If we had such a passive attitude, no free system would exist.
> GNU/Linux exists because of people who were willing to work to have
> freedom. Freedom does not yet prevail, and we have plenty more work
> to do to make that happen. And after we fully have freedom, we will
> still have to work, to make sure we don't lose it.
I'm saying that if you truly have a just cause, you don't need a hammer
or a sickle to force people to see things your way. Intelligent people
will have no choice but to follow your lead.
Visionaries should have faith in their own vision.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 10:55:13PM +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> Of course I and probably many others are moving to a new model for our
> games. I'm probably being more radical than most; Open Source client
> software. Useless of course without a connection to my server side code :)
> It's the first game I've produced that is pirate proof.
If the game is good enough, it isn't pirate proof. I believe that Blizzard
and other such companies have pursued this course in the past. The result?
The hackers watch the communication between the client and the server and
write their own servers. They even go so far as to pretend as if the practice
is legal by putting disclaimers on the "public servers" that state that
"you may only connect to this service if you have purchased a valid license
for this game." Of course, they don't verify license keys...
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
Alan Cox wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 18:38, Jon Portnoy wrote:
>
>>You don't understand "free" in this context. You're talking about free as
>>in price, we're talking about free as in freedom.
>>
>>Educate yourself, then come back and discuss freedom.
>
>
> No .. then go somewhere else and discuss it. This is the kernel
> development list not a cross between a bad US talk show and the muppets
Hey now! Let's not be that insulting to muppets...
if the server is just a comm relay this is true, but if the server
implements real game logic then it's much less of a problem (show me the
copycat everquest servers for example)
as for validating license keys, if you want that to happen you have to
make the validation code public (which is possible if you use the right
algorithm)
David Lang
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Mark Mielke wrote:
> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 20:30:11 -0500
> From: Mark Mielke <[email protected]>
> To: Andrew Walrond <[email protected]>
> Cc: Larry McVoy <[email protected]>, Samuel Flory <[email protected]>,
> David Schwartz <[email protected]>, Marco Monteiro <[email protected]>,
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source
> drivers?
>
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 10:55:13PM +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> > Of course I and probably many others are moving to a new model for our
> > games. I'm probably being more radical than most; Open Source client
> > software. Useless of course without a connection to my server side code :)
> > It's the first game I've produced that is pirate proof.
>
> If the game is good enough, it isn't pirate proof. I believe that Blizzard
> and other such companies have pursued this course in the past. The result?
> The hackers watch the communication between the client and the server and
> write their own servers. They even go so far as to pretend as if the practice
> is legal by putting disclaimers on the "public servers" that state that
> "you may only connect to this service if you have purchased a valid license
> for this game." Of course, they don't verify license keys...
>
> mark
>
> --
> [email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
> . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
> |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
> | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>
> One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
> and in the darkness bind them...
>
> http://mark.mielke.cc/
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
From: "Billy Rose" <[email protected]>
> if i were a big monopolistic company that has recently (openly) began
> to worry about the threat of linux taking some of my market share, i
> would create an explosive topic on the kernel mailing list and begin
> dividing up the developers using political agenda such as this. little
> by little, the cracks in the foundation would start giving way to
> larger debates. finally, simple ideology would create a divide that
> causes the developers to choose "sides" and then fragmentation would
> occur. the ultimate outcome: the unix syndrome. perhaps this is not
> such a case, but it may as well be from what i have read. sometimes
> not giving your opinion is worth more than winning a debate. think
> about it.
Interesting. OTOH, you ain't need nothing but plain
evolution to see it happen: people thinking publicly
on a mailing list like this one is just enough (and
no "help" from a wicked monopolistic company is to
be assumed ;) ).
I believe it's a property of a topic itself, whether
it's something for a long discussion, or something
superfluous. A topic we kill each other for is
interesting on its own right: it is both irrelevant
and is only a matter of coincidence when and who
happens to be the firestarter.
If an important issue that has the potential to divide
us or has some other profound effect on our world here,
one can be sure it WILL just pop up, and we WILL discuss
it sooner or later, simply because such a topic needs
to be resolved somehow...
It's just the nature of these intellectual things:
different minds -- like winds -- shape the surface of
our common landscape here, over long or short, calm
or stormy, one-time or recurring debates.
Sab
>Yeah, well I already did work for the SPOOKS of the cloak-n-dagger world
>the help deal with world terrorism and have yet to be paid! I do
>electronic wire transfers in two stages now.
I've had the opposite experience. I've found that the spooks pay on time and
never haggle over price. Though I've had occasional surreal experiences like
being asked if I could confirm that my software met a set specifications
without being permitted to see those specifications.
DS
David Lang wrote:
>if the server is just a comm relay this is true, but if the server
>implements real game logic then it's much less of a problem (show me the
>copycat everquest servers for example)
>
>
http://www.eqemu.net/
--
There is no such thing as obsolete hardware.
Merely hardware that other people don't want.
(The Second Rule of Hardware Acquisition)
Sam Flory <[email protected]>
Another long rant worth reading in my opinion... Explains how Google
helped the birth of our son.
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 04:55:22PM -0800, Shane R. Stixrud wrote:
> I would argue that most of the problems you see in a 100% "Free
> Software" World come from a large Enterprise/corporate mind set, where large
> Sums of VC money is required to fund projects. I see a
> possible future where software development is seen much like getting your
> roof repaired, or adding a new room on to your house. It's
> labor+materials.
And therein lies the problem. You and RMS agree, in his world it is
like getting your roof repaired or a new washing machine installed.
That's not the world in which we currently live. Our world is much
more exciting than that. Every day there is a new thing, it's not
a roof, it's not a washing machine, it's Ebay. Nothing like it
existed ever before. It's those new things which change our lives
for the better that are cool. In the world that you are describing,
software becomes like a toaster, you just go get one and the only
difference is if it is white or black. In our current world, there
are new things every day. We don't understand them at first but in
time we learn their value and, after doing so, would never want to
be without them.
Here is an example. Google. I was the 4th person at Google, even though
I was only there for a few months, I got a feel for the people and the
place (very cool people, BTW). Anyway, I had left Google, a year or so
had passed, and they were out there and useful. My wife Beth and I were
having our first son, Travis. As it turned out, he showed up 5 weeks
early. We were unprepared, Beth's water broke, we didn't realize what
that meant but we went to the hospital to check it out and they wouldn't
let us go home. They wanted to induce her with drugs (stuff that would
force her to go into contractions and make the baby come out). You need
to realize that neither of us had a clue. I had some sensation that this
wasn't right, I got on the phone with my sister who had 4 kids, on the
phone with an instructor who was teaching us about the birth process.
Both of them told us "keep that baby in there as long as you can".
But neither could tell me why, they just "knew" it was right. I trusted
them but the doctor was screaming at Beth "if that baby doesn't come out
right now it could DIE! It's going to get an infection, that's what happens
when your water breaks". Beth is crying, she doesn't know what to think.
I don't trust the doctor, I think he's an asshole, but I have no data to
back up my feeling.
Being the geek that I am, I had not one but two laptops with me. I plug
one in and dial up. Hit Google and search on "infection premature baby"
or something like that. Within 30 seconds I'm reading a New England
Journal of Medicine article (one of the best if you don't know) about
infection rates in women who's water breaks early. It said that there
was basically no difference, less than one percent. I shove this in the
asshole docter's face and say "what about this?" He backed down a bit
and the baby stayed in there for another 30 hours or so. Then Beth was
induced and Travis (http://www.bitmover.com/lm/nikon/1999-APR/21.html)
came out and was a happy healthy baby.
Much later I dug into this and found out the coolness which is the
human body. It turns out that your lungs are one of the last things
to develop and if you pull a baby out early there is a very high
chance that the lungs will be all screwed up. "Screwed up" means that
the baby spends a month or two in neonatal care and you get to visit
him once in a while (you REALLY don't want this, it's bad). On the
other hand, it also turns out that if the water breaks the system
recognizes that and turns up the clock on the lung development. That
extra day inside made a huge difference in terms of lung development.
I'm completely convinced, based on what I've read, that that was the
difference between our baby going home with us and staying at the
hospital for a couple of months.
And we owe it all to Google. To my dieing day I will be grateful to the
Google team, I shudder to think what it would have been like without them.
And Google exists because Larry and Sergey want to be rich. It's as
simple as that. They are extremely talented and dedicated people, I
have nothing but respect for them. But it was clear that they were
shrewdly building something they knew was valuable and they wanted to
turn it into a business.
If they had known that if they built it and anyone could steal their
technology because it was all free software, there is ZERO chance that
they would have done it. They are bright people, they would have found
some other way to use their talents. For me, it's a damn good thing
that they live in our current world, not your world or RMS' world.
Those are gray, boring, dull worlds. No thanks.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
> And therein lies the problem. You and RMS agree, in his world it is
> like getting your roof repaired or a new washing machine installed.
I only agree with RMS to a point. Something like google or Ebay would
still be very much possible in a world where most software was
GPLed/BSD/etc.. Why wouldn't it be?
> And we owe it all to Google. To my dieing day I will be grateful to the
> Google team, I shudder to think what it would have been like without them.
> And Google exists because Larry and Sergey want to be rich. It's as
> simple as that. They are extremely talented and dedicated people, I
> have nothing but respect for them. But it was clear that they were
> shrewdly building something they knew was valuable and they wanted to
> turn it into a business.
[snip]
For every Larry and Sergey, I am sure you know ten Tom, Dick and
Harry's who slave away doing amazing things at a large software
development house. Besides, my reading of the GPL suggests you only
need to publish source code _IF_ you distribute it to a 3rd party. In
house software development would not qualify.
>
> If they had known that if they built it and anyone could steal their
> technology because it was all free software, there is ZERO chance that
> they would have done it. They are bright people, they would have found
> some other way to use their talents. For me, it's a damn good thing
> that they live in our current world, not your world or RMS' world.
> Those are gray, boring, dull worlds. No thanks.
>
Again I don't see why Google or Ebay wouldn't exist in a Free Software
world nor do I see why Larry and Sergey wouldn't make a butt load.
I think it is important to remember that copyright law was not designed to
make you or anyone else "rich". Copyright law is concerned with
promoting societies progress.
Shane
On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 15:30:32 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>You don't really have freedom now, if you need a non-free module. In
>the long run, your best chance of being able to use a fully free
>GNU/Linux system on the hardware you use is if we stand firm together
>for the freedom of the system.
But I don't want to coerce other people into providing me with my freedom.
>If open source is so good, companies with closed source products will
>change.
Yes, even without being coerced and pressured to do so by restrictive
licenses.
>I don't support the open source movement, but I know what they say
>about this. They say that open source usually leads to more powerful
>and reliable software. Nothing assures us that will persuade all
>companies to adopt the practice. You have simplified their position
>to a point where they would not recognize it.
The point is not to persuade companies to adopt the practice. The point is
to show that the practice is superior and let the companies that adopt it
prosper and those who don't fail. The GPL weakens this position by providing
proprietary software with an excuse.
It is roughly comparable to the United States embargo on Cuba. We want Cuba
to change, so we don't let them use any of our stuff. Force them to be free,
or we won't touch 'em.
It fails for the same reason. If you believe in freedom, set the example.
Set people free. Defend fair use, first sale, and a very strict definition of
a derived work.
That's real freedom, and the GPL works against it by attempting to coerce
freedom by using legal tools that problably shouldn't exist.
>You seem to be saying that we should sit back and let these inevitable
>forces either convince all companies to make software free--or not.
No. We're saying that we shouldn't try to rig the system. We should allow
free software to win in a fair fight. Not by using vicious legal tools to
coerce others to provide your freedom.
>If we had such a passive attitude, no free system would exist.
>GNU/Linux exists because of people who were willing to work to have
>freedom. Freedom does not yet prevail, and we have plenty more work
>to do to make that happen. And after we fully have freedom, we will
>still have to work, to make sure we don't lose it.
Defending shrink wrap licensing agreements, arguing to weaken fair use and
first sale doctrines, and arguing that if you include a header it's a derived
work is a strange way to defend intellectual freedom.
DS
If you plan to create a module to allow functions you have created to be used outside the kernel, do. But use only lgpl headers, help legalise the use of proprietary modules, tell you what il help you bugfix the lgpl code, but _remember_ only your f unctions.
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 15:01:51 -0800 (PST) Andre Hedrick <[email protected]> wrote:
Dean,
I do not want your help.
I do not need your help.
I would not take your help.
I would never hire you.
I will never be an associate of yours.
I will deal with my customer's needs.
No, you will not be allowed to be my customer.
So do you have the balls to step up and sue me ?
So do you have the balls to step up and sue others like me ?
So do you have the balls to step up and sue Silicon Valley embedded ?
Come on big boy, bring it on.
You wrote a TEN DOLLAR check, with only a PENNY ass to cash it with!
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 [email protected] wrote:
> If you plan to create a module to allow functions you have created to
> be used outside the kernel, do. But use only lgpl headers, help legalise
> the use of proprietary modules, tell you what il help you bugfix the
> lgpl code, but _remember_ only your f unctions.
>
> Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
See your sig. ??
Please overdose, and do take it personally.
I really want you to take it personally.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
> No .. then go somewhere else and discuss it. This is the kernel
> development list not a cross between a bad US talk show and the muppets
Now *that's* funny.
I don't know how the weather is where you are, but I appreciate a good flame
war during these cold winter months.
..Scott
my names Dean McEwan be sure to ban me as a customer in your EULA.
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 19:54:14 -0800 (PST) Andre Hedrick <[email protected]> wrote:
Shane R. Stixrud wrote:
> I see a possible future where software development is seen much like
> getting your roof repaired, or adding a new room on to your house.
> It's labor+materials.
Exactly. Whenever somebody figures out a way to make some work
process more efficient, invariably a group of people will predict
imminent doom if this model catches on, and they will have plenty
of compelling reasons why the old way is vastly superior.
Well, I certainly feel terribly cheated by the cruel world that
has pretty much obsoleted the career choice "weaver" ;-))
- Werner
--
_________________________________________________________________________
/ Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina [email protected] /
/_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/
By admitting you do not understand, you have taken the first step ;) read the lgpl, use it for your game.
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 20:21:38 +0000 Andrew Walrond <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 12:56:53PM +1300, Andrew McGregor wrote:
[snip]
> Linus has made it quite clear in the past that his position on binary
> modules is that they are explicitly allowed, but that the maintainers of
> such a thing 'get everything they deserve' in terms of maintenance hassle.
I *really* think you need to do some searches on this list to verify
this statement.
Let me summarize what I remember from past discussions of this nature.
Linus put his code under the GPL. Contributions came in, under the same
license. At some point, the first binary only module showed up. When
asked about the legality, Linus said something to the effect of, "I
think they're ok."
Note the lack of clarification from the other (miriad) copyright
holders?
In summary - If you want to write binary only modules, you need to talk
to a lawyer that understands the issues involved. "Linus said they were
ok" doesn't even begin to encompass the number of copyright holders
involved.
--
Ryan Anderson
sometimes Pug Majere
IMHO, if your wife would leave you for having no money shes an asshole. ;)
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 14:48:40 +0000 Andrew Walrond <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 [email protected] wrote:
> IMHO, if your wife would leave you for having no money shes an asshole. ;)
Continuing down the gutter, does that mean your wife is freely distributed
for anyone use, modify, bloat, but always return to you ?
Try again,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 03:00:07AM -0300, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> Shane R. Stixrud wrote:
> > I see a possible future where software development is seen much like
> > getting your roof repaired, or adding a new room on to your house.
> > It's labor+materials.
> Exactly. Whenever somebody figures out a way to make some work
> process more efficient, invariably a group of people will predict
> imminent doom if this model catches on, and they will have plenty
> of compelling reasons why the old way is vastly superior.
If only it were that simple. Instead, the roof repair man repairs one
house, the fix is propagated to all other houses via the Internet, the
roof repair man puts *himself* out of a job, and the only people that
make money are the Internet service providers. The roof repair man
starves to death and finally ends up on (un)employment insurance.
Continually comparing software development to traditional forms of
labour is misleading and evidence that the issue is *not* being
properly understood. A closer comparison would be to compare the design
of software to the design of a building. But then - architects don't
give their blueprints away for free - that would be suicidal...
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Mark Mielke wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 03:00:07AM -0300, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> > Shane R. Stixrud wrote:
> > > I see a possible future where software development is seen much like
> > > getting your roof repaired, or adding a new room on to your house.
> > > It's labor+materials.
> > Exactly. Whenever somebody figures out a way to make some work
> > process more efficient, invariably a group of people will predict
> > imminent doom if this model catches on, and they will have plenty
> > of compelling reasons why the old way is vastly superior.
>
> If only it were that simple. Instead, the roof repair man repairs one
> house, the fix is propagated to all other houses via the Internet, the
> roof repair man puts *himself* out of a job, and the only people that
> make money are the Internet service providers. The roof repair man
> starves to death and finally ends up on (un)employment insurance.
You mean like today with everyone in the great dot-bomb failure, because
giving it all way is what happened a few years back, and they are now
gone.
> Continually comparing software development to traditional forms of
> labour is misleading and evidence that the issue is *not* being
> properly understood. A closer comparison would be to compare the design
> of software to the design of a building. But then - architects don't
> give their blueprints away for free - that would be suicidal...
Careful, the arguement will shift to, this is a public building and thus
the blueprints will be placed in a public record, in time.
Please keep up the good work of teaching, I am impressed you have the
ability to not shread people after you have explained it six ways from
sunday and they still do not get it.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> > No .. then go somewhere else and discuss it. This is the kernel
> > development list not a cross between a bad US talk show and the muppets
>
> Now *that's* funny.
>
> I don't know how the weather is where you are, but I appreciate a good flame
> war during these cold winter months.
>
> ..Scott
>
And besides, wouldn't you like to see Rush Limbaugh arguing with Kermit
The Frog?
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
>
> > > No .. then go somewhere else and discuss it. This is the kernel
> > > development list not a cross between a bad US talk show and the muppets
> >
> > Now *that's* funny.
> >
> > I don't know how the weather is where you are, but I appreciate a good flame
> > war during these cold winter months.
> >
> > ..Scott
> >
>
>
> And besides, wouldn't you like to see Rush Limbaugh arguing with Kermit
> The Frog?
Oh but seeing Bill Clinton putting the moves on Ms. Piggy, would be the
best!
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
Mark Mielke wrote:
> Continually comparing software development to traditional forms of
> labour is misleading and evidence that the issue is *not* being
> properly understood.
The basic issue of how well you can live by performing certain work
is exactly the same. And in both cases, the incorrect assumptions
are to underestimate the potential for changes, and to look for a
transition that is risk-free. (*)
(*) Paranoiac's Categorical Imperative: if there's a risk for
anybody, there could also be a risk for me, so I must oppose
it.
> A closer comparison would be to compare the design
> of software to the design of a building. But then - architects don't
> give their blueprints away for free - that would be suicidal...
If we sent our kids to school, they could learn to do our jobs.
That would be suicidal... ;-)
Besides, nobody said that developing free software requires you
to decline being compensated for your work.
- Werner
--
_________________________________________________________________________
/ Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina [email protected] /
/_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Mark Mielke wrote:
> If only it were that simple. Instead, the roof repair man repairs one
> house, the fix is propagated to all other houses via the Internet, the
> roof repair man puts *himself* out of a job, and the only people that
> make money are the Internet service providers. The roof repair man
> starves to death and finally ends up on (un)employment insurance.
>
> Continually comparing software development to traditional forms of
> labour is misleading and evidence that the issue is *not* being
> properly understood. A closer comparison would be to compare the design
> of software to the design of a building. But then - architects don't
> give their blueprints away for free - that would be suicidal...
>
Your position is based on the flawed assumption that the software world
will ever have enough functionality or run out of problems to solve. Even
in the roofing analogy its not every house has the same roof. Software is
only going to get more complex not less.
This is my last off topic post, sorry for the wasted bits.
Shane.
[email protected] wrote:
>IMHO, if your wife would leave you for having no money shes an asshole. ;)
>
>Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
>
>
>
Does anybody else think that RMS managed to clone himself 13 years ago,
and this guy is the unfortunate result?
-Tupshin
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 12:52:26AM -0800, Shane R. Stixrud wrote:
> Your position is based on the flawed assumption that the software world
> will ever have enough functionality or run out of problems to solve. Even
> in the roofing analogy its not every house has the same roof. Software is
> only going to get more complex not less.
My position is based on the observation that quite a significant
portion of features implemented for open source projects such as Linux
are provided by people that *cannot* directly benefit from the fruits
of their labour. Post a problem, or a bug report, and it is *likely*
that somebody will try to solve your problem, even if they do not have
your hardware, or their paying job does not relate to the open source
project at all.
It is based on good will, glory, thrill, enjoyment, distraction, and many
other benefits that do not put food on the table for your benefactor's
family.
This balance needs to be respected, not insulted. nVidia's driver is
not a patch to the roof of your house. nVidia's driver is software
that is released to allow Linux users the freedom to use nVidia
hardware. nVidia makes a lot more money from MSWIN32 users that it
does on Linux users. The software is protected either because nVidia
does not believe it is legal to distribute the source to their code,
or because they do not believe the benefits are worth the hassle. The
Linux community cannot lose something that it never had in the first
place.
Some people think that every company that needs an enhancement is
willing to pay people to enhance open source products, and that the
result will be returned to the public. The only real way that I can
see this working is if the Linux community as a whole created a
world-wide union that required all companies that wished to enhance
Linux would use to provide the enhancement. The pool of developers in
this union would be organized by knowledge and skill. The union
representantives would negotiate fair trades with companies,
encouraging companies to pool resources for features that are needed
by several companies.
Anything less is a little bit wishy washy. Maybe companies will pay
to have features implemented. Maybe companies will return the features
to the public. Maybe companies won't wait until somebody does it for
free. Maybe people who spend 37.5 hours a week working on Linux will
have food on the table for their family. Maybe a system exists. Maybe
companies know about the system.
Feeding ones family cannot be based on maybe.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
I am aware that there was little confirmation from other developers (so far
as I remember, there was some, plus a few dissenting views).
I was *only* talking about Linus' position, which I admit was being
selective in that context.
My real point was this: It appears to me that NVIDIA have gone as far as
they can in releasing the code to their driver. It has certainly been my
own policy to do so with various code, and the result was not GPL because
of legal constraints.
Punishing a company who have, with goodwill, opened up their code as far as
they were allowed by preexisting agreements for license issues is not a
smart move, and will only hurt the free software community in the long run.
And to those who say 'well, just release the specs': Quite likely NVIDIA
did not design all the subsystems of their chips, but instead bought 'IP
block' licenses from someone else. The license NVIDIA have access to those
under probably will not allow that release, whether NVIDIA would like to
release that information or not.
Effectively, the binary part of the driver can be viewed as part of the
hardware, just as much as it can be viewed as part of the kernel. It is
constrained in hardware-like ways, not much like software at all.
My view, for what it's worth, is that if binary modules are not allowed by
the kernel being GPL, then it is worth going to some trouble to allow
binary hardware drivers by some other mechanism than a module, since it is
effectively impossible to change the license on the kernel now, as you
correctly point out. Even if they want to, many hardware vendors will not
be able to release full specifications or GPL code for quite some time, and
it is better to allow those that are motivated to to open up as much as
they can, than to require only that hardware for which full information or
GPL-able code is available to be used with Linux. And saying that the
vendor then has to assume all the maintenance trouble keeps the pressure on
them to evolve toward openness.
Andrew
--On Saturday, January 04, 2003 02:12:09 -0500 Ryan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 12:56:53PM +1300, Andrew McGregor wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Linus has made it quite clear in the past that his position on binary
>> modules is that they are explicitly allowed, but that the maintainers of
>> such a thing 'get everything they deserve' in terms of maintenance
>> hassle.
>
> I *really* think you need to do some searches on this list to verify
> this statement.
>
> Let me summarize what I remember from past discussions of this nature.
>
> Linus put his code under the GPL. Contributions came in, under the same
> license. At some point, the first binary only module showed up. When
> asked about the legality, Linus said something to the effect of, "I
> think they're ok."
>
> Note the lack of clarification from the other (miriad) copyright
> holders?
>
> In summary - If you want to write binary only modules, you need to talk
> to a lawyer that understands the issues involved. "Linus said they were
> ok" doesn't even begin to encompass the number of copyright holders
> involved.
>
>
> --
>
> Ryan Anderson
> sometimes Pug Majere
>
>
There is a solution out there and as soon as I can verify it works,
gameover for anyone thinking they will get access to soft IP again by
banging a dead drum.
CAM, Content Addressable Memory on a card.
Usage will be to stuff any binary soft code now reclassified as "firmware"
into a piece of hardware. Set the addressable memory hooks for what is
now called the open source wrapper for binary objects, and game is over.
There is hardware with a software core which is totally embedded for all
practical purposes. Use your existing GPL wrapper and call it you new
driver! Funny how people come up with ways to thwart the sticky fingers
to rip off IP and hard work. Lets see how GPL goes to get soft IP locked
into hardware.
Force rules and license into places they do not belong, and evolution
happens to push back and impose the boundaries of IP.
Surprised ? Not me.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Andrew McGregor wrote:
> I am aware that there was little confirmation from other developers (so far
> as I remember, there was some, plus a few dissenting views).
>
> I was *only* talking about Linus' position, which I admit was being
> selective in that context.
>
> My real point was this: It appears to me that NVIDIA have gone as far as
> they can in releasing the code to their driver. It has certainly been my
> own policy to do so with various code, and the result was not GPL because
> of legal constraints.
>
> Punishing a company who have, with goodwill, opened up their code as far as
> they were allowed by preexisting agreements for license issues is not a
> smart move, and will only hurt the free software community in the long run.
>
> And to those who say 'well, just release the specs': Quite likely NVIDIA
> did not design all the subsystems of their chips, but instead bought 'IP
> block' licenses from someone else. The license NVIDIA have access to those
> under probably will not allow that release, whether NVIDIA would like to
> release that information or not.
>
> Effectively, the binary part of the driver can be viewed as part of the
> hardware, just as much as it can be viewed as part of the kernel. It is
> constrained in hardware-like ways, not much like software at all.
>
> My view, for what it's worth, is that if binary modules are not allowed by
> the kernel being GPL, then it is worth going to some trouble to allow
> binary hardware drivers by some other mechanism than a module, since it is
> effectively impossible to change the license on the kernel now, as you
> correctly point out. Even if they want to, many hardware vendors will not
> be able to release full specifications or GPL code for quite some time, and
> it is better to allow those that are motivated to to open up as much as
> they can, than to require only that hardware for which full information or
> GPL-able code is available to be used with Linux. And saying that the
> vendor then has to assume all the maintenance trouble keeps the pressure on
> them to evolve toward openness.
>
> Andrew
>
> --On Saturday, January 04, 2003 02:12:09 -0500 Ryan Anderson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 12:56:53PM +1300, Andrew McGregor wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> Linus has made it quite clear in the past that his position on binary
> >> modules is that they are explicitly allowed, but that the maintainers of
> >> such a thing 'get everything they deserve' in terms of maintenance
> >> hassle.
> >
> > I *really* think you need to do some searches on this list to verify
> > this statement.
> >
> > Let me summarize what I remember from past discussions of this nature.
> >
> > Linus put his code under the GPL. Contributions came in, under the same
> > license. At some point, the first binary only module showed up. When
> > asked about the legality, Linus said something to the effect of, "I
> > think they're ok."
> >
> > Note the lack of clarification from the other (miriad) copyright
> > holders?
> >
> > In summary - If you want to write binary only modules, you need to talk
> > to a lawyer that understands the issues involved. "Linus said they were
> > ok" doesn't even begin to encompass the number of copyright holders
> > involved.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Ryan Anderson
> > sometimes Pug Majere
> >
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
moving the whole thing into firmware? Interesting, got _any_ meat on the bone?
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 01:45:44 -0800 (PST) Andre Hedrick <[email protected]> wrote:
Or else find that the NV3x has some stonking quick CPU embedded, and apps
talk GLX to it...
Strange how noone objects to APM BIOS calls or ACPI. I suspect a similar
effect can be had by sticking some flash on the card, then mapping it
(cached in system RAM for performance, of course!) and jumping into it.
Then provide a proprietary app (for instance, the binary part of the X
server, for a video driver) to load the right stuff in the flash. For that
matter, you could just copy_from_user the code straight out of a userland
binary. Not to mention fun with FPGAs. Ever seen DOOM run on a system
with no CPU at all? I have.
There are umpteen ways one can frustrate the pedants, and nothing to be
gained on either side by their insistence. And plenty to lose, because how
many companies for whom Linux is already marginal will bother?
I reckon if this is pushed that NVIDIA will abandon Linux and just say 'You
want UNIX on ix86? Buy the drivers from Accelerated X or whoever, or use
FreeBSD'. And probably I will too, and go and use a BSD for my product.
And maybe Andre will too, and that just makes free software (meaning GPL)
look bad. Which would not be good for the world in general.
Andrew
--On Saturday, January 04, 2003 01:45:44 -0800 Andre Hedrick
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> There is a solution out there and as soon as I can verify it works,
> gameover for anyone thinking they will get access to soft IP again by
> banging a dead drum.
>
> CAM, Content Addressable Memory on a card.
>
> Usage will be to stuff any binary soft code now reclassified as "firmware"
> into a piece of hardware. Set the addressable memory hooks for what is
> now called the open source wrapper for binary objects, and game is over.
>
> There is hardware with a software core which is totally embedded for all
> practical purposes. Use your existing GPL wrapper and call it you new
> driver! Funny how people come up with ways to thwart the sticky fingers
> to rip off IP and hard work. Lets see how GPL goes to get soft IP locked
> into hardware.
>
> Force rules and license into places they do not belong, and evolution
> happens to push back and impose the boundaries of IP.
>
> Surprised ? Not me.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andre Hedrick
> LAD Storage Consulting Group
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Andrew McGregor wrote:
>
>> I am aware that there was little confirmation from other developers (so
>> far as I remember, there was some, plus a few dissenting views).
>>
>> I was *only* talking about Linus' position, which I admit was being
>> selective in that context.
>>
>> My real point was this: It appears to me that NVIDIA have gone as far
>> as they can in releasing the code to their driver. It has certainly
>> been my own policy to do so with various code, and the result was not
>> GPL because of legal constraints.
>>
>> Punishing a company who have, with goodwill, opened up their code as far
>> as they were allowed by preexisting agreements for license issues is
>> not a smart move, and will only hurt the free software community in the
>> long run.
>>
>> And to those who say 'well, just release the specs': Quite likely
>> NVIDIA did not design all the subsystems of their chips, but instead
>> bought 'IP block' licenses from someone else. The license NVIDIA have
>> access to those under probably will not allow that release, whether
>> NVIDIA would like to release that information or not.
>>
>> Effectively, the binary part of the driver can be viewed as part of the
>> hardware, just as much as it can be viewed as part of the kernel. It is
>> constrained in hardware-like ways, not much like software at all.
>>
>> My view, for what it's worth, is that if binary modules are not allowed
>> by the kernel being GPL, then it is worth going to some trouble to
>> allow binary hardware drivers by some other mechanism than a module,
>> since it is effectively impossible to change the license on the kernel
>> now, as you correctly point out. Even if they want to, many hardware
>> vendors will not be able to release full specifications or GPL code for
>> quite some time, and it is better to allow those that are motivated to
>> to open up as much as they can, than to require only that hardware for
>> which full information or GPL-able code is available to be used with
>> Linux. And saying that the vendor then has to assume all the
>> maintenance trouble keeps the pressure on them to evolve toward
>> openness.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> --On Saturday, January 04, 2003 02:12:09 -0500 Ryan Anderson
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 12:56:53PM +1300, Andrew McGregor wrote:
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >> Linus has made it quite clear in the past that his position on binary
>> >> modules is that they are explicitly allowed, but that the maintainers
>> >> of such a thing 'get everything they deserve' in terms of maintenance
>> >> hassle.
>> >
>> > I *really* think you need to do some searches on this list to verify
>> > this statement.
>> >
>> > Let me summarize what I remember from past discussions of this nature.
>> >
>> > Linus put his code under the GPL. Contributions came in, under the
>> > same license. At some point, the first binary only module showed up.
>> > When asked about the legality, Linus said something to the effect of,
>> > "I think they're ok."
>> >
>> > Note the lack of clarification from the other (miriad) copyright
>> > holders?
>> >
>> > In summary - If you want to write binary only modules, you need to talk
>> > to a lawyer that understands the issues involved. "Linus said they
>> > were ok" doesn't even begin to encompass the number of copyright
>> > holders involved.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Ryan Anderson
>> > sometimes Pug Majere
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
>> in the body of a message to [email protected]
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>>
>
>
http://www.xilinx.com/ipcenter/catalog/logicore/docs/cam.pdf
http://aggregate.org/ECard/
http://www.utmc.com/cam/
http://www.openskytech.com/ContentAddressableMemory.htm
http://www.pcs.cnu.edu/~rhodson/cam/CamPage.html
http://ipdps.eece.unm.edu/2000/raw/18000884.pdf
http://www.infoworld.com/research/articles/01/05/15/01051524605.xml
http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee371/handouts/DramCam92.pdf
http://www.altera.com/support/software/eda_quartus2/glossary/def_cam.htm
http://www.altera.com/literature/po/apex_cam_ss.pdf
http://www.esscirc.org/papers-96/26.pdf
The list is long, the histroy is there.
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 [email protected] wrote:
> moving the whole thing into firmware? Interesting, got _any_ meat on the bone?
>
> Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
>
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 01:45:44 -0800 (PST) Andre Hedrick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
Sounds like a jumped up PIC chip, cant think why isnt done yet.
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 02:07:27 -0800 (PST) Andre Hedrick <[email protected]> wrote:
How about:
http://www.celoxica.com/
http://www.intel.com/design/network/products/npfamily/index.htm
http://www.hifn.com/products/Security.html
for some alternative ways to the end.
Dean, mate, give up. This is a battle you will not win, and it would
preserve the freedom you wish to have more if you did not fight.
Unfortunately, the tension between IP, profit, and technological progress
is complex. Fortunately, there is room in the ecosystem for many views,
and some of us are capable of holding different views for different
projects.
I really respect Andre for what he's trying to do, and for what he has
done. I don't see any history which gives me any reason to respect you,
and you're wearing out your default credit real fast. My own history is
more at the IETF than in Linux, but check out something called HIP and the
manet working group for an example. And http://www.indranet.co.nz too. I only
mention these because they're kind of obscure in the Linux context.
Andrew
--On Saturday, January 04, 2003 02:07:27 -0800 Andre Hedrick
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> http://www.xilinx.com/ipcenter/catalog/logicore/docs/cam.pdf
> http://aggregate.org/ECard/
> http://www.utmc.com/cam/
> http://www.openskytech.com/ContentAddressableMemory.htm
> http://www.pcs.cnu.edu/~rhodson/cam/CamPage.html
> http://ipdps.eece.unm.edu/2000/raw/18000884.pdf
> http://www.infoworld.com/research/articles/01/05/15/01051524605.xml
> http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee371/handouts/DramCam92.pdf
> http://www.altera.com/support/software/eda_quartus2/glossary/def_cam.htm
> http://www.altera.com/literature/po/apex_cam_ss.pdf
> http://www.esscirc.org/papers-96/26.pdf
>
> The list is long, the histroy is there.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 [email protected] wrote:
>
>> moving the whole thing into firmware? Interesting, got _any_ meat on the
>> bone?
>>
>> Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 01:45:44 -0800 (PST) Andre Hedrick
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>
> Andre Hedrick
> LAD Storage Consulting Group
>
>
what war am I fighting? I decided that the battle is lost a long time ago, im showing the community its fate, eventual collapse from a unrealistic GPL that needs a decent funeral, sue NVidia and I collapse it, when I lose.
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 23:28:10 +1300 Andrew McGregor <[email protected]> wrote:
Welcome to the kill file, Mr Troll.
For your edification, it *is* done. Frequently. Probably even in the
settop box you're posting with.
--On Saturday, January 04, 2003 10:12:49 +0000 [email protected] wrote:
> Sounds like a jumped up PIC chip, cant think why isnt done yet.
>
> Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
>
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 02:07:27 -0800 (PST) Andre Hedrick
> <[email protected]> wrote:
you cant hear this, but if I was a troll, I woulda been happy, im not im off to write a decent license, that allows binaries and true free use, its not about the hardware, I wanna use a os thats just _legal_ so im gonna piss off and do that, oh and Im a elec engineer and physicist, bye.
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 23:42:37 +1300 Andrew McGregor <[email protected]> wrote:
Am Fre, 2003-01-03 um 18.45 schrieb Andre Hedrick:
> Thanks! Look how much I have given away, gee it is nothing.
> Only 80% or more of all IDE chipsets, I personally wrote.
> I am not allowed to make money to feed my family, pay from the cost of
> membership to standards, pay for the cost of joining working groups for
> new technology, pay for the cost of travel to the fore mentioned.
Please don't jump on this train. Actually you're bitching about people
whining; instead you should give people the possibility to pay you for
your *really nice* (though a bit cryptic at times :)) work.
Ok, I'd like to make a start: I'd like to donate, say ?20 for now, do
you cash credit cards?
--
Servus,
Daniel
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Marco Monteiro wrote:
> You make software. You have a business model, to make money, where you
> sell software. The software that you sell is NOT Free. Imagine, now,
> that you change the business model, continuing to make money, where the
> software you produce is Free. Wouldn't it be better?
Are you volunteering to set up such a business for Andre, or
are you just doing vague ideological handwaving ?
Andre does release his software eventually, after he has
recovered the development costs. This is a lot more than
what most developers do and I am thankful that Andre's
business model means both an income for him and high quality
free software drivers.
> You understand now why I say that Free Software is good and non-Free
> Software is bad?
No, you haven't told us why.
> I'm a pacifist. If I where called to fight, I would not do it.
Does that also mean that if somebody called on you to do what
you're asking others to do (create free software while earning
money with it), you wouldn't do it ?
> The same with Free Software. I believe in Free Software, I think that
> every body should make their software Free. Maybe I'm just an asshole,
So you're asking, in the name of freedom, that other people should
limit their freedom ?
I wouldn't call it idealism, I call it hypocricy.
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>
score -1, troll
you are a troll.
cant we just get along...
[email protected] wrote:
> you cant hear this, but if I was a troll, I woulda been happy, im not im off to write a decent license, that allows binaries and true free use, its not about the hardware, I wanna use a os thats just _legal_ so im gonna piss off and do that, oh and Im a elec engineer and physicist, bye.
>
> Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
>
> On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 23:42:37 +1300 Andrew McGregor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: RE: Gauntlet Set NOW!
> Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 23:42:37 +1300
> From: Andrew McGregor <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
> [email protected]
> References: <[email protected]>
>
> Welcome to the kill file, Mr Troll.
>
> For your edification, it *is* done. Frequently. Probably even in the
> settop box you're posting with.
>
> --On Saturday, January 04, 2003 10:12:49 +0000 [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Sounds like a jumped up PIC chip, cant think why isnt done yet.
> >
> > Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
> >
> > On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 02:07:27 -0800 (PST) Andre Hedrick
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Regards,
Mark Rutherford
[email protected]
File: Mark Rutherford.ASC
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
mQGiBDqwRnsRBADTpKKSKAcphYdcVTvBpEFFNK1eL4dQ/pBwK4NimeoAA9ISD04L
Mv/CqH5g9D1wzXEhRBhbFZnmfoTPFEWH4Gjr4KIPdsXkTEfoJ2j55qksHWMkE10A
K8gZlI3Ovuf8BbIabfXmjf+XtId3F4+7+og4mc7EAkatYbbl/5pR0Niy3wCg/+I/
LUQPYGloF829jXaOW7C+tG8D/RZt8lAL/Z1NfGsQYZlE1X+Gcqf0J6HaMosnVuah
1zAbgUHCIvNq+TOC+0KydEvbs7tAq6m+Q4zQZaqEsMwufTCWxzh+v3thRBLIuT5E
jsTi4djkrdG3TTeAszymO/YEXQMg4Tq2hMiyeWlyTmH4C6enMu0zJMIu4OEef7+W
KpYhBACYnukDVI8Vnw1J5KaiCZYvERhj4cr3BTk7oeYxIRH1x5S6NXK0+uVcpusa
a8ZU4zcxvHh0k3iR8HIZcNh30eXbMF/J5pW9gorJuPwCC5Q7b+gUVaeec+1X+Wmt
2k8RAq9RtriUdrmVN5QcPBLFd4hOHQcWDcuyhmiFp68LFvxLSLQrTWFyayBSdXRo
ZXJmb3JkIDxNYXJrMjAwMEBiZWxsYXRsYW50aWMubmV0PokAWAQQEQIAGAUCOrBG
ewgLAwkIBwIBCgIZAQUbAwAAAAAKCRAudCWX7QO6ULcaAJwIsYHeAp6FC5OVWSOo
qc8O87kvBgCgz1cLgVXYcSlDWEeE32PFYb6akuy5Ag0EOrBGexAIAPZCV7cIfwgX
cqK61qlC8wXo+VMROU+28W65Szgg2gGnVqMU6Y9AVfPQB8bLQ6mUrfdMZIZJ+AyD
vWXpF9Sh01D49Vlf3HZSTz09jdvOmeFXklnN/biudE/F/Ha8g8VHMGHOfMlm/xX5
u/2RXscBqtNbno2gpXI61Brwv0YAWCvl9Ij9WE5J280gtJ3kkQc2azNsOA1FHQ98
iLMcfFstjvbzySPAQ/ClWxiNjrtVjLhdONM0/XwXV0OjHRhs3jMhLLUq/zzhsSlA
GBGNfISnCnLWhsQDGcgHKXrKlQzZlp+r0ApQmwJG0wg9ZqRdQZ+cfL2JSyIZJrqr
ol7DVekyCzsAAgIIAO5Bt3XOgo2GPNOCuLv6A6mRxPxwwVsYEMmVAIp/c5nluBMi
Tu4iQU5f3U9UqZMcFKyLr1Vh0bpO6RB6L/5tXWSRY2Yly9Ofg/e0Npgebkdd8GXE
+IuEDI4lr1kbO70hlxFUPKSOQRjSmmVKNhUAiXEFQ7OtB9k5GECsHrD6qxR6r/ny
XMBK2g2UUSh17Gx/pqH+XwXJ67DEQmF8hcnyiN9E3WQ5w3bIbKwFCaHF+tJbVnUd
XxszxQYrsb6Feo0FVdCD+VVPQGesv34CrnKuED/mF/WoI8a3eYCMiY03IQgW514X
JX+Jnmk9RFbTg75NdXIKDqKpB3wq39n3JmWRZG+JAEwEGBECAAwFAjqwRnsFGwwA
AAAACgkQLnQll+0DulAfjgCfbVxiUtJbpXPn6gVJlnlIzur1yvgAnjh/9bdLsSrd
cUaN07NL7N9NjgG1
=hpbN
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Brad Hards wrote:
> I _hate_ intellectual property.
So don't use the word at all, think of it as intellectual patrimony
instead.
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Andrew McGregor wrote:
> Or else find that the NV3x has some stonking quick CPU embedded, and apps
> talk GLX to it...
>
> Strange how noone objects to APM BIOS calls or ACPI.
Actually, I object to this.
On my via 686a, the advice on this list for getting the power saving was
to use ACPI (after setting some bits in PCI config space). But lvcool
program showed how to do this without proprietary programs, and I
adapted it to bit of kernel code:
static void via686_idle(void) {
if (!current->need_resched)
inb(Reg_PL2);
}
static int __init init_lvcool(void)
{
nb = pci_find_device(PCI_VENDOR_ID_VIA,
PCI_DEVICE_ID_VIA_8363_0, nb);
smb = pci_find_device(PCI_VENDOR_ID_VIA,
PCI_DEVICE_ID_VIA_82C686_4, smb);
if(nb==NULL)pci_find_device(PCI_VENDOR_ID_VIA,
PCI_DEVICE_ID_VIA_8371_0, nb);
if(!Reg_PL2) {
u32 t;
pci_read_config_dword(smb, 0x48, &t);
Reg_PL2 = (t&0xff80) + 0x14;
printk(KERN_DEBUG "Reg_PL2 = %08x\n", Reg_PL2);
}
old_idle = pm_idle;
pm_idle = via686_idle;
return 0;
}
And I don't need to run any proprietary code during normal system run. I
still need to use BIOS to boot and to poweroff the system, but
that will be solved as well.
--
Matan Ziv-Av. [email protected]
Which is all nice and good, but trying to do this in order to suspend a
laptop is going to result in vastly more code, and you just can't get the
documentation.
After all, the vendor gave you the code with the hardware in this case, so
it's not as if you can possibly not have a license for it :-)
Andrew
--On Saturday, January 04, 2003 21:31:38 +0200 Matan Ziv-Av
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Andrew McGregor wrote:
>
>> Or else find that the NV3x has some stonking quick CPU embedded, and apps
>> talk GLX to it...
>>
>> Strange how noone objects to APM BIOS calls or ACPI.
>
> Actually, I object to this.
> On my via 686a, the advice on this list for getting the power saving was
> to use ACPI (after setting some bits in PCI config space). But lvcool
> program showed how to do this without proprietary programs, and I
> adapted it to bit of kernel code:
>
<snip>
>
> And I don't need to run any proprietary code during normal system run. I
> still need to use BIOS to boot and to poweroff the system, but
> that will be solved as well.
>
>
> --
> Matan Ziv-Av. [email protected]
>
>
>
On Thu, 02 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
> Yeah, if only the company that has invested millions in trying to scratch
> out a place to stand, if only they would give us their intellectual
> property for free, if only, why then we could steal that IP and give it
> to other people. And it would take us less time to do it if they would
> only cooperate. Why won't they cooperate?
Keeping "intellectual property" to oneself is NOT what has made mankind
leave the trees and build up civilization, medical care and all that
stuff. Community is the cause, some people specialized in hunting or
agriculture, some in building houses, whatever.
I understand many existences currently depend on holding back
information (be that publishers of scientific journals, be that
entertainment; movies), and a lot of restructuring would be necessary if
"intellectual property" was no longer protected. Maybe it takes one won GPL
infringement law suit or two with adequate compensation paid to the
plaintiff that companies get trust into GPL. It might not work for
BitKeeper because that stuff needs too little support because it's too
good (the old "hey, why are you installing inferior software at
your clients' sites?" -- "to sell support afterwards") or something. ;-)
Seriously: would NVIDIA really lose if they open sourced the drivers?
It's their hardware that really bangs and that carries the bucks into
their house. If someone is to reverse engineer what they're doing, they
can also reverse engineer the driver first and then the chip.
Of course, opensourcing means you can't cheat by just disabling
functions in software and you won't get away too long with cheating
benchmarks. Maybe people get the idea that cooperation is nicer than
competition unless it leads to a monopoly that's exploited.
> Give it up, Stallman, we live in a capitalistic world. The Russians
> tried communism and it didn't work. It won't work here either, the
> kernel folks aren't that stupid. Some people actually do learn from
> history.
And globalization + capitalism makes it that eventually only a monopoly
remains. Look at the oil market, look at Microsoft, look at the car
market or even food or pharmacy. Mergers everywhere, leading to layoffs,
raised gains, less competition. Ooops.
It's useful to have people around that think in other directions, they
make up for innovation. Linux is an offspring of such people's thoughts.
And from what is to be heard about ATI, the Macrovision stuff for the TV
outputs is one of the major reasons they are holding back source code.
Now assume it's true and think about the driver situation again. The
movie companies prevent you from improving ATI's TV output, ultimately.
This is exaggerated, but it might help stepping back and looking at the
WHOLE system.
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 11:06:51PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> It's useful to have people around that think in other directions, they
> make up for innovation. Linux is an offspring of such people's thoughts.
Linux is a copy of Unix. There is very little new stuff in Linux.
All of the innovation is built on top of a copy of a commercial work.
To date, nothing remotely as influential as Unix has come out of the
open source community. Sure, there are a ton of copies of existing work,
that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about new things. I keep
coming back to this because some of you refuse to get it. It costs A LOT
OF MONEY TO MAKE NEW STUFF. Because we are stupid, we all make a lot of
mistakes, we throw away those mistakes. The free software model doesn't
generate 1/1000th of the money it would take to make progress continue
at its current rate in the software world. Don't believe me? Cool.
Go start a company, GPL your work, get back to me in 5 years and show
me how well it worked.
Other than distributions, where are those free software success stories?
Oh, yes, Cygnus. They were doing about $25M/year or so when redhat bought
them. Whoopee. And Red Hat, *with* Cygnus, is doing all of $80M/year.
And we all agree that they are the leader in the free software financial
success stories, right? Who's bigger? IBM? Let's see, spent $1B and
by their own statements "almost have made that back". Hmm, running at
a loss but going to make it up on volume.
Now let's compare to some closed source companies:
Company Factor more revenue than Red Hat
Microsoft 370
Oracle 116
Sun 150
You get the idea. Sun makes more in 2 days than Red Hat makes all year.
It doesn't even take Microsoft a whole day to make what Red Hat makes in
a year.
> This is exaggerated, but it might help stepping back and looking at the
> WHOLE system.
Indeed. Look over your shoulder. That's me, stepped way farther back than you.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
> Linux is a copy of Unix. There is very little new stuff in Linux.
> All of the innovation is built on top of a copy of a commercial work.
>
> To date, nothing remotely as influential as Unix has come out of the
> open source community. Sure, there are a ton of copies of existing work,
> that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about new things. I keep
> coming back to this because some of you refuse to get it. It costs A LOT
> OF MONEY TO MAKE NEW STUFF. Because we are stupid, we all make a lot of
> mistakes, we throw away those mistakes. The free software model doesn't
> generate 1/1000th of the money it would take to make progress continue
> at its current rate in the software world. Don't believe me? Cool.
> Go start a company, GPL your work, get back to me in 5 years and show
> me how well it worked.
>
> Other than distributions, where are those free software success stories?
> Oh, yes, Cygnus. They were doing about $25M/year or so when redhat bought
> them. Whoopee. And Red Hat, *with* Cygnus, is doing all of $80M/year.
> And we all agree that they are the leader in the free software financial
> success stories, right? Who's bigger? IBM? Let's see, spent $1B and
> by their own statements "almost have made that back". Hmm, running at
> a loss but going to make it up on volume.
Sun makes more in 2 days than Red Hat makes all year.
> It doesn't even take Microsoft a whole day to make what Red Hat makes in
> a year.
Something rms is totally ignoring..wonder how much the fsf makes oh wait,
they probably believe in the "we don't need money if we are helping make
software more free and available for the users" approach. Anyways this
really needs to end. Bottom line..OSS is the best especially when battling
MS. No one company controls something. Problem...if you care to make a hefty
profit their may be some quirks you need to address. Don't get me wrong I
use OSS as much as possible but I'd proably go with the "recover the
developing costs before gpl'ng it" approach.
Steven
How about expanding the acronym IP to mean "intellectual patrimony" ?
The term "intellectual patrimony" might be a good one for some
purposes, but if you want people to know you are using it, I suggest
you spell it out in full every time. At present, when people see the
abbreviation "IP", they will think "intellectual property".
However, it is usually best to talk about "copyright", or about
"patents", or about "trademarks", and avoid generalizations that would
tend to blur the boundaries. The widespread use of "intellectual
property" leads people to suppose these laws (and the issues they
raise) are mostly similar, but they are not.
But sometimes we can't make things free, either because it comes to close
to core IP which we are legally bound to protect, or because it's a derived
work of something we bought and don't ourselves have the right to
redistribute.
At this level of generality, I can only say that if the program is to
be published as non-free software, it will not be available to people
to use in freedom. Its effect will be to tempt people to give up
their freedom. If I had a choice to develop that program or no
program, I would develop no program.
I would rather look for constructive alternatives than just criticize.
In such a situation, I would look for a way to make the program free.
This scenario is too general to get started on that. (I explained in
another message how the term "intellectual property" tends to obscure
important distinctions; this is an example.) In any specific case
there is likely to be some way.
If there is no easy way to make the same program free, there may be a
harder way. People who value freedom strongly sometimes choose the
hard path to freedom rather than the easy path that extends
non-freedom. That is how we extend freedom.
As an ultimate fallback, there is surely some other job you could do
instead.
Linus has made it quite clear in the past that his position on binary
modules is that they are explicitly allowed, but that the maintainers of
such a thing 'get everything they deserve' in terms of maintenance hassle.
Linus has the right to permit this, with his code, and so do other
contributors to Linux. In the GNU Project we usually don't permit
this, and the FSF believes the GPL does not in general permit it, but
occasionally we make an exception when it seems best to do so.
I have no opinion yet about what Andre said, because I cannot form a
clear picture of what he plans to do; I don't know whether it would
violate the GPL, or whether the issue would involve the FSF. We do
not enforce the GPL for Linux in any case; that is the responsibility
of the copyright holders of Linux.
And Linux is the best thing that ever happend to GNU.
It was certainly a very good thing--it filled the last gap in the
system. 100% of an operating system is a lot more useful than 95%.
Would you be happy if it were called Linux/GNU, for example?
It's appropriate to put GNU first since it came first, but that's a
secondary question so I won't argue about it. "Linux/GNU" gives us
equal mention, and that is a lot better than just "Linux". Thank you
in advance if you do that.
I have the freedom to use Linux and ClearCase. If closed source modules
were to be disallowed, it would be illegal for me to use this configuration,
and I would be forced to use HP-UX or Solaris, and not Linux.
You can't have freedom while using ClearCase, because it is non-free
software. What we really need is a free replacement for it. Will
people write one? Our main influence on whether people do this is by
what we say. A strong Free Software Movement will inspire more people
to reject non-free software and write free replacements.
Allowing non-free modules (whether they are open-source or not)
weakens the impetus for people to make free extensions to Linux. The
general attitude Linux developers take towards non-free software also
weakens it. Your own message, citing this gap in Linux, will tend to
discourage people from working to close the gap.
All else being equal, I'm glad that you use a variant of the GNU
system, but what system you use is not really important except to you.
If you used HP-UX or Solaris, it would be your loss, not our
community's loss. Spurring the broader development of free software
should be higher priority than keeping you as a user.
I'm saying that if you truly have a just cause, you don't need a hammer
or a sickle to force people to see things your way. Intelligent people
will have no choice but to follow your lead.
Since our views have little in common with Communism, it is remarkable
that our enemies sometimes call us Communists. Perhaps they do this
because it is easier to attack Communism than confront our real views.
It is the system of non-free software that resembles Stalinism. For
more about this, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html.
Visionaries should have faith in their own vision.
Real visionaries know that just having a vision does not change
society. Sustained effort is necessary.
Richard Stallman wrote:
> And Linux is the best thing that ever happend to GNU.
>
> It was certainly a very good thing--it filled the last gap in the
> system. 100% of an operating system is a lot more useful than 95%.
>
> Would you be happy if it were called Linux/GNU, for example?
>
> It's appropriate to put GNU first since it came first, but that's a
> secondary question so I won't argue about it. "Linux/GNU" gives us
> equal mention, and that is a lot better than just "Linux". Thank you
> in advance if you do that.
>
Does it matter that GNU came first?
Debian uses GNU in it, hence Debian GNU/Linux
But... Linux is just a kernel, its not a 'complete' OS, thats why its not the
GNU/Linux kernel
I think your argument should be that a distribution should be named, for
example:
Redhat GNU/Linux, or SuSE GNU/Linux
...whats the problem?
I think the debate about what the distribution should be called should be
argued with the maintainers of that distribution, not with the
maintainers of the Linux kernel, or its contributors
I wouldnt mind if I saw 'Gentoo GNU/Linux'
I think that everyone knows the connection between the Linux kernel and GNU.
P.S. I dont use a distribution, I built my Linux based operating system out of
GNU programs and utilities with a Linux kernel.
I used to use Slackware Linux... But, I have since become dangerous :-)
I dont have a name for it. its just my workstation :)
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Regards,
Mark Rutherford
[email protected]
File: Mark Rutherford.ASC
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>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=hpbN
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 15:23, Larry McVoy wrote:
> Now let's compare to some closed source companies:
>
> Company Factor more revenue than Red Hat
> Microsoft 370
> Oracle 116
> Sun 150
These companies you mention make enormous profit margins as a result of
'protectionist laws', illegal business practices, and other non-ethical
means (to varying degrees). They spend large sums of money to buy
politicians to slant the playing field in their favor. The list goes
on...
As a general rule of thumb any corporation that is worth billions of
dollars got there by exploiting a lot of somebodies along the way.
I question the ethics and motivation of anyone who does something to
"get rich". As opposed to someone who does something to benefit
themselves and others and (due to the structure of modern society) make
a comfortable living.
I am no Stallman fan but it is fair to say that much regarding
copyright, patent law (and especially the USPTO), and other
"intellectual property" law/practice is broken. These things were
broken by those motivated by the desire to "get rich".
P.S. I am and have been self-employed the majority of my adult life.
--
Chief Gadgeteer
Elegant Innovations
Defending shrink wrap licensing agreements, arguing to weaken fair use and
first sale doctrines, and arguing that if you include a header it's a derived
work is a strange way to defend intellectual freedom.
Those are not my views. Are you confusing me with someone else?
>If open source is so good, companies with closed source products will
>change.
Yes, even without being coerced and pressured to do so by restrictive
licenses.
The Open Source Movement says that will happen; when it does, that's
good, but if we had relied on that to give us freedom, we wouldn't
have any free operating systems today.
In the Free Software Movement we think freedom is worth working for.
If companies don't choose to respect our freedom, we don't cite that
and say "it's hopeless" and we don't say that makes non-freedom ok.
We write free replacements and build freedom for ourselves--and for
you.
> The clear part of your statement is your attitude toward our
> community. You express derision for the very idea of asking a company
> to contribute to free software. We are fortunate that Netscape, Sun,
> and IBM, and the people who won their partial cooperation, did not
> take your advice.
News flash: it's a well documented fact that there was nobody at Sun who
before or since has spent as much time as I have trying to free up Sun's
code.
Please tell your earlier self that I appreciate his work, and that I
am glad that that the opposition expressed in your previous message
did not deter him from doing it.
On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:44:58 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>Defending shrink wrap licensing agreements, arguing to weaken
>fair use and
>first sale doctrines, and arguing that if you include a header it's
>a derived
>work is a strange way to defend intellectual freedom.
>Those are not my views. Are you confusing me with someone else?
Then please explain to me how the GPL comes to apply to a person who
did not agree to it as a condition of receiving a copyrighted work.
Please explain to me why you think that the GPL should have applied
to kernel modules that only include header files.
You may not explicitly endorse the obvious logical consequences of
your views, but you are still responsible for them.
>>If open source is so good, companies with closed source products
>>will
>>change.
>Yes, even without being coerced and pressured to do so by
>restrictive
>licenses.
>The Open Source Movement says that will happen; when it does, that's
>good, but if we had relied on that to give us freedom, we wouldn't
>have any free operating systems today.
That's a lot better than trying to arm twist others in to providing
our freedom to use their works. When you talk about forcing a person
to distribute the source code to a derived work, you are only talking
about their control over what they added. When a person creates a
derived work of an open source work, all they have to offer is the
value they added. In the name of freedom, you take their control over
their work from them.
This is the same "freedom" that socialism promises the workers. They
call it the freedom to own the machinery they use to produce.
Analogously, this "freedom" is really just the loss of the freedom of
ownership.
>In the Free Software Movement we think freedom is worth working for.
>If companies don't choose to respect our freedom, we don't cite that
>and say "it's hopeless" and we don't say that makes non-freedom ok.
>We write free replacements and build freedom for ourselves--and for
>you.
This is false for two reasons:
1) The difference between the GPL and the BSD license is the GPL
license *compels* source distribution. You can't compel someone else
to make you free. It's just not going to work.
2) To make the GPL enforceable, you need to argue for a very loose
definition of a derived work and you need to argue that a license can
be enforceable even if it's not negotiated or explicitly agreed to
prior to distribution. This will have the net effect of reducing
everyone's freedom in very real ways.
DS
On 04 Jan 2003 17:00:08 -0700, Chief Gadgeteer wrote:
>I question the ethics and motivation of anyone who does something to
>"get rich". As opposed to someone who does something to benefit
>themselves and others and (due to the structure of modern society)
>make a comfortable living.
Believe it or not, the easiest way to get rich is to provide people
what they want at a reasonable price. The purpose of money is to
provide an incentive for other people to do what you most need done.
DS
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 06:44:38PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I have the freedom to use Linux and ClearCase. If closed source modules
> were to be disallowed, it would be illegal for me to use this
> configuration, and I would be forced to use HP-UX or Solaris, and
> not Linux.
> You can't have freedom while using ClearCase, because it is non-free
> software. What we really need is a free replacement for it. Will
> people write one? Our main influence on whether people do this is by
> what we say. A strong Free Software Movement will inspire more people
> to reject non-free software and write free replacements.
In the *mean time*, I need a practical response, and not a claim that
'in a more perfect world, such and such'. If binary-only modules are
illegal, then I lose the freedom to legally use Linux + ClearCase MVFS.
You attach the word freedom to everything that suits your own political
agenda, but you refuse to allow me to use the word freedom in the above
context? Do you have a trademark on the word freedom?
> All else being equal, I'm glad that you use a variant of the GNU
> system, but what system you use is not really important except to you.
> If you used HP-UX or Solaris, it would be your loss, not our
> community's loss. Spurring the broader development of free software
> should be higher priority than keeping you as a user.
The point where you are wrong, is that if I found it inconvenient to use
Linux, because I was not free to make use of closed source products, or
kernel modules as part of my operating environment, I would not be able
to contribute to Linux development. The point is more visible for those
in this mailing list who contribute a substantial amount.
> I'm saying that if you truly have a just cause, you don't need a hammer
> or a sickle to force people to see things your way. Intelligent people
> will have no choice but to follow your lead.
> Since our views have little in common with Communism, it is remarkable
> that our enemies sometimes call us Communists. Perhaps they do this
> because it is easier to attack Communism than confront our real views.
Actually I put the hammer/sickle reference above as an amusement, and
not a claim that you are communist. (Although -- as I understand it, the
more perfect society that would allow GPL to thrive *is* a communist
society -- which would be wonderful, if such a political system could
be proven to be feasible)
> Visionaries should have faith in their own vision.
> Real visionaries know that just having a vision does not change
> society. Sustained effort is necessary.
Traditional (not *REAL*) visionaries that have incomplete visions, where
the vision cannot be easily transferred from person to person without
mutating, or losing its scope, are forced to sustain their efforts as
a physical effort.
*REAL* visions are like viruses. All you need to do is transfer the vision
from one person to the next, and each time the image is transferred, the
next person takes up the cross as their own, with all of the energy and
motivation that the original visionary possessed.
You don't need to threaten people, or demean their methods in order to
propagate a *REAL* vision. Transfer of the vision is all that is necessary.
The people will see the light.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I would rather look for constructive alternatives than just criticize.
> In such a situation, I would look for a way to make the program free.
> If there is no easy way to make the same program free, there may be a
> harder way.
There is of course the business model used by the ghostscript
people, used by tytso when he made resize2fs and also used by
Andre Hedrick:
1) write the software, sell it for a profit for some period
of time (eg. 18 months)
2) after that, release the program and its source code
To the copyright holder, this has all the benefits of a strictly
copyrighted work, ie. funding. It also has the additional benefit
of having free software out there that lags close enough to your
commercial program that a competitor has no chance of entering
the market with a non-free product of mediocre quality.
To the free software community, it has the benefits of free
software becoming available at a higher speed than what would
have happened without any funding at all.
Of course, the copyright holder has to choose a license like the
GPL when releasing the software as open source, since otherwise
the competitors would be able to use the older version as a basis
to develop their commercial product from.
To me, this looks like a win/win situation and I hope more
companies will choose this business model.
regards,
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 17:26, David Schwartz wrote:
> Believe it or not, the easiest way to get rich is to provide people
> what they want at a reasonable price. The purpose of money is to
> provide an incentive for other people to do what you most need done.
I agree. Thus, if there is a significant difference in our points of
view it must be one of semantics as to what "get rich" means.
/* opps, this got rather long winded */
My main objection is that those who seek to "get rich" then seek to get
even richer by using their wealth to distort the playing field in their
favor by various means. Or those who would claim innocence while
exploiting non-ethical methods pioneered by others. The latter would be
those who take the position that it is OK to leverage the concept of
"intellectual property" because it is what all the wealthy folks are
doing.
When I was born (1961) something like 50% of the wealth in the US
belonged to 40% of the people. Today, over 90% of the wealth belongs to
less the 5% of the people. (The statistics in the last two sentences are
vague memory, I do not stand behind their absolute accuracy.) When my
father bought his home in 1970 for $21,000 he was making about $10 an
hour as a highly skilled carpenter. Such a highly skilled carpenter in
the same region makes not quite twice that today. However, the same
home now sells for about $145,000 or more than seven times as much. For
the majority of Americans these trends hold true i.e. stagnant wages
while the cost of everything goes through the ceiling. The exceptions
to this are those who work in fields that control the flow of
information in some way. These methods include such means as lobbying
successful for laws that promote or protect certain business models,
limiting who might enter a field by raising the bar to entry, asserting
"intellectual property" rights, and questionable business practices that
lead to a market monopoly.
I wonder how it looked to the rest of a society when a power elite
emerged in the past? Would there not have been many parallels to what
we are seeing today? Would they have not heard many of the same
arguments being used today? Would not many of the influential
dissenters have been bought off by giving them a vested interest in the
emerging/existent power structure?
As was commented elsewhere in this ridiculous thread, it is funny how
one's tune changes once they too own a piece of intellectual property.
--
Chief Gadgeteer
Elegant Innovations
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:44:38 -0500
> From: Richard Stallman <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
> [email protected], [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers?
>
> I have the freedom to use Linux and ClearCase. If closed source modules
> were to be disallowed, it would be illegal for me to use this configuration,
> and I would be forced to use HP-UX or Solaris, and not Linux.
>
> You can't have freedom while using ClearCase, because it is non-free
> software. What we really need is a free replacement for it. Will
> people write one? Our main influence on whether people do this is by
> what we say. A strong Free Software Movement will inspire more people
> to reject non-free software and write free replacements.
>
Seeing this duscussion, I think that it will go for a lot of time, and
none will change his own position. Because I "mostly" agree with free software
goals, (not about this discussion, where I have a different opinion)
I would like to make some points why it will not possible to find an agreement
point beetwen contendants.
That is possibly one of the most interesting point.
- I am free because I have the freedom of choicheing the software I
do prefer, even non free-software nor open source
- I am free because I use just free-software that is the instrumentum
that warrants my freedom
Untill the real meaning of what is intended by being free will not be
defined, it is very difficoult to avoid this dual opposition.
That is a very important point, because you won't be able to
have a clear discussion with many of the subscribers of this mailing list,
simply because the mean a different application of freedom.
> Allowing non-free modules (whether they are open-source or not)
> weakens the impetus for people to make free extensions to Linux. The
> general attitude Linux developers take towards non-free software also
> weakens it. Your own message, citing this gap in Linux, will tend to
> discourage people from working to close the gap.
>
To be honest this is just partially true. Please consider the new
modules infrastructure with workqueue in 2.5 kernels.
Non GPL modules have a big
penalty, because they cannot create their own queue, but have to use a default
one.
> All else being equal, I'm glad that you use a variant of the GNU
> system, but what system you use is not really important except to you.
> If you used HP-UX or Solaris, it would be your loss, not our
> community's loss.
This, as you answer to Mark, is another point that makes me curious.
If, just supposing,
I am using bash emacs gcc and other free software on HP-UX,
or AIX, or
Solaris, to do my work.
I am not complitelly free, because the kernel and some of
the utility of the system are not free.
then what is exactly my condition?
I should be half-free. And that seems mutch to me quite similar to the
Aristotelian distiction beetwen sapiens (free) and savius (half free).
But then free software is ported, rightly, on all platform, included
M$ (my syster uses bash and emacs and TeX in W2000, when we talk about
tastes...)
> Since our views have little in common with Communism, it is remarkable
> that our enemies sometimes call us Communists. Perhaps they do this
> because it is easier to attack Communism than confront our real views.
Who call you comunist is simply showing that he is complitelly
ignorant about what comunism is.
I suppose they use the word comunism because they
give to it a bad meaning. It is just a loose of time to consider
argumentation of people who use the "comunist" definition just
because they suppose this word should make a bad impression,
and maybe should scare.
[of topic]
Socialism, socialdemocracy and comunisms (there are more than one comunism)
are philosofical and
political systems that have really nothing to do with the
idea that most of people in the world have about them, because of
the leninist comunism (see "the three theories of socialdemocracy, written by
Lenin). But I see in this the bad influence of
a cultural propaganda made in USA in the fifties.
Where I live there has been the time when propaganda said that comunist
eat children. Well, in Italy the comunist party was around
30% by that times, and we never saw this cannibalism.
Half Europe has social and social democratic government, and nowhere
there is a law against private property. And nowhere in Europe
the modern comunist parties are proposing an abolition of private property.
[/of topic]
>
> It is the system of non-free software that resembles Stalinism. For
> more about this, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html.
I partially agree. I would say that closed source software sometimes
remembers me stalinism.
When it comes to other non free-software, but anyway open source
licenses it depends of the license terms.
I do suppose that at the beginning some of your oppositors
used the term comunist simply because the feeling of rigidity
that they could smell from your words. Or maybe because the comunist party
is known because of the strong discipline of its members, where
they could discuss very hard on topics, but when a decision was made, all
members were defending and sustaining and sharing the opinion of the party.
You cannot expect that everyone should share complitelly your opinions,
but, as it is normal, he could share some point, and be critical about some
other. Tha is the way that culture make its own progress.
>
> Real visionaries know that just having a vision does not change
> society. Sustained effort is necessary.
>
That is exactly what is your right to do, and
personally I thank you for this.
But sustained effort does not mean to make a war against
every minimal disagreement from a walled opinion.
And that is why this discussion will never end even with
people on lkml, who should/could be the ones nearest to share
at less the most part of your view.
Luigi Genoni
On Sunday 05 January 2003 01:17, David Schwartz wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:44:58 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >Defending shrink wrap licensing agreements, arguing to weaken
> >fair use and
> >first sale doctrines, and arguing that if you include a header it's
> >a derived
> >work is a strange way to defend intellectual freedom.
> >
> >Those are not my views. Are you confusing me with someone else?
>
> Then please explain to me how the GPL comes to apply to a person who
> did not agree to it as a condition of receiving a copyrighted work.
> Please explain to me why you think that the GPL should have applied
> to kernel modules that only include header files.
>
You seem not to understand copyright.
The GPL does not affect the user of the software. If you have bought a copy of
Red Linux distribution cd i.a. it is not necessary to accept the GPL (or BSD
or whatever license) to use the software. You may sell your received copy
when ever you want to ever you want for whatever price you can get - if you
do not keep a copy. As you can do with microsoft windows - if you bought it
(and did not licensed it from microsoft). I.a. it is not necessary to provide
source code because it is Red Hat which a) made the copy and b) did so by
accepting the GPL.
But if you want to make and use or distribute copies of that CD or distributed
works, well, then you must get explicit permission from the copyright owners
- as you would have to for any copyrightable work. This is so because of
copyright law. If you buy the software you only have the right to use it. You
do not have by default the right to distribute copies, make or distribute
derived works etc.
If the CD would be a copy of microsoft windows you would have to negotiate
with microsoft - probably they would not allow that you distribute a derived
version.
Now the authors of the software on the Red Hat CD make you an offer: you may
accept the GPL. If you do so, they allow you to make and distribute copies or
derived works under certain conditions. You don't have to accept the GPL. If
you do not, you may try to negotiate for other terms with the copyright
holders.
> That's a lot better than trying to arm twist others in to providing
> our freedom to use their works. When you talk about forcing a person
> to distribute the source code to a derived work, you are only talking
> about their control over what they added. When a person creates a
Do you understand? You are not allowed to produce derived works without
permission of the copyright owner. He may do so under what consitions he want
(or simply does not allow you to do so at all).
With the GPL the copyright owner(s) of the work grants you the right to do so
under certain conditions described under the GPL. One right is to produce
derived works at all and
Have you ever got permission from microsoft or adobe to produce derived works
from windows 2000 or photoshop?
> derived work of an open source work, all they have to offer is the
> value they added. In the name of freedom, you take their control over
> their work from them.
No, they allow you to do the work at all. By default you would not be allowed
to add value at all.
>
> This is the same "freedom" that socialism promises the workers. They
> call it the freedom to own the machinery they use to produce.
> Analogously, this "freedom" is really just the loss of the freedom of
> ownership.
No. The authors of the work has with your words - the "ownership" of his work.
Law says that one facete of that "ownership" is that he may allow or forbid
derived works. And if he allows someone to produce a derived work its under
his conditions.
The GPL does not restrict you. Contrary, it uses copyright law to establish a
pool of software with much more freedom as copyright law gives to you. It
only does not give you so much freedom to deny other people the same
freedoms. The copyright holders can only do so, because copyright law itself
give you none of these rights at all.
Richard Stallmann - if I understand him right - beliefs that the rights the
GPL grants should be granted (for software) by copyright law itself and
therefor granted for every software. You may argument about that.
But you cant't argument that an author as owner of his work should use a less
restrictive license than the GPL so you can make a derived work and
distribute it under a more restrictive license than GPL. Why should he want
to allow that at all (a lot of peoply allow that choosing a BSD-license -
nice gift)? Nobody can force him to do so. Its not the GPL which restricts
your freedom, it is copyright law and the author(s) of the work you want to
made a derived work from.
It is simply impossible that authors have control under which condition
derived works may be made from their works AND in the same time have the
right to made derived works from works of other authors without control of
these authors.
By the way: a completely different question is if a work is a derived work. Is
a driver for nvidia a derived work. Well, the GPL can not define that, of
course - because it only applies to derived works. No license can that. A
licence may state what it will not regard as a derived work.
The courts decide what is a derived work. The courts decide that your book
with a main character named Harry Potter, wizard studying in Hogwards, is a
derived work from 4 those well known Rowling-books and that you may not
distribute it without permission.
Greetings,
Wolfgang Walter
--
Wolfgang Walter
Studentenwerk M?nchen
Anstalt des ?ffentlichen Rechts
EDV
Leopoldstra?e 15
80802 M?nchen
Tel: +49 89 38196-276
Fax: +49 89 38196-144
[email protected]
http://www.studentenwerk.mhn.de/
you are confusing Richard Stallman with me, I argued headers were a derivative use, this _may_ not be his view, i appologise if you feel misled.
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 16:17:30 -0800 David Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote:
By the way, I'm principally a developer of communications standards and
hardware, not so much software.
--On Saturday, January 04, 2003 18:44:49 -0500 Richard Stallman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> But sometimes we can't make things free, either because it comes to
> close to core IP which we are legally bound to protect, or because
> it's a derived work of something we bought and don't ourselves have
> the right to redistribute.
>
> At this level of generality, I can only say that if the program is to
> be published as non-free software, it will not be available to people
> to use in freedom. Its effect will be to tempt people to give up
> their freedom. If I had a choice to develop that program or no
> program, I would develop no program.
Here is where we differ. I do these things because, even though they do
not promote software freedom, they can and, I hope, do promote other kinds
of freedom in other ways. I also always look to the maximally free way to
do the software parts. Sometimes it is not possible to acheive the other
goals we have and keep the software entirely free. I think, however, that
the freedom given by very inexpensive and unconstrained (that is, free as
in speech) telecommunications is somewhat more important than the absolute
freedom of the specific software we use to acheive that. In several cases,
we have chosen proprietary solutions where they make the monetary cost to
the end user dramatically lower, because one of our target problems is the
lack of economic freedom in many parts of the world. For those with an
arbitrary hardware budget, there are or soon will be interoperable free
software alternatives. We make sure of that. We make sure we use open
standards with no closed extensions, so as to make sure this continues.
> I would rather look for constructive alternatives than just criticize.
> In such a situation, I would look for a way to make the program free.
I'm often focused on the case where the total hardware + software cost is
the key factor between user of any communications and user of no
communications. I use free or partly free software wherever I can, because
I am not hostile to that goal, but that is not my overriding concern.
I am also concerned that some of the zealots in the free software, not
necessarily including yourself Richard, do not set precedents in the courts
that, while possibly reinforcing the particular technicality of the GPL,
undermine the freeness of kinds of speech other than software, such as
scientific communication, cultural artefacts and political discussion. In
the long run that would be worse for freedom in general.
> This scenario is too general to get started on that. (I explained in
> another message how the term "intellectual property" tends to obscure
> important distinctions; this is an example.) In any specific case
> there is likely to be some way.
Here I'm using that term in the sense of 'copyrighted (and possibly
patented) compilable information and its documentation', covering both
software and hardware designs. If I were to use it to cover anything else
I'd be more specific, as is common usage where I come from. I do
understand the ambiguity and hidden conflations behind the term; I have
been involved in both trademark and patenting (of hardware; software
patents are evil, no question) work, and I'm cited as an inventor on one
patent, so I have some firsthand experience.
> If there is no easy way to make the same program free, there may be a
> harder way. People who value freedom strongly sometimes choose the
> hard path to freedom rather than the easy path that extends
> non-freedom. That is how we extend freedom.
I'm principally concerned with other sorts of freedom, while attempting to
forward the cause of software freedom to the extent I can, and attempting
never to advance the cause of any sort of non-freedom. It isn't easy at
all, believe me.
> As an ultimate fallback, there is surely some other job you could do
> instead.
I could go back to being a musician or a scientist. There are freedom
issues there, too, believe me. And I'd still be debating free software,
because in those fields it's important too. It would certainly be easier
to tread the path of free software purity in those fields, but I suspect it
would make less long-term impact for me to do so.
> I have no opinion yet about what Andre said, because I cannot form a
> clear picture of what he plans to do; I don't know whether it would
> violate the GPL, or whether the issue would involve the FSF. We do
> not enforce the GPL for Linux in any case; that is the responsibility
> of the copyright holders of Linux.
I'm glad to hear that. I'm also glad that the zealot who started the
thread that has us talking about this does not appear to be one of those
copyright holders; I suspect most of them have more sense.
Andrew
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 23:22:44 -0200 (BRST)
Rik van Riel <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> > I would rather look for constructive alternatives than just
> > criticize. In such a situation, I would look for a way to make the
> > program free.
>
> > If there is no easy way to make the same program free, there may be
> > a harder way.
>
> There is of course the business model used by the ghostscript
> people, used by tytso when he made resize2fs and also used by
> Andre Hedrick:
>
> 1) write the software, sell it for a profit for some period
> of time (eg. 18 months)
>
> 2) after that, release the program and its source code
>
> To the copyright holder, this has all the benefits of a strictly
Seams to me like a perfectly good idea, infact I want to use that for a
game i'm developing in my free time(wheter or not i finish this, is out
of the scope of the discussion :)), once i'm done i'm going to see how
much time i spent working on this. Then i'm going figure out a time
period and ammount of money that would be *fair* conpensation. then i
plan to release under a free licence (such as the GPL, haven't put a lot
of though into that part quite yet), depending if I make the set ammount
of money first or the set time passes buy (since chance are then i won't
make my set goal :|). If people (not even me) can make money to put on a
table this way, have a decent place to live, and have health insurance
then this model can't be bad.
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Andrew McGregor wrote:
> By the way, I'm principally a developer of communications standards and
> hardware, not so much software.
I forgot to mention the template model on each side of the iSCSI protocol
state machine we have developed is agnostic?
Initiator --- Transport --- Target --- Spindle
TCP SCSI
Quads ATA
SCI SATA
Myrinet MD
InfiniBand LVM
TELCO USB
CARRIER 1394
SAS
Fibre Channel
FLOPPY, for emergencies.
Create Your Own Create Your Own
Yeah, I am nutter than a fruitcake, but it works!
This is for Larry McVoy, it is the closest thing you will ever see today
which looks like a disk with an RJ-45 port.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
> --On Saturday, January 04, 2003 18:44:49 -0500 Richard Stallman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > But sometimes we can't make things free, either because it comes to
> > close to core IP which we are legally bound to protect, or because
> > it's a derived work of something we bought and don't ourselves have
> > the right to redistribute.
> >
> > At this level of generality, I can only say that if the program is to
> > be published as non-free software, it will not be available to people
> > to use in freedom. Its effect will be to tempt people to give up
> > their freedom. If I had a choice to develop that program or no
> > program, I would develop no program.
>
> Here is where we differ. I do these things because, even though they do
> not promote software freedom, they can and, I hope, do promote other kinds
> of freedom in other ways. I also always look to the maximally free way to
> do the software parts. Sometimes it is not possible to acheive the other
> goals we have and keep the software entirely free. I think, however, that
> the freedom given by very inexpensive and unconstrained (that is, free as
> in speech) telecommunications is somewhat more important than the absolute
> freedom of the specific software we use to acheive that. In several cases,
> we have chosen proprietary solutions where they make the monetary cost to
> the end user dramatically lower, because one of our target problems is the
> lack of economic freedom in many parts of the world. For those with an
> arbitrary hardware budget, there are or soon will be interoperable free
> software alternatives. We make sure of that. We make sure we use open
> standards with no closed extensions, so as to make sure this continues.
>
> > I would rather look for constructive alternatives than just criticize.
> > In such a situation, I would look for a way to make the program free.
>
> I'm often focused on the case where the total hardware + software cost is
> the key factor between user of any communications and user of no
> communications. I use free or partly free software wherever I can, because
> I am not hostile to that goal, but that is not my overriding concern.
>
> I am also concerned that some of the zealots in the free software, not
> necessarily including yourself Richard, do not set precedents in the courts
> that, while possibly reinforcing the particular technicality of the GPL,
> undermine the freeness of kinds of speech other than software, such as
> scientific communication, cultural artefacts and political discussion. In
> the long run that would be worse for freedom in general.
>
> > This scenario is too general to get started on that. (I explained in
> > another message how the term "intellectual property" tends to obscure
> > important distinctions; this is an example.) In any specific case
> > there is likely to be some way.
>
> Here I'm using that term in the sense of 'copyrighted (and possibly
> patented) compilable information and its documentation', covering both
> software and hardware designs. If I were to use it to cover anything else
> I'd be more specific, as is common usage where I come from. I do
> understand the ambiguity and hidden conflations behind the term; I have
> been involved in both trademark and patenting (of hardware; software
> patents are evil, no question) work, and I'm cited as an inventor on one
> patent, so I have some firsthand experience.
>
> > If there is no easy way to make the same program free, there may be a
> > harder way. People who value freedom strongly sometimes choose the
> > hard path to freedom rather than the easy path that extends
> > non-freedom. That is how we extend freedom.
>
> I'm principally concerned with other sorts of freedom, while attempting to
> forward the cause of software freedom to the extent I can, and attempting
> never to advance the cause of any sort of non-freedom. It isn't easy at
> all, believe me.
>
> > As an ultimate fallback, there is surely some other job you could do
> > instead.
>
> I could go back to being a musician or a scientist. There are freedom
> issues there, too, believe me. And I'd still be debating free software,
> because in those fields it's important too. It would certainly be easier
> to tread the path of free software purity in those fields, but I suspect it
> would make less long-term impact for me to do so.
>
> > I have no opinion yet about what Andre said, because I cannot form a
> > clear picture of what he plans to do; I don't know whether it would
> > violate the GPL, or whether the issue would involve the FSF. We do
> > not enforce the GPL for Linux in any case; that is the responsibility
> > of the copyright holders of Linux.
>
> I'm glad to hear that. I'm also glad that the zealot who started the
> thread that has us talking about this does not appear to be one of those
> copyright holders; I suspect most of them have more sense.
>
> Andrew
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
It believes in GOD? :-)
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 21:31:39 -0800 (PST) Andre Hedrick <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 05:39:35 +0100, Wolfgang Walter wrote:
>On Sunday 05 January 2003 01:17, David Schwartz wrote:
>>On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:44:58 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>>Defending shrink wrap licensing agreements, arguing to weaken
>>>fair use and
>>>first sale doctrines, and arguing that if you include a header
>>>it's
>>>a derived
>>>work is a strange way to defend intellectual freedom.
>>>
>>>Those are not my views. Are you confusing me with someone else?
>>
>> Then please explain to me how the GPL comes to apply to a
person
>>who
>>did not agree to it as a condition of receiving a copyrighted work.
>>Please explain to me why you think that the GPL should have applied
>>to kernel modules that only include header files.
>You seem not to understand copyright.
I don't see what gives you this impression.
>The GPL does not affect the user of the software. If you have bought
>a copy of
>Red Linux distribution cd i.a. it is not necessary to accept the GPL
>(or BSD
>or whatever license) to use the software. You may sell your received
>copy
>when ever you want to ever you want for whatever price you can get -
>if you
>do not keep a copy. As you can do with microsoft windows - if you
>bought it
>(and did not licensed it from microsoft). I.a. it is not necessary
>to provide
>source code because it is Red Hat which a) made the copy and b) did
>so by
>accepting the GPL.
Right.
>But if you want to make and use or distribute copies of that CD or
>distributed
>works, well, then you must get explicit permission from the
>copyright owners
>- as you would have to for any copyrightable work. This is so
>because of
>copyright law. If you buy the software you only have the right to
>use it. You
>do not have by default the right to distribute copies, make or
>distribute
>derived works etc.
You have those rights the law gives you and those rights that the
copyright holder chooses to give you in the transfer agreement.
>Now the authors of the software on the Red Hat CD make you an offer:
>you may
>accept the GPL. If you do so, they allow you to make and distribute
>copies or
>derived works under certain conditions. You don't have to accept the
>GPL. If
>you do not, you may try to negotiate for other terms with the
>copyright
>holders.
Sounds like every shrink wrap agreement in the world. You already
have the thing you want to license, the licensee simply refuses to
grant you the rights to that thing you already have unless you agree
to a license that you are not free to negotiate.
>> That's a lot better than trying to arm twist others in to
>>providing
>>our freedom to use their works. When you talk about forcing a
>>person
>>to distribute the source code to a derived work, you are only
>>talking
>>about their control over what they added. When a person creates a
>Do you understand? You are not allowed to produce derived works
>without
>permission of the copyright owner. He may do so under what
>conditions he want
>(or simply does not allow you to do so at all).
This is the same for use. If Microsoft wants to, they can impose any
terms in the EULA that they want.
>With the GPL the copyright owner(s) of the work grants you the right
>to do so
>under certain conditions described under the GPL. One right is to
>produce
>derived works at all and
>Have you ever got permission from microsoft or adobe to produce
>derived works
>from windows 2000 or photoshop?
Microsoft doesn't try to argue that every document I write in
Windows 2000 is a derived work. Photoshop doesn't argue that every
image I create in photoshop is a derived work.
All you can do with a header file is include it in your own code.
All you can do with photoshop is produce photoshop files. Adobe
doesn't argue that photoshop-created images are derived works.
Stallman *does* argue that Linux binary modules are derived works.
To support the GPL's ability to regulate the distribution of derived
works you would have to argue that Adobe's EULA could legitimately
prohibit you from distributing images you create with photoshop. Far
smarter for advocates of freedom to argue that this is fair use and
the argument that such works are derived is bullcrap.
>>derived work of an open source work, all they have to offer is the
>>value they added. In the name of freedom, you take their control
>>over
>>their work from them.
>No, they allow you to do the work at all. By default you would not
>be allowed
>to add value at all.
Yes, but this is *use*, which is what the GPL is *not* supposed to
stop. How can you use photoshop except to create images with it? How
can you use a header file except to include it in your own code. I
argue that we should take the position that this type of normal use
does not create a derived work any more than reading a novel makes
your brain a derived work of that novel.
>> This is the same "freedom" that socialism promises the workers.
>>They
>>call it the freedom to own the machinery they use to produce.
>>Analogously, this "freedom" is really just the loss of the freedom
>>of
>>ownership.
>No. The authors of the work has with your words - the "ownership" of
>his work.
>Law says that one facete of that "ownership" is that he may allow or
>forbid
>derived works. And if he allows someone to produce a derived work
>its under
>his conditions.
The argument is over what is a derived work, what constitutes
"using" a header file, and what constitutes agreement to a contract.
>But you cant't argument that an author as owner of his work should
>use a less
>restrictive license than the GPL so you can make a derived work and
>distribute it under a more restrictive license than GPL. Why should
>he want
>to allow that at all (a lot of peoply allow that choosing a BSD-
>license -
>nice gift)? Nobody can force him to do so. Its not the GPL which
>restricts
>your freedom, it is copyright law and the author(s) of the work you
>want to
>made a derived work from.
I guess I haven't made myself clear. My argument is not specifically
with the GPL except in the sense that it requires people who support
it to take anti-freedom positions with respect to fair use, derived
works, first sale, and other important issues where actual
information freedom is at stake.
I'm afraid I'm too tired right now to respond to the rest of your
argument. I hope I didn't miss anything importasnt.
DS
AMEN BROTHER. SING IT.
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 23:06:51 +0100 Matthias Andree <[email protected]> wrote:
I do not count GPL programs on top of a proprietary bios because the bios is firmware AND NOT TECHNICALLY SOFTWARE.
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Sun, 05 Jan 2003 08:43:02 +1300 Andrew McGregor <[email protected]> wrote:
hey do you work for pc format?
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 11:35:14 -0500 Mark Rutherford <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I have the freedom to use Linux and ClearCase. If closed source modules
> were to be disallowed, it would be illegal for me to use this configuration,
> and I would be forced to use HP-UX or Solaris, and not Linux.
>
> You can't have freedom while using ClearCase, because it is non-free
> software. What we really need is a free replacement for it. Will
> people write one? Our main influence on whether people do this is by
People are already working on it: http://www.advogato.org/proj/Katie/
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
> [[email protected]]
>
> And we all agree that they are the leader in the free software financial
> success stories, right? Who's bigger? IBM? Let's see, spent $1B and
> by their own statements "almost have made that back". Hmm, running at
> a loss but going to make it up on volume.
>
> Now let's compare to some closed source companies:
>
> Company Factor more revenue than Red Hat
> Microsoft 370
> Oracle 116
> Sun 150
>
> You get the idea. Sun makes more in 2 days than Red Hat makes all year.
> It doesn't even take Microsoft a whole day to make what Red Hat makes in
> a year.
Warning: stdin:8: comparison is always false due to limited range of data.
Even if I overlook that you're effectively comparing the incomparable,
Microsoft making 370 times more than RedHat says _nothing_ about their
actual achievement in terms of software development. Should you insist
on that correlation, though, I'd recommend you cancel your Wired magazine
subscription as soon as possible, because continuing to read their stuff
might put your health at stake. <g>
--
Tomas Szepe <[email protected]>
Oh, that's nice!
Presumably you could substitute DCCP or whatever for TCP. I like it.
So how about this, the result of a corridor conversation at an IETF:
It is perfectly doable, using HIP and some (admittedly expensive) hardware
crypto gear to run iSCSI encrypted at Gigabit Ethernet rates and faster,
while being able to attach endpoints more or less at random in IP space and
move them around freely while connected. Mobile hotplug IP storage :-)
HIP is the Host Identity Payload, which can be seen as different things
depending on which features you like. The idea starts from distinguishing
the IP address, which basically represents a location in the net, from the
Host Identity, which is a public key that identifies an endpoint.
By some machinations, you end up being IP numbering and version agnostic,
while having an extremely lightweight opportunistic key exchange protocol.
There are several implementations and all the specs linked to at
http://www.hip4inter.net/, not presently including my own, which is purely
userspace (everything I have so far needed is provided by standard kernels,
except ESP and that is now in too), BSD licensed and written in Python and
which will be released soon, for some value of soon.
This is a less mature protocol than iSCSI at this point, but I think there
are some very interesting possibilities by combining the two.
Andrew
--On Saturday, January 04, 2003 21:31:39 -0800 Andre Hedrick
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Andrew McGregor wrote:
>
>> By the way, I'm principally a developer of communications standards and
>> hardware, not so much software.
>
> I forgot to mention the template model on each side of the iSCSI protocol
> state machine we have developed is agnostic?
>
> Initiator --- Transport --- Target --- Spindle
>
> TCP SCSI
> Quads ATA
> SCI SATA
> Myrinet MD
> InfiniBand LVM
> TELCO USB
> CARRIER 1394
> SAS
> Fibre Channel
>
> FLOPPY, for emergencies.
>
> Create Your Own Create Your Own
>
> Yeah, I am nutter than a fruitcake, but it works!
>
> This is for Larry McVoy, it is the closest thing you will ever see today
> which looks like a disk with an RJ-45 port.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andre Hedrick
> LAD Storage Consulting Group
>
>
On Sun, 05 Jan 2003, [email protected] wrote:
> AMEN BROTHER. SING IT.
>
> Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
What is your personal roster of OpenSource work you did in the past
again?
And no, I'm not singing it for someone who doesn't seem to look at
either side but only one.
David Schwartz <[email protected]> writes:
> Fine, keep the drivers closed source. Just tell us what the
> interfaces are and we'll make our own drivers. Maybe they're afraid
> ours will be better. ;)
Which could be of (commercial) benefit to them, as if the Open Source
drivers were better than their own they could save money by not
developing and supporting drivers and distributing the open source
drivers.
Already drafted the model for secure supporting such a beast.
Additional the day will come when there is mobile internet radio
everywhere with good data rates. The age of corporate security as it
relates to content on laptops is just over the hill.
No longer will people/corporations need to worry about security of laptops
and that which is stored on them. Using iSCSI with ACLs, one can shutdown
data access in an instant. Now this requires or suggests the need for
Diskless Bootable iSCSI without suffering the extra cost associated with,
what is known as "iBOOT" from IBM. This is another issue, but we (the
community) have LinBIOS, and I have a full working version of DBiSCSI
today.
Well I will follow up on this later, and yes what you are asking about can
be done.
Cheers,
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Andrew McGregor wrote:
> Oh, that's nice!
>
> Presumably you could substitute DCCP or whatever for TCP. I like it.
>
> So how about this, the result of a corridor conversation at an IETF:
>
> It is perfectly doable, using HIP and some (admittedly expensive) hardware
> crypto gear to run iSCSI encrypted at Gigabit Ethernet rates and faster,
> while being able to attach endpoints more or less at random in IP space and
> move them around freely while connected. Mobile hotplug IP storage :-)
>
>
> HIP is the Host Identity Payload, which can be seen as different things
> depending on which features you like. The idea starts from distinguishing
> the IP address, which basically represents a location in the net, from the
> Host Identity, which is a public key that identifies an endpoint.
>
> By some machinations, you end up being IP numbering and version agnostic,
> while having an extremely lightweight opportunistic key exchange protocol.
>
> There are several implementations and all the specs linked to at
> http://www.hip4inter.net/, not presently including my own, which is purely
> userspace (everything I have so far needed is provided by standard kernels,
> except ESP and that is now in too), BSD licensed and written in Python and
> which will be released soon, for some value of soon.
>
> This is a less mature protocol than iSCSI at this point, but I think there
> are some very interesting possibilities by combining the two.
>
> Andrew
>
> --On Saturday, January 04, 2003 21:31:39 -0800 Andre Hedrick
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Andrew McGregor wrote:
> >
> >> By the way, I'm principally a developer of communications standards and
> >> hardware, not so much software.
> >
> > I forgot to mention the template model on each side of the iSCSI protocol
> > state machine we have developed is agnostic?
> >
> > Initiator --- Transport --- Target --- Spindle
> >
> > TCP SCSI
> > Quads ATA
> > SCI SATA
> > Myrinet MD
> > InfiniBand LVM
> > TELCO USB
> > CARRIER 1394
> > SAS
> > Fibre Channel
> >
> > FLOPPY, for emergencies.
> >
> > Create Your Own Create Your Own
> >
> > Yeah, I am nutter than a fruitcake, but it works!
> >
> > This is for Larry McVoy, it is the closest thing you will ever see today
> > which looks like a disk with an RJ-45 port.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Andre Hedrick
> > LAD Storage Consulting Group
> >
> >
>
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
Richard Stallman <[email protected]> writes:
>to contribute to free software. We are fortunate that Netscape, Sun,
>and IBM, and the people who won their partial cooperation, did not
>take your advice.
Funny you mention IBM here. I was always under the impression, that
the IBM Open Source effort is mainly there to sell more boxes (which
are well supported by the "good guys' operating system" because they
offer and support open source GPL drivers.
And then run their applications on it, which are not, I repeat, _NOT_
open sourced or free.
So they give away a few drivers which doesn't earn any money anyway,
get lots of good publicity and community support for free and also put
a foot in the back of a company which they don't like but have to
license/support their OS anyway (Microsoft).
To my (and obviously to the clued people inside IBM) this sounds
win-win.
You can do this if you're IBM.
Any before you ask why I wrote this: To me, by calling IBM "the good
guys", you're activly promoting their non-free, close-sourced
applications running on top of Linux (and their hardware).
"Stallman called IBM the good guys. Buy their Websphere application
suite running on Linux on eSeries Hardware. Film at 11".
They're not an open source company. Neither are Sun (which also sells
Hardware and applications; ironically their iPlanet stuff comes from
Netscape) or Netscape (their Applications are now called "iPlanet" and
come from Sun =:-) and with open sourcing their browser they didn't
give away anything; they already lost the browser wars to Microsoft
and noone could read their code anyway).
But all three sucked you into saying "IBM, Sun and Netscape
contributed to free software". But you don't understand their
motive. Which is money. And the stuff that earns the money wasn't open
sourced at all.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
Linux is a copy of Unix. There is very little new stuff in Linux.
This is no coincidence. GNU/Linux parallels Unix because I chose that
design in 1983. It is foolish to focus on innovation when you are
starting a race with a multi-year handicap. The first task is to
catch up.
The primary purpose of GNU is the freedom to cooperate. Innovation is
nice, but secondary. We followed the design of Unix because that was
the most reliable way to produce a working portable system. We made
it compatible with Unix so that many users could easily switch to it.
We deliberately avoided innovative approaches in many cases--the
noteworthy exception being the GNU Hurd. (Perhaps that exception was
a bad decision.)
Although innovation is not our primary focus, there is a fair amount
of innovation in GNU packages. GNU Emacs is better than any previous
Emacs. (The first Emacs was another innovation in our community.)
GCC was the first portable truly optimizing compiler, and the first
optimizing compiler that supported debugging. Autoconf was an
innovation in portability technology. Looking elsewhere in our
community, Perl and Python seem to be innovative; the X Window System
was too. There are surely more examples that I don't know of.
You get the idea. Sun makes more in 2 days than Red Hat makes all year.
This is very significant if money is your main goal. Both GNU and
Linux exist because of people who have different priorities.
Dude,
Give it up. No one buys the GNU/Linux thing, and on LKML, it's really
just noise. My understanding was that you acknowledged that the kernel was
"Linux" (or "Freax" as I once heard Linus refer to it on the radio, though
it was a professor of his that made him change the name, not an FTP admin)
and that most "Linux" distro's come bundled with 95% or so GNU software.
So, please - go join the Slackare, Debian, Red SHat, Mandrake, Connectiva,
etc mailinglists and rant about that crap, but please leave if off of LKML -
the signal to noise ratio is bad enough here without your "help".
Also, I didn't see your answer to the question of weither hurd should be
called Linux/Hurd or not - given that you say much of what the rest of us
call "Linux" is, in your opinion, a derived work of GNU, and given that Hurd
borrows large chunks of Linux code, would you state your opinion on the name
for the record? Thanks.
Regards,
Scott Lockwood
http://geekizoid.com/
http://sporks-r-us.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Richard Stallman
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 12:34 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source
drivers?
Linux is a copy of Unix. There is very little new stuff in Linux.
This is no coincidence. GNU/Linux parallels Unix because I chose that
design in 1983. It is foolish to focus on innovation when you are
starting a race with a multi-year handicap. The first task is to
catch up.
The primary purpose of GNU is the freedom to cooperate. Innovation is
nice, but secondary. We followed the design of Unix because that was
the most reliable way to produce a working portable system. We made
it compatible with Unix so that many users could easily switch to it.
We deliberately avoided innovative approaches in many cases--the
noteworthy exception being the GNU Hurd. (Perhaps that exception was
a bad decision.)
Although innovation is not our primary focus, there is a fair amount
of innovation in GNU packages. GNU Emacs is better than any previous
Emacs. (The first Emacs was another innovation in our community.)
GCC was the first portable truly optimizing compiler, and the first
optimizing compiler that supported debugging. Autoconf was an
innovation in portability technology. Looking elsewhere in our
community, Perl and Python seem to be innovative; the X Window System
was too. There are surely more examples that I don't know of.
You get the idea. Sun makes more in 2 days than Red Hat makes all year.
This is very significant if money is your main goal. Both GNU and
Linux exist because of people who have different priorities.
Tomas Szepe <[email protected]> writes:
>Even if I overlook that you're effectively comparing the incomparable,
>Microsoft making 370 times more than RedHat says _nothing_ about their
>actual achievement in terms of software development. Should you insist
You might simply open your eyes and look around you before you utter
such ridicioulous statements.
% cd /home/mirror/RFC
% for i in rfc*.txt; do head -20 $i | grep -iq microsoft; if [ "x$?" = "x0" ]; then echo $i; fi; done | wc -l
102 102 1224 /tmp/rfc-log
% for i in rfc*.txt; do head -20 $i | grep -iq 'red hat'; if [ "x$?" = "x0" ]; then echo $i; fi; done | wc -l
% for i in rfc*.txt; do head -20 $i | grep -iq 'redhat'; if [ "x$?" = "x0" ]; then echo $i; fi; done | wc -l
So in terms of "RFC contributions" which are the established and
accepted base on which to build the internet and "open software", the
score is
Microsoft Corporation vs. Red Hat Inc.
102 : 0
Some examples:
rfc1877: PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol Extensions for Name Server Addresses
rfc2069/2617: An Extension to HTTP : Digest Access Authentication
rfc2193: IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals
rfc2237: Japanese Character Encoding for Internet Messages
rfc2338: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol
rfc2342: IMAP4 Namespace
rfc2445: Internet Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object Specification (iCalendar)
rfc2518/3253: HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring -- WEBDAV
rfc2565: Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Encoding and Transport
rfc2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 (Yup. Microsoft)
rfc2661: Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP"
rfc2782: A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)
rfc2989: Criteria for Evaluating AAA Protocols for Network Access (Microsoft. Sun. Cisco. Nokia.)
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 20:40, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Tomas Szepe <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >Even if I overlook that you're effectively comparing the incomparable,
> >Microsoft making 370 times more than RedHat says _nothing_ about their
> >actual achievement in terms of software development. Should you insist
>
> You might simply open your eyes and look around you before you utter
> such ridicioulous statements.
Your grep is faulty. Linux community members contribute to RFC's under their own names.
Try again
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 20:40:32 +0000 (UTC)
"Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> rfc2237: Japanese Character Encoding for Internet Messages
Yeah, and what a hash they made of that one. They wrote it themselves, and
they *still* ignore it... what hope do we have of them observing standards
that they didn't write?
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 01:34:01PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Linux is a copy of Unix. There is very little new stuff in Linux.
> This is no coincidence. GNU/Linux parallels Unix because I chose that
> design in 1983. It is foolish to focus on innovation when you are
> starting a race with a multi-year handicap. The first task is to
> catch up.
You *chose* GNU/Linux to parallel Unix? I assume you mean that you
influenced GNU into using a Unix base with the eventual goal of having
some sort of GNU Unix base (the Hurd?). The words you selected above
are rather assuming.
> You get the idea. Sun makes more in 2 days than Red Hat makes all year.
> This is very significant if money is your main goal. Both GNU and
> Linux exist because of people who have different priorities.
Development costs resources. GNU has benefitted substantially from
resources offered for free by people that have other (usually non-GPL
or non-open source) means of putting food on the table. Respect this.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
Alan Cox <[email protected]> writes:
>On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 20:40, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>> Tomas Szepe <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> >Even if I overlook that you're effectively comparing the incomparable,
>> >Microsoft making 370 times more than RedHat says _nothing_ about their
>> >actual achievement in terms of software development. Should you insist
>>
>> You might simply open your eyes and look around you before you utter
>> such ridicioulous statements.
>Your grep is faulty. Linux community members contribute to RFC's under their own names.
I looked for "RedHat / Red Hat". Not for "linux community members".
That's what I wrote.
I didn't look for "Microsoft employees that contribute to RFC's under
their own names" either.
The original statement was
--- cut --
"Microsoft making 370 times more than RedHat says _nothing_ about
their actual achievement in terms of software development."
--- cut --
BTW: Microsofts' contributions to RFCs has to me the same "face value"
as IBMs' contributions to the Linux kernel. It is an small piece of IP
( :-) ) given to get lots of leverage for closed/proprietary stuff.
>Try again
Nah. :-)
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 02:04:34PM +0000, Graham Murray wrote:
> David Schwartz <[email protected]> writes:
> > Fine, keep the drivers closed source. Just tell us what the
> > interfaces are and we'll make our own drivers. Maybe they're afraid
> > ours will be better. ;)
> Which could be of (commercial) benefit to them, as if the Open Source
> drivers were better than their own they could save money by not
> developing and supporting drivers and distributing the open source
> drivers.
Especially in the case of hardware, one of the primary reasons I suspect
companies to resist open source drivers is 'risk'.
Scenario: I invent some sort of fancy hardware that does some
incredible thing. Companies all over the world love my hardware, and
they install it on all of their computers. I use the profit to fund
more research, development, expanding my company into other areas, and
of course, some of the profit goes to the stock holders. My customers
want my hardware to work on Linux. I say hmm... well... it will only
cost 4 full-time people resources to do this... and I can even let them
do Linux development on the side when they aren't busy as a method of
letting my company be more popular in the open source community.
Then one day the suggestion is made to me -- why hire 4 full-time
people resources, when you can hire only one, release the code as open
source, and let the community manage it?
I think about it for a while. What could I possibly lose?
I do it. Open sourced drivers, YEAH! Cheaper for me, the customers love
it, and I even get free features that I didn't even think about.
Then one day - everybody upgrades to a new version of Linux. My
support lines start ringing off the hook. The thing doesn't work in
the new version of Linux! I plead with the open source community to
complete the work, but for some reason, these people are on vacation,
or want to be working on something else! Nobody is responsible for the
source code, and I can't do anything about it! I quickly make a plea
to a wider community "anybody have good references and can work on
this project ASAP for a very decent sum of money?" Finally, a week
later, the details are sorted out, and development begins. My
customers are mad. I have no control of the situation.
What is this head-ache worth?
I made this scenario up. It might have no bases on reality. However -
companies don't always fear only the scenarios that could happen. The
fear what shouldn't happen, that they cannot control. They have
to. They have thousands of stock holders who will have their neck if
they fail.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
> [[email protected]]
>
> The original statement was
>
> --- cut ---
> "Microsoft making 370 times more than RedHat says _nothing_ about
> their actual achievement in terms of software development."
> --- cut ---
And it holds true, because
1) A huge part of RedHat's work in software development goes into free
(as in beer) software, which skews the better_product<->higher_revenue
correlation vigorously.
2) better_product<->higher_revenue doesn't work terribly well when the
market is dominated by a monopoly, does it?
3) Microsoft doesn't only sell software.
...
Don't make me come up with more. Larry's comparison is totally laughable
if it is to support the thesis "Microsoft has achieved much more in software
development than RedHat."
--
Tomas Szepe <[email protected]>
On Saturday 04 January 2003 11:38, [email protected] wrote:
> what war am I fighting? I decided that the battle is lost a long time ago,
> im showing the community its fate, eventual collapse from a unrealistic GPL
> that needs a decent funeral, sue NVidia and I collapse it, when I lose.
What kind of battle? Do you really want to go to court?
I'm so sorry to spoil your fun, but you don't have any chance to get a case.
As long as you don't have contributed anything significant to the kernel,
absolutely none of _your_ rights have been violated. And no, you can't sue on
behalf of others, who just don't want that.
So start coding or shut up. Oh, and you should hope that Linus still accepts
patches from you...
cheers,
Flo
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 17:37:53 -0500
Mark Mielke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Then one day - everybody upgrades to a new version of Linux. My
> support lines start ringing off the hook.
To which the answer is 'we dont support linux 9.8.4 yet, sorry.'
In the *mean time*, I need a practical response, and not a claim that
'in a more perfect world, such and such'. If binary-only modules are
illegal, then I lose the freedom to legally use Linux + ClearCase MVFS.
You would be unable to do that unless/until someone (perhaps you?)
wrote a free implementation of MVFS for Linux.
Whether you can use GNU/Linux with ClearCase's non-free MVFS
implementation is not terribly important for our community. I would
not base my decisions on that factor. It is not worth changing a
license on a program just so that a small segment of computer users
might use a program *today* rather than waiting.
Enabling you and others to access MVFS with free software is the right
solution. It may take longer, but it really solves the problem.
Traditional (not *REAL*) visionaries that have incomplete visions, where
the vision cannot be easily transferred from person to person without
mutating, or losing its scope, are forced to sustain their efforts as
a physical effort.
*REAL* visions are like viruses. All you need to do is transfer the vision
from one person to the next, and each time the image is transferred, the
next person takes up the cross as their own, with all of the energy and
motivation that the original visionary possessed.
These definitions equate "real" with "complete" with "transmitted
perfectly reliability". I don't agree with that equation, but you and
I both observe that the vision of free software transmits with less
than perfect reliability.
Many successful social movements have been less than "real" in your
terms. Success requires persistent work.
I think that everyone knows the connection between the Linux kernel and GNU.
I wish that were true. Most of the people who know about the system
have heard of "Linux" but they have not heard of GNU. Geeks often
think they know, but what they know is often wrong; for instance, they
often say that "GNU is the name of a collection of tools that are used
in Linux." (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#tools.)
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 03:25, Richard Stallman wrote:
>> I think that everyone knows the connection between the Linux kernel and GNU.
>
> I wish that were true. Most of the people who know about the system
> have heard of "Linux" but they have not heard of GNU. Geeks often
> think they know, but what they know is often wrong; for instance, they
> often say that "GNU is the name of a collection of tools that are used
> in Linux." (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#tools.)
>
Hi,
While I agree with you that the system should be called 'GNU Linux' and
be referred too as such in communication etc. When your with a customer
advocating implementation of the operating system for example. You
cannot contradict and try force correctness/fairness of naming, unless
you want to annoy and turn your customer off too you! For most people in
the commercial world, we can use 'GNU Linux' when we write and speak
hoping people catch onto it and nothing really more bar explain if
someone asks why we call it 'GNU Linux'. You would I hope respect this.
Also the page you linked to is alot of the problem. Yes people have a
position on how something should be. However, too go on and on about it
just gets up peoples noses. On the page is the following segment:
"However, there are people who do not like our saying this. Sometimes
those people push us away in response. On occasion they are so rude that
one wonders if they are intentionally trying to intimidate us into
silence. It doesn't silence us, but it does tend to divide the
community, so we hope you can convince them to stop."
The rudeness is not intimidation or not liking you to mention it I feel.
Most people can be informed of something once or twice, but when it's
told too them a third, fourth and fifth time they get frustrated to the
point where the only means of communication is an outburst! Yes it is
not probably the best of language used, but what they are trying to say
is "Can you just change the record for a while please?". Sorry in
advance to the animal lovers. :) There is more than one way to skin a
cat and I think the preaching method has had it's day and more subtle
methods may prove more productive.
Regards
Philip Wyett
--
AIM: PhilipWyett
ICQ: 135463069
Email: [email protected]
--
Public key: http://www.philipwyett.dsl.pipex.com/gpg/public_key.txt
--
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 01:43:22AM +0000, Ian Molton wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 17:37:53 -0500 Mark Mielke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Then one day - everybody upgrades to a new version of Linux. My
> > support lines start ringing off the hook.
> To which the answer is 'we dont support linux 9.8.4 yet, sorry.'
The question of responsibility remains unanswered. If the software causes
unreasonable damage to the user's computer, who can be sued?
A closed source product with an expensive price tag provides this
level of responsibility to customers. (at least in theory)
In my opinion, the chosen model should be based on economic feasibility,
not on religious persuasion. If open source truly is the better model for
a candidate product, the model will be used. Whether this takes the form
of the original product becoming open sourced, or a competing open source
product developed, the result is the same.
If you want to convince a company to change their model to be of the
open sourced variety, you will need logic such as the above to convince
them.
mark
P.S. I do realize that many people have experienced better 'support' from
open source communities, than from companies. I consider this an
amazing blessing that should not be taken for granted. The voluntary
contributions that make this possible need to be respected as *beyond*
what one should expect, and the volunteers themselves need to be
respected as champions of the open source community. Anything less is
taking these contributions and contributors for granted as a free
resource available to be exploited.
For example, if Red Hat were to claim that you should purchase
the Red Hat distribution of Linux/GNU, because the open source
community that produces most of the products contained within the
distribution will provide better support than other commercially
available *nix systems, Red Hat would be obtaining profit from the
voluntary contributions of other people. This is not strictly right.
(I don't know if Red Hat has ever done this... Just a scenario...)
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
Mark Mielke wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 02:42:14PM +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> > This is very much like selling cars were the gas tank is locked, and
> > you don't have the key. The gas stations have keys, but only
> > some of them. So you can't fill anywhere.
> > Or a tv that don't work on thursdays. Silly in the extreme,
> > annoying for the user and no benefit for the manufacturer.
>
> Balderdash! It is like selling a car with free professional
> maintenance, but no manuals to allow you to repair your own car. :-)
You get free maintenance on your nvidia drivers? _Enough_ maintenance?
>
> It might be true that nVidia is actually limiting their market. Since
> that results in loss of money to nVidia, and not to you, it really isn't
> any of our call.
It is a loss to me too - I might want to use that hardware - _if_
they would release the specs at zero cost to them.
Helge Hafting
Mark Mielke wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 01:43:22AM +0000, Ian Molton wrote:
> > On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 17:37:53 -0500 Mark Mielke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Then one day - everybody upgrades to a new version of Linux. My
> > > support lines start ringing off the hook.
> > To which the answer is 'we dont support linux 9.8.4 yet, sorry.'
>
> The question of responsibility remains unanswered. If the software causes
> unreasonable damage to the user's computer, who can be sued?
A question of little interest, since suing won't happen anyway.
The paid-for licences always include "This program may not
be useful for any purpose, we assume no reponsibility," and so on.
> A closed source product with an expensive price tag provides this
> level of responsibility to customers. (at least in theory)
Nope. Did anybody ever sue microsoft because windows crashed and ate
the disk, destroying valuable data? Or for loss of productivity during
downtime?
It can't be done. Forget about it. Paying for a os might get you
a support phone number, but _no_ more responsibility than free
sw downloaded from somewhere.
Helge Hafting
Andrew McGregor wrote:
> Strange how noone objects to APM BIOS calls or ACPI.
Many does. But there's no need to shout about it,
you just disable the ACPI and APM config option. I never
saw them do something useful on a non-portable anyway.
Helge Hafting
I am in almost complete agreement with you regarding the benefits of
free drivers.
But my point has evolved from this argument over nvidia and I extended
the principles to my business to see where it would lead.
I don't see rms saying "Non free software is bad, except games"
Andrew
Helge Hafting wrote:
> Andrew Walrond wrote:
>
>>Helge Hafting wrote:
>>
>>>Andrew Walrond wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Am I a bad person charging for my work?
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>Goodie!
>>
>>
>>>>Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy
>>>>people giving everything away for free!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nobody give everything away from free. Free software, in particular,
>>>runs
>>>on boxes that cost money. And people sell service and support.
>>>
>>
>>But I don't sell service, or support. I sell *software*
>>Am I bad again ?
>
> No - there's nothing wrong in selling software. I buy it if I want
> it, or don't if I don't think it is worth the money.
>
> Of course the same apply to nvidia - I choose not to buy their hardware
> _because_ of their secrecy. Many aren't that lucky, you can't usually
> dictate the components of a work machine.
>
>
>>>The problem with nvidia isn't that they charge money. The problem
>>>is that their product comes with strange restrictions.
>>>
>>
>>Ah - I see
>>
>>
>>>The problems are:
>>>1) The drivers are closed-source, so we can't fix the bugs. (Yes,
>>> there are bugs, and no, nvidia don't fix them immediately. So
>>> it'd be nice for us who understand C to fix this ourselves.
>>> Releasing the code don't won't cost nvidia because they aren't
>>> making money on it. They might actually sell _more_ hardware
>>> if they released the code. So keeping it secret don't make sense
>>> even from a extreme greediness viewpoint. Such a driver can't
>>> be made to work with a competing product either with a few tweaks.
>>>
>>
>>Oh. But I don't give you the source code to my game. Crikey - How are
>>going to debug it if it breaks??? Am I bad again ?
>>
>
> You can't compare your games to nvidia drivers. Your game might have
> a problem, but that is a problem with the game only. Trouble
> with video drivers means you can't use the computer properly
> at all.
>
> Most people don't bother debugging a video game - if it is crap, they
> don't play it. Because they don't need it. It is just a fun
> thing _if_ it works. You need working video hardware though - under
> all circumstances.
>
>
>>>2) Still, they _may_ have reasons not to release the code, perhaps
>>> a patended algorithm or some such. They could at least release the
>>> specs for their card, so a free driver could be written from scratch.
>>> But they don't do that either - strange. Some manufacturers _do_
>>> this, with no ill effects. They get a slightly bigger market because
>>> their equipment is ok with the free software world.
>>>
>>
>>Gosh, they are naughty aren't they. But I can't release the source
>>either, because little jonnie and his mates will all copy it and I'll go
>>bust and I'll lose my house and my wife will leave me. Oh what a dilema!
>>Am I a bad man ?
>
>
> I repeat - the two cases aren't comparable. People need fixable drivers
> and
> docs so their screen will work under all circumstances - including
> future changes in the os.
>
> A game isn't like that at all. Nothing depends on it other than the game
> itself.
> Particularly, no expensive hardware depends on it.
>
>
>>>This is very much like selling cars were the gas tank is locked, and
>>>you don't have the key. The gas stations have keys, but only
>>>some of them. So you can't fill anywhere.
>>>Or a tv that don't work on thursdays. Silly in the extreme,
>>>annoying for the user and no benefit for the manufacturer.
>>>
>>>Helge Hafting
>>>
>>
>>Thanks for explaining that.
>>
>>I'm gonna hand myself in. I can hardly believe how bad I am. BAD Andrew.
>>Bad bad bad!
>>
>>[Tongue so firmly in cheek that it hurts ;) Sorry Helge - I know you
>>mean well!]
>
>
> Try to understand this: the problems with nvidia does not apply to your
> gaming business. Both of you sell some closed-source software, that
> don't
> make you equal at all though. In your case the software game is the
> product.
> In nvidia's case the software is merely something necessary to make the
> hardware product work.
>
> Good open-source drivers is a huge win for us and a small win for
> nvidia,
> they have nothing to loose here. Your situation is different, open
> source
> might make the game impossible to sell, as you say. Most people
> understand
> and accept that.
>
> Helge Hafting
>
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 11:44:49AM +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Mark Mielke wrote:
> > A closed source product with an expensive price tag provides this
> > level of responsibility to customers. (at least in theory)
> Nope. Did anybody ever sue microsoft because windows crashed and ate
> the disk, destroying valuable data? Or for loss of productivity during
> downtime?
Then the problem is that companies get away with marketting poor quality
solutions. They wouldn't get away with it if they sold a car, or a baby
high-chair. Why should they get away with it for software?
Software managed by the community cannot have a single point of
responsibility. I'm telling you why companies initially don't like
such products. I'm not claiming whether it is right, or whether it
applies in reality. If you want to convince a company otherwise, you
can't ignore the concern. You need to convince them that their feeling
of security from closed source projects is unfounded. It isn't hand waving,
or general claims like 'when have you ever been able to get MS to pay for
its mistakes?' It is hard numbers. These are not easy to come by.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
On Sunday 05 January 2003 06:35, David Schwartz wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 05:39:35 +0100, Wolfgang Walter wrote:
> >On Sunday 05 January 2003 01:17, David Schwartz wrote:
> >>On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:44:58 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Sounds like every shrink wrap agreement in the world. You already
> have the thing you want to license, the licensee simply refuses to
> grant you the rights to that thing you already have unless you agree
> to a license that you are not free to negotiate.
>
A shrink wrap agreement is something completely different. You must
differiate between using software and the exploitation right of the
copyright-user.
Say you buy a book. Reading it ist usage. Destroing it is usage. But writing a
book which contains part of this book is not using it. Lending it in public
libraries is not usage. Making copies and distribute them is not usage.
You don't need a license from the author to use the book.
A shrink wrap license agreement (or EULA) tries to restrict your rights to USE
your bought copy THOUGH you didn't bought it from the person who wants you to
do so and AFTER you bought it. With the book-example: you may only read it by
night and you are not allowed to speak bad of it.
In Germany these shrink wrap license agreement and EULAs are simply invalid. I
don't need a license to use the software I bought. Even though I have to
click on "I Accept" or "I Agree" - this means nothing as I have to, to
install it, and I have to install it, to use it.
Of course copyright law is different from country to country but this so in
most countries.
In Germany microsoft tried to inhibit that peoply sell there copy of windows
bought with a new computer (based on there EULA which declared this copy as
OEM and only valid together with this computer). They failed of course -
there is no license-agreement between the owner of this windows-copy and
microsoft. I didn't license the copy, I bought it and own it. And to own
software is enough to use it. They can't restrrict unilaterally my right to
use it.
If I now use the software-update of windows, things get different. Then I
conclude a license agreement with them.
It is the same with a Red Hat CD. To use the software you don't need a
license. They cannot restrcit you in your legal rights as a user.
Back to nvidia: if nvidea-drivers are derived work from the kernel I don't
now. By itself probably not if they don't use kernel-code. Does a user commit
a copyright infringement if he loads them as module? Probably not because it
is using the software (the kernel can and does load this module, you don't
need to modify it). Does the use infringe the GPL? Hmm, as long as he uses
the kernel-binary he bought and this kernel provides the mechanism to load
the module he don't need to accept the GPL.
If he has to modify the kernel to load the module, then of course he has to
accept the GPL because modifing the kernel is not using it. And then the GPL
may forbid him to do so.
You see what would be the way to effectivly forbid non GPL-modules by a user:
a) force the user so he has to modify the kernel OR b) force a module writer
to include copyrighted material.
Maybe it is enough that the loader-mechanism in user-space and that this tool
is not part of the kernel to make it legally a modification of the kernel -
but I doubt it. But kernel-developpers may check that the module includes a
poetry they wrote and which is part of the kernel-code.
I see (you state that below) that you think that using header files in
software-projects is not making a derived work from those header files but
instead using them.
I don't know what a court will decide. But I think this does not hold for
header files as it does not hold for runtime libraries etc.
But of course you can reverse engineer and write your ones. Reverse
engineering is rather easy with open source.
> This is the same for use. If Microsoft wants to, they can impose any
> terms in the EULA that they want.
>
No - not in most countries, not in the EU. If you don't conclude an agreement
which microsoft which most people don't do. You buy a computer with windows
2000 - you don't have an agreement with microsoft and they can't unilaterally
force you to do so by effectifly making the product unusuable.
This is even so in most states of USA.
> Microsoft doesn't try to argue that every document I write in
> Windows 2000 is a derived work. Photoshop doesn't argue that every
> image I create in photoshop is a derived work.
>
Hmm, does OpenOffice that? Does Gimp that? No, of course not.
> All you can do with a header file is include it in your own code.
> All you can do with photoshop is produce photoshop files. Adobe
> doesn't argue that photoshop-created images are derived works.
They do. If you use there cliparts-collection you may produce derived works
(it depends on the clipart) and the you NEED the agreement of the
copyright-owners.
If you produce a PDF an you include copies of fonts you NEED the permission of
the copyright holders of those fonts (if the fonts are copyrighted).
> Stallman *does* argue that Linux binary modules are derived works.
I don't know if he does.
If the source code of binary-modules do not contain copyrighted material from
the kernel they probably not derived works. Loading the module into the
kernel by the user may produce a derived work. Putting kernel and modules
together in a distribution may produce a derived work.
Using kernel header files to produce the binary is very probably making a
derived work. But it would be rather hard to prove that - as it is so easy to
reverse engineer open source software and write your own header files.
>
> To support the GPL's ability to regulate the distribution of derived
> works you would have to argue that Adobe's EULA could legitimately
> prohibit you from distributing images you create with photoshop. Far
A image produced with photoshop is not a derived work. It does not contain
photoshop. If you use a nice picture they delivered with photoshop as base
then of course you may need a license.
> smarter for advocates of freedom to argue that this is fair use and
> the argument that such works are derived is bullcrap.
Fair use is something different. Fair use is about exploitation right without
permission of the copyright holder. I.e. you may cite a book in your book
(but you may not print a whole page or so). Making a copy of a book for
private use without permission of the copyright holder. (In Germany i.a. you
pay for this right: on every copy-device as cd-burners, printers, and on
memories like harddiscs, blank CDs, etc. there are fees).
For software there is almost no fair use in the EU. I.e. the right for private
copies does not exist. On the other habd there are other explicit rights,
i.e. to decompilate software to see how it works.
> Yes, but this is *use*, which is what the GPL is *not* supposed to
> stop. How can you use photoshop except to create images with it? How
> can you use a header file except to include it in your own code. I
You can read it. You can use that knowledge to write your own.
A
#include "linux/blabla.h"
does not make your file a derived work as long as you do not distribute those
files with your file.
The one who compiles it using the kernel header files makes a derived work -
the binary is a derived work. But thats my opinion. You thinks that it is
using them.
Greetings,
Wolfgang Walter
--
Wolfgang Walter
Studentenwerk M?nchen
Anstalt des ?ffentlichen Rechts
EDV
Leopoldstra?e 15
80802 M?nchen
Tel: +49 89 38196-276
Fax: +49 89 38196-144
[email protected]
http://www.studentenwerk.mhn.de/
You *chose* GNU/Linux to parallel Unix? I assume you mean that you
influenced GNU into using a Unix base with the eventual goal of having
some sort of GNU Unix base (the Hurd?). The words you selected above
are rather assuming.
I decided in 1983 to develop a Unix-compatible operating system, and
then chose the name GNU for it. In 1990, after finding or writing
most of the necessary components, we started developing a kernel for
the GNU system; that kernel is the GNU Hurd. Since Linux was working
long before the Hurd, people mostly use GNU with Linux instead.
See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for the history of GNU.
Richard,
In the linked document, it is stated "Linux is normally used in a
combination with the GNU operating system". I only wish to clarify, how can
GNU be an operating system without the kernel? Don't get me wrong, I don't
wish to pick a fight of any nature. It just seems to be inconsistant with
the terms being set forth in the article. Shouldn't it be referenced as the
"GNU programs" or "GNU components" when talking about GNU without a kernel.
Regards,
J.S.Souza
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Richard Stallman
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 9:13 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source
drivers?
You *chose* GNU/Linux to parallel Unix? I assume you mean that you
influenced GNU into using a Unix base with the eventual goal of having
some sort of GNU Unix base (the Hurd?). The words you selected above
are rather assuming.
I decided in 1983 to develop a Unix-compatible operating system, and
then chose the name GNU for it. In 1990, after finding or writing
most of the necessary components, we started developing a kernel for
the GNU system; that kernel is the GNU Hurd. Since Linux was working
long before the Hurd, people mostly use GNU with Linux instead.
See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for the history of GNU.
On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 12:13:01 -0500
Richard Stallman <[email protected]> wrote:
> You *chose* GNU/Linux to parallel Unix? I assume you mean that you
> influenced GNU into using a Unix base with the eventual goal of having
> some sort of GNU Unix base (the Hurd?). The words you selected above
> are rather assuming.
>
> I decided in 1983 to develop a Unix-compatible operating system, and
> then chose the name GNU for it. In 1990, after finding or writing
> most of the necessary components, we started developing a kernel for
> the GNU system; that kernel is the GNU Hurd. Since Linux was working
> long before the Hurd, people mostly use GNU with Linux instead.
Richard,
I have the utmost respect for your earlier efforts which were of unquestionable
importance for the dawn of the free software movement. Can't say the same for
your sick GNU/Linux rant though. But considering this is the linux-kernel
_development_ list (let alone the fact that this discussion stinks) I do think
it would be a much better move if you and your zealots would go away and
(perhaps) actually go do some CODING on your GNU/Hurd/whatever instead. All
this ranting is more than likely why it got started in 1990 and it's still not
near finished.
Paulo Andre'
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 12:13:01PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I decided in 1983 to develop a Unix-compatible operating system, and
> then chose the name GNU for it. In 1990, after finding or writing
> most of the necessary components, we started developing a kernel for
> the GNU system; that kernel is the GNU Hurd. Since Linux was working
> long before the Hurd, people mostly use GNU with Linux instead.
>
> See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for the history of GNU.
I hate to say it to you, but that URL reads like the typical BSD arguments
that I get, where embittered engineers whine about how a kernel is key to
and entire software development process. Both HURD and the BSDs are simply
irrelevant to the entire GNU/GPL phenomenon as we know it and has been
usurpted completely by Linux and all the applications support that has come
as a result of its popularity.
I mean, FreeBSD is a free system, yet why didn't it create an entire movement
of free software like Linux did ?
That's because they lack several components:
1) Social and political awareness.
2) Timeliness and ultimately completeness (useability).
BSD has (2) but lacks (1). HURD lacks (2) and because of that, it can't
achieve (1).
Linux has both and was done in an open enough way that it not just gave the
foundation to the entire GPL movement as we know it, but also showed the
community that a large scale project like this has HUGE political, social
and economic implications that were previous unimagineable. HURD and the
old school GPL folks are irrelevant because it never had the scale or impact
of Linux, which is why Linux is pretty much it's own phenomenon outside of
GPL as you've stated it.
I mean, you've got to accept that and give folks credit for achieving
these things.
bill
Richard,
In the linked document, it is stated "Linux is normally used in a
combination with the GNU operating system". I only wish to clarify, how can
GNU be an operating system without the kernel? Don't get me wrong, I don't
wish to pick a fight of any nature. It just seems to be inconsistant with
the terms being set forth in the article. Shouldn't it be referenced as the
"GNU programs" or "GNU components" when talking about GNU without a kernel.
Regards,
J.S.Souza
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Richard Stallman
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 9:13 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source
drivers?
You *chose* GNU/Linux to parallel Unix? I assume you mean that you
influenced GNU into using a Unix base with the eventual goal of having
some sort of GNU Unix base (the Hurd?). The words you selected above
are rather assuming.
I decided in 1983 to develop a Unix-compatible operating system, and
then chose the name GNU for it. In 1990, after finding or writing
most of the necessary components, we started developing a kernel for
the GNU system; that kernel is the GNU Hurd. Since Linux was working
long before the Hurd, people mostly use GNU with Linux instead.
See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for the history of GNU.
Five years back, when I was working on IPSec, MS wanted to subvert IPSec
deployment; replace it with L2TP (PPTP + L2F). I almost thought that
their IPSec clients were purposely and "randomly" faulty when it come to
interoperability. Drove the rest of us nuts while I guess their minions
in redmond were working on the real version of the ipsec client. That's
how unappetizing any interaction with MS was.
MS might have their names in the RFCs; doesn't mean that they really
contribute positively to the community.
Ranjeet Shetye
Senior Software Engineer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Henning P. Schmiedehausen
> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 12:41 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed
> source drivers?
>
>
> Tomas Szepe <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >Even if I overlook that you're effectively comparing the
> incomparable,
> >Microsoft making 370 times more than RedHat says _nothing_
> about their
> >actual achievement in terms of software development. Should
> you insist
>
> You might simply open your eyes and look around you before
> you utter such ridicioulous statements.
>
> % cd /home/mirror/RFC
> % for i in rfc*.txt; do head -20 $i | grep -iq microsoft; if
> [ "x$?" = "x0" ]; then echo $i; fi; done | wc -l
> 102 102 1224 /tmp/rfc-log
> % for i in rfc*.txt; do head -20 $i | grep -iq 'red hat'; if
> [ "x$?" = "x0" ]; then echo $i; fi; done | wc -l
> % for i in rfc*.txt; do head -20 $i | grep -iq 'redhat'; if [
> "x$?" = "x0" ]; then echo $i; fi; done | wc -l
>
>
> So in terms of "RFC contributions" which are the established
> and accepted base on which to build the internet and "open
> software", the score is
>
> Microsoft Corporation vs. Red Hat Inc.
> 102 : 0
>
> Some examples:
>
> rfc1877: PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol
> Extensions for Name Server Addresses
> rfc2069/2617: An Extension to HTTP : Digest Access Authentication
> rfc2193: IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals
> rfc2237: Japanese Character Encoding for Internet Messages
> rfc2338: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol
> rfc2342: IMAP4 Namespace
> rfc2445: Internet Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object
> Specification (iCalendar)
> rfc2518/3253: HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring -- WEBDAV
> rfc2565: Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Encoding and Transport
> rfc2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1
> (Yup. Microsoft)
> rfc2661: Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP"
> rfc2782: A DNS RR for specifying the location of
> services (DNS SRV)
> rfc2989: Criteria for Evaluating AAA Protocols for
> Network Access (Microsoft. Sun. Cisco. Nokia.)
>
>
> Regards
> Henning
>
>
> --
> Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen --
> Geschaeftsfuehrer
> INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
>
> Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
> D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-kernel" in the body of a message to
> [email protected] More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:24:21 +0100, Wolfgang Walter wrote:
>On Sunday 05 January 2003 06:35, David Schwartz wrote:
>>On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 05:39:35 +0100, Wolfgang Walter wrote:
>>>On Sunday 05 January 2003 01:17, David Schwartz wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:44:58 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>Sounds like every shrink wrap agreement in the world. You
>>already
>>have the thing you want to license, the licensee simply refuses to
>>grant you the rights to that thing you already have unless you
>>agree
>>to a license that you are not free to negotiate.
>A shrink wrap agreement is something completely different. You must
>differentiate between using software and the exploitation right of
>the copyright-user.
You can aim this criticism at many other people in this
conversation, but not me. I think I'm the only one who does
differentiate clearly.
>Say you buy a book. Reading it ist usage.
Really? How do you read a book? You bounce a light off it and make a
copy of the book on your retina, right? In other words, you use
things by copying them.
>Destroing it is usage. But
>writing a
>book which contains part of this book is not using it. Lending it in
>public
>libraries is not usage. Making copies and distribute them is not
>usage.
Yes, copies *of* *that* *book*. But when you make a copy of the book
on your retina, your eyes and brain are not a derived work. When you
use photoshop, the graphics you create are not a derived work.
I submit that the *only* way to use a header file is to include it
in a source file, and compile and copy the resultant output. Note
that you cannot run a program without copying it. It's physically
impossible.
>You don't need a license from the author to use the book.
Right, because we recognize that a graphic created with photoshop is
*not* a derived work of photoshop. A brain that has read a book is
not a derived work of that book. Similary, a program whose source
code includes a header file should not be considered a derived work
of that header file.
>A shrink wrap license agreement (or EULA) tries to restrict your
>rights to USE
>your bought copy THOUGH you didn't bought it from the person who
>wants you to
>do so and AFTER you bought it. With the book-example: you may only
>read it by
>night and you are not allowed to speak bad of it.
Tell me how you use a computer program without copying it. Please,
do that. How do you use a CD without making a copy of the data on it?
Use and copying are the same when it comes to information. There is
no other way to use information. This is why it's critical to
strengthen fair use, first sale, and necessary step type defenses.
You can't use a header file without including it in source code. You
can't use the resultant object file without copying it. Thus these
*must* be fair uses.
>In Germany microsoft tried to inhibit that peoply sell there copy of
>windows
>bought with a new computer (based on there EULA which declared this
>copy as
>OEM and only valid together with this computer). They failed of
>course -
>there is no license-agreement between the owner of this windows-copy
>and
>microsoft. I didn't license the copy, I bought it and own it. And to
>own
>software is enough to use it. They can't restrrict unilaterally my
>right to
>use it.
How can you use Windows without copying it from your hard drive into
memory? Copying is using. Using is copying.
>If he has to modify the kernel to load the module, then of course he
>has to
>accept the GPL because modifing the kernel is not using it. And then
>the GPL
>may forbid him to do so.
Modifying the kernel is not using it? A copy of the kernel is RAM is
different from a copy of the kernel on hard drive. This is a
transformative modification. You cannot use the linux kernel without
modifying it. And guess what? When you run the Linux kernel, are the
data structure you thereby create in your memory derived works?
>I see (you state that below) that you think that using header files
>in
>software-projects is not making a derived work from those header
>files but
>instead using them.
Tell me how else you can use them. Please. Go ahead. Tell me any
other way to use a header file other than to include it in a source
file, compile that source file, and then copy the resulting
executable.
>>Stallman *does* argue that Linux binary modules are derived works.
>I don't know if he does.
Then he is arguing to weaken fair use, first sale, and necessary
step type principles. These are far more important than the GPL.
>If the source code of binary-modules do not contain copyrighted
>material from
>the kernel they probably not derived works. Loading the module into
>the
>kernel by the user may produce a derived work. Putting kernel and
>modules
>together in a distribution may produce a derived work.
No, because these are all necessary steps. A necessary step to use
is always use. You cannot use the kernel without copying it into
memory. You cannot use the kernel without feeding it information and
having it produce structure in memory.
Stallman is out to destroy fair use. Whether you knows it or admits
it or not.
>Using kernel header files to produce the binary is very probably
>making a
>derived work. But it would be rather hard to prove that - as it is
>so easy to
>reverse engineer open source software and write your own header
>files.
So tell me how else you use kernel header files. What else can you
do with a header file?!
>> To support the GPL's ability to regulate the distribution of
>>derived
>>works you would have to argue that Adobe's EULA could legitimately
>>prohibit you from distributing images you create with photoshop.
>A image produced with photoshop is not a derived work. It does not
>contain
>photoshop. If you use a nice picture they delivered with photoshop
>as base
>then of course you may need a license.
Exactly. All photoshop can do is produce images. Therefore producing
images with photoshop is use, barring some exceptional circumstance.
(For example, if you take an image from their clip art.)
>>smarter for advocates of freedom to argue that this is fair use and
>>the argument that such works are derived is bullcrap.
>Fair use is something different. Fair use is about exploitation
>right without
>permission of the copyright holder. I.e. you may cite a book in your
>book
>(but you may not print a whole page or so). Making a copy of a book
>for
>private use without permission of the copyright holder. (In Germany
>i.a. you
>pay for this right: on every copy-device as cd-burners, printers,
>and on
>memories like harddiscs, blank CDs, etc. there are fees).
Fair use includes any number of ways you can do things you might not
normally be able to do. This includes 'necessary step' (this is why
you can make a copy of a book on your retina) and 'firs sale' type
rights.
>For software there is almost no fair use in the EU. I.e. the right
>for private
>copies does not exist.
Then you can't use software at all. Installing from a CD is a
private copy. Loading into memory is a private copy. You can't mean
what you're saying. Either you're confused or the EU is utterly
insane.
>The one who compiles it using the kernel header files makes a
>derived work -
>the binary is a derived work. But thats my opinion. You thinks that
>it is
>using them.
How else can you use a header file other than to include it in a
source file that you subsequently compile. This is how header files
are intended to be used. This is like making a copy of a book on your
retina. It's the only way to use it, so it *must* be use.
These are the arguments the 'free software' (as in freedom) crowd
should be making, not opposing.
DS
On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 13:05:59 PST, Ranjeet Shetye <[email protected]> said:
> MS might have their names in the RFCs; doesn't mean that they really
> contribute positively to the community.
In addition, there's some slanted statistics being done here by Hedding....
> > From: [email protected]
> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> > Henning P. Schmiedehausen
> > Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 12:41 PM
> > % cd /home/mirror/RFC
> > % for i in rfc*.txt; do head -20 $i | grep -iq microsoft; if
> > [ "x$?" = "x0" ]; then echo $i; fi; done | wc -l
> > 102 102 1224 /tmp/rfc-log
> > % for i in rfc*.txt; do head -20 $i | grep -iq 'red hat'; if
> > [ "x$?" = "x0" ]; then echo $i; fi; done | wc -l
> > % for i in rfc*.txt; do head -20 $i | grep -iq 'redhat'; if [
> > "x$?" = "x0" ]; then echo $i; fi; done | wc -l
Hmm.. Zorn is an author 20 times, Aboba 16 (usually with Zorn), Huitema 15.
And of those 102, at least 8 are documenting Microsoft-specific things like its
CHAP and Kerberos extensions. So leave them out of the count, and we see that
just 2-3 guys are a third of it right there. And Microsoft employs how many
people? That's some *HUGE* dent in their manpower supply....
Meanwhile, looking in the MAINTAINERS file, I see 343 M: tags, of which
only 12 are redhat.com addresses (and only 7 unique ones at that). And
Redhat isn't primarily a development company, they're a packaging company.
The vast amount of Linux development would be elsewhere - it would be
fairer to compare RedHat's RFC output with the RFC output of Microsoft's
packaging and shipping department.....
Now how many RFC's has Ted T'so written? And how much has he done for Linux?
Of course, he doesn't use a redhat.com address, so he doesn't count...
Naughty thing, those statistics - people keep trying to misuse them. ;)
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 17:04, David Schwartz wrote:
> You can aim this criticism at many other people in this
> conversation, but not me. I think I'm the only one who does
> differentiate clearly.
>
> >Say you buy a book. Reading it ist usage.
>
> Really? How do you read a book? You bounce a light off it and make a
> copy of the book on your retina, right? In other words, you use
> things by copying them.
> Yes, copies *of* *that* *book*. But when you make a copy of the book
> on your retina, your eyes and brain are not a derived work. When you
> use photoshop, the graphics you create are not a derived work.
>
> I submit that the *only* way to use a header file is to include it
> in a source file, and compile and copy the resultant output. Note
> that you cannot run a program without copying it. It's physically
> impossible.
>
> Right, because we recognize that a graphic created with photoshop is
> *not* a derived work of photoshop. A brain that has read a book is
> not a derived work of that book. Similary, a program whose source
> code includes a header file should not be considered a derived work
> of that header file.
Amazing how the topic changes so differently when it origionated as a
battle against NVidia. Amazing how sick I am of recieveing this topic in
my mailbox. Please end it somehow..there's no need for it anymore. It
has been concluded that we don't have to listen to rms if we don't want
too and that half of us will use proprietary software if we want to or
if their is no good free replacement. Ending it there.
--
Steven
[email protected]
GnuPG Fingerprint: 9357 F403 B0A1 E18D 86D5 2230 BB92 6D64 D516 0A94
Andrew Walrond wrote:
>
> I am in almost complete agreement with you regarding the benefits of
> free drivers.
>
> But my point has evolved from this argument over nvidia and I extended
> the principles to my business to see where it would lead.
>
> I don't see rms saying "Non free software is bad, except games"
>
Well, I don't speak for rms, and I think there is a rather big
difference between drivers and games. I understand economic
motives. Of course you don't give away games when that is a total
loss. Giving away driver code (or at least programming specs)
wouldn't be a loss to nvidia though - because users would still
need to buy those cards.
Helge Hafting
> See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for the history of GNU.
I hate to say it to you, but that URL reads like the typical BSD arguments
that I get, where embittered engineers whine about how a kernel is key to
and entire software development process. Both HURD and the BSDs are simply
irrelevant to the entire GNU/GPL phenomenon as we know it
It is true that the Hurd is mostly irrelevant to the success of
GNU/Linux and the free software community today. Nearly everyone who
uses GNU uses it with Linux, very few with the Hurd. I use it with
Linux.
But the fact that you focus on the Hurd, when the Hurd is not the
issue, suggests a possible misunderstanding. Are you identifying the
success of GNU with the success of the Hurd? The Hurd is just one part
of GNU, just one of many programs we developed for GNU. The success
of GNU doesn't require the Hurd.
Some GNU packages have failed completely, and been abandoned. You
have probably never heard of them. But the GNU system overall is a
great success despite that.
I mean, FreeBSD is a free system, yet why didn't it create an entire movement
of free software like Linux did ?
Linux alone didn't do this. It was the combination of GNU and Linux
that did this.
I don't know why the BSD systems did not become as popular; perhaps
it's because they became available some years later.
In the linked document, it is stated "Linux is normally used in a
combination with the GNU operating system". I only wish to clarify, how can
GNU be an operating system without the kernel?
GNU was not complete in 1992--we were still working on the kernel
of GNU. (Today the GNU kernel works but needs a few more features
to be really good to use.)
It would be more precise to say that "Linux is normally used in
combination with the nearly all of the GNU operating system." But
that sentence would be very clumsy. Instead we state these details
later on in the page.
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 08:40:27AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> But the fact that you focus on the Hurd, when the Hurd is not the
> issue, suggests a possible misunderstanding. Are you identifying the
> success of GNU with the success of the Hurd? The Hurd is just one part
> of GNU, just one of many programs we developed for GNU. The success
> of GNU doesn't require the Hurd.
It's not Hurd that I'm criticizing as much as the over emphasis on any single
ideological entity and the amorphous definition of GNU in multipule
contexts, social, technological, etc...
> Some GNU packages have failed completely, and been abandoned. You
> have probably never heard of them. But the GNU system overall is a
> great success despite that.
>
> I mean, FreeBSD is a free system, yet why didn't it create an entire movement
> of free software like Linux did ?
>
> Linux alone didn't do this. It was the combination of GNU and Linux
> that did this.
But largely, IMO, because of the uprising of the Internet as a new kind of social
communication and collaboration along with a GPL style license to protect property from
being outright exploited. It's the combination of all those things that makes it unique
and very dangerous.
> I don't know why the BSD systems did not become as popular; perhaps
> it's because they became available some years later.
I think the failures of the BSDs in this area are related to the lack of social
consciousness needed to create a kind of technology that has some protective intellectual
statement behind it to solidify it as a legitimate movement. You don't need much of that
activistic political structure to bind a project like this, but the successful execution
of Linux as a large scale political, social and economic product (credit to folks like Linus,
Alan Cox, Stephen Tweedie, etc...) really paved the way for the entire open source community
as we understand it. I'm saying it's not just simply the intellectual existence of GPL/GNU
that resulted from in this success, but a kind of convergence of multipule social phenomenons
that brought us GNU as we know it. The definitions we have of "it" are dry and meaningless.
Linux, as a social force, removes a certain cultural pollution and inaccessibility about technology,
(as these perceptions are created in late 80s from either large corporations or DARPA) that
deconstructs this mythos and brings into question something that's more directly controllable
and believeable by folks like us. This is straight out of Nietzsche's culture criticism about
both religion, power and how nihilistic cultural values, the unbelieveability of cultural
beliefs, must be reborn and become believeable again.
That's why I do open source stuff. I'm just about annoying an idealist as they get while
still being a legitimate nerd since it really speaks to me, how I feel about technology
and how it effects my career/life.
It's a bit heavy, but that's all. :)
bill
Richard Stallman <[email protected]> writes:
>I don't know why the BSD systems did not become as popular; perhaps
>it's because they became available some years later.
We have a finnish poster boy and a more cuddly mascot.
SCNR
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:08:00 +0100, Helge Hafting <[email protected]> said:
> loss. Giving away driver code (or at least programming specs)
> wouldn't be a loss to nvidia though - because users would still
> need to buy those cards.
It would be a major loss to nvidia *AND* its customers if it were bankrupted in
a lawsuit because it open-sourced code or specs that contained intellectual
property that belonged to somebody else. Of course, if that happened, you'd
still have the "freedom" to buy the other vendor's cards - maybe(*)
In the real world, ideology needs to be tempered with realism.
(*) there's a ripple effect here - if the otherwise-best laptop is only
available with an nvidia card, you now have the "freedom" to choose a otherwise
less-suitable model. And so on....
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:04:15 -0800
David Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote:
> So tell me how else you use kernel header files. What else can
> you
> do with a header file?!
Just some ideas:
1. Put 'em on t-shirts.
2. Read aloud to non-technical people as a cure for insonmia.
3. As song lyrics (just like the DeCSS decoder song).
4. Put 'em on wallpaper.
5. Print 'em on toiletpaper.
6. Print, shred and dispose as a was of disinforming dumpster divers.
I'm sure that the community can come up with more :-)
-g
At 10:53 AM 1/7/2003 -0500, Georg Nikodym wrote:
>On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:04:15 -0800
>David Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > So tell me how else you use kernel header files. What else can
> > you
> > do with a header file?!
>
>Just some ideas:
>
>1. Put 'em on t-shirts.
>2. Read aloud to non-technical people as a cure for insonmia.
>3. As song lyrics (just like the DeCSS decoder song).
>4. Put 'em on wallpaper.
>5. Print 'em on toiletpaper.
>6. Print, shred and dispose as a was of disinforming dumpster divers.
>
>I'm sure that the community can come up with more :-)
These are great ideas. I'm too busy chuckling to think up more... and :-/
I hope I won't be bored enough after I'm done laughing to try 8)
-Mike
activistic political structure to bind a project like this, but
the successful execution of Linux as a large scale political,
social and economic product (credit to folks like Linus, Alan Cox,
Stephen Tweedie, etc...)
When you say "Linux" here, do you mean the kernel, or the whole
GNU/Linux system? With all due respect, I think you may not have
answered this question for yourself, because the people that you name
are people who worked on the kernel, but the success that you talk
about is the success of the whole system. (No kernel alone could have
had this effect.)
The practice of referring to the whole system by the same name as the
kernel alone leads to constant confusion between the two. You will
often see statements that "Linux is a Unix-like operating system, like
Solaris or FreeBSD, which is released under the GNU GPL." That is
false regardless of what meaning you assign to "Linux". The only way
to avoid confusion is to stop calling the whole system by the name
used for the kernel.
really paved the way for the entire open
source community as we understand it.
Our community is the free software community; it was built by the
idealism of the free software movement.
Like any community, it contains people with different views. Nowadays
many of the people in our community support the open source movement.
The open source advocates are legitimate members of the community, and
some have contributed to it. They have a right to form a movement to
promote their views, but that movement was started only in 1998, long
after the community existed. Their movement did not build the
community, and it should not be named after them.
Speaking of which, your ideas seem to have a lot in common with the
free software movement. I wonder if you thought that the open source
movement was the only one and that we all support it. (Many
inaccurate articles give that impression.) If you read about the free
software movement, you might decide we are closer to your views.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/, and in particular
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html for an
explanation of the difference between the two movements. We and they
have similar practices, which is why we and they can work together
some of the time, but what we say about it is very different from
what they say.
It's not Hurd that I'm criticizing as much as the over emphasis on any single
ideological entity and the amorphous definition of GNU in multipule
contexts, social, technological, etc...
The definition of GNU is simple: GNU is an operating system. In 1983
I announced the plan to develop a Unix-like operating system that
would be entirely free software, and I gave the system the name GNU.
>From this concept come other derived concepts. For instance,
developing the system is a project. That's the GNU Project. Carrying
out such a project involves writing lots of programs. Programs that
have been developed for GNU or contributed by their developers
specifically to GNU are called GNU programs, GNU packages, or
collectively GNU software. (Those three terms are equivalent.) The
manuals developed for GNU or contributed specifically to GNU are GNU
manuals.
We wrote some licenses to use on GNU programs and manuals.
These are the GNU licenses.
GNU is also associated with a movement and a philosophy, but we don't
call them "GNU". We call them the Free Software Movement, and its
philosophy. Nonetheless, the main place people come across them is in
connection with GNU, and the success of the GNU Project is the best
way to refute the common presupposition that idealism like ours is
impractical. So we want people to know of the system as GNU.
We're looking for a good term to use for "programs released under GNU
licenses", because we want to educate the community that this is not
the same thing as free software (there are other free software
licenses) and not the same thing as GNU software (releasing a program
under a GNU license does not imply that you did it as part of the GNU
Project, as witness for example Linux). If you have a suggestion, and
a few of your friends like it, please email it to me.
Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance
On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 09:00, Richard Stallman wrote:
> The practice of referring to the whole system by the same name as the
> kernel alone leads to constant confusion between the two. You will
> often see statements that "Linux is a Unix-like operating system, like
> Solaris or FreeBSD, which is released under the GNU GPL." That is
> false regardless of what meaning you assign to "Linux". The only way
> to avoid confusion is to stop calling the whole system by the name
> used for the kernel.
This is what I understand is the COMMON usage:
linux refers to the kernel plus the GNU software, a complete os
linux-kernel refers to the kernel (which is why this is the linux-kernel
mailinglist not the linux mailinglist)
I have not seen the word linux used to describe an os built around the
linux kernel but without the GNU software, it may be referred to as
"linux based" but if they called it linux users wouldn't get what they
expected and complain.
The confusion you describe doesn't appear to exist, and making everybody
start calling the kernel "Linux" and the os "GNU/Linux" will at best
change nothing (practically, of course it may improve some peoples egos)
and possibly cause confusion.
The "GNU/Linux" vs "Linux" argument is a political one, not a practical
one, don't try to disguise it.
regards
NP
[email protected] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:08:00 +0100, Helge Hafting <[email protected]> said:
> > loss. Giving away driver code (or at least programming specs)
> > wouldn't be a loss to nvidia though - because users would still
> > need to buy those cards.
>
> It would be a major loss to nvidia *AND* its customers if it were bankrupted in
> a lawsuit because it open-sourced code or specs that contained intellectual
> property that belonged to somebody else.
Perhaps their driver contains some IP. But I seriously doubt the
programming specs for their chips contains such secrets. It is
not as if we need the entire chip layout - it is basically
things like:
"To achieve effect X, write command code 0x3477 into register 5
and the new coordinates into registers 75-78. Then wait 2.03ms before
attempting to access the chip again..."
Something is very wrong if they _can't_ release that sort of
information.
Several other manufacturers have no problem with this.
> In the real world, ideology needs to be tempered with realism.
>
Sure. But in this case, it is more about common sense than ideology.
Helge Hafting
>The "GNU/Linux" vs "Linux" argument is a political one, not a practical
>one, don't try to disguise it.
I used to agree with this, and as far as politics, I do. However, a practical
reason to call it GNU/Linux just occurred to me: the ABI.
Linux is a kernel. It runs on a variety of platforms. You certainly must
differentiate between a program for Linux on StrongARM and one for Linux on
x86. To use a kernel one makes calls into it via a system call mechanism. In
the case of the vast majority of Linux installations, that is done via glibc.
Not for kicks is that 'g' there.
A system with a linux kernel using a different API will likely have a
different ABI for it's programs.
This will need to be accounted for at some point. Forget all the tools for the
moment, and just think about what makes the program ABI.
Is there any vendor out there now who's shipping something other than glibc
with their Linux distribution? I bet there is someone, probably in the
embedded market.
Of course, I bow to human nature. People will continue to make references to
Linux meaning the OS, and never mention the qualifiers, until it becomes an
issue.
Here's to looking forward to the day when it does. :-)
--
We begin again, constantly.
http://www.hacksaw.org -- http://www.privatecircus.com -- KB1FVD
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 03:00:22AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> activistic political structure to bind a project like this, but
> the successful execution of Linux as a large scale political,
> social and economic product (credit to folks like Linus, Alan Cox,
> Stephen Tweedie, etc...)
>
> When you say "Linux" here, do you mean the kernel, or the whole
> GNU/Linux system? With all due respect, I think you may not have
Linux itself, yes, it's definitely a special project in the context of
GNU and deserve to have it's identity preserved even outside of the
main core of GNU/GPL. It's special case all around.
> answered this question for yourself, because the people that you name
> are people who worked on the kernel, but the success that you talk
> about is the success of the whole system. (No kernel alone could have
> had this effect.)
Those folks were on the forefront of this and have special historical
status as a result of this.
> Like any community, it contains people with different views. Nowadays
> many of the people in our community support the open source movement.
> The open source advocates are legitimate members of the community, and
> some have contributed to it. They have a right to form a movement to
> promote their views, but that movement was started only in 1998, long
> after the community existed. Their movement did not build the
> community, and it should not be named after them.
Yes, but they were on the forefront of this and have special status and
should be held seperate from GNU/GPL itself.
> Speaking of which, your ideas seem to have a lot in common with the
> free software movement. I wonder if you thought that the open source
> movement was the only one and that we all support it. (Many
> inaccurate articles give that impression.) If you read about the free
> software movement, you might decide we are closer to your views.
The difference that respect about this project is that, although it's
has GPL roots, it has been a refactoring foundation for the entire
open source community. The rules were rewritten after the success of
this project. It's not ment to be a disrespect to you and what you've
done certainly, but it's definitely smashed the scale and scope
of free software projects.
Like when Metallica hit the Metal scene in 1984, it was a bit sterile
prior to that. :)
> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/, and in particular
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html for an
> explanation of the difference between the two movements. We and they
> have similar practices, which is why we and they can work together
> some of the time, but what we say about it is very different from
> what they say.
I'll read it again. :)
bill
Helge Hafting wrote:
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:08:00 +0100, Helge Hafting <[email protected]> said:
> > > loss. Giving away driver code (or at least programming specs)
> > > wouldn't be a loss to nvidia though - because users would still
> > > need to buy those cards.
> >
> > It would be a major loss to nvidia *AND* its customers if it were bankrupted in
> > a lawsuit because it open-sourced code or specs that contained intellectual
> > property that belonged to somebody else.
>
> Perhaps their driver contains some IP. But I seriously doubt the
> programming specs for their chips contains such secrets. It is
> not as if we need the entire chip layout - it is basically
> things like:
>
> "To achieve effect X, write command code 0x3477 into register 5
> and the new coordinates into registers 75-78. Then wait 2.03ms before
> attempting to access the chip again..."
>
> Something is very wrong if they _can't_ release that sort of
> information.
> Several other manufacturers have no problem with this.
Aren't nvidias' chipsets really owned by SGI. It think there is some deal nvidia
has with SGI that prohibits nvidia from opening up their driver and chip set
info. It's looking like SGI might be gone soon. Maybe if they disappear, nvidia
can do what they want???
Mark
On Wednesday 08 January 2003 06:28 am, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> Helge Hafting wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:08:00 +0100, Helge Hafting
<[email protected]> said:
> > > > loss. Giving away driver code (or at least programming specs)
> > > > wouldn't be a loss to nvidia though - because users would still
> > > > need to buy those cards.
> > >
> > > It would be a major loss to nvidia *AND* its customers if it were
> > > bankrupted in a lawsuit because it open-sourced code or specs that
> > > contained intellectual property that belonged to somebody else.
> >
> > Perhaps their driver contains some IP. But I seriously doubt the
> > programming specs for their chips contains such secrets. It is
> > not as if we need the entire chip layout - it is basically
> > things like:
> >
> > "To achieve effect X, write command code 0x3477 into register 5
> > and the new coordinates into registers 75-78. Then wait 2.03ms before
> > attempting to access the chip again..."
> >
> > Something is very wrong if they _can't_ release that sort of
> > information.
> > Several other manufacturers have no problem with this.
>
> Aren't nvidias' chipsets really owned by SGI. It think there is some deal
> nvidia has with SGI that prohibits nvidia from opening up their driver and
> chip set info. It's looking like SGI might be gone soon. Maybe if they
> disappear, nvidia can do what they want???
Think they sold it to Microsoft....
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [email protected]
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 03:00:20AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> The definition of GNU is simple: GNU is an operating system. In 1983
> I announced the plan to develop a Unix-like operating system that
> would be entirely free software, and I gave the system the name GNU.
Just for the record, "operating system", and "kernel" are used as
synonyms in the research literature. If you open a textbook on
"operating systems" or look at the contents of the proceedings
of Operating Systems conferences, you will not find many discussions
of text editors, compilers, or other programming tools. Generally, the operating
system is considered to stop at the system call interface.
One of the revolutionary features of UNIX was that it was relatively
agnostic about "tools".
Oddly enough, the two most active campaigners for expanding the
definition of operating system are the FSF and Microsoft.
I think that Richard's usage of "operating system" is based on
Digital Equipment Corp. terminology from the prehistorical times
of releases on tape.
> We're looking for a good term to use for "programs released under GNU
> licenses", because we want to educate the community that this is not
> the same thing as free software (there are other free software
(1) GNU Programming System.
or
(2) GPL Programming Layer
You should be able to get US military funding because these are recursive
TLAs. The GPL expansion to "GPL Programming Layer" so that GPL becomes
a context sensitive recursive TLA should be enough to get an entire Homeland
Security program dedicated to the project.
Please feel free to use this idea without restriction. In fact, this is released
under "I don't want to have anything to do with it" license.
victor
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Victor Yodaiken
Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.
http://www.fsmlabs.com http://www.rtlinux.com
1+ 505 838 9109
Jesse Pollard wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 08 January 2003 06:28 am, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> > Helge Hafting wrote:
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:08:00 +0100, Helge Hafting
> <[email protected]> said:
> > > > > loss. Giving away driver code (or at least programming specs)
> > > > > wouldn't be a loss to nvidia though - because users would still
> > > > > need to buy those cards.
> > > >
> > > > It would be a major loss to nvidia *AND* its customers if it were
> > > > bankrupted in a lawsuit because it open-sourced code or specs that
> > > > contained intellectual property that belonged to somebody else.
> > >
> > > Perhaps their driver contains some IP. But I seriously doubt the
> > > programming specs for their chips contains such secrets. It is
> > > not as if we need the entire chip layout - it is basically
> > > things like:
> > >
> > > "To achieve effect X, write command code 0x3477 into register 5
> > > and the new coordinates into registers 75-78. Then wait 2.03ms before
> > > attempting to access the chip again..."
> > >
> > > Something is very wrong if they _can't_ release that sort of
> > > information.
> > > Several other manufacturers have no problem with this.
> >
> > Aren't nvidias' chipsets really owned by SGI. It think there is some deal
> > nvidia has with SGI that prohibits nvidia from opening up their driver and
> > chip set info. It's looking like SGI might be gone soon. Maybe if they
> > disappear, nvidia can do what they want???
>
> Think they sold it to Microsoft....
I think what they sold to MS was some part of "OPENGL" software not anything
hardware
related.
Mark
On Wednesday 08 January 2003 09:46 am, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 January 2003 06:28 am, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> > > Helge Hafting wrote:
> > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:08:00 +0100, Helge Hafting
> >
> > <[email protected]> said:
> > > > > > loss. Giving away driver code (or at least programming specs)
> > > > > > wouldn't be a loss to nvidia though - because users would still
> > > > > > need to buy those cards.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be a major loss to nvidia *AND* its customers if it were
> > > > > bankrupted in a lawsuit because it open-sourced code or specs that
> > > > > contained intellectual property that belonged to somebody else.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps their driver contains some IP. But I seriously doubt the
> > > > programming specs for their chips contains such secrets. It is
> > > > not as if we need the entire chip layout - it is basically
> > > > things like:
> > > >
> > > > "To achieve effect X, write command code 0x3477 into register 5
> > > > and the new coordinates into registers 75-78. Then wait 2.03ms
> > > > before attempting to access the chip again..."
> > > >
> > > > Something is very wrong if they _can't_ release that sort of
> > > > information.
> > > > Several other manufacturers have no problem with this.
> > >
> > > Aren't nvidias' chipsets really owned by SGI. It think there is some
> > > deal nvidia has with SGI that prohibits nvidia from opening up their
> > > driver and chip set info. It's looking like SGI might be gone soon.
> > > Maybe if they disappear, nvidia can do what they want???
> >
> > Think they sold it to Microsoft....
>
> I think what they sold to MS was some part of "OPENGL" software not
> anything hardware
> related.
That part I'm sure of. But part of what was sold is the interface to the
"OPENGL" software, and that is part of what is implemented by the
nvidia chips. So, by a tenuous extension, the chips interface may be
owned by M$.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [email protected]
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Aren't nvidias' chipsets really owned by SGI. It think there is some
> > > > deal nvidia has with SGI that prohibits nvidia from opening up their
> > > > driver and chip set info. It's looking like SGI might be gone soon.
> > > > Maybe if they disappear, nvidia can do what they want???
> > >
> > > Think they sold it to Microsoft....
> >
> > I think what they sold to MS was some part of "OPENGL" software not
> > anything hardware
> > related.
>
> That part I'm sure of. But part of what was sold is the interface to the
> "OPENGL" software, and that is part of what is implemented by the
> nvidia chips. So, by a tenuous extension, the chips interface may be
> owned by M$.
That's scary.....
Mark
NO NO NO, IT WAS LITTLE GREEN MEN WHO ARE CALLED JEBEDIAHS [/SARCASM] can we stop that suspicious "everyones manipulating NVidia" theory please, my possible pending legal action depends on facts not hear say.
-- DM.
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:46:28 -0600 Jesse Pollard <[email protected]> wrote:
Richard,
The last time I tried installing the GNU Operating System without the
Linux Kernel, it wouldn't boot. Dont know why. I had my /bin/ls and my
/bin/make installed but they just wouldn't boot the computer.
I finally installed a Windows 98 kernel to help the GNU operating system
(i.e. ls and make) and now I can happily state that my computer is
running a GNU Operating System with a Windows 98 kernel.
Doesn't that sound silly ???????
Know why ? cos (Operating System == kernel), in this case, its Linux,
and the GNU stuff refers to the utilities only.
Mind you, they are VERY IMPORTANT utilities, but utilities nonetheless.
To call them an operating system is ridiculous, as I think I proved in
the earlier part of my mail.
Ranjeet Shetye.
Senior Software Engineer.
I'm not sure what your project is designed to do, so I don't have an
opinion about how it stands regarding the GPL. However, I've talked
with our lawyer about one specific issue that you raised: that of
using simple material from header files.
Someone recently made the claim that including a header file always
makes a derivative work.
That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure
definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple
bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take
a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros
with substantial bodies) to do that.
Richard,
My Lawyers instructed me not to talk to anyone about this issue any more.
However, I will forward your note to them.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I'm not sure what your project is designed to do, so I don't have an
> opinion about how it stands regarding the GPL. However, I've talked
> with our lawyer about one specific issue that you raised: that of
> using simple material from header files.
>
> Someone recently made the claim that including a header file always
> makes a derivative work.
>
> That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure
> definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple
> bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take
> a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros
> with substantial bodies) to do that.
>
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 02:28:47AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure
> definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple
> bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take
> a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros
> with substantial bodies) to do that.
Richard,
Thanks much for posting this. I admit I have been skipping this entire
thread pretty much :) but the above is worth highlighting.
Unfortunately, while helpful, this doesn't necessarily solve the problem
in Linux; the things that are inlined are quite often fairly "smart"
pieces of code and not just things as simple as wrapper functions, or
structures and typedefs.
Regardless, thanks again to posting the above.
Regards,
Jeff
Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> ...
> That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure
> definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple
> bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take
> a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros
> with substantial bodies) to do that.
The last part doesn't make a lot of sense.
Use of an inline function is just that: usage. It matters not at
all whether that function is invoked via inline integration or via
subroutine call. This is merely an implementation detail within
the code which provides that function.
Such functions are part of the offered API which have global scope,
that's all.
On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 00:08, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure
> > definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple
> > bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take
> > a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros
> > with substantial bodies) to do that.
>
> The last part doesn't make a lot of sense.
>
> Use of an inline function is just that: usage. It matters not at
> all whether that function is invoked via inline integration or via
> subroutine call. This is merely an implementation detail within
> the code which provides that function.
>
> Such functions are part of the offered API which have global scope,
> that's all.
The thing that copyright law cares about is whether the thing you're
shipping (in binary form) is a derivative work of something else; the
GPL cares if that "something else" is licensed under the GPL because it
requires the whole to be also (at least) GPL'd. Merely calling a
function from a piece of code doesn't make that code a derivative work
of the called function, but it would if the function were inlined.
If a non-GPL piece of code depends on a piece of GPL'd code, but they
are not shipped in a bound state (ie, dynamically linked), then the
non-GPL code is not obligated to be GPL'd because it isn't a derivative
work. This isn't the stated position of the FSF (at least last time I
asked, because they don't consider static and dynamic binding to be
separate cases), but it's the only one which makes sense in terms of
looking at code in the binary and how it got there.
There's a more complex argument that merely depending on GPL'd code (as
a client of a GPL'd library, for example) makes your program a
derivative work, even if your distributed binary contains no GPL'd
code. This argument is based on the assumption that you're depending on
an API for which all the implementations are GPL'd, so there's no way
you can run the code without binding to GPL'd code. All it takes is one
non-GPL'd implementation to break this argument.
Bear in mind that the GPL only governs the act of distribution, so
creating a derivative work dynamically at runtime is not subject to the
GPL. Doing it statically means that you have to distribute the
derivative work, which is subject to the GPL.
Also bear in mind that copyright law only protects things with a
creative input; you cannot copyright pure facts. As Richard says, the
FSF considers things like function names, types, structure definitions,
constants, etc to be pure facts which are necessary to know to call an
API (and extends that to include small pieces of code, where "small" is
not well defined). The implementation of the API itself *is* creative,
and is therefore protected by copyright law. Hence the distinction
between definitions and larger inlined implementations.
Since the thing that is under consideration is not source code, but the
distribution of binaries generated from the source, it is not merely an
implementation detail as to whether a piece of code is included by
reference (ie, an out-of-line function call) or included explicitly
(inlined code). It makes the difference between a non-derivative work
and a derivative work.
J
[Not a lawyer, but I've spent a lot of time talking to them about this
stuff. Not that it makes this message at all valuable or reliable. ]
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:08:50AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure
> > definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple
> > bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take
> > a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros
> > with substantial bodies) to do that.
>
> The last part doesn't make a lot of sense.
>
> Use of an inline function is just that: usage. It matters not at
> all whether that function is invoked via inline integration or via
> subroutine call. This is merely an implementation detail within
> the code which provides that function.
>
> Such functions are part of the offered API which have global scope,
> that's all.
I think part of the problem is that 'derived work' here is not
something the FSF or the GPL is really in a position to define. It is
instead the other side of the 'fair use' coin of copyright law. The
question is really how much use of header files is fair use (and
therefore completely independent of copyright) and how much
constitutes a derived work (and therefore subject to the rules of the
GPL)? Only a court can decide.
However, I suspect that 'function' is not a bright line here. There
are certainly plenty of inline functions that are trivial. You can
quote f(x)=x^2 from a paper and not be infringing. Similarly,
most if not all structure definitions are also trivial in the sense
that they're simply lists of names and types - you can copy ingredient
lists, phone directories and the like wholesale and also not be
infringing. You're much more likely to get into trouble with things
like the spinlock or semaphore code which are complex, original, and
fairly unique.
(I first typed that as uniq - enough shell hacking for today)
--
"Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."
There is no such thing as an open source community. The people who
founded the open source movement in 1998, and the people who support
it now, are part of the free software community. (We in the free
software movement built the community in the 80s with our determined
effort.)
These people are legitimate members of our community, and they have a
right to form a movement to promote their views; but their views
didn't build the community, so it should not be named after their
movement.
It's not ment to be a disrespect to you and what you've
done certainly, but it's definitely smashed the scale and scope
of free software projects.
The GNU system, with Linux added, had a great deal of success, but
attributing that success entirely to Linux is a misinterpretation of
the events.
Why do so many people misinterpret the events this way? The practice
of calling the system "Linux" leads to and encourages the
misinterpretation. It leads people to suppose that the most important
part of the development of the system must have occurred when Linus
Torvalds started to work on it.
Just for the record, "operating system", and "kernel" are used as
synonyms in the research literature.
The term "operating system" has been used in both ways for a long
time. When people speak about the "Linux operating system," most of
them mean the larger GNU/Linux system--they are not using "operating
system" to mean "kernel".
If you use some other term instead of "operating system" for the
larger collection of software, it might remove one cause of confusion.
That won't eliminate the question of what this collection's name
should properly be, or correct the misinformation about how it was
developed and by whom.
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:13:07PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> There is no such thing as an open source community.
Poof! And millions of people disappear at the bidding of the
One True God, Richard Stallman.
Not.
> The GNU system, with Linux added, had a great deal of success, but
Please remember that Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds and your
inclusion of "Linux" in "GNU/Linux" is covered by trademark law. Have
you cleared that use with Linus?
> attributing that success entirely to Linux is a misinterpretation of
> the events.
>
> Why do so many people misinterpret the events this way?
Maybe because their belief is a lot more valid than your belief?
Oh, since I have your attention, when are you going to issue a
press release officially renaming Hurd to Linux/Hurd?
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Richard Stallman wrote:
> If you use some other term instead of "operating system" for the
> larger collection of software, it might remove one cause of confusion.
Might I suggest the term "operation environment" - thus things like the
kernel, and "got-to-have-it-or-we-no-go" bits like libc and the dynamic
loader system are "the operating system", and
"we-can-live-without-it-but-who-wants-to" bits like the browser, editor,
HTTP/FTP/etc. libraries are part of the "operating environment".
> That won't eliminate the question of what this collection's name
> should properly be, or correct the misinformation about how it was
> developed and by whom.
>
OT: Thank you, Richard, for what you've done for the industry. My first
exposure to Gnu was on the Atari ST, where an individual sent me GCC on
about 20 floppy disks. Been hooked ever since - I've often thought the
GPL would make a great "Wonder of the World" in FreeCiv...
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:13:29PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Just for the record, "operating system", and "kernel" are used as
> synonyms in the research literature.
>
> The term "operating system" has been used in both ways for a long
> time. When people speak about the "Linux operating system," most of
> them mean the larger GNU/Linux system--they are not using "operating
> system" to mean "kernel".
My point was just to note that people who look for information about emacs
or gcc in the proceedings of the OSDI or SIGOPS Symposium are going to
be disappointed.
> If you use some other term instead of "operating system" for the
> larger collection of software, it might remove one cause of confusion.
Programming environment. I say "Gnu tools" .
> That won't eliminate the question of what this collection's name
> should properly be, or correct the misinformation about how it was
> developed and by whom.
The bad news is that many of our customers now ask us if we support
"8.0" or "7.3". For them "Red Hat" is the name of the system. Bob Young's
ketchup vision has absorbed the world.
I'm sympathetic, but if there is anyone out there who has contributed
free software and gets full credit and no hate mail, I'd be very surprised.
Envy is emulation adapted to the meanest capacity.
Ambrose Bierce
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Victor Yodaiken
Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.
http://www.fsmlabs.com http://www.rtlinux.com
1+ 505 838 9109
Double Plus Good Richard, Double Plus Good.
"Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist: he had never
existed." -- George Orwell's 1984
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Richard Stallman
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 5:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source
drivers?
There is no such thing as an open source community. The people who
founded the open source movement in 1998, and the people who support
it now, are part of the free software community. (We in the free
software movement built the community in the 80s with our determined
effort.)
Richard Stallman <[email protected]> writes:
>There is no such thing as an open source community. The people who
>founded the open source movement in 1998, and the people who support
>it now, are part of the free software community. (We in the free
Open Source != Free Software. Else Microsoft would be part of the
"free software community", because they open up their sources, too.
There is "free software (free as in free beer)" which is not open
sourced.
As you build most of your assumptions on this, this is where you whole
logic breaks down.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:13:07PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> The GNU system, with Linux added, had a great deal of success, but
> attributing that success entirely to Linux is a misinterpretation of
> the events.
Can we please end this discussion.
Go harass cygwin users that they should call their systems GNU/Windows.
Or the FreeBSD/NetBSD guys that use a gcc compiler. I ran some FSF tools
on my Amiga, does that make it a GNU/Amiga? Same for the guy who got gcc
on 20 floppies for his GNU/Atari ST. How about all those Solaris and
Irix systems where administrators installed GNU tools in /usr/local
(GNU/Solaris and GNU/Irix?).
This mailinglist is about the linux _kernel_, there must be more
apropriate lists for this (/dev/null comes to mind).
Jan
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:13:07PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> There is no such thing as an open source community. The people who
> founded the open source movement in 1998, and the people who support
> it now, are part of the free software community. (We in the free
> software movement built the community in the 80s with our determined
> effort.)
>
> These people are legitimate members of our community, and they have a
> right to form a movement to promote their views; but their views
> didn't build the community, so it should not be named after their
> movement.
They are only part of YOUR community if they want to be part. Otherwise,
they are members of a seperate communuity that may or may not have similar
goals as yours.
> Why do so many people misinterpret the events this way? The practice
> of calling the system "Linux" leads to and encourages the
> misinterpretation. It leads people to suppose that the most important
> part of the development of the system must have occurred when Linus
> Torvalds started to work on it.
I also note that you didn't start your campaign to rename it lignux or
GNU/Linux until it was well established and very commonly known as Linux.
To a lot of people, myself included, this feels like an attempt to steal
credit and draw attention to yourself and the FSF by trying to hijack the
name of a project that you didn't contribute to, but instead used tools you
provided such as gcc and glibc.
It may be publicity (and there may be no such thing as bad press), but
it's not favorable publicity, and it rubs a lot of people who have been
involved with Linux a long time the wrong way.
--
[email protected] "It's a big world and you can hit it with any airplane."
-- Flying, August 2000, Page 90.
> If you use some other term instead of "operating system" for the
> larger collection of software, it might remove one cause of confusion.
Programming environment.
There is a lot more to a system than the kernel and programming
environment. Consider GNOME or KDE, Mutt, Mozilla, OpenOffice, and
GNU Chess. They are not part of the programming environment.
I say "Gnu tools" .
Some GNU packages are tools, but most of them are not. If you want to
talk specifically about the GNU packages that are tools, could you please
take care with the wording so that readers won't assume it means
that all GNU packages are tools?
> There is no such thing as an open source community.
Poof! And millions of people disappear at the bidding of the
One True God, Richard Stallman.
These people exist and are part of our community. (I said that
before.) They have the right to their views, and the right to form a
movement to promote it. They have the right to call it the open
source movement. All that is simply the exercise of political
freedom.
What they do not have a right to do is rename our community after
their own movement as if they had built it. That is Orwellian
rewriting of history. People can honorably disagree with our views,
but they can't honorably deny our achievements.
Please remember that Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds and your
inclusion of "Linux" in "GNU/Linux" is covered by trademark law. Have
you cleared that use with Linus?
Linus announced years ago that people can use the term "Linux" any way
they wish as long as it does not close off the name space. Legally,
therefore, this is allowed. But there is still the issue of what is
right to do.
It would't be wrong to call the system just "GNU", since it's more GNU
than anything else, but it seems ungentlemanly to cite only GNU and
ask people to stop giving Linus a share of the credit. I'd rather
call it "GNU/Linux" and cite his contribution also.
However, if he asks us to stop citing Linux in this way, we will heed
his wishes.
I also note that you didn't start your campaign to rename it lignux or
GNU/Linux until it was well established and very commonly known as Linux.
I think we started in 1994 (although mostly privately until 1996).
To a lot of people, myself included, this feels like an attempt to steal
credit and draw attention to yourself and the FSF by trying to hijack the
name of a project that you didn't contribute to, but instead used tools you
provided such as gcc and glibc.
If you believe this is a "project that we didn't contribute to", it's
natural you would believe the rest. That's why calling the system
"Linux" is so unfair. We started developing this system, and we
developed more of it than anyone else; but thinking of it as "Linux"
leads people to focus on the part that we didn't do, and devalue our
part. (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#tools.)
That's why we can never go along with calling the system "Linux". No matter
how many people do that, we will keep on pointing out why that is wrong.
It may be publicity (and there may be no such thing as bad press), but
it's not favorable publicity, and it rubs a lot of people who have been
involved with Linux a long time the wrong way.
There are people who get angry at us for correcting the mistaken
picture, but in the long run it would be self-defeating (as well as
dishonorable) to bow to such pressure. See
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#alienate.
linux refers to the kernel plus the GNU software, a complete os
linux-kernel refers to the kernel (which is why this is the linux-kernel
mailinglist not the linux mailinglist)
If this convention were general, it would be less confusing (though
still misleading and still unfair). In practice, though references to
"Linux" can mean either one, and you can never tell which it is unless
you can guess from what is being said.
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 06:54:59AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I also note that you didn't start your campaign to rename it lignux or
> GNU/Linux until it was well established and very commonly known as Linux.
>
> I think we started in 1994 (although mostly privately until 1996).
I personally started using Linux in March of 1992 -- Version 0.94 IIRC.
Linux 2.0 was out by 1996 was it not? I stand by my 'well established'
comment above.
> To a lot of people, myself included, this feels like an attempt to steal
> credit and draw attention to yourself and the FSF by trying to hijack the
> name of a project that you didn't contribute to, but instead used tools you
> provided such as gcc and glibc.
>
> If you believe this is a "project that we didn't contribute to", it's
> natural you would believe the rest. That's why calling the system
> "Linux" is so unfair. We started developing this system, and we
> developed more of it than anyone else; but thinking of it as "Linux"
> leads people to focus on the part that we didn't do, and devalue our
> part. (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#tools.)
>
> That's why we can never go along with calling the system "Linux". No matter
> how many people do that, we will keep on pointing out why that is wrong.
You developed tools and packages that you intended to put into a system
that you have called the Hurd. While you were developing all of the various
pieces for that system (Hurd) other people were using those packages on
various other systems -- I used gcc under SunOS and Dynix long before I'd
head of Linux.. And I used more GNU packages than vendor packages on most
of the HP-UX boxes I administrated after college.. You have said in the past
that that doesn't make those GNU/HP-UX Boxes...
That the various packages and tools developed to support your project
(Hurd) were used by another project developing a seperate operating system
does not give you the right to name that seperate operating system. Those
people who put together all the various pieces and made it work call it Linux.
I'm going to agree with Larry here. If you're going to insist that people
call it GNU/Linux, then you had better start referring to your operating
system as Linux/Hurd if you want to retain any credibility.
> It may be publicity (and there may be no such thing as bad press), but
> it's not favorable publicity, and it rubs a lot of people who have been
> involved with Linux a long time the wrong way.
>
> There are people who get angry at us for correcting the mistaken
> picture, but in the long run it would be self-defeating (as well as
> dishonorable) to bow to such pressure. See
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#alienate.
People get angry because you're being disrespectful and presumptuous to
try and tell people who know exactly what the order of events are that
you and your foundation were actively involved in developing Linux. That
was not the case and you know it.
Before this whole naming fiasco started, I was a strong supporter of GNU
software. I am not any longer because of *your* actions, Richard. I am
still and plan to remain a strong supporter of free software.. but I don't
feel affiliated with the FSF any more. And that's a pity.
(I'm done with this thread now.)
--
[email protected] "It's a big world and you can hit it with any airplane."
-- Flying, August 2000, Page 90.
You developed tools and packages that you intended to put into a system
that you have called the Hurd.
Not quite. The system in question is "GNU". The Hurd is just part of
the kernel of GNU; the other GNU packages are not part of the Hurd.
I'm going to agree with Larry here. If you're going to insist that people
call it GNU/Linux, then you had better start referring to your operating
system as Linux/Hurd if you want to retain any credibility.
I've already explained why this is bad logic. Will my explanation
have "credibility"? That's asking whether other people will grasp the
point.
I think it is not useful to digress into speculation about what other
people will think about an issue. It is better to stick to the issues
themselves.
People get angry because you're being disrespectful and presumptuous to
try and tell people who know exactly what the order of events are that
you and your foundation were actively involved in developing Linux. That
was not the case and you know it.
If you mean the whole system that is sometimes called Linux, we began
developing it in 1984.
Perhaps you've defined the "development of Linux" to include only that
part of the development which began with integrating the kernel,
Linux, with the rest of the system. We became involved in that
starting in 1993 or 1994.
Before this whole naming fiasco started, I was a strong supporter of GNU
software. I am not any longer because of *your* actions, Richard. I am
still and plan to remain a strong supporter of free software.. but I don't
feel affiliated with the FSF any more. And that's a pity.
It's not a pity, it's an injustice. People have led you to disregard
our work and say the job was done by others; you condemn us when we
say we did it, and now you say you will shun us for it.
It would be dishonorable to cower in fear of unjust criticism, so I
will keep on doing what I think is right, and hope that you will
reconsider eventually.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:47:37AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Before this whole naming fiasco started, I was a strong supporter of GNU
> software. I am not any longer because of *your* actions, Richard. I am
> still and plan to remain a strong supporter of free software.. but I
> don't feel affiliated with the FSF any more. And that's a pity.
> It's not a pity, it's an injustice. People have led you to disregard
> our work and say the job was done by others; you condemn us when we
> say we did it, and now you say you will shun us for it.
The job *was* done by many others. You don't respect this.
mark
P.S. Every time you strip out the names of the people that you quote, I
have found your practice disrespectful. I don't *know* who wrote
the quote you make above. Therefore, I do not know whose reputation
has improved in my eyes, if only, because they share my opinion
regarding you. Please retain the names of the people you quote.
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
hi Richard,
At the point in time when you started the GNU project, do you mind
telling us how much of the GNU code was based on BSD and how much was
not ?
I am asking for a reasonably accurate percentage e.g. 20% BSD, 80%
non-BSD, OR 85% BSD, 15% non-BSD. Something to that effect.
Comments/Code/Headers whatever originated from the BSD team gets
attributed to them, and the modifications you guys wrote are credited to
the GNU project.
Also, someone posted that the original GNU code was based on the BSD
code and therefore the BSD licence, and one fine day the BSD licence was
replaced with the GNU licence. Is that correct or incorrect ?
thanks,
Ranjeet Shetye.