Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 00:24:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 00:24:09 -0500 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:26377 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 00:24:07 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 21:31:39 -0800 (PST) From: Andre Hedrick To: Andrew McGregor cc: rms@gnu.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! In-Reply-To: <635470000.1041743530@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 6253 Lines: 135 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 > 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org > 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/