Software radical Richard Stallman helped build the Linux revolution. Now he threatens to tear it apart.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/1030/104_print.html
Hi
On 10/24/06, Dinesh Shah dineshah@gmail.com wrote:
Software radical Richard Stallman helped build the Linux revolution. Now he threatens to tear it apart.
lol
A quote from the second para - "Richard M. Stallman is a 53-year-old anticorporate crusader who has argued for 20 years that most software should be free of charge"
I think that's complete wrong interpretation of Free Software. Wonder if this chap has any clue about anything he wrote.
Cheers!
Pradeepto
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 15:39, Dinesh Shah wrote:
Software radical Richard Stallman helped build the Linux revolution. Now he threatens to tear it apart.
Asshole author who does not know the abc of what he is trying to pontificate about. The gplv3 prevents a distributor from preventing users excersing the rights guranteed under gplv2. It does not prevent the service provider from preventing use of his services if the user changes the default blob. where is the question of violating others copyrights. The gplv3 also explicitly prevents using of patents against any recipient of gplv3 code. If the crooks who use GNU feel otherwise they are welcome to spend a zillion in rolling their own stuff and see if their business survives.
And btw forbes is yet another M$ schill. Similiar articles published in the past few yrs - including complete support for SCO (the author was dan lyons afair) - would fill a couple of pages.
Seems to me Vista is in line for another quarter delay.
On 10/24/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 15:39, Dinesh Shah wrote:
Software radical Richard Stallman helped build the Linux revolution. Now he threatens to tear it apart.
Asshole author who does not know the abc of what he is trying to pontificate about.
didnot expect this from JTD or sud I say I sud have expected this from you ?
On 25-Oct-06, at 11:05 AM, Harsh Busa wrote:
Asshole author who does not know the abc of what he is trying to pontificate about.
didnot expect this from JTD or sud I say I sud have expected this from you ?
i agree 100% with jtd - but didnt say anything because i knew he would word it much better than i ever could
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 05:55, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
i agree 100% with jtd - but didnt say anything because i knew he would word it much better than i ever could
Uh...people...why give so much importance to a retarded article like that? Objectively speaking, everytime someone is quoting the OP, that AH is getting more backlinks to his article boosting his rankings on google search.
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 17:12, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 05:55, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
i agree 100% with jtd - but didnt say anything because i knew he would word it much better than i ever could
Uh...people...why give so much importance to a retarded article like that? Objectively speaking, everytime someone is quoting the OP, that AH is getting more backlinks to his article boosting his rankings on google search.
Very true. Unfortunately i do check periodically articles written by AHs and repos of shit. And since Dinesh Shah posted a link i thaought i might as well check.
Hi Falks,
On 10/25/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Very true. Unfortunately i do check periodically articles written by AHs and repos of shit. And since Dinesh Shah posted a link i thaought i might as well check.
The idea behind the posting the link is to make aware how the "popular" press/media perceives Free Software.
Any amount of name calling or rhetoric is not going to help Free Software. Whether we like them or not these popular media shapes the opinion of the people, more important of them is decision makers.
What credible answers we can provide? Instead of RMS refusing to talk to this fellow just because he calls GNU/Linux as Linux, is just a lost opportunity to make your *point*.
We, as community, have to seriously learn to *manage* the media.
Rgds JTD
With regards,
On 25-Oct-06, at 5:30 PM, Dinesh Shah wrote:
What credible answers we can provide? Instead of RMS refusing to talk to this fellow just because he calls GNU/Linux as Linux, is just a lost opportunity to make your *point*.
We, as community, have to seriously learn to *manage* the media.
rms and his followers also need to realise who the *real* enemy is
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 17:30, Dinesh Shah wrote:
Hi Falks,
On 10/25/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Very true. Unfortunately i do check periodically articles written by AHs and repos of shit. And since Dinesh Shah posted a link i thaought i might as well check.
The idea behind the posting the link is to make aware how the "popular" press/media perceives Free Software.
Any amount of name calling or rhetoric is not going to help Free Software.
If i would actually condescend to talk to such AHs (note i maintain my stance and have justified it too) my take would have been different. Since i am preaching to the choir i said what actually needs to be said.
Whether we like them or not these popular media shapes the opinion of the people, more important of them is decision makers.
Notice how a whole lot of wall street and hollywood types use gnu/linux not out of any love of freedom but merely due to convienence and costs. Is something wrong with that? YES. It is these same types who want drm. As long as they can shoot u but u cant it's fine. In the past it was called Overlordship. Which is why RMS is so important. Using GNU/linux merely for it's tech superiority would be acceptable. But using it with drm to subvert other's freedom is definetly reprehensible. The logic touted by the media companies is full of holes and stems from the fact that they have been fleecing artists and are sticking to old business methods, whereas some who had nothing to do with the media have minted billions leveraging new tech - Apple and a japanese company whose name i forget.
What credible answers we can provide?
To personal insults? i am afraid none - well maybe a kick in the groin.
Instead of RMS refusing to talk to this fellow just because he calls GNU/Linux as Linux, is just a lost opportunity to make your *point*.
I am sure there are better media persons out there to talk to.
We, as community, have to seriously learn to *manage* the media.
Aha. How about some unmanaged truth. All the crap u watch on tv, read in the print and hear on the radio is managed. And it got to this state by managing. But i am getting seriously ot and political.
The bottom line is that V3 is very clear about it's goal of preventing misuse of FOSS in restricting freedoms and the media managers dont like it one bit. And should artists catch on to the basic tenets and principles of FOSS, media companies will be museum pieces. Never mind the crap about starving artists and copyrighted works and all the other crap dished out in the media.
On 10/25/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 17:30, Dinesh Shah wrote:
Hi Falks,
On 10/25/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Very true. Unfortunately i do check periodically articles written by AHs and repos of shit. And since Dinesh Shah posted a link i thaought i might as well check.
The idea behind the posting the link is to make aware how the "popular" press/media perceives Free Software.
Any amount of name calling or rhetoric is not going to help Free Software.
If i would actually condescend to talk to such AHs (note i maintain my stance and have justified it too) my take would have been different. Since i am preaching to the choir i said what actually needs to be said.
Whether we like them or not these popular media shapes the opinion of the people, more important of them is decision makers.
Notice how a whole lot of wall street and hollywood types use gnu/linux not out of any love of freedom but merely due to convienence and costs. Is something wrong with that? YES. It is these same types who want drm. As long as they can shoot u but u cant it's fine. In the past it was called Overlordship. Which is why RMS is so important. Using GNU/linux merely for it's tech superiority would be acceptable. But using it with drm to subvert other's freedom is definetly reprehensible. The logic touted by the media companies is full of holes and stems from the fact that they have been fleecing artists and are sticking to old business methods, whereas some who had nothing to do with the media have minted billions leveraging new tech - Apple and a japanese company whose name i forget.
What credible answers we can provide?
To personal insults? i am afraid none - well maybe a kick in the groin.
Instead of RMS refusing to talk to this fellow just because he calls GNU/Linux as Linux, is just a lost opportunity to make your *point*.
I am sure there are better media persons out there to talk to.
We, as community, have to seriously learn to *manage* the media.
Aha. How about some unmanaged truth. All the crap u watch on tv, read in the print and hear on the radio is managed. And it got to this state by managing. But i am getting seriously ot and political.
The bottom line is that V3 is very clear about it's goal of preventing misuse of FOSS in restricting freedoms and the media managers dont like it one bit. And should artists catch on to the basic tenets and principles of FOSS, media companies will be museum pieces. Never mind the crap about starving artists and copyrighted works and all the other crap dished out in the media.
list admin requesting you to force end of this pointless thread. everyone knows RMS is not evil . he has an opinion that not everyone subscribes to . no one in the list is endorsing the article. there is no disagreement that floss is for good. then why a 14mail long thread already.
-- Rgds JTD
Sometime Today, jtd assembled some asciibets to say:
Notice how a whole lot of wall street and hollywood types use gnu/linux not out of any love of freedom but merely due to convienence and costs. Is something wrong with that? YES. It is these
and they told you this? The pixar guys that I spoke to told me that they used linux because it was technically superior to any of the alternatives. It wasn't the cost - they were already spending several hundred million dollars on hardware that they would have to throw out as soon as the film was done.
On 10/25/06, Philip Tellis philip.tellis@gmx.net wrote:
Sometime Today, jtd assembled some asciibets to say:
Notice how a whole lot of wall street and hollywood types use gnu/linux not out of any love of freedom but merely due to convienence and costs. Is something wrong with that? YES. It is these
and they told you this? The pixar guys that I spoke to told me that they used linux because it was technically superior to any of the alternatives. It wasn't the cost - they were already spending several hundred million dollars on hardware that they would have to throw out as soon as the film was done.
yes i have also interacted with 2 animation studios in bombay and they loved linux coz it did wonders for them.
--- Philip Tellis philip.tellis@gmx.net wrote:
Sometime Today, jtd assembled some asciibets to say:
Notice how a whole lot of wall street and
hollywood types use
gnu/linux not out of any love of freedom but
merely due to
convienence and costs. Is something wrong with
that? YES. It is these
and they told you this? The pixar guys that I spoke to told me that they used linux because it was technically superior to any of the alternatives. It wasn't the cost - they were already spending several hundred million dollars on hardware that they would have to throw out as soon as the film was done.
How do you and others feel about drafting a letter of protest from this list with inputs from you, JTD and other senior members who are conversant with gpl, with all our signatures of support and posting the letter to Forbes and requesting them to post the letter in the same space that was used by the earlier writer.
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
On 10/25/06, Rony Bill ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
all our signatures of support and posting the letter to Forbes and requesting them to post the letter in the same space that was used by the earlier writer.
something like petitiononline types ? no harm
Regards,
Rony.
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Sometime on Thursday 26 October 2006 00:26, Harsh Busa said:
On 10/25/06, Rony Bill ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
all our signatures of support and posting the letter to Forbes and requesting them to post the letter in the same space that was used by the earlier writer.
something like petitiononline types ? no harm
and no gains
Anurag
On 10/25/06, Anurag anurag@gnuer.org wrote:
something like petitiononline types ? no harm
and no gains
well this thread will finally end. wudnt that be a gain ? or u suspect there another thread if online petitions are cool
HRB
for those who donot understand sarcastic humor . this is supposed to be humorous. smiling doesnot strains muscles .
Anurag
Hello,
I am interested in getting a simple text WAP enabled website designed. The website is meant specifically for mobile devices. The website will also consist of one MySql database. Please let me know if anyone is interested.
Thanks, Vatsal
--------------------------------- It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 23:15, Philip Tellis wrote:
Sometime Today, jtd assembled some asciibets to say:
Notice how a whole lot of wall street and hollywood types use gnu/linux not out of any love of freedom but merely due to convienence and costs. Is something wrong with that? YES. It is these
and they told you this? The pixar guys that I spoke to told me that they used linux because it was technically superior to any of the alternatives.
Convienence = tech superiority = stability+speed+effeciency+reduced maintanence+upgradibility+customizable... Take your pick.
It wasn't the cost - they were already spending several hundred million dollars on hardware that they would have to throw out as soon as the film was done.
Sometime Today, j cobbled together some glyphs to say:
gnu/linux not out of any love of freedom but merely due to convienence and costs. Is something wrong with that? YES. It is these
and they told you this? The pixar guys that I spoke to told me that they used linux because it was technically superior to any of the alternatives.
Convienence = tech superiority = stability+speed+effeciency+reduced maintanence+upgradibility+customizable... Take your pick.
So why is it wrong (your words) to pick technology because it is technically superior?
On Thursday 26 October 2006 14:54, Philip Tellis wrote:
Sometime Today, j cobbled together some glyphs to say:
gnu/linux not out of any love of freedom but merely due to convienence and costs. Is something wrong with that? YES. It is these
and they told you this? The pixar guys that I spoke to told me that they used linux because it was technically superior to any of the alternatives.
Convienence = tech superiority = stability+speed+effeciency+reduced maintanence+upgradibility+customizable... Take your pick.
So why is it wrong (your words) to pick technology because it is technically superior?
The problem is in using this tech to hobble others. And the ones who are primarily clamouring for this are the very same media companies who are picking gnu/linux for it's tech superiority. Thus it becomes imperative to have protection mechanisms to prevent the hobbling. The v3 licence is primarily aimed at this particular aspect. It also helps to keep pointing out the freedom part - as RMS and the rest of the FSF does.
On 10/25/06, Dinesh Shah dineshah@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Falks,
On 10/25/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote: We, as community, have to seriously learn to *manage* the media.
yes dinesh you are right. i dont know what anyone achieves by public display of anger. had these statements gone to the editor it wud have made sense.
JTD learn to be tolerant like Nagarjun. I m sure your so called keeeewwwlll language appeals only to a small chunk of ppl
Rgds JTD
With regards,
--Dinesh Shah :-)
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 19:38, Harsh Busa wrote:
JTD learn to be tolerant like Nagarjun. I m sure your so called keeeewwwlll language appeals only to a small chunk of ppl
Stop patronising me. I am not playing to the gallery and dont use intemperate language to score brownie points. Imo the author is precisely what i called him.
On 25/10/06, Dinesh Shah dineshah@gmail.com wrote:
The idea behind the posting the link is to make aware how the "popular" press/media perceives Free Software.
good you did that Dinesh Ji.
Any amount of name calling or rhetoric is not going to help Free Software. Whether we like them or not these popular media shapes the opinion of the people, more important of them is decision makers.
right. and the more they will adopt good or dirty means what ever, people will go more and more away from this concept and movement. the best thing these m$ and company have found out is to ignite a fire between linus and rms. Divide and rule? first of all unfortunately people don't seam to understand gpl v3. and I think any one who wants to write any thing for or against FOSS, must be very sure of what he or she is saying. I think it was right and obvious jtd used that word for the writer. that is exactly what even I feel. and what he has to do with personal life of rms or any one for that matter! he does not even seam to understand the fact that linux is just a kernel. in the opening lines itself he lost his wicket. he calls linus the developer of the "linux operating system". did he not know that there is some thing called the herd kernel? may be it is not that developed or that popular. but since linus did a good job any ways, herd was like doing same things again and again. and who is preventing linus from using any license version of gpl? correct me if I am wrong, gpl2 is not prevented by gpl3?
What credible answers we can provide? Instead of RMS refusing to talk to this fellow just because he calls GNU/Linux as Linux, is just a lost opportunity to make your *point*.
I agree here with dinesh. but again if you read that article properly, the "*** jtd's term" writer, is more on personal comments and dirty writing. why should rms even care about such things? but I think yes, rms must talk with linus and company. and what is wrong for linus to except that his development is the most important but not the only thing that makes an operating system? what is wrong to call it gnu/linux? after all linux is just a kernel.
We, as community, have to seriously learn to *manage* the media.
as I said above one has to be very studious and clear about what one says. I promised the lug that I will soon start writing. but I am also studying the matter deeply and seriously, consulting lawyers and advocates of both free and non-free software. my set of articles will soon appear in the press. regards. Krishnakant.
2006/10/25, Dinesh Shah dineshah@gmail.com:
What credible answers we can provide? Instead of RMS refusing to talk to this fellow just because he calls GNU/Linux as Linux, is just a lost opportunity to make your *point*.
RMS is the founder of Free Software movement, so anything he tells will be associated with Free Software Movement. He started the GNU project so that all computer users will be Free, when you call it just Linux more than the technical reason you are completely ignoring the importance of GNU project and Freedom (Linux is never associated himself with Freedom).
It would have been a no issue if we already won the game, but it is more important than ever that we speak about Freedom and teach others why Freedom is important as there is greater threats to Freedom. If Software Patents becomes a reality (everywhere) Free Software development becomes illegal as it is not possible to keep track of the patents you might violate and comply with all. Also when devices that use Free Software but deny the Freedom becomes more common it is not enough that we get the source code.
RMS clearly understand the importance of Freedom and why we should teach people to respect Freedom. So it is quite natural that he insist using the right words and he stresses Freedom above all other motivations because it most threatened.
Regards Praveen
Hi,
On 10/26/06, പ്രവീണ്|Praveen pravi.a@gmail.com wrote:
It would have been a no issue if we already won the game, but it is more important than ever that we speak about Freedom and teach others why Freedom is important as there is greater threats to Freedom. If Software Patents becomes a reality (everywhere) Free Software development becomes illegal as it is not possible to keep track of the patents you might violate and comply with all. Also when devices that use Free Software but deny the Freedom becomes more common it is not enough that we get the source code.
/me wonders..
Is the GPL v3 a futuristic Free/OpenSource license whose true value will only be appreciated after 10 years have passed ? By looking at short term gains and saying GPLv3 is bad for business (as the Forbes article says) are we repeating history ?
Surely when GPL v1 came out, the same anti-freedom sentiments we hear today would have been mirrored in technology circles then. Usage of the GPL v2 by the Linux kernel community and it's success in the tech-industry has proved that 'free as in speech' is not just a dream but a reality. On similar terms, will it require a GPLv3-project (similar to the linux kernel) which gains largescale business momentum to show that software under that particular license and free from DRM and patents can survive ?
I guess the answer to the GPL v3 debate will take some time. If say, after 10 years business' see that GPLv2 has failed, we can always say, 'I told you so..'
just my $0.0002
-Toufeeq
On Thursday 26 October 2006 16:40, Toufeeq Hussain wrote:
Surely when GPL v1 came out, the same anti-freedom sentiments we hear today would have been mirrored in technology circles then. Usage of the GPL v2 by the Linux kernel community and it's success in the tech-industry has proved that 'free as in speech' is not just a dream but a reality. On similar terms, will it require a GPLv3-project (similar to the linux kernel) which gains largescale business momentum to show that software under that particular license and free from DRM and patents can survive ?
My guess is u wont. The kernel coders will switch - with neccessary changes - once they start applying their fomidable intellect to it.
I guess the answer to the GPL v3 debate will take some time. If say, after 10 years business' see that GPLv2 has failed, we can always say, 'I told you so..'
Unfortunately, without hardware to run on it might well be a bit too late.
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 11:05, Harsh Busa wrote:
On 10/24/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 15:39, Dinesh Shah wrote:
Software radical Richard Stallman helped build the Linux revolution. Now he threatens to tear it apart.
Asshole author who does not know the abc of what he is trying to pontificate about.
didnot expect this from JTD or sud I say I sud have expected this from you ?
The reasons for calling the author that: He takes off on a personal attack on RMS with crap about socialism, personal habits, inuendo like "Stallman labors mightily to control how others think, speak and act," and a whole lot of other bull which has absolutely nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the gplv3. No problem about opposing the gnu movement with FACTS but never with personal attacks, since i (and others) can indulge in exactly the same pointless behaviour.
--- Harsh Busa harsh.busa@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/24/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 15:39, Dinesh Shah wrote:
Software radical Richard Stallman helped build the Linux revolution. Now he threatens to tear it apart.
Asshole author who does not know the abc of what he is trying to pontificate about.
didnot expect this from JTD or sud I say I sud have expected this from you ?
I know. wrong spelling.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
jtd wrote:
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 15:39, Dinesh Shah wrote:
Software radical Richard Stallman helped build the Linux revolution. Now he threatens to tear it apart.
Asshole author who does not know the abc of what he is trying to pontificate about.
ROTFLMAO :-D
Regards,
Rony. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Hi!
On 10/25/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Asshole author who does not know the abc of what he is trying to pontificate about. The gplv3 prevents a distributor from preventing users excersing the rights guranteed under gplv2. It does not prevent the service provider from preventing use of his services if the user changes the default blob. where is the question of violating others copyrights. The gplv3 also explicitly prevents using of patents against any recipient of gplv3 code. If the crooks who use GNU feel otherwise they are welcome to spend a zillion in rolling their own stuff and see if their business survives.
You are just telling people that it's only our way. Take it or leave it. :-(
And if someone does not agree to GPLv3 becomes crook! Thank you very much for all the freedom and software freedom propagated by FSF!
And btw forbes is yet another M$ schill. Similiar articles published in the past few yrs - including complete support for SCO (the author was dan lyons afair) - would fill a couple of pages.
Why the moment someone talks against FSF they become MS agents? :-)
Seems to me Vista is in line for another quarter delay.
Who care? If it's release tomorrow or after 10 Years!
Rgds JTD
I would suggest that we start respecting other peoples view, opinions and FREEDOM!
With regards,
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 19:40, Dinesh Shah wrote:
Hi!
On 10/25/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Asshole author who does not know the abc of what he is trying to pontificate about. The gplv3 prevents a distributor from preventing users excersing the rights guranteed under gplv2. It does not prevent the service provider from preventing use of his services if the user changes the default blob. where is the question of violating others copyrights. The gplv3 also explicitly prevents using of patents against any recipient of gplv3 code. If the crooks who use GNU feel otherwise they are welcome to spend a zillion in rolling their own stuff and see if their business survives.
You are just telling people that it's only our way. Take it or leave it. :-(
I am not. I am saying they dont have an alternative except taking unacceptable risks. Yet they think that curbing other peoples freedom is fine.
And if someone does not agree to GPLv3 becomes crook!.
If u dont agree with v3 roll your own and release under v2. However if i write something under v3 everone HAS to accept cause i own the copyrights.
Thank you very much for all the freedom and software freedom propagated by FSF!
Your args are naive or devious. Software freedom to subjugate sombody else's software, hardware and device usage freedom is not freedom - it's overlordship to those who control those rights and serfdom to those who dont. AND u have an option to execute such a scheme - roll your own. Just dont use the works of people who put out these enabling and empowering tools to disable and disenfranchise others.
And btw forbes is yet another M$ schill. Similiar articles published in the past few yrs - including complete support for SCO (the author was dan lyons afair) - would fill a couple of pages.
Why the moment someone talks against FSF they become MS agents? :-)
Read carefully the abv and google (baystar, deutsch capital, dan lyons). U will find precisely such articles devoid of logic but full of insinuations. I NEVER make a comment unless i verify. U will also find court depostions by Baystar employees.
Seems to me Vista is in line for another quarter delay.
Who care? If it's release tomorrow or after 10 Years!
U find such articles evertytime M$ has to announce a delay. But yes who cares.
I would suggest that we start respecting other peoples view, opinions and FREEDOM!
The link was not a view. It was a personal attack on RMS. Not one sentence had any logic.
And the reason for replying was not merely the language of the article, but the twisting of facts to denigrate V3, which too i have stated in my reply.
On 10/25/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
JTD is your ability to devote so much time to replying mails a side effect of using linux and providing linux seervices ? do ur customers ever call you back for help ?
HRB
-- Rgds JTD
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 08:42 PM, Harsh Busa cobbled together some glyphs to say: Harsh,
JTD is your ability to devote so much time to replying mails a side effect of using linux and providing linux seervices ? do ur customers ever call you back for help ?
Now _this_ is purely a personal attack on JTD. He has the right to stand by his own opinion, you have the same too. But you have _no_ right to launch a personal attack against him, not on this channel. It's recommended that you refrain from posting such messages again, we've had too many flame wars already.
Regards, BG
- -- Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings http://www.ubuntu.com/
1024D/86361B74 BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74
On 10/25/06, Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 08:42 PM, Harsh Busa cobbled together some glyphs to say: Harsh,
JTD is your ability to devote so much time to replying mails a side effect of using linux and providing linux seervices ? do ur customers ever call you back for help ?
Now _this_ is purely a personal attack on JTD. He has the right to stand by his own opinion, you have the same too. But you have _no_ right to launch a personal attack against him, not on this channel. It's recommended that you refrain from posting such messages again, we've had too many flame wars already.
So why dont you recommend the list admin to put me on moderation or better block me ?
Regards, BG
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 09:01 PM, Harsh Busa cobbled together some glyphs to say: Harsh,
JTD is your ability to devote so much time to replying mails a side effect of using linux and providing linux seervices ? do ur customers ever call you back for help ?
Now _this_ is purely a personal attack on JTD. He has the right to stand by his own opinion, you have the same too. But you have _no_ right to launch a personal attack against him, not on this channel. It's recommended that you refrain from posting such messages again, we've had too many flame wars already.
So why dont you recommend the list admin to put me on moderation or better block me ?
I don't need to recommend anything to the list admin(s). They can see what you are doing. The only thing that I'd recommend is to keep your cool. JTD is a senior person and he deserves our respect even if he is wrong (which he is not, obviously).
Regards, BG
- -- Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings http://www.ubuntu.com/
1024D/86361B74 BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 21:13, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
I don't need to recommend anything to the list admin(s). They can see what you are doing.
Cool down. He isnt doing anything and is a nice guy (subject to chai next time we meet ;-)
JTD is a senior person and he deserves our respect even if he is wrong (which he is not, obviously).
Ha Ha. Flame me to death with logic. No problems. While seniority does bring wisdom, it all too often results in ossification and decay. I would rather be flamed and singed then ossified and decayed. One can also discern patterns in the motivations of the younger generation, which is equally important to understand, so that society can benefit from their energy and refreshing (skewed?, different?) view of things.
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 20:49, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 08:42 PM, Harsh Busa cobbled together some glyphs to say: Harsh,
JTD is your ability to devote so much time to replying mails a side effect of using linux and providing linux seervices ? do ur customers ever call you back for help ?
Now _this_ is purely a personal attack on JTD.
Err BG I think he means it in (sharp) jest. Yes Harsh it is actually because of that. Customers rarely call once things are setup. And rarely is it something that requires my prescence.
Also Harsh my reply was not merely about the attack on RMS, which as u point out nobody on the list believes is evil but abt gplV3 which is very important, irrespective of wether it is adopted by many or not. It has focussed things on the external factors which are going to be major impediments in the progress of FOSS. So far the opposition to it is more due to confusion and corner cases rather than logic. In the case of Linus he does not want to be poltical and resents the kernel development being made a political battle ground (IMO primarily because companies likely to be affected are substantial resource contributors)
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 21:08, jtd wrote:
So far the opposition to it is more due to confusion and corner cases rather than logic. In the case of Linus he does not want to be poltical and resents the kernel development being made a political battle ground (IMO primarily because companies likely to be affected are substantial resource contributors)
There is also the very genuine fear of the V2 crowd being left behind. I would put the traction behind v3 at 70% and climbing. If Linus digs his heels in HIS kernel development will suffer. And Imo he will have to switch.
On 25-Oct-06, at 9:08 PM, jtd wrote:
the case of Linus he does not want to be poltical and resents the kernel development being made a political battle ground (IMO primarily because companies likely to be affected are substantial resource contributors)
and do you have anything to substantiate this? Is this the case also with apache, subversion, postgresql, sqlite, python, php, perl, django ... Or is it that there are also sensible non-fanatics in the foss world - who are also doing most of the development
On Thursday 26 October 2006 06:53, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 25-Oct-06, at 9:08 PM, jtd wrote:
the case of Linus he does not want to be poltical and resents the kernel development being made a political battle ground (IMO primarily because companies likely to be affected are substantial resource contributors)
and do you have anything to substantiate this?
Linus is on record abt the politics. lkml for the details And his logic is that he does not care if someone uses any means other than hiding the source to hide whatever it is they are hiding. Things like cellphones (A780 has a drm partition), Tivo, PS3 etc.
Is this the case also with apache, subversion, postgresql, sqlite, python, php, perl, django ... Or is it that there are also sensible non-fanatics in the foss world - who are also doing most of the development
What is fanatic about the V3? As i said earlier plenty of misconception but very little logic. Give me logic. Past success is no gurantee of future success, particularly in the light of recent events like tivosiation, drm and new bioses (EFI ) that will not boot an unsigned blob. Buy a preloaded doze or RH or even my box and u cant load anything else. To me it seems arrogance and overconfidence about technical ability by developers who think that they wont be affected. Otoh imo the only downside is v3 might stiffle deployment in mass markets (already) controlled by incumbents and hence stiffle standards. And this arg is just cause i have to make one against v3 rather than supported by facts.
On 26-Oct-06, at 1:59 PM, jtd wrote:
primarily because companies likely to be affected are substantial resource contributors)
i was talking of substantiating this (quoted above)
Is this the case also with apache, subversion, postgresql, sqlite, python, php, perl, django ... Or is it that there are also sensible non-fanatics in the foss world - who are also doing most of the development
What is fanatic about the V3?
v3 is not fanatic - many proponents of v3 are fanatics. The problem with v3, like the problem with hurd, is that it is overengineered - and hence will not be effective. Small incremental changes is the way to go - not huge over-hyped, overplanned changes.
On Thursday 26 October 2006 14:24, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 26-Oct-06, at 1:59 PM, jtd wrote:
primarily because companies likely to be affected are substantial resource contributors)
i was talking of substantiating this (quoted above)
IBM and Cell processors (on which afaik only linux runs). Intel and EFI. AMD with something called VSA. Notice all are hardware vendors and should not be affected by what runs on their processor. Then why the effort to lock down hardware? And include bits in the kernel to cement it down?. One such effort is on on the OMAP devel site. Omap is the TI processor embeded in most middle and highend phones, and wifi routers and adsl modems.
MY My. And now Oracle fud about RH and RH playing the same game. Things could have been different if RH would have made freedom it's usp. Larry Ellision would have looked like BG trying to out RH on freedom. Play the incumbents game and u are in deep sh..
after reading all the emails, I only request all those people commenting and counter commenting to please specify the actual points which are confusing you. instead of general statement "gpl v3 is not good or is complex etc", and then writing a long email with no direction (this is the reason why I prefer to read emails sent by jtd, kenneth or praveen or rony for that matter which is to the point), will not serve any perpus except waisting band width. I wont say "stop this thread" because this is very important. but please be specific. for example I deliberately made the above centence with the names of jtd and othersvery long. may be this kind of writing stile is being refered to as complex. but that's how leagul documents are written.
Harsh Busa wrote:
On 10/25/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
JTD is your ability to devote so much time to replying mails a side effect of using linux and providing linux seervices ? do ur customers ever call you back for help ?
Relax Harsh,
Some of the good things in life are free and that includes JTD's comments every time someone attacks libre software. :)
Regards,
Rony. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
--- Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Harsh Busa wrote:
On 10/25/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
JTD is your ability to devote so much time to replying mails a side effect of using linux and providing linux seervices ? do ur
customers
ever call you back for help ?
Relax Harsh,
Some of the good things in life are free and that includes JTD's comments every time someone attacks libre software. :)
Oh for cryin out loud. Stop this discussion already. It was just a wrongly spelt slang cuss term.
You want him to bend over now? forget it now. relax. and let this be the last post on this topic.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 25-Oct-06, at 8:23 PM, jtd wrote:
And if someone does not agree to GPLv3 becomes crook!.
If u dont agree with v3 roll your own and release under v2. However if i write something under v3 everone HAS to accept cause i own the copyrights
you seem to be unaware that the gpl (any version) represents only a small subset of licenses available. In fact, as of now, the most popular license appears to be the Mozilla Public License. Further, i just went through the draft of v3 - it is a nightmare. If adopted by anyone, it is going to cause endless confusion. V2, on the other hand was a model of simplicity compared to this. Compare the gpl to creative commons licences and you will understand the difference. Or compare it to the MPL.
2006/10/26, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
you seem to be unaware that the gpl (any version) represents only a small subset of licenses available.
NO. GPL is _the_ most popular FOSS License.
See http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
<quote> SourceForge.net reported on November 10, 2003 that the GPL accounted for 71% of the 45,736 projects it hosted with OSI-approved open source licenses (next most popular were the LGPL, 10%, and the BSD licenses, 7%). </quote>
In fact, as of now, the most
popular license appears to be the Mozilla Public License.
Can you provide a link to your claim that Mozilla Public license is the most popular license. You can see Mozilla is not even coming in the first three positions. May be you mis understood the information from opensource.org
<quote> The "classic" licenses, GPL, LGPL, BSD, and MIT, were the most commonly used for open-source software before the Mozilla release in early 1998. The Mozilla Public License has since become widely used. </quote>
It does not imply MPL is the most popular license. Further, i
just went through the draft of v3 - it is a nightmare. If adopted by anyone, it is going to cause endless confusion.
Can you specify which portions are not clear and why you think it causes confution?
V2, on the other hand
was a model of simplicity compared to this.
And it has loop holes which are being exploited by the likes of Tivo.
Compare the gpl to
creative commons licences and you will understand the difference.
Creative commons is meant for digital content and not software.
Regards Praveen
On 26-Oct-06, at 3:49 PM, പ്രവീണ്|Praveen wrote:
2006/10/26, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
you seem to be unaware that the gpl (any version) represents only a small subset of licenses available.
NO. GPL is _the_ most popular FOSS License.
there are around 45 licenses available - gpl is one of them
See http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
<quote> SourceForge.net reported on November 10, 2003 that the GPL accounted for 71% of the 45,736 projects it hosted with OSI-approved open source licenses (next most popular were the LGPL, 10%, and the BSD licenses, 7%). </quote>
how many of these 45,000 projects are live? i am talking of live and useful projects. Also dont forget that in sourceforge the default choice for license is gpl and most people just click that without knowing or caring what it is. But look around at the best and most used applications - what is the percentage of gpl stuff?
In fact, as of now, the most
popular license appears to be the Mozilla Public License.
Can you provide a link to your claim that Mozilla Public license is the most popular license. You can see Mozilla is not even coming in the first three positions. May be you mis understood the information from opensource.org
no link - danese cooper mentioned it during a talk, saying that mozilla style licenses are most popular now a days - and by popular i mean people who think long and hard about what license they are going to use.
just went through the draft of v3 - it is a nightmare. If adopted by anyone, it is going to cause endless confusion.
Can you specify which portions are not clear and why you think it causes confution?
I cant - because most of it is obscure and would cause confusrion, for example explain this:
The "System Libraries" of an executable work include every subunit such that (a) the identical subunit is normally included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the object code runs, or a compiler used to produce the object code, or an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the subunit (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves only to enable use of the work with that system component or compiler or interpreter, or to implement a widely used or standard interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form.
Compare the gpl to
creative commons licences and you will understand the difference.
Creative commons is meant for digital content and not software.
even i know that. I was talking about the importance of a license being clear and simple. Which creative commons is and gpl v3 is not.
On Thursday 26 October 2006 16:46, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
even i know that. I was talking about the importance of a license being clear and simple. Which creative commons is and gpl v3 is not.
You cant have a simple licence. There will be too many loop holes. The complication is because u dont want to turn away business. Thus u can drm the content but not the content player. U can encrypt provided u provide a mechanism to remove the encryption in it's entierity or provide the keys. In short providing the software but no mechanism for using it on hardware is not allowed. Or providing hardware (reprogrammable), an intermediate layer (interpreter for eg) which is closed and designed by u, and gpl software which cannot run without the interpreter is not allowed. Your example in a previous mail is what is being referred to.
BIG FAT WARNING: i too am still trying to understand this thing.
And the more i think of it the more convinced i am of it's neccessity.
jtd wrote:
On Thursday 26 October 2006 16:46, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
even i know that. I was talking about the importance of a license being clear and simple. Which creative commons is and gpl v3 is not.
You cant have a simple licence. There will be too many loop holes. The complication is because u dont want to turn away business. Thus u can drm the content but not the content player. U can encrypt provided u provide a mechanism to remove the encryption in it's entierity or provide the keys. In short providing the software but no mechanism for using it on hardware is not allowed. Or providing hardware (reprogrammable), an intermediate layer (interpreter for eg) which is closed and designed by u, and gpl software which cannot run without the interpreter is not allowed. Your example in a previous mail is what is being referred to.
BIG FAT WARNING: i too am still trying to understand this thing.
And the more i think of it the more convinced i am of it's neccessity.
No idea of any license details but I feel that using libre software to create softwares that prevent user access to hardwares or other softwares is wrong. What is taken free ( libre ) from society should go back free to it. Otherwise let them make their own closed softwares using their own team of programmers.
Regards,
Rony
___________________________________________________________ Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
On 26-Oct-06, at 7:46 PM, jtd wrote:
even i know that. I was talking about the importance of a license being clear and simple. Which creative commons is and gpl v3 is not.
You cant have a simple licence.
you can - if the license is evolved in the foss way - as all the other licenses are evolving, and as far as i can see, getting more and more like each other. As i said before comparing the non- religious licenses to the GPL v3 is like comparing Linux to Hurd.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Friday 27 October 2006 08:19 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves cobbled together some glyphs to say:
even i know that. I was talking about the importance of a license being clear and simple. Which creative commons is and gpl v3 is not.
You cant have a simple licence.
you can - if the license is evolved in the foss way - as all the other licenses are evolving, and as far as i can see, getting more and more like each other. As i said before comparing the non-religious licenses to the GPL v3 is like comparing Linux to Hurd.
I really fail to understand the reason behind your fascination for BSD / MIT style licenses. Do you really think Linux (the kernel) would have been as powerful as t is now had it been released under, say the BSD license? Exactly why do you think FreeBSD doesn't support half the hardware that Linux (the kernel) supports today? Even 5-6 years back FreeBSD was considered far more superior than Linux (the kernel), so exactly what happened to the Linux kernel project in the recent times and how did FreeBSD lose the race? Now don't talk about the licenses of Python, PostgreSQL, etc. They are in BSD style licenses because those projects are relatively smaller in scope and size as compared to say gcc or the Linux kernel. None can take the Python source, modify it a bit and call it their own Foobar programming language, because it will remain Python no matter how many cosmetic changes you make to it. And in fact if somebody embeds the Python interpreter into their non-free application, that also is indirectly good for Python as it will become more popular (that's the original intent of the language developers), but I don't think it will be beneficial for the OS kernel if people don't contribute back. When your project is as large and as widely scoped as that of the Linux kernel or gcc, you need to give up some freedoms to make sure the essential freedoms are maintained no matter what. Otherwise you may suffer as FreeBSD is suffering these days. Theo de Raadt (hacker extraordinaire) has absolutely no way to make sure people who use FreeBSD source contribute back in some way, and thus the only thing he can do is cry out loud and beg people for code and or money. You see when your country is as small as say, the Vatican City you can do without a constitution and manage with a minimal set of rules. But when it's as large and diverse as India, you must give up some of your freedoms to make sure everybody has the minimal set of freedoms. Ditto with Free Software projects. And your claim about GPLv3 being over-engineered is moot because for a license to be legally binding world wide and to be one with least loop-holes, the language of the license must cover all possible aspects and situations. That will obviously make the license complicated. Look at the Indian Constitution or the IPC. They are not global or fool proof in any sense and yet they are not so simple. What you need to understand is that the GPLv3 text _is_ legalese, and legalese is never simple.
Regards, BG
- -- Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings http://www.ubuntu.com/
1024D/86361B74 BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74
On 27/10/06 11:23 +0530, Baishampayan Ghose wrote: <snip>
I really fail to understand the reason behind your fascination for BSD / MIT style licenses. Do you really think Linux (the kernel) would have been as powerful as t is now had it been released under, say the BSD
Yes. Linux happened at the right time. In case you didn't know your history, the original BSD group was sued by AT&T for releasing BSD in the late 80s/early 90s. The suit was eventually won by the BSD hackers, but they lost crucial momentum in the early 90s (till ~ 1994 or so).
After ths, the BSD project forked, with FreeBSD focussing on x86, wile NetBSD focussed on portability.
license? Exactly why do you think FreeBSD doesn't support half the hardware that Linux (the kernel) supports today? Even 5-6 years back
Because Linux ran with the PC, while BSD ran on far more servers. Until 2.6, the BSD kernel was far superior to Linux. With 2.6, Linus had resources from IBM and the NSA thrown in to help, making it take a slight lead over FreeBSD 5.x. Also, FreeBSD 5.x was the first BSD version which had kernel threads, and was basically an experimental release (think Linux 2.5 quality).
Today, more developers use Linux and are happy if their code works there, rather than writing portable code. Earlier, developers would write on *BSD at home, and test on Solaris at work, with the resultant benefits of stability and performance.
FreeBSD was considered far more superior than Linux (the kernel), so exactly what happened to the Linux kernel project in the recent times and how did FreeBSD lose the race?
IBM happened.
Now don't talk about the licenses of Python, PostgreSQL, etc. They are in BSD style licenses because those projects are relatively smaller in scope and size as compared to say gcc or the Linux kernel. None can take
What does size have to do with it?
<snip>
kernel or gcc, you need to give up some freedoms to make sure the essential freedoms are maintained no matter what. Otherwise you may
Do you understand the meaning of irony?
suffer as FreeBSD is suffering these days. Theo de Raadt (hacker extraordinaire) has absolutely no way to make sure people who use FreeBSD source contribute back in some way, and thus the only thing he
Theo De Raadt is the lead developer for OpenBSD, not FreeBSD. His goal is to ensure that _all_ the code out there is good, regardless of whther it is closed source or not. This is a different goal from RMS, whose goal is to ensure that hackers can always modify the code and make their systems do what they want done.
can do is cry out loud and beg people for code and or money.
A lot of GPLed projects also ask for donations. Keep in mind that OpenBSD has avoided a lot of security exploits because of their insistence on source, not binary blobs.
<snip>
in any sense and yet they are not so simple. What you need to understand is that the GPLv3 text _is_ legalese, and legalese is never simple.
The problem is that legalese looks like English, but isn't. I am sure that the lawyers will actually understand the GPLv3, and the preamble will explain the intent to the non-lawyers out there (for those who actually read licenses).
Devdas Bhagat
On Friday 27 October 2006 14:36, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
On 27/10/06 11:23 +0530, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
<snip>
I really fail to understand the reason behind your fascination for BSD / MIT style licenses. Do you really think Linux (the kernel) would have been as powerful as t is now had it been released under, say the BSD
Yes. Linux happened at the right time. In case you didn't know your history, the original BSD group was sued by AT&T for releasing BSD in the late 80s/early 90s. The suit was eventually won by the BSD hackers, but they lost crucial momentum in the early 90s (till ~ 1994 or so).
That apart, the majority of coders prefer that their works are not misapropriated and hence prefer to gpl their work, which results in a one way migration of code from bsd to linux.
After ths, the BSD project forked, with FreeBSD focussing on x86, wile NetBSD focussed on portability.
NetBSD has fallen back to the point of being unusable according to the founder in a long rant on the netbsd list.
license? Exactly why do you think FreeBSD doesn't support half the hardware that Linux (the kernel) supports today? Even 5-6 years back
Because Linux ran with the PC, while BSD ran on far more servers. Until 2.6, the BSD kernel was far superior to Linux. With 2.6, Linus had resources from IBM and the NSA thrown in to help, making it take a slight lead over FreeBSD 5.x. Also, FreeBSD 5.x was the first BSD version which had kernel threads, and was basically an experimental release (think Linux 2.5 quality).
Today, more developers use Linux and are happy if their code works there, rather than writing portable code. Earlier, developers would write on *BSD at home, and test on Solaris at work, with the resultant benefits of stability and performance.
FreeBSD was considered far more superior than Linux (the kernel), so exactly what happened to the Linux kernel project in the recent times and how did FreeBSD lose the race?
IBM happened.
why did it not happen to BSD? couldnt be the licence?
<snip>
kernel or gcc, you need to give up some freedoms to make sure the essential freedoms are maintained no matter what. Otherwise you may
Misconception (or inapropriate words). Permission to treat others less equally than yourself is not freedom, it's exploitation. The gpl does not ask u to give up freedom. It tells u treat others exactly equally. .
On Friday 27 October 2006 16:10, jtd wrote:
The gpl does not ask u to give up freedom. It tells u treat others exactly equally. .
GPL does take away your freedom to make proprietary software though. Sometimes it can be necessary.
People always shout at NVIDIA or ATI for making closed drivers. But, say if you release the drivers and the specs, isn't it possible that someone else might copy your design or steal your ideas? I heard (I said, 'heard', I don't have a definitive proof for this..) that KDE 4 people are not releasing too many 'visual' details on Plasma just yet just to prevent people from copying their ideas.
I could be wrong here. Please correct me if I am.
I don't agree with RMS when he says that GPL is defending freedom this way. I think it enforces freedom. But, I don't mind that. Even the good things need to be enforced at times. Whatever it may be, I don't have a problem with the way GPL works.
On Friday 27 October 2006 17:44, Mrugesh Karnik wrote:
GPL does take away your freedom to make proprietary software though. Sometimes it can be necessary.
I've been keeping away from this thread but this is an exemplary example of ignorance. Boss, what was GNU project started for? It was started precisely _BECAUSE_ Stallman was completely opposed to proprietary softwares. Why? Well he was not allowed to fix some source! Why the heck do you think will GPL support creation of proprietary software if the creator of the FSF was completely against the entire ideology of proprietary software.
If you want to write proprietary software then use BSD style licensed software.
On Friday 27 October 2006 23:10, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
On Friday 27 October 2006 17:44, Mrugesh Karnik wrote:
GPL does take away your freedom to make proprietary software though. Sometimes it can be necessary.
I've been keeping away from this thread but this is an exemplary example of ignorance. Boss, what was GNU project started for? It was started precisely _BECAUSE_ Stallman was completely opposed to proprietary softwares. Why? Well he was not allowed to fix some source! Why the heck do you think will GPL support creation of proprietary software if the creator of the FSF was completely against the entire ideology of proprietary software.
If you want to write proprietary software then use BSD style licensed software.
Boss, have you actually read my entire message?
On Friday 27 October 2006 23:36, Mrugesh Karnik wrote:
GPL does take away your freedom to make proprietary software though. Sometimes it can be necessary.
Boss, have you actually read my entire message?
Yes. And I've justified my reaction... There is no question of "sometime". GPL doesn't allow for proprietary software. End of story.
On Friday 27 October 2006 23:53, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
On Friday 27 October 2006 23:36, Mrugesh Karnik wrote:
GPL does take away your freedom to make proprietary software though. Sometimes it can be necessary.
Boss, have you actually read my entire message?
Yes. And I've justified my reaction... There is no question of "sometime". GPL doesn't allow for proprietary software. End of story.
Exactly. Whatever may be the reason behind it, but one of the freedoms has been sacrificed. Whether its a good thing or a bad is another matter.
Sometime on Oct 27, Dinesh Joshi assembled some asciibets to say:
of ignorance. Boss, what was GNU project started for? It was started precisely _BECAUSE_ Stallman was completely opposed to proprietary softwares. Why? Well he was not allowed to fix some source! Why the heck do you think will GPL support creation of proprietary software if the creator of the FSF was completely against the entire ideology of proprietary software.
He's not saying that the GPL should allow proprietary software or that it's bad. All he's saying is that the GPL takes away one of the developer's freedoms.
That's not entirely correct though, at it stems from the fact that proprietary software is incorrectly named. The word proprietary means "owned or belonging to someone". All software is owned by someone (the author) unless explicitly placed in the public domain.
So, if there's anything that isn't proprietary software, it's public domain software. Everything else is proprietary, including GPLed software, BSD licenced software and restrictive EULA wrapped software.
On Saturday 28 October 2006 18:53, Philip Tellis wrote:
He's not saying that the GPL should allow proprietary software or that it's bad. All he's saying is that the GPL takes away one of the developer's freedoms.
That's not entirely correct though, at it stems from the fact that proprietary software is incorrectly named. The word proprietary means "owned or belonging to someone". All software is owned by someone (the author) unless explicitly placed in the public domain.
So, if there's anything that isn't proprietary software, it's public domain software. Everything else is proprietary, including GPLed software, BSD licenced software and restrictive EULA wrapped software.
I understood what he was trying to say. But according to Stallman creation of proprietary software was of no consequence. Hence it doesnt even count as a freedom. I am taking the historical meaning of proprietary software and not the one that you just defined.
Sometime Today, Dinesh Joshi assembled some asciibets to say:
I understood what he was trying to say. But according to Stallman creation of proprietary software was of no consequence. Hence it doesnt
Each person needs to decide for himself what is of consequence and what isn't. It is unhealthy for society if everyone has the same mind.
On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 01:07 +0530, Philip Tellis wrote:
Sometime Today, Dinesh Joshi assembled some asciibets to say:
I understood what he was trying to say. But according to Stallman creation of proprietary software was of no consequence. Hence it doesnt
Each person needs to decide for himself what is of consequence and what isn't. It is unhealthy for society if everyone has the same mind.
Well said. If this, just this that you have written, Philip, was understood by people, the world would be different. Its just that some try to impose their landscape on others that we have violence and problems begin in an endless loop.
--- Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 28 October 2006 18:53, Philip Tellis wrote:
He's not saying that the GPL should allow proprietary software or that it's bad. All he's saying is that the GPL takes away one of
the
developer's freedoms.
Hi folks, this thread is an excellent example of tenacity. If we could get this going till year end, we'd probably have enough material for a book?
What say?
Cheers abhishek
____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business (http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com)
Abhishek Daga wrote:
--- Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 28 October 2006 18:53, Philip Tellis wrote:
He's not saying that the GPL should allow proprietary software or that it's bad. All he's saying is that the GPL takes away one of
the
developer's freedoms.
Hi folks, this thread is an excellent example of tenacity. If we could get this going till year end, we'd probably have enough material for a book?
What say?
Can't agree more. What is happening is that they are going round in circles discussing the same thing again and again in the same thread. No one has actually quoted any clause in gpl3 thats objectionable and the actual topic of the thread.
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
On 29-Oct-06, at 11:38 AM, Rony wrote:
Can't agree more. What is happening is that they are going round in circles discussing the same thing again and again in the same thread. No one has actually quoted any clause in gpl3 thats objectionable and the actual topic of the thread.
i quoted a full paragraph asking for an explanation - nothing has come so far
On 29-Oct-06, at 12:58 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
and again in the same thread. No one has actually quoted any clause in gpl3 thats objectionable and the actual topic of the thread.
i quoted a full paragraph asking for an explanation - nothing has come so far
and here it is again:
<quote>
The "System Libraries" of an executable work include every subunit such that (a) the identical subunit is normally included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the object code runs, or a compiler used to produce the object code, or an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the subunit (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves only to enable use of the work with that system component or compiler or interpreter, or to implement a widely used or standard interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form.
</unquote>
So whats wrong with this paragraph? It is gobbledygook. I am a lawyer and i wish to make certain points clear:
1. It is a foul canard to say that legalese is obscure and confusing. It need not be. Where the motives of the drafter of a law are pure, where he is interested in justice and fairness - the resulting law is clear, concise and understandable. As is most of the Constitution of India and the constitution of the US for that matter. The Indian Penal Code as orginally drafted by Macaulay is a model of clarity and conciseness - it is a work of literature.
2. When legalese becomes obscure is when amendments are made for ulterior motives - to cater to vested interests, to be unfair and unjust - then you need to BS to escape censure. Like exemptions to our income tax act, excise act - and exemptions anywhere (i'm sure jtd would provide enough examples here).
3. Good law is always reactive - a specific response to a specific problem. It is practical and usually clear and concise. Bad law is an attempt to generalise - anticipate every possible thing that may occur and provide a remedy. This almost always backfires.
4. Strangely enough the foss development cycle also follows this paradigm. Solve a problem facing you, code it, release it. Rather than one monolithical solution to all the worlds problems, lots of small solutions to small problems. Yes, think ahead - have some vision - but one step at a time. Or, in other words, think globally, act locally.
5. The authors of the gpl v3 are planning to solve all the world's problems in one go. Wont work. This is over-engineering. If you design one shoe to fit all - it fits no one. What we need is a set of licenses - specific to different types of programs and specific to different types of legal systems. Lots and lots of little little licenses. Maybe, in course of time, these will converge. Maybe not.
6. Frankly i feel that the ambition of the fsf to legislate for the planet is (i dont want to use the word - but you can guess what it is)
7. Commit early. Commit often. This is the foss way of doing things. And release when it is ready. Commit once in 15 years, anounce your schedule, set a release date, call for world wide conferences, waste money conducting those - is this vista? or is this gpl v3? Both have much in common - monopoly fighting freedom.
Prediction: gpl v3 is doomed to failure. Sure, fsf loyalists *may* opt for it. Those who have handed over their code to fsf will *have* to opt for it (think fsf is going to ask them for an opinion?), 50,000 members of sourceforge will click for it - but thinking people who are interested in writing and developing code and making a living out of it?
On Sunday 29 October 2006 13:36, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 29-Oct-06, at 12:58 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
and again in the same thread. No one has actually quoted any clause in gpl3 thats objectionable and the actual topic of the thread.
i quoted a full paragraph asking for an explanation - nothing has come so far
I replied. Quote Or providing hardware (reprogrammable), an intermediate layer (interpreter for eg) which is closed and designed by u, and gpl software which cannot run without the interpreter is not allowed. Your example in a previous mail is what is being referred to.
and here it is again:
<quote>
The "System Libraries" of an executable work include every subunit such that (a) the identical subunit is normally included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the object code runs, or a compiler used to produce the object code, or an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the subunit (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves only to enable use of the work with that system component or compiler or interpreter, or to implement a widely used or standard interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form.
</unquote>
VM sitting between machine hardware and gpl software requiring either vm and or special libs and or complier to compile which therefore will allow gpl software to run only on that machine+ vm combo
So whats wrong with this paragraph? It is gobbledygook. I am a lawyer and i wish to make certain points clear:
- It is a foul canard to say that legalese is obscure and
confusing. It need not be. Where the motives of the drafter of a law are pure, where he is interested in justice and fairness - the resulting law is clear, concise and understandable. As is most of the Constitution of India and the constitution of the US for that matter. The Indian Penal Code as orginally drafted by Macaulay is a model of clarity and conciseness - it is a work of literature.
- When legalese becomes obscure is when amendments are made for
ulterior motives - to cater to vested interests, to be unfair and unjust - then you need to BS to escape censure. Like exemptions to our income tax act, excise act - and exemptions anywhere (i'm sure jtd would provide enough examples here).
Dont get me started. Just had a spat in the customs over another mindless rule that actually rewards the crooks.
- Good law is always reactive - a specific response to a specific
problem.
Correct. In this case the extremely treacherous issue of hardware lockdown.
It is practical and usually clear and concise. Bad law is an attempt to generalise - anticipate every possible thing that may occur and provide a remedy. This almost always backfires.
So headover to gplv3 site and suggest simplifications.
- Strangely enough the foss development cycle also follows this
paradigm. Solve a problem facing you, code it, release it. Rather than one monolithical solution to all the worlds problems, lots of small solutions to small problems. Yes, think ahead - have some vision - but one step at a time. Or, in other words, think globally, act locally.
- The authors of the gpl v3 are planning to solve all the world's
problems in one go. Wont work. This is over-engineering. If you design one shoe to fit all - it fits no one. What we need is a set of licenses - specific to different types of programs and specific to different types of legal systems. Lots and lots of little little licenses. Maybe, in course of time, these will converge. Maybe not.
The simplicity of v2 stemmed from the fact that copyright law is well established and almost similiar in every country and country specific variations were still covered by the gpl (by fortunate circumstances than design). Patent law and drm are the exact opposite of the above. Infact DRM is meant specifically to usurp the rights provided by copyright law not by modyfying copyright law whch would uncover the real motive, but by mandating restrictions on hardware and software. V3 has to deal with this while being disadvantaged by not being a law maker but merely a copyright holder / advisor to copyright holders.
- Commit early. Commit often. This is the foss way of doing
things. And release when it is ready.
Exactly what the v3 committee is doing.
Commit once in 15 years, anounce your schedule, set a release date, call for world wide conferences, waste money conducting those - is this vista? or is this gpl v3?
That is because drm / software patents and it's impact have happened very recently (infact software patents until last year were being granted only in the US and until they were considerd for legeslation in the EU, India and other countries via WTO, v2 did not need any urgent change. Fortunately software patent provisions were narrowly defeated in the EU and India entirely due to the efforts of the FSF. But may get through in the EU and even India given Kapil Sibal's love for M$. By just sheer chance u have been given a window of opportunity.
Both have much in common - monopoly fighting freedom.
Read 2nd last sentence of abv para.
Prediction: gpl v3 is doomed to failure. Sure, fsf loyalists *may* opt for it. Those who have handed over their code to fsf will *have* to opt for it
Rubbish. If u said v2 or later v3 is applicable. If u said v2 (no later) no power on earth can change it to v3.
(think fsf is going to ask them for an opinion?),
They dont have to u have either granted permission or u havent. If u havent, unless u do change to V3 no body can. And by the way
50,000 members of sourceforge will click for it - but thinking people who are interested in writing and developing code and making a living out of it?
How does V3 change your ability to make a living?. In fact it ensures that u and ur customer will not be barred from using gpl software on crippled hardware.
On Friday 27 October 2006 17:44, Mrugesh Karnik wrote:
On Friday 27 October 2006 16:10, jtd wrote:
The gpl does not ask u to give up freedom. It tells u treat others exactly equally. .
GPL does take away your freedom to make proprietary software though.
Please read my mail. Freedom to exploit (prevent, injure, restrict, make difficult, allow misuse etc. etc.) is not freedom. It's exploitation.
Sometimes it can be necessary.
The exploiter always finds umpteen reasons of how important it is for him to be allowed exloitation, but not one reason to change his behaviour.
People always shout at NVIDIA or ATI for making closed drivers. But, say if you release the drivers and the specs, isn't it possible that someone else might copy your design or steal your ideas?
Welcome to the real world my friend. U think competitor sifts thru source code to get to your hardware design ?. He buys a couple of yor boards and triapses off to Taiwan where guys with etchers and steppers strip away your design layer by layer. then duplicate it. But this happens only for super hit products with long life cycles (read greater than 3 yrs) eg. game machines . The above companies products dont last 2 qrts. The real reason is that the designe are so full of bugs that it would qualify for recalls (if not lawsuits). One of the drivere writers admitted as much.
I heard (I said, 'heard', I don't have a definitive proof for this..) that KDE 4 people are not releasing too many 'visual' details on Plasma just yet just to prevent people from copying their ideas.
I could be wrong here. Please correct me if I am.
I don't agree with RMS when he says that GPL is defending freedom this way. I think it enforces freedom.
Nobody's asking u to use gpld software. Use any of the prop stuff. If u use gpl the licence terms requires u to not exploit or treat others differently. And V3 is trying to close the loop holes afforded by new tech developments - encryption at the cpu, VM like zen. Note that as an end user u can use any of these to protect your machine. And as a vendor u can use any of these subject to not preventing the user from removing or modifying any gpld stuff and the same being allowed to execute on the hardware in question.
On 27/10/06 16:10 +0530, jtd wrote: <snip>
That apart, the majority of coders prefer that their works are not misapropriated and hence prefer to gpl their work, which results in a one way migration of code from bsd to linux.
I know more people who put out code under the BSD license than the GPL.
<snip>
IBM happened.
why did it not happen to BSD? couldnt be the licence?
Customers were asking IBM for Linux. Keep in mind that the biggest driving factor for IBM was server sales. IBM was basically losing out to whitebox vendors on the basis of price alone. That was due to quite a bit of hype being garnered by Linux (and the fact that newer admins tended to be more familiar with Linux than *BSD). The fact that the BSDs took longer to support IDE was a significant factor in admins being more experienced with Linux than *BSD.
The license doesn't have _much_ to do with the populatiry of Linux.
<snip>
kernel or gcc, you need to give up some freedoms to make sure the essential freedoms are maintained no matter what. Otherwise you may
Misconception (or inapropriate words). Permission to treat others less equally than yourself is not freedom, it's exploitation. The gpl does not ask u to give up freedom. It tells u treat others exactly equally. .
-- Rgds JTD
On Saturday 28 October 2006 09:37, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
IBM happened.
why did it not happen to BSD? couldnt be the licence?
Customers were asking IBM for Linux. Keep in mind that the biggest driving factor for IBM was server sales. IBM was basically losing out to whitebox vendors on the basis of price alone. That was due to quite a bit of hype being garnered by Linux (and the fact that newer admins tended to be more familiar with Linux than *BSD).
Inspite of BSD being more complete and useable before linux was being written?. BSD 4.3 (afair) was available for $100 on 30 5.5" floppies ( and ran a whole lot of engineering software in 1988 (afair). (That was why i had written to them for a set of floppies. ) Logically it should have had far more traction than linux inspite of the legal hassles. And it would have made sense for IBM or anyone else to use BSD. But the problem was (imo) the licence. Others could take away your code, screw the market and sit back. Bad for u in the short term and the longterm.
Rgds JTD
On 28/10/06 11:35 +0530, jtd wrote: <snip>
Inspite of BSD being more complete and useable before linux was being written?. BSD 4.3 (afair) was available for $100 on 30 5.5" floppies ( and ran a whole lot of engineering software in 1988 (afair). (That
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ AT&T happened.
was why i had written to them for a set of floppies. ) Logically it should have had far more traction than linux inspite of the legal hassles. And it would have made sense for IBM or anyone
It did. But managers tend to take a dim view of lawsuits (unless the company involved is really, really big, like IBM or MSFT). AT&T vs BSD was Goliath vs David. Also, *BSD at that time did not run on IDE disks, which most home users had (and still have).
else to use BSD. But the problem was (imo) the licence. Others could take away your code, screw the market and sit back. Bad for u in the short term and the longterm.
If you pay IBM enough money, they will even support *BSD, and provide code.
Devdas Bhagat
On 28-Oct-06, at 11:35 AM, jtd wrote:
the legal hassles. And it would have made sense for IBM or anyone else to use BSD. But the problem was (imo) the licence.
if license is all that important, how come hurd is where it is?
2006/10/28, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
if license is all that important, how come hurd is where it is?
Because Linux is GPL. Hurd was started because GNU project wanted a Free kernel tocomplete the GNU Operating System. Once Linux is available under GPL that goal is alreaday achieved, we have GNU/Linux as a variant of complete GNU Operating System . Only motivation to go ahead with Hurd is technical, because it tries to address some limitations of Unix design (some design compromises which was taken when we didn't have much resources and made sense at that time are still continuing ). So that proves license is more important than technical merits.
Cheers Praveen
On 28/10/06 19:45 +0530, ???????????????????????????|Praveen wrote:
2006/10/28, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
if license is all that important, how come hurd is where it is?
Because Linux is GPL. Hurd was started because GNU project wanted a Free kernel tocomplete the GNU Operating System. Once Linux is available under GPL that goal is alreaday achieved, we have GNU/Linux as a variant of complete GNU Operating System . Only motivation to go
So why won't the FSF finish off the HURD and get a proper GNU OS out under the GPLv3? Because Linux is *NOT* a GNU project.
I promise, I will call it GNU/HURD.
Devdas Bhagat
2006/10/28, Devdas Bhagat devdas@dvb.homelinux.org:
So why won't the FSF finish off the HURD and get a proper GNU OS out under the GPLv3? Because Linux is *NOT* a GNU project.
We started GNU project to create a complete Free Operating System. We now have such a Free Operating System with important contribution from Linus Torvalds and we want to give credit to his work we call it GNU/Linux (Linux based GNU system, GNU plus Linux)
Once we had Linux available as Free Software our main aim is achieved (to give users freedom) and the reason why we didn't stop Hurd because it is designed to be better than Unix.But since we already achieved our main goal (a Free Operating System that respects its users and help them live an ethical life), the technical merits are only less important than Freedom. So we give less priority to Hurd and give more priority to fight new threats to users Freedom like DRM and Software patents ( so GPLv3 is more important to us than Hurd).
But if you are interested in the technical merits like flexibility for its users, more power to the administrators, security of the system and much more from the micro kernel design
( Read what Andrew Tanenbaum thinks about these http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/reliable-os/ )
Join with the GNU Hurd hackers and help us finish it.
You can try how it works. http://lily.nipl.net:4444/ you can get a shell account to the GNU system and see it for yourself what all cool new features it offers.
Or try a live CD from http://superunprivileged.org/
Or you can get some guidelines from http://hurd.in/bin/view/Hurd/HOWTOs
I promise, I will call it GNU/HURD.
Sure. We will call it just GNU :-)
Cheers Praveen A
On Saturday 28 October 2006 15:18, പ്രവീണ്|Praveen wrote:
Sure. We will call it just GNU :-)
You know, there are things which are practical and which are theoretical. Linus made something that was practical while GNU guys are trying to make something that is theoretical ;) Not that its unachievable but sometimes its more important to get your product out the door than make it a idol of perfection! :P
2006/10/29, Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com:
You know, there are things which are practical and which are theoretical.
You mean to say gcc is theoretical, glibs, emacs, gnome ... are theoretical?
Not that its
unachievable but sometimes its more important to get your product out the door than make it a idol of perfection! :P
Our priority was users' freedom and we are PRACTICAL, that is why we chose Linux for a kernel rather than waiting for Hurd to finish (perfection, may be not?). We did release the product in time and it is selling hot, though they have forgotten about our contribution don't want to talk about us when they have everything got working. If Linux was not there we would have gone ahead and finished Hurd or may be chosen BSD or something else? Do you think Linux would be what it is today without GNU projects contribution and pioneering efforts? There weren't many "Open Source" or "Scratch my itch" people before GNU/Linux got popular. GNU project was started in 1984 and Linux was released in 1992 and Open Source movement was started in 1998. The idealism got us what we have today.
"Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. `Don't bother us with politics', respond those who don't want to learn." -- Richard Stallman
Regards Praveen
On 28/10/06 21:26 +0530, ???????????????????????????|Praveen wrote: <snip>
There weren't many "Open Source" or "Scratch my itch" people before GNU/Linux got popular. GNU project was started in 1984 and Linux was
Well, the FSF was mostly started as a response to then "new" closed source culture. It wasn't idealism, as much as the fact that there was a bunch of people who wanted to do things differently from the closed source vendor and use whatever was available. There was the BSD camp, and the FSF. The BSD folks didn't write their own compiler because the output of gcc is not GPLed.
Devdas Bhagat
On Saturday 28 October 2006 15:56, പ്രവീണ്|Praveen wrote:
Ah...what has happened to the art of subtle hinting! :P
Linux kernel == something practical Hurd kernel == something theoretical
Hurd looks nice on paper and as even Tanenbaum agrees Microkernels are more of research thingies than anything else!
Yes, I am in the Linus camp. Microkernels are PITA to get working correctly. They look attractive thats all!
Now PLEASE dont start a Linux vs Hurd or Monolithic ( or Hybrid ) kernels vs Microkernels!
On 28-Oct-06, at 9:26 PM, പ്രവീണ്|Praveen wrote:
GNU/Linux got popular
it never got popular - 99% of the world have never heard of it - and couldnt care less about it
Hello All,
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/linux/
Please read the article above and come to your own conclusions about who came first, the egg or the chicken.
Please end the thread now.
Regards,
Rony. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On 28-Oct-06, at 10:14 PM, Rony wrote:
Please end the thread now.
why?
On 28-Oct-06, at 8:48 PM, പ്രവീണ്|Praveen wrote:
We started GNU project to create a complete Free Operating System. We now have such a Free Operating System with important contribution from Linus Torvalds
w00t - linus did do something, although his contribution (he merely wrote the kernel and successfuly guided its development over all these years) is negligible compared to the power of the gpl license and protective mantel of the fsf
On 10/28/06, Devdas Bhagat devdas@dvb.homelinux.org wrote:
I promise, I will call it GNU/HURD.
It should be GNU HURD (no / in between). Since Linux is not a project of GNU, its called GNU/Linux.
Regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 28 October 2006 08:19 PM, Devdas Bhagat cobbled together some glyphs to say:
if license is all that important, how come hurd is where it is?
Because Linux is GPL. Hurd was started because GNU project wanted a Free kernel tocomplete the GNU Operating System. Once Linux is available under GPL that goal is alreaday achieved, we have GNU/Linux as a variant of complete GNU Operating System . Only motivation to go
So why won't the FSF finish off the HURD and get a proper GNU OS out under the GPLv3? Because Linux is *NOT* a GNU project.
I promise, I will call it GNU/HURD.
Once HURD is finished, the OS will be called only GNU.
Regards, BG
- -- Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings http://www.ubuntu.com/
1024D/86361B74 BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74
On Saturday 28 October 2006 19:12, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 28-Oct-06, at 11:35 AM, jtd wrote:
the legal hassles. And it would have made sense for IBM or anyone else to use BSD. But the problem was (imo) the licence.
if license is all that important, how come hurd is where it is?
microkernel architecture. Which had to be designed from scratch. Unlike linux which had bsd and unix to fallback on.
Hi Folks,
Let us play a Free Software Game or should we say a Free Software Drama?
Here is the list of main actors with their roles and properties!
1. GNU and FSF People and their fans -
These are GODs themselves with "halo" and all. Their goal is to liberate the soul and give freedom to "user" (another actor in the game/play). The latest weapon in their arsenal is GPLv3. They think that the previous weapon they had (GPLv2) has some flaws and other licenses like - *BSD, NLP, Creative Commons are useless.
2. Developers (Software and Content creators - including artists, writers etc.) -
These are the (misguided?) angles. They create software and content for various reasons like - scratch the etch, technical excellence, fame, money and occasionally freedom. These people think that GPLv3 is going too far and can actually thwart the progress of Free and Open Source Software.
3. Users (mere Mortals - I belong this category :-)) -
These are the people who want usable, quality software / content which is reasonably priced (preferably gratis ;-)). They are not very much bothered about freedom and source code as it mostly irrelevant for them. The FSF GODs and Devils and Demons (described below) are competing for their souls. :-)
4. Hardware Developers (mostly creators of devices and general purpose computers and peripherals) -
These are the people whose main purpose in life is to make money. If they have to sleep with Devils and Demons they will not be too shy. However, they know the importance of the users (consumers) and will try to make sure that their users are not antagonised.
5. Proprietary Software Vendors / Large Corporations / Multinationals -
These are the Devils and Demons who are out there to suck the souls and freedom of the users and make large amount money by exploiting the users. Their main weapons are so called illegal tactics, market monopoly, huge amount of money at their disposal, finest marketing brains, DRM, copy rights and patents and some possibly useful software / content.
How to play the game / drama?
You assume one of the roles described above and put forward your dialog / move.
We also examine various licenses in this context and see if the GPLv3 is justified in being such a Complex and Draconian(?) in nature.
So are you ready? :-) Then let us play! With regards,
2006/10/28, Dinesh Shah dineshah@gmail.com:
- Users (mere Mortals - I belong this category :-)) -
These are the people who want usable, quality software / content which is reasonably priced (preferably gratis ;-)). They are not very much bothered about freedom and source code as it mostly irrelevant for them. The FSF GODs and Devils and Demons (described below) are competing for their souls. :-)
"Freedom is important to me because I get the benefits of being able to change the software and distribute the improvements because there are many brilliant programmers out there in my community who improves the software from time to time and are happy to see the members of this community using their improvements. I get to use all new functionalities, less bugs and new contents like themes even though I cannot code a single line"
On 28-Oct-06, at 8:19 PM, പ്രവീണ്|Praveen wrote:
"Freedom is important to me because I get the benefits of being able to change the software and distribute the improvements because there are many brilliant programmers out there in my community who improves the software from time to time and are happy to see the members of this community using their improvements. I get to use all new functionalities, less bugs and new contents like themes even though I cannot code a single line"
if freedom is important you should go for the freest licence of all - pure bsd and not the most restrictive - gpl
2006/10/29, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
if freedom is important you should go for the freest licence of all - pure bsd and not the most restrictive - gpl
The restrictions GPL require is to protect freedom of all users and not just the first layer (those who get the code directly from the main developers) who can then make it proprietary.
On Sunday 29 October 2006 12:46, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 28-Oct-06, at 8:19 PM, പ്രവീണ്|Praveen wrote:
"Freedom is important to me because I get the benefits of being
if freedom is important you should go for the freest licence of all
- pure bsd and not the most restrictive - gpl
Popular misconception. A third party confered (or rather not removed) right to exploit is not freedom. Reminds one of the MAD theory of detente. Only more warped. I have created this catapult for knocking down mangoes. I known it can kill people. But then other people can kill u. So go ahead and use it and dont be an idiot. Which to some read as kill everyone who might even think of killing u at the earliest. U know the guys who took the bsd stack no.
2006/10/28, Dinesh Shah dineshah@gmail.com:
- GNU and FSF People and their fans -
These are GODs themselves with "halo" and all. Their goal is to liberate the soul and give freedom to "user" (another actor in the game/play). The latest weapon in their arsenal is GPLv3. They think that the previous weapon they had (GPLv2) has some flaws and other licenses like - *BSD, NLP, Creative Commons are useless.
"You wouldn't want to work on code for a proprietary company unless you are a BSD developer"
"There are a lot of different licenses under the creative commons family some of them impose restrictions on Freedom which we don't approve"
"We created a Free Operating System so that all users live an ethical life in Freedom, so you don't have to break law to help your best friend with the cool new graphics program which you like very much"
"We hacked the copyright law to give away the some of "our rights" which would subjugate you and called it copyleft so that you could live in freedom"
"We don't want anyone to steal our code and subjugate users so we protect our code and fight for freedom when people want to use our code and subjugate their users using new technics like tivoisation"
On Friday 27 October 2006 08:19, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 26-Oct-06, at 7:46 PM, jtd wrote:
You cant have a simple licence.
you can - if the license is evolved in the foss way
But that is precisely what the FSF is doing. They have a proper feedback and discussion mechanism in place. It's just that people choose to bury their heads in the sand.
- as all the
other licenses are evolving, and as far as i can see, getting more and more like each other.
But missing the central point of preventing hardware lockdown.
Hi,
On 10/24/06, Dinesh Shah dineshah@gmail.com wrote:
Software radical Richard Stallman helped build the Linux revolution. Now he threatens to tear it apart.
A good rebuttal to the Forbes.com article, http://www.linuxtechdaily.com/2006/10/stallman-gplv3-attack-by-forbes-is-rid...
-Toufeeq
-
Abhishek Daga -
Anurag -
Baishampayan Ghose -
Devdas Bhagat -
Dileep M. Kumar -
Dinesh Joshi -
Dinesh Shah -
Harsh Busa -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
krishnakant Mane -
Mrugesh Karnik -
Philip Tellis -
Pradeepto Bhattacharya -
Rony -
Rony Bill
-
Sudhir Gandotra -
Toufeeq Hussain -
vatsal desai -
പ്രവീണ്|Praveen