Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Oct 2006 20:44 UTC, submitted by jasper
Red Hat Red Hat has an NDA cooperation with Marvell for the wireless chips that they want to use for the One Laptop per Child-project. The idea of this is that both parties think Marvell will be more open in the future, but this is absolutely not the path they should walk, according to OpenBSD's Theo de Raadt. "I am getting really tired of 'open source' people who work against the open source community. Our little group can probably take credit for having 'opened up' more wireless devices than the rest of the community, and therefore we feel we have a better grasp of the damage OLPC has done here."
Order by: Score:
Ack
by Oliver on Thu 5th Oct 2006 21:02 UTC
Oliver
Member since:
2006-07-15

OpenBSD is the one and only real free and open operating system. There is no "religion" like in GPL and there is no "war" between distros of any kind. Just openess without any drawback! Should be common in opensource, but the opposite is true.

Edited 2006-10-05 21:03

Reply Score: 5

RE: Ack
by LB06 on Thu 5th Oct 2006 21:57 UTC in reply to "Ack"
LB06 Member since:
2005-07-06

Your argumentation does not hold ground. The one license that actually makes sure software remains open, is GPL. If you want to call it viral, that's fine, I understand the reasoning behind it. But then you should also be aware that Theo is even more viral than the GPL, or at least he wants to be.

And that "war" you are refering to, you know how people tend to call it? Ironically most people would call it a free market. And the GNU/GPL/Linux people are communists?

I'm not saying that Theo isn't right. Binary blobs are a problem, but please stop throwing non-relevant and/or incorrect out of your windows.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Ack
by binarycrusader on Thu 5th Oct 2006 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Ack"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

Your argumentation does not hold ground. The one license that actually makes sure software remains open, is GPL.

Sorry, but that's factually incorrect. It would be correct, however, to say that "licenses that contain at least the same conditions as the GPL make sure software remains open."

Reply Score: 3

v RE[3]: Ack
by Moulinneuf on Fri 6th Oct 2006 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ack"
RE[4]: Ack
by binarycrusader on Fri 6th Oct 2006 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ack"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

There are none. Hence only the GPL make sure the software remains Open.

That's wrong, look at the Affero license and others. The GPL is not the only license with the same requirements, in fact I could go write one now with the same exact requirements and yet another one would exist and it still wouldn't be the GPL.

You really need to research your licenses...

Reply Score: 1

v RE[5]: Ack
by Moulinneuf on Fri 6th Oct 2006 18:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ack"
RE[2]: Ack
by Janizary on Thu 5th Oct 2006 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Ack"
Janizary Member since:
2006-03-12

Are you high son? Damned near any licence listed on the OSI's site makes sure the software remains open, hell, even the public domain, which is to say no licence, the granting of all rights absolutely, makes sure that the software remains open.

People making a closed source derivative of something does not remove the original software, how hard is that to understand? So many GPL fanbois seem to completely ignore this.

The GPL is one of many licences which force all derivative software of the original to be open, it isn't even alone in what you meant to say.

Edited 2006-10-05 23:12

Reply Score: 4

v RE[3]: Ack
by Moulinneuf on Fri 6th Oct 2006 15:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ack"
RE[4]: Ack
by mikesum32 on Fri 6th Oct 2006 16:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ack"
mikesum32 Member since:
2005-10-22

@Moulinneuf
Public domain is not a license !

Th Mona Lisa is public domain, Mozart and Bach are public domain, Shakespeare is public domain.

Public domain means it belongs to everyone and is free to use for any purpose because no one owns it, and no one can licence it.

BSD is not shared source, it's open. There is just a difference of philosophies between GPL and BSD licences.

GPL original is free forever, modified also free.
BSD original is free forever, modified might be free or might not be, could even go GPL.



Name callins is uncalled fore

Reply Score: 3

v RE[5]: Ack
by Moulinneuf on Fri 6th Oct 2006 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ack"
RE[4]: Ack
by Janizary on Fri 6th Oct 2006 16:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ack"
Janizary Member since:
2006-03-12

Well f--k me, damn is a swear word now? What in the hell?!? Hell is too? Well, I'll be a damned. Shit, you need to lighten up there buddy. Last I checked foul language, even by your prudish standards, didn't invalidate a statement.

Perhaps you need to read what the public domain is, it is the end of all claims on a property. When something enters the public domain it is no longer owned by anyone, all rights are granted to anyone who may wish to make use of it. This isn't a licence, this is the end of licensability - noone can restrict that stuff any more.

You really must be on some sort of narcotic Moulinneuf, since you are unable to understand English, open means open, it doesn't mean perpetually open, it just means open. It's a simple word, perhaps you should look it up before talking about how things that are able to be closed aren't open. I don't call my door a shared door, I say it's an open door.

Their is no need to be so religiously dense Moulinneuf, if you stopped drinking the magick water then maybe you would be able to grasp how imbecilic it appears when you go around trying to make new definitions for words.

Edited 2006-10-06 16:31

Reply Score: 3

v RE[5]: Ack
by Moulinneuf on Fri 6th Oct 2006 19:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ack"
RE[6]: Ack
by Janizary on Fri 6th Oct 2006 20:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ack"
Janizary Member since:
2006-03-12

So, what does that make this jar of mayo? You mean that even if I open it up, it's closed? Man, when did this change in the language happen? I guess I will go close my mayo and spread it on my sandwich.

Moulinneuf, you're just posting as much as possible so that your rating goes up from .25, aren't you? Cause it seems all you're saying is stuff people think is offensive or offensively stupid.

Maybe my fabulation is reality my good man, perhaps if you were to fabulate as I do, you would understand how insane you seem. You're either delusional or deliberately attempting to provoke anyone and everyone around you, because nothing you say makes sense.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[7]: Ack
by Moulinneuf on Fri 6th Oct 2006 21:39 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ack"
RE[2]: Ack
by Oliver on Fri 6th Oct 2006 08:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Ack"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

At first, mark the "" ;)

Secondly, refering to a free market and ignoring reality isn't useful too. Is Theo viral? Take BSD, use the code, do what you want - what's viral with these things? It's real freedom. It isn't "freedom" according to some peoples opinion, it's freedom to choose your own way - most people think they are doing the right thing, history will show.

>but please stop throwing non-relevant and/or incorrect out of your windows.

It's very important to see it right, most Linux distros do not care about any freedom. The "war" I mean, isn't the variety of Linux distros, it's the ill attempt to "fight" against others instead of working together.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ack
by diegocg on Thu 5th Oct 2006 21:58 UTC in reply to "Ack"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

"OpenBSD is the one and only real free and open operating system"

"There is no "religion" like in GPL "


Are you sure there's "no religion"?. I swear I just saw one somewhere...

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Ack
by Oliver on Fri 6th Oct 2006 08:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Ack"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

If it is "religion" to just don't care about common mumbo jumbo, yes there is something.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Ack
by Moulinneuf on Fri 6th Oct 2006 14:39 UTC in reply to "Ack"
Well
by Redeeman on Thu 5th Oct 2006 21:13 UTC
Redeeman
Member since:
2006-03-23

openbsd does however distribute binary only firmware images, which IMO still is wrong.

nonetheless, theo is absolutely right.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Well
by Archite on Thu 5th Oct 2006 18:25 UTC in reply to "Well"
Archite Member since:
2006-01-14

have you even used OpenBSD? Which binary firmware does it "ship"? There are ports available.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Well
by ddpbsd on Fri 6th Oct 2006 14:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Well"
ddpbsd Member since:
2006-04-29

Which binary firmware does it "ship"? There are ports available.

I can't find a list off hand, but there are a few firmwares that are included in the tree.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Well
by freecris on Fri 6th Oct 2006 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Well"
freecris Member since:
2006-10-06

I can't find a list off hand, but there are a few firmwares that are included in the tree.

definitively NOT.

Got fun:
http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Well
by ddpbsd on Fri 6th Oct 2006 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Well"
ddpbsd Member since:
2006-04-29

From reading the following comments I'm lead to believe there are firmware files included with OpenBSD.

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=115972630820403&w=2

Our tree now contains firmware licenses from many other vendors

and If we included this firmware in OpenBSD, we would have to put it in our "source tree". We do not put binary files into our CVS repository (for various technical reasons, but also to avoid these traps). Even if a vendor gives us a binary firmware with the right license, we turn it into a .h file and later on use a program to re-format it to a binary firmware file. Most people would largely consider a .h file to
be a "source form". Intel prohibits this for no good reason.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Well
by Bink on Thu 5th Oct 2006 23:26 UTC in reply to "Well"
Bink Member since:
2006-02-19

OpenBSD ships with firmware images because the manufacturers are selling “useless” hardware—without the firmware, your hardware does nothing/”is broken.” In the recent past, manufactures would include the firmware on the hardware on “50 cent” flash memory, but, to save some pennies, this is no longer done—so the driver needs to get the firmware from somewhere to do anything with your hardware.

So, are you now happy that OpenBSD ships WITH the firmware—so you can just pop your firmware-less hardware in and start “playing?” Or would you rather download the firmware using your non-wireless NIC first and then setup your wireless NIC?

The manufacturers were distributing the firmware with the hardware before—now one of the few simple things OpenBSD asks for is to be allowed to distribute the firmware because the manufacturers of your hardware have stopped doing it.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Well
by Janizary on Thu 5th Oct 2006 23:32 UTC in reply to "Well"
Janizary Member since:
2006-03-12

OpenBSD doesn't distribute them, it redistributes them and those binary only firmwares are the same firmwares anyone uses, it is run entirely on the hardware, so it isn't based on just Linux 2.6.123 on i686, or whatever specific platform. A firmware doesn't have the problems inherent in a binary blob.

Whatever your moral scale may be, OpenBSD doesn't care, it works based on what matters, an uncontrolled chunk of code in the kernel is wrong, on the hardware is entirely normal - almost all hardware ships with it.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Well
by phoenix on Fri 6th Oct 2006 18:47 UTC in reply to "Well"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Firmware runs on the card, it does not run in the host OS. Firmware is that little bit of software that used to be stuck permanently on the card via an EPROM chip. Nowadays, it's cheaper to have a little firmware downloader that loads the firmware onto the chip rather than burn it into an EPROM.

As firmware *never* runs in the host OS, what's the problem with a binary firmware object shipped with an OS?

These are not drivers, these are not binary blobs, these are the little bits on the hardware that enables you to communicate with the hardware.

Reply Score: 2

Thank you Theo
by maxx_730 on Thu 5th Oct 2006 21:16 UTC
maxx_730
Member since:
2005-12-14

Leave it to Theo to protect our freedom! Yes, he may not bring it nicely sometimes but the OSS community owes him a lot of credit for being so non-conformist in his ideals.

Reply Score: 5

Ack, yourself, Oliver
by JoeBuck on Thu 5th Oct 2006 21:17 UTC
JoeBuck
Member since:
2006-01-11

On this issue, Theo and RMS are in complete agreement and both of them oppose what Red Hat has done. Theo agrees with RMS on what others call a "religious" argument (that is, that fs/os developers shouldn't accept NDAs).

I agree with Theo that the OLPC project made a bad mistake when they didn't insist on open specs. They had bargaining power (as Theo says, millions of these will be bought and sold).

Reply Score: 5

RE: Ack, yourself, Oliver
by Moulinneuf on Fri 6th Oct 2006 15:59 UTC in reply to "Ack, yourself, Oliver"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

"what Red Hat has done."

1) One Laptop Per Child, a non-profit started by Negroponte and other Media Lab faculty, to extend Internet access in developing countries.

2) OLPC is funded by a number of sponsor organizations. These include AMD, Brightstar Corporation, eBay, Google, Marvell, News Corporation, SES Global, Nortel Networks, and Red Hat. Each company has donated two million dollars.

-------

Reply Score: 0

firmware distribution
by mindpixel on Thu 5th Oct 2006 21:25 UTC
mindpixel
Member since:
2006-05-01

there is nothing wrong in distributing firmwares as they run on the hardware components and not on the main cpu touching the kernel or the machine's memory. Huge difference ofthen overlooked by many.

Reply Score: 5

RE: firmware distribution
by Redeeman on Thu 5th Oct 2006 21:51 UTC
Redeeman
Member since:
2006-03-23

i know that, firmware running on the device doesent make a difference if its simply something at runtime the kernel uploads, if it were permanently on the device it wouldnt be free either, however i believe its a mistake distributing it as part of the free OS. It could even lead to people thinking the vendors of devices where firmware is distributed is very nice, since they think its free because it works out of the box.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: firmware distribution
by Soulbender on Fri 6th Oct 2006 03:20 UTC in reply to "RE: firmware distribution"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"i believe its a mistake distributing it as part of the free OS."

And pray tell, how do you use a web browser to download the firmware from the manufacturer when you cant use the NIC since, uh, you dont have the firmware?

"It could even lead to people thinking the vendors of devices where firmware is distributed is very nice, since they think its free because it works out of the box."

It is free. You're not seriously saying that all hw manufacturers should release all their firmware as open source, are you?

Reply Score: 3

Right!
by diegocg on Thu 5th Oct 2006 16:53 UTC
diegocg
Member since:
2005-07-08

Red Hat just got permission to write a 100% opensource driver, one that you can use to port to openbsd!

This is undobtely the same than 100% propietary drivers!

And let's not speak about intel - the one hardware company that it's writing 100% free drivers for most of their products, but that does not release SPECS!


Now seriously: Can't Theo use his mouth to critize only companies that do _not_ release opensource drivers NEITHER specs instead? In my not so humble opinion, releasing 100% free driver without specs is certainly great. f--k, I _WHISH_ all hardware companies released 100% free drivers without specs. That day, I'll find sense to Theo's words but meanwhile open drivers are a REALLY HUGE STEP forward. Apparently Theo doesn't relizes how importanting are the open Intel video drivers and how critical are they going to be to the progress of open source graphical subsystems in the open source world.

Theo, _stop_ offending companies that allow to write open source drivers with an NDA. Those companies are the _exception_. It's not that the opensource world should try to ask to do even more efforts, it's just not fair. With your attitude you're *damaging*, not helping, the opensource world.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Right!
by twenex on Thu 5th Oct 2006 22:38 UTC in reply to "Right!"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I'm confused. How can you write an open-source driver with an NDA? The source should clearly show details of the implementation the NDA was meant to keep private, non?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Right!
by diegocg on Thu 5th Oct 2006 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Right!"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

Yes, the source code does indeed reveal many of the things that the NDA spec tells you. But certainly it's _not_ a spec, it doesn't reveals everything.

In my book:

- closed drivers: bad
- open drivers, no spec: good
- open drivers and/or specs: great

Just don't ask me why Theo spend his time arguing that "open drivers, no spec" are somehow a openness crime. It's not the best situation possible but certainly they're great news for the open source community. Except for Theo, that is. I hope this is not related to the fact that the open driver redhat is writing is for linux and not for openbsd...

Edited 2006-10-05 22:56

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Right!
by Marcellus on Fri 6th Oct 2006 06:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Right!"
Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

- open drivers, no spec: good

It's not "good", only "less bad".

With closed drivers you have to assume that the people who wrote the driver knows what to do.
With open driver, but no spec, you have to assume that the people who wrote the open driver actually knows what they are doing with their hidden specs.

I'd rank it as:
-closed drivers: bad
-open drivers, closed spec: less bad
-open drivers, reverse engineered: decent
-open drivers, open spec: good

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Right!
by Tor85 on Fri 6th Oct 2006 07:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Right!"
Tor85 Member since:
2006-07-04

I wouldn`t be so sure, that it can be ported evrywhere. If Red-hat write driver it will be probably under GPL license. That`h mean, that main *BSD systems won`t port it into theire kernel.
Well I`m pro-GPL person, but I`d like to see evrything work in *BSD systems either.
Ofcourse I can be wrong and maybe Red-hat will do driver in BSD-like license. No idea.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Right!
by ddpbsd on Fri 6th Oct 2006 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Right!"
ddpbsd Member since:
2006-04-29

Just don't ask me why Theo spend his time arguing that "open drivers, no spec" are somehow a openness crime. It's not the best situation possible but certainly they're great news for the open source community. Except for Theo, that is. I hope this is not related to the fact that the open driver redhat is writing is for linux and not for openbsd...

And when Intel stops supporting their older products where do we go? To developers without documentation.

What about when a driver doesn't work on sparc64 (or has major issues)? Where do we go? Developers without documentation.

That doesn't sound "good" to me.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[3]: Right!
by Mitarai on Thu 5th Oct 2006 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Right!"
RE[4]: Right!
by twenex on Fri 6th Oct 2006 00:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Right!"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Nothing I've said is any indication that I'm not in favour of open source drivers. It isn't any more complicated than proprietary software, actually.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Right!
by Soulbender on Fri 6th Oct 2006 03:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Right!"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"The source should clearly show details of the implementation the NDA was meant to keep private, non?"

It's perfectly possible to obfuscate code to the point that it's virtually impossible to understand without having the specs.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Right!
by twenex on Fri 6th Oct 2006 14:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Right!"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

True enough.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Right!
by Morty on Fri 6th Oct 2006 08:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Right!"
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

The source should clearly show details of the implementation the NDA was meant to keep private, non?

No, not neccesary, lots of implementation details will not have any relevance on the driver sourcode. It's more a convinience thing. It's hard and expensive work to go through an internal specification and design documentation, to remove the information desired or requred to keep private. And you still have to include enouch information to make the specifiaction usefull.

In many cases it's plain simpler and cheaper to make anyone needing the info sign an NDA, and give access to the internal specification and design documentation.

Reply Score: 2

Network
by xultz on Fri 6th Oct 2006 01:46 UTC
xultz
Member since:
2006-05-09

The pourpose of the Marvell is to develop a new firmware which would make a better network with less power, because the firmware make the nodes of the network, and not the CPU.
So, what is better? To keep the freedom philosophy, or make a much better product? Its a matter of self opinion. Red Hat and OLPC has his own.

Reply Score: 1

find it funny
by mikesum32 on Fri 6th Oct 2006 05:11 UTC
mikesum32
Member since:
2005-10-22

Does anyone else find it funny that Theo pushes more for f/oss than Linus himself ?

Reply Score: 3

RE: find it funny
by adapt on Fri 6th Oct 2006 00:16 UTC in reply to "find it funny"
adapt Member since:
2005-07-06

no, linus is just a hacker. he doesnt care about politics. he said it may times.

Reply Score: 4

RE: find it funny
by h3rman on Fri 6th Oct 2006 07:52 UTC in reply to "find it funny"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

>> Does anyone else find it funny that Theo pushes more for f/oss than Linus himself ?

"Linus himself" as in "Christ Himself"?
Linus and Theo are both "just" very gifted developers of open source software, Linus does not impersonate f/oss in any way, beyond the Linux kernel. Efforts of both are greatly appreciated, noone is indispensible, but Theo cares a lot more for the principles that benefit Linus too - which he maybe should realise a little more than he does. Part of the principle is simply, blobs should preferably stay out of the kernel at all times, and NDAs are so... nineteenth century.

Doesn't mean I don't think the GPL is better for open source than the BSD license, but that's a different issue.

Reply Score: 4

RE: find it funny
by vikramsharma on Fri 6th Oct 2006 09:01 UTC in reply to "find it funny"
vikramsharma Member since:
2005-07-06

Lets not turn this into a celebrity deathmatch. The should be considered more important than the person delivering the message. It does not matter if Theo promotes F/OSS more than Linus or not and there is no way of knowing it Only if the opensource community stopped with this infighting, probably things would happen at a faster pace. It's more like "Taking one step forward and two steps backward". IMHO Linux world can learn a lot from the bsd world and so can bsd world learn from Linux world.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: find it funny
by mikesum32 on Fri 6th Oct 2006 10:40 UTC in reply to "find it funny"
mikesum32 Member since:
2005-10-22

no, linus is just a hacker. he doesnt care about politics. he said it may times.

No he's already involved. Just look at GPLv3, he complains about it, but doesn't want to be involved in the process officially. You can't have it both ways.

When RMS and Theo speak, I tend to listen.

They are looking it for me, for software freedom, even if they go about it differently. Linus is doing what he does, making linux. You'd think that the biggest success of the GPL would want to help software freedom, but he has tried to distance himself from the FSF.

To qoute Linus

The fact is, the people who whine over this have been totally blind to the fact that Linux is not "Free Software". It never has been. The original source license for Linux was never the GPLv2, it was my own "you have to give back source code".

In other words, Linux has always been "Open Source", rather than the crazy "Free Software" thing. People who complain about that never seem to understand that others can agree with the GPLv2, without actually agreeing with the idiotic philosophies of the FSF.


Linus is not christ.

He does well with Linux, but when I think of software and freedom I trust Theo and RMS.

As for DRM, it's only purpose is to stop me, the purchaser from using what I've bought.

There is already a law to stop me from burning 10,000 dvds of Gili and selling them. It's called copyright law, as in the right to copy. That is another argument though.

To qoute Theo on open hardware specs

We are not your customers. YOU ARE OUR CUSTOMER. Our driver sells your chips.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: find it funny
by ronaldst on Fri 6th Oct 2006 12:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: find it funny"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

@mikesum32

As for DRM, it's only purpose is to stop me, the purchaser from using what I've bought.

Nope, it's to stop you from abusing the ones who made the content. You nor anyone else have the right to hurt others.


Quote: We are not your customers. YOU ARE OUR CUSTOMER. Our driver sells your chips.

LOL.

"Open Source" devs: We are not your customers. YOU ARE OUR CUSTOMER. Our driver sells your chips.

Chip makers: you, "Open Source" devs, need our stuff (specs.) But we don't need you. We already have (drivers) what you can offer us. You are not our customers because we can't deliver hardware on the terms you want.

Then total silence.

0.000000001% lost sale. Chip makers makes it up by new customers gained from competitors by sales of new Windows and Linux servers.

PS: Here's what I always found weird about OSS preachers. Instead of behaving in a childish manner, protesting rudely and other non productive ways, why not advocate OSS-friendly vendors instead. Is it that hard?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: find it funny
by mikesum32 on Fri 6th Oct 2006 14:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: find it funny"
mikesum32 Member since:
2005-10-22

Nope, it's to stop you from abusing the ones who made the content. You nor anyone else have the right to hurt others.

No, that's what copyright law is for.

DRM is about control, and vendor lock-in. You're at the mercy of whomever makes the DRM. They might go under, or maybe they'll decide you shouldn't have rights to the song, software or movie.

Chip makers: you, "Open Source" devs, need our stuff (specs.) But we don't need you. We already have (drivers) what you can offer us. You are not our customers because we can't deliver hardware on the terms you want.


Open specs mean that anyone that wants to make thier own driver can.

Shouldn't I have the right to use hardware I bought on whatever OS I choose ?


Maybe Mr. Chip Maker doesn't want to make drivers for QNX or Haiku or SkyOS.

Well now the community can.

Instead of behaving in a childish manner, protesting rudely and other non productive ways, why not advocate OSS-friendly vendors instead. Is it that hard?

Not protesting rudely ! Advocating OSS friendly vendors is well and good, but that's like preaching to the choir. Why not help (or embarrass) less OSS friendly companies until they change thier minds ?

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: find it funny
by vikramsharma on Fri 6th Oct 2006 15:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: find it funny"
vikramsharma Member since:
2005-07-06

The chip makers or nay hardware makers are here to sell. Choosing platforms to support is plain stupid of these hardware companies, without proper drivers the hardware is pretty much useless. I use Nvidia card on my Linux box because Nvidia has better drivers on Linux. Until and unless these hardware manufacturing companies realize that they are losing customers because of lack of driver these companies are not going to do anything about it. Why should it matter to Broadcomm, Nvidia, ATI, etc what OS is choose to run, ,their job is to sell their hardware and release optimized drivers. These greedy hardware (I should say moronic)companies neither write the drivers nor do they give out the hardware specs so some one else can do the job that was intended for the hardware manufacturers (rather than reverse engineered drivers). This not about OSS, this is about being professional, hardware companies choosing sides is absolutely non-sensical.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: find it funny
by sbergman27 on Fri 6th Oct 2006 16:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: find it funny"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""To qoute Linus"""

Linus has also said that he observes that most of the "discussion" on GPLv3 is driven by people with interests which are purely political. i.e. people who don't actually have any code to put under any license at all, let alone the one they are promoting for their own political reasons.

Can you give us a link to code which you have published under GPLv2, which will be colicensed under GPLv3 when it is released?

Or are you just talking out of your ass like most of us do? (Yes, I include myself in that group.)

I still feel that the very best thing that RMS and the FSF could do is to cut themselves loose from Linux.

RMS has often stated that the Linux kernel was simply the final piece that fell into place to make *his* operating system a reality.

But there is obviously a philosophical gap between RMS's views and the Linux Kernel Developer's views. He is obviously riding on the coat tails of Linux because it is convenient for him to do so, and not because he shares their values. One could almost call him a parasite.

Why doesn't he just finish up The Hurd and go on? It's not as though The Hurd has not benefitted from 16 years of development. It is not as though The Hurd doesn't have a year's head start on the Linux kernel.

Why can't RMS and the FSF come up with an OS of their own after 22+ years?

Could it possibly be because they are driven by motivations which are fundamentally political and not technical?

Edited 2006-10-06 16:20

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: find it funny
by mikesum32 on Fri 6th Oct 2006 17:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: find it funny"
mikesum32 Member since:
2005-10-22

But there is obviously a philosophical gap between RMS's views and the Linux Kernel Developer's views. He is obviously riding on the coat tails of Linux because it is convenient for him to do so, and not because he shares their values. One could almost call him a parasite.

One could say the Linus is riding on the coat tails of RMS by using the GNU tools and GNU Compiler in Linux, or using GPL, but not advocating for it.

When people think of Linux usually they don't think of just the kernel, but of a large chunk of GNU tools.

But this is not the place for calling people names or to say who is riding whose coat tails.

What's really important is who is looking out for me.


Why can't RMS and the FSF come up with an OS of their own after 22+ years?

I'm sure he'll do that when Linus makes his own compiler and replaces all the GNU tools, I mean he's had 22 years :-)

Linus has also said that he observes that most of the "discussion" on GPLv3 is driven by people with interests which are purely political. i.e. people who don't actually have any code to put under any license at all, let alone the one they are promoting for their own political reasons.

That's like saying because I believe in freedom of speech, but don't go on protest marches, my opinion is invalid.

Could it possibly be because they are driven by motivations which are fundamentally political and not technical?

A software license is a political thing. It's all about what is free and how it's free.

Going to bed now

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: find it funny
by sbergman27 on Fri 6th Oct 2006 18:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: find it funny"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

*But there is obviously a philosophical gap between RMS's views and the Linux Kernel Developer's views. He is obviously riding on the coat tails of Linux because it is convenient for him to do so, and not because he shares their values. One could almost call him a parasite.*

One could say the Linus is riding on the coat tails of RMS by using the GNU tools and GNU Compiler in Linux, or using GPL, but not advocating for it.

"""


No. Richard is the one claiming the moral high ground. But he cuts corners like anyone else. He simply refuses to admit to it.

Linus has no problems saying that GCC is the best compiler available to his project, though its compile speed and level of optimization are hideously bad compared to Microsoft's compilers. (Don't hit me! I hate that fact!)

If you do a formal source audit of your systems, as we did, you will find that FSF copyrighted code makes up a surprisingly small minority of total system code, despite what RMS likes to claim.

RMS is, unfortunately, a "has been". More than anyone, he reminds me of the fictional character "Norma Desmond" of "Sunset Boulevard" fame, who couldn't get over the fact that the time of her heyday had passed.

If he doen't like that fact he can get out and code some more. And maybe finish up GNU/OS one of these years.

Edited 2006-10-06 18:12

Reply Score: 1

v Theo isn't good for OSS
by Kwitschibo on Fri 6th Oct 2006 10:31 UTC
To Theo
by DevL on Fri 6th Oct 2006 10:35 UTC
DevL
Member since:
2005-07-06

WORD!

Reply Score: 1

v Good Grief
by dhardison on Fri 6th Oct 2006 15:44 UTC
RE: Good Grief
by ddpbsd on Fri 6th Oct 2006 15:53 UTC in reply to "Good Grief"
ddpbsd Member since:
2006-04-29

Except being nice failed previously.

Reply Score: 3

pecisk
Member since:
2005-10-20

http://www.gettysfamily.org/wordpress/?p=27

Let's read side of OLPC developer, who knows how all things goes. Not some well known flamer.

Reply Score: 3