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."
E-mail Print r 17   63 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 169100
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Ack
by Moulinneuf on Fri 6th Oct 2006 15:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ack"
Moulinneuf
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Are you high son?"

Its not because your an alcoolic and a druggy that others are like you when they make a reply.

"Damned near any licence listed on the OSI's"

Swearing too , that dont help your case at all.

"Licence listed on the OSI's site makes sure the software remains open,"

The OSI marketing group only certifies the license that are Open sometime , under certain circumstance. It does not have for certification , the requirement , that the license make sure the software source code remains Open. Otherwise the list would drop of by 80%.

"hell,"

Swearing again ...

"even the public domain,"

Is the worst , most of the code there is switched in the derivative to something closed.

" which is to say no licence,"

No , public domain is a license.

" the granting of all rights absolutely, makes sure that the software remains open. "

I am sorry to burst your trip on drug and alcool but , public domains grants no rights. It certainly dont remain Open at all time.

"People making a closed source derivative of something does not remove the original software"

In Real Open Source there is no derivative. If a derivative is created , it means it was not Open Source , but shared source.

"how hard is that to understand? "

Apparently its extremly hard , you still dont get it. After hundred of time someone explained it clearly and truthfully to you.

"So many GPL fanbois seem to completely ignore this."

No the GPL developper/user/community made sure that this would not happen with there license of choice.

The problem is that it dont allow druggy , alcoolic , liar , thief , traitor and coward such as yourself to take it and do what YOU normally do with all other license :

Profit from it and give absolutely nothing back at all or just what you feel is of no consequence to your income and control.

"The GPL is one of many licences"

No , your implying it is , dont make it so in reality.

"which force all derivative software of the original to be open"

Its worst then that , for you that is , it consider everything originals.

"it isn't even alone in what you meant to say."

I dont know about him but I am 100% sure that no others are/is :

* Copyleft : is a play on the word copyright it give freedom where copyright is used to remove them.

* Copycenter : Take it down to the copy center and make as many copies as you want. ( BSD where the first to have this , they just forget they did invent it in latter versions ).

* CopyFree : You dont have to ask permission to do anything with it.

* Contriback : you have to make your modification and derivative availaible to all who ask or make the offer of giving access to it for a fee at any time in the futur to anyone who ask.

* SupportFree : Anyone can give support on it legally.

ETC ...

Its not what you got by bribing , small useles modification to pass and political commercial marketing motivations that make the difference , its what it dont have , its not a chery picking either , you have to have them all.

Why do you discuss the GPL all the time ? A license that work stands on its own merit and people choose to use it under its terms.

Most people promote the GPL because they tried your
BSD 's and its worst and dont work , the code get closed and some people control it at the expanse of al others.

Its about time you realized that is a Free Software world by the Free Software community. Open Source is just marketing , its crap on its own.

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[4]: Ack
by mikesum32 on Fri 6th Oct 2006 16:13 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 Parent Score: 3

v RE[5]: Ack
by Moulinneuf on Fri 6th Oct 2006 18:25 in reply to "RE[4]: Ack"
RE[4]: Ack
by Janizary on Fri 6th Oct 2006 16:18 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 Parent Score: 3

v RE[5]: Ack
by Moulinneuf on Fri 6th Oct 2006 19:15 in reply to "RE[4]: Ack"