Real men don't attack straw men

[Rico Secada]

> > I see you are being your usual friendly self ;-}.
>
> Yes, and you are being the usual slimy hypocritical asshole.

I really fail to see, how a response like this serves OpenBSD or any
other good purpose at all!

If Richard Stallman is a hypocrite his answers and statements will show
this by themselves, and nobody needs to be told. By stating it like
this you only make yourself look stupid and childish, even if you are
right!

I used to respect you a lot Theo but that respect has been lost because
of this ugly behaviour. Ofcourse you don't care about that, but I really
think you are hurting BSD, and not just OpenBSD, by confirming what a
lot of people has said so many times - OpenBSD has an unfriendly
atmosphere.

> You are a slime who changes his position as he needs.
>
> You may have had value ten years ago, but people will see that you
> don't anymore.

Richard Stallman has done one thing right during all of this, and that
is to keep responding in a friendly way, explaining his views. One can
agree or not, but calling someone a slime, just because you don't
agree, or just because you think he is bad, really makes no sense what
so ever! It just make you look bad!

[Travers Buda-2]

* Richard Stallman <rms@...> [2007-12-14 15:49:54]:

>
> I generally don't raise the issue, and I did not raise it this time.
> I did not start this discussion.  I posted on this list because people
> were making inaccurate statements about my views.
>

I noticed that the subject of this thread is "straw men." I'm
familiar with the fallacy.

"I am unhappy with the various distributions of BSD, because all of
them include, in their installation systems, the ports system, they
all include some non-free programs.  And as a result I can't recommend
any of them."

I believe your clairification to this was that you don't recommend
OpenBSD because it _suggests_ non-free software.  And that people
should not actually be prevented from installing non-free software
(is this latter clairification the straw man argument in question?)

However, when you say things like this:

> I've been trying for a couple of years to get going a modified version                                                                                              
> of Firefox that won't offer to install any non-free plug-ins, but we                                                                                                
> don't have enough people to make this work very well.  If you would                                                                                                  
> like to help, please let me know.  It is an important project.    

It means you are trying to force people!

Stallman, you are so steeped in hypocrisy, you aught to submit a
picture of yourself to various dictionaries.

P.S.  It can't be that difficult to remove the "add plugin" feature
in mozilla firefox.  Do you not code anymore?

--
Travers Buda

[Benjamin M. A'Lee-2]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:47:40PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote:

> Richard Stallman wrote:
>>     You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author
>> consent     period!
>>
>> That BSD license gives permission for almost any kind of use,
>> including distributing the code under other licenses.  The only
>> requirement is not to remove the BSD license statement itself.
> [snip]
>
> Yes, I grant you the right to use my software in any application you may
> write and make money with, but I *DO NOT* grant you the right to modify my
> license in any ways. See bellow if I would publish this:

If you use a BSD licence, you are allowing your code to be included in a
proprietary application under a proprietary licence, and there is no
requirement for your parts of the source to be distributed under the BSD
licence by the proprietary developers.

If you use a BSD licence, you are allowing your code to be included in a
free application under the GNU General Public Licence, and there is no
requirement for your parts of the source to be distributed under the BSD
licence by the GPL-software developers.

Now, I must admit that the second part doesn't seem quite right to me,
and I believe that the GPL-software developers should release any
changes to your sections of the code under your licence. However, why is
it perfectly okay for proprietary software developers to behave in this
way and not for free software developers?

The BSD licence doesn't allow the changing of the licence, but it
doesn't prevent extra restrictions being added to it. The extra
restrictions may be a proprietary EULA, or they may be the GPL's
requirement for source distribution. There's no difference, from the
point of view of the BSD licence; it's all just additional restrictions.

        Ben

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

[BOFH-5]

do firmware writers really use gcc?  I always thought they use something else.



On 12/14/07, Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...> wrote:

> > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:19:06 -0600, "Ken Ismert" <kismert@...>
> > said:
> >
> > > So, I ask you respectfully, Richard: what is your intent in
> > > making your original comments, and starting this thread?
> > > That would be the deciding factor for me.
> >
> > Self aggrandizement has been RMS's only agenda for a long time.
> > His 15 minutes are up and he has become irrelevant. He refuses
> > to accept this. This crap just makes him more goggleable.
>
> When was the last time he wrote some code?
>
> 1995?  Or is that being generous?
>
> He takes money that people donated to the FSF, and he flies all over
> the world talking bullshit and rhetoric and being a hypocrite.
>
> > BTW, gcc is crap and I pray everyday someone will come up
> > with a BSD licensed replacement (there was ipf and now there
> > isn't. Wish the same effort would happen for gcc) and I much
> > prefer vi to emacs.
>
> We fight all the time against microcode and non-free firmware.
>
> Guess what compiler most of that microcode and firmware is compiled
> with?
>
>

--
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk
"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity."
-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
"Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or
internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks
factory where smoking on the job is permitted."  -- Gene Spafford
learn french:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related

[Benjamin M. A'Lee-2]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:23:22PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:

> > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:19:06 -0600, "Ken Ismert" <kismert@...>
> > said:
> >
> > > So, I ask you respectfully, Richard: what is your intent in
> > > making your original comments, and starting this thread?
> > > That would be the deciding factor for me.
> >
> > Self aggrandizement has been RMS's only agenda for a long time.
> > His 15 minutes are up and he has become irrelevant. He refuses
> > to accept this. This crap just makes him more goggleable.
>
> When was the last time he wrote some code?
>
> 1995?  Or is that being generous?

There are commits from rms@... in the Emacs CVS repository from
earlier this year.

        Ben

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

[Paul de Weerd]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:49:51PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
|     | I don't recommend Torvalds' version of Linux.  The versions of Linux
|     | in Ututo and gNewSense, which I recommend, do not have the blobs.
|
|     Interesting, these linux distributions.
|
| They are GNU/Linux distributions.  (See
| http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.)

So, they are distributions using a linux kernel. Your attempt at
having me call it something other than what I would normally call it
fails, even after I have read the gnu-linux "faq" you've referred me
to (before you did so, I might add).

|    They seem to be pretty new,
|     what did you recommend before these came onto the scene ? None of
|     these seemed to exist 8 years ago.
|
| Nothing!  For many years there was no system distribution I
| could recommend to the public, and that is what I said.

You did not look very far then. From your comments it would seem that
OpenBSD would have been a perfect match for you, right up until the
moment that they added the first port of non-free software. The ports
tree is relatively new in OpenBSD, some years ago users did not have
the option of installing ports or the binary packages they produce. At
that time there were license issues within OpenBSD, but those have
always been considered equal to "normal" programming bugs : issues
that need fixing (and most (if not all) have been fixed since).

|     You are, however, being asked to explain how you combine these views
|     with the support for several non-free OS'es within the copyleft
|     software packages of emacs and gcc.
|
| Yes, after one person brought this up, many others repeated it (as if
| sheer volume of namecalling meant something).  My message about this
| issue will go out in the same batch as this message.

I've read it, and I find your response quite unsatisfactory. Let me
please quote from another e-mail I've sent on this topic :

> Again, in his words :
>
>         Including a program by name in the ports system does
>         suggest using that program. It grants the program a
>         sort of legitimacy, and that is what I am opposed to.
>
> Providing binaries for non-free operating systems suggests using those
> binaries *on those non-free OS'es*, does it not ? It grants those
> non-free OS'es a sort of legitimacy, does it not ? RMS states that
> granting legitimacy to non-free software is what he is opposed to, yet
> it is exactly what he does by providing support for non-free OS'es in
> his copyleft software.
>
> Please, explain to us how this is not true. Your argument of it being
> at the other extreme ethical standpoint does not hold, since Richard
> spoke of granting legitimacy to non-free software, not about a
> direction to move from non-free to free or vice versa.

In that same e-mail I've said "A little pragmatism goes a long way", a
view I take on many occasions. It seems from your reply that you do
the same. Richard, could you please explain :

        o Are you opposed to granting non-free software legitimacy ?
        o Do you consider that writing support for non-free software
          grants that non-free software legitimacy ?

I do believe that the first is true : yes, you are opposed to granting
non-free software legitimacy. I believe that you've said this (in
other words) on several occasions so far.

If you agree that writing support for non-free software grants that
non-free software legitimacy then you are a hypocrite because this is
what "you" do with both GCC and Emacs, yet you say you are opposed to
granting this legitimacy. So if you agree, your actions belie your
stated moral.

Since you support non-free software with GCC and Emacs, I will take
that to mean that you do not consider writing support for non-free
software grants that non-free software legitimacy. So you write
support for non-free software but that doesn't grant it legitimacy.
The OpenBSD ports-people write support for non-free software (in the
OpenBSD portstree) but you now say that *this* support grants the
non-free software legitimacy.

It seems that only when *you* write support for non-free software, you
consider it to not grant that non-free software legitimacy.

Please, Richard, point out the logical fallacy I'm making here. I sure
as hell can't see it. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but it sure
seems like you're going out of your way to tell OpenBSD developers
they are "wrong" in your opinion, because ... well, because of what ?
Because they use the wrong license ? Because their software is free
and not copyleft ? Because you feel treated 'unfriendly' ? Because
they use a harsh tone of voice in their mails ? We can only guess.

Perhaps we need to take a look at what 'legitimacy' means. "OK to use"
seems a fair description in this case. You consider it not "OK to use"
non-free software as installed from the portstree. You seem to
consider "OK to use" non-free operating systems, simply because "they
are already there". Your reasoning seems to be : "Well, the user was
already using non-free software, so it's OK if he continues to do so".
Yet, we just established that you consider it *not* "OK to use"
non-free software.

This is just one attempt at describing what 'legitimacy' means.
However, in all cases I have tried, it seems that we end up with a
situation similar to the above, you don't want the user to use
non-free software, yet it is not a problem if he's already doing that.
No need to try stop him, or try to persuade or otherwise convince him
that he should use free software. That's a big hassle, people don't
just swap operating systems. Just because it's a big deal, you don't
care anymore ? Don't want to hurt the cause by scaring away the user
before he gets sold on the argument ?

My argument is that your support for non-free operating systems in
Emacs and GCC (and possibly other packages) grants those non-free
operating systems legitimacy. You are saying : It is OK to use these
non-free operating systems. Which will get translated by 'the masses'
into : "Use Windows, Richard Stallman gives you software for it, he
actively supports and endorses Windows with Emacs and GCC !" (just as
your endorsement of OpenBSD would mean your endorsement of the use of
some non-free pieces of software in the ports tree).

| One person asked why it was "hard" for me to answer this question.
| It wasn't hard for me to respond, but it would have been impossible
| to respond quickly.  I have to sleep, you know.  And since I review
| my messages before actually sending them, I don't send mail quickly.

That is perfectly valid. You have given your answer yet it raises more
questions. Others may ask similar questions in the same time frame.

| It usually takes 12 to 24 hours from when a message is sent to when I
| send a response.  Plenty of opportunity--for those who seek one--to
| claim that my silence proves I have no comeback.

Again, perfectly valid. I'm not behind my pc 24/7 either and I will
respond to my mail when I have time to do so. It doesn't change the
fact that I'm still very curious about your responses to the above
points, and I will patiently await your reply to my e-mail.

Cheers,

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
                 http://www.weirdnet.nl/                 

[Benjamin M. A'Lee-2]

(Apologies for two replies to the same message.)

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:23:22PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:

> > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:19:06 -0600, "Ken Ismert" <kismert@...>
> > BTW, gcc is crap and I pray everyday someone will come up
> > with a BSD licensed replacement (there was ipf and now there
> > isn't. Wish the same effort would happen for gcc) and I much
> > prefer vi to emacs.
>
> We fight all the time against microcode and non-free firmware.
>
> Guess what compiler most of that microcode and firmware is compiled
> with?

So you're blaming the compiler (or its authors, etc.) for the uses to
which it's put? Or are you saying that the authors of GCC should only
allow it to be used for "good" and not "evil"?

        Ben

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

[Theo de Raadt]

> > > I see you are being your usual friendly self ;-}.
> >
> > Yes, and you are being the usual slimy hypocritical asshole.
>
> I really fail to see, how a response like this serves OpenBSD or any
> other good purpose at all!

It serves our purposes to make it clear to peoepl that Richard's mission
to make his "approval" seem valid... is false and hypocritical.

If you don't like that, go find something else to do.

> If Richard Stallman is a hypocrite his answers and statements will show
> this by themselves, and nobody needs to be told. By stating it like
> this you only make yourself look stupid and childish, even if you are
> right!

Richard spoke on a show, and Richard said false and uneducated things,
and then Richard came to our list.

It always helps if hypocrites show that they are hypocrites, but it
also helps to remind people so, over and over.

> I used to respect you a lot Theo but that respect has been lost because
> of this ugly behaviour.

And I'll shed a tear over that, Rico, whoever you are.

> Ofcourse you don't care about that, but I really
> think you are hurting BSD,

No.  I am not hurting BSD.  Richard is hurting BSD, by trying to act
as if his hypocritical approval amounts to anything.

> and not just OpenBSD, by confirming what a
> lot of people has said so many times - OpenBSD has an unfriendly
> atmosphere.

That is irrelevant.  And why would I care?

> > You are a slime who changes his position as he needs.
> >
> > You may have had value ten years ago, but people will see that you
> > don't anymore.
>
> Richard Stallman has done one thing right during all of this, and that
> is to keep

             ... changing the rules, in any way that lets his project
get off the hook, while making others who he does not like look like
they are breaking the rules of what it 'takes to be a free project'.

That's his goal.  That's all he has done for 10 years.  He's written
no code.  He has just pontificated and attacked people who actually
write code.  He sits on the largest pile of money donated for free
software, and he squanders it wastefully.

EVERYTHING code related that people thinks comes from the FSF today,
comes to us without Richard Stallman actually working on it.  Richard
is just another random long haired hypocritical mouthpiece, who will
be known after his death as the original author of the C compiler
which is used by more of the closed-source embedded industry than any
other C compiler.

[Rod Whitworth-3]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:49:07 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

>There is a big practical difference between making a free system
>suggest a non-free package, and making a free package run on a
>non-free system.  We treat the two issues differently because they are
>different.
>
>People already know about non-free systems such as Windows, so it is
>unlikely that the mention of them in a free package will tell them
>about a system and they will then switch to it.  Also, switching
>operating systems is a big deal.  People are unlikely to switch to a
>non-free operating system merely because a free program runs on it.
>
>Thus, the risk of leading people to use a non-free system by making a
>free program run on it is small.  However, it is our practice when
>doing this to remind people that the non-free system is unethical and
>bad for your freedom.  If the pages about the Emacs binaries for Windows
>don't say this, I'll make sure to add it.
>

I was an IBM OS/2 instructor at the time when IBM could accurately
boast that OS/2 was "A better windows than Windows". All the work to
achieve that was seen as an investment in the future of OS/2 because
people could use OS/2 and keep all their old windows apps running.

The result was that the writers of applications mostly never targeted
OS/2 and so there was never a real reason to switch to it.

The result was that OS/2 virtually ceased to exist, whilst windows
thrived. The applications ran on windows - there was no need to use
another platform.

And you honestly believe that a few obscure applications ported to
windows from gnuland will convert windows users to your "one true way"
OS which doesn't even exist?
I don't believe you would, logically, but then I've seen very little
logic in any of your arguments and a lot of disengenuous crap.

 "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
- George Santayana, in his famous treatise: Reason in Common Sense.

I came to OpenBSD from Linux ( after the lingering death of OS/2 I
became a Linux Instructor at IBM) mostly due to the continuous hassles
with crap code. I'm afraid I prefer to disregard the "Many eyes make
all bugs shallow" mantra because there are not enough eyes that know
anything. So OpenBSD's insistence on code quality and its rigourous
adherence to its standards does it for me.

So does it matter that you (to quote the recording of you that started
this thread)said "I am unhappy with the various distributions of BSD,
because all of them include, in their installation systems, the ports
system, they all include some non-free programs. And as a result I
can't recommend any of them." ?

No.

Since that we have discovered that you cannot recommend any other OS
either. Well, maybe two if you overlook some incovenient truths....

So if you cannot finish your own OS, when will we see the RMS gnu/linux
distro, lily-white and virginal?  Version 0.0 codename Titanic
Struggle?

Thanks for all the laughs. Time for beddie-byes old feller.



Rod/
/earth: write failed, file system is full
cp: /earth/creatures: No space left on device

[Tony Aberenthy]

Rico Secada wrote:
>
> I used to respect you a lot Theo but that respect has been
> lost because
> of this ugly behaviour. Ofcourse you don't care about that,
> but I really
> think you are hurting BSD, and not just OpenBSD, by confirming what a
> lot of people has said so many times - OpenBSD has an unfriendly
> atmosphere.
>
Hmmmmmpf
I have always found OpenBSD to be actually quite friendly.
This is to someone who often top posts out of Microsoft Outlook.
Actually everybody seems to lean over backwards to be as friendly
and helpful as possible.

However, they do seem to have a low tolerance for blatant and persistent
stupidity.

[Tony Aberenthy]

Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote:
> There are commits from rms@... in the Emacs CVS repository from
> earlier this year.
code by RMS or clearance to commit old stuff from xemacs developers?

[Theo de Raadt]

> > Yes, I grant you the right to use my software in any application you may
> > write and make money with, but I *DO NOT* grant you the right to modify my
> > license in any ways. See bellow if I would publish this:
>
> If you use a BSD licence, you are allowing your code to be included in a
> proprietary application under a proprietary licence, and there is no
> requirement for your parts of the source to be distributed under the BSD
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> licence by the proprietary developers.

When a vendor distributes parts of our source code -- as source code,
the license is extremely clear.  Let me quote it, and mark it up a
bit:

 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 * are met:
   ^^^^^^^
 * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is that too hard to read?

> If you use a BSD licence, you are allowing your code to be included in a
> free application under the GNU General Public Licence, and there is no
> requirement for your parts of the source to be distributed under the BSD
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> licence by the GPL-software developers.

So some people want to include our source, and redistribute it.  The
same applies:

 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 * are met:
   ^^^^^^^
 * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Again, is that too hard to read?

> Now, I must admit that the second part doesn't seem quite right to me,
> and I believe that the GPL-software developers should release any
> changes to your sections of the code under your licence.

Not should.  MUST.  Read the license text again.  Even if it was not
stated in the licence term, it is a Copyright right which the author
retains unless he surrenders it.

> However, why is
> it perfectly okay for proprietary software developers to behave in this
> way and not for free software developers?

I assume you are talking about proprietary software developers
releasing our code as BINARY, instead of as SOURCE code.  Let me show
you the next term of the license:

 * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
 *    documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

However, proprietary software developers who release our code AS
SOURCE CODE still must do this:

 * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
 *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

--- same as everyone else, whether they be the FSF or whoever.  Yes,
there have been cases of the FSF themselves getting very close to
toeing this line in the past.  Like in Bison.

> The BSD licence doesn't allow the changing of the licence,

None of the licenses we are talking about allow "changing the
license".

> but it
> doesn't prevent extra restrictions being added to it.

That's bullshit.  Read it again.  The BSD license gives the recipient
some abilities, but retains others.  One of those is that the source
code must retain the license.  Other restrictions... why do we care?
Our code is still alive.

HP and Cisco has included OpenSSH -- with changes they did not give
back we are sure -- in all their router products, and none of you
would argue that the world is not a richer place because of that.  As
a result of our giving nature, the internet at large is much more
secure now.

> The extra
> restrictions may be a proprietary EULA, or they may be the GPL's
> requirement for source distribution. There's no difference, from the
> point of view of the BSD licence; it's all just additional restrictions.

Our license is extremely clear as to what is permitted and what is
not.

Richard is amongst those who wants to muddle the situation.  When
things are clear, Richard can't play with words and practice his
hypocrisy.

[BOFH-5]

On Dec 14, 2007 7:11 PM, Chris Zakelj <c.zakelj@...> wrote:
> How, pray tell, would purchasing and using this software reduce my
> freedom, given that not only does it allow me to make money doing
> something I find fun, but also enjoy summer weekends in the sun
> watchings kids have fun, too?

Come now, there are serious questions about whether Richards line in
the sand is in the correct place, but this question is silly.  He's
not talking about your personal freedom, he's talking about end user's
freedom.  GPL is about the end user's freedom.  BSD is about the
developer's freedom.  The two does not have to meet.

This is why there's such a big deal over OOXML right now.


--
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk
"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity."
-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
"Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or
internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks
factory where smoking on the job is permitted."  -- Gene Spafford
learn french:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related

[Theo de Raadt]

> (Apologies for two replies to the same message.)
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:23:22PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:19:06 -0600, "Ken Ismert" <kismert@...>
> > > BTW, gcc is crap and I pray everyday someone will come up
> > > with a BSD licensed replacement (there was ipf and now there
> > > isn't. Wish the same effort would happen for gcc) and I much
> > > prefer vi to emacs.
> >
> > We fight all the time against microcode and non-free firmware.
> >
> > Guess what compiler most of that microcode and firmware is compiled
> > with?
>
> So you're blaming the compiler (or its authors, etc.) for the uses to
> which it's put? Or are you saying that the authors of GCC should only
> allow it to be used for "good" and not "evil"?

So you're blaming the ports scaffold (or its authors, etc.) for the
uses to which it's put? Or are you saying that the ports scaffold
should only allow it to be used for "good" and not "evil"?

[BOFH-5]

On Dec 14, 2007 8:51 PM, Benjamin M. A'Lee <bma+lists@...> wrote:
> If you use a BSD licence, you are allowing your code to be included in a
> proprietary application under a proprietary licence, and there is no
> requirement for your parts of the source to be distributed under the BSD
> licence by the proprietary developers.
>
> If you use a BSD licence, you are allowing your code to be included in a
> free application under the GNU General Public Licence, and there is no
> requirement for your parts of the source to be distributed under the BSD
> licence by the GPL-software developers.

Theo actually made a very good point on this a couple of months back,
during the whole "lets relicense reyk's code" fiasco.  He showed how
Microsoft remained compliant with the license when it re-releases bsd
code, but how GPL'ing the code violated both the spirit *AND* the
letter of the law.

The OpenBSD folks really do understand licensing, and put forth a lot
of energy in making sure their stuff is fully compliant to licensing
(witness the removal of ipf, the creation of openssh, etc).


--
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk
"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity."
-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
"Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or
internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks
factory where smoking on the job is permitted."  -- Gene Spafford
learn french:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related

[Travers Buda-2]

* Richard Stallman <rms@...> [2007-12-12 17:52:29]:

>     In the end, the only way to prevent users from running non GPL
>     software
>
> Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
> running non-GPL-covered software?  Not I.  I frequently run OpenSSH,
> whose license is not the GNU GPL, and is incompatible with the GPL (if
> my memory serves).  It is free software, so why not use it?
>
> Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
> running non-free software?  Not I.  I think that software is
> unethical, and I refuse to install it, or suggest it to anyone.  But I
> have not proposed that systems actually block its installation.
>
> If no one is in favor, why argue against?
>

The people who proscribe to your philosophy do not need the gNewSense
distribution.  They have enough sense of their own.  And then there
is your proposed mozilla firefox modification.  The people who
proscribe to your philosophy do not need this.  They make the choice
themselves.  What you (and some others) are doing is deliberately
impeding people from installing software of their choosing.  When
the user is especially ignorant of computers, they are being
especially forced, because they don't have the werewithal to act
otherwise.  

The user should have control of the computer, not the other way
around.  (Sound familiar?) This is where I bring up your anti-DRM
campaign and finish with an accusation of hypocrisy.

You're pulling a fast one over on them.  That's not a good way to
create good will.  What would probably get more of the results that
you desire is for the distribution to offer software that is non-free
and free.  When the user tries to install the non-free, the
distribution should inform them of the alternative, suggest it, and
provide resources for their education, rather than flat-out denying
them.  When the adobe flash plugin is not avaliable, for instance,
they'll just add some repository to their ports system, realize it
works better, and be none the wiser about the free software movement.

What's so bad if they run the non-free software and then later
realize that they should have gone GPL instead?  Let alone what's
so bad about normal users, who do not code, using non GPL software.
They can't participate in the GPL.  People using Microsoft Windows
does not disturb me in the least.  I get the sense that it disturbs
you.  _That's_ disturbing.  People who get upset about other people's
actions that only affect the individual historically have been
nutjob religious fundamentalists.

Are you afraid that people are just going to go after features
rather than free software once they've been tempted?  so you must
keep them ignorant.  Plus, how does using GPL software educate
people about the GPL philosophy?  Nobody can deny that a VAST
majority of the "F(/)OSS" community does not understand the difference
between free and open source software, let alone what GPL-free-as-in-speech
(for lack of a better term) is all about.  All they know is
free-as-in-beer.  Hell, even most of the big linux players don't
"get it."

--
Travers Buda

[fuzzyping]

On Dec 14, 2007, at 9:54 PM, Tony Abernethy wrote:

> Rico Secada wrote:
>>
>> I used to respect you a lot Theo but that respect has been
>> lost because
>> of this ugly behaviour. Ofcourse you don't care about that,
>> but I really
>> think you are hurting BSD, and not just OpenBSD, by confirming what a
>> lot of people has said so many times - OpenBSD has an unfriendly
>> atmosphere.
>>
> Hmmmmmpf
> I have always found OpenBSD to be actually quite friendly.
> This is to someone who often top posts out of Microsoft Outlook.
> Actually everybody seems to lean over backwards to be as friendly
> and helpful as possible.
>
> However, they do seem to have a low tolerance for blatant and  
> persistent
> stupidity.

Or outright lies and hypocrisy.

---
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net

[Marti Martinez]

On Dec 14, 2007 1:49 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
> The concept of relicensing does not imply changing or adding code, and
> the legality of relicensing doesn't depend on changing or adding code.
> However, I would urge people to relicense only if they make very big
> changes.  If they make lesser changes, it is better to contribute them
> to the original project, and if they make no changes, relicensing is
> just silly (in most cases).

You admit that "relicensing" is not changing the code; i.e., the
software. The BSD license ALLOWS you to modify the software. It does
NOT allow you to modify anything else, including the license(s)
applied to that software. That right is never granted by the BSD
license. If you believe the GPL to be worth anything, and I believe
that you do, then you have to afford the same level of respect to the
other licenses that people use.

Respectfully,
Marti Martinez

--
Systems Programmer, Principal
Electrical & Computer Engineering
The University of Arizona
marti@...

[Benjamin M. A'Lee-2]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:06:35PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > Yes, I grant you the right to use my software in any application you
may
> > > write and make money with, but I *DO NOT* grant you the right to modify
my

> > > license in any ways. See bellow if I would publish this:
> >
> > If you use a BSD licence, you are allowing your code to be included in a
> > proprietary application under a proprietary licence, and there is no
> > requirement for your parts of the source to be distributed under the BSD
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > licence by the proprietary developers.
>
> When a vendor distributes parts of our source code -- as source code,
> the license is extremely clear.  Let me quote it, and mark it up a
> bit:
>
>  * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>  * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
>                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  * are met:
>    ^^^^^^^
>  * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Is that too hard to read?

I'm not suggesting that the licence of the BSD code should be violated,
but that it's possible for it to become covered by an additional licence
- an application, under either a proprietary EULA or the GPL, that
includes some code under a BSD licence. The BSD licence does not cease
to apply, but the non-BSD developer is not required to make *their changes*
to the BSD code available under the BSD licence. A proprietary developer
can modify it and keep the changes to itself. A GPL developer can modify
it and release the changes under the GPL, though any unmodified code
would still, of course, be under the BSD licence.

> > Now, I must admit that the second part doesn't seem quite right to me,
> > and I believe that the GPL-software developers should release any
> > changes to your sections of the code under your licence.
>
> Not should.  MUST.  Read the license text again.  Even if it was not
> stated in the licence term, it is a Copyright right which the author
> retains unless he surrenders it.

They're not required to make their changes available. They're required
to acknowledge your copyright, but your licence does not require
proprietary developers to release changes at all and it does not require
GPL developers to release changes under your choice of licence.

> > The BSD licence doesn't allow the changing of the licence,
>
> None of the licenses we are talking about allow "changing the
> license".
>
> > but it
> > doesn't prevent extra restrictions being added to it.
>
> That's bullshit.  Read it again.  The BSD license gives the recipient
> some abilities, but retains others.  One of those is that the source
> code must retain the license.  Other restrictions... why do we care?
> Our code is still alive.
>
> HP and Cisco has included OpenSSH -- with changes they did not give
> back we are sure -- in all their router products, and none of you
> would argue that the world is not a richer place because of that.  As
> a result of our giving nature, the internet at large is much more
> secure now.

This is my point exactly: why should a GPL developer be forced to give
their *changes* back? They're still required to acknowledge your
copyright, but if HP and Cisco are permitted to keep changes to
themselves, why shouldn't the GNU project or the Linux kernel do so (or,
rather, release their changes to the code under a licence that isn't
useful to OpenBSD).

Please note that I don't think it's at all fair for a free software
project to behave like that, and modifications to OpenBSD code should be
given back to OpenBSD, but if a proprietary company doesn't have to give
changes back to OpenBSD in a way that's useful to OpenBSD, why should
GNU or Linux be required to do so?

        Ben

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

[Theo de Raadt]

> On Dec 14, 2007 1:49 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
> > The concept of relicensing does not imply changing or adding code, and
> > the legality of relicensing doesn't depend on changing or adding code.
> > However, I would urge people to relicense only if they make very big
> > changes.  If they make lesser changes, it is better to contribute them
> > to the original project, and if they make no changes, relicensing is
> > just silly (in most cases).
>
> You admit that "relicensing" is not changing the code; i.e., the
> software. The BSD license ALLOWS you to modify the software. It does
> NOT allow you to modify anything else, including the license(s)
> applied to that software. That right is never granted by the BSD
> license. If you believe the GPL to be worth anything, and I believe
> that you do, then you have to afford the same level of respect to the
> other licenses that people use.

Marti, I agree with you.

Richard Stallman does not even how Copyright Law works.

He's been hanging out with American lawyers too much.