Real men don't attack straw men

[Theo de Raadt]

> >  * 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.

So?

Who are you?  Why do you care?  We -- who wrote the code -- don't
care.  In fact, we are glad that companies can do that.  It lets
companies like Cisco and HP and IBM and Sun put code like OpenSSH into
their products, instead of writing crappy versions by themselves that
end up hitting bugtraq every 2nd month, and the resultant damage to
the Internet that would ensure.

We prefer a high quality world, over all other things.

That is our choice.

> A proprietary developer
> can modify it and keep the changes to itself.

A proprietary developer can take our code, and modify it, and
ship/sell product that has high quality parts designed by smart people
in it, even if that proprietary developer himself is the weakest cog.
That is a better world, than forcing that developer into a position he
finds unworkable, and which often results in him choosing to build
embedded devices using bad models like .... WinCE (where his code is
of course perhaps using Emacs, and compiled using GCC).

> 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.

Yes, the code still has to be under the BSD license.  Perhaps you are
smarter than Richard Stallman, who believes that code can be
"relicenced" if "enough substantial changes are made".

> > > 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.

That's right.  That is our choice.  We're pretty brave, wouldn't you
agree?  We give, expecting nothing except to be known and recognized
for our contribution.

But our bravery killed telnet and rlogin.

What has Richard Stallman's bravery killed?  Not much.  Proprietary
code without source is very much live, and making a killing in the
business market still.  His infleunce in the Linux world is
non-existance, since it is a bunch of companies, making a killing
adding proprietary components to only mostly free code.  What has his
radicalism gained?  People ignore him.  He's on some little minor
operating system's mailing list picking a fight, because all the other
projects totally ignore him, because they are all run like solid
American businesses.

And the GPLv3?  He was the puppet that sold it, but the text was
mostly written by a bunch of lawyers who will take care of it after
Richard dies.  And they've made sure that there are holes in the
less-free GPLv3, and they will make a lot of money off those who
voilate the interpretation they get out of judges, once Richard dies.
Ethics?  Who cares.  Once Richard dies, it will be a feeding frenzy.
His hypocrisy just makes it even more of a sure thing.

> > > 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?

The GPL requires source disclosure, so they are held to term (1) of
the BSD license, not term (2) of the BSD license.  Read it again,
above.

> 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).

Because HP and Cisco do things which make a safer world, but the GPL
people don't.  Let me go back to my favorite example -- OpenSSH.  By
that I mean that the GPL people use OpenSSH all the same.  But the
vendors would not.  They would have telnet and rlogin and
proprietary-login-of-the-year protocols, and they would have holes.

Instead we gave them the vendors an alternative, and a damn good one.

The GPL people don't deserve the right to take away from our vision of
building a better world.  Copyright law is based on an old concept of
"the author's moral rights".  How can Richard come barging in here
talking about false ethics?  Only because he has no concept of morals.
He's a charlatan.

> 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?

Because we do it to make a better world.  And the GNU people don't
deserve the credit for our efforts.

And the law lets us retain the right in that way.

And we are brave enough to use it that way.

[Theo de Raadt]

> And the GPLv3?  He was the puppet that sold it, but the text was
> mostly written by a bunch of lawyers who will take care of it after
> Richard dies.  And they've made sure that there are holes in the
> less-free GPLv3, and they will make a lot of money off those who
> voilate the interpretation they get out of judges, once Richard dies.
> Ethics?  Who cares.  Once Richard dies, it will be a feeding frenzy.
> His hypocrisy just makes it even more of a sure thing.

By this I mean the GPLv3 and GPLv2 could mean exactly what they are
written to mean, and thus be easily understood once court cases happen
(... OK, now nearly everyone is laughing, but try to re-read it
seriously).

... but when the leader hypocritically walks around describing new
'rules' that people must follow for 'his approval'... that won't
impress a judge later.  It will un-impress a judge later.  It will
show that the author's intent was muddled.  It will show that the
authors who adopted the license had a muddled viewpoint.  It's nice to
have a public archive of Richard's spew since we don't have to save
each message; it shows a pattern of his own GPL'd software being
exempt from the rules he holds everyone to, especially special targets
(and apparently we are target of the month).

Richard, and many of you, live in the US where case law will decide
some of these issues.  I don't think that is a good thing, but it is
what will happen, at least in the US, if the economy doesn't tank fast
enough to make 'the empire' irrelevant.

But once Richard dies, what happens then will not be predicated on
dead Richard's stupid rules.  (Perhaps his leg will get cut off).

As well, we know that this GPLv3 thing was mostly designed by Eben and
friends, and they hope to outlive Richard, and very richly indeed).
What has Richard done recently, except moan and set unreasonable
standards for projects he has nothing to do with... on our mailing
lists?

Regarding the 'plural' FSF and their agenda these days... I think we
all know that crackpot Richard is no longer the real leader.  He's a
senile puppet who gets lots of flights paid for by your misguided
donations dollars to ensure he's kept out of touch (except on one
airline, I think Delta, who banned him for air-rage a decade ago on
his way to a Usenix conference).  The real FSF agenda has been dumbed
down from what Richard used to believe, and it will dumb down further
as he loses control (except for the particularily nasty legal side
parcelled out to Eben's SFLC).  Meanwhile, Richard cranks up 'his
rules' against rather small groups (like OpenBSD) because he lost the
OS war with HURD, and the Linux people don't care what he says.  Wait,
it isn't that they don't care what he says -- they don't give a rats
damn.  He has absolutely zero credit with them.  Richard tried
repeatedly to screw Linux as a whole, and it's just that noone has
really let the press know yet in those terms.  Richard is irrelevant
there.

Richard does not understand that the entire free source world is a
meritocracy of source code creation and modification.  He has done
nothing in 10-15 years, except wave his long hair and moan in front of
crowds, and lay down ground rules for projects he has no actual
involvement in.

I commited a 2500 line diff today becuase it was fun.  It will let two
other developers (who I raced to write this..) continue their work on
a priv-sep snmp daemon (translation: no holes, hopefully, ever).
Yeah, not everything is glory, but it was code that I produced, and it
was fun, and it will matter to some, and it is what actually matters
'as credit' in our communities.  I did not actually do much except put
in the time and the effort to do what others could have done.
Meanwhile, Richard writes no code, thus he does not matter, and walks
around talking about what we do or don't do, and with all his spare
time he doesn't even do the RESEARCH TO MAKE SURE THAT HE IS NO
TALKING BULLSHIT.  And so he talks BULLSHIT, and gets called a
hypocrite.  But he's in too deep, isn't he.

His credit has degraded to zero, and his foaming on relatively small
mailing lists makes it go even faster.  His hypocrisy is in part
because he has no control anymore; his continual protests on our lists
are because he has no control on lists where it might matter.  His
continual adjustment of his rules is because he can find no "edge"
anymore.  He is irrelevant, and he can't cope with that.

Richard is not even anymore an alternative viewpoint that should be
considered, for the simple reason that any road towards his absolutist
views ensures that his hypocrisy will be exposed.

It's like the TV advertisement of the monk who protects turtles and
bugs, but then kills germs when he sneezes into kleenex -- what a
shock; but that is a funny advertisement.  Richard is not a funny
advertisement.  He's a pathetic joke.  He should spot the falicy,
and back down.

No leader with such a pile of FSF donation money should come onto our
list and picks a fight where he looks like a hypocrite.  He thinks he
can afford it, but in fact he is the last person who can afford it.
He's lashing out in directions that he thinks he can get away with,
and that is because he would look even more stupid on mailing lists
for major Linux vendors.  Linux.  Linux.  Linux.  Can you imagine
him going onto LKML?  I'd watch.  It'd be funny.  (LKM is the Linux
kernel mailing list.  Note. Linux, Linux, Linux.)


As for ourselves, we are not afraid to keep being brave by giving our
software away.  We'll keep doing what is right, giving software away
in the ways that please us, and Richard Stallman and his stupid
rules-for-approval can go to hell (and hopefully soon... because it
will get him off our mailing lists).

We'll keep doing what we do, and Richard has only hurt himself by
speaking.

[Chris Zakelj]

bofh wrote:

> 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.

No, this is exactly on point.  As I understand his view, Richard seems
to think that any software licensed under a schema that doesn't meet his
definition of "free" is bad/unethical/whatever, and for an OS to support
said software, even if only by reference, is not only also bad, but also
diminishes my own freedom.  I fail to see how using a software package
(remember, *I* would be the end user here), proprietary and
license-restricted though it may be, somehow causes a loss in my
freedom.  I am free to (not) use/purchase such software as I see fit,
and don't understand why forking over some cash would somehow result in
my losing something, when in my mind, I'm actually coming out ahead.  
Would I love to see a BSD/ISC/GPL/(insert free license here)
equivalent?  You bet.  But I won't give up relaxing weekends just to
make a political statement.

[Breen Ouellette]

Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:06:35PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>  
>> 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?

You aren't getting it.

The licence stipulates that one set of rules apply if you redistribute
the source code, and another set of rules apply if you distribute a
binary. This is why different rules apply to GPL developers. Their own
licence requires them to redistribute source, so they must follow the
part of the BSD licence which applies to source redistribution.

That said, I'm not completely getting it either.

Everything to follow is conjecture on my part and may not be accurate or
correct.

Theo would probably know whether or not attaching an additional GPL
licence actually results in more restrictions being applied to the code.
To me, the BSD licence was there first and supersedes the GPL. And I see
no requirement in the BSD licence to retain additional restrictions or
grant additional freedoms placed on the code by subsequent contributors
after the initial BSD release. To me, any person could ignore the GPL in
any code appearing in a file which was originally licenced BSD. Or just
strip the GPL out of the file and leave the original BSD licence, for
that matter.

The opposite seems to be true as well - a file originally released under
the GPL which then has a BSD licence tacked onto it would not suddenly
allow people to distribute the program only in binary form.

Neither licence appears to me to allow subsequent authors to create
additional restrictions or freedoms.

But then, what prevents a GPL author from creating a separate new file
with clean GPL code and then adding some glue to the original BSD file
to reference the new file?

Or, along a different path of thought, a closed developer that was
selling software built on BSD code seemingly could not prevent others
from distributing BSD based binaries from their package for free. The
BSD licence doesn't indicate that binary redistributions can be
restricted to paying customers only. The binaries could be picked out
and distributed for free by anyone who followed the second clause
requirements of the BSD licence. Only new code that the closed developer
distributed under a "pay-for" licence could be legally restricted to
paying customers. I suppose the problem for the end user is proving
which binaries contain only BSD licenced code.

The fallacy of my confusion here will probably be immediately obvious
ten minutes after I send this off. Oh well, here I go sticking my head
out. I'm ready for the clue stick! Thanks in advance.

Breeno

[ropers]

On 14/12/2007, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
> I don't think it is
> bad that GCC can compile a non-free program, or that you can use Emacs
> or VIP to edit one.

I don't know, Richard.
Do you have *any* idea of just how petty and puerile an off-the-cuff
remark like this makes you look?

Let me break it down for you:

Preconditions:
0. vi and emacs are the two most influential UNIXarian editors.
1. You know all about the history of the vi vs. emacs war.
2. You are, or were, a leading emacs developer.
3. The most notable current emacs distribution is GNU emacs.
4. You are the central figure of the GNU project.
5. You are on the OpenBSD mailing list, which is a BSD project.
6. Most current vi distributions are under a BSD or similar license.

Event:
So then you mention that one can use two editors to edit a program,
but for some reason you can't bring yourself to saying "emacs or vi"
-- no, you say "Emacs or VIP".

As it says here:
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/vip/
"VIP is a Vi emulating package written in Emacs Lisp."

Again, I don't know Richard. Do you have any concept of just how petty
and incapable of ceding any ground, and "in-your-face",
"mine-is-the-only-way" this makes you look?

My spontaineous reaction to reading something like this would be in
shouted 8 bit ASCII, and would have something to do with the first 32
and 16 bit words of Felix Wankel's name and "error". That would not be
polite, but in case you haven't noticed, this and many more of your
recent remarks *acutely* make people feel like flinging things like
that your way.

And not without cause Richard, not without cause.
This thread has not been kind to you.
But you brought the biggest part of that on yourself.
Think about it.

Thanks and regards,
--ropers

[ropers]

On 15/12/2007, Jacob Meuser <jakemsr@...> wrote:
> do you give a no-recommendation to the internet as well?

Well, his past statements about not being able to view HTTPS pages,
catching web pages (browsing through email?) and receiving messages in
batches almost made me suspect that he uses FidoNet or something. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FidoNet ) Others have already asked him
just what he uses. He hasn't answered that one yet, but it would not
surprise me if he boycotts the Internet for some reason. Maybe because
the Bush administration has broken the US' earlier promise to
relinquish control of the root? Hey Stallman! There's always ORSN. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORSN ) No need to use FidoNet. See, you
can browse TEH Intarwebs too. These tubes are made for surfin'. ;-)

I kid, I kid! ;oP

--ropers

[Han Boetes]

Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Yes, and you are being the usual slimy hypocritical asshole.
...
> You treat these issues different because you are a hypocrite.
...
> In honour of your hypocrisy.
...
> How convenient for your hypocrisy.
...
> It is lying, and it is hypocrisy.

Third time I've said that. I'll probably say it three more times,
see, in my line of work, you gotta keep repeating things over and
over and over again for the truth to sink in. To kinda catapult
the propaganda. -- George W. Bush



# Han

[marina-25]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, ropers wrote:

> On 15/12/2007, Jacob Meuser <jakemsr@...> wrote:
>> do you give a no-recommendation to the internet as well?
>
> Well, his past statements about not being able to view HTTPS pages,
> catching web pages (browsing through email?) and receiving messages in
> batches almost made me suspect that he uses FidoNet or something. (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FidoNet ) Others have already asked him
> just what he uses. He hasn't answered that one yet, but it would not
> surprise me if he boycotts the Internet for some reason. Maybe because
> the Bush administration has broken the US' earlier promise to
> relinquish control of the root? Hey Stallman! There's always ORSN. (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORSN ) No need to use FidoNet. See, you
> can browse TEH Intarwebs too. These tubes are made for surfin'. ;-)
>
> I kid, I kid! ;oP
>
> --ropers
>

Email and web via UUCP ? I see it making a big comeback when humans
finally colonize mars ;-) Just no serial handshaking. No kidding. Think
of the delays. between here and there.

--- marina brown

[Gilles Chehade-5]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:12:49PM +0100, Martin Schr?der wrote:
> [...]
> know the license of OpenSSH, which you probably use daily. Please stop
> this "if my memory serves". It makes you look as either incompetent or
> malovelent.
>

or senile really... I still did not get an answer because of apparent
mail-batch-or-checking-the-facts-or-whatever issues, I don't know why
he won't answer, maybe he has conveniently forgotten that question ?

I still know of many companies that did not switch to Linux because a
free software foundation provided them with a version of gcc that can
run on their proprietary OS and Richard still did not tell me why the
fsf promotes the use of proprietary software by porting free software
to it.

Gilles

--
Gilles Chehade
http://www.evilkittens.org/
http://www.evilkittens.org/blog/gilles/

sorry guys, but:

from http://www.openbsd.org/mail.html:
> misc
> User questions and answers, general questions. This is the most
> active list. Please, read the FAQ and the installation documents,
> and see How to report a Problem before posting.

> advocacy
> Promoting the use of OpenBSD.
> Non-technical discussions in misc often get shunted here.

would it be an idea to move this thread and stop flooding misc@?
thx...

ps: of course you can start another flame war on that :)
- just reply to misc@, im getting it there -

[Martin Schröder]

2007/12/14, Richard Stallman <rms@...>:

>     > 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).
>
>     please stop spreading lies (or looking like a fool) by not doing research.
>
>     The license of OpenSSH is here:
>     http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/ssh/LICENCE?rev=HEAD
>     According to
>     http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
>     this is GPL-compatible (modified BSD license or better).
>
> Thanks for correcting me about that point.  I was not sure about it,
> which is why I said "(if my memory serves)" in the text you quoted.
>
> What puzzles me is why you think this mistake was a lie, or that it
> might make me "look like a fool".  People normally don't call someone
> a liar, or a fool, because of a little (and tangential) mistake like
> this.

Richard,
you might have noticed that this discussion is mirrored on a public
mailing list, where a lot of people are grilling you. :-) You should
try very hard to be precise then. And I'm surprised that you don't
know the license of OpenSSH, which you probably use daily. Please stop
this "if my memory serves". It makes you look as either incompetent or
malovelent.

Best
   Martin

[Iñigo Tejedor Arrondo-2]

El vie, 14-12-2007 a las 15:49 -0500, Richard Stallman escribiC3:
>     Since both emacs and gcc contain code inside them which permit them to
>     compile and run on commercial operating systems which are non-free,
>     you are a slimy hypocrite.
>
> I see you are being your usual friendly self ;-}.

I see that you only do misc-understanding, flood, partial true, partial
lie and blablablabing. You reply what you want, to the messages that you
want, and there are a lot of things that have been asked or mentioned in
the air.

> 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.

No, the difference is clear, but the implication on the issue, and what
you can recommend, is not clear for you. Being according to all your
words, you must go to the public and only recommend to use flood to
write on stones.

> 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.

I think different, but i'm not RMS and my words haven't the same value.
So at now, we have two kinds of free-software fight. The fight that i
see (the excellent work of openbsd) and the "rms vs the world" fight.

> 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.

ooops another mistake, another bug fixed... B?would you go to the public
and fix the bug that you did about OpenBSD?

> By contrast, many non-free applications are not well known, and
> installing one is much easier--it does not require changing everything
> else you do.  Thus, even telling people about a non-free application
> could very well lead them to install it.

Oh yes. Like all references to skipe, nvidia, etc that are on the ututo
servers and official forums. B?can you recommend that?

Also, you made a statement only by a few URLs. So... have you checked
all the code under the source, .debs, kernel, infrastructure, etc of the
two distributions that you recommend? there are not non-free urls?

> I've published both of these positions before, but in this discussion
> I only mentioned the one that is relevant to my views about OpenBSD.
> Is that hypocrisy?  Is that lying?  No, just sticking to the point.
> But now that people have raised the other issue, here is my position
> on it.

Say something that you think, is not hypocrisy. Say something and do the
oposite is hypocrisy.

Say something that is true, is not lying. Say something that is not
true, is lying.

Take the port of opera, and look at it. The work that openbsd porters do
is free-software. The work that openbsd distribute is free-software.

You are attacking the ports, a tool of general purpose to install
programs. Just like tar, dpkg, apt, aptitude, sinaptyc.

There are a few "non-free" ports, just like there are teras of non-free
software for ututo and gnewsense.

You are arguing that your words, was because you don't want that a
newbye that try bsd, will end up using a non-free port. But there are
other words than "OpenBSD includes non-free programs" to say that thing,
because it isn't true.

Come on. Look whit effort on the Linux kernel version of gnewsense (i
know its hard), look at all the base and userland that it allow, search
hardly on the universe repository, mono, etc and then kill yourself
because you have nothing to recommend, or shut up and code.

gnewsense line: take the work of vanilla kernel, ubuntu that is taken
from debian, that is taken from all the world (including bsd), and
castrate it

openbsd line: (good)code, documentation, legal, new things, security,
freedom, fight, drivers, speak to hardware manufacturers, produce, be
honest and don't listen and think stupid abstract semi questions.

Bye.

[Kent Watsen]

Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote:
> 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.
>
>  
As I understand it, if a GPL developer wants to extend a BSD licensed
file, they only have two legal choices:

  - release the modified file with just the BSD license (no additional
GPL license)
  - release the unmodified file and a separate GPL-licensed patch

Note that I purposely exclude two cases, because they are illegal:

  - release the modified file with only GPL license
  - release the modified file with BSD license and additional GPL license

The reason why the first of these is illegal should be obvious.  The
reason why the second of these is illegal is because, by adding the GPL
license to the same file, it applies to the BSD-licensed text, which is
in contradiction to the BSD license.  To be clear, the BSD license
allows binary distribution without source disclosure while the GPL
license does not.  Thus, by adding the GPL license to a BSD licensed
file, it is taking away BSD-granted rights.

Can anyone confirm this understanding?

Regards,
Kent

[Tony Aberenthy]

Gilles Chehade wrote:
>
> or senile really... I still did not get an answer because of apparent
> mail-batch-or-checking-the-facts-or-whatever issues, I don't know why
> he won't answer, maybe he has conveniently forgotten that question ?

One of the advantages of old age is a convenient memory.
(At least it makes a good excuse.)
Doesn't always work, though  ;-)

You'd think the great RMS would be able to handle email better
than this old <expletive-deleted> using Microsoft Outlook.

[Marco Peereboom]

I honestly don't think if you get Theo's email that there is any hope
for you but let me try to add to it.

First lets start off with the fact that you are NOT allowed to change
the SOURCE license.

So joe-schmoe-programmer takes moo.c which is ISC licensed and adds some
crud to it.  He can decide to release his code under the original
license or he can be be a giant bag of douche and release them under an
alternative license.  This is only true for the changes; the original
license on the file CAN NOT be changed.  BTW this is also true when
someone submits a BSD licensed patch to a GPL'd file.  Same doucheness
applies too.  Respect the authors license or leave the file alone.

Joe-schmoe-proprietary programmer wants to also use moo.c; he takes the
code and uses it within his framework.  Great, his binary contains
my-EVIL-EULA, the source file retains the original copyright and
license.  It is completely and utterly irrelevant what the binary
license is.  Say it again with me, it is IRRELEVANT what the BINARY
license is as long as the SOURCE license is left intact.

So you can go around all day long parroting what RMS says, it still will
not make it true.  I can't help that the man does not comprehend
copyright law.

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:04:56AM +0000, Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote:

> 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]

[chefren]

> I see both Theo and Richard as principled iconoclasts, stubbornly
> creating

Eh, that was a very long time ago that Richard created interesting software...

 > and promoting software that meets their individual high
> standards, meeting and overcoming difficult opposition.

Richard Stallman's principles are =not= "high standards", he doesn't keep up
with reality at all (think of blobs and security) and he keeps trolling the
open software community with an ancient communistic rule that's the essence of
digital rights management.

+++chefren

[Douglas A. Tutty]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 03:55:59AM -0500, marina@... wrote:
 
> Email and web via UUCP ? I see it making a big comeback when humans
> finally colonize mars ;-) Just no serial handshaking. No kidding. Think
> of the delays. between here and there.

By the time the US gets to Mars, we'll have quantum communication:
instantaneous across the universe.  I can't see anyone other than the US
going to Mars.

Nanu, Nanu.
:)
Doug.

[Marco Peereboom]

> 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."

I really wish people would stop using these free analogies.  They are
misleading and stupid.

GPL licensed software = Gratis software (before you point out that some
dictionaries use the word "free" as a synonym... remember in school when
you had to pick the "best option"; that's what this is, the best word to
describe something).

ISC licensed software = Free software and let me quote some dictionary
entries so that we all know what we are talking about:
- exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a
  person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent;
  unrestricted.
- able to do something at will; at liberty: free to choose.
- exempt or released from something specified that controls, restrains,
  burdens, etc. (usually fol. by from or of): free from worry; free of
  taxes.
- given without consideration of a return or reward: a free offer of
  legal advice.
- not subject to special regulations, restrictions, duties, etc.: The
  ship was given free passage.
- that may be used by or is open to all: a free market.


There is no such thing as free beer.  Someone, somewhere paid for
production, distribution, etc etc.  This is a stupid concept.

Free as in speech as it is used has similar issues.
The GPL license is full of legal restrictions and can therefore NOT be
considered free speech.  I can talk all day long on how free my license
is (free speech) but it doesn't mean it is true.  Where it falls apart
is that the GPL enforces legal restrictions that limit free speech.  So
lets call it what it is; GPL software is gratis.

RMS definitions of free/liberty/freedom etc are contorted to fit his
believe system.  They are not legal definitions and worse not even
correct English.  Got to love that the non-native speaker has to point
that out.

Do yourself a favor and stop listening to his stupid rhetoric.

[BOFH-5]

On Dec 15, 2007 1:26 AM, Chris Zakelj <c.zakelj@...> wrote:

> bofh wrote:
> > 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.
> No, this is exactly on point.  As I understand his view, Richard seems
> to think that any software licensed under a schema that doesn't meet his
> definition of "free" is bad/unethical/whatever, and for an OS to support
> said software, even if only by reference, is not only also bad, but also
> diminishes my own freedom.  I fail to see how using a software package
> (remember, *I* would be the end user here), proprietary and
> license-restricted though it may be, somehow causes a loss in my
> freedom.  I am free to (not) use/purchase such software as I see fit,

Again - this discussion is not about your personal freedom.  Stop
trying to change the discussion.  This is about licensing and what you
can, and cannot do with the source code.  The current discussion is
actually pretty important, and muddying up the waters like this is not
useful.


--
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

[Jeff Palmer-6]

> The ports system may contain a general facility which could build and
> install any program. (I don't know if it does.) If so, I have
> nothing against that. But it certainly contains specific recipes for
> installing specific non-free programs. That's what I object to.


Richard,

We understand your position (or we'll at least pretend to.)  The simple
fact is that we disagree with you.  That in itself is pretty much enough
to end this thread, is it not? By continuing to thrust your views and
beliefs and ideals onto us, aren't you actually stepping on *our* freedoms
to choose what we feel is best for our software?  Users should have the
_freedom_ to choose what software they want.  We've decided to accomodate
that _freedom_ by simplyifying the task for them via ports.

We resectfully disagree with your position, your ideal, your stance, and
your opinion.  I think that should be enough to end this thread, don't
you?
You aren't going to change our mind.  The OpenBSD project isn't going to
change it's philosophy because you want us to.  The reality is,  we just
don't care about your views or those of the FSF.  Let this die.  I
personally would be just as happy if you never typed or uttered the "BSD"
phrase again.   Be on your way.  enjoy whatever it is you do, and let us
enjoy whatever we do.   That is, after all, the TRUE meaning of FREEDOM.

Jeff Palmer