Real men don't attack straw men

[Richard Stallman]

    But, when people use the word "free," even within a particular context,
    anyone would be able to understand what that person was talking about
    within an acceptable level of error.

I don't think so -- that is too much to ask.  In any area, the meaning
of freedom involves filling in details which are not obvious in
advance.  It seems simple while you stay at the abstract level; it
becomes hard when you address the details.

    But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can
    statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain
    my freedom to BSD license my code.

Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is
straightforward.  You put the revised BSD license on your file, you
package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you release
it all.  The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL, but anyone can
use code from your file under the revised BSD license.

This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to
release the combination under the GPL.

[Richard Stallman]

    >     Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
    >
    > My method is to ask other people to do it for me.  I use that method
    > because it is efficient.  Its results are accurate, too.
    >
    > However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always
    > checked.  Sometimes I just took his word for it.  The problems that
    > have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly,
    > corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully with
    > them.

    You contradict yourself.  You say it's efficient and accurate and then
    point out its inefficiency inaccuracy.  I find it stunning that you can
    reconcile this.

There is nothing to reconcile -- you have combined two statements
about two different things, so the resulting contradiction didn't come
from me.

When I want research, I ask people to do it.  That is efficient, and
we have not seen any errors in it.

In the case of AROS, it's possible I did not ask anyone to do
research.  I might have just taken the developers' word that the
system is free.  It was years ago and I do not know what happened.

However, most of these problems had nothing to do with quality of
research, because they did not arise until after I had decided to
endorse a program.  Research can only check the present, not the
future.  For instance, the reference to unrar on BLAG's site was in a
wiki; it was posted by a user in the recent past.  (It is possible
that this happened with AROS too.)  Likewise for the GNU/Darwin
problem.  I think this occurred in several others too.

My conclusion is that I should do more detailed discussions with the
developers of the FSF-endorsed systems about these specific possible
problems and how to avoid them.

[Richard Stallman]

    Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and the
    FSF for OpenBSD?

If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.

[Richard Stallman]

    As long as this thread has been running, the only plausible reasons
    I can think of for you not to repeat your claimed accurate conclusion
    is either that you do not remember what this claimed accurate conclusion was

    or that this claimed accurate conclusion wold now be yet another falsehood.

I've said it here so many times that I have decided not to repeat it
every time someone doesn't know.

[Dusty-7]

On Jan 7, 2008 7:16 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>    >     Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
>    >
>    > My method is to ask other people to do it for me.  I use that method
>    > because it is efficient.  Its results are accurate, too.
>    >
>    > However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always
>    > checked.  Sometimes I just took his word for it.  The problems that
>    > have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly,
>    > corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully with
>    > them.
>
>    You contradict yourself.  You say it's efficient and accurate and then
>    point out its inefficiency inaccuracy.  I find it stunning that you can
>    reconcile this.
>
> There is nothing to reconcile -- you have combined two statements
> about two different things, so the resulting contradiction didn't come
> from me.
>
> When I want research, I ask people to do it.  That is efficient, and
> we have not seen any errors in it.
>
> In the case of AROS, it's possible I did not ask anyone to do
> research.  I might have just taken the developers' word that the
> system is free.  It was years ago and I do not know what happened.
>
> However, most of these problems had nothing to do with quality of
> research, because they did not arise until after I had decided to
> endorse a program.  Research can only check the present, not the
> future.  For instance, the reference to unrar on BLAG's site was in a
> wiki; it was posted by a user in the recent past.  (It is possible
> that this happened with AROS too.)  Likewise for the GNU/Darwin
> problem.  I think this occurred in several others too.
>
> My conclusion is that I should do more detailed discussions with the
> developers of the FSF-endorsed systems about these specific possible
> problems and how to avoid them

Your conclusion should that you need to do your own research.
WHY, please really, tell me WHY you do not do your own research. Everybody
on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own
research?!?!?!?!!?

[Tony Aberenthy]

Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
> should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
>
Methinks this is an OpenBSD list not a FSF list
Are you always this obnoxious to people you are visiting?

From what I've seen from you on this thread,
an endorsement from you would be a liability.

Best I can tell, nobody is arguing with you
that would require some degree of compos mentis on your part.

[Alexander Terekhov-3]

On Jan 7, 2008 6:15 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
[...]

>    But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can
>    statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain
>    my freedom to BSD license my code.
>
> Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is
> straightforward.  You put the revised BSD license on your file, you
> package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you release
> it all.  The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL, but anyone can
> use code from your file under the revised BSD license.
>
> This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to
> release the combination under the GPL.

This may be *your* "usual interpretation of the revised BSD license"
but there is nothing in the revised BSD license allowing "relicensing"
under the GPL. Hint:

See Leicester v. Warner Bros., 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1501, 1998 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 8366 (C.D. Cal. 1998), aff'd, 232 F.3d 1212 (2d Cir. 2000). In
Leicester,  a real estate developer employed an artist to create
sculptural elements for inclusion in the courtyard of a building under
construction in Los Angeles. The artist granted the owner the
exclusive right to make three-dimensional copies of the work, and a
non-exclusive right to make two-dimensional or pictorial copies. The
developer allowed a motion picture company to film the sculptural
elements as part of a movie. The artist sued the motion picture
company, claiming infringement, on the grounds that the developer did
not have the right to sub-license his non-exclusive right to make
two-dimensional or pictorial copies. During the course of the
litigation, the developer was granted a "sub-license" by the
building's architect, who the court found to be a co-owner with the
artist of some of the elements. The court found that the architect
could not grant a sub-license to the developer because a non-exclusive
license could not be sub-licensed. ... 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8366.

regards,
alexander.

[fuzzyping]

On Jan 7, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Dusty wrote:

> On Jan 7, 2008 7:16 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
>
>>> When I want research, I ask people to do it.  That is efficient, and
>> we have not seen any errors in it.
>>
> Your conclusion should that you need to do your own research.
> WHY, please really, tell me WHY you do not do your own research.  
> Everybody
> on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own
> research?!?!?!?!!?

Plausible deniability.


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

[Dave Anderson-4]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:

>    IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say "recommend" in
>    this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion
>    here) to be something that most people would express as "not
>    deliberately erect barriers against".
>
>The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description
>for what I am saying.

You've apparently been reading a very different set of responses from
the ones I've read.  AFAICT from their messages, most of the people
responding here to this issue agree with me.

>                       Many of the people on this list were told that
>I want OpenBSD to "erect barriers against" installing non-free
>programs.

That's the only plausible conclusion I can draw from your own words.
AFAICT from your messages, the absolute minimum that would satisfy you
is for OpenBSD to never mention anywhere, in any manner (except perhaps
a negative one), anything which is non-free (by your definition).
Since this would require explicitly rejecting any proposed addition to
the ports collection which would install something which is 'non-free',
you do require erecting barriers.

>           And their words show that they think this means designing
>the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible.  (I
>have not suggested such a thing.)
>
>My usage of the "recommend" fits in normal usage.

Sorry, but that's nonsense.  "Mentioning" and "recommending" are very
different things, and what OpenBSD does is no more than mentioning.

>                                                   If you include
>program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly
>that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider.
>
>Perhaps "implicitly recommend" would be a clearer description of this
>particular case.

It would be closer to reality, but would still massively overstate the
case.

        Dave

--
Dave Anderson
<dave@...>

[Marco Peereboom]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:15:59PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     But, when people use the word "free," even within a particular context,
>     anyone would be able to understand what that person was talking about
>     within an acceptable level of error.
>
> I don't think so -- that is too much to ask.  In any area, the meaning
> of freedom involves filling in details which are not obvious in
> advance.  It seems simple while you stay at the abstract level; it
> becomes hard when you address the details.
>
>     But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can
>     statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain
>     my freedom to BSD license my code.
>
> Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is
> straightforward.  You put the revised BSD license on your file, you
> package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you release
> it all.  The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL, but anyone can
> use code from your file under the revised BSD license.
>
> This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to
> release the combination under the GPL.

This is not true.  A file that is BSD/ISC licensed can NOT have its
license changed without consent from the original author.  You can have
a bunch of GPL goo around it but that will NOT (I repeat NOT) change the
license on the BSD/ISC licensed file.  I can't believe you keep saying
this.  This is not legal and by repeating it people actually believe
this.  This is disingenuous at best.

I personally am very interested when the GPL will finally hit the courts
so that we can get a firm legal interpretation and we can stop this
silly debate.  My money is on the viral clause being ruled unenforcible
or even unconstitutional.

[Marco Peereboom]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:16:04PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and the
>     FSF for OpenBSD?
>
> If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
> should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.

We only want an apology Richard.  You said things about our project that
were very unfriendly and not true.  Apologize and admit you were wrong
and I promise I'll leave this alone.  Until then I will not let you have
the last word on a project that I spend a considerable amount of my
personal resources on.  You stop talking/slandering OpenBSD and we'll
stop talking to and about you.  How is that for a deal?

[Dave Anderson-4]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:

>    Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and the
>    FSF for OpenBSD?
>
>If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
>should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.

I don't recall seeing any of them claiming that.  Many of them _have_
(quite reasonably) objected to your spreading misinformation about
OpenBSD.  And making statements which are true only if common words are
given non-standard meanings certainly amounts to spreading
misinformation.

        Dave

--
Dave Anderson
<dave@...>

[Gregg Reynolds-4]

On 1/7/08, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
>
> If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
> should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
>
Quite right.  As far as I can tell, they're not interested in your
endorsement; I'm not sure what gave you the idea they are.  However,
they are very interested in FUD prevention, and FUD is what you get
when one party tries to co-opt ordinary language for private ends.  So
we can hardly be surprised when they object to your characterization
of their work as "non-free".  Such a slanderous characterization is a
far cry  from merely declining to endorse.

Old joke:  "Doctor, nobody likes me!  You gotta help me, you big fat slob!"

-gregg

[Johan Beisser]

On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:

> The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description
> for what I am saying.  Many of the people on this list were told that
> I want OpenBSD to "erect barriers against" installing non-free
> programs.  And their words show that they think this means designing
> the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible.  (I
> have not suggested such a thing.)
>
> My usage of the "recommend" fits in normal usage.  If you include
> program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly
> that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider.

Not really. OpenBSD doesn't "recommend" any of the ports. What it does
is makes things available for people to install. Anyone can submit and
maintain a port for the project, if they so desire. The fact is,
OpenBSD doesn't "recommend" any of the ports or packages, but makes
the structure available for its users simply as a convenience.

Oxford American Dictionary...

recommend |KrekIKmend|
verb [ trans. ]
1 put forward (someone or something) with approval as being
suitablefor a particular purpose or role : George had recommended some
local architects | a book I recommended to a friend of mine.
b" advise or suggest (something) as a course of action : some doctors
recommend putting a board under the mattress | [with clause ] the
report recommended that criminal charges be brought.
b" [ trans. ] advise (someone) to do something : you are strongly
recommended to seek professional advice.
b" make (someone or something) appealing or desirable : the house had
much to recommend it.
2 ( recommend someone/something to) archaic commend or entrust someone
or something to (someone) : I devoutly recommended my spirit to its
maker.

If you'd bothered researching yourself, you may have read this:

http://openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Intro

> Perhaps "implicitly recommend" would be a clearer description of this
> particular case.

Not really, no. Many of the ports are not available as packages. As
has been repeatedly explained.

[Gilles Chehade-6]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:16:04PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and the
>     FSF for OpenBSD?
>
> If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
> should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
>

We don't argue that you owe us an endorsement, we set the record straight
so that people get the facts right, something you can't understand.

Please, learn how to read, then we can have an educated talk.

--
Gilles Chehade

[Daniel Ouellet]

Richard Stallman wrote:

>     But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can
>     statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain
>     my freedom to BSD license my code.
>
> Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is
> straightforward.  You put the revised BSD license on your file, you
> package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you release
> it all.  The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL, but anyone can
> use code from your file under the revised BSD license.
>
> This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to
> release the combination under the GPL.

Richard,

I am strongly stun by this statement from you. In short, should I
understand and read into this that no matter what, with all the ethics
emails you sent in the last few days and all the spirit of
collaborations and the big freedom talks, that no matter what, if anyone
in the GPL side find any applications under a BSD license and love it,
they would import it under GPL and add bug fix, may be new features and
what not and as such never appreciate what was gracefully given out of
good will and be as genuine about as to offer the bug fix upstream in
the same BSD spirit?

That's very important to me to fully understand from you, so please
respond to that please!

Regardless of our differences and goals and what not. We may disagree on
many things, but still I would expect that you would be as genuine as
the original Author for a complete software or application you find
useful to you and respect that Author wish to release under BSD and as
such keep your possible bug fix and feature additions under that same
BSD license, unless there is "HUGE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES", by witch I mean
more then 50% to take a number that could be somewhat justifiable to do
so may be, where in that case, releasing it under GPL, may be somewhat
acceptable, but I reserve my thoughts on the subject at the moment as I
sure can't come to peace with that just yet!

You always justify it by using that company would be allow to use it so
why not the GPL. The company are required to give credit and in the end
it may be all one would get, and that's fine.

But the biggest differences here that no one ever address in this
differences is what is the open source and why?

We want open source so that others can look at it and improve it and get
peer review! So, in the end the product improve in quality, stability,
security, etc. A company may have 1, 5, or 10 developers on staff, or
may be even 100, of thousands like Microsoft. So, many, sadly, wouldn't
contribute back. That's accepted.

But in the open source world, where we all benefit from huge amount of
eye balls and all fight for free code, I can't see why we couldn't all
share in the same spirit as the Author and if that Author decide to use
BSD, why not return him the favor and send bug fix under the BSD and
keep it as such.

We are talking two totally different world here between the corporate
world and the open source world.

If I release a software under BSD and you import it under GPL, put bug
fix in there and then release it publicly, I sure hell do see that as
fair as I have given it to you in the first place and I would expect you
as being a member of the open source community not to fight against me,
but collaborate with me and as such allow me to use your bug fix as an
example and include them in my software under BSD license as it was
originally release as to not lock myself out.

That's really the ethical question at stake I guess when you talk about
freedom for this code here. Using the corporation way of doing it as a
justification is wrong.

Don't you think someone release the code source of any application
he/she may write to actually benefit others and him/hereself as well by
benefiting of huge poll of eye balls!

You can't get that in any corporations at all, but sure sure can get
that on the Internet. I would even go as far as saying that someone
looking at your code in a corporation may, or may not be as incline to
make the final product as good as it could be, because of corporate
pressure, time limits, and what not. But someone on the Internet that
actually look at the code would do so, because of personal interest and
inclination to that code as well as most likely higher quality to
understand that code by choice, oppose to be force to do so. In that
case, the end result benefit all and that's how I see it.

If I release a software under a BSD license, I would expect you to send
bug fix and possible feature or what not upstream in appreciation of
what was given freely to you and as such a way from you to say thank you
for what was given to you in the first place and respecting my license
of choice.

Hope this help you understand, even if I have very limited hope you would.

Just consider it and see the reason why as well.

Best,

Daniel

[Tom Cosgrove-2]

>>> Richard Stallman 7-Jan-08 17:14 >>>
>
>     IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say "recommend" in
>     this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion
>     here) to be something that most people would express as "not
>     deliberately erect barriers against".
>
> The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description
> for what I am saying.  Many of the people on this list were told that
> I want OpenBSD to "erect barriers against" installing non-free
> programs.  And their words show that they think this means designing
> the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible.  (I
> have not suggested such a thing.)
>
> My usage of the "recommend" fits in normal usage.  If you include
> program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly
> that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider.
>
> Perhaps "implicitly recommend" would be a clearer description of this
> particular case.

No, Richard, it would not.

Recommend means (and I quote the Concise Oxford Dictionary): "advise
course of action, treatment, person to do, that thing should be done".

We do not recommend that someone install any particular ports.

Think of the ports system as a set of recipes, of how to install other
people's software.

A particular person would not make everything from a recipe book: they
may be allergic to nuts, or not like mushrooms, or have a gluten
intollerance... if they do, the recipe book does not force them to
make that meal, there is no reason why the existence of a wheat-based
recipe would stop a celiac suffer from buying the book.

Some of the programs that ports enables users to install are not free.
Some are appallingly written.

We make no claims about software for which ports exist (a frequently
asked queston on this list is whether they are audited, the frequently-
given answer is, of course, "no".)

We do not recommend any ports.  OpenBSD is a complete operating
system, with enough components to suit many people with requiring ports.
The ports system provides choice, and options for people.  Nothing is
recommended.  To be clear: each port is a recipe that says "at least
one person has found that [...] (set of instructions) will enable you
to install this third-party software on OpenBSD".

If ports were recommendations, why would there be so many editors, or
so many web browsers?  The ports system is about choice, not about
recommendations (or otherwise) from OpenBSD developers.  Maybe if there
were 20 ports they would be recommendations, but there are over 4,500
ports.  We do not make recommendations about any of these.

In fact, our only claim w.r.t. ports is that the licences for the
software allow us to distributes the ports (and packages, where made).
And where licences have been unclear we have removed ports from the system.

Please now stop this

Thanks

Tom

[Gary Baluha]

On Jan 7, 2008 12:14 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>    IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say "recommend" in
>    this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion
>    here) to be something that most people would express as "not
>    deliberately erect barriers against".
>
> The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description
> for what I am saying.  Many of the people on this list were told that
> I want OpenBSD to "erect barriers against" installing non-free
> programs.  And their words show that they think this means designing
> the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible.  (I
> have not suggested such a thing.)
>
> My usage of the "recommend" fits in normal usage.  If you include
> program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly
> that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider.
>

Providing a list of programs that can be installed constitutes an implicit
recommendation for each one of them?  That means if I said you can choose to
run OS A or OS B on your computer (and let's assume for now that those are
the ONLY OSes that will run on the hardware), I am therefore recommending
both as equally valid options.  In other words, unless I specifically say "I
recommend NOT running OS B", then I am implicitly recommending both.  If
"free" means the freedom to choose to do what you want, then you have the
right to know what all of your options are.

There is a reason courts often say "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth".  One can answer the truth about something, but only mention
part of the truth and/or add in non-true information.  Just because it was
partially true, doesn't mean it is completely true.  In the same way, not
providing one all of the options available to them means they are not
completely free to make their own decision.

Now, if said list provides a list of programs that will run, but then says
"but only program X is fully supported", THAT would constitute an implicit
recommendation.  Alternatively, if one or more programs on that list is
listed as "not recommended", then all of the other ones without that
annotation are being implicitly recommended.

But perhaps I have some twisted logic going on here and I'm way off the
mark.  In that case, I'd like to know where I went wrong in my thinking.

[Marc Balmer]

Dusty wrote:

> WHY, please really, tell me WHY you do not do your own research. Everybody
> on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own
> research?!?!?!?!!?

Honestly I am not interested why this moron does not do any research.
He seems to be a case for the psychiatrists.

[Matthew Dempsky-3]

On 1/7/08, Marco Peereboom <slash@...> wrote:
> We only want an apology Richard.  You said things about our project that
> were very unfriendly and not true.  Apologize and admit you were wrong
> and I promise I'll leave this alone.

So if Richard sends an email stating "I am sorry for using ambiguous
words when discussing the inclusion of Makefiles for non-free programs
in OpenBSD's ports system", you'll be happy and this series of threads
can die?