Real men don't attack straw men

[Dusty-7]

On Jan 8, 2008 9:07 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>    equating firmwares with blobs is an RMS-thing,
>
> In Linux terminology, "blobs" means firmware and only firmware.  It
> appears that the word has a different meaning in OpenBSD terminology.
> Thus, we had a failure of communication.
>

Rubbish!!!!! Did the FSF tell you that?

[Eric Furman-3]

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:31:11 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <rms@...>
said:

>     This has been discussed many times
>     and it shouldn't take long for you or your minions to find out that
>     we do not
>     care about the source of firmware which doesn't load into OpenBSD.
>
> The people who do searches for me are helpful volunteers.  I can ask
> them to look for something, but I try not to impose on them if there
> is an easier way.  For a question about OpenBSD policies, it is better
> for me to ask this list for the answer, than to ask someone else to
> hunt for the answer.
>
> Thanks for stating the policy.
>
> If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
> binary-only firmware, which isn't free.  This would be a second reason
> why I should not endorse OpenBSD.  The systems I endorse try to
> exclude such firmware.

Then the systems you endorse (which? does anyone know?) won't work
on any modern hardware. God, you are a stupid effing moron.
Pleeeeeeeeease STFU and go away.

[Eric Furman-3]

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:31:16 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <rms@...>
said:

>     > But what about the different case where the company permits
>     > redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source
>     > code.  Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case?
>
>     Of course and going by your description it is nothing but hardware at
>     that point
>
> No, that description refers to a different case.
>
>       so there is no ethics violation (whatever that means since
>     you refuse to explain it).  It is just like micro code and a circuit.
>
> I think firmware is equivalent to a circuit if it is inside the
> hardware and users don't install software there.
>
> Here we are talking about firmware which users always do install.
> (That is the reason why anyone would consider distributing it with an
> operating system.)  So that is not equivalent to a circuit.

Please Richard, educate yourself about firmware and stop making
yourself look like a complete moron.
BTW, STFU and go away.

[Dusty-7]

On Jan 8, 2008 9:07 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>    equating firmwares with blobs is an RMS-thing,
>
> In Linux terminology, "blobs" means firmware and only firmware.  It
> appears that the word has a different meaning in OpenBSD terminology.
> Thus, we had a failure of communication.


In about 5 minutes of research using google, lets see what i could come up
with....

And lets see, wiki seems a nice place to look .. oh .. look what i found ...
"In computing <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing>, a *binary blob* is
an object file <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_Code>
loaded<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linker>into the
kernel <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_%28computer_science%29> of a
free <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software> or open
source<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software> operating
system <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system> without publicly
available source code <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code>. The term
is not usually applied to code running outside the kernel, for example
BIOS<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOS>code,
firmware <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware> images, or
userland<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Userland_%28computing%29>programs."
Sorry? Binary Blob loaded into a kernel? didnt know firmware got loaded into
a kernel ...
Oh oh, look, "IS NOT USUALLY APPLIED (except if you're RMS) to code running
... FIRMWARE ...."
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_blobs ]

Whats that? Binary blob? Sorry, the only other kind of blob has to do with
objects in relational databases .. I'm sure there is no resemblance to
firmware, drivers or anything related here...

What say you now?

[Eric Furman-3]

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:16:04 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <rms@...>
said:
>     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.

They don't need or want your endorsement. They just want an apology
for misrepresenting them. Which you have failed to do.
All you do is twist words to make it look like you did nothing wrong.
STFU and go away.

[Alexander Terekhov-3]

On Jan 8, 2008 8:07 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
>    This may be *your* "usual interpretation of the revised BSD license"
>
> Eben Moglen says that it is nearly universal among lawyers.
> As this is a legal issue, I have confidence in him.
>

Yeah, yeah. You have confidence in Eben Moglen[1]. But let's examine for
example

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

"Licenses are not contracts"

says self-proclaimed "world's leading experts on copyright law as
applied to software" Eben Moglen about the GPL.

Now, apart from governmental permits (not contracts indeed) licenses
like driver licenses, fishing licenses from local municipalities, gun
dealership, public lottery permits, etc. to do something regulated by
government (may I just note that neither GNU.ORG nor FSF.OGR  is a
governmental entity) and in the context of "intellectual property"[2]
licenses, consider (starting with United States Supreme Court):

"Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a
reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the
circumstances; but the relation between the parties thereafter in
respect of any suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not an
unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner."
De Forest Radio Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, (1927)

"Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by
ordinary principles of state contract law.'"
McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (Fed. Cir. 1995)

"Normal rules of contract construction are generally applied in
construing copyright agreements. Nimmer on Copyright sec. 10.08. Under
Wisconsin law, contracts are to be construed as they are written. When
the language is plain and unambiguous, a reviewing court must construe
the contract as it stands. In construing the contract, terms are to be
given their plain and ordinary meaning." (citations omitted).
Kennedy v. Nat'l Juvenile Det. Ass'n, 187 F.3d 690, (7th Cir. 1999)

"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. '' 101-1332,
grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal
courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the
relevant state law to interpret them."
Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F3d 749,
(7th Cir. 2006)

"However, implicit in a nonexclusive license is the promise not to sue
for copyright infringement. See In re CFLC, Inc., 89 F.3d 673, 677
(9th Cir. 1996), citing De Forest Radio Telephone Co. v. United
States, 273 U.S. 236, 242 (1927) (finding that a nonexclusive license
is, in essence, a mere waiver of the right to sue the licensee for
infringement); see also Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d
555, 558 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that the granting of a nonexclusive
license may be oral or by conduct and a such a license creates a
waiver of the right to sue in copyright, but not the right to sue for
breach of contract)."
Jacobsen v. Katzer, No. 3:06-cv-01905, (N.D. Cal. 2007)

BTW, the last one is about Artistic License being a contract (just
like any other copyright license).

Heck, and as for the GPL itself:

http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf

"On behalf of the people JUDGMENT ... The GPL grants anyone who enters
into such contract... contractual relationship between the authors and
Defendant ... incorporated into the contract by virtue of the preamble
of the GPL ...  Plaintiff, or the licensors from whom Plaintiff
derives his right, have not violated any contractual obligations
themselves ... Defendant, who violated contractual obligations"

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf

MySQL's counter-complaint asserting breach of GPL license contract
("COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)") and asking for
declaratory (court to declare GPL terminated) and injunctive (court to
preliminary and permanently enjoin Progress/NuSphere from "copying,
modifying, sublicensing, or distributing the MySQL(TM) Program")
relief (plus damages, of course).

IBM's SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM (Breach of the GNU General Public License)
against SCO... "SCO accepted the terms of the GPL... IBM is entitled
to a declaration that SCO's rights under the GPL terminated, an
injunction prohibiting SCO from its continuing and threatened breaches
of the GPL and an award of damages in an amount to be determined at
trial" (Pretty much the same as MySQL's claim above), BTW. From IBM's
memorandum:

"SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the
Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC
20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is "well settled"
that nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); Kronos,
Inc. v. AVX Corp., 612 N.E.2d 289, 292 (N.Y. 1993)  ("Nominal damages
are always available in breach of contract action".). "

Also worth noting (from IBM's brief regarding the GPL contract breach):

"the Court need not reach the choice of law issue because Utah law and
New York law are in accord on the issues that must be reached to
address SCO's sole argument on this motion, namely, that SCO did not
breach the GPL. Throughout this brief, IBM cites to both Utah law and
New York law."

Do you still have confidence in Eben Moglen?

[1]
http://dartreview.com/archives/2005/04/08/intellectual_property_is_so_last_ye
ar.php
(Intellectual Property Is So Last Year)

[2] http://lysanderspooner.org/intellect/contents.htm
(THE LAW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; OR AN ESSAY ON THE RIGHT OF AUTHORS
AND INVENTORS TO A PERPETUAL PROPERTY IN THEIR IDEAS. VOL. I. BY
LYSANDER SPOONER. BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY BELA MARSH, 15 FRANKLIN STREET.
1855.)

See also

http://www.charvolant.org/~doug/gpl/gpl.pdf
(Why Not Use the GPL? Thoughts on Free and Open-Source Software)

Hth.

regards,
alexander.

[Paul de Weerd]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:06:56PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
|     Now you have found a second reason for not recommending OpenBSD. It
|     (legally) distributes binary firmwares for certain pieces of hardware.
|     Again, you make a distinction that many here say does not exist.
|
| The distinction clearly exists.  They are not the same.

No. It is not because you say there is a distinction that this
distinction exists. The same holds for me (or anyone else, for that
matter). This is why I provide ample arguments to show why they are
the same. Stating "They are not the same." does not make it true.

|     There's been a trend in hardware development. First, hardware was just
|     that : a couple of circuits connected on a pcb. Then, hardware got
|     "firmware", a small bit of unchangeable software the hardware vendor
|     integrated with the circuits. An upgrade of this firmware meant
|     replacing the circuit holding this firmware. We moved from ROMs to
|     EEPROMs, allowing people with specialized hardware to update this
|     firmware without replacing actual hardware. Next step was a piece of
|     non-volatile memory (flash memory of some sort) containing the
|     firmware, easier to upgrade but not always required (since the
|     hardware comes with firmware installed by default). Today, we see many
|     pieces of hardware with a small amount of RAM where the device driver
|     loads the firmware upon device attachment.
|
| That's like walking from Paris to Geneva, and saying that since all
| your steps were short, there cannot be a frontier.

No, it is nothing like walking from Paris to Geneva. I can point to
you on a map exactly where the border between France and Switzerland
is and crossing this border has nothing to do with the ethics of free
software.

| The ROM is clearly equivalent to a circuit.  The firmware you load
| into a RAM is clearly software on your machine.  Precisely where to
| draw the line is a tricky question, but there has to be one.

No, the ROM is clearly a piece of software. It's Read Only Memory, it
has been programmed with firmware once. Do you really believe that the
medium dictates the freeness of the software ? Firmware is just
another piece of software. It was written by someone in some
programming language, compiled into a binary format and is in some way
shape or form distributed with the hardware. How the hardware loads
this piece of software is dictated by the storage medium.

|     Yet, this firmware can be upgraded and OpenBSD will
|     automatically do this if it detects older firmware on your NIC. You
|     can choose another operating system that does not upgrade the firmware
|     and the hardware may work fine for your use case. Should the firmware
|     be free software ? It's inside the hardware and on your other
|     operating system you are not installing software on it.
|
| That is a borderline case.  One possible resolution is that it is ok
| to use this hardware, but updating the firmware is a bad thing.

This can not seriously be what you really believe. The non-free
firmware that comes pre-installed on the hardware is OK, but updating
it yourself is not ? If you wanted to use this newer version of the
firmware, you would buy another piece of the same hardware with the
newer version installed ?

| Another possible resolution is that the fact that they widely release
| upgrades for the firmware is enough to make this hardware bad.  I want
| to think about this more before I reach a conclusion.

I do not see how the details of how firmware upgrades are distributed
come into play here. You're better off if no new firmware is
released ? You can use a piece of hardware until the vendor releases
new firmware ?

Let's look at another example. Some hardware vendor sells a particular
type of NIC. The NIC has firmware installed on it in a piece of ROM.
The firmware works fine and does exactly what the vendor wants. To
make the production of this particular NIC cheaper, the vendor decides
to move to RAM with the driver loading *the exact same firmware* in
that RAM.

The software hasn't changed. The license hasn't change. Please explain
to me how ethics changed.

If you were in the store and had the option between the ROM-based and
the RAM-based version, according to you it makes a difference which
one you buy ? ROM-based is ethical, RAM-based is not ? Really - there
is no difference when it comes to the ethics of things. You argue that
driver-loadable firmware must come with source under a permissive
license but when the same firmware is already programmed on the NIC
it's OK. I'm arguing that these are the same - from an ethical point
of view. The firmware (ROM or RAM) does not come with source released
under a permissive license.

|     I conclude that what you consider ethical or not depends on how easy
|     something is to accomplish. However, ethics has nothing to do with
|     ease of action.
|
| In some cases it does.  Whether you are allowed to go to the moon is
| an academic issue, because you can't.  Whether you are allowed to go
| to Paris is a real issue, because you could.

No. Again, going to the moon or going to Paris is not an ethical
issue. The ethics of software are not involved at all. Also, upgrading
ROMs is not an academic issue. Fewer people can do it but it's still
possible. But you are arguing that just because something is hard to
do, ethics don't come into play. They do. Just like breaking into my
webserver is unethical, easy or not.

|     If you really apply your ethics so loosely, I have little respect for
|     them.
|
| You seem to be saying that proper ethics must never have gray areas.
| I think that is a mistaken principle--gray areas are inevitable, and
| we have to deal with them.  There are various ways to do so, but none
| of them is perfect.  Sometimes we have to draw a line in the best place
| we can find.

How can there be gray areas in software ? If microsoft were to release
a cellular phone with a specialized version of their operating system
installed as a ROM, wouldn't that still be the same non-free software
we've come to expect from them ? If I took GPL licensed code, changed
it for my specific use case, compiled it and burnt it on a ROM and
then sold my piece of hardware without giving away the source under a
permissive license, would you not care ?

|     If my webserver is broken into by some mal-intended person, I don't
|     care if the webserver ran Windows and the break in was very easy or
|     OpenBSD where the break in was near impossible : I still consider it
|     unethical to break into my webserver. I may be at fault for using such
|     an insecure OS for a webserver but that doesn't change the ethics of
|     the break in.
|
| I agree with your reasoning about this case, and I would generalize it
| by saying that if an act is wrong, making it easy doesn't make it
| right.  However, I think it is also valid to say that when an act is
| prohibitively difficult, there is no need to care whether it is also
| prohibited.

Prohibiting generally involves the law. Ethics do not. They often
agree on things (since, in general, ethical people write laws) but
they're not the same (eg it is legal for microsoft to distribute non-
free software but you consider it unethical).

Breaking into my OpenBSD machine is prohibitively difficult. Two
security issues in ten years, that's quite a feat. That does not make
it impossible. OpenBSD is written by people and people make mistakes.
I'm not ignoring the security of my webserver just because I think it
is difficult to break in. I still care.

You say you want certain freedoms in software. You say you want this
for all users and all software alike. Not all users are alike - some
are interested in the software burnt into the ROMs on their NICs. They
want to be able to read the source to the firmware, maybe just to
check that it does indeed do what the documentation says. You are
leaving those users out in the cold when you say that ethics are not
involved in the distribution of that firmware and you refuse to fight
for those freedoms equally hard.

For the record, I do not believe that firmware (ROMs, flash or driver
loadable) should come with full source under a permissive license. It
would be a nice-to-have, but since there is no real distinction
between the various forms firmware is distributed in, it's equally
nice-to-have for all forms. Once the firmware is loaded into the
device, it should just do its job. I'm merely pointing out the
falacies in your ethics.

And doesn't the fact that we are debating this issue at all tarnish
your "clearly" existing distinction ? If it was that clear, we would
not have this argument. I disagree with you, and I've provided
arguments and examples (within domain) why. Your arguments take me to
Paris, Geneva and the moon but have little to do with ethics or
software. It is you who's attacking straw men here.

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

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

[Eric Furman-3]

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:14:59 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <rms@...>
said:

>     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.

But it's not implicit at all. Do you know the meaning of that word?
What the fuck did they teach you at MIT? Please STFU and go away.

[Marco Peereboom]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:07:02PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     No it does not.  During boot a Linux kernel will check AND UPDATE
>     microcode to CPUs if necessary.
>
> I did not know that.  That is not good.  I will have to think about
> what we should do about this.  Perhaps remove that capability from
> our version of Linux.

Because you don't research these things.  You rant and rave without
knowing your facts.  This is what makes it impossible to have a
meaningful conversation with you.  I am pretty sure you would have
stopped talking to me if I was just driveling.

>
>       You are twisting the meaning around again.
>
> Let's look at what happened here, because the pattern has occurred
> again and againt.
>
> You mentioned facts I did not know.  Then you immediately jumped to
> the conclusion that I was deliberately ignoring them.  Won't you
> please check your conclusions before you accuse?

You make an argument.  I assume that you know what you are talking about.

This is where the communication breakdown happens.  I make sure I inform
myself about a topic before I make grand accusations or form an opinion.
You keep using ignorance as an excuse; I keep assuming you actually did
your research.  That is the pattern that emerges.

>
>     It is probably time to go check all the FSF infrastructure because I bet
>     you'll find a lot of parts that require OS assist to load firmware.
>
> I don't think so.  We check for this before we buy hardware.

I'd bet money that you have hardware that requires driver assist.

[Marco Peereboom]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:07:03PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     Man you are hard to talk to.  You keep making stuff up and don't reply
>     to questions people ask you.  I even tried to ask you politely.
>
> "You keep making stuff up" is a rather harsh accusation.  (Also, it
> isn't true.)  I am much easier t talk to if you don't attack.

I am not attacking you.  I am assuming you do your part of thinking and
research while you talk to me.  If you'd work for me I would have fired
you for this.  One is only allowed so many "I didn't know and didn't try
to figure it out" issues.  I am not being an ass; I am trying to talk
intelligently about these topics.

Don't blame me for being unable to converse with you.  I am trying but
we are not talking at the same level.  I apparently have too many
expectations for you.

[chefren]

On 01/07/08 18:16, Richard Stallman wrote:

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

And what about the research that should have made gNewSense up to your
standards?


The intention of good research is enough to prevent any errors in it I
presume?


Once you understand Richard Stallman you are truly in open source heaven!

You want to write good code? No understanding or experience needed,
just intend to do it! At least Richard will believe you and spread the
word about it.

+++chefren

[Steve Shockley]

Marco Peereboom wrote:
>> I don't think so.  We check for this before we buy hardware.
>
> I'd bet money that you have hardware that requires driver assist.

I doubt it; if he needs to use a device that doesn't meet his criteria
for "free" (like a cell phone), he just has someone else carry it around
for him.  That absolves him from all responsibility without any
inconvenience.

[Dave Anderson-4]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:

>    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.
>
>Most of the people responding here, yes, but that doesn't
>mean _most people_ would see it that way.

Not necessarily, but since you've provided no evidence whatsoever that
anyone other than FSFers agrees with you the way to bet is that the
general public would mostly agree with me.  The group participating here
is a lot more diverse than just the FSF.

>    >                       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.
>
>I would not call this a "barrier against installing" those programs.

I'm sure you wouldn't, but it is one nonetheless.

>    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).
>
>That's a little more than my standard.  Many applications talk
>about some non-free programs in passing.  I don't object to that.
>But you see what _kind_ of thing I'm concerned about.
>
>    Since this would require explicitly rejecting any proposed addition to
>    the ports collection which would install something which is 'non-free',
>
>Yes.
>
>    you do require erecting barriers.
>
>I would not call this a "barrier".  But, whatever we call it, at
>least you understand concretely what I mean.

It's something which makes it harder for the user to install a
'non-free' program than it is for him to install a 'free' program.
That's the essence of a barrier.  Claiming anything else is, at best,
weasel-wording.

>One reason I do not want to call this a "barrier" is that it suggests
>other things.  Many people thought I objected to the general capability
>of the ports system to install any program.  That misunderstanding
>seems to come words like "barrier".

        Dave

--
Dave Anderson
<dave@...>

[Dave Anderson-4]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, 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.
>
>    I don't recall seeing any of them claiming that.
>
>Many of the messages have argued (or even demanded) that I
>change my criteria and endorse OpenBSD.  In the past two days,
>several people tried to argue that I should change my position
>regarding firmware.

AFAICT most of the people on this list are users, not developers.  I
don't recall anyone I recognize as being a developer demanding that you
endorse OpenBSD.

Developers certainly have demanded that you change what you say about
OpenBSD, since what you have said is misleading.  They've also pointed
out apparent inconsistencies between how you treat OpenBSD and how you
treat more-favored systems.  But that's quite different from demanding
an endorsement.

        Dave

--
Dave Anderson
<dave@...>

[Wijnand Wiersma-3]

On Jan 8, 2008 6:47 PM, Andris <adelfino@...> wrote:
> But you _do_ recommend _Linux_ even when "Torvalds' version of Linux
> is not free software"! And let me put this perfectly clear to you:
> Linus Torvalds develops _Linux_. Period. GNU/Linux means GNU
> (http://gnu.org/ packages, free software) and Linux
> (http://kernel.org/, non-free software). GNU promotes itself with a
> non-free software kernel, they don't even change one letter of it.
> Because _Linux_, is popular.

Yeah, RMS likes to bitch about calling Linux GNU/Linux but it should
really be BSD/GNU/Linux.
How about that Richard?

Wijnand

[chefren]

On 1/9/08 1:49 AM, Steve Shockley wrote:
> Marco Peereboom wrote:
>>> I don't think so.  We check for this before we buy hardware.
>>
>> I'd bet money that you have hardware that requires driver assist.
>
> I doubt it; if he needs to use a device that doesn't meet his criteria
> for "free" (like a cell phone), he just has someone else carry it around
> for him.  That absolves him from all responsibility without any
> inconvenience.

Most chips require bits to be stored in registers (addresses) to get them do
what they need to do. In the 80's manufacturers started with delivering chips
that hadn't all registers in the address space of the processor and subsequent
writes to the same address were necessary after a reset condition to get the
chip working (this spared physical address lines and thus expensive pins on
the chip).

Even if a blob needs to be stored on a chip it's often by sending subsequent
writes to the same address. Sometimes this goes the other way around, with
DMA, the chip reads a block of outside adresses (flash memory or memory filled
by the main processor). Sometimes a memory besides the chip is attached with a
serial connection (i2c etc, saves pins!). I have certainly not mentioned all
way's to get required setup data to chips. But in general: After start the CPU
  reads the first bytes of the bios and starts setting up at least all chips
on the motherboard with data from the bios etc etc etc...

+++chefren

[Andrés Delfino]

"[...] Linux is not free software".
"[...] Linux [...] is on the ok side of the line".

Therefore: if there's only one popular kernel that GNU can use in its
project, then it's OK to use it, even if it's not free software.

Unpopular stuff like gNewSense have to be thought about, probably by a
marketing team inside GNU/FSF, while popular non-free software is
chosen.

I'll put this clear, once again: every time the GNU Project or the
Free Software Foundation talks about GNU/Linux in a positive way,
they're promoting a non-free software kernel. There's no way to talk
about Linux without promoting it, except the FSF forks its own copy of
Linux and uses a name that has nothing to do with it. Period.

And in case you thought about, a "Q: Isn't Linux non-free software? A:
Yes, it is; everytime we talk about Linux, we are talking about a
version that's not from Linus Torvalds" text somewhere in GNU/FSF's
Web site does not do any good at all.

Your personal ad* says that you value "truth [...] more than
\"success\"", right? Well, then sacrifice Linux's popularity for the
sake of the FSF's purpose.

I find it funny that the FSF did remove Linux  from the Free Software
Directory but is afraid to disassociate from it. That _is_
hypocritical.

Be a Real Men, Richard.



Original quotes:

"Torvalds' version of Linux is not free software"

"Mentioning Linux is referring to something well-known that people
have already heard of, which is on the ok side of the line."

*
http://www.stallman.org/extra/personal.html

[Sunnz]

2008/1/9, Paul de Weerd <weerd@...>:

> On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:06:56PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> |     Yet, this firmware can be upgraded and OpenBSD will
> |     automatically do this if it detects older firmware on your NIC. You
> |     can choose another operating system that does not upgrade the firmware
> |     and the hardware may work fine for your use case. Should the firmware
> |     be free software ? It's inside the hardware and on your other
> |     operating system you are not installing software on it.
> |
> | That is a borderline case.  One possible resolution is that it is ok
> | to use this hardware, but updating the firmware is a bad thing.
>
> This can not seriously be what you really believe. The non-free
> firmware that comes pre-installed on the hardware is OK, but updating
> it yourself is not ? If you wanted to use this newer version of the
> firmware, you would buy another piece of the same hardware with the
> newer version installed ?
>
>

In that case, buying a Windows computer would be Ok, as long as you
don't update the version of Windows software that is on it... when you
want a newer version of Windows, just get a new computer.

That's what the average consumer does by the way, they don't 'usually
install their own OS on the computer', and that they simply buy a new
computer with Vista preinstalled... so much for badvista...


--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

[Sunnz]

2008/1/12, Richard Stallman <rms@...>:

>     In that case, buying a Windows computer would be Ok, as long as you
>     don't update the version of Windows software that is on it... when you
>     want a newer version of Windows, just get a new computer.
>
> It is normal for users to install software on a PC.
> Perhaps many users never install anything and use only the
> software that was delivered.  But it is not abnormal to install
> software.
>
>
>

But it is abnormal to install firmware? Please explain, what's normal
and what's not?

For the masses it is quite abnormal to install Linux, let alone
gNewsense... does it that mean ethics isn't important for such OS's?

Oh, you said somewhere along the lines of updating firmware...

| That is a borderline case.  One possible resolution is that it is ok
| to use this hardware, but updating the firmware is a bad thing.

So say you buy a WinPC, and it is perfectly fine to use this hardware
as is, provided you don't update Windows?

--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

[Francesco Vollero]

Sunnz ha scritto:

> 2008/1/12, Richard Stallman <rms@...>:
>  
>>     In that case, buying a Windows computer would be Ok, as long as you
>>     don't update the version of Windows software that is on it... when you
>>     want a newer version of Windows, just get a new computer.
>>
>> It is normal for users to install software on a PC.
>> Perhaps many users never install anything and use only the
>> software that was delivered.  But it is not abnormal to install
>> software.
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>
> But it is abnormal to install firmware? Please explain, what's normal
> and what's not?
>
> For the masses it is quite abnormal to install Linux, let alone
> gNewsense... does it that mean ethics isn't important for such OS's?
>
> Oh, you said somewhere along the lines of updating firmware...
>
> | That is a borderline case.  One possible resolution is that it is ok
> | to use this hardware, but updating the firmware is a bad thing.
>
> So say you buy a WinPC, and it is perfectly fine to use this hardware
> as is, provided you don't update Windows?
>
>  

I think, it's enough.
Change at least the topic...After all, everyone have personal concept of
this situation...
Mr. Stallman, please, shut up.
Some people give us proofs that you looks like an hypocrite. Isn't real?
It's only a de Raadt fantasy or better a openbsd-misc reader fantasy?
Are you a liar?
You trust every word you say in your interviews?

I dont think so... You're a politic Mr stallman, for my point of view...
I really hope in your better world, but, sometimes, from your mouth,
like everyone, going out bullshit.

Kind regards,
Francesco Vollero



PS= Sorry for my english, i'm italian at all...