FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-18-2008, 07:16 PM
Alexandre Oliva
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Jun 16, 2008, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:

> {0x14, 0x00}, /* Underline location */
> {0x17, 0xe3}, /* CRT mode control */
> {0x70, 0x00} /* Interlace control */

> I don't see anything wrong with _that_ at all.

There isn't. It's the rest of the entries in the array, that are
totally incomprehensible, that get in the way of the enjoyment of
freedom #1.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member íSÚ Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-18-2008, 07:24 PM
Alexandre Oliva
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Jun 16, 2008, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

> Certain forms of software being non modifiable is perfectly ok
> according to FSF.

Err... I'm sure there's some misunderstanding here somewhere. Where
did you get that idea?

Do you by any chance mistake 'non-functional data' (images, songs,
etc) for software?

> Fedora as a project has done more to promote free software than most
> mainstream distributions.

I think that's true, even though it has regressed in this regard in
the past 2 or 3 releases.

> We aren't perfect however and that is well known.

We shouldn't claim otherwise, though, to avoid misguiding people and
generating useless discussions between the well-known truth and claims
that conflict with it, as much as we'd like the claims to be true and
the well-known truth to be past mistakes long fixed.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member íSÚ Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-18-2008, 07:37 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Andrew Haley wrote:



I've explained that the GPL prevents me from sharing original work
that links to both GPL and non-GPL libraries.

And I've explained that it doesn't, and asked you to cite the passage
of the GPL that prevents you from doing it. You haven't bothered to
do it, and instead decided to keep insisting in this nonsensical
claim.


Actually, he did reply to that, but perhaps you didn't see it.

He had an unfree program (the wattcp library) and GNU tar and
discovered that he wasn't allowed to ship a program that linked
these two together. He then said, gloriously, "please don't try
to say the problem was cause by those other licenses -
they did not prevent anyone else from getting copies..." :-)

OK Les, I promise not to say it. However...


I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here. I could redistribute
copies of the other two components - but that's irrelevant since anyone
could get them in source anyway (they were only unfree in the reverse
way that the GPL redefines free to mean restricted). I could have
redistributed the combination if I had started with the original pdtar
instead of gnutar.


There is no reasonable interpretation that anything but the GPL
restrictions applied along with the changes between the pdtar and gnutar
versions restricted distribution of my subsequent modification of the
gnutar code. All of the other components were distributable except for
my own work to combine them. Of course I was mistaken at the time in
thinking that GPL'd code was suitable for re-use and sharing and know
better now. At the time I was simply deceived by something that claimed
to be free.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-18-2008, 07:40 PM
Dimi Paun
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 16:02 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > Except when the separate parts are identifiable and not derived.
>
> *and* *not* distributed as part of a single work derived from the
> Program.

FOR FSCKS SAKE, CAN YOU GUYS KNOCK IT OFF?!?

This thread has been going on for at least 10x more then the
worst offender in the past.

--
Dimi Paun <dimi@lattica.com>
Lattica, Inc.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-18-2008, 07:42 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Alexandre Oliva wrote:

On Jun 16, 2008, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@fedoraproject.org> wrote:


http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html



Certain forms of software being non modifiable is perfectly ok
according to FSF.


Err... I'm sure there's some misunderstanding here somewhere. Where
did you get that idea?

Do you by any chance mistake 'non-functional data' (images, songs,
etc) for software?


Not all game maps are purely non functional data for example. GFDL has
non variant sections and so on. I am still working with FSF to clarify
such details. Suffice to say there are lots of border line cases.


Rahul

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-18-2008, 07:49 PM
Alexandre Oliva
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Jun 16, 2008, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl> wrote:

> Basicly the message you are sending is: people please by devices with
> firmware in rom, preferably otp rom, because then certainly there is
> no evil.

You can tell that for sure, but then the barrier that prevents people
from making modifications is not an entirely artificial one, it's not
a privilege that the vendor unethically chooses to keep to itself, to
the detriment of those who paid for the privilege of using an
artificially-restricted device.

> Not being able to ever change the firmware is good,

It's not. Being Free to change it would undoubtedly be better.

> I should do away with all my PC's and instead switch to an internet
> appliance device, because then I no longer have to worry about whether
> I have any non-free software at all.

Like myself, you may very well be surprised when you find out that the
unmodifiable software in there is actually modifiable, and it may
actually be modified behind your back.

> So the goal of linux-libre is to not distribute non-free software. Do
> you ever buy a PC / laptop?

Yep.

> If so you're involved in a transaction which almost certainly
> involves the distribution of non-free firmware.

That's true, much to my dismay.

> Worse, not only are you involved in such a transaction, you
> are _paying_ for the system of which the non-free firmware is an
> integral part and thus you are paying for non-free firmware, thereby
> promoting the production of non-free firmware.

That's right. And I even wrote an article apologizing for having
harmed all fellow computer users doing this and other things.
http://www.fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/draft/flisol-libre-2008.en

> Do you ever sell any of you PC hardware (motherboard, latop, printer)
> second hand and / or give it away to friends / family, then you are
> *DISTRIBUTING* non-free firmware.

That is true. Shame on us. At least we're not further feeding the
monster when we do this, even though we're inducing more people to
accept the restrictions of firmwares they hadn't accepted before.

> Really, they should put you in prison for that!

We're already in prison.

And some of us are trying really hard to get out of it.

Meanwhile, most of the people tell us that it's pointless, why bother,
we have food, shelter and work here, and it only costs us our freedom.

Some people out there, who claim to care for us, even try to help us
by bringing us mattresses, clothes, blinds and earplugs so that we
don't get to the truth, that we were all born into bondage, in a
prison that we can't smell or taste or touch. A prison for our minds.
http://fsfla.org/~lxoliva/fsfla/whatisthematrix/

They think they're helping us by making us more comfortable, but in
truth they're just making the prison less intolerable, so that fewer
of us bother to work together to try to win our freedom back.

Some even fight us when we discuss our plans about how to become free
and what we're going to do out here, labeling us as hypocrites with
nonsensical arguments such as, if we're not free, how could we
possibly ask others to help us all escape prison?

Others will even incite fear and doubts as to what's out there to
discourage them from pursuing freedom.

Sorry, I got a bit carried away here. What was your point, again?


> Putting it simply there are 2 possible stances on non-free firmware:

How about 3?

3) it's evil, it's here and (just like any non-Free Software) we
should all do as much as we can to get rid of it and discourage this
form of aggression, rather than inducing people to get more of it and
further empower the aggressors.

Refraining from distributing the non-Free Software won't stop anyone
from getting to it and using it, if they choose to do so. But this is
no excuse to help them do so.

But distributing it may legitimize it, make people think it's
acceptable, or even to fool themselves into thinking it respects them,
even to the point of recommending it to others.

And distributing it in a way that doesn't give people even the option
of not installing it could make them seem absolutely necessary, which
is even worse.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member íSÚ Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-18-2008, 08:01 PM
Alexandre Oliva
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Jun 14, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> I'm not mistaken. Everything in there except the conditional grant to
>>> use, modify, distribute is a restriction.

>> Like what? Tell me *anything* you could do in the absence of the GPL,
>> that, by accepting the GPL, you can no longer do.

> Given (or knowing about) a library not covered by the GPL, I can write
> and distribute original work that uses the functions provided by that
> library, knowing that anyone can obtain their own copy of by my code
> and the additional library and use them together.

Assuming you have permission from the copyright holder of the library
to do so. If you do, whether or not the library is also available
under the GPL won't make any difference.

I get the impression you misunderstood the question. I'm not asking
something you could do if you had some other permissive license that
you couldn't do with the GPL. What I'm asking is whether you know of
anything that, in the absence of a copyright license, you could do
with a work, that, after accepting the GPL, you could no longer do.

This would be a prohibition of the GPL.

Anything else that you might believe to be a prohibition of the GPL is
actually a prohibition from copyright law, that the GPL refrains from
lifting.

>> Another fallacy. "You can redistribute under the same license"
>> doesn't divide, it has quite the opposite effect. It's permitting
>> redistribution under any licenses that may lead to forks, including
>> ones that don't permit further modifications.

> You can't permit redistribution of something you have prohibited from
> existing in the first place.

You could, but this doesn't apply to the GPL anyway.

The GPL doesn't forbid [anything, not even] the creation of any
derived works (and no permission is needed to create non-derived
works).

> for example the original BSD license which is about as far from
> proprietary as you can get.

Not true, in two senses.

1. the modified BSD license is even more permissive than the original
BSD license, and it is GPL-compatible :-)

2. there is a lot of non-Free (as you say, proprietary) Software
distributed in part or as a whole under the original and the modified
BSD licenses

> I agree that the separation would be more obvious
> if the bits were not embedded as data in the kernel in whatever format
> the compiler decides to use

... and the code hadn't been modified so as to require the presence of
those bits in there and so on...

> You could probably modify the compiler to store data in a separate
> file instead of whatever embedded memory-loading format it currently
> uses but it wouldn't change the copyright status of the output.

Agreed. The resulting object file would be just as derived from both,
and the source file modified to require the presence of the firmware
would still be just as derived from both.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member íSÚ Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-18-2008, 08:10 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Alexandre Oliva wrote:



Except when the separate parts are identifiable and not derived.


*and* *not* distributed as part of a single work derived from the
Program.


Yes, those are true - it's not derived from 'the Program' and it is an
identifiable separate section. It doesn't say everybody has to be able
to identify the sections, but I'm sure someone can and the computer can.



No, I just can't ignore what the COPYING file actually says.


And nevertheless you do ;-)


No, I even quoted it.


"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program ..."


"... when you distribute them as separate works"

that's the same sentence you started quoting, BTW.

Do you dispute that e.g. tg3.c as it stands is part of a single work?


It is an aggregate of separate unrelated parts with origins and
destinations in separate places.



And that it's derived from a (theoretical? unpublished?) earlier
version of tg3.c that was entirely under the GPL?


Maybe, but the owner of the code can apply whatever license he wants.
Removing the GPL restrictions makes sense to me. Otherwise it would be
of little use. I think the old GPL marking on the tg3 code was a
mistake and a red herring in this context anyway. Why not pursue this
argument regarding the CPU microcode for a more generic disposition?



(Or, if you don't go for that, that the combination of tg3.c not
entirely under the GPL with third-party code that was present in Linux
before, under the GPL, created a derived work that could only be
distributed in its entirety under the GPL?)


Putting two things together doesn't necessarily create a derived work.
It may still be two separate things. What's your distinction between an
aggregate stored together and a derived work? Being contained in the
same file making them derived seems as wrong as two separate printed
works being on the same page.



"Collective work" is not a relevant issue.


... because you it would show you may be mistaken?


No, because aggregates are permitted collective works.


who can identify the sections (like maybe the person who put them
there...) and make a determination if they were "derived from the
Program".


Do you dispute that tg3.c is derived from (i) earlier versions of
Linux, and (ii) the firmware it contains?


Yes. The firmware it contained was a separate item then, and so is the
version it contains now.



We already know they are separate, since they get dumped
into separate hardware.


As in, a movie is not a single work, but rather a mere aggregation of
independent separate works in a single DVD, because the video gets
processed by our eyes whereas the audio is processed by our ears?


Does not compute... But if you mean that songs used in the movie are
still owned by the same entity that owned them before the movie, I think
that is correct, and using a song in one section of the movie in no way
affects the rights of a different one in another section.



And, come to think of it, even the video is a mere aggregation in
itself, because even though it's compressed, it's a mechanical
transformation out of a sequence of clearly separate and independent
pictures.

Right? :-)


Yes, the representation does not affect the underlying creative works.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-18-2008, 08:13 PM
Anders Karlsson
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

* jeff <moe@blagblagblag.org> [20080618 17:50]:
[snip]
>
> ... more pages of hex
>
>
> I personally downloaded this file believing that I was getting a free GPL
> driver. Broadcom says so in the patch itself, in the included LICENSE
> file, and their website when you click to download it. Red Hat is
> shipping it as GPLv2. So either they have to provide the source (if they
> have it), stop shipping it, or *at least* stop saying they are shipping a
> GPLv2 kernel if they are unwilling/unable to provide the source.

You missed the discussion where it was pointed out that some firmware
is written in hex directly, as there is no compiler. Good luck with
demanding the source to that dude...

/Anders

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-18-2008, 08:17 PM
Anders Karlsson
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

* Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> [20080618 21:50]:
> On Jun 16, 2008, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl> wrote:
[snip]
> > Not being able to ever change the firmware is good,
>
> It's not. Being Free to change it would undoubtedly be better.

So what's stopping you? Go buy the programming manual for the chip, or
discuss with the chip manufacturer to get the specs as there may not
be a programming manual along the line what you find with say an Intel
CPU.

As the firmware may be written from scratch in hex, that may be your
*only* option.

/Anders

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:05 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ę2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org