* On 2010 30 Dec 12:50 -0600, Brad Alexander wrote:
> > I can only say that I love BSD licenses. I know many people can be anger
> > by this but I find that BSD licences are the best exponent for the true
> > and unconditional user freedom.
>
> I agree with Camaleón. Not to end 2010 with a flame war, but this is
> the one thing that irritates me most about the FSF. They advocate free
> software, which is a laudable goal, but they seem to only acknowledge
> it *if* you conform to their definition of free. By definition, if a
> user chooses to, they should be *free* to use commercial software and
> be as equally accepted as someone who opts not to have any binary
> blobs on their system. In their own way, Stallman and the FSF are
> trying to accomplish lock-in as much as the vendors...

Sorry, but as a contributor to a small Free Software project licensed
under GPL and LGPL, I respectfully disagree. Much has been provided to
me because of the GPL and I believe that my contributions warrant the
same opportunity by others. I do not want any of my contributions taken
proprietary by *any* entity for *any* reason. I also do not see the GPL
as lock-in, rather as lock-out.

I do understand and respect why others would prefer to choose a BSD
license. I just ask that others do the same for us who choose the GPL.

HNY

- Nate >>

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://n0nb.us/index.html


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20101231044558.GE21517@n0nb.us">http://lists.debian.org/20101231044558.GE21517@n0nb.us

Dne, 31. 12. 2010 05:45:58 je Nate Bargmann napisal(a):

* On 2010 30 Dec 12:50 -0600, Brad Alexander wrote:
> > I can only say that I love BSD licenses. I know many people can
be anger
> > by this but I find that BSD licences are the best exponent for
the true

> > and unconditional user freedom.
>
> I agree with Camaleón. Not to end 2010 with a flame war, but this is
> the one thing that irritates me most about the FSF. They advocate
free
> software, which is a laudable goal, but they seem to only
acknowledge

> it *if* you conform to their definition of free. By definition, if a
> user chooses to, they should be *free* to use commercial software
and

> be as equally accepted as someone who opts not to have any binary
> blobs on their system. In their own way, Stallman and the FSF are
> trying to accomplish lock-in as much as the vendors...

Sorry, but as a contributor to a small Free Software project licensed
under GPL and LGPL, I respectfully disagree. Much has been provided
to

me because of the GPL and I believe that my contributions warrant the
same opportunity by others. I do not want any of my contributions
taken
proprietary by *any* entity for *any* reason. I also do not see the
GPL

as lock-in, rather as lock-out.


Couldn't agree more. It's a war. We really shouldn't fool ourselves
about that. Countering the immense power of proprietary software
companies with non-viral free licenses is like fighting against tanks
with just bare hands. Corporations -- software ones included -- are
*not* like us. They may contain some "decent people" but they are not
themselves "decent people" like we are, they are soulless entities. We
shouldn't make the mistake of personifying them, that is, of projecting
our inner traits of honesty, decency, humanity, honor, or morality onto
them: they have none of those. They just have *agendas*.


GPL gives developers of free software at least half a chance. It
saddens me to see how many people fail, or refuse, to see that.


--
Cheerio,

Klistvud
http://bufferoverflow.tiddlyspot.com
Certifiable Loonix User #481801 Please reply to the list, not to
me.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 1293792231.6925.0@compax">http://lists.debian.org/1293792231.6925.0@compax

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 13:47:15 -0500, Brad Alexander wrote:

>> I can only say that I love BSD licenses. I know many people can be
>> anger by this but I find that BSD licences are the best exponent for
>> the true and unconditional user freedom.
>
> I agree with Camaleón. Not to end 2010 with a flame war, but this is the
> one thing that irritates me most about the FSF. They advocate free
> software, which is a laudable goal, but they seem to only acknowledge it
> *if* you conform to their definition of free. By definition, if a user
> chooses to, they should be *free* to use commercial software and be as
> equally accepted as someone who opts not to have any binary blobs on
> their system. In their own way, Stallman and the FSF are trying to
> accomplish lock-in as much as the vendors...

Well, I don't see any strong contradictions in BSD licences (tagged as
"new/modified") and the FSF... in fact the Modified BSD licencse it is
listed in their site and marked as "GPL compatible":

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

So we (BSD and FSF lovers) can all be happy :-)

In brief, I think non-copyleft licences are more user-oriented than gpl-
ed ones (which put the "full powers" on developer's hand).

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: pan.2010.12.31.12.58.58@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.12.31.12.58.58@gmail.com

On Jo, 30 dec 10, 18:40:57, Camaleón wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:11:43 -0800, S Mathias wrote:
>
> > http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/downloads/754fee75-c5a0-4542-
> bf9b-47f236c0a90b/default.aspx
> >
> > Any comments?
>
> Additional information:
>
> http://www.bsdnewsletter.com/2010/12/News180.html
>
> I can only say that I love BSD licenses. I know many people can be anger
> by this but I find that BSD licences are the best exponent for the true
> and unconditional user freedom.

The most interesting for me was this (emphasis mine):

,----
| Microsoft released their NetBSD installation ISO image with everything:
| their custom scheduler, *full sources*, tools, man pages, etc. [...]
| (Under the nice NetBSD license.)
`----

especially since the BSD license does not force them to release sources,
or to release them under same license.

Regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic

Brad Alexander writes:
> Not to end 2010 with a flame war, but this is the one thing that
> irritates me most about the FSF. They advocate free software, which is
> a laudable goal, but they seem to only acknowledge it *if* you conform
> to their definition of free.

The FSF explicitly acknowledges the BSD as a Free license.

> By definition, if a user chooses to, they should be *free* to use
> commercial software...

They are.
--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 877heqax90.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org">http://lists.debian.org/877heqax90.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org

On 12/30/2010 06:38 PM, Mike McMullin wrote:
> On December 30, 2010 01:11:45 pm S Mathias wrote:
>> http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/downloads/754fee75-c5a0-4542-bf9b-47f23
>> 6c0a90b/default.aspx
>>
>> Any comments?
>
> Wow, I wonder if the code is buggy, or about any back doors.
>

I think you are mixing stations, completely.

* research.microsoft.com is the *research* piece of Microsoft, as
much as the Bell Labs were (of old) for AT&T. For research, they are
staffed with a LOT of exceptional people, most of them well-known in
the field. And... a lot of good research is done there, in a mix of
theoretical and practical. I find it as difficult to see deliberate
miscoding in r.m.c as in any other research. Keep in mind that all
open research (all published or accessible, I mean) can be looked at.

* in other words, please do not confuse r.m.c with Microsoft market
practices.

* downloads from r.m.c are usually for specific
areas/research-in-progress. This one is clearly such.

Even if I do not like the commercial approach Microsoft uses, I
still follow their research. And, if you do development/research in
CS, I would suggest you to *also* follow their work -- and really
analyse it, instead of blindly suggesting misconduct.

Cheers,

..C..

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

Look, I am as much for free software as the rest, but I think the FSF
tends to start brush fires to justify their own existence. I believe
they have done some good work, but many things they do seem to be
counterproductive to the cause. For instance, their latest attack, on
Linus Torvalds, claiming that the Linux Kernel is Open Core, and that
"Linux Kernel Is Torvalds' 'Bait and Switch'"
(http://www.osnews.com/story/24009/FSFLA_Linux_Kernel_Is_Torvalds_Bait_and_Switch_
and http://lwn.net/Articles/413927/) Why? Because you can install
binary blobs on your Linux system if you _choose to_? That makes the
kernel Open Core? And Linus is intentionally drawing people in to
software heresy?

I understand people like Nate's position. However, I also understand
the need for some proprietary software. If it weren't for some of it,
Linux would still be a garage project. For the last 12 years, I have
been able to earn a living as a professional Linux system admin. We
would not be where we are without uptake on the part of companies. The
human genome would not have been mapped by Linux, military systems
would not be running Linux, etc. It's a balancing act that we have,
thus far, done, IMHO, a pretty decent job of.

Again, I am not trying to start a flame war, but I am a pragmatist. I
would rather get Linux in an organization, even if that means that
temporarily (e.g. application level) or semi-permanently (e.g. binary
blobs for proprietary hardware...until equivalent free drivers are
developed) using something proprietary. I think getting Linux in the
door is a win, even if it is not 100% free.

--b

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Klistvud <quotations@aliceadsl.fr> wrote:
> Dne, 31. 12. 2010 05:45:58 je Nate Bargmann napisal(a):
>>
>> * On 2010 30 Dec 12:50 -0600, Brad Alexander wrote:
>> > > I can only say that I love BSD licenses. I know many people can be
>> > > anger
>> > > by this but I find that BSD licences are the best exponent for the
>> > > true
>> > > and unconditional user freedom.
>> >
>> > I agree with Camaleón. Not to end 2010 with a flame war, but this is
>> > the one thing that irritates me most about the FSF. They advocate free
>> > software, which is a laudable goal, but they seem to only acknowledge
>> > it *if* you conform to their definition of free. By definition, if a
>> > user chooses to, they should be *free* to use commercial software and
>> > be as equally accepted as someone who opts not to have any binary
>> > blobs on their system. In their own way, Stallman and the FSF are
>> > trying to accomplish lock-in as much as the vendors...
>>
>> Sorry, but as a contributor to a small Free Software project licensed
>> under GPL and LGPL, I respectfully disagree. *Much has been provided to
>> me because of the GPL and I believe that my contributions warrant the
>> same opportunity by others. *I do not want any of my contributions taken
>> proprietary by *any* entity for *any* reason. *I also do not see the GPL
>> as lock-in, rather as lock-out.
>
> Couldn't agree more. It's a war. We really shouldn't fool ourselves about
> that. Countering the immense power of proprietary software companies with
> non-viral free licenses is like fighting against tanks with just bare hands.
> Corporations -- software ones included -- are *not* like us. They may
> contain some "decent people" but they are not themselves "decent people"
> like we are, they are soulless entities. We shouldn't make the mistake of
> personifying them, that is, of projecting our inner traits of honesty,
> decency, humanity, honor, or morality onto them: they have none of those.
> They just have *agendas*.
>
> GPL gives developers of free software at least half a chance. It saddens me
> to see how many people fail, or refuse, to see that.
>
> --
> Cheerio,
>
> Klistvud * * * * * * * * * * * * * * http://bufferoverflow.tiddlyspot.com
> Certifiable Loonix User #481801 * * *Please reply to the list, not to me.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.orgwith a subject
> of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1293792231.6925.0@compax
>
>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: AANLkTinh6P2Ue-FLj4xcEBwi50t2zye7B35nRxbf9ide@mail.gmail.com">htt p://lists.debian.org/AANLkTinh6P2Ue-FLj4xcEBwi50t2zye7B35nRxbf9ide@mail.gmail.com

On Sb, 01 ian 11, 23:35:34, Brad Alexander wrote:
> Look, I am as much for free software as the rest, but I think the FSF
> tends to start brush fires to justify their own existence. I believe
> they have done some good work, but many things they do seem to be
> counterproductive to the cause. For instance, their latest attack, on
> Linus Torvalds, claiming that the Linux Kernel is Open Core, and that
> "Linux Kernel Is Torvalds' 'Bait and Switch'"
> (http://www.osnews.com/story/24009/FSFLA_Linux_Kernel_Is_Torvalds_Bait_and_Switch_
> and http://lwn.net/Articles/413927/) Why? Because you can install
> binary blobs on your Linux system if you _choose to_? That makes the
> kernel Open Core? And Linus is intentionally drawing people in to
> software heresy?

There might come a day when most of the systems in the world will be
running free software, but we are still not there. Actually, at the
moment it's (almost?) impossible to run a completely free system, so
there is still work to do. Even more, it's important to not let people
think "it's just the firmware", because even the firmware does have
source code somewhere[1].

Unfortunately the method used (attacking other members of the free
software community) is IMVHO not the best...

[1] except maybe some hex tables used to initialize the hardware, but
even then, those hex tables should be thoroughly documented

Regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic

Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:

> Just that I don't click on random URLs without at least a minimum
> explanation of what they're supposed to be about.

I had a sacrificial lamb to try that link with. Here's what's on the
page:

"NetBSD for eMIPS

"This download contains the ISO CD image for installing NetBSD 4.0.1 on
an eMIPS processor system. The download works for the Xilinx XUP board
and the Giano simulator."




--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.30.10-105.2.23.fc11.i686.PAE

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.



--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines