bcw(4) is gone

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
109 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Robby Workman-6
Tobias Weisserth wrote:

>> GPL is good though if you want to force people to give back the code to
>> you so that you can use it in your own dual-licensed projects.
>>
>> For people wanting true freedom of their code use: BSD or ISC it ;)
>
> The problem is the word "free". BSD people tend to interpret "free" as
> "I can do whatever I want with that code! Hell, I can even make it
> "unfree" again by turning it into a proprietary product!". In my
> opinion, /code/ that is labeled "free" should always remain "free", no
> matter what the possible actions are. This ain't the case with BSD code.
> /You/ may do as you like with the code, but this doesn't make the code
> "free", it just liberates your actions. BSD code is not "free" code as
> such. It just implies "free" actions. It's just a matter of perspective.


It's not a matter of perspective - forced freedom is not freedom.


> This whole bcw(4) discussion turned out to be a "Those GNU/Linux/GPL
> fanatics don't allow us to be even more free than they claim to be!"
> cryout. The funny thing is that it comes down to an OpenBSD contributor
> who didn't respect the copyright of some other party by redistributing
> GPL code without the GPL license through a public CVS repository. It's
> amazing how a community that should actually take a defensive position
> in a matter like this switches into attack mode and makes the violated
> party the culprit.


To ignore the possibility that it was an honest mistake is part of the
problem.  I won't claim to know what Marcus Glocker was thinking, but
it seems quite plausible that he had every intention of removing the
infringing code prior to making the bcw(4) work public, but in the
excitement of some initial positive results, he simply forgot.  Either
way, he admitted that a mistake had been made.
The reason (as I see it - again, I won't speak for anyone else) that
the OpenBSD community came down so hard on the bcm43xx dev is due to
the way he pursued the issue.  There was absolutely no good reason to
initially address the issue on a public mailing list and CC'd to a
bunch of other people.  If the initial mail had been sent privately to
Marcus, then he could/would have removed the infringing code (or
perhaps the entire driver temporarily).  He could have then issued a
public statement on *why* he did it (which would have satisfied the
need to have it out in public that some of the code wasn't actually
BSD licensed).  Had it happened that way, everybody wins, and we
don't have all of this fuss over it.

RW

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Adam-29
In reply to this post by polarapfel
Tobias Weisserth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The problem is the word "free". BSD people tend to interpret "free"  
> as "I can do whatever I want with that code! Hell, I can even make it  
> "unfree" again by turning it into a proprietary product!".

Don't believe RMSs FUD.  You can't turn code "unfree", the BSD licensed
code is still there.  Just because some evil corporation uses my BSD
licensed code in a closed source product, doesn't make my code unfree.
Its still there, still just as free as it always was, for anyone and
everyone to use.  That is free.  The code they added to it is not free,
but the BSD licensed code is.  The GPL is not about releasing free code,
its about trying to force other people into releasing their code under
the GPL.

> opinion, /code/ that is labeled "free" should always remain "free"

And code that has seriously restrictive licenses like the GPL should not
be labeled "free" in the first place.

Adam

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

polarapfel
In reply to this post by Jessie D
Hi there,

On Apr 9, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Jessie D wrote:

>  <ericfurman <at> fastmail.net> writes:
>>>
>>> To ease his work, and to let others in our group to step in in his
>>> efforts, he committet it to our work area which we call cvs.
>>
>> A CVS is not by any stretch of the imagination a public repository
>> of code for anyone to use.
>
> Exactly.

Exactly? How so?! If I take a look into the OpenBSD FAQ, using the  
public CVS repositories is a common and documented method of updating  
an OpenBSD system by end users.

>> So no code was released hence no license violation. It doesn't  
>> take a genius.

The amount of hipocrisy and denial among people on this list is  
simply amazing. Many seem to have a twisted and shifted cognition  
when it comes to waving with the red "GPL/Linux" flag.

Simply unbelievable.

Tobias W.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

polarapfel
In reply to this post by Robby Workman-6
Hi there,

On Apr 9, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Robby Workman wrote:

> It's not a matter of perspective - forced freedom is not freedom.

That statement also is a matter of perspective. ;-) If you mean by  
"freedom", the liberty to do whatever you want, then BSD is freedom.  
If you mean by "freedom", the security that users have the same  
rights with the code tomorrow they already have today, even if  
numerous people contribute to the code, the GPL is freedom. GPL is a  
license that ensures code stays free in the sense of open for users.  
It doesn't mean you can do with it whatever you want. It's not you  
that's free, it's the code. That's what I ment with matter of  
perspective. You don't have to agree with this at all, but at least  
you have to understand and respect the idea and that other people  
contribute to this model. It's nothing that should be rejected like I  
have the impression it is done by many stubborn people on this list.

> To ignore the possibility that it was an honest mistake is part of the
> problem.  I won't claim to know what Marcus Glocker was thinking, but
> it seems quite plausible that he had every intention of removing the
> infringing code prior to making the bcw(4) work public, but in the
> excitement of some initial positive results, he simply forgot.  Either
> way, he admitted that a mistake had been made.
> The reason (as I see it - again, I won't speak for anyone else) that
> the OpenBSD community came down so hard on the bcm43xx dev is due to
> the way he pursued the issue.  There was absolutely no good reason to
> initially address the issue on a public mailing list and CC'd to a
> bunch of other people.  If the initial mail had been sent privately to
> Marcus, then he could/would have removed the infringing code (or
> perhaps the entire driver temporarily).  He could have then issued a
> public statement on *why* he did it (which would have satisfied the
> need to have it out in public that some of the code wasn't actually
> BSD licensed).  Had it happened that way, everybody wins, and we
> don't have all of this fuss over it.

Yes, that's exactly what I have been talking about on undeadly when  
that stupid "death of a driver" article was published to promote the  
myth. The reason why I'm bothering to participate in this discussion  
at all, is that many people claiming to take the "OpenBSD side" in  
this argument are actually no better than the bcm43xx devs when they  
had the idea to go public. This whole issue has been escalated  
primarily by OpenBSD folks, not the other way around. I'd say it's  
time to simply drop it.

kind regards,
Tobias W.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

polarapfel
In reply to this post by Adam-29
Hi there,

On Apr 9, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Adam wrote:

> Tobias Weisserth <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> The problem is the word "free". BSD people tend to interpret "free"
>> as "I can do whatever I want with that code! Hell, I can even make it
>> "unfree" again by turning it into a proprietary product!".
>
> Don't believe RMSs FUD.  You can't turn code "unfree", the BSD  
> licensed
> code is still there.  Just because some evil corporation uses my BSD
> licensed code in a closed source product, doesn't make my code unfree.
> Its still there, still just as free as it always was, for anyone and
> everyone to use.  That is free.  The code they added to it is not  
> free,
> but the BSD licensed code is.  The GPL is not about releasing free  
> code,
> its about trying to force other people into releasing their code under
> the GPL.

Everything you said is true, fair and square. But does it really  
change anything? A copyright owner can decide whatever he wants when  
it comes to /his/ code. If he decides that other people may only use  
it if they offer it under the same restrictions it has been  
originally offered, then this is also fair and square. It's his code,  
his copyright. Take it as it is or leave it. As simple as that.

Regarding freedom: Take the Linksys routing devices. They ship with  
GPL software. Taking what you said as an example, it would be OK if  
Linksys made proprietary changes to the free software and deliver a  
closed software on the device. If for example the proprietary changes  
make the free software work on the device in the first place, the  
software is in effect not free anymore, as the free version of the  
software is useless in effect. If there is no other option than to  
buy these Linksys devices or similar devices in the future and the  
originally free software cannot be used on any other device anymore,  
then the propriety changes to a free software has made this software  
unfree for users. What's the freedom of BSD software worth when it  
can't be used in its free form anymore? That can't happen with GPL'ed  
software.

Think one step further. Take computers. Take computers that  
incoporate hardware that checks wether you run a signed binary from a  
particular vendor only. What use is BSD "free" code then? None at  
all. You'll have to start reverse-engineering. That's not a myth,  
that's not propaganda, that's simply a fact and that's a danger the  
Free Software Foundation wants to ward off by offering the GPL.  
You'll say: hey, what does it matter? I have plenty of choices in  
computer devices. What happens, when that is going to change? The GPL  
FORCES people to respect users rights to run free software on any  
devices that have been delivered with software based on free software  
and that ain't a bad idea at all. In fact it's pretty clever.

There are many cases where a GPL license is the only sensible choice  
in my opinion. Of course, I don't reject the BSD license either. It  
all depends on what you want to bring about and secure. There is no  
one-and-only-free license.

>> opinion, /code/ that is labeled "free" should always remain "free"
>
> And code that has seriously restrictive licenses like the GPL  
> should not
> be labeled "free" in the first place.

I simply can't follow this absolute rejection of the positive effect  
the GPL ensures. It's not that the BSD license and GPL license fight  
a battle for world domination. Not that it would be fair, given the  
"viral" character of the GPL... :-P

regards,
Tobias W.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Marco Peereboom
In reply to this post by polarapfel
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 01:48:08AM +0200, Tobias Weisserth wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> On Apr 9, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Robby Workman wrote:
>
> >It's not a matter of perspective - forced freedom is not freedom.

blah blah blah

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Marco Peereboom
In reply to this post by polarapfel
I have to reply to this horse shit.

> Everything you said is true, fair and square. But does it really  
> change anything? A copyright owner can decide whatever he wants when  
> it comes to /his/ code. If he decides that other people may only use  
> it if they offer it under the same restrictions it has been  
> originally offered, then this is also fair and square. It's his code,  
> his copyright. Take it as it is or leave it. As simple as that.

Bullshit.  Code will remain free.  A newer version can be closed but
code that has been published under the BSD/ISC license is free forever.
Just like code published under the GPL license will remain un-free
forever.

>
> Regarding freedom: Take the Linksys routing devices. They ship with  
> GPL software. Taking what you said as an example, it would be OK if  
> Linksys made proprietary changes to the free software and deliver a  
> closed software on the device. If for example the proprietary changes  
> make the free software work on the device in the first place, the  
> software is in effect not free anymore, as the free version of the  
> software is useless in effect. If there is no other option than to  
> buy these Linksys devices or similar devices in the future and the  
> originally free software cannot be used on any other device anymore,  
> then the propriety changes to a free software has made this software  
> unfree for users. What's the freedom of BSD software worth when it  
> can't be used in its free form anymore? That can't happen with GPL'ed  
> software.

You are talking without saying anything.  What is your fucking point?

>
> Think one step further. Take computers. Take computers that  
> incoporate hardware that checks wether you run a signed binary from a  
> particular vendor only. What use is BSD "free" code then? None at  
> all. You'll have to start reverse-engineering. That's not a myth,  
> that's not propaganda, that's simply a fact and that's a danger the  
> Free Software Foundation wants to ward off by offering the GPL.  
> You'll say: hey, what does it matter? I have plenty of choices in  
> computer devices. What happens, when that is going to change? The GPL  
> FORCES people to respect users rights to run free software on any  
> devices that have been delivered with software based on free software  
> and that ain't a bad idea at all. In fact it's pretty clever.

No it doesn't force anyone to do anything.  People/companies CHOOSE to
free up code because it's the shit these days.  I can promise you that
most changed GPL code never gets sent back.

>
> There are many cases where a GPL license is the only sensible choice  
> in my opinion. Of course, I don't reject the BSD license either. It  
> all depends on what you want to bring about and secure. There is no  
> one-and-only-free license.

The only good use so for of the GPL is java.  Sun gets to pretend to put
"free" code out there and it is completely protected by the GPL.  It will
never take any patches from the community; it simply wants to retain
full control.  The joke is on GPL since it protects the companies it
"hates".  One has got to love unforeseen consequences.

>
> >>opinion, /code/ that is labeled "free" should always remain "free"
> >
> >And code that has seriously restrictive licenses like the GPL  
> >should not
> >be labeled "free" in the first place.
>
> I simply can't follow this absolute rejection of the positive effect  
> the GPL ensures. It's not that the BSD license and GPL license fight  
> a battle for world domination. Not that it would be fair, given the  
> "viral" character of the GPL... :-P

It is because you do not understand the definition of free.  Let me
quote some relevant passages from dictionary.com:
 * exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc.
 * able to do something at will
 * exempt or released from something specified that controls, restrains,
   burdens, etc.
 * given without consideration of a return or reward
 * not subject to special regulations, restrictions, duties, etc.

Those are some of the entries.  The GPL is 100% NOT compatible with the
word free.  That's why people who can read call the GPL monkeys morons.

GPL is as free as communism.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

polarapfel
Hi there,

On Apr 10, 2007, at 3:20 AM, Marco Peereboom wrote:

> It is because you do not understand the definition of free.

Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of  
free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perception and perspective. I  
have given you a practical example which you simply rejected without  
even considering it. Do you really think you can make a rude point by  
copying and pasting from a dictionary? This is ridiculous.

Tobias

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Marco Peereboom
> >It is because you do not understand the definition of free.
>
> Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of  
> free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perception and perspective. I  
> have given you a practical example which you simply rejected without  
> even considering it. Do you really think you can make a rude point by  
> copying and pasting from a dictionary? This is ridiculous.

Oh this *is* the best argument I have ever heard from a GPL ding dong.

My perception of the word cat is no longer a furry animal that meows.  I
perceive a cat like most people perceive the color green when not color
blind.

bravo sir!  Intellectual point made.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Darren S.
In reply to this post by polarapfel
On 4/9/07, Tobias Weisserth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> On Apr 10, 2007, at 3:20 AM, Marco Peereboom wrote:
>
> > It is because you do not understand the definition of free.
>
> Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of
> free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perception and perspective. I
> have given you a practical example which you simply rejected without
> even considering it. Do you really think you can make a rude point by
> copying and pasting from a dictionary? This is ridiculous.

Then obviously your definition of what freedom means from the
perspective of software developers and users doesn't agree with this
community's. Why don't you carry on your views in a forum more
appreciative of that opinion instead of trying to sell it here?

http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html

DS

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Greg Thomas-3
In reply to this post by Marco Peereboom
On 4/9/07, Marco Peereboom <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > >It is because you do not understand the definition of free.
> >
> > Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of
> > free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perception and perspective. I
> > have given you a practical example which you simply rejected without
> > even considering it. Do you really think you can make a rude point by
> > copying and pasting from a dictionary? This is ridiculous.
>
> Oh this *is* the best argument I have ever heard from a GPL ding dong.
>
> My perception of the word cat is no longer a furry animal that meows.  I
> perceive a cat like most people perceive the color green when not color
> blind.
>
> bravo sir!  Intellectual point made.

Unfuckingbelievable.  Is there something in the GPL water that messes
with its fans' brains and twists their realities???

Greg

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

fuzzyping
On Apr 9, 2007, at 10:16 PM, Greg Thomas wrote:

> Unfuckingbelievable.  Is there something in the GPL water that messes
> with its fans' brains and twists their realities???

The real hypocrisy is this:

GPL advocates claim their license prevents commercial entities from  
stealing their freedom.  These are the same people who have no  
problem giving up their freedoms (in the form of NDA's, closed-source  
kernel modules, etc) to the companies they're trying to fight.

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Greg Thomas-3
On 4/9/07, Jason Dixon <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Apr 9, 2007, at 10:16 PM, Greg Thomas wrote:
>
> > Unfuckingbelievable.  Is there something in the GPL water that messes
> > with its fans' brains and twists their realities???
>
> The real hypocrisy is this:
>
> GPL advocates claim their license prevents commercial entities from
> stealing their freedom.  These are the same people who have no
> problem giving up their freedoms (in the form of NDA's, closed-source
> kernel modules, etc) to the companies they're trying to fight.
>

Yeah, when I first heard about the GPL way back when I primarily used
Linux I thought it was the coolest idea on the planet.  After
switching to OpenBSD for other reasons I finally realized that it was
the most selfish idea on the planet.  And that's not even getting into
the hypocrisy of selling out to closed companies, those same evil
companies that the GPL claims to be trying to protect us from.

Greg

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Artur Grabowski
In reply to this post by polarapfel
Tobias Weisserth <[hidden email]> writes:

> Hi there,
>
> On Apr 9, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> ...
>
> > GPL is good though if you want to force people to give back the
> > code to
> > you so that you can use it in your own dual-licensed projects.
> >
> > For people wanting true freedom of their code use: BSD or ISC it ;)
>
> The problem is the word "free". BSD people tend to interpret "free"

I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem that the mailing list where you chose
to air this opinion is for you, so could you please air your concerns
somewhere where people actually care?

Thank you.

//art

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Artur Grabowski
In reply to this post by Greg Thomas-3
"Greg Thomas" <[hidden email]> writes:

> > Nothing in the GPL prohibits commercial use of code released under the
> > GPL. It is perfectly fine to sell copies of GPLed code at any price.
> > What is *not* perfectly fine is to sell copies of GPLed code without
> > allowing access to the source code.
> >
> > The GPL is not about limiting commerical use of software.
>
> Sounds like 1984 newspeak to me.

"I'm not kicking you in the balls, I'm just rapidly moving my foot in
the general direciton of your crotch."

However. This is an OpenBSD mailing list and we have our licenses
pretty much figured out, so if you want to discuss GPL, please do it
where someone actually cares.

//art

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Adam-29
In reply to this post by polarapfel
Tobias Weisserth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of  
> free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perception and perspective.

No, its the FSF trying to redefine the word free.  The english language has
had the word for a long time, and its meanings are quite clear.  None of
those meanings include being restricted.  Its not a matter of perception or
perspective, you can't just pretend words meaning other things and expect
everyone to go along.  GPL your code all you want, just stop claiming it
has anything to do with freedom.

Adam

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Douglas A. Tutty
In reply to this post by Marco Peereboom
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 08:20:33PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
 
> It is because you do not understand the definition of free.  Let me
> quote some relevant passages from dictionary.com:
>  * exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc.
>  * able to do something at will
>  * exempt or released from something specified that controls, restrains,
>    burdens, etc.
Any license at all is a release from the total copyright held by any
author by default.

>  * given without consideration of a return or reward

The GPL 'gives' to the comunity in consideration of getting back
enhancements to the origional.  The BSD just gives.

>  * not subject to special regulations, restrictions, duties, etc.
>

Any licence short of releasing to public domain imposes _some_
restrictions.  There are just fewer in BSD compared with GPLv2 and fewer
in GPLv2 than in the proposed GPLv3.

Doug.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Lars Hansson
In reply to this post by darren kirby
darren kirby wrote:
> This is not so much a response to you Steven, as to the entire OpenBSD
> community.

Wide-sweeping incorrect generalizations are awesome. Can I make one too?
All GPL developers are morons. See? That was fun, wasn't it? Who cares
if it's correct, two wrongs make a right, doesn't it?

> Don't bother responding, I'm gone. Have fun with your Broadcom chips....

No thanks, I don't buy from moronic companies.

---
Lars Hansson

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Lars Hansson
In reply to this post by polarapfel
Tobias Weisserth wrote:
> Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of
> free on me?

I dunno, who does RMS think he is imposing his definition of free on me?

---
Lars Hansson

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Timo Schoeler-4
In reply to this post by Adam-29
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 23:15:36 -0400
Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Tobias Weisserth <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition
> > of free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perception and
> > perspective.
>
> No, its the FSF trying to redefine the word free.  The english
> language has had the word for a long time, and its meanings are quite
> clear.  None of those meanings include being restricted.  Its not a
> matter of perception or perspective, you can't just pretend words
> meaning other things and expect everyone to go along.  GPL your code
> all you want, just stop claiming it has anything to do with freedom.
>
> Adam

1984. Newspeak. Slavery (GPL) is freedom.

;)

timo

123456