bcw(4) is gone

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

Re: bcw(4) is gone

RedShift
Marco Peereboom wrote:
> I have to reply to this horse shit.
>

:-)


*snip*

>
>> 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?
>

Have you actually read that piece of text??

*snip*

>
>> 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.

Have you tried submitting patches to them? You are just being prejudist.
Please don't say things you "think", say things that are proven fact.


*snip*


Glenn

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Leonardo Rodrigues
Phew, what a load of animosity. I really hope humanity still has a chance.

Now, regarding the bcw issue, let's leave this thread to die. Mistakes
are meant to be forgiven, and life to be lived forwards =)

--
An OpenBSD user... and that's all you need to know =)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

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

> Have you tried submitting patches to them? You are just being
> prejudist. Please don't say things you "think", say things that are
> proven fact.

Is that a fact? Or just your opinion? I think it's a discussion that
doesn't belong on this mailing list.

//art

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

f.holop
In reply to this post by Diana Eichert
if someone is still reading the thread...

1. marcus makes mistake
2. michael tells the world
3. theo plays theater

1. it's not rocket science not to commit gpl licensed code into
the public cvs tree under a bsd license and let it sit there for
months.  esp. with the openbsd kind of draconian license audits.
it's not rocket science, and thus it's hard for linux people to
believe it was not intentional, but again, its obviousness is
the proof it couldn't have been intentional.  pray, who wouldn't
have noticed the gpl code in there?

2. let's stop for a moment, and think why michael would make a
mistake like this, again, it's not rocket science, it was a
mistake.  let's play the associations game.  i say "openbsd
developer" you say the first three things that come into your
mind.  ready?  go.  mine were: "theo", "arrogant", and
"difficult".  now let me state publicly after my fair share of
flame wars on misc@ that i do not believe on any day, that all
openbsd devs are like this.  not even the majority.  maybe no
one is like that these days... but the thing is, that these are
some of the attributes openbsd got associated with in the past,
a stigma.  so i wouldn't be surprised if michael just skipped
the first step of the rules of engagement and called in the
heavy artillery right away. it's not that far fetched, do you
work in big company?  the first thing you learn is to cc: all
the managers if you want to get something done for real.  so he
did.  at this point there could have been a nice and easy
solution if markus just explained publicly what he did.

3. theo's repeated (to the point of "shut up, already!", which
he uses so frequently) cries for empathy, downplaying marcus's
mistake and at the same time enlarging michael's is the most
postmodern literature i have read this year.  it's absurd.
imagine theo with tears in his eyes calling for empathy because
one of his developers has made a mistake and he's still managing
to insult people in the process!  just brilliant.



reading the whole thread i find it easy to see that theo made it
all worse.  marcus has made a mistake, but obviously, he's not a
thief.  the linux people have decided to deal with it this way,
not very nice but hey, life is not all cakes.  stand up like
a man, make a public answer, explain yourself and not hide
behind theo to deal with the PR.

and you almost did just that.  and then you deleted the driver
because ... because...  what was it again?  there is no public
explanatory mail between your list of choices and then erasure.
why was it really?  because some people hurt your feelings?
well, as theo used to say, v-v-very frequently: boo hoo, the
world is a harsh place.  the poetic "justice" of it all.


-f
--
to learn more about paranoids, follow them around!

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Reyk Floeter-2
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 12:19:29PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote:
> if someone is still reading the thread...
>

lalalala

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Doug Brewer
Reyk Floeter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 12:19:29PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote:
> > if someone is still reading the thread...
> >
>
> lalalala

Is it funny? Fuck off!!! lalalala

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Reyk Floeter-2
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 07:33:31PM +0800, Doug Brewer wrote:
> Reyk Floeter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 12:19:29PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote:
> >> if someone is still reading the thread...
> >>
> >
> >lalalala
>
> Is it funny? Fuck off!!! lalalala
>

it is not funny but all this GPL discussion and speculations will not
bring it back.

reyk

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
In reply to this post by Jeroen Massar
Seg, 2007-04-09 C s 18:29 +0100, Jeroen Massar escreveu:
> 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.

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the way both the GPL
and generic copyright work.

        * Nobody is forced to publish derivative works (as long as they
          keep them inside doors, eg. internal usage in a company)

        * Dual licensing in the way you suggest would be a copyright
          violation.

Rui

--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

GPL is free for forcing people to free code, not free as in free to do what you want, which is actually what free as in BSD and real freedom is (Was: bcw(4) is gone)

Jeroen Massar
[set the topic to make it nice and clear, this has nothing to do with
bcw(4) for a long time now, actually the whole thread avoided it]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

> Seg, 2007-04-09 C s 18:29 +0100, Jeroen Massar escreveu:
>> 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.
>
> This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the way both the GPL
> and generic copyright work.
>
> * Nobody is forced to publish derivative works (as long as they
>  keep them inside doors, eg. internal usage in a company)
>
> * Dual licensing in the way you suggest would be a copyright
>  violation.

Did you actually read what I wrote, as the above two points where in my
text, but you deleted that from your reply. You might want to read the
snipped text too :) I actually made a difference between the original
copyright owner (who is allowed to do anything they like with the code)
and somebody adding their stuff, who can't relicense it. As for the
first 'point' you are trying to make, also covered in my text...

PS: Please realize that some people want a different kind of freedom
than that other people want, respect that: take your pick, go GPL or
BSD, but don't try to force your religion on other people. You might end
up getting Jehova's witnesses on your neck ;)

Greets,
 Jeroen

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Massimo Lusetti-2
In reply to this post by Marco Peereboom
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:20:33 -0500
Marco Peereboom <[hidden email]> wrote:

> GPL is as free as communism.

Please add this to fortune!

--
Massimo.run();
She's the kind of girl who climbed the ladder of success wrong by
wrong. -- Mae West

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL is free for forcing people to free code when they publish, not free as in free to do what you want, which is actually what free as in BSD, and real freedom ends at the tip of my nose

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
In reply to this post by Jeroen Massar
[correct the subject] ;)

Qua, 2007-04-11 C s 14:26 +0100, Jeroen Massar escreveu:

> [set the topic to make it nice and clear, this has nothing to do with
> bcw(4) for a long time now, actually the whole thread avoided it]
>
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > Seg, 2007-04-09 C s 18:29 +0100, Jeroen Massar escreveu:
> >> 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.
> >
> > This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the way both the GPL
> > and generic copyright work.
> >
> > * Nobody is forced to publish derivative works (as long as they
> >  keep them inside doors, eg. internal usage in a company)
> >
> > * Dual licensing in the way you suggest would be a copyright
> >  violation.
>
> Did you actually read what I wrote, as the above two points where in my
> text, but you deleted that from your reply. You might want to read the
> snipped text too :) I actually made a difference between the original
> copyright owner (who is allowed to do anything they like with the code)
> and somebody adding their stuff, who can't relicense it. As for the
> first 'point' you are trying to make, also covered in my text...

What you also said is actually fully irrelevant, since I'm correcting
one phrase which has TWO incorrect things, one of them a copyright
violation. You can't dual-license other people's GPL'ed contributions.

> PS: Please realize that some people want a different kind of freedom
> than that other people want, respect that: take your pick, go GPL or
> BSD, but don't try to force your religion on other people. You might end
> up getting Jehova's witnesses on your neck ;)

Please realize that I didn't raise that issue, *you* did.

I merely focused on two quite simple technical details which you failed
to understand: one of the GPL and another of copyright law.

Rui

--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL is free for forcing people to free code when they publish, not free as in free to do what you want, which is actually what free as in BSD, and real freedom ends at the tip of my nose

Jeroen Massar
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

> [correct the subject] ;)
>
> Qua, 2007-04-11 C s 14:26 +0100, Jeroen Massar escreveu:
>> [set the topic to make it nice and clear, this has nothing to do with
>> bcw(4) for a long time now, actually the whole thread avoided it]
>>
>> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>>> Seg, 2007-04-09 C s 18:29 +0100, Jeroen Massar escreveu:
>>>> 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.
>>> This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the way both the GPL
>>> and generic copyright work.
>>>
>>> * Nobody is forced to publish derivative works (as long as they
>>>  keep them inside doors, eg. internal usage in a company)
>>>
>>> * Dual licensing in the way you suggest would be a copyright
>>>  violation.
>> Did you actually read what I wrote, as the above two points where in my
>> text, but you deleted that from your reply. You might want to read the
>> snipped text too :) I actually made a difference between the original
>> copyright owner (who is allowed to do anything they like with the code)
>> and somebody adding their stuff, who can't relicense it. As for the
>> first 'point' you are trying to make, also covered in my text...
>
> What you also said is actually fully irrelevant, since I'm correcting
> one phrase which has TWO incorrect things, one of them a copyright
> violation. You can't dual-license other people's GPL'ed contributions.

Again, re-read what I wrote. Don't try to mingle my words as I never
wrote that, it was in one sentence yes, but the rest of the sentences
told a completely different story.

Good that I PGP sign my messages so that it is clear that I didn't write
what you think I wrote by stripping out the portions that also matter
and that without those portions the message is not mine.

Greets,
 Jeroen

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL is free for forcing people to free code when they publish, not free as in free to do what you want, which is actually what free as in BSD, and real freedom ends at the tip of my nose

Darrin Chandler
Now that the subject is accurate, it's more obvious than ever that this
discussion doesn't belong here. Not only is it not relevant, but it's
been discussed to death many times, in many places.

--
Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD User Group  |  MetaBUG
[hidden email]   |  http://phxbug.org/      |  http://metabug.org/
http://www.stilyagin.com/  |  Daemons in the Desert   |  Global BUG Federation

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL is [blah blah blah ...]

Matthew R. Dempsky
In reply to this post by Jeroen Massar
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 04:18:41PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Good that I PGP sign my messages [...]

And the mailing list strips your signatures:

> [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Timo Schoeler-4
In reply to this post by Massimo Lusetti-2
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:25:14 +0200
Massimo Lusetti <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:20:33 -0500
> Marco Peereboom <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > GPL is as free as communism.
>
> Please add this to fortune!
>
> --
> Massimo.run();
> She's the kind of girl who climbed the ladder of success wrong by
> wrong. -- Mae West

[ ] -- you read about and understood what communism is (both of you)

[X] -- I replied that late because I was busy laughing after Marco's
post

[X] -- communism isn't as bad as the GPL ;)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Marc Balmer
Timo Schoeler wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:25:14 +0200
> Massimo Lusetti <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:20:33 -0500
>> Marco Peereboom <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> GPL is as free as communism.
>> Please add this to fortune!
>>
>> --
>> Massimo.run();
>> She's the kind of girl who climbed the ladder of success wrong by
>> wrong. -- Mae West
>
> [ ] -- you read about and understood what communism is (both of you)
>
> [X] -- I replied that late because I was busy laughing after Marco's
> post
>
> [X] -- communism isn't as bad as the GPL ;)
>

[X] marco is a communist

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Timo Schoeler-4
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:08:44 +0200
Marc Balmer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Timo Schoeler wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:25:14 +0200
> > Massimo Lusetti <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:20:33 -0500
> >> Marco Peereboom <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> GPL is as free as communism.
> >> Please add this to fortune!
> >>
> >> --
> >> Massimo.run();
> >> She's the kind of girl who climbed the ladder of success wrong by
> >> wrong. -- Mae West
> >
> > [ ] -- you read about and understood what communism is (both of you)
> >
> > [X] -- I replied that late because I was busy laughing after Marco's
> > post
> >
> > [X] -- communism isn't as bad as the GPL ;)
> >
>
> [X] marco is a communist

no; if so, he's as good as communist as George W. Bush as president.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Mike Erdely
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 08:20:51PM +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:08:44 +0200 Marc Balmer wrote:
> > > [X] -- communism isn't as bad as the GPL ;)
> > [X] marco is a communist
> no; if so, he's as good as communist as George W. Bush as president.

WTF!  What the hell does GPL, communism or GWB have to do with OpenBSD?
Let this thread die.

-ME

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL is free for forcing people to free code when they publish, not free as in free to do what you want, which is actually what free as in BSD, and real freedom ends at the tip of my nose

chefren
In reply to this post by Darrin Chandler
On 4/11/07 5:45 PM, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> Now that the subject is accurate, it's more obvious than ever that this
> discussion doesn't belong here. Not only is it not relevant, but it's
> been discussed to death many times, in many places.

Clearly not to death and people here are seriously interested in pro
and contra arguments.

+++chefren

p.s. GPLvX is BSD with DRM, GPLvX people try to rule after "giving" it
away, new GPL versions are "needed" because the idea behind it is
flawed, GPLvX people believe it can be fixed, BSD people know it's
technically beyond repair since the first version.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL is free for forcing people to free code when they publish, not free as in free to do what you want, which is actually what free as in BSD, and real freedom ends at the tip of my nose

Darrin Chandler
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 10:25:03PM +0200, chefren wrote:
> On 4/11/07 5:45 PM, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> >Now that the subject is accurate, it's more obvious than ever that this
> >discussion doesn't belong here. Not only is it not relevant, but it's
> >been discussed to death many times, in many places.
>
> Clearly not to death and people here are seriously interested in pro
> and contra arguments.

Just because you're still flogging a horse doesn't mean it's not dead.

BSD v. GPL is easy to understand:

If you want to give your code away for whatever purpose, use BSD.

If you want to enforce your view of "correct" on anyone using your code,
use GPL.

--
Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD User Group  |  MetaBUG
[hidden email]   |  http://phxbug.org/      |  http://metabug.org/
http://www.stilyagin.com/  |  Daemons in the Desert   |  Global BUG Federation

123456