Red Hat has an NDA cooperation with Marvell for the wireless chips that they want to use for the One Laptop per Child-project. The idea of this is that both parties think Marvell will be more open in the future, but this is absolutely not the path they should walk, according to OpenBSD’s Theo de Raadt. “I am getting really tired of ‘open source’ people who work against the open source community. Our little group can probably take credit for having ‘opened up’ more wireless devices than the rest of the community, and therefore we feel we have a better grasp of the damage OLPC has done here.”
Red Hat just got permission to write a 100% opensource driver, one that you can use to port to openbsd!
This is undobtely the same than 100% propietary drivers!
And let’s not speak about intel – the one hardware company that it’s writing 100% free drivers for most of their products, but that does not release SPECS!
Now seriously: Can’t Theo use his mouth to critize only companies that do _not_ release opensource drivers NEITHER specs instead? In my not so humble opinion, releasing 100% free driver without specs is certainly great. f–k, I _WHISH_ all hardware companies released 100% free drivers without specs. That day, I’ll find sense to Theo’s words but meanwhile open drivers are a REALLY HUGE STEP forward. Apparently Theo doesn’t relizes how importanting are the open Intel video drivers and how critical are they going to be to the progress of open source graphical subsystems in the open source world.
Theo, _stop_ offending companies that allow to write open source drivers with an NDA. Those companies are the _exception_. It’s not that the opensource world should try to ask to do even more efforts, it’s just not fair. With your attitude you’re *damaging*, not helping, the opensource world.
I’m confused. How can you write an open-source driver with an NDA? The source should clearly show details of the implementation the NDA was meant to keep private, non?
Yes, the source code does indeed reveal many of the things that the NDA spec tells you. But certainly it’s _not_ a spec, it doesn’t reveals everything.
In my book:
– closed drivers: bad
– open drivers, no spec: good
– open drivers and/or specs: great
Just don’t ask me why Theo spend his time arguing that “open drivers, no spec” are somehow a openness crime. It’s not the best situation possible but certainly they’re great news for the open source community. Except for Theo, that is. I hope this is not related to the fact that the open driver redhat is writing is for linux and not for openbsd…
Edited 2006-10-05 22:56
– open drivers, no spec: good
It’s not “good”, only “less bad”.
With closed drivers you have to assume that the people who wrote the driver knows what to do.
With open driver, but no spec, you have to assume that the people who wrote the open driver actually knows what they are doing with their hidden specs.
I’d rank it as:
-closed drivers: bad
-open drivers, closed spec: less bad
-open drivers, reverse engineered: decent
-open drivers, open spec: good
I wouldn`t be so sure, that it can be ported evrywhere. If Red-hat write driver it will be probably under GPL license. That`h mean, that main *BSD systems won`t port it into theire kernel.
Well I`m pro-GPL person, but I`d like to see evrything work in *BSD systems either.
Ofcourse I can be wrong and maybe Red-hat will do driver in BSD-like license. No idea.
Just don’t ask me why Theo spend his time arguing that “open drivers, no spec” are somehow a openness crime. It’s not the best situation possible but certainly they’re great news for the open source community. Except for Theo, that is. I hope this is not related to the fact that the open driver redhat is writing is for linux and not for openbsd…
And when Intel stops supporting their older products where do we go? To developers without documentation.
What about when a driver doesn’t work on sparc64 (or has major issues)? Where do we go? Developers without documentation.
That doesn’t sound “good” to me.
Weren’t you talking about the goodness of Open Source drivers some topics ago?
And look, now that they have it they are not happy with them, and if they gets the spect was next? will they want a stock options to the manufaturers too? see how complicated is now?
Nothing I’ve said is any indication that I’m not in favour of open source drivers. It isn’t any more complicated than proprietary software, actually.
“The source should clearly show details of the implementation the NDA was meant to keep private, non?”
It’s perfectly possible to obfuscate code to the point that it’s virtually impossible to understand without having the specs.
True enough.
The source should clearly show details of the implementation the NDA was meant to keep private, non?
No, not neccesary, lots of implementation details will not have any relevance on the driver sourcode. It’s more a convinience thing. It’s hard and expensive work to go through an internal specification and design documentation, to remove the information desired or requred to keep private. And you still have to include enouch information to make the specifiaction usefull.
In many cases it’s plain simpler and cheaper to make anyone needing the info sign an NDA, and give access to the internal specification and design documentation.
OpenBSD is the one and only real free and open operating system. There is no “religion” like in GPL and there is no “war” between distros of any kind. Just openess without any drawback! Should be common in opensource, but the opposite is true.
Edited 2006-10-05 21:03
Your argumentation does not hold ground. The one license that actually makes sure software remains open, is GPL. If you want to call it viral, that’s fine, I understand the reasoning behind it. But then you should also be aware that Theo is even more viral than the GPL, or at least he wants to be.
And that “war” you are refering to, you know how people tend to call it? Ironically most people would call it a free market. And the GNU/GPL/Linux people are communists?
I’m not saying that Theo isn’t right. Binary blobs are a problem, but please stop throwing non-relevant and/or incorrect out of your windows.
Your argumentation does not hold ground. The one license that actually makes sure software remains open, is GPL.
Sorry, but that’s factually incorrect. It would be correct, however, to say that “licenses that contain at least the same conditions as the GPL make sure software remains open.”
“but that’s factually incorrect.”
No , its you who is factually incorrect and wrong.
“licenses that contain at least the same conditions as the GPL make sure software remains open.”
There are none. Hence only the GPL make sure the software remains Open.
There are none. Hence only the GPL make sure the software remains Open.
That’s wrong, look at the Affero license and others. The GPL is not the only license with the same requirements, in fact I could go write one now with the same exact requirements and yet another one would exist and it still wouldn’t be the GPL.
You really need to research your licenses…
http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
“This license is a modified version of the GNU General Public License”
…
“The GPL is not the only license with the same requirements”
Yes , the other do cherry picking.
“in fact I could go write one now with the same exact requirements and yet another one would exist and it still wouldn’t be the GPL. ”
You said it exist ( you picked a GPL modification ) … now you say you have to go make one …
“You really need to research your licenses… ”
You really need to make a valid , factual and accurate point.
I am still waiting for something that is not the GPL or a modification of it that prove your false point. That exist today and is in use. ( yes I added some requirement , because one need to be extremely precise with you apparently ).
Its not in the similarities that the GPL as value its in the details and difference.
Are you high son? Damned near any licence listed on the OSI’s site makes sure the software remains open, hell, even the public domain, which is to say no licence, the granting of all rights absolutely, makes sure that the software remains open.
People making a closed source derivative of something does not remove the original software, how hard is that to understand? So many GPL fanbois seem to completely ignore this.
The GPL is one of many licences which force all derivative software of the original to be open, it isn’t even alone in what you meant to say.
Edited 2006-10-05 23:12
“Are you high son?”
Its not because your an alcoolic and a druggy that others are like you when they make a reply.
“Damned near any licence listed on the OSI’s”
Swearing too , that dont help your case at all.
“Licence listed on the OSI’s site makes sure the software remains open,”
The OSI marketing group only certifies the license that are Open sometime , under certain circumstance. It does not have for certification , the requirement , that the license make sure the software source code remains Open. Otherwise the list would drop of by 80%.
“hell,”
Swearing again …
“even the public domain,”
Is the worst , most of the code there is switched in the derivative to something closed.
” which is to say no licence,”
No , public domain is a license.
” the granting of all rights absolutely, makes sure that the software remains open. ”
I am sorry to burst your trip on drug and alcool but , public domains grants no rights. It certainly dont remain Open at all time.
“People making a closed source derivative of something does not remove the original software”
In Real Open Source there is no derivative. If a derivative is created , it means it was not Open Source , but shared source.
“how hard is that to understand? ”
Apparently its extremly hard , you still dont get it. After hundred of time someone explained it clearly and truthfully to you.
“So many GPL fanbois seem to completely ignore this.”
No the GPL developper/user/community made sure that this would not happen with there license of choice.
The problem is that it dont allow druggy , alcoolic , liar , thief , traitor and coward such as yourself to take it and do what YOU normally do with all other license :
Profit from it and give absolutely nothing back at all or just what you feel is of no consequence to your income and control.
“The GPL is one of many licences”
No , your implying it is , dont make it so in reality.
“which force all derivative software of the original to be open”
Its worst then that , for you that is , it consider everything originals.
“it isn’t even alone in what you meant to say.”
I dont know about him but I am 100% sure that no others are/is :
* Copyleft : is a play on the word copyright it give freedom where copyright is used to remove them.
* Copycenter : Take it down to the copy center and make as many copies as you want. ( BSD where the first to have this , they just forget they did invent it in latter versions ).
* CopyFree : You dont have to ask permission to do anything with it.
* Contriback : you have to make your modification and derivative availaible to all who ask or make the offer of giving access to it for a fee at any time in the futur to anyone who ask.
* SupportFree : Anyone can give support on it legally.
ETC …
Its not what you got by bribing , small useles modification to pass and political commercial marketing motivations that make the difference , its what it dont have , its not a chery picking either , you have to have them all.
Why do you discuss the GPL all the time ? A license that work stands on its own merit and people choose to use it under its terms.
Most people promote the GPL because they tried your
BSD ‘s and its worst and dont work , the code get closed and some people control it at the expanse of al others.
Its about time you realized that is a Free Software world by the Free Software community. Open Source is just marketing , its crap on its own.
@Moulinneuf
Public domain is not a license !
Th Mona Lisa is public domain, Mozart and Bach are public domain, Shakespeare is public domain.
Public domain means it belongs to everyone and is free to use for any purpose because no one owns it, and no one can licence it.
BSD is not shared source, it’s open. There is just a difference of philosophies between GPL and BSD licences.
GPL original is free forever, modified also free.
BSD original is free forever, modified might be free or might not be, could even go GPL.
Name callins is uncalled fore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
“The Mona Lisa is public domain”
It is owned by the French government and hangs in the Musée du Louvre in Paris.
“Mozart and Bach”
are dead people who where artists and musician.
“Shakespeare”
Is a dead author.
“Public domain means it belongs to everyone and is free to use for any purpose because no one owns it, and no one can licence it. ”
No …
“BSD is not shared source”
Something that can be closed is shared source.
“it’s open.”
No , Open cant be closed EVER ! Its open …
“There is just a difference of philosophies between GPL and BSD licences. ”
No philsophies are intangible , the BSD fails due to there actions ( lack of them ) , not there philosophies.
“GPL original is free forever, modified also free. ”
Its a lot more complicated then that.
“BSD original is free forever, modified might be free or might not be, could even go GPL. ”
Its also lot more complicated then that.
“Name callins is uncalled fore”
It may be acceptable where you live to disparage younger people to talk due to there age and its also tolerated to insinuate that others are on drug , but sorry , I dont stand for , nor tolerate it.
So my tone is based entirely on is answer and is more then appropriate.
Feel free to disagree with me , my bias and position , and the insult I make , I appologize to you for making this thread less bearable by my insult to another poster , but you wont make me retract or change my mind on this subject.
Well f–k me, damn is a swear word now? What in the hell?!? Hell is too? Well, I’ll be a damned. Shit, you need to lighten up there buddy. Last I checked foul language, even by your prudish standards, didn’t invalidate a statement.
Perhaps you need to read what the public domain is, it is the end of all claims on a property. When something enters the public domain it is no longer owned by anyone, all rights are granted to anyone who may wish to make use of it. This isn’t a licence, this is the end of licensability – noone can restrict that stuff any more.
You really must be on some sort of narcotic Moulinneuf, since you are unable to understand English, open means open, it doesn’t mean perpetually open, it just means open. It’s a simple word, perhaps you should look it up before talking about how things that are able to be closed aren’t open. I don’t call my door a shared door, I say it’s an open door.
Their is no need to be so religiously dense Moulinneuf, if you stopped drinking the magick water then maybe you would be able to grasp how imbecilic it appears when you go around trying to make new definitions for words.
Edited 2006-10-06 16:31
“Well f–k me, damn … invalidate a statement.”
I guess one can only expect as much from some druggy.
“Perhaps you need to read what the public domain is”
Nope.
“it is the end of all claims on a property.”
Nope.
“When something enters the public domain it is no longer owned by anyone,”
Nope.
“all rights are granted to anyone who may wish to make use of it.”
Nope.
“this isn’t a licence, this is the end of licensability – noone can restrict that stuff any more.”
Nope.
“You really must be on some sort of narcotic Moulinneuf”
I dont take narcotics like you , your projection on others is pathetic.
“since you are unable to understand English”
But I do understand english , I just dont make the world and its content fit my view and what I whant it to say.
“open means open”
Yes …
” it doesn’t mean perpetually open”
Yes it does , otherwise its : Closed …
“it’s a simple word”
Yes , but you seem to have problem with it.
“perhaps you should look it up”
I did , thats why I have a problem with people like you who associate Open with : things that can be closed when they feel like it.
“before talking about how things that are able to be closed aren’t open.”
I am correcting your false comment … Not talking with you.
“I don’t call my door a shared door,”
Your the only one to use it ?
“I say it’s an open door.”
When its closed ?
“Their is no need to be so religiously dense Moulinneuf”
Alcoolic druggy , your not discussing my religion at all , the GPL is a license I put my work under.
“if you stopped drinking the magick water ”
You do need to stop your fabulation , people dont drink magic water for them to use the GPL , they tried the rest and it got closed.
“maybe you would be able to grasp how imbecilic”
I grasp reality , not your bushit.
” it appears when you go around trying to make new definitions for words. ”
Sorry to burst your trip , I aint the one defining or trying to change the meaning of words.
Something Open cant be closed EVER ! otherwise its closed. Or its shared between the two …
So, what does that make this jar of mayo? You mean that even if I open it up, it’s closed? Man, when did this change in the language happen? I guess I will go close my mayo and spread it on my sandwich.
Moulinneuf, you’re just posting as much as possible so that your rating goes up from .25, aren’t you? Cause it seems all you’re saying is stuff people think is offensive or offensively stupid.
Maybe my fabulation is reality my good man, perhaps if you were to fabulate as I do, you would understand how insane you seem. You’re either delusional or deliberately attempting to provoke anyone and everyone around you, because nothing you say makes sense.
“You mean that even if I open it up, it’s closed?”
No , but its still shared between Open and closed as its not always Open and not always closed.
“Man, when did this change in the language happen?”
Its always been there.
“I guess I will go close my mayo and spread it on my sandwich.”
The Drugs and alcool you take make you do that …
“you’re just posting as much as possible so that your rating goes up from .25,”
I dont care about my ratings.
“Cause it seems all you’re saying is stuff people think is offensive or offensively stupid. ”
No , its stuff some people disagree with and instead of being inteligent and reply they use moderation , dont mean I am false just that some people disagree with me and my comment.
“you would understand how insane you seem. ”
I aint insane , and I know you dont see the world with a clear view.
“You’re either delusional or deliberately attempting to provoke anyone and everyone around you,”
No , I just correct your false comments and those of others , its annoying to people who dont like reality and the truth.
“because nothing you say makes sense.”
It does make sense , but you dont like what it say. If I made no sense at all , you would not be able to say the opposite.
For me BSD dont qualify as Open or Free , its really simple , I dont redifine words to do it or make exeption like you do either.
Thanks for the jar of mayo example , it really help show that BSD is not Free nor Open. Its shared.
Moulinneuf you are wrong in so many ways.. i just registerd on the site hoping i might help the sane people getting you back to the real world.
“For me BSD dont qualify as Open or Free , its really simple , I dont redifine words to do it or make exeption like you do either.
Thanks for the jar of mayo example , it really help show that BSD is not Free nor Open. Its shared.”
You call gpl for a a “free software licens” but you don’t see the bsd licens as a free licens. Newsflash even fsf sees it as a “free software licens”…
I for one don’t agree with the fsf and i don’t see the gpl as something that should be talked about as being free. I only deal with open source no “free” stuff here. What you fail to understand is that nomather what people to with the code licensed under the bsd licens the original code is still here for people to use… How else should the *bsd’s have openssh?
“Moulinneuf you are wrong in so many ways”
Nope.
” i just registerd on the site hoping i might help the sane people getting you back to the real world. ”
But of course … Excuse me if I dont put too much accuracy behind your offer of sincerity.
“You call gpl for a … even fsf sees it as a “free software licens”… ”
Thats not news , but you can search my comment , the FSF definition dont take into account the license that can be closed and tolerate them , the OSI does the same.
“I for one don’t agree with the fsf and i don’t see the gpl as something that should be talked about as being free.”
Its your right. Unlike me , you dont have thousands of closed software to backup your case.
“I only deal with open source no “free” stuff here.”
I really doubt that.
“What you fail to understand is that nomather what people to with the code licensed under the bsd licens the original code is still here for people to use.”
Nope ,what you fail to understand is that both originals and derivative have been closed with BSD , but then you dont understand that in Open Source and Free Software there is NO derivative. You always work on the shoulder of others work nothing is closed , everything is free and stay free as in freedom.
“How else should the *bsd’s have openssh?”
OpenSSH is developed by the OpenBSD Project.
Why do they need to mention that they are OpenBSD ? if BSD is open …
The sick part in this is that the goal of OpenBSD can never be achieved using the BSD license.
“”Moulinneuf you are wrong in so many ways”
Nope. ”
It seems your imposible to reach…
“You call gpl for a … even fsf sees it as a “free software licens”… ”
Thats not news , but you can search my comment , the FSF definition dont take into account the license that can be closed and tolerate them , the OSI does the same. ”
I really don’t care what fsf believe in or not.. But it’s a fact that they do see the bsdl as a free software licens.
“I for one don’t agree with the fsf and i don’t see the gpl as something that should be talked about as being free.”
Its your right. Unlike me , you dont have thousands of closed software to backup your case.”
You know shit about what i have of posibilities…
“I only deal with open source no “free” stuff here.”
I really doubt that.”
You doubt all you want.. I never talk about stuff as “free” in the fsf way. I allways talk about open source. I unlike you it seems doesnt believe in pushing my idea in the face of others…
“What you fail to understand is that nomather what people to with the code licensed under the bsd licens the original code is still here for people to use.”
Nope ,what you fail to understand is that both originals and derivative have been closed with BSD , but then you dont understand that in Open Source and Free Software there is NO derivative. You always work on the shoulder of others work nothing is closed , everything is free and stay free as in freedom.”
Atleast pretend that you understand what i write… You cant close my bsd licensed software… Only i can do that. And that only goes for the people that will use it in the future.. People who got a copy before i closed it will still be able to use it as they see fit because it’s under the bsdl.
“How else should the *bsd’s have openssh?”
OpenSSH is developed by the OpenBSD Project.
Why do they need to mention that they are OpenBSD ? if BSD is open … ”
I wont even pretend to know why they chose the name they did.
“The sick part in this is that the goal of OpenBSD can never be achieved using the BSD license.”
Well it seems they are doing a pretty good job from where i’m sitting.. In the real world you know. Just how many unwanted visits have you heard about on a openbsd system?
At first, mark the “”
Secondly, refering to a free market and ignoring reality isn’t useful too. Is Theo viral? Take BSD, use the code, do what you want – what’s viral with these things? It’s real freedom. It isn’t “freedom” according to some peoples opinion, it’s freedom to choose your own way – most people think they are doing the right thing, history will show.
>but please stop throwing non-relevant and/or incorrect out of your windows.
It’s very important to see it right, most Linux distros do not care about any freedom. The “war” I mean, isn’t the variety of Linux distros, it’s the ill attempt to “fight” against others instead of working together.
“OpenBSD is the one and only real free and open operating system”
“There is no “religion” like in GPL “
Are you sure there’s “no religion”?. I swear I just saw one somewhere…
If it is “religion” to just don’t care about common mumbo jumbo, yes there is something.
“OpenBSD is the one and only real free and open operating system.”
No , something that can be closed to all others in the originals and the derivatives and that the majority of the source code is closed and cant be used by the majority and everyone , is not Free nor Open.
“There is no “religion” like in GPL”
The GPL is not a religion , there is no divine intervention or faith based on a superior entity , its a License created by humans that seems to work where all others before it fails.
“and there is no “war” between distros”
1) There is no distributions , in anyway and sense you can apply the word , that is one of the major problem for all BSD division/projects due to its internal wars.
2) The GNU/Linux distribution all work at offering the best solution they can , they also share there creation amongst all others.
“Just openess without any drawback!”
Closing of code , no contribution back , no sharing of source code by choice , no financial support , no commercial support beyond taking the existing code and making money from it with no consideration for the projects. Etc … All BSD are all but drawbacks.
“Should be common in opensource”
No , because Open Source is supposed to be against having its source code closed as its a marketing tool of free software. Thats why its ( BSD’s , OpenBSD ) not common principally. People tried it and it failed miserably , 35 years of BSD show this.
“but the opposite is true.”
No , real Open Source is not an opposite of opensource , its just against closing of software at the original source code or the derivative. Thats where OpenBSD fails the most.
Learn some new terms :
* Copyleft : is a play on the word copyright it give freedom where copyright is used to remove them.
OpenBSD dont do that.
* Copycenter : Take it down to the copy center and make as many copies as you want. ( BSD where the first to have this , they just forget they did invent it in latter versions ).
OpenBSD dont do that. Even do its a BSD’s creation.
* CopyFree : You dont have to ask permission to do anything with it.
OpenBSD dont do that.
* Contriback : you have to make your modification and derivative availaible to all who ask or make the offer of giving access to it for a fee at any time in the futur to anyone who ask.
OpenBSD dont do that.
* SupportFree : Anyone can give support on it legally.
OpenBSD dont do that.
Those qualities above are some of the quality that OpenBSD dont do or choose to not do anymore and why its inferior. Those are what differentiate the GPL and BSD.
openbsd does however distribute binary only firmware images, which IMO still is wrong.
nonetheless, theo is absolutely right.
have you even used OpenBSD? Which binary firmware does it “ship”? There are ports available.
Which binary firmware does it “ship”? There are ports available.
I can’t find a list off hand, but there are a few firmwares that are included in the tree.
I can’t find a list off hand, but there are a few firmwares that are included in the tree.
definitively NOT.
Got fun:
http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39
From reading the following comments I’m lead to believe there are firmware files included with OpenBSD.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=115972630820403&w=2
Our tree now contains firmware licenses from many other vendors
and If we included this firmware in OpenBSD, we would have to put it in our “source tree”. We do not put binary files into our CVS repository (for various technical reasons, but also to avoid these traps). Even if a vendor gives us a binary firmware with the right license, we turn it into a .h file and later on use a program to re-format it to a binary firmware file. Most people would largely consider a .h file to
be a “source form”. Intel prohibits this for no good reason.
OpenBSD ships with firmware images because the manufacturers are selling “useless” hardware—without the firmware, your hardware does nothing/”is broken.” In the recent past, manufactures would include the firmware on the hardware on “50 cent” flash memory, but, to save some pennies, this is no longer done—so the driver needs to get the firmware from somewhere to do anything with your hardware.
So, are you now happy that OpenBSD ships WITH the firmware—so you can just pop your firmware-less hardware in and start “playing?” Or would you rather download the firmware using your non-wireless NIC first and then setup your wireless NIC?
The manufacturers were distributing the firmware with the hardware before—now one of the few simple things OpenBSD asks for is to be allowed to distribute the firmware because the manufacturers of your hardware have stopped doing it.
OpenBSD doesn’t distribute them, it redistributes them and those binary only firmwares are the same firmwares anyone uses, it is run entirely on the hardware, so it isn’t based on just Linux 2.6.123 on i686, or whatever specific platform. A firmware doesn’t have the problems inherent in a binary blob.
Whatever your moral scale may be, OpenBSD doesn’t care, it works based on what matters, an uncontrolled chunk of code in the kernel is wrong, on the hardware is entirely normal – almost all hardware ships with it.
Firmware runs on the card, it does not run in the host OS. Firmware is that little bit of software that used to be stuck permanently on the card via an EPROM chip. Nowadays, it’s cheaper to have a little firmware downloader that loads the firmware onto the chip rather than burn it into an EPROM.
As firmware *never* runs in the host OS, what’s the problem with a binary firmware object shipped with an OS?
These are not drivers, these are not binary blobs, these are the little bits on the hardware that enables you to communicate with the hardware.
Leave it to Theo to protect our freedom! Yes, he may not bring it nicely sometimes but the OSS community owes him a lot of credit for being so non-conformist in his ideals.
On this issue, Theo and RMS are in complete agreement and both of them oppose what Red Hat has done. Theo agrees with RMS on what others call a “religious” argument (that is, that fs/os developers shouldn’t accept NDAs).
I agree with Theo that the OLPC project made a bad mistake when they didn’t insist on open specs. They had bargaining power (as Theo says, millions of these will be bought and sold).
“what Red Hat has done.”
1) One Laptop Per Child, a non-profit started by Negroponte and other Media Lab faculty, to extend Internet access in developing countries.
2) OLPC is funded by a number of sponsor organizations. These include AMD, Brightstar Corporation, eBay, Google, Marvell, News Corporation, SES Global, Nortel Networks, and Red Hat. Each company has donated two million dollars.
——-
there is nothing wrong in distributing firmwares as they run on the hardware components and not on the main cpu touching the kernel or the machine’s memory. Huge difference ofthen overlooked by many.
i know that, firmware running on the device doesent make a difference if its simply something at runtime the kernel uploads, if it were permanently on the device it wouldnt be free either, however i believe its a mistake distributing it as part of the free OS. It could even lead to people thinking the vendors of devices where firmware is distributed is very nice, since they think its free because it works out of the box.
“i believe its a mistake distributing it as part of the free OS.”
And pray tell, how do you use a web browser to download the firmware from the manufacturer when you cant use the NIC since, uh, you dont have the firmware?
“It could even lead to people thinking the vendors of devices where firmware is distributed is very nice, since they think its free because it works out of the box.”
It is free. You’re not seriously saying that all hw manufacturers should release all their firmware as open source, are you?
The pourpose of the Marvell is to develop a new firmware which would make a better network with less power, because the firmware make the nodes of the network, and not the CPU.
So, what is better? To keep the freedom philosophy, or make a much better product? Its a matter of self opinion. Red Hat and OLPC has his own.
Does anyone else find it funny that Theo pushes more for f/oss than Linus himself ?
no, linus is just a hacker. he doesnt care about politics. he said it may times.
>> Does anyone else find it funny that Theo pushes more for f/oss than Linus himself ?
“Linus himself” as in “Christ Himself”?
Linus and Theo are both “just” very gifted developers of open source software, Linus does not impersonate f/oss in any way, beyond the Linux kernel. Efforts of both are greatly appreciated, noone is indispensible, but Theo cares a lot more for the principles that benefit Linus too – which he maybe should realise a little more than he does. Part of the principle is simply, blobs should preferably stay out of the kernel at all times, and NDAs are so… nineteenth century.
Doesn’t mean I don’t think the GPL is better for open source than the BSD license, but that’s a different issue.
Lets not turn this into a celebrity deathmatch. The should be considered more important than the person delivering the message. It does not matter if Theo promotes F/OSS more than Linus or not and there is no way of knowing it Only if the opensource community stopped with this infighting, probably things would happen at a faster pace. It’s more like “Taking one step forward and two steps backward”. IMHO Linux world can learn a lot from the bsd world and so can bsd world learn from Linux world.
no, linus is just a hacker. he doesnt care about politics. he said it may times.
No he’s already involved. Just look at GPLv3, he complains about it, but doesn’t want to be involved in the process officially. You can’t have it both ways.
When RMS and Theo speak, I tend to listen.
They are looking it for me, for software freedom, even if they go about it differently. Linus is doing what he does, making linux. You’d think that the biggest success of the GPL would want to help software freedom, but he has tried to distance himself from the FSF.
To qoute Linus
The fact is, the people who whine over this have been totally blind to the fact that Linux is not “Free Software”. It never has been. The original source license for Linux was never the GPLv2, it was my own “you have to give back source code”.
In other words, Linux has always been “Open Source”, rather than the crazy “Free Software” thing. People who complain about that never seem to understand that others can agree with the GPLv2, without actually agreeing with the idiotic philosophies of the FSF.
Linus is not christ.
He does well with Linux, but when I think of software and freedom I trust Theo and RMS.
As for DRM, it’s only purpose is to stop me, the purchaser from using what I’ve bought.
There is already a law to stop me from burning 10,000 dvds of Gili and selling them. It’s called copyright law, as in the right to copy. That is another argument though.
To qoute Theo on open hardware specs
We are not your customers. YOU ARE OUR CUSTOMER. Our driver sells your chips.
@mikesum32
As for DRM, it’s only purpose is to stop me, the purchaser from using what I’ve bought.
Nope, it’s to stop you from abusing the ones who made the content. You nor anyone else have the right to hurt others.
Quote: We are not your customers. YOU ARE OUR CUSTOMER. Our driver sells your chips.
LOL.
“Open Source” devs: We are not your customers. YOU ARE OUR CUSTOMER. Our driver sells your chips.
Chip makers: you, “Open Source” devs, need our stuff (specs.) But we don’t need you. We already have (drivers) what you can offer us. You are not our customers because we can’t deliver hardware on the terms you want.
Then total silence.
0.000000001% lost sale. Chip makers makes it up by new customers gained from competitors by sales of new Windows and Linux servers.
PS: Here’s what I always found weird about OSS preachers. Instead of behaving in a childish manner, protesting rudely and other non productive ways, why not advocate OSS-friendly vendors instead. Is it that hard?
Nope, it’s to stop you from abusing the ones who made the content. You nor anyone else have the right to hurt others.
No, that’s what copyright law is for.
DRM is about control, and vendor lock-in. You’re at the mercy of whomever makes the DRM. They might go under, or maybe they’ll decide you shouldn’t have rights to the song, software or movie.
Chip makers: you, “Open Source” devs, need our stuff (specs.) But we don’t need you. We already have (drivers) what you can offer us. You are not our customers because we can’t deliver hardware on the terms you want.
Open specs mean that anyone that wants to make thier own driver can.
Shouldn’t I have the right to use hardware I bought on whatever OS I choose ?
Maybe Mr. Chip Maker doesn’t want to make drivers for QNX or Haiku or SkyOS.
Well now the community can.
Instead of behaving in a childish manner, protesting rudely and other non productive ways, why not advocate OSS-friendly vendors instead. Is it that hard?
Not protesting rudely ! Advocating OSS friendly vendors is well and good, but that’s like preaching to the choir. Why not help (or embarrass) less OSS friendly companies until they change thier minds ?
The chip makers or nay hardware makers are here to sell. Choosing platforms to support is plain stupid of these hardware companies, without proper drivers the hardware is pretty much useless. I use Nvidia card on my Linux box because Nvidia has better drivers on Linux. Until and unless these hardware manufacturing companies realize that they are losing customers because of lack of driver these companies are not going to do anything about it. Why should it matter to Broadcomm, Nvidia, ATI, etc what OS is choose to run, ,their job is to sell their hardware and release optimized drivers. These greedy hardware (I should say moronic)companies neither write the drivers nor do they give out the hardware specs so some one else can do the job that was intended for the hardware manufacturers (rather than reverse engineered drivers). This not about OSS, this is about being professional, hardware companies choosing sides is absolutely non-sensical.
“””To qoute Linus”””
Linus has also said that he observes that most of the “discussion” on GPLv3 is driven by people with interests which are purely political. i.e. people who don’t actually have any code to put under any license at all, let alone the one they are promoting for their own political reasons.
Can you give us a link to code which you have published under GPLv2, which will be colicensed under GPLv3 when it is released?
Or are you just talking out of your ass like most of us do? (Yes, I include myself in that group.)
I still feel that the very best thing that RMS and the FSF could do is to cut themselves loose from Linux.
RMS has often stated that the Linux kernel was simply the final piece that fell into place to make *his* operating system a reality.
But there is obviously a philosophical gap between RMS’s views and the Linux Kernel Developer’s views. He is obviously riding on the coat tails of Linux because it is convenient for him to do so, and not because he shares their values. One could almost call him a parasite.
Why doesn’t he just finish up The Hurd and go on? It’s not as though The Hurd has not benefitted from 16 years of development. It is not as though The Hurd doesn’t have a year’s head start on the Linux kernel.
Why can’t RMS and the FSF come up with an OS of their own after 22+ years?
Could it possibly be because they are driven by motivations which are fundamentally political and not technical?
Edited 2006-10-06 16:20
But there is obviously a philosophical gap between RMS’s views and the Linux Kernel Developer’s views. He is obviously riding on the coat tails of Linux because it is convenient for him to do so, and not because he shares their values. One could almost call him a parasite.
One could say the Linus is riding on the coat tails of RMS by using the GNU tools and GNU Compiler in Linux, or using GPL, but not advocating for it.
When people think of Linux usually they don’t think of just the kernel, but of a large chunk of GNU tools.
But this is not the place for calling people names or to say who is riding whose coat tails.
What’s really important is who is looking out for me.
Why can’t RMS and the FSF come up with an OS of their own after 22+ years?
I’m sure he’ll do that when Linus makes his own compiler and replaces all the GNU tools, I mean he’s had 22 years 🙂
Linus has also said that he observes that most of the “discussion” on GPLv3 is driven by people with interests which are purely political. i.e. people who don’t actually have any code to put under any license at all, let alone the one they are promoting for their own political reasons.
That’s like saying because I believe in freedom of speech, but don’t go on protest marches, my opinion is invalid.
Could it possibly be because they are driven by motivations which are fundamentally political and not technical?
A software license is a political thing. It’s all about what is free and how it’s free.
Going to bed now
“””
*But there is obviously a philosophical gap between RMS’s views and the Linux Kernel Developer’s views. He is obviously riding on the coat tails of Linux because it is convenient for him to do so, and not because he shares their values. One could almost call him a parasite.*
One could say the Linus is riding on the coat tails of RMS by using the GNU tools and GNU Compiler in Linux, or using GPL, but not advocating for it.
“””
No. Richard is the one claiming the moral high ground. But he cuts corners like anyone else. He simply refuses to admit to it.
Linus has no problems saying that GCC is the best compiler available to his project, though its compile speed and level of optimization are hideously bad compared to Microsoft’s compilers. (Don’t hit me! I hate that fact!)
If you do a formal source audit of your systems, as we did, you will find that FSF copyrighted code makes up a surprisingly small minority of total system code, despite what RMS likes to claim.
RMS is, unfortunately, a “has been”. More than anyone, he reminds me of the fictional character “Norma Desmond” of “Sunset Boulevard” fame, who couldn’t get over the fact that the time of her heyday had passed.
If he doen’t like that fact he can get out and code some more. And maybe finish up GNU/OS one of these years.
Edited 2006-10-06 18:12
Theo damages OSS where he only is able to. He puts a fanatical image on OSS and pulls it in the mud. Companies like RedHat have acted far more for the future of OSS than Theo would ever be able to.
Please Theo, got to MS and shut the f*ck up. YOU are an enemy of OSS.
WORD!
Theo TheRatt, also known as OpenBSD incarnate, could probably get a lot more accomplished if he didn’t come off like such an ass.
Except being nice failed previously.
http://www.gettysfamily.org/wordpress/?p=27
Let’s read side of OLPC developer, who knows how all things goes. Not some well known flamer.