Re: Gauntlet Set NOW!

Andre Hedrick
2003-01-05T05:24:09Z

On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Andrew McGregor wrote:

> By the way, I'm principally a developer of communications standards and
> hardware, not so much software.

I forgot to mention the template model on each side of the iSCSI protocol
state machine we have developed is agnostic?

Initiator --- Transport --- Target --- Spindle

TCP SCSI
Quads ATA
SCI SATA
Myrinet MD
InfiniBand LVM
TELCO USB
CARRIER 1394
SAS
Fibre Channel

FLOPPY, for emergencies.

Create Your Own Create Your Own

Yeah, I am nutter than a fruitcake, but it works!

This is for Larry McVoy, it is the closest thing you will ever see today
which looks like a disk with an RJ-45 port.

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

> --On Saturday, January 04, 2003 18:44:49 -0500 Richard Stallman
> <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > But sometimes we can't make things free, either because it comes to
> > close to core IP which we are legally bound to protect, or because
> > it's a derived work of something we bought and don't ourselves have
> > the right to redistribute.
> >
> > At this level of generality, I can only say that if the program is to
> > be published as non-free software, it will not be available to people
> > to use in freedom. Its effect will be to tempt people to give up
> > their freedom. If I had a choice to develop that program or no
> > program, I would develop no program.
>
> Here is where we differ. I do these things because, even though they do
> not promote software freedom, they can and, I hope, do promote other kinds
> of freedom in other ways. I also always look to the maximally free way to
> do the software parts. Sometimes it is not possible to acheive the other
> goals we have and keep the software entirely free. I think, however, that
> the freedom given by very inexpensive and unconstrained (that is, free as
> in speech) telecommunications is somewhat more important than the absolute
> freedom of the specific software we use to acheive that. In several cases,
> we have chosen proprietary solutions where they make the monetary cost to
> the end user dramatically lower, because one of our target problems is the
> lack of economic freedom in many parts of the world. For those with an
> arbitrary hardware budget, there are or soon will be interoperable free
> software alternatives. We make sure of that. We make sure we use open
> standards with no closed extensions, so as to make sure this continues.
>
> > I would rather look for constructive alternatives than just criticize.
> > In such a situation, I would look for a way to make the program free.
>
> I'm often focused on the case where the total hardware + software cost is
> the key factor between user of any communications and user of no
> communications. I use free or partly free software wherever I can, because
> I am not hostile to that goal, but that is not my overriding concern.
>
> I am also concerned that some of the zealots in the free software, not
> necessarily including yourself Richard, do not set precedents in the courts
> that, while possibly reinforcing the particular technicality of the GPL,
> undermine the freeness of kinds of speech other than software, such as
> scientific communication, cultural artefacts and political discussion. In
> the long run that would be worse for freedom in general.
>
> > This scenario is too general to get started on that. (I explained in
> > another message how the term "intellectual property" tends to obscure
> > important distinctions; this is an example.) In any specific case
> > there is likely to be some way.
>
> Here I'm using that term in the sense of 'copyrighted (and possibly
> patented) compilable information and its documentation', covering both
> software and hardware designs. If I were to use it to cover anything else
> I'd be more specific, as is common usage where I come from. I do
> understand the ambiguity and hidden conflations behind the term; I have
> been involved in both trademark and patenting (of hardware; software
> patents are evil, no question) work, and I'm cited as an inventor on one
> patent, so I have some firsthand experience.
>
> > If there is no easy way to make the same program free, there may be a
> > harder way. People who value freedom strongly sometimes choose the
> > hard path to freedom rather than the easy path that extends
> > non-freedom. That is how we extend freedom.
>
> I'm principally concerned with other sorts of freedom, while attempting to
> forward the cause of software freedom to the extent I can, and attempting
> never to advance the cause of any sort of non-freedom. It isn't easy at
> all, believe me.
>
> > As an ultimate fallback, there is surely some other job you could do
> > instead.
>
> I could go back to being a musician or a scientist. There are freedom
> issues there, too, believe me. And I'd still be debating free software,
> because in those fields it's important too. It would certainly be easier
> to tread the path of free software purity in those fields, but I suspect it
> would make less long-term impact for me to do so.
>
> > I have no opinion yet about what Andre said, because I cannot form a
> > clear picture of what he plans to do; I don't know whether it would
> > violate the GPL, or whether the issue would involve the FSF. We do
> > not enforce the GPL for Linux in any case; that is the responsibility
> > of the copyright holders of Linux.
>
> I'm glad to hear that. I'm also glad that the zealot who started the
> thread that has us talking about this does not appear to be one of those
> copyright holders; I suspect most of them have more sense.
>
> Andrew
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>