RE: Gauntlet Set NOW! -if youve written something for the kernel and you dont want andres binary say no...

RE: Gauntlet Set NOW! -if youve written something for the kernel and you dont want andres binary say no...

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 391 bytes --]

only one person has to disagree, lets face it I dont need to speak, IF ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OF THE KERNEL DONT WANT ANDRES PROPRIETARY CODE BINARY IN THE KERNEL, REMEMBER ONLY YOU HAVE TO DISAGREE, SPEAK OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE.

Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].

On 	Sun, 05 Jan 2003 18:12:10 +1300 	Andrew McGregor <andrew@indranet.co.nz> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 6733 bytes --]

From: Andrew McGregor <andrew@indranet.co.nz>
To: rms@gnu.org
Cc: andre@linux-ide.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Gauntlet Set NOW!
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 18:12:10 +1300
Message-ID: <635470000.1041743530@localhost.localdomain>

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

--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/

Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! -if youve written something for the kernel and you dont want andres binary say no...

[Mark Rutherford]

I dont recall reading that Andre was making his drivers binary only.
Please, correct me if im wrong.


Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:

> only one person has to disagree, lets face it I dont need to speak, IF ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OF THE KERNEL DONT WANT ANDRES PROPRIETARY CODE BINARY IN THE KERNEL, REMEMBER ONLY YOU HAVE TO DISAGREE, SPEAK OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE.
>
> Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
>
> On      Sun, 05 Jan 2003 18:12:10 +1300         Andrew McGregor <andrew@indranet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Gauntlet Set NOW!
> Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 18:12:10 +1300
> From: Andrew McGregor <andrew@indranet.co.nz>
> To: rms@gnu.org
> CC: andre@linux-ide.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10301031425590.421-100000@master.linux-ide.org>
>      <15900000.1041638213@localhost.localdomain>
>      <E18UxyD-00048W-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
>
> By the way, I'm principally a developer of communications standards and
> hardware, not so much software.
>
> --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/

--
Regards,
Mark Rutherford
mark@justirc.net


File: Mark Rutherford.ASC
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
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=hpbN
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! -if youve written something for the kernel and you dont want andres binary say no...

[Andre Hedrick]

On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Mark Rutherford wrote:

> I dont recall reading that Andre was making his drivers binary only.
> Please, correct me if im wrong.

I tried to state and question the position the copyright holders other
than myself, where they stand on the issue of the precedence they are LGPL
as is the module interface and the associated API's

If the position results in being LGPL, initially I will be shipping a
binary only product in order to recover all of my expenses.  I have on the
whiteboard a possible schedule for ERL=0 release date, tied to this
answer.

If the position returns against my ability to recover my investment, I
will change platforms for the product.

Regards,

Andre Hedrick, CTO & Founder 
iSCSI Software Solutions Provider
http://www.PyXTechnologies.com/

RE: Gauntlet Set NOW! -if youve written something for the kernel and you dont want andres binary say no...

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 211 bytes --]

Spoke like a true politician, please clarify.

Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].

On 	Sat, 4 Jan 2003 22:18:49 -0800 (PST) 	Andre Hedrick <andre@pyxtechnologies.com> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2416 bytes --]

From: Andre Hedrick <andre@pyxtechnologies.com>
To: Mark Rutherford <mark@justirc.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! -if youve written something for the kernel and you  dont want andres binary say no...
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 22:18:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10301042213140.421-100000@master.linux-ide.org>

On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Mark Rutherford wrote:

> I dont recall reading that Andre was making his drivers binary only.
> Please, correct me if im wrong.

I tried to state and question the position the copyright holders other
than myself, where they stand on the issue of the precedence they are LGPL
as is the module interface and the associated API's

If the position results in being LGPL, initially I will be shipping a
binary only product in order to recover all of my expenses.  I have on the
whiteboard a possible schedule for ERL=0 release date, tied to this
answer.

If the position returns against my ability to recover my investment, I
will change platforms for the product.

Regards,

Andre Hedrick, CTO & Founder 
iSCSI Software Solutions Provider
http://www.PyXTechnologies.com/

-
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/