Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-freedrivers?

Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-freedrivers?

[Steven Barnhart]

On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:44:38 +0000, Richard Stallman wrote:

Richard, you are missing the entire point, again. You must understand
that we all love free software and its benefits, that is why we all
strive to make the Linux kernel a success. The problem is not everything
is open source and if a proprietary application is just as good why not
use it instead of wasting the time and effort of to create a clone? That
seems to be all GNU is doing. Also as Larry McVoy introduced, developing
programs cost money and you can't always make the money needed to do
development costs. I do think it a good idea though that if you must
make some proprietary for costs atleast OSS it afterwards. Frankly, some
people don't care what they use. You're not going to change the world
well actually you *have* in a way but you're not going to change the
entire world.

> You can't have freedom while using ClearCase, because it is non-free
> software.  What we really need is a free replacement for it.  Will
> people write one?  Our main influence on whether people do this is by
> what we say.  A strong Free Software Movement will inspire more people
> to reject non-free software and write free replacements.

Basicaaly all you say is that first line except fill ClearCase with any
proprietary thing. The point is it makes no sense to clone something
unless you're going to make it better, making it 'free' don't count. I
am talking in features category. I understand our beliefs differ but I
really wish you could stop being so determined (if that's a nice way to
put it) and atleast except some of our decisions and beliefs as we
pretty much have to deal with yours.

> Allowing non-free modules (whether they are open-source or not)
> weakens the impetus for people to make free extensions to Linux.  The
> general attitude Linux developers take towards non-free software also
> weakens it.  Your own message, citing this gap in Linux, will tend to
> discourage people from working to close the gap.
> 
> All else being equal, I'm glad that you use a variant of the GNU
> system, but what system you use is not really important except to you.
> If you used HP-UX or Solaris, it would be your loss, not our
> community's loss.  Spurring the broader development of free software
> should be higher priority than keeping you as a user.
> 
>     I'm saying that if you truly have a just cause, you don't need a
hammer
>     or a sickle to force people to see things your way. Intelligent
people
>     will have no choice but to follow your lead.
> 
> Since our views have little in common with Communism, it is remarkable
> that our enemies sometimes call us Communists.  Perhaps they do this
> because it is easier to attack Communism than confront our real views.
> 
> It is the system of non-free software that resembles Stalinism.  For
> more about this, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html.
> 
>     Visionaries should have faith in their own vision.
> 
> Real visionaries know that just having a vision does not change
> society.  Sustained effort is necessary.

-- 
Steven
sbarn03@softhome.net
GnuPG Fingerprint: 9357 F403 B0A1 E18D 86D5  2230 BB92 6D64 D516 0A94

Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-freedrivers?

[Richard Stallman]

    Richard, you are missing the entire point, again. You must understand
    that we all love free software and its benefits, that is why we all
    strive to make the Linux kernel a success. The problem is not everything
    is open source and if a proprietary application is just as good why not
    use it instead of wasting the time and effort of to create a clone?

The benefit of free software that I value is freedom to share the
software, freedom to change it, freedom to cooperate with others in
developing it.  That's why, for me, the success of any particular kernel
is not the most important thing--and why writing a free clone of
a non-free program or system is hardly a waste.

Developing programs does not "cost money"--that is just one way to do
it.  But sometimes a person is in a position where he can develop a
certain program only if he makes it non-free to raise money.  If you
are in such a position, unless you are going to make the program free
software soon after, then the best thing you can do is not develop it
at all.  Someone else will develop a free program to do the job.
Freedom is worth the wait.

Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-freedrivers?

[Andrew Walrond]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> Developing programs does not "cost money"--that is just one way to do
> it.  But sometimes a person is in a position where he can develop a
> certain program only if he makes it non-free to raise money.  If you
> are in such a position, unless you are going to make the program free
> software soon after, then the best thing you can do is not develop it
> at all.  Someone else will develop a free program to do the job.
> Freedom is worth the wait.
> 

Richard; this lovely view of life works great for (and not meaning to 
belittle anybody's work here) small/self contained/trivial projects, 
characterised by unix tools/apps which can be managed by one or a few 
people in a reasonable timescale. I mean grep, sed, bison, dhcpd, 
sendmail etc

But what about bigger projects? As stated previously, I develop computer 
games. It takes 30+ people 2-3years continous effort and $3M - 10$M in 
cash to produce.

This just isn't viable, under your model. A group of part time hobbyists 
just aren't gonna complete a (non trivial) game in their lifetimes.

You say "the best thing you can do is not develop it at all. Someone 
else will develop a free program to do the job."

I sincerely doubt it.

Sorry staff. Richard says you are all out of a job.

Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-freedrivers?

[Richard Stallman]

    Richard; this lovely view of life works great for (and not meaning to 
    belittle anybody's work here) small/self contained/trivial projects, 
    characterised by unix tools/apps which can be managed by one or a few 
    people in a reasonable timescale. I mean grep, sed, bison, dhcpd, 
    sendmail etc

The GNU/Linux system is pretty large.  For that matter, GCC and Linux
are pretty large.  So I think you're simply underestimating what we
can do ethically, as an excuse for doing it the usual grabbing way.

    But what about bigger projects? As stated previously, I develop computer 
    games. It takes 30+ people 2-3years continous effort and $3M - 10$M in 
    cash to produce.

I see no social need to be in such a hurry about it.  I'd rather it were
done more slowly and produced results that coexist with our freedom.

Meanwhile, people have already pointed out that there are ways to
raise money for some kinds of free software projects.  From what I
hear about game product cycles, you might be able to make the game
free after a year without losing much in sales.

But if that doesn't work for you, I would not consider it a great loss
for the world if your products were not produced.  They contribute
something to the world if they are free software, but otherwise not.

Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-freedrivers?

[Mark Mielke]

On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 03:50:06PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> But if that doesn't work for you, I would not consider it a great loss
> for the world if your products were not produced.  They contribute
> something to the world if they are free software, but otherwise not.

In three lines, you have successfully summarized the exact position
that some of us find unacceptable, or unrealistic in the world that we
currently live in. This position is the position that I find to be
incompatible with my belief system, and describes the exact conflict
that we will not be able to resolve any time soon.

With this, I breath my last word in this thread.

Cheers!
mark

-- 
mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/

Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-freedrivers?

[Andrew Walrond]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> The GNU/Linux system is pretty large.  For that matter, GCC and Linux
> are pretty large.  So I think you're simply underestimating what we
> can do ethically, as an excuse for doing it the usual grabbing way.
> 

Indeed. And the important large like gcc and glibc have substantial 
corporate sponsorship without which they would be dead in the water.
Grabbing from the grabbers?

> 
> Meanwhile, people have already pointed out that there are ways to
> raise money for some kinds of free software projects.  From what I
> hear about game product cycles, you might be able to make the game
> free after a year without losing much in sales.
>

So If I spend $X developing my game and then sell it closed with the 
stated intention of opening the source as soon as it has recouped a 
reasonable return on my investment, this would get your official seal of 
approval?

But isn't this exactly what Andre has been lambasted for? Perhaps you 
should step in and say a few words in his defence.

> But if that doesn't work for you, I would not consider it a great loss
> for the world if your products were not produced.  They contribute
> something to the world if they are free software, but otherwise not.

Perhaps not. But my 40 software developing staff are still going to be 
mightily pissed when I don't make payroll.

Richard, you started out with some noble priciples, but seem to have 
become a little confused somewhere along the way. The 'Don Quixote' 
hacker knight ;)

Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-freedrivers?

[Oliver Xymoron]

On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 11:52:05PM +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> >But if that doesn't work for you, I would not consider it a great loss
> >for the world if your products were not produced.  They contribute
> >something to the world if they are free software, but otherwise not.
> 
> Perhaps not. But my 40 software developing staff are still going to be 
> mightily pissed when I don't make payroll.

Given that 90% of software development is reinventing the wheel (badly),
perhaps 36 of them could move on to a career doing something useful.

-- 
 "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.." 

Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-freedrivers?

[Richard Stallman]

    So If I spend $X developing my game and then sell it closed with the 
    stated intention of opening the source as soon as it has recouped a 
    reasonable return on my investment, this would get your official seal of 
    approval?

Not quite.  We can't count on this to result in free software.

1. An open source program may or may not be free software.  I'd have
to know what license you would use, and be sure it was a free software
license, in order to expect that this would produce free software.
(See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html.)

2. There's no time limit.  "As soon as it has recouped a reasonable
return" could mean years from now, or never.  As a result, even if you
specify a specific free software license that you will use, we still
can't count on this to make the package free software in any
reasonable time.

If these two points were suitably changed, this becomes a plan that I
might recommend to you if you were otherwise going to keep the
software non-free and there were no better possibility.  However, I
could not recommend actually using the software while it is non-free.

    But isn't this exactly what Andre has been lambasted for? Perhaps you 
    should step in and say a few words in his defence.

I don't know what Andre plans to do.  I find it difficult to read
those messages--every sentence seems to have various interpretations.
Maybe it violates the GPL, maybe it doesn't.  Maybe it falls within
the permission that the Linux developers have given for non-free
modules.  It seems to concern protocols I don't know anything about.

Since the issue does not concern the FSF directly, I don't need to try
to figure it out.  I am leaving the issue to others.

    Perhaps not. But my 40 software developing staff are still going to be 
    mightily pissed when I don't make payroll.

In a capitalist system, creation and loss of jobs are normal.
Unemployment is normal too--and the level of unemployment is
controlled by macroeconomic factors.  To employ 40 people in one
particular way cannot justify making a program non-free.

It is impossible to tell whether a world of free software would
provide more employment or less employment.  There is too much
that we do not know.

Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-freedrivers?

[Disconnect]

On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 13:44, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     So If I spend $X developing my game and then sell it closed with the 
>     stated intention of opening the source as soon as it has recouped a 
>     reasonable return on my investment, this would get your official seal of 
>     approval?
> 
> Not quite.  We can't count on this to result in free software.
> 
> 2. There's no time limit.  "As soon as it has recouped a reasonable
> return" could mean years from now, or never.  As a result, even if you
> specify a specific free software license that you will use, we still
> can't count on this to make the package free software in any
> reasonable time.

So if he specifies a specific future license (eg GPL, just to simplify
things) and indicates what 'reasonable return' is (eg "a sale of 8,000
licenses" or some such) that would be ok......

> If these two points were suitably changed, this becomes a plan that I
> might recommend to you if you were otherwise going to keep the
> software non-free and there were no better possibility.  However, I
> could not recommend actually using the software while it is non-free.

....but you'd recommend that people not have the freedom to make their
own price/value decisions AND (added bonus) actively work to PREVENT it
ever becoming GPL'd.

User: "This [game/driver/database/...] is exactly what I need, and its
only $50!  Its worth way more than that to me, this rules."
RMS: "Sorry, you're not allowed to buy that.  Just wait until it becomes
free, then its all yours."
User: "Um.. ok. I need it pretty soon, and $50 is a great deal; it would
cost me at least $2k and time I don't have to recreate it from scratch. 
When will it be free so I can use it?"
RMS: "Well... when a bunch of people piss me off and go buy it."
....

Heh. Hehehehe.  So we're back to the "software developers are evil and
should all starve to death" stance.  Nifty.  Thank [insert diety here]
that you are working so hard to destroy your reputation; I'd hate to see
the number of people following your edicts actually increasing..

Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-freedrivers?

[Matthias Andree]

On Sun, 05 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:

> Developing programs does not "cost money"--that is just one way to do
> it.  But sometimes a person is in a position where he can develop a
> certain program only if he makes it non-free to raise money.  If you
> are in such a position, unless you are going to make the program free
> software soon after, then the best thing you can do is not develop it
> at all.  Someone else will develop a free program to do the job.
> Freedom is worth the wait.

Oh, but my backup can't just wait because the hard disk is
likely to die before someone comes up with a free software that does
better than Tivoli although this is sorta fragile on the systems I
maintain. Are you going to sponsor for RAID-1 for the meanwhile, until
the wait pays off?

-- 
Matthias Andree

Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-freedrivers?

[Andre Hedrick]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Matthias Andree wrote:

> On Sun, 05 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> > Developing programs does not "cost money"--that is just one way to do
> > it.  But sometimes a person is in a position where he can develop a
> > certain program only if he makes it non-free to raise money.  If you
> > are in such a position, unless you are going to make the program free
> > software soon after, then the best thing you can do is not develop it
> > at all.  Someone else will develop a free program to do the job.
> > Freedom is worth the wait.
> 
> Oh, but my backup can't just wait because the hard disk is
> likely to die before someone comes up with a free software that does
> better than Tivoli although this is sorta fragile on the systems I
> maintain. Are you going to sponsor for RAID-1 for the meanwhile, until
> the wait pays off?

Well for a price you could back up around the world, and have unlimited
amounts of storage per license and have unlimited (loads will limit the
unlimited) clients and have interoporability today.  But it is not free
now, but stood a strong chance of happening in 6mo for the basics.  The
serious core costly features would take longer to recover.  May 18mo of
the next feature, and finally 36mo for the end game.

This is in flux now because ....

Cheers,


Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-freedrivers?

[Matthias Andree]

On Mon, 06 Jan 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Matthias Andree wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 05 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > 
> > > Developing programs does not "cost money"--that is just one way to do
> > > it.  But sometimes a person is in a position where he can develop a
> > > certain program only if he makes it non-free to raise money.  If you
> > > are in such a position, unless you are going to make the program free
> > > software soon after, then the best thing you can do is not develop it
> > > at all.  Someone else will develop a free program to do the job.
> > > Freedom is worth the wait.
> > 
> > Oh, but my backup can't just wait because the hard disk is
> > likely to die before someone comes up with a free software that does
> > better than Tivoli although this is sorta fragile on the systems I
> > maintain. Are you going to sponsor for RAID-1 for the meanwhile, until
> > the wait pays off?
> 
> Well for a price you could back up around the world, and have unlimited
> amounts of storage per license and have unlimited (loads will limit the
> unlimited) clients and have interoporability today.  But it is not free
> now, but stood a strong chance of happening in 6mo for the basics.  The
> serious core costly features would take longer to recover.  May 18mo of
> the next feature, and finally 36mo for the end game.
> 
> This is in flux now because ....

Just in case: this was directed towards Richard Stallman, and was meant
to convey the idea that free software of the future doesn't solve the
problem I have today.


Andre, your efforts, ideas and projects are much appreciated, and I've
seen them underestimated, and while I have often (in private, without
telling anyone, luckily) suspected they wouldn't work out that well,
they all proved me wrong and worked MUCH better than I expected.

Don't let your work get peed on by people who want you out of business
or who don't recognize your achievements.

-- 
Matthias Andree

Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-freedrivers?

[Andre Hedrick]

To LKML:

I have nothing more to say on this issue.
Should anyone have more to say in contest, please ask for a mailing
address and put it in writing.  Otherwise, the comments are viewed as
"I'm going to tell your mommy about it".

Regards,

Andre Hedrick, CTO & Founder
iSCSI Software Solutions Provider
http://<Advertising Line Deleted per Request>/

For those who have privately encourage and given permission, thank you.

On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Matthias Andree wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Jan 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Matthias Andree wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, 05 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Developing programs does not "cost money"--that is just one way to do
> > > > it.  But sometimes a person is in a position where he can develop a
> > > > certain program only if he makes it non-free to raise money.  If you
> > > > are in such a position, unless you are going to make the program free
> > > > software soon after, then the best thing you can do is not develop it
> > > > at all.  Someone else will develop a free program to do the job.
> > > > Freedom is worth the wait.
> > > 
> > > Oh, but my backup can't just wait because the hard disk is
> > > likely to die before someone comes up with a free software that does
> > > better than Tivoli although this is sorta fragile on the systems I
> > > maintain. Are you going to sponsor for RAID-1 for the meanwhile, until
> > > the wait pays off?
> > 
> > Well for a price you could back up around the world, and have unlimited
> > amounts of storage per license and have unlimited (loads will limit the
> > unlimited) clients and have interoporability today.  But it is not free
> > now, but stood a strong chance of happening in 6mo for the basics.  The
> > serious core costly features would take longer to recover.  May 18mo of
> > the next feature, and finally 36mo for the end game.
> > 
> > This is in flux now because ....
> 
> Just in case: this was directed towards Richard Stallman, and was meant
> to convey the idea that free software of the future doesn't solve the
> problem I have today.
> 
> 
> Andre, your efforts, ideas and projects are much appreciated, and I've
> seen them underestimated, and while I have often (in private, without
> telling anyone, luckily) suspected they wouldn't work out that well,
> they all proved me wrong and worked MUCH better than I expected.
> 
> Don't let your work get peed on by people who want you out of business
> or who don't recognize your achievements.
> 
> -- 
> Matthias Andree
> -
> 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: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-freedrivers?

[Edward Kuns]

Richard Stallman (rms at gnu.org) said:
> But if that doesn't work for you, I would not consider it a great loss
> for the world if your products were not produced.  They contribute
> something to the world if they are free software, but otherwise not.

Richard, you have stated eloquently and perhaps completely the divide
between the FSF and the supporters of the Open Software movement.  You
have also stated quite eloquently the exact reason that an Open Software
movement exists.

You presume to speak to what is moral and ethical for everybody.  You
speak as if your definition of "free" is the dictionary definition of
"free."  You speak as if you alone (and those who fully toe your line)
can decide what brings value to the world.

Wow.

I, for one, put my money where my mouth is.  I am squarely in the Open
Software movement.  I support (with money) NVidia, Code Weavers, and in
the past, 4 Front Technologies, for example.  If I were a commercial
entity in need of the technologies that Andre brings to the table, I
would gladly support his company by purchasing non-free (by your
definition) products.  Note:  I refused to purchase NVidia graphics
cards before the time when they released version 1.0 of their drivers. 
If they ever stopped supporting their Linux drivers, I would immediately
stop purchasing their hardware.  I vote with my wallet.

*I* get to decide what brings value to me and what I consider to be
freedom.  Richard, you don't get to define those values for me or for
anybody else except those who *choose* to agree with your narrow
definitions.

It is true that the GNU model works for *many* large software projects. 
This does not mean that it will work for *all* large software projects. 
You agree with this and then say that the world would be better off by
not having those products because they would have been done in the
"usual grabbing way."

Richard, you *do* understand why people compare your views to Communism,
right?  I'm not saying such opinions are accurate or inaccurate, but
Communism advocates public ownership of *all* property and you advocate
public ownership of *all* software.  IMO, that is the core of the
comparison that people make and you MUST already understand that, right?

(OK, you don't advocate public ownership of software that is developed
but never distributed.  Most software that concerns people in this arena
is software that is distributed, so that point is irrelevant to this
discussion.  No-one here is talking about such software.)

I am glad that people are willing to produce "non-free" (by your
definition) software.  I don't even always prefer "free" software to
"non-free" software.  (quotes to indicate the FSF definition of "free"
is being used.)  I evaluate each case, taking all options into account,
and then choose what best fits my needs.  To me, THAT is freedom.  We
would have substantially less freedom if the GNU project never existed,
and I acknowledge and thank all from the GNU project for their
contributions, past and present and future.  HOWEVER.  We would also
have substantially less freedom if *all* distributable software was
required to be GPL.  (Lack of quotes to indicate that I am NOT using the
FSF definition.)

This is my opinion but also the opinion of many here.  Richard, you are
not going to change people's views on this.  The Open Source movement
doesn't exist just because people hadn't thought "freedom" through
completely yet.  It exists, in part at least, because people rejected
the FSF definition of "freedom" after fully considering the issue.

       Eddie

P.S.  In the interests of moving off-topic conversions off the list, I
will not publicly respond to any replies or any more of this thread.  I
*will* privately respond to any replies, whether they are posted only to
me or also to the list.  I just wanted to speak up once so that my
silence could not possibly be construed by RMS or others as agreement. 
If you wish a response from me, you must CC: me as I am not subscribed
to this list.

-- 
  Eddie Kuns  |  Home: ekuns@kilroy.chi.il.us
--------------/  URL:  (none at the moment)
  "Ah, savory cheese puffs, made inedible by time and fate."  -- The
Tick