Hello,
On Fri, 06.10.2006 at 15:12:47 -0600, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even today the Linux kernel tree is full of non-free components, for
> example firmwares. Let's not talk about GPL and source and all that.
> Yes, there are problems there. But even more basic problems exist,
Hello chefren,
On Fri, 06.10.2006 at 00:46:11 +0200, chefren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The argument against GPL that works best for me during "discussions"
> about it is that GPL is BSD with Digital Rights Management.
sorry, but this is a blatant lie.
Arguing this way will hopefully get you
On 10/09/06 17:39, steve szmidt wrote:
Learn to swim with sharks...
=Very= stupid remark.
Let's take "shark" number one: Theo.
This shark doesn't bite or swallow, gives away the results of lots of
his personal work and thinking, higly dedicated to do things as well
as he can. Is extremely
On Monday 09 October 2006 03:52, Marius Van Deventer - Umzimkulu wrote:
> > You know what I can't stand... Bullying! That's what's going on
> > here.
Eh, no doubt you are right. I've not followed the thread, but I know that if
people are not bullied here something is wrong. This is by far the wo
On Oct 9, 2006, at 1:52 AM, Marius Van Deventer - Umzimkulu wrote:
> Wees geduldig en dink oor wat jy se.
That could pretty much be applied to most conversationalists in this
list :-)
Now knock it off! This is way too much fun to read and I have work to
do.
--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of De
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> Han Boetes
> Sent: 07 October 2006 09:02 PM
> To: misc@openbsd.org
> Subject: Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re:
Intel's
> Open Source Policy Doesn't
On 10/7/06 7:26 AM, Han Boetes wrote:
You lie.
You insult.
You threaten.
I'd love to meet _you_ in person too.
Again top posting.
What are the author's words about that?
http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html
" Respond below the questions "
Well, Han might argue Theo didn'
Can you please take your rants elsewhere?
> You know what I can't stand... Bullying! That's what's going on
> here.
>
> I'm the operator on an #openbsd channel, and I know exactly what
> happens when somebody start ranting about how {GPL, Windows,
> Linux, FreeBSD,...} sucks. Another guy is a ha
You know what I can't stand... Bullying! That's what's going on
here.
I'm the operator on an #openbsd channel, and I know exactly what
happens when somebody start ranting about how {GPL, Windows,
Linux, FreeBSD,...} sucks. Another guy is a happy user and before
you know it you have a flamewar goin
HITLER HITLER HITLER
On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 09:24:39AM -0600, Tyler Mace wrote:
> Come on now people; you're upset that this debate is even being held,
> yet you fuel it's fire with your senseless replies. Arguing with a troll
> makes you a troll. Ban the guy, ignore the guy, 'shut the guy up',
Come on now people; you're upset that this debate is even being held,
yet you fuel it's fire with your senseless replies. Arguing with a troll
makes you a troll. Ban the guy, ignore the guy, 'shut the guy up', I
don't care how you do it but for the sake of how this shit is reflecting
on the ope
Han Boetes wrote:
You lie.
You insult.
You threaten.
I'd love to meet _you_ in person too.
Well I have met him (Theo) in person several times, and I think he's a
pretty stand up guy. I've never known him to lie, but insults and
threats usually flow freely when he feels the behaviour of other
You lie.
You insult.
You threaten.
I'd love to meet _you_ in person too.
Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Han is some asshole who comes onto our list about every 2-3 weeks and
> spouts some very vague bullshit to distract people. He wants every
> argument to become a vague license argument. He refuses t
Han is some asshole who comes onto our list about every 2-3 weeks and
spouts some very vague bullshit to distract people. He wants every
argument to become a vague license argument. He refuses to leave our
lists. At times, I have times wished that someone would go visit him
in person and shut hi
Look at it, he is quoting me out of context. That's not a silly
escape, that's a fact. Maybe to you quoting out of context is a
legitimate way to fight a discussion, to me it's not.
Felipe Scarel wrote:
> Is that all you can say to defend your point of view? If you are wrong
> (and you probably ar
Is that all you can say to defend your point of view? If you are wrong
(and you probably are), you should admit it, not repeat "quote out of
context" as a silly escape.
On 10/6/06, Han Boetes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
quote out of context
Rod.. Whitworth wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 03:50:38 +0
quote out of context
Rod.. Whitworth wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 03:50:38 +0159, Han Boetes wrote:
>
> > In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, otherwise
> > it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms is a good
> > thing.
>
> Bullshit!
>
> Now don't quote me that specio
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 03:50:38 +0159, Han Boetes wrote:
>In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, otherwise
>it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms is a good
>thing.
Bullshit!
Now don't quote me that specious crap about how free speech is limited
by no freedom to false
> > > Its complete and utter nonsense actually. The linux kernel is used in
> > > closed source products all the time, it has no effect there just like it
> >
> > Please show us one example of a closed source Linux device.
>
> Sure, the broadcom wireless device inside the linksys routers. Yes,
"Martin Schrvder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2006/10/6, Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Its complete and utter nonsense actually. The linux kernel is used in
> > closed source products all the time, it has no effect there just like it
>
> Please show us one example of a closed source Linux devic
Martin Schrvder wrote:
> 2006/10/6, Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Its complete and utter nonsense actually. The linux kernel is used in
> > closed source products all the time, it has no effect there just like it
>
> Please show us one example of a closed source Linux device.
Sure, the broadco
On 10/06/06 03:01, Han Boetes wrote:
Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article:
http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd
Since it's polite, to point and factual.
That pages contains the sentence
"I don't think we fully understand exactly when each license's
effects tru
2006/10/6, Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Its complete and utter nonsense actually. The linux kernel is used in
closed source products all the time, it has no effect there just like it
Please show us one example of a closed source Linux device.
On the contrary closed source Linux systems have been
Now that is a very good way to show the world how good the BSD
license is. :-)
Eric Furman wrote:
> Please SHUT THE F*** UP and go away, Han.
> The GPL is a total fraud. And as Theo has already
> pointed out, this is not the place to debate it.
> All you are doing is pissing people off.
>
> On Fri
Please SHUT THE F*** UP and go away, Han.
The GPL is a total fraud. And as Theo has already
pointed out, this is not the place to debate it.
All you are doing is pissing people off.
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 05:53:13 +0200, "Han Boetes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Lars Hansson wrote:
> > Han Boetes wrote
Lars Hansson wrote:
> Han Boetes wrote:
> > Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article:
> >
> > http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd
> >
> > Since it's polite, to point and factual.
>
> Yes, it's so factual that he fail to mention/understand that the
> BSD license *is* GPL comp
Lars Hansson wrote:
> Han Boetes wrote:
> > In your definition of freedom you'd have the freedom to hurt
> > somebody else.
> >
>
> Good thing the GPL prohibits that kind of stuff, right? So that no-one
> can use Linux to spy on the populace or use Linux to track down
> "dissidents". Oh wait, i
Han Boetes wrote:
Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article:
http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd
Since it's polite, to point and factual.
Yes, it's so factual that he fail to mention/understand that the BSD
license *is* GPL compatible.
The reasoning pretty much goes
Han Boetes wrote:
In your definition of freedom you'd have the freedom to hurt
somebody else.
Good thing the GPL prohibits that kind of stuff, right? So that no-one
can use Linux to spy on the populace or use Linux to track down
"dissidents". Oh wait, it doesn't prevent that.
---
Lars Ha
Harpalus a Como wrote:
> On 10/5/06, Han Boetes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Rod.. Whitworth wrote:
> > > It says "Yes, companies could voluntarily cooperate without
> > > a license forcing them to. The *BSDs try to depend on
> > > this. But it today's cutthroat market, that's more like the
> > >
Ted Unangst wrote:
> On 10/5/06, Han Boetes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In my world freedom is something you have to fight for,
> > otherwise it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms
> > is a good thing. For example freedom is most defined as `the
> > freedom to do whatever you wish
On 10/5/06, Han Boetes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In my world freedom is something you have to fight for, otherwise
it gets taken away. Putting a limit on your freedoms is a good
thing. For example freedom is most defined as `the freedom to do
whatever you wish as long as it does not hurt somebod
Your "freedom" is forced. Companies and individuals have no choice in the
matter, because it's required by the license. We have the freedom to vote,
but we aren't forced to do so. You don't seem to realize that it's not
freedom if it's forced at the end of a proverbial GPL gun.
On 10/5/06, Han Boe
Rod.. Whitworth wrote:
> It says "Yes, companies could voluntarily cooperate without a
> license forcing them to. The *BSDs try to depend on this. But it
> today's cutthroat market, that's more like the "Prisoner's
> Dilemma". In the dilemma, it's better to cooperate; but since
> the other guy migh
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 03:00:52 +0159, Han Boetes wrote:
>Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article:
>
> http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd
>
>Since it's polite, to point and factual.
>
>Instead of your rant which contains insults and lies.
>
It says "Yes, companies could volu
Han Boetes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article:
>
> http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd
Wow, I feel dumber for having read that.
> Since it's polite, to point and factual.
Its complete and utter nonsense actually. The linux kernel is
Of course you wouldn't bother to read this article:
http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd
Since it's polite, to point and factual.
Instead of your rant which contains insults and lies.
And no, I'm not a GPL fanboy, I license most of my stuff under the
BSD license, but I do have res
On Oct 5, 2006, at 4:39 PM, David T Harris wrote:
When you say that the GPL is related to DRM,
The point is that like DRM the GPL restricts what you can do and how
you can use the code. The BSD license doesn't.
what do you mean? I mean how is GPL related to DRM?
Generally I try to avoid li
> When you say that the GPL is related to DRM,
> what do you mean? I mean how is GPL related to DRM?
> Generally I try to avoid licensing discussions and
> what not and just focus on the technology, but
> I'm just curious in this regard.
>
> I know GPL3 has a lot dealing with DRM (or so I've
When you say that the GPL is related to DRM,
what do you mean? I mean how is GPL related to DRM?
Generally I try to avoid licensing discussions and
what not and just focus on the technology, but
I'm just curious in this regard.
I know GPL3 has a lot dealing with DRM (or so I've heard)
but GPL
On 10/5/06 5:05 AM, Travers Buda wrote:
Thats not very smart of intel, considering that OpenBSD is writing the
best drivers for them with a BSD liscense for FREE!
In general Intel is definitely one of the smartest companies in this
world, I don't like them that much personally but highly resp
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 14:51:30 -0500
Travers Buda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But like you and
> Theo just pointed out is that intel only understands the language of
> money. Thats good to know. I won't waste my breath, nor my money. =)
Errr, I won't waste my breath _here_.
Travers Buda
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 11:18:49 -0700
"Spruell, Darren-Perot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bunk. Rationalizing their decisions openly does nothing more than
> reinforce that their decisions are right and logical. It does nothing
> to change behavior. It reinforces behavior.
>
> The best reason, which
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 11:13:05 -0500
> Damian Wiest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I didn't mean to apologize for them. Just making
> some guesses
> > at how Intel is rationalizing the decision to not release
> information.
> > Perso
> > Sorry, I didn't mean to apologize for them. Just making some guesses
> > at how Intel is rationalizing the decision to not release information.
> > Personally, I don't buy their products.
>
> I'm speaking to everyone here. Rationalizing their decisions is probably
> a good thing. If you can
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 11:13:05 -0500
Damian Wiest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean to apologize for them. Just making some guesses
> at how Intel is rationalizing the decision to not release information.
> Personally, I don't buy their products.
I'm speaking to everyone here. Ra
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 03:54:36PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Intel may just be worried that there _might_ be a problem they don't
> > know about and are trying to protect themselves.
>
> "may just be"?
>
> > I imagine that there
> > are plenty of opportunities for someone to either willfu
Theo et al. say: don't buy intel hardware--our drivers are going to be
lacking/buggy because we can't get docs.
Thats not very smart of intel, considering that OpenBSD is writing the
best drivers for them with a BSD liscense for FREE! Said driver is
not just limited to OpenBSD; you could make you
Lets just not take the discussion in this direction, ok?
---
Lars Hansson
On 10/4/06, Spruell, Darren-Perot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
Good point to make. Intel doesn't want consumers to know that; they want
everyone to *think* they are getting cutting edge technology innovation,
thus justifying the premium money you drop on any product with the Intel
name on it.
Breen Ouellette wrote:
> Han Boetes wrote:
> > Anything which is favourable to you, but not to corperations may
> > get you called communist. If you are that easily subdued you
> > might as well donate your money directly to the corporations.
> >
> > Yes I am a communist, since I believe we should
Han Boetes wrote:
Breen Ouellette wrote:
PS - before I get accused of being a 'commie' in this latest
round of discussions regarding bad corporate behaviour, I'd just
like to say that it was my understanding that believing the law
should not be broken is not how you define a communist.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Intel may just be worried that there _might_ be a problem
> they don't
> > know about and are trying to protect themselves. I imagine
> that there
> > are plenty of opportunities for someone to either willfully or
> > accidentally introdu
Original message
>Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 14:37:09 -0500
>From: Damian Wiest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense
>To: misc@openbsd.org
>
>On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 08:39:37PM -0600, Breen Ouellette wro
Breen Ouellette wrote:
> PS - before I get accused of being a 'commie' in this latest
> round of discussions regarding bad corporate behaviour, I'd just
> like to say that it was my understanding that believing the law
> should not be broken is not how you define a communist.
Anything which is fav
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 02:37:09PM -0500, Damian Wiest wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 08:39:37PM -0600, Breen Ouellette wrote:
> > Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
> > >>a) Intel doesn't own the technology, but licensed it from another
> > >> vendor. The licensing terms don't allow Intel to relea
On Oct 4, 2006, at 1:37 PM, Damian Wiest wrote:
> Rather than releasing
> information and potentially having to deal with an intellectual
> property
> issue, Intel just doesn't release the information.
There's a yang inside the yin. Their not releasing the info is a
wonderful cleanroom
defen
> Intel may just be worried that there _might_ be a problem they don't
> know about and are trying to protect themselves.
"may just be"?
> I imagine that there
> are plenty of opportunities for someone to either willfully or
> accidentally introduce patented technologies, for which Intel does
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 08:39:37PM -0600, Breen Ouellette wrote:
> Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
> >>a) Intel doesn't own the technology, but licensed it from another
> >> vendor. The licensing terms don't allow Intel to release full
> >> details.
> >>
> >>b) Intel has agreements with other c
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
d) There are so many patents issued for obvious techniques used in
computer peripheral chips that releasing documentation might tempt
an ethically challenged company to sue them for royalties.
Intel has been on record as stating that patent issues are now a
sig
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
a) Intel doesn't own the technology, but licensed it from another
vendor. The licensing terms don't allow Intel to release full
details.
b) Intel has agreements with other customers/vendors to not release
information about a particular piece of hardware.
On 03/10/06, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) Intel doesn't own the technology, but licensed it from another
>vendor. The licensing terms don't allow Intel to release full
>details.
>
> b) Intel has agreements with other customers/vendors to not release
>informat
> a) Intel doesn't own the technology, but licensed it from another
>vendor. The licensing terms don't allow Intel to release full
>details.
>
> b) Intel has agreements with other customers/vendors to not release
>information about a particular piece of hardware.
>
> c) Intel doesn'
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 11:14:37AM -0700, Brian wrote:
[snip]
> What does Intel gain by not being open? I am puzzled. I am not an engineer,
> so is there something that I am overlooking?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
I can think of a few possibilities:
a) Intel doesn't own the technology, but lic
I am still working on drafting up a response to Intel's decision to not be
open.
But for your reading pleasure:
http://news.com.com/Intel+lowers+the+boom+on+marketing,+IT+departments/2100-1014_3-6112412.html
Looks like AMD has taken 26% of Intel's server market since 2003. And Intel
is cutting
65 matches
Mail list logo
