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

--1041744940215
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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 <[e-mail]> wrote:

--1041744940215
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.116.70.75]) by smtp.cwctv.net  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.447.44);
	 Sun, 5 Jan 2003 05:15:39 +0000
Received: ([e-mail]) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S262937AbTAEFEY>; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 00:04:24 -0500
Received: ([e-mail]) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S263039AbTAEFEY>; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 00:04:24 -0500
Received: from ns.indranet.co.nz ([210.54.239.210]:32726 "EHLO
	mail.acheron.indranet.co.nz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S262937AbTAEFEW>; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 00:04:22 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain (enso.acheron.indranet.co.nz [192.168.1.1])
	by mail.acheron.indranet.co.nz (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id h055BAQ30196;
	Sun, 5 Jan 2003 18:11:10 +1300
Date:	Sun, 05 Jan 2003 18:12:10 +1300
From:	Andrew McGregor <[e-mail]>
To:	[e-mail]
cc:	[e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Gauntlet Set NOW!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0b10 (Linux/x86)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender:	[e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List:	[e-mail]
Return-Path: linux-kernel-owner+Hell.Surfers=[e-mail]

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 
<[e-mail]> 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