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>
mQGiBDqwRnsRBADTpKKSKAcphYdcVTvBpEFFNK1eL4dQ/pBwK4NimeoAA9ISD04L Mv/CqH5g9D1wzXEhRBhbFZnmfoTPFEWH4Gjr4KIPdsXkTEfoJ2j55qksHWMkE10A K8gZlI3Ovuf8BbIabfXmjf+XtId3F4+7+og4mc7EAkatYbbl/5pR0Niy3wCg/+I/ LUQPYGloF829jXaOW7C+tG8D/RZt8lAL/Z1NfGsQYZlE1X+Gcqf0J6HaMosnVuah 1zAbgUHCIvNq+TOC+0KydEvbs7tAq6m+Q4zQZaqEsMwufTCWxzh+v3thRBLIuT5E jsTi4djkrdG3TTeAszymO/YEXQMg4Tq2hMiyeWlyTmH4C6enMu0zJMIu4OEef7+W KpYhBACYnukDVI8Vnw1J5KaiCZYvERhj4cr3BTk7oeYxIRH1x5S6NXK0+uVcpusa a8ZU4zcxvHh0k3iR8HIZcNh30eXbMF/J5pW9gorJuPwCC5Q7b+gUVaeec+1X+Wmt 2k8RAq9RtriUdrmVN5QcPBLFd4hOHQcWDcuyhmiFp68LFvxLSLQrTWFyayBSdXRo ZXJmb3JkIDxNYXJrMjAwMEBiZWxsYXRsYW50aWMubmV0PokAWAQQEQIAGAUCOrBG ewgLAwkIBwIBCgIZAQUbAwAAAAAKCRAudCWX7QO6ULcaAJwIsYHeAp6FC5OVWSOo qc8O87kvBgCgz1cLgVXYcSlDWEeE32PFYb6akuy5Ag0EOrBGexAIAPZCV7cIfwgX cqK61qlC8wXo+VMROU+28W65Szgg2gGnVqMU6Y9AVfPQB8bLQ6mUrfdMZIZJ+AyD vWXpF9Sh01D49Vlf3HZSTz09jdvOmeFXklnN/biudE/F/Ha8g8VHMGHOfMlm/xX5 u/2RXscBqtNbno2gpXI61Brwv0YAWCvl9Ij9WE5J280gtJ3kkQc2azNsOA1FHQ98 iLMcfFstjvbzySPAQ/ClWxiNjrtVjLhdONM0/XwXV0OjHRhs3jMhLLUq/zzhsSlA GBGNfISnCnLWhsQDGcgHKXrKlQzZlp+r0ApQmwJG0wg9ZqRdQZ+cfL2JSyIZJrqr ol7DVekyCzsAAgIIAO5Bt3XOgo2GPNOCuLv6A6mRxPxwwVsYEMmVAIp/c5nluBMi Tu4iQU5f3U9UqZMcFKyLr1Vh0bpO6RB6L/5tXWSRY2Yly9Ofg/e0Npgebkdd8GXE +IuEDI4lr1kbO70hlxFUPKSOQRjSmmVKNhUAiXEFQ7OtB9k5GECsHrD6qxR6r/ny XMBK2g2UUSh17Gx/pqH+XwXJ67DEQmF8hcnyiN9E3WQ5w3bIbKwFCaHF+tJbVnUd XxszxQYrsb6Feo0FVdCD+VVPQGesv34CrnKuED/mF/WoI8a3eYCMiY03IQgW514X JX+Jnmk9RFbTg75NdXIKDqKpB3wq39n3JmWRZG+JAEwEGBECAAwFAjqwRnsFGwwA AAAACgkQLnQll+0DulAfjgCfbVxiUtJbpXPn6gVJlnlIzur1yvgAnjh/9bdLsSrd cUaN07NL7N9NjgG1 =hpbN -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
- 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/