Discussion:
OT: evil gpl , was Re: ZFS on SuSE-anyone, Distributed File System...
(too old to reply)
Brian K. White
2008-06-12 19:35:26 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "Druid" <***@gmail.com>
To: <***@opensuse.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: [opensuse] ZFS on SuSE-anyone, Distributed File System...
(bla bla bla)
Just saying NO isn't going to work for ever. 5 more years of Leopard
development and enhancement might squeeze Linux out, not because
its better, but just because Leopard does not refuse to grow and play
well with others.
Don't like the license? Don't use gpl software, then. It's that simple.
"But gee, practically everything our very standard of living depends on is gpl! I can't give up all that! Wahhhh!"

It always amazes me how people who complain about the requirements of gpl seem to miss the fact that if it weren't for that the standard of living would still be somewhere in the mid 80's today. Progress would creep compared to the rate things advance the last several years and most of the coolest stuff would happen in proprietary products and dead-end code that was used for a little while by a few customers and then disappeared altogether when the producing company closed.
They probably used a ton of gpl software and even hardware and services that either would have existed or wouldn't have been nearly as good or cheap if it weren't for the awful gpl they are complaining about. Who actually misses the days when there was one phone company and they actually owned every phone and wire that led to it? That is the world before gpl and other gpl-like values.

The proof of the rightness of the idea behind the gpl and the cathedral vs bazzar theory has already come to pass and we live in a world that is greater and better directly because of it. The proof is exactly the existence of so many people trying to get around the gpl, by loopholes like tivo or by plain theft like linksys/dlink/others (you know for every one we uncover there are several that go undetected too). How much worse would it be if it wasn't even illegal?

I like to be as free as possible and allow anyone to do anything, but I do dislike the fact that the bsd license allows a company to take advantage of a tremendous amount of work someone else did for free, (say, the tcp stack) and then build their closed source commercial product on top of that, and only take money from everyone else without contributing anything back for the code they took and benefitted from.

It's a classic and textbook example of how those who do well under a given system generally can not do well under a different system, and so naturally fight against it when a new system starts to evolve. But if the new system is better for more people than it is worse for, then tough tooties, the new system should eventually prevail, and generally does. If some company can't do well because they can't steal code to re-sell it, that doesn't mean we miss out on any progress that company would have made. Those programmers who never got hired by that company because it didn't grow, most will program somewhere else somehow, and equivalent progress will happen, only most likely a higher portion of it will happen within the body of gpl'd works and so we actually come out ahead. Progress that happens only within some proprietary product generally is either a dead end (company eventually closes and all code just gets buried or lost with other assets) or it takes a ridiculous number of years until some patent or copyright expires before that code can do anyone any good.

Some rules limit freedom, but some rules _provide_ it. The ways in which the gpl are more limiting than bsd are ridiculously outweighed by the body of public works they produce. It merely requires being able to see beyond the end of your nose to see it. I would say that anyone who doesn't see that is someone who never learned that valuing instant gratification above all else is stupid, and so their opinion is of no concern.
--
Brian K. White ***@aljex.com http://www.myspace.com/KEYofR
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro BBx Linux SCO FreeBSD #callahans Satriani Filk!
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Francis Earl
2008-06-12 19:52:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian K. White
Some rules limit freedom, but some rules _provide_ it. The ways in which
the gpl are more limiting than bsd are ridiculously outweighed by the body
of public works they produce. It merely requires being able to see beyond
the end of your nose to see it. I would say that anyone who doesn't see
that is someone who never learned that valuing instant gratification above
all else is stupid, and so their opinion is of no concern.
I think it's more important to note that the people that own the copyrights on
the code DO NOT want it combined with code that doesn't let them maintain
ownership. In the case of Sun's CDDL, they require you to sign everything you
do over to them, that's fair? No. It's not the evil GPL, it's Sun trying to
accomplish proprietary open source, that isn't right.

As for BSD, I don't think most in this day and age really want to hand over
their hard work so others can benefit without giving anything back, that is why
BSD license will never catch on, but it's certainly a much better license than
anything Sun, Apple, or Microsoft have come up with. It's a joke that people
even make such arguments STILL.

Don't like the terms the programmers choose for your usage, feel free to write
it yourself. In the case of ZFS, I'm pretty sure FUSE is LGPL, so you have
choices. The authors of the code have a right to have copyrights on their
work, they put a lot of time and energy into writing that code. The only
people that complain are those that have never written any worthwhile program.
It's illegal to use GPL software at all if you do not fulfill the terms of the
license, so maybe those that don't like it should move on to something else?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
John Andersen
2008-06-12 20:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian K. White
It always amazes me how people who complain about the requirements of gpl
Rest of off topic rant deleted.

You miss the point entirely.
The GPL does not prohibit the use of either binary firmware drivers or binary
blobs.

It simply prohibits their distribution embedded in a distro.

Some accommodation will sooner or later have to be made to make it
easier to use your newly purchased computer with Linux. Either by
fetching the drivers across the net or whatever works, and running those
drivers in a safe sandbox if necessary.

Pretending that its 1985 is counterproductive.
--
----------JSA---------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Francis Earl
2008-06-12 20:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Andersen
You miss the point entirely.
The GPL does not prohibit the use of either binary firmware drivers or
binary blobs.
It actually does prohibit a work based on such things being released as a
whole... this is why nvidia and ati stuff, and other firmware are not part of
the kernel. In the case of Linux the kernel, they also take measures to ensure
such things cannot use kernel calls made by non-GPL stuff (google for GPL_ONLY
in the kernel)
Post by John Andersen
It simply prohibits their distribution embedded in a distro.
No, it is their illegality that requires they be outside the kernel. Many get
away with it though because we can't prove that they make kernel specific
calls, thus it's hard to argue they are a derived work.

Make no mistake though, if it IS a Linux kernel derived work, it is UTTERLY
illegal. Ask cisco and skype about how serious that is. Both have recently
lost cases for their usage of Linux, while not releasing source code of
additions. If you argue the GPL is bad or immoral, you're breaking the law
using the code at all.
Post by John Andersen
Some accommodation will sooner or later have to be made to make it
easier to use your newly purchased computer with Linux. Either by
fetching the drivers across the net or whatever works, and running those
drivers in a safe sandbox if necessary.
Currently, many hardware vendors are simply requiring their hardware be
supported by Linux. If you don't provide open source drivers, they won't
include your hardware. This is what will eventually get what you state. People
like HP and Dell are committed to this already, people will release their
specs and open source their drivers to make money.
Post by John Andersen
Pretending that its 1985 is counterproductive.
Ignorance and arguments based on the small picture, without even attempting to
see the big picture is also counter productive. Go out and buy hardware that
is fully supported by Linux, make it possible to show that supporting Linux
entirely (ie, providing GPL drivers) is beneficial, and show the hardware
vendors that it will hurt their bottom line significantly if they don't. THAT
is how you get things done.

It benefits no one to simply bend for those vendors, it just continues
something bad. Novell and Red Hat has come out and said Linux isn't ready for
the residential desktop, these are exactly the reasons why. Companies can go
out and buy hardware that is supported well, home users generally just buy
whatever is cheapest or most powerful.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Evens Garde
2008-06-12 20:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Andersen
Post by Brian K. White
It always amazes me how people who complain about the requirements of gpl
Rest of off topic rant deleted.
You miss the point entirely.
The GPL does not prohibit the use of either binary firmware drivers or binary
blobs.
It simply prohibits their distribution embedded in a distro.
Actually, it doesn't prohibit that at all

It prohibits not making the source code of the GPL portion
accessible, at reasonable cost, to the receiver.
Post by John Andersen
Some accommodation will sooner or later have to be made to make it
easier to use your newly purchased computer with Linux. Either by
fetching the drivers across the net or whatever works, and running those
drivers in a safe sandbox if necessary.
Pretending that its 1985 is counterproductive.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
John Andersen
2008-06-12 20:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francis Earl
Post by John Andersen
You miss the point entirely.
The GPL does not prohibit the use of either binary firmware drivers or
binary blobs.
It actually does prohibit a work based on such things being released as a
whole... this is why nvidia and ati stuff, and other firmware are not part of
the kernel. In the case of Linux the kernel, they also take measures to ensure
such things cannot use kernel calls made by non-GPL stuff (google for GPL_ONLY
in the kernel)
Post by John Andersen
It simply prohibits their distribution embedded in a distro.
No, it is their illegality that requires they be outside the kernel. Many get
away with it though because we can't prove that they make kernel specific
calls, thus it's hard to argue they are a derived work.
This is nonsense. Sooner or later EVERY program demand something
from the kernel. You have no clue how software really works do you?

Calling another program does not make the caller a derived work. Nor does
it make the called program a derived work.
Post by Francis Earl
Make no mistake though, if it IS a Linux kernel derived work, it is UTTERLY
illegal.
And that too is a misstatement.
Post by Francis Earl
If you argue the GPL is bad or immoral, you're breaking the law
using the code at all.
Listen sonny, stop preaching here till you get your law degree, or
at least graduate from high school.
Post by Francis Earl
Currently, many hardware vendors are simply requiring their hardware be
supported by Linux.
Again, total nonsense. No hardware venders are REQUIRING anything
of linux.
Post by Francis Earl
Ignorance and arguments based on the small picture, without even attempting to
see the big picture is also counter productive. Go out and buy hardware that
is fully supported by Linux,
Good luck with that.
Older video cards are being dropped from the shelves daily. Older WIFI
chipsets are being replaced with newer models.

If you want performance you are going to have non-gpl drivers in your
machine. Its that simple.

By the way, is your kernel tainted?
cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
--
----------JSA---------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Evens Garde
2008-06-12 21:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Andersen
By the way, is your kernel tainted?
cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
64


Is that like 42?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
John Andersen
2008-06-12 21:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evens Garde
Post by John Andersen
By the way, is your kernel tainted?
cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
64
Is that like 42?
No, that's like Tainted!

(And its pretty common).
--
----------JSA---------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Randall R Schulz
2008-06-12 21:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Andersen
...
By the way, is your kernel tainted?
cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
My SuSE Linux 10.0 system:

% cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
65

# cd /var/log
# egrep -i taint *
messages:May 29 09:51:12 twain kernel: vmmon: module not supported by Novell, setting U taint flag.
messages:May 29 09:51:12 twain kernel: vmmon: module license 'unspecified' taints kernel.
messages:May 29 09:51:12 twain kernel: vmnet: module not supported by Novell, setting U taint flag.
warn:May 16 06:13:27 twain kernel: vmmon: module not supported by Novell, setting U taint flag.
warn:May 16 06:13:27 twain kernel: vmmon: module license 'unspecified' taints kernel.
warn:May 16 06:13:27 twain kernel: vmnet: module not supported by Novell, setting U taint flag.


My openSUSE 10.3:

% cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
385

# cd /var/log
# egrep -i taint *
boot.msg:<4>nvidia: module license 'NVIDIA' taints kernel.
boot.omsg:<4>nvidia: module license 'NVIDIA' taints kernel.
nvidia-installer.log: nvidia: module not supported by Novell, setting U taint flag.
nvidia-installer.log: nvidia: module license 'NVIDIA' taints kernel.



I feel so dirty...
Post by John Andersen
--
----------JSA---------
Randall Schulz
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Evens Garde
2008-06-12 21:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randall R Schulz
Post by John Andersen
...
By the way, is your kernel tainted?
cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
% cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
65
# cd /var/log
# egrep -i taint *
messages:May 29 09:51:12 twain kernel: vmmon: module not supported by Novell, setting U taint flag.
messages:May 29 09:51:12 twain kernel: vmmon: module license 'unspecified' taints kernel.
messages:May 29 09:51:12 twain kernel: vmnet: module not supported by Novell, setting U taint flag.
warn:May 16 06:13:27 twain kernel: vmmon: module not supported by Novell, setting U taint flag.
warn:May 16 06:13:27 twain kernel: vmmon: module license 'unspecified' taints kernel.
warn:May 16 06:13:27 twain kernel: vmnet: module not supported by Novell, setting U taint flag.
% cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
385
# cd /var/log
# egrep -i taint *
boot.msg:<4>nvidia: module license 'NVIDIA' taints kernel.
boot.omsg:<4>nvidia: module license 'NVIDIA' taints kernel.
nvidia-installer.log: nvidia: module not supported by Novell, setting U taint flag.
nvidia-installer.log: nvidia: module license 'NVIDIA' taints kernel.
I feel so dirty...
You are Randall...you are.

But we forgive you.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Larry Stotler
2008-06-12 21:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Andersen
By the way, is your kernel tainted?
cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
Fedora 8, Celeron DC E1200(@ 3.2Ghz) = 0
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Francis Earl
2008-06-12 22:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Andersen
This is nonsense. Sooner or later EVERY program demand something
from the kernel. You have no clue how software really works do you?
I do actually. Most actually refer to LGPL libs, which is permitted, so no,
not everything is a derived work. This is why most companies prefer GTK over
Qt also, or just using wine for their port.

As an aside, this is also how Trolltech make their money, you can't use the Qt
provided by Novell and others at all for proprietary stuff because the open
source version is GPL, thus derived works would be required to be GPL too...
so people like Adobe and Opera purchase the proprietary license so they can
use it without GPL'ing their software.

They made more than Novell did last quarter going by financial documents I've
seen, so it appears to be working for them.
Post by John Andersen
Calling another program does not make the caller a derived work. Nor does
it make the called program a derived work.
IANAL, but a lawyer disagrees, see the the Software Freedom Law Center. Also,
see some of Eben Moglen's talks on the subject.
Post by John Andersen
And that too is a misstatement.
No, it's not.
Post by John Andersen
Listen sonny,
I would appreciate it if you weren't condescending, thank you.
Post by John Andersen
stop preaching here till you get your law degree, or
at least graduate from high school.
*shrug* ... I just happen to listen to lawyers on the topic a lot. I think
they'd know a lot better than you considering they specialize on the topic.
Post by John Andersen
Again, total nonsense. No hardware venders are REQUIRING anything
of linux.
Umm, yes they are. See the Linux Foundation site for statements about this. HP
and Dell have committed to this as I stated previously.
Post by John Andersen
Older video cards are being dropped from the shelves daily. Older WIFI
chipsets are being replaced with newer models.
Yes, but if the hardware vendors don't include it due to the licensing, as
Dell and HP have promised to do, they'll see the light eventually.
Post by John Andersen
If you want performance you are going to have non-gpl drivers in your
machine. Its that simple.
This is the case currently, yes... which is EXACTLY why Linux isn't ready for
the consumer desktop. Try Windows if you disagree, and come back in a few
years when Linux is ready.
Post by John Andersen
By the way, is your kernel tainted?
cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
What point does this make exactly? openSUSE includes a lot of things that are
bad, but they - like Ubuntu - go through several loop holes to ensure by
current definitions it's not illegal. The same hardware, fully supported on a
Fedora box returns 0 because I brought this hardware to be utterly OSS
compliant with drivers.

I think you need to educate yourself a little, your points are _very_ misled.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Evens Garde
2008-06-12 22:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francis Earl
Post by John Andersen
This is nonsense. Sooner or later EVERY program demand something
from the kernel. You have no clue how software really works do you?
I do actually. Most actually refer to LGPL libs, which is permitted, so no,
not everything is a derived work. This is why most companies prefer GTK over
Qt also, or just using wine for their port.
If I write a program which calls write(2), i'm callig the kernel
directly.

You can't seriously believe that every program which calls write(2)
*MUST* be GPL to run on Linux -- That would be bat-shit fucking INSANE.
Post by Francis Earl
As an aside, this is also how Trolltech make their money, you can't use the Qt
provided by Novell and others at all for proprietary stuff because the open
source version is GPL, thus derived works would be required to be GPL too...
so people like Adobe and Opera purchase the proprietary license so they can
use it without GPL'ing their software.
Trolltech distributes free for GPL apps.
and charges for commercial apps.

I.e. .. if you make money off of Trolltech libraries, then Trolltech
gets a cut. If you don't, then they don't demand one.
Post by Francis Earl
They made more than Novell did last quarter going by financial documents I've
seen, so it appears to be working for them.
So?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Francis Earl
2008-06-13 01:56:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evens Garde
If I write a program which calls write(2), i'm callig the kernel
directly.
You can't seriously believe that every program which calls write(2)
*MUST* be GPL to run on Linux -- That would be bat-shit fucking INSANE.
If it's statically compiled against the kernel, yup. Fortunately most code
isn't compiled this way.
Post by Evens Garde
I.e. .. if you make money off of Trolltech libraries, then Trolltech
gets a cut. If you don't, then they don't demand one.
You're simply wrong. If you release something, even if you don't make money
from it, you're required to GPL it or pay the proprietary licensing fee. Read
Trolltechs site if you don't believe me.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Evens Garde
2008-06-13 02:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francis Earl
Post by Evens Garde
If I write a program which calls write(2), i'm callig the kernel
directly.
You can't seriously believe that every program which calls write(2)
*MUST* be GPL to run on Linux -- That would be bat-shit fucking INSANE.
If it's statically compiled against the kernel, yup. Fortunately most code
isn't compiled this way.
Post by Evens Garde
I.e. .. if you make money off of Trolltech libraries, then Trolltech
gets a cut. If you don't, then they don't demand one.
You're simply wrong. If you release something, even if you don't make money
from it, you're required to GPL it or pay the proprietary licensing fee. Read
Trolltechs site if you don't believe me.
I suppose...but the "third way" is mostly theoretical.

Why would anyone release something and neither GPL it nor
charge for it?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Francis Earl
2008-06-13 03:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evens Garde
I suppose...but the "third way" is mostly theoretical.
Why would anyone release something and neither GPL it nor
charge for it?
That's not the point at all, he insinuated that Trolltech simply wanted a cut
if you charge for code that uses Qt, it's simply false.

You can charge for GPL software just fine, or rather for services around that
software. Most every distro provides Qt by default now-a-days, many make money
from that distro, they don't need to charge though.

Opera gives away a version of its browser, yet they buy the commercial license
from Trolltech (although they do charge for one version of the software I
think?)

I was simply making a point.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
John Andersen
2008-06-12 23:32:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francis Earl
Post by John Andersen
By the way, is your kernel tainted?
cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
What point does this make exactly?
It makes the point if you are going to stand up and thump your chest and
scream shrilly about evil you should not be running a tainted kernel.

Contrary to your assertion, Opensuse will install cleanly without taint.
--
----------JSA---------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Francis Earl
2008-06-13 02:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Andersen
It makes the point if you are going to stand up and thump your chest and
scream shrilly about evil you should not be running a tainted kernel.
Contrary to your assertion, Opensuse will install cleanly without taint.
11.0 will? I require no proprietary drivers at all, and have attempted to
remove firmware and things like ndiswrapper, but the package management
complains.

I'd love to have the same untainted quality as I did for Fedora, however that
is irrelevant. It's a matter of how the code was intended to be used, besides,
only reason people want ZFS is because Sun won't stfu about it, it has little
to no benefits for most of the people who request it.

(disclaimer: yes I've used Solaris with ZFS, so no I'm not talking ignorantly
here.)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Randall R Schulz
2008-06-12 22:38:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evens Garde
Post by Randall R Schulz
Post by John Andersen
...
By the way, is your kernel tainted?
cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
% cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
65
...
% cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
385
...
I feel so dirty...
You are Randall...you are.
But we forgive you.
Are you sure you want to do that?

Doesn't it just make you a co-conspiratorial enabler??

You've always seemed more like the "tough love" sort.
Unless... You _do_ love me, don't you??


RRS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Evens Garde
2008-06-12 22:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randall R Schulz
Post by Evens Garde
Post by Randall R Schulz
Post by John Andersen
...
By the way, is your kernel tainted?
cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
% cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
65
...
% cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
385
...
I feel so dirty...
You are Randall...you are.
But we forgive you.
Are you sure you want to do that?
Doesn't it just make you a co-conspiratorial enabler??
You've always seemed more like the "tough love" sort.
Unless... You _do_ love me, don't you??
Why wouldn't I?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Randall R Schulz
2008-06-12 22:52:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evens Garde
Post by Randall R Schulz
Post by Evens Garde
...
But we forgive you.
Are you sure you want to do that?
Doesn't it just make you a co-conspiratorial enabler??
You've always seemed more like the "tough love" sort.
Unless... You _do_ love me, don't you??
Why wouldn't I?
Just checking. I'm not sure I could deal with it if you didn't...


RRS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Evens Garde
2008-06-12 23:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Andersen
Post by Evens Garde
Post by John Andersen
By the way, is your kernel tainted?
cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
64
Is that like 42?
No, that's like Tainted!
Should I collapse into a ball on the floor and
have a crying fit?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
John Andersen
2008-06-12 23:47:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evens Garde
Post by John Andersen
Post by Evens Garde
Post by John Andersen
By the way, is your kernel tainted?
cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
64
Is that like 42?
No, that's like Tainted!
Should I collapse into a ball on the floor and
have a crying fit?
Yup, pretty much.
At least according to some of the preachers on this thread.

Me? I've been tainted since before there was a taint flag.
--
----------JSA---------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Randall R Schulz
2008-06-13 00:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Andersen
...
Me? I've been tainted since before there was a taint flag.
Huh. I thought we were all born with taints.
Post by John Andersen
--
----------JSA---------
RRS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Brian K. White
2008-06-13 02:50:48 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Andersen" <***@gmail.com>
Cc: "opensuse" <***@opensuse.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: OT: evil gpl , was Re: [opensuse] ZFS on SuSE-anyone, Distributed File System...
Post by John Andersen
Post by Evens Garde
Post by John Andersen
Post by Evens Garde
Post by John Andersen
By the way, is your kernel tainted?
cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
64
Is that like 42?
No, that's like Tainted!
Should I collapse into a ball on the floor and
have a crying fit?
Yup, pretty much.
At least according to some of the preachers on this thread.
What?
Speak for yourself.
--
Brian K. White ***@aljex.com http://www.myspace.com/KEYofR
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro BBx Linux SCO FreeBSD #callahans Satriani Filk!
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Druid
2008-06-12 21:08:51 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Francis Earl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Post by Francis Earl
I think it's more important to note that the people that own the copyrights on
the code DO NOT want it combined with code that doesn't let them maintain
ownership. In the case of Sun's CDDL, they require you to sign everything you
do over to them, that's fair? No. It's not the evil GPL, it's Sun trying to
accomplish proprietary open source, that isn't right.
The internet is really amazing. Those who are the most clueless are
the ones who like to speak with most confidence. Pretending being an
expert in the internet must be the coolest thing in these last years.

Why its not fair? If its not fair, dont use it. Dont come with this
panacea "proprietary open source", you hardly even understand what you
are talking about. Not to mention Sun is a major contributor of open
source code.

First of all, Sun, FSF, FreeBSD, Mysql, Apache, CUPS, lots of
projects have definitions on shared copyright assignments (like sun
contribution agreement) or some mechanism that unifies copyright
ownership. The main implication on this is that it makes possible an
easy license change in the future and to . This links explains the
downsides and upsides of this policy:
http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/sca_r_office

Of course, Sun is trying to make "proprietary open source", but
apache, mysql, the guy from cups, they are just awesome, right?
Post by Francis Earl
As for BSD, I don't think most in this day and age really want to hand over
their hard work so others can benefit without giving anything back, that is why
BSD license will never catch on, but it's certainly a much better license than
anything Sun, Apple, or Microsoft have come up with. It's a joke that people
even make such arguments STILL.
I see you keep trolling. Oh, the corporations *cry* *cry*. Even though
the CDDL from Sun is based on Mozilla MPL. But of course Mozilla
license must be awesome, its not a company, right?

I would take your statements and predictions with a grain of salt,
internet expert.

regards

Marcio
---
Druid
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+***@opensuse.org
Loading...