Slashdot Mirror

No. He stated his opinion that Open Source Security, Inc. was violating the GPL; they sued him for defamation, lost, and appealed.

That very same Bruce Perens has been involved in the no-code movement, which has largely resurrected amateur radio, possibly to the dismay of said "old timers".

See the last paragraph of https://perens.com/about-bruce...

His force on open-source efforts have been similarly successfully disruptive.

You introduced criminality into the analogy above thereby changing the whole analogy

Yes, that's correct, that was the entire point. What did you assume the issue was? Perhaps criminality instead of civil law is hyperbolic, but I'd have thought it would have been obvious enough to get the point across.

You've also changed Perens' actual claims of his expertise.

I most certainly have not. I gave a direct quote of the title and leading sentence of his blog post on the subject. I made no assertion of his claims of expertise whatsoever (see my comment below also)

Specifically you failed to mention this part of Peren's blog: "I am an intellectual property and technology specialist who advises attorneys, not an attorney.

I'm not going to paste the entire blog post, and to not be accused of lying by omission, gladly agree his post includes that, right after suggesting he can advise further, and then suggesting people contact their attorneys.

You changed what was said and ask me to check my reading level?

I did not change what was written, anyone can verify that, and I'll ask you not to continue making false claims. You'll note I was extremely careful in making my analogy in that I explicitly mention an expert witness, and not an attorney; this being the closest analogy.

And yes, I again urge you to carefully re-read the post. Please don't take it as a throwaway insult, I am seriously suggesting you re-read if you did not already do so. I note that others have also complained to you on the comments under this story that you've misread what they've said, too.

C++ is a 1980's language (actually, Bjorn started work in 1979). It's lasted long enough that we don't have to shed any tears for its demise.

We have many better options today. Personally, I am writing in Crystal, and you can see my explorations here:

• Introduction.
• Why Dynamic Linking Doesn't Make Sense for Modern Languages.
• Tiny Crystal.

C++ is a 1980's language (actually, Bjorn started work in 1979). It's lasted long enough that we don't have to shed any tears for its demise.

We have many better options today. Personally, I am writing in Crystal, and you can see my explorations here:

• Introduction.
• Why Dynamic Linking Doesn't Make Sense for Modern Languages.
• Tiny Crystal.

C++ is a 1980's language (actually, Bjorn started work in 1979). It's lasted long enough that we don't have to shed any tears for its demise.

We have many better options today. Personally, I am writing in Crystal, and you can see my explorations here:

• Introduction.
• Why Dynamic Linking Doesn't Make Sense for Modern Languages.
• Tiny Crystal.

Oh, and I am in a legal document, predictably, shitposting.

Fuck me, there is no hope for society left. (I would like it to be on record that I stand by that shitpost, however.)

All it does is conditionally grant some rights that by default go to the author. If you violate the terms, you have no permissions to the work under copyright law.

No part of US Copyright Law determines HOW an owner can grant distribution rights. It only says that owners have permission. No part of it determines what constitutes a violation of permission. Please cite anywhere in 17 USC 117 where it says this.

The only way to violate the license is to distribute against the terms, which is illegal because your conditional permissions have been revoked. If you don't distribute, then there is nothing to legally bind you. That is why violating the GPL is necessarily and sufficienty a copyright violation.

Again a truck is an automobile. An automobile is not always a truck.

No, it is not, although it has been contested.

Are you arguing that the GPL isn't a contract? Because Bruce Perens (the same person in this article) says otherwise: "What’s made news recently is that the court found that the GPL was an enforceable contract, and is allowing the case to proceed as a complaint of breach of contract, not just copyright infringement (as most similar cases have). . . But the FSF had its own reasons to say it’s a license, reasons that might be more important to the philosophy of Free Software than the court , . .Does the FSF lose anything because the court said the GPL is a contract? I don’t see how. The court didn’t say it’s not a license."

that his lawyers worked for about 900 hours and were paid for about 450 of them, at fair rates for lawyers.

https://perens.com/2017/06/28/...

Posted on June 28, 2017 by Bruce
Warning: Grsecurity: Potential contributory infringement and breach of contract risk for customers

Itâ(TM)s my strong opinion that your company should avoid the Grsecurity product sold at grsecurity.net because it presents a contributory infringement and breach of contract risk.

Grsecurity is a patch for the Linux kernel which, it is claimed, improves its security. It is a derivative work of the Linux kernel which touches the kernel internals in many different places. It is inseparable from Linux and can not work without it. it would fail a fair-use test (obviously, ask offline if you donâ(TM)t understand). Because of its strongly derivative nature of the kernel, it must be under the GPL version 2 license, or a license compatible with the GPL and with terms no more restrictive than the GPL. Earlier versions were distributed under GPL version 2.

Currently, Grsecurity is a commercial product and is distributed only to paying customers. Under their Stable Patch Access Agreement, customers are warned that if they redistribute the Grsecurity patch, as would be their right under the GPL, that they will be assessed a penalty: they will no longer be allowed to be customers, and will not be granted access to any further versions of Grsecurity. GPL version 2 section 6 explicitly prohibits the addition of terms such as this redistribution prohibition.

By operating under their policy of terminating customer relations upon distribution of their GPL-licensed software, Open Source Security Inc., the owner of Grsecurity, creates an expectation that the customerâ(TM)s business will be damaged by losing access to support and later versions of the product, if that customer exercises their re-distribution right under the GPL license. Grsecurityâ(TM)s Stable Patch Access Agreement adds a term to the GPL prohibiting distribution or creating a penalty for distribution. GPL section 6 specifically prohibits any addition of terms. Thus, the GPL license, which allows Grsecurity to create its derivative work of the Linux kernel, terminates, and the copyright of the Linux Kernel is infringed. The GPL does not apply when Grsecurity first ships the work to the customer, and thus the customer has paid for an unlicensed infringing derivative work of the Linux kernel developers with all rights reserved. The contract from the Linux kernel developers to both Grsecurity and the customer which is inherent in the GPL is breached.

As a customer, itâ(TM)s my opinion that you would be subject to both contributory infringement and breach of contract by employing this product in conjunction with the Linux kernel under the no-redistribution policy currently employed by Grsecurity.

I have previously endorsed a company that distributes enhanced versions of GPL software to paying customers, but that company operated differently (and in a way that I would recommend to Grsecurity). They did not make any threat to customers regarding redistribution. They publicly distributed their commercial version within 9 months to one year after its customer-only distribution.

This other company was essentially receiving payment from its customers for the work of making new GPL software available to the public after a relatively short delay, and thus they were doing a public benefit and were, IMO, in compliance with the letter of GPL though perhaps not the spirit. In contrast, Grsecurity does no redeeming public service, and does not allow any redistribution of their Linux derivative, in direct contravention to the GPL terms.

In the public interest, I am willing to discuss this issue with companies and their legal counsel, under NDA, without charge.

I am an intellectual property and technology specialist who advises attorneys, not an attorney. This is my opinion and is offered as advice to your attorney. Please show this to him or her. Under the law of most states, your attorney who is contracted to you is the only party who can provide you with legal advice.

Try explaining this photo. :-)

I apologize for not participating in this discussion, but it is obvious legal hygiene not to discuss the suit until it's all over. There are some things I can discuss: Here is the Court Order, and I would like to introduce you to my Wonderful Legal Team. Valerie, Stanley, and I are having a good time over the winter break and wish you all happy holidays. Don't worry about me, and I'll explain what costs I have, if any, when this is over.

I apologize for not participating in this discussion, but it is obvious legal hygiene not to discuss the suit until it's all over. There are some things I can discuss: Here is the Court Order, and I would like to introduce you to my Wonderful Legal Team. Valerie, Stanley, and I are having a good time over the winter break and wish you all happy holidays. Don't worry about me, and I'll explain what costs I have, if any, when this is over.

In case you didn't realize, the original article is the last link. Or you can just look at it here.

You can't sell open source

Yes you can sell open source software under various licenses. However, you have your terms confused.

Free software is a subset of open source software often licensed under the GPL. There is nothing in the GPL that says you can't sell the software. When you transfer your binaries, however , the GPL license requires that you provide your customers with four freedoms:

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

You can sell software using other licenses, such as BSD and Apache. Both meet the definition of Open Source, but do not convey the rights listed above. In fact, these licenses allow you to relicense the code as proprietary. For instance, a quote from the Apache license:

You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.

This is how Apple has legally built it's operating system on top of the Mach kernel and BSD Unix. They sell it, and they have relicensed it. A person contributing significant code to these projects is therefore unable to acquire their own source code from Apple. This loophole renders these licenses as non-free.

I have my own theory on how many nerds failed to be properly socialized regarding women.

Streissand effect. Grsecurity should hire another lawyer, if they survive this one.
Not only what Perens wrote is always reason for precaution, even if it wasn't, he repeatedly states in his blog post that this is his opinion, and that furthermore, he's open to discussion and that he's not a lawyer.
https://perens.com/blog/2017/0...

Lawsuit won't pass because it has no grounds. Courts can't define opinions as "false statements", he explicitly claimed several times that this is his opinion, and it's a huge stretch to call it "fearmongering".
Issues with licensing have always been part of the Linux community worries, and there's nothing in his post that could be classified as fearmongering. It's advice pure and simple with strong basis to boot.

If stuff like this was enough for a company to sue an individual, we'd effectively have businesses dictating censorship as they pleased, and a whole ton of democratic instruments to go against big corporations wouldn't exist.

The whole thing will be dismissed and it'll only serve as more reason to suspect Grsecurity. Why don't they go ahead and also try suing Torwalds for calling their patches garbage? Go out with a bang.

By using the code that no longer has license, it is possible for them to be guilty of secondary infringement.

"The code" meaning?
The user still has a license to the Linux kernel:
    1. GPLv2 sec 6 says that "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions."
    2. GPLv2 sec 4 says that "Parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
    3. GPLv2 sec 2 says "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program...," and sec 2.b. only applies if you distribute or publish the result.

And the user has an express license from GRsecurity for GRsecurity's potion of the code under the GPLv2.

But besides all that, users using the work can be sued by GRSecurity if they try to use the rights the GPL gives them.

No. GRsecurity granted a license under the GPLv2.

They can be sued if the distribute with the same clause the code from GRSecurity because they're doing the same thing.

Nope. GRsecurity granted a license under the GPLv2. GRsecurity uses a separate Stable Patch Access Agreement with the supposed restriction, and that agreement is between GRsecurity and the individual customer, not the customer and any other recipient. That agreement also explicitly says that "The User has all rights and obligations granted by grsecurity's software license, version 2 of the GNU GPL," so the user would not be doing the same thing.

they're still open to being sued by GRSecurity for no good reason

Strawman.

or for doing the same thing

False premise. There's no basis to assert that the customer would be distributing the code with that restriction themselves.

And if the customer distributes without that GRSecurity addition and just the plain GPL, that means they're sued by GRSecurity, and if they distribute with it, they're breaking the GPL themselves.

No and no.

Pretty simple.

Everything is simple if you make no effort to understand reality and merely use your own assumptions.

You are utterly wrong. To quote directly from his blog: "In the public interest, I am willing to discuss this issue with companies and their legal counsel, under NDA, without charge."

Sharing with everyone is the absolute opposite of an NDA. That he is not charging them for his private expert advice has no bearing on whether he presents himself as an expert or not. Remember, he runs the Legal Engineering consultancy, so it is related to his own business. I'm pretty sure he's an expert, and if Bruce were to pop his head up (which I'm sure given the circumstances he cannot do) I'd hope he would agree.

As for the rest of it, you don't make any sense and are just raising a red herring that on the surface appears related (experts, lawsuits). Unsurprisingly, experts exist outside of paid advice offered during lawsuits, and most certainly so do defamation laws.

Notwithstanding these rights and obligations, the User acknowledges that redistribution of the provided stable patches or changelogs outside of the explicit obligations under the GPL to User's customers will result in termination of access to future updates of grsecurity stable patches and changelogs.

The entire point of the langauge in section 6 of the GPL is so that another party can not cause you to negotiate away your GPL rights.

I got a copy of Grsecurity's Stable Patch Access Agreement. It's a written term, given to you before the act of distribution. It's rather imprudent of them to write it down if you ask me.

The entire point of the language against additional terms in the GPL is so that others can not negotiate with you for you to give up any of your GPL rights.

I don't think this gives you an obligation to support software you didn't provide. You are not, in that case, refusing to support the software that you did provide. In contrast, Grsecurity shuts the customer off entirely.

No. Merely purchasing the existing combination of code does not provide the required right and ability to supervise or control the infringing activity. You are well outside the bounds of your expertise, and it shows.

In this case, it's the reverse. I understand how the software is applied (this is why I'm an expert witness in demand) and you're out of your expertise, sorry. The customer applies the patch. That gives them control of the infringing activity.

Those portions of the original work have been licensed to the customers by the GPLv2 sec 6. The license to those portions of the original work cannot be terminated per GPLv2 sec 4. The customer is also expressly licensed to make such a combination by GPLv2 sec. 2 so long as they do not publish or distribute the combined work.

Weren't you going to ask Eben about this? Why don't you do so, and get back to me. I still don't believe they're licensed.

By the way, I got the Grsecurity agreement. They actually put down in writing how they restrict the customer's GPL rights.

Start building moon bases and colonies and have wars up in space instead. Earth is the DMZ. No guns allowed. Who DOESN'T want awesome space battles? Now I can finally be a space pirate then retire to the comfy life as a space trucker.

OK, sarcasm evident, but anyone who thinks the DMZ is peaceful hasn't been there. There are guns there, and once in a while, firefights.

Here's my DMZ selfie.

You should read the entire statement, because there are things missing from the quote above that are important. The most important part is the legal theory:

By operating under their policy of terminating customer relations upon distribution of their GPL-licensed software, Open Source Security Inc., the owner of Grsecurity, creates an expectation that the customer's business will be damaged by losing access to support and later versions of the product, if that customer exercises their re-distribution right under the GPL license. This is tantamount to the addition of a term to the GPL prohibiting distribution or creating a penalty for distribution. GPL section 6 specifically prohibits any addition of terms. Thus, the GPL license, which allows Grsecurity to create its derivative work of the Linux kernel, terminates, and the copyright of the Linux Kernel is infringed. The contract from the Linux kernel developers to both Grsecurity and the customer which is inherent in the GPL is breached.

Also, this is important to keep me in compliance with the law:

I am an intellectual property and technology specialist who advises attorneys, not an attorney. This is my opinion and is offered as advice to your attorney. Please show this to him or her. Under the law of most states, your attorney who is contracted to you is the only party who can provide you with legal advice.

It's important to consider the goals of the GPL. You get great Free Software, but it's not a gift. It is sharing with rules that must be followed. You are required to keep it Free. And one of the implied purposes of the GPL is to cause more great Free Software to be made. This means that derivative works that are not shared really go against the purpose as well as the wording of the GPL.

If you want to view the launch live, instructions are here.

Owning my own company, I am not as tied down as many people and frequently make the 4-5 hour drive to Lompoc to see Vandenberg launches. Here's my last one.

At Lompoc, you have the choice of viewing ULA launches from Ocean Avenue (2.8 miles from Pad 3) or from Hawk's Nest, the official viewing spot 8 miles away which might be out of the fog when other spots aren't. I once went to a SpaceX launch where it was so foggy on Ocean Avenue that I only heard it.

At Kennedy Space Center, you have the option of viewing from the LC-39 Observation Gantry for $50, about the best launch viewing available, but Deleware North, the consession operating tours of KSC and Cape Canaveral, sometimes declines to open it for launches.

Company viewing is in an enclosed area a floor up from the peons on the LC-39 gantry. There have been times when I would have paid real money to view on the base rather than the 10-mile-away options on public land.

http://perens.com/blog/2016/01... (article written just after the death of ian who had trouble in his love life and is depicted as a geek)

So this story says: girls are unwelcome in free software because THESE boys have a tendancy for lacking of social skills. And these boys MUST do the effort.

Turning it the right way bruce is outing the community for a heavy presence of trait that is called sociopathy, one of the trait associated with geeks and asperger/autists. Trait weirdly enough stupidly associated with ease of dealings with patterns, abstraction and manipulation of these.

Cow superpower supposed to make you a better coder (like ian? theo de raadt? Feynman? Einstein?).

Yes mr perens is saying:
girls are not welcomed because of Aspergers/autists... which when USA finds it good for pharmacy company are ill, sometimes criminals when the police kill them and when insurance do not wish to pay the medi carebills totally fine.

I don't care if they are ills, criminals, normals, sociopaths. But I will just reason by the **absurd** to prove this guy is an ASS.

I say that in schools when it is the age of sexual awareness, these kids are sided out. Like in a good teen movie.

There are not fit to be good males. They are not alpha male, they are beta male.

Sexuality awareness for the unfit comes with being sided and ostracized. Weirdly enough austitstics/asperger's have another trait forgotten. Because they lack of this social skills they discriminate less than average. And the kookoos I have seen in FOSS used to herald the fundamental non discrimination as a core value of free software. Like a "safe place" to be. FOSS if he is right on the assumption that it is related to sociopathy, has been made a safe place for the handicaped of social unwritten signals ... and seduction. A power leveler for girls in science, labs. The only stuff that helps break the glass ceiling.

Let me ask you about the chicken egg problem with a limited number of iterations. At one point : fingers can be pointed.

Women are lacking of solidarity and empathy when it comes to other teenagers. Maybe it is the fault of their education or parents. Maybe all girls are not bornt bitches. But, with 90% males aspergers/autists and a clear discrimination during early sex life and apparently a better tolerance than average for the aspies regarding differences why do you think women are being ostracized by adult geeks?

Mental illness is like any other differences when it result in harm through the eyes of society: it becomes a handicap.

The harm does not come from the difference, but from the social accepted behaviour and early in their life women are totally encouraged by their parents/friends to ostracized the unfit. Their parents/friends may pressure them to drop the weirdos like a kleenex. Now that geeks are wealthy they want a share of the cake and invade a place for the socially awkward that probably got a loadshit of rejections in their early days.. Boys that suffered of their sociopathy especially in their sex life. Geeks are victims. (still in the context I absurdly accept the postulate of the essay)

I would agree like in the essay something has to change, and that differences should be better accepted (all of them).

I am saying that bums that are often sick should not die on the streets, I am saying that poor people should not be kept in misery and brushed away from the economy, I am saying that coloured people should not be over represented in prisons, that muslims are as nice as puritans, jews, catholics, and protestants.

But as long as the society in which women are DEMOGRAPHICALLY a majority does not change their views towards minorities it is unfair to wish to open a safe haven for a minority of people that suffered discrimination and are probably still healing.

We may improve the situation for the next kids in school, but leave the one that have been burnt heal in their

Bruce,

I read your article, The Empathy Gap, and Why Women are Treated Badly in Open Source Communities. (I saw it on Slashdot.)

It seems to me that I have some useful comments:

You said, "How did we ever get to the point that a vocal minority of males in Open Source communities behave in the most boorish, misogynistic, objectifying manner toward women?"

A vocal minority of males on Slashdot, for example, behave in the most boorish, objectifying manner toward each other.

An example of a programmer being boorish: Linus Torvalds fires off angry 'compiler-masturbation' rant. Yes, Linus is a wonderful leader, but he can also be boorish.

The 1953 translation to English of the book, The Second Sex, began decades of open hostility of women toward men in the United States.

The 1963 book, The Feminine Mystique, began decades of a new kind of sneaky hostility of women toward men in the United States.

Most men don't know how to deal with the hostility of women in the United States. They don't see any reason for it. The also don't detect it clearly.

The issues are far more complicated than indicated by those few statements.

I'm writing a book about how people use their brains. The book will have a much more complete explanation of the relationships between women and men.

Michael Jennings

The entirety of https://perens.com/ has become a link to Codec2 page on Rowetel.com.

What you're trying to say succinctly, is that Bruce profits from the confusion created by open vs. closed source licensing and all the legal issues surrounding such.

http://perens.com/business/consulting - In this, you are correct sir. His website says he charges a $450/hr consultation fee.

More confusion, more perceived need. Attack!

Not sure if your trolling or ignorant, but will give the benefit of the doubt. Bruce PerensBio.

You can see from something else I wrote that I do value spokespeople who stay on message. I don't kid myself that I can expect that sort of maturity out of some of our best-known spokespeople, though.

The court would probably decide based on testimony of experts on both sides. See my JMRI testimony for an example of how Open Source licenses are explained to judges. In the case of Fyodor's addition, it would be both lawyers and experts on the defense side citing cases that go against Fyodor's interpretation. Some of those cases would be precedential to the court hearing the case, meaning that the court would be required to align itself with the previous opinion unless the judge can produce an explanation of why the opinion in the preveious case does not apply to the present one.

Don't ask me. I am just giving you the facts. Quoting (emphasis mine):

Sun Microsystems, Inc. (SUN) hereby grants to you a fully paid, nonexclusive, nontransferable, perpetual, worldwide limited license (without the right to sublicense) under SUN's intellectual property rights that are essential to practice this specification. This license allows and is limited to the creation and distribution of clean room implementations of this specification that:

(i) include a complete implementation of the current version of this specification without subsetting or supersetting;

So much for all the people who said that Java was open, free, and not patent-encumbered. The Java patent grant set up conditions that you can essentially not meet unless you use Sun/Oracle's version. And the fact that Sun was going to be taken over was obvious for years. I had just hoped it was going to be IBM, who wouldn't have done this sort of thing.

Mark Hurd's silly exit has little to do with HP's real problems. As an executive there about a decade ago, I saw a company that was giving up its differentiating value in the name of operational savings, not realizing that by now the Golden Goose of creativity would find greener pastures. But surprisingly, the classic HP tradition of building a great place to do engineering that results in a flood of excellent creative products is being followed...

Read the rest of the posting.

Ah, Bruce 'the serial resigner' Perens speaks. You speak so knowledgeably on lo so many issues, and yet have so little to show for all that confident knowledge...

Mark Hurd's silly exit has little to do with HP's real problems. As an executive there about a decade ago, I saw a company that was giving up its differentiating value in the name of operational savings, not realizing that by now the Golden Goose of creativity would find greener pastures. But surprisingly, the classic HP tradition of building a great place to do engineering that results in a flood of excellent creative products is being followed...

Read the rest of the posting.

If you want to understand the economics of Open Source, read this. It pokes some pretty big holes in your thesis.

It's a bug, http://perens.com/favicon.ico returns an empty file (zero bytes long). I guess chromo can't handle that (firefox does ;) )

Hmm... that is most definitely Microsoft’s favicon, but requests for http://perens.com/favicon.ico gives this response:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Via: 1.1 ISA03
Connection: Keep-Alive
Proxy-Connection: Keep-Alive
Content-Length: 0
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:50:07 GMT
Content-Type: image/x-icon
ETag: "dc1-0-46da9de6675c0"
Server: Apache
Last-Modified: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:24:15 GMT
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Keep-Alive: timeout=2, max=100

Looks like you found a bug in the way Chrome reacts to a zero-length favicon.ico! :o

Your googlefu is not strong, my son.

Here's a few examples of SCO providing code:

http://perens.com/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html

http://www.lemis.com/grog/SCO/code-comparison.html

You might be able to publish it as part of his Bruce Perens' Open Source Series.

If you're trolling, you've got a lot to learn--that one was WAY too obvious.

April, 2009: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/22/2043235

From TFA:

The first lesson is what stayed up: stand-alone radio systems and not much else. Cell phones failed. Cellular towers can not, in general, connect phone calls on their own, even if both phones are near the same tower. They communicate with a central switching computer to operate, and when that system doesn't respond, they're useless. But police and fire authorities still had internal communications via two-way radio.
 
Realizing that they'd need more two-way radio, authorities dispatched police to wake up the emergency coordinator of the regional ham radio club, and escort him to the community hospital with his equipment. Area hams dispatched ambulances and doctors, arranged for essential supplies, and relayed emergency communications out of the area to those with working telephones.

What 'open source' license is Kumo released under. Does it pass the definition of Open Source at Perens.com, in relation to redistribution, source code, derived works, restrictions, technology-neutral ...

I explain what I think, in terms a layman can apprehend.

Ladies and gentlemen I bring forth the evidence that this is probably a fallacy.

Bruce said http://perens.com/blog/2009/01/31/13/
"Build kernel 2.6.28 or later. Earlier kernels won't help. Enable MTRR cleanup in the kernel configuration, setting Enable=1 and Spare MTRRs=1. You end up with 4 spare MTRRs, as it condenses the 8 used to just 4, and they have the same effect as far as I can tell."

However this was took to mean
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/AspireOne
Pass enable_mtrr_cleanup to kernel in /boot/grub/menu.lst. (Explanation of problem at: http://perens.com/blog/2009/01/31/13/)

I can only say thanks to bruce I built my first kernel successfully ,however clearly theres a difference between what he said and what some people thought he said.
I don't know why but I finished up 2 free mtrrs not 4.

I explain what I think, in terms a layman can apprehend.

Ladies and gentlemen I bring forth the evidence that this is probably a fallacy.

Bruce said http://perens.com/blog/2009/01/31/13/
"Build kernel 2.6.28 or later. Earlier kernels won't help. Enable MTRR cleanup in the kernel configuration, setting Enable=1 and Spare MTRRs=1. You end up with 4 spare MTRRs, as it condenses the 8 used to just 4, and they have the same effect as far as I can tell."

However this was took to mean
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/AspireOne
Pass enable_mtrr_cleanup to kernel in /boot/grub/menu.lst. (Explanation of problem at: http://perens.com/blog/2009/01/31/13/)

I can only say thanks to bruce I built my first kernel successfully ,however clearly theres a difference between what he said and what some people thought he said.
I don't know why but I finished up 2 free mtrrs not 4.

Calling this censorship is simply hyperbole, and a knee-jerk attempt at whipping up some anti-government, anti-PC hysteria.

Well, that's funny, because I am a supporter of the current administration, and took time off of work to help Obama be elected.

I am pro-government. I am also pro full-disclosure, transparency, and full discussion. I am not so pro-government that I take everything they do as good, and am very relieved that Obama just hinted he would revisit the state secrets issue. I think government only works when it is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

As you can see from my recent article, I have an interest in emergency preparedness. I looked through the FEMA coloring book and, first, it's not by FEMA. It's by a local emergency preparedness team. Second, it's a really good job. I'd show it to any child. It would help the child understand how to cope with an emergency by being prepared.

So, hyperbole, knee-jerk, and hysteria on you, sir.

Again, if it really matters you don't rely on those services. You have your own backup systems.

http://perens.com/blog/2009/04/22/108/

Perhaps you missed this story:
http://perens.com/blog/2009/04/22/108/

Actually, even as a non-attorney, Bruce Perens does have quite a bit of legal background. You can read all about it in Bruce Perens' online resume