I remember reading somewhere (the OpenSolaris forums??), around the time Danese Cooper shot her mouth off about the CDDL at some convention or another, that the main reason for going with the CDDL was a lack of GPLv3 and its more definite patent language. Not sure if it's true or not, but Sun seems to be warming up to it a bit (bet anti-GPL loons like Schilling are going apeshit).
http://www.freebsd.org/ calling...
Seriously, I don't think that there will be a morality to oppose Stallman within the FOSS community for some time. He's appealed to a number of developers, but mainly to end users irritated at stuff like DRM (but don't kid yourself; most of these armchair advocates are running Flash and watching whirlycubes spin with the help of the nVidia driver, and using amaroK to sort their mp3 playlists. Their indignation begins and ends at what other people do). Notice also that he doesn't involve himself in the debate; proxies like Moglen, PJ, or Perens flush the game so he can sit there and go "Aw shucks, what's all the fuss about?"
The open source movement died because, ultimately, pragmatism isn't a morality; it's expediency in the clothing of one. I appreciate the software from the kernel team, the FSF, and the multitude of others that I have on my machine, but I run it by their grace, not because I claim any kind of right or fundamental freedom to do so.
Speech is a fundamental freedom. Assembly and petition are fundamental freedoms. Having complete read and write access to source code someone else developed without your input is just a Nice Thing.
That's what they do already, under the general strategy of "crossing their fingers and wishing the problem away." Patents on MS's end have more value as FUD anyway; patents you don't litigate have no danger of being overturned by a court.
So assuming Novell doesn't get the pass, and the whole "travel back in time to December and forget the whole thing" plan doesn't work, what's their out? Can they just do a blanket indemnity and go forward again?
Sure it is, but is there going to be some sort of can't-miss, "gotta have that YESTERDAY!" type of change on the horizon? Most of the GNU project seems to have gelled into relative stability (excepting the HURD, of course). Hell, most commercial Unices stay on the market for years without substantial changes. I think Novell can ride on what it's got as far as toolchain stuff (and there's nothing saying they can't make changes themselves) until the MS deal expires. As far as stuff users actually see, most projects are wiggling their toes in the air, and Novell's got a spot on the GNOME foundation and all of the know-how of the former Ximian.
I think that FreeBSD handles the whole source-based thing a little better. Offering binary packages for those without patience is always good, and not subjecting the base system to the stupidities of package management seems like such a good idea I wonder why any Linux distro hasn't picked it up.
Not to mention, if some foreign country doesn't like the market rate, they can just threaten to seize the patent and produce a generic, forcing the pharma to offer a lower rate. Damn US Constitution...
While I'll accept that Shuttleworth may have good intentions in mind; I think that what ESR proposes will ultimately damn Linux. Sure, Freespire's nice for all of one's proprietary codec needs, but if I want to share it with my friends? Tough shit, according to the EULA. I'd be no better than a software pirate showing off his latest warez. It's not always blind morals that make this kind of stuff a bad idea.
I'm a Randite, and I can't stand the guy. While I completely disagree with RMS' views on property rights, he's had the moral fortitude to stick to what he believes and follow it completely (and in the process giving no sanction to those who would alter his philosophy to the point of nonexistence). ESR seems to flip-flop to whatever viewpoint will place him back in the limelight again.
The main points of gNewSense are 1.) Pissing and moaning about aggregated kernel firmware and 2.) Pissing and moaning about an optional non-free software repository.
Actually, DRI drivers up to ATI r200 were based on code contributed by ATI. The main reason for the relative 'success' of r300/r400 is that the open source community has ATI's code to work with (r500 is too different, and the hackers are pissing in the wind). nVidia's 'nv' 2d driver is horribly obfusticated, and should hopefully be replaced by the working 2d portions of Nouveau in a future release.
The open source radeon driver is decent for cards that support it, but r300/400 support is bad (locked up at least four times a day when I tried it), and plans for r500 support, AFAICT, boil down to "let's ask AMD really nice, and maybe someday they'll say yes."
Slashdot Mirror
http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6171300.html/
Now whether this draft is worth the time it'll take for a changeover is another question entirely...
I remember reading somewhere (the OpenSolaris forums??), around the time Danese Cooper shot her mouth off about the CDDL at some convention or another, that the main reason for going with the CDDL was a lack of GPLv3 and its more definite patent language. Not sure if it's true or not, but Sun seems to be warming up to it a bit (bet anti-GPL loons like Schilling are going apeshit).
http://www.freebsd.org/ calling... Seriously, I don't think that there will be a morality to oppose Stallman within the FOSS community for some time. He's appealed to a number of developers, but mainly to end users irritated at stuff like DRM (but don't kid yourself; most of these armchair advocates are running Flash and watching whirlycubes spin with the help of the nVidia driver, and using amaroK to sort their mp3 playlists. Their indignation begins and ends at what other people do). Notice also that he doesn't involve himself in the debate; proxies like Moglen, PJ, or Perens flush the game so he can sit there and go "Aw shucks, what's all the fuss about?" The open source movement died because, ultimately, pragmatism isn't a morality; it's expediency in the clothing of one. I appreciate the software from the kernel team, the FSF, and the multitude of others that I have on my machine, but I run it by their grace, not because I claim any kind of right or fundamental freedom to do so.
Speech is a fundamental freedom. Assembly and petition are fundamental freedoms. Having complete read and write access to source code someone else developed without your input is just a Nice Thing.
Is it really "less free?" I thought free was free. The CDDL just reads like a bastardized LGPL with patent termination language.
That's what they do already, under the general strategy of "crossing their fingers and wishing the problem away." Patents on MS's end have more value as FUD anyway; patents you don't litigate have no danger of being overturned by a court.
So assuming Novell doesn't get the pass, and the whole "travel back in time to December and forget the whole thing" plan doesn't work, what's their out? Can they just do a blanket indemnity and go forward again?
Sure it is, but is there going to be some sort of can't-miss, "gotta have that YESTERDAY!" type of change on the horizon? Most of the GNU project seems to have gelled into relative stability (excepting the HURD, of course). Hell, most commercial Unices stay on the market for years without substantial changes. I think Novell can ride on what it's got as far as toolchain stuff (and there's nothing saying they can't make changes themselves) until the MS deal expires. As far as stuff users actually see, most projects are wiggling their toes in the air, and Novell's got a spot on the GNOME foundation and all of the know-how of the former Ximian.
I think that FreeBSD handles the whole source-based thing a little better. Offering binary packages for those without patience is always good, and not subjecting the base system to the stupidities of package management seems like such a good idea I wonder why any Linux distro hasn't picked it up.
Not to mention, if some foreign country doesn't like the market rate, they can just threaten to seize the patent and produce a generic, forcing the pharma to offer a lower rate. Damn US Constitution...
While I'll accept that Shuttleworth may have good intentions in mind; I think that what ESR proposes will ultimately damn Linux. Sure, Freespire's nice for all of one's proprietary codec needs, but if I want to share it with my friends? Tough shit, according to the EULA. I'd be no better than a software pirate showing off his latest warez. It's not always blind morals that make this kind of stuff a bad idea.
If he decided to pop his head up on one of the OpenBSD lists, I'd probably pay money just for the amusement value...
I'm a Randite, and I can't stand the guy. While I completely disagree with RMS' views on property rights, he's had the moral fortitude to stick to what he believes and follow it completely (and in the process giving no sanction to those who would alter his philosophy to the point of nonexistence). ESR seems to flip-flop to whatever viewpoint will place him back in the limelight again.
Actually, I think they were referring to this: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2000-08/ms g00053.html
That was implied.
OK, you're right. ATI just released docs and specs under NDA.
The main points of gNewSense are 1.) Pissing and moaning about aggregated kernel firmware and 2.) Pissing and moaning about an optional non-free software repository.
Actually, DRI drivers up to ATI r200 were based on code contributed by ATI. The main reason for the relative 'success' of r300/r400 is that the open source community has ATI's code to work with (r500 is too different, and the hackers are pissing in the wind). nVidia's 'nv' 2d driver is horribly obfusticated, and should hopefully be replaced by the working 2d portions of Nouveau in a future release.
I've rarely had nvidia problems with a kernel that didn't have 'rc' or 'mm' in the title somewhere.
And you know what's good for him better than he does? Make your choice, and allow him to make his.
What freedom? The freedom to see and use code we don't own?
The open source radeon driver is decent for cards that support it, but r300/400 support is bad (locked up at least four times a day when I tried it), and plans for r500 support, AFAICT, boil down to "let's ask AMD really nice, and maybe someday they'll say yes."
Honestly, what do people expect? It's a fucking *nix.
Don't you know that RMS wrote the GNU Manifesto, and then powered down his computer until Linux came out in 1991? No, really.
So you use freedom to justify being a scofflaw?