Add TurboLinux to the Microsoft patent-protection roster

davijordan · Post by **davijordan** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:53 am

Off the subject, but one thing I liked about the old turbo linux was that you could build an image for a system other than the host. for example even if you were using a p1, you could build an image for a 486 with appropriate drivers for that system. plug in the imaged drive to the destination machine and it worked.

allix · Post by **allix** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:09 pm

Wally Balljacker wrote:But VLC isn't developing proprietary software. They are a legitimate contributor to the FOSS community, and it's inherently authoritarian to force a project to adopt a new license simply because a dependent library gets moved to GPLv3. You want to talk about developer rights, what about the VideoLAN project's rights? Shouldn't they be allowed to continue using the GPLv2 if they feel it's the best license for their software? How on earth can you defend a license that is incompatible with it's predecessor? I can see where this is going and I don't like it one bit. First Samba, then GCC, and before we know it, the entire community is using GPLv3 against their wishes simply because a few key projects adopted it, and they ended up getting sucked into it. That's pretty under-handed if you ask me. I think I can understand the real motivation for OpenBSD to develop their PCC compiler; THEY HATE GPLV3.

I never said VLC is proprietary , if they don't want to move to v3 then fine don't , however they will have to write the libraries that are going to gpl v3.
The reason I presume gpl v 3 and v 2 are not compatible is because it would not really be a improvement , m$ could take advantage of the v 2 holes and we would not get anyway.
As mean as it sounds you just got to admit defeat and move along.
I just hope the kernel moves to v3 sooner or later and then the m$<-> novell deal will pretty much be useless.

Theo does not just hate the gpl , he abhorrent to it. He appears to hate it like Hitler hated the jews. Ok maybe not that much, but he does seem to have a problem with it.

Out-of-interest , why do you not like version 3?

Tsuroerusu · Post by **Tsuroerusu** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:42 pm

Wally Balljacker wrote:But VLC isn't developing proprietary software. They are a legitimate contributor to the FOSS community, and it's inherently authoritarian to force a project to adopt a new license simply because a dependent library gets moved to GPLv3. You want to talk about developer rights, what about the VideoLAN project's rights? Shouldn't they be allowed to continue using the GPLv2 if they feel it's the best license for their software?

Then they should just WRITE THEIR OWN GOD DAMNED CODE! And quit complaining! It is IN NO FREAKING WAY "authoritarian" to say "This is MY code, I wrote it, and I choose THIS license for it, if you want to use it then you must accept the choice of license that I made for MY code". What in the freaking world is wrong with that?

Nobody is forcing VLC to put their code under GPLv3, and I mean that litterally, NOBODY is forcing them to do that, but then THEY shouldn't go out and use other people's code (That may be under GPLv3), they should write their own!!!

Wally Balljacker wrote:How on earth can you defend a license that is incompatible with it's predecessor?

You can NEVER make two copyleft licenses compatible, and especially in the case of the GPL, since v3 adds some other restrictions. It's like this, license 1 says that changes to code under license 1 must be licensed under license 1. Similarly, license 2 says that changes to code licensed under license 2 must be licensed under license 2. There is no way to make this directly compatible.

Also, the FSF took care of the compatibility issue over ten years ago with the "GPL v2 or any later version" scheme of licensing. Then you're inherently forward compatible.

Wally Balljacker wrote:I can see where this is going and I don't like it one bit. First Samba, then GCC, and before we know it, the entire community is using GPLv3 against their wishes simply because a few key projects adopted it, and they ended up getting sucked into it. That's pretty under-handed if you ask me.

So what you're saying is that if I write a library, and originally released it under GPL v2 back when v3 wasn't around, and other people came around and started to use the code I wrote, then I somehow have an obligation to keep my code licensed in a way that's compatible with those other people's ideals and world views, because they are using my code? I don't know but this sounds like one big mess of hypocrisy to me!

Wally Balljacker wrote:I think I can understand the real motivation for OpenBSD to develop their PCC compiler; THEY HATE GPLV3.

Ummmmm, no? OpenBSD are using a quite old version of GCC, 3.5 to be exact, which they have customized heavily with patches for security reasons (Things like ProPolice stack-smashing and stuff). They can just continue using that version, nothing is forcing them to use a newer one, and with all their security tweaks, moving to 4.x is probably a pain anyway. Also, OpenBSD are just USING GCC, the same way you use GNOME or even the Linux kernel, so GPLv3 is really a total non-issue to them, because it doesn't impact them!
The reason OpenBSD ideally want another compiler is because they do not like GCC.

Here's a part of an interview with Theo de Raadt and Otto Moerbeek:

What other hurdles remain in replacing GPL-licensed programs in OpenBSD?

TdR: But that's never really been the agenda, see. Some people think we hate GNU code. But the thing is we hate large code, and buggy code that upstream does not maintain. That's the real problem... gcc gets about 5-6% slower every release, has new bugs, generates crappy code, and drives us nuts. This is just an attempt to see if something better can show up.
We're just fighting against an open source monopoly...

OM: Like in any environment, monopolies are bad. They create dependency. Dependency means you cannot decide completely by yourself on the route to take, because choices are lacking. Removing all dependencies may be a utopia, but it does not hurt to strive to be self-supporting.
Apart from that, compiler hacking is fun. I see programming largely as a craft (of course backed by things like the theory of algorithms and data structures). Working on a compiler, one of the most important tools for a developer, touches all aspects of that craft.

allix wrote:Theo does not just hate the gpl , he abhorrent to it.
...
but he does seem to have a problem with it.

Well, people have different taste in licenses. Theo's problems with the GPL are mostly the classic BSD arguments. Also, from a practical standpoint, the GPL is an extremely complex license. GPLv2 took up about 7 or 8 pages I think, v3 takes up 10, where as something like the New BSD License is like what, 5 sentences long? So right there there's big difference in complexity.
But again, people have different goals, and obviously they're gonna strive for those goals.

I personally prefer the GPL, but I don't look down upon the BSD license, nor do I feel it's a bad license, I just feel the GPL is the better license for doing what I feel is important, and that is making sure that all versions of a covered program are free for everything to run, copy, study, change and redistribute.

allix wrote:He appears to hate it like Hitler hated the jews. Ok maybe not that much

That wasn't nice man, don't joke around with that sort of stuff! It's not funny at all, go do a Google Image search for "Holocaust" and you'll see why I say this. I think that you're being extremely mean in comparing Theo to anything even close to Hitler! Theo can be really harash, but give the guy props because he do believe in freedom, which was something Hitler certainly didn't do.

Wally Balljacker · Post by **Wally Balljacker** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:51 pm

You don't think the BSD license is bad, yet you despise Apple for "stealing" from the FreeBSD community. So, basically you like the BSD license in principle, but you hate it in practice. That doesn't seem very consistent.

Tsuroerusu · Post by **Tsuroerusu** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:02 pm

Wally Balljacker wrote:You don't think the BSD license is bad, yet you despise Apple for "stealing" from the FreeBSD community. So, basically you like the BSD license in principle, but you hate it in practice. That doesn't seem very consistent.

Well, from a free software perspective (And let me clarify that I am using the FSF's definition of free software, which isn't specific to the GPL at all) the BSD license does indeed give you the four freedoms, so right there is the reason I don't think it's a bad license, because it's inherently a free software license.

I personally don't like the idea of people taking free code and then not giving people the same rights that you got. I can't stop Apple from doing it, since it's not against the authors wishes, but that doesn't mean I have to think it's a good thing.

I can't stop the Chinese government from not giving freedom of speech to their citizens, nor would I take military action against them for not doing that (In case I happened to control a big-ass army some day), but that doesn't mean that I think it's good that they don't give their citizens freedom of speech.

allix · Post by **allix** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:24 pm

Tsuroerusu wrote: That wasn't nice man, don't joke around with that sort of stuff! It's not funny at all, go do a Google Image search for "Holocaust" and you'll see why I say this. I think that you're being extremely mean in comparing Theo to anything even close to Hitler! Theo can be really harash, but give the guy props because he do believe in freedom, which was something Hitler certainly didn't do.

I did not mean it like that, its basically like a cliché and nothing more.
Theo is nothing like Hitler , its just Theo is frank with what he does and Hitler was sort of , but there is no comparison.
Theo would not be writing a free operating system if he was against freedom, not just software freedom but in general.

Tsuroerusu · Post by **Tsuroerusu** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:21 am

allix wrote:
Tsuroerusu wrote: That wasn't nice man, don't joke around with that sort of stuff! It's not funny at all, go do a Google Image search for "Holocaust" and you'll see why I say this. I think that you're being extremely mean in comparing Theo to anything even close to Hitler! Theo can be really harash, but give the guy props because he do believe in freedom, which was something Hitler certainly didn't do.
I did not mean it like that, its basically like a cliché and nothing more.
Theo is nothing like Hitler , its just Theo is frank with what he does and Hitler was sort of , but there is no comparison.

Well, I still think it was an extremely bad example!

snarkout · Post by **snarkout** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:36 am

Other than the fact that he blew it and used a Nazi reference in an argument, no, it isn't. He was not comparing Theo to Hitler. He was comparing Theo's hatred of the GPL to Hitler's hatred of the Jews. That kind of knee-jerk overreaction to the mere mention of Hitler doesn't do anything to undo the horror that he perpetrated. It just makes you look like a nut who flies off the handle over minor transgressions of good taste.

davijordan · Post by **davijordan** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:35 am

My step father was there after world war II and saw the results of all the concentration and death camps. I can not repeat what he said about it. What happened in Germany during wwII is nothing to joke about.

snarkout · Post by **snarkout** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:06 pm

Good point - it was an atrocity that we should never forget. It was sickening. People should not casually compare others to Nazis, nor to Hitler. However, it happens in casual conversation all the time. We can choose to either be aware of other people's bad taste a,d ignore it when they display it, or we can choose to get bent out of shape about it and make a spectacle. Your choice. Threads are only derailed by one behavior, though.