Fw: UTUTO-e: non-free kernel drivers/firmware
I am not working in Ututo-e developing team, I will forward your cuestion to them Regards ---------- Forwarded Message ----------- From: "Benj. Mako Hill" <[email protected]> To: Diego Saravia <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:06:23 -0700 Subject: UTUTO-e: non-free kernel drivers/firmware Diego, I've read Richard and a few other people going on about the fact that UTUTO is a 100% Free Software and does and does not point to or include any Free Software. Does this means that you have successfully done a code audit on the Linux kernel and removed all binary and proprietary firmware and drivers? If you have, you are way ahead of the Debian team working on this which, I had assumed, was the only active project to seperate these. Also, do you have a stance on documentation? I think it would be sad if you don't hold documentation to the same standards as software (or worse yet, to any standards at all). Especially in the context of Hipatia which aims to expand Free Sotware principles beyond software itself. Then again, kicking out GFDL will almost certainly upset Richard. It was, after all, in the context of the discussion of the GFDL that Richard decided to revoke his advocacy of Debian and remove the link from the FSF homepage. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [email protected] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- -- Diego Saravia [email protected]
sería bueno ver la respuesta que le dan a la gente de Debian... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Diego Saravia" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 3:01 AM Subject: [Solar-ututo-e] Fw: UTUTO-e: non-free kernel drivers/firmware
I am not working in Ututo-e developing team, I will forward your cuestion to them
Regards
---------- Forwarded Message ----------- From: "Benj. Mako Hill" <[email protected]> To: Diego Saravia <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:06:23 -0700 Subject: UTUTO-e: non-free kernel drivers/firmware
Diego,
I've read Richard and a few other people going on about the fact that UTUTO is a 100% Free Software and does and does not point to or include any Free Software.
Does this means that you have successfully done a code audit on the Linux kernel and removed all binary and proprietary firmware and drivers?
If you have, you are way ahead of the Debian team working on this which, I had assumed, was the only active project to seperate these.
Also, do you have a stance on documentation? I think it would be sad if you don't hold documentation to the same standards as software (or worse yet, to any standards at all). Especially in the context of Hipatia which aims to expand Free Sotware principles beyond software itself.
Then again, kicking out GFDL will almost certainly upset Richard. It was, after all, in the context of the discussion of the GFDL that Richard decided to revoke his advocacy of Debian and remove the link from the FSF homepage.
Regards, Mako
-- Benjamin Mako Hill [email protected] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ ------- End of Forwarded Message -------
-- Diego Saravia [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- _______________________________________________ Solar-ututo-e mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/solar-ututo-e
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 El Jue 26 Ago 2004 17:04, cristian escribió:
sería bueno ver la respuesta que le dan a la gente de Debian...
Yo personalmente le envie a Mako preguntandole cuales eran los drivers/firmwares que estan presentes en el kernel que se descarga desde kernel.org. Nosotros en UTUTO-e no aplicamos parches al kernel, ni se liberan junto a este paquetes que contengan drivers/modules/firmware que no sean de licencias libres. Aun no he recibido la respuesta de mako. Segun tengo entendido el kernel descargado desde kernel.org es totalmente GPL y no usa driver/modules/firmwares de terceros que posean licencias nos libres. Pero igualmente hace ya una semana que envie el mail a Mako sin respuesta aun. Para nosotros es muy importante mantener el compromiso con el uso exclusivo en nuestro sistema de software libre. Si sabemos que por ejemplo el uso de algunos modulos para modems tipo Winmodem o USB son liberados bajo licencia no libres, es por eso que no son aplicados al kernel. Tambien hemos revisado el kernel en busca de algun indicio de algo de lo indicado por Mako y no lo hemos encontrado. Abrazos - -- Mate.Cosido (..aun fuera de la ley) (* UTUTO-e GNU System + Linux *) (* 2.6.7 / XOrg 6.7.99 compilado con gcc 3.4.1 *) Daniel Olivera (Mate.Cosido) -- Linux #267582 - AR #1832 Telefono particular: 4207-1701 / 7688 - Cel: 5637-5979 Id gnupg: 0x889D8149 -- Servidor: pgpkeys.netsys.com.ar ICQ: 8368437 -- AIM/Yahoo: doliveralinux -- MSN : No uso Jabber: jabber.netsys.com.ar / ususario: mate.cosido Estudien mucho para poder dominar la tecnica que permite dominar la naturaleza. CHE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBNcdCmUZ7u+iPzsQRAkgFAJ9cX7+TiZZ2FHa64XHKql/jfBTWhgCeJkzm EIZbpbnvu01lZuFCMjLB84Y= =DFaJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
les copio la respuesta que me dio mako en dos mails 1)
Do you have more information about that propietaries drives in linux kernel?
There are drivers and firmware and I suspect they are slightly different issues in terms of GPL compliance. In terms of freedom though the issue is pretty clear cut. I don't know too much about it -- I'm not a kernel hacker. But I can refer your tech folks to the people in Debian who do know. 2) On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 06:24:28PM -0300, Diego Saravia wrote:
do you believe that this issues affects the freedom status of ututo-e?
In my opinion, yes. In others', possibly not. Are you defining software to refer to documentation on the system? I think this question is open to debate. But what about software that runs on chips other than your computer's CPU (like firmware)? Where do you draw the line? You may be able to define "software" in a very narrow sense that will rescue your freedom status of ututo-e. I don't think demanding "ultimate freedom -- right now" makes sense. The GNU project used non-free software as a platform for creating the GNU tool chain. They basically had no choice. Do you use Google? It's non-free software. Do you uses a modem, wireless card, Ethernet card, video card, or CPU with binary firmware? It's all running non-free binary firmware -- which is software. Do you think it's a different freedom issue if it's loaded by the kernel or on the chip itself? Why? What about a mobile phone? That's running non-free software too. See what I mean? We pick our battles and I think we need to understand that this is a process and a goal. With current computers, I think a "100% free" system may not even possible.
you speak about documentation also, could you tell me more about it?
Yeah. Richard doesn't think that documentation needs to be held to the same standards as software. The GNU GFDL includes and allows for invariant non-removable sections, invariant non-removable cover texts, acknowledgments, dedications, and invariant endorsements. Few of these things would be permissible in a Free Software license. Richard is advocating them all for good reason. But there are good reasons for non-commercial use clauses on software too (look at MAME for example which would sued out of existence without the clause) but that doesn't make the license in question free. For more information, do a Google search for "GFDL Position Debian" and you'll come up with this position statement that sums of many of the problems raised by the Debian community. A few of them I don't agree with but most of them I do. Also, RFCs are totally invariant. "For good reason" many would argue but, like I said, I don't think good reasons change the importance of the Freedom to modify. I think it's an absolute. If you bring this up with Richard -- especially documentation, I would prefer if you left myself and Debian out of the discussion. He seems to harbor a bit of animosity toward Debian because of the nasty way that a small number of developers treated him the last time the GFDL really came up on Debian lists. I've been involved in internal discussions with folks at FSF about the license and would really prefer to not have name or organization as part of the discussion as I'm afraid it might compromise the chance of seeing real change on this. Regards, Mako -------------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 09:57:33 -0300, Daniel Olivera -Mate.Cosido wrote
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
El Jue 26 Ago 2004 17:04, cristian escribió:
sería bueno ver la respuesta que le dan a la gente de Debian...
Yo personalmente le envie a Mako preguntandole cuales eran los drivers/firmwares que estan presentes en el kernel que se descarga desde kernel.org.
Nosotros en UTUTO-e no aplicamos parches al kernel, ni se liberan junto a este paquetes que contengan drivers/modules/firmware que no sean de licencias libres.
Aun no he recibido la respuesta de mako.
Segun tengo entendido el kernel descargado desde kernel.org es totalmente GPL y no usa driver/modules/firmwares de terceros que posean licencias nos libres.
Pero igualmente hace ya una semana que envie el mail a Mako sin respuesta aun.
Para nosotros es muy importante mantener el compromiso con el uso exclusivo en nuestro sistema de software libre. Si sabemos que por ejemplo el uso de algunos modulos para modems tipo Winmodem o USB son liberados bajo licencia no libres, es por eso que no son aplicados al kernel.
Tambien hemos revisado el kernel en busca de algun indicio de algo de lo indicado por Mako y no lo hemos encontrado.
Abrazos
- -- Mate.Cosido (..aun fuera de la ley) (* UTUTO-e GNU System + Linux *) (* 2.6.7 / XOrg 6.7.99 compilado con gcc 3.4.1 *)
Daniel Olivera (Mate.Cosido) -- Linux #267582 - AR #1832 Telefono particular: 4207-1701 / 7688 - Cel: 5637-5979
Id gnupg: 0x889D8149 -- Servidor: pgpkeys.netsys.com.ar ICQ: 8368437 -- AIM/Yahoo: doliveralinux -- MSN : No uso Jabber: jabber.netsys.com.ar / ususario: mate.cosido
Estudien mucho para poder dominar la tecnica que permite dominar la naturaleza. CHE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBNcdCmUZ7u+iPzsQRAkgFAJ9cX7+TiZZ2FHa64XHKql/jfBTWhgCeJkzm EIZbpbnvu01lZuFCMjLB84Y= =DFaJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________ Solar-ututo-e mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/solar-ututo-e
-- Diego Saravia [email protected]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 El Mié 01 Sep 2004 21:47, Diego Saravia escribió:
les copio la respuesta que me dio mako en dos mails
1)
Do you have more information about that propietaries drives in linux kernel?
There are drivers and firmware and I suspect they are slightly different issues in terms of GPL compliance. In terms of freedom though the issue is pretty clear cut. I don't know too much about it -- I'm not a kernel hacker. But I can refer your tech folks to the people in Debian who do know.
Realmente no entiendo, primero dice que hay drivers/firmwares en el kernel y luego que no sabe porque no es hacker del kernel.
2)
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 06:24:28PM -0300, Diego Saravia wrote:
do you believe that this issues affects the freedom status of ututo-e?
In my opinion, yes. In others', possibly not. Are you defining software to refer to documentation on the system? I think this question is open to debate. But what about software that runs on chips other than your computer's CPU (like firmware)? Where do you draw the line? You may be able to define "software" in a very narrow sense that will rescue your freedom status of ututo-e.
I don't think demanding "ultimate freedom -- right now" makes sense. The GNU project used non-free software as a platform for creating the GNU tool chain. They basically had no choice.
Do you use Google? It's non-free software. Do you uses a modem, wireless card, Ethernet card, video card, or CPU with binary firmware? It's all running non-free binary firmware -- which is software. Do you think it's a different freedom issue if it's loaded by the kernel or on the chip itself? Why? What about a mobile phone? That's running non-free software too.
See what I mean?
We pick our battles and I think we need to understand that this is a process and a goal. With current computers, I think a "100% free" system may not even possible.
Esto es cierto, el software que usamos embebido en los dispositivos electronicos no es libre. Google no es libre. Pero ni, el software de mi telefono celular o google son usados por UTUTO-e para ser soporte de alguna de sus parte. Esto es una bizantina discusion sobre la libertad de sistemas de manejo de informacion no sobre UTUTO-e u otro sistema con kernel linux. El mismo razonamiento puede aplicarse, graciosamente, a la definicion que los de debian dan a su sistema como libre.
you speak about documentation also, could you tell me more about it?
Yeah. Richard doesn't think that documentation needs to be held to the same standards as software. The GNU GFDL includes and allows for invariant non-removable sections, invariant non-removable cover texts, acknowledgments, dedications, and invariant endorsements. Few of these things would be permissible in a Free Software license. Richard is advocating them all for good reason. But there are good reasons for non-commercial use clauses on software too (look at MAME for example which would sued out of existence without the clause) but that doesn't make the license in question free.
For more information, do a Google search for "GFDL Position Debian" and you'll come up with this position statement that sums of many of the problems raised by the Debian community. A few of them I don't agree with but most of them I do.
Also, RFCs are totally invariant. "For good reason" many would argue but, like I said, I don't think good reasons change the importance of the Freedom to modify. I think it's an absolute.
If you bring this up with Richard -- especially documentation, I would prefer if you left myself and Debian out of the discussion. He seems to harbor a bit of animosity toward Debian because of the nasty way that a small number of developers treated him the last time the GFDL really came up on Debian lists. I've been involved in internal discussions with folks at FSF about the license and would really prefer to not have name or organization as part of the discussion as I'm afraid it might compromise the chance of seeing real change on this.
Esto me da en lo personal un poco de miedo. Es como hacer "revisionismo" de las ideas originales que dieron origen al movimiento. Creo que hay cosas que se pueden adaptar. Pero libre no quiere decir sin licencia, sino con licencia libre, que respeta la libertad del usuario. Si la gente de Debian tiene una licencia mejor o propia, que libere la documentacion con esa licencia, pero pretender que el padre del software libre cambie la licencias es como mucho me parece. Pero bueno es solo una opinion personal, como todas las vertidas en este mail. Creo que Mako es un representante de lo que expresan los valores del SL, pero creo que es necesario apegarnos a los valores fundamentales del SL. Cuando todo sea SL y la correspondiente licencia para su documentacio, veremos que hacemos. Ahora si buscamos generar disputas, antes de lograr el objetivo final de nuestra lucha, esta se puede debilitar en ves de fortalecerse.
Regards, Mako
Daniel Olivera -Mate.Cosido CoAutor de UTUTO-e - -- Mate.Cosido (..aun fuera de la ley) (* UTUTO-e GNU System + Linux *) (* 2.6.7 / XOrg 6.7.99 compilado con gcc 3.4.1 *) Daniel Olivera (Mate.Cosido) -- Linux #267582 - AR #1832 Telefono particular: 4207-1701 / 7688 - Cel: 5637-5979 Id gnupg: 0x889D8149 -- Servidor: pgpkeys.netsys.com.ar ICQ: 8368437 -- AIM/Yahoo: doliveralinux -- MSN : No uso Jabber: jabber.netsys.com.ar / ususario: mate.cosido Estudien mucho para poder dominar la tecnica que permite dominar la naturaleza. CHE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBNn6bmUZ7u+iPzsQRAuAVAJ4l1frunBSNgyWQxLiFZh5ynva5SgCfdhAT W/c3BPhNbINwiHxLSodWO/4= =Htja -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
sería bueno leer la respuesta a la gente de debian... saludos ----- Original Message ----- From: "Diego Saravia" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 3:01 AM Subject: [Solar-ututo-e] Fw: UTUTO-e: non-free kernel drivers/firmware
I am not working in Ututo-e developing team, I will forward your cuestion to them
Regards
---------- Forwarded Message ----------- From: "Benj. Mako Hill" <[email protected]> To: Diego Saravia <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:06:23 -0700 Subject: UTUTO-e: non-free kernel drivers/firmware
Diego,
I've read Richard and a few other people going on about the fact that UTUTO is a 100% Free Software and does and does not point to or include any Free Software.
Does this means that you have successfully done a code audit on the Linux kernel and removed all binary and proprietary firmware and drivers?
If you have, you are way ahead of the Debian team working on this which, I had assumed, was the only active project to seperate these.
Also, do you have a stance on documentation? I think it would be sad if you don't hold documentation to the same standards as software (or worse yet, to any standards at all). Especially in the context of Hipatia which aims to expand Free Sotware principles beyond software itself.
Then again, kicking out GFDL will almost certainly upset Richard. It was, after all, in the context of the discussion of the GFDL that Richard decided to revoke his advocacy of Debian and remove the link from the FSF homepage.
Regards, Mako
-- Benjamin Mako Hill [email protected] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ ------- End of Forwarded Message -------
-- Diego Saravia [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- _______________________________________________ Solar-ututo-e mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/solar-ututo-e
participants (3)
-
cristian -
Daniel Olivera -Mate.Cosido -
Diego Saravia