[Solar-ututo-e] Fw: UTUTO-e: non-free kernel drivers/firmware

Jue Sep 2 03:59:46 CEST 2004

-----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-----