# FSF debuts fully-free Ubuntu/Debian variant



## praka123 (Nov 5, 2006)

> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]*www.desktoplinux.com/files/misc/gnewsense-thm.jpgThe Free Software Foundation (FSF) has unveiled a new Linux distribution, free of the proprietary software contained in most Linuxes. gNewSense is based on Ubuntu and Debian, and offers users "the stability of Ubuntu with the addition of freedom," developers Brian Brazil and Paul O'Malley said.[/FONT]


read more below:
*www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS7506163557.html


----------



## Yamaraj (Nov 5, 2006)

Is it pronounced "Nuisance"?

I wonder when FSF Evangelists will understand that computers need a functional
operating system to be usable, not an ideology.


----------



## mediator (Nov 5, 2006)

Ubuntu is based on Debian, n now something thats based on Ubuntu? What de heck!


----------



## JGuru (Nov 5, 2006)

@Mediator, There are already some Ubuntu-based Linux distros like *SimplyMEPIS 6.0*!!
 Also they are doing quite well too!!


----------



## shivkumar (Nov 10, 2006)

prakash kerala said:
			
		

> * "the stability of Ubuntu with the addition of freedom," *
> read more below:
> *www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS7506163557.html



What does that mean? 
what softwares will be missing (proprietary) in New Sense?


----------



## GNUrag (Nov 10, 2006)

Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Is it pronounced "Nuisance"?
> I wonder when FSF Evangelists will understand that computers need a functional
> operating system to be usable, not an ideology.


exxxacccttllyy.
A functional operating system. An operating system polluted by binary blob drivers may be functional today, but not tomorrow.. 

As they say, ``a little bit non-free" is akin to saying you're "a little bit pregnant." Close doesn't count, and even if people don't notice the difference today, they'll definitely notice it nine months from now.''


----------



## Yamaraj (Nov 10, 2006)

GNUrag said:
			
		

> exxxacccttllyy.
> A functional operating system. An operating system polluted by binary blob drivers may be functional today, but not tomorrow..


If you can come up with rational arguments against a functional, but closed source,
operating system, I'll probably take the discussion a little more seriously.

While I do think positively of the OSS/FSF, citing it as the only normal or sane system
is akin to a bunch of nudists hooting at those with clothes on. No matter how strong or
believable an ideology is, if it falls shorts of expectations, it's about as productive as a
dead scientist.

There is a reason why Linux has yet to succeed as the deskop platform of choice. And
I doubt if it ever will. The OSS fundamentalism and communal hatred for the 'binary' is
making Linux suffer. I would like to see an average user react to those who shove the
GNU Menifesto up his rear upon asked for multimedia support, 'free' wireless drivers, 3D
drivers for gaming and productivity and enhanced power management for laptops.

Heil Fuhrer RMS!


----------



## GNUrag (Nov 10, 2006)

Yamaraj said:
			
		

> If you can come up with rational arguments against a functional, but closed source,
> operating system, I'll probably take the discussion a little more seriously.


functional but closed source is not a topic of discussion.
remember we're talking about the community right? 



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> While I do think positively of the OSS/FSF, citing it as the only normal or sane system
> is akin to a bunch of nudists hooting at those with clothes on.


Yeah, quite like when a clothed person enters a nudist camp. 



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> The OSS fundamentalism and communal hatred for the 'binary' is
> making Linux suffer.


whatever happened to that school of thought.. ``Nip it in the Bud''
today allow wifi blobs, tomorrow tolerate those display blobs, then scsi, then tcp/ip, then whole userland....



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> There is a reason why Linux has yet to succeed as the deskop platform of choice.





			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> I would like to see an average user react to those who shove the
> GNU Menifesto up his rear upon asked for multimedia support, 'free' wireless drivers, 3D
> drivers for gaming and productivity and enhanced power management for laptops.


it wont as easily.. there are several factors which shape its future of adoption.. and most powerful factor being technology itself.


----------



## kumarmohit (Nov 10, 2006)

Another Distro! <Yawn> Wats the news in it... Free or Nonfree, my HDD will still be /dev/hda1.


----------



## Yamaraj (Nov 10, 2006)

GNUrag said:
			
		

> today allow wifi blobs, tomorrow tolerate those display blobs, then scsi, then tcp/ip, then whole userland....


My ThinkPad dual-boots into WinXP and SUSE 10.1, currently. SUSE is one of
the few distributions that contains many "non-free" bits to cater to a wide range
of users. Needless to say I wouldn't use it if it didn't come with drivers required
for proper functioning of the machine. Still, no Linux distribution can properly
manage the intricate power management of laptops, upto the same level as
that of Windows.

Good for you if you can live with the "free restrictions" of the GNUdists.
When time comes, I'll choose functionality and usability over ideology anyday.

*Disclaimer: Author of the above post is an experienced Linux user since 1999.
He is an avid Solaris fan (not fanboi!) and uses Solaris Express as his desktop
system.*


----------



## eddie (Nov 11, 2006)

Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Is it pronounced "Nuisance"?
> 
> I wonder when FSF Evangelists will understand that computers need a functional
> operating system to be usable, not an ideology.


 This evangelism and ideology that you hate so much has brought Linux and the OSS movement as far as it has reached today. Companies that used to swear by closed source, like Microsoft, Adobe, Sun and Apple, are making adjustments to THEIR OWN ideologies so that they can save themselves from getting exterminated.

I understand your frustration about various things but you have to understand that FOSS movement has only the ideology and fanaticism of its followers that keeps it going. If it looses this ideology...it looses the impetus to move ahead. This is the only driving force they have, the only life source. You the USER can use closed source stuff, if you want, but the whole movement will move ahead only if the ideology doesn't change.


----------



## Yamaraj (Nov 11, 2006)

eddie said:
			
		

> This evangelism and ideology that you hate so much has brought Linux and the OSS movement as far as it has reached today. Companies that used to swear by closed source, like Microsoft, Adobe, Sun and Apple, are making adjustments to THEIR OWN ideologies so that they can save themselves from getting exterminated.
> 
> I understand your frustration about various things but you have to understand that FOSS movement has only the ideology and fanaticism of its followers that keeps it going. If it looses this ideology...it looses the impetus to move ahead. This is the only driving force they have, the only life source. You the USER can use closed source stuff, if you want, but the whole movement will move ahead only if the ideology doesn't change.


No hatred at all! I only dislike the fundamentalism within the community. To some,
using nVIDIA drivers or binary blob wireless firmware is blasphemous. People with
this attitude annoy me, and they're also sawing off the roots unknowingly.

The question is, would a normal user put any Linux distribution on his/her system,
if such restrictions were applied to already suffering Linux community? It's this
extremism that ticks me off everytime. Servers can do fine without the 3D drivers,
binary wireless firmware or the multimedia playback/encoding capability. Can
desktop/laptop users afford the same, even at no price? I think not!

My laptop battery lasts only half in Linux, compared to what it yields in Windows.
I cannot specify charge-levels in Linux yet. There is no solid support for suspend/
resume either. But, in stead of fixing these issues, the fanatics are dead set on
boycotting the much-needed closed source bits available to us, that make
our lives a little easier.

Besides, closed-source software is not evil. Except for the IT industry, most of
the daily-use products are not open. Why aren't there any movements against
the closed and patented products like washing machines, television, refridgerators,
or the infamous super-secret Coca Cola recipe? I don't see people boycotting
these products, citing them as "tainting" their lives. Do you?

That said, UNIX/Linux architecture is definitely superior to that of Windows. An
ideal solution would be merging the superiority with usability. I wish to see Linux
distribution vendors and the community putting a little effort in making it more
usable and easier for people. OTOH, I would also like to see Microsoft switching
to a UNIX-like architecture, much like what Apple did. That step would being us
the best of both Worlds.


----------



## mehulved (Nov 11, 2006)

Yamaraj said:
			
		

> No hatred at all! I only dislike the fundamentalism within the community. To some,
> using nVIDIA drivers or binary blob wireless firmware is blasphemous. People with
> this attitude annoy me, and they're also sawing off the roots unknowingly.
> 
> ...


 Well in the short run it is good to have closed source softwares but it will surely hurt in the long run.
I totally agree that as it is today, it's difficult to have a functional OS today without proprietory softwares and it's putting off for a lot of users. But, if we do include proprietory softwares we are putting those things that brought linux to where it is today, in the back seat.
Saying that I do myself use some proprietory softwares cos it's necessary to have a functional OS for a home user. But I disagree that proprietory softwares should be bundled with the OS. But, those binaries are mostly available in the package managers of most of the softwares and are easy to obtain.
Problem mostly comes in case of graphics card drivers. It scares off a lot of new users to have an OS without GUI.


----------



## JGuru (Nov 11, 2006)

@Yamaraj, Like you said , Apple's Mac is built upon Darwin. Mac O.S is built upon UNIX entirely
 & also it's very easy to use & configure. I think Linux should also go that way in terms
 of functionality & usability.


----------



## eddie (Nov 11, 2006)

Yamaraj said:
			
		

> No hatred at all! I only dislike the fundamentalism within the community. To some,
> using nVIDIA drivers or binary blob wireless firmware is blasphemous. People with
> this attitude annoy me, and they're also sawing off the roots unknowingly.


Any community has every type of user with their own opinions. You should respect their opinions just like they respect yours. You want to use binary only drivers...go ahead and do that. No one is stopping you. Those users just don't want to do it on their system and it should not annoy you.


> The question is, would a normal user put any Linux distribution on his/her system,
> if such restrictions were applied to already suffering Linux community? It's this
> extremism that ticks me off everytime. Servers can do fine without the 3D drivers,
> binary wireless firmware or the multimedia playback/encoding capability. Can
> desktop/laptop users afford the same, even at no price? I think not!


The question is that whether this "normal user" would have even heard about Linux if this fundamentalism didn't exist? If GNU/Linux would not have followed this stern path then they would not have been any where. They would have been long dead just like many other attempts to compete with proprietary applications.


> My laptop battery lasts only half in Linux, compared to what it yields in Windows.
> I cannot specify charge-levels in Linux yet. There is no solid support for suspend/
> resume either. *But, in stead of fixing these issues*, the fanatics are dead set on
> boycotting the much-needed closed source bits available to us, that make
> our lives a little easier.


I understand your frustration but this is so not true!!! Suspend and resume are probably the busiest patches in kernel. They are being actively developed and tried to be made at-par (or even better) then their closed source counterparts. Just b'cos something doesn't work right now...doesn't mean they are not "fixing" it.


> Besides, closed-source software is not evil. Except for the IT industry, most of
> the daily-use products are not open. Why aren't there any movements against
> the closed and patented products like washing machines, television, refridgerators,
> or the infamous super-secret Coca Cola recipe? I don't see people boycotting
> these products, citing them as "tainting" their lives. Do you?


Please give some related analogies. Ripping apart your washing machines, televisions or refrigerators is not illegal. Try reverse engineering closed source applications and you are in danger of getting sued. You can take Coca Cola to nearest laboratory and see what they are feeding you. You can move your washing machine to your new home and use it without informing the manufacturer before switching it on. Can you do the same with the software you are running? Can you know what a software vendor is packing in its application? This analogy is not at all valid, sorry.


> That said, UNIX/Linux architecture is definitely superior to that of Windows. An
> ideal solution would be merging the superiority with usability. *I wish to see Linux
> distribution vendors and the community putting a little effort in making it more
> usable and easier for people.* OTOH, I would also like to see Microsoft switching
> ...


Just because they don't want to pack closed source applications with their own applications doesn't mean that they are not putting effort to make things easier for users. If that was the case we would not be having this discussion at all. In fact we would have been happy in our Windows land. Look at how more and more users are coming up to accept Linux. All this is not because of some magic but because of this community that is continuously working to make things better for everyone.


----------



## mediator (Nov 11, 2006)

*www.manucornet.net/ubuntu/dev/hibernate.png

Thats the Ubuntu. Then    Fedora!


----------



## praka123 (Nov 12, 2006)

FSF is the life for Free Software and GNU/Linux.


----------



## Yamaraj (Nov 12, 2006)

eddie said:
			
		

> Any community has every type of user with their own opinions. You should respect their opinions just like they respect yours. You want to use binary only drivers...go ahead and do that. No one is stopping you. Those users just don't want to do it on their system and it should not annoy you.


"Should" is not so free after all! I'm exercising my rights in disagreeing with the extremist elements within the community. Before you start taking sides, I would like to know which Linux distribution do *you* use, and on what system. Let's see if you actually follow what you seem to be defending so passionately.



			
				eddie said:
			
		

> The question is that whether this "normal user" would have even heard about Linux if this fundamentalism didn't exist? If GNU/Linux would not have followed this stern path then they would not have been any where. They would have been long dead just like many other attempts to compete with proprietary applications.


It doesn't matter. Linux isn't special as many like to think. UNIX and UNIX-like systems have existed since long before any concept of GNU/FSF was even conceived. And I'm sure an average Joe desktop user isn't going to use "GNUisance" because of the paranoia surrounding it. The most popular distributions are those with non-free repositories readily available to users. Sorry to disappoint you, but Linus and other kernel developers don't seem to agree with the severe restrictions put forward by RMS. I don't see how this fundamentalism is going to benefit the Linux community in long run.



			
				eddie said:
			
		

> I understand your frustration but this is so not true!!! Suspend and resume are probably the busiest patches in kernel. They are being actively developed and tried to be made at-par (or even better) then their closed source counterparts. Just b'cos something doesn't work right now...doesn't mean they are not "fixing" it.


I'm not frustrated, for I have choices. They've had problems getting ACPI and SATA working correctly. Kernel 2.6.19 is supposed to bring more enhancements, se let's hope for better. BTW, why did you mark a few words in typeface Bold?



			
				eddie said:
			
		

> Please give some related analogies. Ripping apart your washing machines, televisions or refrigerators is not illegal. Try reverse engineering closed source applications and you are in danger of getting sued. You can take Coca Cola to nearest laboratory and see what they are feeding you. You can move your washing machine to your new home and use it without informing the manufacturer before switching it on. Can you do the same with the software you are running? Can you know what a software vendor is packing in its application? This analogy is not at all valid, sorry.


The analogy is correct and to the point. You missed it! Reverse engineering in private is possible in case of both commercial software and household appliances. You'll face problems and lawsuits, of course, if you try capitalizing on the reversed knowledge. In fact, OpenBSD contains *many* reverse-engineered drivers including some wireless ones too. Even the Linux kernel contains reverse-engineered drivers. Your take on my analogy was not mature or responsible enough at all. Please come up with better arguments.



			
				eddie said:
			
		

> Just because they don't want to pack closed source applications with their own applications doesn't mean that they are not putting effort to make things easier for users. If that was the case we would not be having this discussion at all. In fact we would have been happy in our Windows land. Look at how more and more users are coming up to accept Linux. All this is not because of some magic but because of this community that is continuously working to make things better for everyone.


We are having this discussion because of an exact opposite of what you're trying to convince me with. This discussion is taking place because of a distribution that aims to set ideology higher than usability, by forcing users not to use any binary blobs or drivers at all. Pardon me, but the growing Linux community has more to do with the XGL hype and Ubuntu, not because of a newfound *belief* in RMS or his ideology.

Please post a screenshot or two of the ideology that your system relies on. Enlighten me too.
__________


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Thats the Ubuntu. Then    Fedora!


Do you really think I don't know how to click on a button or suspend/resume at all? That was funny.


----------



## mediator (Nov 12, 2006)

^^^^^


			
				yamaraj said:
			
		

> Do you really think I don't know how to click on a button or suspend/resume at all? That was funny.


 Why shud I think that? I was just trying to show how ur following statement contradicted!



			
				yamaraj said:
			
		

> My laptop battery lasts only half in Linux, compared to what it yields in Windows.
> I cannot specify charge-levels in Linux yet. *There is no solid support for suspend/resume either.*


As for battery of Laptop, Mah windows Xp shows me 2.5 hrs on 100% recharge whereas Ubuntu shows me 3.5 hrs! And yes it shows everything correctly!


----------



## eddie (Nov 12, 2006)

Yamaraj said:
			
		

> "Should" is not so free after all! I'm exercising my rights in disagreeing with the extremist elements within the community. Before you start taking sides, I would like to know which Linux distribution do *you* use, and on what system. Let's see if you actually follow what you seem to be defending so passionately.


First of all please clear your concept about me. I am not "taking sides". I am just saying that people have their own opinion. No one is forcing you to use gNewSense. You can use any distro you like but just saying that anything you do not like is nuisance is quite narrow minded imho. It just doesn't leave any difference between you and the worst of FSF fanboi's, like RMS (you don't know how much I hate the guy). I don't know what you will come to know by knowing about my system but I use Gentoo Linux 2006.1 on a P4 2.66GHz, 512MB RAM, Intel 915GLVG, 160GB X 3 HDD.


> It doesn't matter. Linux isn't special as many like to think. UNIX and UNIX-like systems have existed since long before any concept of GNU/FSF was even conceived. And I'm sure an average Joe desktop user isn't going to use "GNUisance" because of the paranoia surrounding it. The most popular distributions are those with non-free repositories readily available to users. Sorry to disappoint you, but Linus and other kernel developers don't seem to agree with the severe restrictions put forward by RMS. I don't see how this fundamentalism is going to benefit the Linux community in long run.


They existed but did they succeed? The point is not for how long you have existed but what you have achieved. The FSF movement has put all the projects in a thread and brought them forward. As far as non-free repositories are concerned. Can you point me to a Linux distro that doesn't have such repository available? I couldn't find one but may be you could enlighten me? As far as RMS is concerned...I don't like the guy and do not wish to even discuss his philosophy. FSF movement doesn't end at his philosophy. The thing is simple...it is your choice to do what you want. They have their choice to hate closed-source stuff...you have your choice to love them. As far as I can see, only their choice has brought Linux to what it is today. The day I see Freespire taking over Ubuntu, I will accept that your choice is better then their.


> BTW, why did you mark a few words in typeface Bold?


To mark the point I was referring to. I usually do that in my posts to not cause any confusion regarding which point I am talking about.


> The analogy is correct and to the point. You missed it! Reverse engineering in private is possible in case of both commercial software and household appliances. You'll face problems and lawsuits, of course, if you try capitalizing on the reversed knowledge. In fact, OpenBSD contains *many* reverse-engineered drivers including some wireless ones too. Even the Linux kernel contains reverse-engineered drivers. Your take on my analogy was not mature or responsible enough at all. Please come up with better arguments.


I can open my washing machine and tear open its thermostat, motors, circuit board and everything. I can create my own circuit boards based on the knowledge I get from it and then sell my products. On the other hand cracking open your closed source application is simply illegal. Have you ever read the EULA of any closed source application for that matter? Go and read it for Windows XP and you will know what I am saying. They explicitly talk about reverse engineering and decompilation...no words minced. Did you agree to any such EULA before using your washing machine? If you did then you are right about the analogy. I am sorry.
Also, just because OpenBSD has reverse engineered drivers does not mean that it is legal. The day when the developers of the original drivers plan to sue OpenBSD they will not have any other option but to shut the shop. Till then they can live happily and enjoy the sun shine. Also, I must have missed the Linux Kernel's reverse engineered drivers. Which ones are included in official kernel? Please tell me...I sincerely do not know. If they have done something like this then they have opened a major loop hole for getting their a$$ whooped.


> We are having this discussion because of an exact opposite of what you're trying to convince me with. This discussion is taking place because of a distribution that aims to set ideology higher than usability, by forcing users not to use any binary blobs or drivers at all. Pardon me, but the growing Linux community has more to do with the XGL hype and Ubuntu, not because of a newfound *belief* in RMS or his ideology.


...and both the XGL and Ubuntu are successful because of closed source applications?  
I am just saying that Linux is what it is today because of these people who hold the ideology so high. There is no reason to hate them or hate their thoughts...if you don't like it...take your own path and make something better. That is the beauty of OSS...no one binds you to anything. Go ahead...create your own distro and make things easier for everyone. I for one would be more than happy to use it 


> Please post a screenshot or two of the ideology that your system relies on. Enlighten me too.


Screenshot of what?


----------



## Yamaraj (Nov 12, 2006)

mediator said:
			
		

> Why shud I think that? I was just trying to show how ur following statement contradicted!


No contradiction at all. You missed the "solid" part. My laptop suspends fine, but never resumes properly. And this is a known bug. Try searching Fedora, SUSE or Ubuntu forums for this problem.


----------



## mediator (Nov 12, 2006)

Hmmm! I'll try that on Ubuntu when I'll have the time!


----------



## Yamaraj (Nov 12, 2006)

eddie said:
			
		

> First of all please clear your concept about me. I am not "taking sides". I am just saying that people have their own opinion. No one is forcing you to use gNewSense. You can use any distro you like but just saying that anything you do not like is nuisance is quite narrow minded imho. It just doesn't leave any difference between you and the worst of FSF fanboi's, like RMS (you don't know how much I hate the guy). I don't know what you will come to know by knowing about my system but I use Gentoo Linux 2006.1 on a P4 2.66GHz, 512MB RAM, Intel 915GLVG, 160GB X 3 HDD.


When did I say anything about a distribution being a nuisance just because I didn't like it? It's a nuisance because of the FSF policies, and you know that. If they don't want to use binary drivers, Microsoft fonts, win32codecs, MP3 and DVD decoders, and still can't make the hardware vendors open their drivers, then this stubborn attitude is only stupidity at best.

Since you use proprietary and patented hardware, like millions of others, what is so morally and ethically wrong about patented and commercial software? Not even Governments have open policies. Banks never *open* or disclose their information. Enterprises never disclose their trade secrets. You and I do not do out yelling in the streets our own little secrets. Precisely what, then, makes Microsoft (or others) so *evil*? Because of this attitude of the fundamentalists, I raise my voice against them and anyone else defending them.



			
				eddie said:
			
		

> They existed but did they succeed? The point is not for how long you have existed but what you have achieved. The FSF movement has put all the projects in a thread and brought them forward. As far as non-free repositories are concerned. Can you point me to a Linux distro that doesn't have such repository available? I couldn't find one but may be you could enlighten me? As far as RMS is concerned...I don't like the guy and do not wish to even discuss his philosophy. FSF movement doesn't end at his philosophy. The thing is simple...it is your choice to do what you want. They have their choice to hate closed-source stuff...you have your choice to love them. As far as I can see, only their choice has brought Linux to what it is today. The day I see Freespire taking over Ubuntu, I will accept that your choice is better then their.


Success is highly subjective. IMHO, commercial UNIXen were *very* successful. Even today, big UNIX(-like) system vendors are serving to their customers with new releases of HP-UX, AIX and Solaris. Linux "succeeded" because it was aimed at normal desktop users, which the traditional UNIXen never even thought of. Traditionally, UNIX(-like) systems were meant for only system administrators and programmers, not ordinary users.

GNUisance will not have non-free repositories. And if you use anything from such repositories, you lose your right to speak against binary drivers et al.

No! The day every single Linux user stops using proprietary, commercial, patented and binary drivers, I'll bow before The Joker.



			
				eddie said:
			
		

> I can open my washing machine and tear open its thermostat, motors, circuit board and everything. I can create my own circuit boards based on the knowledge I get from it and then sell my products. On the other hand cracking open your closed source application is simply illegal. Have you ever read the EULA of any closed source application for that matter? Go and read it for Windows XP and you will know what I am saying. They explicitly talk about reverse engineering and decompilation...no words minced. Did you agree to any such EULA before using your washing machine? If you did then you are right about the analogy. I am sorry.
> Also, just because OpenBSD has reverse engineered drivers does not mean that it is legal. The day when the developers of the original drivers plan to sue OpenBSD they will not have any other option but to shut the shop. Till then they can live happily and enjoy the sun shine. Also, I must have missed the Linux Kernel's reverse engineered drivers. Which ones are included in official kernel? Please tell me...I sincerely do not know. If they have done something like this then they have opened a major loop hole for getting their a$$ whooped.


You need a lesson on Reverse Engineering. You cannot simply RE (verb) the hardware, build your own system and start selling it. If you think you can do that, wake up! Game console mod chips are not legal. You cannot violate patented technology in any way. Likewise, RE is not a considered a crime in case of all software. And OpenBSD RE'ed drivers are perfectly legal. You need to do some research and reading before you go out on a refusal rampage. RE is legal as long as it doesn't violate certain things. From Wikipedia:-

"In the United States and many other countries, even if an artifact or process is protected by trade secrets, reverse-engineering the artifact or process is often lawful as long as it is obtained legitimately. Patents, on the other hand, require a public disclosure of an invention, and therefore patented items don't necessarily have to be reverse engineered to be studied. One common motivation of reverse engineers is to determine whether a competitor's product contains patent infringements or copyright infringements"

"Reverse engineering software or hardware systems which is done for the purposes of interoperability (for example, to support undocumented file formats or undocumented hardware peripherals), is mostly believed to be legal, though patent owners often contest this and attempt to stifle any reverse engineering of their products for any reason."

Linux kernel contains several RE'ed drivers as well. The Broadcom Gigabit ethernet driver in Linux (Tigon3) was reverse-engineered. I use this tg3 driver, for my ThinkPad uses the Broadcom BCM5751M chipset.

Check these:
*lwn.net/2002/0228/a/tigon.php3
*kerneltrap.org/node/6692/print

According to your own RMS, the Linux kernel only qualifies as "partially non-free". Read here - *www.gnu.org/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html



			
				eddie said:
			
		

> ...and both the XGL and Ubuntu are successful because of closed source applications?
> I am just saying that Linux is what it is today because of these people who hold the ideology so high. There is no reason to hate them or hate their thoughts...if you don't like it...take your own path and make something better. That is the beauty of OSS...no one binds you to anything. Go ahead...create your own distro and make things easier for everyone. I for one would be more than happy to use it


No, XGL is successful because of proprietary 3D drivers. Ubuntu is successful because of included non-free wireless firmware and other bits that make users' lives easier. You always misinterpret things.

Linux is widely accepted today not because of a ThickHead(TM) philosophy, but the collective, productive efforts of thousands of talented developers, working for free.

As for the OSS/FSF/GNU, you need to read the GPL once again to realize they're not as "free" as people tend to think about them. There are a lot of strings attached. There is a reason why the embedded Linux is losing its grip. Many vendors have switched to commercial alternatives like VxWorks etc.


----------



## eddie (Nov 12, 2006)

Yamaraj said:
			
		

> When did I say anything about a distribution being a nuisance just because I didn't like it? It's a nuisance because of the FSF policies, and you know that. If they don't want to use binary drivers, Microsoft fonts, win32codecs, MP3 and DVD decoders, and still can't make the hardware vendors open their drivers, then this stubborn attitude is only stupidity at best.


No I do not "know" that FSF policies are nuisance and you have not convinced me otherwise as yet. They don't want to use binary drivers, Microsoft fonts, win32codecs, MP3 and DVD decoders...THIS IS WHY they want hardware vendors to open their drivers. If they don't do it...fine...no one can force them. If you feel this is stupidity...then you are entitled to have your opinion.


> Since you use proprietary and patented hardware, like millions of others, what is so morally and ethically wrong about patented and commercial software? Not even Governments have open policies. Banks never *open* or disclose their information. Enterprises never disclose their trade secrets. You and I do not do out yelling in the streets our own little secrets. Precisely what, then, makes Microsoft (or others) so *evil*? Because of this attitude of the fundamentalists, I raise my voice against them and anyone else defending them.


I am using Patented hardware but none of these manufacturers force me to not try and open them. Governments have open policies. Time for someone to look at RTI act. What kind of information do you want from Banks? I don't see them hiding anything. If you are using any of their service, you have full right to know what you are using, how you are using it and how they constituted it. Go and talk to your bank manager...he will enlighten you. My own little secrets doesn't effect anyone's lives but mine so no one knows them.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, if I am paying for something then I should have a right to know what I am buying and how it is effecting me. If I don't know it then I do not accept it. Also please don't put words in my mouth...I never said anything about Microsoft being evil. That is just your own thought.


> GNUisance will not have non-free repositories. And if you use anything from such repositories, you lose your right to speak against binary drivers et al.


...and that is why I am not speaking against them.
I am just supporting FSF *supporters'* choice. Is that too hard to understand?


> You need a lesson on Reverse Engineering. You cannot simply RE (verb) the hardware, build your own system and start selling it. If you think you can do that, wake up! Game console mod chips are not legal. *You cannot violate patented technology in any way. Likewise, RE is not a considered a crime in case of all software.* And OpenBSD RE'ed drivers are perfectly legal. You need to do some research and reading before you go out on a refusal rampage. RE is legal as long as it doesn't violate certain things. From Wikipedia:-


Does the statement in bold make any sense to you? It did not make sense to me at least...
You say that RE in case of mod chips is illegal and then you come up to say that RE in case of software is not a crime? Are you trying to say that something illegal is not crime? Wow!!!
Also please don't quote things from Wikipedia. It is written by users who have cypher knowledge about patent rules and before you jump the gun...yes my sister is a lawyer so keep the holster closed. Also, did you go and read the EULA of Windows XP Pro before coming to paste wikipedia stuff?


> Linux kernel contains several RE'ed drivers as well. The Broadcom Gigabit ethernet driver in Linux (Tigon3) was reverse-engineered. I use this tg3 driver, for my ThinkPad uses the Broadcom BCM5751M chipset.


Linux kernel does not have "several" RE'd drivers. You posted only two links and it looks like only the tg3 driver is RE'd. That too because the original driver was under GPL. If the original developer had restricted RE then the driver would not have been in official tree just like how ACX1xx didn't make it.


> According to *your own RMS*, the Linux kernel only qualifies as "partially non-free". Read here -


Did you even read my previous post? What is the meaning of "your own RMS"? Should I start calling Bill Gates as your own? Please post in respectable language else I very well know how to flame people and have a very decent asbestos suit with me 


> No, XGL is successful because of proprietary 3D drivers. Ubuntu is successful because of included non-free wireless firmware and other bits that make users' lives easier. You always misinterpret things.


Proprietary 3d drivers? I got XGL and AIGLX to work fine with my 915 integrated graphics...no problems. XGL's success is not dependent on just those 3D drivers. As far as Ubuntu is concerned...if its success is there "because" of non-free wireless firmware then why has Freespire not taken over the market share? AFAIK they ship more non-free stuff then any other distro. I don't see them making any strides further.


> Linux is widely accepted today not because of a ThickHead(TM) philosophy, but the collective, productive efforts of thousands of talented developers, working for free.


...free and under OSS license. Don't forget that. If they would have wanted to just work for free...they would have worked with copyrights. Open Source is the most important point here.


> As for the OSS/FSF/GNU, you need to read the GPL once again to realize they're not as "free" as people tend to think about them. There are a lot of strings attached. There is a reason why the embedded Linux is losing its grip. Many vendors have switched to commercial alternatives like VxWorks etc.


Since you have read it throughly...please quote the parts where GPL is not "as free" for its "users".


----------



## GNUrag (Nov 12, 2006)

Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Success is highly subjective. IMHO, commercial UNIXen were *very* successful. Even today, big UNIX(-like) system vendors are serving to their customers with new releases of HP-UX, AIX and Solaris.


Which we are not interested in talking about.


			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Linux "succeeded" because it was aimed at normal desktop users, which the traditional UNIXen never even thought of. Traditionally, UNIX(-like) systems were meant for only system administrators and programmers, not ordinary users.


You neglected the *community* bit. Commercial UNIXen didnt have that huge worldwide community touch. Linux succeeded because it was made by people, and made for people, and incidentally people happened to use cheap intel hardware.



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> No! The day every single Linux user stops using proprietary, commercial, patented and binary drivers, I'll bow before The Joker.


And who has the responsibility to go convince hardware vendours to open specifications? You are surely not going to do that.. And wont let FSF do that either.



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> According to your own RMS, the Linux kernel only qualifies as "partially non-free". Read here - *www.gnu.org/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html


that's known fact - RMS is not such a big fan of Linux kernel. FSF has intentions to make their own kernel (weather Hurd will ever boot is another topic of discussion).



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> As for the OSS/FSF/GNU, you need to read the GPL once again to realize they're not as "free" as people tend to think about them.


Yeah, its not free if you think from the mindset of making a proprietary fork and become filthy rich out of it. Yes, FOSS doesnt give freedom to steal community work and make a commercial white elephant of it... You take code from community, you ought to give it back.


----------



## Yamaraj (Nov 12, 2006)

eddie said:
			
		

> No I do not "know" that FSF policies are nuisance and you have not convinced me otherwise as yet. They don't want to use binary drivers, Microsoft fonts, win32codecs, MP3 and DVD decoders...THIS IS WHY they want hardware vendors to open their drivers. If they don't do it...fine...no one can force them. If you feel this is stupidity...then you are entitled to have your opinion.


Why is it so hard to swallow the truth? If you are using proprietary, patented and commercial software to enhance you Linux *experience*, you are in violation of the *ideology*. And I think it should be upto the hardware vendors to choose between closed source or open source model for their drivers. FSF/GNU guys have no say in this case.



			
				eddie said:
			
		

> I am using Patented hardware but none of these manufacturers force me to not try and open them. Governments have open policies. Time for someone to look at RTI act. What kind of information do you want from Banks? I don't see them hiding anything. If you are using any of their service, you have full right to know what you are using, how you are using it and how they constituted it. Go and talk to your bank manager...he will enlighten you. My own little secrets doesn't effect anyone's lives but mine so no one knows them.
> As far as Microsoft is concerned, if I am paying for something then I should have a right to know what I am buying and how it is effecting me. If I don't know it then I do not accept it. Also please don't put words in my mouth...I never said anything about Microsoft being evil. That is just your own thought.


You still have little clue about Reverse Engineering and patents. You think Intel will let you go with a RE'ed copy product of their x86 architecture? Dream on! Same goes for graphics, chipset and other vendors. Home appliances are no different at all! It's your *annoying* ignorance at play. Get informed.

Governments do have secret policies, and RTI has nothing to do with them. You cannot go about crying that the Government isn't telling if they'll vote for or against the Iran case. You cannot request any military information through RTI. Have you been sleeping?

As for the banks - ah sure, they do not have any secrets at all. That's why they won't disclose others' information to you? That's why the Swiss banks exist at all? And, that's why people go on crying when banks sell their personal information to others?

Just like your personal little secrets are your own, a company's trade secrets, intellectual properties and patents are not public properties. Their assets are none of your business. Why should they spend millions and then distribute in charity?



			
				eddie said:
			
		

> ...and that is why I am not speaking against them.
> I am just supporting FSF *supporters'* choice. Is that too hard to understand?


Yes, it is. You're in violation of their ideology, yet you support those who adore the same? It's called hypocrisy or duality; and I'm not flaming. It's common sense.



			
				eddie said:
			
		

> Does the statement in bold make any sense to you? It did not make sense to me at least...
> You say that RE in case of mod chips is illegal and then you come up to say that RE in case of software is not a crime? Are you trying to say that something illegal is not crime? Wow!!!
> Also please don't quote things from Wikipedia. It is written by users who have cypher knowledge about patent rules and before you jump the gun...yes my sister is a lawyer so keep the holster closed. Also, did you go and read the EULA of Windows XP Pro before coming to paste wikipedia stuff?


If it doesn't make any sense to you, it's not my problem. I have already stated that RE is both legal and illegal, depending on the target and practise. Not all software prevent RE'ing and not all hardware allow it. The definition of "legal or illegal" changes as we cross national boundaries. So, what's illegal in USA is perfectly legal in EU, in many cases. You clearly have little knowledge about it.

Don't bring your sister in here. She may well be a lawyer and have little clue about software patents at the same time. It's like insisiting that a local physician knows all about the whole medical field.

Windows XP EULA doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. If you don't agree with their EULA, simply don't use the software. There is a reason why I've switched to Solaris.



			
				eddie said:
			
		

> Linux kernel does not have "several" RE'd drivers. You posted only two links and it looks like only the tg3 driver is RE'd. That too because the original driver was under GPL. If the original developer had restricted RE then the driver would not have been in official tree just like how ACX1xx didn't make it.


One or several - what difference does it make? It's like a man claiming he is still innocent for he has committed only one murder. Tainted is tainted. Why does RMS call Linux kernel "partially non-free"? Isn't that like "a little pregnant"? He is defensive because there are no choices. If he had Hurd ready for production, he would have opened fire against Linux and Linus by now.

"Only one taint" and "partially non-free". GNU sure is a *great* ideology.



			
				eddie said:
			
		

> Did you even read my previous post? What is the meaning of "your own RMS"? Should I start calling Bill Gates as your own? Please post in respectable language else I very well know how to flame people and have a very decent asbestos suit with me


You cannot compare RMS with Bill Gates. I praise RMS for Emacs and GCC, but loathe him for stupid stubborn attitude. I'm not in any liaison with Bill Gates in any way. He is a brilliant businessman though.

Care to point where my language was impolite in any way? Calling RMS "your own" is not demeaning. It shows how you adore his GPL so much.

By the way, lose that asbestos suit fast, for you would die of cancer faster than I could point my flamethrower at you. [Statuary Warning]



			
				eddie said:
			
		

> Proprietary 3d drivers? I got XGL and AIGLX to work fine with my 915 integrated graphics...no problems. XGL's success is not dependent on just those 3D drivers. As far as Ubuntu is concerned...if its success is there "because" of non-free wireless firmware then why has Freespire not taken over the market share? AFAIK they ship more non-free stuff then any other distro. I don't see them making any strides further.


Well, I wasn't aware that nVIDIA users were boycotting their products because of non-free drivers. Thanks for telling me that Ubuntu forums are littered with XGL problems and success stories with i915 driver. O' yeah?

Freespire never had the money for free shipping in first place. Besides, Ubuntu inherited a better (Debian) system to build upon and I'm not denying that. We'll see if GNUisance ever makes it to the Top-10 in DistroWatch list.



			
				eddie said:
			
		

> ...free and under OSS license. Don't forget that. If they would have wanted to just work for free...they would have worked with copyrights. Open Source is the most important point here.


That's because GPL was the only viable license available at the time most Linux developers started contributing. Same goes for most of the GNU software too. But, it's not like *BSDs don't attract free developers. They're producing better quality and stable software under BSD license, which IMHO, is more "free" than GPL.



			
				eddie said:
			
		

> Since you have read it throughly...please quote the parts where GPL is not "as free" for its "users".


Sun's CDDL has provisions for taking into account the IP and various other legal things. BSD allows you to tinker with sources and not release them to public. GPL, in the name of freedom, is the most restricting in this regard.
__________


			
				GNUrag said:
			
		

> Which we are not interested in talking about.


Ahem, "we"? I raised the point to settle down the issue of "success" and populatiry of Linux, and it served me well.



			
				GNUrag said:
			
		

> You neglected the *community* bit. Commercial UNIXen didnt have that huge worldwide community touch. Linux succeeded because it was made by people, and made for people, and incidentally people happened to use cheap intel hardware.


No denying here. Agreed!



			
				GNUrag said:
			
		

> And who has the responsibility to go convince hardware vendours to open specifications? You are surely not going to do that.. And wont let FSF do that either.


There is no need to. If Windows and other systems can survive, and do well with closed binary drivers, Linux is not special. If binary blobs bother them so much, they're free to RE the drivers as long as no laws are violated.



			
				GNUrag said:
			
		

> that's known fact - RMS is not such a big fan of Linux kernel. FSF has intentions to make their own kernel (weather Hurd will ever boot is another topic of discussion).


Agreed!



			
				GNUrag said:
			
		

> Yeah, its not free if you think from the mindset of making a proprietary fork and become filthy rich out of it. Yes, FOSS doesnt give freedom to steal community work and make a commercial white elephant of it... You take code from community, you ought to give it back.


While we talk, two big commercial Linux vendors - RedHat and Novell, are uncertain of their future. If they get out of Linux business, because of some foretold consequences, the *community* will be left crying in dirt. The non-commercial, community-driven idea may sound like a perfect political idelogy to teenagers, it's not the best model of development and certainly not a key to survival in IT industry for a long run.

No commercial Linux = No hired and paid developers = Significant loss for community

BSD license doesn't ask for contribution. Is it not a free license at all? Definitions and explanations are entirely subjective. "Mandatory to submit code back to community" may look like freedom to one, and restriction to another.


----------



## mediator (Nov 13, 2006)

Interesting debate!


----------



## eddie (Nov 13, 2006)

Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Why is it so hard to swallow the truth? If you are using proprietary, patented and commercial software to enhance you Linux *experience*, you are in violation of the *ideology*. And I think it should be upto the hardware vendors to choose between closed source or open source model for their drivers. FSF/GNU guys have no say in this case.


They have the say in what they want to include with THEIR application. They don't want to include the proprietary stuff...as simple as that. I want to use proprietary stuff...my choice...they don't want it...their choice. What makes it stupid? Accepting someone else's choice is too difficult to swallow for you?


> You still have little clue about Reverse Engineering and patents. You think Intel will let you go with a RE'ed copy product of their x86 architecture? Dream on! Same goes for graphics, chipset and other vendors. Home appliances are no different at all! It's your *annoying* ignorance at play. Get informed.


Yes you are highly *informed*. Care to show me a patent on any washing machine, television, or refrigerator being sold in common market or any instructions that tell you NOT to rip open your purchased product? For god's sake...get a grip...and come to facts.


> Governments do have secret policies, and RTI has nothing to do with them. You cannot go about crying that the Government isn't telling if they'll vote for or against the Iran case. You cannot request any military information through RTI. Have you been sleeping?


Sleeping? Did that comment even mean something or is it your practice to write anything that comes to your mind? Government has a proper structure working. They cannot respond to each and every citizen in person but they do inform our representatives that are part of government in form of MPs and Ministers. India has a proper government structure to deal with everything. Have you been hibernating in a cave?


> As for the banks - ah sure, they do not have any secrets at all. That's why they won't disclose others' information to you? That's why the Swiss banks exist at all? And, that's why people go on crying when banks sell their personal information to others?


How does someone else's bank balance effect me? Why should I care about what they are doing to someone else's account but if I require any information about my account...I have full rights to know about it. Similar is the case with software. Tell me what I am paying for and I am happy. These analogies of yours are being too childish now.


> Just like your personal little secrets are your own, a company's trade secrets, intellectual properties and patents are not public properties. Their assets are none of your business. Why should they spend millions and then distribute in charity?


Don't spend anything in charity...I just want to know what they are selling me. If they don't want to tell me...I don't buy. As simple as that.


> Yes, it is. You're in violation of their ideology, yet you support those who adore the same? It's called hypocrisy or duality; and I'm not flaming. It's common sense.


Either you have severe Attention Deficit Syndrome or a faulty perception. Where did I say that I "adore" their ideology. I am just supporting their right to have an opinion without being called "stupid"...just like how everyone in this world (and this community) is allowed to have one. If they feel that everything should be open source...then its their opinion and we are no one to say it is wrong.


> If it doesn't make any sense to you, it's not my problem. I have already stated that RE is both legal and illegal, depending on the target and practise. Not all software prevent RE'ing and not all hardware allow it. The definiton of "legal and illegal" changes as we cross national boundaries. So, what's illegal in USA is perfectly legal in EU, in many cases. You clearly have little knowledge about it.


Yes I am seeing how much knowledge you have gathered from reading Wikipedia 


> Don't being your sister in here. She may well be a lawyer and have little clue about software patents at the same time. It's like insisiting that a local physician knows all about the whole medical field.


Well a local physician will always be better then a quack who gathers his information by reading unreliable sources. Nuff said...


> Windows XP EULA doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. If you don't agree with their EULA, *simply don't use the software*. There is a reason why I've switched to Solaris.


I don't use it and that is what I am trying to make your understand since so long. If you don't agree with FSF's ideology...don't use the software that follow the ideology...move on...go use something that rocks your boat. No need to call someone stupid. Just don't use the stuff. You don't follow the advice your preach?


> One or several - what difference does it make? It's like a man claiming he is still innocent for he has committed only one murder. Tainted is tainted. Why does RMS call Linux kernel "partially non-free"? Isn't that like "a little pregnant"? He is defensive because there are no choices. If he had HURD ready for production, he would have opened fire against Linux and Linus by now.


You didn't read the post once again? ADS? The driver they RE'd was already GPL...you can crack open GPL stuff...no problems at all. No restrictions. Including already GPL code with more GPL is tainting for you?
Why RMS says Linux is partially non-free? Go and ask him...


> Care to point where my language was impolite in any way? Calling RMS "your own" is not demeaning. It shows how you adore his GPL so much.


When I already clarified that I do not like RMS and then you coming up with a statement to say "your own RMS" is sarcasm from top to bottom. You either didn't read that post of mine or you actually wanted to be sarcastic. Take your pick.


> By the way, lose that asbestos suit fast, for you would die of cancer faster than I could point my flamethrower at you. [Statuary Warning]


So now you are a doctor too? Get some pathology books and read how long it takes for people working in asbestos mines to get asbestosis...forget about cancer. Please...for the love of god...don't talk about stuff you don't know. Stay on topic or you show your ignorance and lack of knowledge about things.


> Well, I wasn't aware that nVIDIA users were boycotting their products because of non-free drivers. Thanks for telling me that Ubuntu forums are littered with XGL problems and success stories with i915 driver. O' yeah?


I just said that success of XGL is not because of nVIDIA. Was that too difficult for you to understand? Did I say anything about nVIDIA users boycotting their products? I hope the text I am writing looks same on both sides cos it clearly is not giving you same ideas. 


> Freespire never had the money for free shipping in first place. Besides, Ubuntu inherited a better (Debian) system to build upon and I'm not denying that. We'll see if GNUisance ever makes it to the Top-10 in DistroWatch list.


You don't even want to talk about Freespire's proprietary drivers now, haan? Don't see any advantage now...do you? Also JFYI Freespire is also based on Debian (now say you knew it).


> That's because GPL was the only viable license available at the time most Linux developers started contributing. Same goes for most of the GNU software too. But, it's not like *BSDs don't attract free developers. They're producing better quality and stable software under BSD license, which IMHO, is more "free" than GPL.


Sorry to burst your bubble but both BSD and GPL license came into existence in 1989. Saying that another alternative was not available at that time will just not work in your favour in this debate. Get your facts straight...


> Sun's CDDL has provisions for taking into account the IP and various other legal things. BSD allows you to tinker with sources and not release them to public. GPL, in the name of freedom, is the most restricting in this regard.


I talked about the "user's" freedom not the developer's. If you, as a developer, do not want to release your code in GPL...go and release in what ever license you want. Did FSF guys go to any developer's house and beg him to release his code under GPL? No, right? As for CDDL? Well just to inform you...Sun will soon release their mobile edition code and standard edition code under GPL. If their license was so much better then GPL then why would they make a move?


----------



## Yamaraj (Nov 13, 2006)

@eddie, I don't have that much time to engage in a useless debacle with you. I have already stated what I think of FSF/GNU/GPL and RMS. There is no need to take this any further. I would have been interested if it led to something productive, but unfortunately it's not.

1. As I have said before, if you use any commercial, closed-source, binary, patented or proprietary software or hardware, you are not entitled to speak against them. Either stop using such software and hardware, or shut it up.

2. If you don't want to accept that selling RE'ed Intel x86 architecture, cracking game consoles, or copying patented LG, SONY, Whirlpool or Philips hardware is illegal, I can only laugh and laugh out loud. You sure can "rip open" their hardware, but that voids any warranty. Besides, if you try RE'ing their technology and capitalize on it, you'll be sued for patent infringements in no time. Even LG got sued by Whirlpool for a "potential" patent infringement of their washing machine technology, when they launched a new machine in US market. Do some research before you post stupid remarks.

On the contrary, courts often drop such charges citing that RE'ing can be considered legal if done for "interoperability" and doesn't clash with other laws, patents or DMCA. *www.ipfrontline.com/depts/article.asp?id=12968&deptid=3

This only strengthens my statement that RE'ing is both legal and illegal, depending on targets and practises, and countries. You have purposely neglected this, and still continue spreading FUD.

I recommend you also look up [your choice of documentation here] for "Intellectual Properties" - Patents, Trade secrets, Copyrights and Trademarks, and read about them. Even better, consult any *specialist*.

3. If you don't know the ABC of Governance, it helps to listen and learn. Ever heard of "Classified Documents"? Good luck using RTI to unleash them for us.

Here is an exerpt from the "RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2000" for you (Clause 4): -

*4. Right to Information : - 

(1)Subject to the provisions of this Act every citizen shall have the right to information. 

(2) Not withstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no person shall be given: 

        (a) information, the disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, strategic scientific or economic interest of India or conduct of International relations. 


       (b) information, the disclosure of which would prejudicially affect public safety and order or which may lead to an incitement to commit an offence or prejudicially affect fair trial or adjudication of a pending case. 

       (c) information relating to Cabinet papers including records of the deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other Officers. 


      Provided that information regarding the decisions of the Cabinet along with the reasons leading to the decision shall be made available and every Government Order issued on the basis of the Cabinet decision shall be accompanied by a statement explaining the reasons for and the circumstances under which the decision is taken. 

      (d) information the disclosure of which would harm, frankness and candour of internal discussions including inter departmental or intra departmental notes, correspondence and papers containing advice or opinion as also of projections and assumptions relating to internal policy analysis. 


       Provided that information regarding minutes or records, advice including legal advice, opinion or recommendation made or given in respect of the executive decisions or policy formulations shall be made available after an executive decision s taken or policy formulation is done. 

     (e) information the disclosure of which would prejudice the assessment or collection of any tax, cess, duty or fee or assist in avoidance or evasion of the tax, cess, duty or fee. 


     (f) information the disclosure of which would constitute a breach of privilege of the Parliament or the State Legislature; 

      Provided that the Competent Authority shall before withholding information under this clause refer the matter to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat or the Karnataka Legislative Council Secretariat, as the case may be for determination of the issues and act according to the advice tendered by the Secretariat. 


      Provided further that in computing the period of fifteen working days under sub-section (2) of section 5 for the purpose of this clause, the time required for determination of issues under the first proviso shall be excluded. 

    (g) information regarding trade or commercial secrets protected by law or information, the disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the legitimate economic and commercial interest or the competitive position of a public authority; or would cause unfair gain or loss to any person. 


   (h) information regarding any matter which is likely to:- 

           (i) help or facilitate escape from legal custody or affect prison security; or 


          (ii) impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.*

Not everything is "open for public eyes", as you're trying to make us all believe. Remember that you're supporting those who insist that IPs be lifted for all software/hardware categories. I don't know if the service sector is under their radar too. Regardless of what you think, Banks are not disclosing their trade secrets, investment details or anything else that doesn't have to do with their customers. Not exactly as "open" as you would like it to be.

As you can see, even the RTI doesn't invade IPs.

4. As for "don't use the software you don't agree with", I take it you don't use any Microsoft fonts, multimedia codecs, Adobe Acrobat, DVD playback, Flash player, NTFS driver or Java? Sit down, you're preaching to the choir!

By the way, when do you plan on start using GNuisance?

5. Why don't you go back to that page and read about Broadcom tg3 driver a little more carefully? Why they had to reverse-engineer it if it was already GPL'ed? You're worse than a kid, when it comes to learning. Broadcom did GPL a "previous" version of the driver, which the developers used in process of RE'ing new closed-source drivers. Read an exerpt from that very page:

"We would also like to give Broadcom a big "no thanks" because
their lawyers refused to give Jeff the documentation for the Tigon3
chipset using an NDA *that would allow him to write a GPL'd driver*
based upon said documentation.  *This means that all that we know about
the hardware has been reverse engineered from Broadcom's GPL'd driver
plus some experimenting*.  It is why this driver has taken so long to
finish, because it is hard to find incentive for this kind of brack
breaking work when the vendor is totally uncooperative."

You know how to read English, don't you?

6. XGL is successful *only* because of nVIDIA, period. Those who lust after Windowing effects, are not using pathetic on-board drivers. You're only denying the obvious truth. But not for long, since nVIDIA has its own XGL-replacement technology integrated into its new beta drivers. nVIDIA users don't even need to install XGL/AIGLX for 3D effects now.

7. Frankly speaking, I never had any installation media with Freespire on it, and I don't intend on using it either. There are a LOT of distributions based on Debian, but only Ubuntu inherited it best, along with some Debian devs too. That was my point, but you purposely ignored it.

8. BSD license was first used in 1980. But, as the FreeBSD was busy resolving lawsuits against it, most of the developers left for the Linux kernel hacking. You can find more about BSD license, lawsuits etc on Google.

9. What does a "user" have to do with the sources? I'm always talking from a developer's perspective, being one myself. Your average Joe, Harry or Sally know jack-sh1te about software development and they don't even bother with the sources. A user is more concerned about usability, not ideology. Whaaa!

As for the CDDL license, don't talk unless you've read it. I have not only read the license carefully, I'm also developing software under the same. If Java is being released under GPL (only a wild guess at best, now!), that's more to do with wide-acceptance of the Linux operating system, which is obviously installed on more computers than Solaris is. They'll probably dual-license it.

And this has nothing to do with a license being "better" than another. It's only software politics.

I'm not going to quote and reply any further in this thread. I have already said what I had to, and all I get in replies is endless babbles and ramblings, with not an ounce of truth. I have made out my argument, and I rest my case now.


----------



## eddie (Nov 13, 2006)

Now that you have realised that your thoughts will lead you no where with none of the members in OSS community it is good to see you go from the discussion. I don't think anyone will miss you...at least I will not.

1. This is like saying that if you are using any free software you are not entitled to speak against their ideology. Either stop using such software or shut up. If you are using even a single GPL software on your system...shut up. Are you doing what you are preaching? In any case, I never talked or intend to talk AGAINST any closed source software...I just supported open source software. I respect closed source software and open source software as well. I just don't like calling anyone stupid. Too difficult for you to understand...

2. Can you tell me have you ever seen a court room from inside and sat through a case involving patent infringement? Have you ever had the fortune of listening to those debates between lawyers that revolve around various sections or law protecting and providing loop holes in existing laws?

The RE knowledge you have gathered from reading various half baked internet pages misses a major factor which is known as clean room RE. In such type of RE you don't copy stuff blatantly but you just copy the functionality. Such things can be done only to applications/hardware that do not stop decompilation totally. Windows XP is one of those applications and there should be many more. Looks like you didn't read the EULA and keep coming back with your ignorance. Also I never said that EVERY software gets you sued. I said that if you crack open your closed source application, you RISK getting sued. On the other hand you, yourself, started from Washing Machines and now talking about mod chips.

Also Whirlpool vs LG that you are talking about. Well did you just pick it up randomly from internet or did you go through details because it clearly did not help you in this debate. LG simply picked features from Whirlpool's machine and introduced it in its own. This is not known as ripping open or RE...it is known as blatant copying. You should first understand the difference between copying and RE but then I guess you didn't even know the details of the case.

3. Again you did not read my post. Read something related to "government structure"? Everything cannot be disclosed to every citizen part? Should I post a scan of my 8th class civics book for you? May be that will tell you something more about elections...parliament...ministers...representatives of common man? Also, even before RTI act was introduced, government was still quite open. It releases gazettes every fortnight informing general public like you and me about decisions taken in that fortnight, appointments done, tenders passed etc. etc. As far as "Classified Documents" are concerned, read the elections..parliament...minsters part again.

About banks: You should go to your nearest RBI branch and buy a small booklet dealing with "rules for banking sector". It is priced at a nominal Rs.15/-. Go and buy it to know that EVERY bank...yes EVERY bank is liable to tell you what they are doing with your money. Your money ranges from your bank accounts, deposits, mutual funds...everything. A bank can't take your money and put it in horse racing to get maximum benefits. They HAVE to tell you what they are doing with your money and how they are investing it. If you go for mutual funds, it is your RIGHT to know how they are investing it. What stocks they are buying, what is their current price, how much you have gained, how much you have lost. Additionally they need to release quarterly information detailing how much of their assets and liabilities are in what state. They have to tell how they have invested common man's money. They can't just hide these facts that effect *YOU*. Here you means *you*...you can't go and ask about bank transactions of Ambanis. That doesn't concern you...so you don't know it. Go and read...

4. Except Flash I don't use any of the products you mentioned and in any case I am not preaching. I am just supporting someone's right to have his opinion without getting himself tagged as "stupid". On the other hand if we apply the same logic to yourself then I take it that you do not use bash, gcc, binutils or any other GPL software because they follow the same "stupid" ideology? Should I ask you to sit down now? Further, your insistence to keep calling gNewSense as gnuisance just shows your immaturity and childishness.

5. I wanted to laugh at you but I am resisting my self. Lots of people are there in India for whom English is not their primary language and it looks like you are one of them because you clearly cannot understand what is written.

"We would also like to give Broadcom a big "no thanks" because
*their lawyers refused to give Jeff the documentation for the Tigon3
chipset* using an NDA that would allow him to write a GPL'd driver
*based upon said documentation*. This means that *all that we know about
the hardware* has been reverse engineered from Broadcom's GPL'd driver
plus some experimenting. It is why this driver has taken so long to
finish, because it is hard to find incentive for this kind of brack
breaking work when the vendor is totally uncooperative."

The CODE for the driver was in GPL, not the *documentation for the hardware*. You call yourself a developer and do not know the difference between the two? The company did not want the developers to know how to the hardware worked. They just provided the code for the driver but to make a better driver, the developers needed *documentation for hardware*. This is why the developers were forced to RE the driver to know how it functioned and write working code accordingly. Do you understand now? I wouldn't blame you for not understanding though...you rarely read stuff properly.

6. You crack me up man...you crack me up. Keep posting jokes like these often. A whole project of the size of XGL has been successful because of nVIDIA's drivers. Good one! I hope that next time you say that xorg/xfree86 has reached to this stage because of Microsoft's code.

7. First you were talking about proprietary drivers, then you talked about Debian background and now you are praising the ability of Ubuntu's devs in inheriting stuff? Do you have more colours to change in?

8. BSD license when introduced in 1980 had severe problems attached to it. The company who introduced it (At &T ? Don't remember exactly) was charging exorbitant prices for products they sold under BSD license. It had major changes till 1989...most of the law suits were resolved till then and in that year it was publicly accepted when a project released its code *for free* under this license independently. That is why I wrote that both GPL and BSD licenses were born in 1989 because BSD had almost nil problems till 1989. Also Linux was born in 1991 while bash and gcc existed *under* GPL way before Linux was born. Saying that people went for Linux hacking because BSD had problems is plain ignorant. In 1989 people had started working with both BSD and GPL license but accepted the latter because they found it better, NOT because they went for Linux kernel hacking, or are you telling us that people in those times had serious future seeing capabilities? They knew that something like Linux will exist in 1991 so they started hacking for it even before it came into existence? Your ignorance is too visible man...hide it some where.

9. If you were talking about developers then what in this god's world were you doing, telling us that people need to use Binary drivers, Microsoft fonts, Java, Flash? You need all those things to write code in C? The code looks different under nVIDIA drivers? It looks different in Arial and DejaVu? You need Java and Flash to see code written in C? Stay on one side of the fence man...just don't jump from this side to that side.

As far as the truth is concerned, it is only you who is posting half baked ignorant stuff. Take a friendly advice...you are a developer...stay one...don't try to become a doctor, lawyer, finance consultant and expert on government policies. You just show how ignorant you are and embarrass yourself in public when others burst your bubble. *Also this is the beginning of your life (I take it you are in your early twenties or even less then that?), you should learn to respect other people's opinion and people with different opinion. You will find them everywhere. If you call everyone who doesn't agree with you or their thoughts as stupid, then you will just create trouble for you. Respecting others is the first thing you should learn before learning anything else.*


----------



## JGuru (Nov 14, 2006)

@Yamaraj, *Everyone will have his/her own opinion about things. We must all respect others opinion*.
 Let's put a full-stop to this debate.

 You said *Ubuntu 6.06* did suspend your ThinkPad  laptop. But it didn't resume!!
 Maybe there was a bug. You can do two things:

 1) *File a bug report* from here

  2) Open the *Ubuntu Device Database*, 

 $ *hwdb-gui*

 Click on the 'Forward' button. Now Ubuntu Linux tests all your hardware. Do all the
 tests & atlast it comes to 'Comments' Here mention the problems you face with
 Ubuntu - (like resume not working in my ThinkPad RS2 1860-A33 laptop + others)
 Click on 'Forward' . Finally click 'OK' to send your Hardware data. Hopefully the bug
 will be fixed in the future releases.


----------

