From mark at foster.cc Sat Feb 6 16:59:59 2010 From: mark at foster.cc (Mark Foster) Date: Sun Feb 7 22:15:30 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] February 2010 GSLUG Meeting Reminder Message-ID: <4B6E108F.6030008@foster.cc> Reminder! The next Greater Seattle Linux User Group (GSLUG) meeting is on Saturday, February 13th @ 12 noon. The meeting location will be the Google offices in Fremont. Follow the URL below for more details. http://www.gslug.org/wiki/index.php/Meeting_2010-02-13 This months topic will be Contributions. We will be having a special guest, Brian Murray, who manages the Ubuntu Bug Squad and Bug Control teams. He will be discussing Bug Triaging. Please RSVP if you will attend & sign up for a talk if there is something you'd like to share with the group. Hope to see you there! -- I hate racists. Mark D. Foster http://mark.foster.cc/ | http://www.freegeekseattle.org/ From haircut at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 10:26:32 2010 From: haircut at gmail.com (Adam Monsen) Date: Mon Feb 8 13:18:17 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] process list shows numeric userid, not username Message-ID: <1265653592.8599.11.camel@localhost> I have a user adminguy:adminguy, uid=1000, gid=1000. Anyone have an idea why I'm seeing "1000" instead of "adminguy", below? Other processes show the resolved username when executing ps. $ ps -o user,pid,ppid,%cpu,%mem,vsz:7,rss:6,stat,cmd -w `pgrep java` USER PID PPID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS STAT CMD 1000 16969 1 11.4 3.0 1433588 238180 Sl /usr/bin/java -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.ifokr.org/pipermail/gslug-general/attachments/20100208/e2e4e7ed/attachment.pgp From dafydd at dafydd.com Mon Feb 8 13:29:25 2010 From: dafydd at dafydd.com (David Barr) Date: Mon Feb 8 13:32:11 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] process list shows numeric userid, not username In-Reply-To: <1265653592.8599.11.camel@localhost> References: <1265653592.8599.11.camel@localhost> Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 194 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.ifokr.org/pipermail/gslug-general/attachments/20100208/75d92ea0/PGP.pgp From havenster at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 14:20:24 2010 From: havenster at gmail.com (Haven Hash) Date: Mon Feb 8 14:44:12 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] process list shows numeric userid, not username In-Reply-To: <1265653592.8599.11.camel@localhost> References: <1265653592.8599.11.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <6bc3f4c51002081420w685e6e55q54ef7c55c2a61648@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Adam Monsen wrote: > I have a user adminguy:adminguy, uid=1000, gid=1000. Anyone have an idea > why I'm seeing "1000" instead of "adminguy", below? Other processes show > the resolved username when executing ps. > > $ ps -o user,pid,ppid,%cpu,%mem,vsz:7,rss:6,stat,cmd -w `pgrep java` > USER PID PPID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS STAT CMD > 1000 16969 1 11.4 3.0 1433588 238180 Sl /usr/bin/java > _______________________________________________ > Strange, making an 'adminguy' user shows the full username for me (since it's exactly 8 characters), but in my experience any username over 8 characters will show the UID in ps (also tested with the switches in your example). The classic one I usually see is the 'Debian-exim' user often created automatically when installing exim on Debian based systems who is shown as a UID. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ifokr.org/pipermail/gslug-general/attachments/20100208/d6e6e264/attachment.html From webbn at acm.org Mon Feb 8 14:23:43 2010 From: webbn at acm.org (Nick Webb) Date: Mon Feb 8 14:51:52 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] process list shows numeric userid, not username In-Reply-To: <1265653592.8599.11.camel@localhost> References: <1265653592.8599.11.camel@localhost> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Adam Monsen wrote: > I have a user adminguy:adminguy, uid=1000, gid=1000. Anyone have an idea > why I'm seeing "1000" instead of "adminguy", below? Other processes show > the resolved username when executing ps. > > $ ps -o user,pid,ppid,%cpu,%mem,vsz:7,rss:6,stat,cmd -w `pgrep java` > USER ? ? ? PID ?PPID %CPU %MEM ? ? VSZ ? ?RSS STAT CMD > 1000 ? ? 16969 ? ? 1 11.4 ?3.0 1433588 238180 Sl ? /usr/bin/java I've seen this happen when using usernames greater than eight characters long... apparently ps only allows that many characters for the name and instead of cutting it off it shows the GID instead. Perhaps on your system the limit is seven or my memory is bad. Update the user/group names in /etc/passwd, /etc/shadow, etc. with admguy:admguy and see if that works. I too thought this was quite lame, but didn't quickly find a workaround. Nick From haircut at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 16:09:40 2010 From: haircut at gmail.com (Adam Monsen) Date: Mon Feb 8 16:13:58 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] Re: process list shows numeric userid, not username In-Reply-To: <6bc3f4c51002081420w685e6e55q54ef7c55c2a61648@mail.gmail.com> References: <1265653592.8599.11.camel@localhost> <6bc3f4c51002081420w685e6e55q54ef7c55c2a61648@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1265674180.15192.1.camel@localhost> > any username over 8 characters will show the UID in ps Aha! That's it. Thanks, Haven and Nick! > Strange, making an 'adminguy' user shows the full username for me That's because I lied. :) The actual user account in question was 10 characters long. I confirmed by creating a user with the same 10-character account name on my local system and ps shows the numeric uid. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.ifokr.org/pipermail/gslug-general/attachments/20100208/2f8a7678/attachment.pgp From andrew.kvalheim at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 08:44:39 2010 From: andrew.kvalheim at gmail.com (Andrew Kvalheim) Date: Tue Feb 9 14:09:47 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] GSLUG banner for LFNW table Message-ID: <152aefdf1002090844s728be48en2169d34b85750a3d@mail.gmail.com> In the past, GSLUG has used a black and white paper print of the slug logo for our table at LinuxFest Northwest and for signageduring public events. If we were to have a more durable banner printed, colors might be an option. There is not currently a colorized version of the GSLUG slug logo. What do you think would be a good way to make use of color in the design? I've brainstormed a few ideas to suggest to the group: [image: banner_2010-02-03_stripes02.png] [image: banner_2010-02-07_emerald03.png] [image: banner_2010-02-07_emerald02.png] Please share your ideas. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ifokr.org/pipermail/gslug-general/attachments/20100209/16c53913/attachment.html From kacoroski at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 09:33:14 2010 From: kacoroski at gmail.com (Ski Kacoroski) Date: Wed Feb 10 09:37:47 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] Sasag meeting tomorrow: Introduction to Wireshark for network monitoring Message-ID: <4B72EDDA.8050905@gmail.com> Hi, This may be of interest to your members.... cheers, ski Sasag, the Seattle Area Systems Administrator Guild is happy to present Scott McDermott talking on "Introduction to Wireshark for Network Monitoring". There will be dinner sponsored by Silicon Mechanics. Check them out at http://www.siliconmechanics.com. As usual there will also be several CACert assurers present (http://www.cacert.org). The meeting will be at the Electrical Engineering building on the University of Washington Campus, aka EE1. Directions are linked to the EE Department's web site below. Parking is $6 after 4pm. Details are: Date: February 11th, 2010 Time: 7pm Place: EE1 Building (Electrical Engineering) Room 403 University of Washington Campus Directions: http://www.ee.washington.edu/about/contact.html Subject: An introduction to Wireshark for network monitoring Presenter: Scott McDermott Ever tried to figure out what the web server was really saying to the client? Maybe more importantly, what the client was really saying to one of your servers? Maybe you have a system that?s slow for no obvious reason or a network service that doesn?t seem to always work right. With a run of the mill laptop and Wireshark, you can gain insight into what?s actually happening on the ?wire? (or the ?wireless?). This talk will give you an introduction to Wireshark and the basics of how it can be used to investigate these problems that can otherwise be difficult to diagnose. The talk will also touch on some of the useful tools you can add to Wireshark to make it an even more useful tool. ????- Scott McDermott has been practicing system administration for 16 years. He has managed networks and systems ranging from 10Base2 networks with a couple SparcStations and DGUX boxen to 10Gig networks with 200 mixed servers. He currently works as a Network & System Administrator for the King County Library System, with an emphasis on the Network? portion of his job title. Wireshark is his tool of choice for diagnosing the problems that aren?t obviously DNS or permissions. From jason.self at gmail.com Fri Feb 12 15:00:04 2010 From: jason.self at gmail.com (Jason Self) Date: Fri Feb 12 15:04:34 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] Google Fiber Network Message-ID: Oh please, oh please, oh please pick Seattle... http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/newsdetail.asp?ID=10520&dept=48 http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html From benjamin at seattlefenix.net Fri Feb 12 15:20:04 2010 From: benjamin at seattlefenix.net (Benjamin Krueger) Date: Fri Feb 12 15:24:20 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] Google Fiber Network In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Verizon and Comcast are poopin bricks right now. Frantically calculating how their profit margins are going to be eaten away for ridiculous things like "network upgrades" and "expansion" because there's finally some competition in their market. On Feb 12, 2010, at 3:00 PM, Jason Self wrote: > Oh please, oh please, oh please pick Seattle... > > http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/newsdetail.asp?ID=10520&dept=48 > > http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html > _______________________________________________ > Gslug-general mailing list > Gslug-general@gslug.org > http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general Benjamin Krueger benjamin@seattlefenix.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4669 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.ifokr.org/pipermail/gslug-general/attachments/20100212/ca4a135b/smime.bin From jason.self at gmail.com Fri Feb 12 15:31:09 2010 From: jason.self at gmail.com (Jason Self) Date: Fri Feb 12 15:34:39 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] Google Fiber Network In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66D1B6A5-E0F0-46BB-906A-97B17654F990@gmail.com> On Feb 12, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Benjamin Krueger wrote: > Verizon and Comcast are poopin bricks right now. >> >> And hopefully Qwest, too. From jason.self at gmail.com Fri Feb 12 16:00:24 2010 From: jason.self at gmail.com (Jason Self) Date: Fri Feb 12 15:56:52 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] Re: Google Fiber Network In-Reply-To: <78613fe31002121540v1c9e10dn635b556707df7a33@mail.gmail.com> References: <66D1B6A5-E0F0-46BB-906A-97B17654F990@gmail.com> <78613fe31002121540v1c9e10dn635b556707df7a33@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Friday, February 12, 2010, Andrew Gray wrote: > Why is high-speed internet so > expensive > And why do these > popular internet companies not want me hosting a website on my home > computer??! > > Inquiring minds want to know. One word: Money. Why charge you less when they can charge you more, especially when they control the last mile and have essentially no competition? Why let you run a server for free when they could charge you extra for either a hosting package, colocation space in a rack somewhere, or for some type of "upgraded" service? Okay that was more than one word. From lucas.thompson at gmail.com Fri Feb 12 15:41:06 2010 From: lucas.thompson at gmail.com (Lucas Thompson) Date: Fri Feb 12 16:02:45 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] Google Fiber Network In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nominate Seattle! http://www.google.com/appserve/fiberrfi On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Jason Self wrote: > Oh please, oh please, oh please pick Seattle... > > http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/newsdetail.asp?ID=10520&dept=48 > > http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html > _______________________________________________ > Gslug-general mailing list > Gslug-general@gslug.org > http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general > From andrew at sweger.net Fri Feb 12 15:49:58 2010 From: andrew at sweger.net (Andrew Sweger) Date: Fri Feb 12 16:19:11 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] Google Fiber Network In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm not so sure. From what little I understand of the utility game, the city issues charters to companies that effectively give them a monopoly on the poles (which is the large majority of Seattle's electrical utility distribution system). There's a Verizon conduit that runs right down my street, right next to a Qwest conduit, and yet there's no way I'll see Verizon Fios in North Seattle. Qwest owns the "telephone" slot and Comcast owns the "cable TV" slot on my telephone pole. There is no "Internet" slot (yet). It was a little disappointing to read the city's press release about the Google RFI. They seems more interested in how the city (government) could make use of it. My bet is Seattle and other big muni's will not be high on Google's list. They tend to trip over their own feet (and the deals they've made with the entrenched service providers) too much. If Google and Seattle were to try something like this, the law suits would fly fast. Just look what happens to communities that try to make telecom a (DIY) public utility. Despite my cynicism, I wish Google all the luck and I hope they shake things up (again). On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Benjamin Krueger wrote: > Verizon and Comcast are poopin bricks right now. Frantically > calculating how their profit margins are going to be eaten away for > ridiculous things like "network upgrades" and "expansion" because > there's finally some competition in their market. > > On Feb 12, 2010, at 3:00 PM, Jason Self wrote: > > > Oh please, oh please, oh please pick Seattle... > > > > http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/newsdetail.asp?ID=10520&dept=48 > > > > http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html > > _______________________________________________ > > Gslug-general mailing list > > Gslug-general@gslug.org > > http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general > > Benjamin Krueger > benjamin@seattlefenix.net > > > > -- Andrew B. Sweger -- The great thing about multitasking is that several things can go wrong at once. From btm at loftninjas.org Fri Feb 12 16:32:24 2010 From: btm at loftninjas.org (Bryan McLellan) Date: Fri Feb 12 16:34:36 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] Google Fiber Network In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <893823751002121632r75db73f7g400cc86f855835d5@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Lucas Thompson wrote: > Nominate Seattle! > > http://www.google.com/appserve/fiberrfi All the same, I took the time to fill this out. When we finally achieved unlimited dialup it was a glorious day, the 'check your unlimited bandwidth usage' pilot in the Northwest made me a die a little inside. Bryan From lucas.thompson at gmail.com Fri Feb 12 18:17:34 2010 From: lucas.thompson at gmail.com (Lucas Thompson) Date: Fri Feb 12 18:14:05 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] Google Fiber Network In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I live in Tacoma (for the next 43 days -- until our W Sea house closes) and have been using Click for television and Internet for years. It's worked out pretty well other than the inherent reliability problems with cable modems. Wish Seattle had a similar municipal service so there were options other than supporting Comcast or Qwest. On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Andrew Sweger wrote: > I'm not so sure. From what little I understand of the utility game, the > city issues charters to companies that effectively give them a monopoly on > the poles (which is the large majority of Seattle's electrical utility > distribution system). There's a Verizon conduit that runs right down my > street, right next to a Qwest conduit, and yet there's no way I'll see > Verizon Fios in North Seattle. Qwest owns the "telephone" slot and Comcast > owns the "cable TV" slot on my telephone pole. There is no "Internet" > slot (yet). > > It was a little disappointing to read the city's press release about the > Google RFI. They seems more interested in how the city (government) could > make use of it. > > My bet is Seattle and other big muni's will not be high on Google's list. > They tend to trip over their own feet (and the deals they've made with the > entrenched service providers) too much. If Google and Seattle were to try > something like this, the law suits would fly fast. Just look what happens > to communities that try to make telecom a (DIY) public utility. > > Despite my cynicism, I wish Google all the luck and I hope they shake > things up (again). From mjevans1983 at gmail.com Sat Feb 13 00:13:06 2010 From: mjevans1983 at gmail.com (Michael Evans) Date: Sat Feb 13 00:14:48 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] Keysigning - Simple shell script to list signed keys Message-ID: <4877c76c1002130013p54418895u3502de66b0e94fe7@mail.gmail.com> This is just a quick little shell-script hack. The grep before perl pre-filters the data to vastly simplify the state-machine, it could probably have been more elegantly written, but this was the fastest way of getting from nothing to result. The result will be a list of all the keys in your keyring signed by a specific key. Quite useful for making a list of all key's that you've signed. gpg --list-keys $( export SIG=(YOUR SIGNING KEY); \ gpg --list-sigs | grep -E "(pub|${SIG})" | perl -ne \ 'if($_ =~ m{^pub.*/([A-Fa-f0-9]{8})}){$key=$1;}elsif(m{^sig}){$st=0; print $key,"\n"}') From chuckw at quantumlinux.com Sat Feb 13 11:51:59 2010 From: chuckw at quantumlinux.com (Chuck Wolber) Date: Sat Feb 13 11:48:10 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] Google Fiber Network In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Jason Self wrote: > Oh please, oh please, oh please pick Seattle... > > http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/newsdetail.asp?ID=10520&dept=48 > > http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html Interestingly, for those who rely on wireless inside the home, the pipe to the Internet will no longer be the bottleneck... There is a reason why most Blue Ray players, that support streaming, have an Ethernet port in the back. Make sure you get cabling in the walls in new construction and remodels! (... and for those who think wireless will catch up speed-wise, you may want to consider some remedial physics lessons. Wired will always be several steps ahead.) ..Ch:W.. -- http://www.quantumlinux.com | "An idea does not gain Quantum Linux Laboratories, LLC. | truth as it gains ACCELERATING Business with Open Technology | followers." Amanda Bloom From andrew at sweger.net Sat Feb 13 13:51:56 2010 From: andrew at sweger.net (Andrew Sweger) Date: Sat Feb 13 13:48:24 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] Keysigning - Simple shell script to list signed keys In-Reply-To: <4877c76c1002130013p54418895u3502de66b0e94fe7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Michael Evans wrote: > gpg --list-keys $( export SIG=(YOUR SIGNING KEY); \ > gpg --list-sigs | grep -E "(pub|${SIG})" | perl -ne \ > 'if($_ =~ m{^pub.*/([A-Fa-f0-9]{8})}){$key=$1;}elsif(m{^sig}){$st=0; > print $key,"\n"}') I promise I don't do this at my day job. I just can't resist. If you're going for brevity, several keystrokes can be removed. gpg --list-keys $( export SIG=(YOUR SIGNING KEY); \ gpg --list-sigs | grep -E "(pub|${SIG})" | perl -nle \ 'if(m{^pub.*/([a-f0-9]{8})}i){$k=$1}elsif(/^sig/){print $k}' ) The $st variable seemed superflous. This also seems to work: gpg --list-keys $( export SIG=(YOUR SIGNING KEY); \ gpg --list-sigs | grep -E "(pub|${SIG})" | perl -nle \ 'm{^pub.*/([a-f0-9]{8})}iand$k=$1or/^sig/&&print $k' ) Or even: gpg --list-keys $(gpg --list-sigs|perl \ -nE'm{^pub.*/([a-f0-9]{8})}iand$k=$1or/^sig.*YOUR-KEY/&&say $k') Yuck! -- Andrew B. Sweger -- The great thing about multitasking is that several things can go wrong at once. From mark at foster.cc Mon Feb 15 19:01:50 2010 From: mark at foster.cc (Mark Foster) Date: Mon Feb 15 18:58:21 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] Talk videos now online Message-ID: <4B7A0A9E.30103@foster.cc> Video clips of the 3 talks at last saturday's GSLUG meeting are now linked from the meeting page @ http://www.gslug.org/wiki/index.php/Meeting_2010-02-13 -- I hate racists. Mark D. Foster http://mark.foster.cc/ | http://www.freegeekseattle.org/ From jianzwong at gmail.com Tue Feb 23 14:36:29 2010 From: jianzwong at gmail.com (Jian Z Wong) Date: Tue Feb 23 14:38:44 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] job opening - senior system administrator Message-ID: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> ================================================ Are you a mission driven professional? Are you ready to use your computer skills to make healthcare better for all Americans? Are you open minded and comfortable with multicultural environments? If yes, you are the right person to join International Community Health Services to improve healthcare for our communities. We have a competitive compensation package and a great working environment for you. SENIOR SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR SUMMARY The Senior System Administrator will provide technical lead for the infrastructure group. Configure, administer, maintain and support data center servers in production environment that serve mission critical applications. Manage VMware/Xen virtual environments and Linux hosts. The senior system administrator will also install and configure applications that access SQL databases. Additional responsibilities include network and server maintenance, backup/restore, disaster recovery, security, performance, and business continuity. ESSENTIAL DUTIES 1. Provide day-to-day support for mission critical servers in production, test, train and development environments. 2. Work closely with other software analysts and system analysts during software installation and upgrades. 3. Ensure availability of network/servers and application up time in accordance with our IT policies. 4. Perform system backups and recovery. Maintain data files and monitors system configuration to ensure data integrity. 5. Manage and maintain our VMware/Xen virtual environments for all virtual machines. 6. Manage our Linux hosts and file servers. 7. Responsible for network security and database integrity for the organization. 8. Review, validate, and deploy software update during applications rollout to production environment. 9. Support other IT staffs when they need to troubleshoot application issues that might be related to network/server backend. 10. Monitor network/server performance and tune network/server management systems as necessary. 11. Perform other duties as assigned. REQUIREMENTS 1. BS degree in Computer Science, CIS or a related field. 2. Microsoft certification (MCSE/MCSA) required. Linux certification a plus. 3. Five to ten years of hands-on experience providing network/server support in an enterprise production environment. 4. Knowledge of network security architecture, performance tuning, capacity planning, and disaster recovery processes and procedures. 5. Hands-on production experience installing and maintaining virtual servers such as VMware or Xen virtual environments. 6. Hands-on production experience installing, configuring, and administering Linux hosts and Samba file sharing. 7. Experience with Microsoft Windows server 2003/2008 and Microsoft SQL Server 2005/2008 clustering. 8. Skilled with scripting language such as VB or Pearl a plus. 9. Positive Attitude, with a can-do spirit. Ability to find solutions to problems, and proactively resolve them. 10. Team Player. Who understand that the capabilities of the team exceed the capabilities of each of the individual member. A person who can step forward and pick up the load in areas where their peers may be less qualified and teach and consult team members what they need to know for the team to be successful. ================================================== Thank you, Jian Z. Wong Information Technology Manager International Community Health Services P. O. Box 3007 Seattle, WA 98114-3007 Tel: 206-788-3628 jianw@ichs.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message contains information belonging to International Community Health Services, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you think that you have received this message in error, please e-mail the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ifokr.org/pipermail/gslug-general/attachments/20100223/3a8a3259/attachment.html From frcaen at gmail.com Tue Feb 23 17:26:45 2010 From: frcaen at gmail.com (Francois Caen) Date: Tue Feb 23 17:29:24 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] job opening - senior system administrator In-Reply-To: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <58cfe2841002231726h614501eai8b21749dc4e823b4@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Jian Z Wong wrote: > 2. Microsoft certification (MCSE/MCSA) required. Linux certification a plus. Wrong mailing list? -- Francois Caen From merc248 at gmail.com Tue Feb 23 17:43:09 2010 From: merc248 at gmail.com (merc248@gmail.com) Date: Tue Feb 23 17:45:27 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] job opening - senior system administrator In-Reply-To: <58cfe2841002231726h614501eai8b21749dc4e823b4@mail.gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <58cfe2841002231726h614501eai8b21749dc4e823b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2444fd7e1002231743q335710b2j133f951153c53081@mail.gmail.com> Yeah, you'll want to try SASAG instead... though most sysadmins in SASAG are quite UNIX-oriented. -- ian On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Francois Caen wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Jian Z Wong wrote: >> 2. Microsoft certification (MCSE/MCSA) required. Linux certification a plus. > > Wrong mailing list? > -- > Francois Caen > _______________________________________________ > Gslug-general mailing list > Gslug-general@gslug.org > http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general > -- christian "ian" paredes http://www.redbluemagenta.com From paul.bartell at gmail.com Tue Feb 23 18:55:08 2010 From: paul.bartell at gmail.com (Paul Bartell) Date: Tue Feb 23 18:57:39 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] job opening - senior system administrator In-Reply-To: <2444fd7e1002231743q335710b2j133f951153c53081@mail.gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <58cfe2841002231726h614501eai8b21749dc4e823b4@mail.gmail.com> <2444fd7e1002231743q335710b2j133f951153c53081@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b5bab0f1002231855h1eb82ac8g73b542fe0b21929f@mail.gmail.com> MCSEs... don't those grow on trees? On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:43 PM, merc248@gmail.com wrote: > Yeah, you'll want to try SASAG instead... though most sysadmins in > SASAG are quite UNIX-oriented. > > -- ian > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Francois Caen wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Jian Z Wong wrote: >>> 2. Microsoft certification (MCSE/MCSA) required. Linux certification a plus. >> >> Wrong mailing list? >> -- >> Francois Caen >> _______________________________________________ >> Gslug-general mailing list >> Gslug-general@gslug.org >> http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general >> > > > > -- > christian "ian" paredes > http://www.redbluemagenta.com > _______________________________________________ > Gslug-general mailing list > Gslug-general@gslug.org > http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general > -- Random quote of the week/month/whenever i get to updating it: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?": "who shall watch the watchers themselves?" - Juvenal From chuckw at quantumlinux.com Tue Feb 23 19:58:17 2010 From: chuckw at quantumlinux.com (Chuck Wolber) Date: Tue Feb 23 19:54:23 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] job opening - senior system administrator In-Reply-To: <2b5bab0f1002231855h1eb82ac8g73b542fe0b21929f@mail.gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <58cfe2841002231726h614501eai8b21749dc4e823b4@mail.gmail.com> <2444fd7e1002231743q335710b2j133f951153c53081@mail.gmail.com> <2b5bab0f1002231855h1eb82ac8g73b542fe0b21929f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Paul Bartell wrote: > MCSEs... don't those grow on trees? Yes, but is that really surprising? I mean, how hard can it be to pass the Minesweeper and Solitaire qualifiying tests? ..Ch:W.. -- http://www.quantumlinux.com | "An idea does not gain Quantum Linux Laboratories, LLC. | truth as it gains ACCELERATING Business with Open Technology | followers." Amanda Bloom From jamesthefishy at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 19:00:39 2010 From: jamesthefishy at gmail.com (James Michael) Date: Thu Feb 25 19:24:44 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> not to start a flame war but i wanted to see how many gsluger there were out there who used bsd, I specially use netbsd and freebsd and i prefer the BSD license over most and prefer everything else over the GPL. I find the GPL is very limiting when it comes to developing for profit. Opensource's original goal was to allow people to not have to reinvent the wheel at every turn. It seems very annoying that the GNU crowd is forcing the future code to say open, code they don't write or touch or have nothing to do with and they make laws around it just because it uses libraries or files from a GPL'ed program. It makes no sense to me. I wanted to know why people think the GPL was so great in comparision to more freeing licenses. Please note i would like to keep this respectful, not everyone needs to throw their two cents in. I don't want a flame war over this. From jamesthefishy at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 19:59:05 2010 From: jamesthefishy at gmail.com (James Michael) Date: Thu Feb 25 19:54:57 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: <2444fd7e1002251943j2d6e120enb3be75741073197f@mail.gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> <2444fd7e1002251943j2d6e120enb3be75741073197f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B874709.8030006@gmail.com> merc248@gmail.com wrote: > I administer a NetBSD VPS (for myself) and an OpenBSD router (for a > coffee shop) myself, and I've been wanting to install FreeBSD on my > desktop machine for a while now (unfortunately, nVidia doesn't have a > good 64-bit driver available yet for FreeBSD); I usually try to > license any of my scripts or code with the BSD license as well. In > terms of licensing, I prefer the BSD license, but only because I'd > rather benefit the greatest amount of people, including companies. I > also prefer *BSD over Linux for its outstanding code quality in the > base system, though I also deploy and administer many Linux systems > since it is usually a hell of a lot more supported than *BSD's (from > my own experience, if you want to go with an enterprise open source > piece of software, it's typically only supported on (Red Hat based) > Linux systems.) > > I usually view the BSD license as a free license that protects > developer freedom; the GPL protects code freedom. In a sense, the GPL > is "viral"; once you GPL a piece of code, that piece of code will make > an entire project GPL if the project is released publicly (nothing > precludes using GPL'ed code for your own gain if the project is not > public.) The corollary to this is that choosing GPL is likely to be a > political choice: do you wish for a world with free code? > free code is defined by most to be free to everyone where GPL stops a lot of businesses from actually using GPL'ed code to make profit. most companies that use GPL'ed code don't make money off their software, they make it off the support of the software. Such as redhat, google and others are all support companies not like video game programmers. There will never be a profitable single player GPL'ed video game mainly because you will be giving the video game away for free and also trying to charge people for it. > -- ian > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:00 PM, James Michael wrote: > >> not to start a flame war but i wanted to see how many gsluger there were out >> there who used bsd, I specially use netbsd and freebsd and i prefer the BSD >> license over most and prefer everything else over the GPL. I find the GPL is >> very limiting when it comes to developing for profit. Opensource's original >> goal was to allow people to not have to reinvent the wheel at every turn. It >> seems very annoying that the GNU crowd is forcing the future code to say >> open, code they don't write or touch or have nothing to do with and they >> make laws around it just because it uses libraries or files from a GPL'ed >> program. It makes no sense to me. I wanted to know why people think the GPL >> was so great in comparision to more freeing licenses. Please note i would >> like to keep this respectful, not everyone needs to throw their two cents >> in. I don't want a flame war over this. >> _______________________________________________ >> Gslug-general mailing list >> Gslug-general@gslug.org >> http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general >> >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ifokr.org/pipermail/gslug-general/attachments/20100225/c08a3eca/attachment.html From william at gslug.org Thu Feb 25 19:47:00 2010 From: william at gslug.org (William Hale) Date: Thu Feb 25 20:11:13 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] Next Meeting: March 13th, 2010 Message-ID: Hello Everyone! The next Greater Seattle Linux User Group (GSLUG) meeting is on Saturday, March 13th from 12 till 4. The meeting location will be the Google offices in Fremont. Follow the URL below for more details. http://www.gslug.org/wiki/index.php/Meeting_2010-03-13 This months topic will be Development Tools. I hope to see topics such as compilers, IDEs, languages, packaging tools, and other such things. Please RSVP if you will attend and sign up for a talk if there is something you'd like to share with the group. Hope to see you all there! -- William Utinam me logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant. From paul.bartell at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 20:17:48 2010 From: paul.bartell at gmail.com (Paul Bartell) Date: Thu Feb 25 20:14:05 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: <4B874709.8030006@gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> <2444fd7e1002251943j2d6e120enb3be75741073197f@mail.gmail.com> <4B874709.8030006@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b5bab0f1002252017x37cf6ba1gfd7eac2ccd8c3d9b@mail.gmail.com> This is definetly a "problem" as many would put it with the GPL. The main reason for this is so that code stays open and can then be further improved upon by others. If a company forks a project, changes one line of code, and starts selling it, people will end up paying a company lots of money for something that really doesn't need to be paid.. If you think that GPL'd code cannot be used in a commercial product, talk to a lawyer. Numerous companies do it. Putting a bunch of gpl code together and supporting it is definetly within the limits of the license as well as including you own proprietary pieces to be bundled with an OS (say a linux distro for example). While it might take more work than something under a BSD license, it is definetly worth checking out. While BSD is great for lots of things (look at the success of pfsense and its derivatives), it is not quite to the point where linux and other GPL'd software is, and probably won't be since there are no protections in place to stop code from simply being forked and made proprietary. On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:59 PM, James Michael wrote: > merc248@gmail.com wrote: > > I administer a NetBSD VPS (for myself) and an OpenBSD router (for a > coffee shop) myself, and I've been wanting to install FreeBSD on my > desktop machine for a while now (unfortunately, nVidia doesn't have a > good 64-bit driver available yet for FreeBSD); I usually try to > license any of my scripts or code with the BSD license as well. In > terms of licensing, I prefer the BSD license, but only because I'd > rather benefit the greatest amount of people, including companies. I > also prefer *BSD over Linux for its outstanding code quality in the > base system, though I also deploy and administer many Linux systems > since it is usually a hell of a lot more supported than *BSD's (from > my own experience, if you want to go with an enterprise open source > piece of software, it's typically only supported on (Red Hat based) > Linux systems.) > > I usually view the BSD license as a free license that protects > developer freedom; the GPL protects code freedom. In a sense, the GPL > is "viral"; once you GPL a piece of code, that piece of code will make > an entire project GPL if the project is released publicly (nothing > precludes using GPL'ed code for your own gain if the project is not > public.) The corollary to this is that choosing GPL is likely to be a > political choice: do you wish for a world with free code? > > > free code is defined by most to be free to everyone where GPL stops a lot of > businesses from actually using GPL'ed code to make profit. most companies > that use GPL'ed code don't make money off their software, they make it off > the support of the software. Such as redhat, google and others are all > support companies not like video game programmers. There will never be a > profitable single player GPL'ed video game mainly because you will be giving > the video game away for free and also trying to charge people for it. > > -- ian > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:00 PM, James Michael > wrote: > > > not to start a flame war but i wanted to see how many gsluger there were out > there who used bsd, I specially use netbsd and freebsd and i prefer the BSD > license over most and prefer everything else over the GPL. I find the GPL is > very limiting when it comes to developing for profit. Opensource's original > goal was to allow people to not have to reinvent the wheel at every turn. It > seems very annoying that the GNU crowd is forcing the future code to say > open, code they don't write or touch or have nothing to do with and they > make laws around it just because it uses libraries or files from a GPL'ed > program. It makes no sense to me. I wanted to know why people think the GPL > was so great in comparision to more freeing licenses. Please note i would > like to keep this respectful, not everyone needs to throw their two cents > in. I don't want a flame war over this. > _______________________________________________ > Gslug-general mailing list > Gslug-general@gslug.org > http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gslug-general mailing list > Gslug-general@gslug.org > http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general > -- Random quote of the week/month/whenever i get to updating it: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?": "who shall watch the watchers themselves?" - Juvenal From jason.self at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 20:25:29 2010 From: jason.self at gmail.com (Jason Self) Date: Thu Feb 25 20:21:45 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> Message-ID: >Opensource's original > goal was to allow people to not have to reinvent the wheel at every turn. Free Software predates Open Source. > I find the GPL is > very limiting when it comes to developing for profit. Nothing in the GPL prevents someone from making a profit, as Paul Bartell indicated. > It > seems very annoying that the GNU crowd is forcing the future code to say > open, code they don't write or touch or have nothing to do with and they > make laws around it just because it uses libraries or files from a GPL'ed > program. It makes no sense to me. I wanted to know why people think the GPL > was so great in comparision to more freeing licenses. Free Software is a social movement. It is very different from Open Source, a different approach, philosophy, and values, but the two camps do work together when their interests are aligned. Here is an article that might explain more. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html From merc248 at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 20:27:41 2010 From: merc248 at gmail.com (merc248@gmail.com) Date: Thu Feb 25 20:23:57 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: <2b5bab0f1002252017x37cf6ba1gfd7eac2ccd8c3d9b@mail.gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> <2444fd7e1002251943j2d6e120enb3be75741073197f@mail.gmail.com> <4B874709.8030006@gmail.com> <2b5bab0f1002252017x37cf6ba1gfd7eac2ccd8c3d9b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2444fd7e1002252027s19b5fb94hae8960815398e0c9@mail.gmail.com> Some would say that that's the point of BSD licensing: the programmer uses the BSD license for the greatest amount of use, no matter whether it is forked and made proprietary or not. However, I remember reading something from Theo de Raadt about how he does not reap any reward at all, not even respect from vendors who routinely use his team's code and fork it (openssh, etc.) Though to be honest, I don't think we'd even see TCP/IP as an implemented standard if the BSD implementation was licensed under GPL rather than BSD; hell, Microsoft used the BSD TCP/IP stack in their own code. James Michael: > free code is defined by most to be free to everyone where GPL stops a lot of businesses > from actually using GPL'ed code to make profit. most companies that use GPL'ed code > don't make money off their software, they make it off the support of the software. Such as > redhat, google and others are all support companies not like video game programmers. > There will never be a profitable single player GPL'ed video game mainly because you will > be giving the video game away for free and also trying to charge people for it. I'd have to disagree with you on this point. There's companies out there that definitely make a profit out of selling GPL software. Look at Zmanda, Red Hat, Novell, etc. The difference is where the profit is made. -- ian On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Paul Bartell wrote: > This is definetly a "problem" as many would put it with the GPL. The > main reason for this is so that code stays open and can then be > further improved upon by others. If a company forks a project, changes > one line of code, and starts selling it, people will end up paying a > company lots of money for something that really doesn't need to be > paid.. > > If you think that GPL'd code cannot be used in a commercial product, > talk to a lawyer. Numerous companies do it. Putting a bunch of gpl > code together and supporting it is definetly within the limits of the > license as well as including you own proprietary pieces to be bundled > with an OS (say a linux distro for example). While it might take more > work than something under a BSD license, it is definetly worth > checking out. > > While BSD is great for lots of things (look at the success of pfsense > and its derivatives), it is not quite to the point where linux and > other GPL'd software is, and probably won't be since there are no > protections in place to stop code from simply being forked and made > proprietary. > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:59 PM, James Michael wrote: >> merc248@gmail.com wrote: >> >> I administer a NetBSD VPS (for myself) and an OpenBSD router (for a >> coffee shop) myself, and I've been wanting to install FreeBSD on my >> desktop machine for a while now (unfortunately, nVidia doesn't have a >> good 64-bit driver available yet for FreeBSD); I usually try to >> license any of my scripts or code with the BSD license as well. ?In >> terms of licensing, I prefer the BSD license, but only because I'd >> rather benefit the greatest amount of people, including companies. ?I >> also prefer *BSD over Linux for its outstanding code quality in the >> base system, though I also deploy and administer many Linux systems >> since it is usually a hell of a lot more supported than *BSD's (from >> my own experience, if you want to go with an enterprise open source >> piece of software, it's typically only supported on (Red Hat based) >> Linux systems.) >> >> I usually view the BSD license as a free license that protects >> developer freedom; the GPL protects code freedom. ?In a sense, the GPL >> is "viral"; once you GPL a piece of code, that piece of code will make >> an entire project GPL if the project is released publicly (nothing >> precludes using GPL'ed code for your own gain if the project is not >> public.) ?The corollary to this is that choosing GPL is likely to be a >> political choice: do you wish for a world with free code? >> >> >> free code is defined by most to be free to everyone where GPL stops a lot of >> businesses from actually using GPL'ed code to make profit. most companies >> that use GPL'ed code don't make money off their software, they make it off >> the support of the software. Such as redhat, google and others are all >> support companies not like video game programmers. There will never be a >> profitable single player GPL'ed video game mainly because you will be giving >> the video game away for free and also trying to charge people for it. >> >> -- ian >> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:00 PM, James Michael >> wrote: >> >> >> not to start a flame war but i wanted to see how many gsluger there were out >> there who used bsd, I specially use netbsd and freebsd and i prefer the BSD >> license over most and prefer everything else over the GPL. I find the GPL is >> very limiting when it comes to developing for profit. Opensource's original >> goal was to allow people to not have to reinvent the wheel at every turn. It >> seems very annoying that the GNU crowd is forcing the future code to say >> open, code they don't write or touch or have nothing to do with and they >> make laws around it just because it uses libraries or files from a GPL'ed >> program. It makes no sense to me. I wanted to know why people think the GPL >> was so great in comparision to more freeing licenses. Please note i would >> like to keep this respectful, not everyone needs to throw their two cents >> in. I don't want a flame war over this. >> _______________________________________________ >> Gslug-general mailing list >> Gslug-general@gslug.org >> http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gslug-general mailing list >> Gslug-general@gslug.org >> http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general >> > > > > -- > Random quote of the week/month/whenever i get to updating it: "Quis custodiet > ipsos custodes?": "who shall watch the watchers themselves?" - Juvenal > _______________________________________________ > Gslug-general mailing list > Gslug-general@gslug.org > http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general > -- christian "ian" paredes http://www.redbluemagenta.com From merc248 at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 19:43:07 2010 From: merc248 at gmail.com (merc248@gmail.com) Date: Thu Feb 25 20:43:05 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2444fd7e1002251943j2d6e120enb3be75741073197f@mail.gmail.com> I administer a NetBSD VPS (for myself) and an OpenBSD router (for a coffee shop) myself, and I've been wanting to install FreeBSD on my desktop machine for a while now (unfortunately, nVidia doesn't have a good 64-bit driver available yet for FreeBSD); I usually try to license any of my scripts or code with the BSD license as well. In terms of licensing, I prefer the BSD license, but only because I'd rather benefit the greatest amount of people, including companies. I also prefer *BSD over Linux for its outstanding code quality in the base system, though I also deploy and administer many Linux systems since it is usually a hell of a lot more supported than *BSD's (from my own experience, if you want to go with an enterprise open source piece of software, it's typically only supported on (Red Hat based) Linux systems.) I usually view the BSD license as a free license that protects developer freedom; the GPL protects code freedom. In a sense, the GPL is "viral"; once you GPL a piece of code, that piece of code will make an entire project GPL if the project is released publicly (nothing precludes using GPL'ed code for your own gain if the project is not public.) The corollary to this is that choosing GPL is likely to be a political choice: do you wish for a world with free code? -- ian On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:00 PM, James Michael wrote: > not to start a flame war but i wanted to see how many gsluger there were out > there who used bsd, I specially use netbsd and freebsd and i prefer the BSD > license over most and prefer everything else over the GPL. I find the GPL is > very limiting when it comes to developing for profit. Opensource's original > goal was to allow people to not have to reinvent the wheel at every turn. It > seems very annoying that the GNU crowd is forcing the future code to say > open, code they don't write or touch or have nothing to do with and they > make laws around it just because it uses libraries or files from a GPL'ed > program. It makes no sense to me. I wanted to know why people think the GPL > was so great in comparision to more freeing licenses. Please note i would > like to keep this respectful, not everyone needs to throw their two cents > in. I don't want a flame war over this. > _______________________________________________ > Gslug-general mailing list > Gslug-general@gslug.org > http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general > -- christian "ian" paredes http://www.redbluemagenta.com From jason.self at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 21:01:41 2010 From: jason.self at gmail.com (Jason Self) Date: Thu Feb 25 20:58:01 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> Message-ID: Just some more thoughts. The BSD license may protect the developer's freedom to do whatever they want, but in the Free Software world, the freedom being focused on is the /user's/ freedom, not the distributor's. In their view, it is unethical for someone to deny the user their freedom. The Free Software folks believe that non-free software is unethical. It shouldn't exist. It only serves to divide and subjugate users. Hence, the license produced by the Free Software folks ensures that this cannot be done. I realize that when you said "code they don't write or touch or have nothing to do with", you're referring to the code that /you're/ producing, but stop for one moment. Someone /else/ would have created the GPL-covered code that you're wanting to use, and that person has the right to license their software in whatever way they choose. Someone such as yourself coming across that code then has two options: Use the code and abide by the license, find another piece of code with a license that is more to your liking, or skip it and create it yourself. Of course, Free Software advocates such as myself hope that you'll go for the first option and help to promote social solidarity. As I said earlier, Free Software is a social movement. It is very different from Open Source, with a different approach, philosophy, and values, and that comes through in each camp's criteria for what they find acceptable in a software license. Now it's time to go to bed. Good night. From jamesthefishy at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 21:06:20 2010 From: jamesthefishy at gmail.com (James Michael) Date: Thu Feb 25 21:02:06 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B8756CC.7050607@gmail.com> Jason Self wrote: >> Opensource's original >> goal was to allow people to not have to reinvent the wheel at every turn. >> > > Free Software predates Open Source. > You have that backwards, open source licenses were first. then the free software foundation was created > >> I find the GPL is >> very limiting when it comes to developing for profit. >> > > Nothing in the GPL prevents someone from making a profit, as Paul > Bartell indicated. > again its limiting and makes it harder to make a profit from it, you cant sell a video game under the GPL, it would be like giving someone the choice to download it for free or pay for it and then download it. > >> It >> seems very annoying that the GNU crowd is forcing the future code to say >> open, code they don't write or touch or have nothing to do with and they >> make laws around it just because it uses libraries or files from a GPL'ed >> program. It makes no sense to me. I wanted to know why people think the GPL >> was so great in comparision to more freeing licenses. >> > > Free Software is a social movement. It is very different from Open > Source, a different approach, philosophy, and values, but the two > camps do work together when their interests are aligned. > > and what i am saying is that those social movements are destroying perfectly good open source projects by limiting them to what is basically home users/developers. > Here is an article that might explain more. > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html > _______________________________________________ > Gslug-general mailing list > Gslug-general@gslug.org > http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ifokr.org/pipermail/gslug-general/attachments/20100225/b14cb05d/attachment.html From jamesthefishy at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 21:02:10 2010 From: jamesthefishy at gmail.com (James Michael) Date: Thu Feb 25 21:03:22 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: <2b5bab0f1002252017x37cf6ba1gfd7eac2ccd8c3d9b@mail.gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> <2444fd7e1002251943j2d6e120enb3be75741073197f@mail.gmail.com> <4B874709.8030006@gmail.com> <2b5bab0f1002252017x37cf6ba1gfd7eac2ccd8c3d9b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B8755D2.7010009@gmail.com> Paul Bartell wrote: > This is definetly a "problem" as many would put it with the GPL. The > main reason for this is so that code stays open and can then be > further improved upon by others. If a company forks a project, changes > one line of code, and starts selling it, people will end up paying a > company lots of money for something that really doesn't need to be > paid.. > That doesn't make the original code any less free. This can happen to anything, even GPL'ed code can be sold, it just has to include the source with it a long with a notice. > If you think that GPL'd code cannot be used in a commercial product, > talk to a lawyer. Numerous companies do it. but they rarely make a profit off of it and they make money off of the support of the software not the software itself. > Putting a bunch of gpl > code together and supporting it is definetly within the limits of the > license as well as including you own proprietary pieces to be bundled > with an OS (say a linux distro for example). While it might take more > work than something under a BSD license, it is definetly worth > checking out. > > While BSD is great for lots of things (look at the success of pfsense > and its derivatives), it is not quite to the point where linux and > other GPL'd software is, and probably won't be since there are no > protections in place to stop code from simply being forked and made > proprietary. > Again just because code is forked and made proprietary (which would never really be profitable in real life) > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:59 PM, James Michael wrote: > >> merc248@gmail.com wrote: >> >> I administer a NetBSD VPS (for myself) and an OpenBSD router (for a >> coffee shop) myself, and I've been wanting to install FreeBSD on my >> desktop machine for a while now (unfortunately, nVidia doesn't have a >> good 64-bit driver available yet for FreeBSD); I usually try to >> license any of my scripts or code with the BSD license as well. In >> terms of licensing, I prefer the BSD license, but only because I'd >> rather benefit the greatest amount of people, including companies. I >> also prefer *BSD over Linux for its outstanding code quality in the >> base system, though I also deploy and administer many Linux systems >> since it is usually a hell of a lot more supported than *BSD's (from >> my own experience, if you want to go with an enterprise open source >> piece of software, it's typically only supported on (Red Hat based) >> Linux systems.) >> >> I usually view the BSD license as a free license that protects >> developer freedom; the GPL protects code freedom. In a sense, the GPL >> is "viral"; once you GPL a piece of code, that piece of code will make >> an entire project GPL if the project is released publicly (nothing >> precludes using GPL'ed code for your own gain if the project is not >> public.) The corollary to this is that choosing GPL is likely to be a >> political choice: do you wish for a world with free code? >> >> >> free code is defined by most to be free to everyone where GPL stops a lot of >> businesses from actually using GPL'ed code to make profit. most companies >> that use GPL'ed code don't make money off their software, they make it off >> the support of the software. Such as redhat, google and others are all >> support companies not like video game programmers. There will never be a >> profitable single player GPL'ed video game mainly because you will be giving >> the video game away for free and also trying to charge people for it. >> >> -- ian >> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:00 PM, James Michael >> wrote: >> >> >> not to start a flame war but i wanted to see how many gsluger there were out >> there who used bsd, I specially use netbsd and freebsd and i prefer the BSD >> license over most and prefer everything else over the GPL. I find the GPL is >> very limiting when it comes to developing for profit. Opensource's original >> goal was to allow people to not have to reinvent the wheel at every turn. It >> seems very annoying that the GNU crowd is forcing the future code to say >> open, code they don't write or touch or have nothing to do with and they >> make laws around it just because it uses libraries or files from a GPL'ed >> program. It makes no sense to me. I wanted to know why people think the GPL >> was so great in comparision to more freeing licenses. Please note i would >> like to keep this respectful, not everyone needs to throw their two cents >> in. I don't want a flame war over this. >> _______________________________________________ >> Gslug-general mailing list >> Gslug-general@gslug.org >> http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gslug-general mailing list >> Gslug-general@gslug.org >> http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general >> >> > > > > From jamesthefishy at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 21:08:58 2010 From: jamesthefishy at gmail.com (James Michael) Date: Thu Feb 25 21:04:42 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: <2444fd7e1002252027s19b5fb94hae8960815398e0c9@mail.gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> <2444fd7e1002251943j2d6e120enb3be75741073197f@mail.gmail.com> <4B874709.8030006@gmail.com> <2b5bab0f1002252017x37cf6ba1gfd7eac2ccd8c3d9b@mail.gmail.com> <2444fd7e1002252027s19b5fb94hae8960815398e0c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B87576A.3040506@gmail.com> merc248@gmail.com wrote: > Some would say that that's the point of BSD licensing: the programmer > uses the BSD license for the greatest amount of use, no matter whether > it is forked and made proprietary or not. However, I remember reading > something from Theo de Raadt about how he does not reap any reward at > all, not even respect from vendors who routinely use his team's code > and fork it (openssh, etc.) > > Though to be honest, I don't think we'd even see TCP/IP as an > implemented standard if the BSD implementation was licensed under GPL > rather than BSD; hell, Microsoft used the BSD TCP/IP stack in their > own code. > > James Michael: > > again being open source is about not having to reinvent the wheel, to allow people to use your code. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7833143728685685343#docid=8073195220998636516 this video should explain more of where im coming from. >> free code is defined by most to be free to everyone where GPL stops a lot of businesses >> from actually using GPL'ed code to make profit. most companies that use GPL'ed code >> don't make money off their software, they make it off the support of the software. Such as >> redhat, google and others are all support companies not like video game programmers. >> There will never be a profitable single player GPL'ed video game mainly because you will >> be giving the video game away for free and also trying to charge people for it. >> > > I'd have to disagree with you on this point. There's companies out > there that definitely make a profit out of selling GPL software. Look > at Zmanda, Red Hat, Novell, etc. The difference is where the profit > is made. > > -- ian > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Paul Bartell wrote: > >> This is definetly a "problem" as many would put it with the GPL. The >> main reason for this is so that code stays open and can then be >> further improved upon by others. If a company forks a project, changes >> one line of code, and starts selling it, people will end up paying a >> company lots of money for something that really doesn't need to be >> paid.. >> >> If you think that GPL'd code cannot be used in a commercial product, >> talk to a lawyer. Numerous companies do it. Putting a bunch of gpl >> code together and supporting it is definetly within the limits of the >> license as well as including you own proprietary pieces to be bundled >> with an OS (say a linux distro for example). While it might take more >> work than something under a BSD license, it is definetly worth >> checking out. >> >> While BSD is great for lots of things (look at the success of pfsense >> and its derivatives), it is not quite to the point where linux and >> other GPL'd software is, and probably won't be since there are no >> protections in place to stop code from simply being forked and made >> proprietary. >> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:59 PM, James Michael wrote: >> >>> merc248@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> I administer a NetBSD VPS (for myself) and an OpenBSD router (for a >>> coffee shop) myself, and I've been wanting to install FreeBSD on my >>> desktop machine for a while now (unfortunately, nVidia doesn't have a >>> good 64-bit driver available yet for FreeBSD); I usually try to >>> license any of my scripts or code with the BSD license as well. In >>> terms of licensing, I prefer the BSD license, but only because I'd >>> rather benefit the greatest amount of people, including companies. I >>> also prefer *BSD over Linux for its outstanding code quality in the >>> base system, though I also deploy and administer many Linux systems >>> since it is usually a hell of a lot more supported than *BSD's (from >>> my own experience, if you want to go with an enterprise open source >>> piece of software, it's typically only supported on (Red Hat based) >>> Linux systems.) >>> >>> I usually view the BSD license as a free license that protects >>> developer freedom; the GPL protects code freedom. In a sense, the GPL >>> is "viral"; once you GPL a piece of code, that piece of code will make >>> an entire project GPL if the project is released publicly (nothing >>> precludes using GPL'ed code for your own gain if the project is not >>> public.) The corollary to this is that choosing GPL is likely to be a >>> political choice: do you wish for a world with free code? >>> >>> >>> free code is defined by most to be free to everyone where GPL stops a lot of >>> businesses from actually using GPL'ed code to make profit. most companies >>> that use GPL'ed code don't make money off their software, they make it off >>> the support of the software. Such as redhat, google and others are all >>> support companies not like video game programmers. There will never be a >>> profitable single player GPL'ed video game mainly because you will be giving >>> the video game away for free and also trying to charge people for it. >>> >>> -- ian >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:00 PM, James Michael >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> not to start a flame war but i wanted to see how many gsluger there were out >>> there who used bsd, I specially use netbsd and freebsd and i prefer the BSD >>> license over most and prefer everything else over the GPL. I find the GPL is >>> very limiting when it comes to developing for profit. Opensource's original >>> goal was to allow people to not have to reinvent the wheel at every turn. It >>> seems very annoying that the GNU crowd is forcing the future code to say >>> open, code they don't write or touch or have nothing to do with and they >>> make laws around it just because it uses libraries or files from a GPL'ed >>> program. It makes no sense to me. I wanted to know why people think the GPL >>> was so great in comparision to more freeing licenses. Please note i would >>> like to keep this respectful, not everyone needs to throw their two cents >>> in. I don't want a flame war over this. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gslug-general mailing list >>> Gslug-general@gslug.org >>> http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gslug-general mailing list >>> Gslug-general@gslug.org >>> http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Random quote of the week/month/whenever i get to updating it: "Quis custodiet >> ipsos custodes?": "who shall watch the watchers themselves?" - Juvenal >> _______________________________________________ >> Gslug-general mailing list >> Gslug-general@gslug.org >> http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general >> >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ifokr.org/pipermail/gslug-general/attachments/20100225/593648b9/attachment-0001.htm From jason.self at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 21:13:12 2010 From: jason.self at gmail.com (Jason Self) Date: Thu Feb 25 21:09:35 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: <4B8756CC.7050607@gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> <4B8756CC.7050607@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:06 PM, James Michael wrote: > You have that backwards, open source licenses were first. then the free > software foundation was created Back in the 1970's and earlier, all software was free. Of course, no one called it that because the term didn't exist yet. Richard Stallman founded the Free Software Foundationin the early 80's in response to the threat to take away user's freedom. The term Open Source did indeed come along after the creation of the Free Software Foundation. From jamesthefishy at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 21:21:29 2010 From: jamesthefishy at gmail.com (James Michael) Date: Thu Feb 25 21:17:14 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B875A59.7040504@gmail.com> Jason Self wrote: > Just some more thoughts. > > The BSD license may protect the developer's freedom to do whatever > they want, but in the Free Software world, the freedom being focused > on is the /user's/ freedom, not the distributor's. > no, its not the user's freedom. its to allow certain freedoms to certain groups of people. as stated in http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7833143728685685343#docid=8073195220998636516 meaning only people who will keep it free can add on to it. its a developer restriction license. > In their view, it is unethical for someone to deny the user their > freedom. The Free Software folks believe that non-free software is > unethical. It shouldn't exist. It only serves to divide and subjugate > users. Hence, the license produced by the Free Software folks ensures > that this cannot be done. > which is crap because everyone has to spend time and money to make things, you might as well work at a sandwich shop and give away food all day. Same difference. People make programs to make others life easier or to create a way to relax such as video games. To spend time and energy working on something should result in some sort of benefit. > I realize that when you said "code they don't write or touch or have > nothing to do with", you're referring to the code that /you're/ > producing, but stop for one moment. Someone /else/ would have created > the GPL-covered code that you're wanting to use, and that person has > the right to license their software in whatever way they choose. > Someone such as yourself coming across that code then has two options: > Use the code and abide by the license, find another piece of code with > a license that is more to your liking, or skip it and create it > yourself. Of course, Free Software advocates such as myself hope that > you'll go for the first option and help to promote social solidarity. > but you individually would get no benefit for releasing GPL'ed code. > As I said earlier, Free Software is a social movement. It is very > different from Open Source, with a different approach, philosophy, and > values, and that comes through in each camp's criteria for what they > find acceptable in a software license. > > Now it's time to go to bed. Good night. > night > _______________________________________________ > Gslug-general mailing list > Gslug-general@gslug.org > http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general > > From jamesthefishy at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 21:25:05 2010 From: jamesthefishy at gmail.com (James Michael) Date: Thu Feb 25 21:20:59 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> <4B8756CC.7050607@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B875B31.8010700@gmail.com> Jason Self wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:06 PM, James Michael wrote: > > >> You have that backwards, open source licenses were first. then the free >> software foundation was created >> > > Back in the 1970's and earlier, all software was free. Of course, no > one called it that because the term didn't exist yet. Richard Stallman > founded the Free Software Foundationin the early 80's in response to > the threat to take away user's freedom. The term Open Source did > indeed come along after the creation of the Free Software Foundation. > just because the term wasn't coined yet doesn't mean the licenses didn't exist before then. BSD license is has always has been an open source license. Just because mars wasn't discovered until 1600 BC doesn't mean it wasn't there in 1601 BC. > _______________________________________________ > Gslug-general mailing list > Gslug-general@gslug.org > http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ifokr.org/pipermail/gslug-general/attachments/20100225/0c9d1b60/attachment.html From merc248 at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 21:52:45 2010 From: merc248 at gmail.com (merc248@gmail.com) Date: Thu Feb 25 21:49:03 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: <4B875B31.8010700@gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> <4B8756CC.7050607@gmail.com> <4B875B31.8010700@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2444fd7e1002252152i64bc21cfjb3315ac09ce1af49@mail.gmail.com> Both the BSD and GPL licenses were created in 1989. GPL was created in January 1989. Even if the BSD license was created before the GPL, the amount of time between the two would've been extremely negligible. (Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bsd_license, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Version_1) And please, research before making shit up. -- ian On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:25 PM, James Michael wrote: > Jason Self wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:06 PM, James Michael > wrote: > > > > You have that backwards, open source licenses were first. then the free > software foundation was created > > > Back in the 1970's and earlier, all software was free. Of course, no > one called it that because the term didn't exist yet. Richard Stallman > founded the Free Software Foundationin the early 80's in response to > the threat to take away user's freedom. The term Open Source did > indeed come along after the creation of the Free Software Foundation. > > > just because the term wasn't coined yet doesn't mean the licenses didn't > exist before then. BSD license is has always has been an open source > license. Just because mars wasn't discovered until 1600 BC doesn't mean it > wasn't there in 1601 BC. > > _______________________________________________ > Gslug-general mailing list > Gslug-general@gslug.org > http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gslug-general mailing list > Gslug-general@gslug.org > http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general > -- christian "ian" paredes http://www.redbluemagenta.com From jamesthefishy at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 22:04:10 2010 From: jamesthefishy at gmail.com (James Michael) Date: Thu Feb 25 21:59:56 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: <2444fd7e1002252152i64bc21cfjb3315ac09ce1af49@mail.gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> <4B8756CC.7050607@gmail.com> <4B875B31.8010700@gmail.com> <2444fd7e1002252152i64bc21cfjb3315ac09ce1af49@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B87645A.4090004@gmail.com> merc248@gmail.com wrote: > Both the BSD and GPL licenses were created in 1989. GPL was created > in January 1989. Even if the BSD license was created before the GPL, > the amount of time between the two would've been extremely negligible. > > (Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bsd_license, > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Version_1) > > And please, research before making shit up. > wow dude, first calm down and reread what i said. GPL doesn't mean the software freedom foundation was created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation there for open source licenses came before the free software foundation. > -- ian > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:25 PM, James Michael wrote: > >> Jason Self wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:06 PM, James Michael >> wrote: >> >> >> >> You have that backwards, open source licenses were first. then the free >> software foundation was created >> >> >> Back in the 1970's and earlier, all software was free. Of course, no >> one called it that because the term didn't exist yet. Richard Stallman >> founded the Free Software Foundationin the early 80's in response to >> the threat to take away user's freedom. The term Open Source did >> indeed come along after the creation of the Free Software Foundation. >> >> >> just because the term wasn't coined yet doesn't mean the licenses didn't >> exist before then. BSD license is has always has been an open source >> license. Just because mars wasn't discovered until 1600 BC doesn't mean it >> wasn't there in 1601 BC. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gslug-general mailing list >> Gslug-general@gslug.org >> http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gslug-general mailing list >> Gslug-general@gslug.org >> http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general >> >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ifokr.org/pipermail/gslug-general/attachments/20100225/1fe6d05b/attachment.htm From jamesthefishy at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 22:20:12 2010 From: jamesthefishy at gmail.com (James Michael) Date: Thu Feb 25 22:22:19 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: <2444fd7e1002252152i64bc21cfjb3315ac09ce1af49@mail.gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> <4B8756CC.7050607@gmail.com> <4B875B31.8010700@gmail.com> <2444fd7e1002252152i64bc21cfjb3315ac09ce1af49@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B87681C.5080106@gmail.com> merc248@gmail.com wrote: > Both the BSD and GPL licenses were created in 1989. GPL was created > in January 1989. Even if the BSD license was created before the GPL, > the amount of time between the two would've been extremely negligible. > > (Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bsd_license, > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Version_1) > > And please, research before making shit up. > http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/ for got to add this, note the 1984 date. > -- ian > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:25 PM, James Michael wrote: > >> Jason Self wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:06 PM, James Michael >> wrote: >> >> >> >> You have that backwards, open source licenses were first. then the free >> software foundation was created >> >> >> Back in the 1970's and earlier, all software was free. Of course, no >> one called it that because the term didn't exist yet. Richard Stallman >> founded the Free Software Foundationin the early 80's in response to >> the threat to take away user's freedom. The term Open Source did >> indeed come along after the creation of the Free Software Foundation. >> >> >> just because the term wasn't coined yet doesn't mean the licenses didn't >> exist before then. BSD license is has always has been an open source >> license. Just because mars wasn't discovered until 1600 BC doesn't mean it >> wasn't there in 1601 BC. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gslug-general mailing list >> Gslug-general@gslug.org >> http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gslug-general mailing list >> Gslug-general@gslug.org >> http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general >> >> > > > > From cemeyer at u.washington.edu Thu Feb 25 22:23:46 2010 From: cemeyer at u.washington.edu (Conrad Meyer) Date: Thu Feb 25 22:28:22 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: <4B87645A.4090004@gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <2444fd7e1002252152i64bc21cfjb3315ac09ce1af49@mail.gmail.com> <4B87645A.4090004@gmail.com> Message-ID: <201002252223.47093.cemeyer@u.washington.edu> On Thursday 25 February 2010 10:04:10 pm James Michael wrote: > wow dude, first calm down and reread what i said. GPL doesn't mean the > software freedom foundation was created. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation > there for open source licenses came before the free software foundation. I'd just like to jump in quickly and point out that despite your claim in the original mail, "I don't want to start a flame war", you've been extremely antagonistic in your replies. You seem eager to argue "BSD is better/older/better", rather than actually listening to people's varying opinions. Regardless of one's opinion on the BSD-vs-GPL issue, I would hope that you can be more courteous to others in future posts -- a good first step might include using proper capitalization and punctuation. A good second step might be avoiding sweeping statements, such as "free code is defined by most to be free to everyone where GPL stops a lot of businesses from actually using GPL'ed code to make profit." Best regards, -- Conrad Meyer From robla at robla.net Fri Feb 26 00:24:26 2010 From: robla at robla.net (Rob Lanphier) Date: Fri Feb 26 00:21:19 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] jsonwidget-python Message-ID: <1d10f2a51002260024j45ef99a6w7238f16887ed9935@mail.gmail.com> Hi folks, I recently released the first version of a project I've been working on, described here: http://blog.robla.net/2010/jsonwidget-python/ Condensed version: this is terminal window tool for structured editing of JSON files (structured by custom schemas). As a standalone utility, it's probably only marginally useful, but chained together with other code, I think there's a great deal of potential. I spoke with a handful of you at the last GSLUG meeting. If there's interest, I'd love the the chance to give a more prepared presentation at the next GSLUG meeting. Rob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ifokr.org/pipermail/gslug-general/attachments/20100226/7f47d79e/attachment.html From mjevans1983 at gmail.com Fri Feb 26 00:03:20 2010 From: mjevans1983 at gmail.com (Michael Evans) Date: Fri Feb 26 00:26:27 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: <4B874709.8030006@gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> <2444fd7e1002251943j2d6e120enb3be75741073197f@mail.gmail.com> <4B874709.8030006@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4877c76c1002260003m15ef1f16sab88733ca5184720@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:59 PM, James Michael wrote: > merc248@gmail.com wrote: > > I administer a NetBSD VPS (for myself) and an OpenBSD router (for a > coffee shop) myself, and I've been wanting to install FreeBSD on my > desktop machine for a while now (unfortunately, nVidia doesn't have a > good 64-bit driver available yet for FreeBSD); I usually try to > license any of my scripts or code with the BSD license as well. In > terms of licensing, I prefer the BSD license, but only because I'd > rather benefit the greatest amount of people, including companies. I > also prefer *BSD over Linux for its outstanding code quality in the > base system, though I also deploy and administer many Linux systems > since it is usually a hell of a lot more supported than *BSD's (from > my own experience, if you want to go with an enterprise open source > piece of software, it's typically only supported on (Red Hat based) > Linux systems.) > > I usually view the BSD license as a free license that protects > developer freedom; the GPL protects code freedom. In a sense, the GPL > is "viral"; once you GPL a piece of code, that piece of code will make > an entire project GPL if the project is released publicly (nothing > precludes using GPL'ed code for your own gain if the project is not > public.) The corollary to this is that choosing GPL is likely to be a > political choice: do you wish for a world with free code? > > > free code is defined by most to be free to everyone where GPL stops a lot of > businesses from actually using GPL'ed code to make profit. most companies > that use GPL'ed code don't make money off their software, they make it off > the support of the software. Such as redhat, google and others are all > support companies not like video game programmers. There will never be a > profitable single player GPL'ed video game mainly because you will be giving > the video game away for free and also trying to charge people for it. > > -- ian > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:00 PM, James Michael > wrote: > > > not to start a flame war but i wanted to see how many gsluger there were out > there who used bsd, I specially use netbsd and freebsd and i prefer the BSD > license over most and prefer everything else over the GPL. I find the GPL is > very limiting when it comes to developing for profit. Opensource's original > goal was to allow people to not have to reinvent the wheel at every turn. It > seems very annoying that the GNU crowd is forcing the future code to say > open, code they don't write or touch or have nothing to do with and they > make laws around it just because it uses libraries or files from a GPL'ed > program. It makes no sense to me. I wanted to know why people think the GPL > was so great in comparision to more freeing licenses. Please note i would > like to keep this respectful, not everyone needs to throw their two cents > in. I don't want a flame war over this. > _______________________________________________ > Gslug-general mailing list > Gslug-general@gslug.org > http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gslug-general mailing list > Gslug-general@gslug.org > http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general > I disagree with that comment. You COULD make an open-source MMO or world IF you controlled the authentication servers for the authoritative community. You'd just have to be responsive and fun so that you out-compete others who deduce how to build the server half. You might even release the server once you had sufficient critical mass for the network effects to work in your favor. From merc248 at gmail.com Fri Feb 26 00:30:28 2010 From: merc248 at gmail.com (merc248@gmail.com) Date: Fri Feb 26 00:27:07 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: <4877c76c1002260003m15ef1f16sab88733ca5184720@mail.gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> <2444fd7e1002251943j2d6e120enb3be75741073197f@mail.gmail.com> <4B874709.8030006@gmail.com> <4877c76c1002260003m15ef1f16sab88733ca5184720@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2444fd7e1002260030k632a492aj7c65f1952d553ef3@mail.gmail.com> Eh, I should've been a bit more careful. If you're extremely careful on how to employ GPL code, then you could ostensibly create something that extends it in a specific way without your own project being GPL'ed. Binary blobs released by nVidia and ATI, for example, are a good example of this. -- ian On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Michael Evans wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:59 PM, James Michael wrote: >> merc248@gmail.com wrote: >> >> I administer a NetBSD VPS (for myself) and an OpenBSD router (for a >> coffee shop) myself, and I've been wanting to install FreeBSD on my >> desktop machine for a while now (unfortunately, nVidia doesn't have a >> good 64-bit driver available yet for FreeBSD); I usually try to >> license any of my scripts or code with the BSD license as well. ?In >> terms of licensing, I prefer the BSD license, but only because I'd >> rather benefit the greatest amount of people, including companies. ?I >> also prefer *BSD over Linux for its outstanding code quality in the >> base system, though I also deploy and administer many Linux systems >> since it is usually a hell of a lot more supported than *BSD's (from >> my own experience, if you want to go with an enterprise open source >> piece of software, it's typically only supported on (Red Hat based) >> Linux systems.) >> >> I usually view the BSD license as a free license that protects >> developer freedom; the GPL protects code freedom. ?In a sense, the GPL >> is "viral"; once you GPL a piece of code, that piece of code will make >> an entire project GPL if the project is released publicly (nothing >> precludes using GPL'ed code for your own gain if the project is not >> public.) ?The corollary to this is that choosing GPL is likely to be a >> political choice: do you wish for a world with free code? >> >> >> free code is defined by most to be free to everyone where GPL stops a lot of >> businesses from actually using GPL'ed code to make profit. most companies >> that use GPL'ed code don't make money off their software, they make it off >> the support of the software. Such as redhat, google and others are all >> support companies not like video game programmers. There will never be a >> profitable single player GPL'ed video game mainly because you will be giving >> the video game away for free and also trying to charge people for it. >> >> -- ian >> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:00 PM, James Michael >> wrote: >> >> >> not to start a flame war but i wanted to see how many gsluger there were out >> there who used bsd, I specially use netbsd and freebsd and i prefer the BSD >> license over most and prefer everything else over the GPL. I find the GPL is >> very limiting when it comes to developing for profit. Opensource's original >> goal was to allow people to not have to reinvent the wheel at every turn. It >> seems very annoying that the GNU crowd is forcing the future code to say >> open, code they don't write or touch or have nothing to do with and they >> make laws around it just because it uses libraries or files from a GPL'ed >> program. It makes no sense to me. I wanted to know why people think the GPL >> was so great in comparision to more freeing licenses. Please note i would >> like to keep this respectful, not everyone needs to throw their two cents >> in. I don't want a flame war over this. >> _______________________________________________ >> Gslug-general mailing list >> Gslug-general@gslug.org >> http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gslug-general mailing list >> Gslug-general@gslug.org >> http://lists.gslug.org/mailman/listinfo/gslug-general >> > > I disagree with that comment. ?You COULD make an open-source MMO or > world IF you controlled the authentication servers for the > authoritative community. ? You'd just have to be responsive and fun so > that you out-compete others who deduce how to build the server half. > You might even release the server once you had sufficient critical > mass for the network effects to work in your favor. > -- christian "ian" paredes http://www.redbluemagenta.com From mjevans1983 at gmail.com Fri Feb 26 01:07:25 2010 From: mjevans1983 at gmail.com (Michael Evans) Date: Fri Feb 26 01:03:40 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] Keysigning - Simple shell script to list signed keys In-Reply-To: References: <4877c76c1002130013p54418895u3502de66b0e94fe7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4877c76c1002260107r6655e20dga1338da299fa695d@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Andrew Sweger wrote: > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Michael Evans wrote: > >> gpg --list-keys $( export SIG=(YOUR SIGNING KEY); \ >> ?gpg --list-sigs | grep -E "(pub|${SIG})" | perl -ne \ >> 'if($_ =~ m{^pub.*/([A-Fa-f0-9]{8})}){$key=$1;}elsif(m{^sig}){$st=0; >> print $key,"\n"}') > > I promise I don't do this at my day job. I just can't resist. If you're > going for brevity, several keystrokes can be removed. > > gpg --list-keys $( export SIG=(YOUR SIGNING KEY); \ > ?gpg --list-sigs | grep -E "(pub|${SIG})" | perl -nle \ > ?'if(m{^pub.*/([a-f0-9]{8})}i){$k=$1}elsif(/^sig/){print $k}' ) > > The $st variable seemed superflous. This also seems to work: > > gpg --list-keys $( export SIG=(YOUR SIGNING KEY); \ > ?gpg --list-sigs | grep -E "(pub|${SIG})" | perl -nle \ > ?'m{^pub.*/([a-f0-9]{8})}iand$k=$1or/^sig/&&print $k' ) > > Or even: > > gpg --list-keys $(gpg --list-sigs|perl \ > -nE'm{^pub.*/([a-f0-9]{8})}iand$k=$1or/^sig.*YOUR-KEY/&&say $k') > > Yuck! > > -- > Andrew B. Sweger -- The great thing about multitasking is that several > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?things can go wrong at once. > > > Of course the variable I'm trying to conserve is /mental/ cycles, not computational vectors of any kind. From jason.self at gmail.com Fri Feb 26 06:08:00 2010 From: jason.self at gmail.com (Jason Self) Date: Fri Feb 26 06:04:20 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> <4B875A59.7040504@gmail.com> Message-ID: James, I'm not sure where you received the information that someone must make a GPL-covered program available at no charge. This was also mentioned in the video that you linked to, so perhaps you saw it in that video & thought it was true. It's not. There is absolutely no requirement to do this. For more information, please see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html. Now, what you're probably thinking is something along the lines that "hey... if my source code is available then people have no reason to buy my software." My hope, though, is that you're not just looking to charge people money to the exclusion of everything else. Hopefully you would also want your free software project to be successful, appeal to people, and to create a large community around your software. I certainly would wish all the best to your free software project. While it's true that someone could fork your free software program, that is by no means a guarantee that they will. This is because forking a project brings up other issues that are best avoided if at all possible. If you examine the free software community, you'll see that forking doesn't happen very often just for this reason. As long as your free software project is doing right by it's users, there is no motivation for them to fork. It used to be that everyone got the program and everyone got the source code. That didn't change until these last few decades when people started to think that it was okay to give users software without access to the source code and without the necessary freedoms. Just as, it seems, you're thinking about doing by not wanting to include the source code & disliking the GPL because it requires you to make the source code available. You can thank Microsoft for that. They were one of the biggest forces behind the proprietary software model. The GPL seeks to maintain that original freedom by ensuring that the source code will always remain free software. In the free software world the user has the source code and the user is in control. With non-free software the user doesn't have the source code and is no longer in control. They now have to contact the developer and beg them to make changes: "Please, Mr/Ms. Developer, make this change." Sometimes the developer will listen to them and do that. Sometimes not. Either way, the software developer is in control. The developer has subjugated the user. A good speech from Richard Stallman if you'll try to keep an open mind & think about the ethical issues he's bringing up: http://sbos.in/RMS_Lection.ogg. Either way, I think I've said just about all I have to say on this topic. Now it's time to go to work. Happy Friday! From jself at member.fsf.org Fri Feb 26 08:50:14 2010 From: jself at member.fsf.org (Jason Self) Date: Fri Feb 26 08:52:18 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] Day Against DRM Is May 4 Message-ID: <1267203014.30053@member.fsf.org> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/decade-in-drm Is anyone interested? If so talk to me. Let's organize something. -- There is no such thing as a little freedom. Either you are all free or you are not free. --Walter Cronkite. From reed at reedmedia.net Fri Feb 26 11:27:11 2010 From: reed at reedmedia.net (Jeremy C. Reed) Date: Fri Feb 26 11:58:54 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> <4B8756CC.7050607@gmail.com> Message-ID: > Back in the 1970's and earlier, all software was free. Lots of commercial software back then. Microsoft sold software since 1975. Visicalc in 1979. AT&T sold source licenses. This is interesting: February 3, 1976 An Open Letter to Hobbyists "most of you steal your software." ... "who wants to pay up" http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/most-of-you-steal-your-software.html Peter Salus's book "The Daemon, the Gnu, and the Daemon" is an interesting read -- and tells many historical stories about open source software, free software, and examples of commercialism. This book is partially available online or you can buy our printed version which is his completed book. echo 'EhZ[h ^jjf0%%h[[Zc[Z_W$d[j%Xeeai%ZW[ced#]dk#f[d]k_d%' | \ tr '#-~' '\-.-{' From fusiondog at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 12:42:01 2010 From: fusiondog at gmail.com (Patrick Feliciano) Date: Sat Feb 27 13:05:46 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> <4B8756CC.7050607@gmail.com> Message-ID: James, I find your original point to be very hypocritical. You say "code they don't write or touch or have [anything] to do with" which is exactly what any GPL'd code you wrote upon would be to you. So you think it is fine to take from them and build something but somehow it would be a terrible thing for anyone else to do it? That sounds like good old fashioned selfishness to me. It is the right of an author to determine the fate of his work, you agree to that much I assume. The authors of the GPL'd material made a conscious choice to ensure that their work would stay Freedom Software forever. This is completely as valid as a proprietary author releasing his code under a proprietary copyright. You and I may not like the licenses that any individual author chooses for our own individual reasons, but if you violate the GPL or I pirate a copy of MS the effect is exactly the same. The GPL author didn't give YOU the code. They bequeathed it to humanity as a whole. If you take it and hide it away from those who own it now, ie. all of us, then you are a software pirate. End of story. Also they didn't make any new laws with the GPL, they aren't legislators. They simply used existing copyright law to spell out the usage of their code. And that usage, in case you missed the point, is to provide for the future, a tree of software with which to grow a free, strong culture of software. And further through the Free Documentation License ( the backbone of wikipedia ) a free strong culture of knowledge in general. The GPL is for those who care about what the future looks like. The BSD license is for those who don't care about anything except making sure they don't get in trouble for what their software does to your computer. The BSD license in the 2 clause version is nothing more than a container for a disclaimer. And in the 3-4 clause versions it is a container for a disclaimer with bragging rights attached. The video from Jason Dixon shows the word count of the GPL and BSD license and seems to make the case that shorter is better. Would the Constitution be a better document if we had made it shorter? The GPL spells out freedoms, it needs to be specific. I invite you to think of the analogy of the wish to the Genie: If you don't spell out exactly what you want, you may be very surprised at what you get. Like someone taking code you meant to be Freedom Software and turning it into more proprietary bit trash. I could stop here and debunk point by point the entire Jason Dixon video but I am already making many of those points below. I'll just add here that his entire video seems like sour grapes from a BSD zealot who is upset that his pet project is fading from dominance. I strongly disagree with those that want to equate software with consumables. Bread is bread and ideas are ideas. Sharing software is NOT the same as giving away free sandwiches. Every single sandwich requires a set and accumulating amount of resources to produce. However, distributing software requires NO further resources beyond the initial investment. You do not have to re-conceive, re-implement and rewrite every copy of software that gets distributed. This is a fallacy that insults the intelligence of us all. Software is an idea. Every single piece of software ever written is made to make a real consumable do something. From my server, to my laptop, to my Nokia n900, to the fleshy processor between my ears. Without those products all of software is just ethereal nothingness, meaningless bumps on a disk, or senseless images on a screen. You wrote software to try and convince our minds that we should give you our works so that you may sell them back to us for profit. I'm writing this software to explain that I believe the ideas in the universe are no one person's or company's "property". Do I now own the thoughts you have acquired by reading this? Can I make claim to some portion of your mind as a result of you reading this? Of course not. And I never will. I am no poorer for any of those in this mailing list reading this having the knowledge it contains and if you or any others add to it I am richer in knowledge. The GPL simply allows those of us that recognize this self evident fact to specify it in a legally binding way. We are not giving it away with no regard for self, we simply recognize that we reap greater value by having that knowledge reflected and amplified in open freedom. In 10 years every single piece of proprietary software out there will be a forgotten piece of bit trash at worst and a toy to run in an emulator for nostalgia or history lessons at best. I'm not trying to imply that proprietary software will be gone, I'm even pretty sure that Windows10 will be limiting choices on a majority of home PCs. My point is that each iteration of closed source code is inherently a dead end destined to fade away into obsolescence with the old hardware it was designed to run on. I imagine in 10 years BSD may still be limping along wondering why others in the "open source" community aren't spending time trying to make others rich as more and more projects get swallowed up into closed source. It used to happen in bits and pieces with the TCP/IP stack, and ssh, but now Apple has done it whole cloth with OS X. As Dixon says, the code will always be free as it was under the BSD license and he is strictly correct. In fact he is too correct, it will ALWAYS BE AS IT WAS. It won't be improved in any way. The projects that spawned these proprietary code will become stagnant and die as all incentive for their improvement will vanish. Already you come here to make this complaint because you can't find any BSD licensed libraries that do what you need. That seems to me to be a pretty potent example of the state of things. Don't fret too much though, all hope for these open projects may not be lost, read on.. In 10 years the Freedom Software will be as free as it ever was, it will stay free as it improves and grows upon itself because of the protection of the GPL. Becoming more rich, powerful, and diverse with every iteration. Even now the freedom software migrates to every kind of device you can imagine and it will only continue to do so. It will do so because those that make real consumables (especially mobile devices which have an ever decreasing product life cycle ) appreciate the benefits of sharing forward ideas/software that allows them to concentrate on making their core products better. Even now a large number of low end mobile phones use linux without their users even being aware of the fact. And more high end mobile computers/phones are running linux as Android or, my preferred device, the Nokia n900 with maemo. And all of the stagnated BSD projects will be relicensed under the GPL so that they may join the fold (the BSD license of course does not bar this as long as the protected bragging rights are included, as Dixon points out. Though I will refrain from calling anyone an asshat.). See I told you not to fret. And in 10 years me ( as a linux sysadmin ), the company I work for, and thousands like it, will continue to make huge profits off the services we provide using Freedom Software. All of that said. Fine make a proprietary product. It is your right regardless of my opinion on the ethical merits. If it is really good and even just fun then I may even be compelled to buy it. I have an xbox and a large game library for instance. I will respect your license and keep my hands off your code. But don't come on this board and whine to us that it isn't fair that we won't let you steal our code. Seriously, that is just ridiculous. Digression: >From a practical perspective, keep your GPL libraries external to your compiled binaries and included the library source and license in your package and problem solved. If you can't figure out how to do that then you've got bigger issues to tackle. Further digression: I invite those of you that give a crap to add 3 letters to the description of your code/movement to avoid the glazed looks you may receive when repeating clever quips about the difference between beer and speech. "Freedom" is unambiguous and requires no explanation. Even further digression: Given all of this I feel morally pretty damn good about using GNU/Linux and other Freedom Software, but the real reason I don't use BSD is because it stopped becoming technically competitive for my needs. Once upon the late '90s I used BSD for several web server projects, ftp servers, etc. However just after the 2.6 release I evaluated both for a custom traffic shaper I was putting together for a friends LAN gaming center. BSD lost. Everytime I've stopped to consider it for a project since then I've seen no point in using it. It lacks support and kernel features relevant to my work. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ifokr.org/pipermail/gslug-general/attachments/20100227/34781110/attachment.html From merc248 at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 13:37:00 2010 From: merc248 at gmail.com (merc248@gmail.com) Date: Sat Feb 27 13:33:18 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: <2444fd7e1002271336v3c4d014cua4f79e1de42da79d@mail.gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> <4B8756CC.7050607@gmail.com> <2444fd7e1002271336v3c4d014cua4f79e1de42da79d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2444fd7e1002271337p5a095fabudcca629d370943a0@mail.gmail.com> Whoops, forgot to post this on the mailing list. On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:36 PM, merc248@gmail.com wrote: > I just wanted to point out a few things, mostly because I'm not nearly > as fanatical as anyone here, and I'd rather just get shit done with > whatever I have available to me (whether it be *BSD, Linux, or *gasp* > even Windows Server): > >> Also they didn't make any new laws with the GPL, they aren't legislators. >> They simply used existing copyright law to spell out the usage of their >> code. And that usage, in case you missed the point, is to provide for the >> future, a tree of software with which to grow a free, strong culture of >> software.? And further through the Free Documentation License ( the backbone >> of wikipedia ) a free strong culture of knowledge in general. The GPL is for >> those who care about what the future looks like.? The BSD license is for >> those who don't care about anything except making sure they don't get in >> trouble for what their software does to your computer.? The BSD license in >> the 2 clause version is nothing more than a container for a disclaimer. And >> in the 3-4 clause versions it is a container for a disclaimer with bragging >> rights attached. > > I try to license my code and scripts as BSD, so that it benefits the > most people; yes, even those who wish to create a GPL wrapper around > my code. > >> In 10 years every single piece of proprietary software out there will be a >> forgotten piece of bit trash at worst and a toy to run in an emulator for >> nostalgia or history lessons at best.? I'm not trying to imply that >> proprietary software will be gone, I'm even pretty sure that Windows10 will >> be limiting choices on a majority of home PCs.? My point is that each >> iteration of closed source code is inherently a dead end destined to fade >> away into obsolescence with the old hardware it was designed to run on. > > I really doubt that will happen. ?You'd have to take down nearly every > other company out there in existence. ?This is why I prefer BSD over > GPL myself: because I recognize that companies sometimes just cannot > GPL all of their code. > >> I imagine in 10 years BSD may still be limping along wondering why others in >> the "open source" community aren't spending time trying to make others rich >> as more and more projects get swallowed up into closed source.? It used to >> happen in bits and pieces with the TCP/IP stack, and ssh, but now Apple has >> done it whole cloth with OS X.? As Dixon says, the code will always be free >> as it was under the BSD license and he is strictly correct.? In fact he is >> too correct, it will ALWAYS BE AS IT WAS.? It won't be improved in any way. >> The projects that spawned these proprietary code will become stagnant and >> die as all incentive for their improvement will vanish.? Already you come >> here to make this complaint because you can't find any BSD licensed >> libraries that do what you need. That seems to me to be a pretty potent >> example of the state of things. Don't fret too much though, all hope for >> these open projects may not be lost, read on.. > > Apple and a few other companies still contribute to the original code, > though not nearly as much as those companies who contribute to GPL'd > code. ?But hey, if it weren't for some of these implementations such > as the TCP/IP stack and openssh being licensed BSD, we would probably > never see them as a standard. ?Who cares if other companies snatch up > the code and use it in their own projects? ?The more the merrier. > >> And all of the stagnated BSD projects will be relicensed under the GPL so >> that they may join the fold (the BSD license of course does not bar this as >> long as the protected bragging rights are included, as Dixon points out. >> Though I will refrain from calling anyone an asshat.).? See I told you not >> to fret. > > They can't be relicensed, I believe that would be illegal. > >> Even further digression: >> Given all of this I feel morally pretty damn good about using GNU/Linux and >> other Freedom Software, but the real reason I don't use BSD is because it >> stopped becoming technically competitive for my needs.? Once upon the late >> '90s I used BSD for several web server projects, ftp servers, etc. However >> just after the 2.6 release I evaluated both for a custom traffic shaper I >> was putting together for a friends LAN gaming center.? BSD lost.? Everytime >> I've stopped to consider it for a project since then I've seen no point in >> using it.? It lacks support and kernel features relevant to my work. >> > > Not even in OpenBSD? ?I find that extremely surprising. > > -- > christian "ian" paredes > http://www.redbluemagenta.com > -- christian "ian" paredes http://www.redbluemagenta.com From jason.self at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 14:35:06 2010 From: jason.self at gmail.com (Jason Self) Date: Sat Feb 27 14:31:22 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: <2444fd7e1002271337p5a095fabudcca629d370943a0@mail.gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> <4B8756CC.7050607@gmail.com> <2444fd7e1002271336v3c4d014cua4f79e1de42da79d@mail.gmail.com> <2444fd7e1002271337p5a095fabudcca629d370943a0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >>> And all of the stagnated BSD projects will be relicensed under the GPL so >>> that they may join the fold (the BSD license of course does not bar this as >>> long as the protected bragging rights are included, as Dixon points out. >>> Though I will refrain from calling anyone an asshat.).? See I told you not >>> to fret. >> >> They can't be relicensed, I believe that would be illegal. Yes they can. There are two ways that it could be done. If an author of a BSD-licensed program were to decide that they wanted to use the GPL they can simply make the decision that, as of the next version, their program was then covered by the GPL. Old versions would remain BSD licensed. In another situation the author could make use of the GPL without releasing a new version by retroactively creating a dual-licensed situation. With the dual license, there would no requirement for people that had already obtained the software to convert to the GPL, although they could if they wanted to, while people newly obtaining the software could pick which license they wanted to use. From jason.self at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 14:45:36 2010 From: jason.self at gmail.com (Jason Self) Date: Sat Feb 27 14:41:50 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> <4B8756CC.7050607@gmail.com> <2444fd7e1002271336v3c4d014cua4f79e1de42da79d@mail.gmail.com> <2444fd7e1002271337p5a095fabudcca629d370943a0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > Yes they can. There are two ways that it could be done. > > If an author of a BSD-licensed program were to decide that they wanted > to use the GPL they can simply make the decision that, as of the next > version, their program was then covered by the GPL. Old versions would > remain BSD licensed. > > In another situation the author could make use of the GPL without > releasing a new version by retroactively creating a dual-licensed > situation. With the dual license, there would no requirement for > people that had already obtained the software to convert to the GPL, > although they could if they wanted to, while people newly obtaining > the software could pick which license they wanted to use. Oh, and these two aren't mutually exclusive so there is a third option I forgot, which is a combination of the two: Retroactively dual license past versions while making future versions GPL only. From fusiondog at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 15:49:47 2010 From: fusiondog at gmail.com (Patrick Feliciano) Date: Sat Feb 27 15:46:07 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: <2444fd7e1002271336v3c4d014cua4f79e1de42da79d@mail.gmail.com> References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> <4B8756CC.7050607@gmail.com> <2444fd7e1002271336v3c4d014cua4f79e1de42da79d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > > I just wanted to point out a few things, mostly because I'm not nearly > as fanatical as anyone here, and I'd rather just get shit done with > whatever I have available to me (whether it be *BSD, Linux, or *gasp* > even Windows Server): > No fanaticism here I simply believe that my own long term self interest is best served by the GPL. "Long term" being the important part. Short term profit models rarely benefit long term prosperity. I try to license my code and scripts as BSD, so that it benefits the > most people; yes, even those who wish to create a GPL wrapper around > my code. > > I don't doubt your intentions for a moment. You strike me as a well meaning fellow. But using the BSD license gives someone else down the line the right to charge you for your own work. I think that is worth considering. > I really doubt that will happen. You'd have to take down nearly every > other company out there in existence. This is why I prefer BSD over > GPL myself: because I recognize that companies sometimes just cannot > GPL all of their code. > > I think you misunderstand me. I don't propose that proprietary code will disappear in that time frame, or even significantly diminish. What I am saying it the versions of code running right now on modern hardware are going to be useless relics in 10 years that have contributed little to the greater software community. For instance your not running Win 98 on any hardware anymore are you? Surely not on any hardware you bought in the last 5 years. There are plethera of cases of abondonware for instance. > Apple and a few other companies still contribute to the original code, > though not nearly as much as those companies who contribute to GPL'd > code. But hey, if it weren't for some of these implementations such > as the TCP/IP stack and openssh being licensed BSD, we would probably > never see them as a standard. Who cares if other companies snatch up > the code and use it in their own projects? The more the merrier. > Well thanks for the backup regarding companies using BSD being less prolific than ones using GPL. ;) The BSD implementations were used because they were solid and there was no legal reason not to do so. However the BSD developers did not invent those standards and other implementations existed before the BSD ones. If those implementations ad never existed or been released as GPL they would still be just as much standards today. The only difference being that MS and other companies wouldn't be trying to sell those BSD developers their own code back today. I don't wish to diminish the works of many talented BSD programmers. I just don't agree that maximum long term benefit is derived from the licensing strategy. They can't be relicensed, I believe that would be illegal. > I meant to say that derivative works would be relicensed under the GPL ( there would be no point to relicensing existing BSD licensed work of course. Though Jason Self's points about voluntary relicensing are still valid). This would be every bit as legal as proprietary relicensing of BSD derivatives. And has already occurred on at least one occasion as Mr. Jason Dixon points out in the video presented in the link provided by Mr. Jason Michael. > Not even in OpenBSD? I find that extremely surprising. > > I did say for MY needs. I know I don't speak for you. The turning point was the traffic shaper project. Linux 2.6 kernel had all of its traffic shaping functions in kernel space and seemed better supported. I needed to build an embedded system with less than 2MB storage. I based my work off of the LEAF project. At the time BSD only provided those functions in user space and had no existing embedded distro project that I could find. Since then Linux, undeniably has a larger community, so in effect, more support. You've said so yourself. I'm not saying that *BSD isn't a decent OS. I'm just saying that in that last decade no one has once shown me anything that I need that BSD could do that Linux can't. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ifokr.org/pipermail/gslug-general/attachments/20100227/54c672a4/attachment.html From fusiondog at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 16:25:35 2010 From: fusiondog at gmail.com (Patrick Feliciano) Date: Sat Feb 27 16:21:52 2010 Subject: [Gslug-general] BSD In-Reply-To: References: <707583101002231436v1712117bsc98f28c88f0acc63@mail.gmail.com> <4B873957.10001@gmail.com> <4B8756CC.7050607@gmail.com> <2444fd7e1002271336v3c4d014cua4f79e1de42da79d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > > already occurred on at least one occasion as Mr. Jason Dixon points out in > the video presented in the link provided by Mr. Jason Michael. > > I meant Mr. James Michael. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ifokr.org/pipermail/gslug-general/attachments/20100227/40cf6209/attachment.htm