Discussion:
[CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
(too old to reply)
Jorrit Tyberghein
2000-10-10 07:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Check it out at the Crystal Space site.

Greetings,

--
==============================================================================
***@uz.kuleuven.ac.be, University Hospitals KU Leuven BELGIUM

The Kappamaki, a whaling research ship, was currently researching the
question: How many whales can you catch in one week?
-- (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)
==============================================================================
http://stalkingsolutions.com
2000-10-10 10:23:29 UTC
Permalink
Does Crystal Space have tools for animating sprites - IE: making them walk
using a skeleton, etc? I'm new to 3d, and CS...
Matt Holmes
2000-10-10 16:25:16 UTC
Permalink
<rant>
Is it just me, or does Richard Stallman need to seek professional help?
No offense to those present who look up to him, but come on. The man
talks as if software is the savior of humanity. He acts like having to buy
software is oppressing our Freedom of Speech or something. I know not
all of you are from the US, but in the US the Bill of Rights is this huge
issue right now, and people are trying to pin things to it that don't belong
there.

No where did the American forefathers write "You are entitled to free
software and the rights to run it anywhere you choose." What about the
right of a software developer to put food on his or her table. Did that
basic right get forgotten in this whole Free Software Jihad they have
started?

Bah. I full support Open Source (notice I said Open Source, NOT Free
Software), but lets be realistic. What next, the Free Car movement? I
have easily as much right to make money from something I write as you do
to get it for free, so which offsets which?

Don't get me wrong, I give all my personally written software away, and I
have no plans to change that. I also make my living by developing software
for a company who does not. Richard Stallman seems to think I am some
immoral demon because I do this. Last I checked, it was considered
perfectly legal and rather moral to make money in legal ways, like writing
software.
</rant>

Have a nice day all!

Matt

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jorrit Tyberghein" <***@uz.kuleuven.ac.be>
To: <crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:29 AM
Subject: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by Jorrit Tyberghein
Check it out at the Crystal Space site.
Greetings,
--
==============================================================================
The Kappamaki, a whaling research ship, was currently researching the
question: How many whales can you catch in one week?
-- (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)
==============================================================================
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
WhiteGold
2000-10-10 17:03:57 UTC
Permalink
There are more philosophies on this earth than rampant capitalism.

I'm glad you wave your capitalist "Show Me The Money" flag freely, others
wave flags of different colors and they're all weighed the same to me --
opinion = opinion. Looking to the same problem from different facets of the
diamond produces different, yet pure from a point of view, perceptions
beyond. Your desire to rant on about how RMS thinks about the world opens
the door for others to rant about how you think. Why bother?

Those who believe in the FSF and the free flow of information will do well.
Those who believe in capitalistic merchandising away of human's evolutionary
new information and ideas will do well also.

I don't know, perhaps if you can't really see how in the past 20 years,
software HAS changed the face of the world, and HAS opened new doors for
humanity to achieve its dreams, which before were listed only in science
fiction novels and considered to be flights of fantasy, then maybe you won't
do well. For humanity as a whole to function AS A WHOLE information MUST
flow freely.

Albert Einstein himself knew this when he achieved his greatest advance in
physics -- and then gave it away to the world when he could easily have sold
it to the highest bidder. This is of course an extreme case where the
knowledge he had could have tilted the balance of power on the world grid
beyond recovery, but the fact is: sharing of information benefits everybody.
Selfishness, greed, avarice (all things necessary for a good capitalist)
benefits only the individual, and in the end takes AWAY from humanity.

Do as you must to achieve your goals in the world, but lay off of others who
don't feel the same as you do. Perhaps they have a point you might want to
look at a little deeper before ranting about how "un-you" they are.


Ken Melms / WhiteGold
***@flyingplastic.com

(P.S: In response to your seemingly ridiculous "free car" tirade -- There
are countries, like holland, who have 'free bikes' that are just there, on
the streets.. You need to get somewhere? Grab a bike and go. Just leave it
where someone else can get it. Oh my!? Who would have thought sharing could
be so useful.)
Matt Holmes
2000-10-10 18:21:36 UTC
Permalink
You completely miss my point. I couldn't care less if you wave your "Lets All Get Along and Share" flag
for the entire world to see, just don't call me immoral and wrong because I choose to put food on my
table.

Hrrm, feed my family or "let the information flow".....not a hard choice.

Matt

----- Original Message -----
From: "WhiteGold" <***@flyingplastic.com>
To: <crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by WhiteGold
There are more philosophies on this earth than rampant capitalism.
I'm glad you wave your capitalist "Show Me The Money" flag freely, others
wave flags of different colors and they're all weighed the same to me --
opinion = opinion. Looking to the same problem from different facets of the
diamond produces different, yet pure from a point of view, perceptions
beyond. Your desire to rant on about how RMS thinks about the world opens
the door for others to rant about how you think. Why bother?
Those who believe in the FSF and the free flow of information will do well.
Those who believe in capitalistic merchandising away of human's evolutionary
new information and ideas will do well also.
I don't know, perhaps if you can't really see how in the past 20 years,
software HAS changed the face of the world, and HAS opened new doors for
humanity to achieve its dreams, which before were listed only in science
fiction novels and considered to be flights of fantasy, then maybe you won't
do well. For humanity as a whole to function AS A WHOLE information MUST
flow freely.
Albert Einstein himself knew this when he achieved his greatest advance in
physics -- and then gave it away to the world when he could easily have sold
it to the highest bidder. This is of course an extreme case where the
knowledge he had could have tilted the balance of power on the world grid
beyond recovery, but the fact is: sharing of information benefits everybody.
Selfishness, greed, avarice (all things necessary for a good capitalist)
benefits only the individual, and in the end takes AWAY from humanity.
Do as you must to achieve your goals in the world, but lay off of others who
don't feel the same as you do. Perhaps they have a point you might want to
look at a little deeper before ranting about how "un-you" they are.
Ken Melms / WhiteGold
(P.S: In response to your seemingly ridiculous "free car" tirade -- There
are countries, like holland, who have 'free bikes' that are just there, on
the streets.. You need to get somewhere? Grab a bike and go. Just leave it
where someone else can get it. Oh my!? Who would have thought sharing could
be so useful.)
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
WhiteGold
2000-10-10 19:22:30 UTC
Permalink
You obviously weren't reading deep into my point either.. No loss.

Honestly I didn't hear of anyone attacking you for your opinion, I only saw
you screaming that RMS made you feel immoral, just by consequence of his
opinion. You pointed the finger at yourself, man, not me. I was merely
reminding you that you were sharing a single opinion in a world of countless
others - the same as he was.

WG

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Holmes" <***@bellatlantic.net>
To: <crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by Matt Holmes
You completely miss my point. I couldn't care less if you wave your "Lets
All Get Along and Share" flag
Post by Matt Holmes
for the entire world to see, just don't call me immoral and wrong because
I choose to put food on my
Post by Matt Holmes
table.
Hrrm, feed my family or "let the information flow".....not a hard choice.
Matt
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by WhiteGold
There are more philosophies on this earth than rampant capitalism.
I'm glad you wave your capitalist "Show Me The Money" flag freely, others
wave flags of different colors and they're all weighed the same to me --
opinion = opinion. Looking to the same problem from different facets of the
diamond produces different, yet pure from a point of view, perceptions
beyond. Your desire to rant on about how RMS thinks about the world opens
the door for others to rant about how you think. Why bother?
Those who believe in the FSF and the free flow of information will do well.
Those who believe in capitalistic merchandising away of human's evolutionary
new information and ideas will do well also.
I don't know, perhaps if you can't really see how in the past 20 years,
software HAS changed the face of the world, and HAS opened new doors for
humanity to achieve its dreams, which before were listed only in science
fiction novels and considered to be flights of fantasy, then maybe you won't
do well. For humanity as a whole to function AS A WHOLE information MUST
flow freely.
Albert Einstein himself knew this when he achieved his greatest advance in
physics -- and then gave it away to the world when he could easily have sold
it to the highest bidder. This is of course an extreme case where the
knowledge he had could have tilted the balance of power on the world grid
beyond recovery, but the fact is: sharing of information benefits everybody.
Selfishness, greed, avarice (all things necessary for a good capitalist)
benefits only the individual, and in the end takes AWAY from humanity.
Do as you must to achieve your goals in the world, but lay off of others who
don't feel the same as you do. Perhaps they have a point you might want to
look at a little deeper before ranting about how "un-you" they are.
Ken Melms / WhiteGold
(P.S: In response to your seemingly ridiculous "free car" tirade -- There
are countries, like holland, who have 'free bikes' that are just there, on
the streets.. You need to get somewhere? Grab a bike and go. Just leave it
where someone else can get it. Oh my!? Who would have thought sharing could
be so useful.)
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
Matt Holmes
2000-10-10 20:31:45 UTC
Permalink
Again, an FSFer dodges the entire point. As was stated by Matthew MacLaurin, no
FSFer can seem to answer the fundamental question of survival. As I said, I don't care
if you and Stallman get naked and do the Free Software dance in front of the White House,
you still consistently avoid the question, "How do software developers survive if it is
so wrong to sell software?"

I swear, I may have a heart attack the first time I actually hear an FSFer come up with
an answer to that question that is not:

A) filled with more political hype
B) filled with personal attacks and insults about morality
C) completely illogical

Oh, and as was asked before, what do you do for a living?

Matt

----- Original Message -----
From: "WhiteGold" <***@flyingplastic.com>
To: <crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by WhiteGold
You obviously weren't reading deep into my point either.. No loss.
Honestly I didn't hear of anyone attacking you for your opinion, I only saw
you screaming that RMS made you feel immoral, just by consequence of his
opinion. You pointed the finger at yourself, man, not me. I was merely
reminding you that you were sharing a single opinion in a world of countless
others - the same as he was.
WG
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by Matt Holmes
You completely miss my point. I couldn't care less if you wave your "Lets
All Get Along and Share" flag
Post by Matt Holmes
for the entire world to see, just don't call me immoral and wrong because
I choose to put food on my
Post by Matt Holmes
table.
Hrrm, feed my family or "let the information flow".....not a hard choice.
Matt
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by WhiteGold
There are more philosophies on this earth than rampant capitalism.
I'm glad you wave your capitalist "Show Me The Money" flag freely,
others
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
wave flags of different colors and they're all weighed the same to me --
opinion = opinion. Looking to the same problem from different facets of
the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
diamond produces different, yet pure from a point of view, perceptions
beyond. Your desire to rant on about how RMS thinks about the world
opens
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
the door for others to rant about how you think. Why bother?
Those who believe in the FSF and the free flow of information will do
well.
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
Those who believe in capitalistic merchandising away of human's
evolutionary
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
new information and ideas will do well also.
I don't know, perhaps if you can't really see how in the past 20 years,
software HAS changed the face of the world, and HAS opened new doors for
humanity to achieve its dreams, which before were listed only in science
fiction novels and considered to be flights of fantasy, then maybe you
won't
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
do well. For humanity as a whole to function AS A WHOLE information
MUST
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
flow freely.
Albert Einstein himself knew this when he achieved his greatest advance
in
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
physics -- and then gave it away to the world when he could easily have
sold
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
it to the highest bidder. This is of course an extreme case where the
knowledge he had could have tilted the balance of power on the world
grid
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
beyond recovery, but the fact is: sharing of information benefits
everybody.
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
Selfishness, greed, avarice (all things necessary for a good capitalist)
benefits only the individual, and in the end takes AWAY from humanity.
Do as you must to achieve your goals in the world, but lay off of others
who
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
don't feel the same as you do. Perhaps they have a point you might want
to
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
look at a little deeper before ranting about how "un-you" they are.
Ken Melms / WhiteGold
(P.S: In response to your seemingly ridiculous "free car" tirade --
There
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
are countries, like holland, who have 'free bikes' that are just there,
on
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
the streets.. You need to get somewhere? Grab a bike and go. Just
leave it
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
where someone else can get it. Oh my!? Who would have thought sharing
could
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
be so useful.)
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
WhiteGold
2000-10-10 21:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Please read all my replies before flaming again.

out.

WG.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Holmes" <***@bellatlantic.net>
To: <crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by Matt Holmes
Again, an FSFer dodges the entire point. As was stated by Matthew MacLaurin, no
FSFer can seem to answer the fundamental question of survival. As I said, I don't care
if you and Stallman get naked and do the Free Software dance in front of the White House,
you still consistently avoid the question, "How do software developers survive if it is
so wrong to sell software?"
I swear, I may have a heart attack the first time I actually hear an FSFer come up with
A) filled with more political hype
B) filled with personal attacks and insults about morality
C) completely illogical
Oh, and as was asked before, what do you do for a living?
Matt
Larry Threewitt
2000-10-10 22:08:13 UTC
Permalink
I'm gonna toss in my 2 cents worth.

I feel that the open source software movement is a good compromise between
the extremes of totally free software and the totally restrictive concept of
licensing every user that pulls up a chair to a workstation. Honestly my
brain boggles at where licensing has gone with microsoft showing the way.
(that's why I won't upgrade to windows 2000 their license wizard scares me)

you can't give away every piece of software that is written and expect that
you will get the kind of quality development that comes from full time
dedicated developers that take their living from what they do. If someone
comes up with a revolutionary new way to program widgets then I believe he
should be rewarded for the sweat of his furrowed brown and the number hours
he has set at his keyboard swearing "why the hell did it do that!?"

the fact remains that in modern society the majority of great advances have
come from someone getting paid to work. Few of us are independently wealthy
and can work for the shear joy of it. Many of us who can't afford the huge
licensing fees ascociated with good development tools are grateful for the
free and open source stuff we can get. This way we too can dream of getting
out of the rat race by dint of our own efforts, if allowed to.

open source is a way for all of us poor(but presumably intelligent) software
authors, by sharing with others, to retrieve some livelihood from our love.

Larry 3witt


----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Holmes" <***@bellatlantic.net>
To: <crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by Matt Holmes
Again, an FSFer dodges the entire point. As was stated by Matthew MacLaurin, no
FSFer can seem to answer the fundamental question of survival. As I said, I don't care
if you and Stallman get naked and do the Free Software dance in front of the White House,
you still consistently avoid the question, "How do software developers survive if it is
so wrong to sell software?"
I swear, I may have a heart attack the first time I actually hear an FSFer come up with
A) filled with more political hype
B) filled with personal attacks and insults about morality
C) completely illogical
Oh, and as was asked before, what do you do for a living?
Matt
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by WhiteGold
You obviously weren't reading deep into my point either.. No loss.
Honestly I didn't hear of anyone attacking you for your opinion, I only saw
you screaming that RMS made you feel immoral, just by consequence of his
opinion. You pointed the finger at yourself, man, not me. I was merely
reminding you that you were sharing a single opinion in a world of countless
others - the same as he was.
WG
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by Matt Holmes
You completely miss my point. I couldn't care less if you wave your "Lets
All Get Along and Share" flag
Post by Matt Holmes
for the entire world to see, just don't call me immoral and wrong because
I choose to put food on my
Post by Matt Holmes
table.
Hrrm, feed my family or "let the information flow".....not a hard choice.
Matt
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by WhiteGold
There are more philosophies on this earth than rampant capitalism.
I'm glad you wave your capitalist "Show Me The Money" flag freely,
others
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
wave flags of different colors and they're all weighed the same to me --
opinion = opinion. Looking to the same problem from different facets of
the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
diamond produces different, yet pure from a point of view, perceptions
beyond. Your desire to rant on about how RMS thinks about the world
opens
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
the door for others to rant about how you think. Why bother?
Those who believe in the FSF and the free flow of information will do
well.
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
Those who believe in capitalistic merchandising away of human's
evolutionary
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
new information and ideas will do well also.
I don't know, perhaps if you can't really see how in the past 20 years,
software HAS changed the face of the world, and HAS opened new doors for
humanity to achieve its dreams, which before were listed only in science
fiction novels and considered to be flights of fantasy, then maybe you
won't
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
do well. For humanity as a whole to function AS A WHOLE information
MUST
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
flow freely.
Albert Einstein himself knew this when he achieved his greatest advance
in
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
physics -- and then gave it away to the world when he could easily have
sold
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
it to the highest bidder. This is of course an extreme case where the
knowledge he had could have tilted the balance of power on the world
grid
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
beyond recovery, but the fact is: sharing of information benefits
everybody.
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
Selfishness, greed, avarice (all things necessary for a good capitalist)
benefits only the individual, and in the end takes AWAY from humanity.
Do as you must to achieve your goals in the world, but lay off of others
who
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
don't feel the same as you do. Perhaps they have a point you might want
to
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
look at a little deeper before ranting about how "un-you" they are.
Ken Melms / WhiteGold
(P.S: In response to your seemingly ridiculous "free car" tirade --
There
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
are countries, like holland, who have 'free bikes' that are just there,
on
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
the streets.. You need to get somewhere? Grab a bike and go. Just
leave it
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
where someone else can get it. Oh my!? Who would have thought sharing
could
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
be so useful.)
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
Paul Garceau
2000-10-11 23:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seth Galbraith
Post by Matt Holmes
Again, an FSFer dodges the entire point. As was stated by
Matthew MacLaurin, no FSFer can seem to answer the fundamental
question of survival. As I said, I don't care if you and
Stallman get naked and do the Free Software dance in front of
the White House, you still consistently avoid the question,
"How do software developers survive if it is so wrong to sell
software?"
Actually, FSFers don't have to explain their survival. Their
existence is proof that they do survive. It is anti-FSFers who
claim that someone must restrict software freedom for them to
survive. You have the claim. You must provide the proof.
The FSF does NOT claim that Free Software makes programmers
wealthy or less hungry. In fact the Free Software movement is
not a programmer movement or a business movement. It is a user
movement.
Post by Matt Holmes
I swear, I may have a heart attack the first time I actually
hear an FSFer come up with an answer to that question that is
A) filled with more political hype
B) filled with personal attacks and insults about morality C)
completely illogical
Oh, and as was asked before, what do you do for a living?
As a reader of this list and not the person to whom the question
is directed, I am personally insulted when I see this question
and infinitely more insulted when you repeat it like a demand.
I personally, must agree with Seth. Such comments are self-
defeating and serve you not at all. More likely they do you a
personal dis-service.

Peace,

Paul G.
Post by Seth Galbraith
__ __ _ _ __ __ _/
\__/ \__/ Seth Galbraith "The Serpent Lord" \__/ \__/ \_
_/ \__/ \__/ http://www.planetquake.com/gg \__/ \__/
\_
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Paul Garceau
2000-10-11 23:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seth Galbraith
Post by Matt Holmes
No where did the American forefathers write "You are entitled
to free software and the rights to run it anywhere you choose."
9th Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people."
Post by Matt Holmes
Last I checked, it was considered perfectly legal and rather
moral to make money in legal ways, like writing software.
Last I checked there were lots of legal ways to make money that
could be seen as immoral. Depending on who you ask this could
include certain preachers on television, tobacco manufacturers,
or people who cash in on racism or mysogyny.
It may even include game developers and game publishers as
well. The reference to the Constitution of the United States,
and the United States Bill-of-Rights is non-sequitar and really
has no place in a discussion about writing or distributing a
piece of software.

In case of doubt, the "enumeration" noted in the paragraph
above (9th Amendment), is strictly limited to the "body" known
as "The Constitution of the United States of America" and the
procedures for instituting new laws or amendments within the
purview of that constitution. It has absolutely nothing to do
with whether software is provided free or not.

Paul G.

It would serve
Post by Seth Galbraith
__ __ _ _ __ __ _/
\__/ \__/ Seth Galbraith "The Serpent Lord" \__/ \__/ \_
_/ \__/ \__/ http://www.planetquake.com/gg \__/ \__/
\_
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Thomas Hieber
2000-10-10 17:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorrit Tyberghein
Check it out at the Crystal Space site.
I found this discussion extremely shocking. I had expected that a person as
respected as Richard Stallman would be an intelligent, open minded person. I
can't tell about his intelligence, but his open-mindedness can be compared
to the Ayatollas in Iran.
I have the impression, that this person is living on a diffenent planet than
me. Reading all this, I really feel like dropping LGPL from all my sources
and using a Open Source license just to show, that I do _not_ support these
extreme opinions. After all it is all about SOFTWARE. This is not RELIGION
or dictatorship. But I doubt Richard Stallman is able to spot the
difference.

And all that 'I will be glad to give you the Free Software Movement's advice
about this issue, once I see that you understand that *we are not talking
about open source*.' or the 'if you are going to capitalize "open source",
would you please capitalize "free software" also? I hope you will give the
Free Software Movement the same respect that you give to the Open Source
Movement.' That stuff is ridiculous.

Thomas
Mark Waks
2000-10-10 22:52:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Hieber
I found this discussion extremely shocking. I had expected that a person as
respected as Richard Stallman would be an intelligent, open minded person. I
can't tell about his intelligence, but his open-mindedness can be compared
to the Ayatollas in Iran.
Well, the important thing to bear in mind is that Stallman *does* have
an agenda. He's extremely upfront about that agenda: he very deeply and
sincerely believes that all software should be "free" (using his
specific definition of free). I have a certain amount of respect for the
fact that he's willing to pursue that agenda so openly and passionately;
I just don't happen to agree with him about it. (At least, not to the
extreme he pushes it to.)

The important thing to bear in mind for purposes here is that
interoperating with non-free software is *not* part of RMS' agenda. He's
really pretty clear that, even though he was largely responsible for the
LGPL, he regards it as at *best* a necessary evil -- he'd much rather
that everyone used the GPL, making interoperability between the free and
non-free worlds impossible. And easing the relationship between free
software and NDA'd stuff isn't even on his radar. Again, there's nothing
sinister about that: it's simply a logical outgrowth of his beliefs.

The reason this is relevant is, of course, that Crystal is based on the
LGPL, so Stallman's interpretation does matter. If push were to ever
come to shove, and the license had to be enforced, he's the most expert
of expert witnesses on it.

A data point to consider. Some of you may recall that I came to this
particular table because my company was thinking about using Crystal as
the core renderer for a future product. The end decision was not to do
so, and one of the significant reasons was the LGPL.

Originally, I was pretty blithe about this, as I think most people are,
since the *preamble* to the LGPL says a lot of stuff that sounds quite
sensible, and is very much what one might want. (Basically, that a
program that simply links to Crystal doesn't have to open its code base;
only changes to Crystal itself need to be made public.) Problem is, our
lawyers basically forced us to actually read the language of the license
itself, and that language is nowhere near so clear. One can get the
interpretation that's stated in the preamble, yes. But there are a
couple of key sections (sections 5 and 6 in particular) that are
ambiguous and confusing at best; personally, I haven't yet managed to
make them completely make sense. And large projects *hate* legal
ambiguity. If something is clear, even if it's bad, you can work around
it. But if it's unclear, then it's potentially dangerous legally.

Anyway, for my project what's done is done -- we've wound up going with
a commercial rendering engine instead. But folks may want to chew on
this for the future, since this issue is undoubtedly only going to
appear again, when large commercial projects try to use CS...

-- Justin
Paul Garceau
2000-10-11 22:13:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by William T Wilson
Post by Mark Waks
only changes to Crystal itself need to be made public.) Problem
is, our lawyers basically forced us to actually read the
language of the
Yeah, that's their job :}
Post by Mark Waks
license itself, and that language is nowhere near so clear. One
can get the interpretation that's stated in the preamble, yes.
But there are a couple of key sections (sections 5 and 6 in
particular) that are ambiguous and confusing at best;
personally, I haven't yet managed to
If this is true, then it is a problem for all LGPL software, not
just CrystalSpace.
However, the license seems pretty clear to me. What do you find
ambiguous?
There is no definition of what a "work" is. And yet, the
entire premise of articles 5 and 6 is based on what defines a
"work".

A definition such as:

A "work" shall be defined as...<fill in the blank>

...would go a very long way to solving this dillema

and to be clear, this definition must be set up within the
"context" of the LGPL.

Again, I am not a lawyer, nor am I a barrister. This is simply
common sense for any wordsmith (writer, author, etc., content
notwithstanding).

Paul G.
Post by William T Wilson
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Ogles, Dan
2000-10-10 17:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Wow. I'd have to agree. I understand where he's coming from, by saying "show
Sony you don't like non-free software by not supporting the PS2", but I
think the problem is that Crystal Space is not about a political agenda or
bringing down proprietary software, it's (IMHO) about writing a cool tool
that could be used to make games. The tool would be that much cooler if we
support PS2. So we could either not support it and make a self-defeating
stance against Sony, or support it and thus give people a much better tool.

Proprietary software, good or bad, won't just disappear in the near future.
By ignoring and refusing to integrate with proprietary software, we only
hurt ourselves and our users. A game platform that only operates with free
software, while great and really sending a message to commerical vendors,
will honestly be completely useless to 99.99% of all game developers out
there. Is that what we want?

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Hieber [mailto:***@gmx.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:13 PM
To: crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by Jorrit Tyberghein
Check it out at the Crystal Space site.
I found this discussion extremely shocking. I had expected that a person as
respected as Richard Stallman would be an intelligent, open minded person. I
can't tell about his intelligence, but his open-mindedness can be compared
to the Ayatollas in Iran.
I have the impression, that this person is living on a diffenent planet than
me. Reading all this, I really feel like dropping LGPL from all my sources
and using a Open Source license just to show, that I do _not_ support these
extreme opinions. After all it is all about SOFTWARE. This is not RELIGION
or dictatorship. But I doubt Richard Stallman is able to spot the
difference.

And all that 'I will be glad to give you the Free Software Movement's advice
about this issue, once I see that you understand that *we are not talking
about open source*.' or the 'if you are going to capitalize "open source",
would you please capitalize "free software" also? I hope you will give the
Free Software Movement the same respect that you give to the Open Source
Movement.' That stuff is ridiculous.

Thomas
Matthew MacLaurin
2000-10-10 17:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Ken, I'm curious to know how you make money? I am NOT accusing you of
hypocracy -- it's just literally a total mystery to me how to reconcile free
software with things like food and shelter. There's a lot of things I like a
lot about Free Software, but this "missing link" has always impeded my
understanding of the movement. I've always felt that this very important
issue -- physical survival -- has been left out of the FSF missives, much to
the detriment of its potential following.

If this message strikes a nerve or offends you, please don't bother
responding. Every FSF'er I've brought it up with has just starting
personally attacking me, which is kind of boring and unhelpful.


-----Original Message-----
From: crystal-main-***@lists.sourceforge.net
[mailto:crystal-main-***@lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of WhiteGold
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10:04 AM
To: crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port


There are more philosophies on this earth than rampant capitalism.

I'm glad you wave your capitalist "Show Me The Money" flag freely, others
wave flags of different colors and they're all weighed the same to me --
opinion = opinion. Looking to the same problem from different facets of the
diamond produces different, yet pure from a point of view, perceptions
beyond. Your desire to rant on about how RMS thinks about the world opens
the door for others to rant about how you think. Why bother?

Those who believe in the FSF and the free flow of information will do well.
Those who believe in capitalistic merchandising away of human's evolutionary
new information and ideas will do well also.

I don't know, perhaps if you can't really see how in the past 20 years,
software HAS changed the face of the world, and HAS opened new doors for
humanity to achieve its dreams, which before were listed only in science
fiction novels and considered to be flights of fantasy, then maybe you won't
do well. For humanity as a whole to function AS A WHOLE information MUST
flow freely.

Albert Einstein himself knew this when he achieved his greatest advance in
physics -- and then gave it away to the world when he could easily have sold
it to the highest bidder. This is of course an extreme case where the
knowledge he had could have tilted the balance of power on the world grid
beyond recovery, but the fact is: sharing of information benefits everybody.
Selfishness, greed, avarice (all things necessary for a good capitalist)
benefits only the individual, and in the end takes AWAY from humanity.

Do as you must to achieve your goals in the world, but lay off of others who
don't feel the same as you do. Perhaps they have a point you might want to
look at a little deeper before ranting about how "un-you" they are.


Ken Melms / WhiteGold
***@flyingplastic.com

(P.S: In response to your seemingly ridiculous "free car" tirade -- There
are countries, like holland, who have 'free bikes' that are just there, on
the streets.. You need to get somewhere? Grab a bike and go. Just leave it
where someone else can get it. Oh my!? Who would have thought sharing could
be so useful.)
WhiteGold
2000-10-10 18:38:52 UTC
Permalink
I don't attack anyone for their views, only for their aggression towards
others who don't feel the way they do.

I make money in a lot of ways, actually. I write free software and give it
away - generally software that would do the public good, or would advance
the cause of others. I write contracted software for people who need a job
done (therefore ownership isn't mine to give away, and the issue isn't a
factor). I also write software for myself that I license out in a limited
manner for profit, but I retain only enough rights to keep my name attached
as the author. All software I write has the source available for those who
come after me to fix, edit, modify or alter at their discretion (just keep
my name on it, since it was intellectually mine).

Those who see my work, hire me to do work for them. Those who hire me and
like my work pass my name to others who contract me as well. I don't
consider contracted software to be my personal posession or intellectual
property as I am only bringing to life someone elses idea. I make a living,
my intellectual property rights are retained, and my software is freely
available to those who want it. Life is good, no?

I tried, once, to copyright and retain exclusive rights to a piece of
software... It was a good piece too, but the hassle I went through trying to
keep security up so it would remain private, fend off hackers, thieves and
the like was far beyond what I care to provide. A copyright is created to
give you "ownership" of a piece of work as the intellectual creator.
Copyrights, as written, were not intended to be used for capitalization of
the idea (although, there are few other reasons to force your rights down
people's throats these days) - they were intended to protect you from having
other people lay claim to work that was not theirs.

I make a modest living, my morals are in tact, and my mind is clear of most
of the push and pulls of the corporate nightmare software feeding frenzy.

When I release my next title, you can be sure I will give it away, and ask
for a modest donation for continued use of my intellectual brain child.
Some will pay, some won't, so what.

Ken

(PS: I'm not easily offended.. Opinions are to be shared, discussed, even
attacked (and thus defended) in order to reach the underlying truth which we
all seek. As Plato said - there is Absolute Truth & Absolute False - all
else is opinion.)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew MacLaurin" <***@mediax.com>
To: <crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:59 PM
Subject: RE: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by Matthew MacLaurin
Ken, I'm curious to know how you make money? I am NOT accusing you of
hypocracy -- it's just literally a total mystery to me how to reconcile free
software with things like food and shelter. There's a lot of things I like a
lot about Free Software, but this "missing link" has always impeded my
understanding of the movement. I've always felt that this very important
issue -- physical survival -- has been left out of the FSF missives, much to
the detriment of its potential following.
If this message strikes a nerve or offends you, please don't bother
responding. Every FSF'er I've brought it up with has just starting
personally attacking me, which is kind of boring and unhelpful.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
There are more philosophies on this earth than rampant capitalism.
I'm glad you wave your capitalist "Show Me The Money" flag freely, others
wave flags of different colors and they're all weighed the same to me --
opinion = opinion. Looking to the same problem from different facets of the
diamond produces different, yet pure from a point of view, perceptions
beyond. Your desire to rant on about how RMS thinks about the world opens
the door for others to rant about how you think. Why bother?
Those who believe in the FSF and the free flow of information will do well.
Those who believe in capitalistic merchandising away of human's evolutionary
new information and ideas will do well also.
I don't know, perhaps if you can't really see how in the past 20 years,
software HAS changed the face of the world, and HAS opened new doors for
humanity to achieve its dreams, which before were listed only in science
fiction novels and considered to be flights of fantasy, then maybe you won't
do well. For humanity as a whole to function AS A WHOLE information MUST
flow freely.
Albert Einstein himself knew this when he achieved his greatest advance in
physics -- and then gave it away to the world when he could easily have sold
it to the highest bidder. This is of course an extreme case where the
knowledge he had could have tilted the balance of power on the world grid
beyond recovery, but the fact is: sharing of information benefits everybody.
Selfishness, greed, avarice (all things necessary for a good capitalist)
benefits only the individual, and in the end takes AWAY from humanity.
Do as you must to achieve your goals in the world, but lay off of others who
don't feel the same as you do. Perhaps they have a point you might want to
look at a little deeper before ranting about how "un-you" they are.
Ken Melms / WhiteGold
(P.S: In response to your seemingly ridiculous "free car" tirade -- There
are countries, like holland, who have 'free bikes' that are just there, on
the streets.. You need to get somewhere? Grab a bike and go. Just leave it
where someone else can get it. Oh my!? Who would have thought sharing could
be so useful.)
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
Ogles, Dan
2000-10-10 18:27:09 UTC
Permalink
If Crystal Space is to compete with proprietary game engines (which I think
has been the goal for a while now), we must bite the bullet and integrate
with the proprietary software that is already in people's homes. Otherwise,
Crystal Space becomes useless to many people. If this involves signing a
couple NDA's and making some optional modules closed-source, then big deal.

Mr. Stallman didn't provide a real solution to the problem. Jorrit wants to
write a PS2 port, and asked how to use their proprietary API. Richard
Stallman suggests either reverse engineering the API (which is
counter-productive to our goals), or don't do it at all. I understand his
motives and morals, but how does this help the users of Crystal Space?

To put it bluntly, giving the users a very nice tool is to me much more
important than giving them a crippled tool with "freedom" that they probably
don't care about.

-----Original Message-----
From: WhiteGold [mailto:***@flyingplastic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:04 PM
To: crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port


There are more philosophies on this earth than rampant capitalism.

I'm glad you wave your capitalist "Show Me The Money" flag freely, others
wave flags of different colors and they're all weighed the same to me --
opinion = opinion. Looking to the same problem from different facets of the
diamond produces different, yet pure from a point of view, perceptions
beyond. Your desire to rant on about how RMS thinks about the world opens
the door for others to rant about how you think. Why bother?

<snip>
Artur Biesiadowski
2000-10-10 19:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ogles, Dan
To put it bluntly, giving the users a very nice tool is to me much more
important than giving them a crippled tool with "freedom" that they probably
don't care about.
I exactly agree with you, but RMS has it's point - if you look at
software as a tool for next world revolution it might be important. For
me he sound extremly 'socialist' - goverment model which seems to fail
in longer run :) His wants software to be property of all people - but
from experience, when something is owned by everybody, it is owned by
nobody, and nobody cares for it. If you give something to people for
free they generally think it is worthless. I think that more or less
'healthy' mood in open source (or free if somebody wants) society is
kept only because there are programs which you have to pay for and
compete with. If you could get them for free, most people would stop
caring.

Anyway, I think that CrystalSpace should basically ignore RMS. Leaving
PS/2 support out would be a message about 'freedom'. I would propose to
send different message - 'This is your private revolution RMS, you are
great person, but we will not die for you ideas'.

Artur

P.S.
I think I should write something for CS, because at the moment it feels
quite stupid for me to talk about CS still not having contributed
anything :)
Martin Geisse
2000-10-10 19:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorrit Tyberghein
Check it out at the Crystal Space site.
Greetings,
--
Maybe we could simply say that the PS2 driver is NOT part of crystal space.
Then we would have this:

CS Engine -> PS2 system driver (part of CS, source available) -> PS2 wrapper
(not part of CS, only binaries available)

I suggest making the PS2 wrapper NOT a plugin, but rather a simple C++
library. This will clearly show that it has "nothing to do with CS, except
that CS uses its headers and binary libs", i.e. exactly the same as with the
DirectX driver. And of course except the fact that the author of that
wrapper is also a member of the CS team.

Martin Geisse
Jorrit Tyberghein
2000-10-11 05:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Geisse
I suggest making the PS2 wrapper NOT a plugin, but rather a simple C++
library. This will clearly show that it has "nothing to do with CS, except
that CS uses its headers and binary libs", i.e. exactly the same as with the
DirectX driver. And of course except the fact that the author of that
wrapper is also a member of the CS team.
Yes, that's exactly the solution that I propose and I think we should go
along that way.

Greetings,


--
==============================================================================
***@uz.kuleuven.ac.be, University Hospitals KU Leuven BELGIUM

The Kappamaki, a whaling research ship, was currently researching the
question: How many whales can you catch in one week?
-- (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)
==============================================================================
Ogles, Dan
2000-10-10 19:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Not being Ken, I'll give you my impressions. Please be aware that I don't
make money writing free software, I just have an idea of how it is done in
theory.

The job of a programmer writing commercial software is to create a product.
That is the goal. The job of a programmer writing free software is to
perform a service. Companies pay you to perform a service - that is, writing
a product. They don't pay for the product. When the service is completed,
the company that paid you for a product may use the product. However, they
don't own the product.

As an example, say you are an independent developer who has just written the
coolest new OS, called Finix. XYZ, Inc. wants to use this OS on their web
servers, but they need gigabit ethernet support in the OS. They contract
you, the independent developer, to perform this service. With the money XYZ,
Inc. provides you, you add support for gigabit ethernets. XYZ does not own
the code, but they now have gigabit ethernet support. I would imagine that
the Linux crew does make money by adding features that are requested by
companies.

Another way to go is the support route. Your new OS, Finix is very popular
but companies need technical support in order to fit it into their
organization. Who better to hire than the original developer or a
specialized support group? For example, Red Hat gets money by providing
support services, packages, and manuals for Linux.

Yet another route is with public speeches and stuff (e.g., Linus Torvalds).
Conferences will pay you a lot of money because they know that people will
come to see you talk, since you invented Finix. (Of course, this only works
for some Free Software developers :-).

If you wanted to write a new OS, for instance, very few companies would want
to pay you to write software that they couldn't turn around and sell. Most
interested companies would find it more practical to just buy the commercial
software. Less gamble, faster results, usually less money.

So new products are typically independently developed using the resources
gained from supporting previously developed products.

It's definitely a different mindset: you are paid to perform a service,
rather than produce a product.

Like I said, this is just my impression because I make money by writing
proprietary software (although some things I'm able to release as Open
Source).

--dan

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew MacLaurin [mailto:***@mediax.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 2:00 PM
To: crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port


Ken, I'm curious to know how you make money? I am NOT accusing you of
hypocracy -- it's just literally a total mystery to me how to reconcile free
software with things like food and shelter. There's a lot of things I like a
lot about Free Software, but this "missing link" has always impeded my
understanding of the movement. I've always felt that this very important
issue -- physical survival -- has been left out of the FSF missives, much to
the detriment of its potential following.

If this message strikes a nerve or offends you, please don't bother
responding. Every FSF'er I've brought it up with has just starting
personally attacking me, which is kind of boring and unhelpful.


-----Original Message-----
From: crystal-main-***@lists.sourceforge.net
[mailto:crystal-main-***@lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of WhiteGold
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10:04 AM
To: crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port


There are more philosophies on this earth than rampant capitalism.

I'm glad you wave your capitalist "Show Me The Money" flag freely, others
wave flags of different colors and they're all weighed the same to me --
opinion = opinion. Looking to the same problem from different facets of the
diamond produces different, yet pure from a point of view, perceptions
beyond. Your desire to rant on about how RMS thinks about the world opens
the door for others to rant about how you think. Why bother?

Those who believe in the FSF and the free flow of information will do well.
Those who believe in capitalistic merchandising away of human's evolutionary
new information and ideas will do well also.

I don't know, perhaps if you can't really see how in the past 20 years,
software HAS changed the face of the world, and HAS opened new doors for
humanity to achieve its dreams, which before were listed only in science
fiction novels and considered to be flights of fantasy, then maybe you won't
do well. For humanity as a whole to function AS A WHOLE information MUST
flow freely.

Albert Einstein himself knew this when he achieved his greatest advance in
physics -- and then gave it away to the world when he could easily have sold
it to the highest bidder. This is of course an extreme case where the
knowledge he had could have tilted the balance of power on the world grid
beyond recovery, but the fact is: sharing of information benefits everybody.
Selfishness, greed, avarice (all things necessary for a good capitalist)
benefits only the individual, and in the end takes AWAY from humanity.

Do as you must to achieve your goals in the world, but lay off of others who
don't feel the same as you do. Perhaps they have a point you might want to
look at a little deeper before ranting about how "un-you" they are.


Ken Melms / WhiteGold
***@flyingplastic.com

(P.S: In response to your seemingly ridiculous "free car" tirade -- There
are countries, like holland, who have 'free bikes' that are just there, on
the streets.. You need to get somewhere? Grab a bike and go. Just leave it
where someone else can get it. Oh my!? Who would have thought sharing could
be so useful.)
Matt Holmes
2000-10-10 20:36:22 UTC
Permalink
Ah yes, but if you are making money writing "free software", doesn't that
still place you under the "evil capatilist" flag? I think your model for software
development is an excellent one, but people like WhiteGold and Stallman
seem to think that because we get paid to "offer a service" or "produce a
product" that is software based, we are those "evil capatilist bastards".

Just a thought...

Matt

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ogles, Dan" <***@peachtree.com>
To: <crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:12 PM
Subject: RE: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by Ogles, Dan
Not being Ken, I'll give you my impressions. Please be aware that I don't
make money writing free software, I just have an idea of how it is done in
theory.
The job of a programmer writing commercial software is to create a product.
That is the goal. The job of a programmer writing free software is to
perform a service. Companies pay you to perform a service - that is, writing
a product. They don't pay for the product. When the service is completed,
the company that paid you for a product may use the product. However, they
don't own the product.
As an example, say you are an independent developer who has just written the
coolest new OS, called Finix. XYZ, Inc. wants to use this OS on their web
servers, but they need gigabit ethernet support in the OS. They contract
you, the independent developer, to perform this service. With the money XYZ,
Inc. provides you, you add support for gigabit ethernets. XYZ does not own
the code, but they now have gigabit ethernet support. I would imagine that
the Linux crew does make money by adding features that are requested by
companies.
Another way to go is the support route. Your new OS, Finix is very popular
but companies need technical support in order to fit it into their
organization. Who better to hire than the original developer or a
specialized support group? For example, Red Hat gets money by providing
support services, packages, and manuals for Linux.
Yet another route is with public speeches and stuff (e.g., Linus Torvalds).
Conferences will pay you a lot of money because they know that people will
come to see you talk, since you invented Finix. (Of course, this only works
for some Free Software developers :-).
If you wanted to write a new OS, for instance, very few companies would want
to pay you to write software that they couldn't turn around and sell. Most
interested companies would find it more practical to just buy the commercial
software. Less gamble, faster results, usually less money.
So new products are typically independently developed using the resources
gained from supporting previously developed products.
It's definitely a different mindset: you are paid to perform a service,
rather than produce a product.
Like I said, this is just my impression because I make money by writing
proprietary software (although some things I'm able to release as Open
Source).
--dan
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 2:00 PM
Subject: RE: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Ken, I'm curious to know how you make money? I am NOT accusing you of
hypocracy -- it's just literally a total mystery to me how to reconcile free
software with things like food and shelter. There's a lot of things I like a
lot about Free Software, but this "missing link" has always impeded my
understanding of the movement. I've always felt that this very important
issue -- physical survival -- has been left out of the FSF missives, much to
the detriment of its potential following.
If this message strikes a nerve or offends you, please don't bother
responding. Every FSF'er I've brought it up with has just starting
personally attacking me, which is kind of boring and unhelpful.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
There are more philosophies on this earth than rampant capitalism.
I'm glad you wave your capitalist "Show Me The Money" flag freely, others
wave flags of different colors and they're all weighed the same to me --
opinion = opinion. Looking to the same problem from different facets of the
diamond produces different, yet pure from a point of view, perceptions
beyond. Your desire to rant on about how RMS thinks about the world opens
the door for others to rant about how you think. Why bother?
Those who believe in the FSF and the free flow of information will do well.
Those who believe in capitalistic merchandising away of human's evolutionary
new information and ideas will do well also.
I don't know, perhaps if you can't really see how in the past 20 years,
software HAS changed the face of the world, and HAS opened new doors for
humanity to achieve its dreams, which before were listed only in science
fiction novels and considered to be flights of fantasy, then maybe you won't
do well. For humanity as a whole to function AS A WHOLE information MUST
flow freely.
Albert Einstein himself knew this when he achieved his greatest advance in
physics -- and then gave it away to the world when he could easily have sold
it to the highest bidder. This is of course an extreme case where the
knowledge he had could have tilted the balance of power on the world grid
beyond recovery, but the fact is: sharing of information benefits everybody.
Selfishness, greed, avarice (all things necessary for a good capitalist)
benefits only the individual, and in the end takes AWAY from humanity.
Do as you must to achieve your goals in the world, but lay off of others who
don't feel the same as you do. Perhaps they have a point you might want to
look at a little deeper before ranting about how "un-you" they are.
Ken Melms / WhiteGold
(P.S: In response to your seemingly ridiculous "free car" tirade -- There
are countries, like holland, who have 'free bikes' that are just there, on
the streets.. You need to get somewhere? Grab a bike and go. Just leave it
where someone else can get it. Oh my!? Who would have thought sharing could
be so useful.)
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
WhiteGold
2000-10-10 21:38:47 UTC
Permalink
Hmm... Somehow my argument has been morphed from "Stop giving other people
crap for their opinions, just because they're not yours" to "you are all
evil capitalist bastards.." How odd. I have yet to even step once onto the
offensive here either.. Obviously some of you have issues they need to delve
into.

WG.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Holmes" <***@bellatlantic.net>
To: <crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by Matt Holmes
Ah yes, but if you are making money writing "free software", doesn't that
still place you under the "evil capatilist" flag? I think your model for software
development is an excellent one, but people like WhiteGold and Stallman
seem to think that because we get paid to "offer a service" or "produce a
product" that is software based, we are those "evil capatilist bastards".
Just a thought...
Matt
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:12 PM
Subject: RE: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by Ogles, Dan
Not being Ken, I'll give you my impressions. Please be aware that I don't
make money writing free software, I just have an idea of how it is done in
theory.
The job of a programmer writing commercial software is to create a product.
That is the goal. The job of a programmer writing free software is to
perform a service. Companies pay you to perform a service - that is, writing
a product. They don't pay for the product. When the service is completed,
the company that paid you for a product may use the product. However, they
don't own the product.
As an example, say you are an independent developer who has just written the
coolest new OS, called Finix. XYZ, Inc. wants to use this OS on their web
servers, but they need gigabit ethernet support in the OS. They contract
you, the independent developer, to perform this service. With the money XYZ,
Inc. provides you, you add support for gigabit ethernets. XYZ does not own
the code, but they now have gigabit ethernet support. I would imagine that
the Linux crew does make money by adding features that are requested by
companies.
Another way to go is the support route. Your new OS, Finix is very popular
but companies need technical support in order to fit it into their
organization. Who better to hire than the original developer or a
specialized support group? For example, Red Hat gets money by providing
support services, packages, and manuals for Linux.
Yet another route is with public speeches and stuff (e.g., Linus Torvalds).
Conferences will pay you a lot of money because they know that people will
come to see you talk, since you invented Finix. (Of course, this only works
for some Free Software developers :-).
If you wanted to write a new OS, for instance, very few companies would want
to pay you to write software that they couldn't turn around and sell. Most
interested companies would find it more practical to just buy the commercial
software. Less gamble, faster results, usually less money.
So new products are typically independently developed using the resources
gained from supporting previously developed products.
It's definitely a different mindset: you are paid to perform a service,
rather than produce a product.
Like I said, this is just my impression because I make money by writing
proprietary software (although some things I'm able to release as Open
Source).
--dan
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 2:00 PM
Subject: RE: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Ken, I'm curious to know how you make money? I am NOT accusing you of
hypocracy -- it's just literally a total mystery to me how to reconcile free
software with things like food and shelter. There's a lot of things I like a
lot about Free Software, but this "missing link" has always impeded my
understanding of the movement. I've always felt that this very important
issue -- physical survival -- has been left out of the FSF missives, much to
the detriment of its potential following.
If this message strikes a nerve or offends you, please don't bother
responding. Every FSF'er I've brought it up with has just starting
personally attacking me, which is kind of boring and unhelpful.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
There are more philosophies on this earth than rampant capitalism.
I'm glad you wave your capitalist "Show Me The Money" flag freely, others
wave flags of different colors and they're all weighed the same to me --
opinion = opinion. Looking to the same problem from different facets of the
diamond produces different, yet pure from a point of view, perceptions
beyond. Your desire to rant on about how RMS thinks about the world opens
the door for others to rant about how you think. Why bother?
Those who believe in the FSF and the free flow of information will do well.
Those who believe in capitalistic merchandising away of human's evolutionary
new information and ideas will do well also.
I don't know, perhaps if you can't really see how in the past 20 years,
software HAS changed the face of the world, and HAS opened new doors for
humanity to achieve its dreams, which before were listed only in science
fiction novels and considered to be flights of fantasy, then maybe you won't
do well. For humanity as a whole to function AS A WHOLE information MUST
flow freely.
Albert Einstein himself knew this when he achieved his greatest advance in
physics -- and then gave it away to the world when he could easily have sold
it to the highest bidder. This is of course an extreme case where the
knowledge he had could have tilted the balance of power on the world grid
beyond recovery, but the fact is: sharing of information benefits everybody.
Selfishness, greed, avarice (all things necessary for a good capitalist)
benefits only the individual, and in the end takes AWAY from humanity.
Do as you must to achieve your goals in the world, but lay off of others who
don't feel the same as you do. Perhaps they have a point you might want to
look at a little deeper before ranting about how "un-you" they are.
Ken Melms / WhiteGold
(P.S: In response to your seemingly ridiculous "free car" tirade -- There
are countries, like holland, who have 'free bikes' that are just there, on
the streets.. You need to get somewhere? Grab a bike and go. Just leave it
where someone else can get it. Oh my!? Who would have thought sharing could
be so useful.)
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
Christian Reiniger
2000-10-11 15:27:46 UTC
Permalink
software development is an excellent one, but people like WhiteGold and
Stallman seem to think that because we get paid to "offer a service" or
"produce a product" that is software based, we are those "evil capatilist
bastards".
Please reread the posts you are referring to. Some quotes from RMS:

- Free software involves the freedom to change a program, the freedom to copy
and redistribute it, and the freedom to publish modified versions.

- Please don't develop non-free software.

- In my values, freedom is more important than "serving users" in a mere
practical sense.

- If I can't write a free program, I will write no program. If I can't
support a platform with free software, I won't support it. That is what my
conscience calls for. You may not agree with that decision of conscience, but
before you dismiss it, please consider the fact that the GNU/Linux system
exists specifically because of that decision of conscience.

- I myself would not sign an NDA for useful technical information; I think it
is immoral.


Ok, nowhere in there is anything negative about coding for money. And you
also won't find such a statement on the FSF website. Money is absolutely
irrelevant in this discussion - it revolves about giving users/developers
freedom, not about providing services for free.

Also note that RMS never says "you are evil because..." or "all xxx
developers are evil" or something like that. He uses "Please don't", "In my
values", "I myself would not" etc. He tries to influence Jorrit in a polite
way. that's it (also seen by the "You may not agree with that decision").
--
Christian Reiniger
Coordinator, LGDC (http://sunsite.auc.dk/lgdc/)

Pretty cool, the kind of power information technology puts in our hands
these days.

- Securityfocus on probing 36000000 hosts for known problems in 3 weeks
Jason McKnight
2000-10-10 19:20:12 UTC
Permalink
I agree with Thomas. Jorrit was trying to ask the author of the LGPL (as
far as I know) about specific compliance with the lisence and he got a
diatribe of political crap instead of a real answer(well mostly).

I'm all for Free Software, Open Source and a general good time, but lets
also add Common Sense into that list too.

Earth to Richard........
Post by Thomas Hieber
Post by Jorrit Tyberghein
Check it out at the Crystal Space site.
I found this discussion extremely shocking. I had expected that a person as
respected as Richard Stallman would be an intelligent, open minded person. I
can't tell about his intelligence, but his open-mindedness can be compared
to the Ayatollas in Iran.
I have the impression, that this person is living on a diffenent planet than
me. Reading all this, I really feel like dropping LGPL from all my sources
and using a Open Source license just to show, that I do _not_ support these
extreme opinions. After all it is all about SOFTWARE. This is not RELIGION
or dictatorship. But I doubt Richard Stallman is able to spot the
difference.
And all that 'I will be glad to give you the Free Software Movement's advice
about this issue, once I see that you understand that *we are not talking
about open source*.' or the 'if you are going to capitalize "open source",
would you please capitalize "free software" also? I hope you will give the
Free Software Movement the same respect that you give to the Open Source
Movement.' That stuff is ridiculous.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
W.C.A. Wijngaards
2000-10-10 19:05:20 UTC
Permalink
WhiteGold writes:
|(P.S: In response to your seemingly ridiculous "free car" tirade -- There
|are countries, like holland, who have 'free bikes' that are just there, on
|the streets.. You need to get somewhere? Grab a bike and go. Just leave it
|where someone else can get it. Oh my!? Who would have thought sharing could
|be so useful.)

Sorry to bore people with facts. I live in Amsterdam, Holland.
There are no free bikes on the streets. I believe such a project
existed years ago (decennia ago?). Snide side point: when I read this
I thought you were going to refer to bike theft being the highest
in the world here (mostly because the number of bikes is so big :-) ).

Of course, this topic deserves to be on slashdot once CS decides what
to do. The PR of this will be valuable to the project.

Sorry for being practical with this sensitive issue,

Wouter
--
Wouter Wijngaards ***@cs.vu.nl http://www.cs.vu.nl/~wouterw/
WhiteGold
2000-10-10 20:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by W.C.A. Wijngaards
Sorry to bore people with facts. I live in Amsterdam, Holland.
There are no free bikes on the streets. I believe such a project
existed years ago (decennia ago?). Snide side point: when I read this
I thought you were going to refer to bike theft being the highest
in the world here (mostly because the number of bikes is so big :-) ).
I was misinformed then by another resident of your fine country when I
visited there a few years back. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that the
yellow bikes were free for use. It was decided that bike theft being so
high, it was better to not even try to fight it or something of that ilk.

Since you're a resident, I can only weigh your information with the
information I had from others - so I rescind my previous statement as
factual and it now resides in the avenue of the unknown again. Look what
happens when you get information from a weed freak :) hehe.

Ken.
William T Wilson
2000-10-10 19:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorrit Tyberghein
Check it out at the Crystal Space site.
It is an interesting discussion.
Rene Dudfield
2000-10-10 21:12:30 UTC
Permalink
--- "http://stalkingsolutions.com"
<***@stalkingsolutions.com> wrote: >
Does Crystal Space have tools for animating sprites
Post by http://stalkingsolutions.com
- IE: making them walk
using a skeleton, etc? I'm new to 3d, and CS...
Hi,

at the moment no.
As far as I know, 3ds MAX, and blender exporters are
being worked on.



Btw:
lightwave uses pitch, roll, etc to store its motion
paths.


Rene.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
Eric C. Schneider
2000-10-10 21:13:00 UTC
Permalink
The only one I have ever heard was from Cygnus years ago when they
said they would make their money on support from clients...modifying
and customizing the free stuff for their specific needs...doesnt apply
to this but that is the only argument i have ever heard.

Eric
Post by Ogles, Dan
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by W.C.A. Wijngaards
Sorry to bore people with facts. I live in Amsterdam, Holland.
There are no free bikes on the streets. I believe such a project
existed years ago (decennia ago?). Snide side point: when I read this
I thought you were going to refer to bike theft being the highest
in the world here (mostly because the number of bikes is so big :-) ).
I was misinformed then by another resident of your fine country when I
visited there a few years back. I was told, in no uncertain
terms, that the
yellow bikes were free for use. It was decided that bike theft being so
high, it was better to not even try to fight it or something of that ilk.
Since you're a resident, I can only weigh your information with the
information I had from others - so I rescind my previous statement as
factual and it now resides in the avenue of the unknown again. Look what
happens when you get information from a weed freak :) hehe.
Ken.
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
Ogles, Dan
2000-10-10 22:13:00 UTC
Permalink
I may be wrong, but I think you have misunderstood. I don't think Stallman
or WhiteGold have a problem with making money, or even making money in the
software industry (correct me if I'm wrong, WhiteGold, as I don't know you
:-). I believe that the way I described is how many FSF'ers would prefer to
work. I don't think the FSF is anti-capitalist.
Philip Wyett
2000-10-11 01:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

Re: PS2 Port

RMS's general words worry me a bit, but I do agree about not supporting PS2 at
all.

Why don't we just forget a PS2 port, NDA's (lawyers on standby) and all that
stuff and go for
a games console which is open source like the upcoming L600 Indrema multimedia
console.

Website: http://www.indrema.com

Just a suggestion as the console will be Linux based and we can integrate it
with CS.

Re: Martin's off topic Windows 2000/ME possible upgrade query

I've been developing on Windows 2000 since it's release and unlike NT4, I have
still yet to
see the blue screen of death and absolutely love it. Windows ME is another
story! Networking
has more bugs than a bait store and getting drivers to go in and stay in is a
real problem. In my
opinion 2000 is a good choice, but steer well clear of ME as I think it has some
serious issues
which have yet to be resolved.

Oh, and so all the Linux junkies don't feel left out - I love my new Red Hat 7
system as well. :-)

Regards

Phil
Matt Holmes [mailto:]
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
I'm probably not as eloquent as RMS, but I hope I got my point across. :-)
--dan

P.S. I STILL support making a PS2 port. I agree with Stallman's ideas on
some levels, but I think that if you want to write software that is useful
in today's marketplace, then often you'll have to make some concessions to
existing proprietary software. Just because I'm explaining the FSF's views
doesn't mean I agree with them. :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Holmes [mailto:***@bellatlantic.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 4:36 PM
To: crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port


Ah yes, but if you are making money writing "free software", doesn't that
still place you under the "evil capatilist" flag? I think your model for
software
development is an excellent one, but people like WhiteGold and Stallman
seem to think that because we get paid to "offer a service" or "produce a
product" that is software based, we are those "evil capatilist bastards".

Just a thought...

Matt
Paul Garceau
2000-10-10 23:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Hi folks,

My oh my...what a collection of digression that discussion
was...at any rate...I quoted the last message from Richard, and
You are right that the problem is with freedoms 1 and 3. However,
I think you may have misunderstood the definition of "open
source". It does not mean "source code is available"--that is the
common misunderstanding I mentioned in the web page
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html.
Actually the definition of "open source" according to the Open
Source Movement is pretty close to our definition of "free
software", but they interpret it in a somewhat lax way, so that
they have accepted some licenses that we in the Free Software
Movement consider too restrictive.
So we are talking about that PS2 Wrapper. Legally we have no way
to release the source for that because that directly violates the
NDA for the PS2 API. But we can release a binary for it.
Actually, I have signed that agreement. I am also bound not to
go in to detail about it, but this I can say:

It is perfectly fine to write Gnu software that uses the PS2
API.

The requirement, as Jorrit has noted, is that the developer
must have already signed a NDA with Sony in order to use the
propietary API calls, and is thereby bound by contract _not to
release any aspect of the actual PS2 Development API_.

This, in turn, means that anyone who modifies the "wrapper" may
do so freely as long as they _do not disclose_ the actual
mechanics of the PS2 Programming Interface itself and do not
emulate or otherwise reproduce the PS2 API in any way shape or
form.

Thus, the specific source code modules (gnu or otherwise) that
are required to actually interface CS with the PS2 console must
remain the proprietary property of Sony and may only be
developed by someone who has signed the Sony NDA. Below is a
visual representation:

CS -> PS2 interface -> PS2

Anything to the right of "CS->" is under the purview of the
Sony NDA.

The only reason I haven't started working on this particular
port is that, in addition to signining the NDA, you must also
have the PS2 development system before you can actually test
whether the "wrapper" from the CS distribution actually works or
not.
I myself would not sign an NDA for useful technical
information; I think it is immoral. But I could imagine that a
PS2 wrapper that supports some standard interface used on other
machines might make SONY extremely unhappy, because of
encouraging people to write their software portably instead of
writing it specifically for the PS2. Making them unhappy seems
like a good thing given the circumstances.
I am speculating about SONY's motives, there. Do you know
anyone who has an idea of what SONY's real motives are for this
secrecy? I do not know who to ask.
Given the last paragraph, I think some things need to be
clarified (and no, I don't speak for Sony, but as someone who
has followed Sony for some time); Sony, given its history and
current focus, is extremely interested in broadening the
consumer base of their product, ie. the PS2, and will do
whatever it takes, within reason, to increase that base.
They have already modified their manufacturing and shipping
processes in order to provide nearly 3 million PS2s by February
of 2001, thereby making this debut of a game console the largest
in recorded history.

In closing, part of me feels sad for Richard, another part of
me understands where he is coming from and how important it is,
especially for him, to have clear and very specific,
"definitions" to work from.

Peace,

Paul G.
Check it out at the Crystal Space site.
Greetings,
--
=================================================================
Hospitals KU Leuven BELGIUM
The Kappamaki, a whaling research ship, was currently researching
the question: How many whales can you catch in one week?
-- (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)
=================================================================
=============
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Martin Geisse
2000-10-11 00:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Threewitt
I'm gonna toss in my 2 cents worth.
I feel that the open source software movement is a good compromise between
the extremes of totally free software and the totally restrictive concept
of
Post by Larry Threewitt
licensing every user that pulls up a chair to a workstation. Honestly my
brain boggles at where licensing has gone with microsoft showing the way.
(that's why I won't upgrade to windows 2000 their license wizard scares me)
Sorry that I'm getting off-topic, but what is it that scares you? (important
for me, I'm thinking about upgrading to win2000 after hearing some really
shocking facts about Windows ME).

Martin Geisse
Larry Threewitt
2000-10-11 00:31:58 UTC
Permalink
the windows 2000 license wizard examines all your software to "help you"
insure that all of your applications have current licenses and it phones
home to microsoft to help in that evaluation.

Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Geisse" <***@gmx.net>
To: <crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by Martin Geisse
Post by Larry Threewitt
I'm gonna toss in my 2 cents worth.
I feel that the open source software movement is a good compromise between
the extremes of totally free software and the totally restrictive concept
of
Post by Larry Threewitt
licensing every user that pulls up a chair to a workstation. Honestly my
brain boggles at where licensing has gone with microsoft showing the way.
(that's why I won't upgrade to windows 2000 their license wizard scares me)
Sorry that I'm getting off-topic, but what is it that scares you? (important
for me, I'm thinking about upgrading to win2000 after hearing some really
shocking facts about Windows ME).
Martin Geisse
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
Seth Galbraith
2000-10-11 00:41:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by http://stalkingsolutions.com
Does Crystal Space have tools for animating sprites
- IE: making them walk using a skeleton, etc?
at the moment no. As far as I know, 3ds MAX, and blender exporters are
being worked on.
Another format with skeletal animation is MilkShape. I can provide
information with this format, and maybe a little help developing and
testing skeletal animation import if this format is added. MilkShape also
exports into several other formats including Half Life .mdl format -
another skeletal animation format. We've already released some free (GPL)
models in MS3D format including the Open Quartz player model and zombie
tree:

http://www.planetquake.com/gg/fmp/gpl/players.html
http://www.planetquake.com/gg/fmp/gpl/monsters.html
__ __ _ _ __ __
_/ \__/ \__/ Seth Galbraith "The Serpent Lord" \__/ \__/ \_
\__/ \__/ \_ ***@krl.org #2244199 on ICQ _/ \__/ \__/
_/ \__/ \__/ http://www.planetquake.com/gg \__/ \__/ \_
Jorrit Tyberghein
2000-10-11 06:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seth Galbraith
Post by http://stalkingsolutions.com
Does Crystal Space have tools for animating sprites
- IE: making them walk using a skeleton, etc?
at the moment no. As far as I know, 3ds MAX, and blender exporters are
being worked on.
Another format with skeletal animation is MilkShape. I can provide
information with this format, and maybe a little help developing and
testing skeletal animation import if this format is added. MilkShape also
exports into several other formats including Half Life .mdl format -
another skeletal animation format. We've already released some free (GPL)
models in MS3D format including the Open Quartz player model and zombie
I'm interested in a document about the MilkShape format. Can you mail
that to me or give me an URL?

Greetings,


--
==============================================================================
***@uz.kuleuven.ac.be, University Hospitals KU Leuven BELGIUM

The Kappamaki, a whaling research ship, was currently researching the
question: How many whales can you catch in one week?
-- (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)
==============================================================================
Paul Garceau
2000-10-11 01:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Waks
Post by Thomas Hieber
I found this discussion extremely shocking. I had expected that
a person as respected as Richard Stallman would be an
intelligent, open minded person. I can't tell about his
intelligence, but his open-mindedness can be compared to the
Ayatollas in Iran.
[skip]
Post by Mark Waks
The important thing to bear in mind for purposes here is that
interoperating with non-free software is *not* part of RMS'
agenda. He's really pretty clear that, even though he was largely
responsible for the LGPL, he regards it as at *best* a necessary
evil -- he'd much rather that everyone used the GPL, making
interoperability between the free and non-free worlds impossible.
And easing the relationship between free software and NDA'd stuff
isn't even on his radar. Again, there's nothing sinister about
that: it's simply a logical outgrowth of his beliefs.
The reason this is relevant is, of course, that Crystal is based
on the LGPL, so Stallman's interpretation does matter. If push
were to ever come to shove, and the license had to be enforced,
he's the most expert of expert witnesses on it.
A data point to consider. Some of you may recall that I came to
this particular table because my company was thinking about using
Crystal as the core renderer for a future product. The end
decision was not to do so, and one of the significant reasons was
the LGPL.
Originally, I was pretty blithe about this, as I think most
people are, since the *preamble* to the LGPL says a lot of stuff
that sounds quite sensible, and is very much what one might want.
(Basically, that a program that simply links to Crystal doesn't
have to open its code base; only changes to Crystal itself need
to be made public.) Problem is, our lawyers basically forced us
to actually read the language of the license itself, and that
language is nowhere near so clear. One can get the interpretation
that's stated in the preamble, yes. But there are a couple of key
sections (sections 5 and 6 in particular) that are ambiguous and
confusing at best; personally, I haven't yet managed to make them
completely make sense. And large projects *hate* legal ambiguity.
If something is clear, even if it's bad, you can work around it.
But if it's unclear, then it's potentially dangerous legally.
This is a valid point. It was this that caused me to review
the LGPL again. As I did, I remembered the bit at the website
(crystal.linuxgames.com) about LGPL and went over it.

What is interesting to note is that the licensing laid out at
the website uses the LGPL as a reference, and not as a
"definition" of the CS licensing so much as a refernce to the
context of the CS licensing. This can be confusing.

Yes, we've been over and over this issue, and apparently
haven't arrived at a resolution that works for everyone who
might be interested in using CS for a project they are working
on or contemplating.

Justin has a point, legal folks thrive, and subsequently
survive, on details...anything that is at all vague
automatically goes in to their equivalent of dev/null as
"unreliable" or "legally too risky".

So, have we ever talked about a license specifically defined
for what we desire for CrystalSpace? Something that might be
entitled "The CrystalSpace Licensing Agreement"?

It wouldn't be the first time that an organization has written
their own requirements for licensing. Requirements that have
the spirit of GPL without having the legal dependence on GPL
(eg. LGPL).

We already have the basis of such a licensing agreement at the
website (http://crystal.linuxgames.com). The question is, how
can that agreement, and the expectations thereof, be translated
into something legally defensible and enforceable? I,
personally, have no idea since I am not a barrister or a lawyer.

Any ideas?


Peace,

Paul G.


Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Jorrit Tyberghein
2000-10-11 06:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Garceau
So, have we ever talked about a license specifically defined
for what we desire for CrystalSpace? Something that might be
entitled "The CrystalSpace Licensing Agreement"?
I'm not entirely clear why we would want another license? What
exactly is wrong with the LGPL for us?

Greetings,


--
==============================================================================
***@uz.kuleuven.ac.be, University Hospitals KU Leuven BELGIUM

The Kappamaki, a whaling research ship, was currently researching the
question: How many whales can you catch in one week?
-- (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)
==============================================================================
Christian Reiniger
2000-10-11 15:44:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Garceau
Post by Mark Waks
Crystal as the core renderer for a future product. The end
decision was not to do so, and one of the significant reasons was
the LGPL.
So, have we ever talked about a license specifically defined
for what we desire for CrystalSpace? Something that might be
entitled "The CrystalSpace Licensing Agreement"?
It wouldn't be the first time that an organization has written
their own requirements for licensing. Requirements that have
the spirit of GPL without having the legal dependence on GPL
(eg. LGPL).
Only create a new licensing agreement if everything else fails. There are
enough existing licenses out there and some of them should fit nicely. AFAIK
the Mozilla one (MPL) could be nicely suited for CS.
Post by Paul Garceau
website (http://crystal.linuxgames.com). The question is, how
can that agreement, and the expectations thereof, be translated
into something legally defensible and enforceable? I,
personally, have no idea since I am not a barrister or a lawyer.
You need to have really good lawyers to make a good license, and even if
that's given it isn't a good solution, because it's an unknown license. If
someone sees a "licensed under the (GPL|MIT|BSD|Artistic|MPL)" notice he
knows what to expect, but when coming across an agreement he doesn't know
he'll be wary.
--
Christian Reiniger
Coordinator, LGDC (http://sunsite.auc.dk/lgdc/)

Pretty cool, the kind of power information technology puts in our hands
these days.

- Securityfocus on probing 36000000 hosts for known problems in 3 weeks
Paul Garceau
2000-10-11 01:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Threewitt
the windows 2000 license wizard examines all your software to
"help you" insure that all of your applications have current
licenses and it phones home to microsoft to help in that
evaluation.
*gack*
Post by Larry Threewitt
Larry
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about
CS/PS2 port
Post by Martin Geisse
Post by Larry Threewitt
I'm gonna toss in my 2 cents worth.
I feel that the open source software movement is a good
compromise
between
Post by Martin Geisse
Post by Larry Threewitt
the extremes of totally free software and the totally
restrictive concept
of
Post by Larry Threewitt
licensing every user that pulls up a chair to a workstation.
Honestly my brain boggles at where licensing has gone with
microsoft showing the way. (that's why I won't upgrade to
windows 2000 their license wizard scares
me)
Post by Martin Geisse
Sorry that I'm getting off-topic, but what is it that scares
you?
(important
Post by Martin Geisse
for me, I'm thinking about upgrading to win2000 after hearing
some really shocking facts about Windows ME).
Martin Geisse
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Paul Garceau
2000-10-11 01:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Wyett
Re: Martin's off topic Windows 2000/ME possible upgrade query
I've been developing on Windows 2000 since it's release and
unlike NT4, I have still yet to see the blue screen of death and
absolutely love it. Windows ME is another story! Networking has
more bugs than a bait store and getting drivers to go in and stay
in is a real problem. In my opinion 2000 is a good choice, but
steer well clear of ME as I think it has some serious issues
which have yet to be resolved.
Doesn't really surprise me, considering that the networking
capability is "bolted on", and not really integrated in the ME
OS itself. Win9x has always had home networking capability
(server&client -- running a Win95 client/server and Win98
client/server), it just hasn't been marketed or promoted as
such.

Besides, the term "home networking" can easily double the
asking price for a system or an "OS update" in this day and age,
whether that networking works or not is another question
entirely.

Peace,

Paul G.


Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Seth Galbraith
2000-10-11 03:34:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Holmes
Hrrm, feed my family or "let the information flow".....not a hard
choice.
It apparently wasn't such an easy choice for people who were killed and
tortured for letting information flow - like the first people to translate
and publish the Bible in modern languages - among them my ancestor John
Rogers. Several others of my ancestors (not to mention a lot of people who
aren't closely related to me except by their love of liberty and such)
died for the intellectual freedom we enjoy. So I hope you'll pardon me for
objecting to your casual dismissal of the issue.
__ __ _ _ __ __
_/ \__/ \__/ Seth Galbraith "The Serpent Lord" \__/ \__/ \_
\__/ \__/ \_ ***@krl.org #2244199 on ICQ _/ \__/ \__/
_/ \__/ \__/ http://www.planetquake.com/gg \__/ \__/ \_
Thomas Hieber
2000-10-11 04:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seth Galbraith
Post by Matt Holmes
Hrrm, feed my family or "let the information flow".....not a hard
choice.
It apparently wasn't such an easy choice for people who were killed and
tortured for letting information flow - like the first people to translate
and publish the Bible in modern languages - among them my ancestor John
Rogers. Several others of my ancestors (not to mention a lot of people who
aren't closely related to me except by their love of liberty and such)
died for the intellectual freedom we enjoy. So I hope you'll pardon me for
objecting to your casual dismissal of the issue.
I don't think the idea of freedom of thought applies to software at all.
Maybe this is the big misunderstanding that Richad Stallman has. Software is
not a work of art or a political statement that must be protected by some
sort of freedom. You are _always_ free to implement what you want or like.
The problem is, that RS thinks that every software should be free. I don't
get this point. When I go to the doctor I can't tell him: "Give me my
medicine for free, because I produce free software and I don't have the
money. And after all, medical treatment should be free."
Software is an industrial product like many others. If people like us are
willing to share some part of their work with the world, without asking for
money this is NOT freedom (as in freedom of speech) but charity (like in
free of beer). At least this is the way I see it. And by the way: Like many
others here I earn the money I need from producing software.

Thomas
Seth Galbraith
2000-10-11 03:50:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by W.C.A. Wijngaards
Sorry to bore people with facts. I live in Amsterdam, Holland.
There are no free bikes on the streets. I believe such a project
existed years ago (decennia ago?). Snide side point: when I read this
I thought you were going to refer to bike theft being the highest
in the world here (mostly because the number of bikes is so big :-) ).
Maybe the free bikes plan didn't pan out, but we've had free internet
access through the public library around here for years and in many other
parts of the U.S. Any pervert can walk in off the street and pick up
underage girls in online chatrooms through our library =-o

Yet somehow I don't hear a lot of guys who work for ISPs complaining about
how the free internet access movement has cut off their life-sustainging
supply of revenue that these perverts must have represented. Somehow they
feed their children.

I'm kidding about the perverts. Obviously perverts use AOL.
__ __ _ _ __ __
_/ \__/ \__/ Seth Galbraith "The Serpent Lord" \__/ \__/ \_
\__/ \__/ \_ ***@krl.org #2244199 on ICQ _/ \__/ \__/
_/ \__/ \__/ http://www.planetquake.com/gg \__/ \__/ \_
Seth Galbraith
2000-10-11 04:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Holmes
No where did the American forefathers write "You are entitled to free
software and the rights to run it anywhere you choose."
9th Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people."
Post by Matt Holmes
Last I checked, it was considered perfectly legal and rather moral to
make money in legal ways, like writing software.
Last I checked there were lots of legal ways to make money that could be
seen as immoral. Depending on who you ask this could include certain
preachers on television, tobacco manufacturers, or people who cash in on
racism or mysogyny.
__ __ _ _ __ __
_/ \__/ \__/ Seth Galbraith "The Serpent Lord" \__/ \__/ \_
\__/ \__/ \_ ***@krl.org #2244199 on ICQ _/ \__/ \__/
_/ \__/ \__/ http://www.planetquake.com/gg \__/ \__/ \_
Seth Galbraith
2000-10-11 04:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Holmes
Again, an FSFer dodges the entire point. As was stated by Matthew
MacLaurin, no FSFer can seem to answer the fundamental question of
survival. As I said, I don't care if you and Stallman get naked and do
the Free Software dance in front of the White House, you still
consistently avoid the question, "How do software developers survive
if it is so wrong to sell software?"
Actually, FSFers don't have to explain their survival. Their existence is
proof that they do survive. It is anti-FSFers who claim that someone must
restrict software freedom for them to survive. You have the claim. You
must provide the proof.

The FSF does NOT claim that Free Software makes programmers wealthy or
less hungry. In fact the Free Software movement is not a programmer
movement or a business movement. It is a user movement.
Post by Matt Holmes
I swear, I may have a heart attack the first time I actually hear an
A) filled with more political hype
B) filled with personal attacks and insults about morality
C) completely illogical
Oh, and as was asked before, what do you do for a living?
As a reader of this list and not the person to whom the question is
directed, I am personally insulted when I see this question and infinitely
more insulted when you repeat it like a demand.
__ __ _ _ __ __
_/ \__/ \__/ Seth Galbraith "The Serpent Lord" \__/ \__/ \_
\__/ \__/ \_ ***@krl.org #2244199 on ICQ _/ \__/ \__/
_/ \__/ \__/ http://www.planetquake.com/gg \__/ \__/ \_
Seth Galbraith
2000-10-11 04:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ogles, Dan
If Crystal Space is to compete with proprietary game engines (which I
think has been the goal for a while now),
I think this is the wrong goal. Not completely wrong, but ... well ...
look at it this way:

We don't want to "compete" with those engines, we want to accomplish
similar things, but we don't care about whether we get a share of their
market. We aren't charging money, so anybody who buys into those engines
can still afford to use us :-)
Post by Ogles, Dan
we must bite the bullet and integrate with the proprietary software
that is already in people's homes.
1. We don't want to "integrate" with proprietary software, we want to
"disintegrate" Crystal Space so we can use some components (like the
engine) with proprietary software.

This is generally accepted, I'm just saying that it's a "disintegration"
rather than an "integration" - if you want a freindlier term you could say
"modularize" or "componentize" or "splitify-into-bitsy-peices-ize" :-)

There are other good reasons to make CS very modular. It is not just to
appease PSX2 and other game-console developers.

2. Not all of us are interested in home game console development, and
what's all this "bite the bullet" talk. I can't see how the issue is
relevant to folks who aren't developing console games with CS. Just leave
your NDA-affected code outside of the CS project.

To my knowledge nobody has had to add any proprietary microsoft software
to the CS project to support Windows, in spite of the fact that you might
need some stuff from MS to build CS for Windows. That stuff can be
acquired seperately.
__ __ _ _ __ __
_/ \__/ \__/ Seth Galbraith "The Serpent Lord" \__/ \__/ \_
\__/ \__/ \_ ***@krl.org #2244199 on ICQ _/ \__/ \__/
_/ \__/ \__/ http://www.planetquake.com/gg \__/ \__/ \_
Seth Galbraith
2000-10-11 05:09:21 UTC
Permalink
For me he sound extremly 'socialist' - goverment model which seems to
fail in longer run :)
Yes I'm glad everyone can see what a failure socialism is - why in the
United States only ONE of the two major parties is socialist (If you think
the United States is not a socialist country, try being Bill Gates some
time, or be that guy who goes down to the Department of Social and Health
Services every month - sorry still traumatized about that :-)
If you give something to people for free they generally think it is
worthless.
There's some truth to that, but Free Software isn't just given away, it's
created by people who need it. It's paid for by the same price that is
ultimately paid to write all software - time and effort. The people who
will appreciate Crystal Space are those who both use it and contribute to
it.

__ __ _ _ __ __
_/ \__/ \__/ Seth Galbraith "The Serpent Lord" \__/ \__/ \_
\__/ \__/ \_ ***@krl.org #2244199 on ICQ _/ \__/ \__/
_/ \__/ \__/ http://www.planetquake.com/gg \__/ \__/ \_
Seth Galbraith
2000-10-11 05:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Waks
Anyway, for my project what's done is done -- we've wound up going with
a commercial rendering engine instead. But folks may want to chew on
this for the future, since this issue is undoubtedly only going to
appear again, when large commercial projects try to use CS...
This brings up an interesting point: If the LGPL isn't a good enough
compromise for a large commercial project, why use LGPL instead of GPL?

In fact you might be better off using the GPL than the LGPL. Why?
Because there are probably more companies out there using GPL software
dynamically linked to by proprietary software. Their story is that a DLL
is a seperate program and that an application that comes with a GPL DLL is
a "mere aggregation".

If this ever goes to court there will be lots of money to support this
view. If the same issue goes to court over the "lesser" GPL - will there
be as many lawyers to support the companies linking to the LGPL .dlls?
Andrew Zabolotny
2000-10-11 07:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ogles, Dan
If Crystal Space is to compete with proprietary game engines (which I think
has been the goal for a while now), we must bite the bullet and integrate
with the proprietary software that is already in people's homes. Otherwise,
Crystal Space becomes useless to many people. If this involves signing a
couple NDA's and making some optional modules closed-source, then big deal.
You're putting yourself in a obeyed position if you follow the NDA, while I
think that *they* (e.g. Sony) should thank you that you're programming for their
crippled platform. I can't understand why somebody may want to waste their time
and efforts doing a job for which not only nobody will say even thanks, but you
may get sued for breaking some ridiculous (from my point of view) play rules.

Sony (and other game console developers) are playing a Bad Game and following
their rules may cost much more than anyone contributing to Crystal Space would
agree to pay.

Greetings,
_\***@teamOS/2
r***@themail.com
2000-10-11 06:06:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by WhiteGold
Hmm... Somehow my argument has been morphed from "Stop giving other people
crap for their opinions, just because they're not yours" to "you are all
evil capitalist bastards.." How odd. I have yet to even step once onto the
offensive here either.. Obviously some of you have issues they need to delve
into.
"Selfishness, greed, avarice (all things necessary for a good
capitalist) benefits only the individual, and in the end takes AWAY from humanity."

Call me crazy, but this seems like a somewhat offensive statement.

Besides, if you point _is_ to stand up against people who "give crap" for others opinions, how about blasting Mr. Stallman for his attitude toward Jorrit.
__________________________________________________________________
Make A Buck Or Two @ TheMail.com - Free Internet Email
Sign-up today at http://www.themail.com/ref.htm?ref=898251
Jorrit Tyberghein
2000-10-11 06:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@themail.com
Besides, if you point _is_ to stand up against people who "give crap" for others opinions, how about blasting Mr. Stallman for his attitude toward Jorrit.
Well don't forget that he actually took the time to try to answer my question
(though not very succesful). He is a busy man so I'm glad that I got a conversation
going at least :-)

Greetings,


--
==============================================================================
***@uz.kuleuven.ac.be, University Hospitals KU Leuven BELGIUM

The Kappamaki, a whaling research ship, was currently researching the
question: How many whales can you catch in one week?
-- (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)
==============================================================================
Christian Reiniger
2000-10-11 15:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
Hmm... Somehow my argument has been morphed from "Stop giving other people
crap for their opinions, just because they're not yours" to "you are all
evil capitalist bastards.." How odd. I have yet to even step once onto the
offensive here either.. Obviously some of you have issues they need to delve
into.
"Selfishness, greed, avarice (all things necessary for a good
capitalist) benefits only the individual, and in the end takes AWAY from humanity."
Call me crazy, but this seems like a somewhat offensive statement.
No. It's a simple statement of fact. As you learn in basic economics classes,
capitalism is based on the assumption (and expectation) that people are
greedy and selfish. These character attributes are the main driving forces
behind capitalism. I agree that this sounds offensive, but it's true
nevertheless :)
--
Christian Reiniger
Coordinator, LGDC (http://sunsite.auc.dk/lgdc/)

Pretty cool, the kind of power information technology puts in our hands
these days.

- Securityfocus on probing 36000000 hosts for known problems in 3 weeks
WhiteGold
2000-10-11 17:37:07 UTC
Permalink
If the truth is offensive, I'm not sorry to offend you in this way.

What other reasons have been given in opposition of free software? They're
always rooted in "But, I HAVE to make money." generally followed up silently
with "Lots of it." which is all the aforementioned qualities wrapped up in
one.

My point, which you are taking out of context, was not offensive at all. It
was merely providing a vehicle in which your mind can conceptualize the
modern decimation of information and the staunching of the free flow of
ideas as the world quickly patents, copyrights, and tucks them away where
nobody else can use them.

That is the largest facet of the FSF's push. Not to take food from your
mouths certainly. Not to force any of you into an unreasonable lifestyle
just to make a point (RMS does that enough for all of us). But to try and
provide for the people a conceptual understanding that all information
belongs to humanity - not to individuals. Benefit from the glory of
discovering something new by putting your name on it - but don't hide it
behind legal jargon where it can ONLY benefit you.


Example:
Let's say I came up with a new algorithm for rendering polygons. It turned
out to boost a 50% increase in frame rate, was a simple change to the modern
driver architecture, and could work with all the newer video cards if they
used my algorithm.

Is it fair for me to hide that piece of code behind a patent and then sell a
video card (or license to a single manufacturer) that has the proper
drivers, hailing it as a 50% better performer than it's peers (when it's the
same, with a better driver) JUST to make money?

This means a technology which is simply an extention to the current
technology - in which we ALL share has been suppressed and delivered only to
those who have the money to afford it. I make a lot of money, sure, but the
world of technology as a whole didn't improve from my advance.. Just my
wallet.

Wouldn't (looking at it from a FSF point of view now) it have been better if
I took the algorithm, put my GPL or LGPL license on it for all to use, see,
and gain from. Now I make a big stink about it to all the video card
manufacturers, perhaps even contract with them to build the patch for the
drivers to their cards ($), definitely support them in migrating to the new
technology ($). Now everybody's video cards run 50% faster, and my name is
at the tip of every video card manufacturer's tongue when they think of
their increased performance. I will not starve, because my advances are now
widespread which means my name is also widespread and jobs will not be
difficult to find.

If everyone shared every technological advance they ever made with everyone
else, imagine the software you would have today. Imagine what CS would look
like, act, and perform with the big boys in technology delivering their
"secrets" to the masses. Would THEY starve? The innovaters? The people
truly working for the future? Nope, because the innovaters would be the
first to market with a product that has these new technologies enabled in
them, but it wouldn't stop the technology from advancing.

I'm not for giving everything away for free, people.. I'm for keeping things
real. Technology shouldn't be owned, it is a byproduct of the human
syndrome. It stems from our race's desire to know, to learn, to build, and
to explore. If we keep the maps we draw to ourselves, the world will remain
a very large and un-navigatable place. If technology moves from mind to
mind at the speed of thought (light, the internet, insert other clever
metaphore here) we can move quickly on the grid. Now, the new
IMPLEMENTATIONS that use these technological advances will be where the work
is spent and the revenue is made. Who wouldn't want that?

Scenario:
The best of the best: A 3d engine that was compiled from the best
technology of all the world's 3D engines. The best Collision detection, the
best event management system, the best OO. Everything. (Everything CS wants
to be, yeah?)

Is this scenario possible under the current laws, restrictive licensing
arangements, and distribution methodologies? No. Why? Because those who
made "the best" algorithms and technology will keep a hold of it for as long
as possible in order to keep their "competitive advantage" and revenue
stream. Instead of focusing on using the best of the best to create the
best GAME, APP, what have you, they focus on keeping the technology secret
and building proprietary apps utilizing the technology we're not "allowed".

For the love of all that lives and breathes, people, they've started issuing
patents for MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS. Math, the language of the universe, the
stuff from which all things can be related to and described - is being
carved up and handed to large corporations as if they created it from the
cosmos themselves. If this isn't offensive to you, to see what once was
free to all being taken away from us piece by piece, what is? And what
better metaphore to describe what it's like to see technology and advances
being gobbled up and hidden behind restrictive covenants? What once was
free for anyone who could dream it, to buildit - now you had better be sure
you paid the right people in order to make your dream come true.. BAH!

Kudos to ID for releasing the sources for Quake & Doom to the public,
without which I can gaurantee you CS wouldn't be as far along as it is now.
Kudos to all of you in the Open Source community who give a lot for little
return. Perhaps the next generation of programmers will not be forced into a
"If I don't make money on this, I'll starve" mentality which many of you
suffer so badly. If so, it will only be a natural thing to them to share
their ideas. Try and conceptualize if you can, a world without money..
What other reason would someone hoard the best of the best?

I think the only ones in this world who would "starve" from a free flow of
technological information would be the lazy, the weak, and the incompetent.
(Not to mention the modern government strongholds, but that's for another
time.) It would soon be seen (when the doors flew open wide) that those who
can make a difference - will. Those who simply ride on the backs of others,
won't and will spend their time playing legos with the things the rest of us
build for them to play with.


Call it "socio-political" hype if you would like. Idealistic visions have
always been frowned on by establishmentarinists, and if dreams and ideals
are snuffed out because "it doesn't make me money" then the dream wasn't
strong enough in your mind.

You can all go back to playing with your legos again.

Ken / WhiteGold

----- Original Message -----
From: <***@themail.com>
To: <crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
Hmm... Somehow my argument has been morphed from "Stop giving other people
crap for their opinions, just because they're not yours" to "you are all
evil capitalist bastards.." How odd. I have yet to even step once onto the
offensive here either.. Obviously some of you have issues they need to delve
into.
"Selfishness, greed, avarice (all things necessary for a good
capitalist) benefits only the individual, and in the end takes AWAY from humanity."
Call me crazy, but this seems like a somewhat offensive statement.
Besides, if you point _is_ to stand up against people who "give crap" for
others opinions, how about blasting Mr. Stallman for his attitude toward
Jorrit.
Post by r***@themail.com
__________________________________________________________________
Sign-up today at http://www.themail.com/ref.htm?ref=898251
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
Matt Holmes
2000-10-11 18:51:29 UTC
Permalink
You know, actually your right. I am a greedy bastard.

I want to buy my wife a new BMW next year, cause I love her and
she deserves it. I would like to get a bigger house, cause the pitter
patter of footsies could be on the way soon. I would like to get a new
living room set cause ours is six years old and kinda ugly.

Yep, greedy greedy greedy, thats me. I am so greedy that I would like
to live comfortably doing what I love (programming). Let me know
when your world without money comes along, I would love that :P Yay,
no bills (yes, those of us who work in the real world have bills).

Matt

----- Original Message -----
From: "WhiteGold" <***@flyingplastic.com>
To: <crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by WhiteGold
If the truth is offensive, I'm not sorry to offend you in this way.
What other reasons have been given in opposition of free software? They're
always rooted in "But, I HAVE to make money." generally followed up silently
with "Lots of it." which is all the aforementioned qualities wrapped up in
one.
My point, which you are taking out of context, was not offensive at all. It
was merely providing a vehicle in which your mind can conceptualize the
modern decimation of information and the staunching of the free flow of
ideas as the world quickly patents, copyrights, and tucks them away where
nobody else can use them.
That is the largest facet of the FSF's push. Not to take food from your
mouths certainly. Not to force any of you into an unreasonable lifestyle
just to make a point (RMS does that enough for all of us). But to try and
provide for the people a conceptual understanding that all information
belongs to humanity - not to individuals. Benefit from the glory of
discovering something new by putting your name on it - but don't hide it
behind legal jargon where it can ONLY benefit you.
Let's say I came up with a new algorithm for rendering polygons. It turned
out to boost a 50% increase in frame rate, was a simple change to the modern
driver architecture, and could work with all the newer video cards if they
used my algorithm.
Is it fair for me to hide that piece of code behind a patent and then sell a
video card (or license to a single manufacturer) that has the proper
drivers, hailing it as a 50% better performer than it's peers (when it's the
same, with a better driver) JUST to make money?
This means a technology which is simply an extention to the current
technology - in which we ALL share has been suppressed and delivered only to
those who have the money to afford it. I make a lot of money, sure, but the
world of technology as a whole didn't improve from my advance.. Just my
wallet.
Wouldn't (looking at it from a FSF point of view now) it have been better if
I took the algorithm, put my GPL or LGPL license on it for all to use, see,
and gain from. Now I make a big stink about it to all the video card
manufacturers, perhaps even contract with them to build the patch for the
drivers to their cards ($), definitely support them in migrating to the new
technology ($). Now everybody's video cards run 50% faster, and my name is
at the tip of every video card manufacturer's tongue when they think of
their increased performance. I will not starve, because my advances are now
widespread which means my name is also widespread and jobs will not be
difficult to find.
If everyone shared every technological advance they ever made with everyone
else, imagine the software you would have today. Imagine what CS would look
like, act, and perform with the big boys in technology delivering their
"secrets" to the masses. Would THEY starve? The innovaters? The people
truly working for the future? Nope, because the innovaters would be the
first to market with a product that has these new technologies enabled in
them, but it wouldn't stop the technology from advancing.
I'm not for giving everything away for free, people.. I'm for keeping things
real. Technology shouldn't be owned, it is a byproduct of the human
syndrome. It stems from our race's desire to know, to learn, to build, and
to explore. If we keep the maps we draw to ourselves, the world will remain
a very large and un-navigatable place. If technology moves from mind to
mind at the speed of thought (light, the internet, insert other clever
metaphore here) we can move quickly on the grid. Now, the new
IMPLEMENTATIONS that use these technological advances will be where the work
is spent and the revenue is made. Who wouldn't want that?
The best of the best: A 3d engine that was compiled from the best
technology of all the world's 3D engines. The best Collision detection, the
best event management system, the best OO. Everything. (Everything CS wants
to be, yeah?)
Is this scenario possible under the current laws, restrictive licensing
arangements, and distribution methodologies? No. Why? Because those who
made "the best" algorithms and technology will keep a hold of it for as long
as possible in order to keep their "competitive advantage" and revenue
stream. Instead of focusing on using the best of the best to create the
best GAME, APP, what have you, they focus on keeping the technology secret
and building proprietary apps utilizing the technology we're not "allowed".
For the love of all that lives and breathes, people, they've started issuing
patents for MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS. Math, the language of the universe, the
stuff from which all things can be related to and described - is being
carved up and handed to large corporations as if they created it from the
cosmos themselves. If this isn't offensive to you, to see what once was
free to all being taken away from us piece by piece, what is? And what
better metaphore to describe what it's like to see technology and advances
being gobbled up and hidden behind restrictive covenants? What once was
free for anyone who could dream it, to buildit - now you had better be sure
you paid the right people in order to make your dream come true.. BAH!
Kudos to ID for releasing the sources for Quake & Doom to the public,
without which I can gaurantee you CS wouldn't be as far along as it is now.
Kudos to all of you in the Open Source community who give a lot for little
return. Perhaps the next generation of programmers will not be forced into a
"If I don't make money on this, I'll starve" mentality which many of you
suffer so badly. If so, it will only be a natural thing to them to share
their ideas. Try and conceptualize if you can, a world without money..
What other reason would someone hoard the best of the best?
I think the only ones in this world who would "starve" from a free flow of
technological information would be the lazy, the weak, and the incompetent.
(Not to mention the modern government strongholds, but that's for another
time.) It would soon be seen (when the doors flew open wide) that those who
can make a difference - will. Those who simply ride on the backs of others,
won't and will spend their time playing legos with the things the rest of us
build for them to play with.
Call it "socio-political" hype if you would like. Idealistic visions have
always been frowned on by establishmentarinists, and if dreams and ideals
are snuffed out because "it doesn't make me money" then the dream wasn't
strong enough in your mind.
You can all go back to playing with your legos again.
Ken / WhiteGold
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
Hmm... Somehow my argument has been morphed from "Stop giving other
people
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
crap for their opinions, just because they're not yours" to "you are all
evil capitalist bastards.." How odd. I have yet to even step once onto
the
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
offensive here either.. Obviously some of you have issues they need to
delve
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
into.
"Selfishness, greed, avarice (all things necessary for a good
capitalist) benefits only the individual, and in the end takes AWAY from
humanity."
Post by r***@themail.com
Call me crazy, but this seems like a somewhat offensive statement.
Besides, if you point _is_ to stand up against people who "give crap" for
others opinions, how about blasting Mr. Stallman for his attitude toward
Jorrit.
Post by r***@themail.com
__________________________________________________________________
Sign-up today at http://www.themail.com/ref.htm?ref=898251
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
WhiteGold
2000-10-11 19:30:57 UTC
Permalink
Your empty rhetoric is amusing, but useless.

Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Holmes" <***@bellatlantic.net>
To: <crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by Matt Holmes
You know, actually your right. I am a greedy bastard.
I want to buy my wife a new BMW next year, cause I love her and
she deserves it. I would like to get a bigger house, cause the pitter
patter of footsies could be on the way soon. I would like to get a new
living room set cause ours is six years old and kinda ugly.
Yep, greedy greedy greedy, thats me. I am so greedy that I would like
to live comfortably doing what I love (programming). Let me know
when your world without money comes along, I would love that :P Yay,
no bills (yes, those of us who work in the real world have bills).
Matt
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by WhiteGold
If the truth is offensive, I'm not sorry to offend you in this way.
What other reasons have been given in opposition of free software?
They're
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
always rooted in "But, I HAVE to make money." generally followed up silently
with "Lots of it." which is all the aforementioned qualities wrapped up in
one.
My point, which you are taking out of context, was not offensive at all.
It
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
was merely providing a vehicle in which your mind can conceptualize the
modern decimation of information and the staunching of the free flow of
ideas as the world quickly patents, copyrights, and tucks them away where
nobody else can use them.
That is the largest facet of the FSF's push. Not to take food from your
mouths certainly. Not to force any of you into an unreasonable lifestyle
just to make a point (RMS does that enough for all of us). But to try and
provide for the people a conceptual understanding that all information
belongs to humanity - not to individuals. Benefit from the glory of
discovering something new by putting your name on it - but don't hide it
behind legal jargon where it can ONLY benefit you.
Let's say I came up with a new algorithm for rendering polygons. It turned
out to boost a 50% increase in frame rate, was a simple change to the modern
driver architecture, and could work with all the newer video cards if they
used my algorithm.
Is it fair for me to hide that piece of code behind a patent and then sell a
video card (or license to a single manufacturer) that has the proper
drivers, hailing it as a 50% better performer than it's peers (when it's the
same, with a better driver) JUST to make money?
This means a technology which is simply an extention to the current
technology - in which we ALL share has been suppressed and delivered only to
those who have the money to afford it. I make a lot of money, sure, but the
world of technology as a whole didn't improve from my advance.. Just my
wallet.
Wouldn't (looking at it from a FSF point of view now) it have been better if
I took the algorithm, put my GPL or LGPL license on it for all to use, see,
and gain from. Now I make a big stink about it to all the video card
manufacturers, perhaps even contract with them to build the patch for the
drivers to their cards ($), definitely support them in migrating to the new
technology ($). Now everybody's video cards run 50% faster, and my name is
at the tip of every video card manufacturer's tongue when they think of
their increased performance. I will not starve, because my advances are now
widespread which means my name is also widespread and jobs will not be
difficult to find.
If everyone shared every technological advance they ever made with everyone
else, imagine the software you would have today. Imagine what CS would look
like, act, and perform with the big boys in technology delivering their
"secrets" to the masses. Would THEY starve? The innovaters? The people
truly working for the future? Nope, because the innovaters would be the
first to market with a product that has these new technologies enabled in
them, but it wouldn't stop the technology from advancing.
I'm not for giving everything away for free, people.. I'm for keeping things
real. Technology shouldn't be owned, it is a byproduct of the human
syndrome. It stems from our race's desire to know, to learn, to build, and
to explore. If we keep the maps we draw to ourselves, the world will remain
a very large and un-navigatable place. If technology moves from mind to
mind at the speed of thought (light, the internet, insert other clever
metaphore here) we can move quickly on the grid. Now, the new
IMPLEMENTATIONS that use these technological advances will be where the work
is spent and the revenue is made. Who wouldn't want that?
The best of the best: A 3d engine that was compiled from the best
technology of all the world's 3D engines. The best Collision detection, the
best event management system, the best OO. Everything. (Everything CS wants
to be, yeah?)
Is this scenario possible under the current laws, restrictive licensing
arangements, and distribution methodologies? No. Why? Because those who
made "the best" algorithms and technology will keep a hold of it for as long
as possible in order to keep their "competitive advantage" and revenue
stream. Instead of focusing on using the best of the best to create the
best GAME, APP, what have you, they focus on keeping the technology secret
and building proprietary apps utilizing the technology we're not "allowed".
For the love of all that lives and breathes, people, they've started issuing
patents for MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS. Math, the language of the universe, the
stuff from which all things can be related to and described - is being
carved up and handed to large corporations as if they created it from the
cosmos themselves. If this isn't offensive to you, to see what once was
free to all being taken away from us piece by piece, what is? And what
better metaphore to describe what it's like to see technology and advances
being gobbled up and hidden behind restrictive covenants? What once was
free for anyone who could dream it, to buildit - now you had better be sure
you paid the right people in order to make your dream come true.. BAH!
Kudos to ID for releasing the sources for Quake & Doom to the public,
without which I can gaurantee you CS wouldn't be as far along as it is now.
Kudos to all of you in the Open Source community who give a lot for little
return. Perhaps the next generation of programmers will not be forced into a
"If I don't make money on this, I'll starve" mentality which many of you
suffer so badly. If so, it will only be a natural thing to them to share
their ideas. Try and conceptualize if you can, a world without money..
What other reason would someone hoard the best of the best?
I think the only ones in this world who would "starve" from a free flow of
technological information would be the lazy, the weak, and the incompetent.
(Not to mention the modern government strongholds, but that's for another
time.) It would soon be seen (when the doors flew open wide) that those who
can make a difference - will. Those who simply ride on the backs of others,
won't and will spend their time playing legos with the things the rest of us
build for them to play with.
Call it "socio-political" hype if you would like. Idealistic visions have
always been frowned on by establishmentarinists, and if dreams and ideals
are snuffed out because "it doesn't make me money" then the dream wasn't
strong enough in your mind.
You can all go back to playing with your legos again.
Ken / WhiteGold
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
Hmm... Somehow my argument has been morphed from "Stop giving other
people
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
crap for their opinions, just because they're not yours" to "you are all
evil capitalist bastards.." How odd. I have yet to even step once onto
the
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
offensive here either.. Obviously some of you have issues they need to
delve
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
into.
"Selfishness, greed, avarice (all things necessary for a good
capitalist) benefits only the individual, and in the end takes AWAY from
humanity."
Post by r***@themail.com
Call me crazy, but this seems like a somewhat offensive statement.
Besides, if you point _is_ to stand up against people who "give crap" for
others opinions, how about blasting Mr. Stallman for his attitude toward
Jorrit.
Post by r***@themail.com
__________________________________________________________________
Sign-up today at http://www.themail.com/ref.htm?ref=898251
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
Andrew Zabolotny
2000-10-11 07:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by WhiteGold
I tried, once, to copyright and retain exclusive rights to a piece of
software... It was a good piece too, but the hassle I went through trying to
keep security up so it would remain private, fend off hackers, thieves and
the like was far beyond what I care to provide. A copyright is created to
give you "ownership" of a piece of work as the intellectual creator.
Exactly. The current state of things is that copyrights can't be enforced by
those who write software, and the users don't want to obey the copyrights.
That is, the "power" can't force and the "slaves" don't obey. In marxist terms
this is called a revolutionary state :-)

No, really. Something should be changed, this fragile balance state can't last
for too long. And free software looks like a solution to me. In fact the
revolution is slowly happening, don't you observe it? Just several years ago,
when Windows95 came out, who heard about Linux? Did somebody know the term "free
software"?

Those who think you can't do money with free software don't understand the goals
and the ideology behind free software. "Free" doesn't mean "no money". Free
means you're free to do anything you want with it, including modifications.

Example: you buy a car. You're free to do anything you want with it, including
adding a fifth weel to it, putting a sattelite antenna on back, disassembling it
in pieces, throwing it into a canyon (in later case greenpeace will sue you for
sure). When you buy a program you're free to use it and nothing more. Its like
you buy a car and aren't allowed to do anything except press the pedal.

On the other hand, you never fix your car yourself, isn't it? Yes, you're free
to do it, but you prefer professionals to do it? And here's where the
proffesional programmers come into play. You may ask a fee for adding whatever
user wants to the program, and nobody will condemn you for that.

So basically with free software approach noting changes substantially, and a cup
of coffee will be always on your and your family table.

Greetings,
_\***@teamOS/2
Jorrit Tyberghein
2000-10-11 07:41:12 UTC
Permalink
Interesting note. In one of the mails from Richard himself to me he clearly states
that he himselfs makes money writing software (no, I did not include all
mails in that html page :-)

I quote from his mail:
I am not against making money with software; in fact, I've done so in
one way or another since 1985. But we have to do this in a way that
respects other people's freedom, to make it legitimate.

Greetings,


--
==============================================================================
***@uz.kuleuven.ac.be, University Hospitals KU Leuven BELGIUM

The Kappamaki, a whaling research ship, was currently researching the
question: How many whales can you catch in one week?
-- (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)
==============================================================================
Jorrit Tyberghein
2000-10-11 07:39:39 UTC
Permalink
I completely agree with this mail from Andrew. Richard himself is constantly
trying to tell people that 'free software' does NOT have anything to do
with not charging money. The 'free' is about freedom for using/changing/adapting
the software.

Greetings,
Post by Andrew Zabolotny
No, really. Something should be changed, this fragile balance state can't last
for too long. And free software looks like a solution to me. In fact the
revolution is slowly happening, don't you observe it? Just several years ago,
when Windows95 came out, who heard about Linux? Did somebody know the term "free
software"?
Those who think you can't do money with free software don't understand the goals
and the ideology behind free software. "Free" doesn't mean "no money". Free
means you're free to do anything you want with it, including modifications.
Example: you buy a car. You're free to do anything you want with it, including
adding a fifth weel to it, putting a sattelite antenna on back, disassembling it
in pieces, throwing it into a canyon (in later case greenpeace will sue you for
sure). When you buy a program you're free to use it and nothing more. Its like
you buy a car and aren't allowed to do anything except press the pedal.
On the other hand, you never fix your car yourself, isn't it? Yes, you're free
to do it, but you prefer professionals to do it? And here's where the
proffesional programmers come into play. You may ask a fee for adding whatever
user wants to the program, and nobody will condemn you for that.
So basically with free software approach noting changes substantially, and a cup
of coffee will be always on your and your family table.
Greetings,
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
--
==============================================================================
***@uz.kuleuven.ac.be, University Hospitals KU Leuven BELGIUM

The Kappamaki, a whaling research ship, was currently researching the
question: How many whales can you catch in one week?
-- (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)
==============================================================================
Seth Galbraith
2000-10-11 06:04:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Wyett
Why don't we just forget a PS2 port, NDA's (lawyers on standby) and
all that stuff and go for a games console which is open source like
the upcoming L600 Indrema multimedia console.
Website: http://www.indrema.com
Just a suggestion as the console will be Linux based and we can
integrate it with CS.
I think the indrema is an exciting concept, but also unproven. My belief
in free software is not enough to sell me on their "open source" platform.

At any rate, I don't think it affects the PSX2 issue. Whether or not you
also develop games for another platform, the PSX2 and similar NDA-
protected development kits are going to require little propriety programs
to be created which Crystal Space uses to interface with the console.

But I don't see any cause for controversy. If you are having a personal
struggle with the issue, ask yourself: What do I/we want as a person or
company - not what is best for the Crystal Space project, or the Free
Software movement - unless those things keep you up late at night.
__ __ _ _ __ __
_/ \__/ \__/ Seth Galbraith "The Serpent Lord" \__/ \__/ \_
\__/ \__/ \_ ***@krl.org #2244199 on ICQ _/ \__/ \__/
_/ \__/ \__/ http://www.planetquake.com/gg \__/ \__/ \_
Andrew Zabolotny
2000-10-11 07:53:30 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:36:22 -0400, Matt Holmes wrote:

I forgot to mention in my previous letters.

Everybody who are "against" free software usually don't mind to use any free
software resources they find. But why not follow your own point - don't use
opensource software?

The answer is that you simply can't. Today software is way too complex for
everything to be done by one person (or even by a team of persons). So basicaly
those who fight for "capitalist software" won't mind using someone else's
library, even if publically they are saying its author is a fool.

I am 100% convinced that without free software we would stop at the level of
windoze 3.1 forever, just because without sharing ideas any progress is
impossible. I am also convinced that paid software won't disappear, at least in
nearest future (because of the way the world is set up right now). But there
isn't anything wrong in free and non-free software living together, we just have
to find the correct proportions. And of course extremal cases such as NDAs
should be exterminated.

Greetings,
_\***@teamOS/2
Matt Holmes
2000-10-11 13:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Woh, step back.

I never claimed I didn't support Open Source. I claimed I don't support the
radical ideas that Stallman puts forth in his Free Software agenda. Every
peice of personal software that I write is Open Source, but Open Source
doesn't have to be free. If I write a wamo blamo Telnet client, and I sell
it as Open Source shareware...guess what, its still Open Source.

Open Source != Free Software

Matt

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Zabolotny" <***@eltech.ru>
To: <crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 3:53 AM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by Andrew Zabolotny
I forgot to mention in my previous letters.
Everybody who are "against" free software usually don't mind to use any free
software resources they find. But why not follow your own point - don't use
opensource software?
The answer is that you simply can't. Today software is way too complex for
everything to be done by one person (or even by a team of persons). So basicaly
those who fight for "capitalist software" won't mind using someone else's
library, even if publically they are saying its author is a fool.
I am 100% convinced that without free software we would stop at the level of
windoze 3.1 forever, just because without sharing ideas any progress is
impossible. I am also convinced that paid software won't disappear, at least in
nearest future (because of the way the world is set up right now). But there
isn't anything wrong in free and non-free software living together, we just have
to find the correct proportions. And of course extremal cases such as NDAs
should be exterminated.
Greetings,
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
Andrew Zabolotny
2000-10-11 08:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorrit Tyberghein
Post by Paul Garceau
So, have we ever talked about a license specifically defined
for what we desire for CrystalSpace? Something that might be
entitled "The CrystalSpace Licensing Agreement"?
I'm not entirely clear why we would want another license? What
exactly is wrong with the LGPL for us?
I believe one of the issues for commercial applications is that most of
companies wants a library that could be "hidden" inside the application so that
nobody except a few people will know that they use some library. That is, they
want to make their application "look" as if it's entirely written by that
company - this adds to the image of the respective company. So basically if we
change the license, we should change it with some no-any-rights-for-author
"license", e.g. some kind of public domain. Like for example zlib has. Any
volunteers?

Greetings,
_\***@teamOS/2
Andrew Zabolotny
2000-10-11 08:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorrit Tyberghein
Post by Paul Garceau
So, have we ever talked about a license specifically defined
for what we desire for CrystalSpace? Something that might be
entitled "The CrystalSpace Licensing Agreement"?
I'm not entirely clear why we would want another license? What
exactly is wrong with the LGPL for us?
I believe one of the issues for commercial applications is that most of
companies wants a library that could be "hidden" inside the application so that
nobody except a few people will know that they use some library. That is, they
want to make their application "look" as if it's entirely written by that
company - this adds to the image of the respective company. So basically if we
change the license, we should change it with some no-any-rights-for-author
"license", e.g. some kind of public domain. Like for example zlib has. Any
volunteers?

Greetings,
_\***@teamOS/2
Christian Reiniger
2000-10-11 15:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Zabolotny
I believe one of the issues for commercial applications is that most of
companies wants a library that could be "hidden" inside the application so
that nobody except a few people will know that they use some library. That
is, they want to make their application "look" as if it's entirely written
by that company - this adds to the image of the respective company. So
I don't think so. Everyone and their Grandma knows that Halflife uses a
modified Quake2 engine, Deus Ex uses the Unreal one etcetc. The companies
rather fear that sometime someone will convince a lawyer that they have to
release the entire sources of their games that are linked to a LGPLed library.
--
Christian Reiniger
Coordinator, LGDC (http://sunsite.auc.dk/lgdc/)

Pretty cool, the kind of power information technology puts in our hands
these days.

- Securityfocus on probing 36000000 hosts for known problems in 3 weeks
Mark Waks
2000-10-11 20:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Zabolotny
Post by Jorrit Tyberghein
I'm not entirely clear why we would want another license? What
exactly is wrong with the LGPL for us?
I believe one of the issues for commercial applications is that most of
companies wants a library that could be "hidden" inside the application so that
nobody except a few people will know that they use some library. That is, they
want to make their application "look" as if it's entirely written by that
company - this adds to the image of the respective company.
While true, that wasn't the killer problem for us: I think we'd have
been willing to credit the Crystal project for the renderer without
qualms. (I suspect we're going to have to credit the commercial one.)
The real problems (as I understand it -- I should emphasize that I am
*not* a lawyer) were caused by the messy use of the word "link" in
sections 5 and 6, and the consequent confusion of whether one is a
"derivative work" or a "work that uses the Library", and what your legal
obligations are.

(To put it another way: the whole thing hinges on what constitutes
*changing* or *enhancing* the library vs. simply *using* the library.
The difference is utterly crucial to the interpretation of the LGPL, but
it doesn't actually define that difference especially well. Most
programmers sort of implicitly understand the difference, but that isn't
going to hold much water in court.)

Really, I don't think we had any problems with the *intent* of the LGPL
(which is IMO quite reasonable) just the details of its wording. The
problem is mainly that the critical sections are confusing enough to
produce a measure of legal uncertainty, and corporations despise
uncertainty...

-- Justin
Paul Garceau
2000-10-11 22:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christian Reiniger
Post by Andrew Zabolotny
I believe one of the issues for commercial applications is that
most of companies wants a library that could be "hidden" inside
the application so that nobody except a few people will know
that they use some library. That is, they want to make their
application "look" as if it's entirely written by that company
- this adds to the image of the respective company. So
I don't think so. Everyone and their Grandma knows that Halflife
uses a modified Quake2 engine
, Deus Ex uses the Unreal one
etcetc.
I know this is true when it comes to someone who is interested
in software development...but when it comes to looking at a
product box, there is nothing that states, at least overtly,
that "this game uses a modified Quake2 engine", or "this game is
built around the Unreal engine".

Consumers could care less. It is only the developer or someone
close to the development who even needs to be concerned about
such things.
Post by Christian Reiniger
The companies rather fear that sometime someone will
convince a lawyer that they have to release the entire sources of
their games that are linked to a LGPLed library.
I think that is a global constant, and therefore needs to be
addressed. If for no other reason then to establish, with
clarity, what exactly can and can not be done with a collection
of files which may be considered "packaged 'as' or 'for use as
a component in', a video game".
Post by Christian Reiniger
--
Christian Reiniger
Coordinator, LGDC (http://sunsite.auc.dk/lgdc/)
Pretty cool, the kind of power information technology puts in our
hands these days.
- Securityfocus on probing 36000000 hosts for known problems in 3
weeks _______________________________________________
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Paul Garceau
2000-10-11 23:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by William T Wilson
Post by Andrew Zabolotny
I believe one of the issues for commercial applications is that
most of companies wants a library that could be "hidden" inside
the application so that nobody except a few people will know
that they use some library. That is, they want to make their
application "look" as
I think that is a bad thing for CrystalSpace to do. In the case
of a commercial library, they get their compensation in the form
of money. In the case of CS, or any LGPL program, the only
compensation the authors get is recognition of their work.
And herein lies the problem. If CS, or a special release of
CS, is defined as "commercial", then whatever funding results
from that commercial release, has to have some place to call
"home" once it has left the purchasers hands.

This is where we tend to run into problems.

Most, if not all, of the contributions to CS development are
provided by folks who just want to feel as if they are part of a
larger effort...a "development team" if you will.
Within the context of this "thread", that is the "team"
responsible for the nuts & bolts development of CS. Or in other
words, those people who have decided it is worth volunteering
their time to be part of a larger whole or, in other words, a
"team member".

(Reality Alert)

The End-User doesn't care who wrote it...all they care about is
if it works or not on their machine (whether it be a PS2 or a
desktop computer of some sort).
If CS doesn't work, and the end-user complains, then it is easy
to say..."ah well, you're free to modify it as you wish, the
source is available at <enter preferred website> and protected
under the LGPL."
If no complaints appear, then it probably means that they (in
this case, the end-user or game developer) dropped CS for some
other engine or they are satisfied with how CS functions within
the context of their specific needs.

(End of Alert)

Remember, this thread would not have come up if it wasn't clear
that commercial development houses are opting for other engines
due to some aspect of CS that they either a) don't understand
exactly how CS really works or b) have some sort of valid legal
reason _not to use_ CS.

I am not promoting a commercial version of CS, only looking at
the ramifications and outcomes given the current legal and
technical status of CS. It is the latter that has triggered
this thread (legal and technical status). Technical status is
one thing, legal status is another and should not, imho, be
considered parallels of each other.

There are any number of advantages to a commercial version and
an equal amount of disadvantages when it comes to releasing any
software, CS notwithstanding.
.
Post by William T Wilson
Although the LGPL is intended to preserve the freedom of the end
user, in this case it also preserves the recognition of the
author.
This latter is what a "credit roll" is all about. That is, if
an engine (lgpl or otherwise) is released, then it is incumbent
upon the publisher to acknowledge the contributors to any given
aspect of the software in question (in this case, the
CrystalSpace Rendering Engine).
Post by William T Wilson
It also encourages people that see the complete
application to look at the underlying libraries and potentially
use it themselves.
See my note on "reality alert", above. A few people may be
interested in knowing how the underlying libraries work, and
they may even want to contribute to those libraries. However,
you will not find the typical gamer perusing those credits. As
noted, they are more interested in the entertainment factors,
and not the technical factors of any given game.

FF8 is one such example...how many people here know what
rendering engines were used or what animation packages were
used, or whether they were they proprietary to Squaresoft or
not? It is clear that something was used...but can anyone say
with certainty what those packages were or who developed those
packages? The typical end-user will say "no, why should I care?
I enjoyed the game.."

Now, out of all those people who do have the answers, how many
of you are contributing to CS in some way? Are you a developer,
end-user/tester or both?
(I still think of myself as a developer, contributor and end-
user/tester even though I haven't been doing much outside of
testing the latest cvs build as I can find the time, and
updating some files for commitment to the cvs repository when
such updating hasn't already been accomplished by someone far
more familiar with the design of some aspect of CS than I am).
Post by William T Wilson
Do I really want to go out of my way to contribute code to an
organization that is ashamed to admit that I wrote it?
This itself is a value call...just because some organization
didn't mention your name or your contribution doesn't mean they
were, in any way, "ashamed" to admit that you wrote it.
I have a number of projects with my name on them at the source
code level. Some of which have been around for more than 25
years, and others that have only been around for a couple. I do
not receive royalties from any of these projects, and yet,
without my expertise, these projects would have failed.

If my name were not on the contributors list, I would still
want to be involved, not because of any financial reward, but
because I am fascinated by the fact that "here is (for the most
part) a working 3d rendering engine that I have contributed to
and can, as I wish, continue to contribute to". That, by
itself, for the most part, is sufficient for my needs of
recognition.

I
Post by William T Wilson
wouldn't (even though I don't have any code actually in the
CrystalSpace library and so have no standing to object).
Legally, to make such a licensing change all contributors have to
agree.
Of course, that is why I mentioned it.

Just remember where I noted earlier in this reply, "this is
where we run into problems", as that set of problems will remain
unresolved for as long as CS is licensed under LGPL.

LGPL is what the CS contributors agreed to sometime ago. Now
may be the appropriate time to re-evaluate such things; ie. if
the number of replies to this thread may be considered as reason
enough to pursue such a thing.

Peace,

Paul G.
Post by William T Wilson
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Seth Galbraith
2000-10-11 08:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Hieber
I don't think the idea of freedom of thought applies to software at
all.
Intellectual freedom is not just freedom of "thought". But I'm sure you
understand that. I agree that software is different from information.
The information in software - the code itself - is similar to the list of
ingredients on food: It helps you use the food, but it is not the food
itself.

But software is not like food either: If you have the code, you can make
the software, you don't need to buy raw materials. It is like a machine
made of nothing and only the blueprints matter - but even the blueprints
are easy to copy.

Imagine there were simple recipes for transforming various elements into
gold. No wonder people fight over the issue of Free Software!
Post by Thomas Hieber
Maybe this is the big misunderstanding that Richad Stallman has.
Software is not a work of art or a political statement that must be
protected by some sort of freedom.
For some reason the software companies themselves seem to think they are
in a power struggle where they must maintain strict control over the users
of their software. I can't imagine why they would have these fancy
license agreements if there wasn't some issue of freedom.

Of course it's not exactly like the freedom to make a sculpture or sing a
song. It's not exactly like the freedom to own property or to do
business either, but it's similar to those things in some ways.

The way the FSF looks at things it's a lot like property. Once you give
somebody a copy of GPL software, there is no question about whether it's a
"licensed" or "pirated" copy - each copy is the real "thing". Sure you
can charge anything you want for a copy on CD or even floppy, but if
somebody makes a copy, it's just like if they could copy bread and
potatoes or gold ingots. Each copy would be just as legal as the first,
and you could sell them if you wanted or give them all away.
Post by Thomas Hieber
You are _always_ free to implement what you want or like.
What if you just want to change a little detail about how your software
works? If it's not Free Software, you could have a daunting task ahead of
you - like redesigning and building an office suite.

Yet if you wanted to change a little detail about how your car works, you
would just need some publically available information, parts, and of
course the know-how. But you would not need to engineer a new car!

Of course there are some limitations to those modifications, but they
have more to do with the laws of the land, the laws of physics, and common
sense, than the limitations imposed by the car manufacturer.
Post by Thomas Hieber
The problem is, that RS thinks that every software should be free.
"Give me my medicine for free, because I produce free software and I
don't have the money. And after all, medical treatment should be
free."
First of all: RMS is not a doctor but he is a software developer.
Second, to make the comparison valid, the medical treatment would have to
affect people's freedom in a way that was independent of nature or quality
of the treatment. For example it would maybe have to limit the patients
future treatment options or alternative or something. It's not a simple
analogy.
Post by Thomas Hieber
Software is an industrial product like many others. If people like us
are willing to share some part of their work with the world, without
asking for money this is NOT freedom (as in freedom of speech) but
charity (like in free of beer). At least this is the way I see it.
If you make free or Free software out of charity, that is a fine thing.
Not everybody cares about the freedom of software users. But some people
do care about Free Software. Some people do think it's important that
there is software that people can use and modify - the way they can use
and modify many other "industrial" products!

Imagine if the rules for using software were exactly like any other
manufactured product. You could pirate the software, reverse
engineer protection schemes, decompile the software, share the
applications with everyone on your network, and so on.

The more you treat the software like a manufactured product, the less
profit you can make from it, because manufactured products make sense when
it is not easy to duplicate the product. Imagine setting up a widget
factory only to find out that widgets grow abundantly on trees everywhere
and they're always in season :-)

So conversely, proprietary software companies - companies that make their
money by selling software units - usually "licenses" - have to make the
software pay off like manufactured products, by adding new restrictions to
their use. This is where the freedom issue comes in. A "site license" is
a limitation of freedom, as are most of the restrictions of a standard
"shrink-wrap" license agreement.

Free Software is software without those restrictions. That is what the
"freedom" is about. It's not about the users "freedom" to HAVE software,
but their freedom to do what they want with the software that they do
have.

Why should all software be free? Because the people who "bought" the
software should be able to use it as they would use any other device - a
tool or appliance or something. Unfortunately this also means that the
software could be readily modified, reverse engineered, and shared.

I'd say that's probably some kind of a paradox. If you "buy" software -
really "buy" it and not just "license" it - then it would be very nearly
Free Software, and so why would you pay for it to begin with?

The frightening thing about Mr. Stallman is not that he thinks this is a
good idea, but that he can live without the contrivances that protect us
from having to think about these problems :-)
__ __ _ _ __ __
_/ \__/ \__/ Seth Galbraith "The Serpent Lord" \__/ \__/ \_
\__/ \__/ \_ ***@krl.org #2244199 on ICQ _/ \__/ \__/
_/ \__/ \__/ http://www.planetquake.com/gg \__/ \__/ \_
Hammer, Uffe DK - UNP
2000-10-11 08:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Well i live in Copenhagen, Denmark and we actually have the free bike
project working here, you pay 10kr. as a deposit and when you leave the bike
you get them back. The only problem is that there never seems to be any bike
entirely intact and therefore not even worth using, if there indeed is any
one at all. However using a new system where they put a radio transmitter
into the bicycle, which should enable the police to help track the bicycles
if they go beyond the center of the city (which is illegal), the authorities
hopes to put an end to the bicycle stealing.
So far Copenhagen citybikes have been observed as far away as China.....


A litte offtrack the CS discussion, but then again the entire discussion
these last 24 hours seems to have taken an ideol


-----Original Message-----
From: W.C.A. Wijngaards [mailto:***@kits.cs.vu.nl]
Sent: 10. oktober 2000 21:05
To: crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port


WhiteGold writes:
|(P.S: In response to your seemingly ridiculous "free car" tirade -- There
|are countries, like holland, who have 'free bikes' that are just there, on
|the streets.. You need to get somewhere? Grab a bike and go. Just leave
it
|where someone else can get it. Oh my!? Who would have thought sharing could
|be so useful.)

Sorry to bore people with facts. I live in Amsterdam, Holland.
There are no free bikes on the streets. I believe such a project
existed years ago (decennia ago?). Snide side point: when I read this
I thought you were going to refer to bike theft being the highest
in the world here (mostly because the number of bikes is so big :-) ).

Of course, this topic deserves to be on slashdot once CS decides what
to do. The PR of this will be valuable to the project.

Sorry for being practical with this sensitive issue,

Wouter
--
Wouter Wijngaards ***@cs.vu.nl
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~wouterw/
Seth Galbraith
2000-10-11 08:26:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorrit Tyberghein
I'm interested in a document about the MilkShape format. Can you mail
that to me or give me an URL?
MilkShape 3D SDK:
http://www.swissquake.ch/chumbalum-soft/files/ms3dsdk12.zip

MS3D ASCII format viewer (with source)
http://www.swissquake.ch/chumbalum-soft/files/MsViewer.zip
__ __ _ _ __ __
_/ \__/ \__/ Seth Galbraith "The Serpent Lord" \__/ \__/ \_
\__/ \__/ \_ ***@krl.org #2244199 on ICQ _/ \__/ \__/
_/ \__/ \__/ http://www.planetquake.com/gg \__/ \__/ \_
Hammer, Uffe DK - UNP
2000-10-11 08:56:05 UTC
Permalink
sorry it should have been:

A litte offtrack the CS discussion, but then again the entire discussion
these last 24 hours seems to have taken en ideological turn.



-----Original Message-----
From: W.C.A. Wijngaards [mailto:***@kits.cs.vu.nl]
Sent: 10. oktober 2000 21:05
To: crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port


WhiteGold writes:
|(P.S: In response to your seemingly ridiculous "free car" tirade -- There
|are countries, like holland, who have 'free bikes' that are just there, on
|the streets.. You need to get somewhere? Grab a bike and go. Just leave
it
|where someone else can get it. Oh my!? Who would have thought sharing could
|be so useful.)

Sorry to bore people with facts. I live in Amsterdam, Holland.
There are no free bikes on the streets. I believe such a project
existed years ago (decennia ago?). Snide side point: when I read this
I thought you were going to refer to bike theft being the highest
in the world here (mostly because the number of bikes is so big :-) ).

Of course, this topic deserves to be on slashdot once CS decides what
to do. The PR of this will be valuable to the project.

Sorry for being practical with this sensitive issue,

Wouter
--
Wouter Wijngaards ***@cs.vu.nl
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~wouterw/
George Yohng
2000-10-11 12:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Hello, Guys!

My mailbox is flooded with "Richard Stallman's" subject, concerning
license issues and PS2 port.

I wish I have time to read all this stuff. But please, can anybody
explain me in few words, what's the status of those two questions?

Is CrystalSpace to be licensed more freely, than LGPL (e.g., +allowance of
static linkage )?

How does PS2 port concern Richard Stallman?

Thanks,
George.
Jerry Segler
2000-10-11 16:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorrit Tyberghein
Check it out at the Crystal Space site.
Greetings,
Umm.. not to get nit picky..

But doesn't a PS2 port violate 6. b of the LGPL? Or does it have some sort of
shared library support? Just curious.. I don't own a PS2 or have any inclination
to buy/develop on one.

On the flip side, wouldn't the NDA'd library from Sony be considered "part of the
operating system"? That would fall under the exception in part 6 I believe.

As for RMS, etc..

He is more a zealot/idealist than most people realize. This is not a bad thing
IMO.
His biggest gripe is that people are "sold" things but can't modify, etc them.

How many people get in an uproar when Intel/AMD start locking the speed of their
chips? They lament that I own this chip and I should be able to run it at any
speed it can handle.
How many people would buy a computer that couldn't be modified? no more
upgrading memory, cpu, hard drives, etc. I know *I* wouldn't buy one.. but many
consumers would if it was cheaper because they don't upgrade as it is.. They buy
a newer one in 3 yrs.

Isn't that basically what we get with commercial sw usually? You can't change
most things.. And you can't open it up and fix things. (i.e. have the source and
recompile it)

I don't know many people who agree with RMS 100%... However, I agree with him
more than I agree with the MS way of doing things.. Which is why I work on things
like CS.
When dealing with RMS you have to speak in GNU speak. Free Software, etc.. If
Jorrit had done that I think the conversation would have gone a bit smoother.
As it was RMS was trying to drive home a point on terminology.. And I don't think
Jorrit got a clear answer because of that.

How does the linux kernel handle loading of shared libraries into it's memory
space? If I remember right they put in an exception for close-sourced modules as
long as they didn't require kernel patches to function.
The PS2 port could fall under a similar exception. An exception for closed
source plugins. (Video drivers, physics systems, input drivers, etc)

-Jerry (***@gerf.org)
Seth Galbraith
2000-10-11 16:08:52 UTC
Permalink
If I write a wamo blamo Telnet client, and I sell it as Open Source
shareware...guess what, its still Open Source.
Same is true of GPL. One example is Quake Army Knife. The "This program
is free software" screen works very much like the old "This program is
shareware" screen. It is in fact shareware AND Free Software.

In addition there is a fair amount of software out there sold in boxes
which is GPL, including many GNU/Linux packages (which also contain some
non-GPL software, but the money value comes from the whole package which
is based on several key GPL components.)

Of course, there are other ways to cash in on Free Software, which don't
involve providing a "service" and therefore changing your business model.

* Package it with non-free software (package a free media player in
a proprietary interface) Watch Stallman get all squirmy :-)
* Sell it to an audience that can't easily build the product from
the source code (this includes game consoles, Windows, and MacOS)
Most of your customers won't even know what a "compiler" is.
* Distribute the Free Software with proprietary content - manuals,
game characters and settings, clip art, geometry and animation
libraries, or even physical materials - books and cloth maps.

You don't necessarily have to do these things "instead of" or "in spite
of" embracing the Free Software concept as Stallman sees it. You could do
this in addition to it. You could have two versions of your software: one
that's 100% GPL, another that's mixed with other software or content.
You could sell your product to some people who can't easily exploit the
Free nature of the software, and others who can.

I'm not trying to show that Free Software will make as much money as
proprietary software. This is not business advice. I'm just trying to
point out that there are lots of obvious ways to sell Free Software.
__ __ _ _ __ __
_/ \__/ \__/ Seth Galbraith "The Serpent Lord" \__/ \__/ \_
\__/ \__/ \_ ***@krl.org #2244199 on ICQ _/ \__/ \__/
_/ \__/ \__/ http://www.planetquake.com/gg \__/ \__/ \_
Christian Reiniger
2000-10-11 17:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seth Galbraith
* Distribute the Free Software with proprietary content - manuals,
game characters and settings, clip art, geometry and animation
libraries, or even physical materials - books and cloth maps.
Note: This additional content doesn't even have to be proprietary. Printed
and bound manuals, data (clip art etc) that's too much to download over a
"normal" connection and simple "all you need" collections are things people
*do* pay for, even if the very same stuff (in digital form) can be downloaded
for free.
Post by Seth Galbraith
this in addition to it. You could have two versions of your software: one
that's 100% GPL, another that's mixed with other software or content.
You could sell your product to some people who can't easily exploit the
Free nature of the software, and others who can.
Another alternative (for libraries): Release the software as GPL, but sell a
version relicensed to "no need to release source, no right to copy etc" to
companies who are not comfortable with the GPL.
--
Christian Reiniger
Coordinator, LGDC (http://sunsite.auc.dk/lgdc/)

Very funny, Scotty! Now beam up my clothes...
Seth Galbraith
2000-10-11 16:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Zabolotny
I believe one of the issues for commercial applications is that most
of companies wants a library that could be "hidden" inside the
application so that nobody except a few people will know that they use
some library. That is, they want to make their application "look" as
if it's entirely written by that company - this adds to the image of
the respective company. So basically if we change the license, we
should change it with some no-any-rights-for-author "license", e.g.
some kind of public domain. Like for example zlib has. Any volunteers?
Even the GPL has been used this way. The "This part of the program is
free software" stuff can be placed "prominently" right underneath all of
the rest of your program's license agreement which most users will never
read. Of course that's as cynical as heck, but it's been done.
__ __ _ _ __ __
_/ \__/ \__/ Seth Galbraith "The Serpent Lord" \__/ \__/ \_
\__/ \__/ \_ ***@krl.org #2244199 on ICQ _/ \__/ \__/
_/ \__/ \__/ http://www.planetquake.com/gg \__/ \__/ \_
William T Wilson
2000-10-11 17:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Waks
only changes to Crystal itself need to be made public.) Problem is,
our lawyers basically forced us to actually read the language of the
Yeah, that's their job :}
Post by Mark Waks
license itself, and that language is nowhere near so clear. One can
get the interpretation that's stated in the preamble, yes. But there
are a couple of key sections (sections 5 and 6 in particular) that are
ambiguous and confusing at best; personally, I haven't yet managed to
If this is true, then it is a problem for all LGPL software, not just
CrystalSpace.

However, the license seems pretty clear to me. What do you find
ambiguous?
Mark Waks
2000-10-12 00:14:33 UTC
Permalink
[This is getting into abstruse discussion of legal wording. Those who
are looking for technical content should stop here. We're probably
drawing near the line -- and maybe have crossed it -- where this should
be taken offline.]
Post by William T Wilson
Post by Mark Waks
license itself, and that language is nowhere near so clear. One can
get the interpretation that's stated in the preamble, yes. But there
are a couple of key sections (sections 5 and 6 in particular) that are
ambiguous and confusing at best; personally, I haven't yet managed to
If this is true, then it is a problem for all LGPL software, not just
CrystalSpace.
Which is why the whole thing took me pretty seriously by surprise --
Jorrit actually made this point to me, and it seemed like a pretty good
argument. Mind, I came in both hoping and expecting to find that the
license issue would be pretty simple, not least for this reason. But
digging into it, it just got more and more murky...
Post by William T Wilson
However, the license seems pretty clear to me. What do you find
ambiguous?
Well, here are a couple of the points that *I* find pretty confusing.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, just a layman who's been looking the thing over
and trying to read it closely...

First of all, in section 5 we have these two paragraphs:

------

5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library,
but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked
with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in
isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls
outside the scope of this License.

However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates
an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains
portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library".
The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states
terms for distribution of such executables.

------

Okay, so from this I gather that it's saying that an executable linked
to the Library is a *derivative* of the Library. That's not exactly what
I was expecting, to begin with -- under those conditions, it's hard to
see how any program could *meaningfully* be a "work that uses the
Library", rather than a derivative. I suspect that it is intended to
mean that only something *statically* linked to it is a derivative of
the Library -- but it certainly doesn't say that clearly.

Next, look at that last sentence. It says that Section 6 deals with
executables that are derivatives of the Library. But that's not what
Section 6 claims to be about -- it says that it's about "works that use
the Library", and doesn't even mention the notion of derivative works.
And mind you, it just said in Section 5 that a "work that uses the
Library" falls outside the scope of the license entirely! Is this
terminological confusion? I suspect so, but I'm really unsure.

Next, look at this bit:

------

b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library.
A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the
library already present on the user's computer system, rather than
copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate
properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs
one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the
version that the work was made with.

------

Now I believe I know what this is trying to get at -- it's saying that
if you have the library in a .dll (or equivalent concept in other OSes),
you're exempt from having to provide the source code. But "uses at run
time a copy of the library already present on the user's computer
system" isn't exactly a clear definition of a .dll.

I'm not sure *how* to read "already present on the user's computer
system", actually. Does it mean in RAM? (A .dll very likely won't
already be in RAM until the executable invokes it.) Does it mean on the
hard drive? (The executable is already on the hard drive at runtime, so
it isn't clear what distinction they're trying to draw in this case.)
The phrase confuses matters more than clarifies them.

(And as someone else brought up -- yes, reading through this document it
sounds *very* much to me like you can't statically link the library to a
closed-source program. In this particular case, I believe it's
intentional. It sounds like they're trying to use static vs. dynamic
linking as the distinction between whether you have to open your source
or not. That's a reasonable way to cut through the fuzziness, but
they're describing it really badly. And requiring dynamic linking is
likely going to be a problem on platforms such as consoles: far as I
know, they don't have the concept.)

Then, look at this sentence from Section 6:

------

For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library"
must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the
executable from it.

------

That's kinda scary. I suspect that by "data" this is intended to mean
numerical-type stuff, to assist in reverse-engineering, but it can
*easily* be read to mean that you have to distribute the source code.
(Which is certainly "data needed for reproducing the executable".) Is
that what it was supposed to mean? I doubt it. But again, it's confusing
and ambiguous.

Those are the ones that jumped out at me; I don't know if the lawyers
found other issues. But it's enough to convince me that they aren't
simply blowing smoke here -- the thing really *is* pretty confusing,
where it most needs to be clear. I can see reading this with a
common-sense interpretation that comes out with the "right" answer. But
licenses aren't about common sense -- they're about spelling things out
as precisely and clearly as possible, to avoid any future ambiguity. The
LGPL's Preamble is a nice, clear description of licensing principles,
and makes oodles of sense. But the license itself just isn't a very good
contract...

It's honestly unclear to me that anything *can* be done about it at this
point; relicensing a product of many hands like this is likely to be
impractical. I'm mostly making the contrarian point here so that folks
are aware of the issue for the future, and can think about it...

-- Justin
Who really needs to sit down and read
through, eg, the MPL, and see how it
compares...
Martin Geisse
2000-10-11 17:26:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Threewitt
the windows 2000 license wizard examines all your software to "help you"
insure that all of your applications have current licenses and it phones
home to microsoft to help in that evaluation.
Larry
In other words: It lets MS check which software I'm using and whether it is
an illegal copy?

Martin Geisse
John D. Gwinner
2000-10-11 19:17:44 UTC
Permalink
I haven't said anything so far, and I've only about half followed this, but I
have to say something here:

comments inline
Post by Ogles, Dan
-----Original Message-----
If the truth is offensive, I'm not sorry to offend you in this way.
That's kind of a cop out.
Post by Ogles, Dan
What other reasons have been given in opposition of free software? They're
always rooted in "But, I HAVE to make money." generally followed up silently
with "Lots of it." which is all the aforementioned qualities wrapped up in
one.
That's perjorative, and it sounds like you are not listening. I don't have to
read through the messages, I bet, to read plenty of reasons of opposition.

There's a hell of a difference between putting food on the table, and making
'lots' of money. Most free software proponents put everyone that opposes them
squarly in the "I'm greedy give me money" camp.

There are a many reasons to not keep software free. Secrecy by Privacy;
Industrial secrets, and warranty issues, for one thing. I don't know if they
have all been brought up. However, note that I didn't necessarily say "good
reasons". Secrecy by Privacy for example, is not from a cyrptographic
standpoint strong, but it is used quite a bit by computer games, for example.

Industrial secrets are another large area. Yes, code can be decompiled for
the algorithms, but with software patents as big of an issue, industrial
secrecy is a recognizeable reason for keeping code private. (making a patent
puts your product in public view, "Free" if you will, but anyone can analyze
it, make a slight improvement, and owe you nothing. So many people keep
things secret as a better protection).
Post by Ogles, Dan
My point, which you are taking out of context, was not offensive at all.
I love arguments like this. You cannot say wether something is offensive to
someone else. All you can say is that you didn't intend it to be offensive,
or that you don't think it was offensive. The fact remains that the other
person may still consider it to be offensive. (of course, you may disagree
with that person's assesment). You can't, however, state that it *is*
offensive. Offense is an emotion; unless you are God or am Empath, you can't
say that someone else isn't offended.

In this case, a good many people outside the FSF movement DO consider this
offensive.
Post by Ogles, Dan
It
was merely providing a vehicle in which your mind can conceptualize the
modern decimation of information and the staunching of the free flow of
ideas as the world quickly patents, copyrights, and tucks them away where
nobody else can use them.
That is the largest facet of the FSF's push. Not to take food from your
mouths certainly. Not to force any of you into an unreasonable lifestyle
just to make a point (RMS does that enough for all of us). But to try and
provide for the people a conceptual understanding that all information
belongs to humanity - not to individuals. Benefit from the glory of
discovering something new by putting your name on it - but don't hide it
behind legal jargon where it can ONLY benefit you.
Eli Whitney?
Post by Ogles, Dan
Let's say I came up with a new algorithm for rendering polygons. It turned
out to boost a 50% increase in frame rate, was a simple change to the modern
driver architecture, and could work with all the newer video cards if they
used my algorithm.
Is it fair for me to hide that piece of code behind a patent and then sell a
video card (or license to a single manufacturer) that has the proper
drivers, hailing it as a 50% better performer than it's peers (when it's the
same, with a better driver) JUST to make money?
This means a technology which is simply an extention to the current
technology - in which we ALL share has been suppressed and delivered only to
those who have the money to afford it. I make a lot of money, sure, but the
world of technology as a whole didn't improve from my advance.. Just my
wallet.
Wouldn't (looking at it from a FSF point of view now) it have been better if
I took the algorithm, put my GPL or LGPL license on it for all to use, see,
and gain from. Now I make a big stink about it to all the video card
manufacturers, perhaps even contract with them to build the patch for the
drivers to their cards ($), definitely support them in migrating to the new
technology ($). Now everybody's video cards run 50% faster, and my name is
at the tip of every video card manufacturer's tongue when they think of
their increased performance. I will not starve, because my advances are now
widespread which means my name is also widespread and jobs will not be
difficult to find.
It's a nice theory, but it doesn't always work.
WhiteGold
2000-10-11 21:43:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by John D. Gwinner
Post by WhiteGold
If the truth is offensive, I'm not sorry to offend you in this way.
That's kind of a cop out.
Not really.. The fact is I could care less who I offend and when - but if
I'm stating the brass facts on an issue and you decide to make it seem
offensive to further your argument, I can do no more nor can I care less
that you've done so.
Post by John D. Gwinner
Post by WhiteGold
My point, which you are taking out of context, was not offensive at all.
I love arguments like this. You cannot say wether something is offensive to
someone else. All you can say is that you didn't intend it to be offensive,
or that you don't think it was offensive. The fact remains that the other
person may still consider it to be offensive. (of course, you may disagree
with that person's assesment). You can't, however, state that it *is*
offensive. Offense is an emotion; unless you are God or am Empath, you can't
say that someone else isn't offended.
In this case, a good many people outside the FSF movement DO consider this
offensive.
And I love people who pick up an argument midstream and decide to play
semantic games with it every line just to make themselves out to be more
than they are. (Now, if you will notice, I am being offensive.)
Post by John D. Gwinner
Eli Whitney?
Is that a bad thing? His fame lives on.. His ideas were brought to light.
He made life better for many people, even though he suffered to do so. His
advances in cotton milling technology revolutionized the modern textile
industry. He has museums, schools, roads, even aircraft named after him.
For a guy you're using to prove a point as to how the freeing of ideas
hurts, you missed the mark on this one.
Post by John D. Gwinner
It's a nice theory, but it doesn't always work.
William T Wilson
2000-10-11 19:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Zabolotny
I believe one of the issues for commercial applications is that most
of companies wants a library that could be "hidden" inside the
application so that nobody except a few people will know that they use
some library. That is, they want to make their application "look" as
I think that is a bad thing for CrystalSpace to do. In the case of a
commercial library, they get their compensation in the form of money. In
the case of CS, or any LGPL program, the only compensation the authors get
is recognition of their work. Although the LGPL is intended to preserve
the freedom of the end user, in this case it also preserves the
recognition of the author. It also encourages people that see the
complete application to look at the underlying libraries and potentially
use it themselves.

Do I really want to go out of my way to contribute code to an organization
that is ashamed to admit that I wrote it? I wouldn't (even though I don't
have any code actually in the CrystalSpace library and so have no standing
to object).

Legally, to make such a licensing change all contributors have to agree.
John D. Gwinner
2000-10-11 19:49:56 UTC
Permalink
You know the old saying, if all else fails, send laywers and guns <G>
Post by Christian Reiniger
You need to have really good lawyers to make a good license, and even if
that's given it isn't a good solution, because it's an unknown license. If
someone sees a "licensed under the (GPL|MIT|BSD|Artistic|MPL)" notice he
knows what to expect, but when coming across an agreement he doesn't know
he'll be wary.
Are there any legal precendants that anyone knows for these notices?

I bet a lot of things are settled out of court, but I would assume that some
of these have been tested in the courtroom. Legal review doesn't count, the
proof is in whether it survives in a court of law judgement.

== John ==

P.S. I do know of one case where a game dev shop 'hid' an engine. They had
apparently gotten a good amount of money (six or seven digits) from a
publisher to develop a custom engine, and instead simply bought one 'off the
shelf'. The money went into a series of sports cars. The publisher was not
amused. Of course, obviously it wasn't complety secret or you wouldn't hear
this annectode.
Eric C. Schneider
2000-10-11 20:36:31 UTC
Permalink
As was your lego comment. If you can't be constructive rather
than condescending, please leave. I am sure the movement
on both sides of the issue will survive quite nicely without
your abrasive attitude. Of course, I am sure this note will
cause you to break out the gasoline and flame me as well but
I really don't care...I am too busy having fun writing code
AND making money.

Eric
Post by Ogles, Dan
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Your empty rhetoric is amusing, but useless.
Ken
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by Matt Holmes
You know, actually your right. I am a greedy bastard.
I want to buy my wife a new BMW next year, cause I love her and
she deserves it. I would like to get a bigger house, cause the pitter
patter of footsies could be on the way soon. I would like to get a new
living room set cause ours is six years old and kinda ugly.
Yep, greedy greedy greedy, thats me. I am so greedy that I would like
to live comfortably doing what I love (programming). Let me know
when your world without money comes along, I would love that :P Yay,
no bills (yes, those of us who work in the real world have bills).
Matt
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by WhiteGold
If the truth is offensive, I'm not sorry to offend you in this way.
What other reasons have been given in opposition of free software?
They're
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
always rooted in "But, I HAVE to make money." generally followed up
silently
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
with "Lots of it." which is all the aforementioned qualities
wrapped up
in
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
one.
My point, which you are taking out of context, was not
offensive at all.
It
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
was merely providing a vehicle in which your mind can
conceptualize the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
modern decimation of information and the staunching of the
free flow of
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
ideas as the world quickly patents, copyrights, and tucks them away
where
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
nobody else can use them.
That is the largest facet of the FSF's push. Not to take food
from your
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
mouths certainly. Not to force any of you into an
unreasonable lifestyle
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
just to make a point (RMS does that enough for all of us). But to try
and
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
provide for the people a conceptual understanding that all information
belongs to humanity - not to individuals. Benefit from the glory of
discovering something new by putting your name on it - but
don't hide it
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
behind legal jargon where it can ONLY benefit you.
Let's say I came up with a new algorithm for rendering polygons. It
turned
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
out to boost a 50% increase in frame rate, was a simple change to the
modern
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
driver architecture, and could work with all the newer video cards if
they
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
used my algorithm.
Is it fair for me to hide that piece of code behind a patent and then
sell a
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
video card (or license to a single manufacturer) that has the proper
drivers, hailing it as a 50% better performer than it's peers
(when it's
the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
same, with a better driver) JUST to make money?
This means a technology which is simply an extention to the current
technology - in which we ALL share has been suppressed and delivered
only to
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
those who have the money to afford it. I make a lot of
money, sure, but
the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
world of technology as a whole didn't improve from my
advance.. Just my
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
wallet.
Wouldn't (looking at it from a FSF point of view now) it have been
better if
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
I took the algorithm, put my GPL or LGPL license on it for all to use,
see,
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
and gain from. Now I make a big stink about it to all the video card
manufacturers, perhaps even contract with them to build the patch for
the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
drivers to their cards ($), definitely support them in
migrating to the
new
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
technology ($). Now everybody's video cards run 50% faster,
and my name
is
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
at the tip of every video card manufacturer's tongue when
they think of
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
their increased performance. I will not starve, because my
advances are
now
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
widespread which means my name is also widespread and jobs will not be
difficult to find.
If everyone shared every technological advance they ever made with
everyone
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
else, imagine the software you would have today. Imagine
what CS would
look
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
like, act, and perform with the big boys in technology
delivering their
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
"secrets" to the masses. Would THEY starve? The innovaters?
The people
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
truly working for the future? Nope, because the innovaters
would be the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
first to market with a product that has these new technologies enabled
in
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
them, but it wouldn't stop the technology from advancing.
I'm not for giving everything away for free, people.. I'm for keeping
things
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
real. Technology shouldn't be owned, it is a byproduct of the human
syndrome. It stems from our race's desire to know, to learn,
to build,
and
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
to explore. If we keep the maps we draw to ourselves, the world will
remain
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
a very large and un-navigatable place. If technology moves
from mind to
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
mind at the speed of thought (light, the internet, insert other clever
metaphore here) we can move quickly on the grid. Now, the new
IMPLEMENTATIONS that use these technological advances will be
where the
work
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
is spent and the revenue is made. Who wouldn't want that?
The best of the best: A 3d engine that was compiled from the best
technology of all the world's 3D engines. The best Collision
detection,
the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
best event management system, the best OO. Everything. (Everything CS
wants
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
to be, yeah?)
Is this scenario possible under the current laws, restrictive
licensing
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
arangements, and distribution methodologies? No. Why?
Because those who
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
made "the best" algorithms and technology will keep a hold of
it for as
long
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
as possible in order to keep their "competitive advantage" and revenue
stream. Instead of focusing on using the best of the best to
create the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
best GAME, APP, what have you, they focus on keeping the technology
secret
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
and building proprietary apps utilizing the technology we're not
"allowed".
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
For the love of all that lives and breathes, people, they've started
issuing
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
patents for MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS. Math, the language of the
universe,
the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
stuff from which all things can be related to and described - is being
carved up and handed to large corporations as if they created it from
the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
cosmos themselves. If this isn't offensive to you, to see
what once was
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
free to all being taken away from us piece by piece, what is?
And what
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
better metaphore to describe what it's like to see technology and
advances
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
being gobbled up and hidden behind restrictive covenants?
What once was
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
free for anyone who could dream it, to buildit - now you had
better be
sure
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
you paid the right people in order to make your dream come true.. BAH!
Kudos to ID for releasing the sources for Quake & Doom to the public,
without which I can gaurantee you CS wouldn't be as far along as it is
now.
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
Kudos to all of you in the Open Source community who give a lot for
little
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
return. Perhaps the next generation of programmers will not be forced
into a
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
"If I don't make money on this, I'll starve" mentality which
many of you
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
suffer so badly. If so, it will only be a natural thing to them to
share
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
their ideas. Try and conceptualize if you can, a world
without money..
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
What other reason would someone hoard the best of the best?
I think the only ones in this world who would "starve" from a
free flow
of
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
technological information would be the lazy, the weak, and the
incompetent.
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
(Not to mention the modern government strongholds, but that's for
another
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
time.) It would soon be seen (when the doors flew open wide)
that those
who
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
can make a difference - will. Those who simply ride on the backs of
others,
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
won't and will spend their time playing legos with the things the rest
of us
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
build for them to play with.
Call it "socio-political" hype if you would like. Idealistic visions
have
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
always been frowned on by establishmentarinists, and if dreams and
ideals
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
are snuffed out because "it doesn't make me money" then the
dream wasn't
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
strong enough in your mind.
You can all go back to playing with your legos again.
Ken / WhiteGold
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about
CS/PS2 port
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
Hmm... Somehow my argument has been morphed from "Stop giving other
people
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
crap for their opinions, just because they're not yours"
to "you are
all
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
evil capitalist bastards.." How odd. I have yet to even step once
onto
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
the
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
offensive here either.. Obviously some of you have issues they need
to
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
delve
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
into.
"Selfishness, greed, avarice (all things necessary for a good
capitalist) benefits only the individual, and in the end takes AWAY
from
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
humanity."
Post by r***@themail.com
Call me crazy, but this seems like a somewhat offensive statement.
Besides, if you point _is_ to stand up against people who
"give crap"
for
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
others opinions, how about blasting Mr. Stallman for his
attitude toward
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
Jorrit.
Post by r***@themail.com
__________________________________________________________________
Sign-up today at http://www.themail.com/ref.htm?ref=898251
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
WhiteGold
2000-10-11 21:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Abrasive is one word for it. Bristled is another. My hackles get up when
seemingly smart people begin saying incredibly myopic things and then
fighting back when told they're doing it.

I started this whole debate by saying (paraphrased) "RMS Has a point, it's
his point - maybe not your point. Maybe not your vision of the world, but
his point is as valid as yours so back off."

This is not abrasive, it is supportive of an idealist whose vision has
brought to light many cool things.. GNU, the FSF, Linux is based on his GNU
work... He deserves at least the respect he deserves as a liberal idealist
and THAT is what I said.

I quote myself, because everyone else seems to want to:

"Do as you must to achieve your goals in the world, but lay off of others
who
don't feel the same as you do. Perhaps they have a point you might want to
look at a little deeper before ranting about how "un-you" they are."

Now I will go back to playing with MY legos, thank you very much.. I always
liked the red ones.

PS: I too enjoy the hell out of writing code, and making money - and
sometimes they even coincide..
The deal is - you get what you give.. He gave me nothing but useless empty
rhetoric in lieu of a proper and well thought through debate point. The
goal of any debate is for everyone to understand everyone else - wether they
AGREE or not is a personal choice everyone makes - but to digress to simply
"nyah nyah"ing and sticking one's tongue out is the sign of someone who has
already lost the battle without a fight.. I hold no respect for someone who
won't even take the time to format a proper reply, and simply thumbs their
nose at it all without taking the time to listen to the rationalized,
logical, consciously displayed ideals. If you're going to do that, why hit
[send]?

My e-mail is on the top of each and every one of these messages - if anyone
has useless snide side-comments to make, that would be the proper way to do
it.

To refresh you - The debate on hand was: Is Richard Stallman an idiot or a
visionary? Not: You are all greedy capitalist bastards.

Personally - I'm burned out on the issue. There are those of you who agree,
those of you who do not, and those of you who could care less... Same as it
ever was. (As I said in my original letter.. Some do, some don't, so what..)

Out.

Ken / WhiteGold

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric C. Schneider" <***@cadmigos.com>
To: <crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by Eric C. Schneider
As was your lego comment. If you can't be constructive rather
than condescending, please leave. I am sure the movement
on both sides of the issue will survive quite nicely without
your abrasive attitude. Of course, I am sure this note will
cause you to break out the gasoline and flame me as well but
I really don't care...I am too busy having fun writing code
AND making money.
Eric
Post by Ogles, Dan
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Your empty rhetoric is amusing, but useless.
Ken
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by Matt Holmes
You know, actually your right. I am a greedy bastard.
I want to buy my wife a new BMW next year, cause I love her and
she deserves it. I would like to get a bigger house, cause the pitter
patter of footsies could be on the way soon. I would like to get a new
living room set cause ours is six years old and kinda ugly.
Yep, greedy greedy greedy, thats me. I am so greedy that I would like
to live comfortably doing what I love (programming). Let me know
when your world without money comes along, I would love that :P Yay,
no bills (yes, those of us who work in the real world have bills).
Matt
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by WhiteGold
If the truth is offensive, I'm not sorry to offend you in this way.
What other reasons have been given in opposition of free software?
They're
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
always rooted in "But, I HAVE to make money." generally followed up
silently
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
with "Lots of it." which is all the aforementioned qualities
wrapped up
in
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
one.
My point, which you are taking out of context, was not
offensive at all.
It
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
was merely providing a vehicle in which your mind can
conceptualize the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
modern decimation of information and the staunching of the
free flow of
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
ideas as the world quickly patents, copyrights, and tucks them away
where
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
nobody else can use them.
That is the largest facet of the FSF's push. Not to take food
from your
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
mouths certainly. Not to force any of you into an
unreasonable lifestyle
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
just to make a point (RMS does that enough for all of us). But to try
and
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
provide for the people a conceptual understanding that all information
belongs to humanity - not to individuals. Benefit from the glory of
discovering something new by putting your name on it - but
don't hide it
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
behind legal jargon where it can ONLY benefit you.
Let's say I came up with a new algorithm for rendering polygons. It
turned
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
out to boost a 50% increase in frame rate, was a simple change to the
modern
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
driver architecture, and could work with all the newer video cards if
they
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
used my algorithm.
Is it fair for me to hide that piece of code behind a patent and then
sell a
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
video card (or license to a single manufacturer) that has the proper
drivers, hailing it as a 50% better performer than it's peers
(when it's
the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
same, with a better driver) JUST to make money?
This means a technology which is simply an extention to the current
technology - in which we ALL share has been suppressed and delivered
only to
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
those who have the money to afford it. I make a lot of
money, sure, but
the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
world of technology as a whole didn't improve from my
advance.. Just my
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
wallet.
Wouldn't (looking at it from a FSF point of view now) it have been
better if
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
I took the algorithm, put my GPL or LGPL license on it for all to use,
see,
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
and gain from. Now I make a big stink about it to all the video card
manufacturers, perhaps even contract with them to build the patch for
the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
drivers to their cards ($), definitely support them in
migrating to the
new
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
technology ($). Now everybody's video cards run 50% faster,
and my name
is
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
at the tip of every video card manufacturer's tongue when
they think of
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
their increased performance. I will not starve, because my
advances are
now
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
widespread which means my name is also widespread and jobs will not be
difficult to find.
If everyone shared every technological advance they ever made with
everyone
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
else, imagine the software you would have today. Imagine
what CS would
look
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
like, act, and perform with the big boys in technology
delivering their
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
"secrets" to the masses. Would THEY starve? The innovaters?
The people
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
truly working for the future? Nope, because the innovaters
would be the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
first to market with a product that has these new technologies enabled
in
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
them, but it wouldn't stop the technology from advancing.
I'm not for giving everything away for free, people.. I'm for keeping
things
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
real. Technology shouldn't be owned, it is a byproduct of the human
syndrome. It stems from our race's desire to know, to learn,
to build,
and
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
to explore. If we keep the maps we draw to ourselves, the world will
remain
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
a very large and un-navigatable place. If technology moves
from mind to
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
mind at the speed of thought (light, the internet, insert other clever
metaphore here) we can move quickly on the grid. Now, the new
IMPLEMENTATIONS that use these technological advances will be
where the
work
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
is spent and the revenue is made. Who wouldn't want that?
The best of the best: A 3d engine that was compiled from the best
technology of all the world's 3D engines. The best Collision
detection,
the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
best event management system, the best OO. Everything. (Everything CS
wants
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
to be, yeah?)
Is this scenario possible under the current laws, restrictive
licensing
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
arangements, and distribution methodologies? No. Why?
Because those who
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
made "the best" algorithms and technology will keep a hold of
it for as
long
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
as possible in order to keep their "competitive advantage" and revenue
stream. Instead of focusing on using the best of the best to
create the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
best GAME, APP, what have you, they focus on keeping the technology
secret
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
and building proprietary apps utilizing the technology we're not
"allowed".
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
For the love of all that lives and breathes, people, they've started
issuing
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
patents for MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS. Math, the language of the
universe,
the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
stuff from which all things can be related to and described - is being
carved up and handed to large corporations as if they created it from
the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
cosmos themselves. If this isn't offensive to you, to see
what once was
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
free to all being taken away from us piece by piece, what is?
And what
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
better metaphore to describe what it's like to see technology and
advances
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
being gobbled up and hidden behind restrictive covenants?
What once was
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
free for anyone who could dream it, to buildit - now you had
better be
sure
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
you paid the right people in order to make your dream come true.. BAH!
Kudos to ID for releasing the sources for Quake & Doom to the public,
without which I can gaurantee you CS wouldn't be as far along as it is
now.
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
Kudos to all of you in the Open Source community who give a lot for
little
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
return. Perhaps the next generation of programmers will not be forced
into a
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
"If I don't make money on this, I'll starve" mentality which
many of you
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
suffer so badly. If so, it will only be a natural thing to them to
share
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
their ideas. Try and conceptualize if you can, a world
without money..
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
What other reason would someone hoard the best of the best?
I think the only ones in this world who would "starve" from a
free flow
of
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
technological information would be the lazy, the weak, and the
incompetent.
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
(Not to mention the modern government strongholds, but that's for
another
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
time.) It would soon be seen (when the doors flew open wide)
that those
who
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
can make a difference - will. Those who simply ride on the backs of
others,
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
won't and will spend their time playing legos with the things the rest
of us
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
build for them to play with.
Call it "socio-political" hype if you would like. Idealistic visions
have
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
always been frowned on by establishmentarinists, and if dreams and
ideals
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
are snuffed out because "it doesn't make me money" then the
dream wasn't
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
strong enough in your mind.
You can all go back to playing with your legos again.
Ken / WhiteGold
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about
CS/PS2 port
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
Hmm... Somehow my argument has been morphed from "Stop giving other
people
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
crap for their opinions, just because they're not yours"
to "you are
all
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
evil capitalist bastards.." How odd. I have yet to even step once
onto
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
the
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
offensive here either.. Obviously some of you have issues they need
to
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
delve
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
into.
"Selfishness, greed, avarice (all things necessary for a good
capitalist) benefits only the individual, and in the end takes AWAY
from
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
humanity."
Post by r***@themail.com
Call me crazy, but this seems like a somewhat offensive statement.
Besides, if you point _is_ to stand up against people who
"give crap"
for
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
others opinions, how about blasting Mr. Stallman for his
attitude toward
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
Jorrit.
Post by r***@themail.com
__________________________________________________________________
Sign-up today at http://www.themail.com/ref.htm?ref=898251
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
William T Wilson
2000-10-11 21:36:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Yohng
Is CrystalSpace to be licensed more freely, than LGPL (e.g., +allowance of
static linkage )?
The LGPL already allows static linkage. Plain GPL does not (unless the
whole work is GPL of course).
Post by George Yohng
How does PS2 port concern Richard Stallman?
Jorritt asked RMS about the legal usefulness of a proprietary driver that
would run in conjunction with CS to mediate between the CS engine and the
PS2 hardware. RMS did as he is wont, and complained a lot about
definitions of open source and free software. (At least he's focused!)
Ogles, Dan
2000-10-11 22:15:48 UTC
Permalink
It's a valid point to me. If computer programming wasn't such a well-paying
field, don't you think we'd lose quite a few smart people to other
industries? Sure, some would stay to further mankind and yadda yadda, but if
you make all software "free" (in RMS' definition), then the way I see it
you'll do the industry a diservice.

Less money will be given for software, so in effect the industry will have
less money to pay individuals. That results in massive amounts of layoffs or
salary cuts. Many computer programmers will go off and learn a new highly
sought-after skill (like biotech or someting). Progress will slow to a halt
because any progress made will be by a comparatively small set of people who
do it "for the good of mankind" or somesuch.

I write accounting software for a living. This accounting software is sold
to small business owners. Do you think the average small-biz owner would pay
for something if they didn't have to? So how would my company make money?
Our software sells for a few hundred bucks, and I bet that we'd lose plenty
of paying customers. We'd keep some who would rather buy a box off the
shelf, but it would be a significant hit.

Another note. Consider what would happen if my company decided to GPL our
project. Ignoring the almost definite chance of us making less profit,
consider our competitors. Our product has several features that they would
certainly like to have. However, they have a stronger brand name and
marketing department. After we GPL our project, they take our code,
repackage and relabel it, and sell it in boxes with their brand name. Sure,
they have to remain open-source, but now they have a well-known product with
all of these new features. Our product, is now merely equivelent so there is
no market advantage. The average consumer would not care who invented the
technology - they're just buying stuff off of the shelf or grabbing it from
a website. We've effectively dug our own hole.

In essence, consumer technology companies no longer remain competitive by
having better products - they exceed soley on whether they have better
brands or marketing power.

-----Original Message-----
From: WhiteGold [mailto:***@flyingplastic.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 3:31 PM
To: crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port


Your empty rhetoric is amusing, but useless.

Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Holmes" <***@bellatlantic.net>
To: <crystal-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by Matt Holmes
You know, actually your right. I am a greedy bastard.
I want to buy my wife a new BMW next year, cause I love her and
she deserves it. I would like to get a bigger house, cause the pitter
patter of footsies could be on the way soon. I would like to get a new
living room set cause ours is six years old and kinda ugly.
Yep, greedy greedy greedy, thats me. I am so greedy that I would like
to live comfortably doing what I love (programming). Let me know
when your world without money comes along, I would love that :P Yay,
no bills (yes, those of us who work in the real world have bills).
Matt
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by WhiteGold
If the truth is offensive, I'm not sorry to offend you in this way.
What other reasons have been given in opposition of free software?
They're
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
always rooted in "But, I HAVE to make money." generally followed up
silently
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
with "Lots of it." which is all the aforementioned qualities wrapped up
in
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
one.
My point, which you are taking out of context, was not offensive at all.
It
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
was merely providing a vehicle in which your mind can conceptualize the
modern decimation of information and the staunching of the free flow of
ideas as the world quickly patents, copyrights, and tucks them away
where
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
nobody else can use them.
That is the largest facet of the FSF's push. Not to take food from your
mouths certainly. Not to force any of you into an unreasonable lifestyle
just to make a point (RMS does that enough for all of us). But to try
and
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
provide for the people a conceptual understanding that all information
belongs to humanity - not to individuals. Benefit from the glory of
discovering something new by putting your name on it - but don't hide it
behind legal jargon where it can ONLY benefit you.
Let's say I came up with a new algorithm for rendering polygons. It
turned
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
out to boost a 50% increase in frame rate, was a simple change to the
modern
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
driver architecture, and could work with all the newer video cards if
they
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
used my algorithm.
Is it fair for me to hide that piece of code behind a patent and then
sell a
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
video card (or license to a single manufacturer) that has the proper
drivers, hailing it as a 50% better performer than it's peers (when it's
the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
same, with a better driver) JUST to make money?
This means a technology which is simply an extention to the current
technology - in which we ALL share has been suppressed and delivered
only to
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
those who have the money to afford it. I make a lot of money, sure, but
the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
world of technology as a whole didn't improve from my advance.. Just my
wallet.
Wouldn't (looking at it from a FSF point of view now) it have been
better if
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
I took the algorithm, put my GPL or LGPL license on it for all to use,
see,
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
and gain from. Now I make a big stink about it to all the video card
manufacturers, perhaps even contract with them to build the patch for
the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
drivers to their cards ($), definitely support them in migrating to the
new
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
technology ($). Now everybody's video cards run 50% faster, and my name
is
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
at the tip of every video card manufacturer's tongue when they think of
their increased performance. I will not starve, because my advances are
now
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
widespread which means my name is also widespread and jobs will not be
difficult to find.
If everyone shared every technological advance they ever made with
everyone
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
else, imagine the software you would have today. Imagine what CS would
look
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
like, act, and perform with the big boys in technology delivering their
"secrets" to the masses. Would THEY starve? The innovaters? The people
truly working for the future? Nope, because the innovaters would be the
first to market with a product that has these new technologies enabled
in
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
them, but it wouldn't stop the technology from advancing.
I'm not for giving everything away for free, people.. I'm for keeping
things
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
real. Technology shouldn't be owned, it is a byproduct of the human
syndrome. It stems from our race's desire to know, to learn, to build,
and
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
to explore. If we keep the maps we draw to ourselves, the world will
remain
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
a very large and un-navigatable place. If technology moves from mind to
mind at the speed of thought (light, the internet, insert other clever
metaphore here) we can move quickly on the grid. Now, the new
IMPLEMENTATIONS that use these technological advances will be where the
work
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
is spent and the revenue is made. Who wouldn't want that?
The best of the best: A 3d engine that was compiled from the best
technology of all the world's 3D engines. The best Collision detection,
the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
best event management system, the best OO. Everything. (Everything CS
wants
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
to be, yeah?)
Is this scenario possible under the current laws, restrictive licensing
arangements, and distribution methodologies? No. Why? Because those who
made "the best" algorithms and technology will keep a hold of it for as
long
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
as possible in order to keep their "competitive advantage" and revenue
stream. Instead of focusing on using the best of the best to create the
best GAME, APP, what have you, they focus on keeping the technology
secret
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
and building proprietary apps utilizing the technology we're not
"allowed".
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
For the love of all that lives and breathes, people, they've started
issuing
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
patents for MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS. Math, the language of the universe,
the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
stuff from which all things can be related to and described - is being
carved up and handed to large corporations as if they created it from
the
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
cosmos themselves. If this isn't offensive to you, to see what once was
free to all being taken away from us piece by piece, what is? And what
better metaphore to describe what it's like to see technology and
advances
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
being gobbled up and hidden behind restrictive covenants? What once was
free for anyone who could dream it, to buildit - now you had better be
sure
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
you paid the right people in order to make your dream come true.. BAH!
Kudos to ID for releasing the sources for Quake & Doom to the public,
without which I can gaurantee you CS wouldn't be as far along as it is
now.
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
Kudos to all of you in the Open Source community who give a lot for
little
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
return. Perhaps the next generation of programmers will not be forced
into a
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
"If I don't make money on this, I'll starve" mentality which many of you
suffer so badly. If so, it will only be a natural thing to them to
share
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
their ideas. Try and conceptualize if you can, a world without money..
What other reason would someone hoard the best of the best?
I think the only ones in this world who would "starve" from a free flow
of
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
technological information would be the lazy, the weak, and the
incompetent.
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
(Not to mention the modern government strongholds, but that's for
another
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
time.) It would soon be seen (when the doors flew open wide) that those
who
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
can make a difference - will. Those who simply ride on the backs of
others,
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
won't and will spend their time playing legos with the things the rest
of us
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
build for them to play with.
Call it "socio-political" hype if you would like. Idealistic visions
have
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
always been frowned on by establishmentarinists, and if dreams and
ideals
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
are snuffed out because "it doesn't make me money" then the dream wasn't
strong enough in your mind.
You can all go back to playing with your legos again.
Ken / WhiteGold
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
Hmm... Somehow my argument has been morphed from "Stop giving other
people
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
crap for their opinions, just because they're not yours" to "you are
all
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
evil capitalist bastards.." How odd. I have yet to even step once
onto
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
the
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
offensive here either.. Obviously some of you have issues they need
to
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
delve
Post by r***@themail.com
Post by WhiteGold
into.
"Selfishness, greed, avarice (all things necessary for a good
capitalist) benefits only the individual, and in the end takes AWAY
from
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
humanity."
Post by r***@themail.com
Call me crazy, but this seems like a somewhat offensive statement.
Besides, if you point _is_ to stand up against people who "give crap"
for
Post by Matt Holmes
Post by WhiteGold
others opinions, how about blasting Mr. Stallman for his attitude toward
Jorrit.
Post by r***@themail.com
__________________________________________________________________
Sign-up today at http://www.themail.com/ref.htm?ref=898251
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
Ogles, Dan
2000-10-11 22:51:25 UTC
Permalink
If one must suffer to make life better for people, how many people do you
think would donate their lives to doing so? Of course there are and always
will be good, selfless people, but I'd argue that the vast majority of the
human population would much rather worry about the good of themselves and
their family than that of humanity at-large. That's just the way humans work
(at least, as I've noticed).

Heck, I'm one of them - I'd much rather provide for my loved ones and myself
than suffer. If I can make people's lives easier with what I produce, even
better. But I'd sooner find a job in another industry making neat stuff that
I sell to people than write the coolest new totally free OS while living in
a cardboard box under the freeway. :-)

I'm not trying to say being selfless is wrong or dumb, or that being selfish
is wrong or dumb. I'm just saying how it is as I view it. If less
compensation can be garnered from making software, less people will make
software. With fewer people, there will be fewer ideas.

--dan
Post by WhiteGold
Post by John D. Gwinner
Eli Whitney?
Is that a bad thing? His fame lives on.. His ideas were brought to light.
He made life better for many people, even though he suffered to do so.
His
Post by WhiteGold
advances in cotton milling technology revolutionized the modern textile
industry. He has museums, schools, roads, even aircraft named after him.
For a guy you're using to prove a point as to how the freeing of ideas
hurts, you missed the mark on this one.
Eric C. Schneider
2000-10-11 23:09:59 UTC
Permalink
Hey, if this thread is going to go on and on ad nauseam....
Any chance of adding a new mailing list called:
"Licensing issues" or something??? This is getting a bit
over the top...
Eric
Post by Ogles, Dan
-----Original Message-----
Garceau
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Stallman, Free Software, and the LGPL
Post by Christian Reiniger
Post by Andrew Zabolotny
I believe one of the issues for commercial applications is that
most of companies wants a library that could be "hidden" inside
the application so that nobody except a few people will know
that they use some library. That is, they want to make their
application "look" as if it's entirely written by that company
- this adds to the image of the respective company. So
I don't think so. Everyone and their Grandma knows that Halflife
uses a modified Quake2 engine
, Deus Ex uses the Unreal one
etcetc.
I know this is true when it comes to someone who is interested
in software development...but when it comes to looking at a
product box, there is nothing that states, at least overtly,
that "this game uses a modified Quake2 engine", or "this game is
built around the Unreal engine".
Consumers could care less. It is only the developer or someone
close to the development who even needs to be concerned about
such things.
Post by Christian Reiniger
The companies rather fear that sometime someone will
convince a lawyer that they have to release the entire sources of
their games that are linked to a LGPLed library.
I think that is a global constant, and therefore needs to be
addressed. If for no other reason then to establish, with
clarity, what exactly can and can not be done with a collection
of files which may be considered "packaged 'as' or 'for use as
a component in', a video game".
Post by Christian Reiniger
--
Christian Reiniger
Coordinator, LGDC (http://sunsite.auc.dk/lgdc/)
Pretty cool, the kind of power information technology puts in our
hands these days.
- Securityfocus on probing 36000000 hosts for known problems in 3
weeks _______________________________________________
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
Seth Galbraith
2000-10-11 23:38:03 UTC
Permalink
I'm still hearing "I need to feed my family" and still no evidence that
this requires software to be non-Free.

I've heard "Eli Whitney" - the tragic victim of patent infringement. I
say he's the tragic victim of government staying out of business. Patents
are a way that government interferes to promote business, right? Well it
didn't work very well for poor Eli. (Fortunately he could then devote
himself to the more socially redeeming feild of mass-manufacturing
firearms :-)

Eli Whitney did not invent the first cotton gin. He just modified
the device to work with a different variety of cotton. A useful
modification to be sure, but like almost all other "inventions" it is not
so obscure that no one else would have developed it around that time if he
hadn't. (Likewise Thomas Edison did not make the first lightbulb,
Samuel Morse did not make the first telegraph, and James Watt did not
invent the first steam engine.)

Which brings me to my point: all software is the end result of many
people's efforts who will never be listed in the credits or given any
money. You can ignore this and live in a world where you own a bigger
peice of the pie, or you you can acknowledge it and live in a world where
you are free to use, modify, and share what you have.

History is not on Mr. Stallman's side. We have gone from being a single
diverse species of hunter-gatherers - who had detailed knowledge about
their natural world because they were free to use, modify, and share
whatever they found useful - to a bunch of so-called "races" of civilized
people who are pretty sure they would be willing to die for their country,
but can't seem to tell the difference between free beer and freedom any
more than they can tell the difference between poisonous and edible
mushrooms.

Don't get me wrong. I'd probably die for a BMW before I'd go live in the
woods and learn all of that mushroom spotting Boy Scout stuff :-) I'm
just saying that's the trend.
__ __ _ _ __ __
_/ \__/ \__/ Seth Galbraith "The Serpent Lord" \__/ \__/ \_
\__/ \__/ \_ ***@krl.org #2244199 on ICQ _/ \__/ \__/
_/ \__/ \__/ http://www.planetquake.com/gg \__/ \__/ \_
William T Wilson
2000-10-12 00:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christian Reiniger
Another alternative (for libraries): Release the software as GPL, but
sell a version relicensed to "no need to release source, no right to
copy etc" to companies who are not comfortable with the GPL.
It's not just for libraries. This is what the people at MySQL do. The
software is GPL, but if you want to do something with it that the GPL
won't allow then you can pay them money for a copy under some other
license.
Seth Galbraith
2000-10-12 00:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Geisse
Post by Larry Threewitt
the windows 2000 license wizard examines all your software to "help you"
insure that all of your applications have current licenses and it phones
home to microsoft to help in that evaluation.
In other words: It lets MS check which software I'm using and whether it is
an illegal copy?
That is the intention. The idea is that some users haven't yet learned
that sharing is wrong so it must be driven into them by a freindly wizard.
Doesn't it make you feel all warm inside? :-)
__ __ _ _ __ __
_/ \__/ \__/ Seth Galbraith "The Serpent Lord" \__/ \__/ \_
\__/ \__/ \_ ***@krl.org #2244199 on ICQ _/ \__/ \__/
_/ \__/ \__/ http://www.planetquake.com/gg \__/ \__/ \_
Seth Galbraith
2000-10-12 00:53:42 UTC
Permalink
If you want to specially license the engine for proprietary use, just say
you may use crystal space without having to adhere to the LGPL as long as
you make NO MODIFICATION to the Crystal Space code. (They may have to
obey some additional rules of course - like credits and stuff.)

This allows them to use the software to make binary distributions that are
not LGPL, but they must come back to the LGPL version if they make any
modifications. Of course once those changes are incorporated into the
LGPL version we can release a new unchangeable proprietary version.
__ __ _ _ __ __
_/ \__/ \__/ Seth Galbraith "The Serpent Lord" \__/ \__/ \_
\__/ \__/ \_ ***@krl.org #2244199 on ICQ _/ \__/ \__/
_/ \__/ \__/ http://www.planetquake.com/gg \__/ \__/ \_
Seth Galbraith
2000-10-12 00:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Addendum: The point of my not allowing modification idea is that it
allows proprietary users of the engine to contribute something less
problematic than money - code.
__ __ _ _ __ __
_/ \__/ \__/ Seth Galbraith "The Serpent Lord" \__/ \__/ \_
\__/ \__/ \_ ***@krl.org #2244199 on ICQ _/ \__/ \__/
_/ \__/ \__/ http://www.planetquake.com/gg \__/ \__/ \_
John D. Gwinner
2000-10-12 01:39:28 UTC
Permalink
I've installed Win2K and don't remember the machine ever phoning home. And I
do have a copy of WinZip that I'm to lazy to enter my (legal, paid for)
license into.

So if in fact, I've got illegal software, I should have been reminded. I have
not been.

Win2K does examine every program on your hard drive, and it may be doing the
check you mention, but it's main reason is to list incompatibilities so when
you upgrade it doesn't blow up. In my experience, this works fairly well - it
allerted me to a couple of software packages that had bug fixes I needed to
download.

Just as a matter of interest, where's the reference (MS or preferably
otherwise) that says that Win2K enforces copyrights? Or is this just hearsay?

== John ==
Post by Ogles, Dan
-----Original Message-----
Galbraith
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [CsMain] Discussion with Richard Stallman about CS/PS2 port
Post by Martin Geisse
Post by Larry Threewitt
the windows 2000 license wizard examines all your software to "help you"
insure that all of your applications have current licenses and it phones
home to microsoft to help in that evaluation.
In other words: It lets MS check which software I'm using and
whether it is
Post by Martin Geisse
an illegal copy?
That is the intention. The idea is that some users haven't yet learned
that sharing is wrong so it must be driven into them by a freindly wizard.
Doesn't it make you feel all warm inside? :-)
__ __ _ _ __ __
_/ \__/ \__/ Seth Galbraith "The Serpent Lord" \__/ \__/ \_
_/ \__/ \__/ http://www.planetquake.com/gg \__/ \__/ \_
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/crystal-main
John D. Gwinner
2000-10-12 01:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seth Galbraith
I'm still hearing "I need to feed my family" and still no evidence that
this requires software to be non-Free.
This statement is, of course, literally true, but doesn't prove the converse
either (all software should be Free).

Are you asking for evidence or argument? (Argument in the meaning of
discourse). I would think that we could find real world evidence of the
profitability of free vs non free software. However, it looks like you are
looking for argument (i.e. discssion proving the point).

For real world examples, I can assure you that my present company's business
clients would be extremly upset if the software was 'free'. Whether they are
doing the correct thing from Stallman's viewpoint or not, we are doing what
our clients request (most of these companies are not software companies).
Loading...