Teacher fired for P2P lecture

[Pierre-Marie Baty]

no, the Sco issue was a fake, what I mean is with the Linux kernel and the new device drivers. Most of them come from botched & reverse-engineered Windows drivers. And I think there are parts of embedded proprietary code with the crypto stuff too. But I don't have more details (and did not bother looking it up) so don't take my word for it.

[Whistler]

Reverse engineering isn't illegal in some countries, and if someone can figure out how the drivers work and then reimplement it, it will be a good workaround

The kernel named Linux does includes some non-free bits (aka "firmware", which is essensially binaries rather than source code, and we can't tell where they come from), but the GNU project don't actually support this. Linus Torvalds may be one of those "open source" guys who think everything in a pragmatic way, and only care about technical advancements and "success" (draw more users by saying "we have good software!" and not freedom)

Originally Posted by Richard Matthew Stallman

The Linux sources themselves have an even more serious problem with non-free software: they actually contain some. Quite a few device drivers contain series of numbers that represent firmware programs to be installed in the device. These programs are not free software. A few numbers to be deposited into device registers are one thing; a substantial program in binary is another.

The presence of these binary-only programs in ``source'' files of Linux creates a secondary problem: it calls into question whether Linux binaries can legally be redistributed at all. The GPL requires ``complete corresponding source code,'' and a sequence of integers is not the source code. By the same token, adding such a binary to the Linux sources violates the GPL.

The Linux developers have a plan to move these firmware programs into separate files; it will take a few years to mature, but when completed it will solve the secondary problem; we could make a ``free Linux'' version that doesn't have the non-free firmware files. That by itself won't do much good if most people use the non-free ``official'' version of Linux. That may well occur, because on many platforms the free version won't run without the non-free firmware. The ``free Linux'' project will have to figure out what the firmware does and write source code for it, perhaps in assembler language for whatever embedded processor it runs on. It's a daunting job. It would be less daunting if we had done it little by little over the years, rather than letting it mount up. In recruiting people to do this job, we will have to overcome the idea, spread by some Linux developers, that the job is not necessary.

also my "unauthorized" doesn't mean it contains proprietary code, I mean China has law which prohibit use of any crypto program unless it's approved by the government. And I don't think GNUPG has non-free portions, as the GNU Coding Standards don't allow this, and it's an official GNU package.

btw...
http://www.eff.org/privnow/

[Pierre-Marie Baty]

Originally Posted by Whistler

GNU Coding Standards

ATOM!!!!!!

wahahahaha
they have a Coding Standard at GNU ? And one with a capital C and a capital S even !!! bwahahaha

[@$3.1415rin]

why should cryptography code be secret ?! I guess /me misunderstood something, or someone else ... making crypto code secret makes no sense at all, unless do you some crap like CF in his podbot. but serious encryption algorithms are normally free to access.

[Pierre-Marie Baty]

Because cryptography isn't all software... there's quite a few hardware crypto chips to drive too

[Whistler]

Originally Posted by Pierre-Marie Baty

ATOM!!!!!!

wahahahaha
they have a Coding Standard at GNU ? And one with a capital C and a capital S even !!! bwahahaha

http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/

this only needs to be followed in official GNU packages. Gcc, Emacs, bash, etc. are all following this standard.

"but serious encryption algorithms are normally free to access."
some algorithms are patented (like that one used by PGP), but gnupg doesn't use it

[@$3.1415rin]

... software patents 9_9

but at least they are not secret

[botmeister]

Originally Posted by Whistler

Reverse engineering isn't illegal in some countries, and if someone can figure out how the drivers work and then reimplement it, it will be a good workaround

The kernel named Linux does includes some non-free bits (aka "firmware", which is essensially binaries rather than source code, and we can't tell where they come from), but the GNU project don't actually support this. Linus Torvalds may be one of those "open source" guys who think everything in a pragmatic way, and only care about technical advancements and "success" (draw more users by saying "we have good software!" and not freedom)
http://www.eff.org/privnow/

A very interesting post, thanks.

Linux and other open source free software simply do not follow the expected rules as dictated by governments and corporations. Networks such as P2P file sharing are all part of the same uncontrollable system that has evolved in response to (or simply in spite of) the attempts to control what people can and cannot do.

To me, it's very interesting to see the battles being fought, but IMO the war is already lost. P2P networks cannot be shut down, and neither can the distribution of free software that's deemed to be illegal.

I agree that "illegal" does not always mean "wrong". Just about everything is becomming illegal. Try going through a single day without breaking the law, it's much harder than you may think.

Software patents are the latest means to make sure free open source software becomes illegal. Why? Because free = less profits, no more monopoly, etc. P2P networks are an effective means of distributing free software and other material, and that's just not good for business.

We all know which group of elites are pushing the law makers into enacting ever more draconian copyright and patent legislation. All you have to do, is look at who owns the largest share of copyrighted and patented material; these are the people who are bribing the politicians into working for them.

[Whistler]

nah, I don't really want to talk about free software (which is OT) in this thread... I'm just trying to say that you can't judge p2p is wrong by saying it's illegal...

however as someone's taken the chance to make some FUD, it's just some clarification...

*IMHO*. Saying something without evidence just makes FUD, and laughing at something without knowing it is also not nice.

[stefanhendriks]

i bet this is a dumb question, but what is a FUD?