Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Open Letter to Intel

cs.vu.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 379 posts

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#341

Post by flamedoge »

cortesoft wrote: post #322
rbanffy wrote: post #89

> this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users I'm sorry, but I don't feel free because of that. What I see is that I have proprietary code I never saw, never vetted and which I don't (and shouldn't) trust that's running on all my computers (not all, but you can get it) and that I don't have the freedom to remove, examine, modify or replace. Th…

If you are worried about this un-vetted blob, it means you don't trust Intel; if you don't trust Intel, why does it matter that they have this blob running in 'god' mode? They ARE the CPU, so they aren't just god 'mode' they are god itself. You are trusting the CPU to do what you ask it to do. If intel were to do something shady, they wouldn't need a un-vetted blob of code to do it, they could do it directy in the CP…

Intel's grown so big that you can't just do that anymore. Who's to say there ever won't be one employee on his last day with less ethics than you.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#342

Post by dchest »

katastic wrote: post #319
dchest wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it didn't. GPLv3 was created to cover the case of hardware vendors not allowing to run modified code. They still have to abide by the terms of the license even if they use GPLv2 -- that is, releasing the source code.

I thought GPLv3 was for many issues, not a single issue. For example, the software-as-a-service loophole that GPLv3 (and AGPL) closes. We actually had an exploitation of said loophole for the open source Space Station 13 game. People were making changes to the game (each server runs their own modifications, and, the game is pure client/server so the entire 'game' is server-side binary only with dumb clients connectin…

What you said is irrelevant to the discussed topic. With GPLv2, the hardware vendors must ship source code -- that is, follow the license. GPLv3 doesn't change this fact nor was it created to make this requirement, as it was already present in GPLv2, which is what we discussing.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#343

Post by Fredej »

mcguire wrote: post #271
Fredej wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is probably gonna be a controversial view but my experience is this as well: Deploying GPL code is a legal process. Deploying BSD is a development process. We spent thousands of dollars on legal advice when deploying GPL. In the end it was largely as we expected it to be: No significant action was needed beyond releasing the code to the components that we already got for free, with the minor modifications we had…

I have a suspicion that you need new lawyers. Having two different processes for two very common licenses seems a little off. The two cases aren't that different, legally. The GPL does require some extra work, but it's on the technical side, to make sure you're shipping all the source that you need to ship.

Just a single outside lawyer we consulted with :) We already had processes in place for dealing with BSD.

The reason for consulting with a lawyer was to ensure that we didn't do anything wrong which would later require us to open up source code that we didn't want to open up.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#344

Post by hvis »

boomlinde wrote: post #238
geocar wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess whether people in general "work for free" depends on how you define "work" and "free". Then allow me to be clear: If you want to do something, and you get some kind of psychic reward for it; like volunteering in a soup kitchen, then that's great. But if you're only doing that because you're afraid of going to hell, then someone has convinced you to work for free . If you make some software, and someone tell…

> But if you're only doing that because you're afraid of going to hell, then someone has convinced you to work for free. Then I'd work for the comfort of not believing that I would go to hell. The basis of that belief may be an act of deceit, though, which I am not sure is relevant for open source software. The licenses are clear, and no one is promising anything magically wonderful or terrible to happen depending on…

> "Open source" is not "more free" in any general sense

And yet, this is the point that Mr. Tenenbaum has tried to make in TFA:

"this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users"

So let's make a point of disagreeing with him, at least.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#345

Post by craigsmansion »

Fredej wrote: post #275
craigsmansion wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Deploying GPL code is a legal process. Deploying GPL code is only a legal process if you make it one. If you're using it to write or deploy other GPL software, it's pretty much a straight forward affair. And if you're not using a GPL license, well, that's your problem: there's nothing stopping you from using the GPL to make all the hassle go away.

That's true. Releasing other open source software using GPL software is much simpler. But if it's desirable to deploy closed source software GPL may not be the right choice unless you have time to sit down and consider the legal ramifications. In many cases there may be none if you use it in the right way but it should be and is being considered when companies decide consider whether or not to use open source softwar…

> desirable to deploy closed source software

Well, that's a peculiar desire. If a programmer wants to state "I do not want my code to be used in closed-source proprietary software" there's little more they can do than release under the GPL.

There might be some good faith legal consultancy in seeing how, for example, the CDDL and the GPL interact, but for using GPL code in closed source products, the only excuse really is "What can I get away with?"

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#346

Post by [deleted] »

vorotato wrote: post #335
burntsushi wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IMHO if he has a problem with the way things worked out, he should have chosen a different license. This is a classic conflation of legalese and ethics/decorum/professional courtesy. Just because something is legal doesn't make it good, and just because something is good doesn't make it legal. For example, I abhor those who take credit for other peoples' work. But I use a license on software I write that permits fo…

Sure but polite is often not profitable. Instead make your licenses line up with your wishes. It's another way of saying, "Hey you didn't say you needed it".

[deleted]

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#347

Post by youdontknowtho »

brohee wrote: post #219
youdontknowtho wrote: post #186

Does anybody remember the other x86 competitor of the 90's Cyrix? (Is that the name?) What happened to them. Is there anyone out there with an x86 IP license that could build a super simple P3 or P4 class chip?

The Cyrix x86 IP was bought by VIA (by way of National Semiconductor), which still makes low power x86 CPU, often found in SFF, low power PC.

seems like they could produce an eight core P4 equivalent without ME.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#348

Post by dionidium »

Spivak wrote: post #279
foodstances wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What license allows one to take credit for another's work?

Any license without required attribution like "The Unlicense" .

That's an extreme reading. If I make a library, don't require attribution, and then you use it in your project without attribution, that's emphatically not the same thing as "taking credit" for my work.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#349

Post by mseebach »

madez wrote: post #302
mseebach wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're conflating different things. Intel is free to use MINIX which is exactly the freedom the creator of MINIX intended when selecting the license. You are not a party to that transaction. That Intel uses this software for a purpose you disagree with is immaterial to this discussion. Had MINIX not been available under a permissive license, Intel would have found some other (but presumably more expensive) way to lar…

> You're conflating different things. Intel is free to use MINIX which is exactly the freedom the creator of MINIX intended when selecting the license. You are not a party to that transaction. We are not a first party in that transaction, but feel very much the consequences. Therefore it does involves others. Most actions have an influence on others and therefore there are responsibilities for the consequences. If yo…

Your beef is with Intel and the ME (specifically, the inability to disable it), not with Dr. Tanenbaum, MINIX or the BSD license. There is no causal chain from these to the Intel ME.

It may feel good to have a target to direct anger at, but it's not the right target and it's counterproductive. Free software, including that under the BSD license, has made computing vastly safer.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#350

Post by boomlinde »

hvis wrote: post #344
boomlinde wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if you're only doing that because you're afraid of going to hell, then someone has convinced you to work for free. Then I'd work for the comfort of not believing that I would go to hell. The basis of that belief may be an act of deceit, though, which I am not sure is relevant for open source software. The licenses are clear, and no one is promising anything magically wonderful or terrible to happen depending on…

> "Open source" is not "more free" in any general sense And yet, this is the point that Mr. Tenenbaum has tried to make in TFA: "this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users" So let's make a point of disagreeing with him, at least.

I don't see how that constitutes a disagreement. The user in this case is Intel. The license gave them the freedom to make whatever proprietary changes they may have made to the software and stick it into their CPUs. That's of course not freedom in any general sense, but it's freedom for Intel to do whatever they wanted with it. Does that make my point more clear?
Post reply on HN