4 ms·

Of course it's earnest. If it wasn't he wouldn't have picked the BSD license, which rejects the notion that you're poorer today than yesterday just because some

by avar 9y ago

Of course it's earnest. If it wasn't he wouldn't have picked the BSD license, which rejects the notion that you're poorer today than yesterday just because someone started using some software you wrote.

kunimu 9y ago
The GPL license does not support that notion either.
simias 9y ago
It's not my point and that's the type of discussion I explicitly tried to avoid. BSD is my go-to license for my own code so I have no prejudice against it. That being said if some company contacted me about some of my code, asked me to do some modifications for free then used it to power a module that many people consider user-hostile and probable backdoor while not giving anything back, be it code, money or credit I don't think I'd write a blog post saying how happy I am that my code is so successful and how it proves that BSD is so much better than GPL. It's one thing to say "the code is BSD, there's nothing wrong about what they did", it's an other thing to say "thank you Mr Intel for using my code without giving anything back, I just wish you had told me earlier so that I could have thanked you before!" which is frankly what this open letter sounds like to me.
lmm 9y ago
The notion of the GPL is that end users are poorer if they don't have source available and can't fix bugs in the code they're using. Intel ME, meaning people are running systems with exploitable vulnerabilities that they can't fix, is one of the clearest arguments in favour of it.
- wolfgke 9y ago
  One can also fix bugs without source code available (it is just harder). The Intel ME's problem rather is that one perhaps can fix bugs, but not upload the bug fixes back to the chip because of the required signature.
  - lmm 9y ago
    Both those things are problems (it's possible to work around the signature issue, but it makes it a lot harder, just as with not having source code). And both are addressed by the GPLv3.
jcelerier 9y ago
> which rejects the notion that you're poorer today than yesterday just because someone started using some software you wrote. are you arguing that we aren't all poorer with an unmodifiable black box running in our CPUs ?
- kodablah 9y ago
  Arguably, the box could be even blacker were a large company to feel like they had no implementation to turn to and forced to develop everything internally.
noncoml 9y ago
It’s not about money. Intel has improved the software, by making it more modular, but kept that improvement for themselves. That’s the problem with BSD IMHO.
- X86BSD 9y ago
  That's not a problem. You are not entitled to the work of others. And the original bsdl code is just as available to you as it was to them for you to improve upon in a similar way.
  - noncoml 9y ago
    > You are not entitled to the work of others I think you missed the point, or I didn't convey it correctly. I am not talking from the point of view of a third party, but rather that of the author of the original software. If somebody uses my software and improves it, then it’s only fair that I get to see the changes. That’s why AGPL 3 is the license of choice for my code.

by avar 9y ago

kunimu 9y ago

The GPL license does not support that notion either.

simias 9y ago

It's not my point and that's the type of discussion I explicitly tried to avoid. BSD is my go-to license for my own code so I have no prejudice against it. That being said if some company contacted me about some of my code, asked me to do some modifications for free then used it to power a module that many people consider user-hostile and probable backdoor while not giving anything back, be it code, money or credit I don't think I'd write a blog post saying how happy I am that my code is so successful and how it proves that BSD is so much better than GPL. It's one thing to say "the code is BSD, there's nothing wrong about what they did", it's an other thing to say "thank you Mr Intel for using my code without giving anything back, I just wish you had told me earlier so that I could have thanked you before!" which is frankly what this open letter sounds like to me.

lmm 9y ago

The notion of the GPL is that end users are poorer if they don't have source available and can't fix bugs in the code they're using. Intel ME, meaning people are running systems with exploitable vulnerabilities that they can't fix, is one of the clearest arguments in favour of it.

wolfgke 9y ago
One can also fix bugs without source code available (it is just harder). The Intel ME's problem rather is that one perhaps can fix bugs, but not upload the bug fixes back to the chip because of the required signature.
- lmm 9y ago
  Both those things are problems (it's possible to work around the signature issue, but it makes it a lot harder, just as with not having source code). And both are addressed by the GPLv3.

jcelerier 9y ago

> which rejects the notion that you're poorer today than yesterday just because someone started using some software you wrote. are you arguing that we aren't all poorer with an unmodifiable black box running in our CPUs ?

kodablah 9y ago
Arguably, the box could be even blacker were a large company to feel like they had no implementation to turn to and forced to develop everything internally.

noncoml 9y ago

It’s not about money. Intel has improved the software, by making it more modular, but kept that improvement for themselves. That’s the problem with BSD IMHO.

X86BSD 9y ago
That's not a problem. You are not entitled to the work of others. And the original bsdl code is just as available to you as it was to them for you to improve upon in a similar way.
- noncoml 9y ago
  > You are not entitled to the work of others I think you missed the point, or I didn't convey it correctly. I am not talking from the point of view of a third party, but rather that of the author of the original software. If somebody uses my software and improves it, then it’s only fair that I get to see the changes. That’s why AGPL 3 is the license of choice for my code.