-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
(Sorry if you get more than one copy of this message, but I
felt
that it was urgent to get this important info out.)
The values of freedom and openness are crucial to
understanding
itself, so that civilization and public welfare now depend
on
them, as I argue below. These values may find their best
expression in the free and open source software (FOSS)
movement,
and the foresightful example of FOSS developers should now
be
beneficially applied to many other disciplines in the
context of a
global and public Internet.
It is crucial that we occasionally take time to discuss the
reasons _why_ we release our source code, and this is one of
those occasions. There are good reasons for the freedom and
openness which are characteristics of FOSS development,
reasons
which should receive wider attention now that they can be
readily
communicated to other arenas. The consequences of doing
otherwise
are often catastrophic.
For example, it incomprehensible that Genentech could
consider
withdrawing a cheap cure for blindness (ARMD) from the
market.
http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/rando
m-bits/2006-june/001374.html
The mechanism of this drug is public knowledge.
http://sourceforge.net/mailarch
ive/forum.php?thread_id=14183567&forum_id=6042
This abhorrent situation is a great example of the kind of
thing
that will happen if people don't get behind the values of
freedom
and openness that we are espousing. Please let Genentech
know
that you find what they are doing offensive. Publicize the
mechanism
so that new compounds can be obtained as replacements. For
the
future, continued vociferous public activism is required to
prevent
such outrages from occurring in the future.
It becomes clear that the compounds which come from common
roots,
fruits, and vegetables are a shared human heritage and the
free and
open source of the future. Tannins are another interesting
case in
point, because as molecules, and as anti-oxidents, they are
similar to
resveratrol (resV), and that molecular mechanism has been
anchored to
the public domain via a prior art declaration. It is a
so-called
CR-memetic, which may increase healthy human longevity by
many
decades. Here are some links about it.
Resveratrol mechanism posts from GNU-Darwin list
http://pro
clus.gnu-darwin.org/gdposts.html
CR protocol for human bodies
http://p
roclus.gnu-darwin.org/bootstrap.html
Here is some important recent news about it.
http://www.immin
st.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=print&client=printer&a
mp;f=237&t=10749
It is exciting to suppose that people can get off the
pharmaceuticals
that they are taking with calorie restriction or
CR-memetics. I
personally am trying to get off the cholesterol drug
Pravachol, a
statin compound, starting a few of weeks ago. Write me, and
I'll let
you know how it turns out. From the article...
"Fontana says ... evidence of "younger"
hearts in people on calorie
restriction, suggest that humans on CR have the same
adaptive
responses as did animals whose rates of aging were slowed by
CR."
I think that it is time to look at the tannins in tobacco
leaves.
There may be other treasures lurking there too. As you may
be
aware there is ample public research into any possible
beneficial
compounds that may be obtained from tobacco leaves. The
mechanisms
are there waiting to be discovered. If you want to post
them, just
reply to me and I'd be delighted to host them.
The public establishment of prior art is a time-honed method
of
entering inventions into the public domain. We now have
other
methods at our disposal as well. If you are planning to
establish
prior art against future CR-memetic related patents, you
might want
to have a look at www.creativecommons.org. Perhaps it goes
without
saying at this point that you should please choose a license
that
provides for free and broad public access to your memetic.
In that way you will assure that the public health is served
by
anchoring them to the public common, where they cannot be
exploited
by those who would withhold them for their own profit. The
DRM
situation is precisely analogous to this. Can you imagine
doing
science in a world where your ability to read and write your
data is
filtered through secret protocols that are hidden from you?
I
recommend the Defective By Design campaign to fight the
outrage of
DRM, which is incompatible with the scientific pursuit.
http://www.defectiv
ebydesign.org/
It is clear that scientific tools must be demonstrably and
penetratingly understood, or else our claims will likely be
skewed
and called into question. Free and open source software is
a great example of how to make your science verifiable to
the
public. Establishing prior art against future patents is
another good one, which is precisely analogous in method,
making the result explicit to the public, free and open to
all.
Thank goodness for the free and open software movement,
which
gave us such a great example of how to serve the public in
this
manner.
I am willing to grant that there are particular exceptions
to
these rules of freedom and openness, and such exceptions may
be
relatively harmless; however, let us posit the opposite,
that
freedom and openness are _not_ crucial to understanding.
Think of
the implications. When people are compelled to learn, they
do not
receive the intended message. It is not understood
correctly
or completely. When crucial facts are withheld from the
people
you are trying to teach they become paranoid, possibly
unteachable.
Freedom and openness are obviously the best approach to
understanding.
This is not a metaphor for the pursuit of science, but a
fact.
We are learning from nature, and it is ultimately required
that
our tools be demonstrably and penetratingly understood, or
else
we will receive incorrect lessons from nature. Clearly this
requires public access to the source code and more. This
is why many of us are pressing for public access to
scientific
publications.
Moreover FOSS tools are becoming ever more important to the
pursuit of the scientific endeavor itself. In our
biophysics
department we are obsolescing proprietary hardware and
software
in favor of open standards and free software, which is a
widespread phenomenon in the science sector, and sure to
continue.
We build most of the workstations ourselves with commodity
hardware,
but we also have some clusters running Debian and
FedoraCore.
Some of you will know that I am the lead developer for the
GNU-Darwin distribution. GNU-Darwin has a FOSS operating
system,
which is getting alot of press these days. Here is an
example
How Apple and Microsoft are advancing desktop Linux
ht
tp://www.desktopLinux.com/news/ns7294331817.html
I see the article as counter-productive against building a
FOSS
coalition that includes democracy, freedom, and public
access
activists, Apple, GNU-Darwin, GNU, and GNU/Linux all linked
together in spectrum.
It is important to alert the whole FOSS community that
Darwin
cannot be classified as a free or open source operation
system
as of the Darwin-8 revision, because AppleACPIplatform-39
which
is required to boot the system is proprietary. It is
notable that
only the current version of Darwin from Apple is a non-free
OS.
GNU-Darwin has a free version, an earlier revision that
includes
the source code. It is FOSS, and we call upon Apple to
maintain
Darwin as such, as it has been in the past. We hope that
the
current situation with the kernel and ACPI driver will soon
be
remedied so that Darwin will continue as a FOSS OS.
We are asking for free software developers to please write
to the
*nix core of Darwin, which is the core OS for both Mac OS X
and
GNU-Darwin OS. Darwin OS, which underlies both systems,
comprises
parts from GNU, the BSD's, mach, plus Apple's substantial
contributions to the free software community. Be consistent
with your
philosophy and avoid linkage to proprietary binaries, such
as OpenGL
and CoreAudio, except when it is imperatively required in
order to
lead users to the values of software freedom. Under that
principle,
another reason to maintain compatibility with the *nix core,
is so
that your code will be readily portable to new platforms and
usable
by free-software-only aficionados too.
GNU-Darwin OS is not an obsolete implementation of Darwin
OS, or to be
superseded by Mac OS X. We are trying to lead users to
freedom, not
away from it. By maintaining Darwin core compatibility your
code will
remain valuable as the marketplace and industry continues to
evolve
(trust me here), particularly as DRM-related problems
continue to come
forward. Of course, that means releasing your source code
under a FOSS
license, such as APSL. Darwin OS is a free and open source
operating
system that is not going away, so try to focus your coding
towards
supporting that standard instead of proprietary software.
Here is the essence of the current problem with Darwin OS.
Apple
replaced working boot code with the following proprietary
drivers,
which are required for the system to boot.
Darwin-7:
AppleAPIC.kext/
Applei386genericplatform.kext/
Darwin-8:
AppleACPIplatform
In addition the kernel (xnu) has been taken proprietary in
the
recent revisions. We are not asking for Apple to give away
such
things, but rather to continue maintaining Darwin OS as
FOSS, which
it already was.
After repeated attempts by many FOSS developers to get this
situation remedied, nothing has happened. It is now time
for us to
better use the measures at our disposal in order to assure
that
Darwin OS remains free and open. If you are unhappy that
xnu and
the boot drivers have not been released, I would encourage
you to
spread your dissatisfaction to other forums, so that Apple
will take
notice and commit to a workable free and open Darwin OS from
now on.
Moving on to coalition strategy now, some of you may not
know that
GNU/Linux system administration is one of my day jobs. I
manage a
wide range of systems. Here is a screen-shot of my work
desktop, so
that you can see I use the same tools at work that I use at
home at
night on GNU-Darwin. (weekends too, so please read I am
your friend)
http://proc
lus.gnu-darwin.org/debian.html
The only time that I ever use proprietary software is when I
am trying
to help other users learn free and open source free
software. I'm a
long time Apple and GNU/Linux user, and here is the old
proof doc ;-}.
http://proclus
.tripod.com/indulge.html
Now, it is embarrassing but, I want you to have a look at my
cv.
h
ttp://biophysics.med.jhmi.edu/love/thesis/cv6.html
In all my years I have never used Microsoft Windows. There
are only
two exceptions to this statement, where I was helping
Windows users to
access our servers at Hopkins. Clearly, you can get a few
things done
without it ;-}.
One of the primary reasons for founding GNU-Darwin was to
help people
to put Microsoft behind them, and it is definitely possible
to do it
now. You have many resources at your disposal to help you
leave
Microsoft behind. Look at the link below to see what you
can do
with free software. Apple, GNU-Darwin, GNU.org, and
GNU/Linux will
all help, and we are largely all helping together, because
we have a
shared foundation of free software.
http://www.gnu-darwin.
org/gdc/
Microsoft is only one example. That is why we are so
insistent that
Apple keep true to free and open source software principles.
We
should ultimately try to leave all proprietary software
behind us, so
that we can participate fully in the freedom and openness of
the
internet culture and public domain. What more do we need,
when we
have such a rich store of information and so many capable
people at
our sides?
Finally, as a scientist, it is obvious to me that this
situation is
relevant current and ongoing discussion in the scientific
community,
and as such, it is also clear that many members of the
various lists
would be interested in the current state of Darwin with
respect to
FOSS and with respect to science.
Here is the crucial point.
The principles of FOSS and scientific inquiry converge. In
practical terms, how else can you know is what happening in
your
experiments? Free and open source software, open standards,
best
promote the scientific endeavor by mirroring its method, but
also
they assure that the work is accessible to the public.
Freedom and openness are crucial to understanding, and
foundational
to the scientific endeavor, and they should not be
compromised.
There are a few examples of exceptions, but clearly, this
matter
will find further debate in the appropriate forums. We
should not
quell debate because a few people are offended or
complaining.
- From a scientific perspective that would be incorrect.
On that last point, I would suggest that Apple get on the
right side
of the debate, and they will make tremendous headway. Now
is the
time.
Some people will find this message annoying and divisive,
and the
delete button is ready at hand for them, but other people
will find
it interesting and engaging. All as you like. Let us not
quell
discussion because a few people are annoyed.
Some will call this a troll, but I hope that folks will see
through
such name-calling. Trolls are mythological creatures, so
don't
believe in them. Everyone has a right to have their opinion
heard, even if those opinions are divisive or unpopular. It
is
clear that the idea of trolls is being used to attack
freedom of
expression. In fact, freedom of expression demands that we
listen to the so-called-trolls sometimes, and if you are
civil, it
helps, so don't resort to name-calling.
On cross-posting; when there are matters of urgent
importance that
affect a broad range of subscriber lists, courtesy must
sometimes
take a back seat, and cross-posting is an example of that.
Cross-posting is to be encouraged when the subject of the
post is on
topic. Each of the various lists will respond in the way
that seems
appropriate to the people in that forum, and the threads on
the
various lists will diverge accordingly. As the threads
diverge, the
cross-posting addresses should be removed as needed.
Relevance to
all people is an unattainable goal, but messages of the
broadest
applicability should have the broadest reach, and discussion
should
not be stymied because some find it irrelevant. I have
given this
method due consideration; it is not trolling, not spam, not
off-topic,
and cross-posting is an example of something that is
sometimes
required according to the felt importance and relevance of a
given
subject matter.
In summary, Freedom and openness are now the bedrock of our
civilization and public welfare depends on these values, so
that we
should actively engage ourselves in preserving and making
them happen.
In keeping with these principles it is crucial to note that
there are
exceptions to etiquette, otherwise free expression will be
overly
channeled, damped, and ultimately suppressed in our forums.
This
notion of courtesy will certainly receive additional
consideration,
but meanwhile, let us together get to work on the activism
now.
Duly, I am amenable to valid criticism and able to respond,
but please
reply with kindness. Obviously, feel free to write back,
copy, or
send these comments along to anyone else as you see fit.
Regards,
Michael L. Love Ph.D
Department of Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry
School of Medicine
Johns Hopkins University
725 N. Wolfe Street
Room 608B WBSB
Baltimore MD 21205-2185
Interoffice Mail: 608B WBSB, SoM
office: 410-614-2267
lab: 410-614-3179
fax: 410-502-6910
cell: 443-824-3451
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFEpIl6u0oI3iz5oZcRAtpQAJ9X7D6kq1vmWKXkG/3LBvx3gGrK1QCZ
AbgI
8Ww6QABLiZtmFmS9Ekea5nI=
=a0Oy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Open Source Software for Compaq iPAQ Handhelds.
iPAQ mailing list
iPAQ handhelds.org
https://h
andhelds.org/mailman/listinfo/ipaq
irc://irc.openprojects.net #ipaq
|