===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsrepo/anoncvs/cvs/www/Attic/press.html,v
retrieving revision 1.543
retrieving revision 1.544
diff -c -r1.543 -r1.544
*** www/Attic/press.html	2006/10/13 16:43:00	1.543
--- www/Attic/press.html	2006/10/14 03:01:53	1.544
***************
*** 33,38 ****
--- 33,76 ----
  <p>
  
  <li><font color="#009000"><strong>
+ <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/11/olpc-under-fire-for-proprietary-components/">
+ OLPC under fire for proprietary components</a>, Engadget, October 11, 2006
+ </strong></font><br>
+ Hardware  site Engadget is one of several that has picked up this controversy 
+ from the Jem Report quoted below and on the mailing lists.
+ Quotes Theo's reaction to Jim Gettys' latest comments:
+ "Jim is obviously very clever at convincing people that children
+ need proprietary laptops (OLPC has a greater percentage of undocumented
+ hardware than a Thinkpad from 3 years ago). It is easy for Jim to
+ convince people these things because he doesn't care at all about
+ the future maintainance of drivers. I do. And I think most of you
+ also do." 
+ The article ends with: "Wow, them be fightin' words -- we're pulling up ringside
+ seats already."
+ <p>
+ 
+ <li><font color="#009000"><strong>
+ <a href="http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/286/">
+ Making sense of the One Laptop Per Child proprietary software row</a>, 
+ The Jem Report, October 9, 2006
+ </strong></font><br>
+ Jem Matzan explores this ongoing controversy by blending separate interviews with
+ Jim Gettys, Richard Stallman and our own Theo de Raadt.
+ Theo consistently and clearly defends the project's interest in 
+ getting documentation on, and permission to distribute, firmware
+ so that users can use hardware they have paid for.
+ Commenting on the multiple NDA-requiring parts in the current version of
+ the OLPC laptop, Theo notes that "If I am careful in selection, 
+ I can buy a laptop on the market today that has fewer proprietary parts."
+ And on the OLPC project's use of NDA-requiring parts at all:
+ "I feel they have misled the community by acting as if they are open; 
+ they rode on our coat-tails. Now it turns out they are going to ship GPL'd 
+ code mixed with NDA-requiring proprietary drivers in the end. 
+ Even their LinuxBIOS will need to link into drivers that 
+ no one can repair because the documentation is locked up..."
+ <p>
+ 
+ <li><font color="#009000"><strong>
  <a href="http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20061006000709">
  OLPC hurts wireless documentation efforts</a>, undeadly.org, October 6, 2006
  </strong></font><br>
***************
*** 5802,5808 ****
  <hr>
  <a href="index.html"><img height=24 width=24 src=back.gif border=0 alt=OpenBSD></a>
  <a href="mailto:www@openbsd.org">www@openbsd.org</a>
! <br><small>$OpenBSD: press.html,v 1.543 2006/10/13 16:43:00 mbalmer Exp $</small>
  
  </body>
  </html>
--- 5840,5846 ----
  <hr>
  <a href="index.html"><img height=24 width=24 src=back.gif border=0 alt=OpenBSD></a>
  <a href="mailto:www@openbsd.org">www@openbsd.org</a>
! <br><small>$OpenBSD: press.html,v 1.544 2006/10/14 03:01:53 ian Exp $</small>
  
  </body>
  </html>