===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsrepo/anoncvs/cvs/www/Attic/press.html,v
retrieving revision 1.543
retrieving revision 1.544
diff -u -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
@@ -33,6 +33,44 @@
 <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>
@@ -5802,7 +5840,7 @@
 <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 $</small>
+<br><small>$OpenBSD: press.html,v 1.544 2006/10/14 03:01:53 ian Exp $</small>
 
 </body>
 </html>