Opinions, please...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| nalf38 Sep 30, 2006 4:04 PM EDT |
A lot of pro-GPL3 articles make a leap of logic that I still don't understand. Libervis and others often say in one form or another that "today it's blackbox devices, and tomorrow it's computers" that are going to be locked down by DRM. I think this article does the same thing. Will somebody please fill in the gaps from supposition to the other? Libervis, your input is especially welcome. You wrote the article. Be nice, though. You've been sounding a little militaristic lately. As I said in the post over the RMS interview, I don't see how the economics of DVRs and computers are all that similar. No one is subsidizing the cost of a computer with a business model that requires a paid monthly subscription, as far as I know. |
| jimf Sep 30, 2006 4:19 PM EDT |
> As I said in the post over the RMS interview, I don't see how the economics of DVRs and computers are all that similar. No one is subsidizing the cost of a computer with a business model that requires a paid monthly subscription, as far as I know. I agree. The inclusion of computers in the DRM equation is pure FUD. |
| nalf38 Sep 30, 2006 4:29 PM EDT |
Yeah, I don't quite see how one leads to the other, but for now, I'm willing to stay open because I want to hear the other side. I keep seeing that statement as if it's a foregone conclusion, but I haven't yet heard a truly logical explanation for it. Please...someone? This isn't a troll. I honestly want to know. |
| dinotrac Sep 30, 2006 7:09 PM EDT |
I think the problem is that it would kill FOSS IF DRM were placed on computers in a way to prevent free OS's and software from running. The trouble is, such a setup is almost certain to cause headaches by the million and substantial consumer backlash. Some computer makers may be stupid enough to do that. I think others will happily steal their business. |
| jdixon Sep 30, 2006 7:19 PM EDT |
Dino: If Microsoft required hardware DRM for Vista to run, how long do you think it would be before all of the major and most of the minor manufacturers supplied it? That's all it would take. |
| dinotrac Sep 30, 2006 7:54 PM EDT |
> That's all it would take. Requiring DRM for Vista to run and locking other software out are not the same thing by a country mile. Frankly, if Vista doesn't run on my computer, I don't care. |
| Libervis Sep 30, 2006 8:21 PM EDT |
Oh, I didn't write that article. I just submit most of the stuff that goes from Libervis Network which blogs.libervis.com is part of, so that it gets attention it deserves. ;) The author of the article has a separate, but related point which is about making people want certain freedoms more than they do today. For example, it is often said that most people don't usually need access to the source code and freedom to share, modify it and run modified versions on whatever they own. The argument itself is slightly shortsighted though because even if most users aren't programmers the source code makes them independant of one central support vendor, so they can go and hire/ask anyone to fix or add a feature since the source is there. But still, could we make ordinary people actually *want*, badly, that and all four freedoms, so badly that they will do as much as they possibly can to achieve it. The author proposes certain concepts that could make this possible. You can read comments there for details. :) As for the whole DVR vs. computers business, what's the difference if both are digital devices that can run software and you bought them? We're not talking about subsidizing or subscriptions being asked for computers or whatever. We are talking about owning a device we bought in full meaning of the word, and hence having inherent right to modify the software it runs and run the modified version on it if we want to. TiVo is basically just a special purpose computer. Oh and don't worry, I wont be launching any missiles at you today (I am a civilian, not in military, except in netpanzer where I will dust your tank to hell, if it's weekend). ;) |
| jimf Sep 30, 2006 9:21 PM EDT |
Libervis, Assuming that TiVo, or any other device manufacturer pays any attention to this whole thing (a big assumption, they may just let you punt) their engineered solution is simple. Supply all the software hooks to the device that you want, but one of those will still require a hardware code. Depending on which code you supply the thing runs, or not, full function, or partial. You get what you pay for and that's all, regardless of how you code the software. If you are saying that needs to be forbidden under GPL, I think you need to reevaluate. The thing you are missing is that TiVo does have a right to sell this as a service, you didn't just buy the device. You may not like that, it may not be 'fair', but, it's entirely legal. So the GPL is going to try to prevent a company from selling a controlled service? I don't think so. It may not be 'fair usage' in your eyes, but, it's far from illegal. If you want to stop DRM, licenses are the wrong way to get it done. It's going to require legislation which actually mandates fair usage. Anything else is just a misguided effort depriving those who agree to purchase the service their freedom. Do I think those users are foolish? Absolutely, but, I think the same of those who use Windows, and, would never deny them the 'freedom' to act foolishly. |
| jezuch Oct 01, 2006 4:55 AM EDT |
Quoting:TiVo is basically just a special purpose computer. Here it is: special purpose vs general purpose. TiVo is meant to do only one thing and do it well. Computers on our desktops are meant to do everything and do it... well? ;) Television set is a special purpose computer too, these days. But nobody screams that we should free our televisions. Car is a special purpose computer too, these days. But nobody screams that we should free our cars. Digital camera is a special purpose computer too, these days. But nobody screams that we should free our cameras. Etc., etc. Why be so inconsequent? |
| jimf Oct 01, 2006 5:26 AM EDT |
> Car is a special purpose computer too, these days. But nobody screams that we should free our cars. Actually, they are screaming about that one. Many would like to be able to modify the performance maps. It's a different issue though, since to my knowledge, it's just closed propritary code. |
| dinotrac Oct 01, 2006 6:20 AM EDT |
jimf - Of course cars have an additional problem that Tivos don't -- EPA regulations!!! Altering those performance maps have the potential to belch uglies. |
| jdixon Oct 01, 2006 6:25 AM EDT |
Dino: > Altering those performance maps have the potential to belch uglies. So modified cars are taxed at a higher rate than non-modified cars, unless you can demonstate that your modifications actually reduce emissions. |
| jimf Oct 01, 2006 6:27 AM EDT |
> Altering those performance maps have the potential to belch uglies. Maybe so, but that is covered under other laws (i.e. EPA) and relates to final output specs. We are also not talking about the average citizen playing with this. If he tries to (unsucessfully), the laws will ground him fast enough. |
| Libervis Oct 01, 2006 7:29 AM EDT |
Quoting:You may not like that, it may not be 'fair', but, it's entirely legal. So the GPL is going to try to prevent a company from selling a controlled service? I don't think so. It may not be 'fair usage' in your eyes, but, it's far from illegal. It is unfair. That is enough of a reason for me to oppose it. Whether it is currently legal or not is a different story. Laws don't always follow ethics and it is up to us to influence lawmakers or infiltrate law with other means to *make* it comply with ethics, that is, what is *fair*. So you are right, but it's not about legal vs. illegal. Quoting:You may not like that, it may not be 'fair', but, it's entirely legal. So the GPL is going to try to prevent a company from selling a controlled service? I don't think so. It may not be 'fair usage' in your eyes, but, it's far from illegal. Well, GPLv3 is not being designed to be a definitive solution, that's for sure and that's a point I didn't emphasize earlier. It is you and me who should nuke DRM out of the sky by our buying practices, proterst etc... GPLv3 is simply protecting what is theirs, in a way. It is simply extending the whole original and current purpose behind GPL. It was always about granting these four fundamental freedoms and then protecting them so that *everyone* taking part in use/development of Free Software must respect ALL four freedoms without any attempt of any kind of circumvention. And this is why I agree with GPLv3. You may scream all you want that it is too political, that you don't like the process, that it's not the real solution, but the truth is there is nothing special about GPLv3 compared to GPLv2 in terms of the end goal and purpose behind it. The only reason guys like you and Linus take notice is because not that FSF has suddenly changed and wants to rule over all or something, but because DRM threat has become serious enough to warrant FSF's protective response (as it has always acted anyway) which you don't like. You don't need to like it. You can just use GPLv2 for your projects or if you're so inclined, avoid GPLv3 licensed stuff. Be my guest. Quoting:Television set is a special purpose computer too, these days. But nobody screams that we should free our televisions. Maybe nobody finds modifying anything in your TV useful which is why they don't *scream* about it. The thing is though that principally just as I think I should have full rights to my computer I should have full rights to my TV as well. It's same with cars. It's same with everything! Just because we mention one particular example over the other doesn't mean that we somehow select devices for which we believe we should truly *own* once we buy it. Some examples are indeed more important than others and TiVo is such a case. Heck, you guys, are you capitalists or what? Since when are you willing to give up your property ownership rights? Instead of state owning everything we seem to be entering an age where corporations want to own everything.. Call it corpomunism if you will! :P |
| dinotrac Oct 01, 2006 7:43 AM EDT |
>We are also not talking about the average citizen playing with this. Ummm...Actually, if we are talking about freedom as in GPL, we are. Or, at any rate, average citizen gar geeks who also program. Might I suggest someone like Mr. Paul Ferris would qualify? Last I looked, he's pretty much an average citizen. Seems to me several folks on this forum are both car geeks and computer geeks. |
| jimf Oct 01, 2006 7:46 AM EDT |
> GPLv3 is not being designed to be a definitive solution You can say that again. I'm questioning that it's a solution, or a real problem in itself. > Heck, you guys, are you capitalists or what? If that means being for private enterprise, absolutely. It's only the Corporations 'as they now exist' that I have a problem with. Really Libervis, It's doubtful that you'd even have a computer without some large private business entity to produce it. Well, 'maybe' a 286 equivalent by now... In case you hadn't noticed, the world and is far more complex than just the GPL. |
| jimf Oct 01, 2006 7:49 AM EDT |
> Seems to me several folks on this forum are both car geeks and computer geeks. Yeah, I should really leave that argument to grouch, if he ever returns from sabbatical :) |
| jimf Oct 01, 2006 7:57 AM EDT |
> You don't need to like it. You can just use GPLv2 for your projects or if you're so inclined, avoid GPLv3 licensed stuff. Be my guest. You keep saying that, but as an active Debian user and supporter, I find that solution unacceptable and downright damaging to Debian. |
| Libervis Oct 01, 2006 8:36 PM EDT |
Quoting:If that means being for private enterprise, absolutely. That and the principle of private ownership. I own what I buy and hence have the right to do anything to it. Quoting:You keep saying that, but as an active Debian user and supporter, I find that solution unacceptable and downright damaging to Debian. Interesting. Why would they be any more special compared to other distributions? Could it be that they tend to make simpler things more complicated than they should ever be? Anyway, please explain in detail why would this pose such a big problem for Debian? |
| tuxchick2 Oct 01, 2006 9:45 PM EDT |
Responding to the OP- you may or may not find some opinions around here. Good luck. |
| jimf Oct 01, 2006 10:34 PM EDT |
> That and the principle of private ownership. I own what I buy and hence have the right to do anything to it. We aren't arguing about that, only the means of defending it. Your GPLv3 way is just stupid and ineffective. The defense simply doesn't belong there. Putting in the restrictions is just jumping off a cliff to make a point. I don't mind RMS doing that (hell, I'll push), but darned if I want him taking Linux with him. > Anyway, please explain in detail why would this pose such a big problem for Debian? > Could it be that they tend to make simpler things more complicated than they should ever be? Could be you've hit on it. Debian will actually try to abide by your new GPLv3 adendiums no matter how stupid and misguided they are. In doing so, they'll likely be forking all over the place. I can only hope Debian doesn't become the poster child of how to bork a Linux Distro via the GPL. |
| dcparris Oct 01, 2006 10:46 PM EDT |
Well, it's not like anyone around here has an opinion, or even willing to share them. ;-) |
| tuxchick2 Oct 01, 2006 10:48 PM EDT |
Don, perhaps we should launch a program to help folks overcome their shyness. |
| jimf Oct 01, 2006 10:59 PM EDT |
Yes Don, this is a sharing community :) |
| dcparris Oct 02, 2006 7:03 AM EDT |
TC: I was thinking of maybe starting an icebreaker forum. You know, get everyone to come in and break the ice, get comfortable with talking to complete strangers and all that. jimf: Well, I was thinking of changing our official line about being a news and opinion site to just an opinion site where the news occasionally gets a read, too. |
| jimf Oct 02, 2006 8:06 AM EDT |
> just an opinion site where the news occasionally gets a read, too There may be something to that :) |
| Libervis Oct 02, 2006 8:26 AM EDT |
Quoting:I don't mind RMS doing that (hell, I'll push), but darned if I want him taking Linux with him. Linux stays under GPLv2, as far as Linus is concerned. Quoting:Debian will actually try to abide by your new GPLv3 adendiums no matter how stupid and misguided they are. In doing so, they'll likely be forking all over the place. I can only hope Debian doesn't become the poster child of how to bork a Linux Distro via the GPL. So you keep saying that as if it is a disaster. We shall see. If there need be forking so be it. Forking is one of the freedoms GPL protects anyway. |
| jdixon Oct 02, 2006 8:42 AM EDT |
> If there need be forking so be it. Well, it depends on whether you can mix version two and version 3 without problems or not. If not, I'd say that it's inevitable. If the GPL v.3 is implemented with the DRM provision, then the next version of glibc will use it. AFAIK, you can't have a working Linux system without glibc, so unless mixing is allowable, they'll have to fork it at that point. They may as well fork most of the GNU toolset while they're at it. :( |
| Libervis Oct 02, 2006 9:56 AM EDT |
Then I hope the two licenses will be compatible. |
| jimf Oct 02, 2006 10:21 AM EDT |
> I hope Seems to be a lot of that going around.... |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!