How? I know!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Sander_Marechal Dec 19, 2007 7:26 AM EDT |
The article ends with:Quoting:The point here is not to take sides on this question, but to demonstrate the amazing and pernicious effects of Microsoft's recent engagement with the open source world. The growing tensions between the KDE and GNOME camps are just part of that: another facet is the split of companies into those who believe that intellectual monopoly deals with Microsoft are a good idea (Novell, Xandros, Turbolinux) and those who do not (Red Hat, Ubuntu, etc.). Easy. Take Microsoft out of the equation. If there's no more Microsoft then there's no more schism :-) |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 19, 2007 7:39 AM EDT |
If Microsoft wanted to be interoperable, every protocol used by F/OSS is there, fully documented and ready to go. The fact that Microsoft software has "problems" is therefore a deliberate choice on the part of Microsoft. Dealing with Microsoft is a false "good". It can only distract from actual progress. "Take Microsoft out of the equation" may seem like hyperbole, but in reality the removal of Microsoft from any and all considerations until _they_ come to the table with something valuable is the only rational response to their predation. |
| dinotrac Dec 19, 2007 7:49 AM EDT |
>Dealing with Microsoft is a false "good". I think that statement is too broad, because the answer depends on POV. Dealing with Microsoft wrt its proprietary technology does not advance FOSS. However, individual companies, like Sun and Novell -- each of whom have agreements with Microsoft that netted their companies hundreds of millions -- might benefit. Likewise, if Microsoft opens up its technologies -- with free licensing -- some of those technologies might be worthwhile. Further, if pigs fly, we must all run for cover. |
| dumper4311 Dec 19, 2007 8:16 AM EDT |
@Dino: a voice of reason crying in the wilderness of "freedom." While I agree completely with the "if there's no more Microsoft then there's no more schism" arguement, it really isn't that simple. What is the point of free/open source software, if not to empower it's USERS? This is a fundamental concept which frequently gets glossed over in the pursuit of "Freedom" for it's own sake. The simple and unavoidable fact is that a vast majority of the world deals with Microsoft, currently without a choice, and can't simply remove them from the equation. Yes, I know it's possible to do so, but it's not always plausible, or practical. Until that day comes, we either deal with Microsoft interoperability, or we remain isolated in our own little sandbox. For the precious few that are ok with that - more power to you. But I have work to do, and don't get to decide for everyone else what is "right" or "wrong." This really is an old argument, and we continue to beat our chests in righteous indignation over our superior solution, but how much does that really help? Until your average user/business owner is shown that it's simple, cost effective, and worthwhile to switch to an open solution, we've won very little. We have a lot of inertia to overcome, and I've not seen a more effective way of doing so than the individual application of practical solutions, and the demonstration of the same to those who are ready for a change. Note that "practical solutions" includes being able to access/migrate everyones proprietary data from/to equally functional free applications. At the same time we (including new converts) need to be able to communicate efficiently with the great unwashed masses. Thus removal of Microsoft from any and all considerations is profoundly irrational, like it or not. edit: So in at least this respect, dealing with proprietary MS technology does advance the free software cause - from the only perspective that ultimately matters - service to it's USERS. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 19, 2007 8:35 AM EDT |
I did not mean Microsoft products, but Microsoft the company. Sure, Novell and others might sell themselves, bully for them. I give you a comic which sums it up perfectly for me: http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=1 Those specific projects like WINE and the virtualization layers that support Windows must of course deal with MS-Windows, and SAMBA is a perfect example of the endless treadmill that dealing with the ever shifting protocols of Microsoft requires. Pointless? Hardly. Just as there is no one universal project, there is no one organization that is F/OSS. This has been perhaps the only reason that MS has been unable to this point of crushing F/OSS. Their past direct efforts to destroy F/OSS projects has done nothing but build greater cohesion into the community. The more individual projects that focus on dealing with Microsoft, the more resources that MS ties up. This has become, in my opinion, the new attack form MS is using to subvert F/OSS. The MS virus intrudes slowly into cell after cell, eventually the F/OSS body fails. My "reject Microsoft" position is to prevent, as much as possible, the MS mind-virus from infecting and taking over as many of the cells as possible. That way, the Microsoft virus might run its course without killing the F/OSS body in its wake. |
| dumper4311 Dec 19, 2007 8:56 AM EDT |
@Bob_R: I can see your point, and from a certain perspective, I think there's some truth to it. But look at the KDE vs. Gnome argument, or the OO.org vs. half a dozen smaller office suites arguement, or the Firefox vs. whatever your pet browser is argument. Aren't they doing the same thing - tying up resources on their own pet interests? Samba, Wine, etc., and companies like Sun, Novell, Xandros, etc. who invest their time (and money) are only serving their interests - interoperability with the proprietary world. That is, in my view, one of the strengths of true freedom (not the kind RMS would force feed you). I don't have to like or use Mono, Samba, or Wine - in at least one of the above cases, I strongly dislike the personal stands of one of the major contributors to one of the aforementioned projects. But that doesn't change the fact that they are free to contribute in any way they choose, and more importantly, that there are other people who wish to be free from proprietary chains that actually benefit from their work! Think about it this way: whatever resources the F/OSS community devotes to interoperability, MS has devoted it's own resources to creating this "great new whatever" in the first place. As you mentioned, they are one company, we are a community. They can't kill us, we have an infinite supply of "resources," growing as fast as the community itself. The more we support of ANYTHING, the better we interoperate, and the faster we grow. Ultimately, MS is sewing the seeds of it's own demise. As is the case with any proprietary vendor who won't embrace open standards. Novell, IBM, SUN, and finally even Adobe are all figuring this out to one degree or another. To which I say welcome aboard. Of course, I don't have a problem with proprietary software, I just prefer open source and open standards. I know, I'm a dirty heathen. edit: Ok, I don't have a problem with proprietary software THAT LETS ME CONTROL MY DATA. Closed standards are evil, closed software is a choice - sometimes a better choice. The only arguments I care about are as follows: "Who owns your data?" and "Which application/os serves it's user most effectively?" |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 19, 2007 9:21 AM EDT |
> Aren't they doing the same thing - tying up resources on their own pet interests? Indeed, for each individual project. Luckily, those efforts are not lost in time, as the code and protocols can be freely reused. ODF is not what OpenOffice, Koffice, Abiword and the rest used at first, but it is used now because interoperability is more efficient than proprietary egoism. > That is, in my view, one of the strengths of true freedom (not the kind RMS would force feed you). I agree that the choice belongs with the individual, be it person, project or company. What saddens me is that people don't seem to pay attention to history (as if people en mass ever did?) and appear to "trust" Microsoft _the_company_. Which brings me back to my thrust, "ignore Microsoft the company". This "great schism" is somewhat illusionary. I use no proprietary software beyond drivers for my video card, "flash", and Google Earth, nor do I see any reason for that to do anything but change in the direction of less proprietary software. Why? Because F/OSS tends to interoperate better. As you point out, MS is sowing the seeds of their own destruction as they fight their own customers to try to hold onto the "mind share" which exists only in statistics. We shall see. Even if that is the only thing I can say with certainty, at least we will see. |
| Abe Dec 19, 2007 9:33 AM EDT |
Dumper4311, I agree that "removing Microsoft from the equation" is easier said than done, and I must say you made pretty good statements in this post. OTOH, you were a little unclear on what and how to deal with Microsoft. Quoting:we either deal with Microsoft interoperability, or we remain isolated in our own little sandbox. I am not sure what your suggestions would be to deal with Microsoft, but I personally think we are doing pretty good job so far. Samba can coexist in AD Domain, OpenOffice can open, read & write MS office docs, many FOSS applications run on Windows just fine. Sure they are not perfect or as good as they can be, but that is primarily because MS doesn't want it to be. This is something we can only be able to accomplish if we play the game and on Microsoft terms and control. Well, in this case, the freedom you are crying for will nowhere be found. Quoting:Thus removal of Microsoft from any and all considerations is profoundly irrational, like it or not Removal of Microsoft might sound irrational in the short run, but I don't believe it is irrational on the long run. Microsoft over many years took over control of the market from many strong well established dominant companies, what makes you sure that this can't happen again but in reverse? It took MS 30 years to get where it is now, I believe FOSS wouldn't need to take that long to reverse the situation. FOSS is proliferating very rapidly, but like you said, we have a lot of inertia to overcome. That will take time. If you are suggesting to deal with MS by embrace its technology, I think you are under estimating the danger of that. If history teaches us one thing, it is to avoid MS like a plague and by all means possible. If that is the approach you are advocating, then I would say you are satisfied with the freedom MS grants you and you have interest in keeping MS in control. This is not the freedom I, among many, are looking for. |
| dumper4311 Dec 19, 2007 10:07 AM EDT |
@Abe: Easy there, big fella. :) We're actually closer to agreement on most things I think than you may realize. How to deal with Microsoft - This is, in my mind, a non-issue. Microsoft is irrelevant, for reasons I've already pointed out. Our focus should be serving the users of the code. That is the sole purpose and function of the code in the first place. If that code is designed for interoperability with closed systems, so be it. If the code is designed to be the best web browser on the planet, good for it. My point is, you don't need to deal with Microsoft directly, but as Samba and other projects point out, you can't ignore their technology either. More importantly, you can't ignore their USERS. You're correct, We've (the F/OSS community) done a pretty good job so far. The problem is, we're still fighting the WRONG BATTLE. F/OSS is accepted as a viable development model, the fight for our right to exist is over. It's time to change our focus, from fighting the "Great Satan" of proprietary software who would crush us, to serving the users of the code. What many in the community still don't recognize is that the definition of "users" has changed. It used to be synonymous with "developers," as that's who put out the code to scratch their own itch. Users now means anyone who values open source and/or open standards, and is looking for a way to reclaim their freedom. Or, more commonly and AT LEAST as importantly, someone who's just looking for a better way to do things. Interoperability with Microsoft (or any other proprietary closed standard in wide use) is necessary, and thus ignoring Microsoft's "standards" is irrational. But the company itself is irrelevant. On to the things we apparently disagree on - I believe you may have misunderstood my rant. I am not suggesting we embrace MS control; quite the contrary - interoperability means I can help break the MS stranglehold on the market. I have never claimed MS grants me any freedom (thus my problem with them - I should own MY data). Further, I find your implication that I have an interest in "keeping MS in control" to be paranoid, and intentionally obtuse - as it serves your philosophical agenda to respond in that manner. Much like the philosophical crusade of the FSF, if my definition of "freedom" doesn't match yours, you'd brand me as a heathen, illiterate, or troll, and merrily continue trying to force your worldview on every unsuspecting new user that comes down the trail. I find that hypocritical and unfortunate, as it doesn't in the end serve the user - which was the whole point of this much touted "freedom." I apologize if I've misinterpreted your last few comments edit: I really need to learn to finish my thoughts. I believe companies that profit from the production and support of open software and standards are a good thing - including companies that support INTEROPERABILITY with the existing market share. That doesn't mean this needs to be the focus of whatever product/project we're discussing. A good office suite should stand on it's own merits as such, for example. The focus should be the best method for the user to accomplish his/her goals. But interoperability is frequently a large part of those goals. Ignore that fact, and you relegate yourself to inconsequential obsolescence. The success of projects like SAMBA, WINE, etc. demonstrate that clearly. |
| tuxchick Dec 19, 2007 10:13 AM EDT |
dumper4311, you ought to organize your comments and submit them as a LXer feature. |
| dumper4311 Dec 19, 2007 10:27 AM EDT |
@Tuxchick: I'm flattered, thank you. One of these days, maybe. But discussions like this are a great place to collect my thoughts and figure out what I think. Besides, I'm afraid I tend to evangelize, and after 20 pages of that, I'd be receiving death threats. :) |
| Abe Dec 19, 2007 11:29 AM EDT |
Quoting:I apologize if I've misinterpreted your last few comments @Dumper4311, I haven't and wasn't trying to label you with anything, all I said is "If you are suggesting to deal with MS by embracing its technology, ... then I would say you are satisfied with the freedom MS grants you and you have interest in keeping MS in control. " I asked the question about how you would suggest dealing with Microsoft, and your answer was "interoperability". The fact of the matter is that FOSS developers are try very hard to inter-operate with Windows and I cited few examples, are you saying that there is a better way than what is being done now? If there is, let us hear it because the only other way I know of would be to go the Novell's way. Quoting:Much like the philosophical crusade of the FSF,...Let's be fair here, FSF doesn't care what anyone definition of freedom is, all it cares about is to follow and to protect the freedoms as defined by the GPL. They are not forcing anyone to abide by their definition and they are not labeling those who don't agree either. All they are saying is, if you like to join us, you need to abide by the rules established in the GPL. If you don't, that is you choice and please don't intrude on us. I think this is just and fair. Anyone who thinks otherwise would be intruding on the freedom established by the GPL. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. |
| dumper4311 Dec 19, 2007 12:16 PM EDT |
@Abe We're getting closer, don't give up on me yet. What I actually said (or at least intended to say) was dealing with Microsoft was unnecessary and irrelevant. The only problem MS presents is that of inertia, and you can't fight that by fighting Microsoft itself. WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE NEEDS OF THE END USER. How we do that is by providing a stable, feature rich, interoperable product. The solution I proposed is: "the individual application of practical solutions, and the demonstration of the same to those who are ready for a change. Note that "practical solutions" includes being able to access/migrate everyones proprietary data from/to equally functional free applications." Demonstrate the value to end users/businesses of switching to an open platform, and they will switch (eventually). Note that I don't believe F/OSS is always the best solution. There are plenty of exceptional proprietary apps out there, and as long as they provide me with the capability of saving/accessing my data by an open standard, I'll happily support them. It's Microsoft's TECHNOLOGY we need to address, as I said, the company is irrelevant. Note that I think your definition of "Novell's way" might be interesting - if we can stick to the facts and not delve into the cloudy subject of ideology. From a practical standpoint, I view "Novell's way" as providing a superb distro, a large investment in the F/OSS community, good support for their paying customers, and . . . wait for it . . . . INTEROPERABILITY with the current market leader. None of which I view as bad things. "All they are saying is, if you like to join us, you need to abide by the rules established in the GPL. If you don't, that is you choice and please don't intrude on us." Ah, the crux of the problem. You're absolutely right - there is no such thing as absolute freedom. My issue is with Stallman's definition of "freedom." I was ok with the GPLv2, but I believe the GPLv3 demonstrates that RMS and friends have become hypocritical control freaks. Freedom is no longer the order of the day. The mantra is now "freedom on our terms," and that's where we part company. And if you honestly wish to be fair, FSF is SPECIFICALLY about what the definition of freedom is. I give you RMS' recent rant on the BSD forums as the perfect example. Edit (doh!): For what it's worth, I don't believe that freedoms are established by the GPL. Outlined, interpreted, DEFINED, and ultimately enforced legally by such a document, yes. But any such document ultimately serves to reign in the unworkable concept of "absolute" freedom you mentioned above. No rational person would propose such a solution as absolute freedom, lets not pretend otherwise. These types of licenses are necessary, and as I said earlier, in the GPLv2 I believe it was good. I simply don't believe the GPLv3 is all that much more "righteous" than Microsoft's ELUA, in that it demonstrates a disturbing and emerging trend of the FSF to utilize same the means of control as their sworn proprietary enemies to achieve their allegedly noble ends. Is the software free, or is it only "free if we approve of how you use it"? |
| dinotrac Dec 19, 2007 1:29 PM EDT |
>you were a little unclear on what and how to deal with Microsoft. That may be the best possible strategy for dealing with Microsoft -- a little unclear. FOSS has become a force of nature. It's doing fine. However, many potential users live in Microsoft land. Unless we want to write them off -- and their computing freedom -- we have to deal, here and there, with the reality of Microsoft. That, I suspect is a piecemeal process: "What do we have to do to enable more people to compute more freely?" Sometimes it will mean dipping our toes into Microsoft-infested waters to help others. The direction in which we point our toes may vary on a stream-by-stream basis. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 19, 2007 4:07 PM EDT |
Dino, I think that's what I was saying. Making deals with Microsoft is, in my opinion, like trying to make deals with Mephestopholese: It will always be twisted to Microsoft's benefit and never to yours. So, I prefer to simply "write Microsoft (the corporation) off". Microsoft's products, customers, initiatives, may be dealt with one at a time or many at once depending upon who is doing the "dealing with" and for what purpose. It's not "ignoring" Microsoft, not pretending the 800lb ground-sloth isn't in the room, whatever. It's also not _attacking_ Microsoft from an institutional point of view, which I consider to be a waste of time as well. But if that's what you want to do, go for it. Individual choice and all that. |
| ColonelPanik Dec 19, 2007 4:24 PM EDT |
Redmond has announced that they're combining Windows CE with Windows ME and Windows NT to form a new operating system.... Windows CEMENT....runs like a freakin' rock... |
| azerthoth Dec 19, 2007 4:40 PM EDT |
OOH, is that anything like their Developers Millenium Enterprise Edition, DEMENTED for short? |
| r_a_trip Dec 20, 2007 5:41 AM EDT |
I simply don't believe the GPLv3 is all that much more "righteous" than Microsoft's ELUA, in that it demonstrates a disturbing and emerging trend of the FSF to utilize same the means of control as their sworn proprietary enemies to achieve their allegedly noble ends. Is the software free, or is it only "free if we approve of how you use it"? The GPL nor the FSF have ever been about ""righteousness". The FSF is unbending about one thing. Unfettered access to the source code for whatever purpose, except blocking access to the source code. The GPL v2 and v3 are written to kill of any ways to block access to the source code. With the FSF you are free to do anything, but you can't go proprietary. They take this very broad. Even outside measures as hardware locks are forbidden. The FSF has never made the promise to be righteous. They always are about protecting the four freedoms and anything outside that scope is outside of the FSF. The FSF will always use any means available under copyright law to encode the four freedoms in such a way, that they become unavoidable when using the GPL. You have two choices. Take it or leave it. It might mean that leaving it might be the better choice for some. |
| dumper4311 Dec 20, 2007 8:40 AM EDT |
@r_a_trip:
Hard to argue with that moniker. Maybe I should define my use of the term "righteous." As used here, it simply indicates openly stating what you stand for, up front, and sticking by that stand in an honest and even handed fashion. Quote: "The FSF is unbending about one thing. Unfettered access to the source code for whatever purpose, except blocking access to the source code." That's a lie, or ignorance, I'll allow you to explain which. The changes to the GPLv3 most frequently debated are specifically about blocking use of licensed code in a manner the crafters of this license disapprove of. There is nothing broad about this license in comparison to the GPLv2 - except its level of restriction. As I've already stated, the FSF's mantra has shifted from "Freedom" to "freedom on our terms," Wholeheartedly trust your supposed "freedom" to the FSF if you wish, I'll continue to actively question the new restrictions they keep throwing in at will. The GPLv2 is a fair and comparatively free license, the GPLv3 has crossed an ugly line to fascist and hypocritical territory, and thus is no more "rightous" than the Microsoft tactics the FSF is quickly learning to emulate. This has already been covered, I'd invite you to read the whole discussion. Quote: "You have two choices. Take it or leave it." Stand back, I'm going to risk incurring the wrath of Tuxchick for this one :): Zealotry rears it's ugly head once again. Sadly, this is the one thing you're correct about - leaving it might someday be a better choice. Fortunately, if the braindead extremists finally manage to crush the heart and soul out of Linux, BSD has managed to avoid most of the infighting our communities seem to be mired in. Be careful what you wish for, my friend. Back to one of the key points of this thread - which you've helped illustrate beautifully. Infighting is the ONLY method by which Microsoft corporate has any hope of damaging the F/OSS movement. I'd invite you to focus your considerable passion to helping users break their chains, rather than crusading blindly and pointlessly about "Freedom" for it's own sake. |
| tuxchick Dec 20, 2007 9:38 AM EDT |
Quoting: BSD has managed to avoid most of the infighting our communities seem to be mired in. Except for few popular applications like OpenSSH, the BSDs are off in their own little villages without a lot of developers. They have their own squabbles, and Theo's self-destructive rants are legendary. But they're tiny, so they don't make many headlines. I think the GPL deserves the majority of the credit for the success of Linux. (That, plus Linus' cranky charisma.) Both the GPL and the BSD licenses are good and useful, but the BSD license does little to encourage building a lively development community. It does reward taking without giving back, which is another of Theo's famous rants. Well, that's what the license allows. There are zillions of commercial products, especially networking, that glom BSD code wholesale and never give back so much as a dollar of support or line of code. Quoting: "The FSF is unbending about one thing. Unfettered access to the source code for whatever purpose, except blocking access to the source code." That's a lie, or ignorance... I agree with r_a_trip here. That is neither lie nor ignorance, but it sums it up perfectly. Contrast that with the BSD license, which allows source code to be modified and improved in all kinds of wonderful ways that never see the light of day, but instead get locked away. (Well OK, given the sorry track record of most proprietary, commercial software vendors maybe it's not such a loss.) There are two fundamentally different perspectives behind the two licenses. The GPL says "a lot of people worked hard and contributed a lot of time and energy to write this great code, and they're generous enough to let anyone use it, and to even modify and re-distribute it. The only catch is, if you take, you must also give back." It protects the rights of both developers and end-users. The BSD license offers a free ride to end-users; the original developers get nothing but personal satisfaction, or whatever motivates them. Pop quiz: which one of these is "freedom on our terms"? Answer: both As far as any "schism", metoo what other folks have already said- the Linux world is vast and has room for all kinds of different people and projects. This is a strength. Compare this to the old commercial Unixes, which despite years of losing market share to Linux, still refuse to speed up their development cycles, cut costs, support more hardware platforms, incorporate more user-friendliness, and generally refuse to join the 21st century. Compare to Microsoft, which is also trapped in a cycle of being forced to cram overpriced crapware down customer's throats. I'd say the Linux way is working fine, public bickering and all. |
| DarrenR114 Dec 20, 2007 9:54 AM EDT |
Quoting:I think the GPL deserves the majority of the credit for the success of Linux. (That, plus Linus' cranky charisma.) Both the GPL and the BSD licenses are good and useful, but the BSD license does little to encourage building a lively development community. I would disagree - the Apache Public License, which is more like BSD than GPL, does not appear to have discouraged building a lively Apache development community. I see the same thing for the Mozilla Public License and the Mozilla development community. If the GPL were the main reason for the success of Linux, then one would expect that there would be a "lively development community" in all the various GNU projects - and we all know that this is definitely not the case. It is my contention that it is mainly the drive, competence, and charisma of project leaders that determine the success of any project - software or otherwise. RMS is a jerk - and that's why HURD has not really gotten off the ground. Theo is a pain - and that's why the BSD community remains small. Developers of any stripe have one thing in common - we don't like working with ppl we don't get along with. And when we're working on a volunteer basis, you better be decent to work with, or your project is going to fail. And none of that has anything to do with the sort of license that is used for the project. |
| Abe Dec 20, 2007 9:58 AM EDT |
Quoting:That's a lie, or ignorance, ... I knew it will lead to this because it always does. You are labeling those who don't agree with you with the same things you accuse them with. Yes, Take it or leave it is the crux of the GPL. It always was and will be. I guess you knew that too since you agree with GPL 2. You take issue with the changes made in GPL 3. That is fine, you can still use GPL2 for your code if you want. It is your code. But at the same time, you shouldn't complain or take away the freedom of others to decide over what license they want their code to be released under. Linus didn't agree to the terms of GPL3, fine, he made it clear to everyone that the Kernel will still be under GPL2. Others didn't see it his way and prefer GPL3 over GPL2. It is their right to decide and no one else has the right to prevent them from do just that. In other words, Take it or leave it. Period. Talking interoperability with MS, Like I said before, FOSS community has been doing a good job and for a while now. Not only with MS products, but with many others no matter how little or how widely popular they are. Simply put, it is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of "we have" to. MS is dominant in the field and has been for a while and can't just be ignored. The problem with Microsoft is their strategy. It is based on lock-in and control to maintain the highest revenue possible. FOSS is against lock-in and control, consequently MS will not warm up to FOSS even though they claim they are. The only way MS would cooperate is if they are in control like they did with Novell. The question really boils down to whether we need to work with MS or not. I happen to believe that we really don't need them to inter-operate. What we need to keep working with Windows users and furnish what ever they need to interoperate. Just today I read a tidbit of news about Samba interoperability with Windows networking. See link. http://news.samba.org/announcements/pfif/ Although it is still a little vague at this time. I believe this is very encouraging and should be the best approach for interoperability with MS Products and not contracts where MS has total control of. |
| dinotrac Dec 20, 2007 10:04 AM EDT |
>Contrast that with the BSD license, which allows source code to be modified and improved in all kinds of wonderful ways that never see the light of day TC - You aren't quite accurate. The GPL allows the same thing -- so long as you don't distribute the result. That is the differentiator -- you may do as you please, but things change when you engage the outside world. |
| tuxchick Dec 20, 2007 10:44 AM EDT |
dino, yes, you're right; I thought that didn't need to be spelled out. Though it is an important differentiator. I recall Dan Bernstein criticizing the GPL as being unnecessary, because once a person holds the source code they can do whatever they want with it- as long as they don't re-distribute it, which he explicitly prohibited for his own software. Patches, yes; modified sources or binaries, no. Which may work for ace programmers, but I'll wager even the acest coders get tired of manually upgrading everything. |
| dumper4311 Dec 20, 2007 10:54 AM EDT |
@tuxchick:
I agree with you to a point about the license issue. The GPLv2 enforces a return to the community that the BSD license doesn't. But that has nothing to do with "Freedom." Quite the contrary, it's a restriction that stipulates giving back any changes you made to the free code. It's a forced contribution. The "unfettered access to the source code" qualification you've hitched your wagon to is guaranteed by the BSD license, it simply doesn't guarantee you access to anyone elses added work based on that free code. I don't disagree with the GPLv2 restrictions on the use of free code, because they intelligently codify the RESPONSIBILITY that I view as inherent with such freedom. For the record, I tend to agree with DarrenR114 on the reasons that projects sink or swim. It has much less to do with license than responsible behavior. @Abe: I apologize to Abe, r_a_trip, et al., whom I may have offended. Hopefully this post will help clear up the whole "labeling" issue. Quoted: "Yes, Take it or leave it is the crux of the GPL. It always was and will be." You see Abe, the "crux" of the GPL, or ANY other license, contract, bond, obligation, or project we enter into as responsible, decent human beings is apparently a matter of perspective. I believe the FSF and supporters have leaped well past the line of defining "Freedom" in a software license, and begun dictating how the supposedly "free" code can be used; how it must be supported by developers on any given hardware platform, and what level of support companies may or may not provide their paying customers. I believe that's the same fascist and hypocritical ideology supported by the proprietary software world, and have "labeled" it as such. You are certainly "free" to disagree. Quoted: "you shouldn't complain or take away the freedom of others" Oh my, that was a bit melodramatic wasn't it? I believe I have an obligation to complain about what I consider rampant stupidity and irresponsibility. I would NEVER presume to take away the freedom of others. Quite the contrary, that's EXACTLY what I'm arguing AGAINST - which is so neatly codified in the GPLv3 you've chosen to champion. Again - "freedom for it's own sake - even if we have to restrict someone else's freedom to enforce our concept of it." It's not the BSD license, or the GPL that forges communities, and gives back to developers and users. It's a sense of RESPONSIBILITY to do the right thing. No law or license in the world can compel or enforce that. All they can do is RESTRICT the freedoms of those bound by such laws or licenses. This is the same path the proprietary software world follows to this day. I believe that you and the FSF community as a whole are more than a bit backwards and unclear on that subject. I hope to see that change before too much damage is done. I do agree with you that the F/OSS community has done a great job of providing interoperability with closed proprietary formats. I don't believe that working with MS means letting them control us (or Novell, or anyone else). Regardless of their motives, it's irrational to attribute to MS svengali-like powers. Be smart, protect your interests, and serve your userbase. This has worked well so far, and will continue to. Why do I believe this? Because I have faith in the communities ability to act in a responsible manner, and to correct those who don't. Again, the GPLv3 is a restriction of freedoms that I view as unrighteous - it violates the very "freedoms" the FSF claims to uphold. That's simply irresponsible and wrong. |
| azerthoth Dec 20, 2007 12:03 PM EDT |
well said dumper. I too have to agree that the GPL3 is nothing more than a moralistic update to GPL2. Adding more restrictions on use based solely on the fact that there were things being done under GPL2 that FSF/RMS did see as meeting with their world view. |
| tuxchick Dec 20, 2007 12:29 PM EDT |
Yeah, dumper4311, that 'sense of responsibility' worked real well for the OpenBSD team, didn't it:
Quoting: If I add up everything we have ever gotten in exchange for our efforts with OpenSSH, it might amount to $1,000. This all came from individuals. For our work on OpenSSH, companies using OpenSSH have never given us a cent. What about companies that incorporate OpenSSH directly into their products, saving themselves millions of dollars? Companies such as Cisco, Sun, SGI, HP, IBM, Siemens, a raft of medium-sized firewall companies -- we have not received a cent. Or from Linux vendors? Not a cent. Of course we did not set out to create OpenSSH for the money -- we purposely made it completely free so that the "telnet infrastructure" of the 1980s would die. But it sure is sad that none of these companies return even a fraction of value in kind.http://www.linux.com/articles/53004 A great example of the folly of relying on people to just behave is the inspiration for GPL 1- James Gosling took RMS' Emacs code, forked it, and initially released it freely as Gosling Emacs. Then he sold Gosling Emacs to UniPress, who told RMS to stop distributing it. So he had to rewrite all the Gosling bits. As Ernest Tubbs sings, thanks, thanks a lot! http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosling_Emacs Depending on other people's senses of responsibility and decency is folly, because even when you're dealing with folks who have these qualities, you'll still have honest differences of opinion. That's why we have things like software licenses, so that everyone knows the rules and don't have to waste their lives on misunderstandings and differing perspectives, or re-negotiating every little thing with each other. GPL vs. BSD is a false argument anyway- they are two different types of freedoms. Your definition of freedom seems to be more aligned with "freeloader"- take someone else's work, do what you want with it, and maybe, just maybe if you're feeling responsible and decent, you might send back a patch, or a couple of bucks, or a nice greeting card saying Thanks. Maybe. The GPL permits a considerable amount of freeloading; it only puts restrictions on exploitation. Whether GPL3 is an overreach I don't know; anyway we still have GPL2. I suppose the FSF could have voided GPL2 if they were really rabid control freaks. The bottom line is the actual code authors decide what licenses to use- or is that not enough freedom for you? **edit** BTW, this sounds really off the wall: Quoting: I believe the FSF and supporters have leaped well past the line of defining "Freedom" in a software license, and begun dictating how the supposedly "free" code can be used; how it must be supported by developers on any given hardware platform, and what level of support companies may or may not provide their paying customers. Can you cite some examples? I've actually read the text of GPL3 several times, and I don't see anything to support this. |
| dumper4311 Dec 20, 2007 1:27 PM EDT |
@tuxchick: Dang. Let's all just take a breath, shall we? You've completely misrepresented my position on almost everything you just got your undies in a bunch over. Now, I know you're a smart person, so it's hard for me to believe that was unintentional. :) How? Well, let me count the ways: The OpenBSD team - From your own quote, they didn't set out to make a profit from OpenSSH. It's ridiculous of them (or you) to whine about that now. If they'd still like to profit from their work, there are plenty of opportunities, while maintaining the open model they've chosen. You're quick to point this out when it suits you, but you seem to have forgotten the fact for this discussion - to support whatever your intent was in this rant. Think about some of the many businesses that turn a profit supporting open source code (theirs or others). How do they do it? Why can't the OpenBSD'ers who you've quoted as being bent over the issue do the same? The folly of relying on people to behave - I never even suggested that. I feel such a responsibility, hopefully you do also, but I don't depend on it. That was the point of a strong community keeping personal and corporate interests of abusers in line. The GPLv2 is a fair license in that it forces/restricts/requires such responsibility. I'm just asking you (and the FSF) to stop pretending that it's somehow granted you any freedom - except maybe the "freedom" to freeload off of the code developed and distributed as an app by someone who used your initially "free" code. :) Once again, I don't think this crosses the line, and don't have a problem with it's implementation in the GPLv2. As you said, it can help foster community development and open source progress. Further, if you'll read back a bit, I said myself that such licenses are necessary. GPL vs. BSD - ???? Come on, you're just making crap up now. I haven't pitted either license against the other. We've stated facts about both, and I like both - each on their own merits. Note that the GPL does permit a considerable amount of freeloading, and even forces the support of freeloading to an extent (as I mentioned above). I simply feel that the amount of "freeloading" forced in the GPLv3 is excessive, and draconian. Labeling me a freeloader was just cheap, but I forgive you. :) Voiding the GPLv2 - Holy cow, we're really swinging from the rafters now, arent we? Come on, lets be rational. Yes, the bottom line is that the code authors decide what license to use, and I've never denied anyone the freedom to do so. I'm just saying it's irresponsible and hypocritical to impose the "unrighteous" (see previous definition) restrictions of the GPLv3 on supposedly "free" code. I know you understand what I'm saying - like I said, you're a smart person, why would you intentionally misrepresent me? Emotion must be tempered by reason for us to make any progress here. Even if we ultimately agree to disagree. Cite some examples - Come on, I've debated the examples with you! The whole tivoization issue and the Novell-Microsoft agreement are THE REASONS the controversial clauses were put into the GPLv3. Once again, i disagree with the control and restrictions placed into the GPLv3 to support RMS' idea of what "freedom" should be for anyone who wants to use this supposedly "free" code. Take a deep breath, I still appreciate your input, even if I think you may be smoking dope. :) |
| Abe Dec 20, 2007 1:47 PM EDT |
Quoting:Once again, i disagree with the control and restrictions placed into the GPLv3 to support RMS' idea of what "freedom" should be for anyone who wants to use this supposedly "free" code. OK, may be it is RMS's idea, so what? Does that make it bad? There are many many developers that think it is a great idea and already adopting it for their code. So, are you saying all of them are wrong and should not listen to RMS? Let's be realistic Dumper4311, the freedom you are crying for exist only in a dream world. |
| dumper4311 Dec 20, 2007 1:55 PM EDT |
@Abe: Bad because it's RMS' idea, or your idea, or Tuxchick's idea? Absolutely not, that's petty and rediculous. Once again, in my opinion the control and restrictions in the GPLv3 are overreaching, draconian and hypocritical. As such, I believe this license betrays the very freedoms the FSF claims to uphold. This isn't a personal attack, I'm sorry you have taken it as such. I'm saying "all of them" are more interested in control of their code than the "freedom" they claim to support. The ones that actually think for themselves at least. And quite the contrary, I'd love everyone to listen and watch very closely RMS and the FSF. I believe they've strayed from "the path" to freedom, and that could do more to harm the F/OSS movement than it will to help it. I'd love to be realistic, join me won't you? The freedom I've described exists today in the BSD and GPLv2 licenses, along with several other similar documents. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 20, 2007 2:00 PM EDT |
A couple of remarks:Quoting: >> The FSF is unbending about one thing. Unfettered access to the source code for whateve >> purpose, except blocking access to the source code." Actually, dumper does have a point here with regards to the tivoisation clause of the GPL3, which is what the discussion is about. Under GPL2, TiVo does give access to the source. It's just that it's totally useless because you can't use it anywhere. So the GPL3 TiVo clause states that not only should you provide access to the source, but you should not try to stop people from using that code in a "consumer device". That is, if the manufacturer can update the binaries, then the use should be able to do so too. In reverse, if the manufacturer cannot do so (e.g. ROM or EEPROM) then he does not have to enable the user to do so either. So, it goes beyond just "unfettered access to the code" That said, I think that the FSF got it right with GPL3. I use it for pretty much all my code that does not depend on e.g. GPL2 only code. Quoting:Theo is a pain - and that's why the BSD community remains small. Nonsense. Theo isn't involved in FreeBSD or NetBSD and those two OSes still haven't made the inroads that Linux has. No matter how much you discuss it, there is a statistical correlation between the license of a project and the amount of external contribution. Choice of license doesn't guarantee (lack of) external contributions, but it's certainly a factor. Quoting:I recall Dan Bernstein criticizing the GPL as being unnecessary, because once a person holds the source code they can do whatever they want with it- as long as they don't re-distribute it, which he explicitly prohibited for his own software. Patches, yes; modified sources or binaries, no. Which may work for ace programmers, but I'll wager even the acest coders get tired of manually upgrading everything. That may be one of the reasons he decided to release all his code in the public domain mid-November. See Hkwint's post in the Qmail thread. Quoting:The "unfettered access to the source code" qualification you've hitched your wagon to is guaranteed by the BSD license, it simply doesn't guarantee you access to anyone elses added work based on that free code. That depends on your definition of "the source code". In your statement "the source code" means the original upstream code. In GPL land "the source code" means your modified code. Quoting:I believe the FSF and supporters have leaped well past the line of defining "Freedom" in a software license Define freedom. As with "the source code" above you're misunderstanding the FSF reasoning. In BSD land "freedom" means the freedom of the code itself. In GPL land "freedom" is for the end-user and the code is just one of the requirements for freedom (albeit the most important one). Quoting:... and begun dictating how the supposedly "free" code can be used; how it must be supported by developers on any given hardware platform, and what level of support companies may or may not provide their paying customers. I agree with Tuxchick. This is nonsense. Quoting:I believe that's the same fascist and hypocritical ideology supported by the proprietary software world, and have "labeled" it as such. ==== fascism fasc"ism (f[a^]sh"[i^]z'm) n. an authoritarian system of government under absolute control of a single dictator, allowing no political opposition, forcibly suppressing dissent, and rigidly controlling most industrial and economic activities. Such regimes usually try to achieve popularity by a strongly nationalistic appeal, often mixed with racism. ==== I am getting tired really fast of people putting the label "fascist" on anything they don't agree with. Quoting:I too have to agree that the GPL3 is nothing more than a moralistic update to GPL2. There were a *lot* more changes to the GPL3 than just the hotly disputed TiVo and patent clauses. Even if those clauses would not have been included it's a very good update IMHO. |
| dinotrac Dec 20, 2007 2:32 PM EDT |
>No matter how much you discuss it, there is a statistical correlation between the license of a project and the amount of external contribution. I don't know that you can make that claim. Linux, for example, is one project with a lot of outside contributions. Is that because of the GPL or because Linus actively sought help to get it off the ground? At the time he started out, the "release early, release often" approach was pretty radical. Does apache lack for outside contributions? Postgresql? They aren't GPL projects, but seem to do all right for themselves. Seems to me that there are a ton of GPL'd projects with little or no outside support. A quick trip through Sourceforge will tell you that. You've really got to look at the whole picture to know for sure. |
| dumper4311 Dec 20, 2007 2:33 PM EDT |
Man, I'm offending people left and right today. "fascist." Jargon File 4.2.0. 20 Dec. 2007. . adj. 1. [common] Said of a computer system with excessive or annoying security barriers, usage limits, or access policies. Thus the reason I chose to use the term - well, that and the moralistic judgmental behavior of RMS. Again, I'm sorry if I've offended you, but if it quacks like a duck . . . . :) Words I have to add to the "do not use" list: Zealot - for Tuxchick Fascist - for Sander I don't believe "freedom's" definition is really the issue, as I don't believe the license "grants" freedoms. Yes, it refers to the code, and yes, from FSF land it includes the user's rights to that code. I'm simply not convinced the TiVo and patent clause restrictions ultimately serve the users freedom, and they do more to damage F/OSS progress than to benefit it. As is evidenced in our current "schism." Long term, any restrictions you place on developers (corporate or otherwise) can't be separated from the impact it has on end users. Besides, with the exclusion of the Tivo and patent clauses, I'm sure we'd have a lot less to argue about. :) |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 20, 2007 2:52 PM EDT |
Quoting:the TiVo and patent clause restrictions [...] do more to damage F/OSS progress than to benefit it. Here's the exact flaw in your reasoning: FSF doesn't care about progress. It cares only about guaranteeing certain freedoms for the user. User freedom trumps everything, including code freedom. FSF has *always* been about that. You can agree or disagree with the FSF's goal, but the FSF has done exactly what it had to do. And the GPL3 is a pretty good license to achieve FSF's goal, Tivoisation, patents and all. The definition of "freedom" is at the crux of the GPL vs BSD debate and GPL2 vs GPL3 debate. What do you value more? Freedom for the end user or freedom for the code? GPL folk say the former is more important. BSD folk say the latter. You can debate the merits of each opinion ad infinitum but it's still just an opinion. There is no right or wrong, only *your* opinion of which is more important to *you*. |
| Steven_Rosenber Dec 20, 2007 2:59 PM EDT |
At least there is more than one license to accommodate those with different goals and philosophies. |
| dumper4311 Dec 20, 2007 3:07 PM EDT |
@Sander:
quote:
"FSF doesn't care about progress. It cares only about guaranteeing certain freedoms for the user. User freedom trumps everything," Yep, made that point already, in my first post or 2. I just came to a different conclusion than you. With regards to the pursuit of "freedom" for it's own sake (or, as you said, user freedom trumps everything), they've lost sight of the very users they claim to champion, and I believe they have taken the wrong path. In that respect, progress does matter, serving the user's needs and interests does matter, and maybe the FSF should re-examine their approach to the crusade. In fact, it occurs to me that Abe accused me of endorsing "absolute freedom." The more I hear, the more it sounds to me like the view being championed by the FSF. Perspective is a funny thing, eh? In any case, you're right, it's still just an opinion. I do disagree with you on there being no right or wrong, but as we all have the freedom to choose our own path, thats equally academic. The best I can hope for is that you'll see the error of your ways. :) |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 21, 2007 1:19 AM EDT |
Quoting:they've lost sight of the very users they claim to champion, and I believe they have taken the wrong path. In that respect, progress does matter, serving the user's needs and interests does matter, and maybe the FSF should re-examine their approach to the crusade. The FSF has little interest in serving the user's needs or interests. They only care about ensuring the user's freedom. |
| dinotrac Dec 21, 2007 3:37 AM EDT |
>The FSF has little interest in serving the user's needs or interests. They only care about ensuring the user's freedom. I have a feeling that worked better in your head than it came out in words. I'm pretty sure that the FSF does care about users' needs and interests in some regard. That's one reason why they sought to hear from so many people -- including corporate lawyers -- when drafting the GPLV3. Freedom in a pure abstract sense -- ie, not attached to anything anybody would care about, is not worth all the fuss. I suspect that you meant something more along the lines that the FSF cares more about preserving the freedom than the specifics of what you can and will do with it. If preserving freedom in the large sense means restricting little bits of it here and there, well, sigh, it happens. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 21, 2007 5:26 AM EDT |
Yeah dino, that's what I meant. Ofcourse FSF cares about people's needs and interests. But if a user's needs and interests conflict with preserving a user's freedom the FSF chooses freedom. I think the only consession I've seen them make are a few small changes to make the GPL3 friendlier for companies to use. But those were minor details. |
| dinotrac Dec 21, 2007 5:35 AM EDT |
>The FSF has little interest in serving the user's needs or interests. They only care about ensuring the user's freedom. I have a feeling that worked better in your head than it came out in words. I'm pretty sure that the FSF does care about users' needs and interests in some regard. That's one reason why they sought to hear from so many people -- including corporate lawyers -- when drafting the GPLV3. Freedom in a pure abstract sense -- ie, not attached to anything anybody would care about, is not worth all the fuss. I suspect that you meant something more along the lines that the FSF cares more about preserving the freedom than the specifics of what you can and will do with it. If preserving freedom in the large sense means restricting little bits of it here and there, well, sigh, it happens. |
| Abe Dec 21, 2007 7:43 AM EDT |
Well said Dino. It sounded so good it deserves posting it twice. :) |
| tuxchick Dec 21, 2007 7:53 AM EDT |
I know it's been said before in these discussions, but protecting freedoms always means restricting something somewhere. Protecting my freedom to use my property, for example, means excluding everyone else from using it (and ya know, they just don't make moat monsters like they used to. Snoozing slackers.) Which seems obvious, but it seems there is always an element in this discussions that thinks of freedom as this vague airy thing that allows everyone to do whatever they want. I'm sympathetic to GPL3 because there is always going to be someone looking for loopholes and technicalities to exploit, so it's a continual battle against the cheaters. |
| DarrenR114 Dec 21, 2007 9:21 AM EDT |
Quoting:I'm sympathetic to GPL3 because there is always going to be someone looking for loopholes and technicalities to exploit, so it's a continual battle against the cheaters. If it's truly a "loophole" or "technicality" then those taking advantage of such are *not* cheaters - they're still complying with the license. |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 21, 2007 9:49 AM EDT |
Carla makes a great point about the 'give and take' of protecting someones freedom. If you don't want someone to use your software on a device that prevents users from modifying your software, then use the GPLv3 license. Its that simple, and it's the only major difference from GPLv2 as far as I can tell. |
| azerthoth Dec 21, 2007 10:03 AM EDT |
I disagree that it is a good point. Not intending to bring politics into the equation here, but as a real world example that US citizens can relate to. That is the same logic that brought DHS into existence and continues this day to violate other well documented rights. Restricting freedoms to guarantee freedom, there is an oxymoron which makes no difference in how or where it is applied. The GPL3 does exactly that, and from the sounds of it TC and others not only expect but would encourage the FSF to continue down that road. If that happens I can see a time when in a few revisions that the GPLvX and the Microsoft EULA have more in common than they do in difference. |
| tuxchick Dec 21, 2007 10:09 AM EDT |
Yes and no, Darren, because the law recognizes the intent and spirit of contracts, laws, licenses, and such. I think 'cheater' is accurate because they know what they're doing- they're looking for a dodge, a way to evade, rather than seriously trying to be in compliance. But enforcing the spirit of a legal agreement is hard. That's partly why everything we see these days is plastered in legalese, and why legal documents are so mind-numbingly long and full of weird crap like definitions for "me" and "you". |
| dumper4311 Dec 21, 2007 10:44 AM EDT |
Quote:
"the intent and spirit of contracts . . ." That really is it, isn't it? I simply feel the intent of the FSF and supporters to enforce the "absolute freedom" of users via the restriction of "free" code usage is counterproductive and wrong. As azerthoth mentioned, I also believe restricting freedoms to guarantee freedom is a dangerous road to travel. What is the purpose of software? To perform a given task on a given set of platforms. This is an oversimplification, but it's useful here. "Free" code doesn't influence that purpose or the specification of platform - until you add the more controversial bits of the GPLv3. At this point it becomes clear that it is in fact the FSF's moralistic and user centric view of freedom that translates into "this vague airy thing that allows everyone to do whatever they want." - apologies to tuxchick for the reference. edit: It really isn't about the code. The code does what it's designed to do - nothing vague or airy about that. If it's free code, it's available to everyone to perform the function it was designed for, whether it can be specifically adapted to your hardware or not. It really is about the USERS, and their intent. I believe the Intent of the FSF to manage and control the intent of "free" code users is unjust, even in the name of preserving (to the point apparently of "absolute freedom") this self-same user freedom. Again, I believe this is a dangerous road to start down, and with azerthoth, would urge careful consideration of the consequences of pursuing such "freedom" for its own sake. |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 21, 2007 10:56 AM EDT |
Your right that it's a dangerous road to travel down yet everything in life is a matter of give and take. To want one thing, is to not want another thing in relation to it. To believe in one thing is to not believe in another thing in relation to it. To make a choice is to exclude one thing for another, and the reality of our lives is at its basest a series of choices. You cannot have freedoms or restrictions without enforcing it. |
| dumper4311 Dec 21, 2007 11:07 AM EDT |
@Scott:
Very well written. Clean, concise, and a pleasure to read. I can't even argue with it - which is kind of disappointing. :) But it's important to keep in mind, you cannot enforce those same freedoms without further restricting them. As you said, this is the nature of the beast, and thus the fine line we find ourselves debating. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 21, 2007 11:52 AM EDT |
Either people are free to disagree, or they are not free. Either people are free to do things you don't like, or they are not free. Either the software can be used in ways you don't like, or it is not free as in freedom. There is no "third way", just like a woman cannot be "a little bit pregnant". Either the source code is free to be used, or it is not. The GPLv3 will not do what its proponents think it will do, because increasing restrictions does not increase freedom. |
| Abe Dec 22, 2007 6:58 AM EDT |
Quoting:The GPLv3 will not do what its proponents think it will do, because increasing restrictions does not increase freedom. @Bob, I have a problem with you logic and especially your last statement above. Granting privileges to the few who restrict the freedoms of many, decreases freedom. OTOH, taking away those privileges will increase the overall freedom. Makes more sense, doesn't it? |
| dinotrac Dec 22, 2007 8:17 AM EDT |
>Granting privileges to the few who restrict the freedoms of many, decreases freedom. OTOH, taking away those privileges will increase the overall freedom. Makes more sense, doesn't it? So does "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" and lots of other wonderful ideas. The problem with "privileges" is that they are not rights, and when they are not rights you do not have freedom. Instead, you have whatever degree of running to room the powers that be have seen fit to grant you that day. The GPLV2 -> GPLV3 changes are an example. Even if you view them as a good thing, they represent the "powers" saying, "Umm, no -- I know we said you could do that before, but we've changed our minds." |
| dumper4311 Dec 22, 2007 10:26 AM EDT |
I loved your last line Bob, I almost changed my email sig. But Abe has a good point also, I just don't think it applies here. I'm not positive, but I seem to remember RMS himself claiming that in order to protect the freedoms of all, sometimes the freedoms of some must be curtailed. In reference to actions which cause harm, I agree. If your action harms another - physically, financially, or otherwise - then your "freedom" to act in such a manner may be rightly regulated - subject to the situation. The GPLv3 regulates the freedom of code users for another purpose entirely. For example, it stipulates that "if you use this code on a closed platform, you must guarantee others the "right" to modify it's operation on said closed platform also, assuming you can do so yourself." (please correct my interpretation if applicable). This smacks of extortion and blackmail to me, not "protection" of freedoms. "if you want to redistribute our "free" code, you must also pay for that privilege by providing the the following additional benefits to anyone else. Regardless of whether these extra benefits had anything to do with your modified software and it's intended function or not" Note, organized crime calls this "protection" also, only instead of paying the FSF your "protection money", now you're paying the whole world. How altruistic of them. Note that the same thing happens in the GPLv2; you are blackmailed for the code changes you've made if you redistribute the originally "free" code. I can cope with this, but there's the line - you're not required to allow additional functionality or services beyond what the modified code was intended to provide. PLEASE try not to get all bound up over the above comparison. I'm not saying the FSF is criminal, the GPL is a license, and it's perfectly legal to agree to such restrictions. As has already been blathered out - "nobody is forcing you to use this code" blah, blah, blah "my freedom" blah, blah. Yes, I know. And yes, you're right. I simply think it's irresponsible, unethical, hypocritical, and the wrong path to take supposedly "free" software down. It's either truly free or it isn't, and when you wrongly hinder developers, you hurt users. Note my favorite hypocritical quote from RMS: "a choice of masters isn't freedom." I choose not to give the title of master to RMS, or the FSF. Maybe they should change their name from Free Software Foundation to Absolute Freedom of Users Foundation. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 22, 2007 11:54 AM EDT |
> Granting privileges to the few who restrict the freedoms of many, decreases freedom. But those 4 freedoms were not granted to the few. The four freedoms of the FSF were defined for everyone. Oh, wait, someone might do something I don't like. Let's make some restrictions on the supposed "inviolate" 4 freedoms when someone does something I don't like. Instead of increasing freedom by, say, letting folks know that there are alternatives to Tivo, we get to make encumbering rules which reduce freedom, while Tivo just uses some other software or forks off what they are already using. No one wins. I've never understood how restricting someone else somehow increases freedom. Sorry, Abe, but no that doesn't make sense. |
| tuxchick Dec 22, 2007 12:20 PM EDT |
Well Bob, it seems to be a simple concept- it's been explained well in several different ways. You make a good point about education and users buying wisely, but that doesn't address licensing issues. So maybe a cruder illustration will help: if you trespass on my property I will feed you to the moat monsters. Thus, restricting your freedom increases mine. Unfortunately that's the way a lot of freedoms operate- it's more about keeping other people from messing with us so we can do what we want. Now if Dino were to trespass, I would have to not feed him to the moat monsters for their sake. Which would require a different choice on my part, which is also a freedom. Meanwhile, Dino is free to run for his life, so it's not entirely a zero-sum equation. |
| dinotrac Dec 22, 2007 12:36 PM EDT |
>Meanwhile, Dino is free to run for his life, so it's not entirely a zero-sum equation. Not really. At my current weight, I am free to waddle, at best. |
| dumper4311 Dec 22, 2007 1:11 PM EDT |
Quote:
"Thus, restricting your freedom increases mine . . . . it's more about keeping other people from messing with us so we can do what we want." And there it is. We're not actually talking about freedom, although it's been attractively wrapped up as such. What we're talking about is developers who wish to dictate the terms and conditions of the use of their code, while redefining "freedom" in such a way as to serve their moralistic ends. It's the same tactic used to redefine "Operating System" so we are now all wrong if we don't say GNU/Linux. How very proprietary of you. I have no doubt that they're "free" to do so, it's their code. But we really shouldn't be pretending that the code is free as such. Save a moat monster for me tuxchick. :) |
| azerthoth Dec 22, 2007 1:21 PM EDT |
As long as they are easily identifiable as to which is original and which is extra crispy recipe. |
| Abe Dec 22, 2007 2:55 PM EDT |
@Dino, Your legalize didn't make much sense to me. One part went whooshsssh over my head and another went through one ear, echoed in the hollow space enough to give me a headache before it went out. @Dumper4311, Quoting:What we're talking about is developers who wish to dictate the terms and conditions of the use of their code, while redefining "freedom" in such a way as to serve their moralistic ends.Good point Dumper. OTOH, As you recall I said, there is no absolute freedom and your point here applies to absolute freedom. You want GPLed software to be released under a BSD like license. That is not going to happen because the developers don't wish it. We should respect their wishes, shouldn't we? Actually we have no choice. They are restricting our freedom for the sake of the many. May I remind you that GPL2 has restrictions for the purpose of guaranteeing user freedoms. I heard no complain from no one about them. Why complain now about GPL3 when the whole purpose of its restrictions is to enhance this guarantee? @Bob, Quoting:I've never understood how restricting someone else somehow increases freedomIt is simple, you restrict the few to prevent them from restrict the many. I hope this makes better sense. |
| dumper4311 Dec 22, 2007 4:01 PM EDT |
@Abe:
now, I know you read my post, as you quoted from it. I'm just having a hard time understanding how you could so completely misunderstand what I wrote. Lets go a little slower, and I'll try to be a little more clear. - "there is no absolute freedom and your point here applies to absolute freedom." Ridiculous. As I've said, defining a new version of their license demonstrates that it's the FSF who's abusing your concept of "absolute freedom" to service their moralistic crusade. "New idea of what's right? That's easy, tweak our interpretation of the supposed 4 freedoms to enforce what we want now." - "You want GPLed software to be released under a BSD like license." Not at all. I'm explaining why I don't like the GPLv3 compared to v2 or BSDL. - "We should respect their wishes, shouldn't we?" If you mean uphold their chosen software license, absolutely. If you mean propagate a lie, not on your nellie. - "May I remind you that GPL2 has restrictions for the purpose of guaranteeing user freedoms. I heard no complain from no one about them." No need to remind me. As I've explained (and you apparently missed). That's the line we crossed from honestly dealing with "Free" code, to misrepresentation and hypocrisy. Here's my point again (to remind you): Note that the same thing happens in the GPLv2; you are blackmailed for the code changes you've made if you redistribute the originally "free" code. I can cope with this, but there's the line - you're not required to allow additional functionality or services beyond what the modified code was intended to provide. - "Why complain now about GPL3 when the whole purpose of its restrictions is to enhance this guarantee?" That's a lie. And exactly my problem. These restrictions have done NOTHING to enhance this "guarantee", as there WAS NO DAMAGE (financial, physical, or otherwise), done by the use of "free" code by TiVo, the MS-Novell deal, or otherwise. These new restrictions serve only to enforce the moral view of RMS, the FSF, and supporters like yourself. They have NOTHING to do with software freedom. Again, I believe your camp is being dishonest and hypocritical, or simply don't have a solid understanding of the definition of the terms you're throwing around. - "It is simple, you restrict the few to prevent them from restrict the many." Yep, you're absolutely right. In fact, that's the same point that Tuxchick made in her last point. Just don't pretend it's about "free" software. You've thrown your weight behind a software license that restricts the use of it's code to the terms and conditions it's developers approve of, and nothing more. "Freedom" is an issue only in the most cursory sense with regards to the controversial portions of this license. In this sense, the FSF and supporters are no different than Microsoft. Oh yes, the conditions are different, but the intent is exactly the same - retaining control over the use of your code. Nothing "free" about it. I don't know how to make it any plainer, my friend. Is the code free, or isn't it? You can continue to deny that the sky is blue if you choose, but that doesn't actually change it's color. What you're advocating is the "freedom" of developers to choose what software license they distribute their code under. I have no problem with that, just don't pretend that your code is free anymore. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 23, 2007 12:08 PM EDT |
> It is simple, you restrict the few to prevent them from restrict the many. I hope this makes better sense. The few what? The few who do what you don't like? The next question must be, "who decides who the few are?" How about this: My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. No matter how badly you don't like me swinging my fist, until it reaches your nose there is nothing you can do or say about it. No one forced anyone to buy a Tivo. Tivo abided the letter and spirit on the GPL. It was their _hardware_ which was locked. Don't want their hardware? Then don't buy it. Don't like how their hardware works? Hack it. If Tivo decides not to offer their directory service to hacked machines, then don't buy their service. No one is "limited", no one's freedom is restricted. Each individual has full control over their own lives. Again: I don't see how restricting what other people are allowed to do "increases" freedom. And please, "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few" is a very tired and sad argument. There is no "many", there is only the one. Each of us. Either we are each free, or none of us are. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 23, 2007 12:27 PM EDT |
> There were a *lot* more changes to the GPL3 than just the hotly disputed TiVo and patent clauses. Even if those clauses would not have been included it's a very good update IMHO. Heck yes! I am very glad to see the clarifications and shortenings. Using one word where 10 were used before, great stuff. If that had been the extent of it, this argument would not be happening. |
| tuxchick Dec 23, 2007 1:04 PM EDT |
Quoting: No one forced anyone to buy a Tivo. The hardware belongs to the people who buy it. Not to TiVo. Again, that ole difference in perspectives- the people who actually write the code matter the most, and are the ones who choose the licenses. It seems a lot of the arguments over what "freedom" means are really about "freedom the exploit the work of others however I want to." |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 23, 2007 1:59 PM EDT |
Quoting:Tivo abided the letter and spirit on the GPL. It was their _hardware_ which was locked. TiVo certainly violated the spirit of the GPL IMHO. They only followed the letter. |
| azerthoth Dec 23, 2007 6:20 PM EDT |
TC agreed, the hardware belonged to the people who bought the Tivo. Tivo on the other hand was under no onus what so ever to supply any services at all to people who modified the software running on that hardware, and still arent. If someone had ultimately wanted too they could have done what Linus did to start with. Have absolutely nothing and build from there, but no, that wasn't fair at all to make someone actually have to go in and start from scratch. So instead we the FSF has now tried to extend the meaning of Free Software to include the hardware it's running on. And before you go ranting about Quoting:"freedom the exploit the work of others however I want to." That is exactly what is the backbone of Free Software. The ability to stand on the backs of others works and make it do what YOU want. It does not guarantee easy, nor does it guarantee functional on any given platform. |
| gus3 Dec 23, 2007 6:33 PM EDT |
Quoting:That is exactly what is the backbone of Free Software. The ability to stand on the backs of others works and make it do what YOU want.What if I want to create a program to track down software patent violations, using GPL'd or LGPL'd libraries? |
| azerthoth Dec 23, 2007 7:43 PM EDT |
There is something stopping you? |
| gus3 Dec 23, 2007 10:10 PM EDT |
Well, more generally, am I free to use Free Software as a tool to enforce software patents? Or does the GPLv3 forbid that? Either way, the "freedom" seems self-contradictory. Kind of like when someone yells, "Question authority!", and someone else yells back, "Says who?" |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 23, 2007 10:28 PM EDT |
Quoting:Well, more generally, am I free to use Free Software as a tool to enforce software patents? Or does the GPLv3 forbid that? You're free to do that. GPL3 is just GPL2 plus the clause that, if you're a distributor of a consumer device using GPL3 code, you should give the end user the same abilities that you as the distributor has (such as upgradability). |
| dinotrac Dec 23, 2007 11:17 PM EDT |
>Either way, the "freedom" seems self-contradictory. Kind of like when someone yells, "Question authority!", and someone else yells back, "Says who?" Stop that!! It is not nice to do that to insomniacs. It is, however, a great (if light-hearted) way to describe the FSF's dilemma, and the ease with which one can shift from protecting freedom to preventing it. |
| gus3 Dec 23, 2007 11:23 PM EDT |
Quoting:if you're a distributor of a consumer device using GPL3 code, you should give the end user the same abilitiesShould give, or must give? |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 24, 2007 12:08 AM EDT |
Must. I was speaking English, not IETF/IEEE Engrish. |
| helios Dec 24, 2007 5:09 AM EDT |
"they are one company, we are a community..." Your points up until that sentence had complete validity. There is no Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny resided, up until last eve, on my dinner table and the Tooth Fairy was fitted for dentures years ago. The above-mentioned entities reside within the realm of fantasy in order to capture the child's imagination. The myth of the "Linux Community" only serves to hinder the efforts of individuals who wish this dream into reality. There is no Linux Community...there IS however a large number or warring villages that use the vast landscape between them to wage bloody wars against each other. Among those groups there are individuals who are either too busy with their own lives to give a rats ass about the advocacy of Linux OR they cannot see beyond the needs of their individual cpu's. The great Fiefdom that resides at Castle Redmond watches from the towers as they swill their rich dark wine and thank the gods for this merry entertainment taking place in the valley below. If the argument is to take place, BASE the argument on solid tenant...not a mythical community or semantic laziness. Your entire premise is destroyed by this one misconception. Selfishness is what it is and what it is, fundamentally resides within the heart of human nature. Change that, and this entire thread evaporates into needless bytes of energy. Until then, we are simply wasting a magnificent opportunity and effort. h |
| ColonelPanik Dec 24, 2007 7:16 AM EDT |
If you have Debian (and we all do, eh?) try this:
apt-get install anarchism helios, So true, not a community just clans, tribes. So there is no Pan-Linux movement. Pan-anything always gives way to vested interests. Do we wait for the Messiah? Or some type of charismatic leader, maybe someone in tights and a cape? Have we become a Cargo Cult? |
| Abe Dec 24, 2007 8:18 AM EDT |
Quoting:The few what?My apologies, I owe you definitions I thought weren't necessary. The few are like Tivo, Microsoft, Novell, etc... which TC accurately called them exploiters. Quoting:The few who do what you don't like?No, the greedy few who want to take advantage of the freedom they are offered to infringe on the freedom or the others. Quoting:The next question must be, "who decides who the few are?" The GPL that is accepted and adopted by the many who don't want their freedoms spoiled or even taken away. Quoting:How about this: My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. No matter how badly you don't like me swinging my fist, until it reaches your nose there is nothing you can do or say about it.Bad analogy and in this case, your fist reached and blooded my nose. I will make sure you can't do it again. May be I will start by breaking your arm. :) Quoting:No one forced anyone to buy a Tivo.You obviously don't believe in personal property do you? In that case, tell me where you live so I build a house on your property and I am sure you wouldn't mind it. Quoting:Tivo abided the letter and spirit on the GPL. It was their _hardware_ which was locked.May be they did abide by the letter due to a loophole in GPL2. But it is no longer their hardware after it was purchased by the consumer. The same as with your nice property in Florida you bought from me and I still have the right to tell you what to build or not build on it. I guess it would be OK with me if Tivo were leasing their hardware instead of selling it. Quoting:Don't want their hardware? Then don't buy it. Don't like how their hardware works? Hack it.Fair enough, you don't want GPL3, don't use it and consequently you have no right to use its software. I believe Tivo can still use GPL2 software if they want to. Quoting:If Tivo decides not to offer their directory service to hacked machines, then don't buy their service.I wouldn't buy it and you are missing an important point here. The GPL was created and being adopted by developers who want to offer their code to the end users with full right to use it in any way they want to. Those who don't agree to it, they don't have to use it. So Tivo can develop their own without using any GPL3 code. They have the freedom to chose. What more do you want? Quoting:No one is "limited", no one's freedom is restricted. Each individual has full control over their own lives.Not true, everyone is limited. Ones freedoms ends where others' start. Quoting:Again: I don't see how restricting what other people are allowed to do "increases" freedom.You are missing the point. Being a distributor of GPL3 code, they are Not allowed to do what they want to do. They should and are sticking with GPL2. GPL2 has loop holes and missing an important clause. It should have had "This license can be updated without any prior notice". The creators of GPL3 realized that and it was their main reason why they left the option to the developers and adopters to use GPL2 if they so wish. Quoting:And please, "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few" is a very tired and sad argument. There is no "many", there is only the one. Each of us. Either we are each free, or none of us are.That is not true, The reality is, we are a social society and a community guided by morals, protected by laws, and empowered by rights, not an individual. Even the people of the Amazon have the same to certain extents. What planet do you live on or come from? Helios is right, we are simply wasting a magnificent opportunity and effort. OTOH, if we don't voice our support to what is right in our minds, the exploiters, spoilers and doubters will have a field day and might even win the argument by default. For this thread and subject, for me I believe enough was said. |
| azerthoth Dec 24, 2007 10:54 AM EDT |
Okay, not for the first time and probably not for the last have I considered opening a separate text editor to compose a rebuttal. However after a couple of rewrites I found I could sum it up very easily and still be polite. @Helios, you know you are one of the few I consider a real life hero of mine. In this case though I feel it necessary to disagree with you. It is hardly a waste of time or bandwidth to amicably discuss our outlooks on what the embodiment of Free Software is/should be. You sir have a gift of being able to sum things up and point things out in such a way as to make the rest of us go "Oh WOW", us mere mortals on the other hand tend to use lots and lots of words to reach the same point. Several of us see the FSF intelligently, logically, and morally spiraling down the road to hell (ala the MS EULA) with the GPL. Others of us see the changes and manueverings as a way to guarantee forever the rights of the end user to use Free Software. Either way these discussions are necessary once in awhile if for no other reason than to make sure that the points from both sides are made, as the points being made are relevant and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. |
| dinotrac Dec 24, 2007 11:30 AM EDT |
Abe -
> Your legalize didn't make much sense to me. One part went whooshsssh over my head and another went through one ear, echoed in the hollow space enough to give me a headache before it went out.
Not sure what you are referring to. Hope it's not the sight of me waddling on my way. If it's the note on privileges vs rights, then I'm not sure what the confusion is. Freedom is a matter of right, not privilege. You either have a right to do something or you don't. If you are privileged to do something, you don't have the freedom to do it. You might be allowed to do it, but that is a different thing. The freedom lies with the person who grants the privilege. The clearest view of this would be to look at the long line of Microsoft EULAs and the way they keep removing privileges. Did you know that, ten years ago, a Microsoft EULA gave you permission to install software on a second machine so long as you didn't actually use both machines concurrently? Nowadays, you may not even get the privilege of being able to install on a second machine if your first machine goes belly-up. |
| Abe Dec 24, 2007 1:14 PM EDT |
@Dino, As always, you are right. It was not what you said, it is me not wanting to get into the debate of Freedom vs privileges. I had to find a way out of your precision arguments so I blamed it on your legalize.:) GPL doesn't grant Freedom, which I refer to it above as absolute Freedom and you as Freedom in a pure abstract sense. GPL grants privileges with restrictions, it always did from day one. It is more exact to call it Privilege Software, but that doesn't make much sense, does it? One of the things RMS did when GPL3 was released is to define the four freedoms. I think he did that for the purpose of reducing confusion about this issue. Notice that in the dictionary definitions I listed below. Freedom is right to unrestricted use => absolute freedom Privilege is a special right. => restricted freedom Just for reference, I listed a dictionary list of both so others know what I am referring to. Freedom: 1. The condition of being free of restraints. 2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression. 3. a. The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities. b. The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city. Privilege: 1. A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, prerogative, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. See Synonyms at right. 3. To grant a privilege to. 4. To free or exempt. |
| dinotrac Dec 24, 2007 8:41 PM EDT |
Abe - >Freedom is right to unrestricted use => absolute freedom You've got to be careful with dictionary definitions because the form doesn't allow much room for nuance. Freedom can, in fact, be bounded. Arguably, freedom must be bounded. Freedom in your own home, for example, requires that others be restricted from invading your home. But -- and this is a big but -- that freedom you have, bounded or not, must be yours to enjoy by right, not a little breathing space somebody has deigned to give you. |
| dumper4311 Dec 24, 2007 11:44 PM EDT |
@Abe: - "It is more exact to call it Privilege Software, but that doesn't make much sense, does it?" It would at least be a bit more honest. Thus the assertion that we're no longer dealing with "free" software. The GPLv2 includes restrictions on the use of it's licensed code, as does the BSD license. The "absolute freedom" argument is a red herring - pure fiction. The freedom described in either document is bound with protections from abuse or harm (as perceived by the authors of either license), but the code is still free for use regardless of it's purpose or method of employment - as long as the code remains free. Again, nobody is arguing against the developers right to release or control their software under any conditions they wish. But the GPLv3 has encumbered it's licensed code with value judgments that restrict it's use based in intent or purpose. You are certainly entitled to license your code based on these values, but use of your code is no longer free. As I said, "Privilege Software" would at least be honest. - "your fist reached and blooded my nose." Assuming that we're still talking about the controversial clauses in the GPLv3, could you please explain how you believe TiVo, Novell, or otherwise have caused anyone harm (physical, financial, or otherwise) based on the terms outlined explicitly in the GPLv2? Setting aside the FSFish view of the "spirit" of the agreement, I'd be genuinely interested in any harm done by the employment of this free code. On the subject of the "spirit" of the agreement, we're dealing, once again, with the value judgments of a subset of the F/OSS community. That's fine, and it's the reason for the creation of the questionable portions of v3, which you're free to revere. I'm simply looking for a reasonable explanation, under the specific terms of an actual free license (GPLv2 in this case), of the harm done by using free code in accordance with the terms of said license. "The developers didn't approve . . ." doesn't fly. They released the code under a free license, if they disagree, they're free to release future code under a non-free license (like the GPLv3), but that's not an example of harm, that's an example of your (or their) values. Here's the really funny part. Who are these "users" your championing? I'd submit that developers, using free code, are "users" under your 4 freedoms. In fact, I'd suggest that they're the FIRST USERS of free code, and it's akin to criminal to restrict their use of "free" code, based on the value judgments of the original code's developers. My values tell me that the FSF has hypocritically betrayed the freedoms of the very "users" they profess to protect. That view may be worth considering as you redefine words like "freedom" or "operating system" to suit (and promote) your own values. We're no longer talking about free software, we're talking about users free to restrict the code they develop and publish to uses they approve of. My friend, you're only a hop, skip, and a small jump away from your own EULA. @helios: Thank you for your participation here; I share azerthoth's sentiments with regard to the work you've done for true software freedom. ColonelPanik mentioned waiting for a Messiah, or charismatic leader to lead us to . . . wherever. In my opinion, there will eventually be hundreds or thousands of leaders, charismatic or not, doing exactly the kind of work you're doing now. Advocating, demonstrating, implementing, and providing interoperability with free solutions for the great unwashed masses. I agree with your assessment of "community." There are at least two distinct camps in this field, and neither the "Free" Software camp or the Open Source camp are ever likely to see eye to eye. Note that this thread started out as a discussion of interoperability, and how best to overcome the inertia of Microsoft's influence. I believe that between the two camps, there's only one effective way of accomplishing this goal (which I've mentioned again above), and thus one of the two camps is more effective (read: right) than the other. Note that I beleive the proclaimed ideals of the FSF are worth championing, but I also believe their adopted methods betray those fundamental freedoms, and harm our "communities" progress. While it may be a small betrayal - "to protect the greater good" - that's a slippery slope I'd be terrified to go dancing down. We may differ on which camp is the "selfish" one. But given the value of these professed freedoms, I'd wager my future on the camp that bets their entire professional existence on the good fruits of their labor, over those who have nothing more to lose than the validity of a value judgment and an intellectual argument any day. While it's important to work towards the ends of the 4 freedoms, it's equally important to not compromise them in the process. |
| dinotrac Dec 25, 2007 4:49 AM EDT |
>On the subject of the "spirit" of the agreement, we're dealing, once again, with the value judgments of a subset of the F/OSS community. This is a topic I tried to address -- but did very poorly -- back when the Novell deal was signed. Now that we are out of that fire, I think I can do just a little bit better than I did then. The "spirit" of a license like the GPL is very difficult to ascertain. It's different from an ordinary contract, where you have two parties who presumably reached some kind of "meeting of the minds". It's even different from an ordinary license, where a rights holder has a license that has been written to express his/her/its (not a joke -- think corporation) grant of rights. The GPL (and other free licenses) is, in effect, a generic template used by lots and lots of rights holders. The folks at the FSF pretty much know what they think it means and that deserves a lot of weight. Except that... Even presuming that every FSF interpretation in every situation would be upheld by a court of law... A license is not a grant of rights from the license drafter to the recipient. It is a license grant from the rights-holder to the recipient. In effect, you don't really have one "spirit", you have thousands of "spirits". We've all seen postings and actions by developers who thought the GPL meant something that it didn't quite mean. Presumably, the true spirt of the GPL -- as chosen by those developers -- was different from the spirit intended by the FSF. And that's the problem when talking about the spirit of a generic document. |
| Abe Dec 25, 2007 9:45 AM EDT |
@Dumper4311, I believe you suffer from a sever case of perfectionism. Perfection exists in the mind of everyone and depends on how content everyone is. If I borrow from a proverb, "Perfection is in the eye of the beholder". Quoting:It would at least be a bit more honest.Call it whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is, GPLed software is free, as in Freedom, for end users to use anyway they want. When it comes to modifying and distributing, you are restricted by the definitions of the freedoms it grants. That is no different than BSD, which has one restriction AFAIK, except the GPL is more restrictive and for a reason. No need to keep going in circles about these issues, you either abide by the terms or you don't. GPL is not infringing on anyone's freedoms, it just makes sure that no one restricts the freedoms granted to end users. Quoting:could you please explain how you believe TiVo, Novell, or otherwise have caused anyone harm (physical, financial, or otherwise) based on the terms outlined explicitly in the GPLv2? This has been iterated numerous times already and I will say it one more time. The major purpose of Microsoft's deal with Novell was to contaminate GPLed software with Microsoft patents. This would have allowed them to enforce their restrictions on FOSS and enabled them to control it to reap revenues from FOSS users. Either Novel didn't see this danger or were too blinded by the cash infusion they desperately needed. It was very irresponsible of them as they claimed their compliance with the letter of GPL2. GPL3 took care of this issue as well as the issue of the Tivoization loop hole which also restricted user usage of GPL software. The spirit of the GPL was widely understood and MS tried with Red Hat and failed but were successful with Novell due to their troubled financial situation. Some don't agree with the closing of this loop hole but many more do. I happen to agree. The latest agreement between MS and EU is the way to go. I believe this agreement made the Novell contract with MS pretty much unnecessary for interoperability, which Microsoft made a big fuss about and Novell used it as an excuse to sign their covenant agreement. |
| dinotrac Dec 25, 2007 10:02 AM EDT |
>which Microsoft made a big fuss about and Novell used it as an excuse to sign their covenant agreement. Ummm.... Novell is much more than a Linux business, and their deal with Microsoft was about much more than Linux. They signed the covenant in order to avoid queering a deal that was worth hundreds of millions of dollars to them. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 25, 2007 10:21 AM EDT |
I said,
> > If you don't want Tivo hardware, don't buy a Tivo. TC replied, as if to contradict me, > The hardware belongs to the people who buy it. Not to TiVo. Exactly. So, if you don't like what you bought from Tivo, return it or hack it. Yes, hack it. This doesn't require a change to the license of the _software_, this is a _hardware_ issue. Hacking the hardware has a very long and distinguished history. Enough people return their Tivos when they discover the hardware was keyed against customer compiled software, Tivo would stop doing that. Changing the license was, to put it politely, barking up the wrong tree. |
| DarrenR114 Dec 26, 2007 6:35 AM EDT |
The "spirit of the GPL" is a fallacious argument once you get to the underpinnings of it - there is no way to know what a licensor's intent is with using *any* license without them explicitly spelling it out. To say that anyone knows with 100% certainty that all developers chose the GPL to support RMS's vision of "freedom" (which really isn't any sort of freedom at all, with this atrocity known as GPLv3) can only be described as disingenuous at best. To say that taking advantage of so-called "loopholes" and "technicalities" is "cheating" is to imply clairvoyance - to which I can only ask: Just how do you know every developer's intent in using the GPL (v2 or v3)? Did you ask all of them? |
| Abe Dec 26, 2007 8:26 AM EDT |
Quoting:Novell is much more than a Linux business, and their deal with Microsoft was about much more than Linux.Let's be realistic Dino, What ever technology Novell had before Linux is on a steep decline to its resting place. The revenue it brings in is coming from support cost of whatever is left due to companies waiting to recover their original investments. MS wouldn't sign the agreement without including patents that covers Linux that would allow them to collect royalty for their unnamed so claimed patents in GPL code. Quoting:They signed the covenant in order to avoid queering a deal that was worth hundreds of millions of dollars to them.One wonders what the millions of dollars paid by Microsoft to Novell were for. If they were for Novell's patents, why wasn't that done before Novell became a Linux company? Why there are still other old disputes between the two companies? Why were these patents so conveniently kept unnamed? What was the purpose for all the purchased SLED licenses by MS where their users were still have to purchase support from Novell? Why did Novell agree to pay part of their Linux license proceeds to Microsoft? There are many questions about why Linux was included in the contract without any valid answers. We went through this discuss before Dino. We didn't reach to an agreement. It is probably best to leaving it expire and discuss the new agreement the EU made with MS. This agreement proved that it is possible to bring Microsoft to agree for better interoperability and on terms favorable to everyone in the FOSS community and not only for a single company. |
| Abe Dec 26, 2007 8:51 AM EDT |
Quoting:there is no way to know what a licensor's intent is with using *any* license without them explicitly spelling it out. I appreciate your point, and I understand that companies wouldn't know any better since most business don't have morals. But you know what, there is such a thing called business ethics. Novell being a FOSS participant and all, the least they could have done is to consult with the community before they entered into such an agreement with Microsoft. Novell knows better than most where Microsoft stands with respect to FOSS. Every company looks into the risks and their consequences before they enter into any agreement. Novell either they didn't care about FOSS or considered the consequences were not going to be as sever as they have been. Quoting:Just how do you know every developer's intent in using the GPL (v2 or v3)? Did you ask all of them?Simple, those developers who adopted the GPL I am sure they, at least, read it and if they had questions, they asked and consulted with some one else. Those who agreed to its terms went ahead adopting it, and those who didn't just trashed it and went with some other like BSD or whatever. As a matter of fact, not all developers agreed to GPL3 yet. Some rejected it flat out, like Linus for the Kernel. Many others still debating the issue and haven't decided yet. |
| Abe Dec 26, 2007 9:35 AM EDT |
Quoting:So, if you don't like what you bought from Tivo, return it or hack it.Consumers sure have the choice, and it becomes a weighing issue for them. Some could try hacking but most don't have this choice since they are not capable hackers. Some grudgingly keep it and wish it wasn't so. Quoting:Enough people return their Tivos when they discover the hardware was keyed against customer compiled software, Tivo would stop doing that. Unfortunately not everyone is enlightened and strong willed like you Bob. That is where the GPL comes in to protect the choice and freedom of the end users. Why put the burden on the consumer when it is easier and more practical to burden the seller. The seller still retains the choice of developing its own or use other proprietary software if the GPLed software doesn't fit the bill. Isn't that what the GPL is all about, protecting the users? |
| azerthoth Dec 26, 2007 11:02 AM EDT |
Abe, to put a point on how popular the GPLv3 actually is ... less than 1% of available open source projects have adopted it. I'm not saying that the number indicates a true bias against, it is in my mind a bit telling though. re: hacking the Tivo vs source code modification. One needs only to look at the xbox or any other in a long history of console hacks by people with little to no actual skill. The modifying source code in hardware is a poor excuse at best, and the lazy mans reason for inclusion into the GPL at all. As pointed out before, Linus started out with a heck of alot less when he did the first kernel. |
| dinotrac Dec 26, 2007 11:50 AM EDT |
> This agreement Goodness Abe, you still don't like facts very much, do you? Comparing the EU agreement to anything a compan like Novell could do is like calling butterflies cantaloupes. The EU has the power of government behind it. Much more comparable to the consent decree between the Department of Justice and Microsoft than to the Novell deal. If you wish to say that the EU deal shows what a bunch of spineless idiot toads were running Justice after the Bush administration took office, I'd be with you. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 26, 2007 12:28 PM EDT |
> Unfortunately not everyone is enlightened and strong willed like you Bob. Then what are they doing modifying and recompiling their Tivo code? You assume technical competence, then reject technical competence. Really, please, pick one. I am _not_ asserting technical competence in consumers, because not all consumers have, or don't have, technical competence. Someone who wants an appliance isn't going to care if it's GPL'd code or not. Someone who cares about getting their hands on the source is, by definition, not interested in an appliance. Tivo built an _appliance_ with GPL code. They abided the license terms of the GPL. I applaud them for having done so, but I would not buy their product because it's not what I want. Which brings me right back to my initial point: The motivations for the GPL.3 have nothing to do with software. Ego; trying to save the world; desperation to avoid irrelevance. These I see as far, far more the motivation behind the supposed "tivo" and "patent" portions of the GPLv3. Declaring that the consumer needs to be saved from themselves is absurd. Let them know, yes, but let them choose for themselves. ...of course, that's just anarchy. Can't have that. |
| dinotrac Dec 26, 2007 12:38 PM EDT |
>Novell being a FOSS participant and all, the least they could have done is to consult with the community And, how, exactly, do you know that they didn't? It isn't reasonable to consult every freakin' member because there are millions of us. Perhaps they chose the members whose advice they value. Perhaps they didn't bother. So what? They didn't handle the community part very well. I believe that even the Novell execs have admitted to that. They didn't bomb an occupied city, fly airplanes into office towers, or start an influenza epidemic. On the scale of sins, methinks they should be forgivable. After all, nobody seems to think much of big business around here. |
| Abe Dec 26, 2007 12:57 PM EDT |
Quoting:Goodness Abe, you still don't like facts very much, do you?What facts Dino, the millions of Dollars that Novell sold the community for? Quoting:Comparing the EU agreement to anything a compan like Novell could do is like calling butterflies cantaloupes.OK I give that, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was referring to Novell not waiting for the final decision by the EU courts on the antitrust case against MS. Instead, Novell, among other companies like Sun & IBM, settled out of court for the money. Not only that, Novell turned around and signed the deal with MS in the name of interoperability, which was the main reason for the EU case. |
| Abe Dec 26, 2007 1:02 PM EDT |
Quoting:Tivo built an _appliance_ with GPL code. They abided the license terms of the GPL. I applaud them for having done so, but I would not buy their product because it's not what I want. Bob, You are not looking far enough, are you? How do you like it if Dell, Red Hat, Novell, Kubuntu, etc... use the same technique like Tivo did for their distributions? Not a pleasant thought is it? |
| ColonelPanik Dec 26, 2007 1:20 PM EDT |
Kill your TV! |
| dinotrac Dec 26, 2007 2:38 PM EDT |
>I was referring to Novell not waiting for the final decision by the EU courts on the antitrust case against MS. Why on earth would they do that? Seriously, how does an EU antitrust case affect a cross-licensing (in case you've fogotten, Novell licensed their technology to Microsoft) deal that might help Novell the way that Apple's deal with Microsoft helped them? Makes no sense at all. Remember -- at least from the standpoint of Novell -- the "patent protection" part of the deal was a last minute request by Microsoft, added in after most of the deal was in place. |
| hkwint Dec 26, 2007 4:43 PM EDT |
Darnit, I planned to catch up with this thread, but it gets longer everyday and I'm still stuck at post nr. 10 or so. Eight days of consecutive postings, there must be an interesting discussion over here. Can't you people insert a time-out in this thread so I can discuss along, instead of discussing faster than I can read? ;) |
| dinotrac Dec 26, 2007 5:20 PM EDT |
Hans - Less night life, more nose to the monitor. |
| dumper4311 Dec 26, 2007 11:57 PM EDT |
Boy, I don't pay attention for just a few days . . . @Abe: Quote: "Call it whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is . . ." Careful, Abe. Actually I called it exactly what YOU called it. But this brings up an interesting subject. Let's examine for a moment what we've picked up from your position during this discussion: --- "GPL grants privileges with restrictions, it always did from day one. It is more exact to call it Privilege Software . . ." and then "GPLed software is free, as in Freedom . . ." You rationalize this grotesque contradiction by adding: "for end users to use anyway they want. When it comes to modifying and distributing, you are restricted by the definitions of the freedoms it grants." Cute distinction, it's just a completely irrational argument. Distributors and developers are users. Your ever-so-moral restriction of their purposes has hindered the uptake and use of "free" code developed for end users. You can't restrict a developer without restricting end users, ultimately they're inseparable. If the code wasn't intended to be used, it would never have been developed. Likewise, if the code can't be developed, it will never be used. Of course, if your true purpose is control, and not freedom, then not permitting the development of code you don't like - based on supposedly "free" code you legally control - ensures it can never be used by anyone who can't do such development for themselves. Works out pretty well for your moral position anyway - screw the "users", eh? What's that? We (the non-programmers) could hire someone to program the restricted application we want for ourselves? Well, congratulations, you've just created a second-class citizenry of your ever so precious "users." Talk about a recipe for abuse, you guys have Microsoft beat hands down. Here's the really funny part. You later went on to ask: "How do you like it if Dell, Red Hat, Novell, Kubuntu, etc... use the same technique like Tivo did for their distributions? Not a pleasant thought is it?" And yet you're so devoted to your blind faith in RMS and co that you can't see that THE GPLv3 HAS ALREADY DONE EXACTLY THIS with their controversial clauses. Nobody gets to distribute code the FSF and associated developers don't like, because they've restricted it's use legally. Mind you, they didn't produce technically limited "free" code, they simply limited it's use by license - in the same manner as proprietary software. Like I said, Microsoft's got nothing on the FSF. Is it free Abe, or isn't it? --- "There are many questions about why Linux was included in the contract without any valid answers." and ". . . I understand that companies wouldn't know any better since most business don't have morals. But you know what, there is such a thing called business ethics." and "Why put the burden on the consumer when it is easier and more practical to burden the seller." and "the millions of Dollars that Novell sold the community for?" I particularly like that last one - sell the community??? It's hard to remember a less rational comment in recent posts. Well, if nothing else, we have a very clear picture of your opinion of most businesses. At least that makes it easier to understand your fuzzy presentations on so many things, and stubborn refusal to think about the implications of your position. If you look around a bit, you'll discover discussions of "scarcity mentality" versus a mentality of abundance. It's an interesting distinction on worldviews. I'd submit that you've made your view very clear here, with your repeated theme of "somebody out there" trying to screw "us" out of "something" that's in apparently limited supply. Your "freedom" can't be bought, sold, or controlled by a license agreement. Fortunately, neither can mine. That's Microsoft's biggest problem, and ultimately, it's why I believe the GPLv3 (and it's descendants) are doomed to obscurity. --- "Unfortunately not everyone is enlightened and strong willed like you Bob. That is where the GPL comes in to protect the choice and freedom of the end users." Says Mr. Gates, er, I mean RMS and the FSF. Bob_Robertson's already covered it pretty well, God forbid that the consumer (read: USER) should be able to make up their own minds. You'd simply trade one master for another. Instead of us second class users being force fed "Bill knows whats best for you", now we're stuck with "Trust in the FSF to secure (and define) your 'freedom' for you." Pure hypocrisy. These are not my circles we keep traveling Abe, you're steering. I'm just pointing out the sights along the way. Heard something on the radio that seems to be quite appropriate for this thread's direction, Aerosmith will forgive me for the application, I'm sure: "I'll tell you little secret make you want to jump and shout when you talk to me in circles take your foot out of your mouth" Further along: "say the times they be a-changin' though the blind lead the blind you know your head is empty though there's somethin' on your mind" Please forgive my impudence. I'm not trying to make accusations, simply requesting a little reason, and independent thought. Individual freedoms require individual responsibility. When you willingly abdicate either that freedom or responsibility to others, you get Microsoft - or the new FSF. --- One last quote from Abe: "Granting privileges to the few who restrict the freedoms of many, decreases freedom. OTOH, taking away those privileges will increase the overall freedom. Makes more sense, doesn't it?" No, it makes no sense at all. See the 1st Aersomith quote above :) No code has ever restricted my freedom, free or proprietary. They don't have that power, and I'll not give it to them. Bad licenses do however, restrict free code - and thus the "freedom" of all users. As we've already covered, that's Microsoft's biggest problem, and now the FSF's. I think I'm gonna get off for a while now. This ride's making me dizzy, and I get nauseated easily. :) |
| NoDough Dec 27, 2007 4:59 AM EDT |
Discussions like this always amuse me. On the one hand you have the self-professed community speaking as if they are the defacto owners of free and open source software. (If I stick my chest out and bluster enough, then everyone will recognize me as the authority.) On the other hand you have people speaking as if the FSF is the defacto owner of free and open source source software. The positions are staked and arguments ensue about who can restrict what and who can free what. The facts are: - The developer of the code owns the code. - The developer is free to sell or give away ownership or license as (s)he wishes. - The user is free to use the code if (s)he abides by the rules and license specified by the owner. You can argue all you want about the blessings/curses of GPL2/GPL3/EULA/etc., but ultimately it's not up to you. It's the owner's decision. If you really want to take substantive action, you may (a) develop your own code and decide how others may use it, or (b) purchase code development or developed code from someone else and decide how others may use it. In these instances you become the owner. Novell's "deal" does not and cannot affect code that they don't own. For code they do own, they may license it to Microsoft (or anyone else) as they see fit. Don't like it? Don't use it. |
| dinotrac Dec 27, 2007 6:35 AM EDT |
NoDough - Yup. |
| Abe Dec 27, 2007 7:32 AM EDT |
@Dumper4311,Quoting:Distributors and developers are users.They are users but not "End Users". You need to understand the distinction. That might be your main misunderstanding here. Developers and Distributors are more than users, they are super set of users. Quoting:I think I'm gonna get off for a while now. This ride's making me dizzy, and I get nauseated easily. :)Good idea, I believe your jumbled posts are the cause. @NoDough, Pretty good summary of what I have been saying. I hope you are not saying that I claim to be an authority of the subject because I am not. All what I am saying is how I understand the GPL. I never wrote a sliver of Open Source code, I am just an End User among many, of GPLed software as tools. |
| NoDough Dec 27, 2007 8:14 AM EDT |
Quoting:I hope you are not saying that I claim to be an authority of the subject because I am not.No. I was referring to this type of discussion in general, which seems to occur in every FOSS related forum imaginable. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 27, 2007 9:57 AM EDT |
> Bob, You are not looking far enough, are you? Just because I look in another direction does not mean I do not see far. Liberty works. Voluntary cooperation is the most efficient form of human interaction. With the 'Net, the "barrier to entry" dropped to near nothing, and with it we have many thousands of excellent quality software and hardware projects going on all at once. The "Linux" BIOS, OpenSPARC &etc promise a fully unencumbered small computer. Maybe tomorrow, maybe the next day. No longer do we _have_ to wait for an Intel or an Apple to make innovation before it can reach many people. The GPL.2 is an excellent license for collaboration, because it says _only_ that if you redistribute you have to give back exactly what you got. That's all. It reduces the "barrier to entry" to something close to completely free without the stigma of "taking without giving back" that BSD allows. Microsoft loves the BSD license, and hates the GPL.2. I consider that a rousing vote of confidence. > How do you like it if Dell, Red Hat, Novell, Kubuntu, etc... use the same technique like Tivo did for their distributions? Not a pleasant thought is it? Then I would not use Dell, RedHat, Novell, Kubuntu, etc. They would not get my money, they would get derision and their competition would get accolades wherever possible. But oh well. I just keep pointing out the same thing over and over. You disagree, fine. In an environment of choice, making one's own choice doesn't impede anyone else making their own choice too. |
| Abe Dec 27, 2007 10:26 AM EDT |
Quoting:In an environment of choice, making one's own choice doesn't impede anyone else making their own choice too.Well said Bob, and that is why I believe GPL2 & 3 furnish choice to both developers and users. It is taking longer and longer to get to the end of this thread, did it break the longest thread record yet? It is time to stop monitoring this thread for me. |
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!