A Fully Licensed, DMCA Compliant DVD Player For Linux

> Sometimes you gotta be an artist

Don't tell them you're an artist, or the DMCA will screw you over.

"Nobody should be forced to give away their software freely. It needs to be a free choice"

I just want to take a moment to discuss this common misunderstanding of what Free Software means. Nobody (not even RMS himself) has ever said that any code must be given away. However, it is believed that when developers *choose* to distribute their software, the greater good is served when the software is distributed under a freedom-granting license such as the GPL.

I'm not explaining this to anyone here but thought it might help newcomers who stumble upon the original quote.

Libervis,

I was just making a point with the reference to "Linux"; an all too abused blanket statement.

> Or maybe they just need to READ and listen what we have to say!

I think they do read - they just twist it. That sucks.

apt-get install libdvdcss

windowsrefund:

Quoting:I was just making a point with the reference to "Linux"; an all too abused blanket statement.

Yes I got that. I was just expanding on it. Saying "Linux" is mentioning just that one project: the kernel. Saying GNU/Linux is refering to an operating system that the two (GNU and Linux) essentially form AND gets people more curious about the GNU part of the picture.

> I was just making a point with the reference to "Linux"; an all too abused blanket statement.

And one not lost on even the more pragmatic members of our community.

A few, wisely chosen "GNU/Linuxes" here and there on my part might do a small amount of good. And they can't do much harm. Lord knows my customers only listen when I'm talking about the practical stuff anyway!

Cheers, Steve

RMS has said that he believes it is wrong to release binary code without the source code available, that doing so should not be allowed.

That is pretty much my only disagreement with his position. I agree on principle, I agree with the pragmatic ESR level of the discussion that having source available is more efficient.

For the same reason I don't like to be told that this DVD I may watch because it is region 1, and this DVD I may not watch because it is region 6, I do not like to be told that I may not release binaries without source.

RMS is not writing the law, so it's still just his opinion. That is a very good thing. No matter how much it may seem like freedom for him, it is still a restriction on me.

And the reason that I will not utilize a "fully licensed" DVD player for Linux is that I do in fact own DVDs from different regions, and I would like to view them thank you very much.

I am ~really~ late to this party.

sbergman27: >"I would suggest considering that she is interested in the success of Linux and has been under-exposed to the ideological rational, and likely over-exposed to emails from the actual certified loons that we, like any other community, include."

Excellent points, IMO. (Your whole post was, but Libervis got the other :). This actually supports RMS's insistence on the difference between OSI and FSF, as well as (at least some of) his insistence on "GNU/Linux".

tuxchick2: >"The fallacy that propels her whole premise is that widespread linux adoption at any cost is a good thing, and that Linux needs to cater to the windoze crowd. I don't agree with that at all."

Shades of Linspire promotion! I posted a mild comment after her article, but it was in the middle of an all-nighter working the LXer queues. The promotion of a binary blob to spur GNU/Linux adoption hadn't even popped into my dulled brain at that time.

"RMS has said that he believes it is wrong to release binary code without the source code available, that doing so should not be allowed."

Amen!

RMS has said that he believes it is wrong to release binary code without the source code available, that doing so should not be allowed.

This is not what RMS says. RMS says it is morally wrong to withhold source from your recipients, but in no way has he ever said that it shouldn't be allowed.

Everybody has the freedom to release closed source software. The other side of the medal is that everybody is free to shun closed source software on ideological grounds. Closed source might be the best fit technically sometimes, but its restrictions make it a very anti-social piece of code.

Using copyright and proprietary information as a weapon to create vendor lockin is sleezy.

R_A, then you haven't read the same papers of his that I have.

RMS believes people have a legal right, under current copyright law, to withhold source code. He can't deny that. It certainly seems he would want this changed. He has sought to fight the battle, not in Congress, but by appealing to the public at large.

>Closed source might be the best fit technically sometimes, but its restrictions make it a very anti-social piece of code.

This is the kind of thinking propagated by the Open Source Initiative. RMS believes there is no situation in which code released to the public should not be free. The FSF position is most likely to the effect of: "if you develop software for in-house use, it's a "special case" of proprietary software. However, if you release your software to the public, you should include the source or access to the source.

I have no problems at all with "should", except when it's a law which means "must".

That's one of the reasons I try hard to avoid the word "should". It's a personal judgement as applied to others, and I have no wish to tell others what to do.

but the problem with "should" is that it places the burden of responsibility on the individual. Most of the time, due to flaws in our human nature, greed wins out and information that would benefit the masses, is withheld. Personally, I believe this issue needs to be addressed in a legal sense. However, I don't see that happening due to the same flaws in human nature.

The battle for freedom continues...

Bob_Robertson,

"and I have no wish to tell others what to do"

I don't think you fully understand what's at stake here. When people are trying to deny your freedom, you are well within your right to stand up and demand justice. Going further, I'd also suggest you have a responsibility to stand up for my freedom; just as I do for you.

Wind0, I do fully understand what is at stake. Pray tell, how does "I do not wish to tell others how to live" translate to "I don't mind if others tell me how to live"?

My standing up for your liberties has nothing to do with telling you what to do either. Indeed, by respecting your liberties I am doing the exact opposite of telling you how you should live your own life.

It is the polypragmatoi, the busybodies, who tell others what they should and should not do and follow up with laws like alcohol and drug and gun and flag burning prohibitions, driver and doctor and lawyer and electrician and plumber and hotdog vendor and soon I expect to see programmer licenses.

The core of the problem is addressing anything in the "legal" sense, since the "legal" sense is always coercive. Just as I do not wish others to use force against me, I do not wish to use force against others. That specifically rules out "legal" remedies.

There is nothing respectable about using your freedom to protect the rights of those who seek to destroy freedom.

Wind0, I respect everyones liberty, even yours. Would you prefer that I laud the actions of the Jack Booted Thugs as they break down doors in the middle of the night, merely because I personally disapprove of the lifestyle of the individual against whom those thugs are acting at the moment?

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." -- Louis Dembitz Brandeis

"Now the light, she fades, and darkness settles in. But I will find strength. I will find pride within. Because although I die, our freedom will be won. Though I die, La Resistance... lives... on."