- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Novell-Microsoft Deal Necessary, CEO Says
|
|
|
Comments (47)
Ooook....
23 earlier comments in the full thread.
@Libervis: That was beautiful, sincerely. I believe you should run for politics. I've never seen such elegant dancing around the issues where the only actual answer given is "if you don't like it, go somewhere else."
I'm not mad, and I was never really "hardened" on the issue any more than the "Free Software" croud about their own position. The only difference is I want to discuss the issue rationally, rather than say "if you don't like it, don't use it."
Truth is, I do use BSD also, but I appreciate the more chaotic development style of the Linux OS. So if forced to, I and most of the practical world may very well have to move to something else because of "more fervent" individuals. :) It's just a shame to see it come to that because a small but vocal group chooses to shove their moral interpretation of what's right and wrong down everyone elses throat, instead of supporting the actual freedom they claim to cherish. To me, that is religion.
"To be honest I am increasingly believing that whenever someone starts comparing something with religious zealotry there is some pathological rage in them relative to that something."
:) seriously, that was amazingly cool. Mind you, it's the same "I call troll" argument we saw earlier (don't like the turn in the discussion, dismiss the other side), but it was done in a very smooth way. I'm completely serious my friend, you could be president.
I'm not mad, and I was never really "hardened" on the issue any more than the "Free Software" croud about their own position. The only difference is I want to discuss the issue rationally, rather than say "if you don't like it, don't use it."
Truth is, I do use BSD also, but I appreciate the more chaotic development style of the Linux OS. So if forced to, I and most of the practical world may very well have to move to something else because of "more fervent" individuals. :) It's just a shame to see it come to that because a small but vocal group chooses to shove their moral interpretation of what's right and wrong down everyone elses throat, instead of supporting the actual freedom they claim to cherish. To me, that is religion.
"To be honest I am increasingly believing that whenever someone starts comparing something with religious zealotry there is some pathological rage in them relative to that something."
:) seriously, that was amazingly cool. Mind you, it's the same "I call troll" argument we saw earlier (don't like the turn in the discussion, dismiss the other side), but it was done in a very smooth way. I'm completely serious my friend, you could be president.
Dumper, I said a bit more than just "if you don't like it, go somewhere else". So what more can I say really? You nor anyone else who argued that point never really provided any compelling argument behind the claim that FSF is shoving their interpretation of morality towards everyone else because in fact that very argument doesn't make much sense in the context we are in.
Some of the things I said directly respond to some of the notions behind such an argument and I didn't see a direct response from you to those.
If you want an example here is it, I said:
And to continue the argument I will say again, GPLv3 is here to grant and *protect* four freedoms long devised in a Free Software definition. You claim that this definition is being shoved down your throat without you having a say which implies that you don't agree that you should have those four freedoms?
Or maybe you just don't like the method which FSF uses to grant and protect those freedoms, but you feel that the method is being forced on you?
If the latter is the case then what kind of response do you really expect? FSF's GNU Project owns copyright to GNU software and hence has every moral and legal right to change its license. They don't force others to change their licenses so what's wrong?
Oh, yeah, what's wrong is that the OS you are using, GNU/Linux, contains GNU as an essential part meaning that if you want to use GNU/Linux you have to use GPLv3 covered software. So if that hurts you so much, what else am I supposed to say then, "go use something else", or do you perhaps suggest that the FSF should be taken away their copyrights on GNU just to make you happy? Of course, there is also a third option: fork the GNU project! They wont stop you!
So there, I'm not escaping the discussion. So have at it.
How can they shove anything on everyone else if everyone else has the freedom to either not use GPLv3 covered software or fork it into not-GPLv3 covered software (both freedoms which FSF in fact promotes)?
I think it's you who should get a grip. ;)
Cheers
Some of the things I said directly respond to some of the notions behind such an argument and I didn't see a direct response from you to those.
If you want an example here is it, I said:
Quoting:Not "any platform we choose", but "any platform you buy". If you buy it should be yours to use however you want to. GPLv3 ensures that you can use covered software on your own property.
And to continue the argument I will say again, GPLv3 is here to grant and *protect* four freedoms long devised in a Free Software definition. You claim that this definition is being shoved down your throat without you having a say which implies that you don't agree that you should have those four freedoms?
Or maybe you just don't like the method which FSF uses to grant and protect those freedoms, but you feel that the method is being forced on you?
If the latter is the case then what kind of response do you really expect? FSF's GNU Project owns copyright to GNU software and hence has every moral and legal right to change its license. They don't force others to change their licenses so what's wrong?
Oh, yeah, what's wrong is that the OS you are using, GNU/Linux, contains GNU as an essential part meaning that if you want to use GNU/Linux you have to use GPLv3 covered software. So if that hurts you so much, what else am I supposed to say then, "go use something else", or do you perhaps suggest that the FSF should be taken away their copyrights on GNU just to make you happy? Of course, there is also a third option: fork the GNU project! They wont stop you!
So there, I'm not escaping the discussion. So have at it.
Quoting:It's just a shame to see it come to that because a small but vocal group chooses to shove their moral interpretation of what's right and wrong down everyone elses throat, instead of supporting the actual freedom they claim to cherish.
How can they shove anything on everyone else if everyone else has the freedom to either not use GPLv3 covered software or fork it into not-GPLv3 covered software (both freedoms which FSF in fact promotes)?
I think it's you who should get a grip. ;)
Cheers
@Bob_Robertson:
Don't ascribe to it more than there is. Just because someone believes something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean he would force anyone to do the right thing.
That said, he did say that proprietary software should be illegal, which is within the context of a society we are living in naturally quite a hard to justify statement. But that still doesn't mean that he would make it illegal. It can merely again be an expression of his belief that it is wrong.
I could say it is wrong to have sex in the public, for example and that it should hence be illegal, but would I really make that illegal if I would, as Dumper suggests, become a president? Not necessarily. If people prevalently do it and think they should continue to have the freedom to do it, I might budge on that particular legislation without budging from my belief that it is wrong.
Bottom line is, law can't change much. The real change is in social norms and mentality. FSF is doing a LOT in that direction with their campaigns and GPL is merely one legal tool people can *choose* to use if they believe that what FSF promotes is a good idea.
Quoting:Stallman has said that he believes it is wrong for _me_ to release code as proprietary. I think this hooks into the "forced altruism" behind the political "left".
Don't ascribe to it more than there is. Just because someone believes something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean he would force anyone to do the right thing.
That said, he did say that proprietary software should be illegal, which is within the context of a society we are living in naturally quite a hard to justify statement. But that still doesn't mean that he would make it illegal. It can merely again be an expression of his belief that it is wrong.
I could say it is wrong to have sex in the public, for example and that it should hence be illegal, but would I really make that illegal if I would, as Dumper suggests, become a president? Not necessarily. If people prevalently do it and think they should continue to have the freedom to do it, I might budge on that particular legislation without budging from my belief that it is wrong.
Bottom line is, law can't change much. The real change is in social norms and mentality. FSF is doing a LOT in that direction with their campaigns and GPL is merely one legal tool people can *choose* to use if they believe that what FSF promotes is a good idea.
> That said, he did say that proprietary software should be illegal...
Which is all I said. It doesn't require any more, simply that he would use coercion to enforce his opinion of right and wrong, if he could.
I think it's a "bad" thing to do, just as I think it's bad to burn your brain out on acid, or bungie-jump with automobile bungie cords, or lots of other stupid things that people choose to do to themselves.
> would I really make that illegal if I would, as Dumper suggests, become a president? Not necessarily.
Too bad. I was hoping for an outright denial of "might makes right", rather than "not necessarily".
> Bottom line is, law can't change much. The real change is in social norms and mentality.
Ah! Now you're getting somewhere. The only effective "laws" are the ones that codify what people already believe. But then, the laws are not needed.
Everything that it is possible to do to someone else against their will has been illegal for centuries, even millennia. How I choose to release my own work can hardly be called aggression against other people. They are free to use or not use it as they wish.
I agree with ESR that the GPL-style code is more efficient, and will win out in the end if allowed to do so. A general refusal to use anything _not_ licensed F/OSS will do more to promote it than any law could.
And I note that the BSA is offering up to $1M for snitches. How about going to the boss and saying, "Look, if the BSA raided this place we'd be up poop creek. We need to look at using something they can't strong-arm us with, and it will save us money too."
Just because you believe something is wrong doesn't mean everyone thinks its wrong.
When prosecuting a crime, bring forward the parties harmed, demonstrate injury, demand restitution. Let the rest fall where it may, and we will have a much more peaceful and respectful society.
Which is all I said. It doesn't require any more, simply that he would use coercion to enforce his opinion of right and wrong, if he could.
I think it's a "bad" thing to do, just as I think it's bad to burn your brain out on acid, or bungie-jump with automobile bungie cords, or lots of other stupid things that people choose to do to themselves.
> would I really make that illegal if I would, as Dumper suggests, become a president? Not necessarily.
Too bad. I was hoping for an outright denial of "might makes right", rather than "not necessarily".
> Bottom line is, law can't change much. The real change is in social norms and mentality.
Ah! Now you're getting somewhere. The only effective "laws" are the ones that codify what people already believe. But then, the laws are not needed.
Everything that it is possible to do to someone else against their will has been illegal for centuries, even millennia. How I choose to release my own work can hardly be called aggression against other people. They are free to use or not use it as they wish.
I agree with ESR that the GPL-style code is more efficient, and will win out in the end if allowed to do so. A general refusal to use anything _not_ licensed F/OSS will do more to promote it than any law could.
And I note that the BSA is offering up to $1M for snitches. How about going to the boss and saying, "Look, if the BSA raided this place we'd be up poop creek. We need to look at using something they can't strong-arm us with, and it will save us money too."
Just because you believe something is wrong doesn't mean everyone thinks its wrong.
When prosecuting a crime, bring forward the parties harmed, demonstrate injury, demand restitution. Let the rest fall where it may, and we will have a much more peaceful and respectful society.
Oooohh, I'm getting dizzy.
@Libervis: Ok, in all honesty, I didn't address your points any more directly than you did mine. As I mentioned in one of my original posts, others have covered these issues much more eloquently than myself, but to be fair, let's discuss the one you mentioned:
"Not "any platform we choose", but "any platform you buy". If you buy it should be yours to use however you want to."
According to who? RMS? the FSF? At what point did it become ok for anyone who releases "free" code to dictate the hardware design and compatibility requirements of a company (or individual) who uses their "free" code on their hardware. Your average user couldn't give a squirt less about the issue. But people who understand the concept of "free code" should know better than to try and dictate someone elses business model. You knew the capabilities and restrictions of that device when you bought it, so here's the same arguement you're so fond of: if you don't like it, don't use it. But it's not right to try and use your supposedly "free" code as a tool to force them to do things your way. That's the same type of draconian crap pulled by Microsoft, and that the FSF is supposedly fighting against.
Now to the point you presented Bob_Robertson with: "Don't ascribe to it more than there is. Just because someone believes something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean he would force anyone to do the right thing."
Yep, except in the GPL3. As we've just covered, that's EXACTLY what RMS and the "overly exuberant" FSF crowd are trying to do.
Here's the really sad part, and one of the central points of the discussion: be careful what you wish for. Eventually the business investors, less "steadfast" developers, and average users wanting to play their MP3's will get tired of the "if you don't like it, don't use it" arguement, and they'll stop. They will fork the code, or move to something completely different.
The FSF is tripping over themselves to leverage the little bit of influence they now enjoy with their userland utilities and applications, and trying to force their moral view on anybody who wishes to use their supposedly "free" code. Sadly, rather than working to a brighter future, they're very possibly isolating themselves from the rest of the world - open source and proprietary developers alike.
Change in social norms and mentality is a lofty goal. I'm just saying that the means do not justify the ends. RMS is no better in that way than Bill Gates.
@Libervis: Ok, in all honesty, I didn't address your points any more directly than you did mine. As I mentioned in one of my original posts, others have covered these issues much more eloquently than myself, but to be fair, let's discuss the one you mentioned:
"Not "any platform we choose", but "any platform you buy". If you buy it should be yours to use however you want to."
According to who? RMS? the FSF? At what point did it become ok for anyone who releases "free" code to dictate the hardware design and compatibility requirements of a company (or individual) who uses their "free" code on their hardware. Your average user couldn't give a squirt less about the issue. But people who understand the concept of "free code" should know better than to try and dictate someone elses business model. You knew the capabilities and restrictions of that device when you bought it, so here's the same arguement you're so fond of: if you don't like it, don't use it. But it's not right to try and use your supposedly "free" code as a tool to force them to do things your way. That's the same type of draconian crap pulled by Microsoft, and that the FSF is supposedly fighting against.
Now to the point you presented Bob_Robertson with: "Don't ascribe to it more than there is. Just because someone believes something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean he would force anyone to do the right thing."
Yep, except in the GPL3. As we've just covered, that's EXACTLY what RMS and the "overly exuberant" FSF crowd are trying to do.
Here's the really sad part, and one of the central points of the discussion: be careful what you wish for. Eventually the business investors, less "steadfast" developers, and average users wanting to play their MP3's will get tired of the "if you don't like it, don't use it" arguement, and they'll stop. They will fork the code, or move to something completely different.
The FSF is tripping over themselves to leverage the little bit of influence they now enjoy with their userland utilities and applications, and trying to force their moral view on anybody who wishes to use their supposedly "free" code. Sadly, rather than working to a brighter future, they're very possibly isolating themselves from the rest of the world - open source and proprietary developers alike.
Change in social norms and mentality is a lofty goal. I'm just saying that the means do not justify the ends. RMS is no better in that way than Bill Gates.
Quoting:According to who? RMS? the FSF? At what point did it become ok for anyone who releases "free" code to dictate the hardware design and compatibility requirements of a company (or individual) who uses their "free" code on their hardware.
I think what Libervis is trying to say is that if I buy a Tivo that is running free software and I choose to change the software to suit me better, the hardware I bought should run the software. Which I completely agree with. However if I just rent the hardware from Tivo, then it is their hardware and unless specifically specified I don't have the right to change it.
I have never looked into Tivo so I don't know how they do things. But since I do believe I have seen them for sale in electronics stores I am guessing I buy the hardware. Since I own the hardware I should be able to change the software on it.
> Since I own the hardware I should be able to change the software on it.
Which is why I thought the much better way to answer the Tivo "threat" was to reverse engineer un-DRM'd ROM images.
It is, after all, _your_ hardware. You bought it, you can change it any way you want.
To demand that Tivo-supplied hardware run your software is no different than demanding Ford provide engine mounts for your Dodge motor. Go build your own engine mounts, no GPLv3 required for that.
Which is why I thought the much better way to answer the Tivo "threat" was to reverse engineer un-DRM'd ROM images.
It is, after all, _your_ hardware. You bought it, you can change it any way you want.
To demand that Tivo-supplied hardware run your software is no different than demanding Ford provide engine mounts for your Dodge motor. Go build your own engine mounts, no GPLv3 required for that.
To this day, I am convinced that Clinton never intended to win that case and that victory was a nearly complete surprise. I'm probably wrong, but the alternative is to presume that inept prosecutors were saved by a judge who was smarter than he looked.
----
I thought Boise did a pretty good job catching Microsoft at fabricating evidence in that video when he noticed the title bar changing oddly. It forced MS to come clean on that and after that Judge Jackson didn't give MS any breaks.
As for Clinton, who knows what he was up to. It must have been an eight year frat party complete with $500 haircuts that shut down LAX.
I thought Boise did a pretty good job catching Microsoft at fabricating evidence in that video when he noticed the title bar changing oddly. It forced MS to come clean on that and after that Judge Jackson didn't give MS any breaks.
As for Clinton, who knows what he was up to. It must have been an eight year frat party complete with $500 haircuts that shut down LAX.
yeah, dumper, I think 'troll' is apt. Sounds like you're used to being called that.
@tuxchick: It's obvious you're very passionate about your opinion, and thats a good thing. But passion is blind, and useful only in so far as tempered with reason. Haven't I made an honest attempt to answer the questions you posed? By labeling me and discounting my position out of hand, you have become the very thing you've accused me of.
I will undoubtedly continue to disagree with Libervis, but at least he's tried to reasonably express his point of view, and whether I agree or not, I can respect that, and I am interested in his opinion.
Bob_Robertson said something to the effect of: If we can keep the extremists on either side (proprietary or "free" software) from gaining too much influence, there's still hope for the future. Up to this point, I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise.
By the way, I noticed your comment from the other thread on this article. If you'll do a brief search, and apply a bit of due dilligence, you'll discover that Novell has given Microsoft more than a few legal bloody noses in it's history.
Again, I apologize if I've offended you, but quite frankly, I find your quips at least as counterproductive and offensive as you've accused me of being. None the less, I'll not discount your opinion should you chose to express it.
I will undoubtedly continue to disagree with Libervis, but at least he's tried to reasonably express his point of view, and whether I agree or not, I can respect that, and I am interested in his opinion.
Bob_Robertson said something to the effect of: If we can keep the extremists on either side (proprietary or "free" software) from gaining too much influence, there's still hope for the future. Up to this point, I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise.
By the way, I noticed your comment from the other thread on this article. If you'll do a brief search, and apply a bit of due dilligence, you'll discover that Novell has given Microsoft more than a few legal bloody noses in it's history.
Again, I apologize if I've offended you, but quite frankly, I find your quips at least as counterproductive and offensive as you've accused me of being. None the less, I'll not discount your opinion should you chose to express it.
>By the way, I noticed your comment from the other thread on this article. If you'll do a brief search, and apply a bit of due dilligence, you'll discover that Novell has given Microsoft more than a few legal bloody noses in it's history.
I continue to marvel at the antipathy towards Novell.
A. The company has a long history of competing very hard against Microsoft B. They've managed to beat Microsoft in court to the tune of hundreds of millions. C. SuSE has a long and beneficial history.
With regard to Linux (only 10-15% of their business), Novell may have made a mistake with regard to their Microsoft deal. Maybe. But sheesh!!!! Even if they did, everybody screws up now and then.
I continue to marvel at the antipathy towards Novell.
A. The company has a long history of competing very hard against Microsoft B. They've managed to beat Microsoft in court to the tune of hundreds of millions. C. SuSE has a long and beneficial history.
With regard to Linux (only 10-15% of their business), Novell may have made a mistake with regard to their Microsoft deal. Maybe. But sheesh!!!! Even if they did, everybody screws up now and then.
Dumper,
Them, myself, common sense? Seriously, you're questioning the principle of having control over what is essentially your property? That question really doesn't make common sense.
Um, when copyrights got introduced, perhaps?
If I decide to restrict the hardware maker from making it impossible to run modified versions of my software on that hardware once it becomes my software users' property, why shouldn't I do that? It is hardware maker which should opt out if they don't like such terms, not myself as a copyright holder. So we're back at the old argument which you apparently do not want to hear; if TiVo doesn't like the terms under which software they want to use is licensed, they can either use something else or fork it. They can't possibly expect the copyright holder to budge for their interests!
Yet again, get a freaking grip on reality dude! Copyright works the other way around for copyright holders. You create a program, you set the terms and you can set whichever terms you wish. If noone likes the terms, noone uses the software.
FSF creates the license and it indeed put certain clauses for strategic reasons because they expect a sufficient amount of people to switch to the new license for it to make meaningful impact. And now you are apparently angered because they are actually able to do that, because there is actually a sufficient number of people who do take the terms of GPLv3 as the terms they want to embrace as their own, for their own code. You are making yourself think that this power that FSF has is power that they have in some way coerced on everyone, whilst exactly the opposite is true.
By their choices, a great number of software developers *continue* to choose FSFs licenses for their software. If at any point FSF does something those developers would not agree with, they can switch to something else (or not switch to a new license) and therefore remove their support for the FSF.
It is all apparently voluntary and yet you are arguing that FSF somehow forces everyone into submission. I can't stress enough how little sense that makes, if you just dare to look beyond your (mis)conceptions.
OMG how many times does it have to be said? GPLv3 is not the law. It is a Free Software license. How the hell can they coerce anyone then if everyone has the ability to not use it or to fork the software if they want it but don't like the license.
I am almost repeating myself now man. Looks like you need to READ before you continue raving on.
Let them be my guest. That's what Free Software is about. If you think you can do better, just go and do it.
Of course, you are giving it way to much drama than it really contains, which seems to be your usual tactic. Make some stuff up, twist some other stuff as to make it look like RMS is a mighty dictator and we are all his minions, so people should and will run away from that madness. Woke up from your nightmare yet?
Quoting:According to who? RMS? the FSF?
Them, myself, common sense? Seriously, you're questioning the principle of having control over what is essentially your property? That question really doesn't make common sense.
Quoting:At what point did it become ok for anyone who releases "free" code to dictate the hardware design and compatibility requirements of a company (or individual) who uses their "free" code on their hardware.
Um, when copyrights got introduced, perhaps?
If I decide to restrict the hardware maker from making it impossible to run modified versions of my software on that hardware once it becomes my software users' property, why shouldn't I do that? It is hardware maker which should opt out if they don't like such terms, not myself as a copyright holder. So we're back at the old argument which you apparently do not want to hear; if TiVo doesn't like the terms under which software they want to use is licensed, they can either use something else or fork it. They can't possibly expect the copyright holder to budge for their interests!
Yet again, get a freaking grip on reality dude! Copyright works the other way around for copyright holders. You create a program, you set the terms and you can set whichever terms you wish. If noone likes the terms, noone uses the software.
FSF creates the license and it indeed put certain clauses for strategic reasons because they expect a sufficient amount of people to switch to the new license for it to make meaningful impact. And now you are apparently angered because they are actually able to do that, because there is actually a sufficient number of people who do take the terms of GPLv3 as the terms they want to embrace as their own, for their own code. You are making yourself think that this power that FSF has is power that they have in some way coerced on everyone, whilst exactly the opposite is true.
By their choices, a great number of software developers *continue* to choose FSFs licenses for their software. If at any point FSF does something those developers would not agree with, they can switch to something else (or not switch to a new license) and therefore remove their support for the FSF.
It is all apparently voluntary and yet you are arguing that FSF somehow forces everyone into submission. I can't stress enough how little sense that makes, if you just dare to look beyond your (mis)conceptions.
Quoting:Yep, except in the GPL3. As we've just covered, that's EXACTLY what RMS and the "overly exuberant" FSF crowd are trying to do.
OMG how many times does it have to be said? GPLv3 is not the law. It is a Free Software license. How the hell can they coerce anyone then if everyone has the ability to not use it or to fork the software if they want it but don't like the license.
I am almost repeating myself now man. Looks like you need to READ before you continue raving on.
Quoting:They will fork the code, or move to something completely different.
Let them be my guest. That's what Free Software is about. If you think you can do better, just go and do it.
Of course, you are giving it way to much drama than it really contains, which seems to be your usual tactic. Make some stuff up, twist some other stuff as to make it look like RMS is a mighty dictator and we are all his minions, so people should and will run away from that madness. Woke up from your nightmare yet?
Bob_Robertson,
Man step back and ask yourself how much sense does that make. I mean, so I order a product and then have to go through a tedious process of redoing a significant part of it so that it can run the way I want it to!? Yet if they simply omitted to put the effort into putting DRM into the device it would be fully operational no matter which software I run on it.
Guys, you're starting to sound like you've been living in some sort of a dystopia for too long.
Quoting:Which is why I thought the much better way to answer the Tivo "threat" was to reverse engineer un-DRM'd ROM images.
It is, after all, _your_ hardware. You bought it, you can change it any way you want.
Man step back and ask yourself how much sense does that make. I mean, so I order a product and then have to go through a tedious process of redoing a significant part of it so that it can run the way I want it to!? Yet if they simply omitted to put the effort into putting DRM into the device it would be fully operational no matter which software I run on it.
Guys, you're starting to sound like you've been living in some sort of a dystopia for too long.
> so I order a product and then have to go through a tedious process of redoing a significant part of it so that it can run the way I want it to!?
You bought it, you obviously wanted it. If you didn't want it, why did you buy it?
You're already talking about modifying and recompiling the software, yet you object to modifying and recompiling the ROM? I assure you there are lots of people for whom the former is, how did you put it, "redoing a significant part of it".
Why not avoid the whole issue and run MythTV, then send a note to Tivo.com telling then why they lost a sale? Lose enough sales, Tivo will change their policies.
All you do by buying their product is telling them that you _want_ their product.
> Yet if they simply omitted to put the effort into putting DRM into the device it would be fully operational no matter which software I run on it.
Yes indeed. Which is why I didn't buy a Tivo. I didn't want _their_product_, so I didn't buy _their_product_.
> you're starting to sound like you've been living in some sort of a dystopia for too long.
I'm living in the United States. Did you have some other disutopia in mind? This one is about as un-"dis" as is to be found on earth, and it's pretty "dis".
You bought it, you obviously wanted it. If you didn't want it, why did you buy it?
You're already talking about modifying and recompiling the software, yet you object to modifying and recompiling the ROM? I assure you there are lots of people for whom the former is, how did you put it, "redoing a significant part of it".
Why not avoid the whole issue and run MythTV, then send a note to Tivo.com telling then why they lost a sale? Lose enough sales, Tivo will change their policies.
All you do by buying their product is telling them that you _want_ their product.
> Yet if they simply omitted to put the effort into putting DRM into the device it would be fully operational no matter which software I run on it.
Yes indeed. Which is why I didn't buy a Tivo. I didn't want _their_product_, so I didn't buy _their_product_.
> you're starting to sound like you've been living in some sort of a dystopia for too long.
I'm living in the United States. Did you have some other disutopia in mind? This one is about as un-"dis" as is to be found on earth, and it's pretty "dis".
Bob, I would agree with most of what you say. There is just one a bit troubling issue with the whole voting with your wallet philosophy which you're pretty much describing here. There are too many users which are simply not aware that their TiVo is locked down, and may yet still find themselves at some point in a situation of being offered an alternative improved version of software to run on it, just to find that then it wont work. Geeks who understand the issue can have it quite an easy choice here, but the rest.. it's another story.
And so if not a sufficient amount of people votes with their wallets TiVo *will* stay in the market, a market which they are essentially closing down for everyone but themselves because nobody but TiVo can decide what to run on those boxes, closing the doors to the potential TiVo-software market.
And all this said you gotta ask yourself is this all fair considering that TiVo is using GNU/Linux, an OS developed in a spirit so obviously opposite of what TiVo is doing? At the very least you can understand why would an owner of Free Software copyrights want to set terms which require that derivates of his software would run on any device that the user may own. A lot of software developers use GPL exactly because they want to promote the spirit of what it provides, and TiVo breaks that spirit.
So you can't blame FSF for putting the Tivoization clause in. I'd be willing to be that many Free Software developers do want to have such a clause in their license and I'd also argue that due to this clause, what TiVo is doing will be severely discouraged in the future, therefore allowing for a more open market around such devices.
All in all I just can't see the harm that some are propagating so much. You're not forced to partake in FSFs strategy so there's no imposition whatsoever.
Oookaay.. undisutopia.. whatever. :P
Seriously, the reason I mentioned living in dystopia is because I believe that people should expect more respect for their rights than it sometimes seems evident. In other words, instead of just ignoring what TiVo is doing despite the fact that many fall for it (not really knowing about the restriction that it carries) thinking that merely voting with your wallet will make all such problems go away I believe you should be actively, as a human being, expressing outrage and distaste for what TiVo is doing. In a world where customers actually get the respect they deserve noone would even think of such schemes as DRM. At the end of the day it is all consumer control and that is outrageous.
So excuse me if I feel distasteful about anyone having such an easygoing perhaps a bit too tolerant stance for such things.
And so if not a sufficient amount of people votes with their wallets TiVo *will* stay in the market, a market which they are essentially closing down for everyone but themselves because nobody but TiVo can decide what to run on those boxes, closing the doors to the potential TiVo-software market.
And all this said you gotta ask yourself is this all fair considering that TiVo is using GNU/Linux, an OS developed in a spirit so obviously opposite of what TiVo is doing? At the very least you can understand why would an owner of Free Software copyrights want to set terms which require that derivates of his software would run on any device that the user may own. A lot of software developers use GPL exactly because they want to promote the spirit of what it provides, and TiVo breaks that spirit.
So you can't blame FSF for putting the Tivoization clause in. I'd be willing to be that many Free Software developers do want to have such a clause in their license and I'd also argue that due to this clause, what TiVo is doing will be severely discouraged in the future, therefore allowing for a more open market around such devices.
All in all I just can't see the harm that some are propagating so much. You're not forced to partake in FSFs strategy so there's no imposition whatsoever.
Quoting:I'm living in the United States. Did you have some other disutopia in mind? This one is about as un-"dis" as is to be found on earth, and it's pretty "dis".
Oookaay.. undisutopia.. whatever. :P
Seriously, the reason I mentioned living in dystopia is because I believe that people should expect more respect for their rights than it sometimes seems evident. In other words, instead of just ignoring what TiVo is doing despite the fact that many fall for it (not really knowing about the restriction that it carries) thinking that merely voting with your wallet will make all such problems go away I believe you should be actively, as a human being, expressing outrage and distaste for what TiVo is doing. In a world where customers actually get the respect they deserve noone would even think of such schemes as DRM. At the end of the day it is all consumer control and that is outrageous.
So excuse me if I feel distasteful about anyone having such an easygoing perhaps a bit too tolerant stance for such things.
> There are too many users which are simply not aware that their TiVo is locked down
Ah! The "I know better than you do what you want" syndrome.
I believe the technical term is "hubris".
> closing the doors to the potential TiVo-software market.
Unless you're talking about something else, I believe you mean MythTV and the like?
Oh, right, they don't run on Tivo hardware. They run on non-Tivo hardware, for people who don't want a Tivo.
Let me return to my automobile example: If I don't want a Ford, I don't buy a Ford. I don't get upset with Ford if my Dodge radio doesn't fit in a Ford car. If I want a Dodge radio to fit in a Ford car I will fix the car so it does fit.
So if I want to run non-Tivo software on Tivo hardware, I will fix the Tivo hardware to do so. Or I will not buy a Tivo.
> In a world where customers actually get the respect they deserve noone would even think of such schemes as DRM.
So long as people are not forced to buy DRM-encumbered hardware/software, those who wish to are welcome to do so. They will simply not sell anything to me, or you, or the other people likely to be reading this missive. If they want to sell things to you, and me, and the other people likely reading this missive, they are welcome to start by not using DRM-encumbered systems.
> So excuse me if I feel distasteful about anyone having such an easygoing perhaps a bit too tolerant stance for such things.
You go right ahead and feel any way you want. Just don't use force to make anyone else do what you want them to, and we'll all get along just fine.
By trying to tell people they may _not_ use DRM, you are making the same mistake as the people who say they _must_ use DRM. I prefer not to simply trade tyrants.
Ah! The "I know better than you do what you want" syndrome.
I believe the technical term is "hubris".
> closing the doors to the potential TiVo-software market.
Unless you're talking about something else, I believe you mean MythTV and the like?
Oh, right, they don't run on Tivo hardware. They run on non-Tivo hardware, for people who don't want a Tivo.
Let me return to my automobile example: If I don't want a Ford, I don't buy a Ford. I don't get upset with Ford if my Dodge radio doesn't fit in a Ford car. If I want a Dodge radio to fit in a Ford car I will fix the car so it does fit.
So if I want to run non-Tivo software on Tivo hardware, I will fix the Tivo hardware to do so. Or I will not buy a Tivo.
> In a world where customers actually get the respect they deserve noone would even think of such schemes as DRM.
So long as people are not forced to buy DRM-encumbered hardware/software, those who wish to are welcome to do so. They will simply not sell anything to me, or you, or the other people likely to be reading this missive. If they want to sell things to you, and me, and the other people likely reading this missive, they are welcome to start by not using DRM-encumbered systems.
> So excuse me if I feel distasteful about anyone having such an easygoing perhaps a bit too tolerant stance for such things.
You go right ahead and feel any way you want. Just don't use force to make anyone else do what you want them to, and we'll all get along just fine.
By trying to tell people they may _not_ use DRM, you are making the same mistake as the people who say they _must_ use DRM. I prefer not to simply trade tyrants.
Quoting:Ah! The "I know better than you do what you want" syndrome.
No, it's the "do you know what you're actually buying" syndrome. ;)
Quoting:So if I want to run non-Tivo software on Tivo hardware, I will fix the Tivo hardware to do so.
Hmm, but is that even legal under DMCA? If not then you perhaps get my point that if there is not more outrage than merely voting with your wallet they may conspire to take your basic freedoms away even further.
Quoting:You go right ahead and feel any way you want. Just don't use force to make anyone else do what you want them to, and we'll all get along just fine.
Agreed, and again I don't believe supporting GPLv3 anyhow amounts to that.
Quoting:By trying to tell people they may _not_ use DRM, you are making the same mistake as the people who say they _must_ use DRM.
Well, I can license my software anyway I want to. If they don't like the license they don't have to agree to it, or they can fork the covered software. Of course, now I'm being a bit redundant. :)
Licensing is not same as legislating something into law, therefore no coercion of the kind you imply happens.
> but is that even legal under DMCA?
Coercion, used to tell me what I may and may not do with my own property.
How could I possibly agree with that?
> Licensing is not same as legislating something into law, therefore no coercion of the kind you imply happens.
I couldn't agree more.
Coercion, used to tell me what I may and may not do with my own property.
How could I possibly agree with that?
> Licensing is not same as legislating something into law, therefore no coercion of the kind you imply happens.
I couldn't agree more.
There's a LXer feature story about the issues raised in this tread, which I just wrote, just for your reading pleasure. It's at:
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/91044/index.html
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/91044/index.html
Spin and baloney
Actually spoke to several people who attended LinuxWorld and received same info as Galli. Hovsepian said:
Way off in the .org pavilion, OpenSuSE's presence was notably missing, but then again, Linspire was understandably absent from this area as well. Seems clear that Hovsepian was spouting his mouth off to put down any of those very .org's and startups of not salivating over his spin, rather than mentioning any possible regrets over the Novell-Microsoft Deal.
Gee, come to think of these attendees' feedbacks and Hovsepian's speech, Hovsepian's tone in this is remarkably similar to ex-Linspire CEO Carmony's GPLv3-bashing/FUD-inspiring/spin-meistering diatribes over the last few months, isn't it. To wit: - GPLv3 - Unforseen Consequences? by Kevin Carmony, http://www.linspire.com/linspire_letter_archives.php?id=47 - Microsoft Will Help Deliver a "Better" Linux by Kevin Carmony, http://www.linspire.com/linspire_letter_archives.php?id=48 - Is Linux Splitting into Two Factions? by Kevin Carmony, http://www.linspire.com/linspire_letter_archives.php?id=49
In this last Carmony FUD is his section 'The Moral High Ground'. Now, as reported at SJVN's coverage of his resignation at http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/90797/index.html, Carmony can now, in a sense, take his own "Moral High Ground" choices.
Who at Novell will take the Moral High Ground since Hovsepian deigns to avoid this?
Bye, bye Ronnie.......
Those who refuse to learn from History are doomed to repeat it.
Quoting:"Microsoft is a reality inside that mixed-source world, and the acceptance of this will be a critical part of the industry's success going forward. But we will compete and battle them, and our goal is to win. We have 20 years of battling Microsoft in our blood,"Novell had a nice big exhibition close to the entrance and it was certainly marketing SLED and products working on SLED-only. The exhibition was apparently designed to primarily attract highly server-integrated potential partnering companies (clients), or so this was emphasized by some of the attendees. Apparently several mid-level managerial types fro Microsoft itself were spotted around this area! But...,,, it certainly was NOT nearly as developer or desktop end-user -oriented during these days of SFLinuxWorld
Way off in the .org pavilion, OpenSuSE's presence was notably missing, but then again, Linspire was understandably absent from this area as well. Seems clear that Hovsepian was spouting his mouth off to put down any of those very .org's and startups of not salivating over his spin, rather than mentioning any possible regrets over the Novell-Microsoft Deal.
Gee, come to think of these attendees' feedbacks and Hovsepian's speech, Hovsepian's tone in this is remarkably similar to ex-Linspire CEO Carmony's GPLv3-bashing/FUD-inspiring/spin-meistering diatribes over the last few months, isn't it. To wit: - GPLv3 - Unforseen Consequences? by Kevin Carmony, http://www.linspire.com/linspire_letter_archives.php?id=47 - Microsoft Will Help Deliver a "Better" Linux by Kevin Carmony, http://www.linspire.com/linspire_letter_archives.php?id=48 - Is Linux Splitting into Two Factions? by Kevin Carmony, http://www.linspire.com/linspire_letter_archives.php?id=49
In this last Carmony FUD is his section 'The Moral High Ground'. Now, as reported at SJVN's coverage of his resignation at http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/90797/index.html, Carmony can now, in a sense, take his own "Moral High Ground" choices.
Who at Novell will take the Moral High Ground since Hovsepian deigns to avoid this?
Bye, bye Ronnie.......
Those who refuse to learn from History are doomed to repeat it.
Quoting: Way off in the .org pavilion, OpenSuSE's presence was notably missingHuh? I was there, I have pictures of the opensuse booth, and a suse 10.2 DVD they gave me. Also, during the time I was there, a Novell guy came by and was chatting amicably with the opensuse folks.
Speaking of absent, redhat was conspicuously so - I think there may have been a fedora booth but that's it.
Quoting: We have 20 years of battling Microsoft in our blood
Shouldn't that be:
Quoting: We have 20 years of bathing Microsoft with our blood
If they had actually won a battle or two, that would be bragworthy.
It seems that "mixed-source" is the buzzword du jour, and is code for "do what Microsoft says."
@vainrveenr
"Way off in the .org pavilion, OpenSuSE's presence was notably missing"
Actually, it WAS really there, although seemingly more relegated to the back corner, and having not nearly as large a presence as the main SUSE area near the main entrance to the exhibits. All the way at the very rightmost back corner (from the entrance that is) sandwiched in a little area between the bearded Earth Treasury guy and the Boingo Wireless folks.
"Who at Novell will take the Moral High Ground since Hovsepian deigns to avoid this? Bye, bye Ronnie....... " If Ron Hovsepian attracts significantly more customers and business through his current intentions through his speech, then he will probably stay on at Novell longer than Kevin Carmony with Linspire, Moral High Ground or not. OTOH, if the Novell bloodstream ends up getting slowly sucked dry by M$ following its Novell-Microsoft Deal, then one can expect to see future signs of the heightened effect of this by - a decline of partnerships or M&A's - a lack of release of new products or unscheduled/unacceptable product delays - management re-arrangement and re-strategizing under Hovsepian's guidance - Ronald Hovsepian being replaced in a similar or dissimilar fashion as Kevin Carmony wih Linspire - further attrition and defections among the greater Novell workforce - decline in Novell stock and stockholder displeasure - drastic cost-cutting measures along with deeper and deeper employee layoffs
@tuxchick As a worst-case scenario, some combination of the above way down the line leading to Novell's getting whittled down to being Embraced, Extended and Extinguished. As you wrote "Shouldn't that be: We have 20 years of bathing Microsoft with our blood"
@herzeleid "Huh? I was there, I have pictures of the opensuse booth, and a suse 10.2 DVD they gave me. Also, during the time I was there, a Novell guy came by and was chatting amicably with the opensuse folks."
I actually attended this event too. Interesting opening-day party in downtown SF with a Hawaiian-like theme, and sponsored by ACCESS Mobile, its exhibition booth right across from Novell's in the very front near the entrance. At the Novell exhibit itself, the sales rep-type guy I met also was somewhat amicable, although this guy visibly went out of his way to steer some suit-types to a manager higher up.
"Speaking of absent, redhat was conspicuously so - I think there may have been a fedora booth but that's it."
There certainly was a Fedora booth in the .Org area, but no, no RedHat itself. The Fedora booth had its banner stretched out conspicuously wide though, and seemed to be nicely visited. Same for Ubuntu. Also noticed that there were no Linspire persons, nor were there any persons from Xandros out and about. All in all, the .Org area seemed much more crowded than the Next Generation Data Center area on the other side of the hall, notwithstanding all the freebies and scheduled product presentations the latter were providing to gather customers. Unsurprisingly, I missed finding anyone from Samsung in the Next Generation Data Center.
Actually, it WAS really there, although seemingly more relegated to the back corner, and having not nearly as large a presence as the main SUSE area near the main entrance to the exhibits. All the way at the very rightmost back corner (from the entrance that is) sandwiched in a little area between the bearded Earth Treasury guy and the Boingo Wireless folks.
"Who at Novell will take the Moral High Ground since Hovsepian deigns to avoid this? Bye, bye Ronnie....... " If Ron Hovsepian attracts significantly more customers and business through his current intentions through his speech, then he will probably stay on at Novell longer than Kevin Carmony with Linspire, Moral High Ground or not. OTOH, if the Novell bloodstream ends up getting slowly sucked dry by M$ following its Novell-Microsoft Deal, then one can expect to see future signs of the heightened effect of this by - a decline of partnerships or M&A's - a lack of release of new products or unscheduled/unacceptable product delays - management re-arrangement and re-strategizing under Hovsepian's guidance - Ronald Hovsepian being replaced in a similar or dissimilar fashion as Kevin Carmony wih Linspire - further attrition and defections among the greater Novell workforce - decline in Novell stock and stockholder displeasure - drastic cost-cutting measures along with deeper and deeper employee layoffs
@tuxchick As a worst-case scenario, some combination of the above way down the line leading to Novell's getting whittled down to being Embraced, Extended and Extinguished. As you wrote "Shouldn't that be: We have 20 years of bathing Microsoft with our blood"
@herzeleid "Huh? I was there, I have pictures of the opensuse booth, and a suse 10.2 DVD they gave me. Also, during the time I was there, a Novell guy came by and was chatting amicably with the opensuse folks."
I actually attended this event too. Interesting opening-day party in downtown SF with a Hawaiian-like theme, and sponsored by ACCESS Mobile, its exhibition booth right across from Novell's in the very front near the entrance. At the Novell exhibit itself, the sales rep-type guy I met also was somewhat amicable, although this guy visibly went out of his way to steer some suit-types to a manager higher up.
"Speaking of absent, redhat was conspicuously so - I think there may have been a fedora booth but that's it."
There certainly was a Fedora booth in the .Org area, but no, no RedHat itself. The Fedora booth had its banner stretched out conspicuously wide though, and seemed to be nicely visited. Same for Ubuntu. Also noticed that there were no Linspire persons, nor were there any persons from Xandros out and about. All in all, the .Org area seemed much more crowded than the Next Generation Data Center area on the other side of the hall, notwithstanding all the freebies and scheduled product presentations the latter were providing to gather customers. Unsurprisingly, I missed finding anyone from Samsung in the Next Generation Data Center.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Microsoft are merely self-centered. They want it all.
Stallman has said that he believes it is wrong for _me_ to release code as proprietary. I think this hooks into the "forced altruism" behind the political "left".
Yes, I too think they're both wrong. But neither of them can tell me what I may or may not do with my own production. Yet.
I think the GPL concept and GPLv2 are a boon to human-kind, fostering the kind of philosophical revolt against proprietary Big Brother that might allow free investigation to survive the integration into digital format the same way the concept of the lending library idea made the availability of literature wide spread instead of the perview of the elite.
If _neither_ extreme gains access to coercion, there is still hope for the future.