Is this degenerating to a battle of egos?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick2 Aug 05, 2006 9:59 AM EDT |
I hate to see stuff like this. First of all, Linus says "Oh, I really shouldn't comment on this", and then he does anyway, with flames and bile. Then all the Linus groupies arise in a mass dudgeon and further clog the debate with useless blahblah. "RMS is a loon. RMS is an old man who needs to go away. Eben Moglen is a lawyer, and everyone knows lawyers are evil." Then the discussion derails into the usual "for FOSS to be more business-friendly it must stop being FOSS" bushwah, which is so breathtakingly illogical and stupid I keep waiting for the real punchline. It assumes that FOSS needs to be more business-friendly, and business-friendly = closed and proprietary, so therefore Free Software needs to stop being Free. Normally I don't much care for Paul Thurrott except as an entertaining writer, but sometimes he comes up with a good line: "And then there are the online pundits, many of whom are barely old enough to legally buy alcohol. These guys are classic. Let's just say that a lack of experience and a strongly worded opinion don't result in the most coherent of arguments and leave it at that." |
| dinotrac Aug 05, 2006 10:34 AM EDT |
et tu, tuxchick? First, a disclaimer: I am backing out completely of any discussion over GPLV3 provisions. After all of the barbs, er, discussion flying around here, I am convinced that I understand neither the GPLV3 draft nor the DRM issue well enough to comment intelligently. I need to fix that, but, at the moment, it is true. I need to understand neither, however, to be taken aback by your post. Since when did you become a groupie? Seriously, to read your post is to believe that any criticism of RMS and GPLV3 could only be the work of those uncool kids sitting at the table in the far corner of the cafeteria. As someone old enough to have grandchildren old enough to use Linux, and still hope for better than I'm seeing. FWIW - I have stated many times in this forum that businesses care about the "free" in free software as much as anybody else. It's true that a lot them don't realize that -- just as we rely on our cars without understanding everything that takes place under the hood -- but free is actually more business friendly than closed and proprietary. Not only that, business is a powerful force (though, I suspect, mostly unwittingly) for free software. I work with a large corporation right now that is in the process of migrating mission critical apps to Linux, and there are many others. Here and there, you see Linux desktops being put to use. It pays to remember that one of the things that made PCs popular in the first place was a desire by people to use the same kind of system at home as they did at work. Our good sneaky friend Microsoft understood that. Remember their old pre-monopoly licenses? They had a provision that allowed you to load up one extra copy of the software on another machine so long as you only used one at a time. That was specifically designed to get people using Microsoft software at home. As I don't understand the issues well enough, I will, for now, simply hope that there is a magical middle that will throw monkey wrenches into DRM AND let Linux move forward to the new license. If there is no such thing, I will hope that the best choices, whatever they may be, will be the choices that get made. I will not, however, presume that there is no room for disagreement on the issues. |
| jimf Aug 05, 2006 10:40 AM EDT |
> Free Software needs to stop being Free There are always those who just don't get it. Immediate gratification and damn the consequences. They need to stick to masturbation. |
| tuxchick2 Aug 05, 2006 11:02 AM EDT |
Dino, I don't know who is right and I don't understand the specific issues. What I'm seeing is a bunch of homies rooting for their fave Linux celebrity and little informed debate on the issues, and Linus taking a public stance but not participating where it counts: "Are you participating in the GPLv3 process? No, I'm not actively involved. And it's not so much because I couldn't be, it's more because I just can't find it in me to care too deeply" http://www.forbes.com/technology/2006/03/09/torvalds-linux-l... Yet he cares enough to spout off a lot on mailing lists and in interviews, and get people all riled up. That doesn't seem very helpful or constructive. |
| tuxchick2 Aug 05, 2006 11:11 AM EDT |
Additionally, Linus thinks the whole GPL3 process is a sham: http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/08/04/2218206 That's why I wonder if it isn't more about egos and old grudges than the merits of the proposed GPL3 provisions. |
| jimf Aug 05, 2006 11:26 AM EDT |
> That's why I wonder if it isn't more about egos and old grudges than the merits of the proposed GPL3 provisions. It's beginning to look like that. |
| sbergman27 Aug 05, 2006 11:45 AM EDT |
The GPLv3 process *is* a sham. We talk. RMS listens, seemingly intently, and says "Err that's a really good thought. Well get back to you later. But don't call us. We'll call you". We wait some more. And RIchard's shiny new licence comes out in January. I will commend them on their ability to hold to a schedule, though. Even if it's easier to do with a license than with a piece of software, as Hurd makes, ahem, quite clear. I pay more attention to the doers in the community than to the aging, but charismatic, attention seekers like RIchard. |
| dinotrac Aug 05, 2006 12:02 PM EDT |
tuxchick - I fear you are right about the egos. I can understand RMS being taken aback by all the attention to Linux, something that he not only didn't originate and doesn't control, but something that has succeeded where his comparable initiative has failed badly. I can also understand some resentment of Linus, given all the attention he's received, attention that can shove RMS into the shadows. Conversely, I think Linus sometimes acts like a spoiled little boy -- that Dr. Penguin/Dr. Vulture thing I mentioned before. OTOH, I could understand, not appreciate, but understand, some churlishness towards RMS, who constantly downgrades Linus's contribution. How many times have we heard, "It's only a kernel". But then, given the triviality of doing a kernel, I guess none of this stuff matters. Someone can just whip up a new one, or, better yet, just move everyone over to the HURD. Sigh. Egos are a fact of life. Let us hope they don't present an impenetrable barrier to reason. |
| wind0wsr3fund Aug 05, 2006 12:05 PM EDT |
sbergman27, "I pay more attention to the doers.." and yet, you have the nerve to berate the contributions of RMS? I'd love to hear of your contributions and things you've done to advance the cause. |
| dinotrac Aug 05, 2006 12:27 PM EDT |
W - It is unfair to discount RMS as a doer. Today's philosopher king was yesterday's prodigious hacker. A lot of free software got started because Richard wrote it. Today's gcc may not retain any of Richard's code, but I'll bet EMACS does and a number of other GNU utilities. And the whole FSF, GPL, etc thing? It took a doer to make all those things happen. RMS has earned his spurs. |
| tuxchick2 Aug 05, 2006 12:29 PM EDT |
" Egos are a fact of life. Let us hope they don't present an impenetrable barrier to reason." Yeah, always we will have those. :) The biggest problem, I think, is Linus thinks he can ignore DRM and it will go away. I don't know if anti-DRM provisions in GPL3 are a good way to fight it, but at least it's trying. It's not good enough to say "if you don't like DRM devices, don't buy them" because we don't have that choice. For example, you cannot purchase a truly blank DVD-R, because the first segment is already overwritten so that the encryption code on "protected" DVDs does not get copied. You can't purchase a DVD player that ignores the control-freak crapola on protected DVDs, like no skipping the FBI warning or previews. and so on....when the hardware is closed, it won't matter how open the software is. |
| sbergman27 Aug 05, 2006 1:22 PM EDT |
Pretty good post, Wind0wsR3fund. Seriously. |
| sbergman27 Aug 05, 2006 1:30 PM EDT |
> I don't know if anti-DRM provisions in GPL3 are a good way to fight it, but at least it's trying. We've got to do *something*. *Anything* is better than nothing. That's one side of the argument, as I percieve it. What's the other? |
| jdixon Aug 05, 2006 5:02 PM EDT |
> What's the other? First, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Second, ofttimes the best thing to do in a given situation is nothing. Not saying that I agree that these are true in this case, merely that they're the defaults a lot of people, myself included, use. |
| dinotrac Aug 05, 2006 5:18 PM EDT |
jdixon : >Second, ofttimes the best thing to do in a given situation is nothing. People vastly underestimate the value of doing nothing. I guess it just feels good to be doing -- something, no matter what something is. Guess that's why people put up with bloodletting from doctors in the old days. At least it was doing something. I wish I could remember the name of the doctor -- I think I have seen him referred to as the father of modern American medicine, but I am not sure. At any rate, he became convinced that hospitals were dangerous places to be, and laid down an edit (at least for his hospital) that it was better not to treat a patient unless you had a solid basis for believing the treatment would help. Otherwise, keep the patient clean, comfortable, fed, hydrated, etc. Often, a body's own defenses will heal what misguided "treatment" will make worse. Doing something tends to feel good. That's not the same thing as better than doing nothing. |
| dcparris Aug 05, 2006 8:22 PM EDT |
>That's why I wonder if it isn't more about egos and old grudges than the merits of the proposed GPL3 provisions. Yeah, yeah. I'm late. I know. Still, I thought that's what the whole "Free" vs Open Source" crap was all about. The GPLv3 sniping is just the sequel. |
| Libervis Aug 06, 2006 6:45 AM EDT |
jdixon:Quoting: First, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you refer to the GPL by this let me just repeat what I replied earlier to that exact statement. "DRM breaks it, as Tivo example shows. It needs fixing. Software patents break it, and that too needs fixing. The goal of GPL is to preserve freedom, DRM and software patents threaten that in our time making even GPL too weak to protect this freedom. If it can get involve and respond to that threat, and apparently it can according to the copyright law, then by all means it should do so." If it's unable to preserve freedom in a setting that involves software patents and DRM It is broke and it needs fixing. |
| jdixon Aug 06, 2006 6:57 AM EDT |
> If you refer to the GPL by this let me just repeat what I replied earlier to that exact statement. What part of "Not saying that I agree that these are true in this case" did you not understand? |
| Libervis Aug 06, 2006 7:33 AM EDT |
My apologies jdixon. Still though for those who do use such an argument and mean it, the response stands. |
| sbergman27 Aug 06, 2006 8:23 AM EDT |
I'm trying to get an idea about just how this really impacts embedded systems. OK. The Linux kernel is not a problem. It's GPLv2 and always will be. The next 2 packages to be concerned about are glibc and uclibc. Both of these packages are LGPL, and system software, as well. WIth LGPL you can already link your proprietary applications agains it, distribute the combined work, and you're fine. Do the anti-drm provisions work the same way? I can't help but fear that the net effect of the anti-drm provisions will be to displace FOSS software in applicable embedded apps to the benefit of purely proprietary stacks. This is why I don't think that it's a given that it "fixes" anything. |
| dinotrac Aug 06, 2006 8:37 AM EDT |
Steve - Kind of too bad there is no software equivalent of the Hippocratic oath, eh? First do no harm, etc? |
| sbergman27 Aug 06, 2006 9:20 AM EDT |
Well, I can see two different ways to look at this. I could see someone taking the position that preventing FOSS code from being used in DRM appliance applications is a win, even if FOSS loses out on mindshare overall. I would not take that view, myself. But I would consider it to be a valid position. I think it would be helpful if people were clear on where they stand on that point. What I do find ironic is that a software author of GPLv2 software who does happen to disagree with anything in the GPLv3d2 is in a position of having to ask, argue, beg whatever, RMS not to make changes to the licensing *of their own code*. Collectively, it's a huge power to invest in one person. I'm starting to see a certain degree of "Animal Farm" potential, here. |
| dinotrac Aug 06, 2006 9:41 AM EDT |
>is in a position of having to ask, argue, beg whatever, RMS not to make changes to the licensing *of their own code*. Anyone in that position deserves what they get. It is the consequence of surrendering your rights. Folks who used the "or later" provisions of the GPL were just plain stupid if they cared about the licensing. One should never hand over a blank check without expecting it to be filled in and cashed, possibly for a sum you don't really like. |
| sbergman27 Aug 06, 2006 9:48 AM EDT |
So, how is the matter of succession handled? Someday, Richard is going to have to pass the baton. Hopefully it would a controlled process, and not a car accident followed by a power struggle, or anything so unpleasant as that. Is there anyone who could really be trusted? What if Microsoft managed to grab the rights somehow? *shudder*. |
| dinotrac Aug 06, 2006 10:18 AM EDT |
Steve - Rights to what? |
| sbergman27 Aug 06, 2006 10:21 AM EDT |
The right to unilaterally edit the GPL and increment the version number. Doesn't that represent a fair amount of power? |
| dinotrac Aug 06, 2006 10:25 AM EDT |
Ah! I was wondering about that. Y'know...I'm not sure how that is "officially" handlred. I presume that the copyright is held by the FSF rather than Stallman personally. In theory, that ,makes Stallman irrelevant -- at least in terms of keeping safe the GPL. |
| sbergman27 Aug 06, 2006 10:36 AM EDT |
Well, I'm sure it's all been well thought out and planned for. No one at the FSF would participate in a power grab, or be susceptible to external influences. Still, It's comforting to know that the Linux kernel license is the same as it's always been. And will remain the same in years to come. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 06, 2006 3:03 PM EDT |
Quoting:No one at the FSF would participate in a power grab, or be susceptible to external influences. Anfd will you continue to belive that for all eternity? That's exactly the danger of the "GPL2 or later" blurbs. If you state that then you trust the FSF+RMS to write only good licenses for ever on untill eternity. What if GPL4 turns out to have some legal loophole in it that allows a proprietry company to use your IP? If your software is GPL2 or later, then proprietry company X can (ab)use your code under that legal loophole license. One of the reasons I am thinking about licensing my work on a GPL2 only basis, but requiering any contributions to be GPL2 or later. If I do that I am allowed to say stuff like "licensed under GPL 2, 3, 5 and 6 but not GPL4 because GPL4 sucks donkey balls" |
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!