when politics drive it
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jimf Sep 23, 2006 3:19 AM EDT |
Once again we see people involved in core development for Linux having serious questions about the new GPL3. The standard line I keep hearing is 'you Engineers / Developers / Programmers just don't understand the intricacies of the problem', then the equivalent of 'trust me' we'll get it right... Typical Lawyer / Politico rhetoric, then, back into committee. Bottomley is right, this hasn't been a very open process at all. Understand that these Engineers, Developers, and Programmers are the same ones that had little problem understanding and indeed embracing GPL2. let me tell you guys, if the Engineers / Developers / Programmers don't understand and approve of GPL3, it's a real problem. Torvalds says that: "My personal opinion is that a lot of the public discussion has been driven by people who are motivated by the politics of the discussion. So you have a lot of very vocal GPLv3 supporters. But I think that the people who actually end up doing a lot of the development are usually not as vocal, and have actually not been heard very much at all." It would appear that Torvalds hits the nail on the head here, and the closed committee approach makes the process even more obtuse. Developers are the backbone of Linux and all of the GPL'd projects, they deserve to be the first, though not the only ones, heard. Obviously they haven't had their say yet. RMS and his cronies seem to be using typical political tactics to exclude them and everyone else who opposes from the party. As for Linux users, I've not heard any of them say that GPL3 is anything they are looking forward to. Any potential benefits seem nebulous and perhaps even detrimental to Linux. Not many users seem really convinced, besides the most radical GPL absolutist's, that GPL3 will make things any better at all. I entirely agree with Bottomley that the FSF should "abandon the current GPLv3 process before it becomes too late.". GPL needs to protect all of our rights, and not just the RMS vision of that. |
| dinotrac Sep 23, 2006 4:25 AM EDT |
Jimf - It is ALWAYS a mistake -- and I do mean ALWAYS -- to ignore the concerns of the people who are actually in there doing the job and making things work. They aren't always right, but they are where the rubber meets the road and - shock and surprise !! -- they're not a bunch of stupid lumps. They may be viewing the grand picture in the same way that visionaries do, but that's why we have visionaries. On the other hand, they see the intricacies, the inner-workings (and not quite workings), and practical problems in a way that visionaries tend to sweep aside. Hmmmm. Ya know, that's a pretty decent distillation of the Challenger investigation findings, and we all know how the Challenger came out. |
| purplewizard Sep 23, 2006 8:10 AM EDT |
Yes it's a mistake to ignore the people however in this case some of the people miss the point that the GPL and FSF have always been political. Where the tough position is "go without rather than use none free software" and a clear statement of objectives puts freedom as the purpose. On the freedom aspect they are therefore very right I think about the additional restrictions clause. Unless (I haven't read the clause) it for example merely says you can do things like say "not for use in missiles or other war machines". But any such loop holes are open to abuse so keeping things simpler than that removes the difficulty and means the GPL3 like its predecessors hopefully won't ever need testing in court. |
| jimf Sep 23, 2006 9:04 AM EDT |
purplewizard, As I said before Developers had no problem understanding and embracing GPL2. So, how come GPL3 is having so much of a problem getting their acceptance? We all understand that this is a political process, but it needs to be a democratic one. There is a big difference between political action, and, pulling the wool over the people's eyes. At this point, It just looks to be an end run by RMS to get it through at any cost. That is unacceptable, and, frankly despicable from someone who claims to have our interest at heart. Once again RMS is showing his face as a true demagogue. There is also debate as to whether the additions to GPL3 even belong in the GPL, or that a simple addendum to GPL2 might not resolve the issue. I, and many others fully support GPL2, but, I'm not seeing people getting behind GPL3 at all. Altogether this GPL3 and the effort to ram it down people's throats, stinks to high heaven. But, it's for our own good... Or is it? |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 23, 2006 1:21 PM EDT |
"But, it's for our own good." THAT is what bugs me most about this. There was no such ambiguity about GPL.2. Sure, some of the clauses were a bit archaic, and I can fully agree with the simplification aspects of the GPL.3. But .3 adds a portion that there are a lot of very smart people who cannot agree as to exactly what it says. Talk about a can of worms! And being able to add "not for use in landmines" is insane. It directly opposes one of the freedoms that Stallman has been touting all these years, the freedom to use the material for ones own project without restriction. |
| jimf Sep 23, 2006 5:19 PM EDT |
> I can fully agree with the simplification aspects of the GPL.3. If that's all it was, I believe there would be little or no opposition. |
| mbaehrlxer Sep 23, 2006 10:26 PM EDT |
Quoting:As for Linux users, I've not heard any of them say that GPL3 is anything they are looking forward to. i am a linux user, so please hear me say: i am looking forward to the GPL3. i have been since the initial announcements about it. and seriously, i find it kind of hard to believe that you have found noone else say this until now. i am looking forward to a license that will make sure that my programs will always be changeable by the user on any hardware that the programs initially ran on. at least over here, if i buy a piece of hardware, then i own it and have the right to do with it what i want. and with that in mind i want any user to enjoy the ability to modify my programs no matter what hardware they got it with. i am also looking forward to a way to require the source for webapplications to be published. (i would not mind that this be a permanent requirement instead of being optional as planned. i think this would remove one of the 3 issues the article talks about) as for patents, i simply ignore their existance, so i have no opinion there. (they don't yet legally exist here in europe anyways) greetings, eMBee. |
| dinotrac Sep 24, 2006 4:35 AM EDT |
mb - Ah! Thanks for reminding me about Web Apps, yet another ca-ca burr up up RMS's butt. His concern about Web Apps is an abomination. If you care enough freedom that the GPL is even an issue, you don't use Web Apps anyway, unless you can host them yourself. Even if you had the source code, third party web apps are out of your control. Sure, it might be nice to audit the code to see if they are doing anything tricky, but...it's all behind an URL. Not only that, but apache makes it very easy to define an app that can just use the bejesus out of GPL'd code and slide across an interface through non-GPL'd stuff and back out to you. So, at best, you could pick up source code available from more direct sources, and still not get anything you really cared about. No good can come from trying to extend the GPL in that direction. |
| mbaehrlxer Sep 24, 2006 6:14 AM EDT |
Quoting:If you care enough freedom that the GPL is even an issue, you don't use Web Apps anyway, unless you can host them yourself. exactly! i want to be able to host them myself. which is why i want the source to be available. however i also want others to enjoy that ability, which is why i not only make my source available, but want to require others who use my application to make the source available too. Quoting:Even if you had the source code, third party web apps are out of your control. that is a strange argument. it essentially argues against the gpl as a whole, because even if i have the source of one of your programs, the version that you distribute is out of my control. all i can do is to offer you my patches (which i can offer to webapp providers as well) and i can distribute my own version of your program. i don't see the difference to web apps. just take lxer as an example. there may be a few improvements or bugfixes i could think of. at the moment i can only tell you about them. but if i had the source, i could set up a copy, do my own debugging, and actually send you a patch. would that not be helpful? greetings, eMBee. |
| dinotrac Sep 24, 2006 7:18 AM EDT |
> that is a strange argument.
> it essentially argues against the gpl as a whole, because even if i have the source of one of your programs, Not at all. If you are using a third party web app, you can't control the code. Period. If you are running a GPL'd app yourself, you can decide what code you will run and what code you will not. You can pick the version you run. You can accept patches from others or not, you can make your own patches or not. You have that freedom. The GPL guarantees it. WRT a third party web app, none of that is true. The people running the app have all of that freedom and the GPL can do nothing about it. Sure, it might be nice to offer up patches, presuming that the people who run the site care. But...I seem to remember that the GPL was about free software as in free speech, not as a software development methodology. In the case of a third party web app, you surrender your freedoms. |
| mbaehrlxer Sep 24, 2006 9:00 AM EDT |
what you say is only true if only the content is what matters. sure, i won't be able to duplicate lxer even if i had the source, because i would always depend on the original lxer site for the content. but things like webmail? discussion forums? wikis? web application servers? or even webservers in general? there is a lot of free software web applications out there and they are popular. are you trying to say that there is no point for any of those to publish their source? if you create your own content then it really does not matter where it runs. so if i am not happy with the service i could take the code and run my own independently without any loss of functionality. or i could take the lxer source and run my own news site. and that would not necessarily be in competition to lxer, because maybe i want to publish news about gardening ;-) the lxer code would benefit from other people using it and finding bugs etc, as well as contributing improvements. and even with content: should wikipedia close up now? they give you everything to allow you to duplicate it. why would it be bad if they required the duplicators to make the source of code and content equally available? greetings, eMBee. |
| Libervis Sep 24, 2006 10:27 AM EDT |
The whole controversy over GPLv3 is just tiring, at least to me who as a watcher who cares about the outcome. On one side there is a problem that some people seem to be overlooking, or just failing to see the full scale of danger, the increasing threat of DRM and software patents which did not exist at the time of making of GPLv2. How do we address that? The popular TiVo case has shown that GPL terms can very well be invalidated without actually breaking the license, because it covers only software. So using hardware you can nullify freedoms granted by the GPLv2. And yet you have Linus and other kernel guys complain about GPLv3 overreaching its coverage to hardware. Tell me, how else are we supposed to prevent cases like TiVo and keep the end result as intended by GPL? DRM goes step a step further from the usual software realm, a step which now induces a vulnerability in GPL which can be used to practically break the license without breaking it, and FSF is just supposed to sit tight about it?! Damn right they should fix the vulnerability and make the DRM clause explicit. RMS did not augment his goal one bit. He is not doing this to *further* his political agenda. He is doing it to keep things as they were, essentially an agenda of every caring Free Software user and developer, to preserve the state of things that is now threatened by DRM and patents. And yet Linux kernel guys think it is GPLv3 which will change the state of things. I think they're barking at the wrong tree here. GPLv3 is the only way we can block DRM and software patents efficiently. In face of DRM and software patents, GPLv2 is a flawed license open to attack. Them, indeed, as programmers, should know best what to do when there is a bug, and yet they're arguing that this huge bug that GPLv2 has does not need fixing? *sigh* |
| dinotrac Sep 24, 2006 12:00 PM EDT |
MB - Who cares if you can duplicate anything? Who cares if you can run the software somebody else runs? The key to free software is that you are free to do as you please with the software you use. When it comes to a web app, the very definition of your use is up in question. It is a very different thing to say you should have the freedom to debug, modify, audit, etc, the software you run than it is to say you should have the freedom to do that with somebody else's software. The GPLV2, for example, doesn't make anybody provide the source for software they merely use and don't distribute. Your bank to use GPL'd software for all of its internal systems and never provide you with their source code. That, by the way, would be true of GPLV3, as well. So, what is the difference if they provide you that same service, with the same software, via a web app. There is no logical basis for adding this new requirement. The GPLV2 got the line right. |
| jimf Sep 24, 2006 1:04 PM EDT |
DRM restrictions are obviously an issue that all of us abhor. The changes embodied in GPLv3 is an attempt to block that, but the ramifications of doing that seem detrimental in the extreme. Linus has questioned it's validity, as have other Developers. I've got to agree, and think that any realistic solution to this problem will not be gained through a change to the GPL. It just doesn't belong there, and, we're just going to have to find another way. Again, RMS, and, the FSF seem to be oblivious to any criticism or willing to consider any compromise. RMS's Philosophy embodied in GPLv2 has been and hopefully will continue to be a guideline for open source development. I'm not sure that the changes in GPLv3 will further that or just plain spell the end of Linux. What worries me the most is that way this is being handled by the FSF seems far from a creating a consensus, or being an open and democratic process. Until FSF becomes something more than a rubber stamp for RMS' Dictatorship, they can just shove GPLv3. |
| galeru Sep 24, 2006 1:11 PM EDT |
Libervis brings up a point that I have never heard refuted to my satisfaction. I can understand that there might be people who want their work usable in an area where the upgrade cycle is locked. But that really isn't why the DRM clause is there. Preventing someone from saying, "Thanks for all the great work on this, I'm going to put it in a box and prevent anyone but me from changing it from now on," especially when they didn't actually guide the project, is the whole idea. It was developed out in the open, and should stay there. If someone wants to use the community development model, they can either use a different license that says they can close it whenever they want, or they can keep it open for anyone to use and modify. |
| mbaehrlxer Sep 24, 2006 4:13 PM EDT |
Quoting:The key to free software is that you are free to do as you please with the software you use. if i am using a web application, then i am using the software. the fact that this software runs on another machine is a technicality and secondary. it is still me who is using it. if you do not agree with this point then of course your argument makes sense, and we'll just have to disagree on the issue. greetings, eMBee. |
| Libervis Sep 24, 2006 4:23 PM EDT |
Jimf:Quoting:It just doesn't belong there, and, we're just going to have to find another way. It's easy to just say this, but where indeed is that another way? As we are trying to find another way, DRM is being implemented in more and more devices and accepted by an increasing number of corporations, ones who may be discouraged from doing so should they be forced to abandon DRM to ride the wave of GNU/Linux. What FSF is doing is making it a clear choice: you either play along or don't play. It's either us or DRM, either us or your software patents. Those who keep believing that the two opposites can coexist apparently need a reality check or something. SW patents and DRM are nothing but destruction upon the Free Software world. There can be no giving in and waiting for an "alternative solution" while one is being offered by the FSF is one form of giving in to this destructive force. Quoting:Again, RMS, and, the FSF seem to be oblivious to any criticism or willing to consider any compromise. There has never been a development process so open to review and criticism as this one. If it were any other license Linus and the company probably wouldn't even get a proper chance to voice themselves. Criticism is very well being listened to and I believe that comittees and RMS himself is considering any constructive ideas they may encounter. What you, Linus and the company are suggesting though is cease of development of GPLv3 without any real alternative to the problem it is trying to solve. So what the heck do you expect RMS to do? Comply to you? Sorry, but you guys would have to do much more than that. If that's too much for you then at least be decent enough to accept the things the way they have to be and if you don't like the license not use it. Besides, Linux kernel will not be under GPLv3 one way or another because it is explicitely licensed under GPLv2 and not any further version. So they voiced their concerns and that's it. No need for such catastrophical predictions as "GPLv3 is the doom for Linux". The truth is DRM and software patents are much more likely to be that doom if we don't do something about that and GPLv3 is currently the only viable thing we can do. Quoting:Until FSF becomes something more than a rubber stamp for RMS' Dictatorship, they can just shove GPLv3. That was quite extreme and you know it (I hope)! What are you on man? RMS a dictator? Will next thing you say be repeating the "communism" FUD or something? Are you truly so deeply opposed to the only currently viable solution against SW patents and DRM to stoop to that level? Gosh! |
| dinotrac Sep 24, 2006 5:47 PM EDT |
>if i am using a web application, then i am using the software. Well, technically, you are using your browser. Your browser is communicating with the software via a clearly defined I/O interface -- and, most likely, that inteface communicates with the non-GPL'd apache web server. Apache may invoke the GPL'd software. You are using a web service, the people who run that service are using the software as a means to provide the service. |
| jimf Sep 24, 2006 5:59 PM EDT |
> It's easy to just say this, but where indeed is that another way? There may not be a better way. Hell, there may be no way, But I'm sure what GPLv3 shows is not going to accomplish the job, and may make the situation for Linux even worse. Better it isn't included. > There has never been a development process so open to review and criticism as this one. As an organization that purports to be defending 'our' freedoms, I had certainly hoped it was the case. That isn't what I'm seeing at all. > Criticism is very well being listened to and I believe that committees and RMS himself is considering any constructive ideas they may encounter. And you know this because? Come on Libervis, they issued a statement "we are considering" and then went back into committee. You've seen the first couple of drafts. Has anything really changed except minor rewording? Did they even acknowledge Linus or any of the other kernel developers? Face it, your demigod RMS is off playing fast and free with 'your' freedoms again. Sure looks like a Coup d'état to me. > That was quite extreme and you know it It would appear that RMS is the one who is stooping here. I may not know the motivations, but, I know when the public and I are being conned. I'm more than a little sick of it. Time to call a spade a spade. |
| Libervis Sep 24, 2006 6:50 PM EDT |
Quoting:And you know this because? Come on Libervis, they issued a statement "we are considering" and then went back into committee. You've seen the first couple of drafts. Has anything really changed except minor rewording? Did they even acknowledge Linus or any of the other kernel developers? What do you want? The process isn't supposed to change the goal and purpose of GPLv3, but to help achieve this goal most effectively. From the very beginning the goal was to address the threat of software patents and DRM and that wont nor should change. When your suggestion is to throw one of those away you are asking to change the whole thing. What do you expect, for RMS to bow down to Linus and remove the DRM clause immediately? Changing the wording to better reflect the intended goal is exactly what they should have done, and so they did and will continue to do until the process is finished. The only thing that can stop the process and the erase the goal behind it is the vast community disapproval. However, Linus and a few folks kernel maintainers don't constitute the whole world of Free Software. Quoting:Face it, your demigod RMS is off playing fast and free with 'your' freedoms again. Sure looks like a Coup d'état to me. Man you're request is just laughable, to be honest. I should "face" that they are playing "fast and free" with my freedom by trying to counter software patents and DRM, things I passionately want to erase? I say more power to them! :D Quoting:It would appear that RMS is the one who is stooping here. I may not know the motivations, but, I know when the public and I are being conned. I'm more than a little sick of it. Time to call a spade a spade. You damn right don't know the motivation. You don't even know what they're really trying to do, or just for some weird reason want to oppose it. Your motivation is one to be questioned here. |
| jimf Sep 24, 2006 7:10 PM EDT |
> I should "face" that they are playing "fast and free" with my freedom by trying to counter software patents and DRM, things I passionately want to erase? Absolutely not. Whether or not DRM is addressed, or how it is addressed, or anything else about it has been taken out of the hands of anyone but RMS and his committees. You have no say in how this plays out. They are in essence, keeping you in the dark and feeding you BS. If life as a mushroom is acceptable to you, so be it. > Your motivation is one to be questioned here. My motivations are simple, I just want Linux to continue as a viable OS under a working GPL. |
| Libervis Sep 24, 2006 7:26 PM EDT |
Quoting:You have no say in how this plays out. They are in essence, keeping you in the dark and feeding you BS. Meh, I think it is you who are trying to feed me BS. If it makes you feel better then believe it. I am not convinced. If you don't agree with their way of addressing these threats there is nothing forcing you to use it. Quoting:My motivations are simple, I just want Linux to continue as a viable OS under a working GPL. A working GPL is one that protects users four freedoms. That's what it is designed to do. GPLv2, in face of new threats, shows certain vulnerabilities that can be exploited to make those freedoms difficult or even impossible to excercise. These bugs need fixing. Hence GPLv3. If you don't agree with it then don't use it. Noone is stopping you from employing any alternative solutions against DRM and SW patents if you have any. And besides, Linux kernel will remain under GPLv2 anyway. |
| jimf Sep 24, 2006 7:38 PM EDT |
> I am not convinced. As an RMS disciple, I don't expect you would be. > If you don't agree with their way of addressing these threats there is nothing forcing you to use it. Not exactly true. When I read over the grandfathering provisions, it looked to me as though this is a self replicator. Anyone modifying will be able to push to GPLv3 unless specifically prohibited. So eventually we'll all have to deal with v3 like it or not. I can only imagine what a mess this will be when it hits the Debian repos. > And besides, Linux kernel will remain under GPLv2 anyway. another potentially fun situation. |
| Libervis Sep 24, 2006 7:49 PM EDT |
I wasn't addressing these provisions. If you are concerned about them you are free to voice your opinion. I currently don't have a definite one on that. I do however fully support DRM and patent provisions and that's all I am trying to defend because it is at the core of GPLv3 and essential for its purpose. |
| jimf Sep 24, 2006 7:55 PM EDT |
> I do however fully support DRM and patent provisions I know, but you have to understand, that one scares the heck out of many of us. Not having a fully open process to deal with it scares me even more. |
| galeru Sep 24, 2006 8:18 PM EDT |
I don't see how you can have a fully open process. They have drafts, and at least discussion is occuring, instead of RMS dropping a completed version 3 on the world. Please explain how they could open the process any more than they already have without causing chaos. |
| jimf Sep 24, 2006 8:32 PM EDT |
> I don't see how you can have a fully open process. how about weekly or monthly reports? At least a hint at how and where this is progressing. Anything except this 'trust us' stuff with nothing concrete until the next draft. Closed committees are fine, but, you could even publish the minutes, or as I said, a weekly report. This document may be the most important thing in the history of GPL. How can it be anything less than open... No matter how much chaos that creates. |
| Libervis Sep 25, 2006 6:43 AM EDT |
I don't think chaos would be doing any more good than the current process does. Also, you don't have any reference points for judging this process by because there hasn't been such an open process so far in the license development at all. That said, how can this not be considered an open process? You get three drafts for review before the license is completed. You have a commenting system on their website for posting your opinions about any part of the license (http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-2.html), they have conferences around the world explaining and discussing the license publically and because of all this transparency it is possible for anyone else (like Linus and kernel devs) to express their own views about the thing before it is completed. These committees are also consisted of numerous representatives or various groups of people, from corporations to software developers so that too is a good sample of all types which may have a stake in this license. How much more open does it have to be to satisfy your definition of openness? Do you have some sort of an "open licensing process" definition it is infringing upon somewhere? ;) |
| jimf Sep 25, 2006 10:23 AM EDT |
This is the last thing I'll say on this. Libervis will undoubtedly continue wording you to death with the 'party line'... So be it. Here's what I see. No doubt that RMS is a brilliant thinker and has, in past, provided a serious ethical basis for the Development and user rights of open source. While no one doubts the honesty of his 'intent', he has a reputation for being, shall we say... inflexible, with more than a little of a little belief in his own infallibility. Put a someone like that in charge of an organization and you have the perfect bureaucrat. Put him in charge of a country, and you have... We have more than enough examples, but at least RMS isn't killing anybody. This is exacerbated by the 'cult' status that has sprung up around RMS. No one can deny that many of his followers see him as a demigod who can do no wrong. Because of this, they will defend and support him through hell and high water, and without consideration of logic. RMS has entrenched himself in the FSF ,and essentially, now holds Linux hostage to his view of how the world 'should be'. If others dispute any part of that view, it's pretty likely they will be ignored, no matter how valid the criticism. No matter how brilliant, RMS is far from the only person who can do original thinking, and he's certainly not the only person who can think and analyze a problem, but he's established a system where, a priori, there can be no other opinion. Now, you expect me to believe that legitimate criticism by qualified members of the Linux community is really going to be considered by RMS and the FSF? I don't think so :( I don't really expect for this situation to change. I think RMS has committed us all to a course of action that may or may not have the desired outcome. Essentially, RMS has hijacked any recourse or options. IMO the whole thing has a very good chance of failing and taking Linux with it. I sincerely hope that doesn't happen. But, if we fall off the cliff, just remember it was RMS that pushed us. |
| Libervis Sep 25, 2006 3:07 PM EDT |
First of all this tireless use of the term "party line" to describe everything I say just reflects your failure to even consider what I say on its own merit rather than only repeating RMS's philosophy. You are showing the inability to believe that someone might actually within own reason and logic find RMSs current philosophy, stance and actions acceptable. By this you demonstrate a closed mind my friend. I don't know how else to put it. I almost feel pushed to say something bad about RMS just to prove that what I am saying is not coming out of nothing more but mere "worship" of his as my "demigod". Well, maybe it will help you if I say that I do think he can sometimes be hard on people and that there have most probably been certain cases where he could have done better. But considering your previous posts I somehow doubt that you'll even fully consider what I am saying. You'll again just dismiss it as "party line" and move on with your anti-FSF/RMS diatribe. Quoting:While no one doubts the honesty of his 'intent', he has a reputation for being, shall we say... inflexible, with more than a little of a little belief in his own infallibility. And you know this because? Are you his psychologist of something to know what he feels about himself? In his very own speech he implies that they have made a mistake with GNU HURD design thinking that it will be most efficient while it turned out not to be. You have already proved once to yourself that what you know about RMS is not complete by claiming that he thinks proprietary licensing can sometimes be OK while the article I linked you to, written by himself, proved otherwise. Come on, you are catching on the straws. Your arguments are weak and baseless enough that your posts end up being just an anti-RMS campaign because, I suppose, you just don't like him and his style. You know what? I don't either, but that doesn't mean I can't consider his philosophy and find it agreeable. Quoting:RMS. No one can deny that many of his followers see him as a demigod who can do no wrong. Because of this, they will defend and support him through hell and high water, and without consideration of logic. Again, you are apparently finding it too hard to believe that otherwise is possible too, that someone can actually employ consideration of logic and find RMSs philosophy acceptable. I'm really sorry for that. Quoting:RMS has entrenched himself in the FSF ,and essentially, now holds Linux hostage to his view of how the world 'should be'. No kidding? He is holding Linux hostage to his view while Linux has been deliberately licensed under explicitely GPLv2 and wont even change to GPLv3. Man you are starting to sound extremely ridiculous. Right, RMS wrath is upon Linux kernel developers if they do not switch to the new version no matter what. Will next thing you'll say be that he is secretly gathering an army of GPL policemen to force everyone to switch to GPLv3 and obey him and his view? Heck you even implied that this is the kind of thing he'd be doing if he was put in charge of a country. Quoting:No matter how brilliant, RMS is far from the only person who can do original thinking, and he's certainly not the only person who can think and analyze a problem, but he's established a system where, a priori, there can be no other opinion. First, noone ever claimed that he is the only person who can do original thinking. Second, the "system" you are talking about must be some sort of science fiction because all I see is a diverse community of people involved with Free Software made for various different reasons and purposes. Some of those people agree with RMS and some don't. Most use GPL for various reasons, but some don't. Those who don't agree with RMS may be criticized by him, but not any more than he is criticized by them. Where the hell is the system you are talking about? I only see a system of cooperation and a man who fought all his life to preserve it and continues to do so with GPLv3, a license not designed to put his opinions over everyone elses, but to protect the system of cooperation from new outside threats. Quoting:I think RMS has committed us all to a course of action that may or may not have the desired outcome. Essentially, RMS has hijacked any recourse or options. Considering all of the previously said, this is just pure baseless fallacy. Quoting:IMO the whole thing has a very good chance of failing and taking Linux with it. I sincerely hope that doesn't happen. But, if we fall off the cliff, just remember it was RMS that pushed us. Be free to believe what you will. Don't expect anyone else to follow that belief though. I am certainly not convinced by you. Thank you |
| dcparris Sep 26, 2006 7:40 AM EDT |
Thread Revived. The issue was a user error in submitting a quoted text. We have fixed the immediate and underlying causes. Please accept our apologies for the inconvenience. |
| Libervis Sep 26, 2006 7:48 AM EDT |
I assume it was my error. I should be the one to apologize. |
| dcparris Sep 26, 2006 9:13 AM EDT |
Actually, it was. How did you figure it out? The disappearing thread trick: He (libervis) entered a typo when trying to do a "[quote]", he typed "[quoteg". Again, our form wasn't so adept at error handling, but that is improved. You really helped us, so we should be grateful. :-) |
| Libervis Sep 26, 2006 9:30 AM EDT |
Well, the thread was inaccessible after I posted that message. I guess I was hoping it was a local issue on my computer or something. I am sorry I didn't report the problem sooner than others noticed. I fixed the quote tag in the post. |
| devnet Sep 26, 2006 9:43 AM EDT |
Quoting:I entirely agree with Bottomley that the FSF should "abandon the current GPLv3 process before it becomes too late.". GPL needs to protect all of our rights, and not just the RMS vision of that.Anyone have copyright on the GPL itself?? If not, I suggest someone immediately start on GPLv4 and pay special attention to the people involved "where the rubber meets the road" and toss out the political BS that is infiltrating the current v3. |
| dcparris Sep 26, 2006 10:10 AM EDT |
The GPL, on its face, has always been a 'political' document. It was written with political aims in mind. Or maybe some have looked over (or forgotten) the comment RMS made, to the effect of, "if enough people adopt the GPL, there won't be anymore non-libre software." Seems like too many people have swallowed ESR's vision of "open source", while ignoring the purpose behind the GPL. |
| Libervis Sep 26, 2006 10:38 AM EDT |
Ironic as it may be, if enough people adopt GPL, we wouldn't need to worry about legality and politics this much anymore and would instead be able to focus on creating great software. When freedom is essentially the default, everyone can finally stop worrying and just enjoy freedom and do what you love. Personally I find it quite tiring that we have to go through all of this to attain something I believe should be so obviously ours. This is not to say that even in a Free World we shouldn't keep our eyes open for changes that may announce a compromise to freedom, but if it was a Free World by default at least we wouldn't have to be *this* proactive about it. But this is all just wishful thinking. We are forced to fight for preservation of what is obviously and morally ours. |
| jimf Sep 26, 2006 10:44 AM EDT |
> The GPL, on its face, has always been a 'political' document. Absolutely. Perhaps one of the problems is that 'political' has essentially become a dirty word, as it's all to easy to prevert the process, even if the 'intent' is good (and, it may or may not be). At least in this country, it's likely the norm. You get to the point where you don't trust anyone... And rightly so. ;-) Yes Don, Raymond is a good example of that. |
| Libervis Sep 26, 2006 11:11 AM EDT |
Just because alot of politicians are corrupt doesn't mean all politics is bad and that there can be no honest politicians and honest politics. Just because alot of politics fails under its own complexity doesn't mean we should make it any easier for us to make that assumption for any other political project we are evaluating. Everything should be evaluated on its own merit and with as little presuppositions as possible. |
| jimf Sep 26, 2006 12:28 PM EDT |
> Just because alot of politicians are corrupt doesn't mean all politics is bad and that there can be no honest politicians and honest politics. Well no, but it does mean that we better approach any of it with skepticism. 'Trust me' doesn't work any more. > Everything should be evaluated on its own merit and with as little presuppositions as possible. Evaluated Yes, but the issue has to be fully disclosed, and demonstrated to be valid. An assertion that 'it's good for you, just eat it' usually means you're a sheep on the way to the killing block. The world is full of people that tell you they are good, and, then stab you in the back when you turn around. History tells us that a little paranoia is more than justified.. |
| Libervis Sep 26, 2006 1:50 PM EDT |
I can agree with that jimf. I just wouldn't agree with you that FSF is proven untrustworthy, which does not mean I am following them like a sheep without consideration. ;) |
| jimf Sep 26, 2006 1:55 PM EDT |
Perhaps not untrustworthy Libervis, but as with Cesar's wife, he must be' beyond reproach'. I don't see that's the case right now. |
| dcparris Sep 26, 2006 3:56 PM EDT |
It seems RMS' big reproach is refusing to give in to DRM. If so, I would ask why it is so important to give in, and how does that affect one's ability to trust Stallman? As far as I am concerned, Stallman hasn't proven himself untrustworthy, per se, so much as just ticking people off by his position on DRM. Even IBM is moving for patent reform, so I would suggest that he may have had some influence in that regard, even if only indirectly (most likely through Moglen, Lessig, et. al.). Opening the door to DRM is a rather dangerous undertaking. Pardon me for being hesitant, but once we open that door, how will we shut it? How does that rubber meet the road? |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 26, 2006 4:45 PM EDT |
>Just because alot of politicians are corrupt doesn't mean all politics is bad and that there can be no honest politicians and honest politics. That depends upon your definition of "politics". Since "politics" is the power of coercion, it is in fact _bad_ by definition. As much as ESR's pragmatic stand rankles some people, the fact is that if the people who WRITE THE CODE don't like the GPL.3, they won't use it. That is what RMS doesn't seem to understand. No matter how principled his stand, no matter how perfect his position, if no one agrees with him he stands alone. Developers use the GPL.2 because they believe it works. Enough working developers have raised substantial doubts about specific portions of the GPL.3 to make it clear that they believe it will not _work_, they will not use it, and not specifically addressing their concerns is making a great deal of other people worry about the GPL.3 too. What I want to see is RMS or Molgen(sp?) or someone else on the FSF committees that are doing the GPL.3 work come out and address, point by point, the concerns raised by Linus and the other major developers. The reason for the impression of the FSF being in an ivory tower is that the very loudly stated concerns have not had any effect on the portions in question, and only dismissive comments if anything at all from the FSF. _IF_ the DRM portions will not cause the problems that Linus et.al. have voiced, then tell them _WHY_NOT_. Ignoring them is not working. |
| jimf Sep 26, 2006 5:54 PM EDT |
I don't think it's any secret that I'm pretty much in agreement with Linus Torvalds on the FSF and the GPL. "a dislike of committees, an inability to contribute in his preferred way, and philosophical differences with the Free Software Foundation (FSF), which he suggests is trying to absorb other licenses under the GPL." would pretty much square with my views. Although the GPL is undoubtedly the best license in most situations, to say it should be the only one, or that it is the only ethical one is, in a universal sense, contrary to anyone's freedom. Accepting protection under the GPL must be voluntary, and, if it's not it becomes yet another weird kind of oppression. That also assumes that one license can cover any conceivable situation, which, v3 nicely demonstrates, isn't possible. That said, and, although I don't honestly believe that DRM is going to be stopped by v3, I doubt it will impose any great penalty on Linux. The way DRM is going, I don't see that other OS will have a commercial advantage. DRM will screw you whatever you're running. If you're going to use GPL, v3 inclusions make as much sense as anything. |
| dcparris Sep 26, 2006 6:12 PM EDT |
So, as I posed in a similar thread, what happens when vendors "tivo-ize" the PCs we use? Sure, we can continue to use the non-tivo-ized boxen. Still, it leads us down a dangerous path. The question is, are there enough people willing to stand for their own freedom, that we can actually negate the impact of tivo-ized products? Can we balance out those who just follow the latest craze? While I generally try to see the best side of people, the militias have been referring to Americans as "sheeple" for years for a reason. With that in view, the folks who aren't so worried about DRM might just be the sheeple, blindly and/or willingly giving up their freedom for a song - or a movie. And then they accuse someone like Libervis of being the "sheep". Just turning the tables on ya a bit, jimf. ;-) |
| Libervis Sep 26, 2006 6:33 PM EDT |
BobQuoting:That depends upon your definition of "politics". Since "politics" is the power of coercion, it is in fact _bad_ by definition. I tend to take the definition explained in the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics It pretty much describes it as a decision making process which makes sense to me. Of course that this process can sometimes be complex because to make a correct decision it is desirable to take alot of implications in consideration including social, ethical and practical ones. To be honest the definition you described seems more skewed towards your dislike and distrust for politicians than anything else. Quoting:As much as ESR's pragmatic stand rankles some people, the fact is that if the people who WRITE THE CODE don't like the GPL.3, they won't use it. That is what RMS doesn't seem to understand. Linux kernel developers don't constitute all Free Software developers. Just because they oppose it (not even all of them actually) doesn't mean that they speak on behalf of all other Free Software developers out there. So it is way premature to so generally assume that people who "WRITE THE CODE" don't like GPLv3. The truth is that SOME people who WRITE SOME KERNEL CODE don't like the GPLv3. Take it as it is. Don't overblow it. This said I too agree that FSF should address these concerns point by point and I believe they will. They already did address some of the misinformation that has sprung up from recent discussion (http://www.libervis.com/gplv3_recent_misleading_information) only a few days after the kernel devs' position statement. Jimf: Quoting:Although the GPL is undoubtedly the best license in most situations, to say it should be the only one, or that it is the only ethical one is, in a universal sense, contrary to anyone's freedom. You're stretching it again. This is not the case. You don't need to use the license. |
| dinotrac Sep 26, 2006 6:33 PM EDT |
>That depends upon your definition of "politics". Since "politics" is the power of coercion, it is in fact _bad_ by definition. You can make anything bad if you get to make up your own definition. Try this one from wikipedia: Politics is the process and method of making decisions for groups. Although it is generally applied to governments, politics is also observed in all human group interactions including corporate, academic, and religious. Though politics is most often thought to concern the actions of government, politics boil down to any situation where you must deal with other people to get what you want. To be effective requires that you understand what they want...etc. |
| jimf Sep 26, 2006 6:36 PM EDT |
> You're stretching it again. This is not the case. Of course not, but that is the implication, and the real goal of the FSF. |
| tuxchick2 Sep 26, 2006 6:36 PM EDT |
Talking beats shooting any day. |
| jimf Sep 26, 2006 6:40 PM EDT |
> Talking beats shooting any day. I wish everyone in the world would realize that... |
| Libervis Sep 26, 2006 6:41 PM EDT |
jimf "Of course not, but that is the implication, and the real goal of the FSF." Man I can't believe you. OK God, if you say so than so it is! You have seen the into the souls of those behind the Free Software Foundation. Thou know what their *real* goal is. You're starting to sound like some sort of a conspiracy theorist you know. People find these theories hard to believe even when they are directed at the government, and you are targeting the organization with history of standing up for human rights! Way to go! |
| jimf Sep 26, 2006 7:43 PM EDT |
Libervis, I'm not the one claiming to be God here. I'm the one questioning what's going on. So far, I see a number of smoking guns, and, a lot of self interest. Conclusive? No. Suspicious? Absolutely. You may see me as a 'conspiracy theorist', but, it's just as likely that you are a sheep in denial. But, what the heck, word on ;-) |
| Libervis Sep 26, 2006 8:12 PM EDT |
I am fine with you being suspicious, but don't make conclusive statements based on your suspicion then, which you have been doing in quite a few posts. Otherwise you make me think your agenda goes beyond expressing suspicion. Now can you believe that there can be something in between a "conspiracy theorist" and a "sheep in denial"? If you can then you might find me there somewhere. It can't be that hard to believe someone is actually convinced enough to believe in something and not merely brainwashed into it. And if I am really hurting you with my words then let's draw the "free to disagree where we disagree line" here, OK? I don't want to hurt people that much. :) |
| jimf Sep 26, 2006 8:19 PM EDT |
> in quite a few posts. Come on Libervis, You've been throwing out at least two words for every one I write ;-) > And if I am really hurting you with my words then let's draw the "free to disagree where we disagree line" here, OK? I don't want to hurt people that much. :) Hardly hurting me. I just don't agree with all you are saying. And as I already said, repetition doesn't make it ring any more true. |
| Libervis Sep 26, 2006 8:53 PM EDT |
Well sorry. It's my old problem I guess. I sometimes think I haven't expressed my view adequately enough then raving on in hope that the other side might pick up a bit of it and who know, maybe even get to agree on some points. ;) Maybe I just end up talking too much, nothing more. So yeah, word off. :) |
| dcparris Sep 26, 2006 9:04 PM EDT |
jimf:
> Of course not, but that is the implication, and the real goal of the FSF. I have to admit that's a bit difficult to swallow, especially absent any serious evidence to back up your claim. RMS could publish a new GPL without seeking anyone's input. He might be a fool to do so, but he could. The fact is, the process of designing the GPL has never been a community effort; it's a lot more transparent than it ever has been. I would be utterly shocked to discover that everyone will be satisfied with the level of openness or even the end result. |
| jimf Sep 26, 2006 9:20 PM EDT |
> I have to admit that's a bit difficult to swallow I believe you were the one talking about folding other licences usder GPL Don. the process of designing the GPL has never been a community effort; it's a lot more transparent than it ever has been. Whatever the intent, GPL has become a huge force in the Linux community. Whether or not it was started as a community effort, if it's really for the rights of the user, it damn well better be open. Otherwise, the whole thing is a farce. |
| dcparris Sep 26, 2006 10:42 PM EDT |
> I believe you were the one talking about folding other licences usder GPL Don. Um, someone else raised that issue. I only asked why that is wrong, especially in light of the fact that reducing the number of licenses could simplify things a bit. If the GPL does what the others do, there is no further need of them. That could be a good thing. It could be argued that the complexity of the GPLv3 might do more to muddle the waters than to clarify anything. However, that is different from suggesting that the GPLv3 will somehow eliminate other licenses. It might eliminate the need for other licenses, but that is still different from actuallly eliminating the licenses. I took the comment as a reference to ruthlessly eliminating other licenses. How that would happen is left to our imagination. Eliminating the need for other licenses is far less "evil", if you will, which is how I imagine that is more likely to play out. > if it's really for the rights of the user, it damn well better be open. GPLv2 *really was* "for the rights of the user", despite the closed nature of that process. So this whole comment really doesn't hold water. If all you want is the regular reports, just subscribe to the listserv. It was advertised right here on LXer. It has been made public in other venues as well. The announcement mailing list tells me a good bit. You sound more like Torvalds - not participating and then complaining because you don't want to participate. What kind of leadership is that? |
| jimf Sep 27, 2006 2:11 AM EDT |
> If the GPL does what the others do, there is no further need of them. That could be a good thing. 'If' truly duplicated them maybe... > It could be argued that the complexity of the GPLv3 might do more to muddle the waters than to clarify anything. Yeah, but not for the reasions you're thinking of :D > However, that is different from suggesting that the GPLv3 will somehow eliminate other licenses. It might eliminate the need for other licenses, but that is still different from actuallly eliminating the licenses. Ok, point taken. > GPLv2 *really was* "for the rights of the user" I never said that it wasn't. > If all you want is the regular reports, just subscribe to the listserv. It was advertised right here on LXer. It has been made public in other venues as well. The announcement mailing list tells me a good bit. I have since done that. Sorry, but I missed the notice on LXer. See my post here: http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/23739/ > You sound more like Torvalds - not participating and then complaining because you don't want to participate. What kind of leadership is that? Torvalds is obviously a strong Linux leader, and, GPL is of concern to him only as it impacts Linux. I can't speak for Torvalds, but, I have no intrest in being a GPL 'leader'. Concidering his position in the Linux community it might have been wise to ask Torvalds and a few other prominent Linux community leaders to participate, but obviously that didn't happen. When GPLv3 was anounced, I think it was assumed by most of us, that it would be a relatively simple clean up of GPLv2. Although we may not agree with it entirely, GPLv2 is obviously a workable, if not ideal, licence. I and appearently Torvalds thought that FSF wouldn't do anything crazy with it. It's now obvious that that wasn't the case. Anyway, that's all, irelivant since the 'Leadership' role (and the blame) lies within th FSF and with RMS. Torvalds, and, I are making critical observations, and, instead of taking them seriously you're blaming him and me for the FSF screw ups? Nice debating ploy, but Don, that is just lame. |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 3:06 AM EDT |
Hmmmm..... Sounds like this thread has established unequivocally the need for licenses beyond the GPL. The mantle of legitimacy is difficult to maintain when one non-elected person controls something through a non-democratic process. The FSF is, for all intents and purposes, an RMS fiefdom. The GPL is a grant from the lord of the manor. Through history, lords have been both good and bad, doing things that were both good and bad. In a movement predicated on freedom, a lord wears the mantle of legitimacy poorly indeed. Viable alternatives dilute the power of the lord, forcing him to hear the voice of the peasantry or evaporate into the fog of irrelevance. GPLV3 is far more dangerous to RMS and to the FSF than it is to free software writ large. If V3 hits with a thud, complicating the lives of developers and users, nobody will use it. Many GPLV2 projects will stay GPLV2, some others will the x.org treatment, being forked from the last GPLV2 version. Bit by bit, and by his own hand, RMS will cease to matter. Interesting times ahead. |
| jimf Sep 27, 2006 3:41 AM EDT |
dino, I pretty much agree that's a likely senario. Over all, GPL is a very positive influence on Linux, so, I also think that would do great harm to Linux in the end. It's absolutely essentual that this whole thing be sucessfully resolved. |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 4:37 AM EDT |
jimf - I don't know how likely that scenario is because I don't know RMS personally. If he's too full of himself to poke his head out into the real world, that scenario could unfold. Let's be honest, though. Visionary or not, RMS didn't do everything he's done by ignoring real world demands, so there is hope. I don't see how that scenario could really hurt Linux, which is licensed under V2. I could see some short-term disruptions to current FSF projects, that might be replaced by forks from the last V2 versions...an x.orgization, if you will. It's too early for gloom and doom, though. Things could still work out well. |
| devnet Sep 27, 2006 6:22 AM EDT |
Like I said previously...if v3 sucks...someone will take v2 and modify it and actually consult the people that need to be consulted aka those in the trenches (programmers, etc). No one is forcing v3 on anyone. They can develop their little license to their hearts content. If it stinks, no one will use it. |
| dcparris Sep 27, 2006 6:47 AM EDT |
> Nice debating ploy, but Don, that is just lame. Not meant to be a debating ploy. Torvalds is a leader - whether he likes it or not. He chose to abstain, despite having been invited to participate. I think it's pretty lame to reject an invitation and then complain about the process. I don't think he has much room to complain. I'm no fan of committees, either. Still, sometimes a real leader will endure things he doesn't care for in order to help move things forward. Iow, Torvalds strikes me as being devisive, not critical. |
| Libervis Sep 27, 2006 7:04 AM EDT |
Quoting:Anyway, that's all, irelivant since the 'Leadership' role (and the blame) lies within th FSF and with RMS. Torvalds, and, I are making critical observations, and, instead of taking them seriously you're blaming him and me for the FSF screw ups? Nice debating ploy, but Don, that is just lame. No, it is you who are ploying with exactly those statements. Don has a point. It is one thing to criticize and extend the critique into the realm of misinformation and bashing and a whole other thing to criticize and offer constructive alternative ideas. So far, I've seen more of the former than the latter, both from you and Linus & Co. It is you who are making it hard to take you very seriously. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 27, 2006 8:49 AM EDT |
"Talking beats shooting any day." Indeed. I hope the policemen breaking down my door by mistake remember that before they kill me. Good call on "politics", point made. " It's absolutely essentual that this whole thing be sucessfully resolved." I couldn't agree more, and that is why I am so frustrated by the intractability of the FSF. |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 8:56 AM EDT |
>Indeed. I hope the policemen breaking down my door by mistake remember that before they kill me. I'll go one step further and hope they remember that in lieu of killing you!! ;0) |
| jimf Sep 27, 2006 9:23 AM EDT |
> Not meant to be a debating ploy Perhaps not 'meant' to be, but still the equivalent of the 'when did you last beat your wife' classic ;-). > despite having been invited to participate That's news to me. What, did they tell him to get in line at the mail list? > Torvalds strikes me as being devisive Possibly, I'm sure he also has some agenda, but remember that Torvalds has no FSF to hide behind. Can't say that about RMS. So who is being more divisive. I don't like what either of these guys are doing in that respect. |
| dcparris Sep 27, 2006 10:46 AM EDT |
>> despite having been invited to participate > That's news to me. What, did they tell him to get in line at the mail list? Well, one of the articles said he was invited to participate, but declined. What, because he doesn't like committees? Give me a break. > Possibly, I'm sure he also has some agenda, but remember that Torvalds has no FSF to hide behind. Can't say that about RMS. So who is being more divisive. I don't like what either of these guys are doing in that respect. Well thanks for that much. |
| galeru Sep 27, 2006 7:55 PM EDT |
And Torvalds main reason for this is that it extends the GPL to include hardware manufacturers using the GPL'd code? I can understand that V3 is quite specifically formulated towards DRM, but couldn't it be made more general? You know, some clause saying that if GPL'd code is distributed with hardware (Except possibly CD-R's), that it must be possible to modify the code and then run it? That would mean that it only applied to derivative works of the distributed stuff, and isn't that enough? |
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!