let the discussion begin
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| nalf38 Sep 26, 2006 8:07 AM EDT |
Oy. Reading this interview with RMS was kind of like reading Ted Kaczynski's manifesto on why technology is bad. It's so amazingly one sided and pseudo-countercultural. It's funny---it's not like I disagree with him on his points: if you can't make a personal copy of it, don't buy it. If you can't play it with a free media player, don't buy it. Our movements are easily tracked by SpeedPass tolls and mobile phones, etc. etc. I can't argue any of the little points. But forcing a solution on us in the form of GPL3 is wrong. It's not the only way, and blowing off the concerns of the Linux kernel developers is like Republicans ignoring John McCain on the torture issue because he was tortured himself. Bring it on! |
| Libervis Sep 26, 2006 8:19 AM EDT |
I can use your same argument against you here. If you don't like the way GPL3 is dealing with stuff, don't use the license! I wish the whole principle was true for other stuff you mention though. When majority of culture is nonfree, what choice are you really left with? When majority of software is proprietary what choice do you have? The whole point of Free Software is to give you a choice that gives you freedom to control your own machine and what goes on in it. Allowing proprietary software into that realm does kind of beat this whole point. I don't know what's so hard about understanding that. Little by little, if we let proprietary software into Free Software we are assimilating it into exactly what it was created to fight against. |
| nalf38 Sep 26, 2006 8:29 AM EDT |
"I don't know what's so hard about understanding that." You're right. I don't like the license. I don't 'misunderstand' you, I just don't agree with you. The majority of culture is not non-free. When software is free but proprietary, you can choose not to use it, like RMS. Your idea that the GPL is intended to 'fight' some evil thing is exactly what is wrong with GPL3. GPL2 is even-handed and facilitates reciprocation from anyone who chooses to use it. GPL3 is an evangelical document. It asks you to give up more than you get from it. It stops engaging the corporate community and preaches to it. Again, I don't necessarily disagree with RMS' supporting points, I'm just not sure I support his conclusion. |
| Libervis Sep 26, 2006 8:35 AM EDT |
"Your idea that the GPL is intended to 'fight' some evil thing is exactly what is wrong with GPL3." Not necessarily proactively *fight* it, but rather *protect* the rights it grants from circumvention by patents and DRM. That's all it does. GPLv2 maybe be simpler and less demanding in that sense, but all additional demands that exist in GPLv3 are not to affect anyone else, but those who would want to use GPL without actually respecting its purpose and intent. |
| nalf38 Sep 26, 2006 8:45 AM EDT |
Ooops. I accidentally posted this in your other thread: You know, you've actually made me want to read the GPL3 draft a little more closely. Thanks for the honest answer. Sometimes it's hard to separate the messenger from the message, and RMS rubs me the wrong way. |
| jdixon Sep 26, 2006 2:14 PM EDT |
> Sometimes it's hard to separate the messenger from the message, and RMS rubs me the wrong way. He does that to a lot of people, so you're not alone. However, he is one of the good guys, so try not to hold his lack of tact against him too much. It's good to remember that we still need the occassional prophet preaching from the wilderness. |
| Scott_Ruecker Sep 26, 2006 3:02 PM EDT |
>He does that to a lot of people, so you're not alone. However, he is one of the good guys, so try not to hold his lack of tact against him too much. It's good to remember that we still need the occasional prophet preaching from the wilderness.< I am with you there except that when the 'prophet' takes himself too seriously is when I lose the message. |
| Libervis Sep 26, 2006 4:28 PM EDT |
All these religion/church/prophet parallels don't really do any good for the whole discussion. They're mere distractors and detractors. |
| dcparris Sep 26, 2006 4:29 PM EDT |
So, how exactly, does RMS take himself too seriously? I'm curious because he seems to separate fun and work, for the most part, and rarely talks much about himself. In all my communication with him, in all the essays I have read, in all his quotes, etc., he has been strictly about the GNU project as a whole, or about the FSF and freedom. Even in the article to which this thread refers, RMS failed to play up his role in the Kerala GNU/Linux migration. The real question I have is this: What if "tivoization" catches on? What if more vendors start selling Tivo-ized computers? What happens when we get effectively locked out of our FOSS-based computers because of a Tivo-styled mechanism? True, it will only be because the public bought into it. But the whole purpose of the GPL is to prevent exactly that kind of problem from even happening. |
| jdixon Sep 26, 2006 4:31 PM EDT |
> except that when the 'prophet' takes himself too seriously is when I lose the message. One of the perils of the job, unfortunately. Prophets have to take themselves seriously (since no one else does), otherwise they wouldn't bother to spread their message. > They're mere distractors and detractors. RMS can very much be considered a prophet calling from the wilderness. It fits his message very well. I don't believe that a prophet's message has to be religious in nature, simply because most of the historical ones have been. Hmm, checking Meriam Webster online, I find the following definitions: 2 : one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; especially : an inspired poet 3 : one who foretells future events : PREDICTOR 4 : an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group 4 definitely applies. 3 may. 2 probably does. |
| Libervis Sep 26, 2006 6:50 PM EDT |
So go shout around that RMS is a prophet then. It will sure help spread Free Software better when people start theit anti-religion stereotypes. Gee, first we have open source movement hide the whole talk of ethics and politics and now jdixon wants to reveal it as a movement led by someone called by the title of something usually viewed as a religious figure. Aren't we being pragmatic? Or just trying to preserve your detractor, which is still what I think it is. It is most often in posts which try to misrepresent RMS in which I find the religion/church/prophet parallels. Makes you wonder. |
| dcparris Sep 26, 2006 7:04 PM EDT |
Speaking of DRM and prophets, here is Cory Doctorow on Amazon's "Unbox": http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/15/amazon_unbox_to_cust.ht... |
| jimf Sep 26, 2006 7:48 PM EDT |
> Speaking of DRM and prophets Ouch, he words you to death even more than Libervis. I couldn't get past the first paragraph... Repetition makes an issue neither more nor less true. |
| wind0wsr3fund Sep 26, 2006 7:54 PM EDT |
RMS is one of the most inspiring and giving persons this century (and the last) has ever seen. I believe that those who attempt to belittle his work do so out of a need to justify their own lack of conviction and dedication to the cause of establishing and protecting freedom. It's quite sad actually. Not only do these slaves lack appreciation, but they seem to want to drag us back into their jails with them. This complete disregard for freedom goes far beyond a battle between ethics and pragmatism. When freedoms 0-3 are available, everything pragmatic is therefore possible. Not automatic perhaps, but possible. The formula fails when attempting to reverse the order. So to those who claim to be focused on the practical, I challenge you to REALLY focus on it and you will obviously help to lay the groundwork by supporting the Free Software Movement. |
| Libervis Sep 26, 2006 8:14 PM EDT |
I am sorry jimf if I hurt you with my deadly words. Want some plasters on those wounds? ;) EDIT: Heck, this even rhymes! :D |
| jimf Sep 26, 2006 8:24 PM EDT |
Hardly Hurt, more like a buzzing fly in the room. Sooner or later either he'll go away, or, some one will swat him :) |
| dcparris Sep 26, 2006 8:37 PM EDT |
W3F:
> This complete disregard for freedom goes far beyond a battle between ethics and pragmatism. When freedoms 0-3 are available, everything pragmatic is therefore possible. Not automatic perhaps, but possible. The formula fails when attempting to reverse the order. I have to say, you really have a point there. Without the freedom, the pragmatism is a moot point. |
| Libervis Sep 26, 2006 8:49 PM EDT |
Indeed. I've been taking the description of Open Source philosophy as "pragmatic" with a grain of salt for quite some time now. It doesn't really compute as pragmatic in the end. Besides, where did they even get the idea that Free Software makes better software.. Freedom anyone? :P They need it, but they wont talk about it. :) |
| Scott_Ruecker Sep 27, 2006 3:06 AM EDT |
>So, how exactly, does RMS take himself too seriously?< I will say that I agree with him on many particulars but he still sees many issues in black and white. I agree that DRM is untenable but to make a license that pushes those ideals on users is just as untenable as the problem. A license should provide for and protect the choices of the person using it, not make decisions for them. There has to be a "middle-of-the-road" tack that can be taken. I want the software that I write to be protected by the license that gives me the most protection while providing the most choices for the user as possible. I do not want a license to predicate those choices to me or the user. The GPLv3 seems to do just that. The DRM clauses in the GPLv3 are a 'knee-jerk" reaction to what will in the long run be, a temporary issue. I can see why Linus is skeptical of the changes in the GPLv3. He may not like the process by which the project communicates or how it is organized which is his problem and I see where the FSF could make the process much more open than they have but they have not. It makes it look like they are only interested in creating a consensus for pre-decided issues instead of creating an atmosphere where those issues can be debated and decided on collectively. But Linus has a unique position in that he alone decides what license is used by the Linux Kernel and by proxy many other pieces of we know of as "Linux" as well. Linus's likes and dis-likes must be dealt with whether we like it or not. Because if he wants too, he alone can make the GPLv3 basically irrelivent. |
| jimf Sep 27, 2006 3:53 AM EDT |
> But Linus has a unique position in that he alone decides what license is used by the Linux Kernel and by proxy many other pieces of we know of as "Linux" as well. Linus's likes and dis-likes must be dealt with whether we like it or not. Because if he wants too, he alone can make the GPLv3 basically irrelevant. That cuts two ways Scott, Linux and the GPL have a very symbiotic relationship. I think it essential that Linus & developers group and the RMS/FSF group open lines of communications, and, that both groups open themselves to the possibility of compromise to get this resolved. To do otherwise will benefit no one, and, harm everyone. |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 4:40 AM EDT |
> I have to say, you really have a point there. Without the freedom, the pragmatism is a moot point. By the same token, without pragmatism, freedom is a moot point. If, for example, we all have the freedom to fly, but aircraft are forbidden, the freedom is pointless. |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 5:29 AM EDT |
>What if "tivoization" catches on? What I'd like to know is this: What makes anybody think that "tivoization" is something new? Might I remind you that Tivos are sold as appliances, not as general purpose computers. That makes them pretty much like any DVD player, VCR, Automotive fuel injection, television remote control, or toaster. The fact that it runs any OS -- or any software at all - is irrelevant. The thing is a black box. |
| jdixon Sep 27, 2006 6:23 AM EDT |
Libveris: > Or just trying to preserve your detractor, which is still what I think it is. Well, I don't consider calling someone a prophet to be a detraction. I consider it a compliment, since true prophets are usually shown to have been correct. The fact that you and others do says more about your attitudes than about my usage of the word. If I had called him a zealot, you might have more of a case. You'll hopefully notice that I have not done so. In any case, my original comment was: >> However, he is one of the good guys, so try not to hold his lack of tact against him too much. It's good to remember that we still need the occassional prophet preaching from the wilderness. It may go without saying to most, but the prophet comment was an analogy, not meant to be taken literally. The fact that it can be taken literally if one wants merely shows how appropriate it is. The core point I was making is that RMS is one of the good guys, if somewhat lacking in tact. I fail to see how calling someone "one of the good guys" can be considered a detraction, and I think RMS himself would readily agree that he is not the most tactful person in the universe. |
| Libervis Sep 27, 2006 6:46 AM EDT |
Bob:Quoting:I agree that DRM is untenable but to make a license that pushes those ideals on users is just as untenable as the problem. What pushes an ideal onto users is DRM itself, an "ideal" that to prevent "stealing" (AKA "piracy") the entertainment industry should take full control over what goes on in your computer and your devices, and with which they now have a possible way of infiltrating even devices which run Free Software. GPLv3 does absolutely nothing more but prevent that. What part of that do you not understand? What part of that do you consider an imposition of ones ideaology over others, especially when you aren't even forced to use the license. Give me a break man! Quoting:The GPLv3 seems to do just that. The DRM clauses in the GPLv3 are a 'knee-jerk" reaction to what will in the long run be, a temporary issue. Aren't you optimistic bob?! You think DRM is a temporary issue so it will... somehow... just go away? What do you think how are we going to chase it away for it to be just a temporary issues? Waive our sticks at them? Maybe you suggest voting with the wallet? What if you cease having options to vote for as an increasing number of devices gets infected by DRM technology? GPLv3 has the potential of creating a rift in a DRM-world being created, a rift which even some corporations would have to consider because they want to take part of the benefits of Free Software that they may derive for their business. GPLv3 is one of the most powerful weapons against DRM, but you compromisers just continue bashing on it under misinforming labels like "it restricts end uses" or "it imposes one ideaology over anyone". How blind you must be not to see that it is exactly DRM and those who push it that do exactly what you are trying to accusse FSF of doing? Instead of bashing them I think you, Linus and the company should express some actually *constructive* criticism regarding the license or shut the hell up if you don't have anything *constructive* to contribute. So far nothing *constructive* has been seen or heard from you guys. You bash on one solution for DRM and offer absolutely no alternative, and as I read somewhere Linus apparently doesn't even care if there is another solution because I suppose it's not his problem. Way to go! Dinotrac: Quoting:By the same token, without pragmatism, freedom is a moot point. First of all, your point is a rather silly attempt, yet again and yet again and yet again, to justify your compromising philosophy. At least that's the way I keep seeing it because I can't find what else could motivate you so much to just keep on reversing or toning down everything a Free Software supporter has to say. But take that as you wish. I know you're just gonna spout some smart looking comment that will imply me as a raving lunatic and you as the pragmatic king of all wisdom. Whatever. But there is a way for your argument to be reversed too. What do you think could this freedom to fly be compared with? Of course, the GPL as enforced to a piece of software. Now what do you think could the forbidden aircraft be compared with? DRM!!! So what do you think is the solution: 1.) The law which gives freedom to fly must ensure that all prerequisites for excercising this freedom must exist, including freedom to use aircraft. 2.) The law which gives freedom to fly should remain only that and just that. If at the same time freedom to use aircraft is forbidden, tough for you. The 1 describes what GPLv3 is trying to do. The 2 is GPLv2 without any modification to address the possible loss of ability to excercise freedoms it gives. Quoting:Might I remind you that Tivos are sold as appliances, not as general purpose computers. If they'd have their way, general purpose computers are to be sold as appliances as well. Where do you draw the line? Heck you seem to be arguing for DRM man. How far will you go at defending/justifying your compromising philosophy? |
| Libervis Sep 27, 2006 6:48 AM EDT |
jdixon: I am aware that within the context of your posts it was not a detraction, but I think that in many other contexts it may unfortunately be used as a detraction because alot of people unfortunately carry a rather antagonistic view to anything that reminds of supernatural/religious, whatever. |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 7:12 AM EDT |
Livervis - You have never seen me argue for DRM, except in a very abstract sense -- If it preserved everybody's rights, I would have no problem with it. Even if that were feasible, nobody seems interested in doing it, so I have lots of problems with DRM. As to embedded devices, I could give a rat's *ss what they put in them. I didn't buy my car for the OS in it's engine management system. Anybody who buys a Tivo to run Linux is an idiot. There are computers for that. |
| tuxchick2 Sep 27, 2006 7:18 AM EDT |
Libervis, you keep wandering over the line into crabbing at people for not agreeing 100% with you. I'm getting tired of the "you're against real freedom and hurting everyone" rhetoric. So far the one thing missing from everything you have posted on the GPL3 issue is what makes you think it will work? Unless I missed something, which is possible, you haven't cited any specifics. I won't even stipulate that DRM is nasty and needs to be vigorously opposed. DRM is just a type of technology; it's its current implementations that makes it obnoxious. What about people who want to use it to address legitimate security needs? Do we take GPL software away from them in that case? The question in my mind, even after spending too much yesterday reading the latest GPL3 [url=drafthttp://www.tbray.org/gpl/gpl3-draft.html,]drafthttp://www.tbray.org/gpl/gpl3-draft.html,[/url] does it conflict with GPL2? Which to me it looks like it does by adding additional restrictions. Is a software license a good tool for opposing DRM and software patents? I'd like to see something more substantive than "RMS thinks it's cool, and that's good enough for me." |
| jdixon Sep 27, 2006 7:18 AM EDT |
> dixon: I am aware that within the context of your posts it was not a detraction, but I think that in many other contexts it may unfortunately be used as a detraction... That it may, but as I noted earlier, that's more a reflection on the user than on the words chosen. In any case, I have no control over how others use words, which is probably fortunate. I intended my comments as a hopefully accurate compliment. |
| dcparris Sep 27, 2006 7:34 AM EDT |
> Might I remind you that Tivos are sold as appliances, not as general purpose computers. Then you missed my reference to computers as appliances, didn't you? That was precisely my point. Is that the next step? |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 7:40 AM EDT |
>Then you missed my reference to computers as appliances, didn't you? No, I didn't. First, there are some scenarios where limited use computing appliances might make sense, but, by and large, they have failed in the market. Remember when word processors were not just a software package? How about the little spate of internet appliances 5-6 years ago? Mobile phones/PDA/Blackberry things seem to be filling the appliance niche, but maybe there's room for something computery to do that. Otherwise, sounds like Chicken Little to me. |
| nalf38 Sep 27, 2006 8:19 AM EDT |
I'm not sure I like the word 'compromise' being bandied about as if it were somehow a dirty word. If y'all don't mind, I'm asking for a little education. You guys seem to be the smartest forum I've come across. Much reference has been made to the GPL3 preventing the 'tivoisation' of Free Software. I know what it means in a general sense: Tivo is based on a modified Linux kernel, and has some sort of checksum mechanism onboard that prevents it from running a modified kernel. Is that it? Seems like a wise thing to do to keep the integrity of the product....at least in this case. I understand that the same scenario, taken to its logical extreme, can have a negative impact. I guess I'm not sure why what Tivo has done is a bad thing, if looked at in a sort of 'case by case' basis. Is what they have done truly 'evil'? I've been reading the GPL3 second draft and a few things gave me pause. Would someone enlighten me on the practical application of the following paragraph about 'Corresponding Source'? "The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the same range of circumstances. (For instance, if the work is a DVD player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for modified versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish.)" I assume this addresses the Tivo issue. Using Tivo (again) as an example....let's say Tivo actually let us mod our boxes in any way we saw fit. Under GPL3, would Tivo be mandated to allow online access for TV listings to boxes that have been modified in god-knows-how-many-ways? That seems like a technical nightmare, and an undue burden on the company, having to accommodate a product that they didn't create. Am I reading this wrong? Somebody talk to me. [EDIT] I guess what I'm having an issue with here is that there seems to be no effort made by the license to distinguish between general usage machines (computers) and appliances (set top DVD players and DVRs). |
| tuxchick2 Sep 27, 2006 8:35 AM EDT |
"Using Tivo (again) as an example....let's say Tivo actually let us mod our boxes in any way we saw fit. Under GPL3, would Tivo be mandated to allow online access for TV listings to boxes that have modified in god-knows-how-many-ways? That seems like a technical nightmare, and an undue burden on the company, having to accommodate a product that they didn't create." How is this any different than any other object a person own, if you have the skills and the tools? If your modifications work, cool. If they don't, oh well. No different than modifying anything else you own. Just like most consumer products, modifying it violates the warranty, so there is not a support issue. The sticking point is the vendor trying to control your property. If you lease your Tivo box, it's not yours. If you bought it, they need to butt out. You don't need their permission. I'm no electronics guru, but I know enough to repair toasters, adjust the color balance and image size on TVs with the sekkrit inside adjuster, and I have even successfully removed and replaced onboard CPUs. I have also broken many a device trying to do these things. It's no concern of the vendor's. Now with software-controlled hardware, a whole new element is introduced. If I want to reprogram a box that I own, it's absolutely my privilege to do. Maybe it will work better, maybe it will explode- so what? It's mine. If vendors succeed in locking hardware, then all the software freedoms in the world won't do us any good. This means not only Tivos and X Boxes and other entertainment devices, but PCs and other devices as well. Want a computer that only allows you to install Windows? They already exist. Just don't buy one? If we had a truly competitive computer market that would work. But we don't- these buzzards are buying laws right and left. I'm just not convinced that the GPL3 is the right tool for this job. The bit you quote about DVDs seems to make sense- if manufacturers don't like it, then they don't get to use GPL software. But I fear unintended consequences- it sounds like additional restrictions, not clarifying GPL2. |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 8:52 AM EDT |
tc - I bow humbly at your feet. Hope you've washed them and/or changed socks recently. You, in your inimitable way, hit right at the root of the problem. It's a variation of the old "When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" axiom. Stallman has a license. He hates DRM. It's much easier to muck about with his license than to do anything userful with regards to DRM. That doesn't make it a good thing to do. |
| Libervis Sep 27, 2006 9:19 AM EDT |
tuxchick: I am sorry if I sound like I want to stomp on everybody elses views. My rants aren't so much against you or anyone having their own opinions as it is an attempt to defend GPLv3 from misinformation and implications that simply hold no water. It's fine if you say you doubt GPLv3 is the right tool for the job of combating DRM and software patents. It is a whole other thing to accusse FSF of being the one who somehow wants to take control of the whole Free Software world and impose their views over everyone else by their open, yet not open process. This is, for me, going a bit too far and I am very provoked by such insinuations as you may have guessed. FSF is the one organization with history of fighting for everybody's freedoms and rights and the only organization who even dared to make the process of revising GPL as open as they can make it. And now you have people go around accusing them of impositions on freedom and such things which are completely opposite to what the history behind FSF would show. How can I not be provoked by such things? Especially, how can I not be provoked when by attempting to say otherwise I am being called a sheep or again the one trying to impose my view over everybody else. Neither is the case, but some people just can't believe otherwise as it appears. I've never said GPLv3 is a perfect license that doesn't have any problems that could be addressed. I have never said anything against criticizing it constructively. I have never said you must agree that GPLv3 is the only way to go. I did acknowledge the fact that noone is yet offering a better solution to DRM and software patents problem than GPLv3 while still daring to essentially insult it with adjectives which history (of FSF and Free Software) essentially disproves. Quoting:So far the one thing missing from everything you have posted on the GPL3 issue is what makes you think it will work? I would respond to that with another question. What do you think will work better? Because I would love to hear an answer to that question finally, something I failed to extract from anyone here who opposes and even bashes on GPLv3. Instead of alternative solutions I have only heard playing down the DRM problem and attacks on FSFs proven integrity. |
| Libervis Sep 27, 2006 9:20 AM EDT |
dinotrac: Quoting:Stallman has a license. He hates DRM. He indeed has a license. What do you have? |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 9:25 AM EDT |
>He indeed has a license. What do you have? Hmmm. Some basic sense, reasoning capability, capacity for independent thought. You? |
| Libervis Sep 27, 2006 9:30 AM EDT |
I would like to believe that everyone has that dinotrac, hopefully even me. Is that enough for us to beat DRM without Stallman's license? Or maybe we could use most of this basic sense, reasoninc capability and capacity for independant thought to logically evaluate GPLv3 as one option that we currently do have for attacking the DRM problem. So far it seems it is only Stallman who has the ultimate tool. Again, I haven't seen anyone with anything better in their portfolio. EDIT: I gotta explicitly say, show me the better tool and I WILL consider it! Please do! :) |
| nalf38 Sep 27, 2006 9:42 AM EDT |
Thank you. Here's some more questions from the devil's advocate: In no way am I against hacking on the hardware that you bought, and I agree with nearly everything you said. Maybe I can't see the forest for the trees, but one particular sentence still bothers me: "If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish." >> "I'm no electronics guru, but I know enough to repair toasters, adjust the color balance and image size on TVs with the sekkrit inside adjuster, and I have even successfully removed and replaced onboard CPUs. I have also broken many a device trying to do these things. It's no concern of the vendor's." I think most of us here fall into above mentioned category, and I'm not arguing that with you. I'm not sure if this scenario is purely about 'if it works great, if doesn't then so what.' What if the modifications cause problems with the online service for other users? Seems like if you pay the for online service, but you break the warranty of the box by opening it, denying access to the online service doesn't seem unfair to me. Overkill, maybe, but not necessarily unfair. Wouldn't that possibly be considered 'addressing legitimate security needs?' Are there any other applications of the 'Corresponding Source' paragraph other than the Tivo issue? Does this have any implications for proprietary portable music players and codecs? If not, where in the GPL3 is the section that deals with that? Is this really a case of "today it's DVD players, tomorrow it's computers"? Is it necessarily that open and shut? It seems like we can already rip open our DVD players without the aid of the GPL. To be clear, I don't like the idea of locking down hardware...in principle. But aren't there at least a few legitimate cases? Does the GPL3 assert that there is no legitimate reason to lock down hardware? |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 9:46 AM EDT |
> I gotta explicitly say, show me the better tool and I WILL consider it! Please do! :) The tools for this kind of thing are political and legal. DRM exists because media companies have showered dollars and spent influence. I'll admit DRM is a real problem because it could be made into a good political issue, but we have no credible opposition party. Sadly for us, the Democrats, who like to portray themselves as the party of the little guy, are deeply in thrall to the millionaires and billionaires behind DRM, including the big Kahuna, Bill Gates himself. The Republicans are not much better, but at least are more honest about being billionaire-friendly. Maybe some bright public interest lawyer will find a good basis to sue the stuff out of existence. Look at what happened to the Sony root kit. GPLV3 will do nothing whatsoever to DRM. It may, however, cause significant problems in the free software space. That's not a certainty. I don't even think it's probable. But...the danger must be weighed. If the GLPV3 hurts free software, it becomes a tool for proponents of DRM, and that is worse than no tool at all. |
| tuxchick2 Sep 27, 2006 9:48 AM EDT |
Libervis, I agree that the RMS/FSF dissing is uncalled-for. Just useless trash talk. I meant to rant about that too, but forgot. Linus, et al, have not done a good job of articulating what they don't like about GPL3. GPL2 has done a marvelous job of protecting the code, end users, and developers, and fostering all sorts of rampant creativity and development. Beyond that, meh, I dunno. I suspect that effective answers to the various abuses that the MAFIAA, Microsoft, and their ilk are trying to foist on us are in the legal realm. Get rid of the DMCA, smack down the MAFIAA for its gestapo tactics, bust up Microsoft into a hundred tiny companies. As none of those are likely to happen, we're back to the grassroots. |
| jimf Sep 27, 2006 9:56 AM EDT |
> I agree that DRM is untenable but to make a license that pushes those ideals on users is just as untenable as the problem. Agree dino, but that's something that Libervis and many RMS followers refuse to acknowledge. Their constant dental of that fact is the main reason we all argue. dino also has a point in saying that DRM deals mainly with a class of blackbox devices. --------------- > Give me a break man! A break only if you acknowledge that any real freedom includes the right to choose other that the GPL's warped and narrow interpretation of the truth. |
| tuxchick2 Sep 27, 2006 10:46 AM EDT |
jimf, so don't use GPL3? |
| jimf Sep 27, 2006 11:40 AM EDT |
> so don't use GPL3? By that reasoning I should run BSD ;-) Oh no! Libervis had it right! I really do prefer the convenience of GPL'd Linux over real freedom :D |
| tuxchick2 Sep 27, 2006 12:16 PM EDT |
dino, you gotta admit GPL2 is one heck of a powerful hammer. Without it, or something like it, we'd be living in a windoze world with no choices except perhaps a token Apple ghetto. It did something no one else has been able to do: loosen the evil empire's lock on the market. Which is still much too tight for comfort, but who else was going to look out for end users? Not Ellison, not McNealy, not IBM, not any of those megalomaniacs we love to mock. Their only regrets are not being as successful as microsoft at bullying, bribing, and bendingover. |
| Libervis Sep 27, 2006 12:20 PM EDT |
Jimf, again your old tactics... I acknowledge that there is an opposing view to GPLv3 and I have already acknowledged that it may have its share of problems. I wont however acknowledge what cannot in my view be acknowledged, that FSF is somehow *forcing* everybody in line. You have no real evidence to support this, and plenty of counterevidence. It is simple attempt at spreading misinformation. Quoting:Oh no! Libervis had it right! I really do prefer the convenience of GPL'd Linux over real freedom :D Your mockery of what I say helps noone, and hurts only you. Thank you |
| jimf Sep 27, 2006 12:32 PM EDT |
Libervis, I'm truly sad that you lack a sense of humor. |
| jimf Sep 27, 2006 12:38 PM EDT |
TC, Seriously, You are the one who was saying that it will be a mess if we end up using two licenses. I agree with that. The only real solution is that GPLv3 be revised to something 'everyone' can live with... Whatever that means. |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 12:45 PM EDT |
TC - I agree completely that GPLV2 is a good thing...although, in its absence, I don't know how much would be different and how different it would be. There are healthy and important free software projects (such as apache, postgresql,firefox, python, ruby, php, zope, and x.org) that use other licenses. The GPL is unique, I think in its ability to encourage corporate cooperation by enforcing the "we share, you share" ethic. |
| Libervis Sep 27, 2006 12:50 PM EDT |
jimf, I knew you're gonna question my sense of humor! :D The thing is there is a fine line between making humor and making fun of someone else because you don't agree with that someone. Let others judge which of the two was more evident. In the end I don't care either way. It's too petty to care. You can only hurt yourself anyway. ;) |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 12:54 PM EDT |
libervis and jimf -- Enough already!!!! I think you're caught in a loop here. Howzabout ganging up on me: Linus rocks! RMS is a poophead!! No, wait...Linus sucks rocks and Penguins make good eating. GPLV3? Heck, I think EVERYTHING should be DRM'd. Maybe the politicians will just give up if they can't use all their pirated software to watch all their pirated porn while spamming their constiuents. The only good freedom is a dead freedom. And that's all I have to say about that. |
| wind0wsr3fund Sep 27, 2006 12:58 PM EDT |
Jimf, Enough. By now, you've had enough exposure to the issues to know that we, as supporters of the Free Software Movement, are not fighting for freedom in some broad sense of the word. We are concerned with establishing and protecting freedoms 0-3. Your continued attempts to defend a person's or company's "freedom" to deny freedom show a real lack of understanding with regards to this simple truth. If you can't focus and stay on point, please just stop posting. |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 1:08 PM EDT |
w3f - Speak for yourself. The Free Software Movement is more than RMS, more than FSF, and more than any set of bumper sticker slogans. |
| jimf Sep 27, 2006 1:27 PM EDT |
wind, For all who matter, I think you've proven my point... Thanks. |
| wind0wsr3fund Sep 27, 2006 1:29 PM EDT |
I'm not going to argue over the scope of the FSM, especially when it's so clearly documented. jimf, and you've continued to show your ignorance; thereby proving mine. |
| jimf Sep 27, 2006 1:36 PM EDT |
> thereby proving mine. Perhaps it does prove your ignorance, but I think you need to consult a dictionary. I'm not without knowledge or understanding of what you are saying, I just do not agree with it. Is that clear? or are you just dense?... Never mind. |
| jdixon Sep 27, 2006 2:39 PM EDT |
Jimf: > I'm truly sad that you lack a sense of humor. > > thereby proving mine. I think it might be polite to consider that (as far as I know) neither Libervis nor w3f have English as their native language. Considering that, some of their lack of appreciation of our more subtle humor may be excusable. :) |
| nalf38 Sep 27, 2006 3:26 PM EDT |
Okay, no, really. I know I was a bit OT in my last post, but if I'm going to find two well-reasoned opposing views on the GPL3, it's obviously going to be here. Can you guys quit bitching at each other for a few minutes (humor, people, humor), and help me out here? If you want it boiled down to a nutshell, the question(s) were basically (and after reading the GPL3 draft I'm still not sure) 1. Does the GPL3 really state that there is absolutely no good reason, ever, anytime, anywhere to lock down hardware, and 2). is what Tivo has done really so unequivocally wrong? |
| Libervis Sep 27, 2006 3:55 PM EDT |
nalf38, I am not sure about 1 so I wont pretend to be an expert on that, but I only know that RMS completely opposes all DRM because it is essentially designed for nothing else but to impose restrictions to how you can use your own property, which ought to be wrong. As for 2, yes it is wrong because of the same reason mentioned above about all DRM. If you bought it then it should be yours to do with as you please and that includes running modified software in it. If that breaks the warranty that is fine, you do it on your own risk, but you should still have the freedom to do it. The fact that they use Free Software on TiVo, licensed under GPLv2, and yet make it impossible to fully excercise some of the four freedoms by technical means only adds up to the wrongness of the thing. Btw, as for Jimf and the rest. I am dropping the whole issue. We disagree and that's just it. Enough has been said and I don't feel saying much more will help anyone. There are better things to use this time for. Thanks |
| dcparris Sep 27, 2006 4:51 PM EDT |
> it sounds like additional restrictions The only 'restriction' is that you can't restrict me from playing with your toy that uses GPL'ed software. Just make sure your toy has a clearly marked clause to the effect of... "This widget is supported as long as it remains unmodified. If you modify your widget, and want commercial technical support, we'll be glad to help you for the low, low fee of $150.00/hr. Otherwise, you had better hope that someone in Usenet land can help you." or "This widget is supported as long as it remains unmodified. we will not support modified widgets in any way." This way, I am free to play with the toy I bought from you, while you are free to support or not support my advanced tinkering. |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 5:05 PM EDT |
Rev - So how many additional restrictions does it need to incompatible with V2? I seem to remember the FSF splitting some mighty fine hairs in the past. |
| jdixon Sep 27, 2006 6:41 PM EDT |
Nalf38: > 1. Does the GPL3 really state that there is absolutely no good reason, ever, anytime, anywhere to lock down hardware, and 2). is what Tivo has done really so unequivocally wrong? OK, standard disclaimer, IANAL. This is strictly a layman's interpretation. 1) No, it does not. What it does is more subtle. It states that you can lock down the hardware all you want, but that there is absolutely no good reason, ever, anytime, anywhere, to deprive the owner of the keys to those locks. In effect, that the owner MUST be able to unlock the hardware if he wants or needs to. 2) It is definitely a violation of the spirit of the GPL, though not of the letter. Whether that is wrong or not is up to the individual to decide. I think it is. |
| jimf Sep 27, 2006 7:10 PM EDT |
> 1. Does the GPL3 really state that there is absolutely no good reason, ever, anytime, anywhere to lock down hardware At this point, pretty much nalf38. > is what Tivo has done really so unequivocally wrong? Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but, apparently the firmware was written in such a way that if the Linux program to access it is changed in any way, the program just won't work. That does do an end run around the openness of people's ability to modify code. To me that's a violation of the spirit of the license, even under the GPLv2 license, but the courts don't see it as a legal one, thus the FSF feels the need to fill the crack in the wall. One view, as dino pointed out, is that most is not all of the DRM schemes are applied to devices that are, for all intents and purpose, black boxes. It's also highly unlikely that the new license will have any effect on the production of these devices, but only prohibit GPL'd software from being written for it. Others say that unless we institute this anti-DRM action DRM will continue to proliferate and become unstoppable. The reality may very well lie somewhere in this thread, but damned if it's clear to me whose reality is true. A lot of opinions and a real crap shoot... |
| nalf38 Sep 28, 2006 7:51 AM EDT |
Thanks, everyone. One more questions a la Tivo: Is it within the vendor's right, after providing a key or a program to flash the firmware to unlock the hardware, to disallow them access to the online service from which they get TV listings? |
| jdixon Sep 28, 2006 9:28 AM EDT |
> Is it within the vendor's right, after providing a key or a program to flash the firmware to unlock the hardware, to disallow them access to the online service from which they get TV listings? Well, that has nothing to do with the software, so the GPL doesn't speak to the matter. Under the law, they can set pretty much any conditions they want for the use of their service so long as you agree to them, so yes, I'd say they're perfectly within their rights to disallow access to the service to modified machines; as long as that's what the contract says. Now, they should cancel your service and refund any advance payments when they do so, but that's another matter entirely. |
| nalf38 Sep 28, 2006 9:53 AM EDT |
I guess what made me ask is the clause in "corresponding source" that says: "If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish." Does that mean what I think it means? |
| jdixon Sep 28, 2006 1:12 PM EDT |
Oh, you mean for version 3 (duh). For version 3, yes it probably means what you think. That language isn't in version 2. Hmm, well IANAL, but I'm afraid a court might rule that the television listings are a service contract independent of the software in question (in spite of the fact that access is implemented in the software), and can thus be governed by a different license. Wether that would render the GPL version 3 unenforcable would be up to the court. I think this is one point RMS and company should consider carefully. You can't force someone to allow you access to their property (the listings) when they don't want to, just because they're using your software. That goes above and beyond the standard tit for tat approach of the current GPL. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 29, 2006 10:19 AM EDT |
I don't think a "We support it as long as you don't mess with it" clause has anything to do with the license at all. That's a tech support issue. By releasing GPL code, they cannot punish you for messing with it. That's not the same thing. For instance, the Sony Vaio I'm using right now has a clause that says I void the warrantee if I run anything but the Windows that came with it. That has nothing what so ever to do with Microsoft's EULA. I don't want to be locked out of my machine (or TiVO, same idea) by running something other than the software that came with it. That's why I won't buy a machine that has that kind of restriction. TiVO can make the money they want to make by selling appliances, that's fine. I can run MythTV on a white box, so can you, so can anyone else who wants to play with the software. To rant Anarchist for just a moment: It is their choice what they sell. It is my choice what to buy. As long as those are free choices, there is no harm and no foul and they won't get my money so long as they are DRM'd. Only when coercion is brought into the mix, such as the Broadcast Flag and other _legal_ "DRM", do I object. And sadly, because it is a _legal_ DRM, no private license has any effect on it. Statute abrogates private contract retroactively. |
| nalf38 Sep 29, 2006 12:27 PM EDT |
Why, Bob!! Finally, you and I agree on something, for the most part. |
| dinotrac Sep 29, 2006 1:16 PM EDT |
And Bob... That's not remotely ranting. It's merely telling it like it is. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 29, 2006 3:18 PM EDT |
I think we all agree that DRM sucks. The differences lie in how we might go about trying to deal with it or avoid it. One of the reasons that DRM by itself doesn't bother me that much in of itself is because of the F/OSS community. Libdvdcss is just one example, so is Linux on the X-Box. Anything that can be hard-coded can be worked around. The legalities of the matter are what gore my ox. Do I, or do I not, own my computer? Or maybe the correct question is, "may I"? |
| dcparris Sep 29, 2006 3:26 PM EDT |
Well here's another question. Most people seem to agree that Tivo violated the spirit (not the letter) of the GPL. So why wouldn't we expect the GPL to solve the problem? Why are we criticising the FSF - or maybe just Richard - for trying to do what obviously needs to be done? Iow, since it was the GPL that was circumvented, shouldn't the GPL plug the hole? After all, that's the approach we take with security - we patch the vulnerabilities. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 29, 2006 3:54 PM EDT |
Ah, but what _is_ the spirit of the GPL? How did Tivo's configuration violate freedoms 0-3? Was there any actual restriction placed on the modification or redistribution of the software? |
| nalf38 Sep 29, 2006 4:55 PM EDT |
I don't know much about the GPL'd Tivo code, so maybe this question doesn't apply: okay, so maybe you can't run modified code on your Tivo box. Why aren't people taking the Tivo code and adapting it for other systems? Or is the GPL'd portion just a base environment without any DVR functionality? Bob--- I see where you're coming from. I don't have major issues with DRM yet because it hasn't restricted what I consider as my right to Fair Use of my property. Sure, I often have to circumvent encryption algorithms to make a backup of media that I own (libdvdcss, et al), but as far as I'm concerned it's Fair Use By Other Means. If I really wanted to, I could purchase music from iTunes or Napster/Yahoo and be able to use them on my non-iPod/non-WMA compatible portable music player. On the other hand, while initially against the GPL3 altogether, I've come to sympathize a little bit with its intentions the more I read it and think on it. However, I'm still not sure that the license is a good solution. I'm still having a hard time making the logical leap from locking down blackbox devices to doing the same to computers. I'd honestly be very interested to hear more about that from anyone on this forum who feels that way, because the economics of computers vs. appliances seem very different to me. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 29, 2006 5:09 PM EDT |
I agree, the economics (motivations, really) between appliances and general purpose hardware are very different. What Tivo did was sign their software, and put that signature into the ROM of their hardware. If the signatures didn't match, the _hardware_ would not run. There was no restriction what so ever on the software. GPL is GPL, as it were. Figuring out how to modify the code yet more and have it run, or to make new ROMs a-la X-Box, I'm sure someone would come up with it given time and motivation. What the GPL.3 does, and my objection to it, is that it adds complexity. "Software Freedom", sure, "except if it does this, or maybe that, maybe." As JimF and I have both said before, if the GPL.3 were everything except the DRM clause, we'd be all for it. I read the rest of it as a needed (or at least desireable) clarification and simplification of the language, an update after 15 years of experience with how the license is interpreted in court. I like how the language has been cleaned up very much. It is much easier for someone like me to understand and navigate through. |
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!