Hooray for Linus
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| azerthoth Jul 14, 2007 3:11 PM EDT |
Someone had to point out the hypocrisy written into GPL3 and he did. Personally I'm not a GPL fanatic like some. Nor do I see what Tivo did as wrong. They met the requirements of the GPL and you were free to hack apart their code and do what ever you wanted to. What they did was lock down something that does not fall under the aegis of the GPL, the hardware on which the code was running. DRM in itself is not evil, it has positive uses, the fact that the entertainment industry took the ball and ran with it is what many of view as a bad thing. Seriously I feel alot better knowing that if the defense department wanted to use linux in the guidance systems of cruise missiles that the code there is locked down tight as a drum. Enough of my ranting. |
| lcafiero Jul 14, 2007 4:53 PM EDT |
Um, you might want to hold the phone there, azerthoth, because in the item itself there is someone who responded with this: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223 This doesn't sound anything like the article suggests. So maybe this so-called "journalist" didn't get the story quite right . . . |
| Libervis Jul 14, 2007 5:02 PM EDT |
Hooray for Linus? Don't you think he's pushing it a "little" too far with his accusations? He argues that RMS is equating his personal morality with legality as if RMS is actually making a law that everyone must follow. That's a little tidbit that Torvalds conveniently leaves out like he leaves out many other details when he feels like venting. You do not have to follow the GPLv3 if you don't want to, nor are you forced to switch your software to using it. If someone does this they do it because they too share Stallmans moral ideas. Where does religious fanaticism come into the picture here is beyond me. Bringing up any connotations to religion here is, as always, more FUD from Linus, yes FUD from Linus. The author of the article mentiones a schism. I'd like to ask, what schism? Sure there is a continuous disagreement between Open Source and Free Software people, but it seems to me that the only time a flamewar between the two "camps" rages out is when Linus starts his inflammatory talk. If there is a schism here then it is personally between Linus and his perception of RMS (because RMS doesn't want to nor has any part in it anyway). Bottom line, Linus should just freaking cool off! |
| azerthoth Jul 14, 2007 5:02 PM EDT |
I had read that previously. However my view of this is and is evident even from that thread, you cant tout something as defending freedoms and freedom of choice with something that says you cant do that. The part where IF you distribute something under the GPL3 then all your associated IP that might apply is also immediately attached and freed. Thats not freedom, but rather totalitarianism. |
| Libervis Jul 14, 2007 5:06 PM EDT |
azerthoth, that was the whole point of GPL all the time. It was never just about freeing the software (that's what BSD does anyway), but also protecting that freedom from being restricted again. So what GPLv3 does is the same thing GPLv2 did, only more efficiently. It removes all possibilities of software being restricted again. How is this totalitarianism if the licensor made a choice to license his software under such terms? |
| jdixon Jul 14, 2007 5:13 PM EDT |
> The part where IF you distribute something under the GPL3 then all your associated IP that might apply is also immediately attached and freed. > Thats not freedom, but rather totalitarianism. No, it's not, for one simple reason. No one is being forced to use the GPLv3. Any one who doesn't like the terms of the GPLv3 is free not to use it. Those who do like the GPLv3 don't want their code used in Tivo like projects. That's their prerogative. For those who disagree (such as Linus), the GPLv2 is still a viable option. |
| Libervis Jul 14, 2007 5:23 PM EDT |
I read the Linus's post in full now and I would blame the journalist for overblowing it a bit too much, to a point that he is in fact the one stirring the pot maybe even more than Linus himself. However I still can't agree with Linus' accusations. To focus on his hypocrisy argument: Quoting:I don't think it's hypocritical to prefer the GPLv3. That's a fine choice, it's just not *mine*. Well, it just seems that Linus is imagining something that doesn't really exist here. Who, exactly, is arguing that we don't have the freedom to make our own choices? Hasn't RMS said it quite a few times that it is fine if you choose GPLv2 or any other Free Software license? EDIT: The way Linus puts it, anyone who chooses anything in the name of freedom is hypocritical simply because (s)he believes it is the right choice, hence believing other choices would be wrong. Gosh, can't someone believe other people's choices to be wrong and yet still believe in their freedom to make those choices? I don't see RMS/FSF/GPLv3 infringing on that. |
| tuxchick Jul 14, 2007 6:31 PM EDT |
The article is pure flamebait. It does not link to its quote sources and takes them way out of context. The LKML thread is interesting, if you feel like reading a lot. :) And over a month old. I don't agree with a lot of what Linus says in it, but it sure isn't the way this crap article presents it. **edit** I find this comment interesting: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/626 "And you seem to argue that it's perfectly fine to ignore the people who design hardware and the services around them, and once you have that piece of hardware in your grubby hands you can do anythign you want to it..." As a matter of fact, when I buy something I do feel like I can do whatever I want with it. That's why it's called "ownership." The more he talks the less I agree. |
| azerthoth Jul 14, 2007 7:15 PM EDT |
So I take it that so far the majority of posters seem to agree that it is perfectly fine to restrict or remove the rights of one group to guarantee the rights of other groups. |
| jrm Jul 14, 2007 8:01 PM EDT |
Why else would you ever want to restrict someone's rights? |
| jdixon Jul 14, 2007 9:11 PM EDT |
> ...that it is perfectly fine to restrict or remove the rights of one group to guarantee the rights of other groups. If that's what the writer of the code wants, yes. It's his/her code, not mine. I have no right to dictate how he/she licenses it. The only right I have is to determine whether or not I will use the program in question. If you don't want to restrict anyone's rights, release your code to the public domain. I'm sure Microsoft and those like them will be very happy with you. If, on the other hand, you wish to keep them from claiming your code as their own, a more restrictive license is in order. |
| Libervis Jul 15, 2007 4:15 AM EDT |
azerthoth:Quoting:So I take it that so far the majority of posters seem to agree that it is perfectly fine to restrict or remove the rights of one group to guarantee the rights of other groups. It sounds kind of bad when you put it that way. I would put it this way. It is fine to restrict the *power* of one group to guarantee the basic rights of all groups. There is only so far that ones rights in a society can go. When the amount of what you are allowed to do crosses a certain line it becomes power over others rather than just power over yourself. It's all about the balance of my rights and freedoms with yours. I believe GPLv3 merely enforces that sort of balance. |
| dinotrac Jul 15, 2007 4:54 AM EDT |
>It is fine to restrict the *power* of one group to guarantee the basic rights of all groups. I would disagree strenuously. That statement is, in essence, a version of mankind's most evil tendencies -- the rationalization of nearly anything against "them". Any license and any law defines limits of behavior. Good law is not directed at some group, but defines rights and duties for everyone. |
| jrm Jul 15, 2007 5:00 AM EDT |
> It's all about the balance of my rights and freedoms with yours. Exactly. If you can exercise your freedom without interfering with my freedom, then what you do should be none of my business anyway. |
| Libervis Jul 15, 2007 5:12 AM EDT |
dinotrac: Let me fix it then. :) It is fine to restrict *power* of all people to guarantee basic rights of all people. But I think you get the point anyway, it is simply about preventing any group (whichever it may be, it doesn't matter) from having power over others. You could say governments have this power, but only because it has been voluntarily given to them by the people, so basically some sort of a balance still exists (or at least should exist, for we know governments tend to be corrupt, but then again that's why we have movements which move to fix such corruptions (or imbalances)). |
| Abe Jul 15, 2007 6:32 AM EDT |
Quoting:I would disagree strenuously. That statement is, in essence, a version of mankind's most evil tendencies -- the rationalization of nearly anything against "them". Please let's not generalize and stick to the context. The scope is software freedom of GPLed software. GPLv3 is excellent and very necessary and for the following reasons 0) No one is being forced to adopt the GPLv3 for their code 1) No restrictions are being forced on anyone who doesn't accept GPLv3. 2) If anyone accept GPLv3, they are doing that willingly and agreeing to its terms. 3) Terms in the GPLv2 were modified and new ones added for very good reasons. Everyone has the choice to stay with GPLv2 or adopt GPLv3 for their code. 4) The GPLv3 proponents are being called hypocrites for adding the necessary restrictions. The same way, the GPLv3 opponents can be called hypocrite for not allowing them to make the changes. 5) GPLv3 stopped MS from taxing FOSS software where GPLv2 couldn't. 6) GPLv3 prevents Tivoization and some people think it is not a necessary restriction. I believe it is and Linus is not being understanding enough to listen and re-consider. Tivoization is necessary because it protects the very fundamental Freedoms that the GPL grants users to FOSS from being restricted. It basically opens the gates to many hardware vendors to follow the same approach. How does it restrict the freedoms you ask? consider this scenario: MS owns and manufactures the XBox. If Tivization was allowed, MS could create their own Linux distribution (nothing prevents from doing that) and use the same approach Tivo is using to restrict users to use this MS distribution only, and prevents them from using other Linux distributions of their choice on their purchased and owned XBox hardware. The more dangerous questions is, don't you think this will open the flood gates to every other device in the market? |
| dinotrac Jul 15, 2007 6:33 AM EDT |
>Let me fix it then. :) Yeah, I knew what you meant, but your phrasing hit a hot-button of mine -- though I agree there is no harm in your meaning. In the US, at least, we have become a nation of "us and them" over principle. It seems like every political discussion features some flavor of "You and I -- the sensible ones vs. the gun nuts, the tree huggers, the religious crackpots, the baby-killers, the homophobes, the rich, etc, etc, etc. We eagerly give away inch by inch in an effort to stick it to "them", only to discover we've managed to stick it to "us" in the process. Sigh. |
| dinotrac Jul 15, 2007 6:36 AM EDT |
>Please let's not generalize and stick to the context. Please let's stick it where the sun don't shine. It is precisely calls not to step back and view specifics in a more general context that leads us to do very stupid things in the name of something that sounds good. |
| azerthoth Jul 15, 2007 8:40 AM EDT |
I find it curious that so many can blast Microsoft for having a license that prevents others from using their code without permission and so vigorously defend a license that in essence does the same thing. Is it so difficult to see that you are swapping one proprietary license for another? The GPL3 is nothing more than a way to close down even more ways in which software released under it can be used. It was said that no one is forcing anyone to use GPL3, however wasn't that exactly the reason some of the clauses were put in? So that Microsoft would find itself inside the confines of being described a purveyor of licensed code and thereby a party to it, even though it was clear from the outset that they had no intention of ever willingly doing so? What we have now is basically a statement that says that if you will not accept our moral viewpoint we will force you to use an inferior product. Barring that, if you refuse the inferior product we will attach and adopt as our own all you relevant IP. |
| dinotrac Jul 15, 2007 8:52 AM EDT |
>Is it so difficult to see that you are swapping one proprietary license for another? I don't think it's that hard to see. Any software license is, by some definition, proprietary in that it represents an exercise of ownership. The GPL has always employed ordinary IP law to attempt some extraordinary things -- and, in the process, including some important "you can'ts", specifically you can't do things that prevent the user from doing with the software as he or she pleases. Free software, unless it is in the public domain, is not totally free. Rather, it protects a specific set of freedoms considered valuable to the software user (not the developer!!!!!). That seems, to me, a reasonable basis for calling it free. GPLV3 is not fundamentally different from GPLV2. It contains differences in where and how lines are drawn. It tries to prevent some things that GPLV2 doesn't. Some parts are clearly better -- especially those that make it more consistent across international contexts. Some are not clearly better, like the "tivoization" stuff and the IP protections stuff aimed at Novell. Some people like those provisions and some people don't. Over the next few years we will learn for certain whether they are good or bad. |
| jdixon Jul 15, 2007 10:15 AM EDT |
> So that Microsoft would find itself inside the confines of being described a purveyor of licensed code and thereby a party to it, even though it was clear from the outset that they had no intention of ever willingly doing so? Eh? Microsoft was a quite willing "purveyor of licensed code" as long as it was the GPLv2. It's the GPLv3 they want no part of. |
| Abe Jul 15, 2007 10:40 AM EDT |
Quoting:I find it curious that so many can blast Microsoft for having a license that prevents others from using their code without permission and so vigorously defend a license that in essence does the same thing. You are comparing a license, which its whole purpose is to grant and protect freedoms, to its users, mind you not the developers, with a license that restricts all freedoms of users? Be real pleeeease! No one is blasting MS for having their license to protect their property, we blast and chastise MS for their illegal abuse of its monopoly. We don't care if MS wants to charge for its applications, we just don't like their way of conducting their business and try to control the market using their illegal monopoly to getting everyone else out of business. Have a clue please or I have a 2x4 to hand to you. |
| Abe Jul 15, 2007 10:46 AM EDT |
Quoting:Please let's stick it where the sun don't shine.Some entities deserve that and some others like that. Either way, that doesn't sound like a bad idea. |
| azerthoth Jul 15, 2007 11:38 AM EDT |
I have a great clue, in no way did that comment refer to users, but specifically developers. However since you brought it up has it occurred to you that if under GPL3 that MS is subject to its restrictions then as an advocate, if you hand someone a cd that has a single package that is licensed under "GPL2 or later" then you as well are subject to the same limitations and sanctions? Even though you may not have ever written a single line of code? |
| Scott_Ruecker Jul 15, 2007 11:55 AM EDT |
I take it the discussion is getting a little heated around here? I understand that this subject brings out the strong opinions in people, I have them too, but sticking things where the Sun don't shine and 2x4's? Let's be civilized to each other, ok? The Forums and the content in them reflect directly upon LXer Linux News. |
| Abe Jul 15, 2007 2:06 PM EDT |
Quoting:I have a great clue, in no way did that comment refer to users, but specifically developers.But Azerthoth, the whole idea of the GPL is to protect the freedoms it grants to users NOT the developers. Most FOSS developers believe in these freedoms and are kind enough to offer their code to the users and commercial developers but not for commercial developers to steal and lock users to their liking. FOSS developers can chose what GPL version they like. Commercial developers can use FOSS software but have to, as users, abide by whatever is offered by FOSS developers. Beggars can't be choosy. |
| Abe Jul 15, 2007 2:08 PM EDT |
Quoting:The Forums and the content in them reflect directly upon LXer Linux News.You right Scott, thanks for the reminder. I shouldn't have replied to the first and went that far with the clue thing. |
| azerthoth Jul 15, 2007 2:32 PM EDT |
Abe I see where the confusion is hitting here. The GPL is not an user license per se. The GPL doesnt kick in until such time as code is distributed, it could care less what the end user does with said code except for the condition that the code is free to hack upon. So it is specifically a developers license, giving permissions from developer to developer in terms solely based upon future or current distribution of that same code. For end user the GPL is specifically non enforceable. You can hack in or put whatever closed source, proprietary chucks of code you want to that you have the rights (from the non GPL IP holder) to. However if you then pass that to your friend/coworker/collaborator ad nauseum, then the GPL kicks in and says no you may not. This assumes of course that the end user has armed themselves with the knowledge and skill needed to hack and modify code in the first place. The only protection that is passed to the user is the right to hack it to pieces, and if you read copyright law, you have that same right even on Microsoft's OS's, infringement doesn't kick in until such time as you try to distribute any changes you have made of that. So we see that the GPL is not in fact a user license, just that it has been represented as such by so many for so long that too many assume that it is. |
| Abe Jul 15, 2007 3:19 PM EDT |
Quoting:The GPL is not an user license per se....So it is specifically a developers license...I don't totally agree with the above. May be you are thinking of a license to be a restriction only document. A license doesn't have to be only that, it also can be a granting license like the GPL. Like you said, the GPL grants rights. As an End User, it doesn't care what you do with the software until you start distributing it. At that point, you become a developer and the restrictions kick in. That doesn't make it a developer license only. It is a software license for all. The restrictions in GPLv3 on developers were made strictly to prevent them from adding more restrictions above and beyond what the GPL has and not to create contradictions with what the GPL grants. See my scenario I posted above concerning "Tivoization": Quoting:MS owns and manufactures the XBox. If Tivization was allowed, MS could create their own Linux distribution (nothing prevents from doing that) and use the same approach Tivo is using to restrict users to use this MS distribution only, and prevents them from using other Linux distributions of their choice on their purchased and owned XBox hardware. I hope I made it a bit more clear to see where I am coming from? |
| jdixon Jul 15, 2007 3:26 PM EDT |
> ...if you hand someone a cd that has a single package that is licensed under "GPL2 or later" then you as well are subject to the same limitations and sanctions? Yep. So, I give someone a Slackware 12 DVD. If they choose to exercise their rights under the GPLv3, I now have to give them any special build scripts I used in creating it, any encryption keys I used to lock up the software involved, and give them licenses to any patents I hold which are required to use the software. Guess which ones apply. |
| Aladdin_Sane Jul 15, 2007 5:48 PM EDT |
>>The GPL is not an user license per se. Check that with http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html There are 8 references to "user" there. "Developer," "hacker," coder," "programmer,": 5. "The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her." (emphasis added) |
| azerthoth Jul 15, 2007 6:08 PM EDT |
No problems, the issue here is, that is a chicken little definition. The whole rest of the document deals with what you can not do as a developer or distributor. You can find chicken little definitions all over the place and in some famous documents too. Try on life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and then see how well that got carried over into the actual legislation. You have a right to life, however you may not end it voluntarily. You have the right of liberty, unless the state decides otherwise and needs to protect you from yourself. You have the right to pursue happiness, unless your so miserable that you wish to be happy by not excersing you right to keep breathing. You can make some pretty broad statements in documents that you would think carry legal weight, however when in a preamble, they are nothing more than advertising fluff and actually IIRC carry no legal weight what so ever. |
| dinotrac Jul 15, 2007 6:20 PM EDT |
>If they choose to exercise their rights under the GPLv3, I now have to give them any special build scripts I used in creating it, any encryption keys I used to lock up the software involved, and give them licenses to any patents I hold which are required to use the software. Hmmm. That sounds like an exaggeration, but it may be that my understanding is limited. Certainly, they are entitled to exercise their full GPLv3 rights with regard to any software licensed under GPLv3. A distribution as a whole, however, is a mere aggregation of parts. Unless the provisions WRT aggregations changed in some significant way, you should have not problem. They are not entitled to any of that other stuff unless you have packaged the distribution in some that that a party's GPLv3 rights cannot be exercised without it. If You, however, choose to use a GPLv3 license for your software, it is only appropriate that you be subject to its provisions. |
| Libervis Jul 16, 2007 4:18 AM EDT |
I think we need to remember that the assumption FSF has, at least implicitly, always made is that users are developers and vice versa. It doesn't matter what role you play, you have the freedoms to play any role. So if you are just using the code you can use it freely. If you want to share it with friends you are engaging in a distribution and you are free to do so as long as the same rights you had the one who gets it from you has. If you wanna go further and hack on the code you are basically entering into the "developer" role and are, again, free to do that under the condition that you make your modifications available too. Everything is tit for tat in GPLv3 no less than in GPLv2. It is simply more detailed and efficient at enforcing that principle. But, I think it needs to be emphasized, GPL never discriminates on basis of a role you play. Every developer is at the same time a user and every user is a potential developer. |
| dinotrac Jul 16, 2007 5:15 AM EDT |
>the assumption FSF has, at least implicitly, always made is that users are developers and vice versa. I had the chance to chat with Peter Brown, the FSF's Executive Director, and that is not the impression I got at all. I got the distinct impression that the FSF's primary concern is the freedom of software users, who may or may not also be software developers. There is a certain logic to that, I think. A software developer has complete freedom with the software he or she develops. In that sense, the developer needs nothing whatsoever from the FSF. If, however, the developer is adding on to somebody else's software, or using somebody else's tools, the freedoms the developer needs are the freedoms guaranteed to users of software. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 16, 2007 8:43 AM EDT |
I've never been into this "Tivoization" thing. Do we punish Apple for making Apple ROMs proprietary? Tivo made their hardware to run only with a particular build of software. Fine, change the ROMs if you want to run with another set of software. Hardware is not software, software is not hardware. I don't complain because my car doesn't run on diesel, even if I go through all the effort of putting diesel into the car's fuel tank. If I want it to run diesel, I have to change the engine. If a software developer has complete freedom to publish their own work under whatever license or whatever form they wish, why not Tivo and their hardware? On the _patent_ nonsense, I must agree. Anything that undermines software patents is fine by me, it's stupid and must stop. But then, the more I learn, the more I'm against copyright and patent at all. |
| tuxchick Jul 16, 2007 9:01 AM EDT |
It's not Tivo's code. It's not Tivo's hardware. |
| Abe Jul 16, 2007 9:19 AM EDT |
Quoting:Hardware is not software, software is not hardware. I don't complain because my car doesn't run on diesel, even if I go through all the effort of putting diesel into the car's fuel tank. If I want it to run diesel, I have to change the engine. Weak analogy. My car runs on gasoline from any company that produces gasoline. Why shouldn't users run Linux produced by other distributors? Quoting:If a software developer has complete freedom to publish their own work under whatever license or whatever form they wish, why not Tivo and their hardware? Like TC said, It is not Tivo's code. They are restricting the code of others too in the process. Besides, they sold the hardware for a price paid in full by a consumer. It is not their hardware any more. |
| dinotrac Jul 16, 2007 9:32 AM EDT |
>It's not Tivo's code. It's not Tivo's hardware. Some if it is Tivo's code, but that doesn't change the point. It is a bit bothersome that Tivo would rely on the provisions in GPLv2, build a business that lies fully within its provisions, then find its business threatened because the rules of the game changed. With Linux staying at v2, Tivo may end up ok, but...hmmm. If I were starting up a software-based business, I think I would be exploring alternatives to GPL'd software. There's certainly a lot of BSD'd stuff. There may not be any real need to risk the GPL. |
| jdixon Jul 16, 2007 9:49 AM EDT |
> Hmmm. That sounds like an exaggeration, but it may be that my understanding is limited. I think it's an accurate summary, but then IANAL. Of course, since I did none of those things (build scripts, encryption keys, and patents), none of it applies. The source code is already on the disk, as is the text of the GPL, so I don't assume any obligations by giving someone a copy of the disk. > They are not entitled to any of that other stuff unless you have packaged the distribution in some that that a party's GPLv3 rights cannot be exercised without it. That was largely my point Dino. Just because I hand someone a disk of GPL'ed code doesn't mean I assume any obligations. Under some circumstances, it may mean that, but it doesn't have to. Azerthoth seemed to think it did. |
| Abe Jul 16, 2007 9:50 AM EDT |
Quoting:I think I would be exploring alternatives to GPL'd software. There's certainly a lot of BSD'd stuff. There may not be any real need to risk the GPL.They don't have to, Tivo could have kept the restriction to their service outside FOSS software. If their intention is to secure access to their service, they could have added a dongle based restriction and I believe they will be OK. |
| dinotrac Jul 16, 2007 9:57 AM EDT |
>That was largely my point Dino Oops! Did I get the direction arrow backwards? My bad, then. |
| jdixon Jul 16, 2007 10:00 AM EDT |
> My bad, then. No, it's probably just that the conversation is rather hard to follow. My "Guess which ones apply" should probably have had a sarcasm note attached. That would have made my point a lot clearer. |
| Libervis Jul 16, 2007 12:40 PM EDT |
Dinotrac:Quoting: I had the chance to chat with Peter Brown, the FSF's Executive Director, and that is not the impression I got at all. I got the distinct impression that the FSF's primary concern is the freedom of software users, who may or may not also be software developers. Well the user is a default, so to speak. If you're not talking about any other role you're merely talking about the "user". Note that I also mentioned that all developers are essentially users at the same time. So by having users' freedom as their primary concern they are automatically having freedom of all other roles which are based on the role of the "user" as their primary concern. So they might not explicitly say that it is actually for all roles, but that much is very obvious anyway. Users are everyone, no matter which additional role they play. I brought that up because some have been bringing forth arguments that seem to be implying that GPL treats developers differently than users, as if there is a difference. It treats everyone equally, it just depends on the users actions which provisions of the GPL will apply in which case. That's all there is to it. |
| dinotrac Jul 16, 2007 12:42 PM EDT |
>I brought that up because some have been bringing forth arguments that seem to be implying that GPL treats developers differently than users, Ah. |
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!