Q&a: Richard Stallman

> 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.

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. :)

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?

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

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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...

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?

> 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.

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?

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.

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.

Why, Bob!! Finally, you and I agree on something, for the most part.

And Bob...

That's not remotely ranting. It's merely telling it like it is.

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"?

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.

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?

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.

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.