Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Sep 2006 15:36 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
GNU, GPL, Open Source Friday Several kernel developers issued a position paper criticizing the GPLv3 drafts. That prompted Software Freedom Law Center chairman Eben Moglen to issue a 'renewed invitation' yesterday to kernel developers to participate in the GPLv3 process. Linus Torvalds responded to Moglen's statement by saying that his position on the license is clear and that he's "fed up" with the FSF.
Order by: Score:
Does it matter?
by Morin on Thu 28th Sep 2006 15:59 UTC
Morin
Member since:
2005-12-31

Even if Linus wanted to switch to v3, how could he do it?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Does it matter?
by davegetrag on Thu 28th Sep 2006 17:15 UTC in reply to "Does it matter?"
davegetrag Member since:
2006-03-31

He cant. He has said so. So why does he keep commenting about it and talking about it. Who is forcing this issue on him? Who is ramming V3 down his throat? He has already proved it is impossible. It won't happen. It can't happen. Why does he feel the need to keep talking trash about it since it won't apply to him at all? Ask yourself that...

Why does he feel the need to complain about something that is a non-issue for him? Why does he keep on and on...

Is it just tomake RMS look bad, to fracture and splinter the community more, to make sure he wins finally wins the torvalds/stallman battle?

Is it all that?

Is it so that RMS will finally sit down with him and work it out so they can fork that sucker. PLEASE GOD SAY YES! Won't we allbe happy when the FSF has their v3 kernel and OSI has theirs under the LPL? Yes YEs I think we will....

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Does it matter?
by tomcat on Thu 28th Sep 2006 20:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Does it matter?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

He cant. He has said so. So why does he keep commenting about it and talking about it. Who is forcing this issue on him? Who is ramming V3 down his throat? He has already proved it is impossible. It won't happen. It can't happen. Why does he feel the need to keep talking trash about it since it won't apply to him at all? Ask yourself that...

Because Linus obviously has an interest in promoting open source development and feels strongly that GPLv3 is a hindrance to that goal, for the reasons specified in the paper. The guy has a right to his opinion, which is wholly independent of whether the Linux kernel can be reissued under GPLv3. Linking the two is your contrivance, not his.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Does it matter?
by raboof on Thu 28th Sep 2006 20:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Does it matter?"
raboof Member since:
2005-07-24

why does he keep commenting about it and talking about it. Why does he feel the need to keep talking trash about it since it won't apply to him at all? Ask yourself that...

Why does he feel the need to complain about something that is a non-issue for him? Why does he keep on and on...


Quite simply: because he was asked to. Indirectly by the FSF (but he didn't react because he felt he had already made his point), and directly by the guy who wrote the article.

Reading how the FSF makes it sound like they're doing the kernel developers a huge favour by asking them about their opinions, after mostly ignoring the issues that were actually raised in the position paper, I can see how that can be frustrating for the kernel developers.

I don't see a "torvalds/stallman battle" here, and afaik neither party is interested in forking (assuming that is at all possible, which is doubtful).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Does it matter?
by ronaldst on Thu 28th Sep 2006 21:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Does it matter?"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

The Linux kernel is the most popular GPL software out there in the wild. It's the FSF's flagship product. Before Linux, the FSF was pretty much unknown. You can can safely bet the FSF will try to force Linus into making Linux adhere to the GPL3 license. If Linus won't do it then they'll go thru the other kernel devs.

Politics/<people's ideals always interfere where it's not needed. Just like in real life(TM).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Does it matter?
by gpierce on Fri 29th Sep 2006 03:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Does it matter?"
gpierce Member since:
2005-07-07

"Politics/<people's ideals always interfere where it's not needed. Just like in real life(TM)."

Fortunately the world has both pragmatists and idealists. "TIVOization" , if it happens with PCs, may not be trivial to circumvent. I am concerned that you may have to build your own computer, which for me and many others would be problematic, just to be able to run free software. The demand for open computing platforms may not be such that enough manufacturers will care to provide them. At any rate Stallman and Torvalds are both accomplished programmers and their opinions should be respected.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Does it matter?
by nalf38 on Fri 29th Sep 2006 03:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Does it matter?"
nalf38 Member since:
2006-09-01

Locking down hardware so far has only been about black box devices, like DVRs. I have a very difficult time believing that without GPL3, we're all doomed to Windows-only computers forever and ever. Besides, too many manufacturers have already sunk too much money into Linux for that to happen (with the aid of GPL *2*, btw).

I don't think predicting doom and gloom in the absence of a new GPL is wise or realistic.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Does it matter?
by gpierce on Fri 29th Sep 2006 03:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Does it matter?"
gpierce Member since:
2005-07-07

I hope you are right.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Does it matter?
by codehead78 on Fri 29th Sep 2006 05:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Does it matter?"
codehead78 Member since:
2006-08-04

I hope you are right.

No need for hope. Like being able to buy computers that you can use for anything? You're not alone, and there will always be someone around to sell you one.

Edited 2006-09-29 05:34

Reply Score: 1

RE: Does it matter?
by ma_d on Thu 28th Sep 2006 21:18 UTC in reply to "Does it matter?"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Thousands of developers respect him as a bright guy, and decent leader, and so yes: His opinion on the GPLv3 is a big deal.

Reply Score: 1

Linus's position is clear
by ozonehole on Thu 28th Sep 2006 16:05 UTC
ozonehole
Member since:
2006-01-07

Despite all the drama over Linus saying that he's "fed up with the FSF," his position is pretty clear and, I think, reasonable.

As it is, the GPLv3 limits a program that uses it very fundamentally more than Tivo _ever_ limited Linux. Tivo never limited the way Linux could be used by others. The GPLv3 tries to limit how a project can be used. The GPLv3 is the one that really limits your freedoms, not the other way around.

And as the above poster pointed out, Linus wouldn't be in a legal position to simply change the license of the Linux kernel. Other developers worked on it in the past, and continue to work on it. Thus, they would all have to agree to any license change. At least in regards to the Linux kernel, the GPLv3 is a non-starter. For people writing new applications, it's a different story - they can choose whatever license they like.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Linus's position is clear
by Simba on Thu 28th Sep 2006 16:11 UTC in reply to "Linus's position is clear"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"And as the above poster pointed out, Linus wouldn't be in a legal position to simply change the license of the Linux kernel. Other developers worked on it in the past, and continue to work on it. Thus, they would all have to agree to any license change."

No, they wouldn't. Because GPL2 contains a clause that allows a third party to re-release the code under the current version, or at their option, and future version of the GPL license. So Torvalds could, if he wanted to, license all of the code in the Linux kernel under the GPL3 whether the original authors agreed to it or not.

That said, I'm glad Torvalds has taken a stand against the the FSF. The FSF is has gone from being an advocacy group for software rights, to becoming such an extremist group that it is now harmful rather then helpful to the free software movement.

Reply Score: 3

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

AFAIK that clause are removed from the kernel license.

Reply Score: 5

davegetrag Member since:
2006-03-31

yep linus took it out - without consulting as he callsit "all the linux kernel devleopers in the universe dead or alive or in a different plane of existance" ;) Okay I might have made that up.

Each persons code stands on its own. The whole is supposedly licensed as v2 but each individuals code may be v2 or it may be 'v2 or later'

Alan Cox said years ago that any code he submitted should be v2 or later.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Linus's position is clear
by Morin on Thu 28th Sep 2006 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Linus's position is clear"
Morin Member since:
2005-12-31

> No, they wouldn't. Because GPL2 contains a clause that
> allows a third party to re-release the code under the
> current version, or at their option, and future version
> of the GPL license. So Torvalds could, if he wanted to,
> license all of the code in the Linux kernel under the
> GPL3 whether the original authors agreed to it or not.

Could you quote that clause? So far, I always thought the GPL (intentionally) doesn't contain such a clause, and that authors who want to allow switching have to explicitly allow it *outside* the GPL v2 (which was *not* done with many files in Linux).

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Linus's position is clear
by Simba on Thu 28th Sep 2006 17:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linus's position is clear"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"Could you quote that clause? So far, I always thought the GPL (intentionally) doesn't contain such a clause"

Paragraph 9 reads as follows:

The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Linus's position is clear
by Marcellus on Thu 28th Sep 2006 18:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linus's position is clear"
Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

The "any later version" is optional though, so for the kernel it's explicitly only GPLv2 that holds.

Reply Score: 1

nalf38 Member since:
2006-09-01

Linus has made it very clear several times that the 'or later version' and any related clauses that may allow you to 'upgrade' licenses automatically were completely removed from the license that is distributed with the Linux kernel.

The only way to for the kernel to change licenses is if every living being who ever contributed to kernel gave their okay.

So the issue is pretty moot, anyway.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Linus's position is clear
by chuck on Thu 28th Sep 2006 16:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Linus's position is clear"
chuck Member since:
2006-03-20

Because GPL2 contains a clause that allows a third party to re-release the code under the current version, or at their option, and future version of the GPL license.

But this clause was removed from the kernel version of the license, so it doesn't apply. Why would a hard working developer want to turn over the future of his code to some FSF politician? They would have to be nuts! And Linus is far from nuts.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Linus's position is clear
by Simba on Thu 28th Sep 2006 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linus's position is clear"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"But this clause was removed from the kernel version of the license, so it doesn't apply."

Ah. I didn't know they had removed it from the kernel license.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Linus's position is clear
by CrLf on Thu 28th Sep 2006 18:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Linus's position is clear"
CrLf Member since:
2006-01-03

"Because GPL2 contains a clause that allows a third party to re-release the code under the current version, or at their option, and future version of the GPL license."

GPLv2 doesn't contain such a clause. That snippet is part of the boilerplate text that developers use to say which licence covers their work, which isn't the license itself, it is just a referral to the real licence (which can be, "v2 or later" or just v2 if the developer chooses so).

Reply Score: 4

RE: Linus's position is clear
by eggman on Thu 28th Sep 2006 17:47 UTC in reply to "Linus's position is clear"
eggman Member since:
2006-05-09

As it is, the GPLv3 limits a program that uses it very fundamentally more than Tivo _ever_ limited Linux. Tivo never limited the way Linux could be used by others. The GPLv3 tries to limit how a project can be used. The GPLv3 is the one that really limits your freedoms, not the other way around.

That's exactly what the BSDL guys have been saying about the BSDL all along! Nice to see that even the GPL folks are finally seeing the light.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Linus's position is clear
by twenex on Thu 28th Sep 2006 17:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Linus's position is clear"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Sorry, but the "GPL" folks aren't "seeing [your] light". There's no debate over whether the GPL2 should be forked/changed to allow people to take GPL code and fork it or release proprietary "enhancements".

Reply Score: 2

Linus is right
by halfmanhalfamazing on Thu 28th Sep 2006 16:08 UTC
halfmanhalfamazing
Member since:
2005-07-23

Let's make good software that stands on it's merits because it's good, solid software.

Let's stop making it about "the religion of free software" as Stallman treats it.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Linus is right
by davegetrag on Thu 28th Sep 2006 17:17 UTC in reply to "Linus is right"
davegetrag Member since:
2006-03-31

Feel free to do that. Please feel free to head down that path that leads to companies being in control and doing what they want. I for one choose free software.

I bet you are really upset that the whole reason you have this OS is because of something you do not believe in - free software.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Linus is right
by nalf38 on Thu 28th Sep 2006 21:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Linus is right"
nalf38 Member since:
2006-09-01

...and you are wrong. Well, you're only partially right.

"I bet you are really upset that the whole reason you have this OS is because of something you do not believe in - free software."

The fact is that the linux kernel would be nothing without the major corporate contributions it has received in the past. The linux kernel is what it is because the GPL2 encourages entities of different backgrounds (ie both people and corporations) to contribute code. Without IBM/Novell/Red Hat/Adaptec/Intel, Linux would be like GNU/Hurd which, if you're so adamant about Free Software, you should stop bothering us Linux-lovers and go use.

If you want to know what Linux would like without cooperation between both individuals and corporations, then take a look at Hurd. If that's what you want, then take it. I want nothing to do with a barely functional piece of junk. Oh yeah, "Free" junk. Sometimes you get what you pay for.

Corporations aren't 'evil.' In fact, a lot of companies have been pretty goddamned generous to the open source movement, and now you're basically telling them 'thanks for the free code, now f--k off.' Way to go.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Linus is right
by gilboa on Fri 29th Sep 2006 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linus is right"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

/+1

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 1

What's the big deal?
by Haicube on Thu 28th Sep 2006 16:09 UTC
Haicube
Member since:
2005-08-06

Seriously, I can't seem to understand what's the big deal about this GPL 3 vs GPL 2 thing. Why does it have to be a conflict at all?

RMS and others have identified what they recon to be a problem. They develop GPL 3.

Linus and others seem to like GPL 2 as it is. They seem to prefer that license.

Here is a solution for you 2 sides. USE WHATEVER YOU FEEL IS APPROPRIATE FOR YOUR OWN STUFF!!!!!

I personally prefer MIT/BSD, others might prefer LGPL and if some prefer different version of GPL, is it really such a big deal? Who cares? Seriously? Just respect eachothers decisions and get back to coding!

Reply Score: 5

RE: What's the big deal?
by CrLf on Thu 28th Sep 2006 17:56 UTC in reply to "What's the big deal?"
CrLf Member since:
2006-01-03

The problem isn't the GPLv3 per se. The problem is the large quantities of code out there, licensed under a "v2 or later" GPL.

People throught "oh yes, the next version of the GPL will be just like v2, we trust the FSF". Instead, people are finding the FSF unworthy of that trust, because they are making use of the popularity of the GPL to push their fundamentalist agenda.

Many people are now thinking about what will happen when people begin to distribute their code combined with GPLv3-only modifications (thus creating a GPLv3-only derived work), especially because they don't like the GPLv3 (as it looks now).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: What's the big deal?
by pinky on Thu 28th Sep 2006 19:32 UTC in reply to "RE: What's the big deal?"
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

>People throught "oh yes, the next version of the GPL will be just like v2, we trust the FSF". Instead, people are finding the FSF unworthy of that trust, because they are making use of the popularity of the GPL to push their fundamentalist agenda.

How do you come to such conclusion?
Maybe people throught "oh yes, the next version of the GPL protect the freedom in the future as good as GPLv2, we trust the FSF". And now they are really happy with the progress about GPLv3 because it closes the loopholes which were created through new technology and new laws.

Not possible? Why? Because Linus Torvalds makes a lot of noise? But where are all the other large "GPLv2 or later"-projects if the GPLv3 process is really as bad as you suggest?

Reply Score: 3

What is the problem again?
by hashnet on Thu 28th Sep 2006 16:23 UTC
hashnet
Member since:
2005-11-15

Stallman has very lofty ideals and made tons of software available to us.
We may or may not agree with GPL v3, but he has every right to alter his software license as he sees fit. Remember, he's trying to protect developers and users, in other words, us.

What keeps Linus and other developers to keep using GPL v2, or any other license, for their software?

When, or if further development of GNU software (binutils, gcc and thousand others) is done under GPL v3 and is deemed unworkable, we can fork the versions harking back from GPL v2. Such is the power that Stallman put in our hands!

Reply Score: 5

RE: What is the problem again?
by Simba on Thu 28th Sep 2006 16:32 UTC in reply to "What is the problem again?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"Remember, he's trying to protect developers and users, in other words, us."

As a professional software developer, I do not agree with this at all. Stallman is in no way protecting my rights as a developoer. He is trying to, with GPL3, strongarm me into playing his game the exact way he wants it to be played, and face consequences that could literally kill my business if I don't play it that way.

I was saying months ago what the Linux kernel developers just started to say last week. GPL3 will kill open source software if it becomes widely adopted. The risks of using open source software are simply too high under the GPL3.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: What is the problem again?
by Valhalla on Thu 28th Sep 2006 16:42 UTC in reply to "RE: What is the problem again?"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

-"I was saying months ago what the Linux kernel developers just started to say last week. GPL3 will kill open source software if it becomes widely adopted. The risks of using open source software are simply too high under the GPL3"

what are those risks? do you hold software patents? are you using DRM to deny the end-users the right to be able to modify and run GPL'ed code? or what? please explain.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: What is the problem again?
by Simba on Thu 28th Sep 2006 16:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What is the problem again?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"what are those risks? do you hold software patents?"

Yes, my company holds software patents. And before you jump on me for it, even Google holds software patents. The vast majority of companies that develop software hold software patents.

Edited 2006-09-28 16:51

Reply Score: 0

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

No, they don't.

The vast majority of companies residing primarily in USA do. Even some danish software companies have patents in USA. This is necessary to protect themselves in USA. They don't need the protection outside USA, and they don't have patents outside USA.

One might wonder, why they need Government granted protection in USA, when companies thrive without them outside USA.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: What is the problem again?
by Simba on Thu 28th Sep 2006 17:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What is the problem again?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"The vast majority of companies residing primarily in USA do. Even some danish software companies have patents in USA. This is necessary to protect themselves in USA."

The USA ia also the largest user of software in the world. So my point still stands. It is too risky for US companies, or companies who do business in the US, to use open source software that is licensed under GPL3, and GPL3 that will do serious damage to, and maybe kill open source in business.

Again, even the Linux kernel developers are saying this now. Not just me.

Edited 2006-09-28 17:09

Reply Score: 1

thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

" It is too risky for US companies, or companies who do business in the US, to use "

It's not risk at all to use software under the GPLv3 because it's not an EULA.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: What is the problem again?
by Simba on Thu 28th Sep 2006 17:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: What is the problem again?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"It's not risk at all to use software under the GPLv3 because it's not an EULA."

Yes, it is a EULA. And if you think there is no risk involved in using it, then you haven't read it. If you sue a an open source company for example, for infringing on one of your patents, your license to use software licensed under GPL3 is revoked.

Businesses are simply not going to go for that kind of strongarm tactic. They aren't going to commit themselves to saying "We can never enforce our software patents against any open source software".

The risks of using GPL3 licensed software is too high. Even the kernel developers agree. So does Linus Torvalds.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: What is the problem again?
by twenex on Thu 28th Sep 2006 17:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: What is the problem again?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

The USA ia also the largest user of software in the world. So my point still stands.

The UK government is also the largest single user of Microsoft software in the world outside the US, and they and MS do business WITHOUT the benefit of software patents being available to British public OR private institutions. So your point is still debatable.

Edited 2006-09-28 17:34

Reply Score: 2

killerbyte Member since:
2006-02-19

While in EU there isn't (yet) software patents in a true american way, the software isn't itself unprotected. The copyright laws can generally protect IP theft on software, and some bits of software may even be patenteable (algorithms generally can't, but specific implementations as a part of a device might be).
Then again, AFAIK MS is not producing GPL software, so your point is moot.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I'd like to see numbers for that ;)

Anyway, you didn't answer why protection was needed in USA.

Besides that, patent clauses aren't the issue with GPL v3.

GPL v2 also containss a patent clause, though implicit.
The difference is the DRM-part.

And of course. If you distribute applications under the GPL, and they are utilizing your patents, then you cannot sue people for distributing applications under the GPL, if these applications are utilizing your patents. That's so logical you cannot disagree without being a complete evil moron.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: What is the problem again?
by Brendan on Fri 29th Sep 2006 06:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What is the problem again?"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

"One might wonder, why they need Government granted protection in USA, when companies thrive without them outside USA."

I would assume that companies in the USA need patents to protect themselves from other companies in the USA.... ;-)

The general idea is to have a system where inventors get a chance to recover the cost of researching and developing their invention before competitors clone their work and get the same advantages in the market-place without paying for any of the research and development costs. The theory being that this improves the chance that inventors will be willing to invent, as spending money on research and development and getting nothing in return doesn't sound that attractive.

By itself this could be considered "good", if it weren't for the problems it causes.

The first problem is where 2 or more inventors independantly research and develop a similar thing (where the first inventor to get a patent gets the chance to completely screw the others, who have no way of recovering their research and development costs).

The next problem is that it becomes a complete nightmare to figure out if something has been patented or not, due to the huge number of patents that have been issued and the "legalese" they're written in (trying to guess if a court would interpret each patent in the same way you do). This leads to the next problem - the costs involved with protecting your "assets" (lawyers to try to avoid patent infringement, and the costs of defending yourself if claim/s are made), which makes "inventing" rather risky for small inventors or "unfunded" inventors who can't wear these costs (e.g. most open source projects).

Lastly, the USA patent office are morons and let obvious things become patented, which makes the problems above worse.

The end result is that while patents were meant to encourage invention, they actually have the opposite effect (especially for rapidly changing fields like software).

Reply Score: 3

DittoBox Member since:
2005-07-08

And this makes software patents "ok" exactly how?

Reply Score: 3

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

We all know _your_ look on it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What is the problem again?
by davegetrag on Thu 28th Sep 2006 17:22 UTC in reply to "RE: What is the problem again?"
davegetrag Member since:
2006-03-31

Strong arming you how? Has he hooked you into the GPLV3 leash? Got a rectal V3 probe? Dude you can choose not to use it....

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: What is the problem again?
by Simba on Thu 28th Sep 2006 17:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What is the problem again?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"Strong arming you how? Has he hooked you into the GPLV3 leash? Got a rectal V3 probe? Dude you can choose not to use it...."

You haven't been following the GPL3 debate at all have you... Again, and this is the last time I am going to say it (cause I am sick of repeating myself over and over for the benefit of those who are ill informed and don't know what is going on), the patent lawsuit retaliation clauses in GPL3 are a strongarm tactic that businesses are not going to go for. And it will kill open source software in business. I've been saying it for months. And the kernel developers are saying it now as well.

Reply Score: 1

davegetrag Member since:
2006-03-31

Then take your patents, and whatever license works for you and GO AWAY. We will all be happy then right. Works for you and works for me.

Reply Score: 3

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

DOOH!

There is no difference on patents in v3 vs v2. It is just explicit instead of implicit.

The difference is about DRM, and that is no different either. It is just explictit instead of implicit. You are not allowed to take away the four freedoms. And in case use of DRM takes away the four freedoms, you have to allow that people can crack your DRM. We can do that already legally, so it doesn't matter. The only difference is that we won't be take into custody upon arrival in USA.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: What is the problem again?
by chuck on Thu 28th Sep 2006 19:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What is the problem again?"
chuck Member since:
2006-03-20

You are not allowed to take away the four freedoms.

What do the "four freedoms" have to do with anything? The license is what it says and there are no "four freedoms" in the GPLv2, neither in the preample, the terms and conditions, or the suggestions on how to apply it. The "four freedoms" is a slogan, not a license.

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Actually there is four freedoms in the license. And they are mentioned in the preamble and in the license it self.

The sentence "the four freedoms" are not in the license, but the four freedoms are mentioned none the less.

The GPL is about protecting those four freedoms.

"Personal freedom" are not in the danish constitution, but protecting personal freedom are the essense of the danish constitution.

"The four freedoms" are not literally in the GPL, but the license do name the four freedoms - block by block.

Reply Score: 4

At least he doesn't mince his words
by moleskine on Thu 28th Sep 2006 16:35 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

It's pretty clear that Linus T doesn't like (or trust) the FSF and from the remarks some of the FSF folks have made, they don't like him either.

In this regard, Linus T's decision to keep well clear of the whole thing is probably very sensible and helps to keep things at a cooler temperature, shall we say.

Besides, he has a perfect right to his position on the GPL v3 and there is nothing unreasonable about it. If that's the way he feels, fine. Every other leading kernel dev bar one, I think, clearly feels the same.

I think someone summed it up roughly as not allowing TIVO-isation is a greater minus in a free society than allowing it.

Reply Score: 3

gpierce Member since:
2005-07-07

What are the positive aspects of TIVOization? How would we feel if all the PCs we could buy already assembled came with DRM or TPM chips that restricted what OS you could run on your computer?

Reply Score: 3

Morin Member since:
2005-12-31

> What are the positive aspects of TIVOization? How would
> we feel if all the PCs we could buy already assembled
> came with DRM or TPM chips that restricted what OS you
> could run on your computer?

Another question: What if the main OS simply worked without tinkering? Would anyone except geeks ever *want* to use anything else?

Reply Score: 1

Linus's position is clear
by Valhalla on Thu 28th Sep 2006 16:35 UTC
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24

-"That said, I'm glad Torvalds has taken a stand against the the FSF. The FSF is has gone from being an advocacy group for software rights, to becoming such an extremist group that it is now harmful rather then helpful to the free software movement."

no, it has the same stance as it always has been. it's end-user centric. that means that it gives alot of rights to the reciever of the software, and GPLv3 is a direct continuance of that. and the only DRM it goes against is that which restricts the rights of the user as outlined by copyleft. linus on the other hand, looks at it from the view of linux backing companies. and companies will want to be able to use restrictive DRM, and they do not want to give up their software patents when contributing code.

there is no right or wrong, it just depends on which side of the fence you are. just tiresome when people who lacks arguments start using words like extremists, religion etc. it's like saying linus is a corporate whore because he now steers linux to meet the demands of contributing companies.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Linus's position is clear
by mabhatter on Fri 29th Sep 2006 03:23 UTC in reply to "Linus's position is clear"
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

I like your comment best. RMS is looking to fix two "loopholes" in the current GPL license. First is to plug the DRM hole. After all, who'd have thought in 1991 that somebody could use free software but build hardware encryption in to prevent you from running any other software on it? The working in the orginal draft of V3 was clear, but the revision really messed it up. The argument seems to be shifting focus to digital media, not actual hardware operations. the pro-RMS crowd seems to think that you couldn't use GPL'd software to enforce DRM.. that's not true. The Tivo case is an excellent example. They encrypted their linux so all the features aren't available with the GPL'd code from their site. RMS wants all the features you sold a product with GPL to be available. Of course if recordings are encrypted for DRM you don't have to be able to read those... but if your software makes recordings you have to be able to play them back. On the patent end, RMS wants companies using GPL'd code to offically release any patents related to the code. Again, with the Tivo... They may release code under GPL, but they turn around and hold silly patents on 1-click recording and other silly stuff... that's implemented in their GPL'd code. That puts any other project that looks at that code, not even uses it, at risk.. like the DishPVR recently sued.. The Linux code is out there, but TiVo can still selectively sue who they want to prevent YOU from using OSS code they modified and released because they have a "patent" on some piece of it... kinda not in the spirit of things?

Linus comes from the "company" camp. He sees how these new rules make things "harder" for companies and he's part of the crew that actually gets the Linux OS out there and working for the people that pay the bills. Linus just wants people to use Linux..GPL was a tool to keep linux open... not a philosophy. RMS would just as soon keep Free Software where it is now, than to let it continue and get hi-jacked.

The more I do this, the more I realize that the Free Software thing is about actively seeking freedom, not just expecting it. Free Software is about presuing Free use and study of software for the sake of doing it! It's not just hoping you can keep your "fair use" rights to rip cds and play console ROMs. When you realize that patents last for 20 years and copyright "forever" unless software is explicitly put into the publics' hands by likes of the FSF you would never get to learn about such things.. no hobby tweaking for you.. it would all be a DMCA crime!

Reply Score: 4

GPL v3 and DRM
by dusanyu on Thu 28th Sep 2006 16:41 UTC
dusanyu
Member since:
2006-01-21

i dont see the problem with the anti-DRM statements in the GPL v3 drafts. (but thean again i have technical isshues with DRM) the fact is Linus is being a big baby and if he keeps it up I am switching to BSD

Reply Score: 5

RE: GPL v3 and DRM
by twenex on Thu 28th Sep 2006 16:50 UTC in reply to "GPL v3 and DRM"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Linus is being a big baby and if he keeps it up I am switching to BSD

I don't see how he's being "a big baby," but even if I did, I think that's equally childish. Besides which, even if he's being a "big baby" about DRM, you get even LESS protection from it from BSD.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: GPL v3 and DRM
by nalf38 on Thu 28th Sep 2006 21:31 UTC in reply to "GPL v3 and DRM"
nalf38 Member since:
2006-09-01

The anti-DRM clauses in GPL3 are more restrictive than people realize. Have you read it? It's vague enough to prohibit just about any kind of open source encryption.

Furthermore, what's so wrong about Tivo preventing you from using your DVR as anything but a DVR? The GPL3 says that even if you modify the Tivo beyond all recognition, Tivo would still have to allow you access to their online TV listing service. Talk about a huge security risk. The GPL3 has some clauses in it that are downright draconian.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: GPL v3 and DRM
by mabhatter on Fri 29th Sep 2006 03:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: GPL v3 and DRM"
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

exactly the one flaw I see in the second draft. the first draft didn't have that language in it to make companies open their services... only that the functionality had to be reproducable. Personally, I think somebody in the middle double talked their way into inserting the changes and because it's a revision they got put thru. It's not like lawyers to let something like that slip, but it obviously did. In the orginal wording it was much like the "bnet.d" case... where people wanted to create a new service instead of the manufacure's service. I think that's what the goal was, but in an age of all the services being tied to the hardware, it's hard to say. After all, if I modify the software, should I be banned from getting chanel guides, weather reports, etc. as long as I have a vaild account shouldn't I get that anyway? Why do they need to lock me out because I wanted to change a few things?

On the other hand, the entertainment companies are demanding end-to-end encryption and this new license flies in the face of that... in that respect, I think RMS knows exactly what he's doing. FCC regulated communications has always been about Freeedom.. all the talk of "broadcast flags" and DRM flies directly in the face of that. The FCC is a "traffic cop" to keep the airwaves/power lines/etc moving smoothly, not to enforce one groups media rights over anothers. I think RMS is putting a "line in the sand" that either companies need to choose to be open.. or not... stop trying to get the free development of OSS, but tie users up on the other end.

Reply Score: 1

Why is Linus the good guy again?
by Lovechild on Thu 28th Sep 2006 17:00 UTC
Lovechild
Member since:
2005-06-29

It seems to me this is going:

FSF: We have opened for suggestions for the upcoming GPLv3
Linus: It sucks
FSF: Then please join in the debate via the proper channels
Linus: No I prefer to use my soapbox to spread my opinion
Kernel developers: We don't like the GPLv3 either, but we, like Linus, prefer to stand on our soapbox to express it rather than work with the FSF
FSF: We understand you have concerns and again invite you to join the process of deciding that is going to be the precise wording of the GPLv3
Linus: I'm fed up with you FSF people
Me: ???

It seems to me that the FSF have been more than willing to listen provided people take the time to read the document and submit comments - every comment is being reeviewed and addressed by the commitee and everything is in the open.

Reply Score: 5

element43 Member since:
2006-04-02

Except that the FSF doesn't care about anyone's opinion. The FSF only cares about what the FSF thinks. From earlier statements Linus and many others all put in their two cents and the consensus was that those two cents were largely ignored.

FSF's track record for listening to others who don't have the same point of view is worse than Microsoft's security record.

Maybe when the FSF stops pushing their ideals on everyone and actually takes two minutes to listen and attempt to understand this process will go smoother.

Reply Score: 5

davegetrag Member since:
2006-03-31

Thats because linus can say I dont like this but offers no solution beyond - just going back to V2.

It is their point of view, it is their license, what solution does linus offer THAT also takes into consideration their stand on the matter.

FSF has reasons for those parts that are new, the option to remove those are not up for debate. The best way to handle those parts are. All I see is someone screaming "I aint using it" and "it sucks" yet nothing along the lines of compromise that would work to further the FSF goals AND be palatable to Mr Linus God OF Linux.

Reply Score: 1

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"FSF has reasons for those parts that are new, the option to remove those are not up for debate. The best way to handle those parts are. All I see is someone screaming "I aint using it" and "it sucks" yet nothing along the lines of compromise that would work to further the FSF goals AND be palatable to Mr Linus God OF Linux."

You are correct, the FSF does have reasons. after following the debate they want to basically eradicate free software, meaning free as in freedom, regardless of what they claim. The wording in the GPLv3 limits how software can be used, and GPLv2 does not. Linus and the developers have been involved, however the FSF has ignored their input, which is why Linus is fed-up. The FSF is the ones that will not compromise.

Reply Score: 4

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

DrillSgt wrote:
-"You are correct, the FSF does have reasons. after following the debate they want to basically eradicate free software, meaning free as in freedom, regardless of what they claim."

try sticking to facts instead of relying on powerful words like "freedom" to cover up your lack of arguments.

how would denying restrictive DRM equal wanting to eradicate free software?

Reply Score: 3

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"how would denying restrictive DRM equal wanting to eradicate free software?"

By placing restrictions on how the software can be used. believe it or not, that is taking away the freedom of it. That is a fact, and my argument. I am using the word that best fits it. Next thing Stallman will want everyone to have a drink of kool-aid.

Reply Score: 1

davegetrag Member since:
2006-03-31

We aren'tfollowing a leader. WE do not stamp RMS on the top of out software. The GPL and RMS are two different things. I wouldnot drink RMS kool-aid just like I do not always agree with his political stance.

I do believe in complete software freedoms and it just so happens he has a license which supports everything I believe in.

Once again, don't believe in it then dont use it

Reply Score: 1

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"I do believe in complete software freedoms and it just so happens he has a license which supports everything I believe in. "

I do also, and the GPLv2 accounts for this very well. Until I see more evidence to the contrary though it just seems to me GPLv3 does not do this well, and goes against that idea. I am more then willing to be convinced otherwise, it just might take a bit as I just don't trust politicians or lawyers, both of which is what is in control of making this license.

Reply Score: 2

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

DrillSgt wrote:
-"By placing restrictions on how the software can be used. believe it or not, that is taking away the freedom of it."

GPL is a licence, it already contains restrictions, so by your terms it can't be "freedom". the licence protects a number of end-user rights. some of these rights are being circumvented by the use of restrictive DRM. hence a new version of the GPL is being drafted.

you can argue that restrictive DRM is a "freedom" if you so wish, but it's still incompatible with the base provisions on which GPL is built.

Reply Score: 3

davegetrag Member since:
2006-03-31

free software is still the goal and protecting against threats to it...nothing has changed

It doesn'tlimit how it can be used. It ensures certain things the way it always has. Just because someone has comeup with something that violtes the freedom of software does not mean that software freedoms has changed. GPLv2 does not because these threats did not exist then so how could it.Now they do and now it does. Still the same thing.

Protection has to equal the threats dude.

FSF doesn't have to compromise it is their license. They are willing to listen how to implement the changes better but someone has to offer the "how"not just scream about what they dont like.

Reply Score: 3

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"It doesn'tlimit how it can be used. It ensures certain things the way it always has. Just because someone has comeup with something that violtes the freedom of software does not mean that software freedoms has changed. GPLv2 does not because these threats did not exist then so how could it.Now they do and now it does. Still the same thing."

From the wording of it, it restricts how software licensed under the GPLv3 can be used. To me that is limiting how the software can be used, therefore not a good thing. Since DRM is coming, like it or not, this can effectively stop OSS in the mainstream. DRM is not a Microsoft or Apple thing, it is an entertainment industry thing.

Reply Score: 2

davegetrag Member since:
2006-03-31

okay great hamfest we got going but I must bow out

enjoyed every bit of it guys, great back and forth game we got here

plus one to all if I had the points to give

Reply Score: 2

CrLf Member since:
2006-01-03

"Thats because linus can say I dont like this but offers no solution beyond - just going back to V2."

Solution to what problem? "Tivoisation"? Linus and other kernel developers don't acknowledge that as being a problem, so there is no need for a solution. GPLv2 is just fine.

Reply Score: 1

davegetrag Member since:
2006-03-31

That is right they dont. But the FSF does and it goes against software freedoms so now we protect ourselves fromit. What happens when it becomes DELLisation will they sit by then and claim nothing is wrong.

Once again,okay v3 isnt liked. Dont use it. Stop bitching about it. We cool!

and obviously we have reached a impasse then, nobody wants to bend so now we break

Reply Score: 2

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

-"FSF's track record for listening to others who don't have the same point of view is worse than Microsoft's security record.
Maybe when the FSF stops pushing their ideals on everyone and actually takes two minutes to listen and attempt to understand this process will go smoother."

I'm sure they listen to linus, thing is they don't agree with him. FSF will not allow restrictive DRM, they want to protect open source projects from software patents. this is all in line with copyleft. when V2 was drafted, DRM and software patents weren't big issues, now they are. DRM allow you to bypass the end-users rights of being able to modify and run the GPL'ed code, as shown in the Tivo case. given what FSF stands for there is no way they could have accepted restrictive DRM, since it violates part of the four provisions which is the base of the GPL:

the freedom to use the software
the freedom to copy and share the software
the freedom to modify the software
the freedom to run and distribute modified software

Edited 2006-09-28 17:41

Reply Score: 5

Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

Funny thing... Replace FSF with MS, and Linus with EU, and the GPL stuff with the issues between MS and EU, and it kinda matches...

Reply Score: 1

nalf38 Member since:
2006-09-01

The FSF accepts comments, but they don't necessarily care about them. They'll 'listen' to everything Linus and the rest of kernel devs have to say, but the Tivo-isation clause isn't up for debate as far as FSF is concerned.

So why bother even talking to the FSF? If the FSF refuses to discuss with you the one major issue you have with the GPL3, then what's the point? FSF has made their voice clear.

Go Linus.

Reply Score: 4

DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

The only trouble is, Linus and the kernel developers HAVE said what they don't like about the license, and Stallman and the Free Software Foundation disagree and want stuff kept in there.

If you follow the news, Linus outlined his problems with the license as soon as the first draft was released; and with every revision I see a notice on OSNews about how the license is still unsatisfactory to the kernel developers, etc etc. Clearly, neither side is willing to make changes.

Reply Score: 2

well
by davegetrag on Thu 28th Sep 2006 12:10 UTC
davegetrag
Member since:
2006-03-31

let me say it one more time....


fork.fork.fork.fork.

Reply Score: 1

RE: well
by chuck on Thu 28th Sep 2006 17:37 UTC in reply to "well "
chuck Member since:
2006-03-20

let me say it one more time....

fork.fork.fork.fork.


Fork what? The kernel is under the GPLv2 without an upgrade clause. The GPLv3 is incompatible with the GPLv2 license, so the kernel code can't be used under the later license. If Hurd goes under the new license it will have to rip out all the drivers they borrowed from Linux. Likewise, I expect that glibc and perhaps gcc would fork to remain freer for the developers, after all, gcc forked previously to get away from meddling. The latter could be tricky, though, as the FSF required developers to sign over the copyright to *their* work. Talk about unwitting slavery and exploitation! Strangely, developers who do the work don't take kindly to being exploited for political ends.

But you are certainly welcome to fork, just do it. Just don't expect *other* people to fork because you command them to do so.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: well
by davegetrag on Thu 28th Sep 2006 17:55 UTC in reply to "RE: well "
davegetrag Member since:
2006-03-31

FSF required developers to sign over the copyright to *their* work

EHHHHT! wrong! Never happened. Stop making it up. Nothing unwitting about it, no exploitation. Does it bother you that you like linux yet the reason linux exists is because of soemthing you do not believe in? That would really piss me off also. Good thing I do believe.

The kernel has a license as a whole BUT the individual parts still retain whatever license the holder has stated. So tell me how Linus changed that years ago without contacting everyone?

Even beyond that nothing says they cannot sit down, mutually agree, contact the needed people and make a grand effort to contact those that are in a different plane of existance and come up with a clean fork.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: well
by chuck on Thu 28th Sep 2006 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: well "
chuck Member since:
2006-03-20

Does it bother you that you like linux yet the reason linux exists is because of soemthing you do not believe in? That would really piss me off also.

Linux exists because of Linus and the GPLv2, Stallman had nothing to do with it. If you recall, on the FSF site way back when, 1999 or so, they advertized that Hurd was the official kernel and Linux was just a outside, temporary solution that had to be used because, you know, it actually worked. But they would prefer that you worked on Hurd which was the real thing. It was all rather sniffy. Anyway, Linux is "Open Software", not "Free Software", there is a difference and the GPLv2 is an "Open Software" license. As to copyright assignment, depends on the project. Jörn Engle reports from the front lines on the LKML:

While I can only speak for myself, I definitely had to make a decision a couple of times without starting a kernel myself. Red Hat wanted me to sign a piece of small-font paper assigning my copyright to JFFS2
over to them. My thoughts at the time were along the lines of "What the f--k!!" and I had a lot of thinking to do, but didn't sign it.

My graph traversion code I did for my thesis should have been merged into gcc, but I didn't even bother sending a patch. Copyright assign my ***, thank you very much.

And that is in fact the primary reason, hacking gcc has been fun and I would like to do more, from a purely technical point of view. But having to sign a large amount of legalese is the kind of thing I may
have to do for a job, and they pay me for it. It is not the kind of thing I do for fun. No fun, no money - hell, why should I do something like that?!?

Thank you for not requiring copyright assignments, Linus.

Jörn


BTW, if that "signing a large amount of legalese" sounds strange, it is because it has to be done on paper. Copyright assignment is too drastic a step to record in ephemeral magnetizations.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: well
by mabhatter on Fri 29th Sep 2006 03:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: well "
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

exactly why the FSF needs copyrights assigned to them. They need to be able to not just determine the license, but also to defend them or update them after you're gone. Remember, copyright extends long after you're dead.. are you going to make sure your kids know about all the code you've contributed so they can address licensing issues in 10 years?

Also, the FSF is interested in maintaining the pedigree of their software. They want offical statement that the work you submit is your own, done by you and not stolen. They want it in writing so somebody can't sue them later and tie up their work. If Linux was under that umbrella years ago, then the SCO IBM case would have never happened. Under FSF rules code has to be checked in offically... so they know up front if there might be legal issues because of who your employer is or what other projects you've worked on. Too much code in linux is just "out there" with people submitting under pseudonyms because of work related restrictions and lots of work done by people passed on.... assignment is like life insurance. You don't want to do it cause it's grim, but when you're gone is when everybody else needs it.. or your work's not really FREE. they have to throw your work away and start over.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: well
by Wrawrat on Thu 28th Sep 2006 18:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: well "
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

FSF required developers to sign over the copyright to *their* work
EHHHHT! wrong! Never happened. Stop making it up.

Living in denial is a bad thing:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

Of course, this is limited to programs under the FSF umbrella, not GPL'd software.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: well
by silicon on Fri 29th Sep 2006 16:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: well "
silicon Member since:
2005-07-30

Have you read why the FSF requires you to assign them the copyright for projects (that you work on in co-ordination with FSF) under the GNU unmbrella?

So that your employer doesn't claim that the code was his.

Reply Score: 1

RE: well
by aent on Thu 28th Sep 2006 18:08 UTC in reply to "well "
aent Member since:
2006-01-25

How do you fork a company?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: well
by davegetrag on Thu 28th Sep 2006 18:30 UTC in reply to "RE: well "
davegetrag Member since:
2006-03-31

what company

Reply Score: 1

RE: well
by codehead78 on Thu 28th Sep 2006 18:46 UTC in reply to "well "
codehead78 Member since:
2006-08-04

"fork.fork.fork.fork!"

What? The GNU Stack? I like the way you think!

Edited 2006-09-28 18:48

Reply Score: 2

RE: well
by Wrawrat on Thu 28th Sep 2006 19:01 UTC in reply to "well "
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Forks are possible, but success isn't assured. Remember that infamous fork of GNOME (called GoneME)?

Since there isn't any tangible benefit in the forking you are promoting (after all, the GPLv2 still does its job), a GPLv3 movement would probably die as soon as it's getting out of sync with the main trunk. The days the basement hackers are its main contributors are the driving force are pretty much over.

Anyway, purging the Linux kernel from its V2-only code would probably make it less functional than the Hurd... At that point, you might as well write a new kernel or support the latter effort.

There is no expiration date on the GPLv2. Perhaps it's a bit dated, perhaps it doesn't cover all your "freedoms" anymore (which is actually more the freedom for the software than yours), but it's still doing its job.

In all honesty, I'm pretty sure RMS won't really be upset. GPLv2 or v3, his licence is getting widespread around the world, which brings more and more people in his cause.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: well
by nalf38 on Thu 28th Sep 2006 21:47 UTC in reply to "well "
nalf38 Member since:
2006-09-01

You can't fork the kernel under a new license because the license distributed with the kernel specifically forbids changing licenses, even 'better' versions of the GPL.

Reply Score: 1

"FREE" and "OPEN"
by Bounty on Thu 28th Sep 2006 19:06 UTC
Bounty
Member since:
2006-09-18

I'm not a kernel or GPL guru, but I can say that "FREE" and "OPEN" implies that it can be used for things you don't agree with.

I'm just an end user that hates DRM. As long as Tivo is just adding their DRM programs and not modifying GPL'd code I don't see the problem. In that sense Tivo is free to be jerks. My guess as to why Linus keeps talking about it, is probably because people keep asking him about it.

In freedom, people are free to restrict things they've created or control. Don't like DRM encrusted music? You're free to ignore it. Don't like giving away music? You're free to encrust it and make it as crappy as you want. Linus wants it to stay the same as it's been. FSF wants to control the license they've created? They're all free to do that. I say do what you can get away with.

Reply Score: 3

sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

I just want to say that I am 100% behind them. They are the *only* parties making any sense regarding GPLv3.

I think we'd all be happier and better off if FSF just finished up their GNU/OS. After all, the kernel is just one project out of many, as the FSF is so fond of saying. And they have a 16 year start on Hurd. Not to mention that Hurd has a 1 year *head start* on Linux.

Put up or shut up, FSF.

And yes, I find that I am "fed up" with the FSF, as well.

Reply Score: 3

the crux of the problem....
by karl on Thu 28th Sep 2006 20:09 UTC
karl
Member since:
2005-07-06

Linus states in the interview :

"It's their hardware. I do _not_ want to ask for control of the "environment" back in a license. I want the improvement to the _software_, not the keys to the kingdom. The "environment" a program runs in (or the medium it is distributed on) doesn't have to be open. Just the program itself."

The crux of the problem is that it is *not* their hardware. When i purchase a device it *is* my device, I own it and can do with it what I wish within the limits of the law.

This fact, however, becomes blurred when a company sells devices which are bound to services(ie. Tivo).[hypothetical here-I am not actually aware of all of the details involved in Tivo, ie. do you rent the device-or purchase it, can the recorded media be played on other devices, etc.]. If I purchase the device it is mine- but the value proposition -both for the purchaser and the producer is the service which is provided via the device.

Some services can only be offered when certain guarantees exist that the content distributed via the devices are distributed in such a fashion that they respect the licenscing agreement between the hardware manufacture and the media corporation which produces the media(ie. films, music etc.) (note that the artists who actually create the media which the media corporations produce play zero role in this process)

If such a guarantee exists which states that the distributed media, for example, can only be replayed on the same device, then the manufacturer of the device must impose some kind of DRM in hardware which prevents the media from being played elsewhere.

This means that as long as I make use of the service offered on my machine the machine is not *really* my machine, even though I own it. If the manufacturer faces legal threats from the media producers for failure to control for the guarantee under which media is distributable the device *becomes* theirs through the threat of legal action and the legal liability.

If the end users are legally liable and manufacturer is not then the device *is* mine. If both the manufacturer and the end users are legally liable then the device ultimately belongs to the media producers.

So the quagmire is actually all about how services blur and diffuse the definition of hardware and software, between my freedom of use of the device and my freedom of use of the software and my freedom of service utilization.

Because the device and software first become what they *are* in the service provision and agreement the hardware and the software *belong* to those who are legally liable *and* those who pursue legal action-but not at the same time-the disproportionate liability and disproportionate ability to pursue litigation eliminates the possibility of some kind of equality-this disproportionality deconstructs the lines of definition.

Although i can digitialize content content is a different medium than either software or hardware. Content should be licensced differently than software and hardware. Where content defines the value proposition of software and hardware neither imperative of freedom can be met: that I own the hardware and that the software is Free.

I definitely lean more towards RMS position. Companies founded on the value proposition of content which distribute this content via service agreements which mandate specific hardware and specific software which make use of DRM to fulfill their obligations to the content producers leave me, as a consumer, in a position where I neither own the device I purchased, nor have freedom of use of the distributed software-even if the code is available-and of course the content is also not mine.

However, I am allowed to consume, I am allowed to be entertainment, the most passive and disempowered role, the role of the consumer. Luckily consumerism eats itself-consumption *will* consume itself. Without the freedom to use the content, not merely consume it, their will be no production of new content.

Reply Score: 5

Hey FSF: Is the source code speech or not?
by ahalsey on Thu 28th Sep 2006 21:41 UTC
ahalsey
Member since:
2006-05-10

FSF has always claimed they are are about Free Speech, not free as in "no cost". They believe source code, like written speech, are expressions of ideas.

But with this anti-Tivo clause, they now seem to be saying that the source code is worthless unless you can run the compiled binary on the vendor's hardware. This contradicts their free speech argument. Which is it?

I believe there is value to the source code even if I can't load it back on my Tivo. Access to the source code would help someone port the Tivo software to an open platform, like Mini-ITX or an old PC.

The anti-Tivo clause would make it impractical for vendors like Tivo, cell phone providers, game consoles, etc. to engage in the common business plan of subsidizing the harware costs through long-term subscription contracts or game software sales. These vendors will replace the GPL software with closed-source software, like Linksys recently did with their WRT routers.

Please, let's not make the GPL toxic to the business-friendly and consumer-friendly business model of subsidized hardware.

Reply Score: 5

To me, it seems simple:
by RandomGuy on Thu 28th Sep 2006 23:27 UTC
RandomGuy
Member since:
2006-07-30

Stallman has declared war on DRM.
The following questions remain to be answered:

1. Is DRM really so evil and threatening?
If it is, there are two possible opinions:
a) Stallman is going to loose --> keep away from GPL v3
b) Stallman is going to win --> go v3 as fast as possible
If DRM isn't all this bad, you should obviously avoid v3

I think DRM is evil but the answer is a):
Free software is probably not strong enough to win a direct fight against DRM.
That means if everything and everybody around you goes DRM try telling your grandma or girlfriend she should not watch the stuff because linux needs to follow Stallmans ideals and fight the great war against DRM.

I bet you'd hear "linux sucks" all over the place soon.
And this is why we cannot risk to declare war on DRM.

Reply Score: 2

RE: To me, it seems simple:
by eMagius on Thu 28th Sep 2006 23:48 UTC in reply to "To me, it seems simple: "
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

Stallman lost his last war on security (i.e., prohibiting user passwords; though he did succeed in removing wheel from GNU/Linux). I wouldn't bet that he'll have much more success this time around.

Reply Score: 1

RE: To me, it seems simple:
by nalf38 on Fri 29th Sep 2006 03:25 UTC in reply to "To me, it seems simple: "
nalf38 Member since:
2006-09-01

"Free software is probably not strong enough to win a direct fight against DRM."

I'm not sure if I think that's a good enough reason not to declare war on DRM, that Free Software isn't strong enough.

My argument is that GPL3 goes even beyond DRM and practically forbids just about any type of encryption.

DRM in its original purpose is about protecting IP rights. When it's used for a dual purpose, IP protection AND vendor lock-in, then it's wrong. The problem is that with Apple and Microsoft, you can't tell the difference.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: To me, it seems simple:
by Valhalla on Fri 29th Sep 2006 05:54 UTC in reply to "RE: To me, it seems simple: "
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

nalf38 wrote:
-"My argument is that GPL3 goes even beyond DRM and practically forbids just about any type of encryption. "

which is an outright lie. where do you get off spewing FUD such as this?

it doesn't even prevent DRM unless it is 'restricive'. if you would like to digitally sign your binaries so that end users would know that they came from you, there is no problem, you do not have to give out your keys.

only if having your key is a prerequisite to be able to run a modified binary of said software would you have to enclose it to the recipients.

again, GPL is end-user centric. so as an end-user, you have all the rights to encrypt your data, to password access to your computer etc. these are keys you as an end-user designates, and as such it does not restrict you in anyway.

Reply Score: 1

DRM = restriction
by Vorlath on Thu 28th Sep 2006 23:36 UTC
Vorlath
Member since:
2005-12-03

I understand both sides, but Linus' view on DRM is incorrect. It doesn't restrict what people can do. Refusing others to lock things up is NEVER a restriction, especially if they use your stuff. It's like slave traders saying that if they can't lock up people, it's restricting their business. That's Linus' argument and it doesn't wash. FSF wants freedom. Linus is saying freedom should stay on software and not the platform it runs on. Linus' view is hypocritical. How can you take a stand for one thing and not the other?

Reply Score: 2

RE: DRM = restriction
by elsewhere on Fri 29th Sep 2006 02:34 UTC in reply to "DRM = restriction"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

It's like slave traders saying that if they can't lock up people, it's restricting their business. That's Linus' argument and it doesn't wash.

Amazing. People that don't agree with the FSF view are now somehow equated with slave traders.

I'm speechless.

Reply Score: 2

We might need a FHF besides de FSF
by Luis on Thu 28th Sep 2006 23:42 UTC
Luis
Member since:
2006-04-28

I think the fundamental problem is that they're trying to use a software license to solve a hardware issue. Tivo software is Free, its the hardware that's not Free.

I could imagine the worst scenario: Microsoft agrees with all hardware manufacturers that their hardware will just run Windows Vista and nothing else. So Free software would be useless.

Or even imagine Red Hat making this same agreement with hardware vendors that their hardware will just run unmodified RHEL. Even if the software is Free and you can modify it, it's useless because you won't be able to run it. Nor any other distro.

But this problem can't be solved with a software license. Trying to do so just restricts some freedom as Linus points out. That's why we might need a Free Hardware Foundation to address the problem.

Reply Score: 1

d
by davegetrag on Fri 29th Sep 2006 02:16 UTC
davegetrag
Member since:
2006-03-31

Even if that happened, Torvalds says that he's not "not going to single-handedly try to relicense" the kernel out of respect for past authors of kernel code.

Now it sounds like he is saying he COULD relicense the kernel. In fact it sounds as if he could attempt it singe handedly but may do it multi-handedly. Now now I thought he has been spouting that it was impossible. That there was no way even if he wanted to. In fact I have heard him quoted as saying that over and over around here. Interesting...

Reply Score: 1

What if...
by mkone on Fri 29th Sep 2006 11:38 UTC
mkone
Member since:
2006-03-14

What if Tivo, in their evil genius, decided to split themselves in two, one part making the locked down hardware, and the other making software that runs on the locked down hardware. Would it be illegal for them distribute software that truns on the locked down hardware, by meeting the demand that their software be signed. What if I, a third party, got a license to provide the software. Does the GPLv3 make it illegal to do this using GPLv3 software.

Tivo wants to use a perfectly capable operating system on their boxes, and they are perfectly willing to share their expertise on making Linux runs on devices which are very resource constrained, which is something Linus would probably not really concentrate on if he develops for desktops and servers. This is the quid pro quo that he refers to. Tivo is not hiding their methods or their contributions. They are actually providing a service, (something the FSF think people should do actually) and to regulate who can use their services, they require that the software be signed by them. I don't see where a software license can and should compel a hardware manufacturer (which Tivo isn't by the way, they sell boxes with their software) to make it easy for other to run their software on it. Its probably possible, if you are willing to invalidate your warranty, and if the FSF thinks you should be allowed to do that, then that is another fish to fry.

Your cds with Linux for PowerPC cannot run on x86. Is that a technical measure that the GPLv3 would like to ensure that cannot be used to limit your freedoms. So the GPLv3 could make it illegal to run free software on proprietary hardware.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What if...
by Valhalla on Fri 29th Sep 2006 13:55 UTC in reply to "What if..."
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

mkone wrote:
-"What if Tivo, in their evil genius, decided to split themselves in two, one part making the locked down hardware, and the other making software that runs on the locked down hardware. Would it be illegal for them distribute software that truns on the locked down hardware, by meeting the demand that their software be signed. What if I, a third party, got a license to provide the software. Does the GPLv3 make it illegal to do this using GPLv3 software."

it does if they refuse to give out the key necessary to be able to modify, sign and subsequently run the resulting binary. as a recipient of GPL'ed software you should be able to modify the source code and run a resulting binary. the loophole Tivo is using is that you won't be able to run the resulting binary on the hardware it was supplied with due to restrictive DRM. from a business view this makes sense. from an end-user perspective this is restrictive. GPL was concieved to protect end-user rights, as such it cannot accept restrictive DRM.


mkone wrote:
-"Your cds with Linux for PowerPC cannot run on x86. Is that a technical measure that the GPLv3 would like to ensure that cannot be used to limit your freedoms. So the GPLv3 could make it illegal to run free software on proprietary hardware."

GPL has no restrictions against creating binaries that only run on certain hardware platforms, GIVEN that the end-user is provided the source code necessary to be able to modify and run their own version of that said binary.

naturally, that end-user could also make changes in the source code to make it run on other hardware platforms. and if he distributed such a binary, he would have to provide all necessary code to be able to produce that particular binary to those who wanted it. thus, the circle is closed.

Reply Score: 1