OSNews

He absolutely did not invent the concept of free software; what he and people like him did was protect free(libre) software.

When Computing was the concern of Academics and a few Companies sharing was part and parcel, but becuase mainstream...and thats without the goldmine rush on the Microsoft Platform, code was stolen(sic) are released in binary form.

It was about preserving free(libre) software. The subtlety of arguing that that he moved to preserve this culture, and he invented!? a license to do so.

Edited 2007-02-04 22:21

Preserving free software is a secondary motive of RMS's first motive - forcing free software. Anybody else could have invented a free software licence (FreeBSD, Public Domain, Apache Licence, Creative Commons), Richard invented a licence designed to force people to use open code and purposely not play well with proprietory software.

The inventor of the World Wide Web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee created the first web server and web browser as well as defined the HTML specification. He made the html spec an open standard, and we have the www as it is now because of that.

Had he mandated that all software that processes HTML in any way _must_ be open source, the commercial boom in the Internet would not have happened, and we would not be talking on this forum now.

Blah...

It is completely impossible to force people to be free. It is equally impossible to force people to use free software.

Nobody forces you to use GPL'ed software or BSD-licensed software. Not even if you are using files created by GPL'ed software. It is impossible to create vendor lock-in using open source and open standards therefore you cannot be forced to use free software/open source.

You can however be forced to use proprietary code due to vendor lock-in which happens when data are created by proprietary applications using proprietary standards.

If you don't want to use GPL'ed code, don't use it. If you want to use GPL'ed code, stick to the license.

AFAICT what you really want is FREE (as in GRATIS) access to all the work of FLOSS developers without having to comply with license terms. "Leecher" would be the appropriate term for you.

EDIT: Besides, it's perfectly possible (and legal) to link GPL'ed code to proprietary code and vice versa. Only in terms of distribution can it be a bit tricky, but this no different than having to pay for a patent license before distributing software using proprietary solutions.

Edited 2007-02-04 22:43

Open Source code, and proprietory code are both tools for a job. Some code I have created is proprietory because there is no benefit to it being open, or it benefits from being closed. I also have an open source project I created myself, giving away thousands of hours of work for free. RMS, and the GPL is unforgiving of the programmer's personal right to his own code and to make decisions for himself. I place my open source contributions under a Creative Commons licence so that I place benefits, not restrictions on people who use my code.

And with a Creative Commons license you grant fewer benefits than with the GPL.

You are talking bullshit about RMS and the GPL. RMS does not force you to release software under the GPL. And nobody forces you to use software released under the GPL in your projects.

The mere facts you can release software under another license than GPL proves you are lying and trolling.

EDIT: The reason why you use the CC licenses is because they grant _fewer_ benefits to other people than the GPL.

The GPL grants all benefits to other persons with the sole exception of the right to control other persons software. A fair'n'square deal.

EDIT: Oh dear. The zealots are on the run.

Edited 2007-02-04 23:19

"And with a Creative Commons license you grant fewer benefits than with the GPL."

Come now, that's rot. My code can be used commercially, inline with proprietary code without having link, modified and mixed with code of any other licence and redistributed how they please.

My requirement is please include my name somewhere in your code. And if they don't - I'm not going to go out and sue them or tell them they can no longer sell their product.

Why don't use just use the revised BSD or the MIT/X11-license then?

There are many different CC-licenses and most do not allow for commercial distribution, nor modifications to the original work.

RMS, and the GPL is unforgiving of the programmer's personal right to his own code and to make decisions for himself.

People who believe that the GPL is business-unfriendly or communist or idealistic are the REAL idealists. There are two people involved in every transaction. Unlike both proprietary and open source software, free software guarantees that the user who purchases your product today will be able to use it tomorrow, even if you fall under a bus tonight.

RMS, and the GPL is unforgiving of the programmer's personal right to his own code and to make decisions for himself. I place my open source contributions under a Creative Commons licence so that I place benefits, not restrictions on people who use my code.

How does the GPL limit a programmer's personal right to his own code? Oh, right, it doesn't, because a) the programmer *chooses* the license, and b) he can relicense the code under another license at any time (though he can't invalidate previous licenses).

Enough with the anti-GPL FUD. If you don't like it, don't use it, but drop the logically-fallacious grandstanding.

Edited 2007-02-05 00:23

How does the GPL limit a programmer's personal right to his own code?

The GPL doesn't. Ironically, however, the FSF does. You can't contribute code to GNU unless you're willing to give up your rights to it.

It has always cracked me up that the FSF is unwilling to accept its own license as sufficient.

The GPL doesn't. Ironically, however, the FSF does. You can't contribute code to GNU unless you're willing to give up your rights to it.

I don't see a problem with this. GNU is a project, it doesn't represent Free Software as a whole. Does it mean less people contribute to GNU? Perhaps, though I wonder how much of an impact this really has. In any case, it's rather meaningless: those who are willing to give up their rights clearly see no problem with this.

It has always cracked me up that the FSF is unwilling to accept its own license as sufficient.

Sufficient for what? Certainly RMS has promoted the GPL and free software - I've never heard him say that all software should be part of the GNU project! The important of the FSF is marginal with regards to the actual free software community. Most GPLed programs are *not* part of the GNU project.

I don't see a contradiction here. Let me use a religious analogy, since that seems to be the most popular ones when discussing RMS and co.: in Buddhism, you have lay people and monks. One could imagine that monks, who follow stricter rules, are more vertuous because they devote their life to religion, meditating and chanting their way to nirvana. However, Buddah himself discounted this notion, saying that a layperson who follows the simple precepts of the religion, and leads a good life while being a productive member of society, is just as praiseworthy as the most dedicated monk.

I see the comparison between people who attribute their copyright to the FSF and those who don't (but still release their code under the GPL) in a similar light. People who contribute to GNU sacrifice something for an ideal they agree with, but they are no more (or less) virtuous than those who release their code under the GPL while retaining their rights.

Of course, the majority of corporate programmers never get to own their code in the first place...at least in the case of the GNU project it's voluntary. :-)

That's a load of crock. The FSF demands that you turn over your copyright to them because that way they can avoid the mess of hundreds of people owning the copyright to the code-base. Look at the Linux kernel: they can't change the license on the kernel even if they wanted to.

"Preserving free software is a secondary motive of RMS's first motive - forcing free software. Anybody else could have invented a free software licence (FreeBSD, Public Domain, Apache Licence, Creative Commons), Richard invented a licence designed to force people to use open code and purposely not play well with proprietory software.

The inventor of the World Wide Web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee created the first web server and web browser as well as defined the HTML specification. He made the html spec an open standard, and we have the www as it is now because of that.

Had he mandated that all software that processes HTML in any way _must_ be open source, the commercial boom in the Internet would not have happened, and we would not be talking on this forum now."

What you say is a lie about 30 minutes in. He also discusses *control* using proprietary software. Oddly your argument is about Open standards not licensing of software.

Whats interesting is the example given where the abuse of standards has helped create a monopoly by Microsoft.

Its *nothing* to do with stallman. The only way I can think this being used is in an argument aginst DRM and proprietary software.

Yes, like Ben Franklin 'invented' Electricity. What tosh, RMS defined a way to define free software.

Indeed. I think that the GPL and the way it works is a totally sensible license for the good health of any project that has its source opened ;-), which is why Linus picked it, but RMS has some serious delusions of grandeur about what he and the FSF have been responsible for.

The simple fact is that without the rise of Linux the free software world would still be in the middle of the Hurd wonderland, and RMS and the FSF has ridden very much on Linux's back and wants to claim credit. Yep, a lot of important userland tools are GNU projects, but Linux based operating systems would have been developed with them or without them.

"Yes, like Ben Franklin 'invented' Electricity. What tosh, RMS defined a way to define free software. He did not invent the very concept of free (libre) software. It already existed in science labs all over the world, since as long as computers were programmable."

Defines free software at about 4 minutes listen to it. what you say is a lie.

The FSF distinguishes in general "Free" software from "open" software. The latter term has been used to refer to the type of software that you refer to, which existed before the FSF. However, the FSF did pioneer the concept of open software that could not be closed, and the use of the term "free" to refer to such software.

nice way to show your gratitude.

without him, or people like him, you would with almost certainty not be enjoying the internet and other computer related technologies as you are today.

without him, or people like him, you would with almost certainty not be enjoying the internet and other computer related technologies as you are today.

Stallman and the FSF had nothing to do with creating, developing, popularizing, or commercializing either the internet or modern computer technology.

All the FSF ever did was a partial reimplementation of an existing operating system that they haven't to this day finished.

Tell us exactly who is the nutjob and why this person is a nutjob.

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I'll give it a shot. Stallman is a nutjob because his idea of freedom in software has become so perverse that it now includes provisions that prevent people from implementing certain technologies using free software.

Freedom, in the general sense of the word, implies that people have the right to do things that you find disagreeable. The fact that free software is being used to implement DRM angers many in the free software community, and rightfully so. But free software doesn't mean that the free software community gets to pass judgment on what people do with the software.

There are many free software programs that are predominantly used to break the law. But we don't pass judgment. Bram Cohen shouldn't be held responsible for the way people use BitTorrent, for example. But neither should TiVo be held responsible for how they use Linux. Their DRM is free software, redistributable under the terms of the GPL. What they do doesn't make Linux less free, it makes TiVo's service less free. If this makes you mad (and it should), then use MythTV.

The GPLv2 is a copyright license. It sets forth the terms under which you can distribute copies of the software. These terms pass no judgment on the intended use of the software. The GPLv3 is more than a copyright license. It has terms that fall outside the boundaries of copyright law. These terms are intended to be enforced as a general contract agreement. In other words, it's a EULA. We don't like those, remember?

Stallman is absolutely right that we cannot take freedom for granted. That's why his concept of copyleft is so important. But not as important as keeping free software free--free to implement whatever idea you have, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

"Freedom, in the general sense of the word, implies that people have the right to do things that you find disagreeable. The fact that free software is being used to implement DRM angers many in the free software community, and rightfully so. But free software doesn't mean that the free software community gets to pass judgment on what people do with the software.

There are many free software programs that are predominantly used to break the law. But we don't pass judgment. Bram Cohen shouldn't be held responsible for the way people use BitTorrent, for example. But neither should TiVo be held responsible for how they use Linux. Their DRM is free software, redistributable under the terms of the GPL. What they do doesn't make Linux less free, it makes TiVo's service less free. If this makes you mad (and it should), then use MythTV. "

I'm glad you read the interview and understood Stallmans example of Malicious code, and Spyware.

The Tivo simply stops you running your own software, which makes a nonsense of you saying just use MythTV...becuase I suspect many want to do just that, on their Tivo. Clearly these people are nut-jobs as well

Whats most interesting is the fact TiVo spy on your watching habits....and sell this information to companies. I bet a lot of Tivo owners arn't happy with that either.

Again Freedom for a company to remove your Freedom. Thats one of the four freedoms I'm familiar with. In fact its a nonsensece

You don't use TiVo to run software, you subscribe to a service: although the code is free the service comes with some limitations, which is in their right to impose. Don't like the terms of service? Don't subscribe.

You see, at some point even Stallman conceded that even he didn't want to "free" the code running is microwave oven, because it doesn't make sense to consider hardware appliances (+ service in the case of TiVo) as computing devices.

Too bad he receded from common sense, because the DRM clause is the one causing 90% of the controversy about GPL v. 3.

rehdon

Too bad he receded from common sense, because the DRM clause is the one causing 90% of the controversy about GPL v. 3.

It is a true shame. I don't think anybody is really upset about the rest of the license, especially after the softening of the patent protection clause in draft 2. It's quite good, and very nicely written.

If not for the anti-DRM clause, I think the Linux kernel community would be busy tracking down contributors in order to relicense most of the kernel under the GPLv3. They like the patent protections, and they like the clearer text. But as soon as the rest of the world started to come around to the unique definition of freedom established by the FSF, they had to go and make it a bit harder to stomach.

"unique definition of freedom"

So people wanting to change; edit; use the source code as they wish is unique. Clearly all those customers unhappy that that cannot to use the TiVo as they wish, should think thats freedom.

The Tivo Box is a *computer*. The fact that you can subscribe to a service is an aside. Whats the relevance?

What has that to do with anything.

From the agreement

"Unless otherwise stated, TiVo Package Payment Plans include an 80-Hour TiVo® Series2™ DVR, included as part of the price of the package, and a subscription to the TiVo Service for one combined fee (a "TiVo Package").

You can cancel the service. The box is yours.

Its not a hardware appliance. Its not a "Microwave Oven" its a computer.

"bash-2.02# cat /proc/cpuinfo
cpu : MIPS
cpu model : R5432 V3.0
system type : TiVo UMA P0 board
BogoMIPS : 161.38
byteorder : big endian
unaligned accesses : 8198
wait instruction : no
microsecond timers : yes
extra interrupt vector : no
hardware watchpoint : yes
spurious interrupts : 55745
cycle counter frequency : 81003906
bash-2.02# cat /proc/meminfo
total: used: free: shared: buffers: cached:
Mem: 44830720 37437440 7393280 0 2224128 22704128
Swap: 67104768 0 67104768
MemTotal: 43780 kB
MemFree: 7220 kB
MemShared: 0 kB
Buffers: 2172 kB
Cached: 22172 kB
Active: 18808 kB
Inact_dirty: 5536 kB
Inact_clean: 0 kB
Inact_target: 8 kB
HighTotal: 0 kB
HighFree: 0 kB
LowTotal: 43780 kB
LowFree: 7220 kB
SwapTotal: 65532 kB
SwapFree: 65532 kB
bash-2.02# cat /proc/version
Linux version 2.4.4-TiVo-3.0 (build@buildmaster10) (gcc version 3.0) #27 Sat Sep
28 21:47:44 PDT 2002
bash-2.02# cat /proc/pci
PCI devices found:
Bus 0, device 13, function 0:
Class 0c03: PCI device 1033:0035 (rev 65).
IRQ 5.
Master Capable. Latency=40. Min Gnt=1.Max Lat=42.
Non-prefetchable 32 bit memory at 0x14000000 [0x14000fff].
Bus 0, device 13, function 1:
Class 0c03: PCI device 1033:0035 (rev 65).
IRQ 3.
Master Capable. Latency=40. Min Gnt=1.Max Lat=42.
Non-prefetchable 32 bit memory at 0x14001000 [0x14001fff].
Bus 0, device 13, function 2:
Class 0c03: PCI device 1033:00e0 (rev 2).
IRQ 6.
Master Capable. Latency=64. Min Gnt=16.Max Lat=34.
Non-prefetchable 32 bit memory at 0x14002000 [0x140020ff].
Bus 0, device 14, function 0:
Class ff00: PCI device 1741:0000 (rev 128).
IRQ 2.
Master Capable. Latency=64.
Non-prefetchable 32 bit memory at 0x14100000 [0x141fffff]."

Why is it not common sense to not want to have your four freedoms on the TiVo? Its not obvious to me.

Because your definition of computer is too wide: try to bring it a little nearer to reality and you'll surely understand.

F.i., my DVD/DivX player runs Linux too: is it a "computer"? My Nokia phone runs Symbian: is it a "computer"? If you conclude that TiVo is a computer, then those too appliances must be "computers" to you: no offense meant, but that's nonsense. They can "compute", sure, but they still are appliances. Don't let ideology influence your appreciation of reality.

rehdon

Uhm...and tommorrow when your real "computer" is nothing but appliance with a remote....will you still think they are different?

Clearly TiVo is doing lots of things that piss off its customers, and the latest privacy issues that hit the news are indeed troubling. I recommend that people simply don't buy TiVos. The software on them is free, but the platform they sell is not.

If you want to run MythTV, I don't know why you'd want to run it on a TiVo. Among many other reasons, it is easy to build a scalable and fault-tolerant storage system for a PC, but nearly impossible on a TiVo (I think).

Freedom for a company to remove your freedom? That's simply the way things work in this world. If Stallman thinks a copyright license is going to change the way consumer electronics vendors do business, he really is a nutjob.

Let's step back and think about what he's trying to do and how the stakeholders will react. If the GPLv3 were magically applied to the Linux kernel (which won't happen), and if TiVo was no longer allowed to implement signed modules on Linux, what would TiVo do? They'd switch to some other embeddable OS, perhaps Windows CE. I guess you could argue that this wouldn't have much negative impact on the Linux kernel community. But it certainly wouldn't help out TiVo's customers either.

I didn't read the interview because I didn't see a link to a text transcript, and I don't like listening to audio interviews. Is there a text version?

As for malware and spyware, the prevention of these is one field of study where developers are pursuing DRM to help people get the most out of their computers, rather than the other way around. If we can sign all of the kernel modules that we build with our trusted kernel sources, or that are distributed by our Linux vendor, then we have some measure of protection against malicious kernel modules. The system can then require (root) user confirmation that they want to load an unsigned module. But we can't do this if the kernel is GPLv3.

What about anti-virus? Where do you draw the line between a system that protects against running malware with a given signature and the kind of signature that prevents people from modding their TiVo? I suspect that the text of the GPLv3 has all sorts of unintended side effects that will prevent future benevolent uses of DRM-like technology. That's a large part of why I'm against any functional restrictions on free software.

Edited 2007-02-05 08:48

Clearly you have not been keeping up. The free(sic) software on the TiVo is simply not free enough. Thats why its mentioned all the time.

The obvious reasons I could think of why you would want to run a TiVo with MythTV under your TV is it simply looks prettier than a computer, has advantages like commercial removal etc etc and doesn't contain spyware.

"Freedom for a company to remove your freedom? That's simply the way things work in this world."

I have no comment to say on that. I'll let it stand for itself. The fact that somebody is prepared to satnd up and say that is wrong and have him be called a "nutjob" is beyond insulting.

Lets stand back and look at how the stakeholders(sic) will react. They receive exactly the same benefits from using Linux as they did before, but have to give there customers the keys to unlock the hardware DRM if they ask.

I provided a summery for people just like yourself...but it seems the two people trolling this thread have no interest in reading what he has to say just insult him.

Again you lack understanding how will providing the customers with the keys to DRM on their stop malware or spyware. Clearly you do not understand the whole process.

What about anti-virus? DRM actually prevents you running anti-virus software as you wish...the best way of running Anti-Virus Software is *not within the OS* you are runnning in. If Malware is on your machine and is trusted *can you ever remove it*, becuase I can guarantee that will happen.

"CrazyDude0"

from the thesaurus ...
Synonyms: ape, barmy, batty, berserk, bonkers*, cracked, crazed, cuckoo, daft, delirious, demented, deranged, dingy*, dippy*, erratic, flaky, flipped*, flipped out*, freaked out*, fruity*, haywire, idiotic, insane, kooky, lunatic, mad, maniacal, mental*, moonstruck*, nuts, nutty, potty*, psycho*, screw loose*, screwball*, screwy*, silly, touched*, unbalanced, unglued*, unhinged*, unzipped*, wacky, whacko

Antonyms: balanced, levelheaded, rational, reasonable, sane, sensible, stable


Your "posting" name would explain your posts i guess ...

I really love the way they're all up in arms about DRM, yet don't bat an eyelid about the military applications (and contributions) of FOSS.

Talk about missing the point!

The fact that free software is being used to implement DRM angers many in the free software community, and rightfully so.

Why is that rightfully so? I love free software and I use it whenever I can at home and at work. At work I'm looking into ways to use DRM to create programs that expire. These programs are proprietary engineering calculations that we don't want to be known should a laptop be stolen here or there. Right now they can only be executed on our network so they're safe but there is a need to run them in the field where laptops are stolen right out of trunks of cars, hotel rooms etc.

" ...provided you also distribute any encryption or authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions...
(From Section 1, paragraph 4)"

There seems to be a misunderstandings over how DRM will will work under under GPL3

You can use DRM under GPL...you just get the keys. *You* get the same benefits, and have a choice.

Choice: MP3
> Usable by 95% of all computers worldwide out of the box. Including Windows, Macs and some Linux distos.

Choice: OGG
> Usable by less than 3% of computers worldwide, out of the box. (Both Windows and Mac users must download additional software)


Lets face it. RMS doesn't have an RDF that strong.

Edited 2007-02-04 23:00

and in your infinite wisdom, you forget that mp3 is not free, and mp3 provides quality vastly inferior to vorbis. mp3 is a joke in quality, a laughing stock, something to be poked fun at. and those who use it should be poked fun at aswell, for being so stupid.

Since when was the best thing the one that succeded?

BetaMax vs. VHS
Wide Guage rails vs. Narrow Guage rails
...

Get real. MP3 may be inferior, but it's good enough and accessible to the most people.

obviously it is not good enough, or there wouldnt be a need to invent newer better stuff, why do you think dvd's dont use mp3, or cd's even. what about dvd-audio? hddvd, bluray movies?

hell, it isnt even good enough to be freely usable in a very large portion of the world.

Judging by the popularity of the portable media players and the music "trading" networks, I would say that MP3 is good enough for most people.

I use OGG and FLAC for my music collection because of the quality and the openness of the format, but the average Joe just don't care. MP3 was there before, there is pretty good software/hardware support for the format, few really care of computer freedom... It will stay the mainstream format until it's eclipsed by a disruptive technology.

CDs don't use MP3 because they were invented a decade before the codec... DVD-Audio and SACD are barely adopted (merely by audiophiles) while movies (either DVDs, HD-DVDs and Blu-ray) have different needs (like multiple audio channels). That said, early DVDs did used the ancestor of MP3 (aptly named MP2).

It's not good enough for everything, but nothing is.