The 4th international GPLv3 conference is being held at Bangalore and Richard Stallman is one of the prominent delegates. This is a transcript of the interview with RMS where he is asked a couple of questions related to GPLv3 and free software in general.
I read that earlier. Seemed very short, not much meat. I wondered if there was more and kept looking for the link to the next page.
The MOD police are in town and bending me over!
Organizations that need patent protection and/or DRM are going to avoid GPL3 like the plague. Media companies are moving steadily toward DRM’d content. This is a fact. iPod. WMA/WMV. HD-DVD. Blu-Ray. It’s inevitable. By deciding not to play nice with commercial interests, Stallman is guaranteeing that these companies will avoid OSS. I understand that Stallman is primarily interested in protecting the long-term legal viability of free software — for example, preventing pernicious kinds of legal entanglements — but this move is going to prevent the next generation of codecs, etc from being written for Linux, etc. Apple has the right idea here. Use the best parts of OSS and keep those parts private that must necessarily be private. Stallman seems to have myopia on these points. But, then again, everybody has a blind spot. This is his.
+1 for remaining in touch with the real world.
> By deciding not to play nice with commercial interests,
> Stallman is guaranteeing that these companies will
> avoid OSS.
(note that you probably mean free software, not OSS)
I think this is not a blind spot, but a price he is willing to pay. He has essentially declared war on DRM and has expected companies to choose a side.
“Organizations that need patent protection and/or DRM are going to avoid GPL3 like the plague”
Not at all as the GPL V3 is not against them , it is against using those in order to make Free Software like Open Source and be closed when the derivative maker feel like it and close the rights and freedom granted by the GPL.
“Media companies are moving steadily toward DRM’d content. ”
DRM is not a problem ,its how its used and what it tries to achieve , music , movie and any content that is going to be DRM’ed in your example are considered DATA and are not covered by the Free Software foundation GPL , they only cather to the software.
“This is a fact. iPod. WMA/WMV. HD-DVD. Blu-Ray. ”
You might whant to do your research on the subject , out of the the device and format you named only WMA/WMD is not actually covered by GNU/Linux. iPod is also an Open Device.
“It’s inevitable.”
That’s why the GPL V3 is adressing them …
“By deciding not to play nice with commercial interests ”
Contrary to your FUD and lie , there is more to commercial industry with GNU/Linux then MP3 and Movies …
“Stallman is guaranteeing that these companies will avoid OSS.”
The only one that are not compatible now with GNU/Linux now are format and device made by Microsoft and Apple.
” I understand that Stallman … of free software -”
No , you absolutely dont , if you dit you would know the subject and its content and would not try and spread FUD and lies.
” for example, preventing pernicious kinds of legal entanglements ”
No , it only prevent removal of rights that are in the GPL …
“but this move is going to prevent the next generation of codecs, etc from being written for Linux, etc. ”
The next generation of codec is built on and for GNU/Linux only … You seem to not be following the movie industry at all , almost all the movie are made and rendered on free software this days. If we had half the stuff they got that work on GNU/Linux and dont distribute , its painfull to know sometime , with all the yelling and whinning for Photoshop and Premiere and the like …
“Apple has the right idea here.”
Use Apple product then … It run GNU/Linux and windows this days …
“Use the best parts of OSS and keep those parts private that must necessarily be private. ”
Apple is OSS , Free Software dont have the same goals and value , it aim at stopping the closing of any software …
“Stallman seems to have myopia on these points.”
Stallman dont work for OSS or Apple or the corporation why infrige on people rights.
“But, then again, everybody has a blind spot. This is his.”
He dont on this one , and dont make up more FUD and lies , youre really in for a suprise on who support V3 and who support GNU/Linux and OSS and FOSS , you might whant to take a look at the OSDL members and OIN members amd the panel of members discussing GPL V3.
http://gplv3.fsf.org/discussion-committees
http://groups.osdl.org/about/industry_segments?segment=sysvendors
http://groups.osdl.org/osdl_members/osdl_roster
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_members.php
even on the next platform , mobile phone :
http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS2710208789.html
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS6030689030.html
You dont do maths like normal people do , your doing the Microsoft kind of computation , there is a lot of people who are for and promote GPL V3 , because it level the playing field and let them concentrate on actually doing something usefull instead of fighting patent , and instead of doing software development all alone and the support that goes with it too.
its a GNU/Linux world , Microsoft is only a dominant player on the desktop and this days mostly only in the United States but its down from 72% worldwide to , 58% this days and still dropping , GNU/Linux and Apple are increasing.
We got a couple of market/country that are 100% GNU/Linux , and I dont mean China , they speak a language that Microsoft cant be bothered to deal with … surprising for the number of people in it.
I’m simply opposed to provisions in GPL3 which don’t play nicely with business interests, such as patents and DRM exclusions. Your post is simply too rife with distortions and strawmen to bother enumerating responses.
“I’m simply opposed to provisions in GPL3 ”
No , your opposed to the false interpretation someone else told you that was in the GPL V3 *draft*. To be in opposition of something you have to know what it is first and also understand it.
“which don’t play nicely with business interests”
Business interest ( making money ) is not stopped or discouraged or even hurt by the content of the GPL V3.
“such as patents and DRM exclusions.”
Patents and DRM are not excluded. There not allowed to close or take control of GPL code to/from others by including them.
“Your post is simply too rife with distortions”
Yes , the truth distort your lies … it as that effect.
“and strawmen”
you need to look that one up , I doubt that a group of independant musician in Sacramento is what you meant …
“to bother enumerating responses.”
You dont have a valid and acurate response or responses.
learn this phrase : I disagree entirely with the content you have offered. I also dont feel like telling you why.
No , your opposed to the false interpretation someone else told you that was in the GPL V3 *draft*. To be in opposition of something you have to know what it is first and also understand it.
Do yourself a favor and try to avoid reading anyone’s mind. You’re not very good at it.
Business interest ( making money ) is not stopped or discouraged or even hurt by the content of the GPL V3.
Hence, as I’ve pointed out any number of times already, business interests will avoid GPL3. GPL2 is fine for their needs.
Yes , the truth distort your lies … it as that effect.
Ping me when you learn English.
“reading anyone’s mind.”
Your attitude and writting are enough …
“as I’ve pointed out any number of times already”
Yes , you where false and wrong then and still are now , repeating something over and over dont change how it is.
“business interests will avoid GPL3.”
Thats where your wrong , as I pointed out they are participating in the making of V3 , whats stopped by the GPL V3 is taking control and taking over by including something or making a derivative , wich the business have come to love save them hundreds of million in lawsuit.
I’m simply opposed to provisions in GPL3 which don’t play nicely with business interests, such as patents and DRM exclusions.
So you’re simply opposed to the very principles of free software. Well thanks for letting us know, we can now ignore your voice in this debate since subverting the very principles of free software so big business is happy is not going to be a part of the GPLv3.
Well thanks for letting us know, we can now ignore your voice in this debate since subverting the very principles of free software so big business is happy is not going to be a part of the GPLv3…
Great, fine, whatever. Feel free to ignore the reality that commercial interests are the ones that can either propel your platform forward or leave it in stagnation. You’ve chosen the latter. I suggest that there’s a middle ground between Stallman and big business. The fact that you guys don’t even want to discuss compromise speaks volumes about your degree to which reality is warped in your world.
No if we accept compromise then the whole point is lost reagrdless if we take over the world after that.
Welcome to the Cult of Stallman. Pick up your jumpsuit, Keds, and cup of Kool-Aid on the way in…
That was a beautiful rant. It even got some dumb mods to get you up to +5. The GPLv3 doesn’t actually cover DRM’d content in any way, shape or form. But why let facts get in the way of such a beautiful rant.
The GPLv3 doesn’t actually cover DRM’d content in any way, shape or form.
While technically true, this point is irrelevant. It is not the content, but the player which would be affected by GPLv3. The model of DRM that currently stands the greatest chance of widespread use requires that the system underlying the player be signed and that it only run signed binaries, and no, they’re not giving away the signing keys.
The model of DRM that currently stands the greatest chance of widespread use requires that the system underlying the player be signed and that it only run signed binaries, and no, they’re not giving away the signing keys.
Well now that’s a pretty rediculous statement. First off, how are you defining success? Such a system would be such a step backwards for users that they are not going to accept it cheerfully. Next, it requires forcing the entire world to upgrade to a new hardware platform and purchase new media and it took DVDs what, nearly 10 years to kill VHS? So even on the off chance that consumers don’t reject it outright, it’s not going to be in widespread enough use to effect anything for a decade. And finally, it makes the huge leap of logic that you won’t simply be able to hack the hardware (see console mod chips) or that it won’t be even easier to hack the DRM off the media using that hardware (see how FairPlay was defeated using the iPod’s keys before it was defeated using iTunes’ keys).
Next, there is no good reason to think that a closed hardware platform is the “greatest chance” of anything. There is no successful closed hardware platform DRM system available at this point. The most successful DRM scheme out there also happens to be one of the most leniant, FairPlay. And Apple doesn’t seem to be having trouble getting the RIAA and the television networks to sign up.
Finally, why would the leaders of FOSS want to encourage a future which prevents users from using OSS? That seems to be the complete opposite of what you’d want to do.
Well now that’s a pretty rediculous statement.
It’s just a minor thing, but if you’re going to assay another’s statements as ridiculous, would you mind spelling the word right? There’s no ‘e’ in it.
First off, how are you defining success?
Market share. Microsoft style DRM has already been mandated by DoCoMo for content on Japanese smart phones, and US carriers are all likely to adopt it in the near future.
Such a system would be such a step backwards for users that they are not going to accept it cheerfully.
We’ll see. I’ve not noticed the cell carriers to care how cheerful their customers are.
Next, it requires forcing the entire world to upgrade to a new hardware platform and purchase new media and it took DVDs what, nearly 10 years to kill VHS?
The average life of a media player is 18 months. Same for a cellphone. The average life of a PC isn’t that much longer. 3 years after widespread introduction 3/4 of the devices in consumers hands will have the capability, and that’s without any extra effort.
So even on the off chance that consumers don’t reject it outright, it’s not going to be in widespread enough use to effect anything for a decade.
It’s already been accepted in Japan. Expect it in Europe next, then China, and eventually the US.
And finally, it makes the huge leap of logic that you won’t simply be able to hack the hardware (see console mod chips) or that it won’t be even easier to hack the DRM off the media using that hardware (see how FairPlay was defeated using the iPod’s keys before it was defeated using iTunes’ keys).
*smiles knowingly*
It’s just a minor thing, but if you’re going to assay another’s statements as ridiculous, would you mind spelling the word right? There’s no ‘e’ in it.
At least I know the level of your debate skills now.
Market share. Microsoft style DRM has already been mandated by DoCoMo for content on Japanese smart phones, and US carriers are all likely to adopt it in the near future.
So you’re defining success as market share. And to prove your market share statistics, instead of using the absolute most used DRM system available, Fairplay, your talking about something which is likely to be adopted “in the near future.” I’m not even going to comment on the fact that you’re using the cell phone industry for your examples (a group which thinks that selling ring tones for two to three times as much as the full song costs on the iTMS), not real computer or software vendors. Unless you’ve got a list of OSS software you think is going to be affected?
We’ll see. I’ve not noticed the cell carriers to care how cheerful their customers are.
I’ve not noticed the cell carriers being the topic of the discussion. Now if you were talking about, say, downloadable music and videos (go ahead, talk about ringtones, it might even make me giggle) you might have something useful to say. But, seriously, saying that the cell phone industry is indicative of the broader technology industry and that they have any bearing on the direction the GPL should take is laughable.
The average life of a media player is 18 months. Same for a cellphone. The average life of a PC isn’t that much longer. 3 years after widespread introduction 3/4 of the devices in consumers hands will have the capability, and that’s without any extra effort.
So you think people are just going to rebuy all of the CDs, DVDs, etc. that they’ve purchased to make the media companies happy? Cause last I checked, I didn’t comment on the lifespan of the playback device, I was talking about the lifespan of the media. And unless people rebuy all their media, what they want just doesn’t matter.
It’s already been accepted in Japan. Expect it in Europe next, then China, and eventually the US.
Right, on cell phones. Yawn.
*smiles knowingly*
Please, spare us, you can keep your stories of what the cell industry is doing. Point still stands, hardware based DRM has no marketshare at this point and the GPLv3 doesn’t affect DRM’d media.
Now I’d appreciate it if you’d spell check this comment for me. When you’re done, feel free to regale me with how dominant Microsoft’s PlaysForSure DRM is and how it’s the marketleader (in the future!) some more. Really, I enjoy it.
And to prove your market share statistics, instead of using the absolute most used DRM system available, Fairplay, your talking about something which is likely to be adopted “in the near future.”
Um, actually, DoCoMo has already adopted MS DRM, and it already outships Fairplay in Asia.
I’ve not noticed the cell carriers being the topic of the discussion.
Yes, there’s a lot you seem to have not notices.
Now if you were talking about, say, downloadable music and videos (go ahead, talk about ringtones, it might even make me giggle) you might have something useful to say.
Such as, for example, where the growth market for downloadable music is these days.
But, seriously, saying that the cell phone industry is indicative of the broader technology industry and that they have any bearing on the direction the GPL should take is laughable.
Only to someone who hasn’t been paying attention to the direction computing is going. The desktop is last year’s revolution. We’ve moved on to the mobile device, and the the center of that revolution is currently the cell carrier.
If Linux, for instance, is going to gain traction in that arena, its going to have to do it on devices where the bootloader won’t load the OS unless the OS is signed.
So you think people are just going to rebuy all of the CDs, DVDs, etc. that they’ve purchased to make the media companies happy? Cause last I checked, I didn’t comment on the lifespan of the playback device, I was talking about the lifespan of the media. And unless people rebuy all their media, what they want just doesn’t matter.
Nope, I don’t think they’ll rebuy old media. But this discussion isn’t about your eight-track collection, it’s about how people are going to interact with the growing DRM-based pay-per-play market.
But feel free to stand there behind your Maginot line and believe you’re ready for the next onslaught.
Um, actually, DoCoMo has already adopted MS DRM, and it already outships Fairplay in Asia.
Oh, ok … not. You’re going to need to provide proof that MS DRM’d media is outselling Fairplay media in Asia.
Such as, for example, where the growth market for downloadable music is these days.
Again, you’re going to need to offer some proof. Everything I’ve read has stated that iTMS has 60+% of the market. And, if by “growth market” you mean that cell phone music sales have trippled from 0.5% to 1.5%, color me unimpressed.
If Linux, for instance, is going to gain traction in that arena, its going to have to do it on devices where the bootloader won’t load the OS unless the OS is signed.
I’m not even going to comment on what a leap of logic you’re making here. Are you using your marketshare statistics to make these predictions again?
Nope, I don’t think they’ll rebuy old media.
Problem solved, hardware based DRM isn’t going to rule the world then.
But feel free to stand there behind your Maginot line and believe you’re ready for the next onslaught.
And you keep going to your fortune teller for marketshare statistics and panic about a license which doesn’t even cover content in the first place.
And I’m still waiting for my spell checked comments, please.
Well now that’s a pretty rediculous statement. First off, how are you defining success? Such a system would be such a step backwards for users that they are not going to accept it cheerfully.
Hardly. Consumers already use DRM’d content and players in the form of DVD — and DRM hasn’t hindered the format at all.
Next, there is no good reason to think that a closed hardware platform is the “greatest chance” of anything. There is no successful closed hardware platform DRM system available at this point. The most successful DRM scheme out there also happens to be one of the most leniant, FairPlay. And Apple doesn’t seem to be having trouble getting the RIAA and the television networks to sign up.
Signing doesn’t make something a “closed hardware platform”. It’s merely a licensing problem.
Finally, why would the leaders of FOSS want to encourage a future which prevents users from using OSS? That seems to be the complete opposite of what you’d want to do.
But they’re doing precisely that when they refuse to compromise with business interests and seek a common ground. You know, the worst thing that you can do, if you’re interested in reasonable solutions, is to follow zealots of one stripe or another. Zealots exist at the fringes of debate and, as such, they don’t mind walking away without solutions. That’s what Stallman is doing here. And, as a result, the business interests that he’s spurned will either ignore OSS entirely — or they’ll produce closed, proprietary binaries for Linux, etc.
Hardly. Consumers already use DRM’d content and players in the form of DVD — and DRM hasn’t hindered the format at all.
Because it’s not inconvient. Cloudy is talking about a world of closed hardware computer systems. How many people do you know that are running GPL software on their DVD player? Now when you start telling them that they can’t install their favorite app or game because it’s not “signed” on their new computer, or you tell Google they can’t install Linux on their cluster anymore because it’s not “signed”, you’ve got a different problem altogether. As long as we’re talking about what “might” happen and it’s cell carriers (who, for the most part, consumers already hate dealing with but have no other option), then it’s a moot point.
Signing doesn’t make something a “closed hardware platform”. It’s merely a licensing problem.
Signing kills OSS and breaks all of your current applications, games, utilities, screensavers, etc. Yea, people are going to jump for joy when that’s mandatory. Or, the more realistic scenerio, it’s not going to happen.
But they’re doing precisely that when they refuse to compromise with business interests and seek a common ground.
What are you talking about? The GPL expressly doesn’t even cover DRM in the first place. What common ground is needed?
You know, the worst thing that you can do, if you’re interested in reasonable solutions, is to follow zealots of one stripe or another. Zealots exist at the fringes of debate and, as such, they don’t mind walking away without solutions. That’s what Stallman is doing here. And, as a result, the business interests that he’s spurned will either ignore OSS entirely — or they’ll produce closed, proprietary binaries for Linux, etc.
So it’ll be business as usual. Guess what, he isn’t going to change his mind. The entire point of free software is to ensure that the software remains free. Compromising on the entire reason that you started a movement is silly to even suggest. Especially since, the GPL doesn’t even cover DRM’d content. So there is no reason to compromise. DRM your content all you want, write a player for Linux. Even an open source player. The GPLv3 doesn’t affect you or your DRM at all, even if you license your player under the GPLv3.
How difficult is this to understand? Why try to go through all these mental gymnastics and bringing up random crap like the cell phone industry (!!) and what they are supposedly going to do in the future (or their supposed DRM marketshare of today, thanks for the stats, I feel so much more educated) to try and prove that somehow, in this sorta offtopic, very fringe, unlikely to happen way, the GPLv3 might affect DRM’d content in a decade or two?
I think the deal is that Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman both want media content to be available. Both see the impending and apparently inevitable push to DRM.
Linus Torvalds doesn’t like the GPLv3 because it would essentially cripple Linux and prevent media content from being freely available and viewable on it (never mind that DVDs aren’t freely viewable on Windows either… but anyway)
Richard Stallman wants the GPLv3 in place, and laws passed so that media does not end up legally required to be DRM-encumbered, and Linus wouldn’t have to worry about Linux needing DRM to survive, in the first place.
See, if Torvalds gets his way, Linux gets non-free DRM parts and remains somewhat competitive.
If RMS gets his way, there’ll be no issue at all.
Again, the GPLv3 has nothing to do with DRM’d content. Seriously, it doesn’t, go read it.
Again, the GPLv3 has nothing to do with DRM’d content. Seriously, it doesn’t, go read it.
Agreed, but that’s kind of an orthogonal point. At issue isn’t the content but the software that reads and interprets that content. There is no reason that laws need to be passed to cause DRM to be legally required. That is happening by virtue of natural market forces. Media companies want to maximize revenue and they see DRM as a logical step in stemming piracy resulting from digital distribution. Stallman’s opposition to DRM is like saying you’re opposed to gravity. It’s silly — and ultimately, it will cause the GPL to fork.
“Organizations that need patent protection and/or DRM are going to avoid GPL3 like the plague.”
And there are a lot of these companies making GPL’d software right now?
“By deciding not to play nice with commercial interests, Stallman is guaranteeing that these companies will avoid OSS.”
As much as I disagree with Stallman and the GPL (and the inclusion of DRM in it), bending over to satisfy big business’ needs isn’t the right way either.
And there are a lot of these companies making GPL’d software right now?
That’s irrelevant. What matters is what companies do, going forward.
As much as I disagree with Stallman and the GPL (and the inclusion of DRM in it), bending over to satisfy big business’ needs isn’t the right way either.
Well, Stallman is decidedly opposed to satisfying big business needs. In his world, there is no room for that. So, in my estimation, he’s guaranteeing that business interests won’t even bother to look for common ground.
As long as we give the nod to DRM measures then we will continue to see more DRM measures enacted.
Nothing require GPLv3 so if someone doesn’t like it then there is still v2.
RMS doesn’t have myopia or a blind spot. He has amazing vision and is against certain things and has wrote a license that protects against those things. Nobody is forced to use it so why criticize something someone created to further their ideals.
“””He has amazing vision”””
I’d hardly call his vision amazing. I would call his ability to deny reality notable. Not amazing. But certainly… notable.
I’d call his ability to be recalcitrant amazing. But that is a different thing.
His showmanship is supreme, in a “looney old aunt locked up in the attic” sort of way.
That last was perhaps a bit over the top, to some. But it’s how I have always thought of Richard Stallman.
Okay his vision, (free software, GPL) isn’t amazing. Prove it to me. Show me other projects covered under other licenses that have had as much success, attention, and growth as linux.
Show me anyone else that has had the foresight to know that closed software would be used as a instrument to lock up peoples data.
Show me….well lets start with that. Impress me please.
Okay his vision, (free software, GPL) isn’t amazing. Prove it to me. Show me other projects covered under other licenses that have had as much success, attention, and growth as linux.
Unix, itself, which dominated an industry for a decade, and was under a non-free license.
Apache.
et, as they say, cetera.
Show me anyone else that has had the foresight to know that closed software would be used as a instrument to lock up peoples data.
RMS had no such foresight. The idea of vendor-lockin dates back to IBM in the 60s.
DRM doesn’t ‘lock up people’s data’ by the way. It merely enforces pay-to-play, just like the ushers at a movie theater enforce that you only get to watch the movie once per ticket purchase.
I don’t consider unix to have as much success, attention, and growth. Apache not the same scale IMO.
Didn’t say DRM. Closed proprietary code does that all by itself and yes I think that is exactly what RMS realized is that everything was going to be locked up so…
Not convinced…but then again it was just bait anyway I would never be convinced.
“Unix, itself”
Unix a success … In both its form , Unix as done more harm then any OS can ever hope to achieve , its showed how huamn can tolerate blocking human evolution for greed and it showed how Open Source managed to kill itself instead of cooperating on the basic.
Apache success is directly tied to GNU/Linux , its also only one type of server.
“DRM doesn’t ‘lock up people’s data’ by the way”
Can you play DRM’ed data on any device on any platform on any os inside any player ? Or be able to make it work ?
Answer : NO
“It merely enforces pay-to-play”
pay to play on a copy you bought for unlimited personnal usage and viewing. its illegal.
“just like the ushers at a movie theater enforce that you only get to watch the movie once per ticket purchase.”
You dont pay for a copy of the movie at the cinema , even do thats about to change , you pay for a place inside a showing.
Its like you would compare just like the concierge at the hotel make sure you stay there as long as you pay , when we are discussing living in a house you paid enterely for and own.
“RMS had no such foresight.”
Sorry , reality say , RMS created the GPL , its the only license that does the job of promoting and protecting Free Software and Open Source.
“The idea of vendor-lockin dates back to IBM in the 60s.”
If IBM would have had any insight about software lock-in they would have kept Windows , it was a Hardware shop before Windows kicked them on the side.
*Software dont mather*
*What if I could go back in time and change reality* dont count , your lies and revised history dont mather at all. Off course RMS was not the only reason why the GPL and GNU/Linux are so strong today , he just happen to be at the top and started the idea and maintain the hard part.
Its like asking General Motors president to drive a Honda … and support them.
You dont like the GPL fine dont use it , you dont like GNU/Linux to be GPL , ask for a copy of linux under that other license , cant use it for commercial use do … or ask if you can have a copy of Linus work under another license.
But your lies , blaming game and FUD and revisionnist history dont work.
You can always coem to the light side , we accept all the oldies who can contribute 😉
“Show me other projects covered under other licenses that have had as much success, attention, and growth as linux.”
Apache
XFree86
X.org
Python
Perl
PHP
etc etc
“had as much success, attention, and growth as linux.”
Nothing …
You named succesful projects , they did not receive the same attention that GNU/Linux did ( really wish that Xfree86 and X.org did do ) there like small tiny ants compared to GNU/Linux. For growth , please all those have no direct use outside of the computer industry where GNU/Linux is in use.
(Removed by myself. Don’t get suckered into replying to Moulineuff)
Edited 2006-09-01 09:13
missed one … sucker …
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=15683&comment_id=157733
Seriously , I dont think there is something that is as sucessful , that as had as much attention , and had as much growth.
What can I say when an expert talk the lamers walk or in your case flee …
> Okay his vision, (free software, GPL) isn’t amazing.
> Prove it to me. Show me other projects covered under
> other licenses that have had as much success,
> attention, and growth as linux.
Microsoft Windows, by far.
> Show me anyone else that has had the foresight to know
> that closed software would be used as a instrument to
> lock up peoples data.
Show me that RMS knew it at that time. He claims himself that he wanted people to be able to treat code as they see fit. I don’t think he talked about data from the start.
Show me that RMS knew it at that time. He claims himself that he wanted people to be able to treat code as they see fit. I don’t think he talked about data from the start.
Before RMS began campaigning for “Free” software, he was a fierce opponent of password-protected user accounts (see Levy’s Hackers for a first-hand account) and private user data.
Though he’s never formally retracted those statements, he’s been mostly silent about that issue in recent years; it wouldn’t do GNU/Linux adoption any good if he went around stating that everyone should leave root on their machines open for everyone else to use.
it was an interview for a newspaper.
The image of RMS ‘declaring war’ is very Python-esque. Does he have the holy handgrenade?
“The image of RMS ‘declaring war’ is very Python-esque ”
You discussing RMS is very three stoogians …. your probably more moesque … scanning the article the only war that happen seem to be in your feebled mind.
“Does he have the holy handgrenade? ”
No he as Lawyers and doctors of law , and hopefully very soon the GLADL.
GNU/Linux Anti defamation League.
Not enough work for the lawyersa defending the GPL no one whant to go against it , because it work … their branching out.
“GNU/Linux Anti defamation League.”
Oh, so they are the ones with the holy handgrande then?
I’d love to know how many folks typically attend these international GPL conferences? I’m wondering whether the article is short-changing us by giving only a glimpse of an important event with, say, 500-1000 international movers and shakers? I doubt the paper would have covered it had there been, say, only 40-50 rank-and-file folks in a student union hall.
Also, if all software is meant to be free, as RMS reminds us, how are these conferences funded?
I just hope GPLv3 doesn’t prevent full-up multimedia on Linux because if it does then Linux will lose an awful lot of users.
There’s already something that prevents “full-up multimedia on Linux” from being legal in many jurisdictions: patents and the DMCA and similar legislation (if it exists elsewhere). As such, the GPL3 is an attempt to stop content providers from making such content unavailable on Linux, not the other way around.
free as in freedom ONLY
Money is not a consideration or issue in anything GPL related unless it comes into play in restricting the source code.
Q. Catering to local needs is a stated goal of free software but GPL itself has not been officially translated into local languages. Your comments.
RMS: We are trying to write the text in such a way that its results are as uniform as possible in all countries. And for the same reason, uniformity of results, we are not translating it. Every translation would be an opportunity to make a mistake. And any mistake could be a disaster. Free software must be written in English and the reason is it is the language understood by programmers around the world. Obviously to have that in other languages is a good thing. So, we have encouraged others to publish translations that are clearly marked unofficial and we link to them from our site. You can use it as a guide if you don’t read English.
Brill, so if you don’t speak English you are condemned to using unofficial translations which are more likely to be inaccurate and not guaranteed to be understood as being unofficial. How helpful.
I think it’s more like you can GET a translation in your language, but if there’s some way its meaning differs from the English-language version, defer authority to the English-language version.
There are terms in English that don’t precisely translate 1 to 1 with terms in other languages, and vice-versa. This way Stallman can make sure the GPLv3 says exactly what he wants it to, with the exact meanings he wants it to have*, and not worry about Porcue-soft releasing software under a loophole that only exists in the Hungarian translation due to slight differences in language.
You could probably get a translation that meant exactly the same thing, exactly the same way as the English version, but it’s a lot easier to just take one, make that one legally binding, and produce a lot of translations that are 99.9% correct and usable as references.
Heck, keep in mind there are two different meanings of the word “free” in American English when it comes to software.
*this is why we have legalese, of course, to precisely and accurately define all these things.
He believed that closed source would mean lockin and that itself implies locked up data as well. No source, means no changes, means you can use it to lock up data as well.
One follows the other…doesn’t it?
No one had the foresight to see the importance of free software in the 80’s and many people don’t understand that Richard Stallman has a very valid reasonable reason for this.
If you think compromising will allow your freedom to be upheld you are wrong. You must value your freedom or be prepared to lose it.
Sadly many GNU/Linux users are ill lead by Eric Raymond and his inconsiderate use of open source.
If the GPL version 1 and 2 could retrieve our freedom under so much hostility and undermining I don’t see why version 3 can’t do the same.
welcome to the cult of Gates – leave your money at the door, pick up your shackles and have your activation code ready and we will tell you when, where and how you can use your computer.
Where do we want you to go today, and how do we want you to get there, and what will we allow you to do once you are there.
Edited 2006-09-02 01:53