Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: fsfeurope.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to fsfeurope.org.

Comments · 166

  1. Re:Open Source != Free Software by DrJimbo · · Score: 0, Troll · on Top Ten Open Source Innovators
    Per Abrahamsen said:

    You don't argue for why you believe Linus shares your misconceptions, I haven't seen anything from him that indicates that.
    If by my "misconceptions" you mean my statement that FS != OSS, then you must be the only member of the FSF who slept though the entire debate over whether the Linux kernel devs should consider using the GPL-v3.

    For example here is an article from Business Week that states:

    On one side is Richard Stallman and his Free Software Foundation. When Stallman says "free" he doesn't mean price, he means freedom. He believes all software should be freely available to be modified by the public. And for him, this is nothing short of a moral fight.

    On the other is Linus Torvalds, the father of Linux. He and others in his open-source camp believe that freely sharing code simply produces the best software, but if other people want to hide their code, that's fine, too.
    Torvalds has repeatedly stated that he is okay with the Tivo using his code. He says the code is available for the user/owners to see and they can contribute changes upstream and this is all that matters to him. He calls this "Open Source" which is different from "Free Software". Free Software forces people who redistribute code to also redistribute the four freedoms.

    Here is a page from the FSF which you claim to belong to. In it, Richard Stallman says:

    : Linus Torvalds objects, with an irrational kind of stubbornness, to one of our goals. Namely, preventing tivoisation. He wants people to be able to tivoise the products that you use, and thus take away your freedom.

    This should not be surprising. Linus Torvalds never supported the Free Software movement. He sort of accidentally drifted into making a contribution to the Free Software community, but not because he ever supported our goals. And so he has actually said that he is against our aims of defending freedom for all users. What can you do?

    Well, he doesn't have to use it if he doesn't want to.
    Torvalds explains this by claiming he is for Open Source Software, not Free Software. That's fine. He has the right to support whatever kind of license suits his fancy. But my mind boggles to think that a member of the FSF since 2003 is totally oblivious to this well known difference of opinion.

  2. This is two weeks old -- and poorly researched by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on FSFE Releases Fiduciary License Agreement

    This is two week old news: See the announcement of the FSFE and the corresponding LWN.net article by PJ of GROKLAW. That two weeks old article also illustrates why this is FUD.

    See FSFE's homepage: The FLA was drafted and reviewed by some of the best copyright experts available -- including Eben Moglen. The author on linux.com seemed to have little clue about the facts, it is easy to dismantle his article with just the links above.

    So if you are interested in the facts, check out the links above.

  3. This is two weeks old -- and poorly researched by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on FSFE Releases Fiduciary License Agreement

    This is two week old news: See the announcement of the FSFE and the corresponding LWN.net article by PJ of GROKLAW. That two weeks old article also illustrates why this is FUD.

    See FSFE's homepage: The FLA was drafted and reviewed by some of the best copyright experts available -- including Eben Moglen. The author on linux.com seemed to have little clue about the facts, it is easy to dismantle his article with just the links above.

    So if you are interested in the facts, check out the links above.

  4. FSFE's page on IPRED2 by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 2, Informative · on IPRED2 - Open Rights Group vs. Their Rights Online

    For more information on what IPRED2 is:

  5. Re:Premise is counterintuitive by hendersj · · Score: 2, Informative · on Novell Won't Lose Right To Sell Linux

    Stallman has said unequivocally that Novell has not violated GPLv2.

    Got a link to back that statement up? Yes. Link.
  6. There is an anti-software-patent petition: sign! by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 2 · on Three Months of Britain's e-Petition System

    If you are eligible ("a British citizen or resident"), sign the petition against software patents: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/softwarepatents/

    And pass it on to everyone you know. It only has 1,800 signatures right now and the deadline is Feb 20th. And if you want to learn more about software patents, try:

  7. Re:Why not...? by pinky0x51 · · Score: 1 · on OSDL and The Free Standards Group to Merge

    I also can't understand the naming. Free and open standards are one of the most important things today a organisation like the "Free Standards Group" could do a great job in this area. Now merging this into a "Linux Foundation" just doesn't fit.

    >Free Software is represented by much more than Linux.

    If you want a Foundation which cares about Free Software in general why don't support one of the Free Software Foundations? They exist exactly for this task. I don't know where you living but today you can find a Free Software Foundation in North America, Europe, Latin America and India. If you don't live in one of this regions just select one of them which is near your location or which you like most.

  8. Stallman on one factor of why BSD is free now by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 1 · on Stallman — 20 Years of Explaining Free Software

    From his answer to question #2 in the transcript:

    the reason that the BSD developers started making their code free was at least partly due to the visit that I paid to them in 1984 or 1985, because I wanted to be able to use some of their code in GNU. So I asked them, because at that time, BSD existed, it was a version of Unix, and you had to show them an AT&T source licence in order to get a copy of BSD. So I told them: you are effectively donating your labour, your work, to a company. It's not even a charity, and you're donating to it. Why don't you separate your code from AT&T's code, and that way you could make your code free.

    (Note the word "partly" in the first sentence - don't think he's trying to take full credit.)

  9. A directory of free software recordings by jbn-o · · Score: 2, Informative · on Stallman — 20 Years of Explaining Free Software

    Let the community decide what Stallman said, including comments by Stallman.

    Any misunderstanding of what Stallman said will not be corrected by allowing "the community [to] decide what Stallman said". Unlike the expressions of ancient speakers, we can hear his recordings, read the transcripts of what he said, and email him.

    Also, such work is being done (albeit not on a wiki, which poses some minor technical advantages) thanks to the work of the FSF and FSFE.

    Finally, it's worth noting that Stallman was not and is not a member of the open source movement. He started and remains a member of the free software movement which is philosophically distinct and over 10 years older than the open source movement. In fact, it is people's ignorance of this is directly addressed in the talk being referenced in this /. story:

    It's not enough just to teach people to use Free Software. Of course I hope that they use Free Software, because it's a shame if they're using non-free, user-subjugating software. But just to use Free Software is not enough if we want to have freedom that will last for many years. If we gave everybody that uses computers freedom tomorrow, but they didn't know what that freedom was, five years from now, many of them would have lost it because someone would have said to them "I've got a nice program that will make things easier, would you like it? Of course, you have to promise not to share it, and I won't let you see what's inside, but it's a nice program, don't you want it?"

    A person who has not learned to think that there is something wrong there might say yes. And that means her freedom is partly gone. So, it's not enough just to give people freedom. We need to teach people to recognise it as freedom so that they can learn to value it and then defend it and not let it go. That's what we need if we want to have freedom not just tomorrow but permanently.

  10. Overlooking the forest for the trees? by jbn-o · · Score: 1 · on Stallman — 20 Years of Explaining Free Software

    I'd say that's a minor concern that isn't hampering anyone's appreciation of software freedom. That concern is minor, like the excuse others (including on /.) use to dismiss his message out of hand—his gruffness and unwillingness to placate questions loaded with perspectives that silently support non-freedom. I know how his responses sometimes annoy people, and I too think that he could sometimes find ways to make the exact same point without brushing people off, but the best way to fix it is to become a better speaker yourself on the issue of software freedom and not talk to people that way, and to acknowledge that sometimes it is perfectly appropriate to call a spade a spade and not tolerate questions that make no sense or try to reframe the debate away from user's freedom.

    The open source movement doesn't do this work at all, despite any claims that they agree with his perspective or that the two movements essentially say the same thing. That movement never talks about user's freedoms. So no matter how nice their representatives may appear and interact with others, they're essentially selling a philosophy that doesn't speak to all computer users (that movement speaks chiefly to managers of software developers), and dispenses with ethics and social solidarity in pursuit of placating business (including software proprietors).

    Then there is the 2-stage trap RMS identified and debunked in his talk.

  11. More on the submitter's home page by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 3, Informative · on Stallman — 20 Years of Explaining Free Software

    Here's my post directive review of that project. But there's more to do.

    Something very important this year is GPLv3. Here's a transcript of RMS on GPLv3, and one of something I said.

  12. More on the submitter's home page by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 3, Informative · on Stallman — 20 Years of Explaining Free Software

    Here's my post directive review of that project. But there's more to do.

    Something very important this year is GPLv3. Here's a transcript of RMS on GPLv3, and one of something I said.

  13. More on the submitter's home page by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 3, Informative · on Stallman — 20 Years of Explaining Free Software

    Here's my post directive review of that project. But there's more to do.

    Something very important this year is GPLv3. Here's a transcript of RMS on GPLv3, and one of something I said.

  14. He answers this point in TFA by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 1 · on Stallman — 20 Years of Explaining Free Software

    He explains this in the talk:

    "only programmers can directly exercise freedoms one and three but every user can directly exercise freedoms zero and two - the freedoms to run the program and copy the program - and the non-programmer users indirectly get the benefit of freedoms one and three. They can't use these freedoms directly, because that means programming, but when other people exercise these freedoms, the non-programmers also share in the benefits. So these four freedoms are essential for all users, including the non-programmers, who are the majority of society."

    TFA is worth a read.

  15. Re:You deserve to control your computer. by jbn-o · · Score: 2, Informative · on Opera Security Patched In Secret

    Free software cannot be proprietary. In fact, it is the free software movement's proponents who argue that proprietary software is unethical and has no place in society. The only time the folks at the FSF install proprietary software is when they're working on a free replacement program. A user's freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify software are the freedoms all computer users must have. The reason why we need these freedoms are ethical issues which the free software movement identifies and pursues as such, raising issues of social solidarity to make their point.

    By contrast, the open source movement argues for an increase in developmental efficiency and never discusses social solidarity. This technocratic message not only carries no weight with most computer users (who aren't developers), it stresses the quality of the programming over what users are allowed to do with a copy of the program once they get it. This is why a few OSI-approved licenses are considered non-free (such as the v1.x revisions of the Apple Public Source License)—the criteria for acceptance comes from the movements' different philosophies. This is also why open source proponents sometimes side with proprietors—running proprietary video drivers instead of switching to other hardware or simply doing without the fancy 3D graphics; setting up repositories where users can more easily acquire copies of proprietary software (like the Ubuntu GNU/Linux repo which carries Opera, among other proprietary programs). Some open source movement proponents even drop the pursuit of technical superiority when faced with an argument of popularity, which is why some endorse the use of the patent-encumbered MP3 lossy audio codec when Ogg Vorbis is not only technically superior (as demonstrated in numerous blind listening tests) but has objectively better tagging. Open source proponents have no means to argue against technically superior programs even when the license for those programs hold users separate and helpless to control their own computers.

    Years ago, Richard Stallman wrote about the difference between the two movements. More recently, he addressed this difference when he spoke at the fifth international GPLv3 conference in Tokyo in 2006. One interesting consequence of the differences is what you have to start with if you want the social solidarity the free software movement champions as well as powerful reliable software.

    So if I am offered a choice between a proprietary program which is powerful and reliable and a free program which is not, I choose the free program because that I can do in freedom. I'd rather make some practical sacrifices to reject oppression.

    But suppose you want both? Suppose you want freedom and solidarity, and you want powerful reliable software? How can you get it? You can't get that starting with the powerful, reliable, proprietary program because there is no way you can liberate that program. The only way you can get that, your ideal goal, is to start from the free program, technically inadequate as it may be, because you do have the option of improving it. That is the only path that can possibly ever get you to your ideal situation. Insist on freedom and make the program better.

    Finally, it's important to not conflate the difference between freedom and skill. Freedom has to do with permission. I have the freedom to criticize my government even though I can't write as well as the man whose pen name was William Shakespeare. I could choose to spend more time reading and learning to write better, as he did. My lack of skill does not in any way justify denying me my freedom of speech. So how well I can do this task, how well others I trust can do it, doesn't enter into the situation.

  16. Re:stop spreading FUD by NickFortune · · Score: 1 · on Jeremy Allison Resigns From Novell In Protest
    so just to be clear: Novell will not be able to ship any GPLv3 versions of anything under the terms of their deal with MS, because
    Where does the GPL v3 say "you can't ship this code if you have have an agreement like the MS/Novell" agreement? In fact, it doesn't. Novell can ship the code under the GPL v3 all they like, despite having whatever agreements they have with Microsoft.
    The final version of GPLv3 has yet to be drafted. Perhaps you could show me the line where it says Novell can continue to ship GPLv3 code while continuing with their patent agreement? I'd be interested, if for no other reason than it would show you at least understand the hyperlink syntax.

    No, what Stallman has "promised" is that the GPL v3 will make agreements like the MS/Novell agreement ineffective.
    You still haven't actually read what he said, have you?

    It turns out that perhaps it's a good thing that Microsoft did this now, because we discovered that the text we had written for GPL version 3 would not have blocked this, but it's not too late and we're going to make sure that when GPL version 3 really comes out it will block such deals.
    Sounds like a clear commitment to me. Also notice that he doesn't say "make ineffective" but rather "block".
    now that we have seen this possibility, we're not going to have trouble drafting the language that will block it off. We're going to say not just that if you receive the patent license, but if you have arranged any sort of patent licensing that is prejudicial among the downstream recipients, that that's not allowed.
    Which bit of that sounds like "distribution will still be permitted" to you? I'm genuinely curious.

    Novell will likely choose to continue to ship the software under the GPL v3 and live with the fact that their agreement with MS then doesn't mean anything.
    So the minute the GPL becomes incompatible with the deal, they'll break their agreement? It doesn't reflect well on Novell, but given that their business model is somewhat dependent on distributing Free Software, it would be a rational response, if a little cynical and unprincipled.

    Of course that rather assumes that Novell's legal exposure would negligible. I find that a little hard to swallow, if only because Microsoft's lawyers, at least have a reputation for competence, and I would expect some sort of provision to stop Novell backing out so trivially. Of course, since the details of the deal are NDA'd we'll never know, but it's far from a safe assumption.

    Still, you seem to accept that planned changes to the GPLv3 will make it illegal for Novell to distribute GPLv3 software while they partake in patent agreements such as the one they recently made with Microsoft. And you seem to think that Novell will break such agreements, albeit only when forced to do so by the imminent collapse of their business. Fair enough, I agree. So why do you keep yelling "FUD" every time someone else says it?

    Maybe you'd like to join with us in urging Novell to repudiate the deal without further delay? Then Novell get to emerge with some shred of integrity, and we'd have nothing to argue about. A win-win scenario, except perhaps for Microsoft.

    I don't know
    You obviously don't know a lot of things, and your thinking is fuzzy. That's why you should shut up and stop spreading hearsay and innuendo, instead of facts and sound analysis.
    You're right. There are lots of things that I don't know, and my thinking could always be clearer. Nevertheless, I'm the one linking to references to support his arguments, while you are apparently so hard up for facts that you're reduced to quoting out of context to set up cheap shots. I think that speaks for itself, really.
  17. GNU GPLv3 will be compatible with the Apache 2.0 by YA_Python_dev · · Score: 1 · on Google Web Toolkit Now 100% Open Source
    I am glad to see smart companies and developers using developer friendly licenses like Apache and Mozilla. I've been burned early in my career by using the GPL and I'll never do it again for any software I write.

    I don't agree with you on this, but FYI the GNU GPL version 3 will be compatible with the Apache 2.0 license. See this RMS transcript from the Free Software Foundation Europe. The combined GPLv3+Apache2 work can be released under the GPLv3+"patent termination protection" license.

    If people think that the GNU GPLv2 is viral wait until everyone realise what are the implications of the GPLv3 new compatibility! And, yes, this is one of the many reasons why I really like the GPLv3.

  18. Not even a token gesture toward software freedom? by jbn-o · · Score: 2, Informative · on Moglen on Social Justice and OSS

    How ironic that the /. headline mentions "OSS" (open source software) yet Prof. Moglen is General Counsel for the Free Software Foundation; an organization that not only predates the Open Source Initiative (which coined the term "open source") by over a decade but has a different philosophy which sometimes reaches different conclusions about what software is acceptable than the open source philosophy does. For the open source movement, running non-free software is okay (not that an open source proponent would call it that; the open source movement exists in part to not talk about software freedom at all). For a free software proponent, non-free software is avoided except when writing a free replacement for a non-free program. The difference in reaction to non-free software is quite striking.

    You can see how that plays out in this /. story: none of the formats this talk has been transcoded to can be played by all users with free software even though this could have been accomodated. Instead of including options free software users could use, we have a list of (what are for most users) non-free alternatives. MP3 is patent-encumbered in many countries, so citizens of those countries can't have free MP3 encoding or decoding software. The QuickTime container format can be free, but the codecs most often used with QuickTime are non-free. Flash can be played with free software but the free replacements aren't yet to the point of maturity where it can be used as a drop-in replacement (and even when the job is done, MP3 soundtracks on Flash video+audio files will pose a problem).

    The solution has been around for some time and works well: add Ogg Vorbis audio files and Ogg Theora+Vorbis video+audio files. These files can be played on all platforms and there are implementations which are free software for everyone.

  19. Re:This statement might be wrong by Nat+Friedman · · Score: 1 · on OpenSUSE Opens Up to Questions About the Microsoft Deal


    A few years ago Red Hat introduced their service license which said that if you bought Linux from them, made a copy of it, and put it on another machine, your service contract for the paid machine was canceled. There was a pretty loud reaction to this, and a lot of people in the community said that Red Hat's service agreement was incompatible with GPLv2. Eventually Eben Moglen and the SFLC reviewed Red Hat's service agreement and said "it's on the edge, but it does not violate GPLv2" (or words to that effect).

    That seems to be what's happened here too. In Tokyo a few days ago Richard Stallman said:

    > What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent licence,
    > and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play. [...]

    (from http://www.germany.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/to kyo-rms-transcript#novell-ms)

    This is a pretty clear statement that the letter of GPLv2 is not touched.

    (He does go on to say that GPLv3 will include new language.)

  20. Freedom Task Force by replicant108 · · Score: 2, Informative · on Integrating Open Source In a Large Consulting Firm?

    If you're based in Europe, it might be useful to make contact with the Free Software Foundation Europe's "Freedom Task Force". The FTF have been specifically set up to help businesses deal with the legal issues surrounding free software.

    Freedom Task Force

  21. Moglen on Ballmer's blood pressure by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: -1, Offtopic · on Ballmer Sounds Off

    Eben Moglen: "Bill Gates has surrendered ... Even better: Mr. Gates has surrendered and is leaving the company to Mr. Ballmer. Better news for us could not have been imagined.

  22. Re:What's actually going on here "spin-free" by browncs · · Score: 1 · on Why Torvalds is Sitting out the GPLv3 Process

    Actually I just found a quote from RMS that shows exactly how he feels about proprietary software.

    From http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/bangalore- rms-transcript.en.html (transcript of the latest GPL conference):

    Audience member: in this new World, and you're talking about GPL going over to the next version, how do you see proprietary software businesses making a profit?

    Richard Stallman: That's unethical, they shouldn't be making any money. I hope to see all proprietary software wiped out. That's what I aim for. That would be a World in which our freedom is respected. A proprietary program is a program that is not free. That is to say, a program that does respect the user's essential rights. That's evil. A proprietary program is part of a predatory scheme where people who don't value their freedom are drawn into giving it up in order to gain some kind of practical convenience. And then once they're there, it's harder and harder to get out. Our goal is to rescue people from this.

  23. Re:donations are not spent on flights by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 1 · on Should Developers Switch to GPLv3?

    Also, I just want to add that between FSF, FSFE, FSFI, and FSFLA, organising events around the World is not so difficult. There is a local network of employees and/or volunteers in many cities (and these would be the places chosen to host events).

    And, after getting many experts into one place so that a large discussion can be had, all events were recorded in some way. A good example is the European conference, for which the entire two days were recorded and put online.

  24. Re:donations are not spent on flights by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 1 · on Should Developers Switch to GPLv3?

    Also, I just want to add that between FSF, FSFE, FSFI, and FSFLA, organising events around the World is not so difficult. There is a local network of employees and/or volunteers in many cities (and these would be the places chosen to host events).

    And, after getting many experts into one place so that a large discussion can be had, all events were recorded in some way. A good example is the European conference, for which the entire two days were recorded and put online.

  25. read these first, they're a good base by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 3, Informative · on Should Developers Switch to GPLv3?

    For explanations of the changes in GPLv3, I highly recommend reading (or skimming) the transcripts of the GPLv3 conferences. Each transcript includes the subsequent Q&A session, and each begins with a list of links to the topics covered and the questions asked.

    The freshest transcript is RMS in Bangalore in August. Here are the others:

    Many also include links to audio and/or video recordings, and there's more general information about the timeline and how to participate on FSFE's GPLv3 page.

    Also, if you want to help raise the quality of discussion, a useful and really easy thing to do is to pass these links on to others.

  26. read these first, they're a good base by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 3, Informative · on Should Developers Switch to GPLv3?

    For explanations of the changes in GPLv3, I highly recommend reading (or skimming) the transcripts of the GPLv3 conferences. Each transcript includes the subsequent Q&A session, and each begins with a list of links to the topics covered and the questions asked.

    The freshest transcript is RMS in Bangalore in August. Here are the others:

    Many also include links to audio and/or video recordings, and there's more general information about the timeline and how to participate on FSFE's GPLv3 page.

    Also, if you want to help raise the quality of discussion, a useful and really easy thing to do is to pass these links on to others.

  27. read these first, they're a good base by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 3, Informative · on Should Developers Switch to GPLv3?

    For explanations of the changes in GPLv3, I highly recommend reading (or skimming) the transcripts of the GPLv3 conferences. Each transcript includes the subsequent Q&A session, and each begins with a list of links to the topics covered and the questions asked.

    The freshest transcript is RMS in Bangalore in August. Here are the others:

    Many also include links to audio and/or video recordings, and there's more general information about the timeline and how to participate on FSFE's GPLv3 page.

    Also, if you want to help raise the quality of discussion, a useful and really easy thing to do is to pass these links on to others.

  28. read these first, they're a good base by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 3, Informative · on Should Developers Switch to GPLv3?

    For explanations of the changes in GPLv3, I highly recommend reading (or skimming) the transcripts of the GPLv3 conferences. Each transcript includes the subsequent Q&A session, and each begins with a list of links to the topics covered and the questions asked.

    The freshest transcript is RMS in Bangalore in August. Here are the others:

    Many also include links to audio and/or video recordings, and there's more general information about the timeline and how to participate on FSFE's GPLv3 page.

    Also, if you want to help raise the quality of discussion, a useful and really easy thing to do is to pass these links on to others.

  29. read these first, they're a good base by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 3, Informative · on Should Developers Switch to GPLv3?

    For explanations of the changes in GPLv3, I highly recommend reading (or skimming) the transcripts of the GPLv3 conferences. Each transcript includes the subsequent Q&A session, and each begins with a list of links to the topics covered and the questions asked.

    The freshest transcript is RMS in Bangalore in August. Here are the others:

    Many also include links to audio and/or video recordings, and there's more general information about the timeline and how to participate on FSFE's GPLv3 page.

    Also, if you want to help raise the quality of discussion, a useful and really easy thing to do is to pass these links on to others.

  30. read these first, they're a good base by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 3, Informative · on Should Developers Switch to GPLv3?

    For explanations of the changes in GPLv3, I highly recommend reading (or skimming) the transcripts of the GPLv3 conferences. Each transcript includes the subsequent Q&A session, and each begins with a list of links to the topics covered and the questions asked.

    The freshest transcript is RMS in Bangalore in August. Here are the others:

    Many also include links to audio and/or video recordings, and there's more general information about the timeline and how to participate on FSFE's GPLv3 page.

    Also, if you want to help raise the quality of discussion, a useful and really easy thing to do is to pass these links on to others.

  31. read these first, they're a good base by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 3, Informative · on Should Developers Switch to GPLv3?

    For explanations of the changes in GPLv3, I highly recommend reading (or skimming) the transcripts of the GPLv3 conferences. Each transcript includes the subsequent Q&A session, and each begins with a list of links to the topics covered and the questions asked.

    The freshest transcript is RMS in Bangalore in August. Here are the others:

    Many also include links to audio and/or video recordings, and there's more general information about the timeline and how to participate on FSFE's GPLv3 page.

    Also, if you want to help raise the quality of discussion, a useful and really easy thing to do is to pass these links on to others.

  32. Re:Point by point summary by Rutulian · · Score: 1 · on Linux Kernel Developers' Position on GPLv3

    In general, it would add some credibility to your position if you understood what the people writing the code actually care about.

    I understand that some of the kernel developers don't care about the freedom of free software in the same way that the FSF does. If they just want to code and release it for free, fine. There is nothing wrong with the BSD license, and they certainly have the right to choose whatever license they want. All I'm trying to point out is that a) they do care about freedom to some extent because they initially chose the GPL and not the BSD license; b) there seems to be an irrational opposition to GPLv3 that probably has something to do with dislike for Richard Stallman and leftover bad feelings from the BitKeeper incident; c) that GPLv3 is intended to protect the freedom in free software that they obviously do care about to some extent (see debates over NVidia's binary kernel driver for an example); and d) I have yet to read/hear any kind of rational and logical reason to not adopt GPLv3 if you are already using GPLv2.

    Calling them "ignorant wankers" sure sounds like an ad-hominem attack to me.

    Then maybe you should pay attention to the context. I am claiming that they are ignorant of the issues they are trying to address with their statement, which still appears to be true, and they are blowing a lot of hot air without first trying to understand the purpose of the object of their irrational dislike. It's pretty simple, if I don't think they know what they are talking about, I'm not going to respect their opinion. Likewise, a kernel developer is not going to respect criticism of their code from someone who has never contributed a patch. That's not ad hominem, it's dismissing the peanut gallery.

    So you acknowledge that your point about "DRM and patent issues" is "not useful discourse"...? Fine.

    Well, I don't recall making a point about "DRM and patent issues." I also don't recall claiming to be having discourse. I'm simply stating that the reasons given for opposing the GPLv3 are nonsense. I don't really want to pick through and respond to each one because it has already been done numerous times elsewhere. Nice try, though.

    The GPLv3 license has not been finalized, but the proposed no-DRM clauses would certainly appear to forbid the combination of GPLv3 code with the OpenSSL library, which is used for PKI, OpenSSH's authentication, x.509 certs used by SSL webservers, and so forth.

    Come again? I'm not aware of DRM implementations in any of the things you have mentioned. I believe you are confusing a couple of different things. Certificate signing for public key authentication purposes is not even addressed by the GPL and has nothing to do with it. Code-signing is addressed by the GPL, but the anti-DRM clause only comes into effect if it is impossible to run unsigned code (referred to as tivoisation). Seriously, do you really think RMS would add a clause to the GPL that would prevent the use of cryptography? Richard Stallman may be a lot of things, but he isn't stupid. There is, apparently, an incompatibility between the GPL and the OpenSSL license (note: not functions used in the OpenSSL library). This is resolved, not exacerbated, in GPLv3 via the additional restrictions clause.

  33. Detailed info on whyto GPL3 by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 1 · on Linux Kernel Developers' Position on GPLv3

    It's difficult to reply when comments are published as a news story instead of submitted to the gplv3.fsf.org forum. Using the forum attaches your comments to a part of the draft text.

    Here are transcripts of eight GPL3 talks plus Q+A sessions. Many arguments for using GPLv3 can be found in those. Some specific points:

    (This is a repost of a comment I made on another site.)

  34. Detailed info on whyto GPL3 by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 1 · on Linux Kernel Developers' Position on GPLv3

    It's difficult to reply when comments are published as a news story instead of submitted to the gplv3.fsf.org forum. Using the forum attaches your comments to a part of the draft text.

    Here are transcripts of eight GPL3 talks plus Q+A sessions. Many arguments for using GPLv3 can be found in those. Some specific points:

    (This is a repost of a comment I made on another site.)

  35. Detailed info on whyto GPL3 by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 1 · on Linux Kernel Developers' Position on GPLv3

    It's difficult to reply when comments are published as a news story instead of submitted to the gplv3.fsf.org forum. Using the forum attaches your comments to a part of the draft text.

    Here are transcripts of eight GPL3 talks plus Q+A sessions. Many arguments for using GPLv3 can be found in those. Some specific points:

    (This is a repost of a comment I made on another site.)

  36. Detailed info on whyto GPL3 by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 1 · on Linux Kernel Developers' Position on GPLv3

    It's difficult to reply when comments are published as a news story instead of submitted to the gplv3.fsf.org forum. Using the forum attaches your comments to a part of the draft text.

    Here are transcripts of eight GPL3 talks plus Q+A sessions. Many arguments for using GPLv3 can be found in those. Some specific points:

    (This is a repost of a comment I made on another site.)

  37. Detailed info on whyto GPL3 by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 1 · on Linux Kernel Developers' Position on GPLv3

    It's difficult to reply when comments are published as a news story instead of submitted to the gplv3.fsf.org forum. Using the forum attaches your comments to a part of the draft text.

    Here are transcripts of eight GPL3 talks plus Q+A sessions. Many arguments for using GPLv3 can be found in those. Some specific points:

    (This is a repost of a comment I made on another site.)

  38. Detailed info on whyto GPL3 by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 1 · on Linux Kernel Developers' Position on GPLv3

    It's difficult to reply when comments are published as a news story instead of submitted to the gplv3.fsf.org forum. Using the forum attaches your comments to a part of the draft text.

    Here are transcripts of eight GPL3 talks plus Q+A sessions. Many arguments for using GPLv3 can be found in those. Some specific points:

    (This is a repost of a comment I made on another site.)

  39. Detailed info on whyto GPL3 by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 1 · on Linux Kernel Developers' Position on GPLv3

    It's difficult to reply when comments are published as a news story instead of submitted to the gplv3.fsf.org forum. Using the forum attaches your comments to a part of the draft text.

    Here are transcripts of eight GPL3 talks plus Q+A sessions. Many arguments for using GPLv3 can be found in those. Some specific points:

    (This is a repost of a comment I made on another site.)

  40. Detailed info on whyto GPL3 by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 1 · on Linux Kernel Developers' Position on GPLv3

    It's difficult to reply when comments are published as a news story instead of submitted to the gplv3.fsf.org forum. Using the forum attaches your comments to a part of the draft text.

    Here are transcripts of eight GPL3 talks plus Q+A sessions. Many arguments for using GPLv3 can be found in those. Some specific points:

    (This is a repost of a comment I made on another site.)

  41. In a way, this is very lucky timing for GPLv3 by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 2, Interesting · on GPL Gets Its Day in Court in Israel

    It's great that we will get the benefit of this ruling during the year when GPLv3 is being written. This sort of thing provides great suggestions for what should be clearer or worded differently.

  42. Also known for tivoisation by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 1, Interesting · on The Secret Origins of TiVo

    TiVo's are also known for tivoisatin. They love receiving the freedom to add easter eggs, but are not big fans of passing that freedom on to others (or the freedom to remove their spyware, or the freedom to add features you want).

    RMS gave a good explanation of this in his recent talk on GPLv3.

  43. Also: a transcript of the full talk and Q&A by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 1 · on Transcript of Talk with Richard Stallman

    As well as the above transcript of a talk with Richard, there is also a transcript online of the talk by Richard at the 4th international GPLv3 conference:

  44. Here's the newsforge article, plus 2 other links by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 5, Informative · on GPLv3 - A Primer on Open Warfare in Open Source

    Here's the newsforge story ("Torvalds' comments on GPLv3 committees refuted").

    I blogged about this and added more info about the committees.

    One last think I want to point at is a side-by-side diff with the changes highlighted from draft 1 to draft 2 so everyone can see the responses to the public process that the committees talk about in the Newsforge article.

  45. Re:Isn't Linux beside the point here? by cortana · · Score: 1 · on Torvalds Critiques of GPLv3 and FSF Refuted
    I'm not getting how Tivo is preventing you from adapting the source code, if they're providing you with it. They give you the source code, then improve it all you want. Knock yourself out. Build some Tivo-like hardware and install it on that.

    You are ignoring the parts of freedom 1 that I highlighted for your attention. I will quote it again:

    The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

    Access to the source code in and of itself does not guarantee the ability to adapt the device to the user's needs! From the man himself:

    You see, the Tivo is designed so that it won't run your changed versions, it refuses to even start and thus, nominally, Freedom number 1, the freedom to change the source code so that it will do what you want, nominally the users have that freedom but really the user does not have that freedom. You can change the source code so that it would do what you want, but then it won't do anything.

    So this is called Tivoisation and this is what we're trying to prevent. But why are we so concerned with this? Well, why would anybody do Tivoisation? What is the motive? The reason is because they're putting malicious features into the code and they don't want the users to fix these deliberate problems. The Tivo has two kinds of nasty features.

    [descriptions of spyware and DRM]

    Now, I disagree with those features, I think they're unethical. Well, as long as people continue to have the full, the real enjoyment of Freedom number 1, I don't need to worry about those malicious features because people will take them out, they will fix them, but once the software is tivoised, the users can't fix it.

    The rest of your post is beneath a response. Good day.
  46. Some more info by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 5, Informative · on GPLv3 Second Discussion Draft Released

    After my submission was rejected, I figured another submission based on this story was in the queue, so I put the below links together:

    Four transcripts which include the post-talk Q&A sessions from presentations by Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen:

    And two very useful docs:

  47. Some more info by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 5, Informative · on GPLv3 Second Discussion Draft Released

    After my submission was rejected, I figured another submission based on this story was in the queue, so I put the below links together:

    Four transcripts which include the post-talk Q&A sessions from presentations by Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen:

    And two very useful docs:

  48. Some more info by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 5, Informative · on GPLv3 Second Discussion Draft Released

    After my submission was rejected, I figured another submission based on this story was in the queue, so I put the below links together:

    Four transcripts which include the post-talk Q&A sessions from presentations by Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen:

    And two very useful docs:

  49. Some more info by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 5, Informative · on GPLv3 Second Discussion Draft Released

    After my submission was rejected, I figured another submission based on this story was in the queue, so I put the below links together:

    Four transcripts which include the post-talk Q&A sessions from presentations by Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen:

    And two very useful docs:

  50. Some more info by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 5, Informative · on GPLv3 Second Discussion Draft Released

    After my submission was rejected, I figured another submission based on this story was in the queue, so I put the below links together:

    Four transcripts which include the post-talk Q&A sessions from presentations by Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen:

    And two very useful docs: