Slashdot Mirror
RMS Urges Opposition to "Trusted Computing"
Andy Tai writes "In this Newsforge article, Richard Stallman analyzes the "Trusted Computing" initiative and Microsoft's Palladium, points out that such initiatives are really means to ensure your computer can be trusted by Microsoft and Hollywood (you can't do things they don't want), and urges computer users to organize, to support the Public Knowledge and the Digital Speech projects and to use their consumer power to block "Trusted Computing" in its tracks."
My first reaction on reading this was "Well duh!" -- must be a sloowww day at Slashdot...
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
What I hear you saying is that Hollywood and MSFT should support your linux OS for some reason.
So far I don't see how any of this is going to take linux away.
The worry seems to be that, if Hollywood decides to release films or music for commercial purposes on the 'net, then those releases will be solely for the Windows platform.
But, I really don't see what's wrong with this. They don't support my Betamax or the 8-Track in my uncles field truck either.
I don't like the idea of Palladium, but IMO, this is the wrong argument to oppose it with. Because it doesn't make sense.
Perhaps you can get linux users covered by the ADA act, and then force Hollywood et al to support it?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
The Anti-GPL Mindset FAQ v.00001
:)
1. The Free Market
Freedom is a very important, albeit often misused, word. Freedom refers to the ability
of a person to perform unhindered exchange with other people.
Just as freedom does not mean the ability to do what you want, like punch your
neighbor, it does not mean the ability to take whatever you want. People often
confuse freedom as meaning unrestriction on action, where it actually means
unrestriction on TRADE.
The physical manifestation of freedom is the free market, where people have the
option, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to exchange items with one another. These
exchanges are not forced, which is why they are free. Both parties agree to the
exchange.
2. The GPL is legit
This is not going to be a document which says the GPL is illegitmate and should go
away. The GPL merely is a way for authors to ensure that their work is used as
intended, negotiating a free exchange between the author and user.
The problem is not the GPL, but the mindset and assumptions it has brought about
regarding freedom and capitalism. The other problem is that it's generally
assumed that there is an impossible rift between commercial and free software,
scalable only by tech support, manuals, and service contracts. I won't settle
for that.
3. The Need for Money
A large chunk of the Linux community has never written a line of code or contributed
to the world of Linux whatsoever, aside from their misguided rantings on Slashdot.
Despite their opinions, we are currently, thankfully, living in a free market society.
The medium for exhange in this market is cash, as we've evolved beyond the barter
system. With this in mind, the prominent way to obtain physical goods is to
perform an exchange of value with others.
Hence, for those of us not still living off of our parents, or who are unsatisfied
working at Subway by day and exclusively using our programming talents for free at
night, money is a necessity. Working on the latest build of GIMP is fun and exciting,
especially if you have the physical goods you need provided for you by someone else,
but it is impractical to exclusively exchange your work for source code through the
GPL when you need to exchange some work for money as well to survive.
4. Making Money is Not Evil
It seems that a lot of people have fallen into the trap assuming that making money
is inherently evil. They point to Bill Gates as an example.
Though the ethics involved can be questionable, making money is not inherently evil.
Why? Simple -- both parties involved in the exchange of money are doing so
voluntarily. Don't like Microsoft? Don't buy their software. Don't like the fact
that your car payments are so expensive? Don't drive. The reason freedom is such an
important word is because it implies a lack of force. You are not FORCED to do anything
you don't want to.
People argue that a Microsoft monopoly provides no choice. The choice is simple: use
Windows, or don't use Windows. If not using Windows means you have to settle for a
lesser product, or no product, well, then maybe you understand why Microsoft has so much
money
People argue that not using Windows or having a car are impossible, but seem to forget
that in reality the only reason they even have an opportunity to use these things are
due to the creators who made them.
5. What about source code?
The commercial software model in the past has often neglected to include source code
with their products. The reason for doing so is most likely because algorithms, techniques,
or even the entire product itself could be re-branded by a competitor and sold on
the free market as their own work.
However, for most users who are not software houses looking to steal the work of
others, source code can be a useful tool. An ideal system would:
1. Allow software distributors to include their source code without fear of a
competitor theft.
2. Allow end-users to modify the software for their own needs.
3. Allow these changes to be exchanged in the free market, with compensation being
given to all parties involved in creating the current product. (The original
developers, and the end users.)
This surely strikes a chord in many people who are accustomed to repeating the
axiom that the GPL is the "one true way" to freedom. The GPL makes source code
available, overcoming point 1 and 2, but does so at the cost of allowing developers
to participate in the outer free market. Some of us, believe it or not, would
love to be able to have end users jump in, or jump in ourselves as end users,
in developing our favorite products. However, we would not like to do so at the
cost of our ability to eat.
In other words, for those of us who want to develop software as a living, the
most viable action to take is to work on GPL stuff as a hobby on the side and
work by day for a traditional software developer. We don't want to get paid
for tech support or "service," we want to get paid for our work on the code.
Despite the cries of the masses, working on GPLed software 24 hours a day does
nothing except make our computers work better and get us a few lines of praise
in IRC.
The challenge is twofold: 1) Getting people to evolve their mentality past the
"GPL is always #1" axiom and 2) Developing a new methodology which allows these
points above. It won't be easy, it might be impossible, but the first step, as
with most mental deficiencies, is realizing that you have a problem.
As a final analogy: Someone writes a 1200 page book over the course of two years.
If they "GPL" the book, they exchange their two years of work and potential ability
to trade it on the free market for the editing and updating ability of the masses.
If they sell the book, they can exchange on the free market but they lose the
publics' help. These are not the only options. If the public could be brought "on board"
for writing an extra chapter here and there, being compensated accordingly,
all parties could be satisifed in a different way if they do not want to sacrifice
one thing for the other.
6. Source code is just speech!
Sure. And so are an architect's plans, a musician's written compositions, an author's
well researched thesis, and an artist's latest painting. If you honestly think that
someone's statement of "George Bush Sucks!" should be considered of the same moral value
as a symphony, then you're beyond help.
Source code is more than speech. One could argue that it's analagous to an architect's
plans, but it's even more than that. Only if there were a universal house machine
that could take an architect's arbitrary drawings and instantly turn them into a house
would this be the case.
Source code, for 99% intents and purposes, IS what it DOES. A 10 line "Hello World" program
is not, and should not be considered, just a 10 line text document. It should be
considered as an entity which prints out "Hello World." The source code to Microsoft
Windows is not merely set of text files, but is an operating system.
It amazes me that programmers can downplay their work so much as to categorize the 10
lines of code they potentially spent weeks writing in the same category as the idiotic
rantings of a drunkard: "speech."
7. So why not just trade source code?
This is what the GPL offers now. But, as stated above, there is potential for another
alternative. No system exists which allows me, with peace of mind, to trade my source code,
my hard work, for cash, both as the original developer or an end-user.
8. But I cannot afford it!
Such is life. You have a few alternatives. Don't use it. Work to earn it.
Build your own alternative. Steal it and risk the consequences.
In any case, don't dilusion yourself that you are somehow entitled to the work of others
by the nature of its existence.
Please spend some time reading up about the technology before spouting off about it.
"Trusted" applications in Palladium run in a protected data space. As such, it is impossible (barring bugs in the hardware) for other applications to access their memory, etc.
Really, you should spend more time reading about Palladium before you believe the FUD that RMS et al spout off about it in the so-called FAQs.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Because he speaks the truth, and as you know, Microslop apologists are afraid of that!
Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.