Slashdot Mirror
RMS on Proposed GPLv3 changes
H4x0r Jim Duggan writes "Last Saturday - the first day of FOSDEM, Richard Stallman gave what seems to have been his first public talk about the draft GPLv3. Ciaran O'Riordan of Free Software Foundation Europe was there and, after recording with his digital camera, has published a transcript of RMS's GPLv3 talk. O'Riordan previously made a transcript of the January 16th first presentation on the GPLv3 which consists of 70 minutes of Eben Moglen, with 20 minutes worth of interruptions from Stallman."
For those of us who don't feel like wading a 100 page discussion transcript in legalese, can someone link to a concise summary of the changes being made?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
O'Riordan previously made a transcript of the January 16th first presentation on the GPLv3 which consists of 70 minutes of Eben Moglen, with 20 minutes worth of interruptions from Stallman.
;-)
Is that meant to sound like a bad thing? I hope not, if you're touching the GPL, I'd hope it's progenitor would interrupt you if you make a potential error
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
Is it just me or does it seem like RMS created a new verion of the GPL because people stopped listening to him about the old one.
It seems to me that RMS views are no longer connected with where Open Source should go, and will just lead Open Source to be too socially libral for wide use.
I disagree with RMS so my Mod points will negitivly reflect it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
These transcripts, and other such documents, are collected at the official GPLv3 wiki, on the Reusable texts page. And there's more info about the draft and how to participate in the public consultation at gplv3.fsf.org.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
What about Man-in-the-Middle attacks? That is, MonopolySoft builds a machine that will only run binaries signed by Red Hat. Red Hat is not required under GPLv3 to give its signature key, but the machine maker is, except, he's decided to verify only against Red Hat's key and he doesn't have Red Hat's private key (just the public key, which is used to validate that the binary came from Red Hat, which is all he needs). So I can still be prevented from modifying my GPL software and running it on my box, right? And no one's violated GPLv3, right? GPLv3 doesn't cover this type of attack at all.
My blog
What about Man-in-the-Middle attacks? That is, MonopolySoft builds a machine that will only run binaries signed by Red Hat. Red Hat is not required under GPLv3 to give its signature key, but the machine maker is, except, he's decided to verify only against Red Hat's key and he doesn't have Red Hat's private key (just the public key, which is used to validate that the binary came from Red Hat, which is all he needs). So I can still be prevented from modifying my GPL software and running it on my box, right? And no one's violated GPLv3, right? GPLv3 doesn't cover this type of attack at all.
Come again please?
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
Richard Stallman: By the way, I don't think we were using any chalk. We were using computers to write things down.
...chew it.
Eben Moglen: Yes, I was using the chalk after you went home at night. Sometimes I had
Richard Stallman: Did you eat it?
Eben Moglen: You see how it is. There was chalk involved, he just wasn't around for it. Yeh, it was curing my indigestion actually.
I like RMS, his ideas, and his work on GNU, but when he starts spouting off about "Treacherous Computing" and "Digital Restrictions Management" instead of using the traditonally accepted names (trusted computing and digital rights management, respectively), he just marginalizes himself and his positions.
Yes, I agree that TP and DRM are more apropriately called what Stallman calls them, but your average Joe who wants to learn more about FOSS, GNU, etc. hears this and thinks the guy is just some conspiracy loon. Its the same thing with the "there is no such thing as IP" deal. We understand the phrase "intellectual property" is a far from perfect term to describe what it represents. Going off on some tirade about how IP is an imperfect term doesn't answer the questions that people will have about how the changes in copyright law and software patents impact them and their rights. It only seeks to alienate people.
Then you don't buy MonopolySoft's machine.
If it is not possible for other machines that run Red Hat code to exist, then it's clear that Red Hat is designing the code for a specific architecture that requires signing, and therefore is required to distribute the key so that you can sign modified binaries yourself.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Wrong.
The key is a signature. All it does is verify that the file came from somewhere. If Redhat distributes to a third party and the third party wants to modify the software and distribute it they are free to. And you are free to take the modified version and modify it further. No where though are you given the rights to impersonate Redhat. All they need to do is release the source code.
which consists of 70 minutes of Eben Moglen, with 20 minutes worth of interruptions from Stallman.
You address Eben Moglen by his full name and then addresses Richard Stallman with much less respect. In my book both men are due some respect. This biasness should have been edited out by the Slashdot priesthood.
an ill wind that blows no good
What about Man-in-the-Middle attacks? That is, MonopolySoft builds a machine that will only run binaries signed by Red Hat. Red Hat is not required under GPLv3 to give its signature key, but the machine maker is, except, he's decided to verify only against Red Hat's key and he doesn't have Red Hat's private key (just the public key, which is used to validate that the binary came from Red Hat, which is all he needs). So I can still be prevented from modifying my GPL software and running it on my box, right? And no one's violated GPLv3, right? GPLv3 doesn't cover this type of attack at all.
What attack?!?!? If you run the software on MonopolySoft machine that is GPL you can change the software to allow other binaries...
The issue would came only if the MonopolySoft machine run only software that was signed by them. It the software is GPL then under v3 they must also provide the keys (I guess) so that people can run modified versions of the software...
This question was asked in the Q&A session after Richard's presentation. Richard answered that he will consult a lawyer, and he will do everything possible to fix this, and if you have suggestions they are welcome - and in the end he might fail to find a solution within the GPLv3 to this problem.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
"...That's why I'd rather hear your name than see your face"
--Laurie Anderson, respect to Wm. Burroughs
He may alienate people on the topic in question, but if he succeeds in waking them up to the importance of recognizing this kind of language, he's succeeded in something, IMHO, far more important.
On the other hand, I don't see why we should begrudge someone shipping a GPLed game on the XBox/360 or a GPLed version of an open format document reader on a phone. Personally, I'll take the software and modify it to run on platforms that I want to use, but the folks who want to run the DRM-platform versions shouldn't be left in the cold.
What if it was out of convince and notoriety like "Madonna" or "Sting" certainly you don't believe people are being disrespectful to Madonna when they mention only her first name in the same sentence as Britney Spears, do you? Who's bias do you think is shown by the way you phrase your own question?
Is the GPP trying to say RMS gois around with a 50 calibre magnum and FORCES people at gunpoint to use the GPL?
Man, he must get a lot of air miles....
I was worried about the unnecessarily critical tone of that too. Stallman gets a pretty bad rap, considering he singlehandedly started a revolution that most of us /. people now reap the benefits of.
When I moderate, I only use "-1, Overrated". That way, I never get meta-moderated!
Since 4 out of 5 replies don't understand what you're trying to say, let me try to make it clearer.
Bromskloss (750445) didn't understand it at all.
Qzukk (229616) doesn't understand that the software could run on other hardware, but the hardware can not run other software.
phoenix.bam! (642635) doesn't understand that the modified binary won't run.
i23098 (723616)
ainst GPL (Score:1)
by i23098 (723616) doesn't understand that "MonopolySoft" doesn't *have* the key, nor to they distribute software.
Basicly, you create two companies, "HardCorp" and "SoftCorp" which makes hardware and software, respectively. SoftCorp creates and signs software. HardCorp produces hardware which will only run SoftCorp-signed binaries. Then you make a third company to actually sell them, like a webshop with two products. SoftCorp will refuse to release their key since in theory they haven't limited you to any specific hardware - HardCorp did. Even if they use special hardware which means you won't find another machine to run it on without major modification, you don't technically require the signing key. This would be sort of like finding OS X-compatible hardware before the x86 switch. HardCorp doesn't have the key, nor do they distribute software. That way neither company falls under the GPLv3, yet you sell a hardware/software combo that is locked by DRM and where changing the binary means it won't run, and getting the software to work on anything else is impractical at best.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The point of the key is to guarentee the that the code came from Red Hat, and giving away that key is idiotic. Giving away that key will let any wanker say that his code has been signed and certifies by Redhat.
If you choose to run a machine that only runs signed binaries, that's your problem, not the GPL.
In trying to protect itself, the FSF is going to shoot itself in the foot and remove the leg.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
The GPL3 is trying to address a great number of current problems with the GPL2 including things like use of web-scripts, patents, and other holes. It has nothing to do with th lime-light or some BS like that.
The GPL functions the only possible way it could, by forcing the source code be given away for free. That is the entire goal of the GPL and it does it wonderfully. Patents threaten the GPL because someone could in thoery give away the source code with some patent hiden in and then turn around and try and charge you for making use of that source code.
Pete/Petri "damn, my chainsaw is clogged with 1's and 0's again." --clyde
Well, you're closest. You've described how to get around having to give out the private key.
The OP is incorrect in that there is no way to force SoftCorp to hand out their private keys. They're complying with the GPLv3 just by handing out the source. It's HardCorp that made it so that you can't run the software without SoftCorp's keys.
So what'll happen is that HardCorp therefore can't distribute the software that SoftCorp creates, since the GPLv3 states that if you can't meet the license agreement you can't distribute the software at all. (And they can't, 'cause they don't have the key.)
But there's no reason SoftCorp can't continue to release their signed binaries - after all, they aren't requiring you to use HardCorp's hardware. And HardCorp has no legal reason to remove the restriction that you can only use SoftCorp's software on their machine - they're not distributing SoftCorp's software, so they're not under the GPLv3.
Presto: vendor lockin with the GPLv3, no private keys made public required.
The only way RMS can get away with his little DRM hissy-fit is to do exactly what Mr. Torvalds thinks he already has: require everyone using the GPLv3 to hand out all their private keys. Gee - maybe Torvalds really does know what he's talking about...
Actually, MonopolySoft has violated the license. The problem for them is that they put themselves in a position where they could not possibly come into compliance. After the copyright holder complains, and after the 60 days are up, MonoplySoft will have to recall their product from the market. If they fail to do so the copyright holder can sue them.
I like RMS, his ideas, and his work on GNU, but when he starts spouting off about "Treacherous Computing" and "Digital Restrictions Management" instead of using the traditonally accepted names (trusted computing and digital rights management, respectively), he just marginalizes himself and his positions.
Traditionally accepted names? What is this tradition you speak of?
I don't think we were talking about DRM back in the 1800's. Heck I didn't hear about DRM until the late 1990's and then I don't think society came up with it.
But seriously, what he says is basically true. Trusted computing and Digital Rights Managment are phrases created to bias wording in someones favor (say the coporations). He is simply pointing out his bias.
We do it every day:
Insurgent or Freedom Fighter
Revolutionary or Patriot
Theft or Copyright Infringment
Many phrases in the Englsih language mean the same thing, but each phrase has a different connotation that has a bias.
There is nothing wrong of him to do so and I don't think he is marginalizing anyone. I would have to agree that DRM could mean Digital Restrictions Managment. It is obviously restricting me from doing what I want with content on my computer. I am of course not stating that this is right or wrong or that I agree or disagree with DRM, but it is obviously restricting use on my computer.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
It's a difficult case to make that the author of the GPL is "interrupt[ing]" someone about his work when the speaker asks for comments from the author and shares the presentation with the author. Perhaps you could write a summary of the story and leave your projections for the comments so they can be appropriately moderated down.
—J.B. Nicholson-Owens (jbn@forestfield.org)
Since most Free Software is licensed under the GPL, including the most famous programs this community has, I'd say it's just your misperception.
You probably don't understand the GPL or RMS well enough to have an informed perspective on the matter.
Your short post reveals multiple misunderstandings including citing the wrong movement—Open Source—which RMS takes pains to show why he's not now nor has he ever been a member of the Open Source movement. I would also add that the GPL is not properly called an "Open Source" license except in the most narrow way: it happens to qualify as an OSI-approved license. In more important ways, the GPL is the preeminent Free Software license; here are a couple reasons:
You got almost all right. But the WebShop can't sell both the hardware and software, because it must distribute the SoftCorp's keys.
That means that it is hard to get a sucessfull lock-in this way. Lots of companies won't be able to do so. But this protection against DRM isn't absolute, the same way that DRM isn't also absolute (even in hardware).
Rethinking email
Look at that coder, trying to use GPL
He's got the source code, and he pubs for free
Look at that coder, he wants the money
So he imposes DRM on me
Don't want to hack my microwave oven
Don't want the audio to make an MP3
Just want to pay out and be sued forever
Give me DRM and let me be a slave!
[chorus]
I want my - I want my - I want my DRM!
I want my - I want my - I want my DRM!
We got to move these cross-licensed patents
We got to ship these digitial HDTVs
It's hard work slaving for the big boss
But we don't care cause we're employees
[chorus]
Apologies to Sting.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
All of these terms are new. There is no more "tradition" behind the monopolist's nomenclature than there is behind RMS' user-centric nomenclature. Nor should "tradition" define what is right and proper for a society. Did it ever occur to you that an "average Joe who wants to learn more about FOSS, GNU, etc." might want the ethical take on the matter that RMS presents and that it is the dog-eat-dog business-speak which alienates people? Since when did the business language become unquestioningly correct and any alternative become de facto offensive? Finally, if RMS were answering your question to your face, I'm sure he'd point out that what he's focusing on is his movement, the Free Software movement, not Open Source. Hence the term "FOSS" doesn't apply—that term is used for people who don't want to make the distinction between the movements or take a side, but he definately does take a side.
Digital Citizen
But in this example, MonopolySoft only manufactures hardware. Red Hat is the software distributor.
...versus how many lines of legalese and press releases?
Ahh, I assumed that MonopolySoft was including the copy of Red Hat with the machine, making them the key software distributor in this case.
A highly unrealistic scenario has been contrived here. The parties involved can go right ahead, such an absurd device will enjoy little success. The license does not need to be modified to prevent this (nothing probably can), and the anti-DRM clauses need not be scraped under the view that this little pore hole makes them useless.
If some third party wants to sell the convenience of a combined machine-software combination, they will be out of luck.
This situation is far removed from the Tivoesque situations the new changes are meant to deal with.
no, you ingrates, that's *not* enough. It's not "3", but "GNU/3". And don't even get me started on the letters . . .
hawk
Its no different from selling DVD burners and blank DVDs. it could be used for illegal things (and often is), but its not up to Webshop to prevent people from doing illegal things with the stuff they buy.
And what happens if SoftCorp releases their software for free? people could buy their hardware from HardCorp and download their software from SoftCorp.
That way neither company falls under the GPLv3, yet you sell a hardware/software combo that is locked by DRM
I don't really think this situation is even a minor threat. The thing is that "you" can't legally sell the hardware/software combo- no one can. Just because SoftCorp doesn't make the keys available, doesn't mean that anyone else who gets the source from them is relieved of that responsibility. If you distribute SoftCorp's software, you are under all of the same obligations they are. If you were to distribute their software bundled together with hardware that only works with digitally signed binaries, you are still obligated to provide the signing key, even though you don't have it. Hence, you have no ability to legally distribute said combo.
Essentially this man-in-the-middle attack is only possible with a hardware and software combination which must always be sold independently of each other and where the eventual end user must perform the actual installation himself. It's a complete non-starter...
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
GPL triger on the moment that you pass some GPLed software to another person. That means that if WebStore sells the program, it must agree to the GPL, so it can't sell the piece of hardware.
The only way to put the two (hardware and software) toghether without violating the GPL is by the end user doing so.
Rethinking email
Trusted Computing is coming, so how is making the GPL completely incompatible going to help anything? If people buy into this idea, Open Source will just get squashed. The idea that being able to use Open Source on your hardware can be used as a bartering chip in this fight is laughable. If this comes to pass, Ballmer should put posters of RMS up in his office, buy him a new car, a new suit, and a locked down machine that only runs Windows.
This fight can only be fought with wallets. Consumers have to know what they are buying, and why they don't want a crippled machine. Is that more difficult that adding a few paragraphs to a document? Of course. But it is not in the interest of Dell, Gateway, or Apple to sell crippled computer. They need to know that doing so will lose them money. Hardware vendors should be fighting the Content providers pushing for this, not the FSF.
A camera crew filmed Stallman's opening keynote about software patents, but I can't see it on that page. Is it there (under a name I failed to guess)? Or will it be available at a later time? (if so, in the same place?)
Thanks.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
This fight can only be fought with wallets.
Completely wrong. This fight cannot be won with wallets, because the difference between DRM and non-DRM hardware can be as simple as not loading a key into the DRM thus disabling it. So every dollar you spend on non-DRM hardware also supports DRM-hardware. It's the same hardware.
Unless you think anti-DRM purchasers are going to be more than half the market, they are perpetually being marginalized by the faster-growing market of DRM-enabled hardware. And even if they are that large, they are still buying hardware with disabled DRM in it. Average Joe is going to see a $50 rebate on the system up-front to activate the DRM and then end up spending $50 on music or "reactivations" of his movies he could have had for free.
You don't go into this with the hardware you want, you go with the hardware you have. That hardware *already* has DRM on it, waiting to be activated. Instead you fight fire with fire: they take away your hardware and you respond by taking away their software. Then you sit back, wait, and watch the whole damn dumb-show play out. Then you win because software is more valuable.
You had me until "Then you win because software is more valuable" because Open Source is only an alternative to other software that will play nice with DRM. Closed source softeware is also valuable, in fact you could argue that it is more valuable to Dell and Gateway. Actually, no need to argue, it IS more valuable to hardware vendors.
1: Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
2: Don't put the knife to your own neck.
The GPL3 says, stay open or else. The message that needs to be sent is, stay open, that's what your customers want.
The only advantage they have is that they think people won't care or won't notice.
This is not an attack.
MonopolySoft is not violating the GPL. They are not preventing you from building the software, they are not preventing you from distributing the software. They are restricting which software you are allowed to run on the machine, which is etirely different.
In short you're SOL, and should have not purchased that box.
RMS is subverting the spirit of his own GPL, by not just placing restrictions on distribution, but restrictions on usage and modification of GPL software.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Basically, if you cannot uphold the terms of the GPL, you cannot distribute a GPL-covered work at all.
Even if it's not your fault.
That said, if I'm missing something here, feel free to submit comments or fixes to them. GPLv3 is a draft, and this sort of thing is exactly what they have comments for--to fix any oversights before they publish a final version.
> Either RMS likes customizing licensing, or he doesn't. He's being a hypocritical here.
He doesn't hate all CC licenses, he refused to endorse them all because some are free and some are non-free. He likes the free ones and dislikes the non-free ones. He feared that any statement from him would be taken as an endorsement of all of them, including the non-free ones. Instead, Slashdot ran a story about him "attacking" the licenses by refusing to endorse them, and people got this crazy idea that he disliked all CC licenses, even the free ones.
He probably does disagree with lumping them all together, though, so as to obfuscate the differences between the free and non-free CC licenses. After all, that silly obfuscation he was complaining about was the root of yet another long Slashdot rant that had absolutly nothing to do with the article. Naturally, absolutely no one here demonstrated that they had so much as skimmed the thing.
Lastly, to ignore someone's reasons for believing things in accusing them of hypocricy is nothing but character assassination. It is not reasonable, it is not logical, and it is not kind. Please do not engage in such things.
What's worse is that assholes refer to just about everything as DRM. It's a catch all term. Product Activation? DRM. CD Check? DRM. Gotta download a codec to play a movie? DRM. Hell, I've heard people refer to the restrictions on what you can do with objects in a MMORPG as DRM. It's as non-specific as Intellectual Property, and worse than IP it presupposes that creator of the file to which the "rights" are attached actually has any right to have those "rights" enforced on my machine.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Why should the vendor decide what's worthwhile to run? The real solution is to have embedded crypto-signing where the vendor signs their software, then the user may verify the signature before signing the binary with their own key. This way the binary is verified, and only verified binaries are allowed.
POKE 36879,8
IBM doesn't ship personal computers any more, just like it doesn't ship typewriters, or card punches. It moves on, to shipping supercomputers-on-a-chip for Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo to put in their games consoles. However, the IBMers need to use personal computers, to get on with IBM's business ('Support the commercial clients in their businesses'); and the IBMers need a huge amount of freedom to be able to do that effectively. So the IBMers are likely to need the 'free' computers, just the way RMS would like them.
And if somone can show that the companies are linked they would be in hot water.
let's say another software maker generated new program 2000 that only works on Red Hat signed kernels.
i suppose if it was a software "service" you'd be SOL, but free to move on to another seller.
I could see a situation where Dell, for instance, gets a lot of "free" ad-ware for accessing media, online accounts, etc to load up on your new red hat install and when you update the kernel all that stuff stops working.
Red Hat did't violate the GPL by signing their kernels.
How could you hold Dell responsible if all they did was recompile and repackage???
Where the parent is heading is if the third party required Dell to tie the keys together before distributing it.. They could get out of giving the keys because Dell distributed the software, and dell or red hat could help you because it's not their software either???
"But it is not in the interest of Dell, Gateway, or Apple to sell crippled computer. They need to know that doing so will lose them money. Hardware vendors should be fighting the Content providers pushing for this, not the FSF."
Apple sells iPods with DRM because it enables them to sell music online. The recording industry would refuse to allow Apple to sell online music otherwise. A normal consumer considers a computer that won't play their music at all more crippled than one that will play their music with restrictions. So a GPLv3 computer is more crippled than a Mac by a normal consumer's standards So you need to convince the recording industry and the movie industry that DRM is unnnecessary if you don't want crippled computers (crippled by your standards).
Vote for Pedro
That's only the recording of his second talk, the one on GPLv3. He also gave the opening keynote where he talked about software patents. There are other recordings of his software patents speech given at other events on the GNU project philosophy audio page, but he software patent talk at FOSDEM was particularly interesting because of his comments about EU democracy at the end. From looking at the names of the files, I don't think any of them contain his software patents speech - which is strange since the camera crew did record it.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Very strange indeed; all speeches from saturday should be there in theory. They're still encoding some speeches from sunday, so you won't find them online yet, but they've already posted the valgrind speech given sunday afternoon which should indicate that all speeches from Saturday should be online already.
The only guy who flatout refused to have his speech filmed was Tomasz Kojm from ClamAV, so you'll never see that one online. Unfortunately, I was one of the volunteers who was forced to undergo it in order to give him his 15 and 5 minutes warning before his speech would end, and given the quality of the speech in question, I certainly understand why he didn't want that one committed to film. ;)
Install windows on my workstation? You crazy? Got any idea how much I paid for the damn thing?
Stallman's thoughts on CC are explained in his blog about being on a panel with a CC lawyer.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Wait a sec, you mean you can't sell a GPLv3 product AND a DRM'd product at the same store? Hell an iPod has DRM, so anyone selling iPods can't sell something with GPLv3? It seems like GPLv3 isn't going to catch on if that's the case.
"The GPLv3 can include a clause that if you accept the license you cannot distribute *any* product that prevents a user from using any of their own modified GPL-covered software."
Del simply does not accept the license, sells you a blank box, and tells you to go to Red Hat to get the software. Since Dell didn't distribute any GPLv3 software, they are not bound by GPLv3.
Vote for Pedro
No, RMS pointed out that not all CC licenses confer the same rights onto licensees and that it is a mistake to talk about them simultaneously as if one is just as good as another:
As a practical matter, this is not much of a problem because so few works are licensed under any of the Sampling licenses (even the one that allows non-commercial verbatim copying) and the Developing Countries Licenses.
As a matter of principle, I think his objection was fair, proper, and clearly and concisely stated. People who learn what he's talking about can repeat this critique when explaining what CC licenses are, so they won't spread more confusion about the Creative Commons. If it were me interviewing him I'd want to know why he chooses to raise an objection to an organization that is doing good work, broadly speaking? It seems to me that if one's friends are doing generally good work, it is strategically better to clarify one's critique (repeating it often so it's clear), champion their successes, and downplay their flaws until the flaws become a more practical problem down the line.
It's different because he's not complaining about optional clauses (short additions to a license, the bulk of which remains the same and confers the same rights and responsibilities on licensees). The current GPL allows one to add various clauses to give licensees things the unmodified GPL doesn't allow. This version of the GPL has been around for more than a decade. The GPLv2's popularity (the most popular Free Software license) with optional clauses didn't result in different GPLs. The GPLv3 will continue this now time-honored way and apparently successful strategy in licensing.
He does, he's not being hypocritical here.
Your post is not interesting. It is incorrectly moderated.
Digital Citizen
The consumer market demands media content from the major providers. You deliver it or you die. Apple understands this. Microsoft understands this.
The FSF says more about their objection to the original Artistic license than you're repeating. What did they say when you asked them for more specifics about their objections? They aren't an organization to refrain from offering such information about licenses that matter—their objections to the Apple Public Source License are noteworthy. They also point to a revised version of the Artistic license that is a GPL-compatible Free Software license. Perhaps it simply isn't terribly pressing to offer extended commentary about an old version of a license. Also, as a practical measure, so few programs use the first Artistic License relative to other Free Software licenses it really isn't a compelling case to argue about it.
As for your objection that it is RMS' opinion alone which determines whether a license qualifies as a Free Software license, you would do well to support the point, not just state your opinion on the matter as if its above justification.
Digital Citizen
Please do spell out for us how RMS' advocacy for software freedom and the GPL are properly described as "zealotry".
Also tell us why one should attempt the impossible: to grant all freedoms to all people. In what way is the GPL "unrealistic"? You appear to be complaining that the GPL won't let you do whatever you want with the covered code. Why should the GPL allow proprietary derivatives? That would not be granting a freedom, it would be allowing others to have power over users. Power and freedom are different. Why can't you write your own program to do what you want it to do and then license it as you wish?
Digital Citizen
Going in order of what you mention:
Digital Citizen
When you've finished with your straw man hissy fit, perhaps you'll realise that in the real world, HardCorp will fail. Their entire product range relys on you buying an operating system which you cannot get from the same supplier as the hardware, and installing it yourself, in a world where 99.9% of end users buy their hardware (servers and GNU/Linux Desktops included) with the operating system preinstalled, and the other 0.1% are smart enough to know better than to fall for this scam.
MonopolySoft is manufacturing hardware that is dependant on RedHat's GPLed software to work. Even if they are not distributing Red Hat itself, I would not like to put money on them being cleared of violating GPLv3 because of this dependancy which they deliberately introduced.
That's an obvious economic dead alley for MonopolySoft, they'd be making themselves completely dependend on redhat for a critical resource. I really can't see any big company trying this, nor can I see many clients bying this.
No he's not:
- the incident that got RMS started on the road to Free Software is one where he couldn't fix a
printer because he didn't have the code
- what this prevents is the situation where he can't fix the printer because he can't load his fixed
version of the software
What in the GPL stops them from doing so? Including a shrinkwrapped copy of Red Hat, for example, would keep them from being considered a propagator under GPLv3, so the license would have no jurisdiction.
The point of the key is to guarentee the that the code came from Red Hat
Yes, and the license differentiates between the two. In the real world this signature is not required to run the code, therefore you don't need to get the key. You are required to distribute everything necessary to run a locally modified/compiled executable.
Now if Red Hat distributed some GPL3 software, and it only ran on MonoSoft 15215 processors, and the MonoSoft 15215 only ran signed binaries, then distributing the tools required to sign the binaries is required, because by targeting the 15215 they chose to use a DRM-encumbered platform that required signing to execute software. If they don't like this, their choices were A) don't code for the 15215, or B) don't use GPLv3 code.
Now, the key doesn't have to be the same key used by Red Hat, they could distribute an alternate key, as long as signing the binary with the alternate key also allows it to run on the 15215 processor.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
If you could drop the name-calling long enough to engage in an adult discussion, you'd see that Linus Torvalds doesn't speak for Free Software because he's opposed to it. He opposed Andrew Tridgell when Tridgell worked on a free program to allow users to pull data from Bitkeeper repositories. The FSF's FAQ entry on "strengthen[ing] Linus Torvalds' role as posterboy for our community" is helpful as well. On top of that, he has changed his position on giving GNU any credit at all. When his kernel was first announced he was ready to give GNU credit for what it is, now Torvalds denies GNU any credit and apparently believes that Linux is an operating system. His self-aggrandizing takes the form of routinely allowing interviewers to come away with that misunderstanding by never taking the time to correct their misstatements.
I don't understand what this sentence means. The grandparent post of this post is quite wrong about RMS' involvement in GNU and authorship of Emacs.
Digital Citizen
You are a troll, isn't you? Well, if not, reread the topic and the first message of the thread.
Rethinking email
Ok, sorry for the previous poster. I am a bit tired and didn't think about it so well. To comment that today, you must be genuinely interested.
If the GPL comes out with the DRM clause, the WebShop won't be able to sell both SoftCorp's software (that is under GPLv3) and HardCorp's computer. That is because HardCorp's computer needs a signed software, and only SoftCorp has the keys.
If the WebShop sells the software, it must agree to the GPL, so they need to disclosure the keys. Since they don't have the keys, they can't sell the software. I guess that all the confusion comes because, if WebShop didn't sell the hardware, it could sell the software, but all that it is prohibited to sell is the software, never the hardware.
Also WebShop will be able to sell other DRM hardware, if they don't use SoftCorp's keys.
The iPod DRM is sompletely unrelated to all that. You don't need any key to make your software run on iPod (you simply can't run your software on it, I guess), and the software is not under GPLv3. So, WebShop will always be able to sell iPods.
Rethinking email
For better or worse, if someone or some company doesn't like GPLv3, what's to stop them from releasing their work under GPLv2? (Assuming the answer is "nothing"...) Doesn't that rob the GPLv3 of much of the power RMS is trying to give it?
Another group have now published other videos from FOSDEM 2006 and their collection includes Stallman's software patents speech: http://free-electrons.com/community/videos/confere nces
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki