Linus Speaks Out On GPLv3

Slagged writes to mention the word that Linus Torvalds isn't a fan of the new GPL draft. News.com has the story, and someone purporting to be Linus is causing a ruckus in the Groklaw thread on the subject. From the News.com article: "Say I'm a hardware manufacturer. I decide I love some particular piece of open-source software, but when I sell my hardware, I want to make sure it runs only one particular version of that software, because that's what I've validated. So I make my hardware check the cryptographic signature of the binary before I run it ... The GPLv3 doesn't seem to allow that, and in fact, most of the GPLv3 changes seem to be explicitly designed exactly to not allow the above kind of use, which I don't think it has any business doing."

Comments

Linus is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think manufacturers have any business preventing me from running my own code on hardware I purchased, at that stage I may as well be using MS Windows.

Re:Linus is wrong

[grim4593]

Then they should be like the D-Link routers and have an emergency ROM that lets you reinstall the firmware even if the router is bricked. Smart idea they have.

Re:Linus is wrong

[Spazmania]

This is a twisted and difficult issue.

On the one hand, the whole point of open source is that you can change it and then run your changed version. That shouldn't be suddenly untrue at the arbitrary border between hardware and software. Hardware that uses approved versions of open source while actively preventing my version from running violates the spirit of the thing.

On the other hand, most of us have spent the last decade saying that its OK to use both open source and closed source software on the same machine. No one argues, for example, that you can't run GCC on top of a closed-source unix kernel even though it requires that kernel in order to run. Nor does anyone argue that the processor and other chips used by the kernel must be an open, free design.

The real problem, I think, is that RMS (via the FSF) is trying to force it down our throats as usual. He's a strange bird in that he really gets the freedom issue at one level while it flies totally over his head at another.

I think I'd put the DRM stuff in GPL3 as an optional component and see what happens. Let us authors decide whether we want it. If it works for us, it can be made permanant in GPLv4.

So I'd do something like this: Software released under the GPL MAY designate (on either a file-by-file or full release basis) that it can not be used by any device which by design actively prevents its legitimate owner from adjusting the software or data. Distribution of code so designated would be fully compatible with distribution of any other interlinked GPLv3 code with the sole exception that binary forms of the portions so designated may not be distributed for use with the restricted systems.

But then I'm a vi guy. Maybe if I'd written emacs I'd see it differently.

Re:Linus is wrong

[smittyoneeach]

Yes, but will GPLv3 allow you to have an emergency, fail-safe ROM, without providing a way for the FNG (that's me) to b0rk it?
Given the seller, the buyer, and the marketplace in between, the whole argument centers around control of the market.
On the one hand, you have the monopolists whow want to destroy the market,
And on the other are these on the other end who want to destroy the market, and usher in some purported paradise.
While I support the FSF, it is my hope that the tension will resolve in a way that respects the spectrum of motives driving human use of use technology. We can't reasonably privilege any one side of the situation.
The part where the extremes feel the need to label the opposition, throwing out accusations like "communist" or "unethical" is where they reveal they've overstepped themselves.
The GPLv2 stands on its own as a monument to common sense.

Re:Linus is wrong

[MichaelSmith]

I think I'd put the DRM stuff in GPL3 as an optional component

The linux kernel project has the choice of staying with GPL2 or writing their own license. They could even fork GPL2 to make their own new license if they want. So the DRM stuff is optional.

Re:Linus is wrong

[Burz]

While I support the FSF, it is my hope that the tension will resolve in a way that respects the spectrum of motives driving human use of use technology.

That is just what the FSF is trying to do, by offering the anti-DRM GPLv3 license alongside GPLv2. Slagging them for adding this choice is IMO very uncool of Linus. He already has what he wants and no one is going to take it away from him.

Re:Linus is wrong

[compm375]

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
No, you can fork the GPL, you just can't call it the GNU GPL and can't include the preamble without permission. That seems pretty reasonable. You wouldn't want a bunch of incompatible licenses all called the GNU GPL.

Re:Linus is wrong

[HiThere]

Actually, the Linux kernel project DON'T have a choice. It is and will be GPL2. To switch to GPL3 would require getting the agreement of a very large number of people, living and dead...or just totally out of contact. This isn't going to happen.

GPL3 will be used where GPL3 is used. It will (probably) be compatible with GPL2, so I don't expect any conflict there. Some people will choose to use it, some will choose GPL2, some BSD, etc. And this makes me quite suspicious of those who are vehemently against GPL3. (Note that the comment is "from someone who was purported to be Linus Tolvard". Wonder who it was.) What is it that they want to do with MY code that the GPL3 would be so bad for, and why can't they explain how it would be so bad? (Well, if it *is* Linux, then he's got a lot of credibility, but I still want an answer.)

HP apparently has some objection as to how patents are handled. I'll have to read their objection, but I'm disposed to dismiss it. HP doesn't, to me, have a strong reputation as a member of the community. (I know some feel that it does. Perhaps parts of it do, but the company as a whole definitely doesn't.) Still, the objections *might* have merit, even though they are about patents...as long as they aren't about software patents.

But notice that with HP's objection, you CAN check (and I'm quite certain that lots of people who are closer to the process than I am *are* checking). This is the sign of an objection that's worth taking seriously. (I more or less cavalierly dismiss it because 1. it's about patents, and 2. it's from HP ... but my real reason for being so cavalier is... 3. my opinion isn't going to have a lot of influence. [If it would, I'd be much more careful with it, though I suspect it would come to the same conclusion in the end.])

Re:Linus is wrong

[aichpvee]

WRT54G is Linksys. They made the switch because people were upgrading their 50$ wireless routers to have all the features of 200$+ routers and Linksys was losing sales on the higher end stuff because the 50$ router and a free firmware upgrade got them the same features at a fraction of the price.

The decrease in ROM size was either because the non-Linux firmware didn't require as much, Linksys was trying to make sure that the router stayed crippled as much as possible when people hacked Linux back onto it (which they have), or a combination of both (which is most likely) I don't really know.

The switch wasn't to save money on the WRT54G to keep the price down or profits up, it was to protect their higher end router offerings.

Re:Linus is wrong

[aichpvee]

Yeah, I forgot about that. The changes did come after Cisco bought Linksys and it was the higher-end Cisco stuff that they were protecting.

Re:Linus is wrong

[dbIII]

He's a strange bird in that he really gets the freedom issue at one level while it flies totally over his head at another.

He gets it - it's just thing english language dictionary definition of the word "free" he doesn't like so he has his own definition. Go back over some of his interviews (or just one - he used to bring any topic around to the same points he wanted to get across) and it will become clear. The silly stunts with ID badges and throwing away petitions to get attention or renaming other peoples projects to get attention for his own projects should be ignored in favour of what the text of the GPL says - and ultimately it is up to the drafter to convince us that it is better.

. Treating him like a hero is pointless - taking the ideas on their merits is not.

The people who put the code together have to be convinced to use the licence - RMS has to remember that they have the right to use the most draconian licence they like if it is original work. The GPL is used becuase it is to the advantage of a lot of people including the authors. A GPL that is about imposing extra restrictions and penalties on the authors is pointless and won't be used without some kind of political games and bullying. "Because RMS said so and he's a goddam American hero and has the numbers" is no reason, "because RMS convinced me it is a good idea" is.

Personally I don't think the GPL is the place to be agitating for changes in stupid domestic policies on computer usage - you have a representative government over there, talk to people in it. If it goes through the rest of us will just buy the same hardware from China and use the unlock codes - the same thing people in the USA could do only it will be illegal under some braindead anti-competitive (and thus ironicly anti-capitalistic) laws.

Re:Linus is wrong

[Spazmania]

The FSF is not forcing anyone to use GPL version 3.

That's not entirely accurate. Once glibc is licensed under "GPL Version 3 or later" nothing licensed under only GPL version 2 can be distributed as a binary staticly linked with glibc.

Re:Linus is wrong

[turbidostato]

"The real problem, I think, is that RMS (via the FSF) is trying to force it down our throats as usual."

Oh, well... I didn't know RMS (or the FSF or the SPI for that matter) were pushing governments so only choice to license the software you wrote was the GPLv3. It's good to know, thanks! ...or is it that RMS it trying to offer a well thought license so you can -IF YOU WANT TO, avoid the software you write to be involved in some situations you really didn't want to?

For the hardware manufacturers: they can ALWAYS use non-GPLv3 based software, don't they?
For the software developers: they can ALWAYS develop software and distribute it under a non-GPLv3 software, don't they?

So what's exactly what RMS is trying to force down our throats?

Of Course That's the Point

[BlackGriffen]

It's fine to have the hardware validate the software, I don't think anyone can rationally argue against that. What's not fine is to have the hardware refuse to run the software at all. If the user is conscious that the software is modified and therefor unsupported, then the user should have the ability to run any software he chooses.

So, have a cryptographic check alongside a message or error light or something about running in unsupported mode, but don't completely cripple the hardware just because you want to avoid support headaches.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[HairyCanary]

You are failing to see this from the point of view of the manufacturer. What you have proposed simply gives you a way to run unsupported software. Where does it actually help the manufacturer? They are still going to get the calls, error light or not. Only now, in addition to providing support, they have to explain why they will not support a particular version of the code.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[AuMatar]

No, I don't. I have to look at it from the point of view of the owner. If I buy a piece of hardware I damn well have the *right* to run any software I want with it. Now, doing so may void the warranty. But as the owner of the hardware I am allowed to make that choice.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[timeOday]

Exactly. What if that "hardware" is a PC and that "validated software" is Windows? So much for Linux.

I don't find this far-fetched in the slightest.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[ClosedSource]

You may have the right to try, but the company that created the hardware "damn well" has the right to use technology to stop you if they want to.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[radtea]

If it's controlling some flight systems or some medical device, then it should be very stringent about the environment that it operates in

This is why flight systems and medical devices are maintained by trained engineers who are governed by institutional policies that mandate the software changes that are permitted.

The only thing that Linus' is defending is manufacturer's right to prevent anyone from ever running anything they don't approve of. I personally want to be able to run anything I want on my hardware (that's what "my" means) and if the manufacturer has to tell a bunch of lame customers who've broken stuff that they don't get no support, I'm sure that the manufacturers won't have any trouble at all doing that.

I have managed support teams and had to deal personally with irate customers who were trying to run our product on WinME and the like, which was not supported. I had no trouble explaining to them clearly that they were not on a supported platform and they needed to upgrade their OS. It just isn't that hard, and honestly such users are a minisucle fraction of the total support burden.

Likewise, at this very moment, there is code running on computers in hospitals around the world that is secured only by hospital policy. I'm talking about systems in ORs and imaging suites, most of which...well, you don't want to know about the situtation with regard to passwords on such systems.

So far as I know, not one single accident has ever occured anywhere due to a user loading alternative code onto such a system. But I do know of cases where researchers have used their freedom to run alternative software to repurpose such system for all kinds of interesting and valuable experimental purposes.

Linus is proposing to allow hardware manufacturers to use software validation to prevent the owners of such hardware from being free to use it in novel ways.

There is no risk to the public due from the freedom to run alternate code. There is a very low added support burden from users running alternate code. There is currently a very good mechanism to prevent people from running alternate code in situations where it matters, starting with "voiding the warranty" and moving on up to "opening yourself to a lawsuit". Therefore there is no risk to anyone from hardware owners having the freedom to use their hardware as they see fit, and specious arguments invoking speculative situations with mission-critical hardware simply do not hold water.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[Anonymous Coward]

And the copyright owner of the software has the right to restrict the use of that software on devices which perform that hardware check. What's your point?

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[ClosedSource]

Sure but the sun doesn't set at the pleasure of the OSS community. If they want to lock their software out of DRM-based hardware, that's their choice.

As for Linus changing his perspective, he decided a long time ago not to blindly follow whatever license the FSF might cook up in the future and it looks like it was a wise move.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[Pausanias]

BlackGriffen wrote:

It's fine to have the hardware validate the software, I don't think anyone can rationally argue against that. What's not fine is to have the hardware refuse to run the software at all. If the user is conscious that the software is modified and therefor unsupported, then the user should have the ability to run any software he chooses. So, have a cryptographic check alongside a message or error light or something about running in unsupported mode, but don't completely cripple the hardware just because you want to avoid support headaches.

What you say makes sense; however, I don't think the current language of the GPLv3 draft is clear on this point. Here is the relevant passage, emphasis mine:

The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the same range of circumstances. (For instance, if the work is a DVD player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for modified versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish.)

It seems that the first phrase in bold allows what you describe: "implement all the same functionality" does not seem to prohibit a pop-up warning that the code is unsigned. However, the second phrase in bold says that modified versions must be indistinguishible from the original source from the point of view of an outside device. This seems to prohibit that same pop-up warning. So, it seems that Moglen & Stallman still have some clarifying work to do.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[iCEBaLM]

Sure but the sun doesn't set at the pleasure of the OSS community. If they want to lock their software out of DRM-based hardware, that's their choice.

When it comes to software created by the OSS community the sun does set at our pleasure, which is the only software the GPLv3 is going to cover. If they want to lock their software using DRM based hardware they can use THEIR OWN software and not ours.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[GigsVT]

Linus's whole point is that the GPL 3 dictates technical details of projects that use it, where V2 didn't.

GPLv2 dictated technical details that affected the next user's right to modify the software. For example, you couldn't link a modified GPL program with a closed source library, since that would hamper the ability to modify the software.

The spirit of the GPL has not changed. The "political goal" is to ensure that all downsteam users that wind up using GPL software have the same rights to modify and distribute the software that earlier users had. That has not changed. It's only closing a loophole that some companies can use to take away those rights without violating the letter of the GPL.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[tinkerghost]

Plus, even if it is, anyone who has gotten suckered into phone support and actually has enough knowledge to understand this themselves will probably get fed up with it and have little trouble saying "Sorry, we don't support that. Thanks for calling." and hanging up if it becomes a problem.... or maybe I was just an asshole when I did phone support.

Obviously you were the asshole who took the call before I did & passed the previously frustrated and now angry customer on to me.
Seriously, in today's call center you are not allowed to hang up on customers. Never, no matter how much they abuse you, no matter how stupid they are. I've worked in 2 & know people in 3 others. The customer just calls back, yells for a supervisor & you get reamed for hanging up on them, even after recordings show they used every curse known to western civilization and a few new ones. I once got yelled at for hanging up on a customer who had just issued a death threat.
As for the not working with other software, it comes down to DRM - to stay inside the DRM lines, you have to be able to engage in some level of 'Trusted Computing'. If I can't trust your new app not to violate the rules I need in place to satisfy my content supplier, I can't run your new app.
I have to agree that trying to impose the GPLv3 onto hardware mfgs isn't smart. Like it or not some levels of 'trusted computing' will be needed or desired in the future - especially by governments and big businesses, and saying that it's unacceptable is only going to kill FOSS in those areas.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[GigsVT]

There's no arm twisting. No one is forced to use GPLed software. No GPL software developer is forced to use GPLv3. If embedded manufacturers would like to continue using only GPLv2 software, they are free to do so.

If GPL software developers would like to prevent manufacturers from taking away the rights of users to modify and redistribute the software, they they should use GPLv3. I suspect many will. Some won't. Notably, Linux will never be GPLv3, it can't be even if Linus wanted it to be. There's too much GPLv2 only code in it.

Linus shouldn't act like something has changed. The core value of the GPL has always been that you must not restrict the rights of the people you distribute GPL software to.

It's part of the reason BSD is a fractured mess that nearly no one uses, and Linux is so huge. With GPL you aren't going to be competing against heavily forked proprietary versions that blow the open source version out of the water (see pspice/cadence if you need an example). If Linux had been under a license that allowed forks that users can't modify or redistribute, it would be no better than the BSD license.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[iplayfast]

So any pc manufacturer is also open to lawsuits? Your post makes no sense at all. A TiVo is a computer running propriatary software for a specialized purpose. If you run your own software then TiVo isn't liable for what you do. It would be like sueing car manufactures for road accidents due to alcohol. Not going to happen.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[TrekkieGod]

However, the second phrase in bold says that modified versions must be indistinguishible from the original source from the point of view of an outside device.

I don't think that's exactly what it says. It's more along the lines of, if I use gpl software for my instant messaging client, I can't make it so that a modified version of said instant messaging client is blocked from logging onto my servers, or treat them differently by deciding that they don't get to use one of my cool features like...saving your friends list on the server or something. Which makes sense. What's the point of being allowed to modify the source code if you can't use your modifications?

Now, if you run into bugs, and call the company saying, "I can't connect to your servers", they should have the right to say, "we can't help you fix your problem unless you're running an unmodified version." I don't think anything in the gpl v3 is trying to prevent them from doing that.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[Jherek Carnelian]

You may have the right to try, but the company that created the hardware "damn well" has the right to use technology to stop you if they want to.

Which is EXACTLY why the GPLv3 is necessary.

GNU all started with a Xerox printer and RMS's need to make it do things (report errors) that Xerox did not think of and did not want him to do.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[WhiteWolf666]

Seriously, in today's call center you are not allowed to hang up on customers.

I find this seriously hard to believe. I've been hung up on by several call centers (Comcast, Cingular, CapitalOne, Dell, ahem. . . .) I think there quite seriously are companies which do permit people to hang up on customers.

I'm not rude, but if I _know_ I'm right on an issue I will be firm, and I will insist on speaking to someone else. I spent 2 hours on the phone with Cingular, discussing a point on my contract, until an administrator finally admitted that I was, indeed, correct, and issued my credit. I don't yell, I don't curse, but I won't accept what they say at face value when I know them to be incorrect. I don't see any reason to give into a big company because they feel they are correct, and on more than one occasion I've documented their errors only to be told by customer service representatives that it didn't matter. At one point, a certain cable company told me they couldn't help me, it didn't matter, I couldn't speak to anyone else, and that because my modem was an older modem (DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 compliant!) it supported a maximum of 1 Mbps. Then I was hung up on.

I've worked in call centers, so I know how much it sucks to have rude customers, but I'm starting to get the impression that their most definitely are abusive call center managers who do NOT respect their customers or employees, and these people permit employees to hang up on customers who are problematic.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[fossa]

The Open Source movement makes the case that source code leads to many eyes reducing bugs, stronger communities, and do other things that might be appealing to a business. Free Software on the other hand, according to Stallman and his GPL and FSF, has always been about ensuring the four freedoms for the software end user. If you or Linus are not interested in these four freedoms, political or philosophical as they may be, then you should not license your software under the GPL "version 2 or any later version". Read up on it; make your choice. But don't complain when the FSF attempts to modify their license to maintain these freedoms, for the FSF has never claimed to do otherwise.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[the-empty-string]

You may have the right to try, but the company that created the hardware "damn well" has the right to use technology to stop you if they want to.

Sure. Just not with GPL'ed code.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[vertinox]

You also have the right to not buy a piece of hardware that doesn't do what you want (e.g. run unsupported stuff). Don't like it, don't buy it

And the original author of the open source software has the right to refuse the company from using his software that he wrote in such a way that undermines the spirit of GPLv3. That is the point of open software.

If they company doesn't want to comply they can write their own software too and use whatever license they want.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Linus's whole point is that the GPL 3 dictates technical details of projects that use it, where V2 didn't.

Ahem. GPLv2 2c:

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[Red Alastor]

That's intersting, but you didn't answer my question. Note that incentives and motivations have nothing to do with my question.

No really, that's the answer. GPL is a license, not a contract. It cannot control use. My only GPL weapon is to prevent you to redistribute my work if you don't comply with the rules of my license. So the GPL says, either you remove that pesky DRM stuff or you write your own software to put in your own DRMed hardware because I do not give you permission to redistribute MY software as long as its in there.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[MoneyT]

But they do sue the gun manufacturers. And given the political climate towards computers and high tech gadgetry, I'd lean towards them suing TiVo.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[ClosedSource]

So the correct answer is that the GPL doesn't circumvent DRM.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[JakusMinimus]

Why does the software matter at all? Every eula I have read states that the software is not warrented for any pourpose. I also think the GPL had the clause as well. Since the software is not warrented anyway why do manufacturers have to support it?

I'm not sure whether you posed this rhetorically, but it basically leads one to the meat of the issue:
1) software tells hardware what to do
2) no self-interested party will warranty software
3) it is incumbent upon (if not legislated) that manufacturers minimally warranty their products
4) the best way to ensure one's hardware does what it is supposed to do is to completely control said hardware, which means being in complete control of what software runs on it

Right now the only "reasonable" solution to this problem is to make sure only vetted software can run on your hardware. End of story, done. This is why we have "Trusted Computing." I don't like it, not at all, but it is something that hardware manufacturers feel they need to do to help ensure their revenue streams.

I tend to view the problem as a transient artifact of the current state of technology as it applies to content distribution and presentation. Therefore, it seems best to just let "the market" sort things out. Jiggering the GPL to strong-arm the desired results seems to me to be very much like over-legislating a "market" in hopes of "correcting" it--something that never seems to work.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[The_Wilschon]

You obviously are having trouble understanding just what the GPL actually does. Think of this new clause like this: It is a promise that if you don't play the way we (meaning those who choose to use this license) like, we will take our ball and go home. You can get another ball and play without us if you like, but we will take ours and go home.

This does have the potential to have some power, because the GNU tools are far and away the best set of basic unix tools. Most of the unices have adopted them by now. It is possible that when trusted computing comes, that this clause will simply kill off the use of the gnu tools (back to the last version using gplv2), but I doubt it. Additionally, if we ever manage to write a good killer app that lots of windows users use, and license it under gplv3, then when trusted computing comes, it might make people actually realize that it is not all sweetness and light (which will no doubt be how it is advertised.).

Also, there is some reasoning behind this promise to take the ball and go home. Presumable foremost in FSF's collective mind is that in a real sense, the type of hardware described would restrict freedom number 1 [emphasis mine] "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." [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html]. Additionally, there is a security reason. If you cannot ever update to a newer version, then any security holes that exist are frozen. Once those holes are discovered, everyone who is on a platform like this becomes a sitting duck until such time as both their hardware vendor releases a new signature set and they upgrade the software. This is also a personal/professional pride reason, because everyone who thinks they understand security will blame the software for their box getting owned, which will only be half right. Such incidents could give free software an undeserved reputation for insecurity.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[TheRaven64]

Apple tried to do this with their new "MacIntels".

No, they didn't. They shipped the machines with EFI and without a BIOS compatibility layer, because they did not need to run any BIOS-dependent code. This precluded running Windows, because Windows is not yet fully EFI compatible. Some Free kernels which already had IA64 support were quickly ported, since they already had EFI code that just needed to be copied from one branch to another. Windows wasn't, because Microsoft don't want Apple to be in a strong position as a hardware manufacturer. Finally, Apple realised that people wanted to run Windows on their Macs and shipped a firmware update that contained the BIOS compatibility layer. At no point did Apple actively try to prevent people from running whatever they wanted on their machines.

Running OS X on a non-Mac is a completely different, but irrelevant, story.

Closing OSS

[saterdaies]

Part of the point of OSS is that anything that you can modify should be modifyable. From the FSF's perspective, a hardware vendor shouldn't be allowed to lock you into using their approved software. You should be able to run whatever software you'd like on the hardware that you paid for. I'm not from the heart of OSS evangalism, but by allowing a hardware vendor to lock you into a certain version of an OSS application, you've closed the source of that app. It can be modified, but not run - and, to me at least, running is the ultimate point of software.

Re:Closing OSS

[AuMatar]

Thats perfectly fine, and allowed by the GPLv3 draft 2. WHen you sell something with a warranty, you're never responsible for negligence or user damage. If the user chose to change the software, that would caunt as user damage to any court. Its then up to the user to decide if the benefits of the software change outweigh the loss of the warranty.

Re:Closing OSS

[suggsjc]

Agreed. However, I think the grandparent's point is that with a standardized configuration, you can minimize the staff workload. Even if the users modify knowing that they might void their warranty...who do think they are going to call if it fails? So, the point isn't that they are liable for the changes, but by allowing them they will most likely have an increased support work load...even if all that they are doing is telling them it isn't supported.

This is just the classic debate all over again. What does it mean to "own" something? You paid for the device...so you should in theory be able to do anything that you want. There is absolutely nothing the maker of that device can do to completely prevent you from doing something (intentionally, unintentionally, stupid, enhancing, etc) to the device. However, if it is their prerogative, then why should you mandate to them what lengths they can and can't go to prevent you from making those changes?

In one sense, the GPLv3 is allowing software to be free of hardware lock in and be free in all circumstances. In another sense, it is constraining hardware in its ability to allow certain types of designs. So, while the GPL crowd says they are promoting freedom...looking at it from a different perspective they are actually putting in constraints. It is all a matter of perspective. But since this is a hardware vs. software battle, which way do you think the Free Software Foundation is going to lean?

Re:Closing OSS

[Yunzil]

From the FSF's perspective, a hardware vendor shouldn't be allowed to lock you into using their approved software.

Why is the Free Software Foundation trying to tell hardware vendors what to do?

Re:Closing OSS

[kosmosik]

You are certainly right - but it is only one side of the coin. From the other side I see much benefit from being able to control what can be run on my hardware - note that when you buy hardware it is possible that you don't exactly buy it to own it but you f.e. license it to use it. Quite normal and I would not like that to change.

But it is irrevelant after all. You decide which hardware to buy and if you don't like it - don't buy it. Simple. Same thing with the license. Whomever may come up with whatever stupid (or wise) license - you can use it or not. Stallman writes license, Linus does not like it and does not use it. Perfectly normal for me.

The real question is that Stallman (really meaning FSF as an entity) is doing any good coming up with license, that major projects won't use.

Old and well discussed problem here - free software vs. open source, philosophy vs. implementation, theory vs. practice and so on... Nothing new really.

But what strikes me is that (it is an subjective impression) Stallman tries to force this license (I don't like it). It looks to me like he thinks that he knows better that you SHOULD use it. I think developers are not so dumb and they will use whatever license they like for their project. With this in mind when producing license you should consider practical merits instead of philosophical ones - after all the license serves practical purposes. What is the point of producing something, then evangelising it that nobody will use?

For me patents are bigger and practical problem (we all agree that software/implementation patents are bad - do we?) than DRMed hardware - why not focus on these merits and come up with something usefull instead of rushing into controversial merits that are not so revelant?

Re:Closing OSS

[Talchas]

Because the hardware vendors are (one assumes) writing software for their devices that uses GPLed code.

Re:Closing OSS

[EvanED]

So, while the GPL crowd says they are promoting freedom...looking at it from a different perspective they are actually putting in constraints.

This is what the GPL has *always* done, just now it's starting to affect hardware instead of just other software. I can't take the Linux kernel and turn it into a closed-sounce app. That's a constraint, and it's imposed by the GPL. This doesn't mean it's a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination. I can't take something that's under the GPL and link it in with this amazing closed source library that I want to use. Again, it's a constraint imposed by the GPL. Just like what you say the GPL v3 is doing to hardware, the GPL v2 is constraining software "in its ability to allow certain types of designs."

So you say "which way do you think the Free Software Foundation is going to lean," but to frame this as a hardware vs. software battle is misleading at best and, I would say, wrong. It's about determining the right balance between constraints so that the software is free enough to modify, the hardware is free enough that you can do most stuff with it, but not so free that the software could be made unfree later. If that makes sense.

This relates to the BSD license vs GPL debate that comes up periodically. The BSD license really is more free than the GPL. It has only four restrictions and, I think, all four are present in the GPL. This means that I can do anything with BSD code that I can with GPL code, but because of the restrictions the GPL places on compiling with closed source libraries and whatnot, I can also do a lot MORE with BSD code. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that the BSD is a better license though, because companies can come in and swipe BSD code and put it into their propriatary product, thus not giving back to the community. Depending on your personal philosophy as a developer, that may or may not be okay. And while I think any debate over which license is freer makes about as much sense as debating wheteher 1+1=2 or 3, what people are really talking about (at least on the GPL side) is which promotes free software better. And the GPL does this very well. But to do it, it has to add constraints. It's becoming increasingly evident that those constraints have to encompass hardware restrictions instead of just software. But there's no change in philosophy here really.

Re:Closing OSS

[kcbrown]

In one sense, the GPLv3 is allowing software to be free of hardware lock in and be free in all circumstances. In another sense, it is constraining hardware in its ability to allow certain types of designs. So, while the GPL crowd says they are promoting freedom...looking at it from a different perspective they are actually putting in constraints. It is all a matter of perspective.

Man, you guys suck.

Say I'm the government. I pass a law that says that you cannot legally hold another sane, cognizant person hostage on your property against their will.

Have I restricted your rights, or protected theirs?

It should be obvious: your rights end where my person and/or my property begins. Therefore, in the above example, I am protecting the rights of others. That I had to restrict your actions to do so is irrelvant, because your actions would infringe on the rights of another.

In the case of the GPL v3, it is protecting the rights of everyone by mandating the actions of a few. The only kind of "liberty" it is suppressing is the liberty to take away someone else's freedom.

If you can't tell the difference between those two types of freedom, or believe that the freedom to restrict the liberty of others is at least as important as the freedom to otherwise do what you want, then you are truly lost.

on the other hand

[ptr2004]

Say I'm a hardware consumer. I decide I love some particular piece of hardware and buy it with my hard earned money. But when I try to run one particular version of open source software customized for me, it doesnt run because the hardware complains it is not validated.

Re:on the other hand

[ClosedSource]

Then either you live with it or you vote with your feet and not buy hardware from that company again.

Re:on the other hand

[Rich0]

What will happen if the FSF gets its way is that manufactures will simply not use OSS code at all. Not only will the user not be able to modify the code, there will also be no open code to look at. The FSF will lose and users will be back where they were before there ever was a GPL.

How is this a loss for the FSF? Manufacturers might not use GPL software, but this will come at a cost that will need to be passed onto consumers. Other manufacturers might continue to use GPL software with the added strings, and they might have a lower cost basis, and therefore a marketplace advantage.

All those manufacturers use GPL software right now because it works well and it is free-as-in-beer. Those two incentives will still remain, and having your product 80% done before you start on it with no licensing costs is an advantage that will not lightly be dismissed.

If you don't like DRM then don't buy or use devices that implement it.

Well, until there are no devices that do not implement it. In fact, the new GPL will help raise the costs of DRM hardware (due to the need to potentially license another OS and/or deal with a less mature product than GPL software) - which will help slow its adoption and make those devices that don't implement it a little more accessible.

In any case - there is nothing to fight over. If you don't like the new GPL don't use it - just don't expect much help from those who do use it or the ability to leverage their software.

Re:Emphasis on "purporting to be"

[timster]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that anyone who reads what Linus posts to linux-kernel will agree that the style of writing and thought in these Groklaw posts is his. So either it is indeed Linus or a very good replica.

not surprising

[Peter La Casse]

It's not surprising that Linus isn't crazy about GPLv3, because he's not crazy about the GPL in general, in the way that RMS and the Free Software folks are. He's into Linux for the engineering, not to Free the software world.

I am curious about why he chose the GPL and not something BSD-ish for Linux.

Re:not surprising

[linvir]

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds

"Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did."

http://hotwired.goo.ne.jp/matrix/9709/5_linus.html

I'm generally a very pragmatic person: that which works, works. When it comes to software, I _much_ prefer free software, because I have very seldom seen a program that has worked well enough for my needs, and having sources available can be a life-saver.

So in that sense I am an avid promoter of free software, and GPL'd stuff in particular (because once it's GPL'd I _know_ it's going to stay free, so I don't have to worry about future releases).

In other words, Linus likes the GPL for the actual reasons that it is a good license, not out of any kind of narrow-minded 'software ideology'.

And who generates the signature ??

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the only binaries whose cryptographic signature matches happen to be binaries that come out of Redmond?

Or, even more likely- that the only machines that are permitted to license Redmond binaries are required to enforce that only
Redmond binaries will run.

In that case, goodbye Linux. Goodbye BSD. Goodbye everything except a world of unending data held hostage.

This needs to be stopped. Now.

Linus Doesn't Get It

[concord]

Linus is becoming less and less relevant as time goes by. He probably thinks that the entire community is contributing to GNU/Linux because they like him personally. What good does free software do us if we cannot modify it and continue to run the modified code? We already don't own many of the things we buy - proprietary software, music, movies and many other things. Now we won't own (control) the hardware we purchase either?

If GNU/Linux had started 20 years later than it did this wouldn't even be an issue. DRM would've killed it before it even got off the ground. Linus would just be the name of a Peanuts character.

Think damn it, think!

Re:Linus Doesn't Get It

[Cal Paterson]

Linus is becoming less and less relevant as time goes by.

What utter bullshit. I disagree with him, but that doesn't make him any less relevant. If everytime RMS said something I disagreed with, and I called him "irrelevant" that would be stupid along the same lines.

It's akin to saying Jefferson isn't relevant anymore, because he's dead. So obviously we should ignore his views on the constitution.

Now there are companies involved, all of a sudden the original volunteers that built the community from the ground up "aren't relevant". Disagree if you will (I do) but quit mouthing shit. Thankyou.

Re:Linus Doesn't Get It

[concord]

I don't think the FSF is overreaching at all. They are simply providing developers that which is required for the fruits of their labor to survive in a potentially hostle environment of selfish interest and greed.

Their goal is the preservation of software freedom against a potential onslaught of patent and digital "rights" management technology. Technology which will no doubt enable business that want to the ability to userp the work others have done, make tons of money and offer nothing back except lock-in.

Remember, it was a proprietary printer driver (software) that started the whole free software movement. Having open source printer drivers and drm protected proprietary hardware that requires a certain "signed" binary would not be any better. If we allow this to happen it will be as if we've learned nothing from the past.

You are wrong

[Phillup]

Manufacturers should be able to go out of business in any method they desire.

Re:You are wrong

[tomhudson]

Manufacturers should be able to go out of business in any method they desire.

Yup. GPLv3 is just plain dumb. It "addresses" a non-existent problem. People have a choice between DRM and non-DRM platforms and software. They can and do vote with their wallets.

And for those who are thinking "what about when there are no more non-drm devices, smarty-pants" - a GPLv3 won't address that issue; a swift kick to your political masters' behinds will.

The GPLv2 isn't broken. v3 doesn't pass the "smell test"; it won't "fix" anything, certainly not a situation such as a fully-drm'd, fully closed world.

Funny, the biggest push for DRM is from the so-called "free world." What sort of frigging time-warp alternate universe have we been living in for the last 6 years?

Re:You are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. GPLv3 is just plain dumb. It "addresses" a non-existent problem. People have a choice between DRM and non-DRM platforms and software. They can and do vote with their wallets.

Yes, but currently Free Software authors are subsidising the development of platforms that takes their Free code and locks it up so that it can't be modified or replaced. A lot of Free Software authors don't like this because it defeats the whole point of Free Software. That is the problem that it solves.

Re:You are wrong

[tomhudson]

Whoa, I think you missed the whole point of freedom :-)

If they apply drm to anything I write, then *that* particular binary isn't modifiable, but so what? They still have to provide the source on demand to anyone they give the binary to. That, after modification, the source can't be compiled to run on that particular hardware isn't an issue. Why? Because when it happens enough times, people will say f*ck this and buy hardware w/o the lock-in. Nothing worse than a horde of pissed-off customers.

The original source can still be modded and run fine on non-locked-out platforms.

Now I understand your point - that if they had to develop their own software, this would cost them extra. But any software that they developed themselves would be totally locked up, and there would be absolutely no leverage to ever convince them to go non-drm, or even a sort of "open drm", where the content might be locked, but not the app.

GPLv2 deals fine with these issues, by putting everything where it belongs - the push and shove of the marketplace. GPLv3, on the other hand, is both premature and heavy-handed. I'm sticking with v2, not just out of "political" reasons, but because I believe the marketplace works.

Take a look at what's happening. Microsoft, with all its monopoly power, is scared of linux, firefox, etc. The marketplace IS speaking out. Now, if someone insists on running Windows, this hasn't diminished me in any way - I haven't lost anything. If they want to run my code on a winbox instead of a linbox, how have I, or anyone else, lost out?

Same thing if they wanted to run it on a box that only allowed signed drm binaries. The only loser is the person who actually does this, then can't take advantage of any updates I do. Their loss, not mine. And its up to them to bear the cost of dumping their locked-in solution and switch.

The first freedom of free software is to run it on anything you want. That includes proprietary and/or closed systems. Now, personally, I think that's a dumb thing to do in most cases, since open systems have consistently better performance and higher-quality code, but that's my choice - my freedom.

What are people complaining about? Stuff like Tivo. Really, now - they're complaining about goddamn TV shows! Come on, there are more important things than that ... and if you don't like it, you can always make your own Freevio,or pay someone else to slap one toghether for you. Tivo didn't suddenly make Freevio impossible. What it DID do was give a target to shoot for.

Lets take a real-life example. I've got some code for an integrated back-end/front-end inventory and web site. If/when I get around to cleaning it up and gpl'ing it, if someone else takes it and mods it so that it runs on a particular piece of hardware, but that only mods "signed" by them will run on that hardware, all they've really done is limited their market to people stupid enough to buy closed hardware. Everyone else is enjoying the benefits of open code on open hardware for less. What's the problem? Its just like a lottery, a tax on stupidity, right :-)

Just this last week had a demonstration that eventually the market rights itself no matter what, when Microsoft's profits were down by a quarter, with the long-term outlook being more of the same. Closed systems just can't compete over the long term.

Another example. I wrote the beginning of a c2java converter, because java lacks a lot of the constructs I like. One of these days I'll finish it and put it out there for people to play with. What would be the incentive for someone to pay for a drm'd version, wehn they can have the original one, with source that they can modify and run, for free? There is none. Anyone trying to market such a setup would be doing the "web 0.0" dot-bomb thing.

Anyway, that's my take on it at this point. Let the free market handle it. There are too many of "us", and too few of "them", for us to fail unless we just stand there bent over with our hands around our ankles and buy any and all locked-in products. And if we do that, then we really do deserve the shafting we get.

Re:You are wrong

[theshowmecanuck]

What about if you spend a lot of time (a year or two) to develop a piece of software and try to sell it since you need to eat and pay rent. Then someone comes along and starts selling your software for his own profit (he can as long as he gives away the source code say). Now you lose revenue because he sells it for less maybe... you still lose revenue even if he sells it for the same because he is cutting into your market. Then a lot of people start doin this, and now you have to get a job at a proprietary software company because this model only works if you build big enterprise software apps that people will pay for support contracts on. *** The point is, whether they lock up the code or not you are still subsidizing they guy who is taking your open source code and selling it.

But in the end, who cares if they lock it up? As long as they give out your source code. If you don't want them to use it, then don't give it away.

Personally I think BSD or Apache are more altruistic and realistic. Contribute to a free and open code base that others can use as they wish, with far less restrictions than the GPL. They give away the code and don't ask anything of the recipient other than ask them to contribute if they want to. If you want to give stuff away and feel that you are helping a greater good, then do that. I am beginning to thnk that the GPL is like giving money for a Christmas gift or whatever your choice holdiday is, and telling the recipient they are only allowed to spend it in one place. If you really want to give stuff away, don't have strings attached to it.

Re:You are wrong

[illuminatedwax]

No, it fixes a very important issue.

You know the story of rms' printer driver: he wanted to be able to modify the printer driver so it would bloody work right or work better. He couldn't do that, so he made GNU.

Now let's say the new rms. smr wants to fix his printer which is running embedded GPL software. Great, he thinks, I have the source code to this, so I can just fix the source and make my printer work/better.

Oops! The printer doesn't allow you to do this. This is an awful loophole that restricts your freedom to modify the program. You can modify it, but you might as well write it on on a piece of paper for all that's worth. What the user needs to be able to do is modify the software and use it to really have that freedom. GPLv3 protects this. Linus is really being a stubborn idiot about this.

Re:You are wrong

[Znork]

"I think you missed the whole point of freedom"

I think you missed the whole point of whose freedom is protected in the GPL.

"If they apply drm to anything I write"

If they want to apply DRM to anything I write, then they can damn well write the code themselves (or join the anti-IP fight). The GPL aint a free lunch, it's a guarantee of the freedoms for the recipients of the works and derivative works.

The application of DRM further creates a free rider problem where companies releasing under GPL risk finding themselves at a disadvantage versus those who dont; suddenly it's a one-way street.

"this would cost them extra"

Enough extra to make it unprofitable, or to give the open competition an advantage on price, a difference that is only going to grow in the future.

"Let the free market handle it."

Oh, please. The whole IP industry is nothing like a free market. The GPL restores free market competition for a small segment, but the business is full of protectionists trying to find ways to cheat even that.

Re:You are wrong

[TheRaven64]

GPLv3 has exactly the same spirit as GPLv2. It seeks to protect the four freedoms that the Free Software Foundation was created to protect. It is hardly surprising that a license from the FSF would protect the ideals of the FSF.

Linus' problem is that he never really agreed with these ideals. He originally licensed Linux as free for non-commerical use, but then released it under the GPL as a result of pressure from the community. Linus calls himself a pragmatist, which is a polite way of saying socially short-sighted. The FSF are often regarded as extremist idealists, but it is important to realise that they are actually the pragmatic ones. People like RMS created the foundation for purely pragmatic reasons; they had been burned by proprietary software, and they didn't want to be burned again. The easiest way of doing this is to ensure that there is a lot of Free Software about, and to try to create the economic conditions where Free Software is preferable to proprietary software. Linus' view is the equivalent of saying 'Why should we want to outlaw slavery? I'm not a slave.'

Re:You are wrong

[tomhudson]

The printer example is now obsolete, and has been since the advent of the PC.

Back in the bad old DOS days, you had the following options:

1. intercept the output of the driver via a tsr
2. modify the driver in-memory
3. save the output to a file for post-processing
4. replace the driver with one you wrote (not that big a deal in the days of dos).

That was when printers were a lot more expensive than today. A good dot-matrix could easily set you back $500, a daisy-wheel even more.

As for today's situation, again, the printer is a poor analogy. Say, for example, that there's a software mod that would allow you to double your output resolution, and you'd like to take advantage of that, but you can't, because your printer is "locked out" from mods.

Has your printer all of a sudden become "less" than what it was before? No. It still does everything it could, just as your old copy of WordPerfect is still as functional as the day you bought it a decade ago (and still spanks Word).

But you made your choice, when you bought the printer, to accept the limitations that came with it, unless you were fraudulently misled as to its upgradeability - and that (fraud) is an issue that the GPLv3 doesn't address. There's nothing preventing another manufacturer seeing the hole that his/her competitor is digging for itself, and offering a similar product without that limitation, and letting the market decide.

Its the same as the ongoing battle with ink-jet manufacturers. They sell the printer dirt cheap, then rape you over the refills (hello, HP). Or, you can say "screw this" and pay more initially for a different manufacturer's inkjet, and less for the refills. Or do like I did, and say, "a pox on both your houses", and buy a laser.

The markets are "efficient enough" that the GPLv2 can do the job.

Re:You are wrong

[mrchaotica]

But in the end, who cares if they lock it up? As long as they give out your source code. If you don't want them to use it, then don't give it away.

Personally I think BSD or Apache are more altruistic and realistic.

Ah, here's the problem: you're missing the point of the GPL!

With BSD-style licenses, people do use them for the reason you stated: because they want other people to use their code. With the GPL, this is not the case. Instead, people release their software under the GPL because they want to preserve the user's control over his own computer.

Remember, Richard Stallman first created the GPL because his printer wasn't doing what he wanted, and the company refused to give him the source code so that he could fix it. If that happened now, with a printer that used GPL v.2 software but required a company-authorized version to run, the user would be just as screwed as if the code weren't Free Software at all. That's what the GPL is for, and that's why version 3 is needed!

Re:You are wrong

[tomhudson]

Nope.

You're still free to run the modified software elsewhere, for example, on a competitors' non-drm'd product (which would probably be cheaper to purchase in the first place, since their development and support costs would be lower, and they won't be bleeding $$$ to vendors of DRM libraries/schemes).

Lets take a somewhat different example, looked at from the "other end of the telescope". A month ago I put out some python code under the gpl for doing some MySQL stuff. It only works with MySQL. Nobody has the right to tell me that I'm depriving them of their freedom to run my gpl'd code because it won't work with, say, Access.

Likewise, if someone modifies it to work with Access, I have no right to complain that I can't run the modified version because I don't "do" Windows.

Now lets look at an extreme example. Say WalMart comes out with a linux pc that only runs THEIR version of linux, and it has some really neat new feature (yeah, I know, dream on :-). As long as they make the source available, I'm free to recompile and run it on other machines, provided I remove all the copyrighted artwork, etc.

How have they failed to comply with the GPL? And how have they prevented anyone from selling a better non-drm'd box? They haven't.

Re:You are wrong

[tomhudson]

Or, you have the freedom to not buy that printer in the first place, buy a different printer, and install the software from someone else's "locked-in" printer.

Lockin of GPL'd software only works for one purchaser - after that, the whole world can use it on any other hardware.

But remember, if you're the one who made the mistake of buying a locked-in device, unless you were misled, you have only yourself to blame. Same as anyone stupid enough to buy Windows or Office and then bitch about "lockin". Your free choice carries consequences.

Re:You are wrong

[arkanes]

I don't believe that "let the market sort it out" is a valid response to pretty much anything, but you clearly do, so I'm wondering why you simultaneously believe that the market should sort it out without regard to the fact that the existence of the GPL v3 is the very action of the market sorting it out. The idea that it shouldn't be done because it's not a total solution is clearly a fallacy - the existence of the GPL v3 won't preclude any other solutions to the DRM issue. Rejecting a solution to a specific problem (use of free software in a DRM context that eliminates the end-user advantage of using free software) because it doesn't solve a general issue is just throwing a tantrum.

Re:You are wrong

[tomhudson]

"You assume that people have a choice in the first place, which however often isn't the case."

People ALWAYS have a choice.

"Where are the gaming consoles that aren't locked down to only run authorized code?"

So don't buy the stupid gaming console. Read a book, go visit people, run the game on a pc, whatever. Nobody is forcing these products on people. You have plenty of choices for entertainment.

"How many printers don't try to force you to only use authorized color cartridges?"

So do like I did, and buy a laser printer. Nobody says you have to print shit up in colour. Also, its still possible to refill the carts. Just don't use their stupid lame-ass driver, or if you have to, keep an image of your hard drive. When the driver insists that your still-half-full cart is no longer any good, roll back your hard drive image. Voila - instant "refill".

"How many current generation graphics card are available with open specs?"

The specs might not be open, but this doesn't mean the card is locked down. There's nothing preventing people from reverse-engineering them.

"How many DVDs are non-encrypted?"

Last I looked, this is a separate issue - DVDs are content. And the "encryption" is broken.

"How many MP3 shops are there that sell non DRMed music?"

Aside from allofmp3.com, Yahoo is testing the idea of selling non-drm'd downloads http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5203146.stm. Plus, ther's nothing preventing you from ripping your CD/Vinyl/Tape collection.

My point was that you always have choices.

Re:You are wrong

[apotheon]

I agree — both with this, and (more importantly, perhaps) with the substance of your post that begins with a comment about missing the point of freedom. There's one thing here, though, with which I disagree:

The GPLv2 isn't broken.

In point of fact, it is broken. It's just not broken in the way the FSF thinks it is, or in any manner that GPLv3 is likely to fix. If anything, v3 makes it worse.

The proof is in the pudding, as they say. We're now seeing the FSF take up tactics similar to those of the RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft (the "Great Satan" itself). In particular, the Free Software Foundation has taken to making legal threats to small Linux distribution projects . I'm not even talking about Windows knock-off source-restricting distributions like Linspire — I'm talking about community-supported and fully open-source distributions. They're being threatened with legal action for violation of the GPL thanks to GPLv2 terms that make it absurdly difficult for a grass-roots project to get started and remain financially sustainable.

Things are likely to only get worse from here. In addition to failing to solve any actual problems with most of the changes (though addressing patents is important, and at least that part of the proposed update wasn't entirely misconceived), v3 introduces stronger language supporting some of its failings and new problems. The entire exercise has become wildly absurd, and we're rapidly approaching a point where "free" software's worst enemy might be the FSF, with the GPL as its primary weapon. Using the GPL, according to clauses related to source code availability support requirement clauses, essentially mandates the expenditure of a fair bit of money by anyone wishing to distribute GPLed software. The amount of money involved (we're talking about three years of source code availability support beyond the last distributed binary) in maintaining source versions and distributing them for every single software binary distributed over the last three years effectively makes a fully grass-roots up to date derivative distro a pipe dream (or a legal nightmare waiting to happen if the money isn't spent).

Much as I love the Free/Libre/Open Source Software development model, I don't much like the GPL and the version of that development model it promises us via its terms. I never have, really — but now, the problems of the GPL have become a matter of practice, and not just theory, thanks to the overzealous "defense" of "free" software by the FSF.

Re:You are wrong

[tomhudson]

"If there are vendors that make drivers under the GPL2 or another another non-GPL3 compatible license, you don't buy from them."

Does this mean you're going to avoid linux, because all the core system drivers are GPLv2, and won't be released under any other license? :-)

Okay, seriously ... The first draft of GPLv3 placed restrictions on all types of DRM, to the point of seeming to require you hand over your private key for signing stuff. The second draft has backed down quite a lot.

However, they still don't fix the problem of hardware that runs only a specific key.

However, the fact that a key is generated based on the object code of the work or is present in hardware that limits its use does not alter the requirement to include it in the Corresponding Source.

All the manufacturer has to do is hardcode a set of key values into their device, and have any attempt to load a value that's not there turn the device into a brick (this is actually allowed behaviour under GPLv3, since it states that manufacturers are not required to warrant modifications). On boot, the device runs the software through the hash function. Even if you have the key they used to generate their hash function, that doesn't help you attempting to upload your new software, because its no longer looking for a value generated by the hash function - its looking for the specific hash. Think about it with passwords. You're not validating that resultant hash value is a valid hash for a name, but a valid hash for YOUR name.

Now extend it further. If they use 4 different hash functions, and get 4 different key values in return, you'll take a lifetime to find out which bits to append to the source to get a binary that gives the same 4 hashes.

The proper way is to not support DRM in any form. Just don't buy it. This is part of what Torvalds was saying, but it got lost in the general uproar.

Think of it. A manufacturer produces a device that only allows their version of GPL'd software to run. We'll call it Tivo, for the sake of argument. They make the source available, and you can modify it, but your mods don't run on the original hardware.

What is there to keep anyone else from building the same hardware, and running their mods on that? Nothing. They can even sell it. The only difference is that they'll probably be more expensive initially, since they won't have the economies of scale.

That its not practical is a marketplace education problem, and not something the GPLv3 will cure.

Re:You are wrong

[apotheon]

Frankly, I'm opposed to the entire concept of forced distribution — which is essentially what the GPL is all about. I'd be happiest with a license that is the rights-equivalent of the new BSD license, but with Copyleft protection (i.e., you can't relicense the code or derivative works). A true right, after all, is not something that is forced: it's something that is protected. GPL tries to "force" rights.

Actually, I'd be happiest if everything in the world were public domain so I wouldn't have to deal with all this licensing crap at all. Toward that end, I actually created my own license, which I use for every original work I create. Its purpose is to provide a sort of "protected public domain" with explicit in-license "reminder" to provide proper attribution. It's intended to be applicable to any copyrightable work (not just software), and includes protection against patent entanglements. In the interests of cleverness, of course, I had to use a pun in the name, so I called it Credit as Credit's Due CopyWrite , or CCD CopyWrite for short.

In the long run, I figure this is exactly the sort of thing we need — protecting everyone's rights, rather than just protecting one group's rights and inventing new "rights" to assign to that group as much as the law will allow.

Re:You are wrong

[tomhudson]

You don't want DRM'd products. Fine, neither do I. But the ONLY way to combat them is to stop buying them. Modifications to kicenses will always have loopholes. Besides, once someone releases equivalent code under a BSD-like license, the leverage of the GPL is gone, because you can DRM the shit out of BSD code. The license allows it. So license changes will only force those who want to incorporate DRM into their products to invest in BSD-style development. However, if there were no market for DRM'd products, this wouldnt happen.

Now for some Rant Time ...

1. "The choice to not use their own hardware is not what I call choice, because its not what people chose, but which the DRM forces them to."

DRM doesn't "force" people to buy a specific printer. Or Tivos. People have a choice. One of those choices is to say "not now."

2. "Only reason why those have less locked up cadriges is a matter of market share, if that changes in the future, expect cadrige lookup there too."

Check out your local store - or better yet, check out the people around you. How many of the them *don't* have a leser printer now? Lasr printers are now so cheap ($100) that a lot of times, people will pick one up rather than pay the price for another ink cartridge, so lasers certainly have significant market share.

3. "Many piece of hardware require some firemware to boot, which happens to be shipped with the driver, without that firmware the hardware won't work, if hardware happens to check for signature on that firmware (not sure if any actually do that), it would be *impossible* to make an OpenSource driver for that hardware."

Firmware downloaded from the OS is easy to study - you have a copy on your hard drive. But if you're worried about the lack of an open-source driver, DON'T BUY THE FUCKING THING!!! Send a message to ATI. Speak with your wallet. Money talks, bullshit just whines on the internet.

4. RE: cotent-scrambling on dvds and deCSS:

"Yeah, its broken and illegal in plenty of countries to either use or ship."

Find me a country where you can't get a copy of decss (hint - google for decss download - you'll get over a quarter-million hits) ... and where the government will actually throw you in jail for using it. They tried with DVD John, and the **AA ended up with egg on their faces.

5. "You call being forced to not do what I want "choice", I don't."

Nobody is *forcing* you to accept products with DRM. Nobody is *forcing* you to buy a Tivo. When you go "I can't have it the way I want, so that's not a real choice" you come off as a spoilt brat. You want your shiney toys, you're addicted to them, and you're angry because they're not being offered on YOUR terms; you can't have it all.

Awwwww, poor baby.

A free market only works if people "suck it up" and boycott products they don't approve of. All the people whining about Tivo should really get a fucking life. If the product is so evil, so offensive, then don't buy it!. But don't sit there and whine about how "wrong" it is, when you clearly always have a choice. Don't like that they've done an end-run arund the GPL, legally? Then put your money where your mouth is. Boycott them. Anything less is hypocritical.

Boycott products tht have DRM, support those that don't. This might mean not having the "latest and greatest", but that never killed anyone.

There are legitimate concerns about DRM. I think it sucks. It implies the customer is a crook. It penalizes the honest, while not harming pirates. Its dumb. It will always be possible to work around it if there's enough incentive (eg: money).

But to look at what people are complaining about, it looks more and more like a bunch of children who don't have the self-respect to be able to say no to anything, and want others to help protect them from their own inability to do so.

GPL v3 will fail

[cryfreedomlove]

It will get issued but it won't get widely adopted. RMS has become impatient in this quest for social revolution and now he's decided to wield a bigger club. I don't think many others, who write and widely distribute highly useful software, will pick it up and join him.

Re:GPL v3 will fail

[RLiegh]

gcc, gnome, glibc, et al will be enough to get the ball rolling; particularly vital libraries such as readline which will undoubtably be changed over to use the new license.

Re:GPL v3 will fail

[phantomfive]

I am one developer who will be using the GPL v3. It's fine with me if people want to use my work, but I would like a little respect in return.
Further, the entire GNU toolchain will become GPL v3, which is not insignificant. GCC likely will become GPL v3. Based on the comments I've been seeing so far, a lot of other developers feel the same way I do.

Re:GPL v3 will fail

[Prof.Phreak]

I don't see what the big deal is. I mean really, if you have the source code, it is implied that you should be able to tweak how things work. What's the point of having the source code without the ability to tweak things (ie: if the hardware is locked to not accept your tweaks?).

This leads to "trusted computing"---while this discussion is centered around `devices', it might find its way into computers. Imagine all the motherboard manufacturers being forced (by the paid off politicians?) to not allow you to run non-signed operating system. Obviously MS will get a signature, as well as major Linux distributions, but... What's the use of having the entire source for Linux, if you cannot compile and run your own version?

I see GPL3 as an extention and realization that hardware now a days is exactly like software. General purpose microcontrollers running some software is NOT a `device' in the same sense it was a few years back, it's a computer running software. Very few devices are `custom built'---most are just microcontrollers with software determining how the thing works and `what it is'. GPL3 essentially says hardware = software as far as licensing is concerned. You cannot close hardware if you use open software on it. I think it makes sense.

Anyone who disagrees with this isn't a consumer of hardware/software. They're hardware vendors looking to lock out users, while at the same time getting a free ride from open software.

Re:GPL v3 will fail

[Lehk228]

if that happens the GPL2 versions will be forked and maintained separately and the FSF itself will fade into irrelevance.

Re:You're so wrong it's painful.

[Eric Smith]

It's perfectly reasonable for the GPLv3 to not allow DRM and similar suggestions. Software authors can choose the GPLv3 if they like it. If software authors don't like it, they can use a different license; possibly GPLv2. No software authors are forced to use GPLv3.

Similarly, no hardware vendors are forced to use GPLv3 software. If they don't like it, they can find software with a different license, possibly GPLv2. The key thing is that the hardware vendors are not allowed to violate the license terms chosen by the software author.

For Linux it is completely irrelevant. Despite any opinions Linus might have on the matter, it is effectively impossible to get all of the owners of the copyright of any non-trivial amount of the Linux code to agree to a license change, so Linux will use GPLv2 for most of its code for the forseeable future.

here's a good example

[cygnus]

imagine a world where there's an open source electronic voting software package that everybody used... wouldn't you want the voting machine to be able to reject software that wasn't say verified by a voting auditing board and signed?

the same thing could be true of open source ATM software. would you want your ATM to whine like HAL having his memory yanked when malware was loaded onto it, or would you want it to refuse to run?

Re:here's a good example

[arose]

GPLv3 doesn't prevent this, if the owner of the hardware (goverment, bank) has the keys to sign software or have the ability to change what keys the hardware trusts the requirements are satisfied.

Re:here's a good example

[newhoggy]

imagine a world where there's an open source electronic voting software package that everybody used... wouldn't you want the voting machine to be able to reject software that wasn't say verified by a voting auditing board and signed?

the same thing could be true of open source ATM software. would you want your ATM to whine like HAL having his memory yanked when malware was loaded onto it, or would you want it to refuse to run?

And imagine that in such a world, the Bank bought such ATMs (ie. ones protected by cryptographic keys and preloaded with signed GPLv3 electronic ATM software). In this case the ATM machine vendor would be compelled by the GPLv3 to provided the cryptographic keys to the bank. Providing the bank with the keys does not compromise the ATMs.

The same goes for voting machines. The vendor is only compelled to give the keys to its customer, in this case the government institution responsible for running elections.

So explain to me why this is so bad?

Benevolent Dictatorship...

[d.3.l.t.r.3.3]

By my point of view a benevolent dictator is still a dictator.

We should thank Torvalds to keep the questioning open, otherwise it would be like Christian Church: the Pope speaks, the lambs obey.

The article also makes a very saddening statement: the GPL3 is basically written by the companies behind the FSF. The article cites that HP is pushing to have their own interests protected. Do you really think that other GPL-oriented companies (like IBM or Novell) will just stay and look or they will also try to drive the boat towards their coasts?

After all, FSF made just a favour to many commercial distributions (another case of uninterested philantrophism?), claryfying that if you have to fork a distro, you have to redistribute every single packet by yourself, instead of shipping only the relevant, modified ones like GPL says. GPL is too generalized and vague. You can't have a license that has hundreds of pages of "clarifications" continuosly swapped and rewritten to praise an actor or to damage another. Most of the clarifications are just more ambiguos or simply idiotic. Do you know that by FSF interpretation, subclassing or implementing an interface is considered a derivative work? That's makes impossible to use any object oriented library released over LGPL by the term of the license, they will be as plain and simple GPL licensed code. There's a lot of OOP libraries wrongly placed in the LGPL domain. Do you really think that their author bothered about the implications? They just followed the leader. For not good reason and without a clue. Why LGPL3 talks only about header files and libraries? Open source licenses should be technlogy neutral and C/C++ is not the only language out there. Sure our benevolent dictator may pretend that the other technologies are not there gut they will not fade away. Today IT rarely uses anything compiled aside core OS programs and it's hard to find a place for the delusional aims of a puppet in the hands of other non-Microsoft corporations.

Sure A guru's life is expensive and big corporations makes hefty donations. Let Stallman explain to us mortals why Microsoft has to be destroyed and IBM or HP are valiant partners whose interests are to be protected.

HP advanced pressures to make the GPL3 more friendly towards their PATENTS! The world got upside down or what?

Re:Hooray for Linus!

[Prof.Phreak]

When you get past the misinformation, errors and outright lies, trusted computing is not as bad as people think it is.

I don't think you realize that "trusted computing" generally means "distrust the USER/OWNER of the computer". I think what everyone is afraid of is losing control of THEIR computer to some government/corporate organization.

And yes, you have a point, it's not as bad as it may appear... if you're the one in control of what trust. Unfortunately, from the talk that's going around, it's likely users won't be in control (ie: hardware vendor ensures that any OS that runs on the box must be signed by some authority, etc.)---I franky cannot see how that benefits anyone but some corporation.

And slowly but surely this technology is getting here. Music players, etc., many of them already restrict their owners. In a few years, it's not unlikely this will happen to PCs.

I think you misunderstand the clause's purpose

[PeterBrett]

When you get past the misinformation, errors and outright lies, trusted computing is not as bad as people think it is. It is a technology for enhancing security in a variety of environments. See the TPM thread a few postings down on the slashdot main page for some commentary there.

The GPLv3 as written does not forbid running software covered by it on a TPM system. What it says is that when a TPM platform vendor distributes GPLv3 software as binaries signed to run on their platform, they must not only provide the source code as in v2, but also the keys required to get modified versions of that particular software to run on the platform.

Example case studies:

1. The NSA decide they wish to use some GPLv3 software to run on their TPM-enabled computers. Their IT services department deploy the software throughtout the agency, signed with their TPM key so that it will run despite the TPM lockdown. They also place the source code to the software on their public website. They are not distributing TPM binaries outside their own organization, and therefore they do not need to include their TPM keys.
2. Tivo decide to use some GPLv3 software on their latest set-top box, signed so that it will run on their TPM platform. They sell the box to a large number of people. In order to be in compliance, not only must they distribute the source code, but because they are distributing the signed software & TPM platform outside their own organization they must also distribute the TPM key necessary to sign the binaries in order to get them to run.

A possible workaround is for the vendor to design a special subsystem that has application-specific keys that restrict the application to only carrying the restricted subset of low-level operations that it is supposed to. As long as the binaries the vendor distributes are signed with that key, that's the only key they need to distribute.

For instance, if Tivo were using a piece of GPLv3 software to process & display TV listings, they could use a key that allows the software to run on their platform but only to access the TV listings file and a pipe to send control signals down. They could then distribute that key with the source code and be in perfect compliance.

Of course, this wouldn't be very efficient except for fairly trivial user-space programs. It certainly wouldn't work for a kernel!

Re:You're so wrong it's painful.

[evanbd]

Not so. If I write software, and release it under GPLv3, there's nothing that prevents me from also releasing it on a DRM'd platform. I lose nothing. I can dual license the software; I've always been able to.

What is happening, is that I'm saying that if you want to use *my* software on a DRM platform, *then* you have to hand out the keys or whatever else is needed. Which, for software I write, is exactly what I want. (Of course, I have trouble imagining how it would be relevant for things I write, but that's a different matter -- I don't write media players or kernels or other obvious targets).

As a software *author*, I lose nothing. As a user of other people's software, I lose out only if I'm trying to redistribute their copyrighted work in ways they don't want. And, in that case, too bad for me -- just like it's always been.

This license is about giving authors more choices, not less. And personally, this is an option I like.

Hooray for Linus

[huckamania]

Amazing commentary and I have to say I agree with him whole heartedly. The Freedom crowd is so full of hate and unrighteous indignity that talking to them is counter productive. It never occurs to the Freedom crowd that the reason Microsoft was so successful in the first place was that their OS and software gave their customers the freedom to assemble and use their own hardware. More than anything, this is the reason MS became a monopoly. Back when I bought my first computer, Apple was the evil, proprietary, expensive, black and white alternative to the freedom loving, open, affordable, colorful DOS box. Even then, I didn't spend my days hating Apple, I just didn't buy their cr@p. I was too busy playing Starflight and XOR football.

Re:Hooray for Linus

[jouvart]

Microsoft was so successful in the first place was that their OS and software gave their customers the freedom to assemble and use their own hardware.

These are precisely the freedoms that the FSF and the GPLv3 are striving to protect. So, what's your point?

Re:GPL upgrade

[gnasher719]

'' Can someone tell me what the deficiencies are in GPLv2 that have created this need for an upgrade? I'm just curious what the motivation is. Is it only DRM? All I've heard about GPLv3 regards DRM and encryption keys. Is there anything else noteworthy that it changes from v2? ''

If you take software licensed under the GPL, and distribute it, you must give your customers access to the source code, and you must allow them to modify the software and distribute it further. With GPL2, a distributor could create a situation where you have the source code and modified it, but the modified source code cannot possibly work. For example, if you bought a computer running Linux, and the bootloader takes a checksum and only runs the system if the OS software has the right checksum, then your right to modify the software has become purely theoretical: You can make modified versions as much as you like, but they won't work.

That is _one_ change with GPL3: Again, the customer must have the right to modify the software, but you also have to give him the capability to make it run. So the distributor is not allowed anymore to give you purely theoretical rights, that you cannot use in practice.

Or lets say Microsoft takes an open source music player and modifies it to play music with DRM. They distribute the software under the GPL with source code. However, as soon as you make the slightest change to the source code, the compiled code stops playing DRM'd music. In theory, you have the right to modify the software, in practice that right is useless because the modified software doesn't work the way it should. That would be legal with GPL 2, but not with GPL 3.

Re: "Linus" is wrong - and what about Transmeta?

[D4C5CE]

It costs more money to include either an extra ROM or a bigger ROM that can contain restore code.

On the other hand, the GPLv3 provisions only apply where the manufacturer has tried to cut costs in the first place by choosing Linux etc. (or a future GPLv3 fork thereof) over proprietary products, and is shipping the hardware with it - i.e. couldn't ever expect to be allowed to take everyone else's work and lock it up "in crypto bottles" (as John Perry Barlow once wisely put it) without providing at least the GPL's freedom to modify in return (which by implication even under GPLv2 should be construed to include the possibility of actually running one's own modified versions if that right is to make any practical sense).

More interestingly, the question is what affiliations, if any, the "real" Linus (on "a leave-of-absense" in his own words?) still entertains with Transmeta, who reportedly just created the FlexGo hardware (which looks very much like what GPLv3 tries to prevent) for Microsoft - and what restrictions (e.g. on deservedly slamming DRM at least as applied to code rather than content -much rather than slamming the FSF!- in public) may result from that?

Linus' first comment deleted, reposted

[Kalak]

PJ Deleted Linus' first comment due to language restrictions, but has redacted the swearing, reposted and continued the discussion (and the discussion reads like Linus, so I believe in MathFox's opinion on the identity of these posts). The discussion is well worth the read, no matter if Linus has PGP signed his posts or not.

He's mostly right

[bitspotter]

I think Linus has it basically right here, except in saying that the FSF/GPLv3 has "no business" excluding that kind of use ("abuse" is more like it). The FSF *is* in the business of protecting user freedoms, and this is one of those things one must do to prevent just such an abuse. If developers don't want their work abused by hardware vendors that want to end-run a user's freedom in this way, they can choose GPLv3, and said vendor can find some other app to do that with (or write their own). Those developers who don't care for that kind of protection still have GPLv2. Choice is good.

Hardware restrictions like that impact software freedom, and that *is* the Free Software Foundation's "business".

I want to agree, however, that the kernel is not a good candidate for this new provision. I'd point out that the ability to lock out the running of software on your own property - say, when you rent or loan it out - is almost as important as having the right run your own software on your own property. The real vicious part of DRM is when vendors sell devices outright, but withold certain property rights we otherwise take for granted. Did you know that "owner" and "taking ownership" are technical terms described in the TCG/TCPA Trusted Computing Specifications? The problem is when "ownership" is "taken" by a vendor at the factory, before they transfer the legal, commercial "ownership" of a device to a consuemr who buys it outright. Although you have all the legal rights of ownership, the vendor is actually the "owner" of the device, from the perspective of the TCG/TCPA specs. The device has been "pre-0wnzored", if you will.

The DRM clause in the GPLv3 is a direct prohibition on this kind of shenanigan.

That said, the ability to lock out the running of software on property you really do own - both legally AND technically - is an important one. If the above-mentioned vendor were actually renting or loaning you their property (which isn't a bad idea, in light of some environmentally-geared legislation requiring vendors to take back and recycle their products), they'd have every right to lock out modified software, whether they implemented the TCG/TCPA specs or not.

The problem is that the license doesn't discriminate between these two cases. Perhaps it should. Users should have the freedom to run - or not to run - any software you choose on any hardware //that you own//.

Then again, the FSF is specifically geared toward protecting the freedoms of //users//, not of "owners". The concept of device ownership doesn't appear in their mission statement, while users do. Perhaps it shouldn't!

Not an easy issue.

DRM and GPL: My 2 pennies

[solune]

Okay, I hate DRM. I hate locking software to specific hardware. That being said, any clause that prevents people from doing what they want with their product runs counter to the stated goal of GPL, which is freedom to tinker.

My feeling is, any license that prevents people from doing what they want, no matter what it is, is in fact un-free.

Re:DRM and GPL: My 2 pennies

[jouvart]

The issue isn't quite that simple. Like other posters have pointed out, it's not a matter of the GPLv3 being less free. It's just that the GPL and the FSF want to protect the consumers not necessarily the producers (e.g. hardware companies). That's why the GPLv3 prohibits the use of DRM to restrict the consumer's rights.

Re:DRM and GPL: My 2 pennies

[smash]

As with the BSD argument though, some would consider this a restriction. Sure, some hardware company (or other entity) can fork and release DRM'd linux software in theory.

In practice, it may even be a good idea.

However, if they're going to do that, the rest of the world is free to use the publicly available code to do what they like. Modifications by the above company to their fork do not negate the existance of a free, un-tainted version of the software...

Circumventing DRM is illegal

[themusicgod1]

GPLv3 does not circumvent DRM, it creates an environment hostile to DRM.

Linus is off the mark

[pennystinker]

The fact is that the GPL protects the "freedoms" of users by actually emancipating the software itself - through the user! A close analogy is the emancipation of slaves: former slave owners lose freedoms they once enjoyed (owning slaves). Arguably, one could view this is a situation where *some* are now less free (because they cannot own slaves anymore).

The same is true with GPLed software: no, you are not as free as someone using MIT or BSD licensed software because you cannot go subterranean with the source code and your changes.

For those poor hardware manufacturers who are lusting after some GPL protected software I can see several options:

1. Forgo the GPLed software and get a closed-source alternative.
2. Contact the owners of the software and see if you can get the software under a more "friendly" license. For the Linux kernel that would be difficult if not impossible.
3. Embrace the GPL and move forward into a net freer world despite, like slave owners, you cannot use GPLed software in a closed system.

Now, arguably, somebody is going to point out that by taking the stance I've just outlined then I'm contributing to pressures to move *some* manufacturers away from using FL/OSS (e.g. GPLed) software. That may be true. But I'll take some loss of gadgets and gizmos, perhaps even large systems, to maintain the freedoms that the GPL and similar licenses try to ensure.

In the end I believe that the pressures to "go free" and to "let tinker" will eventually win out for all, including the manufacturer. Consider Id: do they get calls about user mods based on their game engines? Maybe a few, but the overwhelming positive results of user mods makes it a no-brainer: enable the mods.

As far as entertaining the example from the original post. I wouldn't waste too much mental energy on it. And if the blurb really came from Linus, then here's a message to Linus: get over it, the example you created may be short-term significant, but, if free software eventually is successful, long-term irrelevant.

The heart of the issue

[PostPhil]

The FSF's stance is controversial (as exemplified by the GPL 3) because it's about freedom, which for all of human history has been hardly understood.

Licenses like BSD/MIT have a view of freedom that is more like anarchy: the "do anything you want" style of so-called freedom (but at least give credit to who wrote the code). This stance doesn't actually create freedom because "anything you want to do" can also include taking freedom away from others. BSD people used to argue that you would still have freedom, only it's with the old code before the proprietary fork, etc. But DRM and other methods of preventing you from modifying and running software is not protected by BSD licensing. So, it is even more true today that BSD-like licensing in actuality has little to do with freedom and more to do with technological research without regard to the sustained openness that made studying that code possible.

Freedom must be preserved and encouraged in order to exist! It is not a spontaneous choice that can be made after neglecting its preservation. Once freedom is gone, once official mechanisms are in place to restrict you, you can't simply make a choice to be free again. When I think of the FSF, I believe they understand freedom as many others have realized throughout history...

"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free." - Clarence Darrow

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." -Goethe

"Liberty without learning is always in peril and learning without liberty is always in vain." - John F. Kennedy

...while the FSF would probably characterize false freedom as this:

"After I asked him what he meant, he replied that freedom consisted of the unimpeded right to get rich, to use his ability, no matter what the cost to others, to win advancement." - Norman Thomas

The more we are tempted by money to deprive others of freedom, the less freedom we all have in the end, and the less it's worth living in such a society even if you're rich. Don't worry about people crying about loss of profitability, etc. History has always shown that there will always be clever people that will find some way to make money, whether people are free or in chains.

If there is no Free competition...

[tepples]

So don't buy this hardware. It serves no purpose to you.

What should I buy instead if all the close substitutes of the hardware are equally locked-in?

No one argues, for example, that you can't run GCC on top of a closed-source unix kernel

RMS does.

O RLY? Both GNU GPL v2 and this GPL v3 draft make an exception for libraries distributed with the OS. Heck, I run GCC on top of Windows.

Hardware is totally different from software.

"Fuck" isn't the only 4-letter word. There is also "FPGA".

he is fighting against (IMHO) minor theoretical problems instead of focusing on real problems like copyright fragmentation.

Copyright fragmentation is already covered. For software to carry the GNU® mark, its copyright must be assigned to Free Software Foundation Inc.

Canadians protecting IT property rights!

[Russell McOrmond]

Many of the comments echo a common theme: It is our hardware, not the manufacturers, and they have no business using digital keys to lock us out of our own property.

If you are a Canadian you can help send this message to parliament by signing our Petition to protect Information Technology property rights.

Today I posted an article to the website of CLUE: The Canadian Association for Open Source, titled "Whose hardware is it anyway?" (Copy on the Digital Copyright Canada forum).

The whole point of the GPL is...

[Helldesk Hound]

...to preserve a user's freedom to use software how they want and to modify it in any way they want.

Linus seems on this point to think it is acceptable to prevent a user from having the above freedoms merely because a hardware manufacturer (who has made their own modifications to GPL'd software) does not want others to be able to have the same freedoms.

I respect Linus for what he's done and contributed to Free software, but on this point I think he is wrong.

Re:Linus has worked for one too many mfgs

[bytesex]

"Bios chipsets conform to trusted computing and refuse to run non-trusted content. Only windows is signed. Linux can't run. End of story.

No the free market won't work here. There won't be any companies that break the rules,"

Excuse me, my company _will_ break the rules, because we're running Oracle off of Linux and there ain't no way in hell we'll run it off of Windows. Solaris maybe, but that'll mean buying into a new hardware supplier, which is also a big no-no. And I'm sure that my company will not be the only one. If digital signing of binaries comes in fashion (and many have tried already, and failed), then it'll have to be in an open way, much like the way we have CA's on the www these days.

I'm not saying that I'm liking it - I'm just saying there's no need for paranoia.