Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds Critiques of GPLv3 and FSF Refuted
j00bar writes "After Linus Torvalds' impassioned critiques of the second draft of GPLv3 and the community process the FSF has organized, Newsforge's Bruce Byfield discovered in conversations with the members of the GPLv3 committees that the committee members disagree; they believe not only has the FSF been responsive to the committees' feedback but also that the second draft includes some modifications in response to Torvalds' earlier criticisms." NewsForge and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.
The FSF intends to use the GPL as a means to prevent people from doing certain "bad" things with free software. I get that and I support the idea. Linus seems to have chosen the GPL for practical reasons. He didn't want the code that he and so many others poured their hearts and souls into to be stolen and closed like the Cedega situation.
I suspect that Linus just wants to make his software while the FSF wants to change the world.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
There is a lot of waffle in the article about listening to people but nobody had presented a simple table showing the requirements for GPLv3 in different drafts. This is the sort of thing you do to design commercial software and I would expect that the same approach would make the GPL more transparent.
If they want to give Torvalds's input a low priority then show that somehow. Otherwise show where his input has gone.
I don't want to take sides in the Linus v RMS thing here, I am just a bit sick of people having to reinvent the argument each and every time.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I'm sure lots of people will correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Linux kernel - and thus Torvald's views - rather unimportant here?
The entire kernel, and all contributions from hundreds or thousands of people, are explicitly licensed as GPL version 2. Even if the kernel people were rabidly enthusiastic about GPL v3, they'd have a very, very difficult time changing the license in any case; as a practical matter it'd probably be impossible. So what Torvalds, in the guise of kernel maintainer, thiks of the license is not really relevant since the licence, no matter what it looks like, would never be used by the kernel in any case.
Torvalds views as an OSS developer are of course relevant - but as one voice among the hundreds of other leading developers in various projects. And as has been pointed out, if he really wanted to be constructive he'd have joined in the debate itself, rather than just sniping at it via the media.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
One indeed has to wonder what's going on with Torvalds. It's one thing to feel that Stallman is a kook and the Free Software ideal is often overly zealous. I admire Stallman and his movement, but I acknowledge that many people consider it all an embrassment. However, it's another thing entirely to actively cheer on the introduction of DRM, which Torvalds has been doing now for a couple of years. Doesn't Linus realize that with strict hardware controls enforcing what may and may not be run, one's freedom to tinker may disappear? You'd think that someone who invented an operating system "just for fun" would want other people to be able to experience the magic of doing whatever they likes with their computer.
Mentioning RMS and Linus Torvalds in the same post; this is going to start a flame war ...
I am very grateful for the contributions Linus has made to the world. But he can be an ass from time to time.
And when he said that nothing much changed between the second and third drafts, he was not only being flippant, but ignorant. Many of the changes were in direct response to criticisms he made.
GPLv3 will happen regardless of whether or not it is accepted for the Linux kernel. I'm not sure they need to make Linus happy. I think the GPL crew needs to make the license best suit their needs.
Regardless, I don't think Linus will back down and accept it any time in the future. He has been very clear that the kernel is to be licensed under GPLv2 and GPLv2 exclusively.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
And it's 'Gnu Public License', thank you very much.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
egg troll? Is that you??
Absolutely right. But so far it's been Linus who's done the most to actually change the world. Proving once again the superiority of actually getting working technology out the door, versus spending a decade or so fine-tuning your philosophy about how to begin working on the great technology that you will eventually design when you have the philosophy just perfect (if everyone hasn't succumbed to old age first).
I've had enough troubles in my own career directly traceable to wanting to Get Things Right at the expense of Getting Things Done to appreciate this particular point with some sensitivity, not to say bitterness. Feh.
From one Anonymous Coward to another, your post is total and complete troll bullshit. There is no requirement in the GPL that forces anyone to publish changes that were made for internal use, as in by a corporation for internal applications. Only if the software is to be redistributed, are changes required to be published. It is really the best deal in the history of software.
jwwjr
Torvalds complained that the FSF didn't listen to people's comments.
What he really meant was, "The FSF listened to everybody's comments, instead of just doing what I told them to do."
The experience of being a benevolent dictator in one area has given him the idea that he should be a benevolent dictator in other areas.
I've read TFA, but noticed most arguments against Linus' option are made by members of the Open Source / Free Software communities. It would be more interesting to hear the feedback from commercial party's who're involved with Linux as well (e.g. Novell, HP, Oracle, Trolltech). This doesn't exactly put any weight under the arguments of the article.
I believe Linus is more open towards commercial development then most FLOSS community members are. This makes it understandable why he is so against enforcing freedom through everyones throats. Linus has always been the more practical type.
The best way to accelerate a windows server is by 9.81 m/s2
Wow, the GNU utilities you use every day, the compiler, and many other things the GNU project started were completely ignored in your post.
a well implemented DRM/TC system will not require code signing or other forms of verified binaries, rather blocks of memory will be restricted in what code can do with them, to work with a protected set of data you would create a thread that would handle that data and only certain actions could be taken. to allow backups of data the data or any derivitive of it could be exported in an encrypted block back to "normal" space and depending on rules encoded in the original data it could be openable by a limited (or unlimited) set of other devices and classes of devices.
an audio stream could be exported to encrpted compressed audo for loading on any one of many portable audio players with a TC chip.
programming around these rules would take some getting used to but it would allow complete source and binary freedome by separating the rules applied to the data and the applicaitons handling it. this also removes the possibility of an insecure or secretly malicious application compromising a set of protected data.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
> I suspect that Linus just wants to make his software while the FSF wants to change the world.
One problem I have with *not* trying to "change the world" is that unrestricted computers may not be possible in all legal venues if certain parties have their way. And, honestly, that issue is *much* more important to me than simply having technically superior software. What good is having a superior computer if you can no longer do what you want with it? And yet Linus has repeatedly opined that the hardware seller has some kind of right to lock me down? I'd kick the hardware maker in the balls before I'd take that kind of crap from them. You won't catch me with a TiVO.
Also, it's ironic that one of Linus' objections to the DRM clauses were that they might forbid useful future technology, when he's so against giving Linux the opportunity to be relicensed under newer versions of the GPL. Given that the licensee gets to choose which license they wish to accept from among those allowed by the copyright holder(s), I wonder if he isn't working against the system instead of with it? After all, if the DRM clause really did forbid the use of Linux or other software in useful ways, the GPL could be modified in later published versions to allow for those uses...
Linus is a dumb focktard, why should anyone listen to him anyway? He trolls on every project if he doesn't agree with it.
The answer if you can't handle Linux being bound to GPL2 when the rest of the world goes GPL3, is to drop Linux for a GPL3-compatible system. Don't get me wrong, I like Linux, but maybe this will cause a lot of movement from Linux, not to Hurd - Hurd is still shit - but to FreeBSD, which is the next best thing to Linux and the license ought to be compatible with any version of the GPL.
And besides. In this "GPL vs Proprietary! White vs Black!" debate that's been going on past 15-aught years, I've sided with NetBSD.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Maybe I'm being ignorant here, but if anyone actually reads the version of the GPL that is used by and distributed with the Linux kernel, it does not allow you to use a later version. The Linux kernel is, and always will be, GPLv2. That was a conscious decision by Linus and the other developers.
/WANTED/ to change it, too many people that have contributed in the past under the GPLv2 license are either dead or simply not accessible to get their permission to change to the newer license. The logistics of keeping track of which part is GPLv2 and which might become GPLv3 just makes it simply "too hard."
Because of that, who really cares what Linus has to say about the GPLv3? He's made it pretty clear he doesn't like it, but the only work that he's producing that anyone cares about is Linux. And the Linux kernel will never be anything other than GPLv2. Even if they
Personally, I don't give a damn if Linus likes GPLv3 or not. Its not about Linus, its about everyone in the Free software community as a whole. Individuals can go shoot their feet off instead of their mouth. Its about whats best for the majority, not just Linux or just Gnome or just GCC or just whatever...
[/rant]
to help the free software / open source community without a direct personal interest.
Corporations are by definition not benevolent, they are stockholdocratic.
I care not a wit what the corporations think about the process. The community are my brethren, not the corporations.
The GPL doesn't do that.
As I understand it (I'm not a lawyer), the GPL dictates the terms/conditions by which you may COPY the work. Meaning: if you publish your modified kernel (as a binary or whatever) the GPL kicks in and requires you to publish source code too. If your modifications stay internal, private, on-site (i.e. no COPYING occurs) you're at no obligation whatsoever.
this is all so wrong that it isnt even funny. Where are the mods? If this comment doesn't deserve a -1 WRONG tag I don't know what does. Please mod it down to stupidtrollland, where it came from.
Sent from my desktop computer
ERS has been pretty silent about the whole thing, and it was him what started the OPEN-SOURCE software?
He's probably too busy working on his good programs, fethcmail is still been extend...
Ok, well since you know nothing about Linux (even though you claim to have worked with it), I'll let you in on a few secrets.
Ext2 is ancient. Don't use it. Instead use a journalled filesystem such as Ext3 and ReiserFS, the latter being my favorite for production environment. Both ext2 and ext3 filesystems can be easily defragged with e2defrag. Although, Ext3 and ReiserFS both have technologies to prevent major defragmentation.
Token ring? Please. Nobody really makes good tokenring equipment anymore (if they ever did in the first place), and nobody cares to. Use ethernet, its cheaper, faster, more reliable, and has far more products available. But in any case, Linux has supported tokenring for a very long time. Don't believe me? Google it.
As far as your lawyers' analysis of the GPL, they are completely wrong. You don't have to release any sourcecode that's compiled with GCC just because GCC is GPL'd. Neither do you have to release any modifications you make to the linux kernel. This is the wonder of the GPL version 2. If you want to sell your modifications, fine. Do so. Sell it, distribute it for free, whatever. Just cite the source. But, only the modifications. If you are going to release the modifications already builtin, you have to provide the original source prior to modification. Simple.
You totally made up most of your argument, you've probably never worked in the IT field a day in your life, at least not with Linux. Stop acting like you're an engineer/lawyer/whatever. You are not.
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
I don't really see the problem here. It's not as if any of the folks in question (Torvalds, FSF, EFF, whatever) have any sort of actual authority to force the adoption of any particular licensing scheme. They can recommend a licensing scheme until they turn blue in the face, but that's all that they can do and all they'll ever be able to do.
So what if one set of folks chant mantras over the greatness of v3, while another group do the same over v2? Neither group can enforce an agenda on anyone else, so if you don't prefer v3 or v2 (or vice versa) then fuck what the opposition thinks. Choose whatever license makes your little developer heart go pitter-patter and move along, doggie.
My guess here is that the very lack of real authority is what gets the fanatics panties in a twist. They can't *force* everyone around them to adopt v3 or v2, so they get royally pissed when others won't automatically adopt The One True and Right Way(TM) with cheerful abandon. If anything this should make the non-fanatics happy, as the situation provides *us* with the right to make that choice, rather than some bunch of arrogant fuckers who prides themselves over being our intellectual or moral 'superiors'.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
The FSF says GCC's output doesn't have to be GPL:t
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutpu
glibc is *L*GPL, but that's different. It requires modifications to glibc itself to be published, but allows the program using glibc to be closed source.
(I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice)
sup my nigga
At first I thought it odd that a well written (that is, grammatically correct), lengthy post should be modded -1 Troll, but by the time I finished reading your post it became clear that you are either grossly misinformed or deliberately spreading lies about the license. I believe it is the latter, since I doubt that any commercial legal department could interpret the GPL so poorly, when most slashdot readers are aware of these simple facts:
A: You are *NOT* under any obligation whatsoever to release your source code to anyone else so long as you do not distribute your modified binaries. If you do distribute your binaries, the GPL aims to make certain that the recipient also has access to the source code corresponding to it.
B: Programs compiled under GCC are not GPL'd. In fact, the output of any GPL program is never automatically covered by the GPL unless a significant portion of the output originated from said program. Also, the gcc libraries are LGPL'd, not GPL'd, so this concern doesn't even apply.
But you already knew that, didn't you.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
the bsd license includes even fewer freedom-protecting clauses than gplv2, so why would people who wante a freedom-protection clause in gplv3 defect to bsd licenses?
They'd have to relicense the bsd stuff (since it's missing the freedom-protecting gplv2 clause of no extra limitations) as gplv3, but it wouldn't be a bsd project anymore, it'd be something else.
Freedom to? Users? The BSD license allows freedom to developers. I'm a developer, and perfer bsd licensed code. I'll give code if the client asks, and charge more. People have mouths to feed you know. There is no point in freedom to users, I perfer freedom to developers, and will send patches to the used project if I somehow improve the code.
Thanks for not thinking
n/t
Now I understand why *BSD only has at most 8 or 9 users in the entire world. You guys have fun, though, don't let us users stop ya. lol
The problem I have with Linux re: GPL 3 is that he's just being ignorant. He has some beef about people having to give out their own personal private keys that has been shot down by any number of people that actually know what they are talking about legally (PJ, Eben, etc). Just casually reading the license and Linus' comments, he just isn't making any sense.
My best bet is that Linus doesn't actually want to understand the GPL v3. Linux is eminently practical, and the practical thing to do to increase Linux usage, fix bugs, and add new features is to make Linux corporate friendly. A *lot* of contributions come from the likes of IBM, Red Hat, Sun, Novell, and other companies. I bet the prospect of these companies pulling out their support is a major consideration (whether intentional or not).
So it makes sense that the Free Software communities are most heavily involved and it seems perfectly logical and acceptable that the process is lobsided to those communities.
In fact if one looked at the persons in the 4 committee, one would see many representatives of commercial companies. I found these list quite impressive (even though I can't estimate how actively everyone is involved, and what kind of influence they have). That we don't hear them in the article might be that in such corporations talking to the "press" is often more controlled.
The thing is you can convert BSD license to GPL license. There's nothing stopping you from doing that.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
You sure have some really dumb lawyers. How much do you pay them?
This troll is posted in every GPL discussion, and most linux discussions. Ignore it, it's complete crap intended merely to provoke responses.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
The FSF starts based on the premises that if you have a problem (something does not work the way you want it to) you have the right to fix it yourself, not rely on some third party to 'fix' it or not, as they choose.
If you buy a bit of hardware that uses GPL code, but will not allow you to 'fix' a problem yourself (because your fix will not run on the hardware they have restricted to run only their own version of GPL code), then you have lost the right to 'fix' your own problems.
Destroys the whole point of it using GPL code, doesn't it? At least for the end user - but it is sort of nice for those that then profit from GPL code used this way.
The FSF has this one right - just as RMS was right when he wanted to fix a print driver and was not allowed to - and so started the whole GPL/GNU Copyleft thing.
This is as simple as the FSF fights the war, so others can actually produce code that will be of actual open use to all.
Linus produces some of that code - he should be a bit grateful.
As I am grateful to Linus for writing his bit and releasing it under the GPL - making it possible for me to use.
I just value the freedom RMS and crew have created for me - and protected for me, and that they continue to protect for me. Including the code Linus (and so many others) wrote and released under the GPL.
Locking GPL code into hardware, never to be changed is a Bad Thing.
BTW, I don't expect anyone to have to agree with me - it's just a post of my strongly held opinions - no more no less.
This is only A/C because I used some mod points in this thread, and this is the only way to post without undoing those - and I have no more mod points so it's not gaming the system so I can mod this up (I doubt it will be anyway).
NewToNix.
This may be me going out on a limb but maybe Linus knows he personally will be allowed to tinker no matter what gets implimented. Remember that hes not immune to being corrupted by money too.
Your way past out on a limb. I think you've fallen deeply into your own crevice.
On what basis can you make such an allegation? Someone disagrees with you, so they must be corrupt? What the fuck is wrong with you?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
There's no point taking something and placing restrictions on it, if people can still use the freer version. Changing its license would be pointless unless someone was planning on making major modifications and improvements to the BSD software, and then maintaining it.
First a minor point which keeps getting overlooked. With DRM hardware, you cannot verify GPL compliance. The only way to verify that a set of source code purporting to represent the binary that is running, is really the binary that is running, is to compile from that source and run the new binary. Any hardware that requires signed binaries prevents this unless signature capability is given to anyone who wants it. Thus without GPLv3, there cannot be public verification that any vendor of supposedly-GPL software for "trusted" hardware really is complying with the GPL. So another way to characterize the anti-DRM provision would be to call it verifiability.
Now, DrJimbo in parent post:
Right, exactly - And this is what Torvalds consistently refuses to address. He snipes at GPLv3 with invective and complaints about the process (and if he really was the poster in the Groklaw thread, about the definition of source code), etc.. But on the hardware issue he just flippiantly declares that if you don't like the inability to run modified GPL code on the same device, get some other device.
This obviously ignores the "trusted computing" initiative that is intended to make all PCs slave devices, and is progressing like an onrushing freight train while DRM apologists quibble on the tracks and say "let's wait and see what it really turns out to be" or "how it is used" - then of course it will be too late.
This makes me wonder of a darker possibility which I do not like to think of ,but it fits the facts: Has Linus sold out? This is suggested by another poster below and in this post at the Newsforge thread:
Otherwise why does Linus fail to address the real and appropriate concerns about TC hardware becoming exclusively available?
YHBT.
However, GPLv3 seems to be changing control to beyond mere distribution. That is at the heart of this debate.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Care to explain how this scenario is actually supposed to play out?
Easy: TCM is coming, unstoppably.
And once TCM is on everyone's PC, your *effective* freedom to change the code on your own computer goes out the window, because if you change it then your box will be flagged as untrusted and your downloads from many sites and playbacks of media will begin to fail.
So, manufacturers will be benefitting from GPL'd code, and providing sources, and you will still be able to modify anything you like, but to no avail because as soon as you do so, your computer will start to act "broken".
And that's why we need GPLv3. GPLv2 is fairly adequate at this point in time, except where DRM undermines it like in the case of the TiVO, but the way things are going that will become the norm everywhere, and will make a total mockery of the intentions of the GPL. Being able to recompile the sources but not use them is obviously a travesty.
If you still don't understand the issue then God help you.
I think that Linus is right and there is no problem with DRM because we have a marketplace. Yes, there will be Vendors that use GPL-Soft and forbid changed and therefore unsignd binarys to execute on there Hardware. Maybe you can call that Vendors Leeches, but sometimes there are good reasons for this behavior that benefit the Custumer. Think on Mission-Critical Hardware that should NEVER execute hacked binarys - in your best interest.
And yes, there will DRM-crippled Hardware where you would like to change the software, but you are free to not buy that Hardware if it not fit your needs. If the big Vendors use only "crippled" Hardware and there are enough People that want Hardware that allow to execute unsigned binarys, than there will uprise a new vendor that grow big really fast. Most Hardware is no Magic in this times and many Companys exist that sell you the ASICs you need for your Hardware. Buy a CPU, some DSPs, some RAM and some Interfaces and put it together. If all Hardware is crippled and you are the only on that dont cripple the Hardware, your sales will skyrocket.
Don't underestimate the community. In times where many people realize the power and benefits of Homebrew Software, Vendors that forbit Homebrew will slowly die if there is not a REALLY good reason to forbid changes. Sony seems to realize that with the PS3 and allow Homebrew to sell more Hardware. If you can select between a XBox360 that don't allow you execute Homebrew and a PS3 that allow you execute Homebrew, what Hardware will a Homebrew-Fan buy?
I see the FSF priests are out in full force this morning. The guy who makes unsubstantiated accusations that Linux has sold out gets passed over, but I get modded as a troll.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Maybe he just suggests to vote with your wallet? Don't buy DRMed computers, media, hardware, etc. And be control of your...emmmm...you got something?
DRM is reality, like it or not. You can vote against it actually *buying* computers with no DRM and inform people around you who are not very tech-savvy about subject do the same. Simple.
Stallman simply does the right thing in wrong way, period. I agree with idea, always had, bad not with methods. GPLv3 is actually not a right way of doing it.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Don't you mean BACON/Shakespear?
Sorry, couldn't resist :)
With that out of the way, I thought that was nicely put. I was an applications and systems coder, and that was exactly my experience.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Remember, GPL does not take rights away. It starts with the premise that you have no right at all to use my code. It then gives you generous rights under easy conditions. Not bad, really. If a person thinks that GPL is too onerous, then he does not need to use it. Remember, it's my code.
>Without the DRM provisions in the GPLv3 that Linus is complaining about,
>we could eventually face a situation where it is literally impossible to
>develop FOSS for the latest generation of computers.
How does that follow? Think clearly. If OSS doesn't work with DRM, it's not like that forces anyone to not use DRM. It just causes people to choose software under a different licence. Realistically, if someone wants to only run signed software, they can always go with proprietary software.
In general, my impression of the FSF is that they are idealists and are either unconcerned or unable to deal with the practical realities of the software business. Thankfully, we have people like Linus Tolvalds who *are* concerned with making OSS that people in the real world will be able to use.
So you make money by re-selling other people's code with a little bit of work done on it? I am sure it works well for you, but how well does it work for the people whose code you are using? How do they make money?
While I suspect I disagree with Linus on this topic, I think the journalist did not do a good job of portraying Linus's views in a way that best brings out his argument and that argument's strongpoints. Though of course, if I know that Linus did not get a fair opportunity to project his arguments at their best, then maybe I know that I don't know whether I would agree with Linus.....
I read this in shock and awe. I guess you could say I was dumbstruck by a dumb*uck.
I am sure it works well for you, but how well does it work for the people whose code you are using? How do they make money?
They've chosen to not make money from the code by releasing it under the license they have. If their goal were to make money from the code, odds are they wouldn't have open sourced it.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
...that I can see justifying the extra clauses in V3 is one where all the major computer manufacturers decide that their computers will only run those operating systems that are certified with them. Businesses might not object to this (if it was sold as having "security benefits") and so there wouldn't be enough of a market for people who wanted to run their own versions to justify a new "GPL Friendly" hardware company, at least not with the resources that Intel/AMD have at their disposal. The problem with attempting to use the GPL to rememdy this problem is that if the hardware manufactuer is building a check into the hardware but shipping the hardware without the software then the GPL probably doesn't apply to them. It might apply to any OEM shipping Linux with the hardware but I'm sure they'd get round the legal problems by making a click-through that put the responsibility for the combining of the two on to the end user.
For the other lesser cases where there isn't such a barrier to entry I don't see that there's a problem. If someone makes a DVD player that is unmodifyable and publishes the source of it's operating system then if there's a market for a modfiyable one a competitor can simply take the published source and build a competing product. There can also be some legitimate reasons to prevent people from modifying software - "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." - sounds to me like it would be impossible to make a GPL'd game that did any kind of hacked client prevention.
I think a likely outcome of all this is that any hardware manufacturer who would be likely to fall foul of these clauses will simply switch to using a non-GPL operating system, commercial or BSD and consequently Linux will miss out on contributions to infrastruture such as embedded cpu support that it might otherwise have recieved. The MPAA (or whoever it is who controls it) may also choose not to grant licences to hardware manufactuers who produce devices can run modified code that they fear could be used to circumvent their DRM.
Man! The knives are out! Is there anything to which you won't stoop? Character assassination because a respected member of the community disagrees with you? The ends invariably justify the means with you types. Anyway, thank you for revealing the true colors of the FSF goon squad.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Don't let that stop you making unsubstantiated accusations about the moderation or claiming innocence whilst you're agenda and bias are perfectly obvious. I'm proud to be a troll, you appear to be in denial!
It took me a few hours to figure it out, but the article and its posting here, as well as a large number of posters are part of a campaign to discredit Linus for having the audacity to dissent with RMS and the FSF. Look at the timing. Look at the volume.
Try browsing at a lower threshold, and see how much dissent is being modded down.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Issues such as DRM cannot be tackled by consumer choices in the market. There are two reasons.
First, the market is not granular enough. The consumer will never be given the choice of DRM'd CDs vs. DRMless CDs. The options are decided by marketing teams, and they will give consumers choices such as DRM'd CDs or nothing.
Secondly, like a mutual-loss based price war between two companies where the rich one waits for the poorer one to run out of funds, in this battle, if the consumers ever lose, there is no way back. Once DRM is pervasive, consumers no longer have any way to leverage the DRMers. If an ISP wants people to accept worse service, they have to offer something (such as a lower price) constantly. If a company wants consumers to accept DRM, they just have to get consumers to accept this once and to purchase DRM'd hardware (and they do this by leveraging a tangental market, such as the content industry), and then there is no way for the consumer to roll this back.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
"At worst case scenario, you won't be able to run certain propriatary apps when running nonDRMed stuff. big deal, sounds like your don't want to run them anyways."
Having multimedia or not makes or breaks a desktop today.
My post is not an attack on Linus, it is only raising a question. I just want to know why he avoids one crucial issue.
"you types" and "true colors of the FSF goon squad"? That is the stuff of trolls. I agree with RMS/FSF on this one issue, but not everything, and I don't think my post shows any evidence of fanaticism.
BTW, if you interpret my post as an attack then you are implicitly agreeing that a world of all-DRM hardware would be a bad outcome. Otherwise you would not take it as imputing a negative quality when I ask whether LT favors that outcome.
It is a legitimate question. Does Torvalds really think there is no likelihood of the TC scheme making general-purpose programmable PCs hard to obtain or use? This seems to be his premise but it is refuted by the abundant facts and he has not made any argument for it. Or does he think that is an OK scenario? Either way I just want to know which side he is on, and so do others.
Linus said that the whole public consultation process was a sham and that he heard that FSF ignored all the input from the discussion committees. He even said that this annoyed him more than the DRM stuff. I think it was on ZDNet.
So this article shows what the discussion committees actually think, instead of what Linus says he heard they think.
I'm not saying he misreported this intentionally. Maybe some people with an agenda sought him out and casually mentioned their frustration to him at the water cooler. I don't know.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
"There will be a way to sign your own code against this DRM."
Today with the web, for a good certificate you have to pay a money.
Else your webpage lacks some functionality.
Now getting a good certificate for software is a lot more work, all this testing at $os-vendor..
$bigcorp can pay, $me can not.
Does he still have relevant ties to (t)his (former?) employer during/after "a leave-of-absense [sic]" ?
These are questions that any serious reporting on his stance needs to ask and answer - before questioning the merits of GPLv3 (that would make perfect sense for Linux anyway) just because the FSF cannot get Linus Torvalds to fully and openly agree with it (yet).
The ONLY thing that will prevent the proliferation of DRM is the consumer not buying it.
As long as there is a demand for non-drm hardware, manufacturers WILL make it, because they can make money off it.
Linus has stated that this is a 20-year battle, not something that can be resolved in a day. Its not going to change just because of the GPLv3 - that only affects software. The problem is hardware, not software. Vote with your wallet, and if a significant number of people do, then non-drm hardware remains available.
You have only yourself to blame if you own an iPod, or pay to download drm'd music. You've already voted with your $$$, saying "I'll buy drm'd shite"
Fucktards. You can't have it both ways. You can't go and say "oh, drm is BAD" and then get all weak-kneed and gooey-eyed because you want your drm'd music. All you iPod-toting freaks have whored yourselves out, and real cheap too ... 99 cents.
Its like the guy who sees a pretty woman:
Man: Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?
Woman: Wow, sure!
Man: How about for a buck?
Woman: What kind of woman do you think I am?
Man: We've already established that with the first question. Now we're just haggling over price.
If its bad, boycott it at the consumer level. Vote with your wallet. THAT will fix the problem. (Hint: Ask Sony about how well their r00tkit program went).
Same with Windows. Don't want vendor lockin at the OS level? Don't support Microsoft or Apple, because they're pushing for it. The hardware vendors don't give a damn one way or another ... they'll make anything the market wants.
But don't go around throwing rocks at Linus for pointing out that all you iPod-toting Windows weenies are emperors without clothes, and that the GPLv3 doesn't get to the root of the problem, which is the choices that YOU as a consumer make.
How can someone who has never bought in sell out?
The apparent belief that GPL3 will somehow prevent crippled hardware from becoming the only thing available is ludicrous. Linux is and will continue to be GPL2, and there's no compelling reason to open hardware to accomodate any other software. Moglen's nastygrams don't provide enough of a disincentive to just steal Free software, if it comes to that.
As I see it, it's not Torvalds who needs to justify his position, it's you. You won't, of course, because you're so deep in cognitive dissonance that you can't acknowledge that the FSF is still drawing up battle plans when it's already lost the war. When the first beta of a Windows version that requires TC hardware is released, you may try to sue for peace, but by then it will be far too late.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
If you insist on a childish framing of the issue into "sides", then Linus defines his own side. Are you with him or not?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Nope. I've done my homework on this one.
Linus's statement, which this article shows to be incorrect, was: "The real problem was always the re-definition of source code. Actually, I take that back. The real problem was and is that there are lots of people who disagreed with the FSF on issues (mine was the definition of source code, while I know that some commercial entities felt that the patent language was totally unsupportable). And the FSF took that input, and then totally ignored it."
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Richard Stallman and team built the guts of the os's know as linux over a period of 22 YEARS. Linus built a kernel, like every Computer Science major must. Linus puts it out on the net - others combine it with Stallman's project (Stallman was working on a more difficult memory manager architecture) and then comes a working GNU - Unix like OS - (now known as Linux) that Stallman and his teams had been working on for years. Let's face it. Linus received the credit instead of Richard Stallman for a gargantuan effort. Not to debase linus efforts, but that guy is taking credit for a lot of other peoples work. Richard Stallman - Free Software foundation - http://www.gnu.org/ Linus Torvalds - A Kernel - needs $$$
What do you do next?
kiss
touch
->put it in
Thats some pretty strong language, and isn't at all appropriate for this discussion as it primarily involves opinions rather than facts. Linus disagrees with the direction GPLv3 is taking, which is his right to do. To 'refute' those comments, you would basically have to prove he has no problem with GPLv3.
Who the hell wrote this article, Richard Stallman?
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
But so far it's been Linus who's done the most to actually change the world.
No, he has not. All Linus did was write a kernel. If he hadn't done so, there were half a dozen alternatives about to become available. Most likely, if Linus had been run over by a truck, we'd be running the BSD kernel now, or some Mach derivative.
Proving once again the superiority of actually getting working technology out the door, versus spending a decade or so fine-tuning your philosophy about how to begin working on the great technology that you will eventually design when you have the philosophy just perfect (if everyone hasn't succumbed to old age first).
That charge is totally unfair. GNU released plenty of software long before the Linux kernel was created. And the reason development on the microkernel went slowly was not because of any "fine tuning of philosophy", it was because porting and cleaning up a large, existing microkernel codebase and giving it POSIX APIs was a big project that needed to be completed in one big development effort and required the PC industry to start delivering hardware capable of running it. Linus instead delivered a flaky and incomplete kernel that became popular because it ran on PCs right away, but that required many years to beat into shape.
I've had enough troubles in my own career directly traceable to wanting to Get Things Right at the expense of Getting Things Done to appreciate this particular point with some sensitivity, not to say bitterness. Feh.
You're right: getting code out the door, even if it is inferior quality, is clearly generally good for companies and developers. It's not good for users or the community. What happened with Linux vs. Mach was somewhat analogous to what happend with DOS vs. UNIX: the quick and dirty hack won, and users ended up paying the price. Fortunately, because Linux at least copied proven UNIX APIs, the Linux cleanup avoided most of the pain that have accompanied analogous evolutions at Microsoft and Apple.
He's written pretty extensively on this issue. He does not see the threat of totalitarian Trusted Computing happening. I happen to agree. This is a paranoid fantasy put into your head by RMS and others to further their own agenda.
You're calling me a troll? You're the one suggesting that Linus has sold out. I'm not even a big Linus fan, but I'm aware of his contributions and I have respect for the man. And it amazes me that you could even ask that question about him. It's really astonishing. How can you maintain it's an "honest question"? At best, it's a stupid and reckless question. At worst, it's a calculated smear. I just don't get how you people can impugn his integrity and at the same time, not question the integrity of RMS, well known for his demagoguery.
Let me ask you this: In your mind, are there no good uses for trusted computing? Are there never circumstances where trusted computing could be applied without evil effect? Or is all trusted computing inherently evil and must be stamped out?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
seems like you mean rebutted.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
Right, because we're going to get a choice.
Like we did with DVDs. We can buy the DRM free hardware and DRM free DVDs of our favorite movies, or we can buy the DRM'd versions of both. Except we can't. Because in the vast majority of cases, the content we want is only available in a DRM'd form.
With the greatest of respect, the argument that this can be dealt with by "consumers" is utter and complete crap. The choices that need to be available for consumers to deal with this issue are non-existant. In order for DRM to be dealt with, it has to be dealt with at every level. This means consumers avoiding it where possible. It means Free Software authors chosing licenses that ensure DRM proponents can't leverage the work of the Free Software community when building their content prisons. It means constant advocacy. It means lobbying politicians against DMCA like laws and in favour of liberalizations.
No one single system is going to prevent DRM from taking hold. We already have one source of media, movies, now completely locked up by DRM schemes and where the only workarounds are illegal. This will spread. It will get worse. The laws are getting worse. Consumers are getting less choices. Companies like TiVo are benefiting from the same communities they're undermining, using GNU and Linux to create their products while simultaneously undermining the freedom of their users. For anyone to claim that this can be dealt with using one single simple solution "Duh, let market forces fix it! Consumers rulez, they are always informed enough to make the right choices and will always have the choices to begin with" is being desperately naive.
And, personally, I cannot see how DRM is consistant with Free Software. The GPL is not the BSD license. It does take pro-active steps to ensure the software so-licensed remains Free. Allowing DRM would be a bug in the GPL, it's not something that can be allowed, because it amounts to a loophole. By all means, argue against these kinds of things being added to the BSD license, but there absolutely must be provisions against DRM in the GPL, otherwise the GPL ceases to have any meaning.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You'll have to trust the compiler, then. Which means you'll have to ... umm ... wow ...
I can see this from both points of view, but ultimately Linus has the freedom to choose what he wants to do. If you don't like his choice, don't use Linux anymore! If you are really a developer/user who cares that much about GPL v3, then go work on HURD.
Isn't it hypocritcal to advocate freedom, while at the same time attempting to take Linus' freedom to choose away from him? You are welcome to disagree with him, but you should respect his right to choose.
The basic tenet of the gpl is 'If I give it to you and you use it, then you *must* be willing to do the same for others'. BSD is share-please, GPL is share-dammit.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I'm not sure why the Grandparent a troll, our lawyers said the same thing.
That doesn't mean they are RIGHT, but it is true that lawyers can somehow mistake the situation into that.
I disagree with his "never suggest linux" diatribe, but if I didn't understand the situation, and just listened to our lawyers, i'd probably hold the same view too.
As far as I can see it, DRM technology poses three distinct major threats to developers' and users' freedoms:
1. locked digital media
This is where the GPLv3 works, sort of. You cannot take a GPLv3ed media player, add some DRM component, and distribute the result while keeping the key that unlocks the media secret. That's fair. Unfortunately, there is a large range of non-GPLed media players available. In the end, FOSS users will still have to resort to hacks, but they're not worse off in that respect than they are now, and at least the code they worked on won't be used to prevent them from doing what they want.
2. locked FOSS-using devices (the Tivo scenario)
I think the FSF, and software developers advocating GPLv3, are seriously overstepping their bounds here. Basically, they're telling hardware developers that in order to use FOSS, not only do they need to give freely what they freely received (which is just reasonable), but they also have to make THEIR OWN product convertable to any use their customers see fit. This immediately excludes building devices that need to assure overall system integrity (from fair network gaming through to voting machines) and also excludes a number of fairly reasonable business models (hardware has a significantly non-zero duplication cost, unlike software, and the money has to come from somewhere). Alternatively, they can choose to make their machines physically tamper-proof (which defeats the intent of the license, makes the license unverifiable, and the product unrepairable in case of software problems). The net result will simply be that hardware developers will stop considering the use of FOSS, which will lead to them getting what they want anyway, FOSS code getting less exposure and less fixes, and end users receiving an arguably less technologically sound product at a higher price.
3. locked general-purpose computers
The GPLv3 can't do squat about thread 3. If such devices do indeed appear, they will simply not be running FOSS. Ever. Because even if a vendor would like to offer an OS based on some hypothetical GPLv3ed kernel, the license wouldn't allow it.
So, looking at the above, I can't help but think that Linus is right here. I have the utmost respect for RMS and the members of the various committees, I'm even a paid-up and (CD-)card-carrying member of the FSF (#2342), but so far they have failed in providing a satisfactory solution to the problems ahead.
Please prove me wrong.
Linus is reasonable enough to recognize that creators have the right to protect their content from rampant thievery. I've been listening to Slashdot's alarmist anti-DRM arguments for years and have yet to see their mythical Orwellian power structure materialize.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Well, thanks for that copy'n'paste. You don't seem to disagree that the part I quoted was the relevent part, so I guess you agree with me.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
If there's no threat from DRM lockdown, then what is the problem with license terms preventing that? Or in other words, if the license says you have to give out a signing key to let modified software run on the hardware, but nobody is going to use these signed binary checks they where's the problem?
I think the reality is that Linus' position is that hardware will include signed-binary checks but will not be abused to prevent running modified software (primarily because you will always be able to buy hardware you can run the modified software on). Power is always abused, that's why we have checks and balances and laws. You never give any entity unilateral controls like DRM-lockdown.
By allowing GPL to have a version 2, they opened us all up to the idea GPL can be revised.
If GPL v2 was NEVER allowed to happen, a new license would be required.
Creating conflicting definitions of GPL every x years is going to undermine the GPL. MS could have MS-GPL and call it GPLv4 but nobody would accept that...who knows, in 10 years MS could be directly involved in GPLv4.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
If there's no threat from DRM lockdown, then what is the problem with license terms preventing that?
Because it is preventing valid uses of signed binaries. Do you not think there might ever be a valid "good" use of signed binaries?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Or he is emotionaly oposed to FSF (what is quite more possible). His arguments dont make sense, but that doesn't implies that he is sold out.
Rethinking email
When has IBM objected to the GPL v3 in that way?
That said, from what I've read that was officially from Torvalds, he seems to think that the hardware makers should be allowed to control what runs on the devices they sell. I totally, utterly and completely disagree with that. Once I buy it, it's mine, and I have no intention whatsoever of going along with any scheme that allows the device makers to pretend otherwise.
Then why is Linus protesting against GPL v.3 so much?! It won't affect him; why does he care?
First of all, you have no idea what you're talking about regarding "a Windows version taht requires TC hardware." GPL code, version 2 or version 3, will have no problem running on the TC machine you're referring to. It's only the reverse situation -- TC hardware that requires signed code -- that GPL code (version 3 or version 2, if it was compiled by the user) won't run on.
Second, what kind of fatalistic, self-defeating, cowardly dumbass are you?! Let me guess, you'd just sit in a burning building because "oh well, it's already too late" and let the fire get you. Or you'd just let yourself bleed to death after getting a paper cut because "oh well, it's too much bother to go find a band-aid."
We have not "already lost," but negative assholes like you sure as Hell aren't helping!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
If their goal were to make money from the code, odds are they wouldn't have open sourced it
Your view is typical of the Open Source fanboys. Open Source code is not a vow of poverty, it's a belief in a philosophy of community strength. This is not at odds with capitalism. Once you understand that, you might have an idea of why Torvalds' criticisms have validity.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Who cares? If Linus says the kernel is not going to be GPLv3, then what does it matter what others say? It means the kernel's not going to be GPLv3.
FC Closer
NewsForge and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.
Maybe this could just become a tag: newsforgeandslashdotownedbyostg.
Or even shorter: nfandsdownedbyostg.
Or even: ownedbyostg.
Or just: ostg.
It just seems such a commonly used footer could make great use of the tagging system.
Oh, was that my outside voice?
None of the GNU tools mattered at all. The linux kernel could have just used the BSD userland. In fact, Linus even said more than once that had he known about BSD, he wouldn't have even started linux. And without linux, the GNU crapware would be completely ignored, with the exception of emacs, and possibly gcc.
Not only can it be done, it is not terribly difficult to
do so. Try the Linux kernel with uClibc and Busybox.
Toss in dropbear and TinyCC and you are well on your
way to a usable system sans GNU userland tools.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Explain to me why I should let Sony decide what my computer is going to do?
This will be acceptable when it's acceptable for my car manufacturer to tell me which roads I can drive on
...when it's acceptable for my telephone company to tell me which numbers I can dial
...when it's acceptable for my TV manufacturer to tell me which channels I can watch
...when it's acceptable for my stove to tell me I what I can and can't cook, and what time I can cook at
...when it's acceptable for my couch to say I can't sit on it just now....
My personally owned objects are to serve me. At my discretion. Not some corporation.
If you like your "freedom" to be at the mercy of Thomas Hesse, that's your problem. I'm not interested.
Lastly, there's nothing beneficial that can be accomplished in hardware (ref:TPM) that can't be done in software and thereby be at the control of the user instead of at the control of software and media vendors.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
You can just as easily swap out the GNU userland tools (and the assortment of random non-GNU tools that people like you always ignore) for a (MUCH nicer) BSD userland. Grab tendra for you compliler and away you go.
I know you meant the comment about "go work on HURD" to be ironic, but the fact is that there is a not-so-experimental project that actually will allow me to dump Linus's stupid kernel without giving up all the meaty GNU goodness I love, and I am seriously considering a switch to GNU/BSD in the not-too-distant future. For a number of reasons.
Anyway, this isn't about taking away Linus' freedom to chose the license for his own software. He already did that, long ago, and GPLv3 is not it. Even if he wanted to, he'd have a very hard time switching Linux to GPLv3 at this point. But he's out there playing politician, trying to influence other people's license choices, and that makes him fair game for debate. (Especially when he says stupid things or misinterprets the plain terms of a license he isn't even using.) Or are you trying to say that only Linus is allowed to try to influence people?
DRM and TCPA are user hostile technologies, support can and will be ripped out of Open Source code. There is no argument here, I will not running DRM or TCPA compliant code, period.
I've been seeing senseless rants like this increasingly on Slashdot. It's like some superstition. All Trusted Computing does is give ownership of a computer to whoever owns the master keys.
If you have the master keys (as you would, on a box you built yourself) then Trusted Computing means you *really* own your computer. You can prevent rootkit installation, and guarentee access to content no matter how DRM-encrusted. If someone else has the master key, why would you pay money for something you don't own?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
to work with a protected set of data you would create a thread that would handle that data and only certain actions could be taken
This model has been debunked in the security world (though people still use it). A thread that has access to content protected by DRM can simply leak the data to a thread that doesn't have any use restrictions, and the best any system can do is limit the bandwidth of the leak.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Your view is typical of the Open Source fanboys. Open Source code is not a vow of poverty, it's a belief in a philosophy of community strength. This is not at odds with capitalism.
Where did I ever say that it's a vow of poverty or that it's at odds wth capitalism? In your rush to put words into my mouth, it appears you missed the most important part of my post. I stated "If their goal were to make money from the code...".
And as far as "Open Source code is... a belief in a philosophy of community strength", I'd recommend you examine your own fanboyism there. Releasing your code under an Open Source compatible license is a license choice, nothing more. Whether or not this license choice resulted from your subscription to some higher cause is a completely different issue.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Lots of words, no message.
It's not always about delivering a message, okay? I'm relating interesting personal experience, not preaching a sermon. It's food for thought, not an attempt to tell people what to think.
Seems like you have read some book
Don't be insulting. Why would I waste time reading books about software development? My heavy reading is J. Chem. Phys. and Phys. Rev.. My light reading runs to Dorothy Sayers and Patrick O'Brian. So where did what I know come from? Well, I wrote my first code 28 years ago this September, an implementation of Conway's "Life" in 8080 machine code. I've never hacked an OS, but in the last two decades I've written megabytes of serious scientific application code on everything from VMS and CMS to Multics to half a dozen varieties of proprietary Unices, plus of course Linux itself.
but never really been part of the movement.
I said I wasn't a systems hacker. I was a user, and a pretty high-level geeky informed one at that. I didn't use my computers for editing Word documents and photoshopping Dan Quayle's head onto an elephant seal's body. I wrote big programs to solve nonlinear integral equations, run molecular dynamics simulations, evaluate many-dimensional phase-space integrals, et cetera and so forth. I squeezed every speck of raw scalar performance I could out of the hardware, and the hardware I worked on started off costing a cool million (in 1980 dollars).
Thus your knowledge is lacking.
About what? About the Right Way to program operating systems? Guilty as charged. I'm a user, not a kernel hacker. But, unless you're an utter pure theorist, a monk in an ashram, than any reasonable kernel hacker has got to care about my point of view. I mean, what are you writing operating systems for? Just to boot up and look pretty? So Brittany T. Nager can log onto her Facebook account and check out cute college guys? Surely you write operating system to be seriously and heavily used -- to do good work for scientists and engineers, for people who really need the power of the latest hardware governed by a rock-solid, powerful OS that you don't just reboot every day, or when it freezes up, whichever comes first. Well, that's me. That's why I think my "userland" perspective during the development of the free Unix is a bit relevant.
No offense, but you're confused.
About what? You're saying I don't remember correctly what it was like doing serious programming in the Late Workstation to Early Linux transition era? Because I had a stroke or something? Feh.
Or are you saying I don't "correctly" interpret my experience? Well maybe I don't, but, if so, that should be a serious warning to kernel hackers and software-movement prophets: alas, often the vast army of users who in the end determine whether your software is successful or a museum exhibit are not going to "interpret" their experience with your work the way you think they should. They're not going to act like supplicants in your temple, asking to be shown The Way. They're going to act like homeowners calling around to find someone to clean the pool. If using your work means putting up with a lot of hard to understand delays, restrictions, obfuscations or other inconveniences -- well, they won't. Even if those things are all intended to serve A Good Purpose That Someday You Will Understand.
Actually it does not prevent good uses of signed binaries. The "good" kind of binary signing is the kind where you, the end user, are in control of the restrictions. It is perfectly acceptable under the GPLv3's terms if your computing device refuses to run binaries that aren't properly signed, as long as you, the user, can either disable that behavior, or add your own trusted keys.
tcc -- much faster than gcc, though little optimization
icc -- from Intel
??? -- something from IBM for Power chips
Any hardware that requires signed binaries prevents this unless signature capability is given to anyone who wants it.
And that will happen. Even in a DRM-only world, every single software company in the world must remain able to easily give all developer machines and laptops the ability to generate binaries and to run them locally for testing. Not a single company will accept a dependency on third party certification for an urgent, crucial bugfix at 3am in the night. None of the parties behind DRM would benefit from a complete collapse of the ICT sector, so everyone will be able to sign.
GNOME was written by some FSF fans at Red Hat, and the "G" fit the acronym better than an "R". The GNU label also nicely distracted attention from Red Hat, allowing other Linux vendors to package the desktop. No other vendor is going to ship a Red Hat branded desktop!
The compiler and C library aren't much better. The FSF wrote toy versions long ago. Since then, Red Hat and Cygnus (since purchased by Red Hat) have done most of the work. The FSF is just a way to make things look more vendor-neutral than reality.
Heck, I have a project that the FSF tried to get joined up. It seems the FSF has some sort of marketing group that goes around to various software projects trying to get the GNU name added. WTF? Anybody else get approached like that? (obviously, I told them in detail exactly how they could go to Hell for trying to rewrite history by renaming everything)
I think Linus is more like half the geeks on Slashdot, slightly embarassed by the whole idea of politics and wanting desperately to appear "reasonable" to the point of making a point of criticising the FSF and similar political groups when he can.
Nothing about his criticisms of the DRM provision of GPL3 make any sense, it's certainly inconsistant - you're either in favour of people being able to do what they wish with their own copies code to the point of supporting the GPL or you're not. If you don't care, why the fuck are you using it at all? I mean, why has Torvalds chosen the GPL over, say, the BSD license?
This is the second time he's come out against the principles he signed up for when he chose the GPL for Linux. The first time was the BitKeeper fiasco, where even after BitKeeper's authors prove they were completely untrustworthy, he condemned the very developers that have been a part of making Linux successful instead of admitting his decision to entrust a Free Software project to a proprietary source manager might just have been both inappropriate and, actually, not very "pragmatic".
Sometimes, when you have 99% of a group describing the other 1% as "zealots", and doing so over and over again, loudly, as if they feel the need they have to prove something, you need to listen to the so-called zealots. They're very often the few people who actually know what they're talking about.
In the mean time, it's time Linus put his money where his mouth is. If he really believes it's immoral to place restrictions on what restrictions third parties can be put on his software, then he needs to re-release Linux under the BSD or X11 licenses. The GPL2 is a half-way house that places restrictions on companies that rerelease binaries but do nothing to limit the use of those binaries, but places few restrictions on organizations that release source code that can never be modified and compiled into anything usable thanks to a signing process that ties particular binaries to the hardware they need to run on. It's time to be clear in what's wanted.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Which means that anyone else with local access, or perhaps even remote access can either disable that behavior or add their own trusted keys.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
God forbid you should ever be in a hospital being kept alive on machines running open source software licensed under GPLv3, and someone who "likes to tinker" loaded up their "improved" version of the software without proper authorization or QA. (Don't you think that would be a valid use of signed binaries?)
That's just one example of a use of OSS where signed binaries and trusted computing would be a good thing. There are plenty other uses of signed binaries that would be very good things. Anyplace where someone's life is on the line. Anyplace where an unsigned binary has the potential to wreak havoc. I'd hazard to say that there are more positive good uses than there are negative bad uses.
You're just buying into the FSF propaganda of paranoia. It's time you started asking why the FSF wants you paranoid. How do they benefit from instilling fear into you. What sort of compromise are they trying to sell you to escape their unlikely worst case scenario of totalitarian trusted computing.
Just like those developers who went for the the GPLv2 plus edition, you're being sold a pig in a poke.
I'm curious as to how exactly you expect Sony to dictate what you do with your computer. As near as I can tell, Sony doesn't have a monopoly on hardware yet, and probably never will. If you think Sony is out to control your computer, can't avoid that by just not buying Sony products? Or do you need a software license in case you accidentally buy Sony? You cannot trust yourself, so you need the FSF to protect you from yourself and your own decisions?
It's stunning how people are so unwilling to take responsibility for themselves that they'll surrender to a Big Brother figure who promises to protect them from the evils of the world.
It's astonishing how much this GPLv3 circus reminds me of Animal Farm.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Yup. Read up on Ken Thompson's Reflections on Trusting Trust.
You are misinformed. GNOME is a GNU project.
It has many sponsors: FSF, Debian, Sun Microsystems, Red Hat, HP, Novell, Nokia, Intel, IBM and more.
GNOME gets code contributions from Red Hat, yes. Your point?
Considering the way the GPL is going now and the way the FSF loves to be vague in their definitions & meanings(to the extent of what ever outcome bennifits them the most), that bit in the cut & paste troll becomming true wouldn't surprise me...
I didn't say he WAS corrupted. I just wanted to remind everyone than nobody is immune from corruption, nobody. Look at the evidence however. I know its not a lot to work with but it seems like Linus is supporting things that many of us think are bad. That does not make him outright bad for linux or anything like that. I am just saying that we cant just assume he is perfect in every way and we can leave it in his hands.
Someone disagrees with you, so they must be a troll? What the fuck is wrong with you?
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
I stated "If their goal were to make money from the code...".
That's only the first wrong.
Open Source just exposes the logic. Nothing more. There's inherent value in large collections of OS code outside of the logic. I can't understand why you would believe that releasing code OS prevents you from making money off of it.
Hence I said:
Open Source code is not a vow of poverty,
This is not at odds with capitalism. (this was a bit obtuse, but same logic)
You state:
Releasing your code under an Open Source compatible license is a license choice, nothing more.
That's your second wrong.
Your license choice is always based on an informed decision. You astutely say that there's an implicit "Reason" to chose a license. There's lots of reasons, they amalgamate into a belief in a higher or LOWER cause, even if it's as terrestrial as the company's bottom line. That's why you dont roll dice to decide your license. Since you simply call my reasoning (why one might choose an OS license) fallacious, with no real logic or evidence to the contrary, I'll just ignore your "rah rah I'm right, you're wrong!" stance out of respect. We each misspeak every day.
I did not miss the point. I think you are stating falsehoods as arguments why GPL3 is sane.
Defending a legal agreement is always easier than attacking it when there's only a philosophical incentive to attack it. That's just business and the core of Torvald's problem with it.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
You have the choice not to buy those dvds. Nobody is forcing you to. So you go without. Big deal. If enough people did it, the producers would say "fuck that shit". Why? Because you're hurting them where it huts most.
"The choices that need to be available for consumers to deal with this issue are non-existant."
Really? You mean to tell me that the mobo I bought in February has drm on it? I don't think so, Clyde. Ditto my monitors, my video card, etc. No drm to be found. I'd have to go out of my way to find a mobo that has palladium (trusted computing platform) ... I'd have to break into some lab somewhere and STEAL it. Why? Because nobody' selling that shit yet. No consumer demand.
"We already have one source of media, movies, now completely locked up by DRM schemes and where the only workarounds are illegal"
As far as the laws are concerned, all bad laws do is get people to ignore them, and disrespect their proponents. We're seeing a pushback against these stupid attacks on fair use. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen, the same as other stupidities like laws against gays and lesbians, or criminalizing soft drugs, or "my country right or wrong".
You're not paying attention.
Any group can slap a GNU label on their project. The FSF actively encourages this. The FSF even approached me with the request that I slap a GNU label on my own project. (they contribute NOTHING, but wanted the label anyway)
Slapping a GNU label on the project in no way makes the project really truly GNU. It's a flag of convenience for vendor neutrality, and it's a way for Stallman to claim he did everything.
GNOME is no more GNU than OpenBSD is.
"Companies like TiVo are benefiting from the same communities they're undermining, using GNU and Linux to create their products while simultaneously undermining the freedom of their users"
How has Tivo prevented you from using any GPL'd code on other hardware? Have they made the bits disappear? Made them proprietary? Changed the license? No. So you can't run modified binaries on Tivo ... nothing stopping you or someone else from using the same code to compete in the marketplace by offering a superior hardware product.
And there's no law that says you have a constitutional right to own a Tivo.
If you're so opposed to their practices, just don't buy one. Enough people do, someone (they're called "competitors") will see a marketing opportunity.
that thread is not able to send data out of the protected space except as indicated in the original protected block permissions. the permissions could specify that analog unprotected signal outputs such as VGA and sound are acceptable, or may only allow them at certain configurations or not at all, instead only allowing secured interfaces such as HDMI.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
"Trusted Computing" already exists in the form of video game consoles, and I never really seen the Slashdot FSF followers saying anything against those.
Comment of the year
Open Source just exposes the logic. Nothing more. There's inherent value in large collections of OS code outside of the logic. I can't understand why you would believe that releasing code OS prevents you from making money off of it.
I think we may be arguing two different points. My point is actually quite simple: I'm saying that choosing to release their code for free (as in beer) means that they choose not to make money from the code distribution. That -- and only that -- is my point. It's a bit of a tautology, but recall the original quote (not yours) to which I replied:
"I am sure it works well for you, but how well does it work for the people whose code you are using? How do they make money?"
Obviously those who release their code for free (as in beer) don't expect to make money from the act of others downloading the code. They make their money in other ways, or not at all, and realize that others can use their work to make money too. The reason I replied to the post I did was to address the implied statement that it's somehow wrong to make money off of others' code.
Since you simply call my reasoning (why one might choose an OS license) fallacious, with no real logic or evidence to the contrary...
I didn't think much was needed. You stated that "Open Source code is... a belief in a philosophy of community strength" and if you review your post you'll see this was the entire point of your comment. You didn't state "why one might choose an OS license", you stated "Open Source code = a belief in a philosophy of community strength".
I stated that the choice of license is a completely separate issue from any beliefs and you're right to call me on that -- sometimes, the two are highly related. But to state that choose open source is one particular belief is inaccurate.
There's lots of reasons, they amalgamate into a belief in a higher or LOWER cause, even if it's as terrestrial as the company's bottom line.
This is different from your original statement I quoted above. You can see why I called your reasoning fallacious as you are now contradicting it yourself. But you're right... a company might release their code because they think it'll bring them millions in venture capital funding and those in the company are only out to make a buck, not giving a rat's ass about any kind of community that may or may not even look at the code.
I think you are stating falsehoods as arguments why GPL3 is sane.
You're attributing beliefs to me which I don't hold. I never mentioned GPL3 in any of my posts (save this one) yet you state I'm arguing in favor of the sanity of GPL3? How did you reach this conclusion?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Sorry, that doesn't follow *at all*.
The _owner_ has to be able to add trusted keys, other people do not. There are any number of possibilities for authenticating that the "change trusted keys" request is not from a hacker. Most common would likely be a physical component ("flip a switch on the motherboard", "hold down reset button for 20 seconds", etc). You could also require a password known only by the owner, verified by trusted boot loader code. Or anything else you feel appropriate.
I write free software because I want my users to be able change their software. If my users can't change my code how is it good for me? It is my personal choice not to subsidise DRM device producers. Do you have a problem with that?
But... the future refused to change.
Unless I'm greatly misunderstanding GPLv3, all this restriction will do is prevent requiring a signed-binaries requirement. This will not prevent you or the hospital from saying "only allow signed binaries from X, Y, or Z on my computer" but it will prevent malicious guy M from saying "You can only install binaries signed by me which by the way are modified in the style of Trusting Trust to prevent you from using anything but binaries signed by me and there's no way to verify because the only way to figure that out is with another OS and the bootloader won't let you do that because it's my special GPLv2 Router which can only run binaries of OSes signed by me and if you even try to do any of this I'll sue you under the DMCA because I'm Mr. M and only signed binaries will protect you from the evil h4xx0rs and I'm right and RMS is wrong, GPLv2 good GPLv3 bad GPLv2 good GPLv3 bad"
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
but he is smart.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
They might have refuted Linus's criticism, but his criticism is still there. The reality is that this little feud between Linus and FSF matters less as a logical debate and more as a practical issue. If Linus is unhappy with GPLv3 and decides not to adopt it for the Linux kernel, that will be a major blow for GPLv3 no matter how you cut it, because it will have a domino effect in which it is not adopted as a new standard.
It may be that the other GNU project tools like gcc are indispensible parts of the Linux operating system. I don't know enough to know for sure. But the Linux kernel is also an indispensible part, and if you start having the operating system split between GPLv2 and GPLv3, new projects will justified in following the Linux kernel's lead and sticking with GPLv2.
Another issue here that may not be fully appreciated is that many people already think that GPLv2 already goes too far. By going even farther, GPLv3 is going to turn off even more people to the GPL project. It may be that the goals it establishes are justified. But if even Linus Torvalds is turned off by this, I wonder what corporate users of Linux will say...?
Also - one theory I'd like to just throw out there is the possibility that while current replacements for many of the GNU tools may be lacking, if they adopt GPLv3 and corporate customers like Google and Sun don't like them because of restrictions on usage, they may spearhead the development of replacements.
Likewise, any GPL version that places clear requirements on web applications developed using programs under that version (e.g. you must GPL those web applications) will never see adoption by Google etc. Assuming this is where FSF is going, the GPL will ultimately destroy itself by becoming too extreme.
Well, there the ack (Amsterdam Compiler Kit) and tcc. The problem is that glibc has waaaaaaay too many extensions and most open-source code uses them liberally. And jed is a nice alternative to emacs, just as soon as they have an X11 display I'll be happy.
Don't believe in miracles -- rely on them.
Also consider that the device may not be a simple desktop computer that is in front of you but something in an entirely different location where you can not easily press the button.
I see these clauses as being an inappropriate blunt instrument. In an effort to stop DRM you want to make some systems of authentication completely unusable and effectively do the same thing as posting the shadow password file on the net? I don't think you want to do that, and the person who does want to do that - Richard Stallman, has very strong views on passwords which probably make him think authentication is irrelevant. I think the instrument should be a bit less blunt or it may be a case of pushing for legislative change to stop DRM instead of a new rushed licence pushed onto the unwilling.
You are a troll like everyone else has indicated. You now drop to -5 in my personal viewing.
You back up what you've stated with something intelligent. I listen (may not agree) but I do listen.
Pick one.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Obviously those who release their code for free (as in beer) don't expect to make money from the act of others downloading the code.
... only obvious after reaching a threshold of success of course.
Unsurprisingly, this is how some companies/people are currently making money off of OS code. Redhat makes money off the distribution of code. Distribution for free allows greater adoption which allows for the need to quicker adoption in time-critical cases (premium digital channels for delivery is yet another way to make money off download-distribution while still being OS). This one of the many ways the community strength, reinforces itself
I will attempt to guess that
There's lots of reasons, they amalgamate into a belief in a higher or LOWER cause, even if it's as terrestrial as the company's bottom line.
Abstract reasoning for choosing a license.
Open Source just exposes the logic. Nothing more.
A statement describing the total net-effect of a practical reality.
There is no license entitled "Open Source", but there is a movement/belief, so my statements don't "feel" like I contradicted myself.
I am sorry, GPL3 is not the original topic of your discourse. My bad.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
mailme@plainsmedia.com
checking for spiders
Please. Ever heard of covert channels?
http://outcampaign.org/
Distribution for free allows greater adoption...
Yes, there are a lot of secondary or network effects which result from allowing others to download your source at no cost. Someone might dabble with the code and contribute something back. And of course, it's also possible under various licenses to charge a modest sum for the act of downloading the code. However, as a primary means an open source licenses aren't chosen in order to profit from the download of the code in and of itself. The profit comes as a by-product. As you say, Open Source just exposes the logic, nothing more -- it doesn't produce nor does it guarantee profit.
There is no license entitled "Open Source", but there is a movement/belief...
Various movements/beliefs use Open Source, but not all Open Source implies a movement/belief. In the late 1980s, I released some code for a software package I created into the public domain. I certainly didn't do that as part of a movement, nor did I do so because of any particular beliefs. I did so for various *reasons*, but to call those reasons beliefs would be too much of a stretch.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
I think the parent meant owner of the computer instead of end user.
Not only that, but they sure should not use my GPL-licensed code, developed in my spare time, to further such an agenda. If they want to do this, then they have the option of staying away from GPL(v3) code.
The "function" of these tools is not to get you a free program to run on your computer. It's to get you and everyone else a FREE (as in freedom) platform, that they can all use and innovate on equally. Only copyleft-licensed software does that.
Linux wouldn't be what it is today, except that it choose to use the GPL, and people came on board and contributed because of the guarantees that the GPL provides. If Linus hadn't taken that route, we'd all be working on HURD or something instead.
Linus is good with Linux, but he's too practical to lead with visionary ideas. The GPL (maybe moreso, GPLv3) *is* a visionary idea, and it will be inspiring people centuries after Linux has been forgotten.
the free software foundation is making a software license that restricts freedoms. Cracks me up.
There are obviously varios qualities of freedoms. There are bad and good freedoms. No one should have the freedom to kill everyone he does not like, for example.
If, as you suggest, we shall be in control of the "master" keys then I fail to see how it would help the content industry.
If, as I suspect, someone else shall be in control of the "master" keys then I can see perfectly clearly how it would help the content industry.
As the idea of TC and DRM are being pushed by the content industry I think it would seem logical to assume that my suspicions are in fact correct.
Not quite sure how that got modded +2 Insightful either.
Buying an iPod is supporting a business (Apple) that is doing its best to be THE drm content provider. So, don't be so quick with the "who's the idiot" bit. If you're against drm, don't buy Apple products that support drm.
Dell really isn't in the business of helping the "content industry", nor really are processor or chipset manufacturers. Compare the revenues of Dell or Intel with e.g. the entire RIAA, and you'll see the "content industry" isn't going to be pushing the hardware vendors around.
I know some of the people working on the Trusted Computing standards, and they work for big hardware vendors, not for "content industry" companies. There's a huge market for Trusted Computing that has absolutely nothing to do with DRM. Sure, the "content industry" is *also* pushing it, but so what?
On the other hand, you can bet that future generations of gaming consoles will be very locked down and basically unmoddable, as that industry is very different from general purpose computing. Doesn't seem like much of a problem.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
If I own the hardware I have access to anything I want to. If the data I want exists unencrypted at *any* point in any equipment I own, I can get that data. It's only a matter of cost and motivation. The technologies to extract the data from the processor, memory, or any bus on the system are all available off the shelf as test equipment - pricey, but available.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.