Slashdot Mirror
Why Torvalds is Sitting out the GPLv3 Process
lisah writes "Linus Torvalds has a lot of reasons for not wanting to participate in drafting the third version of the GNU General Public License (GPL): He doesn't like meetings, says committees don't make sense, has philosophical differences with the Free Software Foundation, and seems to be generally distrustful of the whole drafting process. Though Torvalds prefers the GPLv2, he says if others prefer the GPLv3, they ought to support it because 'it's not like it kills and eats small children for breakfast, and must never be allowed.'" Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.
If you want to contribute to the GPLv3, you can. The FFII, for example, proposed some changes that would clarify the GPLv3 with respect to patent law in Europe (the current draft is too US-biased).
Torvalds doesn't need to contribute, but I'm glad he's moved to a more neutral stance. The GPLv2 is old and out of date and though it still works today, will start to crumble in a few years.
In every new project my firm does, we end up adding our own conditions onto the GPL3 (for instance for patents) and it'd be far better to have these defined as standard.
It's good to be critical of processes that aren't clear, and it's entirely possible that the FSF won't be able to produce a worthy successor to GPLv2, which is an incredibly important document in the history of software, but we should give them the benefit of the doubt.
My blog
FTFA...
For Torvalds, the controversy over the different versions of the GPL is ultimately very simple: If "I can just go back to 1992, when I relicensed Linux under the GPLv2, and ask myself: If I had the choice of licenses back then that I have today (including the GPL3 draft), which one would I have chosen? And the answer simply isn't the GPLv3. It might have been the Open Software License, though. But, most likely, it would still be the GPLv2."
At heart, he's a developer. He'd rather be coding or debugging than getting involved in legal debate. And that's a good thing for us. I'd much rather him spend an hour working on Linux than disputing some clause of some license. It's just a more productive use of his time.
for the kills small children and eats them for lunch license. Dinner would be OK, too, but not breakfast.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
...not very
Scully: Should we arrest David Copperfield?
Mulder: Yes we should, but not for this.
Torvalds may not like the GPLv3. However, I think that is orthogonal to why he is sitting out the process. At heart, the man is an engineer/coder. How many people work as software engineers/programmers/code monkeys/whatever and jump at the shot to sit in the "politcal" meetings? Seriously. As a general rule, engineers and programmers would rather be engineering and programming. They don't care so much about marketing. They don't care so much about the political undercurrents of the organization. They just want to do their job well.
I had no idea that such a creature was lurking in the kernal.
Not awesome at all as you were actually 4th...
Slashdot always discloses whenever they link to another OSTG site. But just because they mention open source doesn't mean they should have to disclose. That'd be like MSNBC mentioning they're owned by NBC and Microsoft every time they mention computer software.
It's like sex, except I'm having it!
Have a chair.
(You might argue that Linux is totalitarian too, but besides the point that it isnt, you can fork Linux if you think you can do better, while you cannot fork the FSF license creation process. That's why it's so scary.)
I have actively participated in the debate about the clause 0 defect of the GPLv2 ("that is to say...") and I became satisfied that it is in good shape for the GPLv3.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Your analogy makes no sense.
Forking the FSF license creation process is not like forking Linux; it would be like forking the Linux development model, which is equally impossible.
Forking Linux would be like forking the GPL itself, which is not only possible, but trivially easy: all you have to do is re-write it however you like, and rename it (e.g., "ACPL," for "Anonymous Coward's Public License").
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Since the article linked is at linux.com it's not the same thing at all. You are quite wrong in your metaphor. It would be like MSNBC saying it's owned by Microsoft when linking to a press release on microsoft's web site. Which I hope they do indeed do.
The ASF has actually wanted the Apache license to be GPL compatible, and only cockups (for example at the FSF) prevented that from happening in the past. ASF's VP of legal affairs is on a GPLv3 committee, making sure it there won't be a cockup this time around.
A good bunch of Linux kernel is licensed GPLv2 only ... so in fact Linus cannot switch to GPLv3 without approval of all contributors - which is hardly doable imo. Remember how long it took the mozilla project to get permissions from all contributors to relicense the source under Tri-License. Maybe I am wrong, but even if Linus sees that GPLv3 is a good and necessary step ... he would not admit that.
... and now the ball returns.
For me it looks like Linus tries to find reasons to justify a (wrong) decision he made years ago: not to trust RMS to keep upcoming GPL versions within the spirit of GPL. He intentionally removed the "and later clause"
...because he just said he would have chosen the same thing anyway (read the last sentence of your quote).
See, that's what I don't understand: why is Linus complaining? The kernel is licensed "v.2 only" anyway, so what the FSF does should be irrelevant to him!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
They only have their "open" development project because people care about freedom. The fact is that "open source" and "free software" are not mutually exclusive. There's an argument to be made that one cannot exist without the other. People might be moved to write free software by the goodness of their hearts - but the best software will be written by people out to make a profit by writing the best software. And some people might be moved to write "open source" software, but that isn't possible without software freedom. What's to stop IBM or RedHat, when it gets the chance, from taking over the kernel to the extent that it's possible. Big public companies are not your friends. They are useful tools. What they care about making money for their shareholders. This is not a fantasy land of unicorns and daisies: this is AMERICAN BUSINESS. Get it right. Linus would do well to remember that the movement which got us here requires adherents to both the open source and free software philosophy. Tension between the two is good for the community - but breaking apart is not. The FSF is clearly committed to the v3 process. Instead of criticizing the negatives - Linus should propose positive alternatives more in line with his "open source" style of reasoning. I do not have more respect for him because he lambasts the draft and its authors. Propose an alternative method for achieving what you think should happen. The GPLv3 isn't going away.
you should read the article and see his concerns with respect to the Apache license.
For those that didn't see it (because my submission to slashdot was rejected, between other reasons), An Ode to GPLv2:
"One of the reasons I didn't end up signing the GPLv3 position statement that James posted (and others had signed up for), was that a few weeks ago I had signed up for writing another kind of statement entirely: not so much about why I dislike the GPLv3, but why I think the GPLv2 is so great.
Rest of the post
They actually link to linux.com.
Because there were no chairs left.
Ballmer got there early this year... (too easy?)
I was under the impression Linux could never be GPLv3d.
I would say that explains Linus' lack of interest right there.
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer
Second, ability to run the program, but not see the source code. Case in point, Google. It is beyond question that Google are using all kinds of GPL applications, from the kernel to webservers to highly modified filesystem drivers. All of it GPLed and none of the code available for you to see, despite the fact that Google allow you to use all these services online, you'll never see a line of the modified code.
Both these cases violate not the letter of the GPLv2 licence, but the spirit of it. That spirit being the ability to run the program, modify the source, and run the changed program. This is happening on small scales today. It could soon be happening on a huge scale, and that would undermine the whole FOSS community. GPLv3 will be needed in the future.
May the Maths Be with you!
Linus doesn't have a choice in the matter: since the kernel is under GPLv2 without an "or later" clause, he can't change it. The Linux kernel is stuck with GPLv2. For him to argue one way or the other is pointless and sounds like post-hoc rationalizing.
Personally, I think the GPLv2 will sooner or later kill the Linux kernel. Some highly successful embedded Linux systems like the WRT54G only became hackable because the manufacturers made a mistake. Evidently, embedded users of Linux just don't get the benefits of openness, and they'll get better and better at circumventing the GPLv2; the GPLv2 will turn more and more into a kind of encumbered BSD license, and you can see how well BSD did with that.
Of course, I'm not too concerned. I think we really need a successor to the Linux kernel anyway, yet the industry is happy to keep running a 30 year old kernel design. If being increasingly the target of GPL circumvention is what it takes to motivate people to move to a new kernel, that's fine with me, too.
I recognize the importance of software licenses, especially the GPL, but I've come to the inescapable conclusion that many of the major players in OSS have an insatiable need to spend enormous amounts of time bickering about licensing minutiae.
Every week brings a new drama-bomb in the endless pissing contests and personal rivalries/vendettas. If half the energy expended to one up, or argue with another developer was put into the development process, an untold number of projects might be a bit further along. One thing you can say about closed-source software is that the financial pressures end up stifling a great deal of the petty childishness that seems to pervade the OSS community, and taints its image in the process.
Don't get me wrong, you still get this sort of crap on the closed-source side of things - "I don't want to use your standard...I want to reinvent the wheel for this app..." etc, but it's not at the forefront. Human nature dictates that you will find these problems everywhere, but in the corporate, closed-source enviroment, it comes down to one conclusion - eventually the project needs to get done.
If OSS wants to gain more acceptance, it needs to put this sort of thing aside and get back to the core issue - it's the code, dammit. None of the present issues with the community are insurmountable, but direct action needs to be taken, these problems are not going to going away on their own. Rampant egoism, Not Invented Here Syndrome, coder-centric, not user-centric development methodologies...these all slow the pace of progress and paint open source in a very bad light.
OSS has a large community of smart people, and I just think it can do a whole lot better.
I think Linus's difference with the FSF is quite simple.
The FSF is concerned with users. The whole thing started when Richard Stallman couldn't fix the printer driver that he was a user of. The FSF's goal is to ensure that everyone who uses software, ever, has the technical and legal right to modify the software they are using.
Linus seems more concerned with developers. If someone comes along and contributes some sweet code to the Linux kernel, he thinks it's only fair that any developer gets the opportunity to use that code too, in their own project. But he's not concerned that an end user can't install a modified version of Linux on their Tivo.
Its not like Slashdot is strapped for cash. The editors are rolling in it.
Linus has such a dislike for the FSF that he rants on these things that he doesn't even know about and what's worse, uses his position to spread his ignorance like a cancer, a malignant ignorance. Consider that he did not even know the 'meetings' took place over email and IRC. Or his repeated claims of having to give up his private key, which is shown wrong over and over by legal experts. Or saying committees don't take responsibility for decisions and then complaining that they didn't just blindly agree to whatever his kernel developers wanted.
What's interesting to me is when Torvolds says the GPL2 is where companies and open source people can meet in perfect harmony, as if companies like the GPL2. No company likes the prospect of having to open up their product because some 'tard put in GPL code without their knowledge. They put up with it because they have to, because it's a reality they can't escape. I know I have had many heated arguments about making code GPL when others on a project wanted BSD to be more 'corporate friendly'. Perfect harmony? Wtf world is he living in? Use GPLv3 and they will come and work with that too (even though they don't want to) and for the same reasons.
I think the real question is, as an open-source developer, why wouldn't you choose GPLv3 over v2? Because you want some company to use your program and then sue you because you made use of their patents? Or you want your software to make DRM devices cheaper to create? Or you want your license to be worded in a way that is ambiguous in some regions? I wonder why Linus wants linux to be licensed without patent protections, with ambiguous language, and in a way that supports DRM?
Stallman says Torvalds has a philosophy that "doesn't rock the boat." Doesn't Torvalds owe something to Stallman? Is Linus not representin'? Did Linus forget where he came from? Learn the answers to these questions and more in the new documentary ALTERNATIVE FREEDOM.
http://alternativefreedom.org/
Documentary features Stallman, Lessig, DangerMouse of Gnarls Barkley and producer of the Grey Album... and more interviews...
I keep going over and over this, and I still can't figure out why Linus would want Linux to be able to be Tivo-ized, but not want it BSD-licensed. Can you explain to me what it is about these specific loopholes that makes them so much more desirable than people taking your code wholesale and making it into a proprietary program?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
As an engineer at heart, he understands computers and software systems very well, but likely avoids and despises legal systems.
Or, put simpler: I think he simply doesn't understand it. And yes, I know that sounds arrogant, but if you remember his posts on Groklaw, he demonstrated again and again that he thought the GPLv3 demanded things that it didn't, and that he had completely missed the point of what it's actually trying to do. For instance, he actually brought out that old FUD about how disabling DRM will prevent certain security measures, which it doesn't.
I don't think Linus and PJ actually disagree, but I do think PJ actually knows her stuff, and Linus should stick to the actual coding, organizing, and benevolent dictating of the kernel itself.
That, or sometime fairly soon, we're going to actually squeeze a statement from Linus that, given the choice, he'd go with BSD or public domain. They seem more in line with his ideals.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
about "free software". What they are truly fundamentally about is
creating a comprehensive category of software which is completely free from
corporate/business control, and which individual users can completely control in
all aspects as they wish.
His fundamental motivation is an anti-corporation, pro-individual/community
point of view. The fact that the mechanism for enabling his version of
"free software" is the GPL and a common pool of open source is
secondary. If he could have gotten a global law enforced that all corporations
must release all their source code freely on the Internet, that's what he would
have done, instead of GNU and GPL.
RMS is an absolutist on this point. He truly sees this as good vs. evil, and as
a belief system about which there can be no question.
To help understand this, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemI
read this interview.
This is where the insistence that DRM and "Trusted Computing" and
software patents must be abolished comes from. These are all tools that
corporations use to protect their property. RMS does not believe they should
have property like this... that it should all be made available to users with no
control by corporations.
Linux is also licensed under the GPL (v2), but comes from a completely
different motivation than RMS. Torvalds simply believes the open-source
development model is the most effective way to create excellent software.
Torvalds is just fine with corporations and businesses using Linux for profit,
even if that means "controlling" some aspects of its use. He
certainly has opinions on DRM, patents, and "Trusted Computing", but
he's not going to let those get in the way of Linux development.
So now starts the struggle for control of "what is the meaning of free
software". RMS is clearly trying to re-establish his vision of the
principles involved by pushing through GPL v3, because he's seen GPL v2 used in
ways that offend his principles deeply. Is it too late? Has the FOSS movement
taken off to an extent that he no longer controls it? Stay tuned.
Simply with BSD-licensed code you don't have to give your changes back, but with GPL v2 you have to Tivio or not. And that's the whole difference, simply getting the code back.
If you don't like it, shut up and leave!!!
Yeah, great attitude. Great example for the kids. Very democratic and all that.
"Our morality is good, theirs is repressive."- Partisanship Rule #3
I can't tell you what Linus is thinking, but I can tell you why I think that way.
/seeing the code/. I care that I can then use that code (or more likely ideas and tricks from that code) in my own projects. I don't care about making my consumer-grade router outpace the Cisco gear I use at work. I care about being able to make my own software on par with IOS.
/learn/ from that system that I want. Yes, learning could perhaps be easier if I could run modified code on the device, but ultimately, simply having access to the source is what I really care about.
I am a programmer. I am not a tinkerer. I care about
The ability to tinker with a system just isn't that important to me. It's the ability to
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
It's true. Engineers, scientists, programmers, mathmeticians, etc, would rather engineer than participate in meetings and organizational politics. Often, this is accompanied by an inability to play well with others--which I suspect is the case in this instance.
There are so many cases on the record where LT beats a hasty retreat after his arguments are demonstrated to have poor logic. Let's hope LT learns to moderate his penchant for hyperbole. Let's all be glad he codes better than he discusses policy.
First of all, I'm not speaking for the FSF.
Second, I have no doubt that they're trying to accomodate everyone as much as possible. However, they're not about to do something completely contrary to their stated goal, which is to make software that's free for the user. Fundamentally, the GPL exists to serve the FSF's goals; therefore, no matter how touchy-feely you try to make the process, the bottom line is that it's going to be what the FSF wants.
And before you complain about this, think for a minute and you'll realize that it's the same for every human organization, from the US Government to the Linux kernel to Bob's Fine China and Firearm Emporium, Inc. Deal with it.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Simple: they don't, and Linus's attitude is stupid and shortsighted.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Many people have contributed code to Linux, and those people retain the rights to that code and every one would have to agree to move to GPL3. Linus cannot just say "all Linux code becomes GPL3".
He could say that all **future** Linux code becomes GPL3 otherwise it does not get gitted, but that cannot be retospectively applied to existing code and would mean that the majority of the Linux code would remain GPL2 for a long time.
And what about those who want the loopholes? Well they can just use any Linux up to the transition point with no problems since the GPL3 cannot be retrospectively applied (since you cannot "unGPL2" code that has already been released).
Considering that a lot/most of Linux usage is in embedded space, where the GPL2 "loopholes" are important, moving to GPL3 would force a fork aand nobody really sees any benefit in that.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
But you still need a device to run the code on. Consider the fact that in many cases (especially embedded) there isn't a good substitute device. What good does having the code do you in this case? What benefit do you get out of the GPL that you wouldn't get out of, say, MS's "shared source" licenses?
More importantly, why should the hardware device maker get the benefit of the GPL for themselves, without having to give back? I mean, let's assume you like the GPL in the first place. In that case, you already belive it's reasonable to require software writers to open the code they write that's combined with GPL code, because being able to use the combined whole is the point. So, similarly, isn't it reasonable to require hardware makers to open the hardware they make that's combined with GPL code, because using the combined whole is still the point?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Does GPLv3 require hardware manufacturers to provide users a way to alter the hardware/firmware and incorporate altered code? Suppose a hardware design does not use any flash ROM, just old-fashioned unflashable ROM that can't be reprogrammed, in a chip that is surface mounted, or even burned into the CPU chip itself (as sometimes is done with embedded designs). Is this forbidden to use GPLv3 code? Does the hardware manufacturer have to provide a user-accessible port to reprogram the device?
I don't think so. In that case I don't see what is the point of this whole aspect of the license. Or am I wrong, and this whole class of devices (non-reprogrammable firmware) is off-limits to GPLv3?
[I]sn't it reasonable to require hardware makers to open the hardware they make that's combined with GPL code, because using the combined whole is still the point.
I don't think it is, no. The point of the GPL, to me, is learning from what other people do. I don't need to hack the device to learn from the modifications made to the code. I do not believe that I have a right to run any software I choose on a device the community did not (help) design.
I think that there is enough significant different between hardware and software that when the two are combined, the GPL should not automatically rule over the hardware as well. I think the recent trouble with patents and the fallacy of the whole "piracy is theft" mentality nicely illustrates that a lot of ideas meant for hardware are no good in the realm of software and vice versa.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
I keep going over and over this, and I still can't figure out why Linus would want Linux to be able to be Tivo-ized, but not want it BSD-licensed. Can you explain to me what it is about these specific loopholes that makes them so much more desirable than people taking your code wholesale and making it into a proprietary program?
With GPLv2, people who take your code and alter it have to publish the alterations. This adds to the store of knowledge generally available to the human race. Good ideas that improve your code can be incorporated into your own project or into others. This doesn't happen with a BSD license.
we had access to the source, but on the machines on which that software ran, I had nowhere near enough disk quota to rebuild a modified version
I wonder if the GPLv4 will require anyone with a web server running GPL code to provide a shell account with admin priveleges so users can test their modifications. I mean what good is the source if you can't tinker with it, right?
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
So how's the code useful if you can't actually compile it and run it? Not to mention that you still don't have to give all of it back -- remember the Linksys routers?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"If you can't do, preach."
And again, the problem is that there may not be a substitute device. That is, there could be amazing, incredible innovation in some GPL'd code, that would be utterly useless to you without an open mp3 player. Now, that case is actually irrelevant now -- there's a player that encourages rockbox, and you can make Linux run on an iPod -- but it's still a valid point.
If you look at your history, I think RMS will back me up here. The whole free software movement was inspired by a printer driver without source code -- not because RMS particularly wanted to see how it worked, but because it didn't work, and he wanted to fix it.
Alright, then. I still think it's asinine of people to lock down a device so I can't run custom software on it. It is their right to develop such a device, but I do not want to help them, so I don't think it's their right to use my code in such a device.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Being able to study it, perhaps?
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
That's of considerably less use, and it's certainly not the intent of the GPL in the first place. The GPL was created because RMS was pissed about a printer driver that didn't work, that he could easily fix, but no one would give him the source code to do so. It would have started out as GPLv3 if it was a bug in printer firmware to which he had the source code, but no way of flashing it, especially if it was arbitrary about it -- techs from the printer company can flash it, but he can't.
But maybe this is where Linus differs -- maybe he really doesn't mind reading code that he'll never be able to use.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Except they can't be incorporated into your own project if every single piece of hardware for which the code is relevant is locked down tight.
Also, it would be nice if this could go both ways. Good ideas from Tivo could improve my project, but it would be nice if good ideas from MythTV could improve Tivo.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Two things:
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Are you kidding? You don't belive you have the right to run any software you choose on your own property?!
Besides, the point of the GPL for you is only a small part of why everybody else likes it. The real reason people like the GPL is that it's based on the principle of reciprocity: in return for me giving you my code, you've got to give me yours. If you fail to require that from hardware makers too, you've got the situation where I give you my code and you give me back... nothing! And that's not OK.
And if it is OK to you, then you shouldn't have a problem with software makers giving you nothing back for your code either, and therefore should be using the BSD license instead anyway.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You don't seem to understand the discussion. Under no circumstances did anyone suggest that a company producing a device including GPL software should be allowed to fail to reciprocate by divulging modifications to the code.
The real reason people like the GPL is that it's based on the principle of reciprocity: in return for me giving you my code, you've got to give me yours.
Exactly! The GPLv2 does that just fine, thanks.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
"Two situations. First, one can have the ability to see and modify source code, but not run the program."
Then GPLv3 is a "usage license"? BTW Tivo distributes the source code so all the freedoms mentioned are there. Were GPLv3 steps outside boundaries is dicating were it should be "allowed to" run.
"Second, ability to run the program, but not see the source code."
That's because the user ISN'T "running the code". The user is interacting with the behaviours of the code. RPC is just another name for "web services". e.g. a remote square root function.
"Both these cases violate not the letter of the GPLv2 licence, but the spirit of it."
And that's the whole problem right there. One can't legislate the vageness of "spirit"* any more than one can "morality" or "ethics".
*For example the Apple/KDE brooha were some were complaining about Apple violating the spirit by not offering the code in a form that the KDE group approved of. Now how would you legislate that?
People may like the GPL for it's tendency to encourage reciprocity in terms of publishing modifications, but reciprocity per se is not what what the GPL is based on. The GPL is based on FREEDOM.
The fact that a lot of people think the GPL is about reciprocity is a cause of a lot of upset, e.g. in those obscure cases when people discover they don't have an automatic right to download GPL software for nothing.
"Waaah?!! You can't charge me for downloading your mods to GPL code! It's free! Give back to the community man. The GPL is about reciprocity."
Nope. The GPL is about freedom. Live with it.
Wouldn't it be better if you could have access to the IOS source code, modify it, and load your modifications into the Cisco gear itself?
/prevent/ someone from using Free software in a closed hardware system? I can think of some good examples where the answer is definitely "no". So no, I don't like that provision of the GPLv3.
It would be more convenient for me. I don't know if it would be better. The question is: Is it good to
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
Ah! So that's why it's called the 'Free Software Foundation' and not the 'Reciprocal Software Foundation'. It's all making sense now...
Hehe. The ironic part is how they throw the word "freedom" around, but are unwilling to accept the "spirit" of the BSDs.
While the GPL Preamble that you quoted does not give you permission to copy the license, that does not preclude the FSF from giving people permision to do so elsewhere. In fact they do allow you to modify the GPL under certain terms as explained in the GPL FAQ.
The short version is that you are not allowed to change the license as it is applied to that piece of software, nor are you allowed to create a modified version and pass it off as the GPL. But you can license your software under whatever terms you wish, and the FSF will not prevent you from using parts of the GPL in your license provided that you do not call it GPL.
Before we start in, remember the origins of the FSF and RMS's buggy, proprietary printer driver.
The core problem the Free Software solves is that you have the opportunity to fix or improve software that is running on YOUR hardware. You *PAID* for that printer; you should have the ability to muck around with whatever software is needed to make it work.
So with that in mind, I'll grant you signed binaries. I have the printer, I have the source code to the drivers, but without the right crypto key, my printer won't work with my self-modified drivers. That's a loophole, and worth fixing.
But Google? No way.
Google may be using GPL-licenced code, but NOBODY using Google is in danger of having their hardware become unusable because Google keeps their source code locked up.
Web services are just that: SERVICES. If Google or anybody else wants to keep their service code secret, they are FULLY within their rights to do so - just as I am fully within my rights to take ANY GPLed software, modify it for my own internal use, and never release it to anybody.
Attempting to force the Googles of the world to unlock their private code is more than just wrongheaded; it is morally WRONG - and the FSF has always prided itself on taking the moral high ground.
Maybe it's time to fork the FSF. Start with GPLV2, and fix the real problems without going down the road that the GPLV3 has chosen.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Linus, you're never going to have a successful career in politics with an attitude like that.
When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
Should you be required to distribute the source for the GIMP when you create a JPG for your website?
Should you be required to distribute the source for your GPL mail client when you write an email?
Pixar would only have to distribute modified sources when other parties are allowed to use those render farms.
It's scary being a Flash and Flex developer on Slashdot. You guys are unnaturally rabid.
I'd like to here about these examples...
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
the thing is that there is people that cares and people who just care about their interests, GPLv3 cares more about people than software, and yes it may cut down some corporations so what? I say screw them... I take the ideals always before anything else! ..... thats all I have to say.
I am not one of those that started to use GNu/Linux cause is free. but cause is "free as freedom" so of course... I am going to push for GPLv3 in all my code and most of the people I know here in Boston that have ever contribute to Free Software before the big boom of "linux"
http://www.binaryfreedom.info/
and like what I tell everyone... I side with freedom, that means.. you are free to use any Free Software license or whatever you please.. I have nothing against people that are not moving to gplv3 I just have something against people making FUD like mr Tovals and other so called kernel developers, I can see were they comming and were they going most of the kernel developers now a days are pay by who? companys
if you like FreeSoftware feel free to join our FreeSoftware user group and mailing list.
http://www.binaryfreedom.info/
- Voting machines, where you want to prevent misuse by unscrupulous folks (both end users and poll staff)
- Cars and other devices where safety is a primary concern
- Web kiosks, where the owner doesn't want to let folks put in a thumbdrive and reboot, starting an OS with a keylogger or worse.
Another idea about Tivo. There's a lot of talk about how devices like Tivo have to provide "significant non-infringing use" to be legal. If Tivo knows of a way to prevent their devices from being used to infringe and fails to implement it, they could be found negligent and therefor liable for damages. Is it better to have closed hardware or no hardware?
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
Linus just doesn't care all that much. He hasn't learned the proper lesson from the bitkeeper incident yet apparently.
evil is as evil does
"In other words, the FSF's opinion is the only one that matters because it's their license. If you don't like it, use a different one or make your own."
There's one thing the "we'll take our ball and go home" crowd needs to keep in mind. The continued success of the FSF agenda is dependent on people accepting both the code and the license (Trojan Horse). If they don't, or stick with what is already at hand. e.g. GPLv2. Then the FSF either stagnates or goes downhill, because contrary to belief. The computing industry was surviving nicely with the code already at hand (GPL or otherwise).
"Good ideas from Tivo could improve my project, but it would be nice if good ideas from MythTV could improve Tivo."
They could. All they have to do is to accept the GPL. There is nothing preventing that right now.
evil is as evil does
Good points. Now, cars I'd object -- much of what's in a car should be possible to modify by the owner. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but it should be allowed.
Voting machines and web kiosks don't actually belong to the people using them, but it'd be difficult to find a legal way of putting this.
But back to Tivo: How does allowing infringing use diminish "significant non-infringing use" in any way?
Ooh! Ooh! I bet if I make my sledgehammers out of balloons, they'll never be used to kill anyone! But they'll still have the "significant non-infringing use" of being fun to play with!
In the real world, anything can be used by anybody to do something you don't want it to. I mean, it gets significantly fuzzier if you're, say, developing the atomic bomb, or writing a worm, but allowing people to program their Tivos seems reasonable, and preventing piracy seems like an annoying excuse not to. Seems like maybe they're afraid that the more people know about their devices, the more potential competition they would have from, say, MythTV.
But the law should concern itself with "significant non-infringing use" and leave it at that. I currently use mplayer for significant non-infringing DVD watching. That I can rip DVDs with mencoder, and sometimes do (rentals that have to go back before I've had a chance to watch them), shouldn't make mplayer illegal, nor its developers liable for anything. Same for Tivo.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Yes, the Tivo point is weak.
Voting machines belong to the government, and that's exactly whom I *don't* want modifying them.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
See the archives. Alan Cox was wondering what it would take to relicense, Linus made clear it would take a lot of effort, since "V2 or later" parts + "BSD" parts made up just about a third of the kernel.
Damnit, tricked into trapping myself with my own argument!
Reciprocity isn't the only reason the GPL was created; it exists for the reason described in my other reply to you also.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
it's not like it kills and eats small children for breakfast
GPL3 may not look like that, but Stallman does!!
Software patents are not valid in europe - now why would anyone on this side of the atlantic want to license anything under GPLv3?
Does anyone know if software patents are valid in Asia?
So you're saying there's nothing preventing my good ideas from improving Tivo? I don't think Tivo likes me loading custom software onto it...
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
With GPLv2, people who take your code and alter it have to publish the alterations. This adds to the store of knowledge generally available to the human race. Good ideas that improve your code can be incorporated into your own project or into others. This doesn't happen with a BSD license.
Too bad there's not a license for: "Here's the code. Do what you want to. Any problems that crop up are yours and yours alone to deal with. Now, go away and don't bother me. Ever. No. Really. I mean it. You are on your own."
The BSD license comes the closest to that, which is why I prefer it.
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
Someone actually proposed an idea once that could theoretically provide a way for voters to take their receipt home and verify, over the Internet, that their vote was properly counted. In this case, no matter how much someone tries to modify the software, no significant number of votes could ever be faked.
Unfortunately, I can't quite remember that, or where it's from. Also, the voting machines do suggest that there might be other examples, which we won't find till later. On the other hand, GPL does have some unintended annoyances, from time to time -- just look at the nVidia drivers.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Yeah, you're right. Sorry for the screw-up.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
That's outside of the GPL for now.
evil is as evil does
You are spreading FUD...
You yourself are misinformed...
You are an zealous idiot (like so many here)...
What is stopping you compiling it and running it ?
Your hardware doesn't run (by design) programs that you compile ?
Well, get some that does then. Why did you get non-user-modifiable hardware if you wanted to modify it ?
I can't modify the software on (for one example) my phone, do I care ? no. Because if I _wanted_ to modify it, I'd have bought a phone which supported me modifying it.
You can take every modification Tivo has made to GPL software and use it in your own PVR (or in something completely different) - even compete with Tivo if you wish, and even if you eat their lunch in the marketplace, they _still_ have to give you every improvement they make to the GPL software. You can benefit from _all_ their GPL software R&D, for free.
Provided, of course, that you reciprocate, so they benefit from all yours too (_that_ is the core of the GPL - nothing to do with hardware).
So, why is this code not useful ? It isn't useful to me, as I don't want to build a PVR, but there's loads of GPL code that I have no use for - that doesn't mean it isn't useful.
Because he cares about himself and the success and freedom of Linux as a code project, not the freedom of Linux users. It's a fundamentally different agenda to the FSF. Basically he wants quid pro quo with Tivo. They use his code. They give him theirs. This is what he sees as a fair deal for him. The GPLv2 arranges this quite nicely while having a different overall objective.
Please explain how a license can "crumble".
Please explain how a bit can rot... Its not supposed to be taken literaly.
Bitrot is when software remains the same and its environment changes, so much so that the software doest fit anymore.
Just like software, licences need to be upgraded to keep upto date with its legal environment.
Actually, the spirit of the GPL has everything to do with hardware. It starts with RMS and a broken printer driver. He wanted to fix it, but it was proprietary -- he couldn't get his hands on the source code.
Certainly, the code isn't entirely useless, but the spirit of the GPL is: If I can run the software, I can modify the software. Modifying the software is pretty useless if you cannot run the modified code on the hardware for which it was intended. True, you could take the software and port it wholesale, but that's an entirely different world, more akin to Microsoft's "shared source" approach -- corporation to corporation, not one crazy innovating individual.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Unless you are Linus, I'm calling wrong on at least one count here. Linus doesn't care about the success of Linux, he cares about his ability to develop it. If he could develop Linux full time, with a team of maybe twenty or thirty people, he'd be happy. At least, that's roughly what he's said.
It would be nice to actually see some comments from Linus by now, though. It'll be a cold day in hell before he comes to Slashdot, but maybe we can at least find some quotes?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
IMHO, Open Source != anti-profit. Of course, there are other reasons to not require "non-distributors" to publish their code. Two that come to mind quickly are embarrasement over your coding skills (or lack thereof) and security through obscurity (yes, I know that 99% of Slashdot thinks this is stupid.) Not everyone can be the best programmer of all time, though they can still create a useful application. Let the flaming begin!
I have no idea how the courts view these things - my guess is they aren't too excited about them. They undoubtedly prefer that all the cards be on the table right from the get-go.
Can you not see that GPLv3 simply closes a loophole in v2? If you feel the loophole does not matter, then I suppose free software does not matter that much to you?
No hardware.
We'll just buy it from China, where they don't care about protecting a small industry at the expense of many larger ones.
It might even motivate some people to change the laws when their Tivo goes dead with a message displayed about who's number to call if you want service back (your federal rep in congress).
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
If that's what you want your license to say, why don't you make a license that says it?
the first two issues can and should be dealt with by legislation and regulation, not by DRM or other technological measures.
the third isn't relevant to GPL because no distribution is involved.
and the problem with that is that it enables vote buying and/or vote coercion, it undermines the secrecy of the ballot.
at the moment, someone can pay for (or blackmail or extort or threaten) a voter to vote in a particular way, but there is no way to tell whether they actually voted as instructed.
electronic voting machines should print a paper ballot which the voter can examine to verify that their vote is correctly recorded - and then they deposit that paper ballot into the secure vote box where it becomes the *OFFICIAL* recorded vote which will later by counted by hand with scrutineers from multiple parties observing the count (the electronic tally in the machines being just an unofficial approximation)
He hasn't learned the proper lesson from
Whoah! I know Stalinist code-word phrasing when I see it.
"You will remain in the cell until you learn the proper lesson."
It's news because it's Torvalds who is whining (but adding nothing new).
Is it so hard to understand why creators of a license would want a new version to close a loophole? How much more basic can you get?
Actually, there are newsgroups and list servers where a lot of people talk about a lot to do with problems and continuing development. There may be a 'go away, you are on your own' feel to it when people wander in with ridiculous questions that they should go to a FAQ (or better yet- go to a Man Page) to get the answer to.
Frightening corellary: I have evesdropped on OpenBSD developer lists. Theo actually seems like a cordial guy who knows his stuff and is okay to get along with. But I know how to read Man Pages, and agree with him and his community on the perils of Howto docs that lead people down a merry trail they don't understand.
It's a much more complicated matter than can be discussed on Slashdot. Most of the people who come down hard on the 'closed nature' of the open software development communities are gate crashers trying to sabatogue things they disagree with on a political level.
"Outside of society"
(patti smith)
"If the manufacturer doesn't like that, they are perfectly free to use any of the multitude of software available under other terms."
And that furthers the FSF agenda how?
Actually GPLv3 wouldn't matter to Linus, but the problem is that Linux kernel depends on a lot of GPL programs including the glibc. Without the glibc, the kernel is actually quite useless. So the problem is that if GPLv3 comes into effect, Linux kernel even though is GPLv2 it will be for all practical purposes GPLv3. Because even though there is no compatibility problem due to the "v2 or later" clause, but the users can ask for the ability to modify the glibc. Which basically makes the system impossible to contain DRM. The only solution is to rewrite glibc with a different license. I am sure there are other clones but the kernel people don't use them, and it will be difficult to validate them.
So the problem is that the embedded folks will have a real problem in using Linux for their system if they want to embed DRM. Lots of mobile and other manufacturers have been expecting to use the DRM on their system, because they want to make sure that the system remains faithful to them. This will cause the inroads that the Linux kernel is having in the embedded world to slow down to a crawl. This is a problem for Linus and his comrades as it means that Linux will not be running on all systems ie total world domination will be delayed appreciably.
In my opinion this is a problem, but a problem which we can live with if we want open devices in the future we should be willing to wait some more time. Without the GPLv3 there will be no DRM free future. We have only recently started to see the benefits of GPLv2, after about 15 years of GPLv2. I would expect another 10-15 years before we will see the benefits of GPLv3, but the wait should be worth it.
It is still better to have a DRM free future, rather than having total DRM future. It would have been nice if GPLv3 was delayed by about 5 years, when those manufacturers would have been so used to Linux that removing linux would not be an option. In that sense GPLv3 is a bit premature.
The more I read Linus soapboxing over the GPL3, the more he rubs me the wrong way. Not that this is really a big shock: he's quite well-known for being stubborn and opinionated, it's just that he's usually on the side that makes the most sense. Lately, though, he's been sounding less like a firebrand for good code and more like an old coot with a sign reading "No Trespassing - Violators Will Be Shot".
Now, I'm hardly one to claim that the GPL3 is all hugs and puppies, and RMS has always rubbed me the wrong way far more than Linus. However, I do think that the FSF's Four Freedoms are a solid foundation, and I do think that the current GPL2 leaves too many pitfalls WRT submarine patents and, to a lesser extent, Tivoization -- both of which the GPL3 is tackling.
That being said, I also agree with Linus that the GPL3 design process is flawed, and that the current GPL3-as-drafted isn't nearly as elegant as the GPL2. (Not that the GPL2 was perfect -- the parts that redefine "derived work" to cover dynamic linking are clunky.) I think a lot of this owes to the fact that the "benevolent dictator" model that works so well in FS/OS was replaced with "design by committee", resulting in the classic problem: too many cooks spoil the broth. After all, if "benevolent dictator" works for computer code, shouldn't the same approach work for legal code?
One last gripe: Linus complains about 3/4 down that the GPL3 explicitly aims for compatibility with the Apache license. In the case of the 1.0 and 1.1 licenses, they're clearly BSD-derived and implicitly allow anyone anywhere to relicense them, including to create closed source products or to irreversibly convert an entire fork to another FS/OS license, like GPL2 or GPL3. In the case of the new 2.0 license, a cursory glance suggests that it's largely based on the GPL2 model, except that it does the exact same jig over software patents that the GPL3 does. In fact, it's got more similarity to GPL3 than GPL2.
In a nutshell, Linus is basically complaining that the GPL3 will meet the demands of the developers who use the Apache licenses, without giving back to those developers. However, this is the exact same situation that Linux is already in WRT the various BSDs, and a situation which Linux itself has previously taken advantage of on a rare handful of occasions. He's being a rank hypocrite on that point.
Range Voting: preference intensity matters
But for many people (Linus included) those "loopholes" are features not bugs. Those holding views can argue those features are what caused GPL 2 to be so widely adopted and that the "fixes" in v3 will cause v3 to "crumble" (ie nobody using it).
So what? If that's the worst that can happen, what have we got to lose?
Let's say that GPL3 is a huge flop. Nobody wants to use it, and as a result, there's no software relased under the license. It disappears into history, with nothing but a Wikipedia page to remember it by.
Fine. It'll mean a lot of effort was wasted writing the thing and bickering over it, but it's not like anybody is being forced to participate; those people wasted their own time.
However, if it is popular, then it could mean good things for the FOSS movement in general, and be exactly what's needed in order to keep Free Software from being fenced in behind hardware-enforced checksums or web services, effectively making it as opaque and unmodifiable as proprietary binary code, and doing as little for the community.
I don't get why people have such a problem with GPL3. It's a license. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it on your software. GPL2 will always be around for you to use if you want to, and it's clear now that the Linux kernel will always be GPL2 (at least until there's a complete rewrite). It's a move that might do a lot of good, and if it fails, probably won't do much harm except to the egos of a bunch of people.
We have a Free and open-source OS which is basically useable for anyone who wants to use it; that's not going away. GPL3 can't take away what's already here; it's purely forward-looking. If it succeeds, great, if it doesn't, then back to the drawing board.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I don't think anyone is talking about being this strict at the current time.
It would be shooting Free Software in the foot; in striking the delicate balance between software freedom and programmer freedom, you don't want to go too far in either direction. Saying "no ROMs" would be going too far in the 'software freedom' direction, at the expense of the programmer/designer's freedom. I doubt that the benefits of GPL code are convincing enough to make most designers take this tradeoff.
Obviously, we eliminate some programmer freedom in the GPL already, by making it a copyleft. You don't have the option, if you want to use GPL code, of just releasing binaries and not source code. Thus, as a programmer, some of your 'freedom' is taken away in order to give the users and other programmers more. However, many people feel that this tradeoff is worthwhile; it's worth it to them to make their changes public, in order to utilize the body of work that's out there. To somebody like Linksys or TiVO, it's a value proposition.
At some point in the future (a hypothetical "GPL5," as you said), the FOSS community might be standing on such a mountain of code that it would make sense to leverage this in a way that would encourage the development of more open, easily hackable systems. In other words, they could make a license that would prohibit the use of non-removable burned ROMs, or mandate an open architecture, and hardware designers might be OK with it: the tradeoff of not being able to use ROMs, would be outweighed by the benefit of using the hypothetical GPL5ed code.
It's all about what kind of leverage you have to work with. Right now, with competition from vxWorks and the like, I don't think there's enough GPLed software to make hardware designers radically change their designs for more openness. They'd just design things the way they want (closed, proprietary) and find some other software solution. But perhaps at some future date, this wouldn't be the case; maybe over time, FOSS would be so far superior in some areas to what's available on the closed market, that it would be possible to effectively use this as a bludgeon in order to force open hardware and open standards.
I wouldn't be against this in the slightest. I don't think it's in any way hypocritical to force designers to use an open architecture, if this is the best outcome for users; on the "user freedom" versus "programmer freedom" spectrum, bookended with GPL at the user and and BSD somewhere closer to the programmer end (and proprietary binaries at the extreme end), I'm firmly on the user end of things. Anything we can do to produce hardware and software that is more transparent and more functional to the end user, I am in favor of, even if in doing so we have to beat some embedded-systems designers with the metaphorical 2x4 of a GPL-type license.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
No, it doesn't, actually. It was quite an elegant solution, that I'd really like to see examined, as it does sound too good to be true. Basically, your receipt is printed in two parts, which are either on transparancies or close enough to them that you can see them through some sort of glass panel, and when the two are put together, they show the name of the candidate you voted for.
You then take half the receipt, and the other half is kept, or maybe destroyed. This means that neither half is enough to prove who you voted for -- only when they are together can you actually see the name. But, either half can be used to verify that your vote was counted, without actually revealing what that vote was. The verification is not very accurate, but it doesn't have to be, because if even a small portion (don't remember how much) attempt to verify, and if even a small portion of votes (again, don't remember how much) were falsified, at least some of the receipts will not verify.
This is nice, but it requires a hand count every time, defeating the purpose of the machine count. Also, it's not even close to the system I descibed, because if that system works, it would become possible for the voters themselves to verify, cryptographically, that the election was a fair one.
The problem is, I still can't actually find this system. Maybe it didn't hold up to scrutiny? It's a good idea nonetheless.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
yes, it's not even close to what you described - that was deliberate. and yes, again, it pretty much defeats the purpose of the machine count - again, that's deliberate. the ONLY way to be confident that the vote has been counted accurately is to do it by hand, with scrutineers from multiple parties conducting the count (so that any miscounting will be picked up by the opposition). you can't trust machine counts - they're too easily hacked and manipulated....so relegate it to just an unofficial quick approximation.
hand counting doesn't take that long, anyway. we do it that way every election here in australia and the results in most electorates are in within a few hours of the voting booths being closed, with the counting done by thousands of volunteers who register with the Australian Electoral Commission (who run and oversee ALL elections in Aus.). some electorates, where the results are very close or where a recount is needed take longer...but a) the results are still in within a few days at most, and b) in most cases the overall outcome (i.e. who wins enough seats to form government) is unaffected - very few elections are won by only one or two seats.
a short delay (at worst) to eliminate a potential avenue of massive electoral fraud is worth it. it's not like there's any great hurry, anyway...it'll be months before the actual handover of power to any new government.
in other words, electronic vote counting is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.
I think you have proved once and for all that everybody who uses linux or any software that is released under the GPL is a stalinist. In fact I think since the word communist didn't seem the have the proper impact and zealot is losing it's effectiveness stalinist might be next word used by MS, astro turfers and the shills.
Good going.
evil is as evil does
This may be true with all methods of machine counts that you're aware of, but that's the ludicrous statement of a luddite to claim that no machine count can ever be trusted. Humans are much more easily bribed and manipulated than machines. Humans from both parties.
It costs more money, though, and it does take some amount of time more. That said, I was pretty annoyed that Kerry conceded before the votes were actually counted.
Quick Google search shows population of Australia to be 20,090,437. Population of US is 295,734,134. That's a significant difference. Now, if I could find out how many actual votes were cast...
Which is also thousands of opportunities to make mistakes, intentional or not.
Oh, I agree, but it would be nice if we could have neither the delay nor the fraud.
Aside from the sheer cost, time, number of volunteers, and potential innaccuracy... No, I don't think electronic voting is wholly uncalled for. I do think that I don't know strong enough words for the level of negligence with which the US has treated voting in general -- from the chads and the butterfly ballot to the Diebold machines.
It's been said over and over again -- we treat our electronic slot machines and poker machines with much more scrutiny than we treat our voting machines. Frankly, I'd feel better trying to win the jackpot from a slot machine than simply trying to have my vote counted by a Diebold machine.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Your Jesus sold out or something man!?
Image, if you please, that a young hacker named Root Mean Squared stops at this web kiosk to print out the latest paper from a friend of his at college. It's in PostScript format, of course, and the PS drivers for the printer at the kiosk have a bug...
I believe the web kiosk is
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
no, it's true of ALL machine counts. you can't trust them because there is inherently insufficient scrutiny of them in operation - otherwise, there's no point in having the machine count it rather than humans.
yes, humans can be bribed, manipulated, blackmailed, and threatened....but to succeed, you have to compromise ALL of the humans involved in a count, and with enough people involved that is impossible to achieve - all it takes is one whistle-blower who hasn't been compromised (this is analagous to the free software dictum "with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow"...."with enough eyes, all votes are transparent"). with a machine, though, you only have to hack it once and compromise the tiny number of people who have access to audit it.
no, it doesn't cost more money. it costs a LOT LESS to hand count an election. the AEC runs elections at a cost of about five or six dollars per voter - which is extraordinarily cheap. machine elections cost tens of dollar per voter
for example, the 2001 Federal election cost $67M AUD. the 2004 Federal election cost $75M to run (plus another $41M of public funding of electoral expenses for parties who got >=5% of the vote). that's cheap by any standards.
the larger population means a larger number of votes to be counted....but also a larger pool of people available to count the votes. the votes aren't counted all at one central location, they are counted at or near the actual location where they were cast. i.e. only half a dozen (or more) people per counting site...that's not a huge ask from the hundreds or thousands of people who vote in that area.
as for the number of votes cast, australia gets a >99% voter turnout rate - we have compulsory voting here (in practice, that means compulsory attendance at a voting booth on election days to get your name crossed off the list - nobody actually monitors what you do in the booth, although most people do vote if only because they're already there at the booth)....and compulsory voting is a good thing because it forces the candidates to actually give a damn about the majority of mostly apathetic, disinterested and distracted-by-sport-and-entertainment voters, rather than just the extremists on either side.
about half the population is eligible to vote (i.e. everyone 18 years of age and over).
america would be a far better place if it had a) a federal electoral commission with universal standards for how an election is to be conducted and b) compulsory voting
and thousands of eyes to see those mistakes, intentional or not. with enough people watching, it is almost impossible to corrupt the election process, and certainly impossible to corrupt it enough to significantly skew the results.
Giving any voter the capability to verify their own vote isn't sufficient scrutiny?
No, only a majority. Also, depending on the structure, you can likely simply buy humans in strategic positions, who can affect the result of tens or hundreds of humans working under them.
And why's that a good thing? (Not rhetorical; I'm curious)
Again, depends on the organization. I'd want to see it -- just how open is the process? How much scrutiny is there -- and who watches the watchers?
I suppose that you mistrust all computers because of Windows? There are other OSes than Windows, and other voting machines than Diebold, including the system I was describing. And yes, I think my ability to verify my own vote, in addition to massive scrutiny from volunteers and everyone else who cared to verify their vote, is more trustworty than just the massive scrutiny from volunteers.
Of course, this all becomes academic and I agree with you fully if the system I described is actually impossible.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
it's not as good as having thousands of scrutineers monitoring the entire process. one person may be able to verify their own vote (and i'll even take your word for it that that can be done without compromising the secrecy of the ballot for the sake of the argument), but they can NOT verify that other people's votes haven't been tampered with, or that thousands of fraudulent votes haven't been inserted into the count, or that the system hasn't been rigged to keep two sets of records - one for the count, and one for whenever a voter attempts to verify their vote. electronic data is too malleable, too easy to manipulate without any trace to trust with something this important.
and all it takes is one uncompromised observer to blow the whistle and expose the fraud.
because they have to (pay at least lip-service) to representing ALL the people in their electorate, not just the extremists and fanatics...because if they dont, they run the risk of pissing off enough voters that they lose the next election.
also, compulsory voting gives people a direct involvement in the process - i'm sure that a big part of the reason why the public in america don't care that their last two elections were completely compromised and stolen is because they think "i didn't vote, so i have no reason to care/no right to complain". also because there's a massive conspiracy of silence on the issue from the mainstream media, but both factors together result in a big "who cares" attitude.
the process is entirely open. any citizen can volunteer. who watches the watchers? the other watchers, of course. that's the point. that's why the more watchers, the better.
no, i don't mistrust all computers because of MS Windows. however, i do distrust electronic voting because i know enough about computers and security issues to know that there are several *requirements* for trustworthy voting which are mutually exclusive when it is performed electronically. for example, a secret ballot is incompatible with the ability to verify your vote after the fact.
btw, even the system you were describing only allows you to verify your own vote - it doesn't allow you to verify that the entire vote hasn't been compromised by the addition of fraudulent vote records into the system.
if you believe that the ability to verify your own vote makes it more secure, then you are being fooled. it's just a distraction to divert your attention from a far bigger problem. it doesn't matter if your vote is recorded and counted accurately if it can be nullified by the addition of fraudulent votes.
post-ballot verification also opens up the danger of vote buying and vote extortion. no matter what safeguards are in place to make it difficult, anyone willing to go to the trouble of buying or extorting votes will have no difficulty getting around them - all they have to do is be present when the voter verifies their vote and look over their shoulder.
See, what you don't understand is that we, the developers of this software, do care that you can't modify it. Therefore we're using the power of copyright law to prohibit people from preventing you from being able to modify it. Maybe you don't appreciate us looking out for you. That's ok, you can go use some software written by people who don't give a shit about your ability to modify it, but if you're using a device that includes our software, you can rest assured that we're doing our best to ensure you'll be able to modify it.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Except that, given a sufficient number of people willing to volunteer for a hand-count, you likely have at least as many people willing to verify their own vote. Should someone's vote not be counted, there would be a recount.
I don't know about the first, but I'm certain that the second is covered. You'd verify your vote against some sort of massive signature (or something), with which it would also be possible to verify the count.
Also, if you can verify the count, you've effectively got verification that there aren't fraudulent votes, because that would mean displacing legitimate votes, meaning someone's vote wouldn't be counted.
As I recall, the system isn't completely accurate, but it's accurate enough that any significant fraud will likely be detected by at least one person verifying their vote, where "likely" is similar to "If you verify my PGP signature, it's likely that I sent the message."
Again, a Luddite statement. We're debating in a void without actually knowing what this system was, but consider signatures. Surely you'll admit that a signature is important, right? You don't want someone to be able to sign checks in your name. Now, they know what your signature is by comparing it to the copy they have on file, so it would be just as easy to give them a public RSA key as a signature in that case. And a PGP signature is much harder to forge.
It is possible to build computer systems that are at least as reliable and trustworthy as more traditional ones. I know of very few business owners who keep a paper ledger, for instance. So, I'm suggesting that it is possible for an electronic voting system to exist which is more reliable than hand-counts.
I admit, it may not be possible or practical, but that would be because of the cryptography/math involved, not the mere fact that it's a computer.
I don't get why this is important. If the apathetic masses don't want to vote, haven't done any research at all on the candidates, then their votes would be much more harmful than the votes of the extremists. At least the extremists know what they're voting for. The apathetic masses, at least in America, would end up voting much the same way they choose Coke or Pepsi -- which candidate has the coolest campaign ads? Not in terms of what was said, but in terms of production values?
If all of America was forced to vote, we might end up with, say, a rapper or a movie star elected. Not that this is inherently bad (it's happened before), but we shouldn't be electing people because we like their music/movies, we should be electing people because we like what they stand for.
Possible, but I think roughly half of us voted, and I think if roughly half of us were pissed about how the election was stolen, that would be enough.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
that might be true if everyone voted, but not when you don't have compulsory voting...and not when you don't even get close to 100% turnout of those who are registered to vote.
no, it's not a luddite statement. it's an analysis of the risks vs the benefits. an election is FAR more important than a personal signature, it matters a lot more whether it is fraudulent or not because the scale of damage is far greater.
and, just as significantly, moving from written signatures to electronic signatures isn't a significant reduction in the security of the system because written signatures aren't very secure to start with. by contrast, moving from a many-eyes manual count to an electronic count is a massive reduction in the security of the system.
the miniscule benefits of electronic counting are greatly outweighed by the risks.
because they're going to be affected by the result of the election, regardless of whether they supported the winner or not. the winning candidate is supposed to represent *everyone* in their electorate whether they voted for them or not, they are elected to do a job - to represent the people in their area. it is a peculiarly american attitude that somehow you don't count, your right to be represented is void if you don't vote, or if you didn't vote for the winning candidate.
and, no, the extremists don't know what they're voting for either. for the most part, they're just like football fans voting for their side, regardless of what their policies are. non-compulsory voting means that voting is done by those most sucked in by the hype.
in practice, with compulsory voting, what happens most of the time is that people vote for those who either a) promise to have the least damaging policies, and/or b) offer the most to them (e.g. hospitals, schools, whatever other things are needed in the local community). there's certainly potential for problems here, but it's far better than candidates simply ignoring what the majority of people in their electorate want, to concentrate exclusively on what the nutters and corporate interests want (i.e. appease the nutters to get their vote, and do what their corporate masters tell them to do).
The scale isn't relevant here, because, as you admit, an RSA signature is more secure than a handwritten one.
I was simply making the point that moving to an electronic system can, under the right circumstances, improve security.
Unless there actually are fewer risks.
Agreed, but it's better than the alternative.
Imagine, for the sake of argument, you've got an AMD zealot, raving about how AMD will always smoke Intel. And you've got the Intel person, who's looked at some benchmarks. Or maybe they've both looked at biased benchmarks and been wooed by marketspeak.
I'd much prefer those people making a decision, irrational as it may be, than the grandmother who just walks into a store and buys a Dell, for no particular reason.
Better still would be trying to actually get the majority to care.
Or maybe... I'm a hopeless idealist, but maybe we should try to vote for the one that actually isn't evil?
It also seems like it would tend to encourage stagnation. The middle ground isn't always the best choice. And in any case, I'd think it would tend towards the candidate who will do the least, period.
Again, it's this sort of voting by default that annoys me to no end. Windows is that kind of choice. Voting for the incumbant, even when they are Bush, is that kind of choice.
I had a teacher who had a slogan, not sure where else it's from: If you don't know, don't vote.
Except they're not, unless this is astroturf. And also, I don't see why my believing such a thing might exist would keep me from protesting the Diebold machines, or closely scrutiniz
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
GNAA CLAIMS RESPONSIBILTY FOR ASSASINATION OF TV HERO
DiKKy Heartiez - Berlin, Norway
GNAA spokesperson lysol told the world press the real story of the ASSASINATION of TV hero Steve Irwin today at a press conference in Teheran, Iran. "The stingray that sodomized and anally penetrated the world known australian crocodile-fucker, releasing its vast amounts of deadly stingray semen, was in fact not only a nigger, as can be seen quite clearly on the photographs, but a GAY NIGGER. The Gay Nigger DiKKy Heartiez of Norway had changed his looks to a stingray, using the patented Gay Nigger technology of Body Transformation."
The operation took place because Steve Irwin was not the TV hero he was portrayed to be. lysol explained that "Steve irwin was an EVIL man, plotting in secret with the jews to take over the world and eliminate all gay niggers. It was therefore Imparative that we carried out this operation, if not the world would be dominated by Evil Jewish Females, also known as "jax".
lysol went on in great detail about the planning and execution of this marvelous victory for Gay Niggers everywhere. "It took us about 17 months of hard planning, about $20 USD and a lot of Holy Gay Nigger Seed (HGNS)." President Timecop commented in the same press conference. DiKKy Heartiez was unavailable for comment, but available for display, swimming in a aquarium filled with HGNS.
About Steve Irwin:
World known "TV hero" and crocodile sodmizer, who achieved cult status on the internet for his illegal, but highly erotic videos portraying human-crocodile intercourse. He also plotted with jews to achieve world domination and elimination of Gay Niggers worldwide. Was killed by DiKKy Heartez of the GNAA.
About Gay Nigger Technology of Body Transformation:
The Gay Nigger Technology of Body Transformation is patented in the U.S, Canada, Europe and Japan. It is the ultimate Black Ops technology, and was invented in 1926 on the planet Anal Fuckfest of the Semen galaxy, by great Gay Nigger scientist Anus Manus. It allows a subject to change his bodily image to anything he pleases.
About Holy Gay Nigger Seed (HGNS):
The Holy Gay Nigger Seed (HGNS) is the pure semen collected from a 2 year old gay nigger baby using a special technique called "masturbation". It is a Gay Nigger rituale performed on all Gay Nigger born children by their fathers. The HGNS is then saved for generations to come and is the most valuable commodity in the Federation of Gay Planets.
About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.
Are you GAY ?
Are you a NIGGER ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER ?
If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!
Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!