Slashdot Mirror
RMS transcript on GPLv3, Novell/MS, Tivo and more
H4x0r Jim Duggan writes "The 5th international GPLv3 conference was held in Tokyo last week. I've made and published a transcript of Stallman's talk where he described the latest on what GPLv3 will do about the MS/Novell deal, Treacherous Computing, patents, Tivo, and the other changes to the licence. While I was at it, I made a transcript of my talk from the next day where I tried to fill in some info that Richard didn't mention."
He might sometimes tend to "overkill"..
But I deeply admire that since I (finally) understood that overkill is necessary to avoid doing things twice.
There was a bit in there about a way of handling GPL violators who want to be able to redistribute again. According to Stallman, this is because when you redistribute without following the terms of the GPL, you lose any further right you have to distribute it, even if you comply with the GPL later on. In the article, he says he's not sure where the idea originated, but I suspect it's somewhere in the KDE camp, as this is where the idea that you need "forgiveness" from the copyright holder was first seen. The "cure" proposal would be a way of granting that forgiveness automatically.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
The things that matter to Stallman at one moment in time will only become really important to the rest of us in 10 years or so.
Right now, software patents aren't being used against free software in any serious way, and DRM problems are localised to a few specific types of software. But that's all going to change with "trusted computing" and the inevitable war that corporations are going to wage against people who want to use free software on their machines.
Stallman is fighting back. Even if you think he's over the top, a free software fundamentalist who has gone too far in his preaching, you should still listen to him. He's talking a lot of sense, on behalf of you.
It seems to me like there might be a need to have a rolling release for the GPL, especially since even when trying to stop the problems associated with patents they initially failed... A lot of programs use the "or latest version" anyway so changing this to "GPL latest version" might be a way to keep dynamic threats to software freedom at bay.
:(){
There would need to be an incentive, say, the threat of being forced to use vi on Windows, or no technology at all, if he didn't dedicate himself sincerely to protecting shareholder value or expanding the market for the product.
Because, while I find myself admiring and agreeing with RMS quite often, I also feel that he fails to appreciate the merits of any opposing viewpoints. Experience beyond his catbird seat as chief agitator of the FSF might temper the fellow nicely.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
It is very easy for RMS to take the positions he does because he doesn't have to earn a living. Thru awards and people simply giving him money he brings in over 100,000 per year. He is isolated from the rest of us who have to earn a living programming - perhaps he should start walking the walk?
Is RMS still alive? I thought Linus killed him a long time ago.
I always wondered how Tivo could use GPL'ed software that technically didn't violate the license but certainly tramples all over the spirit of it. If RMS feels so strongly about it, why didn't he (or anyone else, for that matter) go after Tivo?
``There are two basically free operating systems: GNU/Linux and BSD. Unfortunately, nearly all the versions that people use include non-free software, but basically they are free systems.''
...
Is that actually true? I don't use any non-free software. I know other people who don't, and other people who do. I know people who use mostly non-free systems. But what about the percentages? Time for a Slashdot poll?
How free is your software?
- Mostly free (some proprietary)
- Completely free
- Mostly proprietary (some free)
- Completely proprietary
- CowboyNeal hasn't written an OS yet
PS. The first part of the statement (There are two basically free operating systems: GNU/Linux and BSD) isn't right, there are more than two. Syllable, Haiku, ReactOS, FreeDOS,
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Stallman is fighting back. Even if you think he's over the top, a free software fundamentalist who has gone too far in his preaching, you should still listen to him. He's talking a lot of sense, on behalf of you.
I do think he's over the top (GNU/Linux? C'mon....) but reading this transcript has given me more respect for him. His opinions on 'Tivoisation' are quite interesting and probably my opinion and where I stand on the issue.
Ciarán O'Riordan's thoughts about the Linux developers needing to track everybody down and get ready for a license change are also well thought out. Even if they don't go to V3 they still need to be able to change licenses in the event that V2 is ever held to be unenforceable. It'll be a mess but it sounds like it's worth doing anyway.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
He's talking a lot of sense, on behalf of you.The problem is that he's also talking a lot of nonsense, on behalf of us.
The root cause is that the GPL allows for the existence of non-free distros (Novell and RedHat are the ones I know). If all the distros were truly free, then the MS-Novel pact would benefit the whole community, for you could download the relevant SuSE and use it or distribute it according to the GPL.
I don't know what are the legal mechanisms by which such a thing could be done without hampering with people who sell Linux as a platform for proprietary software. Among others possibilities they could
Besides the legal issue I think it is annoying and perhaps unethical that companies take an open source product, extend it and close it. This is what RedHat is said to be planning to do to JBoss, but here the case is different because they acquired JBoss. In the case of Linux they are just enclosing behind fences part of a product they did not develop.
``The basic idea of GPL version 3 is unchanged: to protect the four freedoms for all users, but the details have to adapt to today's circumstances.''
IANAL, but the software developer in me says: if you want to ensure that the four freedoms aren't taken away, then that's what you ought to write. Instead of running after every special case (like bringing liquids on airplanes...err...different topic), why not simply write something to the effect that "by distributing the Software under this License, the Copyright Holder grants you the right to exercise the Freedoms described herein, regardless of any restrictions that might otherwise prevent you from doing so"? Freedoms granted and protected, and neither todays patents, nor tomorrows NIPP (Newfangled Intellectual Property Protection) will take them away.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
That's right... many of the people commenting on his views of DRM simply haven't thought through the real implications. They think that DRM is about stopping some kids from copying music and video.
DRM is about forcing you to run particular EXACT code, and either not running at all or refusing to talk to you if you are not. This also happens to be the essence of DRM too... so it's a happy coincidence for the pro-DRMer within the technology companies.
Treacherous Computing is hardware that is meant to allow person X to set their hardware up to refuse to run (or not cage) software that is not digitally signed by them. As you can imagine, this COULD be extremely valuable for security. HOWEVER, the collection of companies making up the Trusted Computing Group (most of the tech companies) decided that the capability to TRUST should be reserved for them. You do not get to override it. This "trust" (only running approved code) starts with the BIOS, moves up to the kernel and in stuff like Vista it then moves into the media subsystem. In a few years, it will move into applications like web browsers, or word processors. Not running Microsoft Word? No you can't open that document, sorry. Add into this nasty mix, the ability of Trusted Computing hardware to execute code IN SECRET, and you have a control freak's wet dream. Not only can you not change what your computer does, you cannot even know what it is up to. The instructions are/can be encrypted.
Imagine it this way: a prison is very useful for keeping criminals in. It's not so good if YOU are the convict. In trusted computing as it is formulated today, YOU ARE THE CONVICT. You do not have the keys. Don't let them treat you like criminals. Demand the right to control your own PC -- you paid for it.
Trusted Computing is a political issue because it is a massive power grab by the technology companies. People may think Stallman is over-reacting, but I assure you that he is not. Look into the implications properly.
... and without maintainer intervention, then maybe there is something wrong with the license. Or the code. Pick one.
RMS is an excellent philosopher. He is the man we as programmers, nerds, and thinkers always should listen to very carefully. RMS has some bugs for sure but you can work around them.
I wonder sometimes how computing would be if he wouldn't be so hard fighting for digital freedom. GNU/Linux would not be here today. We would have to use mainly proprietary software. Even for your web applications it would be hard to get one free.
Even if you don't agree with RMS you always should at least read and listen what he has to say. And make arguments why you don't agree, don't simple say he is ******.
I'm very happy that once again he defends FREEDOM with GPL 3 and will make the company's who want to use copyleft software play nice with you and me. I hope we (nerds, programmers, it-users) will use GPL 3 and help RMS. It is after all in our best interest to do so.
If you disagree with his stance when it comes to software licensing, you as a developer can easily avoid it: don't use software released under the GPL.
.NET for any length of time, I don't doubt for a second that he'd fight several times as hard for open systems. Working on such systems becomes a royal pain in the ass after you've become used to the software development freedom of open source, a cause that Stallman has given decades of his life to.
You're not forced to release your code under any of his licenses. If you're doing open source development, there are numerous other licenses you can use, including the BSD license, the Apache license, the Artistic license, and the X11 license. Of course, you can always get your lawyers to roll you your own special license.
And if he were to "walk the walk", as you say, what would you expect to change? If anything, he'd probably become even more sure of his ideals. If he had to work with closed platforms like Windows and
a computer will do what you've told it to do (whether that is what you meant or not).
People will misread or find a new interpretation of (or even just plain ignore) what you said, whether you meant it or not.
I can see already the RMS bashers are out in force, but after reading this article I thought it came off as very reasonable in comparison to many other speeches. Sure there was the 'GNU/linux' thing and a short rant against open source, but that is all old hat really.
All I can see here is him talking about cleaning up the language of the GPL so that is works better in various countries and making sure it's properly compatible with other important free licenses, like the Eclipse and Apache license. That's important stuff. Some stuff about making unclear things clear, and setting it up so that you can more easily and clearly add additional rights, such as if you are using the GPL for a font set you made you can explicitly say that documents using that font can be under any license the document creator wants (which isn't a problem really, but it makes some people nervous so you can be explicit if you want).
I'm not sure what all the ranting here about RMS not having to work for a living is coming from, except maybe jealously. He's making a decent living at doing what he loves, which I thought was what we all want. Good for him, I hope someday to have a career as successful and important as his.
Peace, or Not?
But it seems many people have a problem with FOSS.
Changing the licence would require much more than finding all the contributors. It would require one of two extra things:
1) Everyone agreeing to a particular licence at the same time
2) Everyone agreeing to give someone (Linus? FSF?) the copyright to their submissions.
That is NEVER going to happen. Seriously. There are too many groups within linux kernel development to ever get everyone to agree on that kind of thing. The FSF has a long habit of taking copyright from submitters, but that isn't the kind of thing you can add on later.
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
You make the assumption here that a company must "protect shareholder value" (ie profiteer in an amoral manner) and "expand the market for the product".
... what you're talking about isn't making RMS somehow face the real world (something that's probably not the worst idea in the world) but also to do so in a situation contrary to his if nothing else strongly held ethical framework and values. Not going to work, and it doesn't mean he just can't face the real world. Heck, there are companies I'd refuse to work for on basic ethical grounds, though I'm far from as strident as RMS, nor do I focus on the same things.
That's true of most public companies. However, it's quite possible to write a corporate charter that limits such things, introducing issues of social responsibility and ethical behaviour. You just need to do it early and make potential shareholders aware of the rules. Few people are willing to do this, since it removes their excuse to profiteer in the name of the company, and makes it harder to get venture funding. But you know what? It's quite possible. And that's just for public companies - if you run a private company, none of this applies, and it's your ethics as the owner/partner that matters.
So
I guess my point is that you seem to equate "company" with "traditional large corporation with uncontrolled shareholder-driven amoral profiteering"... somthing I just can't accept.
Um, yeah. That's the point of updating the license - something was "wrong" with it because it technically allowed something that was against its intended spirit. So they are working on a new version.
They'd love to create the perfect license that covers all forseeable an unforseeable possibilities. They've done a pretty good job so far; version 2 has sufficed for over 15 years. They are being very cautious taking their time with v3 to make sure they "get it right" addressing v2's perceived shortcomings as best as they are able.
So what's your point?
As you can imagine, this COULD be extremely valuable for security.
There is a huge number of crucial systems that are handled by computers connected to the internet -- including, but not limited to, power generation, banking, finance, telecommunication, and health care. Given that, prior to the proposal of DRM, there has been no systematic way to ensure that these critical systems are secured (and, in practice, security has been relatively lax), I think you underestimate the importance of security. The risk is neither theoretical nor trivial.
I would like to know whether RMS has a proposal for securing the internet, or if he considers it an important problem.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
That is NEVER going to happen. Seriously. There are too many groups within linux kernel development to ever get everyone to agree on that kind of thing. The FSF has a long habit of taking copyright from submitters, but that isn't the kind of thing you can add on later.
I didn't say it was going to happen or even that it was possible. I merely said that it raised a couple of interesting points. What happens if the GPL V2 is thrown out? Where are projects like the Linux Kernel then?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
...This "trust" (only running approved code) starts with the BIOS, moves up to the kernel and in stuff like Vista it then moves into the media subsystem. ....
Do you mean like (gulp!) Viral!?
'I'm not sure what all the ranting here about RMS not having to work for a living is coming from, except maybe jealously. He's making a decent living at doing what he loves, which I thought was what we all want. Good for him, I hope someday to have a career as successful and important as his.'
Like most philosophers or utopist, he lives in 'another world' not the one you me and other people with common sense live in.
Common sense that tells us that when someone can just copy the work we have done for free without gigving us a dime is allowed there is absolutely no incentive to keep doing it because we do not choose to live in a basement or have a family to care off.
And just dont tell me support, support is only needed when your stuff is absolut crap....if it were working in the first place, who the hell would need support...
Most of the open source success have private funding by either hardware makers or concurrents of microsoft....
That's like telling commercials is actually a good business model beause price of some stuff decreased.....just forgetting you paid way higher on something else because of that...
Well I prefere to pay for what I choose to buy....and be paid directly for what I've done instead of having my OS for free...
GPLv3 is a nightmare if it ever succeeds, by basically requiring everything being developped on top of it to be GPLv3 too....
imagine if linux was the only os and it was in gplv3....
What would not be a 'derivated work' in Stallman spirit ?
The hell with him and the hell with Microsoft....
Whatever you buy you should be allowed to do whatever you want (except redistribute it to more than one other person) in your home....
And if you want the source, either just pay more, ask for it, or dont freaking buy from a vendor that dont guarantee that you will have it if he either dont support it or wont fix it....
And makes that mandatory by law....I am kind of fed up of these 'no guarantee' eula....
Anytime I see 'no guarantee' in an eula, I have to think:yeah no guarantee i give a dam to your eula either then...
I think you misunderstand the nature of the problem. Neither I nor Stallman have any issue with someone deciding for themselves that their machine will only run software signed by them... or indeed, DECIDING to trust software from X. My machine could be setup to refuse to run software unless it has been digitally signed by me, and there would be no problem.
It's when that choice is taken away from you... as it is with Trusted Computing hardware as it is designed today. The owner of the machine has his choices taken away -- his trust is forced.
It's when that choice is taken away from you... as it is with Trusted Computing hardware as it is designed today. The owner of the machine has his choices taken away -- his trust is forced.
To be honest with you, I don't have a problem with taking power away in principle, for the same reason that I think it's a good idea that drivers have licenses. You can't have a secure network that relies only on the good will and competence of the users.
Not everyone needs nor should have the power to do anything with their computer, because that power will be used for malicious ends without the user's awareness. Experience has demonstrated this conclusively.
I'm not sure "trusted computing (TM)" is the solution. I'm just wondering if RMS has thought about it. I think his position would be the opposite, that it is just fine to give root to anyone and everyone who wants it, but I'm wondering if he has any writings on the security and infrastructural implications of that point of view.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
The section in Ciarán O'Riordan's speech called "Could we use market pressure instead?"
This looks to be a summary of the argument put forward by Linus Torvalds for why you don't need to change the GPL to exclude things like tivolisation or Trusted(*) Computing. Except O'Riordan doesn't get it. "Market pressure" does not mean Free Software advocates ganging up together and deciding not to buy things on principle. It means consumers - all consumers - making choices based purely on self-interest.
For example, multi-region DVD players. If the content makers had their way, multi-region players wouldn't exist. They do exist because consumers realise that multi-region is better than single-region, creating a demand. That in turn produced an incentive for manufacturers to make them.
Tivo could work out the same way. Imagine if the FSF somehow stopped Tivo using Linux like they do now. Tivo would probably respond by dropping Linux and licensing Windows, or some other proprietary system. On the other hand, if tivolisation is really such a bad thing for consumers, eventually someone would bring out an FSF-friendly Tivo clone without the tivolisation problems, and everyone will buy that instead.
I think it's a telling mistake that the FSF people see "pressure" only in terms of an ideological struggle between factions, and don't notice that there's a natural pressure from market forces.
A lot of what RMS says is right, and he may win some people over by making speeches, but in the end, the best way to gain allies is via Linus-style pragmatism - by giving people a selfish motive to do what you want them to.
(*) I prefer the term "Trusted Computing". The Microsoft doublespeak sounds far more sinister than any nasty name the FSF can think up.
If you all Google Slashdot, will it Slashdot Google?
ReiserFS4 is truly a killer filesystem.
All versions of the GPL have stated the four freedoms and the intention to protect them in the preamble. But there is no mechanism in law to make that directly enforceable. The actual terms of the GPL translate the four freedoms into code, interfacing with the copyright API, which our legal system(s) can compile.
1) Everyone agreeing to a particular licence at the same time
2) Everyone agreeing to give someone (Linus? FSF?) the copyright to their submissions.
It's not really that hard. I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of the code was written by 20% of the contributors. Plus, some of the code in Linux is already GPLv3-compatible, since it's either taken from the BSDs, or it's licenced under GPLv2-or-later. Additionally, older code tends to be replaced over time. If a switch to GPLv3 became popular among today's kernel developers, and Linus imposed a policy of only accepting GPLv2-and-GPLv3-compatible patches, then I suspect that in 5 years, it would be fairly simple to replace the little bit of GPLv3-incompatible code that remains, and drop GPLv2 compatibility.
It could probably also be done in less time and/or without Linus' cooperation, but with substantially more work required.
Would it be a pain? Yes, but I'm very skeptical that it's the impossible task that you claim it to be.
http://outcampaign.org/
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
"Given that, prior to the proposal of DRM, there has been no systematic way to ensure that these critical systems are secured"
WRONG! there has been one, highly recommended and well known systematic way to ensure that these systems are secured:
Unplug the network cable and lock them in a closet/data center that only authorized people can get into.
If it doesn't NEED to be internet connected, why connect it to the internet?
Why do power generation and health care computers have to be internet connected?
Power generation and other industrial monitor computers especially - There are valid reasons to allow remote monitoring, but do pure monitoring stations have to be as secure as the control stations? Can't they be separate computers sitting next to each other?
Even 'trusted' computing will be hackable, it will just increase the likelihood that you really are talking to who you think you are. For truly critical systems, that ISN'T ENOUGH. I have no problem with hardware support for 'trusted computing', but many of my systems will never be running a 'trusted' software stack(As far as other computers are concerned), because: I cannot trust that software stack, as I am not being given the choice of what to put in it, or perhaps more importantly: What NOT to put in it.
My main computers will all be trusted in the sense that I chose all the software on them, and I control all of it. And I will use trusted computing features to keep them more secure from unwanted software and users.
I will likely have one or maybe two systems running whatever the OS Du Jour is, so that I can make any transactions of convenience that require a 'trusted' hardware/software stack.
If there are any simple, relatively open alternatives, such as a java(Or C# or whatever) VM that runs on whatever OS/arch I choose, and can be 'trusted' by other servers, that might make its way onto my main workstations, but only if I have enough control over what it is and is not allowed to do.
At work, running an IT department, I'm going to love this shit. It'll make it so much easier to implement the silly and arbitrary corporate policies about what kind of software and hardware can be plugged into the computers.
I would like to know whether RMS has a proposal for securing the internet, or if he considers it an important problem.
r _security&oldid=89887507#Techniques_for_Creating_S ecure_Systems
I think the answer is probably yes and it's probably an OS like GNU/Hurd (made of independant API servers) built on top of a mathematically proven microkernel like Coyotos.
http://coyotos.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compute
As for TCPA/TCG/TPM being such a securing proposal, the answer is no.
You can't open the TPM chip in order to know if there are bugs or backdoors in it (security by obscurity).
Also, you can't update the wired cryptographic tools in the TPM to avoid new exploits or new cryptanalysis discoveries.
All softwares that are allowed to use the TPM, including the OS, won't become magically without bugs. A bad bug in those softwares (that are trusted by the TPM) can be used by an unauthorized person to manipulate the TPM and access its services like decryption of confidential data.
If the GPL v.2 is "thrown out" (presumably you mean "ruled invalid by a court"), the situation reverts to basic copyright law and all distribution is illegal.
Then, of course, the copyright holders would have to get together and agree on a new license in order to start distributing again (or they could make it public domain, but that would be their sole decision to make -- not the court's).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Actually Stallman has been thinking about the implications of TCPA for a very long time. You might enjoy his essay "Right to Read", a prophecy of the TCPA future written in 1997.
You know what? Treacherous Computing could be "fixed" by the addition of one thing: an "owner override." In other words, a mechanism to allow the owner of the machine to maintain control by having the ability to instruct the TPM to lie on his behalf. It would still allow all the nice "securing the critical systems" applications you mention, while making it useless for the totalitarian things like DRM.
So, does the specification for Treacherous Computing include an owner override? NO! Why? Because the purpose of it is not for your noble cause of "securing critical systems," but for enforcing DRM. And that's why it's evil.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Unplug the network cable and lock them in a closet/data center that only authorized people can get into. If it doesn't NEED to be internet connected, why connect it to the internet? Why do power generation and health care computers have to be internet connected?
I agree, but remember Murphy's law -- the real version: "If there's more than one way to do a job, and one of those ways will result in disaster, then somebody will do it that way." If you're shipping control software that runs on commodity boxes (presumably because it's cheap), then it's inevitable that someone will connect it to the Internet for reasons of convenience, or even by accident. Depending on every single user to be individually conscientious about security is a bad plan.
Also, this ignores critical infrastructure applications that are by their nature connected, such as in telecoms.
My main computers will all be trusted in the sense that I chose all the software on them, and I control all of it. And I will use trusted computing features to keep them more secure from unwanted software and users.
This is my point though. I don't know you. Why should I trust that you are as concerned about security as you say you are?
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
No, you don't understand. Treacherous Computing takes away power from you, the administrator (or owner) as well! The users won't be root, but neither will you. Microsoft will be root.
Let's use an analogy: say you're renting a house. Is it reasonable for the landlord to control the keys? I'd say yes, and I think you'd agree. Now, imagine that you own a house. Is it reasonable for the builder to control the keys? I'd say no. Do you agree?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
So, does the specification for Treacherous Computing include an owner override? NO! Why? Because the purpose of it is not for your noble cause of "securing critical systems," but for enforcing DRM. And that's why it's evil.
I half agree. I would be in favor of an override if and only if any person enabling the override became legally and financially responsible for the results.
Without that liability, you stick in an override, and anybody who fancies him/herself a "computer expert" will disable it.
There is also the sticky issue of enforcing that liability, tracking who opened up their computer. And to be fair, you would have to go up the chain as well, and make software companies legally responsible. And who would take responsibility for linux?
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
The GP's point is that the decision is taking away even from the Administrators and left completely with the TC group. If a company has a custom app they have written in house and wanted to run, well too bad because it have not been signed off by the TC hardware group. Also, just because TC group has signed off on an app does not mean it is 100% bug free either.
This statement indicates you don't understand what the GP is saying. He is not advocating the the computer always be allowed to run any code, but that in a similar way of using self-signed certificates for SSL or like having firewall that asks whether particular apps can access the network, an method is availble to run other code approved by the administrator (think server admin, not joe six-pack at home using the admin user for everything).
Demand the right to control your own PC -- you paid for it.
Right. I paid for it; crypto processor, DRM, and all. If I don't like them I won't pay for it.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
"Without that liability, you stick in an override, and anybody who fancies him/herself a "computer expert" will disable it."
Seems like this is the reason the owner-override idea is superfluous. You can presently implement some voluntary "trusted computing" stuff on your machines if you want to. 'Cause you're the owner. If you don't do such a thing, it's the same as if you override one that came with the box.
Treacherous computing is about changing where the buck stops. Changing the owner of the machine.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
And there is more!
A person alone does not have the manpower to read every existing patent and file for new ones. Only a corporation of dorks paid to do that can. So effectively, patents kill the "one person as a scientists/programmer" concept. Yes sir. You will no longer have the right to write software unless you are protected by a partonizing corporation, pay your tax and of course hand over copyright of your work. One person shall not have the right to do research on his own.
Good thing RMS and programmers who are intelligent people and won't let this happen to them (unlike other parts of society where equally absurd copyright laws are passed and people think they are good for them).
Maybe Sun will GPL-3 solaris? That would sure give the software industry something to ponder. I know I would switch from linux if that were to happen and linus stayed on 2. The license *is* important and we can now see the limitations of version 2. Just seeing novell and microsfot crowing over their "work around" with version 2 shows exactly where their mindset is, and Linus, as good a coder as he is, still doesn't get it..
And sorry, Suse guys, but facts are facts, your parent company is the suxors, they have proven it. There is nothing ambiguous about ballmers statements -a clear threat- or the original "workaround" comment. Their 'clarification" is spin and damage control. It's time to admit reality and move on if you really care about the long term viability of free software and having the ability to use your machines as you see fit.
Nonsense. Other responders to this post claim you don't get the point. I think you get the point just fine, but maybe you're just not that bright. Or don't care about your own rights.
Who are you, or the manufacturer or OS-creating-company to determine that I shouldn't have the power to do what I want with a piece of equipment that I own outright?
However, you may not be that far off-base, just mis-aimed. Maybe what you're upset about is that not every person should be allowed to do whatever they want when and where it will affect others. So, if you have a problem with people who can't control this power then being allowed on the internet to affect you and others, that's another matter altogether. Ownership and the resultant right to use are NOT the same as right to use publicly.
+5 Insightful, really!
He didn't say anything about every single user. He was talking about power generation and health care computers, in this example. How does that extrapolate to every single user? So you're saying that folks that implement control software shouldn't be help responsible for security?
You don't have to.. unless you're using his computers. Or are you concerned about his computers being on the internet? So you want internet connectivity service to be free and open, but you want the actual devices that folks pay for outright to be locked down? Seems you have that backwards.
+5 Insightful, really!
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
DRM is about forcing you to run particular EXACT code [...]
"Digital Rights Management" is a euphemism for a number of controls on copying and using data. DRM isn't about "forcing you to run EXACT code", it's about limiting what you can do with any given "something."
It all depends on exactly what the DRM is protecting, and what exactly it limits. Last time I checked, the iTunes DRM didn't keep me from running Linux - that's different than Palladium/Trusted Computing/whatever has people scared now.
DATABASE WOW WOW
The person enabling the override would necessarily be the owner (or the owner's appointed agent, in the case of a company IT department, for example); nobody else would have sufficient access. And yes, typically owners are responsible for their property.
No, you wouldn't. The owner of the machine is the owner of the machine, and that's it. There's nothing else to consider.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The fact that someone proposes not even appending a version number but "the latest" becasuse the latest will need to change too rapidly to keep up. You didn't get it.
No, you wouldn't. The owner of the machine is the owner of the machine, and that's it. There's nothing else to consider.
Then why aren't we currently holding users civilly liable for damages inflicted by their poorly configured machine? Maybe we should be.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Could you please specify?
I'll accept that GNU/Linux is "non-sense". (It isn't really, but it's a bad idea because short words tend to be more acceptable for high usage.) So I mean something besides that.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
He didn't say anything about every single user. He was talking about power generation and health care computers, in this example. How does that extrapolate to every single user? So you're saying that folks that implement control software shouldn't be help responsible for security? Ever heard of a botnet attack? (Granted, then it's not "every single user", it's a "sufficiently large number of users". Same principle.)
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
So, if you have a problem with people who can't control this power then being allowed on the internet to affect you and others, that's another matter altogether. Ownership and the resultant right to use are NOT the same as right to use publicly.
Bingo.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
There is also the sticky issue of enforcing that liability, tracking who opened up their computer. And to be fair, you would have to go up the chain as well, and make software companies legally responsible. And who would take responsibility for linux?
You don't seem to understand. There won't BE any Linux if this TCPA thing comes off. If you want to interact with services and applications in the TCPA ecosystem, you'll have to run a fully trusted software stack. That means your kernel, your libraries and your applications must all be signed by an authority that the service or application trusts. You can't modify or even recompile your kernel or programs - that will break the digital signature. In this environment, you have to deliberately choose to live as an electronic hermit, outside the ecosystem, if you want to run Linux.
How can you not understand why this is bad? TCPA is *designed* to lock you in to "trusted" software.. trusted not by you, but by the corporation that developed it. It is *designed* to prevent interoperability between applications. Does that really sound good? Corporations win, little guy loses?
I wonder if your employer has fed you some lies about TCPA? Please listen to Stallman, and at least recognise the nature of the threat.
See also: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
How can you not understand why this is bad?
I'm an academic. I question things. It's my job.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Indeed.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Even if I don't always agree with him, it seems more and more evident that Stallman is technology's Thomas Jefferson. And Torvalds is it's Benjamin Franklin.
You never know what the ACs will say next, huh?
RMS is always on about maintaining the four freedoms, he seldom mentions the fifth that he fights for as or more streniously then he fights for the first four and that is the freedom to have your creation rebranded by RMS.
Should your software use or be user with GNU software and supercede a GNU alternative as the defacto standard then you should expect free gnu re-branding. Don't believe me, just ask Linus Torvalds what he called his OS before it overtook the GNU hurd in popularity. That's right believe it or not the GNU/Linux OS was released by it's creator, not as GNU/Linux but merely as linux.
I want to listen to this speech here at work. My boss will get mad if I spend the time to read through it so I need to have it in audio form so I can listen while I work. Anyone know if theres an ogg or mp3 version of this out there?
Still, I'd like to point out that it's not so much control of the machine you have a problem with, it's the fact that people unable to control their machines have them attached to the internet.
+5 Insightful, really!
Treacherous Computing is hardware that is meant to allow person X to set their hardware up to refuse to run (or not cage) software that is not digitally signed by them. As you can imagine, this COULD be extremely valuable for security. HOWEVER, the collection of companies making up the Trusted Computing Group (most of the tech companies) decided that the capability to TRUST should be reserved for them.
This is fundamentally false. There is a core of truth to it, but the details are all wrong.
You can run ANYTHING you want on a "trusted (treacherous, whatever) computer". The TCG does not reserve anything to themselves. In the TC world, everyone is equal. No one is more equal than anyone else.
What TC does is to allow you to prove to a third party that you are running certain software. This is the "remote attestation" that everyone is so exercised about. It doesn't mean you can only run signed software, or that only the TCG decides what software is trusted. What it does mean is that someone can refuse to talk to you if you are not running software they like. But this means anyone. It's not just the TCG and it's not just big companies. You could refuse to talk to another system in a P2P network if it is not running the right peer software. TC can enforce this. There have been papers written on how this could actually HELP pirates to keep their networks secret from authorities. And of course it can also be used for DRM - Apple could refuse to talk to you unless you are running the official iTunes client.
I wish critics of TC would stick to the facts and stop introducing bogus arguments. RMS tries to claim that a TC is no longer a general purpose computer. This is completely false. You can run anything on a TC. The remote attestation feature may allow third parties to refuse to talk to you. That doesn't change the fact that you can still run whatever you want.
People should criticize TC in terms of what it really does, instead of making up a bunch of BS about how you won't be able to run software unless someone else approves it.
It's also false that TC will defeat Linux. In fact most of the work towards TC today is happening on Linux and Xen. See http://trousers.sf.net/ for example. Linux is distributed today with TPM drivers. Trusted Grub will measure your kernel into the TPM so it can report what has booted. Xen has full TPM virtualization support. In contrast Microsoft is doing almost nothing with the TPM.
Please, let's try to keep our facts straight. There are legitimate criticisms of TC but much of what is out there is BS. Critics seem to love to throw out a mixture of truth and falsehoods, doing whatever they can to make the technology look bad. If we stick to the facts we can have a more reasoned and informative discussion.
Excellent point. I agree with RMS that the whole trusted computing concept is bad, but I don't think it should be part of the GPL.
We need to educate non-techie consumers why this is so bad and don't buy the crap.
"Digital Rights Management" is a euphemism for a number of controls on copying and using data. DRM isn't about "forcing you to run EXACT code", it's about limiting what you can do with any given "something."
Data does nothing on its own. CODE processes data. To control data, you control what EXACT code can use it. You should think about this some more, and probably take some Computer Science lessons. DRM is all about locking together a piece (or pieces) of code and data so that they cannot be separated.
It doesn't mean you can only run signed software,
Nor has anyone claimed that. Perhaps you should read it again.
or that only the TCG decides what software is trusted.
The manufacturer of the TPM has decided that you will trust him... because he baked the root key into the TPM and doesn't tell you, the owner, what it is. Furthermore, you have no say in the matter. You are forced to trust him.
I'll accept that GNU/Linux is "non-sense". (It isn't really, but it's a bad idea because short words tend to be more acceptable for high usage.)Then why not just call it "GNU" (or "GNU OS")?
Then why aren't we currently holding users civilly liable for damages inflicted by their poorly configured machine? Maybe we should be.
I agree, we should. Same as we charge the owner of a car with the liability of results caused by the acident when he doesn't get his breaks fixed, or when someone trips on the carpet on his stairs when he didn't nail it down properly. There are even already exsisting laws to handle this. I beilive you could levy a Criminal Negligence case quite easily.
1) Everyone agreeing to a particular licence at the same time
2) Everyone agreeing to give someone (Linus? FSF?) the copyright to their submissions.
It's not really that hard. I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of the code was written by 20% of the contributors. Plus, some of the code in Linux is already GPLv3-compatible, since it's either taken from the BSDs, or it's licenced under GPLv2-or-later. Additionally, older code tends to be replaced over time. If a switch to GPLv3 became popular among today's kernel developers, and Linus imposed a policy of only accepting GPLv2-and-GPLv3-compatible patches, then I suspect that in 5 years, it would be fairly simple to replace the little bit of GPLv3-incompatible code that remains, and drop GPLv2 compatibility.
It could probably also be done in less time and/or without Linus' cooperation, but with substantially more work required.
Would it be a pain? Yes, but I'm very skeptical that it's the impossible task that you claim it to be.
You see, when you yank something from the kernel (because you couldn't find the original author of that thing and you want to relicense it, or because the original author "just said no") you also must find ANY code inside the kernel that is a derivative work of the yanked thing, and you must yank it too (because, even if the derivative work is by _other_ author, this other author must have authorization to distribute his derivative work under the new license -- and the original author only gave authorization to distribute the derivatives it under the GPLv2). You would have to pass a complete abstraction, filtration, comparison test on the whole kernel tree for each thing you want to get yanked from the kernel. I am pretty sure that _this_ alone is a lot of work.Think about it: even some of the GPLv2-or-later/BSD stuff that are in-tree today may not be distributable under non-GPLv2 terms because of that.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Why was this speech not video taped?
> I do think he's over the top (GNU/Linux? C'mon....)
Well, there was GNU software way before Linux and Linux (i.e. a unix-ish kernel) was developed using GNU software and every distro comes with the GNU shell, dev. tools and so on, not to mention the GNU C library, pretty much sucked in first thing by every program you run.
He wanted recognition for GNU not necessarily because he envied Linus' fame but because the popularity of Linux made it a household name but people never made the connection to the Free Software Foundation. RMS believes, and I think rightly so, that the activities of the FSF and the availability of GNU code was what made Linux possible in the first place and he wants people to know that. He believes that if people see that what the FSF stands for (i.e. the ideology of free software, not the code per se) can give them a system like a typical Ubuntu distribution they'll see the light, understand the philosophy and will join him in his crusade against corporate control of thought processes and for our retaining the right to think, create and as a matter of fact, read.
RMS might not be very presentable to a meeting of suits but he is damned bright and thinks way more ahead than most of us. He was often accused of scaremongering and being a loony but if you look at the current patent litigation frenzy, the SW/business model patents, the more and more obtrusive DRM, the HW "protected" machines, the DMCA, the **AA's activities (and all the European equivalents the these) he was actually underestimating things, not over.
He has an agenda and insisting on GNU/Linux is to further that agenda, yes. However, if you consider the agenda, it might be worth of typing 4 characters more.
"I'm not sure what all the ranting here about RMS not having to work for a living is coming from..."
It comes from an ideology that RMS champions that strikes at the heart of virtually all programmer's livelihoods. RMS is a silver-spooner. He's never had to earn a living or worry about how he's going to eat (or how he's going to feed a family). He's totally disconnected from the real world where people work because they need to get paid. He chooses a lifestyle of homelessness (and apparently showerlessness) and, as such, has little appreciation for a more conventional lifestyle. It's easy to insist that all software be free when you're already financially set. RMS has what he *needs*; what he *wants* he doesn't want to pay for.
If you are going to respect someone's advice, it would help to know they have experience in such matters. RMS's views are extremely removed from the mainstream but so is every aspect of his life, so don't believe that his ideas have been formed with an appreciation and consideration of the average man. It's important, sometimes, to understand that.
None of this is a reason to dismiss what he says, though. RMS's fight certainly has a positive effect on our software choices. I don't believe, though, that living in an RMS software/hardware utopia would be a place I'd like to be.
In a country that is stupid enough to allow software patents, which I'm sad to say includes your country [Japan]
Typical Stallman: factually correct, but.... was it necessary to say it in such an agressive way? Especially in Japan...
There are some things about this Novell/Microsoft deal that I don't quite understand. I'm sure many people here know more about the GPL than I do:
1. The way it seems to be portrayed by Novell, the agreement is an agreement by MS not to sue Novell's customers for patent infringement, it is not, per se, a patent license. Is agreeing not to sue someone legally the same thing as specifically granting a license?
2. People have claimed that this will make it impossible for Novell to distribute GPL v3 licensed code, for example upcoming versions of glibc. Let assume for the sake of argument that glibc contains no code covered by an MS patent. If glibc does not contain any code covered by an MS patent, then how can Novell be constrained from redistributing it, since nothing is being granted, license or otherwise, as it contains no patented code? There may be some other piece of code that Novell distributes that contains patented code, but that would have nothing to do with glibc, which containes no such code.
The XBox that _YOU_ _BUY_ is no longer _THEIR_ (Microsoft's) Hardware.
They _SOLD_ you the hardware. It is _YOURS_ now.
See, you evidence in your position, damage from the mind-screw that so many have fallen for of late. You somehow have fallen into the belief that people who sell you things still somehow retain some intrinsic right to those things.
They don't.
Look around your house. All of that stuff (barring the possibility that you rent your appliances and such), each and every piece, actually _belongs_ to you.
If I were a representative of Sears Inc, and I barged into your house and tried to repossess your (craftsman) screw drivers and your (kenmore) refrigerator, because I didn't approve of some fact of their use [e.g. you used the screw driver to pry the kenmore logo off the front of the refrigerator] you would not spring to my defence and trumpet to all here on slashdot that it was OK because that was "my (sears') hardware". You would most likely sock me in the mouth and then go looking for a lawyer.
Given that obvious truth, why, oh why, would you think that somehow, after (some guy) paid ($600 or so) for his (XBox or PS3) that (Microsoft or Nintendo) had the first moment of a "right" to say that (some guy) had "no right" to run (Linux) on "their (Microsoft's or Nintendo's) hardware".
I call bullshit to all of that.
_HOWEVER_
If Nintenrosfot (etc) were to have hardware signing checks in the box, and they were to give me the keys to that sign-to-run system so that I could run whatever I want; I would have _NO_ _OBJECTION_ to the concept that if I wanted to run a given game as part of their online service, that I would have to run a copy of that game as signed by them.
See, when the software that I run is part of the software that they/we all run as part of that distributed service of the game (q.v. WoW or Everquest or any other MMORPG or head-to-head or common-scoreboard facility) having all the parties agree to a level playing field, and having the hardware and software system possess and use a way to verify that level-ness would be (implicitly) part of the agreement necessary to play. That "agreement" is way different than, and separate from, the hardware purchase.
For instance, TiVO is welcome to their hardware signing IF AND ONLY IF I can sign as well. It is _MY_ TiVO after all. However, they are also welcome to deny me access to their program listing service (and refund me that service fee) if I am not using their software. If they were _reasonable_, they would only do that denial if my modifications were abusing their service in some way.
But as it exists, TiVO can play Darth Vader with _MY_ box (q.v. "I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it any further") by removing features I bought (30 second skip) and adding features I didn't buy (playing adverts on pause, and downloading programs I didn't ask for) after our deal was struck.
This is why I _don't_ own a TiVO. (See Myth TV 8-)
Oddly enough, they shot their own selves in the foot with all this. If they _HADN'T_ put in all that draconian control, they could never have been _REQUIRED_ to take out the 30 second skip. They were over a barrel on the issue because they _did_ have the control, but if the source had been truly open, they could have argued that they couldn't remove the feature for the existing customers, and they couldn't keep the feature out of the hands of new customers. They would have been able to plead "go argue with the users, we aren't the boss of them" to the various industry complainers.
(Remember all you corporate control freaks, "with great control comes great liability". 8-)
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
> GNU/Linux? C'mon....
Kind of what it is, though. Where would Linux be without GCC?
Hmmm, has anyone compiled Linux without GCC?
In 5 years this unmaintained code will be thrown out of the kernel.
Linux kernel has been completely rewritten at least 2 times by now.
Hi. I made the transcripts from videos taken with my point-and-shoot digital camera, so the 2 hours of recording is 2Gb of data. I haven't gotten around to converting that into Ogg format, and there's some material in the QandA session of Stallman's talk where I recorded the simultaneous translation without realising that that wasn't permitted - so some editing is required. At the event, there were two movie camera's, so I'm contacting the organisers to ask if they will be putting their recordings on line. That would save me a lot of work, and there's will be better quality. That's why there's not audio/video right now, but I hope there will be in a few days.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
To control data, you control what EXACT code can use it. You should think about this some more, and probably take some Computer Science lessons
Excuse me? It's called "cryptography" and is part of any (every) DRM scheme in existence today.
Take some music purchased on iTunes. The "data" portion is the file your song is contained in, and the "code" portion is the iTunes program. I think that we as CS majors can all figure this much out.
Now, this will totally blow your mind: your iTunes file is DRM'd WITHOUT Apple controlling IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM what programs (code) access it! In fact, you can open an iTunes song in Microsoft Word (or OpenOffice!) right now and mutiliate the data however you want, and Apple won't stop you. You see, Apple does NOTHING AT ALL to control what code access the song data. You can even torrent your song so the entire internet can download it! But how?
Because DRM is all about locking down data. You think Apple is trying to force you to use their iTunes code, or do you think that they're trying to keep the music data that you pay them for from being shared with every tube in the internet?
My original point, for those feeling a bit to intellectually smug to even feign comprehension:
DRM is about limiting what you can do with something you bought, plain and simple. I can't think of many (or one) DRM scheme in common use right now that allows only certain PROGRAMS to run on your computer, but I can think of PLENTY that obfuscate data.
There are many, MANY ways that you can control data - none of this "to control data, you conrol what EXACT code can use it" crap. Unless you were referring to the whole FairPlay cryptography thing, but you wouldn't be confusing encrypted data with code, now, would you?
DATABASE WOW WOW
>> GNU/Linux? C'mon....
>Kind of what it is, though. Where would Linux be without GCC?
It is what it is, and it isn't all prepared by RMS. He seems to be further proof of the oft-believed link between insanity and genius. Freedom, freedom, freedom is all we hear, but heaven forbid you want to use an easy name for the software instead of a difficult one, then there's a problem? He said on film something like "that's not nice".
The name GNU might have actually caught on if people said, "hey, it's the 'new' operating system, but noooooo..., you've got to say GAH-NU and listen to him explain how clever the name is. That's not nice, either. I am so much a fan of free software and the idea behind it, but I like other freedoms, too. The whole naming thing is just wacky.
Hear, Hear!
:) )
I can barely afford right now to buy off-the-shelf, chinese-made computer parts... And this means I have to use a pirated copy of Windows, since the only way I can connect to the web is through a winmodem (I will probably be able to get a broadband connection once I get my christmas bonus
I really fear the day that the only way I will be able to run Linux(or GNU or anything else) is by paying for boutique components that are not burdened by DRM...
Hopefully the chinese will beat this to the punch and offer motherboards with alternative BIOSes available upon changing a jumper... Like the Apex DVD players that gave users hidden options to change regions... back when you were not supposed to bypass region encoding.
No sig for the moment.
The idea of another company offering a free software alternative to the Tivo and letting the public choose does not illustrate anything.
Tivo have an advantage because they have traded away the user's freedom in return for some contracts with movie or television companies.
So instead of the public choosing between freedom and no freedom, the public would have to choose between freedom and movies. The GPL is designed to prevent the public from having to give up things such as movies in order to get freedom.
As for the market pressure for/against region encoding example - that victory is way too small to show anything.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Thank you to the people who created and provided the transcripts, to RMS for summarizing the significance of GPLv3 and what it means in the real world, to HJD (Ciaran) for providing the article summary, and to Slashdot for carrying.
Hustlers exist solely through charity. I see their scams, lies, and deceit: I'm too charitable to outright shoot them.
What we'd need for that to work would be an inverse class-action lawsuit. Basically, suing a class of people.
Any one computer in a spam botnet causes me very little damage. A whole swarm can fill my inbox. So, the answer is obvious: sue the swarm. Someone whose computer is filled with spyware will have to learn to constantly pay people for the spam they're sending, or will have to stop sending it, period.
The problem is, how much can you sue someone for a single spam, especially if it was sent through their own negligence?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
It should do more than that -- it should, at least on the local machine, allow me to sign my own binaries and have the TPM check for my own signature. Then I could secure my own critical systems. In fact, you could also do things like teach the hardware to look for signatures from, say, a Linux distro.
That way, there would be absolutely no excuse for anyone to say "Your computer is less secure because you run Ubuntu instead of Vista, and Vista can use the TPM." In fact, while you might void the Dell warranty, you might also gain a Canonical warranty (if you can buy such a thing). Of course, you could program it to lie on your behalf, but you probably wouldn't unless you were doing some kernel hacking or something, and you probably wouldn't be asking for support if you were doing kernel hacking -- and in any case, as far as the user's concerned, it's nice if it's not lying, and you could head over to the Ubuntu website and verify that you don't have a rootkit (unless you ticked the "lie Canonical" box somewhere).
Of course, you're right, it's wishful thinking -- TPM was never intended for security. It's not really needed for security, except as yet another Kitchen Sink item, and mostly useful for Windows.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
what happens when your isp (one of two, perhaps only broadband one available) denies your attestation?
If you are impressed with what the Free Software Foundation has done for people's freedom, think that the work they are doing on the GPL3 is important and want to show your support financially, you might like to donate to or join either the FSF or its sister organisations.
To read about joining please follow these links:
Freedom is often inconvenient.
Really though, he's trying to be precise, and get the distributors to be precise. "Linux" is a kernel; a GNU/Linux distribution is a combination of a Linux kernel and GNU tools. But you can call it what you like. (I don't say gah-nu-slash-linux either.)
Most (or even all) of the new code will still be a derivative work of the old code (abstraction, filtration, comparison) and cannot be distributed under other terms than the GPLv2 (because the old code was GPLv2-licensed and that does not permit distribution under other terms). Got it?
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
True, of course consumers won't automatically choose free software products over everything else. If Tivo had to trade away freedom to get its movie deal, perhaps a free software alternative is unrealistic.
But in that case, what can anyone do? The new GPL would only stop Tivo using GPL software, so they'd have to move to other software, say proprietary or BSD-licensed software - not a major problem for them. Is that a win?
To take another example, what if most of the personal computers in the world - as many as run Windows now - became locked-down computers only able to run signed code, in the name of Trusted Computing? I can only hope that developers would be inconvenienced enough to demand an alternative, and I can't see how stopping GPL software running on those computers would really help.
Perhaps in a way region encoding is only a small victory - consumers were given a free choice, the difference was easy to understand, and there are still many single-region players. However, I still feel that it is significant because it shows that giving consumers problems with DRM-like initiatives creates demand for hardware unencumbered by those problems.
If you all Google Slashdot, will it Slashdot Google?
It's not really needed for security except as a red herring to distract people from its true purpose of enforcing DRM, you mean?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It actually is useful for security, because Microsoft actually is that fucking bad at security that they need help from hardware to deal with the spyware issue.
What was the quote? "Never ascribe to malice what could be explained as stupidity..." Something like that.
Anyway, while you may be right about the reason for creating it, the security has become an issue of its own. I would welcome Trusted Computing if it was completely user-programmable -- if it meant, for instance, that a user installing Ubuntu could toggle a hardware switch to give the install process access to the TPM chip, then flip that switch again and Ubuntu becomes trusted. It'd also have to give me the ability to fake a configuration I don't have.
I would rather have no trusted computing than Treacherous Computing without those two items, but I hate to see us lose technology because we're not mature enough as a species to handle it properly.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
[blah blah blah boldface blah blah italics blah blah blah] Got it?
Ouch. That hurt. Let's put it here, entirely:
Most (or even all) of the new code will still be a derivative work of the old code (abstraction, filtration, comparison) and cannot be distributed under other terms than the GPLv2 (because the old code was GPLv2-licensed and that does not permit distribution under other terms). Got it?
Is my text above so boring/stupid/condescending, that you must attack me this way? And does it sound disrespectful? Because your answer sounds disrespectful to me, seeing that you call me a jerk and all, when I am only trying to help clear this discussion.
With that condescending tone, you had better at least be a copyright lawyer.
I was for two years a paralegal, so I have legal training, and I have a nice experience in half a dozen cases of legal research helping prosecuting copyright infringers, because I was a para in a D.A.'s office. Maybe that justifies my condencending tone. Maybe not. Anyway, I had no intention of sounding condescending, and I apologize if I did. But I am fairly confident in everything I write down here about this issue, because I've been there, done that.
But I already know that you aren't, because if you were, you'd know that the law isn't so straightforward that it would be reasonable to expect everyone to understand it in a way that would justify being such a jerk about it.
No, the law is pretty straightforward, even if its application is more difficult as it seems. The abstraction, filtration, comparison test is a test that can be applied with a very high certainty, even if it would a huge workload in the case of Linux. Again, I had -- and I have -- no intention of being a jerk. I am merely stating things here that I consider facts, and one of those things is that: (I would put some emphasis here but you scolded me for the use of bold and italics, so I won't)
If people want to relicense the Linux tree, it's not enough to yank the GPLv2-only marked files; they would have to pay a lawyer to examine the other (GPLv2-or-later, BSD, etc) files and see if they effectively can be distributed by the license marked on the file, because there is a great chance that many of those are derivative works from the yanked ones and, if this is the case, they must be yanked also.
Now, I am familiar with some parts of the kernel -- the USB drivers, the ppp driver, the scheduler, the initialization (2% of the kernel tree??). I know my sample is not wide enough to warrant any knowledge of the rest of the kernel, but from what I know I think that GPLv2-only code is quite central to the kernel, and that it will be quite incomplete without all the GPLv2-only and the GPLv2-only-derivatives.
Forking of mixed-license code has been done before. GNU started out as UNIX, and then the individual programs were replaced, one by one. Linux was written on using Minix, and FreeBSD is free because all of the copyright-protected AT&T UNIX code was replaced.
Your examples are horrible:
1. Each of the UNIX programs is a separate work; substituting UNIX ls for GNU ls does not make GNU ls a derivative work of UNIX ls nor makes it a derivative work of UNIX. There is no "mixed-licensed code".
2. Linux was written using Minix, but it only used Minix as a development platform; no source code of Minix was even peeked at to develop Linux; again, it's not a derivative work -- and this was well established in the course of the current IBM vs. SCO case.
3. FreeBSD was possible because of an agreement... this is a nice example of a "mixed-licensed" code, that was cleared up (licesing unifying) thru a judicial agreement, but still is not a good example of why "the law isn't so straightforward".
Actually, all three are examples that the law is straightforward: in case 1 the filtration phase of the "abstraction, filtr
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Now, this will totally blow your mind: your iTunes file is DRM'd WITHOUT Apple controlling IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM what programs (code) access it!
iTunes is DESIGNED TO ONLY PLAY ON APPLE software, or software that is approved by Apple... you fucking cretin. That is the whole reason for its existence. The fact that there are still small holes in it does not change that.
DRM is the process of ensuring that software and data are locked together. THINK ABOUT IT. You then use that control to force people to only use software that you are sure will not allow them to do anything like... say... saving it without the DRM. Or you force people to pay you money to write software that accesses the data. Or you ensure that ONLY your hardware will play it... etc etc.
Go away and have another little think about it... and please, TAKE SOME FUCKING CS LESSONS as you were advised last time.
Wow, I hadn't realized how pro-GPL Slashdot had become. Three-straight +5 Anonmyous Cowards showering love on RMS, and a Troll for the kind of remark that would be Insightful or Funny if it was about Bill Gates.
Thanks, I was hoping it wasn't just me. Not to mention that my comment wasn't even about GPL, so slashdot is apparently not just pro-GPL, but pro-Stallman also. I guess that's not news. :-)
It wasn't too long ago that Slashdot for the most part ridiculed Stallman. I think he's rallied his fanbase and gained some new ones with GPL3 and anti-DRM.
If I remember correctly, of which I'm not completely sure I do, someone compiled it with the Intel's compiler at some point, to test all the gcc-extensions when they were added to the Intel compiler.
If you really want to know, you should look in a kernel-mailinglist archive looking for the Intel compiler.
New things are always on the horizon
The GPLv3 can be formulated in such a way as to be compatible with GPLv2. So, all you have to do is start incorporating some bits and pieces into the kernel under GPLv3.
As a result, people can still run the GPLv2 bits of the kernel under the provisions of the GPLv2, but that won't do them much good since they need the GPLv3 bits to have an entire, functioning kernel.
So, getting the kernel "under GPLv3" is simple: just put some major pieces under GPLv3 and be done with it. You only need to convince Linus, and maybe one or two major contributors to do it and it's a done deal.
He seems to be further proof of the oft-believed link between insanity and genius
RMS may be annoying and overly intellectual for your taste, but he is in no sense of the word "insane".
Freedom, freedom, freedom is all we hear, but heaven forbid you want to use an easy name for the software instead of a difficult one, then there's a problem?
Giving proper credit is part of both correct public and academic conduct. RMS is perfectly justified to insist on this.
"Gates for President"
huh? screw that
RMS for President!
GUI == Graphical User Interference
1. It has less restrictive terms than the GPLv2. This is a case that happens everyday: the ppp driver in the kernel is licensed under 2-clause BSD license (IIRC). So, it can be distributed under the more restrictive terms of the GPLv2 (added restrictions).
1a. The opposite is false because the GPLv2 forbids distribution of the work and any derivative works under _any_ more restrictive terms than those of the GPLv2 itself.
2. It has a "conversion" clause, like the Perl license ("you may use this work, at your option, under the Artistict License v2 or the GPLv2") or the LGPL. In this case, you are also distributing the file (if you include it in the kernel) under the GPLv2. So, getting the kernel "under GPLv3" is simple: just put some major pieces under GPLv3 and be done with it. You only need to convince Linus, and maybe one or two major contributors to do it and it's a done deal. Nope. If you read my comment above (#17030630) I explain in excruciating detail _why_ you can't even tell for sure what is the _valid_ license for a kernel file just by looking at its copyright notice. (hint, hint: the author may have put it under the 2-clause BSD, but it is a derivative work of a GPLv2-or-later work... which would forbid redistribution of this file under the terms of the 2-clause BSD)
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
LiGNUx
Looks like you're right: http://lwn.net/Articles/14293/ worth looking into. I wonder how well it performed.
And it's right here on HPC wire: http://www.hpcwire.com/hpcwire/hpcwireWWW/04/0806/ 108172.html
.NET. The compilers are designed for systems based on the following Intel processors: Intel Itanium 2, Intel Xeon, Intel Pentium 4, Intel Personal Internet Client Architecture for mobile phones and PDAs and the Intel Pentium M (a component of Intel Centrino mobile technology). Intel also offers several other software tools that help developers take best advantage of Intel architecture platforms.
RED FLAG DELIVERS COMMERCIAL LINUX WITH INTEL COMPILER
Intel Corporation and Red Flag Software Co., Ltd, announced that Red Flag is the first company to use the Intel C++ Compiler 8.0 for Linux to compile a commercial version of its Linux operating system. Red Flag used Intel's tools to optimize its Red Flag Server 4.1 series products. Red Flag will include 60- day evaluation copies of the Intel Compiler in its distribution to enable customers to use the tool to optimize their own applications.
Software developers, including such operating system vendors as Red Flag, use compilers to translate a programming language into the machine language understood by the processor. A more efficient compiler results in better application performance. Intel's compilers are designed to help software developers deliver improved performance for their applications running on Intel architecture-based computing and communications systems.
Intel's compiler offering includes Intel C++ and Fortran Compilers for Windows and Linux as well as Intel C++ Compilers for Windows CE