And if you so much as think about doing anything you're not supposed to, we'll sue you. In your world, it would be the FSF trying to sue instead. The flaw in the plan is that in the "all software is free" world there would be no good software because it would be impossible to make a living.
Same goal, but the means make all the difference. Same goal, the rest is a technicality. Your example is what happens when you turn that technicality into a religion.
and to follow up to myself... I wonder if the Free Software Foundation will ever realize they are after the same thing as their fellow brethren over in the RIAA/MPAA/BSA camp?
I, however, can and do dictate how the world should be using my software. Just like you do, with your proprietary stuff you think you need to do to make a living. Just now before typing this I came to the conclusion that the FSF and the RIAA/MPAA/BSA are in fact allies. All of them are trying to protect the intellectual property of an individual or organization. What is interesting is that they all are encountering the same problems trying to enforce their copyright.
I gotta go for a walk and think about that for a bit. I think it just boils down to "stealing is bad, m'kay?"
The problem with copyright law starts when people expect it to restrict non-commercial private uses by individuals. Yes. And I'm fairly sure most of these kinds of things will fail because they are so complex people will not buy them. That I cannot record the Discovery channel on my SageTV in hi-def is enough of a reason that I will not be buying a new TV or upgrading my cable package. On the flipside, the FSF will fail for the same reason if it tries to escalate it's un-DRM. It will become so complex that developers will stop using it. Dont forget the GPL does not have a monopoly on open-source code and people can and will switch to another system.
I'm starting to come to the conclusion that in the end the FSF and the RIAA/MPAA/BSA are actually allies chasing after the same goal. Both groups are trying to keep people from stealing intellectual property from the owner. They only differ slightly in how the intellectual property is distributed downstream of the owner, which is really a minor technicality.
you may not forbid redistristibution or modification without the copyright holder's permission That is the most elegant summary of the "essance" of the GPL I've ever heard. It is beautiful. Thank you!
Your summary makes it crystal clear to me. GPL (copyleft) and its cousin (copyright) are both are subject to being violated the exact same way (theft of IP) and can only be redressed with the same methods (the judicial system). Ironically both crowds are attempting to force changes on the hardware. Copyright wants to force a lockdown, Copyleft wants to force an unlock. As this article shows, this kind of force only backfires.
Everybody wants to protect their property. I might want to keep people from pirating my property and denying my right to profit while you want to keep people from taking your code without giving back their changes thus stealing by profiting (denying your right to "non-profit" I guess?). I don't like your license so I respect it by not incorporating your intellectual property into my code. If you don't like my license, don't use my binaries or listen to my music without paying me.
In the end... just don't steal peoples shit, okay?
Ah, well... then it'll just be cracked - like any other copy protection Only this time you'll be brought in for violating Tivo's DRM which was designed to crack the GPL's DRM which was designed to crack Tivo's DRM. Wait. Now my head hurts.
The biggest reason for me, on the surface of it, is apt. Last I looked at BSD, you're still source-based. FreeBSD distributes binary packages compiled for something like five targets.
As for documentation, there's also the Internet -- and what is condescending about info? The internet sucks for documentation unless it is centralized. This is all I need unless it is for a port. I can even step back in time to make sure the man page is for the version of freebsd I'm using. Trust me, you just haven't been spoiled by good documentation yet.
Info sucks, period.
But to each his own. I will say that your reasons are likely at least as religious as mine -- can't stand the look on RMS' face or something. I don't run around telling people they are unethical for trying to make a living. I don't run around trying to dictate how the world should be using software. I try to make the world a better place using my mad computer skillz. To me a computer is a tool that can help improve the world and as a bonus, I can do it and maybe make some serious cash.
What I am pissed off about is that a bunch of religious zealots peed in what used to be a nice place swimming pool. Now days, I wouldn't swim in it for all the money in the world. In retrospect I wonder if the pool water always stunk and I was just used to the smell until I woke up.
Then don't use my software. I'm glad we both agree.
Hell, I'll even make it better! I'm a programmer and I won't even send you patches or contribute to your open source project on my company's time either.
In this case the GPL is ensuring that the end users of GPLed software retain the freedom to modify it. The GPL only restricts your ability to restrict the freedoms of others. What if we threw a war and nobody came?
The GPL is telling you, the user, what you can do with my software. DRM is telling you, the user, what you can do with your own data. Data and Software are really both intellectual property. DRM & GPL both protect intellectual property from what the owner considers theft using copyright law.
- "Theft" in the case of the GPL is when the "user" (which is the developer, sorry) can distribute the IP in a way that does not require handing over the source code. - "Theft" in the case of DRM is when the user doesn't pay for the IP.
- DRM schemes often require the hardware to be designed in certain ways (eg Trusted computing...) to keep people from stealing IP. - GPLv3 also requires the hardware to be designed in a certain way to keep people from stealing the IP.
- DRM gets it's teeth from the DMCA by making it illegal to circumvent because it was easy break the hardware and software used to protect IP. - The Free Software Foundation created the GPLv3 to keep people from stealing its IP by making it against the license to lock it in hardware.
And that is twist. The GPL has become everything it hates. They had to lock down their license because people kept stealing their intellectual property by restricting how it can be used!
For added goodness a good way to go after the hypervisor is calling it a DMCA violation.
You could just use code which you can get under a license that lets you do what you want with it. Or you could *gasp* write your own code! What a concept! Indeed. I switched to FreeBSD because of the politics of Linux. Since my application stack is already BSD (postgres, perl and all the CPAN modules) it wasn't that much trouble to migrate. You know what else is cool? FreeBSD is fucking stable as a rock. It has non-condescending documentation (kiss my ass info) for all it's userland tools, libraries and kernel stuff. The FreeBSD team backport any security fixes to my platform for years.
The way I see it, the *only* reason to use any Linux variant is for religious reasons. Otherwise, it just costs too much too much.
I'd like to help our world be a better place by bringing people together; if I can do that by creating friendly places on the internet while feeding my family and those of any future employees, than I've done my work.
Where it matters is the toolchain and utilities, and (*)BSD is as dependent on the FSF toolchain as anybody else. The only time you have to play the license dance is with each port. Thankfully the parts that matter - PHP, Perl, Apache, PostgreSQL, Ruby, Python, etc are all *not* GPL. The only GPL-ware in the OS itself is the compiler. Most of the guts of both BSD's were designed for multiple compilers and adhere to the standard C/C++ dialects. All it takes is a tool that makes it easy to swap compilers and you are free.
Though I'm not sure how that proves your point. I'd like to help our world be a better place by bringing people together; if I can do that by creating friendly places on the internet than I've done my work.
My statement, or mission if you will, presents you with both a problem and a constraint. The path to "getting my point" is to know why what I just said is important.
...and thus aren't concerned by the new provisions... Unless by "new provisions" you mean the "Tivo Clause" or the exciting new "DRM clause". If I was actiontec, the guys who make my DSL modem that happens to be running Linux, I'd be concerned. If I was Hauppauge, the guys who make the Media MVP that hangs off my bedroom TV and runs Linux, I'd be concerned. If I was SageTV, who ports their excellent PVR software to Linux, I'd be concerned. I bet that even the set top box from Comcast is running Linux (via Motorola) - I bet some product manager for one of those two is concerned. If my embedded system used the now GPLv3'd samba, I'd be terrified.
It seems to me the only people who aren't concerned by the "new provisions" are the religious zealots. They should be concerned for a different reason though... soon enough nobody will want to play with them anymore.
But it is a feature that will only be noticed by its absence: large companies avoiding GPLv3 code except for internal use. "internal use" usually means web applications. RMS already thinks such people violate the "spirit" of his license. Soon enough he'll be bitching about "Googleization" and you'll see something about it in GPLv4 (they already tried to do this in a draft GPLv3).
Sorry. The GPL party is over. Everybody but the zealots are now quietly gutting every drop of GPL from their application stack.
In the next few years I predict (read: hope) you'll see a BSD renaissance as all the companies and contractors who got burnt spend their time building up *BSD. Hopefully they'll discover what I already found - the two big BSD camps crank out a *much* friendlier, far more stable platform to develop on. Hell, both are *complete* operating systems. The userland tools, the manuals and the kernel all come from the same source tree. Good stuff.
So come on over and join the party. The water is nice and the people are friendly. Just don't invite any zealot losers. The day RMS starts trying to politicize FreeBSD is the day I switch professions...
In particular, it's laughable that anyone would think they will go after Microsoft. Microsoft will simply crush them out of hand in a long, very expensive, protracted legal battle. Indeed. We are talking about a company that has been sued by entire fucking governments. Like most successful tech companies, Microsoft has DEEP pockets of cash. They could drag this thing out in court for years.
What is ironic though that Microsoft doesn't really want to kill linux. Linux is for start up companies on shoe string budgets who can't afford to buy fancy toys. What do you think Sun or IBM is doing? They give the Linux user just enough tools to make a workable solution on Linux (while getting some warm and fuzzy press at the same time). As the linux startup grows up to a mature corporation, suddenly all those Linux boxes aren't so hot anymore and the organization looks for a more mature platform. Guess what is in the brochure for AIX or Solaris? "Will run native linux binaries" or some such. Migration? Cheap and easy!
Just like Sun wants Java running on Linux, Microsoft too wants.NET and some samba variant to work. Only Sun can truely do Java right, and only Microsoft can do SMB or.NET. If Microsoft backed out of Linux, the only one that is really hurt is Linux.
Payback? Games? You would be a fool *not* to try to wiggle out of all the GPLv3 crap. I wouldn't want to get bound to that license either.
There is a market for vendors like Microsoft, Sun or IBM. IBM wants to make their money when the Linux user grows out of Linux and wants something more "Enterprisy" with better support. Sun wants you to buy their hardware and run Solaris, IBM wants you to run AIX and IBM hardware. Microsoft wants part of that pie too.
The thing of it is, Microsoft, IBM and Sun can all afford to play "games" to route around the GPLv3. Smaller fish just look at the GPLv3 and decide not to play at all.
But that is exactly what these guys are doing:
Are there any SES Dish Stirling systems currently in use? We have a demonstration test site and training facility at Sandia National Laboratories located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This unit is being used in a new mechanical engineering training program at the university, in addition it supplies power to the campus power grid. We recently implemented a dish in Johannesburg, South Africa in accordance to a joint venture program with Eskom Enterprises. SES FAQ
I'm not saying there is any kind of conspiracy and again I'm still trying to wrap my head around the physics of Stirling engines. All I'm saying is that there are people out there that are finding better ways to tap the energy of the sun than traditional photoelectric solar panels. Before I saw these guys (on a Discovery show of all things) I always thought that solar was a dead end for power generation. On the show these guys had eight of them cranking out 22kw per generator; and that is AC power, not DC.
None of these are perfect for sure and these Stirling guys I keep pimping cannot even produce power when it is cloudy. However, installations like this can replace gas turbines and other devices that utility companies fire up during peak loads (if it is sunny, of course).
I dont know much about the physics of Stirling engines, but I do know the guys in the link above are actually using a stirling engine generator that gets its heat from the sun. I'd wager it is much more efficient (and less polluting) than solar cells. I've read that they are pumping about around 22kw per device.
1) Take a bunch of largish mirrors and shape them into a dish 37' in diameter. 2) Point all the mirrors at a Stirling engine. 3) Attach the output of the Stirling engine to 20kw generator. 4) Track the sun through the sky. 5) ??? 6) Profit.
"One dish on an annual basis can produce 55,000-60,000 kWh of electricity. This is equivalent to the total energy required for 8-10 homes in the U.S." (Stirling Energy Systems FAQ)
Slashdot Mirror
and to follow up to myself... I wonder if the Free Software Foundation will ever realize they are after the same thing as their fellow brethren over in the RIAA/MPAA/BSA camp?
I gotta go for a walk and think about that for a bit. I think it just boils down to "stealing is bad, m'kay?"
I'm starting to come to the conclusion that in the end the FSF and the RIAA/MPAA/BSA are actually allies chasing after the same goal. Both groups are trying to keep people from stealing intellectual property from the owner. They only differ slightly in how the intellectual property is distributed downstream of the owner, which is really a minor technicality.
Your summary makes it crystal clear to me. GPL (copyleft) and its cousin (copyright) are both are subject to being violated the exact same way (theft of IP) and can only be redressed with the same methods (the judicial system). Ironically both crowds are attempting to force changes on the hardware. Copyright wants to force a lockdown, Copyleft wants to force an unlock. As this article shows, this kind of force only backfires.
Everybody wants to protect their property. I might want to keep people from pirating my property and denying my right to profit while you want to keep people from taking your code without giving back their changes thus stealing by profiting (denying your right to "non-profit" I guess?). I don't like your license so I respect it by not incorporating your intellectual property into my code. If you don't like my license, don't use my binaries or listen to my music without paying me.
In the end... just don't steal peoples shit, okay?
Info sucks, period. But to each his own. I will say that your reasons are likely at least as religious as mine -- can't stand the look on RMS' face or something. I don't run around telling people they are unethical for trying to make a living. I don't run around trying to dictate how the world should be using software. I try to make the world a better place using my mad computer skillz. To me a computer is a tool that can help improve the world and as a bonus, I can do it and maybe make some serious cash.
What I am pissed off about is that a bunch of religious zealots peed in what used to be a nice place swimming pool. Now days, I wouldn't swim in it for all the money in the world. In retrospect I wonder if the pool water always stunk and I was just used to the smell until I woke up.
Hell, I'll even make it better! I'm a programmer and I won't even send you patches or contribute to your open source project on my company's time either.
Careful what you wish for my friend.
- "Theft" in the case of the GPL is when the "user" (which is the developer, sorry) can distribute the IP in a way that does not require handing over the source code.
- "Theft" in the case of DRM is when the user doesn't pay for the IP.
- DRM schemes often require the hardware to be designed in certain ways (eg Trusted computing...) to keep people from stealing IP.
- GPLv3 also requires the hardware to be designed in a certain way to keep people from stealing the IP.
- DRM gets it's teeth from the DMCA by making it illegal to circumvent because it was easy break the hardware and software used to protect IP.
- The Free Software Foundation created the GPLv3 to keep people from stealing its IP by making it against the license to lock it in hardware.
And that is twist. The GPL has become everything it hates. They had to lock down their license because people kept stealing their intellectual property by restricting how it can be used!
For added goodness a good way to go after the hypervisor is calling it a DMCA violation.
The way I see it, the *only* reason to use any Linux variant is for religious reasons. Otherwise, it just costs too much too much.
Actually, I want to refine my mission a bit more:
I'd like to help our world be a better place by bringing people together; if I can do that by creating friendly places on the internet while feeding my family and those of any future employees, than I've done my work.
My statement, or mission if you will, presents you with both a problem and a constraint. The path to "getting my point" is to know why what I just said is important.
...and thus aren't concerned by the new provisions... Unless by "new provisions" you mean the "Tivo Clause" or the exciting new "DRM clause". If I was actiontec, the guys who make my DSL modem that happens to be running Linux, I'd be concerned. If I was Hauppauge, the guys who make the Media MVP that hangs off my bedroom TV and runs Linux, I'd be concerned. If I was SageTV, who ports their excellent PVR software to Linux, I'd be concerned. I bet that even the set top box from Comcast is running Linux (via Motorola) - I bet some product manager for one of those two is concerned. If my embedded system used the now GPLv3'd samba, I'd be terrified.It seems to me the only people who aren't concerned by the "new provisions" are the religious zealots. They should be concerned for a different reason though... soon enough nobody will want to play with them anymore.
avoiding GPLv3 code except for internal use. "internal use" usually means web applications. RMS already thinks such people violate the "spirit" of his license. Soon enough he'll be bitching about "Googleization" and you'll see something about it in GPLv4 (they already tried to do this in a draft GPLv3).
Sorry. The GPL party is over. Everybody but the zealots are now quietly gutting every drop of GPL from their application stack.
In the next few years I predict (read: hope) you'll see a BSD renaissance as all the companies and contractors who got burnt spend their time building up *BSD. Hopefully they'll discover what I already found - the two big BSD camps crank out a *much* friendlier, far more stable platform to develop on. Hell, both are *complete* operating systems. The userland tools, the manuals and the kernel all come from the same source tree. Good stuff.
So come on over and join the party. The water is nice and the people are friendly. Just don't invite any zealot losers. The day RMS starts trying to politicize FreeBSD is the day I switch professions...
What is ironic though that Microsoft doesn't really want to kill linux. Linux is for start up companies on shoe string budgets who can't afford to buy fancy toys. What do you think Sun or IBM is doing? They give the Linux user just enough tools to make a workable solution on Linux (while getting some warm and fuzzy press at the same time). As the linux startup grows up to a mature corporation, suddenly all those Linux boxes aren't so hot anymore and the organization looks for a more mature platform. Guess what is in the brochure for AIX or Solaris? "Will run native linux binaries" or some such. Migration? Cheap and easy!
Just like Sun wants Java running on Linux, Microsoft too wants
Payback? Games? You would be a fool *not* to try to wiggle out of all the GPLv3 crap. I wouldn't want to get bound to that license either.
There is a market for vendors like Microsoft, Sun or IBM. IBM wants to make their money when the Linux user grows out of Linux and wants something more "Enterprisy" with better support. Sun wants you to buy their hardware and run Solaris, IBM wants you to run AIX and IBM hardware. Microsoft wants part of that pie too.
The thing of it is, Microsoft, IBM and Sun can all afford to play "games" to route around the GPLv3. Smaller fish just look at the GPLv3 and decide not to play at all.
We have a demonstration test site and training facility at Sandia National Laboratories located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This unit is being used in a new mechanical engineering training program at the university, in addition it supplies power to the campus power grid. We recently implemented a dish in Johannesburg, South Africa in accordance to a joint venture program with Eskom Enterprises. SES FAQ
I'm not saying there is any kind of conspiracy and again I'm still trying to wrap my head around the physics of Stirling engines. All I'm saying is that there are people out there that are finding better ways to tap the energy of the sun than traditional photoelectric solar panels. Before I saw these guys (on a Discovery show of all things) I always thought that solar was a dead end for power generation. On the show these guys had eight of them cranking out 22kw per generator; and that is AC power, not DC.
None of these are perfect for sure and these Stirling guys I keep pimping cannot even produce power when it is cloudy. However, installations like this can replace gas turbines and other devices that utility companies fire up during peak loads (if it is sunny, of course).
I dont know much about the physics of Stirling engines, but I do know the guys in the link above are actually using a stirling engine generator that gets its heat from the sun. I'd wager it is much more efficient (and less polluting) than solar cells. I've read that they are pumping about around 22kw per device.
What if you dont use solar cells? What if you use a stirling engine?
1) Take a bunch of largish mirrors and shape them into a dish 37' in diameter.
2) Point all the mirrors at a Stirling engine.
3) Attach the output of the Stirling engine to 20kw generator.
4) Track the sun through the sky.
5) ???
6) Profit.
"One dish on an annual basis can produce 55,000-60,000 kWh of electricity. This is equivalent to the total energy required for 8-10 homes in the U.S." (Stirling Energy Systems FAQ)
Too bad these guys already stole your idea!
Care to mention those mistakes?
Hell, if I was a botnet writer, I'd love it if everybody was using Linux. I'd get:
- A compiler on every box!
- A shell on every box
- SSH for remote access
Even now I promise you that all those compromised windows machines are talking to a hacked linux box.