"The samba developers should know that they retain no right whatsoever to tell any company what they can and cannot use their software for, as they have already given them a license for unlimited use."
That is patently false, and you should either learn to speak English or read the first Amendment. In your own words in another comment (for this same story no less), "people often say many things which are patently incorrect when they are being irrational and stupid." What makes it funnier is that your mistake here is the precise example I gave in response to your first comment to me. It's OK, no hard feelings.
Although as a business Sun would only make statements about existing licenses, i.e., GPLv2, Schwartz and others already are on record as liking how the GPLv3 is shaping up; the big jump was to GPL v.anything.
Sun should eventually put OpenSolaris under GPLv3 when it comes out simply because it fixes the GPL2 in important ways and offers important advantages such as greater compatibility with other licenses. But additional kinds of motivation can be given.
The following explanation involves the kind of symbolic considerations that partly characterize the Java move to the GPL. It too may help Sun gain against IBM, a heavy proponent of the Linux kernel.
A possible way for Sun and OpenSolaris to gain even more mindshare is by exploiting a division in the FOSS community. Some top Linux kernel developers decided against GPLv3 very vehemently while decrying a split in the wider developer community of v2 vs. v3. A major factor in the decision is to allow for enforcement of DRM, a factor which may not constrain OpenSolaris's direction so much.
The important (unexaggerated) divide involves kernel developers. OpenSolaris has more to gain than to lose by going GPLv3. To users and developers in general, Sun comes off as an even bolder, more progressive leader, just as with the Java announcement Monday.
The FOSS community dwarfs in number the few dozen kernel developers described above and it's safe to say the most of the community were caught off guard by the announcement from the developers; the expectation was that there would be an eventual move of the kernel to GPLv3. Sun could use the same kind of exquisite timing of the Java announcement on the heels of the Novell/MS flub and announce OpenSolaris under the GPLv3, satisfying the unfulfilled expectation of having a kernel under the GPLv3. IBM would be caught off guard again.
The Java move was disruptive, and this move is disruptive in the same way with little downside. It's not for the sake of disruption but disruptive against the likes of IBM.
"Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about consistent ethics on the part of the community where the word "ethics" is not limited to the community's definition of the word. In my view, the question of whether something is or is not "widely held within the FOSS community" is irrelevent to the issue of ethics in a broader sense"
Yes, my claim is narrower: a social contract was broken, an unethical thing done. And yes, I agree about the irrelevance in the broader sense. A broader argument about this deal is interesting; however I do not see the practicality considering that the uproar seems to be largely within the FOSS world.
"Just sloppiness on my part. I should have said "one" but it sounds so formal."
Oops--my bad. Sorry, man, I was too wound up--no formality needed.:)
"Sure, but in evaluating the morality of such a movement, one must look at their behavior with respect to ethics without merely accepting their definition of the word."
Well you can evaluate such morality if you want. My preference is to focus on their claims. Indeed, I am repulsed by some of the behavior of some in the movement. But I consider these to be independent concerns; even if they immediately became total hypocrites, the validity of the claims themselves would not be affected. I would evaluate the claims as I do now, hopefully learning more about copyright, etc. If I tried to evaluate the morality of the movement, part of the criteria would be the claims themselves. But I will leave that up to someone else.:)
"Just look at your argument about movements for the answer. Most organizations that make proprietary software don't consider that they are on a moral quest, so they don't see "evil" hiding in the bushes. That's not to say that they are immoral, they just have a conventional view of ethics."
I think a lot of it is simple ignorance--uncritical acceptance of phrases such as IP. But I will pick on a non-ignorant bunch, say, in MS. Many of their employees, say "softies", may feel that producing proprietary software is not unethical, but I know the kind of smart people who work there and I simply assume that some of the softies know about what the FSF is talking about and yet reject it. On what grounds? I have noticed among them intense objectivist stances. IMHO, a far more constructive debate would focus on the interpretation of copyright.
"I'm not sure what your definition of the "digital age" is, but the "free" software movement has been around for only a tiny fraction of software development's history, so it better qualifies as the "bump on the road" at this point in time. It may turn out to be more someday, but it's too early to say so now."
I'd say that the movement organized and politicized an existing tradition out of which profound technological progress was made. The software patent mess, DMCA, Trusted (aka "Treacherous") Computing, and many more threats from heavily funded lobbyists could kill the movement, so, yes, it's too early to say.
You don't have to RTFA people, just look at the summary with all of the European names. Linus or RMS? Just honor the home boy. (Yeah Linus is American but he's from Europe, oh never mind.)
"I'd say that the role of a social contract in ethics is an ethical question that is still debated, not something that most philosophers have historically agreed upon. In any case, you spoke of an implied social contract which is a weaker form."
I'd say that SC, ontological, and utilitarian are more useful than most other approaches. Implied SC may be weaker but it's very much the norm and its existence here unsurprising; judging from the outcry out there (like from respected leaders from Samba) over this cockup, I'd say the contract is (rather was, sadly) very strong here.
"I don't think you understand what "violating the spirit" really means. It's not about quantities or about how easy it is to do, it's about not following a general principle."
You are conflating my understanding of violating the spirit with my opinion of degrees of unethical behavior. I previously discussed principles and moved on to degrees, which I know are not particular to spirit. "Quantities" is a nice attempt to belittle my point, but you know that "proportion" is more indicative of what I was getting at. As already pointed out to you by another poster, proportion happens to be a widely held criterion by the community in this context. If you disagree that it is widely held in the FOSS community, again we will have to agree to disagree about this.
Otherwise, if you agree, then I challenge you with the following scenario. Case A is adding a line of BSD-licensed code to a GPLed kernel and releasing the kernel under GPL, thus violating the spirit of the BSD license. Case B is the Novell/MS deal. I claim that A is less unethical than B. In particular, A is just a triviality and not even worth a yawn; in B, however, Novell violates an implied social contract between itself and a community that Novell itself asserts the existence of. Do you disagree that A is less unethical than B? If so, then you will have to explain that the Samba reaction is not what it seems--outrage at feeling cheated.
"One difference is that those who support proprietary software rarely brand the "free" software folks with labels like "evil" the way "free" software proponents often do. If you're going to claim moral superiority, you need to demonstrate it beyond your own special interests."
I like how you jump from these kinds of proponents to "you". I only notice it because the manipulative skill behind your previous remarks has put me on edge. But let's get to the interesting stuff. "Evil" and "good" are used in ethical discussions, so it is unsurprising that a movement which espouses certain ethical positions will include commentary on good and evil things. Where is the discussion of ethics about software development among the proprietary folks? The claim is about what is ethical behavior; people can make it into what they will, of course. Disagreeing with the claim puts one at odds with important points made in the gnu.org document that I cited previously. Naturally, the urgency of the claim will rise with the dominant role of software in the world. I am confident that the more people educate themselves on copyrights, patents, constitutional rights, etc., the fairer and more just the world will be. Greater freedom will just be one of many ensuing benefits.
I guess a more benign view is that proprietary software just seems to be an outmoded business model--MS themselves are backing away from it, if slowly. Think of how new the digital age is; some just consider proprietary software as a bump on the road.
I think passing an ethical judgement on the basis of "an implied social contract" is a bit shaky.
That's odd, considering that social contract theory is fundamental to ethics; the connection is solid.
"I don't see how the number of lines or percentage of lines affects the ethical evaluation in any way. I'm not saying that GPLing BSD code is unethical, I'm just saying that it's unethical to the same degree that merely following the "letter of the law" with respect to the GPL would be unethical. As I implied in another post, I think that some within the "free" software movement think that their goals transcend other people's ethics."
Assume that GPLing BSD code is unethical and that the resulting code is, say, a million lines of code under GPL. Case A is all BSD code except for one LOC. Case B is one LOC of BSD. I claim that case A is unethical to a greater degree than case B. We will have to agree to disagree on this for now, I guess.
You seem not to recognize an ethical distinction between some trivial and substantial cases. Violating the spirit of the BSD takes no thought; doing the same to the GPL involves a team of lawyers and much consideration. Violating spirit by a fraction of percent of code is the same to you as violating by nearly all of the code.
I agree there are groups of people who believe in the transcendence of their goals. Indeed, another example is that one of these groups believes that proprietary software should exist, which requires the transcendence other people's ethics that include helping their neighbor.
I believe the big divide here has much to do with differing opinions on the role of copyright monopoly powers granted by the government.
The merit of the community's ethics does not figure into the question, "Did Novell act ethically?" It is enough to note that the community believes in not trying to circumvent the licenses on which it depends. This is part of an implied social contract that Novell violated, i.e., they acted unethically. Seeing this does not require believing in free software.
I agree about terms versus principles but cannot see how this makes expectations and reactions about noncompliance on principles unnatural or wrong.
Unlike the Novell deal, the GNU library scenario involves no effort to get around carefully crafted constraints that uphold an ethical standard. However, if one were to go to great effort to circumvent such a careful license in order to put code under the GPL, I would consider that unethical.
I will admit that taking a large chunk of BSD code, adding a couple of lines, and then GPLing it would seem unethical.
My claim is not that it is correct English, but the typical idiomatic usage. Haven't you ever heard someone say, "You don't have the right to tell me what to do!"? Moreover, I don't use it, so get off your high horse, please. Thank you.
I agree with you about MS here but not about Novell. They speak of a community, creating expectations of ethical behavior. How can this be denied?
Are all legal tools ethically neutral? What about the Constitution? Should there be never be expectations of society beyond the letter? How do we draw the line among these tools?
The preamble of the GPL clearly sets up expectations of ethical behavior, so it is natural that the movement holds these expectations and speaks out when the expectations are not met by those who wish to associate with free software.
I cannot deny there are problems with the movement, but you will find that taking issue with its ethical positions will involve taking issue with very reasonable assumptions. Don't read this kind of stuff unless you are willing to have your own assumptions challenged vigorously. Rebuttals to that kind of stuff would be interesting.
The big difference in this deal wrt ethics is that people expect nothing good from MS here but Novell OTOH positions itself as a company with both customers and a community. The deal is widely seen as betraying a part of that community in exchange for enabling Novell to hurt its competitors. So MS is somewhat out of the ethical scope, whereas Novell is seen as having acted unethically.
You say that the ethics of FOSS is just opinions, but how is it different here from ethics of other things? Ethics is more than just opinions. This summary of the free software movement touches on some of these considerations.
I agree that using more precise terms is fairer and important. However, "piracy" is used by industry, who always wants to fool people. Moreover, it is such a disproportionate conflation. OTOH, "rights" and "morals" are not used so assymetrically (powerful group versus individuals), they occur together in many discussions, and so the common usage of "right to" is entirely understandable if not correct and we should give most people the benefit of the doubt that they are not underhanded about it. My best friend makes this mistake all of the time and I just make fun of him. Just move on and make a case based on the ethics of the deal; Novell will have to make this case or simply lose a lot of support.
I don't know about you personally, but if the typical/.er is anything to go by, they make a big stink and next thing you know, they are back to their DRM-infested goodies. At least the general public has computer illiteracy as an excuse.
What is DRM/TC if not forcing a desktop into more controlled states, i.e., officially-sanctioned consumption devices? Time to puke, dude.
Please mod the parent up for being more insightful than most.
I would add that although in a sense GPLv3 can be seen to too soon, had it existed before Tivo, a big mess could have been avoided and DRM might not be taken as seriously today.
RMS control FOSS? I suppose you refer to his moral leadership. I would submit that he has long since lost it, in terms of absolute numbers of followers. No one can seriously suggest that most users of FOSS today care about freedom, i.e., know about and support the four freedoms. Just as RMS claims and yet he marches on--gotta love it.
For one thing, it demands that the end-users be able to modify the software. A lot of hardware manufacturers don't even have programmable firmware. Are they going to go out of their way, and increase the cost of the product, to give this capability? And what about the liability concerns that this opens up. If they provide a formally supported mechanism to change the software on the device-- which they must, according to the ideals expressed in the GPLv3-- they may be liable for when someone changes this software.
Ever hear of a warranty? You modify the software, you take full responsibility. Done.
The whole area is a legal minefield, as Linus and other kernel developers have pointed out time and time again. A lot of these legal issues are more complex than you think. In some cases, new law is being made even as we speak. It's very foolish to claim that any issue related to the GPLv3 is settled until a judge has made a ruling. And even then, that ruling only applies in the relevant country.
These kinds of "minefields" were similar to ones being moaned about and then ignored when GPLv2 was chosen for the kernel. You're just scaremongering, and anyone bothering to go to that link you gave will find in the commentary a ton of criticism of the claims of Linus et al. It's not as one-sided as you hope it is.
On the whole, the whole GPLv3 effort is just a very complicated political game trying to achieve something that can't be achieved by a software license-- the rollback of DRM and the service-based internet economy. It will fragment the open source community and scare away business investment.
GPLv3 never aimed to roll back DRM, just to regain the freedoms that the GPL used to give before the likes of Tivo, which uses one kind of DRM to scuttle those freedoms. They are just looking after their license. You clearly also know nothing of their beliefs about the service-based internet economy. In the recent GPLv3 meeting in Bangalore, they specifically pointed out that GPLv3 does not itself close any "ASP loophole" nor does it force it open. I hope that business investment is scared away from any more Tivoization. I suppose you think Tivoization is OK? And because so many will in fact not buy your kind of FUD, there remains the only true thing you have said: the fragmentation of the open source community; even more will be outraged about the concessions to Tivoization and believe more in the philosophy of free software.
Linus understands this and is coming out against it. Good for him.
I feel sorry for him if he believes all that FUD you spout.
You present a false choice in #1 or #2. There are many examples in GPLv3 in which the language is deliberately vague so as to give flexibility in handling new situations, e.g., a new type of Tivoization.
Whatever password policies RMS may have insisted upon in specific situations, such as at the MIT AI Lab, requiring root access to just any user of someone else's system would likely break an existing user agreement. That dog don't hunt and RMS knows it.
Can you not see that GPLv3 simply closes a loophole in v2? If you feel the loophole does not matter, then I suppose free software does not matter that much to you?
Oops:
To accept their freedom as being morally equivalent to the FSF one requires us to assume the good of the few is equivalent to the good of the many.
Slashdot Mirror
"The samba developers should know that they retain no right whatsoever to tell any company what they can and cannot use their software for, as they have already given them a license for unlimited use."
That is patently false, and you should either learn to speak English or read the first Amendment. In your own words in another comment (for this same story no less), "people often say many things which are patently incorrect when they are being irrational and stupid." What makes it funnier is that your mistake here is the precise example I gave in response to your first comment to me. It's OK, no hard feelings.
Thanks for the correction on "idiomatic" (the original statement without it still holds, however). Have you ever made a mistake?
Although as a business Sun would only make statements about existing licenses, i.e., GPLv2, Schwartz and others already are on record as liking how the GPLv3 is shaping up; the big jump was to GPL v.anything.
Sun should eventually put OpenSolaris under GPLv3 when it comes out simply because it fixes the GPL2 in important ways and offers important advantages such as greater compatibility with other licenses. But additional kinds of motivation can be given.
The following explanation involves the kind of symbolic considerations that partly characterize the Java move to the GPL. It too may help Sun gain against IBM, a heavy proponent of the Linux kernel.
A possible way for Sun and OpenSolaris to gain even more mindshare is by exploiting a division in the FOSS community. Some top Linux kernel developers decided against GPLv3 very vehemently while decrying a split in the wider developer community of v2 vs. v3. A major factor in the decision is to allow for enforcement of DRM, a factor which may not constrain OpenSolaris's direction so much.
The important (unexaggerated) divide involves kernel developers. OpenSolaris has more to gain than to lose by going GPLv3. To users and developers in general, Sun comes off as an even bolder, more progressive leader, just as with the Java announcement Monday.
The FOSS community dwarfs in number the few dozen kernel developers described above and it's safe to say the most of the community were caught off guard by the announcement from the developers; the expectation was that there would be an eventual move of the kernel to GPLv3. Sun could use the same kind of exquisite timing of the Java announcement on the heels of the Novell/MS flub and announce OpenSolaris under the GPLv3, satisfying the unfulfilled expectation of having a kernel under the GPLv3. IBM would be caught off guard again.
The Java move was disruptive, and this move is disruptive in the same way with little downside. It's not for the sake of disruption but disruptive against the likes of IBM.
"Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about consistent ethics on the part of the community where the word "ethics" is not limited to the community's definition of the word. In my view, the question of whether something is or is not "widely held within the FOSS community" is irrelevent to the issue of ethics in a broader sense"
:)
:)
Yes, my claim is narrower: a social contract was broken, an unethical thing done. And yes, I agree about the irrelevance in the broader sense. A broader argument about this deal is interesting; however I do not see the practicality considering that the uproar seems to be largely within the FOSS world.
"Just sloppiness on my part. I should have said "one" but it sounds so formal."
Oops--my bad. Sorry, man, I was too wound up--no formality needed.
"Sure, but in evaluating the morality of such a movement, one must look at their behavior with respect to ethics without merely accepting their definition of the word."
Well you can evaluate such morality if you want. My preference is to focus on their claims. Indeed, I am repulsed by some of the behavior of some in the movement. But I consider these to be independent concerns; even if they immediately became total hypocrites, the validity of the claims themselves would not be affected. I would evaluate the claims as I do now, hopefully learning more about copyright, etc. If I tried to evaluate the morality of the movement, part of the criteria would be the claims themselves. But I will leave that up to someone else.
"Just look at your argument about movements for the answer. Most organizations that make proprietary software don't consider that they are on a moral quest, so they don't see "evil" hiding in the bushes. That's not to say that they are immoral, they just have a conventional view of ethics."
I think a lot of it is simple ignorance--uncritical acceptance of phrases such as IP. But I will pick on a non-ignorant bunch, say, in MS. Many of their employees, say "softies", may feel that producing proprietary software is not unethical, but I know the kind of smart people who work there and I simply assume that some of the softies know about what the FSF is talking about and yet reject it. On what grounds? I have noticed among them intense objectivist stances. IMHO, a far more constructive debate would focus on the interpretation of copyright.
"I'm not sure what your definition of the "digital age" is, but the "free" software movement has been around for only a tiny fraction of software development's history, so it better qualifies as the "bump on the road" at this point in time. It may turn out to be more someday, but it's too early to say so now."
I'd say that the movement organized and politicized an existing tradition out of which profound technological progress was made. The software patent mess, DMCA, Trusted (aka "Treacherous") Computing, and many more threats from heavily funded lobbyists could kill the movement, so, yes, it's too early to say.
You don't have to RTFA people, just look at the summary with all of the European names. Linus or RMS? Just honor the home boy. (Yeah Linus is American but he's from Europe, oh never mind.)
"I'd say that the role of a social contract in ethics is an ethical question that is still debated, not something that most philosophers have historically agreed upon. In any case, you spoke of an implied social contract which is a weaker form."
I'd say that SC, ontological, and utilitarian are more useful than most other approaches. Implied SC may be weaker but it's very much the norm and its existence here unsurprising; judging from the outcry out there (like from respected leaders from Samba) over this cockup, I'd say the contract is (rather was, sadly) very strong here.
"I don't think you understand what "violating the spirit" really means. It's not about quantities or about how easy it is to do, it's about not following a general principle."
You are conflating my understanding of violating the spirit with my opinion of degrees of unethical behavior. I previously discussed principles and moved on to degrees, which I know are not particular to spirit. "Quantities" is a nice attempt to belittle my point, but you know that "proportion" is more indicative of what I was getting at. As already pointed out to you by another poster, proportion happens to be a widely held criterion by the community in this context. If you disagree that it is widely held in the FOSS community, again we will have to agree to disagree about this.
Otherwise, if you agree, then I challenge you with the following scenario. Case A is adding a line of BSD-licensed code to a GPLed kernel and releasing the kernel under GPL, thus violating the spirit of the BSD license. Case B is the Novell/MS deal. I claim that A is less unethical than B. In particular, A is just a triviality and not even worth a yawn; in B, however, Novell violates an implied social contract between itself and a community that Novell itself asserts the existence of. Do you disagree that A is less unethical than B? If so, then you will have to explain that the Samba reaction is not what it seems--outrage at feeling cheated.
"One difference is that those who support proprietary software rarely brand the "free" software folks with labels like "evil" the way "free" software proponents often do. If you're going to claim moral superiority, you need to demonstrate it beyond your own special interests."
I like how you jump from these kinds of proponents to "you". I only notice it because the manipulative skill behind your previous remarks has put me on edge. But let's get to the interesting stuff. "Evil" and "good" are used in ethical discussions, so it is unsurprising that a movement which espouses certain ethical positions will include commentary on good and evil things. Where is the discussion of ethics about software development among the proprietary folks? The claim is about what is ethical behavior; people can make it into what they will, of course. Disagreeing with the claim puts one at odds with important points made in the gnu.org document that I cited previously. Naturally, the urgency of the claim will rise with the dominant role of software in the world. I am confident that the more people educate themselves on copyrights, patents, constitutional rights, etc., the fairer and more just the world will be. Greater freedom will just be one of many ensuing benefits.
I guess a more benign view is that proprietary software just seems to be an outmoded business model--MS themselves are backing away from it, if slowly. Think of how new the digital age is; some just consider proprietary software as a bump on the road.
I think passing an ethical judgement on the basis of "an implied social contract" is a bit shaky.
That's odd, considering that social contract theory is fundamental to ethics; the connection is solid.
"I don't see how the number of lines or percentage of lines affects the ethical evaluation in any way. I'm not saying that GPLing BSD code is unethical, I'm just saying that it's unethical to the same degree that merely following the "letter of the law" with respect to the GPL would be unethical. As I implied in another post, I think that some within the "free" software movement think that their goals transcend other people's ethics."
Assume that GPLing BSD code is unethical and that the resulting code is, say, a million lines of code under GPL. Case A is all BSD code except for one LOC. Case B is one LOC of BSD. I claim that case A is unethical to a greater degree than case B. We will have to agree to disagree on this for now, I guess.
You seem not to recognize an ethical distinction between some trivial and substantial cases. Violating the spirit of the BSD takes no thought; doing the same to the GPL involves a team of lawyers and much consideration. Violating spirit by a fraction of percent of code is the same to you as violating by nearly all of the code.
I agree there are groups of people who believe in the transcendence of their goals. Indeed, another example is that one of these groups believes that proprietary software should exist, which requires the transcendence other people's ethics that include helping their neighbor.
I believe the big divide here has much to do with differing opinions on the role of copyright monopoly powers granted by the government.
The merit of the community's ethics does not figure into the question, "Did Novell act ethically?" It is enough to note that the community believes in not trying to circumvent the licenses on which it depends. This is part of an implied social contract that Novell violated, i.e., they acted unethically. Seeing this does not require believing in free software.
I agree about terms versus principles but cannot see how this makes expectations and reactions about noncompliance on principles unnatural or wrong.
Unlike the Novell deal, the GNU library scenario involves no effort to get around carefully crafted constraints that uphold an ethical standard. However, if one were to go to great effort to circumvent such a careful license in order to put code under the GPL, I would consider that unethical.
I will admit that taking a large chunk of BSD code, adding a couple of lines, and then GPLing it would seem unethical.
My claim is not that it is correct English, but the typical idiomatic usage. Haven't you ever heard someone say, "You don't have the right to tell me what to do!"? Moreover, I don't use it, so get off your high horse, please. Thank you.
I agree with you about MS here but not about Novell. They speak of a community, creating expectations of ethical behavior. How can this be denied?
Are all legal tools ethically neutral? What about the Constitution? Should there be never be expectations of society beyond the letter? How do we draw the line among these tools?
The preamble of the GPL clearly sets up expectations of ethical behavior, so it is natural that the movement holds these expectations and speaks out when the expectations are not met by those who wish to associate with free software.
I cannot deny there are problems with the movement, but you will find that taking issue with its ethical positions will involve taking issue with very reasonable assumptions. Don't read this kind of stuff unless you are willing to have your own assumptions challenged vigorously. Rebuttals to that kind of stuff would be interesting.
He and some top kernel devs were gushing about how GPL2 was good enough. Avoiding comment on this allows them to save face.
The big difference in this deal wrt ethics is that people expect nothing good from MS here but Novell OTOH positions itself as a company with both customers and a community. The deal is widely seen as betraying a part of that community in exchange for enabling Novell to hurt its competitors. So MS is somewhat out of the ethical scope, whereas Novell is seen as having acted unethically.
You say that the ethics of FOSS is just opinions, but how is it different here from ethics of other things? Ethics is more than just opinions. This summary of the free software movement touches on some of these considerations.
So the deal to enhance interoperability ends up alienating the experts in the Samba project who are all about...interoperability?
This dog don't hunt.
I agree that using more precise terms is fairer and important. However, "piracy" is used by industry, who always wants to fool people. Moreover, it is such a disproportionate conflation. OTOH, "rights" and "morals" are not used so assymetrically (powerful group versus individuals), they occur together in many discussions, and so the common usage of "right to" is entirely understandable if not correct and we should give most people the benefit of the doubt that they are not underhanded about it. My best friend makes this mistake all of the time and I just make fun of him. Just move on and make a case based on the ethics of the deal; Novell will have to make this case or simply lose a lot of support.
Uh, the idiomatic "right to ..." phrase typically means "moral justification to ...".
I don't know about you personally, but if the typical /.er is anything to go by, they make a big stink and next thing you know, they are back to their DRM-infested goodies. At least the general public has computer illiteracy as an excuse.
What is DRM/TC if not forcing a desktop into more controlled states, i.e., officially-sanctioned consumption devices? Time to puke, dude.
"Piracy has Ripple Effect"? Boats, water, violence...OK.
"Copyright infringement", on the other hand, is too truthful and neutral to be recognized and exploited by the *A.
Please mod the parent up for being more insightful than most.
I would add that although in a sense GPLv3 can be seen to too soon, had it existed before Tivo, a big mess could have been avoided and DRM might not be taken as seriously today.
RMS control FOSS? I suppose you refer to his moral leadership. I would submit that he has long since lost it, in terms of absolute numbers of followers. No one can seriously suggest that most users of FOSS today care about freedom, i.e., know about and support the four freedoms. Just as RMS claims and yet he marches on--gotta love it.
Hmm, how do you preach the GNU stack into existence, pray tell?
It's news because it's Torvalds who is whining (but adding nothing new).
Is it so hard to understand why creators of a license would want a new version to close a loophole? How much more basic can you get?
Ever hear of a warranty? You modify the software, you take full responsibility. Done.
These kinds of "minefields" were similar to ones being moaned about and then ignored when GPLv2 was chosen for the kernel. You're just scaremongering, and anyone bothering to go to that link you gave will find in the commentary a ton of criticism of the claims of Linus et al. It's not as one-sided as you hope it is.
GPLv3 never aimed to roll back DRM, just to regain the freedoms that the GPL used to give before the likes of Tivo, which uses one kind of DRM to scuttle those freedoms. They are just looking after their license. You clearly also know nothing of their beliefs about the service-based internet economy. In the recent GPLv3 meeting in Bangalore, they specifically pointed out that GPLv3 does not itself close any "ASP loophole" nor does it force it open. I hope that business investment is scared away from any more Tivoization. I suppose you think Tivoization is OK? And because so many will in fact not buy your kind of FUD, there remains the only true thing you have said: the fragmentation of the open source community; even more will be outraged about the concessions to Tivoization and believe more in the philosophy of free software.
I feel sorry for him if he believes all that FUD you spout.You present a false choice in #1 or #2. There are many examples in GPLv3 in which the language is deliberately vague so as to give flexibility in handling new situations, e.g., a new type of Tivoization.
Whatever password policies RMS may have insisted upon in specific situations, such as at the MIT AI Lab, requiring root access to just any user of someone else's system would likely break an existing user agreement. That dog don't hunt and RMS knows it.
Can you not see that GPLv3 simply closes a loophole in v2? If you feel the loophole does not matter, then I suppose free software does not matter that much to you?
Oops: To accept their freedom as being morally equivalent to the FSF one requires us to assume the good of the few is equivalent to the good of the many.