but you don't own whatever content is secured by DRM
I don't want ownership of any content. I just want to control my computer.
if you don't like DRM content, don't use it... nobody is holding a gun to your head
Sure, I don't. And I don't think anyone else should use it either. DRM is anti-social and an oppressive use of computers.
i know the open source movement allows the use of code for free, but that is the choice of the developers.
Maybe it is, but I don't think it should be that way. And I don't think the W3C should help those types of developers either.
how would you feel if you spent your time developing a program and your users simply demanded the source code because they think any kind of digital rights management sucks ass?
I wouldn't create a program and not release the binary without the source code. If I was the user, I wouldn't make "demands" either. I would just recommend that other users avoid the program.
Suppose a user sends me a threatening message on some site online. With DRM I can't save it. Suppose I want to save a video so I can play it later (maybe I need to play it offline for my assignment work). Again, if it's DRM'd I can't do that. I don't want my computer to work against me, and I don't think that should be a "standard".
Perhaps the better question is why should DRM be a standard? Why should computers disobey their owners for the sake of corporate greed? Why do media companies pretend that the world will end if DRM isn't added to HTML5?
It might also help to read what media companies have proposed for HTML5 DRM. The BBC wants to be able to take legal action against anyone that bypasses the DRM (even if the user isn't infringing copyright itself).
In Linux-land "blob" normally refers to proprietary firmware.
When it comes to 3D support, Intel and nouveau provide free drivers and firmware for many cards. AMD/ATI users are often out of luck though. I believe nouveau in Linux 3.8 brings 3D support to even more NVIDIA users than previously.
When it comes to firmware, the main area which Linux-libre lacks support in is for wireless cards. But luckily compatible wireless cards come cheap these days, in both PCI-e and USB forms. I recently bought an Atheros card for my laptop for < $20 and it works fine with Trisquel.
Trisquel re-syncs with Ubuntu, using scripts to remove all the proprietary parts. Read about it here: How Trisquel Is Made.
There probably isn't really any reason to use Hurd, since Linux-libre is completely free anyway. But who knows, maybe Trisquel will change in the future...
And the culprit here is... cloud computing (or clown computing). It's absurd that you have to give up your identity to download software in the first place. Because Google is in charge of the data, they can do what they want.
I'm sure now that it's been pointed out they will fix it, to keep the users happy. But that's besides the point. None of those users gave their own data to the developers. Users deserve better!
There's always a line of people who are salivating to second-guess whatever decision gets made.
So we shouldn't be testing these things and being critical of how disasters are handled? That's how progress is made, and how we can improve for the next time it happens.
Aaron Swartz was facing allegations of computer hacking. He may have trespassed, but changing a MAC address is hardly hacking.
It's like getting banned on Slashdot, and then registering a new user name. Except with MAC addresses. If what Aaron Swartz did was hacking, thousands of Slashdot users just became criminals.
Maybe you think freedom doesn't matter. But would you say software works well if its inner workings are hidden from view and bundled with legal restrictions?
Non-free drivers can be abandoned at any time. That's basically what they did with their nv driver. We are talking about nVidia here.
Microsoft won't allow free YouTube player replacements in their app store so they are basically losing at their own game. I would say that it serves Microsoft right, but unfortunately it's the end users that suffer.
Chromium is BSD-licensed. Chrome is available under a proprietary EULA. So much for freedom...
Partially BSD based OS X on the desktop over the clusterfuck of GPL Linux desktops
You say "on the desktop", but really Darwin is only a bare-bones OS with nothing GUI/desktop related on it.
* BSD based(outside the kernel) Android dominating the cellphone market over the effectively dead GPL based Linux cellphone efforts
Android has a lot of software licensed under the Apache 2.0 license. They also have a lot of proprietary software on it, especially drivers and firmware.
one device - the HTC Universal - took four of us three years of part-time work to finally understand all of the hardware. the best i ever managed on one device was 8 weeks (!) - the Compaq ipaq hw6915 - and i had to stop because the last 3 of those 8 weeks were spent _not_ managing to get the device to come out of suspend.
...
by the time you have source code, it's too late: the device is out the door. it's obsolete already, anyway.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with some optimism, but people who care about software freedom shouldn't overlook these major blocking issues.
Not sure if it's worth replying, because I doubt I'll convince you. But I shall try.
The GPL gives you Freedom 0, to run the software as you wish. In fact, the GPL states in section 9:
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. [...]
Freedom 1: freedom to read understand the source code. Again, there are no restrictions on this, AFAIK.
Freedom 2: freedom to modify the software. No restrictions on this, AFAIK (as long as you don't distribute).
Freedom 3: freedom to distribute and create derivative works. There are some restrictions on how you do this. For example, you must clearly state the license and derivative works must be licensed under the GPL.
If you like permissive licensing, I won't blame you. There are a lot of free software licenses that are free software licenses as well. But a lot of them have restrictions as well, e.g. acknowledgement in sources. Only software in the public domain has no restrictions, and provides "true" freedom according to your definition.
Going back to the subject, you might be interested to know that NetBSD cofounder and OpenBSD project leader Theo de Raadt was awarded the Advancement For Free Software in 2004. The advancement of free software has nothing to do with the GPL.
If the user has limited ad tracking, use the advertising identifier only for the following purposes: frequency capping, conversion events, estimating the number of unique users, security and fraud detection, and debugging.
In other words, disabling targeted/personalised ads doesn't disable tracking at all.
When does Sony go to jail, for developing rookits? I bet that affected people on a much larger scale. What about the false advertising regarding the OtherOS feature, which was removed via an updater/backdoor?
Sony screws its customers with DRM and anti-features and attacks software developers. I find it hard to feel sorry for them.
My main fear with this type of law is that it could be extended to protect businesses.
Just imagine how many people Microsoft would be able to sue, for causing offence?
Of course, the other concern is the exact interpretation of "causing offense" is not clear. This is bad for Free Speech, as other posters have mentioned.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want ownership of any content. I just want to control my computer.
Sure, I don't. And I don't think anyone else should use it either. DRM is anti-social and an oppressive use of computers.
Maybe it is, but I don't think it should be that way. And I don't think the W3C should help those types of developers either.
I wouldn't create a program and not release the binary without the source code. If I was the user, I wouldn't make "demands" either. I would just recommend that other users avoid the program.
People are still using them? I stopped a few years ago and I haven't run into many problems.
Hmm... maybe this is why Microsoft is shipping Flash by default in Windows 8.
Suppose a user sends me a threatening message on some site online. With DRM I can't save it. Suppose I want to save a video so I can play it later (maybe I need to play it offline for my assignment work). Again, if it's DRM'd I can't do that. I don't want my computer to work against me, and I don't think that should be a "standard".
Perhaps the better question is why should DRM be a standard? Why should computers disobey their owners for the sake of corporate greed? Why do media companies pretend that the world will end if DRM isn't added to HTML5?
It might also help to read what media companies have proposed for HTML5 DRM. The BBC wants to be able to take legal action against anyone that bypasses the DRM (even if the user isn't infringing copyright itself).
In Linux-land "blob" normally refers to proprietary firmware.
When it comes to 3D support, Intel and nouveau provide free drivers and firmware for many cards. AMD/ATI users are often out of luck though. I believe nouveau in Linux 3.8 brings 3D support to even more NVIDIA users than previously.
When it comes to firmware, the main area which Linux-libre lacks support in is for wireless cards. But luckily compatible wireless cards come cheap these days, in both PCI-e and USB forms. I recently bought an Atheros card for my laptop for < $20 and it works fine with Trisquel.
Trisquel doesn't stop proprietary software from running. You can set it to use PPAs or the Ubuntu repositories if you want.
However, they don't exactly support or recommend doing that. The Trisquel package repos are only supposed to contain free software as well.
Trisquel re-syncs with Ubuntu, using scripts to remove all the proprietary parts. Read about it here: How Trisquel Is Made.
There probably isn't really any reason to use Hurd, since Linux-libre is completely free anyway. But who knows, maybe Trisquel will change in the future...
And the culprit here is... cloud computing (or clown computing). It's absurd that you have to give up your identity to download software in the first place. Because Google is in charge of the data, they can do what they want.
I'm sure now that it's been pointed out they will fix it, to keep the users happy. But that's besides the point. None of those users gave their own data to the developers. Users deserve better!
Perhaps not, there's some research that could suggest that the dispersants could have made the disaster worse.
So we shouldn't be testing these things and being critical of how disasters are handled? That's how progress is made, and how we can improve for the next time it happens.
Aaron Swartz was facing allegations of computer hacking. He may have trespassed, but changing a MAC address is hardly hacking.
It's like getting banned on Slashdot, and then registering a new user name. Except with MAC addresses. If what Aaron Swartz did was hacking, thousands of Slashdot users just became criminals.
Maybe you think freedom doesn't matter. But would you say software works well if its inner workings are hidden from view and bundled with legal restrictions?
Non-free drivers can be abandoned at any time. That's basically what they did with their nv driver. We are talking about nVidia here.
Different definition of "free" actually. I guessed the title would have given away.
I meant "free software" (sometimes called "open source") not freeware.
Microsoft won't allow free YouTube player replacements in their app store so they are basically losing at their own game. I would say that it serves Microsoft right, but unfortunately it's the end users that suffer.
Windows RT has Restricted Boot on it.
The article confuses Secure Boot and Restricted Boot. The linked FSF page clearly explains the difference.
Correct, and that's why the FSF is opposing Restricted Boot, not Secure Boot.
HDCP is still here. So is DRM on Blu-Ray.
Some DRM never goes away...
Agreed. I tried helping someone that was using VMWare, and the options were more confusing.
The VMWare EULA is rather dodgy and it's very long. There's also a clause where they can set a third-party (like the BSA) on you.
VirtualBox is free software, no EULAs, works fine.
Google has loads of proprietary software:
Sorry, but I don't necessarily consider the enemy of my enemy to be my friend.
I don't get this argument. How does having more Android OS create a problem for developers and end users?
Chromium is BSD-licensed. Chrome is available under a proprietary EULA. So much for freedom...
You say "on the desktop", but really Darwin is only a bare-bones OS with nothing GUI/desktop related on it.
Android has a lot of software licensed under the Apache 2.0 license. They also have a lot of proprietary software on it, especially drivers and firmware.
Mod parent up, very true.
The era of mobile phones presents a new set of hardware, most running proprietary firmware and controlled by proprietary drivers. A GNU hacker describes difficulties in producing free replacements for these:
...
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with some optimism, but people who care about software freedom shouldn't overlook these major blocking issues.
You are free to do whatever you want with it, including changing the repositories to Ubuntu.com and installing proprietary drivers.
Not sure if it's worth replying, because I doubt I'll convince you. But I shall try.
The GPL gives you Freedom 0, to run the software as you wish. In fact, the GPL states in section 9:
Freedom 1: freedom to read understand the source code. Again, there are no restrictions on this, AFAIK.
Freedom 2: freedom to modify the software. No restrictions on this, AFAIK (as long as you don't distribute).
Freedom 3: freedom to distribute and create derivative works. There are some restrictions on how you do this. For example, you must clearly state the license and derivative works must be licensed under the GPL.
If you like permissive licensing, I won't blame you. There are a lot of free software licenses that are free software licenses as well. But a lot of them have restrictions as well, e.g. acknowledgement in sources. Only software in the public domain has no restrictions, and provides "true" freedom according to your definition.
Going back to the subject, you might be interested to know that NetBSD cofounder and OpenBSD project leader Theo de Raadt was awarded the Advancement For Free Software in 2004. The advancement of free software has nothing to do with the GPL.
According to Apple:
In other words, disabling targeted/personalised ads doesn't disable tracking at all.
When does Sony go to jail, for developing rookits? I bet that affected people on a much larger scale. What about the false advertising regarding the OtherOS feature, which was removed via an updater/backdoor?
Sony screws its customers with DRM and anti-features and attacks software developers. I find it hard to feel sorry for them.
My main fear with this type of law is that it could be extended to protect businesses.
Just imagine how many people Microsoft would be able to sue, for causing offence?
Of course, the other concern is the exact interpretation of "causing offense" is not clear. This is bad for Free Speech, as other posters have mentioned.