... or alternatively just don't support those vendors. This does an end run, not only around them, but the DMCA as well.
Trying to legislate behaviour via the GPLv3 isn't going to work - all it does is provide a framework that adds restrictions to fair use that are "more-or-less" okay. DRM goes against fair use. The GPLv3, to the extent that it legitimizes this, is the camel's nose in the tent.
"You assume that people have a choice in the first place, which however often isn't the case."
People ALWAYS have a choice.
"Where are the gaming consoles that aren't locked down to only run authorized code?"
So don't buy the stupid gaming console. Read a book, go visit people, run the game on a pc, whatever. Nobody is forcing these products on people. You have plenty of choices for entertainment.
"How many printers don't try to force you to only use authorized color cartridges?"
So do like I did, and buy a laser printer. Nobody says you have to print shit up in colour. Also, its still possible to refill the carts. Just don't use their stupid lame-ass driver, or if you have to, keep an image of your hard drive. When the driver insists that your still-half-full cart is no longer any good, roll back your hard drive image. Voila - instant "refill".
"How many current generation graphics card are available with open specs?"
The specs might not be open, but this doesn't mean the card is locked down. There's nothing preventing people from reverse-engineering them.
"How many DVDs are non-encrypted?"
Last I looked, this is a separate issue - DVDs are content. And the "encryption" is broken.
"How many MP3 shops are there that sell non DRMed music?"
Aside from allofmp3.com, Yahoo is testing the idea of selling non-drm'd downloads http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5203146.stm. Plus, ther's nothing preventing you from ripping your CD/Vinyl/Tape collection.
For your reality check - a lot of cell-phone software is java-based, and as such, can be modded to run on any other cell phone with a java runtime.
Adn I really don't care that I can't mod the software in my microwave.
As for my dvd player, I don't want to mod it - its been region-free since the day I bought it.
For game consoles, there are mod chips.
As for dropping OSX, it doesn't affect me - I never found the Mac interface to be particularly "intuitive" - quite the contrary.
And there's nothing stopping you from building your own custom mp3 player. The parts are pretty much off-the-shelf. You could build a 1-TB a/v monster if you're so inclined. It won't have the same slick look as the proprietary ones, but that's not the issue. Ditto with so-called media centers.
Heck, get out your soldering iron and a chip writer and you can even make your own hub.
And yes, you can also buy all the components needed to manufacture your own brand of laptop. A few of the local computer stores did it for a while, then gave up because it became cheaper to buy them pre-assembled. If the economics ever shifted, they'd start building them again.
The GPL v3 is a mess. It als doesn't do anything to fix the underlying problem, which is the erosion, in all areas, of fair-use rights.
Educating buyers, so they know that a DRM'd Cd isn't really a CD, and has problems so maybe they should buy something else, is more to the point. Ditto with Microsoft's various vendor lock-in strategies. Ditto with not allowing mod chips so people can't back up their games.
Fixing fair use solves all these problems, as well as removing the need for a GPL v3.
Of course, fixing fair use is a lot harder than the mental masturbation going on all over the place about v3.
The GPL fixed a lot of problems. It got people into giving back, instead of just being takers.
Remember the old saying - "give a kid a hammer and everything starts looking like a nail"? Well, RMS and EM are in the same position - every problem looks like it can be solved by tweaking the wording of a license. Ain't gonna happen. They're hamering on the wrong nail.
So if my GPL'd code is used in something that denys user's freedom, I feel that my work has been stolen.:(
This is something I gave a lot of thought to wrt the use of gpl code on a proprietary system - either Microsoft or Apple. To be a real purist would seem to require 2 contradictory stances:
don't use gpl'd software on proprietary systems, as that isn't in the spirit of being completely free, and they can take your freedom to run that program away any time (a la "DOS ain' done until Lotus won't run"), or refusing to continue to sell licenses for that version of the OS (think of all the software you accumulated that you can no longer run because the hardware is just too fast nowadays, or the graphics card has too much ram and too many features).
freedom of choice means allowing people the option of running gpl'd software on any system they choose, including the aforementioned closed systems
The hardware issue is like the second choice. It sucks, but its what real freedom implies. Real freedom means that sometime people will do things we don't like.
The issue of changing the machine shouldn't be a gpl-only thing. If I buy something, I should be allowed to mod it in any way I choose, consistent with local environmental and safety regulations. In other words, if I can mod my washing machine to use 50% less energy, that's my right. Ditto with modding my computer, or anything else. The manufacturer doesn't own it after its sold.
Fair enough, but it wasn't Microsoft who started the PC revolution. There were a plethora of different boxes well before the IBM PC. They were all Personal Computers in the real sense... since there weren't too many programs out there, they'd only run what you wrote:-)
Those were fun days. Today's boxes are a million times more capable, but not as "interesting".
Or, you have the freedom to not buy that printer in the first place, buy a different printer, and install the software from someone else's "locked-in" printer.
Lockin of GPL'd software only works for one purchaser - after that, the whole world can use it on any other hardware.
But remember, if you're the one who made the mistake of buying a locked-in device, unless you were misled, you have only yourself to blame. Same as anyone stupid enough to buy Windows or Office and then bitch about "lockin". Your free choice carries consequences.
explain please exactly how the GPL v3 is *not* a market based solution to the problem, exactly as you are stating,
...Also please explain how in your world it's okay and acceptable for manufacturers to put DRM on devices and leave it up to consumers and "the market" to handle it,
You seem to be implying 2 contradictory beliefs. Your first staement implies that you believe that the GPL v3 *is* a market-based solution, and yet you then decry that my position of "let the market sort it out" is no good. As you pointed out, even the proponents of v3 can only let the market decide for itself.
The GPL v3 is not a solution because it is trying to tackle a problem that is not a software licensing problem, but a much more general issue - the erosion of fair-use rights in too many areas of life. Software running onlocked-in hardware is just content, same as video or audio streams. It is this general removal of fair-use rights to ALL content that is the root problem. The GPL v3 isn't even a band-aid - its more like a SCO wookie.
In the case of game consoles, the marketplace HAS decided. There is obviously not enough of a market for what you are looking for to sustain a product.
If you believe otherwise, then you have the opportunity, just like anyone else, to exploit that "overlooked" market. What you don't have the right to do is to complain that the world must cater to your needs. Nobody has to. Provide them an incentive, and they will. That's the free market.
If you think the "one pc per player" model is overly expensive, you're dreaming. PCs are dirt cheap compared to 20 years ago. The money I spent just for a dual external 5-1/4" floppy drive to add to my first box would buy a nice gaming PC today. Heck, the 14" monitor alone cost more than a complete box today. Heck, the mouse and keyboard alone would pay for a pair of 250-gig hard drives today.
You're still free to run the modified software elsewhere, for example, on a competitors' non-drm'd product (which would probably be cheaper to purchase in the first place, since their development and support costs would be lower, and they won't be bleeding $$$ to vendors of DRM libraries/schemes).
Lets take a somewhat different example, looked at from the "other end of the telescope". A month ago I put out some python code under the gpl for doing some MySQL stuff. It only works with MySQL. Nobody has the right to tell me that I'm depriving them of their freedom to run my gpl'd code because it won't work with, say, Access.
Likewise, if someone modifies it to work with Access, I have no right to complain that I can't run the modified version because I don't "do" Windows.
Now lets look at an extreme example. Say WalMart comes out with a linux pc that only runs THEIR version of linux, and it has some really neat new feature (yeah, I know, dream on:-). As long as they make the source available, I'm free to recompile and run it on other machines, provided I remove all the copyrighted artwork, etc.
How have they failed to comply with the GPL? And how have they prevented anyone from selling a better non-drm'd box? They haven't.
Which is why we should be able to mod-chip anything we bought, as well.
The problem here is a political one - our politicians haven't been sufficiently motivated (meaning that they like to sup from the lobbyists' table) to do their job, which is, among other things, seeing that existing laws like "fair use" continue to work as they were inteneded.
Fix THAT, and the whole GPL vs DRM problem goes away. Don't fix that, and it won't matter - you won't be able to run anything w/o proprietary DRM.
No, the easiest way to fix this is to pass laws that prevent DRM from crippling ALL devices.
This is not a GPV vs DRM issue - it affects all consumers.
Remember the old saying "the right tool for the right job"? The right tool for this job is to LART your congresscritter. Otherwise, you'll lose a lot more freedoms than you care to.
Assuming the two products are functionally equivalent in all areas except DRM, the majority of the sales will most likely go to the unit with the best marketing.
Three points:
adding drm and mechanisms to sustain it costs money, so the drm product is at a cost disadvantage, both in the initial purchase, and in the ongoing use
drm'd products are also at a disadvantage when it comes to the end-user. They're more likely to piss off the consumer when a license is revoked, especially if its because of a hardware failure ("I'll never buy anything from those croks again")
The non-drm'd product has a marketing advantage "DRM-FREE!!! BUY ME INSTEAD".
All this means nothing as long as people continue to make stupid, uninformed choices (like expecting Vista to be less of a patch hell or virus/malware/trojan/botnet nest). But even that is one of their freedoms - the freedom to do stupid things.
So, which wold you buy:
Switch A: $50, "NO DRM FOLKS FULLY UPGRADEABLE OPEN SOURCE GPLv2 INCLUDED"
Switch B: $80, "this device requires a net connection to manage software license revokation. failure to be continuously connected to our servers will turn it into a brick"
This is not a GPL vs DRM issue - this is a CONSUMERS vs DRM issue. DRM doesn't just affect gpl'd software. It affects hardware as well. It affects content as well.
GPLv3 does nothing to address the real issue that pisses off most people - that CONTENT is DRM'd. This is a political fight, not a licensing issue. If all GPL software all over the world disappeared tomorrow, this wouldn't change the issue. And yes, when you think about it, software, even an OS, is just content.
If you really have faith that open is better than closed, then why all the worry and hand-waving? Or can't you not trust yourself to not succumb to the "evil charms of that wicked drm crack"? Its as hypocritical as someone going around saying linux is better than windows, and not using linux because they can't be arsed to take the 10 minutes needed to learn what to click on.
The printer example is now obsolete, and has been since the advent of the PC.
Back in the bad old DOS days, you had the following options:
intercept the output of the driver via a tsr
modify the driver in-memory
save the output to a file for post-processing
replace the driver with one you wrote (not that big a deal in the days of dos).
That was when printers were a lot more expensive than today. A good dot-matrix could easily set you back $500, a daisy-wheel even more.
As for today's situation, again, the printer is a poor analogy. Say, for example, that there's a software mod that would allow you to double your output resolution, and you'd like to take advantage of that, but you can't, because your printer is "locked out" from mods.
Has your printer all of a sudden become "less" than what it was before? No. It still does everything it could, just as your old copy of WordPerfect is still as functional as the day you bought it a decade ago (and still spanks Word).
But you made your choice, when you bought the printer, to accept the limitations that came with it, unless you were fraudulently misled as to its upgradeability - and that (fraud) is an issue that the GPLv3 doesn't address. There's nothing preventing another manufacturer seeing the hole that his/her competitor is digging for itself, and offering a similar product without that limitation, and letting the market decide.
Its the same as the ongoing battle with ink-jet manufacturers. They sell the printer dirt cheap, then rape you over the refills (hello, HP). Or, you can say "screw this" and pay more initially for a different manufacturer's inkjet, and less for the refills. Or do like I did, and say, "a pox on both your houses", and buy a laser.
The markets are "efficient enough" that the GPLv2 can do the job.
You're missing the point - you have the choice, the freedom, to not use any product that doesn't do what you want it to, the way you want it to.
Sometimes, that means deciding that you won't buy a particular product - in this case, a game - because it isn't supported by open platfrms.
If, on the other hand, you DO decide to by the game, in spite of it being supported only on a closed platform, you again have exercised your freedom of choice, but in a way that you have to admit encourages the very platforms you're against.
You've voted with your dollars. Can you blame the producers for not taking your money and using it to continue to offer more products that you seem to want?
That such a product isn't available on an open platform isn't the "fault" of the producer - they have the choice to sell their product as they see fit, just as you have the choice to buy it or reject it.
The GPLv3 doesn't address this problem - only the marketplace can.
That is their right. One of the "freedoms" is the freedom to do stupid things (or at least what you and I would consider stupid things). And they ARE provably stupid, since they repeat the same actions and expect different results.
But that's part of the cost of freedom - you have to do a bit of thinking for yourself.
People who do that are engaged in their own form of a "trade-off", and they must derive some benefit from it, or they'd change. Enough people change (the market speaks) and the problem is solved; but if people don't vote with their dollars, they have only themselves to blame. With freedom comes responsibility, and part of that responsibility is to make informed choices.
Don't like that you can't move your downloaded song from your old computer, whose hard drive is failing, to your new one? Whose fault is that? Yours, not the manufacturer/distributors, if they didn't hide this "feature". Every time you buy such a product, you're encouraging and supporting this type of attack on fair use. There are legal alternatives, including "doing without." If nobody bought it, it would fail.
Here's an analogy that fits: crack dealers. The first hit's free, but afterwards, you pay and pay and pay. You're addicted. But you KNEW that people have problems with crack addiction. But you wanted it all - the high from crack AND the delusion that "I won't get addicted." Same with people who smoke and then get cancer.
You can't have it both ways.
I have a lot of admiration for RMS, but on this one, I'm 100% behind Linus.
Whoa, I think you missed the whole point of freedom:-)
If they apply drm to anything I write, then *that* particular binary isn't modifiable, but so what? They still have to provide the source on demand to anyone they give the binary to. That, after modification, the source can't be compiled to run on that particular hardware isn't an issue. Why? Because when it happens enough times, people will say f*ck this and buy hardware w/o the lock-in. Nothing worse than a horde of pissed-off customers.
The original source can still be modded and run fine on non-locked-out platforms.
Now I understand your point - that if they had to develop their own software, this would cost them extra. But any software that they developed themselves would be totally locked up, and there would be absolutely no leverage to ever convince them to go non-drm, or even a sort of "open drm", where the content might be locked, but not the app.
GPLv2 deals fine with these issues, by putting everything where it belongs - the push and shove of the marketplace. GPLv3, on the other hand, is both premature and heavy-handed. I'm sticking with v2, not just out of "political" reasons, but because I believe the marketplace works.
Take a look at what's happening. Microsoft, with all its monopoly power, is scared of linux, firefox, etc. The marketplace IS speaking out. Now, if someone insists on running Windows, this hasn't diminished me in any way - I haven't lost anything. If they want to run my code on a winbox instead of a linbox, how have I, or anyone else, lost out?
Same thing if they wanted to run it on a box that only allowed signed drm binaries. The only loser is the person who actually does this, then can't take advantage of any updates I do. Their loss, not mine. And its up to them to bear the cost of dumping their locked-in solution and switch.
The first freedom of free software is to run it on anything you want. That includes proprietary and/or closed systems. Now, personally, I think that's a dumb thing to do in most cases, since open systems have consistently better performance and higher-quality code, but that's my choice - my freedom.
What are people complaining about? Stuff like Tivo. Really, now - they're complaining about goddamn TV shows! Come on, there are more important things than that... and if you don't like it, you can always make your own Freevio,or pay someone else to slap one toghether for you. Tivo didn't suddenly make Freevio impossible. What it DID do was give a target to shoot for.
Lets take a real-life example. I've got some code for an integrated back-end/front-end inventory and web site. If/when I get around to cleaning it up and gpl'ing it, if someone else takes it and mods it so that it runs on a particular piece of hardware, but that only mods "signed" by them will run on that hardware, all they've really done is limited their market to people stupid enough to buy closed hardware. Everyone else is enjoying the benefits of open code on open hardware for less. What's the problem? Its just like a lottery, a tax on stupidity, right:-)
Just this last week had a demonstration that eventually the market rights itself no matter what, when Microsoft's profits were down by a quarter, with the long-term outlook being more of the same. Closed systems just can't compete over the long term.
Another example. I wrote the beginning of a c2java converter, because java lacks a lot of the constructs I like. One of these days I'll finish it and put it out there for people to play with. What would be the incentive for someone to pay for a drm'd version, wehn they can have the original one, with source that they can modify and run, for free? There is none. Anyone trying to market such a setup would be doing the "web 0.0" dot-bomb thing.
Anyway, that's my take on it at this point. Let the free market handle it. There are too many of "us", and too few of "them", for us to fail unless we just stand there bent over with our hands around our ankles and buy any and all locked-in products. And if we do that, then we really do deserve the shafting we get.
"An adjective modifies a noun or a pronoun by describing, identifying, or quantifying words. An adjective usually precedes the noun or the pronoun which it modifies."
The whatever percent is a quanifier, not the subject noun you pretend it to be.
Over 98 % of the 10,000 subjects of the experiment have shown brilliance.
Zero % of the 10,000 subjects of the experiment have shown brillance.
Only 1 % of the 10,000 subjects of the experiment have shown brilliance.
You keep dropping the % in order to make your point, which shows your point is FUCKED!
Manufacturers should be able to go out of business in any method they desire.
Yup. GPLv3 is just plain dumb. It "addresses" a non-existent problem. People have a choice between DRM and non-DRM platforms and software. They can and do vote with their wallets.
And for those who are thinking "what about when there are no more non-drm devices, smarty-pants" - a GPLv3 won't address that issue; a swift kick to your political masters' behinds will.
The GPLv2 isn't broken. v3 doesn't pass the "smell test"; it won't "fix" anything, certainly not a situation such as a fully-drm'd, fully closed world.
Funny, the biggest push for DRM is from the so-called "free world." What sort of frigging time-warp alternate universe have we been living in for the last 6 years?
Slashdot Mirror
... or alternatively just don't support those vendors. This does an end run, not only around them, but the DMCA as well.
Trying to legislate behaviour via the GPLv3 isn't going to work - all it does is provide a framework that adds restrictions to fair use that are "more-or-less" okay. DRM goes against fair use. The GPLv3, to the extent that it legitimizes this, is the camel's nose in the tent.
"Simple, you can always marry someone's sister, just not yours."
Bingo! Now for the bonus round ... is it legal for a widow's husband to marry his former wife's sister?
Its because he was looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
"You assume that people have a choice in the first place, which however often isn't the case."
People ALWAYS have a choice.
"Where are the gaming consoles that aren't locked down to only run authorized code?"
So don't buy the stupid gaming console. Read a book, go visit people, run the game on a pc, whatever. Nobody is forcing these products on people. You have plenty of choices for entertainment.
"How many printers don't try to force you to only use authorized color cartridges?"
So do like I did, and buy a laser printer. Nobody says you have to print shit up in colour. Also, its still possible to refill the carts. Just don't use their stupid lame-ass driver, or if you have to, keep an image of your hard drive. When the driver insists that your still-half-full cart is no longer any good, roll back your hard drive image. Voila - instant "refill".
"How many current generation graphics card are available with open specs?"
The specs might not be open, but this doesn't mean the card is locked down. There's nothing preventing people from reverse-engineering them.
"How many DVDs are non-encrypted?"
Last I looked, this is a separate issue - DVDs are content. And the "encryption" is broken.
"How many MP3 shops are there that sell non DRMed music?"
Aside from allofmp3.com, Yahoo is testing the idea of selling non-drm'd downloads http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5203146.stm. Plus, ther's nothing preventing you from ripping your CD/Vinyl/Tape collection.
My point was that you always have choices.
For your reality check - a lot of cell-phone software is java-based, and as such, can be modded to run on any other cell phone with a java runtime.
Adn I really don't care that I can't mod the software in my microwave.
As for my dvd player, I don't want to mod it - its been region-free since the day I bought it.
For game consoles, there are mod chips.
As for dropping OSX, it doesn't affect me - I never found the Mac interface to be particularly "intuitive" - quite the contrary.
And there's nothing stopping you from building your own custom mp3 player. The parts are pretty much off-the-shelf. You could build a 1-TB a/v monster if you're so inclined. It won't have the same slick look as the proprietary ones, but that's not the issue. Ditto with so-called media centers.
Heck, get out your soldering iron and a chip writer and you can even make your own hub.
And yes, you can also buy all the components needed to manufacture your own brand of laptop. A few of the local computer stores did it for a while, then gave up because it became cheaper to buy them pre-assembled. If the economics ever shifted, they'd start building them again.
Okay, a little bit of word play here ...
Bet you I can prove to you that most jurisdictions allow marriage to sisters.
See if you can figure it out before I post the answer.
The GPL v3 is a mess. It als doesn't do anything to fix the underlying problem, which is the erosion, in all areas, of fair-use rights.
Educating buyers, so they know that a DRM'd Cd isn't really a CD, and has problems so maybe they should buy something else, is more to the point. Ditto with Microsoft's various vendor lock-in strategies. Ditto with not allowing mod chips so people can't back up their games.
Fixing fair use solves all these problems, as well as removing the need for a GPL v3.
Of course, fixing fair use is a lot harder than the mental masturbation going on all over the place about v3.
The GPL fixed a lot of problems. It got people into giving back, instead of just being takers.
Remember the old saying - "give a kid a hammer and everything starts looking like a nail"? Well, RMS and EM are in the same position - every problem looks like it can be solved by tweaking the wording of a license. Ain't gonna happen. They're hamering on the wrong nail.
So if my GPL'd code is used in something that denys user's freedom, I feel that my work has been stolen. :(
This is something I gave a lot of thought to wrt the use of gpl code on a proprietary system - either Microsoft or Apple. To be a real purist would seem to require 2 contradictory stances:
- don't use gpl'd software on proprietary systems, as that isn't in the spirit of being completely free, and they can take your freedom to run that program away any time (a la "DOS ain' done until Lotus won't run"), or refusing to continue to sell licenses for that version of the OS (think of all the software you accumulated that you can no longer run because the hardware is just too fast nowadays, or the graphics card has too much ram and too many features).
- freedom of choice means allowing people the option of running gpl'd software on any system they choose, including the aforementioned closed systems
The hardware issue is like the second choice. It sucks, but its what real freedom implies. Real freedom means that sometime people will do things we don't like.The issue of changing the machine shouldn't be a gpl-only thing. If I buy something, I should be allowed to mod it in any way I choose, consistent with local environmental and safety regulations. In other words, if I can mod my washing machine to use 50% less energy, that's my right. Ditto with modding my computer, or anything else. The manufacturer doesn't own it after its sold.
Fair enough, but it wasn't Microsoft who started the PC revolution. There were a plethora of different boxes well before the IBM PC. They were all Personal Computers in the real sense ... since there weren't too many programs out there, they'd only run what you wrote :-)
Those were fun days. Today's boxes are a million times more capable, but not as "interesting".
Since when did Mum sound anything like Aunt?
Or, you have the freedom to not buy that printer in the first place, buy a different printer, and install the software from someone else's "locked-in" printer.
Lockin of GPL'd software only works for one purchaser - after that, the whole world can use it on any other hardware.
But remember, if you're the one who made the mistake of buying a locked-in device, unless you were misled, you have only yourself to blame. Same as anyone stupid enough to buy Windows or Office and then bitch about "lockin". Your free choice carries consequences.
explain please exactly how the GPL v3 is *not* a market based solution to the problem, exactly as you are stating,
You seem to be implying 2 contradictory beliefs. Your first staement implies that you believe that the GPL v3 *is* a market-based solution, and yet you then decry that my position of "let the market sort it out" is no good. As you pointed out, even the proponents of v3 can only let the market decide for itself.
The GPL v3 is not a solution because it is trying to tackle a problem that is not a software licensing problem, but a much more general issue - the erosion of fair-use rights in too many areas of life. Software running onlocked-in hardware is just content, same as video or audio streams. It is this general removal of fair-use rights to ALL content that is the root problem. The GPL v3 isn't even a band-aid - its more like a SCO wookie.
In the case of game consoles, the marketplace HAS decided. There is obviously not enough of a market for what you are looking for to sustain a product.
If you believe otherwise, then you have the opportunity, just like anyone else, to exploit that "overlooked" market. What you don't have the right to do is to complain that the world must cater to your needs. Nobody has to. Provide them an incentive, and they will. That's the free market.
If you think the "one pc per player" model is overly expensive, you're dreaming. PCs are dirt cheap compared to 20 years ago. The money I spent just for a dual external 5-1/4" floppy drive to add to my first box would buy a nice gaming PC today. Heck, the 14" monitor alone cost more than a complete box today. Heck, the mouse and keyboard alone would pay for a pair of 250-gig hard drives today.
Nope.
You're still free to run the modified software elsewhere, for example, on a competitors' non-drm'd product (which would probably be cheaper to purchase in the first place, since their development and support costs would be lower, and they won't be bleeding $$$ to vendors of DRM libraries/schemes).
Lets take a somewhat different example, looked at from the "other end of the telescope". A month ago I put out some python code under the gpl for doing some MySQL stuff. It only works with MySQL. Nobody has the right to tell me that I'm depriving them of their freedom to run my gpl'd code because it won't work with, say, Access.
Likewise, if someone modifies it to work with Access, I have no right to complain that I can't run the modified version because I don't "do" Windows.
Now lets look at an extreme example. Say WalMart comes out with a linux pc that only runs THEIR version of linux, and it has some really neat new feature (yeah, I know, dream on :-). As long as they make the source available, I'm free to recompile and run it on other machines, provided I remove all the copyrighted artwork, etc.
How have they failed to comply with the GPL? And how have they prevented anyone from selling a better non-drm'd box? They haven't.
Which is why we should be able to mod-chip anything we bought, as well.
The problem here is a political one - our politicians haven't been sufficiently motivated (meaning that they like to sup from the lobbyists' table) to do their job, which is, among other things, seeing that existing laws like "fair use" continue to work as they were inteneded.
Fix THAT, and the whole GPL vs DRM problem goes away. Don't fix that, and it won't matter - you won't be able to run anything w/o proprietary DRM.
No, the easiest way to fix this is to pass laws that prevent DRM from crippling ALL devices.
This is not a GPV vs DRM issue - it affects all consumers.
Remember the old saying "the right tool for the right job"? The right tool for this job is to LART your congresscritter. Otherwise, you'll lose a lot more freedoms than you care to.
Assuming the two products are functionally equivalent in all areas except DRM, the majority of the sales will most likely go to the unit with the best marketing.
Three points:
All this means nothing as long as people continue to make stupid, uninformed choices (like expecting Vista to be less of a patch hell or virus/malware/trojan/botnet nest). But even that is one of their freedoms - the freedom to do stupid things.
So, which wold you buy:
The GPL as it currently stands works.
This is not a GPL vs DRM issue - this is a CONSUMERS vs DRM issue. DRM doesn't just affect gpl'd software. It affects hardware as well. It affects content as well.
GPLv3 does nothing to address the real issue that pisses off most people - that CONTENT is DRM'd. This is a political fight, not a licensing issue. If all GPL software all over the world disappeared tomorrow, this wouldn't change the issue. And yes, when you think about it, software, even an OS, is just content.
If you really have faith that open is better than closed, then why all the worry and hand-waving? Or can't you not trust yourself to not succumb to the "evil charms of that wicked drm crack"? Its as hypocritical as someone going around saying linux is better than windows, and not using linux because they can't be arsed to take the 10 minutes needed to learn what to click on.
The printer example is now obsolete, and has been since the advent of the PC.
Back in the bad old DOS days, you had the following options:
- intercept the output of the driver via a tsr
- modify the driver in-memory
- save the output to a file for post-processing
- replace the driver with one you wrote (not that big a deal in the days of dos).
That was when printers were a lot more expensive than today. A good dot-matrix could easily set you back $500, a daisy-wheel even more.As for today's situation, again, the printer is a poor analogy. Say, for example, that there's a software mod that would allow you to double your output resolution, and you'd like to take advantage of that, but you can't, because your printer is "locked out" from mods.
Has your printer all of a sudden become "less" than what it was before? No. It still does everything it could, just as your old copy of WordPerfect is still as functional as the day you bought it a decade ago (and still spanks Word).
But you made your choice, when you bought the printer, to accept the limitations that came with it, unless you were fraudulently misled as to its upgradeability - and that (fraud) is an issue that the GPLv3 doesn't address. There's nothing preventing another manufacturer seeing the hole that his/her competitor is digging for itself, and offering a similar product without that limitation, and letting the market decide.
Its the same as the ongoing battle with ink-jet manufacturers. They sell the printer dirt cheap, then rape you over the refills (hello, HP). Or, you can say "screw this" and pay more initially for a different manufacturer's inkjet, and less for the refills. Or do like I did, and say, "a pox on both your houses", and buy a laser.
The markets are "efficient enough" that the GPLv2 can do the job.
You're missing the point - you have the choice, the freedom, to not use any product that doesn't do what you want it to, the way you want it to.
Sometimes, that means deciding that you won't buy a particular product - in this case, a game - because it isn't supported by open platfrms.
If, on the other hand, you DO decide to by the game, in spite of it being supported only on a closed platform, you again have exercised your freedom of choice, but in a way that you have to admit encourages the very platforms you're against.
You've voted with your dollars. Can you blame the producers for not taking your money and using it to continue to offer more products that you seem to want?
That such a product isn't available on an open platform isn't the "fault" of the producer - they have the choice to sell their product as they see fit, just as you have the choice to buy it or reject it.
The GPLv3 doesn't address this problem - only the marketplace can.
That is their right. One of the "freedoms" is the freedom to do stupid things (or at least what you and I would consider stupid things). And they ARE provably stupid, since they repeat the same actions and expect different results.
But that's part of the cost of freedom - you have to do a bit of thinking for yourself.
People who do that are engaged in their own form of a "trade-off", and they must derive some benefit from it, or they'd change. Enough people change (the market speaks) and the problem is solved; but if people don't vote with their dollars, they have only themselves to blame. With freedom comes responsibility, and part of that responsibility is to make informed choices.
Don't like that you can't move your downloaded song from your old computer, whose hard drive is failing, to your new one? Whose fault is that? Yours, not the manufacturer/distributors, if they didn't hide this "feature". Every time you buy such a product, you're encouraging and supporting this type of attack on fair use. There are legal alternatives, including "doing without." If nobody bought it, it would fail.
Here's an analogy that fits: crack dealers. The first hit's free, but afterwards, you pay and pay and pay. You're addicted. But you KNEW that people have problems with crack addiction. But you wanted it all - the high from crack AND the delusion that "I won't get addicted." Same with people who smoke and then get cancer.
You can't have it both ways.
I have a lot of admiration for RMS, but on this one, I'm 100% behind Linus.
Whoa, I think you missed the whole point of freedom :-)
If they apply drm to anything I write, then *that* particular binary isn't modifiable, but so what? They still have to provide the source on demand to anyone they give the binary to. That, after modification, the source can't be compiled to run on that particular hardware isn't an issue. Why? Because when it happens enough times, people will say f*ck this and buy hardware w/o the lock-in. Nothing worse than a horde of pissed-off customers.
The original source can still be modded and run fine on non-locked-out platforms.
Now I understand your point - that if they had to develop their own software, this would cost them extra. But any software that they developed themselves would be totally locked up, and there would be absolutely no leverage to ever convince them to go non-drm, or even a sort of "open drm", where the content might be locked, but not the app.
GPLv2 deals fine with these issues, by putting everything where it belongs - the push and shove of the marketplace. GPLv3, on the other hand, is both premature and heavy-handed. I'm sticking with v2, not just out of "political" reasons, but because I believe the marketplace works.
Take a look at what's happening. Microsoft, with all its monopoly power, is scared of linux, firefox, etc. The marketplace IS speaking out. Now, if someone insists on running Windows, this hasn't diminished me in any way - I haven't lost anything. If they want to run my code on a winbox instead of a linbox, how have I, or anyone else, lost out?
Same thing if they wanted to run it on a box that only allowed signed drm binaries. The only loser is the person who actually does this, then can't take advantage of any updates I do. Their loss, not mine. And its up to them to bear the cost of dumping their locked-in solution and switch.
The first freedom of free software is to run it on anything you want. That includes proprietary and/or closed systems. Now, personally, I think that's a dumb thing to do in most cases, since open systems have consistently better performance and higher-quality code, but that's my choice - my freedom.
What are people complaining about? Stuff like Tivo. Really, now - they're complaining about goddamn TV shows! Come on, there are more important things than that ... and if you don't like it, you can always make your own Freevio,or pay someone else to slap one toghether for you. Tivo didn't suddenly make Freevio impossible. What it DID do was give a target to shoot for.
Lets take a real-life example. I've got some code for an integrated back-end/front-end inventory and web site. If/when I get around to cleaning it up and gpl'ing it, if someone else takes it and mods it so that it runs on a particular piece of hardware, but that only mods "signed" by them will run on that hardware, all they've really done is limited their market to people stupid enough to buy closed hardware. Everyone else is enjoying the benefits of open code on open hardware for less. What's the problem? Its just like a lottery, a tax on stupidity, right :-)
Just this last week had a demonstration that eventually the market rights itself no matter what, when Microsoft's profits were down by a quarter, with the long-term outlook being more of the same. Closed systems just can't compete over the long term.
Another example. I wrote the beginning of a c2java converter, because java lacks a lot of the constructs I like. One of these days I'll finish it and put it out there for people to play with. What would be the incentive for someone to pay for a drm'd version, wehn they can have the original one, with source that they can modify and run, for free? There is none. Anyone trying to market such a setup would be doing the "web 0.0" dot-bomb thing.
Anyway, that's my take on it at this point. Let the free market handle it. There are too many of "us", and too few of "them", for us to fail unless we just stand there bent over with our hands around our ankles and buy any and all locked-in products. And if we do that, then we really do deserve the shafting we get.
WTF?
Now I know I'm dealing with a retard and/or a troll - and its not even Tuesday!
Percent is NOT the noun in that sentence.
The people are the subject noun; the number is an adjective that quantifies the number of people.
http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/n ouns.html
"A noun is a word used to name a person, animal, place, thing, and abstract idea."
http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/a djectve.html#adjective
"An adjective modifies a noun or a pronoun by describing, identifying, or quantifying words. An adjective usually precedes the noun or the pronoun which it modifies."
The whatever percent is a quanifier, not the subject noun you pretend it to be.
Over 98 % of the 10,000 subjects of the experiment have shown brilliance. Zero % of the 10,000 subjects of the experiment have shown brillance. Only 1 % of the 10,000 subjects of the experiment have shown brilliance.
You keep dropping the % in order to make your point, which shows your point is FUCKED!
And so are your language skills.
Manufacturers should be able to go out of business in any method they desire.
Yup. GPLv3 is just plain dumb. It "addresses" a non-existent problem. People have a choice between DRM and non-DRM platforms and software. They can and do vote with their wallets.
And for those who are thinking "what about when there are no more non-drm devices, smarty-pants" - a GPLv3 won't address that issue; a swift kick to your political masters' behinds will.
The GPLv2 isn't broken. v3 doesn't pass the "smell test"; it won't "fix" anything, certainly not a situation such as a fully-drm'd, fully closed world.
Funny, the biggest push for DRM is from the so-called "free world." What sort of frigging time-warp alternate universe have we been living in for the last 6 years?