I'm not sure if the set of approved licenses from the Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative are properly described in that way, but I am sure that approach misses the point entirely—you won't understand what the free software movement aims to achieve and why by looking at sets of licenses.
The open source group (I should not have called it a movement because open source is not a social movement) started over a decade after the free software movement started. 'Open source' is a call to a business-centric development methodology; a message chiefly aimed at businesses that essentially focuses on how software is developed. The free software movement is a social movement which talks about the freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify published software—software freedom. The people who started the open source movement noticed that free software was gaining ground but they wanted to bring this message to businesses and drop the freedom talk perhaps in an effort to make sure proprietors could try to horn in on the benefits free software brings without having to distribute free software. In so doing the open source enthusiasts dropped the ethical underpinnings of the free software movement; the ethics of the free software movement are grounded in critical ethical examinations of how people ought to treat one another with regard to computer software. This is not an anti-business message, it's a message that doesn't place business desires first.
As Stallman points out (in a newer essay in a section called "Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusionsâ¦but Not Always" which revises an older essay on the same topic) consider the radical difference in how a free software activist and an open source enthusiast react to proprietary software: the open source enthusiast might remark in a way that notes how the proprietor achieved some convenience or technical achievement without using open source development methodology but then accept the program. The free software activist might remark on how accepting this program would mean giving up software freedom, then reject the program and set about writing or funding a replacement program so people can have the functionality that program provides without giving up one's software freedom.
The Free Software Foundation has a license list in which you can find almost all of the same licenses you'd find in the Open Source Initiative's license list but the FSF's list includes commentary on most of those licenses discussing one's software freedom under each license and the effect that license's choices have on the software freedom of derivative works: copylefted free software licenses and non-copylefted free software licenses. Consider how the OSI frames licensing choices—one picks from a large list of licenses ungrouped by what foreseeable affect they would have on software freedom. That's because open source enthusiasts don't speak of software freedom and don't arrange their resources along any lines having to do with software freedom (I recall an essay written by a Red Hat lawyer, linked to in a/. story some years back, which went out of its way to describe the effect of "copyleft"—the preservation of software freedom in derivative works—but without saying "copyleft" so as to not bring to mind software freedom).
I think that what you posted is greatly undervalued, and likely underappreciated here on/. (which is chiefly an "open source" forum, built to eschew software freedom and malign anyone who pushes for viewing the issues discussed here in terms of how we treat each other, or increasing and preserving software freedom).
How many talks from Eben Moglen include the phrase "Richard was right" or "Stallman got there (earlier, before most others, etc.)"? I can't keep track of them all. Moglen is right too; it's lonely to point out that the world (less so since Snowden, but certainly the intellectual island of the US) builds computers around proprietarism and all computer users suffer for those choices.
I too didn't think rms was mad, I thought he was out of step with what other manager-audience mainstream business articles were (and are) preaching and rms' conclusions offered better practical advantages underpinned by a morality that encourages us to care about others, while the business articles were chiefly about short-term quarterly gains for the business with no interest in how people's lives were adversely affected.
Perhaps not new to IT admins but quite new to the vast majority of computer users who were likely unaware such things were possible, being done by the US government, and possibly affecting their non-work Internet access. Documentation like this and the Snowden revelations also help put a quick stop to anyone trying to minimize the importance of the news, particularly by making fun of the critique along the 'tin-foil hat' line. It's critically important that people know what's being done in their name. As other WikiLeaks documents show governments do pernicious things (including mass surveillance and extrajudicial murder).
I understand this is/., corporate news and open-source friendly website (even to the point of apparently denying giving any credit to the Free Software Foundation). However it's worth noting that writing and talking about the GNU GPL as "open source" license makes it seem like an Open Source Initiative member had something to do with writing this license when that's not the case at all. In fact, the earlier versions of the GNU GPL predate the OSI and the open source movement entirely. And the GPL's principal author (Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation) repeatedly goes around the world giving talks describing why he started the GNU Project, wrote the GNU GPL, and pointing out that the open source effort is a corporate reactionary counter to software freedom. Stallman takes time in every one of his talks to point out that he is not for 'open source'. Indeed, the open source movement eschews software freedom. Please do take the time to read the essays and listen to rms talks to learn more about this.
I'm all for everyone (including open source enthusiasts) licensing software under the GNU GPL, but I'm also for understanding why the license exists in the first place and giving credit where credit is due. Its existence is certainly not due to anything 'open source' but instead to a driving interest in making and preserving software freedom. The work is (as Eben Moglen, long-time FSF lawyer, software freedom fighter, and excellent speaker has said) principally written by Richard Stallman. Just because press releases written by people who either don't know better or which to cast the license's history in a different light get it wrong doesn't mean you have to follow them.
Under GPLv2 yes, and this is one of the reasons why licensees should prefer GPLv3. GPLv3 allows for a 30-day period following receipt of notice of the violation where a first-time violator can come into compliance and regain the rights they lost. See copyleft.org for more on this in two sections, one on GPLv2 termination on violation and another on GPLv3's "lighter" approach. Here's a quote from the relevant section on GPLv3:
GPLv3 Â8 now grants opportunities for provisional and permanent reinstatement of rights. The termination procedure provides a limited opportunity to cure license violations. If a licensee has committed a first-time violation of the GPL with respect to a given copyright holder, but the licensee cures the violation within 30 days following receipt of notice of the violation, then any of the licenseeâ(TM)s GPL rights that have been terminated by the copyright holder are âoeautomatically reinstatedâ.
I concur, and find your post to be all too typical of/. moderation -- your post deserves more points because it helps spur an important discussion people should have but probably aren't having: what happens when you choose to let few people or organizations determine what you're likely to encounter?
When people choose few sources for their information (Pat Reader gets all her information from Facebook, for instance) you'll find censorship, tracking, invasion of one's personal life via proprietary software, and many other things most people would find wholly undesirable if they knew even a little bit about how computers worked.
That's a big part of why RSS should be considered critical infrastructure: RSS lets us do the decentralization we need and still enjoy the conveniences offered by centralizing at the endpoint which can help preserve our privacy and our liberty.
He [Tim Berners-Lee] should handle it by saying 'no' but he can't, really, and the reason is he set up an organization by the businesses that want to put in the most money. And that basically tells Hollywood, "Here's your opportunity! Turn us into your tool!". That's what the W3 has become: a tool for the businesses that will pay it the money."
If United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz still has his job maybe the same broken logic is operating there too. United recently assaulted a customer who didn't want to give up his seat.
A common overbooking problem on a United Airlines flight on Sunday ended with a man being bloodied and dragged from his seat and an already troubled airline earning more bad press. How did it all go so wrong?
USA Today reports that the flight was not overbooked. United Airlines staff wanted to fly and apparently United Airlines chose staff over their customers:
United spokesman Jonathan Guerin said Tuesday that all 70 seats on United Express Flight 3411 were filled, but the plane was not overbooked as the airline previously reported. Instead, United and regional affiliate Republic Airlines, which operated the flight, selected four passengers to be removed to accommodate crew members needed in Louisville the next day. The passengers were selected based on a combination of criteria spelled out in Unitedâ(TM)s contract of carriage, including frequent-flier status, fare type, check-in time and connecting flight implications, among others, according to United.
Also, contrary to the entry currently pinned to the top of United Airlines' twitter.com feed from United CEO Oscar Munoz which looks sympathetic, "The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments", he told staff a completely different story:
Munoz issued his first public apology Monday but hours later sent a letter to the airline's employees lauding the behavior of the flight crew in dealing with a "disruptive and belligerent" passenger. Munoz credited employees with following established procedures on the Louisville-bound flight.
"This situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the passengers we politely asked to deplane refused, and it became necessary to contact Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help," the letter says. "While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right."
This would seem to answer the question the BBC pairs with their apparently hastily-drawn conclusion: "How did it all go so wrong?": It went wrong because United Airlines flight crew favored United Airlines staff over paying customers. None of the 4 customers asked to give up their seats should have been asked to give up their seat. Stop letting staff have privilege to fly at the expense of paying customers, apparently going so far as to assault customers. Stop taking the company's side of events seriously: Dr. David Dao, the customer dragged off of United flight 3411, wasn't "disruptive" or "belligerent". Even while being dragged, the video (easily found online) shows the worst he did was to say no (along with other passengers who saw him being dragged past them), which is completely understandable. Staff can coordinate their flight schedule, reserve a ticket, and board the plane just like everybody else apparently boarded flight 3411.
Contrary to Munoz's words in the letter, I sense United Airlines is now looking for new flight crew and a new CEO, assuming they're able to survive as a company (which I'm not sure they should be allowed to because I think we can all do with one less business that physically assaults their customers; we should make room for a professionally run airline that won't instill fear when company representatives ask customers to do something like an preflight offer for deplaning). This also connects very clearly to why employees need more power in the businesses they work for—apparently you can't trust some of your colleagues or high-ranking management to make the right call. This certainly gives anyone, worldwide, pause to consider what power one is giving others when one agrees to fly on their plane (this got violent even without the plane taking off!).
But you'll keep buying systems to run Microsoft Windows. I see your comment was moderated as "insightful". Your comment doesn't live up to the subject header. Your critique gives a mild bit of chastisement to a narrow problem ("can't run normal windows programs") while giving money and power to Microsoft overall ("buy a Windows machine"). This view will help keep them in charge, not challenge them in any serious way. That's not insightful, it's forgoing freedom while complaining about smaller matters better viewed as details. Certainly not "telling Microsoft to go fuck themselves". We're all better off seeking freedom from masters, not switching from one master to another.
The GNU Project told us about Microsoft malware long ago, including what is accurately listed "Microsoft Windows has a universal back door through which any change whatsoever can be imposed on the users" pointing to a mainstream media news reference from 2007 and another link indicating when this was used, and a pointer to a Condé Nast article talking about the (apparently ongoing) forced Windows Updates. Microsoft is also the first PRISM partner with the NSA joining on September 11, 2007, according to an internal NSA document so they have quite a long history of being untrustworthy but the underlying power they're leveraging comes from proprietary software.
Other proprietors are no more trustworthy. Apple didn't fix an intentional back door for 4 years, Apple didn't fix an iTunes backdoor through which others could have gained control of systems running the software. Apple joined PRISM in October 2012. Other proprietors with names you know (Yahoo, Facebook, Google, YouTube, etc.) joined in between the Microsoft and Apple partnerships.
The theme remains the same: it doesn't matter who the proprietor is (Microsoft in this case), proprietary software is always untrustworthy and this doesn't change even after applying lots of updates from the proprietor. Just because a new version is out, or a patch released does not mean the back door is shut or that you can verify their work (or even get someone more technically skilled to verify it on your behalf).
Now we have more confirmation of how the threats come from other directions, not just the proprietor, and that the threat is more organized than we commonly knew. Evidence like this immediately advances the discussion beyond the distraction of calling someone a 'tinfoil hat wearer' or other such nonsense, as did the Snowden documents. And WikiLeaks maintains their perfect record for authenticity in their publications—as far as we can tell these documents are what WikiLeaks claims they are. Proprietary software is always a threat. Software freedom is no guarantee of safety, but you're better off having software you can inspect, run, share, and modify (AKA control) than not. You simply can't trust proprietors to do right by you and all computer users deserve software freedom.
Such is the nature of proprietary software. Users are at the mercy of whatever proprietors grant.
Other problems with this:
You can't determine if Microsoft's list is complete and correct. They report whatever they want.
Even if the list is complete and correct for now, you can't do much to change anything. Remember that a previous version released information even when "privacy settings" were set not to do that? That could still happen. Didn't the EFF warn Windows users about privacy problems with Windows 10? And aren't the default settings (which, in my experience, most users use) set to reveal a great deal? The user's software freedom is not respected.
Even if the list is complete and correct for now, the software can change. Microsoft can issue an update that alters how the software behaves without updating the list.
There could be other code that releases information Microsoft left out of the so-called "privacy settings".
Regardless of the PR, regardless of the labels on the settings, regardless of whether you're using the GUI to make changes or setting registry values, regardless of whether you're using one variant of proprietary software ("Basic" edition, "Home" edition, etc.) or another (perhaps an enterprise or "professional" edition) the relationship to power does not change how proprietary software works: With proprietary software users' privacy is never really under their control. Users who don't understand how computers work or why software freedom matters may read articles like theverge.com's article and come away thinking they're better off now. They won't realize proprietary software user are still facing the same problems as before with nothing of substance altered.
The "guard dogs" were proprietary programs. Users of proprietary OSes (chiefly MacOS and Windows) were trusting one black box to "guard" against the ills of other black boxes (other likely proprietary programs running on the same system). This was always known to be foolish and this WikiLeaks release shows another indisputable example how this system is broken by design.
Software freedom (the freedom to run, share, inspect, and modify) is no guarantee against malware, life offers no such guarantees. As with other endeavors we can act to improve the odds in our favor for computers we own so we don't fall prey to the ills of proprietary software. We know that keeping secrets from computer users prevents them from controlling their own computers (this is the power of a proprietor and why proprietary software is released). When we have software freedom we increase the odds skilled software practitioners will identify malware, change the software to excise the malware, and release the improved software. One could even hire someone's skill and time to do this on their behalf.
But no such inspection, improvement, and release is legally permitted with proprietary software. Thus most computer users fall prey not only to the traps of proprietary software itself, but also to the traps built into the software, and the traps of the software ostensibly meant to guard from the ills of other malware. There's no good reason to have faith in one black box over another, trust that one black box will keep you safe while another is less trustworthy, or to continue choosing one master over another. It's easy, convenient, and untrustworthy to do as the proprietors want you to do. You can choose software freedom and invest in businesses working to provide you with practical hardware to make this an everyday reality that meets your computing needs. The Free Software Foundation's "Respects Your Freedom" list includes a high-powered X86 64-bit mainboard called the "Vikings D16 Mainboard" which looks particularly appealing for high-powered, high RAM ceiling systems. WikiLeaks continues to tell us all why we need hardware and software we can trust, software that respects our freedom—we see the consequences of not having trustworthy systems! We can choose to value software freedom for its own sake and we should. Investing in our own future in this way now portends big practical payoffs in the near and long-term future.
Dries Buytaert "ask[ed] Larry [Garfield] not to participate in the Drupal project" and Buytaert said his choice Buytaert said was based in part on "confidential information that I've received" about "omissions in Larry's blog post" concerning Garfield's sex life leading Buytaert to "[suffer] from varying degrees of shock and concern". Yet open source long prided itself on being a developmental methodology which eschews certain outside considerations, most notably software freedom. Software freedom is not relevant for consideration on its own merit, and a user's software freedom is an issue that needlessly drives away open source's principal audience—businesses. Therefore it was understandable, even if one disagreed, when an open source advocate would chastise the free software movement along the lines of including such foreign concerns like ethics into what makes software free and how one ought to treat others with regard to computers and software. Apparently other outside concerns are more acceptable and open source (a developmental methodology) values more than just development released under an OSI-approved license to make software which "drive[s] innovation" resulting in a promised "higher quality, greater reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in".
In an update to his blog post, Buytaert also says that Garfield will be deplatformed (as the neologism goes), "the Drupal Association made a decision not to invite Larry to speak at DrupalCon Baltimore or serve as a track chair for it" presumably for the same secret reasons that so shocked and concerned Buytaert—Buytaert "can't get past the fundamental misalignment of values" wherein "Larry has entwined his private and professional online identities". So there's no room for someone who believes in "The Gorean philosophy promoted by Larry [which] is based on the principle that women are evolutionarily predisposed to serve men and that the natural order is for men to dominate and lead.". And this decision comes from the man who is described as "the [Drupal] project's dictator for life, the CTO of a company with powerful influence on the open source project, the president of the Board of Directors".
The only reason Microsoft changed their language on that was because they recently learned people didn't care about them for many server-side activities including web hosting and what to run in VMs (two areas where GNU/Linux is popular). Microsoft wants to frame things in terms of popularity because it can't compete on software freedom. When Microsoft failed to show high popularity in those markets they figured they'd rather have organizations include them somewhere in the system than totally exclude them. Thus, from Microsoft's perspective, better to run their VM controller running a bunch of GNU/Linux systems than not be included at all. So out with the "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches" language (and Steve Ballmer who said that) and in with the "Microsoft loves Linux" swag. They changed their PR in the hopes people would buy this. But they can change the PR again, and none of this PR is designed to address what they're actually distributing to their users: proprietary, user-subjugating software. This is why articles like this are framed in terms of gauging in terms of popularity instead of software freedom, and "open source" instead of free software.
Much as I want to take Eben Moglen's recent LibrePlanet 2017 speech advice to heart and "destroy no coalitions at the moment" (not that I think what I say has such power to begin with), I can't help but notice that this pairing of how to evaluate the shifting language with the group that has always eschewed software freedom and conclude that this is no accident. "Fifteen years ago [...] open source was a communist virus" is right, but it can be that again so be careful not to value your software freedom in terms of popularity. The freedom will remain, continue to be hugely practical and ethical, and a value unto itself whether software proprietors consider it a proper part of what to run or not.
When Adobe writes "I just wonder who in their marketing dept thought this was a good idea." let's be clear about this—Adobe's main source of revenue is user-subjugating software (proprietary software) just like SAS. So Adobe isn't arguing that a user ought to prefer FLOSS, even reject proprietary software. Adobe's objection comes down to either quibbling over percentage points in SAS' recommendation or rejecting the recommendation altogether on the basis that any discussion of this is likely to bring to mind the very thing proprietors don't sell users and don't want users thinking about—software freedom.
Proprietors rely on FLOSS so they can't complain too much about it. Adobe's RAW camera software, for example, depends on dcraw, a FLOSS program which, as its developers put it, "has made it far easier for developers to support a wide range of digital cameras in their applications. They can call dcraw from a graphical interface, paste pieces of dcraw.c into their code, or just use dcraw.c as the documentation that camera makers refuse to provide".
Quite true; Digital Restrictions Management (contrary to what another poster said, smart people do realize and don't allow the reframing of the language away from how most people experience DRM) doesn't affect those who get their copies stripped of the restrictions as is commonplace amongst those who share. DRM chiefly adversely affects those who participate in the process (whether they spend their own money to do it or are given it gratis).
DRM is the excuse publishers use to justify the ongoing control over one's computer, spying regime modern-day DRM schemes make possible and use, and thus pose genuine risks to everyday computer users. This is not about "balancing" rights as another poster said, this is about copyright holders and their business partners using a mechanism to get more control over your devices, your privacy, and your life than they ought to have. To publishers who claim they wouldn't engage in the process without DRM, I say that's fine but I want to see proof and lots of it; please don't publish without DRM controls you couldn't have a few short years ago (remember that DRM schemes always become more onerous over time and publishers always try to convince the public they can't get by without the higher degree of control). Let your competition distribute their work at whatever price they think they can get DRM-free and do with the reduced competition. The publisher's threat is (taken on the whole) an empty threat and everyone knows it.
I concur; the Internet Archive is easily reachable by everyone using time-honored and well-understood protocols that ordinary computer users and highly-skilled computer users all can use (videos delivered over HTTPS). This will also seed BitTorrents (since archive.org has been doing that too).
I look forward to someone sharing the download URL from archive.org where we can get the lectures we're all free to share.
Meanwhile Wikipedia (and related services including Wiktionary) get a lot more views, doesn't require JS to use, and works with a lot more browsers (including textual browsers). I'm also not impressed by the Washington Post "partnership". WAPO has been a source of "fake news" Russophobic hysteria lately: the Russians reportedly attacking the US electrical grid via a Vermont electrical facility (a story they still haven't retracted), and using the PropOrNot website as a viable source when we don't know who is behind what that site claims is propaganda and the terms of being considered propaganda there are so broad many more sources could have been included.
What "most people care" about is not only not represented by mainstream corporate so-called journalists (stenographers to power, really) but that doesn't even jibe with telling people encryption works.
Similar things were said about Snowden's revelations which continue to bear fruit for the world. Don't be fooled into believing the unexamined belief the/. headline wants you to believe—that "most people" don't care. The Democrats are sore that they lost the US presidential election, a majority of state governerships, and control over Congress. They're still pushing this undefended Russophobic idea that the Russians somehow "hacked" (to use their language) the US election. They even chummed up with the CIA to help curry favor for this notion. They're hardly interested in learning that, for instance, the CIA's "UMBRAGE" effort works to plant false evidence making it look like another party did something they actually did (one of the many interesting newsworthy items found in the WikiLeaks initial "Vault 7" leak) carries a vastly different story which challenges the Democrats' as-yet-unproven tale. Neoliberals really want to get their war with Russia on and anyone who doesn't join in that effort will find a chilly reception among the neoliberal elite right now.
Also, there's been considerable coverage of this from around the world, but if you're only paying attention to American corporate mainstream media you will not find dissenting views that challenge a corporate narrative which stood fully behind Mrs. Clinton's 2nd failed attempt at becoming US President. Americans don't make up most of the people in the world and American mainstream media is taken less seriously these days (for good reason).
The first question is great, a right and proper way to respond to any entitlement program aimed at improving the healthcare outcomes of a subset of Americans. The second question gives up on the promise of the first and is all too typical of the weak US Left.
Right now those who were really unhappy that Donald Trump became US President are letting Pres. Trump set the agenda for how US healthcare ought to work while pointlessly going on about preserving ObamaCare. ObamaCare (nee RomneyCare) was a gift to the HMOs which kept the HMOs in charge. It's time for universalizing Medicare for all Americans, and HR676 is the practical means to do this.
Physicians for a National Health Program have been championing HR676 for a while and for good reason. It's well time to tell the US government how to handle this, not let them come up with another complex means of preserving HMO power (which invariably means needlessly expensive healthcare that doesn't cover everyone, preserves the idea that healthcare is not a human right, and doesn't deliver outcomes which compare well with countries that do universalize their medical care delivery).
"Perhaps accept that "secure" isn't as necessary, too." This message brought to you by your friends at the NSA, CIA, and other organizations that are eager to learn more about you.
I think there's nothing wrong with considering what security means here. I'd certainly prefer non-technical people conversed electronically using a protocol and free software programs which used encrypted message transfer by default. I don't think it's wise to continue in the older way of doing unencrypted message transfer for everything and then being unpleasantly surprised how many parties spy on users. How much trouble one wants to go to in order to ensure a desired level of security should be a concern and part of the needs requirements. I'm also unconvinced that multimedia can't properly be a part of IM. Every message in any medium takes time to compose and read, watch, or somehow deal with. I take the "instant" in instant messaging to be a (somewhat inarticulate) description of the ease with which one can send a message of any kind to someone else. In other words, minimal setup with a simple UI, not the medium of the message. My understanding is that younger users expect to be able to make and deliver short audiovisual messages, so I'd give such messages more consideration than the parent suggests.
I'd say things are pretty easy on VW considering what they should have had to produce for all of their customers (complete corresponding source code including build tools licensed under a free software license or, for the cars that never should have been sold in the first place, buy-back of the car at whatever price the person paid).
Management is eager to get this behind them in a way where people think it's over and done with, but there's no reason to trust any of the auto manufacturers involved in the conspiracy (not just VW used code designed to fool tests). VW's got self-driving cars to try to position (they appear to be pushing this concept now) and sell, after all. Can't have memories of how they ripped off customers lingering in the minds and 'tainting' future products, even though that's precisely what's fair and reasonable for would-be customers to do.
Perhaps this is the latest PR initiative to try to get the public to defend "invisible" spying. Google makes considerable money and maintains relationships with powerful organizations on the basis of spying. Spying is very much a part of Google's business. Google could probably use a way to get more people to (even indirectly) defend Javascript-based spying by turning the public into ignorant supporters who say things like 'We *need* this invisible reCAPTCHA' when we could actually choose to do without it.
Without knowing what the code does (and keeping up with all the changes, changes which can happen at any time) we can't confirm this code only does the job Google claims it does.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure if the set of approved licenses from the Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative are properly described in that way, but I am sure that approach misses the point entirely—you won't understand what the free software movement aims to achieve and why by looking at sets of licenses.
The open source group (I should not have called it a movement because open source is not a social movement) started over a decade after the free software movement started. 'Open source' is a call to a business-centric development methodology; a message chiefly aimed at businesses that essentially focuses on how software is developed. The free software movement is a social movement which talks about the freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify published software—software freedom. The people who started the open source movement noticed that free software was gaining ground but they wanted to bring this message to businesses and drop the freedom talk perhaps in an effort to make sure proprietors could try to horn in on the benefits free software brings without having to distribute free software. In so doing the open source enthusiasts dropped the ethical underpinnings of the free software movement; the ethics of the free software movement are grounded in critical ethical examinations of how people ought to treat one another with regard to computer software. This is not an anti-business message, it's a message that doesn't place business desires first.
As Stallman points out (in a newer essay in a section called "Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusionsâ¦but Not Always" which revises an older essay on the same topic) consider the radical difference in how a free software activist and an open source enthusiast react to proprietary software: the open source enthusiast might remark in a way that notes how the proprietor achieved some convenience or technical achievement without using open source development methodology but then accept the program. The free software activist might remark on how accepting this program would mean giving up software freedom, then reject the program and set about writing or funding a replacement program so people can have the functionality that program provides without giving up one's software freedom.
The Free Software Foundation has a license list in which you can find almost all of the same licenses you'd find in the Open Source Initiative's license list but the FSF's list includes commentary on most of those licenses discussing one's software freedom under each license and the effect that license's choices have on the software freedom of derivative works: copylefted free software licenses and non-copylefted free software licenses. Consider how the OSI frames licensing choices—one picks from a large list of licenses ungrouped by what foreseeable affect they would have on software freedom. That's because open source enthusiasts don't speak of software freedom and don't arrange their resources along any lines having to do with software freedom (I recall an essay written by a Red Hat lawyer, linked to in a /. story some years back, which went out of its way to describe the effect of "copyleft"—the preservation of software freedom in derivative works—but without saying "copyleft" so as to not bring to mind software freedom).
I think that what you posted is greatly undervalued, and likely underappreciated here on /. (which is chiefly an "open source" forum, built to eschew software freedom and malign anyone who pushes for viewing the issues discussed here in terms of how we treat each other, or increasing and preserving software freedom).
How many talks from Eben Moglen include the phrase "Richard was right" or "Stallman got there (earlier, before most others, etc.)"? I can't keep track of them all. Moglen is right too; it's lonely to point out that the world (less so since Snowden, but certainly the intellectual island of the US) builds computers around proprietarism and all computer users suffer for those choices.
I too didn't think rms was mad, I thought he was out of step with what other manager-audience mainstream business articles were (and are) preaching and rms' conclusions offered better practical advantages underpinned by a morality that encourages us to care about others, while the business articles were chiefly about short-term quarterly gains for the business with no interest in how people's lives were adversely affected.
Perhaps not new to IT admins but quite new to the vast majority of computer users who were likely unaware such things were possible, being done by the US government, and possibly affecting their non-work Internet access. Documentation like this and the Snowden revelations also help put a quick stop to anyone trying to minimize the importance of the news, particularly by making fun of the critique along the 'tin-foil hat' line. It's critically important that people know what's being done in their name. As other WikiLeaks documents show governments do pernicious things (including mass surveillance and extrajudicial murder).
I understand this is /., corporate news and open-source friendly website (even to the point of apparently denying giving any credit to the Free Software Foundation). However it's worth noting that writing and talking about the GNU GPL as "open source" license makes it seem like an Open Source Initiative member had something to do with writing this license when that's not the case at all. In fact, the earlier versions of the GNU GPL predate the OSI and the open source movement entirely. And the GPL's principal author (Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation) repeatedly goes around the world giving talks describing why he started the GNU Project, wrote the GNU GPL, and pointing out that the open source effort is a corporate reactionary counter to software freedom. Stallman takes time in every one of his talks to point out that he is not for 'open source'. Indeed, the open source movement eschews software freedom. Please do take the time to read the essays and listen to rms talks to learn more about this.
I'm all for everyone (including open source enthusiasts) licensing software under the GNU GPL, but I'm also for understanding why the license exists in the first place and giving credit where credit is due. Its existence is certainly not due to anything 'open source' but instead to a driving interest in making and preserving software freedom. The work is (as Eben Moglen, long-time FSF lawyer, software freedom fighter, and excellent speaker has said) principally written by Richard Stallman. Just because press releases written by people who either don't know better or which to cast the license's history in a different light get it wrong doesn't mean you have to follow them.
Under GPLv2 yes, and this is one of the reasons why licensees should prefer GPLv3. GPLv3 allows for a 30-day period following receipt of notice of the violation where a first-time violator can come into compliance and regain the rights they lost. See copyleft.org for more on this in two sections, one on GPLv2 termination on violation and another on GPLv3's "lighter" approach. Here's a quote from the relevant section on GPLv3:
I concur, and find your post to be all too typical of /. moderation -- your post deserves more points because it helps spur an important discussion people should have but probably aren't having: what happens when you choose to let few people or organizations determine what you're likely to encounter?
When people choose few sources for their information (Pat Reader gets all her information from Facebook, for instance) you'll find censorship, tracking, invasion of one's personal life via proprietary software, and many other things most people would find wholly undesirable if they knew even a little bit about how computers worked.
That's a big part of why RSS should be considered critical infrastructure: RSS lets us do the decentralization we need and still enjoy the conveniences offered by centralizing at the endpoint which can help preserve our privacy and our liberty.
Richard M. Stallman (rms, widely known as the founder of the GNU Project and frequent lecturer speaking for software freedom, the freedom to control one's computers by having the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify the code they run) explained why the W3C can't get away from DRM ("digital handcuffs") starting around 11m40s into the interview. Around 15m16s rms pointed out why the W3 is structurally incapable of challenging DRM:
If United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz still has his job maybe the same broken logic is operating there too. United recently assaulted a customer who didn't want to give up his seat.
From TFA:
USA Today reports that the flight was not overbooked. United Airlines staff wanted to fly and apparently United Airlines chose staff over their customers:
Also, contrary to the entry currently pinned to the top of United Airlines' twitter.com feed from United CEO Oscar Munoz which looks sympathetic, "The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments", he told staff a completely different story:
This would seem to answer the question the BBC pairs with their apparently hastily-drawn conclusion: "How did it all go so wrong?": It went wrong because United Airlines flight crew favored United Airlines staff over paying customers. None of the 4 customers asked to give up their seats should have been asked to give up their seat. Stop letting staff have privilege to fly at the expense of paying customers, apparently going so far as to assault customers. Stop taking the company's side of events seriously: Dr. David Dao, the customer dragged off of United flight 3411, wasn't "disruptive" or "belligerent". Even while being dragged, the video (easily found online) shows the worst he did was to say no (along with other passengers who saw him being dragged past them), which is completely understandable. Staff can coordinate their flight schedule, reserve a ticket, and board the plane just like everybody else apparently boarded flight 3411.
Contrary to Munoz's words in the letter, I sense United Airlines is now looking for new flight crew and a new CEO, assuming they're able to survive as a company (which I'm not sure they should be allowed to because I think we can all do with one less business that physically assaults their customers; we should make room for a professionally run airline that won't instill fear when company representatives ask customers to do something like an preflight offer for deplaning). This also connects very clearly to why employees need more power in the businesses they work for—apparently you can't trust some of your colleagues or high-ranking management to make the right call. This certainly gives anyone, worldwide, pause to consider what power one is giving others when one agrees to fly on their plane (this got violent even without the plane taking off!).
But you'll keep buying systems to run Microsoft Windows. I see your comment was moderated as "insightful". Your comment doesn't live up to the subject header. Your critique gives a mild bit of chastisement to a narrow problem ("can't run normal windows programs") while giving money and power to Microsoft overall ("buy a Windows machine"). This view will help keep them in charge, not challenge them in any serious way. That's not insightful, it's forgoing freedom while complaining about smaller matters better viewed as details. Certainly not "telling Microsoft to go fuck themselves". We're all better off seeking freedom from masters, not switching from one master to another.
The GNU Project told us about Microsoft malware long ago, including what is accurately listed "Microsoft Windows has a universal back door through which any change whatsoever can be imposed on the users" pointing to a mainstream media news reference from 2007 and another link indicating when this was used, and a pointer to a Condé Nast article talking about the (apparently ongoing) forced Windows Updates. Microsoft is also the first PRISM partner with the NSA joining on September 11, 2007, according to an internal NSA document so they have quite a long history of being untrustworthy but the underlying power they're leveraging comes from proprietary software.
Other proprietors are no more trustworthy. Apple didn't fix an intentional back door for 4 years, Apple didn't fix an iTunes backdoor through which others could have gained control of systems running the software. Apple joined PRISM in October 2012. Other proprietors with names you know (Yahoo, Facebook, Google, YouTube, etc.) joined in between the Microsoft and Apple partnerships.
The theme remains the same: it doesn't matter who the proprietor is (Microsoft in this case), proprietary software is always untrustworthy and this doesn't change even after applying lots of updates from the proprietor. Just because a new version is out, or a patch released does not mean the back door is shut or that you can verify their work (or even get someone more technically skilled to verify it on your behalf).
Now we have more confirmation of how the threats come from other directions, not just the proprietor, and that the threat is more organized than we commonly knew. Evidence like this immediately advances the discussion beyond the distraction of calling someone a 'tinfoil hat wearer' or other such nonsense, as did the Snowden documents. And WikiLeaks maintains their perfect record for authenticity in their publications—as far as we can tell these documents are what WikiLeaks claims they are. Proprietary software is always a threat. Software freedom is no guarantee of safety, but you're better off having software you can inspect, run, share, and modify (AKA control) than not. You simply can't trust proprietors to do right by you and all computer users deserve software freedom.
Such is the nature of proprietary software. Users are at the mercy of whatever proprietors grant.
Other problems with this:
Regardless of the PR, regardless of the labels on the settings, regardless of whether you're using the GUI to make changes or setting registry values, regardless of whether you're using one variant of proprietary software ("Basic" edition, "Home" edition, etc.) or another (perhaps an enterprise or "professional" edition) the relationship to power does not change how proprietary software works: With proprietary software users' privacy is never really under their control. Users who don't understand how computers work or why software freedom matters may read articles like theverge.com's article and come away thinking they're better off now. They won't realize proprietary software user are still facing the same problems as before with nothing of substance altered.
The "guard dogs" were proprietary programs. Users of proprietary OSes (chiefly MacOS and Windows) were trusting one black box to "guard" against the ills of other black boxes (other likely proprietary programs running on the same system). This was always known to be foolish and this WikiLeaks release shows another indisputable example how this system is broken by design.
Software freedom (the freedom to run, share, inspect, and modify) is no guarantee against malware, life offers no such guarantees. As with other endeavors we can act to improve the odds in our favor for computers we own so we don't fall prey to the ills of proprietary software. We know that keeping secrets from computer users prevents them from controlling their own computers (this is the power of a proprietor and why proprietary software is released). When we have software freedom we increase the odds skilled software practitioners will identify malware, change the software to excise the malware, and release the improved software. One could even hire someone's skill and time to do this on their behalf.
But no such inspection, improvement, and release is legally permitted with proprietary software. Thus most computer users fall prey not only to the traps of proprietary software itself, but also to the traps built into the software, and the traps of the software ostensibly meant to guard from the ills of other malware. There's no good reason to have faith in one black box over another, trust that one black box will keep you safe while another is less trustworthy, or to continue choosing one master over another. It's easy, convenient, and untrustworthy to do as the proprietors want you to do. You can choose software freedom and invest in businesses working to provide you with practical hardware to make this an everyday reality that meets your computing needs. The Free Software Foundation's "Respects Your Freedom" list includes a high-powered X86 64-bit mainboard called the "Vikings D16 Mainboard" which looks particularly appealing for high-powered, high RAM ceiling systems. WikiLeaks continues to tell us all why we need hardware and software we can trust, software that respects our freedom—we see the consequences of not having trustworthy systems! We can choose to value software freedom for its own sake and we should. Investing in our own future in this way now portends big practical payoffs in the near and long-term future.
Dries Buytaert "ask[ed] Larry [Garfield] not to participate in the Drupal project" and Buytaert said his choice Buytaert said was based in part on "confidential information that I've received" about "omissions in Larry's blog post" concerning Garfield's sex life leading Buytaert to "[suffer] from varying degrees of shock and concern". Yet open source long prided itself on being a developmental methodology which eschews certain outside considerations, most notably software freedom. Software freedom is not relevant for consideration on its own merit, and a user's software freedom is an issue that needlessly drives away open source's principal audience—businesses. Therefore it was understandable, even if one disagreed, when an open source advocate would chastise the free software movement along the lines of including such foreign concerns like ethics into what makes software free and how one ought to treat others with regard to computers and software. Apparently other outside concerns are more acceptable and open source (a developmental methodology) values more than just development released under an OSI-approved license to make software which "drive[s] innovation" resulting in a promised "higher quality, greater reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in".
In an update to his blog post, Buytaert also says that Garfield will be deplatformed (as the neologism goes), "the Drupal Association made a decision not to invite Larry to speak at DrupalCon Baltimore or serve as a track chair for it" presumably for the same secret reasons that so shocked and concerned Buytaert—Buytaert "can't get past the fundamental misalignment of values" wherein "Larry has entwined his private and professional online identities". So there's no room for someone who believes in "The Gorean philosophy promoted by Larry [which] is based on the principle that women are evolutionarily predisposed to serve men and that the natural order is for men to dominate and lead.". And this decision comes from the man who is described as "the [Drupal] project's dictator for life, the CTO of a company with powerful influence on the open source project, the president of the Board of Directors".
The only reason Microsoft changed their language on that was because they recently learned people didn't care about them for many server-side activities including web hosting and what to run in VMs (two areas where GNU/Linux is popular). Microsoft wants to frame things in terms of popularity because it can't compete on software freedom. When Microsoft failed to show high popularity in those markets they figured they'd rather have organizations include them somewhere in the system than totally exclude them. Thus, from Microsoft's perspective, better to run their VM controller running a bunch of GNU/Linux systems than not be included at all. So out with the "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches" language (and Steve Ballmer who said that) and in with the "Microsoft loves Linux" swag. They changed their PR in the hopes people would buy this. But they can change the PR again, and none of this PR is designed to address what they're actually distributing to their users: proprietary, user-subjugating software. This is why articles like this are framed in terms of gauging in terms of popularity instead of software freedom, and "open source" instead of free software.
Much as I want to take Eben Moglen's recent LibrePlanet 2017 speech advice to heart and "destroy no coalitions at the moment" (not that I think what I say has such power to begin with), I can't help but notice that this pairing of how to evaluate the shifting language with the group that has always eschewed software freedom and conclude that this is no accident. "Fifteen years ago [...] open source was a communist virus" is right, but it can be that again so be careful not to value your software freedom in terms of popularity. The freedom will remain, continue to be hugely practical and ethical, and a value unto itself whether software proprietors consider it a proper part of what to run or not.
When Adobe writes "I just wonder who in their marketing dept thought this was a good idea." let's be clear about this—Adobe's main source of revenue is user-subjugating software (proprietary software) just like SAS. So Adobe isn't arguing that a user ought to prefer FLOSS, even reject proprietary software. Adobe's objection comes down to either quibbling over percentage points in SAS' recommendation or rejecting the recommendation altogether on the basis that any discussion of this is likely to bring to mind the very thing proprietors don't sell users and don't want users thinking about—software freedom.
Proprietors rely on FLOSS so they can't complain too much about it. Adobe's RAW camera software, for example, depends on dcraw, a FLOSS program which, as its developers put it, "has made it far easier for developers to support a wide range of digital cameras in their applications. They can call dcraw from a graphical interface, paste pieces of dcraw.c into their code, or just use dcraw.c as the documentation that camera makers refuse to provide".
Quite true; Digital Restrictions Management (contrary to what another poster said, smart people do realize and don't allow the reframing of the language away from how most people experience DRM) doesn't affect those who get their copies stripped of the restrictions as is commonplace amongst those who share. DRM chiefly adversely affects those who participate in the process (whether they spend their own money to do it or are given it gratis).
DRM is the excuse publishers use to justify the ongoing control over one's computer, spying regime modern-day DRM schemes make possible and use, and thus pose genuine risks to everyday computer users. This is not about "balancing" rights as another poster said, this is about copyright holders and their business partners using a mechanism to get more control over your devices, your privacy, and your life than they ought to have. To publishers who claim they wouldn't engage in the process without DRM, I say that's fine but I want to see proof and lots of it; please don't publish without DRM controls you couldn't have a few short years ago (remember that DRM schemes always become more onerous over time and publishers always try to convince the public they can't get by without the higher degree of control). Let your competition distribute their work at whatever price they think they can get DRM-free and do with the reduced competition. The publisher's threat is (taken on the whole) an empty threat and everyone knows it.
I concur; the Internet Archive is easily reachable by everyone using time-honored and well-understood protocols that ordinary computer users and highly-skilled computer users all can use (videos delivered over HTTPS). This will also seed BitTorrents (since archive.org has been doing that too).
I look forward to someone sharing the download URL from archive.org where we can get the lectures we're all free to share.
Meanwhile Wikipedia (and related services including Wiktionary) get a lot more views, doesn't require JS to use, and works with a lot more browsers (including textual browsers). I'm also not impressed by the Washington Post "partnership". WAPO has been a source of "fake news" Russophobic hysteria lately: the Russians reportedly attacking the US electrical grid via a Vermont electrical facility (a story they still haven't retracted), and using the PropOrNot website as a viable source when we don't know who is behind what that site claims is propaganda and the terms of being considered propaganda there are so broad many more sources could have been included.
What "most people care" about is not only not represented by mainstream corporate so-called journalists (stenographers to power, really) but that doesn't even jibe with telling people encryption works.
Similar things were said about Snowden's revelations which continue to bear fruit for the world. Don't be fooled into believing the unexamined belief the /. headline wants you to believe—that "most people" don't care. The Democrats are sore that they lost the US presidential election, a majority of state governerships, and control over Congress. They're still pushing this undefended Russophobic idea that the Russians somehow "hacked" (to use their language) the US election. They even chummed up with the CIA to help curry favor for this notion. They're hardly interested in learning that, for instance, the CIA's "UMBRAGE" effort works to plant false evidence making it look like another party did something they actually did (one of the many interesting newsworthy items found in the WikiLeaks initial "Vault 7" leak) carries a vastly different story which challenges the Democrats' as-yet-unproven tale. Neoliberals really want to get their war with Russia on and anyone who doesn't join in that effort will find a chilly reception among the neoliberal elite right now.
Also, there's been considerable coverage of this from around the world, but if you're only paying attention to American corporate mainstream media you will not find dissenting views that challenge a corporate narrative which stood fully behind Mrs. Clinton's 2nd failed attempt at becoming US President. Americans don't make up most of the people in the world and American mainstream media is taken less seriously these days (for good reason).
The first question is great, a right and proper way to respond to any entitlement program aimed at improving the healthcare outcomes of a subset of Americans. The second question gives up on the promise of the first and is all too typical of the weak US Left.
Right now those who were really unhappy that Donald Trump became US President are letting Pres. Trump set the agenda for how US healthcare ought to work while pointlessly going on about preserving ObamaCare. ObamaCare (nee RomneyCare) was a gift to the HMOs which kept the HMOs in charge. It's time for universalizing Medicare for all Americans, and HR676 is the practical means to do this.
Physicians for a National Health Program have been championing HR676 for a while and for good reason. It's well time to tell the US government how to handle this, not let them come up with another complex means of preserving HMO power (which invariably means needlessly expensive healthcare that doesn't cover everyone, preserves the idea that healthcare is not a human right, and doesn't deliver outcomes which compare well with countries that do universalize their medical care delivery).
I recommend learning more about universalizing Medicare: an interview with Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, more on HR676, and Dr. Woolhandler on the inadequacies of ObamaCare on KPFA radio starting at 20m27s.
"Perhaps accept that "secure" isn't as necessary, too."
This message brought to you by your friends at the NSA, CIA, and other organizations that are eager to learn more about you.
I think there's nothing wrong with considering what security means here. I'd certainly prefer non-technical people conversed electronically using a protocol and free software programs which used encrypted message transfer by default. I don't think it's wise to continue in the older way of doing unencrypted message transfer for everything and then being unpleasantly surprised how many parties spy on users. How much trouble one wants to go to in order to ensure a desired level of security should be a concern and part of the needs requirements. I'm also unconvinced that multimedia can't properly be a part of IM. Every message in any medium takes time to compose and read, watch, or somehow deal with. I take the "instant" in instant messaging to be a (somewhat inarticulate) description of the ease with which one can send a message of any kind to someone else. In other words, minimal setup with a simple UI, not the medium of the message. My understanding is that younger users expect to be able to make and deliver short audiovisual messages, so I'd give such messages more consideration than the parent suggests.
I'd say things are pretty easy on VW considering what they should have had to produce for all of their customers (complete corresponding source code including build tools licensed under a free software license or, for the cars that never should have been sold in the first place, buy-back of the car at whatever price the person paid).
Management is eager to get this behind them in a way where people think it's over and done with, but there's no reason to trust any of the auto manufacturers involved in the conspiracy (not just VW used code designed to fool tests). VW's got self-driving cars to try to position (they appear to be pushing this concept now) and sell, after all. Can't have memories of how they ripped off customers lingering in the minds and 'tainting' future products, even though that's precisely what's fair and reasonable for would-be customers to do.
Perhaps this is the latest PR initiative to try to get the public to defend "invisible" spying. Google makes considerable money and maintains relationships with powerful organizations on the basis of spying. Spying is very much a part of Google's business. Google could probably use a way to get more people to (even indirectly) defend Javascript-based spying by turning the public into ignorant supporters who say things like 'We *need* this invisible reCAPTCHA' when we could actually choose to do without it.
Without knowing what the code does (and keeping up with all the changes, changes which can happen at any time) we can't confirm this code only does the job Google claims it does.