I imagine the FSF doesn't have the resources to manufacture and distribute their own hardware, and it is still true that hardware is manufactured not copied. But perhaps you were not aware that the FSF runs the "Respects Your Freedom" campaign which currently endorses the Gluglug X60 laptop computer since December 18th, 2013 along with a 3D printer and a couple of wireless adapters one can connect to a computer via USB.
Stallman has said in numerous talks that he doesn't own a cell phone because not only due to lack of respect for his software freedom but also because they are (more properly identified as) trackers. He rightly objects to handing over data to track his location, as is part of a cell phone's normal operation. As with so many of these issues, his precience in looking out for his own privacy predates the headlines—Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept report that the NSA has been using SIM cards (commonly used with cell phones) tracking data to target drone attacks: "What's more, he adds, the NSA often locates drone targets by analyzing the activity of a SIM card, rather than the actual content of the calls. Based on his experience, he has come to believe that the drone program amounts to little more than death by unreliable metadata.".
Stallman has also long pointed out that code in unchangeable hardware (code in ROM, for example) is equivalent to hardware in that the user and the developer are facing the same hurdles to modify that code. So I'd imagine that a toaster with code in ROM would be a candidate toaster for him to own. But so many devices these days have updateable code. If the code can be changed the user and developer might not be on an equal footing with regards to who is allowed to change that code (free software grants you the freedoms nonfree software does not grant). Thus this more common occurrence raises all the issues he's been talking about, writing/publishing software for, and organizing against for decades.
No, the GNU GPL focuses on the rights of the user. Developers and distributors (now "conveyors" in GPLv3) are restricted from exercising powers governments grant them in favor of letting users exercise their rights granted under the GPL (including section 3 aptly named "Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law", exercising patent powers as described in section 11, and various freedoms and responsibilites for conveying copies in sections 4 through 6).
Stallman has long stated that it is unethical to hold power over the user, and that proprietary (nonfree) software (no matter its purpose) subjugates the user to the developer's control. The free software definition itself says " The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power.". As we learn of ever increasing uses of this power (many stories carried on/., the ongoing NSA scandal) we learn that software freedom is more important than ever before. Looking at these issues simply as a developmental methodology (throwing out ethical consideration as the open source movement is designed to do) simply won't fix the problem. There are other related issues involved as well, and Stallman has addressed them for years in talks. I recommend any of his talks about "A Free Digital Society". He is, as usual, way ahead of the corporate press and their repeaters on/. regarding these issues.
tries to put restrictions of ethical conduct on use and modification of the software. Because it restricts what jobs people can use the software for, and restricts in substantive ways what jobs modified versions of the program can do, it is not a free software license. The ironic result is that the community of people most likely to feel sympathy for the goals of the HESSLA cannot contribute to HESSLA-covered software without violating its principles.
This issue apparently comes up often enough and is important enough where the FSF has published an essay on why programs must not limit the freedom to run them which is also linked to the aforementioned HESSLA commentary.
Considering the FSF's document pointed to above dates back multiple years, I'd say RMS has long answered your question.
The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) is a strongly copylefted Free Software license which uses the word "prohibit" for multiple things. I'd hardly think an organization would put such language in their license if they objected to the use of the words as you think they do.
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.
This prohibition is a good thing because proprietary software subjugates the user to the developer's control; that's why proprietary software is developed and distributed. Proprietary software is often malware and thus a mechanism for spying on the user, removing programs the user wants to keep installed, and more anti-freedom activities that deny users complete control over their computer. This all happens to any user regardless of how skilled they are with computing, or how willing they are to take advantage of their software freedom.
When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.
Section 7c of the GNU GPL version 3 "prohibits" misrepresenting material from upstream conveyed copies ("Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version").
Section 11 of the GNU GPL version 3 includes a prohibition to make sure certain patents don't lock users out of exercising the freedoms the license grants.
The details matter: To understand what's going on you have to understand what is being forbidden and prohibited, why these allowances and restrictions are necessary, which users are affected, and how and then evaluate if those causes and remedies are right and proper.
Any complex software has bugs and perfection is never available. The important question remains: how are the users treated? If the software respects a user's freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify the software, users are treated well. If these freedoms are not respected, the user is subjugated. This is an ethical issue with technical ramifications.
Non-free programs (such as Microsoft Windows and Apple's OSes) are designed and licensed to prohibit anyone but the proprietor from understanding how the software works. Nobody but the proprietor can fix bugs or improve the program (I use the word "improve" purposefully subjectively here). And the proprietor could have included a variety of other problems (from the user's perspective) because proprietary software is often malware. A free software system (such as a GNU/Linux system on which nothing but free software is installed) can be fully inspected, shared, and modified by the users. Free software lets users treat each other ethically, non-free software leaves even the most expert users who are willing to do technical inspection/bugfixing work in the dark and prevents them from sharing with others, thus preventing them from helping others.
Software freedom is a far better arrangement for the user. Where non-free software users have to wait for a proprietary binary to patch a problem (possibly introducing new problems and leaving other known problems unfixed such as Apple did for over 3 years with an exploitable iTunes bug during which time governments used the hole to invade people's computers), a free software user has additional options. One can choose to learn to program and fix bugs themselves, one can get someone else to fix software for them (even commercially, by hiring someone trustworthy and appropriate just as one would do to fix other things). No one person can understand all the software they need, there's way too much software to do that. But together we can (and do!) maintain free software systems very well.
The point you fail to understand is that with software that respects a user's freedom, one doesn't need to wait for someone else to fix the bug for them and then hope that bug actually gets fixed when the ostensible fix is released. Users running nothing but free software have options to fix any bug and verify that fix which proprietary software disallows.
The rest of your statement is a form of false dichotomy—arguing from perfection. I never said anything was perfect.
The software Apple distributes to users is proprietary, even if part of that software is built from free software. Proprietary software is never safe for users. Its safety is for the proprietor—what the program allows the proprietor to do to the users.
Apparently memories around here are so short people can't remember when researchers showed Apple can read iMessages anytime Apple wants and the users have no idea which messages are being read. Whether anyone at Apple reads someone's iMessages is a detail so long as Apple can read any iMessage they choose. The same applies to any proprietor for any software which doesn't respect your software freedom. You avoid these problems by avoiding proprietary software.
Nothing in the GPL prohibits commercial redistribution. The GPL aims to prohibit proprietarization. Commercial redistribution and proprietarization are not the same thing. Ensuring software freedom for users of derivatives is a good thing.
Any device's software can do things you don't want. If that device requires software which runs on your computer, then that software can do anything your OS lets it do.
This means a program running with your credentials (running as you) on a networked home computer can upload copies of files you can read, launch a program to spy on you as you work, or possibly install some software that does nasty things to any user of that computer. The possibilities are too numerous to list. And this program can be something that computer users might view as necessary or innocent like a device driver program, or some other program needed to let users control the added device.
So what users who value their privacy and software freedom want has little to do with 3D printing per se because these users make the same demand regardless of the purpose of the new device. One such user avoids devices that run non-free software, or require non-free software to be installed elsewhere to work. That way one can run a 100% free software system (right now that means a free BIOS, free software OS, and nothing but free software programs installed atop that) and use the new device fully.
Actually, as Snowden's revelations point out to all of us, embedding computers with non-free software in them is a huge social problem as it takes away our privacy. Many computers which are updateable only by proprietors is a social problem as well, because those computers can be set up to do things their owners don't want them to do. There's no opportunity for the owner to know what they're really doing, so even hiring someone to do that work on their behalf is out of the question. Many people buy and operate these devices but that is no excuse for treating the customers that way. Citing how many other people build such systems is also no excuse for treating other people that way.
If "Apple respected the wishes of these copyright holders" they would not have distributed any software without complying with each program's license in the first place. That onus of responsibility lies with each distributor.
When a free software program's copyright holder stands up for their license and demands compliance, they're up against another party who is doing the wrong thing. Hence it's perfectly right and proper to say Apple got caught.
Similarly, it's up to Apple to investigate the information they're given before distributing the work further in order to make sure Apple is not participating in copyright infringement. Giving Apple a pass for being handed works by "criminals in China who took the works of authors" is no excuse for commercial copyright infringement. On the contrary, if the upstream were known criminals it should not have been that tough for an multinational organization to learn who they were dealing with and become suspicious thus triggering an investigation.
It's telling that you didn't come up with some attempt to diminish NeXT's wrongdoing in their initial GCC distribution. I'll take Kuhn's word for it over yours because he's only one hop away from the people at the FSF who were there at the time and know what happened in dealing with NeXT.
Recommending any proprietary software to do any task is recommending a security hole. It's trivially easy for any proprietor to include code that spies on you, as computer programmers have long known and Edward Snowden has shown us again. No amount of experience running proprietary software will tell you what you need to know to fix its problems, share your fixes with others, hire others you have good reason to trust to fix problems on your behalf, or even allow someone you have good reason to trust to inspect the program to see if anything needs to be fixed (they're forbidden to do this work for the same reason you are). Picking one proprietary anti-virus program over another, picking one proprietary browser over another, or picking any proprietary program over another proprietary variant of the same kind of program is merely choosing your master. You cannot arrive at a trustworthy solution in this way.
Instead you should choose free (libre) software for your OS, your firmware (via Coreboot), and for all the software you run atop that system. Eschew services that require you to adopt non-free software and gain more control over your computer. The Free Software Foundation's Respects Your Freedom recently added a computer that meets these criteria. We should help them and help free software hackers write more free software to do the jobs we need to be done.
"Good art" strikes me both a non-sequitur here and remarkably subjective. I certainly would never disqualify folk art from being "good" because folk art is highly derivative of others work.
Copying things exactly in this context is a side-effect of using a medium (computer graphics) in which visual items can be duplicated precisely. If one is uncomfortable with that fact, one should consider choosing another medium. This also doesn't help identify the meaning of what I asked about earlier. I also fail to see what would be objectionable about OpenTTD's precise replication and capability extension.
Artists should support free speech even when its their speech that is being commented upon.
I don't know what Sawyer makes of OpenTTD and I see no pointer to a source for the parent's recollection. As I understand it, OpenTTD is currently licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2. I'll also take OpenTTD's developers word for it that their work is a newly-written program (the fruit of a 2003 reverse engineering effort by Ludvig Strigeus, according to Wikipedia), not an illicit derivative of code from Sawyer.
Given those assumptions, OpenTTD is not a version of the program Sawyer wrote. OpenTTD is a separate program that does the same job with no shared code between them. Sawyer's TTD can be said to inspire OpenTTD but I don't see how inspiration qualifies as a derivative work. Creating a work-alike in no way alters the other program(s) that do the same thing. So it's not clear to me what an "artistic view" of the original program really means. I hope this language is not an attempt at giving or claiming unwarranted control over workalike programs.
I certainly hope the parent's recollection is inaccurate and more artists welcome comments on their work, as well as respecting the user's freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify the program.
Thanks for pointing me to your sources so I can read them for myself.
Fighting for copyleft is standing up for user's software freedoms for derivative works. Copyleft itself is not the goal, but copyleft is part of a means to securing software freedom for the future.
I see RMS saying he's fighting for user's software freedom via copyleft, but I don't see how that is equivalent to saying "RMS does not want GCC to play any part in a toolchain/process which might have non-GPL parts". Other copyleft licenses exist. RMS and points out when those licenses don't do as good a job defending user's software freedoms as the GPL does and then he explains his rationale. Also, it is possible to make a copylefted free software license that allows conversion to the GPL (such as the Netscape Javascript license or via an explicit conversion clause). I can also envision a strongly copylefted free software license that does a better job of defending user's software freedoms than any of the GPL variants. But I don't know of such a license. If one such license should exist, I'd expect RMS to respond as he did to the existence of a compiler that was technically superior to GCC which also defended user's software freedom, "For GCC to be replaced by another technically superior compiler that defended freedom equally well would cause me some personal regret, but I would rejoice for the community's advance.".
It makes sense to me that if the GPLv3 or a variant (such as the AGPLv3) is currently the best license for defending user's software freedoms and one of one's goals is ensuring software freedom, one would steer users toward the latest version of the GPL licenses. This isn't steering people to the GPL for no reason at all, or some kind of brand loyalty; the reasoning is carefully explained.
Except for all the companies that do develop and distribute GPL'd software, notably Cygnus (one firm that charged large sums of money for GCC enhancements) and now Red Hat which bought Cygnus. And there's no evidence Apple "accidentally infringe[d]" when they chose to stop distributing GNU Go rather than include complete corresponding source code after being caught infringing the GPL. There's no evidence accidental infringement was at work when Apple "prefer[ed] to impose Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) and proprietary legal terms on all programs in the App Store" (as the FSF put it) when Apple was caught violating the GPL in their distribution of VLC. There's no evidence NeXT accidentally forgot to comply with the GPL back when they commercially distributed their illicit GCC variant to NeXT users. In fact, as Brad Kuhn points out, the FSF has long worked with those not in compliance to silently get them into compliance. We only hear about the cases where the company is obstinately refusing to comply for long periods of time before GPL enforcers at the FSF or Harald Welte (who holds copyright on some code in the Linux kernel) publish details of the ongoing GPL non-compliance. The FSF has a history of seeking compliance rather than punishment. Your characterization of "getting smacked" for accidental infringement is not at all supported by available facts from the aforementioned parties. Regardless of license, how any copyright holder behaves in the face of copyright infringement is up to them, not the GPL.
But the real tip off in your response harkens back to the main misunderstanding of this issue—different values lead to different conclusions. It's important to explicitly draw out those values and conclusions so one isn't led into a trap. The older free software movement doesn't share the same values as the younger open source movement. Caving into business desires for control over the user via proprietary derivatives of free software is okay with the younger open source movement and objectionable to the older free software movement.
The free software movement is not about a popularity contest. A wider audience which comes at the expense of software freedom for all is unwelcome (very much in line with the ethic of "a freedom is a privilege unless enjoyed by one and all"); those acts are called out and carefully explained so others become wise to their tactics. There are businesses that develop and (even commercially) distribute free softwa
LLVM users currently have software freedom and (as far as I know) LLVM contributors are contributing free software. This is the established default. But, thanks to the license choice, if anyone makes a proprietary variant of LLVM users of that fork will no longer have the freedom to inspect, edit, or share that software. Thinking of a proprietary fork of a free program as a whole new program requires us to ignore how that program came to be and I'm unwilling to do that. This would also seem to be bad news even for users such as yourself who are apparently more concerned with advertised "features" than with software freedom as code changes could include unadvertised spying one would be legally prevented from inspecting or removing.
Apple's management (notably Steve Jobs) and some people who work for Apple used to work at NeXT. When NeXT needed a compiler, they chose to base their work on GCC. NeXT got caught distributing the GCC Objective-C frontend in violation of the GPL in what Brad Kuhn (longtime FSF employee and GPL violations enforcer) called a "calculated" infringement. It's reasonable to consider that when Jobs and company lost that fight they decided to get away from GPL'd software because they had experience with a copyright holder who defended their license. Sadly, Apple is building quite a record of copyright infringement. Apple got caught distributing VLC and GNU Go in violation of the GPL. Apple also got caught commercially infringing upon some writers' copyright. So perhaps Apple's switch from GCC toward a non-copylefted free compiler has at least as much to do with control over the user as any technical issues. After Apple's other illegal and unethical behavior, maybe Apple is just getting tired of the bad press.
But it's clear that differing values are at the heart of this issue; not having Apple use GCC doesn't "harm GCC" at all. The fight for software freedom was and is the reason for the GNU Project including starting GCC. Apple is welcome to help improve and distribute free software, including allowing its users to share in that freedom. This isn't a popularity contest no matter how much Eric Raymond and other open source advocates want to frame the issue in that way. As RMS said, "If that enables GCC to "win", the victory would be hollow, because it would not be a victory for what really matters: users' freedom."
So nobody pitied your choice to agree to prevent users from controlling their computers ("I once worked on a project where part of the technology stack came with a legal requirement to take steps to prevent customers from reverse-engineering"). And nobody pitied you complaining that you couldn't find developers who were willing to be taken advantage of themselves—giving you code in exchange for nothing ("so LGPL was just as radioactive as GPL"). Or perhaps it was your namecalling (code licensed to not let you hurt others is "radioactive") that helped drive them away.
You'd be better served by using the words "software freedom" as those words are entirely appropriate to describe a user's freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify computer software thus giving them control over their computer. It's perfectly natural for one to ask "which freedoms are you referring to?" and for you to explain. This is an opportunity for discussion and understanding, in other words learning. When someone misuses language you benefit their efforts by abdicating a proper use of language, tacitly accepting their distortion. There is a difference between power and freedom and in the context of slavery, what slavers want is the power to abuse another human being. Society needs more people to point out misuses of language and not give up in the face of those that disagree.
RMS does not want GCC to play any part in a toolchain/process which might have non-GPL parts...
Actually, Eric Raymond quoting Chandler Carruth who is allegedly quoting RMS (the closest thing to a relevant source I could find for your undefended assertion) says something different than what you claim:
Carruth then quotes RMS: "One of our main goals for GCC is to prevent any parts of it from being used together with non-free software. Thus, we have deliberately avoided many things that might possibly have the effect of facilitating such usage..."
Non-GPL'd software is not always the same as non-free software and the terms are not interchangeable. There are plenty of free software licenses that aren't the GPL. I doubt RMS' goal was to punish those who choose a license other than the GPL. Quite to the contrary, the GNU Project is very careful to describe the implications of various licenses (including the preservation of software freedom for derivative works via copyleft); RMS wants people to make informed license choices and categorizes licenses descriptively to that end. At the same time, he wants to avoid handing the enemies of software freedom valuable work as this could end up being a force for defeating what he's working to ensure. As he said in one of his talks (from 2013-08-05 at New York University, if I recall correctly), it is seen as shocking these days to act against something you despise. In the context of this thread, it goes to show how effectively people have been taught to favor dependence and convenience and not taught to value their freedom to run, share, and modify computer software to control their computers.
If one's values dictate one's choices, "choice" is not the issue here; looking at what's going on here in terms of a consumer's choice means forgetting how different people's values are and it's all too easy to let technical considerations seem more important than they are. If Apple does as Brad Kuhn has predicted and eventually stops contributing to LLVM in pursuit of a proprietary fork which they continue to work on (thus encouraging users to use their proprietary fork and its proprietary dependencies), that fork is lost as a choice to those who want software freedom for themselves and others. There are other areas of computing where the available choices are proprietary and thus freedom is not a choice at all. Therefore looking at things as a mere "consumer" (one who is prevented from becoming an equal participant) means reframing the issue away from freedom and toward shallow economic details.
In an ideal world we would all have the source for every program so we can diagnose it.
In an ideal world we would only _need_ 1 compiler instead of everyone wasting man-years re-inventing yet another "wheel".
Perhaps you're too young to recall when software was what we'd today call free—users were free to run, inspect, share, and modify all the software they could use. RMS cut his teeth in that environment in the MIT AI lab and all of his work for the free software movement is based in his recognition of that community's demise. Your second sentence above is simply untrue as we can't always predict what users will need and users ought to be free to explore new compilation techniques by working on new compilers (as users of any other software should be free to do). It's not for any of us to restrict someone else's needs in this way so long as their expression of software freedom isn't actually a power over other users as non-free software is by definition.
What are the fundamental reasons (aside from licensing issues) that Apple switched from GCC to LLVM, and others?
Steve Jobs' (calculated?) history of GPL violation dating back to NeXT's Objective-C GCC frontend (which RMS mentions) strongly suggest that licensing is a more significant issue at Apple than you're recognizing here. I would like to read evidence of where GCC hackers have not received a "wake up call" about the technical difficulties you refer to so readers come away with some facts to back your assertions.
Seems to me RMS does not actually believe that an open development model is better, since he feels the need to force people into it.
Actually, RMS has made it clear (1, 2, 3) that he is not a proponent of "an open development model" because the open source development methodology purposefully does not talk about the ethics of that choice, ethics which can sometimes create ugly rights-losing ramifications for all computer users (spying, for instance, is a lot more easily done with non-free software). Putting techincal advances in non-copylefted software licensed to respect a user's software freedom helps proprietors distribute proprietary derivatives which makes their spying easier. RMS' older free software movement is different from the younger open source movement on this key point, and there are many practical consequences that come from this key philosophical difference. The essays go into detail on this as does just about every talk I've ever heard RMS give.
I'm not aware of this "force" you speak of RMS wielding against computer users. I'm aware of how RMS uses logical argument to convince people to see things his way, but this is not at all force. Please do provide specific examples backing your (as yet unfounded) assertion.
I just find it entertaining that everyone gets so caught up in the how we make our software free that they forget it's still open source either way. Let the dev choose how they want others to use their code and don't worry about it. Do we have to have one license without the other? Can't they coexist peacefully?
Copyleft and non-copyleft free and open source licensing have coexisted for many years. That is not the issue. The issue at hand is the issue one (perhaps inadvertantly) denies by not recognizing the difference between the philosophies of the older free software movement and the younger open source movement and the ramifications of those philosophical choices.
As RMS explains quite clearly in multiple essays (1, 2, 3) the open source movement is (as you say) concerned with a development methodology and not with software freedom. The open source movement was designed by people who wanted to not discuss the ethical implications of losing one's software freedom in their pursuit of speaking to businesses by offering, effectively, gratis labor. Open source proponents are all too willing to do whatever it takes to get their tasks done without regard for the social implications of their choices or endorsements (see "Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions...but Not Always" for more on this); installing, running, and endorsing non-free software and putting effort into developing capable, reliable non-copylefted free software (which helps the proprietors as much as it helps users) are a couple. The Open Source Initiative draws no clear distinctions amongst the many licenses it points its proponents toward, so it's not immediately clear why one would choose, say, the MIT X11 license or the GNU General Public License (GPL). Understanding software freedom makes this distinction quite clear—it's about looking out for user's software freedom immediately and in the long term via ensuring free derivatives.
The older free software movement Stallman started recognized ethical implications to these choices; one of these implications was contributing to those who seek to leverage unjust power over the users by licensing software without the freedoms to run, share, and modify. These restrictions are threats to software freedom. Stallman knew that if nobody defended against these threats the community would be lost because he saw software freedom go away at the MIT AI lab where he worked. So he took steps to prevent the further erosion of software freedom by developing software we're all free to run, share, and modify which nobody could use as a power over another. He did this by making a non-free derivative. This hack in a copyright license is called "copyleft" and is one of the hallmarks of the GPL.
This philosophical difference has practical ramifications, as philosophical differences do. The people who run Apple, for instance, were among the first commercial copyright infringer of GCC when they were at NeXT and NeXT chose to distribute a variant of GCC that supported Objective-C without complying with the GNU GPL (Stallman mentions this in his essay "Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism"). The FSF informed NeXT this was copyright infringement and the FSF made it clear that they were seeking compliance rather than punishment (as is their choice and their way). So NeXT eventually distributed complete corresponding source code. But Brad Kuhn (who was around the FSF at the time and has considerable experience as a GPL enforcer) has said (around 42m27s) that he thinks Steve Jobs' GPL violation at NeXT was calculat
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine the FSF doesn't have the resources to manufacture and distribute their own hardware, and it is still true that hardware is manufactured not copied. But perhaps you were not aware that the FSF runs the "Respects Your Freedom" campaign which currently endorses the Gluglug X60 laptop computer since December 18th, 2013 along with a 3D printer and a couple of wireless adapters one can connect to a computer via USB.
Stallman has said in numerous talks that he doesn't own a cell phone because not only due to lack of respect for his software freedom but also because they are (more properly identified as) trackers. He rightly objects to handing over data to track his location, as is part of a cell phone's normal operation. As with so many of these issues, his precience in looking out for his own privacy predates the headlines—Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept report that the NSA has been using SIM cards (commonly used with cell phones) tracking data to target drone attacks: "What's more, he adds, the NSA often locates drone targets by analyzing the activity of a SIM card, rather than the actual content of the calls. Based on his experience, he has come to believe that the drone program amounts to little more than death by unreliable metadata.".
As for "openness of source", you'd do well to read the summary /. provided on this story and the links contained therein. One of those links pointed you to a long-published article about how Stallman is not a spokesperson for "open source" and he has pointed out significant differences between his older movement—the free software movement—and the younger open source movement which focuses on development methodology (and is therefore willing to install and recommend nonfree software). That newer essay updates an older essay which has been published in print as well as online.
Stallman has also long pointed out that code in unchangeable hardware (code in ROM, for example) is equivalent to hardware in that the user and the developer are facing the same hurdles to modify that code. So I'd imagine that a toaster with code in ROM would be a candidate toaster for him to own. But so many devices these days have updateable code. If the code can be changed the user and developer might not be on an equal footing with regards to who is allowed to change that code (free software grants you the freedoms nonfree software does not grant). Thus this more common occurrence raises all the issues he's been talking about, writing/publishing software for, and organizing against for decades.
No, the GNU GPL focuses on the rights of the user. Developers and distributors (now "conveyors" in GPLv3) are restricted from exercising powers governments grant them in favor of letting users exercise their rights granted under the GPL (including section 3 aptly named "Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law", exercising patent powers as described in section 11, and various freedoms and responsibilites for conveying copies in sections 4 through 6).
Perhaps you are confusing the free software movement with the younger open source movement which does frame the issues it addresses in terms of a developmental methodology. The two movements aren't the same and the two movements don't always agree—sometimes reaching radically different results like when faced with powerful, reliable proprietary software.
Stallman has long stated that it is unethical to hold power over the user, and that proprietary (nonfree) software (no matter its purpose) subjugates the user to the developer's control. The free software definition itself says " The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power.". As we learn of ever increasing uses of this power (many stories carried on /., the ongoing NSA scandal) we learn that software freedom is more important than ever before. Looking at these issues simply as a developmental methodology (throwing out ethical consideration as the open source movement is designed to do) simply won't fix the problem. There are other related issues involved as well, and Stallman has addressed them for years in talks. I recommend any of his talks about "A Free Digital Society". He is, as usual, way ahead of the corporate press and their repeaters on /. regarding these issues.
The FSF's comments on the Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement (HESSLA) are informative here. HESSLA:
This issue apparently comes up often enough and is important enough where the FSF has published an essay on why programs must not limit the freedom to run them which is also linked to the aforementioned HESSLA commentary.
Considering the FSF's document pointed to above dates back multiple years, I'd say RMS has long answered your question.
The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) is a strongly copylefted Free Software license which uses the word "prohibit" for multiple things. I'd hardly think an organization would put such language in their license if they objected to the use of the words as you think they do.
For example, Section 2 of the GNU GPL version 3 does what it can to clearly prohibits proprietarization: (emphasis mine)
This prohibition is a good thing because proprietary software subjugates the user to the developer's control; that's why proprietary software is developed and distributed. Proprietary software is often malware and thus a mechanism for spying on the user, removing programs the user wants to keep installed, and more anti-freedom activities that deny users complete control over their computer. This all happens to any user regardless of how skilled they are with computing, or how willing they are to take advantage of their software freedom.
Section 3 of the GNU GPL version 3 prevents conveyers from exercising legal power to forbid circumvention of technical measures:
Section 7c of the GNU GPL version 3 "prohibits" misrepresenting material from upstream conveyed copies ("Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version").
Section 11 of the GNU GPL version 3 includes a prohibition to make sure certain patents don't lock users out of exercising the freedoms the license grants.
The details matter: To understand what's going on you have to understand what is being forbidden and prohibited, why these allowances and restrictions are necessary, which users are affected, and how and then evaluate if those causes and remedies are right and proper.
Any complex software has bugs and perfection is never available. The important question remains: how are the users treated? If the software respects a user's freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify the software, users are treated well. If these freedoms are not respected, the user is subjugated. This is an ethical issue with technical ramifications.
Non-free programs (such as Microsoft Windows and Apple's OSes) are designed and licensed to prohibit anyone but the proprietor from understanding how the software works. Nobody but the proprietor can fix bugs or improve the program (I use the word "improve" purposefully subjectively here). And the proprietor could have included a variety of other problems (from the user's perspective) because proprietary software is often malware. A free software system (such as a GNU/Linux system on which nothing but free software is installed) can be fully inspected, shared, and modified by the users. Free software lets users treat each other ethically, non-free software leaves even the most expert users who are willing to do technical inspection/bugfixing work in the dark and prevents them from sharing with others, thus preventing them from helping others.
Software freedom is a far better arrangement for the user. Where non-free software users have to wait for a proprietary binary to patch a problem (possibly introducing new problems and leaving other known problems unfixed such as Apple did for over 3 years with an exploitable iTunes bug during which time governments used the hole to invade people's computers), a free software user has additional options. One can choose to learn to program and fix bugs themselves, one can get someone else to fix software for them (even commercially, by hiring someone trustworthy and appropriate just as one would do to fix other things). No one person can understand all the software they need, there's way too much software to do that. But together we can (and do!) maintain free software systems very well.
The point you fail to understand is that with software that respects a user's freedom, one doesn't need to wait for someone else to fix the bug for them and then hope that bug actually gets fixed when the ostensible fix is released. Users running nothing but free software have options to fix any bug and verify that fix which proprietary software disallows.
The rest of your statement is a form of false dichotomy—arguing from perfection. I never said anything was perfect.
The software Apple distributes to users is proprietary, even if part of that software is built from free software. Proprietary software is never safe for users. Its safety is for the proprietor—what the program allows the proprietor to do to the users.
Apparently memories around here are so short people can't remember when researchers showed Apple can read iMessages anytime Apple wants and the users have no idea which messages are being read. Whether anyone at Apple reads someone's iMessages is a detail so long as Apple can read any iMessage they choose. The same applies to any proprietor for any software which doesn't respect your software freedom. You avoid these problems by avoiding proprietary software.
Nothing in the GPL prohibits commercial redistribution. The GPL aims to prohibit proprietarization. Commercial redistribution and proprietarization are not the same thing. Ensuring software freedom for users of derivatives is a good thing.
Any device's software can do things you don't want. If that device requires software which runs on your computer, then that software can do anything your OS lets it do.
This means a program running with your credentials (running as you) on a networked home computer can upload copies of files you can read, launch a program to spy on you as you work, or possibly install some software that does nasty things to any user of that computer. The possibilities are too numerous to list. And this program can be something that computer users might view as necessary or innocent like a device driver program, or some other program needed to let users control the added device.
So what users who value their privacy and software freedom want has little to do with 3D printing per se because these users make the same demand regardless of the purpose of the new device. One such user avoids devices that run non-free software, or require non-free software to be installed elsewhere to work. That way one can run a 100% free software system (right now that means a free BIOS, free software OS, and nothing but free software programs installed atop that) and use the new device fully.
Actually, as Snowden's revelations point out to all of us, embedding computers with non-free software in them is a huge social problem as it takes away our privacy. Many computers which are updateable only by proprietors is a social problem as well, because those computers can be set up to do things their owners don't want them to do. There's no opportunity for the owner to know what they're really doing, so even hiring someone to do that work on their behalf is out of the question. Many people buy and operate these devices but that is no excuse for treating the customers that way. Citing how many other people build such systems is also no excuse for treating other people that way.
If "Apple respected the wishes of these copyright holders" they would not have distributed any software without complying with each program's license in the first place. That onus of responsibility lies with each distributor.
When a free software program's copyright holder stands up for their license and demands compliance, they're up against another party who is doing the wrong thing. Hence it's perfectly right and proper to say Apple got caught.
Similarly, it's up to Apple to investigate the information they're given before distributing the work further in order to make sure Apple is not participating in copyright infringement. Giving Apple a pass for being handed works by "criminals in China who took the works of authors" is no excuse for commercial copyright infringement. On the contrary, if the upstream were known criminals it should not have been that tough for an multinational organization to learn who they were dealing with and become suspicious thus triggering an investigation.
It's telling that you didn't come up with some attempt to diminish NeXT's wrongdoing in their initial GCC distribution. I'll take Kuhn's word for it over yours because he's only one hop away from the people at the FSF who were there at the time and know what happened in dealing with NeXT.
Recommending any proprietary software to do any task is recommending a security hole. It's trivially easy for any proprietor to include code that spies on you, as computer programmers have long known and Edward Snowden has shown us again. No amount of experience running proprietary software will tell you what you need to know to fix its problems, share your fixes with others, hire others you have good reason to trust to fix problems on your behalf, or even allow someone you have good reason to trust to inspect the program to see if anything needs to be fixed (they're forbidden to do this work for the same reason you are). Picking one proprietary anti-virus program over another, picking one proprietary browser over another, or picking any proprietary program over another proprietary variant of the same kind of program is merely choosing your master. You cannot arrive at a trustworthy solution in this way.
Instead you should choose free (libre) software for your OS, your firmware (via Coreboot), and for all the software you run atop that system. Eschew services that require you to adopt non-free software and gain more control over your computer. The Free Software Foundation's Respects Your Freedom recently added a computer that meets these criteria. We should help them and help free software hackers write more free software to do the jobs we need to be done.
"Good art" strikes me both a non-sequitur here and remarkably subjective. I certainly would never disqualify folk art from being "good" because folk art is highly derivative of others work.
Copying things exactly in this context is a side-effect of using a medium (computer graphics) in which visual items can be duplicated precisely. If one is uncomfortable with that fact, one should consider choosing another medium. This also doesn't help identify the meaning of what I asked about earlier. I also fail to see what would be objectionable about OpenTTD's precise replication and capability extension.
Artists should support free speech even when its their speech that is being commented upon.
I don't know what Sawyer makes of OpenTTD and I see no pointer to a source for the parent's recollection. As I understand it, OpenTTD is currently licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2. I'll also take OpenTTD's developers word for it that their work is a newly-written program (the fruit of a 2003 reverse engineering effort by Ludvig Strigeus, according to Wikipedia), not an illicit derivative of code from Sawyer.
Given those assumptions, OpenTTD is not a version of the program Sawyer wrote. OpenTTD is a separate program that does the same job with no shared code between them. Sawyer's TTD can be said to inspire OpenTTD but I don't see how inspiration qualifies as a derivative work. Creating a work-alike in no way alters the other program(s) that do the same thing. So it's not clear to me what an "artistic view" of the original program really means. I hope this language is not an attempt at giving or claiming unwarranted control over workalike programs.
I certainly hope the parent's recollection is inaccurate and more artists welcome comments on their work, as well as respecting the user's freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify the program.
Thanks for pointing me to your sources so I can read them for myself.
Fighting for copyleft is standing up for user's software freedoms for derivative works. Copyleft itself is not the goal, but copyleft is part of a means to securing software freedom for the future.
I see RMS saying he's fighting for user's software freedom via copyleft, but I don't see how that is equivalent to saying "RMS does not want GCC to play any part in a toolchain/process which might have non-GPL parts". Other copyleft licenses exist. RMS and points out when those licenses don't do as good a job defending user's software freedoms as the GPL does and then he explains his rationale. Also, it is possible to make a copylefted free software license that allows conversion to the GPL (such as the Netscape Javascript license or via an explicit conversion clause). I can also envision a strongly copylefted free software license that does a better job of defending user's software freedoms than any of the GPL variants. But I don't know of such a license. If one such license should exist, I'd expect RMS to respond as he did to the existence of a compiler that was technically superior to GCC which also defended user's software freedom, "For GCC to be replaced by another technically superior compiler that defended freedom equally well would cause me some personal regret, but I would rejoice for the community's advance.".
It makes sense to me that if the GPLv3 or a variant (such as the AGPLv3) is currently the best license for defending user's software freedoms and one of one's goals is ensuring software freedom, one would steer users toward the latest version of the GPL licenses. This isn't steering people to the GPL for no reason at all, or some kind of brand loyalty; the reasoning is carefully explained.
Except for all the companies that do develop and distribute GPL'd software, notably Cygnus (one firm that charged large sums of money for GCC enhancements) and now Red Hat which bought Cygnus. And there's no evidence Apple "accidentally infringe[d]" when they chose to stop distributing GNU Go rather than include complete corresponding source code after being caught infringing the GPL. There's no evidence accidental infringement was at work when Apple "prefer[ed] to impose Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) and proprietary legal terms on all programs in the App Store" (as the FSF put it) when Apple was caught violating the GPL in their distribution of VLC. There's no evidence NeXT accidentally forgot to comply with the GPL back when they commercially distributed their illicit GCC variant to NeXT users. In fact, as Brad Kuhn points out, the FSF has long worked with those not in compliance to silently get them into compliance. We only hear about the cases where the company is obstinately refusing to comply for long periods of time before GPL enforcers at the FSF or Harald Welte (who holds copyright on some code in the Linux kernel) publish details of the ongoing GPL non-compliance. The FSF has a history of seeking compliance rather than punishment. Your characterization of "getting smacked" for accidental infringement is not at all supported by available facts from the aforementioned parties. Regardless of license, how any copyright holder behaves in the face of copyright infringement is up to them, not the GPL.
But the real tip off in your response harkens back to the main misunderstanding of this issue—different values lead to different conclusions. It's important to explicitly draw out those values and conclusions so one isn't led into a trap. The older free software movement doesn't share the same values as the younger open source movement. Caving into business desires for control over the user via proprietary derivatives of free software is okay with the younger open source movement and objectionable to the older free software movement.
The GNU GPL isn't honestly described as an "open source" license because that framing misconstrues what the GPL says and why the GPL exists. The GPL was written by Richard Stallman whose main work since his time at the MIT AI lab has been the pursuit of software freedom for all computer users. Stallman is clear to explain this history and correct people on this issue at virtually every talk I've heard him give, so it's not hard to find a recording of a talk where someone, such as you, tries to position his work in terms of a movement that doesn't agree with his values. The open source movement was founded to "sell" free software to businesses by being silent about the main issue the free software movement stands for—a user's freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify all published computer software. This leads to very different outcomes when faced with reliable, powerful proprietary software. The open source movement does not care for a serious discussion of ensuring user equality of access. So when you frame the FSF and the GPL in terms of "open source" and a priority to get companies to use GPL'd software (thus objecting when companies like Apple can't proprietarize GPL'd software), you fundamentally misunderstand what the free software movement is about and why the GNU Project exists.
The free software movement is not about a popularity contest. A wider audience which comes at the expense of software freedom for all is unwelcome (very much in line with the ethic of "a freedom is a privilege unless enjoyed by one and all"); those acts are called out and carefully explained so others become wise to their tactics. There are businesses that develop and (even commercially) distribute free softwa
The sexism is uncalled for and appalling.
LLVM users currently have software freedom and (as far as I know) LLVM contributors are contributing free software. This is the established default. But, thanks to the license choice, if anyone makes a proprietary variant of LLVM users of that fork will no longer have the freedom to inspect, edit, or share that software. Thinking of a proprietary fork of a free program as a whole new program requires us to ignore how that program came to be and I'm unwilling to do that. This would also seem to be bad news even for users such as yourself who are apparently more concerned with advertised "features" than with software freedom as code changes could include unadvertised spying one would be legally prevented from inspecting or removing.
Apple's management (notably Steve Jobs) and some people who work for Apple used to work at NeXT. When NeXT needed a compiler, they chose to base their work on GCC. NeXT got caught distributing the GCC Objective-C frontend in violation of the GPL in what Brad Kuhn (longtime FSF employee and GPL violations enforcer) called a "calculated" infringement. It's reasonable to consider that when Jobs and company lost that fight they decided to get away from GPL'd software because they had experience with a copyright holder who defended their license. Sadly, Apple is building quite a record of copyright infringement. Apple got caught distributing VLC and GNU Go in violation of the GPL. Apple also got caught commercially infringing upon some writers' copyright. So perhaps Apple's switch from GCC toward a non-copylefted free compiler has at least as much to do with control over the user as any technical issues. After Apple's other illegal and unethical behavior, maybe Apple is just getting tired of the bad press.
But it's clear that differing values are at the heart of this issue; not having Apple use GCC doesn't "harm GCC" at all. The fight for software freedom was and is the reason for the GNU Project including starting GCC. Apple is welcome to help improve and distribute free software, including allowing its users to share in that freedom. This isn't a popularity contest no matter how much Eric Raymond and other open source advocates want to frame the issue in that way. As RMS said, "If that enables GCC to "win", the victory would be hollow, because it would not be a victory for what really matters: users' freedom."
So nobody pitied your choice to agree to prevent users from controlling their computers ("I once worked on a project where part of the technology stack came with a legal requirement to take steps to prevent customers from reverse-engineering"). And nobody pitied you complaining that you couldn't find developers who were willing to be taken advantage of themselves—giving you code in exchange for nothing ("so LGPL was just as radioactive as GPL"). Or perhaps it was your namecalling (code licensed to not let you hurt others is "radioactive") that helped drive them away.
You'd be better served by using the words "software freedom" as those words are entirely appropriate to describe a user's freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify computer software thus giving them control over their computer. It's perfectly natural for one to ask "which freedoms are you referring to?" and for you to explain. This is an opportunity for discussion and understanding, in other words learning. When someone misuses language you benefit their efforts by abdicating a proper use of language, tacitly accepting their distortion. There is a difference between power and freedom and in the context of slavery, what slavers want is the power to abuse another human being. Society needs more people to point out misuses of language and not give up in the face of those that disagree.
Actually, Eric Raymond quoting Chandler Carruth who is allegedly quoting RMS (the closest thing to a relevant source I could find for your undefended assertion) says something different than what you claim:
Non-GPL'd software is not always the same as non-free software and the terms are not interchangeable. There are plenty of free software licenses that aren't the GPL. I doubt RMS' goal was to punish those who choose a license other than the GPL. Quite to the contrary, the GNU Project is very careful to describe the implications of various licenses (including the preservation of software freedom for derivative works via copyleft); RMS wants people to make informed license choices and categorizes licenses descriptively to that end. At the same time, he wants to avoid handing the enemies of software freedom valuable work as this could end up being a force for defeating what he's working to ensure. As he said in one of his talks (from 2013-08-05 at New York University, if I recall correctly), it is seen as shocking these days to act against something you despise. In the context of this thread, it goes to show how effectively people have been taught to favor dependence and convenience and not taught to value their freedom to run, share, and modify computer software to control their computers.
If one's values dictate one's choices, "choice" is not the issue here; looking at what's going on here in terms of a consumer's choice means forgetting how different people's values are and it's all too easy to let technical considerations seem more important than they are. If Apple does as Brad Kuhn has predicted and eventually stops contributing to LLVM in pursuit of a proprietary fork which they continue to work on (thus encouraging users to use their proprietary fork and its proprietary dependencies), that fork is lost as a choice to those who want software freedom for themselves and others. There are other areas of computing where the available choices are proprietary and thus freedom is not a choice at all. Therefore looking at things as a mere "consumer" (one who is prevented from becoming an equal participant) means reframing the issue away from freedom and toward shallow economic details.
Perhaps you're too young to recall when software was what we'd today call free—users were free to run, inspect, share, and modify all the software they could use. RMS cut his teeth in that environment in the MIT AI lab and all of his work for the free software movement is based in his recognition of that community's demise. Your second sentence above is simply untrue as we can't always predict what users will need and users ought to be free to explore new compilation techniques by working on new compilers (as users of any other software should be free to do). It's not for any of us to restrict someone else's needs in this way so long as their expression of software freedom isn't actually a power over other users as non-free software is by definition.
Steve Jobs' (calculated?) history of GPL violation dating back to NeXT's Objective-C GCC frontend (which RMS mentions) strongly suggest that licensing is a more significant issue at Apple than you're recognizing here. I would like to read evidence of where GCC hackers have not received a "wake up call" about the technical difficulties you refer to so readers come away with some facts to back your assertions.
Actually, RMS has made it clear (1, 2, 3) that he is not a proponent of "an open development model" because the open source development methodology purposefully does not talk about the ethics of that choice, ethics which can sometimes create ugly rights-losing ramifications for all computer users (spying, for instance, is a lot more easily done with non-free software). Putting techincal advances in non-copylefted software licensed to respect a user's software freedom helps proprietors distribute proprietary derivatives which makes their spying easier. RMS' older free software movement is different from the younger open source movement on this key point, and there are many practical consequences that come from this key philosophical difference. The essays go into detail on this as does just about every talk I've ever heard RMS give.
I'm not aware of this "force" you speak of RMS wielding against computer users. I'm aware of how RMS uses logical argument to convince people to see things his way, but this is not at all force. Please do provide specific examples backing your (as yet unfounded) assertion.
Copyleft and non-copyleft free and open source licensing have coexisted for many years. That is not the issue. The issue at hand is the issue one (perhaps inadvertantly) denies by not recognizing the difference between the philosophies of the older free software movement and the younger open source movement and the ramifications of those philosophical choices.
As RMS explains quite clearly in multiple essays (1, 2, 3) the open source movement is (as you say) concerned with a development methodology and not with software freedom. The open source movement was designed by people who wanted to not discuss the ethical implications of losing one's software freedom in their pursuit of speaking to businesses by offering, effectively, gratis labor. Open source proponents are all too willing to do whatever it takes to get their tasks done without regard for the social implications of their choices or endorsements (see "Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions...but Not Always" for more on this); installing, running, and endorsing non-free software and putting effort into developing capable, reliable non-copylefted free software (which helps the proprietors as much as it helps users) are a couple. The Open Source Initiative draws no clear distinctions amongst the many licenses it points its proponents toward, so it's not immediately clear why one would choose, say, the MIT X11 license or the GNU General Public License (GPL). Understanding software freedom makes this distinction quite clear—it's about looking out for user's software freedom immediately and in the long term via ensuring free derivatives.
The older free software movement Stallman started recognized ethical implications to these choices; one of these implications was contributing to those who seek to leverage unjust power over the users by licensing software without the freedoms to run, share, and modify. These restrictions are threats to software freedom. Stallman knew that if nobody defended against these threats the community would be lost because he saw software freedom go away at the MIT AI lab where he worked. So he took steps to prevent the further erosion of software freedom by developing software we're all free to run, share, and modify which nobody could use as a power over another. He did this by making a non-free derivative. This hack in a copyright license is called "copyleft" and is one of the hallmarks of the GPL.
This philosophical difference has practical ramifications, as philosophical differences do. The people who run Apple, for instance, were among the first commercial copyright infringer of GCC when they were at NeXT and NeXT chose to distribute a variant of GCC that supported Objective-C without complying with the GNU GPL (Stallman mentions this in his essay "Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism"). The FSF informed NeXT this was copyright infringement and the FSF made it clear that they were seeking compliance rather than punishment (as is their choice and their way). So NeXT eventually distributed complete corresponding source code. But Brad Kuhn (who was around the FSF at the time and has considerable experience as a GPL enforcer) has said (around 42m27s) that he thinks Steve Jobs' GPL violation at NeXT was calculat