This story is written poorly (shocking for/., I know) because it has little to do with any of the players mentioned: Creative Commons (as opposed to other license writing organizations or other licenses), photography (as opposed to other artistic media), or Flickr (as opposed to other hosting services). This is just another instance of a wealthy organization (which can certainly afford the expense for due diligence) allegedly infringing someone's copyright. It can be dealt with on that basis and resolved amicably for the copyright holder. And, as with so many other copyright infringement cases, how amicable the resolution is for the alleged infringer is, at best, of secondary importance particularly because the license allows the licensee to do so much (derivative works, for example).
Speaking directly to your complaints: First, there are so many different CC licenses and they say significantly different things. So we can't have a reasonable discussion about them by lumping them together and referring to them as if they're a cohesive unit except to note that they're written and published by the same organization. Second, photos are no more exempt from extraction, reuse, and building upon (making derivative works) than any other form of expression (particularly with digital photo manipulation tools we have today). Third, I think the heart of your complaint has to do with what are referred to as "moral rights" in some jurisdictions. But moral rights have little to do with the CC licenses and far more to do with regional powers conferred to authors (moral rights aren't in the US, for instance). Any proper discussion of them would be independent of the copyright licensing for the work. If you want the power to reject the reuse of some work because of you disagree with a potential derivative work, you probably should not license the work to them at all under any license. Then, should they commit copyright infringement and make an unauthorized derivative work anyway, you get to see how CC licenses had nothing to do with that.
The topic here concerns Playboy, pornography, and Apple. How is it you/.ers shut down a conversation: call something off-topic?
For being a discussion board where ostensibly technical-minded people talk in detail about technical things, some of you sure exhibit horrible logic getting lost in red herrings and side issues. For example, you're actually trying to respond to non-freedom from Apple by pointing out that Google's non-freedom also exists. Well guess what: yes, non-freedom from one proprietor doesn't become better or worse because some other proprietor does the same thing.
Another pair of overly highly moderated posts (1, 2) try to derail us into thinking about Apple's use of their metaphorical Sword of Damocles, suggesting that if Apple hasn't used their power we ought not consider that power so seriously (and certainly not to Apple's benefit): that's irrelevant and a bad way to look at non-freedom. The power which prevents you from fully controlling a computer you own doesn't become more acceptable because the proprietor hasn't yet seen fit to exercise their power on someone's device. It's not good strategy to enter a situation you know can become bad and then hope things won't become bad. You'll end up with a bigger mess to clean up afterwards. Much wiser to avoid foreseeable bad situations from the start.
I've already responded (prebuttal?) to the equally ridiculous objection that Apple's power is just, right, and proper because it will be used to excise "malware". Nobody knows what Apple's power will be used to do until they no longer have that power but those uses and rationale are irrelevant so long as they are proprietary and irrevocable, because the stronger objection is whether anyone but the device's owner should have that control at all. Let users choose if they want someone to help them excise malware, and let users choose from multiple options ad-hoc whom to trust with that power. Apple can be one of many providers of said service competing for users' attention and business. Or users can set up their own malware removal service and come to trust each other, or trust nobody but themselves. But the current situation is monopolistic control. Monopoly is what proprietors always offer and Apple no doubt benefits from the paternalistic view that their monopoly is merely looking out for users.
Finally there is a post and some followups which get lost in the red herring of how the device is advertised, as if advertised intent is justification to curtail a user's freedom; so if the device were said to be a proprietary control-hording overreach that would make it okay to behave that way (as proprietors always behave): no, freedom is not some trifling. Software freedom is critical for society to function well for its citizens, and we need to consider our need for software freedom and complete control of our own computers as the limits of acceptable action for those with whom we would do business. I don't care what a device is intended to perform, users should be able to control their devices to play games on book readers, read books on console machines, and so on.
Apple does not "block" porn, they just refuse publishing porn themselves.
Apple maintains the ability to "kill" (Apple's term) software users install on their own Apple hardware. Apple maintains the control they need to decide on a case-by-case basis who gets to run what program. Apple retains the power to make it hard for any user(s) to watch porn through an application. How Apple uses this power may change over time, denying some users access to an app but allowing others. Apple can apply this power with absolutely no legal ability for the user to gainsay Apple's power, predict who is denied what, or understand for what reason someone was denied complete control of their computer.
We would not stand for this control in any other medium. It should not be up to anyone but the owner of the device to exert control over what they wish to read or run.
The readme notes that the original game installation is required in order to play the compiled game, as the data files are certainly still copyrighted.
I think Fishburne meant to say that the "data files" are under different licenses (probably far more restrictively licensed) than the Arx Fatalis code. Since Arx Fatalis is licensed than it too must be copyrighted. So you may run, share, and modify the GPL'd Arx Fatalis program, but you don't have these freedoms with the "data files".
I think most computer users are novices compared to the people likely to frequent/. and I think most computer users don't understand what they're giving up, particularly as we become more dependent on computer-based services. I think most computer users are frequently taught to value the meager conveniences of dependency instead of valuing their own freedom and the freedom of their fellows. It's up to people who understand that computing doesn't mean one has to forgo their freedom to help others understand that.
I would have liked to see more detail as well, however I think it's not hard to find serious faults with what the US Congress does and what it tacitly agrees with by not objecting. I don't see most "congress-critters" doing anything to stop some of the most heinous behavior the US government engages in. A few recent examples include:
killing foreigners in illegal, immoral (and increasingly unpopular and costly) wars of aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen
This all happened under President's Obama's watch. This all happened with overwhelmingly silent complicity of his Democratic Party Congress. Glenn Greenwald, former constitutional law and civil rights litigator, calls this wiretapping "at least as pernicious as any power asserted during the Bush/Cheney years".
That's hardly the behavior I'd expect from "fine, upstanding people".
You have no idea where the collected data goes and what inferences will be made from it. Since corporations don't care about your freedoms of speech, assembly, and other freedoms, there's no good reason to assume that the collected data won't eventually serve malevolent ends. Furthermore, the data is often collected without explicit announcement that it is being collected. The data is often distributed to others without explicitly getting consent on a case-by-case basis so the end user has an opportunity to decide that they trust one party but not another. It's very easy to let those who promote convenience and flashy presentation take away your freedoms; it's hard to regain your freedom after you've lost it. The solution, therefore, is to not lose your freedoms in the first place.
You said "Like most other expressions of concern that come from brother Stallman" and then cited none. Your followup cites nothing. Saying "not that his concerns are never valid" is meaningless because nobody is wrong all the time; you're saying that as a shield so you can come back later and claim that your objections only contain mild inaccuracies when your theme is profoundly wrong and undefended. You seem to want to criticize Stallman for being unpopular (with an audience that should know better than to accept claims like yours without specific evidence, quite frankly) yet you ignore the examples he points to and what's going on around you.
Because many people are poor and lack the opportunities to get a better job than one can get working for McDonald's. Consider that we don't know the full extent of what McDonald's kept in the compromised systems. We only know from the article that McDonald's was willing to admit the data included "customers' e-mail addresses, names, addresses, phone numbers, birth dates, genders, as well as certain information about their promotional preferences and Web information interests". We don't know how the McDonald's corporation servers are organized, segregated, or if McDonald's is telling the complete truth. It's reasonable to wonder if other data was also copied.
It appears your post has been moderated up despite lacking specifics. Please do cite specific examples — use quotes from him — of what you call Stallman's "Chicken Little" concerns. Since you say there are so many, this should not be difficult for you to do.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is your evidence that treating your devices as though you own them "makes the next round of devices even MORE locked down"? How are we to know that it would not matter whether buyers did this, proprietors are going to continue to pursue ways to exclude users from being free to treat their computers as they wish?
It is Telstra's problem but there's an interesting wrinkle consider that GPLv2 (the version of the GPL the Linux kernel uses) is harsher to infringers than GPLv3.
The same would be true if this were any other copyright license that permits redistribution. The modified BSD license permits distribution and requires some things in exchange. If one distributes a modified BSD work (source or binary) without reproducing a particular copyright notice and a list of conditions, or if one uses the name of the author "to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission" one has gone against the terms of the modified BSD license.
So saying "The GPL permits redistribution, but only on it's terms" is true, but the same is true of any other copyright license which permits distribution. How much enforcement there is has to do with how much the copyright holder enforces their license.
No, they don't. Because they didn't agree to it [the GNU GPL]. The app submitter agreed to it.
The GPL specifies conditions under which one may distribute/convey the covered work. The alternative to these conditions is the default of copyright law: you may not distribute the work at all. Therefore if one fails to comply with the terms of the (relevant version of the) GPL, one loses permission to distribute/convey the GPLd program. But don't take my word for it, read what Eben Moglen, copyright lawyer, longtime GPL enforcer, and now president/founder of the Software Freedom Law Center said about this back in 2001: (emphasis mine)
Because there's nothing complex or controversial about the license's substantive provisions, I have never even seen a serious argument that the GPL exceeds a licensor's powers. But it is sometimes said that the GPL can't be enforced because users haven't “accepted” it.
This claim is based on a misunderstanding. The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify GPL'd software. All of those activities are either forbidden or controlled by proprietary software firms, so they require you to accept a license, including contractual provisions outside the reach of copyright, before you can use their works. The free software movement thinks all those activities are rights, which all users ought to have; we don't even want to cover those activities by license. Almost everyone who uses GPL'd software from day to day needs no license, and accepts none. The GPL only obliges you if you distribute software made from GPL'd code, and only needs to be accepted when redistribution occurs. And because no one can ever redistribute without a license, we can safely presume that anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended to accept the GPL. After all, the GPL requires each copy of covered software to include the license text, so everyone is fully informed.
You claim that
Apple needs to take the app down, but they aren't required to take any positive actions to fulfill the submitter's license obligations, such as make the source code available, or remove DRM from the app.
Apple does not need to take the app down. That's the FSF's point: Apple could change how they behave and easily become compliant with the GPL, even distributing GPL'd programs commercially (charging for distribution; distributing for a fee) and charge as much as they like. So long as Apple doesn't comply with the GPL, they can either choose to stop distributing it or they can choose compliance with the license. Taking the program down is not their only option.
Apple is distributing the VLC port. That VLC port is licensed under the GPL. So yes they do need to comply with the GPL which requires distributing complete corresponding source code to the program (a safe and easy way is to distribute complete corresponding source code right along side the binary distribution), or distribute a written promise for the program's complete corresponding source code with the binary. Either would be compliant with GPLv2 or GPLv3 (which are the two versions that cover the vast majority of GPLd programs).
On the other hand, I don't particularly like the idea that an app I submit to the App Store could be subject to a unilateral veto by someone else spuriously claiming my app violates the GPL and they wrote some code in it.
Do you have reason to believe Denis-Courmont's claim of infringement is wrong? Anyone can claim any program infringes on their copyright regardless of license, that doesn't make their claim legitimate. That doesn't appear to be what's going on here so I'm not sure why you brought this up at
"You agree that the terms of the Licensed Application End User License Agreement will apply to each Apple Product and to each Third-Party Product that you license through the App Store Service, unless the App Store Product is covered by a valid end user license agreement entered into between you and the licensor of the App Store Product (the “Licensor”), in which case the Licensor’s end user license agreement will apply to that App Store Product."
That language does not say "the Licensor’s end user license agreement" applies exclusively rendering the Apple Terms and Conditions inapplicable. I read that language to say Apple acknowledges what they can't avoid: some programs come with terms that must also be complied with in addition to Apple's terms for distributing via the Apple App Store. If Apple is trying to specify exclusivity they should be more clear. It won't help them dodge license requirements of the GPL (Apple doesn't have the power to supersede copyright law), but submitters should understand what they're getting into when they deal with Apple.
Also, the poster at the top of the discussion link you pointed to should understand that the no-additional-restrictions clause of the GPL, which is what the FSF is talking about, appears in all versions of the GPL: sections 6 of both GPLv1 and GPLv2, and section 7 of GPLv3, so with regard to this issue it doesn't matter which version of the GNU GPL is involved. And all licensing is "a political statement"; the context in which the poster says that comes off as if being political is somehow a bad thing when, in fact, being political lead to the GPL and the movement that works for software freedom.
Not being an Apple App Store user, I have no idea if Apple is also distributing the complete corresponding source code for that port of the VLC. Does Apple do this?
If Denis-Courmont takes this to court and sees it through we'll all get to learn a little more about this case. Settling issues like this is what courts are for.
Only if you let them. We can and should talk about this as often as we can to educate others on the reality of Apple's apparent proclivity to ignore copyright law and behave in violation of a license, and the obtuse control DRM places on users regardless of who wields the DRM power. DRM stories keep coming up as proprietors and publishers seek more control over the user and the users realize (sometimes too late to avoid the pain and inconvenience) that DRM is always a bad idea.
Those who submitted VLC to Apple are not in compliance with the license but Apple is also a distributor, so they are both infringing. But Apple is the focus of this/. thread, so I focus on Apple here.
The Apple App Store is not some organization where Apple can't determine what submitters have submitted and Apple somehow has no choice but to distribute everything that comes their way. Apple has no excuse like, say, a phone company selling service to a home where the phone company can't tell ahead of time if the home users will use the phone service in some manner that aides copyright infringement. Apple has rules for determining which programs are on their App Store and, as objectionable as those rules are, they retain full power to decide what's in and out. Therefore Apple has ample opportunity to dig into licensing detail and discuss submissions with submitters.
Furthermore, and more to your point about fraud, Apple's agreement with its upstream (those that submitted VLC to the Apple App Store) does not affect the copyright license under which VLC and its derivatives are distributed. Apple has to comply with that license, in this case the GNU GPL.
The GPL doesn't distinguish between distributors (GPLv2)/conveyors (GPLv3) allowing some to comply but not others (that would be an easily-exploited hole whereby GPLed free software would quickly become proprietary). All distributors/conveyors have the same obligations to add no restrictions to the license. Apple did not do that, therefore Apple is infringing just as Apple infringed the GPL when they distributed GNU Go.
The difference here is in how the copyright holders chose to react: the FSF, as per usual, sought license compliance when they were defending their license with GNU Go ("We have not sued Apple, nor have we sent them any legal demand that they remove the programs from the App Store." -- Brett Smith, FSF License Compliance Engineer). The FSF wanted Apple to change the terms of their App Store rules so they could simultaneously comply with the GPL and their own rules. Apple declined and stopped distributing GNU Go. Rémi Denis-Courmont took a different approach by sending "a formal notification of copyright infringement" to Apple as is Denis-Courmont's right.
Getting a developer's license has nothing to do with this; Apple is distributing a binary of a ported VLC in contravention of VLC's license. Apple's App Store rules are the heart of the issue: Apple's App Store rules prohibit them from complying with the GNU GPL which disallows adding restrictions to its (now longstanding) terms. Apple controls which apps enter and leave their App Store; they had as much time as they wanted to review license compliance and they apparently chose copyright infringement. Part of what makes this so bad is that they chose to infringe against people who are treating users so nicely: the GPL gives everyone (even Apple) all the license they need to distribute programs, even commercially.
Apple is most certainly responsible for infringingly distributing VLC. Much as you want to call the FSF names (your hyperbole suggests this is for reasons you can't justify), the FSF almost doesn't enter into the situation here except for being the author of the license VLC programmers chose to license VLC under. VLC programmer Rémi Denis-Courmont is simply defending his chosen license against an organization that would impose new restrictions on users of that variant of VLC.
The GPL gives Apple permission to distribute this software through the App Store. All they would have to do is follow the license's conditions to help keep the software free. Instead, Apple has decided that they prefer to impose Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) and proprietary legal terms on all programs in the App Store, and they'd rather kick out GPLed software than change their own rules. Their obstinance prevents you from having this great software on Apple devices--not the GPL or the people enforcing it.
To take this the way you want to read it, it's almost as if you don't believe copyright holders should be able to choose their own license and legally defend their choice. We should all just bend to Apple's will and let them proprietarize or include DRM in the distribution of anything we make. Apparently there are GPLed program hackers who don't agree with that.
Actually it's the distributor's rules that are depriving users of useful programs and it's Apple that is committing copyright infringement. If they want to create monopolistic app stores, it's not a copyright holder's job to cave into their desire. The user can be taught about this issue, news stories like these and user experiences losing apps (Apple has the controls to remove/add apps as per their will) create learning opportunities. Just like Amazon's example with the Swindle did.
Clearly with this particular technology, non-free eBook readers, it is not. Publishers and distributors shouldn't be allowed to determine how long you can lend a book to someone, which books you can lend, nor should they have the power to track your book lending or cut off your book lending. Only you should decide these things for yourself.
If Amazon can (in the words of the all-too-supportive/. headline which looks more like an ad) "plan to allow users of its Kindle book reader to 'lend' electronic books to other Kindle users" then clearly Amazon will have the power to do all of these things to any Swindle user. Comparing this book reader with some other non-free eBook reader like Barnes & Noble's is besides the point—choosing between proprietors is not freedom. You should declare your freedom to decide these things for yourself and use only a free software eBook reader and books you can fully read and share without DRM, or select no eBook reader at all and continue reading paper books.
You minimize the ways in which it is different with your hard to take seriously "kudos". I can share Blender Foundation movies with everyone I wish. I don't recall being able to share copies of Hollywood movies or most independently made movies without risking litigation. When the Blender Foundation makes their movies they improve Blender and show off its capabilities to inspire others to use the program. Few Hollywood movies have that result for FLOSS. The Blender Foundation raises its money from us, the viewing public, who is inspired to buy their stuff because they treat us so well. There is no such similar inspiration for Hollywood movies or independent features; I'd like to contribute to more documentary filmmakers but movie makers that let me share the work (even verbatim and non-commercially) have set the bar high enough where I can quickly exclude the vast majority from receiving a donation from me. On the other hand, I'll be ready to buy a credit or a gold sponsorship for the next Blender Foundation movie depending only on my personal finances. Blender Foundation has developed a reputation for helping our community in significant ways. These are big efforts in themselves and should be sufficient to answer your question.
I don't think it's a stupid name. I think it's no more "stupid" than calling a spreadsheet "Excel" or making up a new name like "PowerPoint". Names gain acceptance over time as people become more comfortable with them. This means that they begin with names you might not have heard before, or names you've not heard used in that context. People had to get used to "Ubuntu" too but they did/.ers notwithstanding. You implore them to "ask for help" but you offer none yourself. What names do you think they should consider? Perhaps you have "friends who have a bit savviness when it comes to creativity" and offer some names they came up with. Constructive criticism goes so much further than name calling.
Some workers, perhaps (although it would be better if you cited a source to show what Ford actually paid rather than relying on readers' familiarity of Fordism). But the workers of Fordlandia, Ford's 2.5M acre Brazilian Amazon rubber plantation, were treated quite differently. In Fordlandia, Ford "[came] to rely on quite a brutal program of anti-unionism" according to Greg Grandin author of "Fordlandia: The Rise and Fall of Henry Ford's Forgotten Jungle City". Grandin discussed his book on Democracy Now! on July 2, 2009 (transcript, video, audio):
He [Ford] relies on his thug, Harry Bennett, to enforce shop floor discipline with--that one historian compared to a totalitarian state. And so, in many ways, Fordlandia is Ford's attempt to recapture a lost innocence or this mantle of being history's redeemer. Ford revolutionizes capitalism, but then he spends most of the rest of his life trying to put the genie back into the bottle. In some ways, he's the--you could think of him as the sorcerer's apprentice. He attempts any number of experiments at social reform in the United States. He sets up these small, what he calls, village industries in northern Michigan that tries to balance agriculture and industry. Now, these were no match to the raw power of industrial capitalism. And he increasingly becomes idiosyncratic and quirky in his social vision. And Fordlandia, in many ways, is a kind of terminus of a lifetime of quite idiosyncratic ideas of how to organize society.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And he was into not only controlling the workers on the shop floor, but also their lives in general.
GREG GRANDIN: Yeah.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And he conducted--he had his employees surveiled, watched what they were doing, how they were enjoying themselves. And did he carry that over into Brazil, as well?
GREG GRANDIN: Yeah, it was a combination of intense paternalism and intense surveillance, with the surveillance half increasing as the paternalist part fails in the United States.
In Brazil, it was a program of social regulation. He exported Prohibition. He didn't like drinking, even though it wasn't a Brazilian law. Or he tried to regulate the diet of Brazilian workers. He had very--you know, he had them eat--he was a health food nut, so he had them eating whole rice and whole wheat bread and canned Michigan peaches and oatmeal. He also tried to regulate their recreational time.
How much source code they inspect or change is beside the point. Most Americans don't participate in anti-war rallys or march in the street protesting the trillions spent on killing, yet it would be foolish to argue that this means Americans should not value their freedom of speech for its own sake. Most car drivers aren't mechanics and most car drivers don't understand the details of how their car's engine works but they benefit from the freedom people have to share mechanic information. A comparable situation exists with software freedom: Freedoms are permissions to do something, and these freedoms should be valued for their own sake. You benefit from anyone inspecting, modifying, and sharing free software even if you're not a programmer. You can hire others to do it for you, learn to trust others who do it for free, or pick up some programming skills later. With software freedom we can treat one another as friends do by sharing and improving things (if we choose) at our own pace. To do any of this you need software freedom.
Changing from one proprietary program to another is nothing more than changing from one black box to another.
Slashdot Mirror
This story is written poorly (shocking for /., I know) because it has little to do with any of the players mentioned: Creative Commons (as opposed to other license writing organizations or other licenses), photography (as opposed to other artistic media), or Flickr (as opposed to other hosting services). This is just another instance of a wealthy organization (which can certainly afford the expense for due diligence) allegedly infringing someone's copyright. It can be dealt with on that basis and resolved amicably for the copyright holder. And, as with so many other copyright infringement cases, how amicable the resolution is for the alleged infringer is, at best, of secondary importance particularly because the license allows the licensee to do so much (derivative works, for example).
Speaking directly to your complaints: First, there are so many different CC licenses and they say significantly different things. So we can't have a reasonable discussion about them by lumping them together and referring to them as if they're a cohesive unit except to note that they're written and published by the same organization. Second, photos are no more exempt from extraction, reuse, and building upon (making derivative works) than any other form of expression (particularly with digital photo manipulation tools we have today). Third, I think the heart of your complaint has to do with what are referred to as "moral rights" in some jurisdictions. But moral rights have little to do with the CC licenses and far more to do with regional powers conferred to authors (moral rights aren't in the US, for instance). Any proper discussion of them would be independent of the copyright licensing for the work. If you want the power to reject the reuse of some work because of you disagree with a potential derivative work, you probably should not license the work to them at all under any license. Then, should they commit copyright infringement and make an unauthorized derivative work anyway, you get to see how CC licenses had nothing to do with that.
The topic here concerns Playboy, pornography, and Apple. How is it you /.ers shut down a conversation: call something off-topic?
For being a discussion board where ostensibly technical-minded people talk in detail about technical things, some of you sure exhibit horrible logic getting lost in red herrings and side issues. For example, you're actually trying to respond to non-freedom from Apple by pointing out that Google's non-freedom also exists. Well guess what: yes, non-freedom from one proprietor doesn't become better or worse because some other proprietor does the same thing.
Another pair of overly highly moderated posts (1, 2) try to derail us into thinking about Apple's use of their metaphorical Sword of Damocles, suggesting that if Apple hasn't used their power we ought not consider that power so seriously (and certainly not to Apple's benefit): that's irrelevant and a bad way to look at non-freedom. The power which prevents you from fully controlling a computer you own doesn't become more acceptable because the proprietor hasn't yet seen fit to exercise their power on someone's device. It's not good strategy to enter a situation you know can become bad and then hope things won't become bad. You'll end up with a bigger mess to clean up afterwards. Much wiser to avoid foreseeable bad situations from the start.
I've already responded (prebuttal?) to the equally ridiculous objection that Apple's power is just, right, and proper because it will be used to excise "malware". Nobody knows what Apple's power will be used to do until they no longer have that power but those uses and rationale are irrelevant so long as they are proprietary and irrevocable, because the stronger objection is whether anyone but the device's owner should have that control at all. Let users choose if they want someone to help them excise malware, and let users choose from multiple options ad-hoc whom to trust with that power. Apple can be one of many providers of said service competing for users' attention and business. Or users can set up their own malware removal service and come to trust each other, or trust nobody but themselves. But the current situation is monopolistic control. Monopoly is what proprietors always offer and Apple no doubt benefits from the paternalistic view that their monopoly is merely looking out for users.
Finally there is a post and some followups which get lost in the red herring of how the device is advertised, as if advertised intent is justification to curtail a user's freedom; so if the device were said to be a proprietary control-hording overreach that would make it okay to behave that way (as proprietors always behave): no, freedom is not some trifling. Software freedom is critical for society to function well for its citizens, and we need to consider our need for software freedom and complete control of our own computers as the limits of acceptable action for those with whom we would do business. I don't care what a device is intended to perform, users should be able to control their devices to play games on book readers, read books on console machines, and so on.
Apple maintains the ability to "kill" (Apple's term) software users install on their own Apple hardware. Apple maintains the control they need to decide on a case-by-case basis who gets to run what program. Apple retains the power to make it hard for any user(s) to watch porn through an application. How Apple uses this power may change over time, denying some users access to an app but allowing others. Apple can apply this power with absolutely no legal ability for the user to gainsay Apple's power, predict who is denied what, or understand for what reason someone was denied complete control of their computer.
We would not stand for this control in any other medium. It should not be up to anyone but the owner of the device to exert control over what they wish to read or run.
I think Fishburne meant to say that the "data files" are under different licenses (probably far more restrictively licensed) than the Arx Fatalis code. Since Arx Fatalis is licensed than it too must be copyrighted. So you may run, share, and modify the GPL'd Arx Fatalis program, but you don't have these freedoms with the "data files".
I think most computer users are novices compared to the people likely to frequent /. and I think most computer users don't understand what they're giving up, particularly as we become more dependent on computer-based services. I think most computer users are frequently taught to value the meager conveniences of dependency instead of valuing their own freedom and the freedom of their fellows. It's up to people who understand that computing doesn't mean one has to forgo their freedom to help others understand that.
I would have liked to see more detail as well, however I think it's not hard to find serious faults with what the US Congress does and what it tacitly agrees with by not objecting. I don't see most "congress-critters" doing anything to stop some of the most heinous behavior the US government engages in. A few recent examples include:
This all happened under President's Obama's watch. This all happened with overwhelmingly silent complicity of his Democratic Party Congress. Glenn Greenwald, former constitutional law and civil rights litigator, calls this wiretapping "at least as pernicious as any power asserted during the Bush/Cheney years".
That's hardly the behavior I'd expect from "fine, upstanding people".
You have no idea where the collected data goes and what inferences will be made from it. Since corporations don't care about your freedoms of speech, assembly, and other freedoms, there's no good reason to assume that the collected data won't eventually serve malevolent ends. Furthermore, the data is often collected without explicit announcement that it is being collected. The data is often distributed to others without explicitly getting consent on a case-by-case basis so the end user has an opportunity to decide that they trust one party but not another. It's very easy to let those who promote convenience and flashy presentation take away your freedoms; it's hard to regain your freedom after you've lost it. The solution, therefore, is to not lose your freedoms in the first place.
Your characterization fails to convey that you understand why he says what he does. Freedom, for its own sake, is worth pursuing. He doesn't make his claims exaggerating and mischaracterizing like you do ("the universe will explode"). He gives frank and factual examinations of reality showing where a loss of freedom leads to people losing their rights. You picked a particularly poor time to make your half-hearted critique as right now Amazon has again been caught removing e-books from customer's "Kindle" devices, including Amazon workers chastising those seeking a refund for the e-books that have been taken from them without their consent. It's not hard to see how paying for an e-book you don't get to keep and having someone else choose what you're allowed to read on your device is bad for people. Things like this help us understand why Stallman refers to the Amazon Kindle as the Amazon Swindle. He saw stuff like this happening many years ago and wrote his dystopic short story about the practical consequences of non-freedom. Check out his reaction to a 2005 incident when a Harry Potter book was sold before its intended for-sale date; I haven't read anyone else give a cogent thoughtful analysis like he did.
You said "Like most other expressions of concern that come from brother Stallman" and then cited none. Your followup cites nothing. Saying "not that his concerns are never valid" is meaningless because nobody is wrong all the time; you're saying that as a shield so you can come back later and claim that your objections only contain mild inaccuracies when your theme is profoundly wrong and undefended. You seem to want to criticize Stallman for being unpopular (with an audience that should know better than to accept claims like yours without specific evidence, quite frankly) yet you ignore the examples he points to and what's going on around you.
Because many people are poor and lack the opportunities to get a better job than one can get working for McDonald's. Consider that we don't know the full extent of what McDonald's kept in the compromised systems. We only know from the article that McDonald's was willing to admit the data included "customers' e-mail addresses, names, addresses, phone numbers, birth dates, genders, as well as certain information about their promotional preferences and Web information interests". We don't know how the McDonald's corporation servers are organized, segregated, or if McDonald's is telling the complete truth. It's reasonable to wonder if other data was also copied.
It appears your post has been moderated up despite lacking specifics. Please do cite specific examples — use quotes from him — of what you call Stallman's "Chicken Little" concerns. Since you say there are so many, this should not be difficult for you to do.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is your evidence that treating your devices as though you own them "makes the next round of devices even MORE locked down"? How are we to know that it would not matter whether buyers did this, proprietors are going to continue to pursue ways to exclude users from being free to treat their computers as they wish?
It is Telstra's problem but there's an interesting wrinkle consider that GPLv2 (the version of the GPL the Linux kernel uses) is harsher to infringers than GPLv3.
Under the GPLv2 Telstra is not allowed to distribute the GPLd work until they get permission from all of the Linux kernel's copyright holders. This is one of the reasons GPLv3 is preferred over GPLv2; GPLv3 is kinder to accidental infringers than GPLv2 is.
The same would be true if this were any other copyright license that permits redistribution. The modified BSD license permits distribution and requires some things in exchange. If one distributes a modified BSD work (source or binary) without reproducing a particular copyright notice and a list of conditions, or if one uses the name of the author "to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission" one has gone against the terms of the modified BSD license.
So saying "The GPL permits redistribution, but only on it's terms" is true, but the same is true of any other copyright license which permits distribution. How much enforcement there is has to do with how much the copyright holder enforces their license.
No, they don't. Because they didn't agree to it [the GNU GPL]. The app submitter agreed to it.
The GPL specifies conditions under which one may distribute/convey the covered work. The alternative to these conditions is the default of copyright law: you may not distribute the work at all. Therefore if one fails to comply with the terms of the (relevant version of the) GPL, one loses permission to distribute/convey the GPLd program. But don't take my word for it, read what Eben Moglen, copyright lawyer, longtime GPL enforcer, and now president/founder of the Software Freedom Law Center said about this back in 2001: (emphasis mine)
You claim that
Apple does not need to take the app down. That's the FSF's point: Apple could change how they behave and easily become compliant with the GPL, even distributing GPL'd programs commercially (charging for distribution; distributing for a fee) and charge as much as they like. So long as Apple doesn't comply with the GPL, they can either choose to stop distributing it or they can choose compliance with the license. Taking the program down is not their only option.
Apple is distributing the VLC port. That VLC port is licensed under the GPL. So yes they do need to comply with the GPL which requires distributing complete corresponding source code to the program (a safe and easy way is to distribute complete corresponding source code right along side the binary distribution), or distribute a written promise for the program's complete corresponding source code with the binary. Either would be compliant with GPLv2 or GPLv3 (which are the two versions that cover the vast majority of GPLd programs).
Do you have reason to believe Denis-Courmont's claim of infringement is wrong? Anyone can claim any program infringes on their copyright regardless of license, that doesn't make their claim legitimate. That doesn't appear to be what's going on here so I'm not sure why you brought this up at
That language does not say "the Licensor’s end user license agreement" applies exclusively rendering the Apple Terms and Conditions inapplicable. I read that language to say Apple acknowledges what they can't avoid: some programs come with terms that must also be complied with in addition to Apple's terms for distributing via the Apple App Store. If Apple is trying to specify exclusivity they should be more clear. It won't help them dodge license requirements of the GPL (Apple doesn't have the power to supersede copyright law), but submitters should understand what they're getting into when they deal with Apple.
Also, the poster at the top of the discussion link you pointed to should understand that the no-additional-restrictions clause of the GPL, which is what the FSF is talking about, appears in all versions of the GPL: sections 6 of both GPLv1 and GPLv2, and section 7 of GPLv3, so with regard to this issue it doesn't matter which version of the GNU GPL is involved. And all licensing is "a political statement"; the context in which the poster says that comes off as if being political is somehow a bad thing when, in fact, being political lead to the GPL and the movement that works for software freedom.
Not being an Apple App Store user, I have no idea if Apple is also distributing the complete corresponding source code for that port of the VLC. Does Apple do this?
If Denis-Courmont takes this to court and sees it through we'll all get to learn a little more about this case. Settling issues like this is what courts are for.
Only if you let them. We can and should talk about this as often as we can to educate others on the reality of Apple's apparent proclivity to ignore copyright law and behave in violation of a license, and the obtuse control DRM places on users regardless of who wields the DRM power. DRM stories keep coming up as proprietors and publishers seek more control over the user and the users realize (sometimes too late to avoid the pain and inconvenience) that DRM is always a bad idea.
Those who submitted VLC to Apple are not in compliance with the license but Apple is also a distributor, so they are both infringing. But Apple is the focus of this /. thread, so I focus on Apple here.
The Apple App Store is not some organization where Apple can't determine what submitters have submitted and Apple somehow has no choice but to distribute everything that comes their way. Apple has no excuse like, say, a phone company selling service to a home where the phone company can't tell ahead of time if the home users will use the phone service in some manner that aides copyright infringement. Apple has rules for determining which programs are on their App Store and, as objectionable as those rules are, they retain full power to decide what's in and out. Therefore Apple has ample opportunity to dig into licensing detail and discuss submissions with submitters.
Furthermore, and more to your point about fraud, Apple's agreement with its upstream (those that submitted VLC to the Apple App Store) does not affect the copyright license under which VLC and its derivatives are distributed. Apple has to comply with that license, in this case the GNU GPL.
The GPL doesn't distinguish between distributors (GPLv2)/conveyors (GPLv3) allowing some to comply but not others (that would be an easily-exploited hole whereby GPLed free software would quickly become proprietary). All distributors/conveyors have the same obligations to add no restrictions to the license. Apple did not do that, therefore Apple is infringing just as Apple infringed the GPL when they distributed GNU Go.
The difference here is in how the copyright holders chose to react: the FSF, as per usual, sought license compliance when they were defending their license with GNU Go ("We have not sued Apple, nor have we sent them any legal demand that they remove the programs from the App Store." -- Brett Smith, FSF License Compliance Engineer). The FSF wanted Apple to change the terms of their App Store rules so they could simultaneously comply with the GPL and their own rules. Apple declined and stopped distributing GNU Go. Rémi Denis-Courmont took a different approach by sending "a formal notification of copyright infringement" to Apple as is Denis-Courmont's right.
Getting a developer's license has nothing to do with this; Apple is distributing a binary of a ported VLC in contravention of VLC's license. Apple's App Store rules are the heart of the issue: Apple's App Store rules prohibit them from complying with the GNU GPL which disallows adding restrictions to its (now longstanding) terms. Apple controls which apps enter and leave their App Store; they had as much time as they wanted to review license compliance and they apparently chose copyright infringement. Part of what makes this so bad is that they chose to infringe against people who are treating users so nicely: the GPL gives everyone (even Apple) all the license they need to distribute programs, even commercially.
Apple is most certainly responsible for infringingly distributing VLC. Much as you want to call the FSF names (your hyperbole suggests this is for reasons you can't justify), the FSF almost doesn't enter into the situation here except for being the author of the license VLC programmers chose to license VLC under. VLC programmer Rémi Denis-Courmont is simply defending his chosen license against an organization that would impose new restrictions on users of that variant of VLC.
So, if Apple chooses to remove VLC from their App Store as they removed GNU Go in May under what Denis-Courmont calls "strikingly similar circumstances", Apple will be making it that much less convenient for most iOS users to get and use VLC. Perhaps you should visit the FSF article linked to in the top of this /. thread which includes:
To take this the way you want to read it, it's almost as if you don't believe copyright holders should be able to choose their own license and legally defend their choice. We should all just bend to Apple's will and let them proprietarize or include DRM in the distribution of anything we make. Apparently there are GPLed program hackers who don't agree with that.
Actually it's the distributor's rules that are depriving users of useful programs and it's Apple that is committing copyright infringement. If they want to create monopolistic app stores, it's not a copyright holder's job to cave into their desire. The user can be taught about this issue, news stories like these and user experiences losing apps (Apple has the controls to remove/add apps as per their will) create learning opportunities. Just like Amazon's example with the Swindle did.
Clearly with this particular technology, non-free eBook readers, it is not. Publishers and distributors shouldn't be allowed to determine how long you can lend a book to someone, which books you can lend, nor should they have the power to track your book lending or cut off your book lending. Only you should decide these things for yourself. If Amazon can (in the words of the all-too-supportive /. headline which looks more like an ad) "plan to allow users of its Kindle book reader to 'lend' electronic books to other Kindle users" then clearly Amazon will have the power to do all of these things to any Swindle user. Comparing this book reader with some other non-free eBook reader like Barnes & Noble's is besides the point—choosing between proprietors is not freedom. You should declare your freedom to decide these things for yourself and use only a free software eBook reader and books you can fully read and share without DRM, or select no eBook reader at all and continue reading paper books.
You minimize the ways in which it is different with your hard to take seriously "kudos". I can share Blender Foundation movies with everyone I wish. I don't recall being able to share copies of Hollywood movies or most independently made movies without risking litigation. When the Blender Foundation makes their movies they improve Blender and show off its capabilities to inspire others to use the program. Few Hollywood movies have that result for FLOSS. The Blender Foundation raises its money from us, the viewing public, who is inspired to buy their stuff because they treat us so well. There is no such similar inspiration for Hollywood movies or independent features; I'd like to contribute to more documentary filmmakers but movie makers that let me share the work (even verbatim and non-commercially) have set the bar high enough where I can quickly exclude the vast majority from receiving a donation from me. On the other hand, I'll be ready to buy a credit or a gold sponsorship for the next Blender Foundation movie depending only on my personal finances. Blender Foundation has developed a reputation for helping our community in significant ways. These are big efforts in themselves and should be sufficient to answer your question.
I don't think it's a stupid name. I think it's no more "stupid" than calling a spreadsheet "Excel" or making up a new name like "PowerPoint". Names gain acceptance over time as people become more comfortable with them. This means that they begin with names you might not have heard before, or names you've not heard used in that context. People had to get used to "Ubuntu" too but they did /.ers notwithstanding. You implore them to "ask for help" but you offer none yourself. What names do you think they should consider? Perhaps you have "friends who have a bit savviness when it comes to creativity" and offer some names they came up with. Constructive criticism goes so much further than name calling.
Preposterous. Learning to defend freedom of speech for people with messages we don't like is a hallmark of the defense of free speech.
How much source code they inspect or change is beside the point. Most Americans don't participate in anti-war rallys or march in the street protesting the trillions spent on killing, yet it would be foolish to argue that this means Americans should not value their freedom of speech for its own sake. Most car drivers aren't mechanics and most car drivers don't understand the details of how their car's engine works but they benefit from the freedom people have to share mechanic information. A comparable situation exists with software freedom: Freedoms are permissions to do something, and these freedoms should be valued for their own sake. You benefit from anyone inspecting, modifying, and sharing free software even if you're not a programmer. You can hire others to do it for you, learn to trust others who do it for free, or pick up some programming skills later. With software freedom we can treat one another as friends do by sharing and improving things (if we choose) at our own pace. To do any of this you need software freedom.
Changing from one proprietary program to another is nothing more than changing from one black box to another.