There are also corporations, political action committes, lobbyists, and random citizens all political agendas who are interested in distorting entires to meet their objectives.
"So, is this a reason to be concerned about GPL2 vs GPL3? Is the vendor's actions compatible with the spirit/intent of GPL2? Perhaps more importantly, would the fact that something like this *could* happen cause developers who would have improved Linux to stay away?"
Since other vendors can use the code in competing hardware, the benefits outweigh the costs for Linux, in my opinion. Only the hobbyists suffer. But since RMS comes at the problem as a hobbyist, it's his primary concern.
I agree. When you give something, away, there are no strings attached. GPL code is not given away, since there are a list of strings attached which increases with every revision of the license. GPL is not about real freedom, but about giving users additional freedom at the expense of producers. This socialistic definition of freedom has been with us for more than a century (since Marx, et.al.), and RMS is just regurgitating it in the realm of software.
"The trouble with Linus's argument, though, is that he doesn't seem to understand which keys RMS is talking about. GPL v.3 is not about disallowing developers from cryptographically signing the code they write, it's about disallowing the machine from rejecting unsigned code. In other words, RMS wants to make sure that code containing the user's (or third-party) changes can still run."
Linus knows exactly what RMS is talking about. Linus believes that companies like TiVo have the right to use GPLed software which cannot be modified on their particular hardware, as long as the modified source is available. Linus does not believe, as a software maker, he should be telling hardware makers, how they can use his software.
"I agree with RMS that it should not be possible to create a device/software combo based on GPL-code where no one is able to modify the code"
But Linus doesn't agree. As he's said, he doesn't feel he has the right to tell hardware makers that they need to make open hardware that runs modified code. As long as the source is available, Linus is satisfied. Linus doesn't believe the GPL should give you the right to be able to run recompiled code on that specific hardware.
"Nope. If Linus is saying that a non-DRM clause is valid for content, then to me, he basically just invalidated his position. Code is art and knowledge, and as such qualifies as content."
No, he's consistent since there is no way to distribute linux binaries without human readable source code under GPLv2. Therefore, he is practicing what he preaches.
"It would be fair to note that mp3 ripping is new to WMP 10, which is XP-only, and wasn't installed by default on most Windows PCs in use today.
All copies of iTunes currently installed can rip to mp3, while only a fraction of the copies of WMP can, which puts things in a little better context."
You can't get iTunes for pre-XP machines either, and iTunes isn't installed by default on any Windows PCs, so how is iTunes any advantage for ripping mp3s?
"America's image as bringers of freedom, fighters against tyranny, and lighthouse of the world for democracy was right at the end of WW2. Since then, it's been going downhill quite frankly."
Yeah, because America had nothing to do with the downfall of the Soviet Union, the most oppresive regime in all of history.
"I'm too cheap to pay 99 cents for a song, if (as with iTMS) that song is crippled with DRM, stripped of 90 percent of its data, comes with no physical media or artwork, and yet is treated as a single physical copy rather than a media service (e.g. no option to download again if file is corrupt, deleted or destroyed).
I got an iTunes card for Christmas a couple of years ago, and I tried using it to download an album. Five of the 11 song files were corrupt and unplayable, but Apple would not refund my money or authorize a new download."
translation: I have a right to steal something if the the producer doesn't offer it to me in a manner I want.
Apple knows that the stand-alone mp3 player is only a short term phenomenon. Eventually it will be just one more feature on a PDA that also acts as a cell phone. You will even be able to buy music directly on the phone. What would really be cool is a feature that identifies a song coming into the phone mic, so you don't even need to ask anyone what the song title or artist is to figure out what song to buy.
"I would have thought, in this specific occurrence, that it is the US who surrendered to big business."
No, the US govt refuses to surrender to a bunch of leeches who are too cheap to pay 99 cents for a song. And people wonder why we need DRM. Thanks France, for proving that technological measures are necessary to protect IP, because the courts won't do it.
Not a surprise that a Frech court would rule that a guy "sharing" nearly 2000 files is simply engaged in private copying with his closest million comrades. A victory for socialism.
"All the more reason to develop wireless access through municipalities. Why bother with the Telco's in the first place? It's been discussed before, but providing this type of service to residents could bypass those money-grubbing corporations. Also, whatever happened to all the fiber that Google supposedly owns? More at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester"
And who will route packets between municipalities?
"ILikeRed writes to tell us the Washington Post is reporting that Verizon is becoming much more vocal about internet firms using "their" lines to do business without paying extra."
So a telcom spends enormous sums of cash laying fiber, and you have the gall to imply they don't even own the backbone. What a bunch of socialists.
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that Rhapsody and Napster are shackled by DRM. People should not do business with them.
iTunes is a peculiar case: it allows you to burn the music onto a genuine audio CD. Therefore, it is DIM (Digital Inconvenience Management) rather than DRM, and I think that makes iTunes ethically acceptable--in this respect, at least. "
Actually Napster Light allows you to burn to CDs for $0.99/track, just like Apple.
"Last time I checked, copyright goes completely against the laws of physics. It's a human construct designed to make bits uncopyable. In the words of Bruce Schneier [businessweek.com], it's akin to trying to make water not wet."
Last time I checked the concept of property was against the laws of physics. You're saying stealing physical property should be allowed then too, if I generalize your idea further? Might makes right, correct?
"Neither scientific advances nor engineering advances are protected by copyrights, so your argument is spurious.
And, in any case, we are talking about music here, not science or engineering. Having copyrights for the latest Britney Spears song is not going to advance science or engineering."
Straw man arguement. These advances are protected by patents.
"There is a correlation, but you are getting cause and effect wrong. The US was infamous for ignoring copyright and patent laws during its best years. The US computer industry became strong before patents and mostly before copyrights on computer software became a factor."
"If copyright law forbids people from sharing, copyright law is wrong. "
Since the GPL contract is only valid because of copyright rules, I guess RMS just admitted the GPL is wrong and we can now share GPLed code any way we choose, including releasing binaries without source code.
"We could put a huge glass bubble over a country, bottle all the air and force people to buy it. That would undoubtedly employ a lot of people, even increase the GDP, but for any sane definition of wealth, one would have to be truly warped to claim that would benefit the wealth of the society, or the economy, as a whole. And as an aside, in comparison with countries where the citizens were not forced to pay for bottled air, workers would cost more, with predictable effects..."
Right, because information is like air. You just breath it in. No work is required to create air or information. The analogy is so flawed as not only to be useless, but actually is very misleading.
"Because nerds have to live in the real world too, although we would often like to ignore the fact (or move to the Google moon base)."
Posting one opinion story is worse than no news at all./. should either cover the topic thoroughly or leave it alone. For a group of people that loves to criticize Foc News,/. isn't much better in terms of bias. I guess that's why it's not called |.
If the top 1% actually did run the country, the tax codes would look a lot different. Liberal politicians get elected by people in the bottom 50% to redirect tax bills that they would pay under a flat tax system to wealthier people. The way democracy really works is that the majority of people get what they want for high profile issues, and for lower profile stuff, the people who fund re-election campaigns get what they want.
""less risk of any holes being exploited" is better than "more secure"
These quoted items are synonymous."
Not really. The 1st says in general you're less likely to get hacked. The 2nd says it's more difficult to get hacked. Statistics says the 1st is true. The 2nd is nearly impossible to prove or disprove. If you're a high profile target therefore, running Linux doesn't guarantee you provably better security,
Slashdot Mirror
Not once did TFA use the word cracker, although the post never once used the word hacker.
I've heard that line before somewhere...
There are also corporations, political action committes, lobbyists, and random citizens all political agendas who are interested in distorting entires to meet their objectives.
"So, is this a reason to be concerned about GPL2 vs GPL3? Is the vendor's actions compatible with the spirit/intent of GPL2? Perhaps more importantly, would the fact that something like this *could* happen cause developers who would have improved Linux to stay away?"
Since other vendors can use the code in competing hardware, the benefits outweigh the costs for Linux, in my opinion. Only the hobbyists suffer. But since RMS comes at the problem as a hobbyist, it's his primary concern.
I agree. When you give something, away, there are no strings attached. GPL code is not given away, since there are a list of strings attached which increases with every revision of the license. GPL is not about real freedom, but about giving users additional freedom at the expense of producers. This socialistic definition of freedom has been with us for more than a century (since Marx, et.al.), and RMS is just regurgitating it in the realm of software.
"The trouble with Linus's argument, though, is that he doesn't seem to understand which keys RMS is talking about. GPL v.3 is not about disallowing developers from cryptographically signing the code they write, it's about disallowing the machine from rejecting unsigned code. In other words, RMS wants to make sure that code containing the user's (or third-party) changes can still run."
Linus knows exactly what RMS is talking about. Linus believes that companies like TiVo have the right to use GPLed software which cannot be modified on their particular hardware, as long as the modified source is available. Linus does not believe, as a software maker, he should be telling hardware makers, how they can use his software.
"I agree with RMS that it should not be possible to create a device/software combo based on GPL-code where no one is able to modify the code"
But Linus doesn't agree. As he's said, he doesn't feel he has the right to tell hardware makers that they need to make open hardware that runs modified code. As long as the source is available, Linus is satisfied. Linus doesn't believe the GPL should give you the right to be able to run recompiled code on that specific hardware.
"Nope. If Linus is saying that a non-DRM clause is valid for content, then to me, he basically just invalidated his position. Code is art and knowledge, and as such qualifies as content."
No, he's consistent since there is no way to distribute linux binaries without human readable source code under GPLv2. Therefore, he is practicing what he preaches.
"It would be fair to note that mp3 ripping is new to WMP 10, which is XP-only, and wasn't installed by default on most Windows PCs in use today.
All copies of iTunes currently installed can rip to mp3, while only a fraction of the copies of WMP can, which puts things in a little better context."
You can't get iTunes for pre-XP machines either, and iTunes isn't installed by default on any Windows PCs, so how is iTunes any advantage for ripping mp3s?
"America's image as bringers of freedom, fighters against tyranny, and lighthouse of the world for democracy was right at the end of WW2. Since then, it's been going downhill quite frankly."
Yeah, because America had nothing to do with the downfall of the Soviet Union, the most oppresive regime in all of history.
"I'm too cheap to pay 99 cents for a song, if (as with iTMS) that song is crippled with DRM, stripped of 90 percent of its data, comes with no physical media or artwork, and yet is treated as a single physical copy rather than a media service (e.g. no option to download again if file is corrupt, deleted or destroyed).
I got an iTunes card for Christmas a couple of years ago, and I tried using it to download an album. Five of the 11 song files were corrupt and unplayable, but Apple would not refund my money or authorize a new download."
translation: I have a right to steal something if the the producer doesn't offer it to me in a manner I want.
Apple knows that the stand-alone mp3 player is only a short term phenomenon. Eventually it will be just one more feature on a PDA that also acts as a cell phone. You will even be able to buy music directly on the phone. What would really be cool is a feature that identifies a song coming into the phone mic, so you don't even need to ask anyone what the song title or artist is to figure out what song to buy.
"I would have thought, in this specific occurrence, that it is the US who surrendered to big business."
No, the US govt refuses to surrender to a bunch of leeches who are too cheap to pay 99 cents for a song. And people wonder why we need DRM. Thanks France, for proving that technological measures are necessary to protect IP, because the courts won't do it.
Not a surprise that a Frech court would rule that a guy "sharing" nearly 2000 files is simply engaged in private copying with his closest million comrades. A victory for socialism.
"All the more reason to develop wireless access through municipalities. Why bother with the Telco's in the first place? It's been discussed before, but providing this type of service to residents could bypass those money-grubbing corporations. Also, whatever happened to all the fiber that Google supposedly owns? More at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester"
And who will route packets between municipalities?
"ILikeRed writes to tell us the Washington Post is reporting that Verizon is becoming much more vocal about internet firms using "their" lines to do business without paying extra."
So a telcom spends enormous sums of cash laying fiber, and you have the gall to imply they don't even own the backbone. What a bunch of socialists.
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that Rhapsody and Napster are shackled by DRM. People should not do business with them.
iTunes is a peculiar case: it allows you to burn the music onto a genuine audio CD. Therefore, it is DIM (Digital Inconvenience Management) rather than DRM, and I think that makes iTunes ethically acceptable--in this respect, at least. "
Actually Napster Light allows you to burn to CDs for $0.99/track, just like Apple.
"Last time I checked, copyright goes completely against the laws of physics. It's a human construct designed to make bits uncopyable. In the words of Bruce Schneier [businessweek.com], it's akin to trying to make water not wet."
Last time I checked the concept of property was against the laws of physics. You're saying stealing physical property should be allowed then too, if I generalize your idea further? Might makes right, correct?
"Neither scientific advances nor engineering advances are protected by copyrights, so your argument is spurious.
And, in any case, we are talking about music here, not science or engineering. Having copyrights for the latest Britney Spears song is not going to advance science or engineering."
Straw man arguement. These advances are protected by patents.
"There is a correlation, but you are getting cause and effect wrong. The US was infamous for ignoring copyright and patent laws during its best years. The US computer industry became strong before patents and mostly before copyrights on computer software became a factor."
One anecdotal example does not prove you case.
"If copyright law forbids people from sharing, copyright law is wrong. "
Since the GPL contract is only valid because of copyright rules, I guess RMS just admitted the GPL is wrong and we can now share GPLed code any way we choose, including releasing binaries without source code.
"We could put a huge glass bubble over a country, bottle all the air and force people to buy it. That would undoubtedly employ a lot of people, even increase the GDP, but for any sane definition of wealth, one would have to be truly warped to claim that would benefit the wealth of the society, or the economy, as a whole. And as an aside, in comparison with countries where the citizens were not forced to pay for bottled air, workers would cost more, with predictable effects..."
Right, because information is like air. You just breath it in. No work is required to create air or information. The analogy is so flawed as not only to be useless, but actually is very misleading.
"End is a relative of Alice, Bob, Charlie and Doug."
Now it's Ann, Bing, Carlos, and Dipak.
"Because nerds have to live in the real world too, although we would often like to ignore the fact (or move to the Google moon base)."
/. should either cover the topic thoroughly or leave it alone. For a group of people that loves to criticize Foc News, /. isn't much better in terms of bias. I guess that's why it's not called |.
Posting one opinion story is worse than no news at all.
If the top 1% actually did run the country, the tax codes would look a lot different. Liberal politicians get elected by people in the bottom 50% to redirect tax bills that they would pay under a flat tax system to wealthier people. The way democracy really works is that the majority of people get what they want for high profile issues, and for lower profile stuff, the people who fund re-election campaigns get what they want.
""less risk of any holes being exploited" is better than "more secure"
These quoted items are synonymous."
Not really. The 1st says in general you're less likely to get hacked. The 2nd says it's more difficult to get hacked. Statistics says the 1st is true. The 2nd is nearly impossible to prove or disprove. If you're a high profile target therefore, running Linux doesn't guarantee you provably better security,