The line is crossed when you cut off your nose to spite your face. The line is crossed when you give up freedoms so that some organization, institution, or government will protect them.
The problem here is that by attempting to lock out Tivo, the GPL 3 is limiting all other similar uses, even unforeseen uses, that are not "bad" (if you grant that what Tivo did was bad).
GPL 2 is elegant. It's a reciprocal agreement. The licensee gives up a little, but gains a lot. The licensor gives up a lot up front, but will recoup when there are many licensees. There's a quid pro quo; the very spirit of GPL 2 is quid pro quo. I give you software - you give me software back.
GPL 3 is an ugly kludge. It overreaches into areas that have nothing to do with software and offers an inequitable trade.
So you're suggesting that some users of the software should be unfree so that more people use the software. Actually, I thought that was what you were proposing. Some users should not be free to design hardware if their designs limit the very small amount of people that want to repurpose or modify the hardware. Actually, that wouldn't be right. Because by limiting the hardware designing user making hardware for the consumer, you're limiting all the potential buyers of that hardware from using the software. So, I guess your equation is right, especially when you apply it to the GPL 3. Limit users, as the FSF wants to do, and you end up with less users. Hope that works out for you.
Listen, and listen good. If even one user of the software does not have freedom, the license is broken. If you don't like that, don't use the license. Sound to me like the GPL 3 is broken, then. Defective by design?
PS: sorry, but Linus is being a wanker on this issue. No, not really. You should actually try to read the thread in question on LKML. Given the context of ceaseless hounding by a FSFer in the thread, Linus eventually became rather short with him. He'd suffered the foolishness long enough.
That's the meat of it, although the thread continues until it's just one FSFer talking to himself on 1 July.
I used to believe in the reputation that Linus was short tempered (and maybe he is), but you really need to read the whole thread to see what sort of dumbasses he has to put up with.
Linus apparently likes the GPL 2 just fine. It's certain provisions of GPL 3 that he finds impossible to accept. If you believe that Linus is against the GPL or (even worse) against "the spirit of the GPL", you're swallowing a load of bullshit.
I'm not clear on something . . . . you implied that Tivo got a free lunch. Did they not release the source code of whatever GPL 2 code they used? Did they not include any changes they made to the code? How did Tivo not keep up its end of the bargain?
What is it that you want, personally and exactly, from Tivo? You want to hack their hardware? I don't think anyone is stopping you from taking out your soldering iron and having at it.
I think you're wrong on this. Tivo made the source code available to users of the software. There's no loop hole or end run. Tivo did exactly what the GPL 2 required of it. Show me where in the GPL it says otherwise. Yes, Linus is entitled to his opinions, but in this case, he's also entitled to the facts. The fact is that what Tivo did is well within the framework of the GPL 2.
Really, we've come to the point where we can no longer speak of "the GPL". There are two separate and distinct licenses now, and specifying them as different versions doesn't make that clear. So, GPL 2 and GPL 3. GPL 3 is so different from GPL 2 that I find it hard to claim that it's a revision or iteration.
If you read the pertinent parts of the LKML (look for the threads on dual licensing of GPL 2 and GPL 3), you'll notice that Linus seems more than content with GPL 2. I don't see him feeling the need to rewrite it, nor do I see him wanting to round up all the permission necessary to change it.
If Sun frees up Solaris using the Java timeline, I have a feeling you're going to be using GNU/ Hurd way before then. Sun is going to pussyfoot around for years.
And I haven't seen this mass exodus towards GPL v.3. I think people are taking the time to really understand what the GPL v.3 says, rather than what the FSF says it says. At that point, they might move to it or they might not. Of course, there's going to be some that will let themselves be stampeded by all the enthusiasm (read: marketing) without taking a good look at the tortured anti-"tivoization" section.
It's pretty clear that the GPL v2 is just fine for many projects and people, and there are plenty of software developers that have no problem letting companies develop and design hardware as they see fit, so long as they return the source code with changes.
The FSFtards continue to hammer the LKML with their propaganda, to little effect. (I wonder if their strategy is to distract the kernel developers so that Hurd (excuse me, GNU/Hurd) can catch up.)
I dropped a greater than. =) Why didn't anyone warn me not to eat cous cous directly over the keyboard?
You're doing a good job of voicing objections to the GPL v3, and I have nothing to really add. I just wanted you to know that, despite the piling on you're getting from the 'tards, most people that understand the issues agree with you. Don't let a very vocal minority shut you up by repeating the same stupidities over and over. They've got such an emotional stake in the FSF ideology that they cannot listen to reason. If you're not attacked outright, then you'll be given the condescending "you misunderstand".
The FSFtards with their propaganda, to little effect. (I wonder if their strategy is to distract the kernel developers so that Hurd (excuse me, GNU/Hurd) can catch up.)
Anyway, if you ever get stumped by a pro-GPL v3 argument, you can be sure it's already been addressed and destroyed on the LKML. Especially arguments that use an appeal to "the spirit of the GPL", the "spirit" being whatever RMS says it is at the moment.
I'm not a gamer, but I'd really like a foot operated trackball, about the size of a basketball, for those times I need both hands free. I think I might be getting Karpal Tunnel, and it's not on my mouse hand.
416 pages to be exact. I just checked. You're right, I can hardly call it a long book. Maybe I should take it with me and head down to Cuernavaca and spend a month reading it in its purported location.
You must not get out much not to know about the Google/Apple partnership, which Eric Schmidt was gushing about at the Paris Google event.
Anyway, care to wager anything, seeing as how you are so sure that the iPhone won't amount to much? And what's a "PDA Phone"? This would be a good place for one of those "The 90s called and it wants its X back" jokes, but how is the 90s supposed to call if you've got its goddamn PDA phone.
Back to the proposed wager. I'll bet you my foolish optimism against your lack of imagination.
Slashdot Mirror
The line is crossed when you cut off your nose to spite your face. The line is crossed when you give up freedoms so that some organization, institution, or government will protect them.
The problem here is that by attempting to lock out Tivo, the GPL 3 is limiting all other similar uses, even unforeseen uses, that are not "bad" (if you grant that what Tivo did was bad).
GPL 2 is elegant. It's a reciprocal agreement. The licensee gives up a little, but gains a lot. The licensor gives up a lot up front, but will recoup when there are many licensees. There's a quid pro quo; the very spirit of GPL 2 is quid pro quo. I give you software - you give me software back.
GPL 3 is an ugly kludge. It overreaches into areas that have nothing to do with software and offers an inequitable trade.
9-15 June
16-20 June
That's the meat of it, although the thread continues until it's just one FSFer talking to himself on 1 July.
I used to believe in the reputation that Linus was short tempered (and maybe he is), but you really need to read the whole thread to see what sort of dumbasses he has to put up with.
Linus apparently likes the GPL 2 just fine. It's certain provisions of GPL 3 that he finds impossible to accept. If you believe that Linus is against the GPL or (even worse) against "the spirit of the GPL", you're swallowing a load of bullshit.
You're jumping the gun. That's GPL 4.
I'm not clear on something . . . . you implied that Tivo got a free lunch. Did they not release the source code of whatever GPL 2 code they used? Did they not include any changes they made to the code? How did Tivo not keep up its end of the bargain?
What is it that you want, personally and exactly, from Tivo? You want to hack their hardware? I don't think anyone is stopping you from taking out your soldering iron and having at it.
I think you're wrong on this. Tivo made the source code available to users of the software. There's no loop hole or end run. Tivo did exactly what the GPL 2 required of it. Show me where in the GPL it says otherwise. Yes, Linus is entitled to his opinions, but in this case, he's also entitled to the facts. The fact is that what Tivo did is well within the framework of the GPL 2.
Really, we've come to the point where we can no longer speak of "the GPL". There are two separate and distinct licenses now, and specifying them as different versions doesn't make that clear. So, GPL 2 and GPL 3. GPL 3 is so different from GPL 2 that I find it hard to claim that it's a revision or iteration.
If you read the pertinent parts of the LKML (look for the threads on dual licensing of GPL 2 and GPL 3), you'll notice that Linus seems more than content with GPL 2. I don't see him feeling the need to rewrite it, nor do I see him wanting to round up all the permission necessary to change it.
Because only the letters G, P, and L have that great taste of freedom combined with the mellow flavor of RMS gravy. It says so right on the box.
Do what you feel is best for you, but I notice that embedded developers don't call it BusyBox/ Linux (or whatever userland they're using).
If Sun frees up Solaris using the Java timeline, I have a feeling you're going to be using GNU/ Hurd way before then. Sun is going to pussyfoot around for years.
And I haven't seen this mass exodus towards GPL v.3. I think people are taking the time to really understand what the GPL v.3 says, rather than what the FSF says it says. At that point, they might move to it or they might not. Of course, there's going to be some that will let themselves be stampeded by all the enthusiasm (read: marketing) without taking a good look at the tortured anti-"tivoization" section.
It's pretty clear that the GPL v2 is just fine for many projects and people, and there are plenty of software developers that have no problem letting companies develop and design hardware as they see fit, so long as they return the source code with changes.
That second paragraph should read:
The FSFtards continue to hammer the LKML with their propaganda, to little effect. (I wonder if their strategy is to distract the kernel developers so that Hurd (excuse me, GNU/Hurd) can catch up.)
I dropped a greater than. =) Why didn't anyone warn me not to eat cous cous directly over the keyboard?
You're doing a good job of voicing objections to the GPL v3, and I have nothing to really add. I just wanted you to know that, despite the piling on you're getting from the 'tards, most people that understand the issues agree with you. Don't let a very vocal minority shut you up by repeating the same stupidities over and over. They've got such an emotional stake in the FSF ideology that they cannot listen to reason. If you're not attacked outright, then you'll be given the condescending "you misunderstand".
The FSFtards with their propaganda, to little effect. (I wonder if their strategy is to distract the kernel developers so that Hurd (excuse me, GNU/Hurd) can catch up.)
Anyway, if you ever get stumped by a pro-GPL v3 argument, you can be sure it's already been addressed and destroyed on the LKML. Especially arguments that use an appeal to "the spirit of the GPL", the "spirit" being whatever RMS says it is at the moment.
OK, let's split the difference and call it a passive-aggressive takeover. =)
You can spin it positively as much as you like, but you two are still a couple of quitters.
Do you take that with cream and sugar? How many lumps?
You didn't think their ad campaign was innovative and original?
I'm not a gamer, but I'd really like a foot operated trackball, about the size of a basketball, for those times I need both hands free. I think I might be getting Karpal Tunnel, and it's not on my mouse hand.
So true! Do you mind if I quote you in my blog.
416 pages to be exact. I just checked. You're right, I can hardly call it a long book. Maybe I should take it with me and head down to Cuernavaca and spend a month reading it in its purported location.
You have no idea of all the things I could do if I had a lack of imagination.
I'd probably just clean it up and sell it on ebay, though.
It's a bad bet, but the odds are in my favor on this one.
You must not get out much not to know about the Google/Apple partnership, which Eric Schmidt was gushing about at the Paris Google event.
Anyway, care to wager anything, seeing as how you are so sure that the iPhone won't amount to much? And what's a "PDA Phone"? This would be a good place for one of those "The 90s called and it wants its X back" jokes, but how is the 90s supposed to call if you've got its goddamn PDA phone.
Back to the proposed wager. I'll bet you my foolish optimism against your lack of imagination.
Thank you!