I'm not sure if I'd even need more than 10 minutes of battery time most of the time. Unless I really get caught up in whatever I'm reading or working on, I rarely spend more than 10 minutes sitting on the john.
The major difference, in my mind, is this: When you make an unauthorized copy of a Britney Spears song (I know you're a big Britney fan. I can just tell these things), you are not claiming the work as your own, and then turning around and profiting from your plagiarism.
That's the key issue here: plagiarism. Goldman is claiming that the works are his creations.
I don't know what everyone is complaining about. The FDA just increased the chocolate ration to 20 grammes a week. (Up from 30 grammes.) I love Big Brother!
Wait. You're claiming that there is a single approved version of English (the Queen's English, I suppose) spoken in England? That the English people speak a single unified homogenized language without regional or class differences? You certainly seem to be implying such.
You are sacrificing accepted nomenclature for an ultimately faulty bit of pedantry. Complete nonsense.
The news report said that Exxon denied any knowledge. DCI, the PR firm, says it does not disclose the work it does for clients.
I bet we could find out lots in discovery if both Exxon and DCI were to be sued for trademark and copyright infringement (you'd need discovery to make the linkage to Exxon).
GPLv3 prohibits users from using signed binaries on hardware that the FSF deems "bad". Specifically, the user cannot create software with signed binaries for use on Trusted Computing hardware. Apparently the FSF doesn't think users are capable of deciding for themselves what hardware is best for some applications, so it wants to stop them from making a "bad" decision.
It's so worried about closing the "Tivo loophole", which is really inconsequential, that it's willing to foreclose on all the potential good uses of signed binaries on trusted computing hardware.
It removes the choice of the user to use signed binaries. It removes the choice of the user to use Trusted Computing hardware, i.e., any hardware that the user wants. It's based on the idea that the user can't make these decisions for himself and must be protected from "bad" decisions, i.e., decisions that the FSF doesn't agree with.
(I must say that I'm disappointed that you of all people would mark me as a foe. I never would have thought that you couldn't handle a difference of opinion. Oh well. We learn a lot about each other in internecine strife.)
God forbid you should ever be in a hospital being kept alive on machines running open source software licensed under GPLv3, and someone who "likes to tinker" loaded up their "improved" version of the software without proper authorization or QA. (Don't you think that would be a valid use of signed binaries?)
That's just one example of a use of OSS where signed binaries and trusted computing would be a good thing. There are plenty other uses of signed binaries that would be very good things. Anyplace where someone's life is on the line. Anyplace where an unsigned binary has the potential to wreak havoc. I'd hazard to say that there are more positive good uses than there are negative bad uses.
You're just buying into the FSF propaganda of paranoia. It's time you started asking why the FSF wants you paranoid. How do they benefit from instilling fear into you. What sort of compromise are they trying to sell you to escape their unlikely worst case scenario of totalitarian trusted computing.
Just like those developers who went for the the GPLv2 plus edition, you're being sold a pig in a poke.
I'm curious as to how exactly you expect Sony to dictate what you do with your computer. As near as I can tell, Sony doesn't have a monopoly on hardware yet, and probably never will. If you think Sony is out to control your computer, can't avoid that by just not buying Sony products? Or do you need a software license in case you accidentally buy Sony? You cannot trust yourself, so you need the FSF to protect you from yourself and your own decisions?
It's stunning how people are so unwilling to take responsibility for themselves that they'll surrender to a Big Brother figure who promises to protect them from the evils of the world.
It's astonishing how much this GPLv3 circus reminds me of Animal Farm.
There has not been a solid refutation of Linus's criticisms, despite your claim that the "main" criticism has been answered. I'm not satisfied. No real examples were given of Linus's (or anyone else's) problems with the draft being addressed. They "addressed" his concerns about the DRM section? Linus makes it clear that those were never the real concerns. Do they say anything about signed binaries? No. Not addressed. Do they say anything about the redefinition of source code? No. Not addressed. Do they say anything about the redefinition of distribution (my concern, not sure about Linus)? No. Not addressed. They spoke only in generalities.
Also let's look at the interviewees. The guy from Gnome? Axe to grind. He's gone on record before as calling Linus irrelevant, because Linus dared to criticize the Gnome project. Judging by that excuse for an article and the posts I see here on slashdot (some of which are accusing Linus of selling out!), it's hard not to conclude that a smear campaign has started.
By the way, have you ever studied the history of socialist movements and revolutions that have been subverted into totalitarian regimes? If you have, you'll see where the FSF is getting their playbook.
He's written pretty extensively on this issue. He does not see the threat of totalitarian Trusted Computing happening. I happen to agree. This is a paranoid fantasy put into your head by RMS and others to further their own agenda.
You're calling me a troll? You're the one suggesting that Linus has sold out. I'm not even a big Linus fan, but I'm aware of his contributions and I have respect for the man. And it amazes me that you could even ask that question about him. It's really astonishing. How can you maintain it's an "honest question"? At best, it's a stupid and reckless question. At worst, it's a calculated smear. I just don't get how you people can impugn his integrity and at the same time, not question the integrity of RMS, well known for his demagoguery.
Let me ask you this: In your mind, are there no good uses for trusted computing? Are there never circumstances where trusted computing could be applied without evil effect? Or is all trusted computing inherently evil and must be stamped out?
Here is his entire statement, from which you merely took a part:
DRM "Misunderstood" Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 27 2006 @ 07:11 PM EDT ---------- I'm pretty sure I didn't misunderstand anything at all.
A lot of people are confused by the DRM issue, and the problem comes mostly from the organization of the first GPLv3 draft itself. It had a section on DRM, and that section is totally irrelevant and has almost no semantic content.
(In the new draft, the DRM section has been renamed to talk about users' rights instead, but it's still the same case - that section isn't actually the interesting one).
The real anti-DRM thing is the new and bogus language in section 1 - the definition of "source code". That is the true change in both the previous and the current draft, and that's my personal beef.
The fact that they had a separate (and largely boring) section called "DRM" was never the issue, and was (and is) a total red herring. The real problem was always the re-definition of source code.
Actually, I take that back. The real problem was and is that there are lots of people who disagreed with the FSF on issues (mine was the definition of source code, while I know that some commercial entities felt that the patent language was totally unsupportable). And the FSF took that input, and then totally ignored it.
So as far as I can tell, the whole GPLv3 "process" has been a sham from the very beginning. Eben and Richard talk about "discussion drafts", but it's not "discussion" if you don't actually care what the other side says. And Richard most definitely doesn't care (Eben probably does, but has no actual say in the end result).
So forget about this whole "community input" thing. Input has been given, and then duly ignored.
Oh, well. At least that's how I've seen it, and maybe that explains my disillusionment with the GPLv3.
Linus
His second posting:
DRM "Misunderstood" Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 27 2006 @ 08:18 PM EDT ============== I tried to explain my own disagreement with the GPLv3 in a number of emails to the linux kernel, but obviously haven't been uniformly successful.
And yes (responding both to you, and to another poster), I realize that input has been taken on the drafts, but all the changes I've seen have been about largely stylistic issues - wording changes, things like that. I don't think any input on any really fundamental disagreement has been really on the table.
Now, I also realize that that is probably exactly what the FSF was going for. Rms had a vision for what he wanted the GPLv3 to say, and it says that, and then they are open to modifying details. Fair enough, and I'm not fighting the GPLv3 changes per se. I'm just telling people why they are bad changes for me, and why I think they are bad changes for most other projects too.
I'll try to explain it once more, usign the analogy that seems to have been the most effective so far with some people. To me, the GPLv2 has always been about "quid pro quo", ie I want people to pay me back in kind. There are other issues (and many of them I think end up being the reasons why it has been so successful), but that "quid pro quo" is why I started using the GPL, and I think it's a very fundamental thing. It's also - to me - very fair. I give source code out, you can repay in kind.
Now, the difference between "quid pro quo" and the FSF stance is that in many ways, the reason for the GPL as far as the FSF is concerned was never "fairness". It was all about a higher calling, and about something that the FSF thinks is much bigger - "freedom".
And I disagree. I think that "freedom" is fine, but we're not exactly talking about slavery here. Trying to make it look like we're the Abraham Lincoln of our generation just makes us look stupid and stuck up. I'd much rather talk about "fairness" and about issues like just being a much better process for generating better code, and having fun while doing so.
I dig everything you're saying. Could I ask a personal favor, though? Would you stop using the term "sheeple"? Use anything else: morons, idiots, even just sheep. For some reason it just really grates on me, and makes me imagine you as a 14 year old, which I know you're not. Most everything else you have to say is insightful, but that one word. . . gah! It's not clever, it's just dumb.
This story broke on Groklaw, because someone posting as Linus was outlining his supposed objections to the GPLv3. It turned out that it really was Linus. Other reports came after, when reporters asked him to confirm his words.
His main objection was to the provisions that prevent the use of signed binaries. He said that the section outlining DRM was a red herring. And he also expressed frustration at what he saw as a railroaded process. Overall, he outlined his philosophical differences with the FSF.
So, to claim that his criticisms have been refuted is a half truth at best. More like a third truth.
That's never been true. It has always been possible to purchase a computer without having windows pre-loaded. Where do you people come up with this stuff?
You've made a leap from adapting the program to your needs to adapting the device to your needs. Again, why not just insert a clause in the GPL that will force a hardware maker to open source the designs?
The quote you selected is quite revealing. RMS wants to protect the user from himself. The user cannot be trusted not to purchase a product with malicious features, so the GPLv3 must remove the choice from the user. This is what I mean by Big Brother. This is what you are supporting. The individual is not to be trusted, so the collective must make decisions for him. I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in the world you have planned for us.
I'm not getting how Tivo is preventing you from adapting the source code, if they're providing you with it. They give you the source code, then improve it all you want. Knock yourself out. Build some Tivo-like hardware and install it on that. Maybe you want Tivo to open source their hardware designs? Is that going to be in the GPLv4?
I'm just not seeing how either freedoms 1 or 3 are being interfered with. What it sounds like is that you want to "protect" the user from closed hardware. What's it feel like, being Big Brother?
Slashdot Mirror
My first reaction on reading this story was, "You go first."
I'm not sure if I'd even need more than 10 minutes of battery time most of the time. Unless I really get caught up in whatever I'm reading or working on, I rarely spend more than 10 minutes sitting on the john.
The major difference, in my mind, is this: When you make an unauthorized copy of a Britney Spears song (I know you're a big Britney fan. I can just tell these things), you are not claiming the work as your own, and then turning around and profiting from your plagiarism.
That's the key issue here: plagiarism. Goldman is claiming that the works are his creations.
It looks like Goldman has stolen so much from so many people that they could form a class action suit against him.
Oh, and while I'm at it, a note for both the copyright goon squad and the information must be free "unauthorized copiers":
There is a difference between copying a file and claiming someone else's creative work as your own (and profiting handsomely by it).
I don't know what everyone is complaining about. The FDA just increased the chocolate ration to 20 grammes a week. (Up from 30 grammes.) I love Big Brother!
Wait. You're claiming that there is a single approved version of English (the Queen's English, I suppose) spoken in England? That the English people speak a single unified homogenized language without regional or class differences? You certainly seem to be implying such.
You are sacrificing accepted nomenclature for an ultimately faulty bit of pedantry. Complete nonsense.
I think you'll find that burritos as we know them today are actually a Californian invention, based on Mexican cuisine, and brought back to Mexico.
In a different sense, the famous Cesar Salad is also a Californian invention. Look it up.
The news report said that Exxon denied any knowledge. DCI, the PR firm, says it does not disclose the work it does for clients.
I bet we could find out lots in discovery if both Exxon and DCI were to be sued for trademark and copyright infringement (you'd need discovery to make the linkage to Exxon).
If it was a parody of Linux, it would be considered fair use. It's not a parody of Linux. Therefore, it's trademark and copyright infringement.
GPLv3 prohibits users from using signed binaries on hardware that the FSF deems "bad". Specifically, the user cannot create software with signed binaries for use on Trusted Computing hardware. Apparently the FSF doesn't think users are capable of deciding for themselves what hardware is best for some applications, so it wants to stop them from making a "bad" decision.
It's so worried about closing the "Tivo loophole", which is really inconsequential, that it's willing to foreclose on all the potential good uses of signed binaries on trusted computing hardware.
It removes the choice of the user to use signed binaries. It removes the choice of the user to use Trusted Computing hardware, i.e., any hardware that the user wants. It's based on the idea that the user can't make these decisions for himself and must be protected from "bad" decisions, i.e., decisions that the FSF doesn't agree with.
(I must say that I'm disappointed that you of all people would mark me as a foe. I never would have thought that you couldn't handle a difference of opinion. Oh well. We learn a lot about each other in internecine strife.)
God forbid you should ever be in a hospital being kept alive on machines running open source software licensed under GPLv3, and someone who "likes to tinker" loaded up their "improved" version of the software without proper authorization or QA. (Don't you think that would be a valid use of signed binaries?)
That's just one example of a use of OSS where signed binaries and trusted computing would be a good thing. There are plenty other uses of signed binaries that would be very good things. Anyplace where someone's life is on the line. Anyplace where an unsigned binary has the potential to wreak havoc. I'd hazard to say that there are more positive good uses than there are negative bad uses.
You're just buying into the FSF propaganda of paranoia. It's time you started asking why the FSF wants you paranoid. How do they benefit from instilling fear into you. What sort of compromise are they trying to sell you to escape their unlikely worst case scenario of totalitarian trusted computing.
Just like those developers who went for the the GPLv2 plus edition, you're being sold a pig in a poke.
I'm curious as to how exactly you expect Sony to dictate what you do with your computer. As near as I can tell, Sony doesn't have a monopoly on hardware yet, and probably never will. If you think Sony is out to control your computer, can't avoid that by just not buying Sony products? Or do you need a software license in case you accidentally buy Sony? You cannot trust yourself, so you need the FSF to protect you from yourself and your own decisions?
It's stunning how people are so unwilling to take responsibility for themselves that they'll surrender to a Big Brother figure who promises to protect them from the evils of the world.
It's astonishing how much this GPLv3 circus reminds me of Animal Farm.
Which means that anyone else with local access, or perhaps even remote access can either disable that behavior or add their own trusted keys.
No, I don't agree with you.
There has not been a solid refutation of Linus's criticisms, despite your claim that the "main" criticism has been answered. I'm not satisfied. No real examples were given of Linus's (or anyone else's) problems with the draft being addressed. They "addressed" his concerns about the DRM section? Linus makes it clear that those were never the real concerns. Do they say anything about signed binaries? No. Not addressed. Do they say anything about the redefinition of source code? No. Not addressed. Do they say anything about the redefinition of distribution (my concern, not sure about Linus)? No. Not addressed. They spoke only in generalities.
Also let's look at the interviewees. The guy from Gnome? Axe to grind. He's gone on record before as calling Linus irrelevant, because Linus dared to criticize the Gnome project. Judging by that excuse for an article and the posts I see here on slashdot (some of which are accusing Linus of selling out!), it's hard not to conclude that a smear campaign has started.
By the way, have you ever studied the history of socialist movements and revolutions that have been subverted into totalitarian regimes? If you have, you'll see where the FSF is getting their playbook.
If there's no threat from DRM lockdown, then what is the problem with license terms preventing that?
Because it is preventing valid uses of signed binaries. Do you not think there might ever be a valid "good" use of signed binaries?
Picture instead interrogators waiting for the arrival of new battery cables to replace the worn out ones.
He's written pretty extensively on this issue. He does not see the threat of totalitarian Trusted Computing happening. I happen to agree. This is a paranoid fantasy put into your head by RMS and others to further their own agenda.
You're calling me a troll? You're the one suggesting that Linus has sold out. I'm not even a big Linus fan, but I'm aware of his contributions and I have respect for the man. And it amazes me that you could even ask that question about him. It's really astonishing. How can you maintain it's an "honest question"? At best, it's a stupid and reckless question. At worst, it's a calculated smear. I just don't get how you people can impugn his integrity and at the same time, not question the integrity of RMS, well known for his demagoguery.
Let me ask you this: In your mind, are there no good uses for trusted computing? Are there never circumstances where trusted computing could be applied without evil effect? Or is all trusted computing inherently evil and must be stamped out?
Here is his entire statement, from which you merely took a part:
DRM "Misunderstood"
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 27 2006 @ 07:11 PM EDT
----------
I'm pretty sure I didn't misunderstand anything at all.
A lot of people are confused by the DRM issue, and the problem comes mostly from the organization of the first GPLv3 draft itself. It had a section on DRM, and that section is totally irrelevant and has almost no semantic content.
(In the new draft, the DRM section has been renamed to talk about users' rights instead, but it's still the same case - that section isn't actually the interesting one).
The real anti-DRM thing is the new and bogus language in section 1 - the definition of "source code". That is the true change in both the previous and the current draft, and that's my personal beef.
The fact that they had a separate (and largely boring) section called "DRM" was never the issue, and was (and is) a total red herring. The real problem was always the re-definition of source code.
Actually, I take that back. The real problem was and is that there are lots of people who disagreed with the FSF on issues (mine was the definition of source code, while I know that some commercial entities felt that the patent language was totally unsupportable). And the FSF took that input, and then totally ignored it.
So as far as I can tell, the whole GPLv3 "process" has been a sham from the very beginning. Eben and Richard talk about "discussion drafts", but it's not "discussion" if you don't actually care what the other side says. And Richard most definitely doesn't care (Eben probably does, but has no actual say in the end result).
So forget about this whole "community input" thing. Input has been given, and then duly ignored.
Oh, well. At least that's how I've seen it, and maybe that explains my disillusionment with the GPLv3.
Linus
His second posting:
DRM "Misunderstood"
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 27 2006 @ 08:18 PM EDT
==============
I tried to explain my own disagreement with the GPLv3 in a number of emails to the linux kernel, but obviously haven't been uniformly successful.
And yes (responding both to you, and to another poster), I realize that input has been taken on the drafts, but all the changes I've seen have been about largely stylistic issues - wording changes, things like that. I don't think any input on any really fundamental disagreement has been really on the table.
Now, I also realize that that is probably exactly what the FSF was going for. Rms had a vision for what he wanted the GPLv3 to say, and it says that, and then they are open to modifying details. Fair enough, and I'm not fighting the GPLv3 changes per se. I'm just telling people why they are bad changes for me, and why I think they are bad changes for most other projects too.
I'll try to explain it once more, usign the analogy that seems to have been the most effective so far with some people. To me, the GPLv2 has always been about "quid pro quo", ie I want people to pay me back in kind. There are other issues (and many of them I think end up being the reasons why it has been so successful), but that "quid pro quo" is why I started using the GPL, and I think it's a very fundamental thing. It's also - to me - very fair. I give source code out, you can repay in kind.
Now, the difference between "quid pro quo" and the FSF stance is that in many ways, the reason for the GPL as far as the FSF is concerned was never "fairness". It was all about a higher calling, and about something that the FSF thinks is much bigger - "freedom".
And I disagree. I think that "freedom" is fine, but we're not exactly talking about slavery here. Trying to make it look like we're the Abraham Lincoln of our generation just makes us look stupid and stuck up. I'd much rather talk about "fairness" and about issues like just being a much better process for generating better code, and having fun while doing so.
And the th
Oh, brother. You can't ever admit when you're wrong, can you.
Markus,
I dig everything you're saying. Could I ask a personal favor, though? Would you stop using the term "sheeple"? Use anything else: morons, idiots, even just sheep. For some reason it just really grates on me, and makes me imagine you as a 14 year old, which I know you're not. Most everything else you have to say is insightful, but that one word. . . gah! It's not clever, it's just dumb.
Maybe I'm over reacting. Carry on.
This story broke on Groklaw, because someone posting as Linus was outlining his supposed objections to the GPLv3. It turned out that it really was Linus. Other reports came after, when reporters asked him to confirm his words.
His main objection was to the provisions that prevent the use of signed binaries. He said that the section outlining DRM was a red herring. And he also expressed frustration at what he saw as a railroaded process. Overall, he outlined his philosophical differences with the FSF.
So, to claim that his criticisms have been refuted is a half truth at best. More like a third truth.
That's never been true. It has always been possible to purchase a computer without having windows pre-loaded. Where do you people come up with this stuff?
You've made a leap from adapting the program to your needs to adapting the device to your needs. Again, why not just insert a clause in the GPL that will force a hardware maker to open source the designs?
The quote you selected is quite revealing. RMS wants to protect the user from himself. The user cannot be trusted not to purchase a product with malicious features, so the GPLv3 must remove the choice from the user. This is what I mean by Big Brother. This is what you are supporting. The individual is not to be trusted, so the collective must make decisions for him. I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in the world you have planned for us.
You've got a good point. I better wipe the froth off of my mouth before someone thinks I'm rabid.
I'm not getting how Tivo is preventing you from adapting the source code, if they're providing you with it. They give you the source code, then improve it all you want. Knock yourself out. Build some Tivo-like hardware and install it on that. Maybe you want Tivo to open source their hardware designs? Is that going to be in the GPLv4?
I'm just not seeing how either freedoms 1 or 3 are being interfered with. What it sounds like is that you want to "protect" the user from closed hardware. What's it feel like, being Big Brother?