It took me a few hours to figure it out, but the article and its posting here, as well as a large number of posters are part of a campaign to discredit Linus for having the audacity to dissent with RMS and the FSF. Look at the timing. Look at the volume.
Try browsing at a lower threshold, and see how much dissent is being modded down.
Man! The knives are out! Is there anything to which you won't stoop? Character assassination because a respected member of the community disagrees with you? The ends invariably justify the means with you types. Anyway, thank you for revealing the true colors of the FSF goon squad.
It did, did it? I guess IBM needn't have hired any lawyers, then. Looks like the just wasted money.
The GPL didn't destroy SCO, although it certainly played a part in events and may still play a part. First and foremost, SCO destroyed itself, because (as many guessed and as it now seems clear) they never had a case to begin with. All they had was a scheme (or three).
You know what's really funny? The vast majority of us on slashdot rightfully get up in arms when politicians play the terrorist card to take away our civil liberties. But we don't see it when one of our own does it to us. Instead we are ready to give up freedoms now because if we don't, then at some vague point in the future, DRM is going to lock us out of our computers.
Can you explain how exactly it's been subverted? You've got the code. If you wanted to play with a hardware, maybe you shouldn't have bought a TIVO. Am I correct in understanding that you want to be protected from buying the wrong hardware?
If Linux was never started then the HURD would certainly be much better by now.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I'm not dead. The Dead Collector: 'Ere, he says he's not dead. Large Man with Dead Body: Yes he is. The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I'm not. The Dead Collector: He isn't. Large Man with Dead Body: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill. The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I'm getting better.
I see the FSF priests are out in full force this morning. The guy who makes unsubstantiated accusations that Linux has sold out gets passed over, but I get modded as a troll.
So, you're basically saying that there won't be hardware available for a reasonable price, because OSS can't compete with Windows or Mac OS on it's own merits. You don't think it will be possible to order a general purpose computer with TPM/DRM disabled? Do you really think that non-locked computers are going to just disappear?
Here's the thing about the GPLv3. It's taking away more freedom from both the developer and the user. It will prevent the developer from developing for whatever hardware he wants and it will limit OSS users choice. And this is being done in the name of Freedom. But whose freedom? The two most concerned parties just lost some freedom. Society's freedom? What is that exactly? Does Society's Freedom equate with The Power of the Collective?
Actually, I think it's good to have this debate, maybe even healthy. You're right, if someone's mind is made up, there's little chance that an argument of slashdot will change it. But not everyone has made up their mind, nor is everyone clear on the issues. The "article" itself is not a real help: it's really more of an editorial from one of the opposing camps.
There is a danger, however. How great this danger is is anyone's guess. It might be fairly minor. Here's how I see it:
If the OSS development community really does get divided by this, we're going to see a lot of forking going on, if members of any project disagree on changing to GPLv3. If someone who has written some code wants to keep his code under GPLv2, those that want to move to GPLv3 can remove his code and rewrite it. He can get together with other GPLv2 hold outs, pool their code and rewrite the missing bits. If this comes to pass, I see an exponential rise in the amount of duplicated effort.
It's a possible scenario. I don't know for certain whether it will be widespread or even if it's really a bad thing. Another thing I am not clear on: people are saying that GPLv3 and GPLv2 are "compatible". How will a v2 and a v3 fork be able to merge at a later date? Can the v2 fork take the v3 code and keep the v2 license?
This may be me going out on a limb but maybe Linus knows he personally will be allowed to tinker no matter what gets implimented. Remember that hes not immune to being corrupted by money too.
Your way past out on a limb. I think you've fallen deeply into your own crevice.
On what basis can you make such an allegation? Someone disagrees with you, so they must be corrupt? What the fuck is wrong with you?
This is the second time you've proposed that without the GPLv3, OSS developers will be locked out from developing a whole generations of computers. Could you please explain this scenario for me? Is there going to be a conspiracy of hardware makers that are going to lock out OSS development?
Please explain to me how GPL code can be misappropriated by sneaky DRM mechanisms. And please make the distinction between misappropriation and "using it in a way with which I don't agree".
A lot of hand waving. This "article" is really an editorial, not news. Linus himself has said that the section on DRM is not what bothers him, but other parts of the license that are actually engineered to interfere with DRM. The problem is that it will interfere with a lot of legitimate uses.
I don't see any real refutation of Linus's points in the article. It reads more like a personal attack, or at least an unsubstantiated one.
Being unable to modify free software on a hardware device and run it on the same device violates the spirit of free software. The vendor could build upon the mountain of free code, saving a lot of money in the process (i.e. not reinventing the wheel), but does not grant any of these freedoms to their customers.
But the vendor must still publish the source of any changes he makes to the code. So the vendor is giving back. If you don't like that a vendor's device is locking you out, don't buy it. Is that so hard? Do you think you can avoid buying something you don't want on your own, or do you need the FSF to protect you from your own bad buying decisions?
Meanwhile, for whatever reason, I want to buy this hypothetical vendor's device. Maybe I have a certain application where I want a TPM set up. Because the FSF wants to protect me from myself, I no longer have the choice to buy a machine that will run OSS.
That's the sort of world we'd have if the GPLv3 became the dominant license. Yuck.
we could eventually face a situation where it is literally impossible to develop FOSS for the latest generation of computers
Care to explain how this scenario is actually supposed to play out? And does your example require that the hardware makers conspire against OSS?
I no longer trust the FSF. I know a power play when I see one, and this isn't about freedom and fairness. They want to dictate how people use software. It's no longer about distribution.
You want a social revolution? Then let it happen, let it play out. If you want to push it forward, go develop something. If you're not a coder, go write or create something and release it under a CC license. The Revolution that the FSF is selling is top down, Stalinist/Leninist. I much prefer Linus's way, which reminds me more of a different Lennon.
I don't think it's so much that Linus eschews changing the world. I think that he has an eminently more practical way of doing it. For one thing, he's not hung up on converting people through either religious fervor or through convincing them his way is best (if there's a difference). As he's said, he's not trying to shove anything down anyone's throat. Instead, he shows by example how it's supposed to work, and why open source development is a better way of software development, whatever your motives are. I think it's great that he's not "at war" with proprietary software and proprietary software makers. They aren't relevant to him one way or the other. They can either follow his way now or follow it later. Linus in confident in his methods. He doesn't need to fight anyone. (He's probably confident in his manhood as well.)
And I think this was the most damn part of his indictment of the FSF. That they're hate and fear based, and when you let hate and fear dictate your principals, you end up hurting yourself and those you want to help. A good example of this is the whole issue of specific code tied to hardware. The FSF wants so badly to hurt DRM that they are willing to hurt legitimate uses. The funny part is that DRM is going to turn out to be a non-issue. DRM is not going to be relevant for long, with no action from the FSF*.
Really, though, the ones that are going to wind up getting hurt are the FSF themselves. It will be a lot easier to rewrite the userland than it will be to rewrtire the kernel. Or so I'm told.
Some people will take up GPLv3, but I think the majority will continue to use the GPLv2. The GPLv3 people will risk getting left behind.
*Here's why DRM will fail on it's own: at this point in history, when a cartel of copyright holders are trying to wall off culture and charge admission, we have unprecedented new tools for the creation, marketing, and distribution of culture. The more that these culture holding companies try to control culture and withhold it, the more new culture will rush in to take its place. The more new culture developed, the less overall value for the walled off culture. There is no scarcity of culture and there will not be a scarcity of culture. On the contrary, music, literature, and art are set to explode. The power of the culture holding companies is already broken. Now it's just the long unwinding of their monopolies.
Now, I'm not saying that your bio d algae will be keeping up with the point of the spear, but if you are setting up ponds along the way, or even just near base areas, that means less fuel you have to ship/truck in. Which means more transport space for other needed supplies.
Now, if that tank in the picture is in the middle east, making bio diesel is akin to synthesizing coal in newcastle. Maybe worse, given how pond water would tend to evaporate in an arid clime. However, there are many places on this planet where this idea is theoretically* feasible. But still, the most important thing is that bio d can be manufactured by the armed forces themselves, making them fuel independent for the most part. They'll still need jet fuel, gasoline, perhaps kerosene for some purposes.
Oh, and soybeans are not one of the more desirable feed stocks for bio diesel. See the chart at the end of this section.
Oh, they'll have plenty of ways to flag you. Any sort of unusual behavior, such as changes in spending on consumer goods, what books you are buying or checking out from the library, dissatisfactions with life that you express not just online, but face to face to close friends and confidantes. Maybe even a tone of dissatisfaction in your voice in a conversation about something that has nothing to do with the issues of the day.
Crawford, Texas Uber Alles Uber Alles Crawford, Texas
Now it is 1984 Knock knock at your front door It's the suede/denim secret police They have come for your uncool neice
Come quitely to the camp You'd look nice as a drawstring lamp Don't you worry, it's only a shower For your clothes here's a pretty flower
Die on organic poison gas Serpent's egg's already hatched You will croak, you drunken lush When you mess with President Bush
Crawford, Texas Uber Alles Uber Alles Crawford, Texas
Slashdot Mirror
It took me a few hours to figure it out, but the article and its posting here, as well as a large number of posters are part of a campaign to discredit Linus for having the audacity to dissent with RMS and the FSF. Look at the timing. Look at the volume.
Try browsing at a lower threshold, and see how much dissent is being modded down.
Man! The knives are out! Is there anything to which you won't stoop? Character assassination because a respected member of the community disagrees with you? The ends invariably justify the means with you types. Anyway, thank you for revealing the true colors of the FSF goon squad.
It did, did it? I guess IBM needn't have hired any lawyers, then. Looks like the just wasted money.
The GPL didn't destroy SCO, although it certainly played a part in events and may still play a part. First and foremost, SCO destroyed itself, because (as many guessed and as it now seems clear) they never had a case to begin with. All they had was a scheme (or three).
You know what's really funny? The vast majority of us on slashdot rightfully get up in arms when politicians play the terrorist card to take away our civil liberties. But we don't see it when one of our own does it to us. Instead we are ready to give up freedoms now because if we don't, then at some vague point in the future, DRM is going to lock us out of our computers.
Can you explain how exactly it's been subverted? You've got the code. If you wanted to play with a hardware, maybe you shouldn't have bought a TIVO. Am I correct in understanding that you want to be protected from buying the wrong hardware?
I see the FSF priests are out in full force this morning. The guy who makes unsubstantiated accusations that Linux has sold out gets passed over, but I get modded as a troll.
So, you're basically saying that there won't be hardware available for a reasonable price, because OSS can't compete with Windows or Mac OS on it's own merits. You don't think it will be possible to order a general purpose computer with TPM/DRM disabled? Do you really think that non-locked computers are going to just disappear?
Here's the thing about the GPLv3. It's taking away more freedom from both the developer and the user. It will prevent the developer from developing for whatever hardware he wants and it will limit OSS users choice. And this is being done in the name of Freedom. But whose freedom? The two most concerned parties just lost some freedom. Society's freedom? What is that exactly? Does Society's Freedom equate with The Power of the Collective?
And you base this fear on what?
DRM is a boogie man that RMS is using to scare you and get you juiced up.
Actually, I think it's good to have this debate, maybe even healthy. You're right, if someone's mind is made up, there's little chance that an argument of slashdot will change it. But not everyone has made up their mind, nor is everyone clear on the issues. The "article" itself is not a real help: it's really more of an editorial from one of the opposing camps.
There is a danger, however. How great this danger is is anyone's guess. It might be fairly minor. Here's how I see it:
If the OSS development community really does get divided by this, we're going to see a lot of forking going on, if members of any project disagree on changing to GPLv3. If someone who has written some code wants to keep his code under GPLv2, those that want to move to GPLv3 can remove his code and rewrite it. He can get together with other GPLv2 hold outs, pool their code and rewrite the missing bits. If this comes to pass, I see an exponential rise in the amount of duplicated effort.
It's a possible scenario. I don't know for certain whether it will be widespread or even if it's really a bad thing. Another thing I am not clear on: people are saying that GPLv3 and GPLv2 are "compatible". How will a v2 and a v3 fork be able to merge at a later date? Can the v2 fork take the v3 code and keep the v2 license?
YHBT.
However, GPLv3 seems to be changing control to beyond mere distribution. That is at the heart of this debate.
This may be me going out on a limb but maybe Linus knows he personally will be allowed to tinker no matter what gets implimented. Remember that hes not immune to being corrupted by money too.
Your way past out on a limb. I think you've fallen deeply into your own crevice.
On what basis can you make such an allegation? Someone disagrees with you, so they must be corrupt? What the fuck is wrong with you?
This is the second time you've proposed that without the GPLv3, OSS developers will be locked out from developing a whole generations of computers. Could you please explain this scenario for me? Is there going to be a conspiracy of hardware makers that are going to lock out OSS development?
Dude!! I'll use it!
---------------
The above comment is released under the houghi license, whatever that is. =)
Please explain to me how GPL code can be misappropriated by sneaky DRM mechanisms. And please make the distinction between misappropriation and "using it in a way with which I don't agree".
A lot of hand waving. This "article" is really an editorial, not news. Linus himself has said that the section on DRM is not what bothers him, but other parts of the license that are actually engineered to interfere with DRM. The problem is that it will interfere with a lot of legitimate uses.
I don't see any real refutation of Linus's points in the article. It reads more like a personal attack, or at least an unsubstantiated one.
Being unable to modify free software on a hardware device and run it on the same device violates the spirit of free software. The vendor could build upon the mountain of free code, saving a lot of money in the process (i.e. not reinventing the wheel), but does not grant any of these freedoms to their customers.
But the vendor must still publish the source of any changes he makes to the code. So the vendor is giving back. If you don't like that a vendor's device is locking you out, don't buy it. Is that so hard? Do you think you can avoid buying something you don't want on your own, or do you need the FSF to protect you from your own bad buying decisions?
Meanwhile, for whatever reason, I want to buy this hypothetical vendor's device. Maybe I have a certain application where I want a TPM set up. Because the FSF wants to protect me from myself, I no longer have the choice to buy a machine that will run OSS.
That's the sort of world we'd have if the GPLv3 became the dominant license. Yuck.
we could eventually face a situation where it is literally impossible to develop FOSS for the latest generation of computers
Care to explain how this scenario is actually supposed to play out? And does your example require that the hardware makers conspire against OSS?
I no longer trust the FSF. I know a power play when I see one, and this isn't about freedom and fairness. They want to dictate how people use software. It's no longer about distribution.
You want a social revolution? Then let it happen, let it play out. If you want to push it forward, go develop something. If you're not a coder, go write or create something and release it under a CC license. The Revolution that the FSF is selling is top down, Stalinist/Leninist. I much prefer Linus's way, which reminds me more of a different Lennon.
I don't think it's so much that Linus eschews changing the world. I think that he has an eminently more practical way of doing it. For one thing, he's not hung up on converting people through either religious fervor or through convincing them his way is best (if there's a difference). As he's said, he's not trying to shove anything down anyone's throat. Instead, he shows by example how it's supposed to work, and why open source development is a better way of software development, whatever your motives are. I think it's great that he's not "at war" with proprietary software and proprietary software makers. They aren't relevant to him one way or the other. They can either follow his way now or follow it later. Linus in confident in his methods. He doesn't need to fight anyone. (He's probably confident in his manhood as well.)
And I think this was the most damn part of his indictment of the FSF. That they're hate and fear based, and when you let hate and fear dictate your principals, you end up hurting yourself and those you want to help. A good example of this is the whole issue of specific code tied to hardware. The FSF wants so badly to hurt DRM that they are willing to hurt legitimate uses. The funny part is that DRM is going to turn out to be a non-issue. DRM is not going to be relevant for long, with no action from the FSF*.
Really, though, the ones that are going to wind up getting hurt are the FSF themselves. It will be a lot easier to rewrite the userland than it will be to rewrtire the kernel. Or so I'm told.
Some people will take up GPLv3, but I think the majority will continue to use the GPLv2. The GPLv3 people will risk getting left behind.
*Here's why DRM will fail on it's own: at this point in history, when a cartel of copyright holders are trying to wall off culture and charge admission, we have unprecedented new tools for the creation, marketing, and distribution of culture. The more that these culture holding companies try to control culture and withhold it, the more new culture will rush in to take its place. The more new culture developed, the less overall value for the walled off culture. There is no scarcity of culture and there will not be a scarcity of culture. On the contrary, music, literature, and art are set to explode. The power of the culture holding companies is already broken. Now it's just the long unwinding of their monopolies.
Twin duel-care Xeons?
I think you meant either Twin dueling care bears Xeons, or maybe Twin dual core Xeons. The former sound a lot cuter.
Algae, man, algae!
Now, I'm not saying that your bio d algae will be keeping up with the point of the spear, but if you are setting up ponds along the way, or even just near base areas, that means less fuel you have to ship/truck in. Which means more transport space for other needed supplies.
Now, if that tank in the picture is in the middle east, making bio diesel is akin to synthesizing coal in newcastle. Maybe worse, given how pond water would tend to evaporate in an arid clime. However, there are many places on this planet where this idea is theoretically* feasible. But still, the most important thing is that bio d can be manufactured by the armed forces themselves, making them fuel independent for the most part. They'll still need jet fuel, gasoline, perhaps kerosene for some purposes.
Oh, and soybeans are not one of the more desirable feed stocks for bio diesel. See the chart at the end of this section.
*feasible based on my limited knowledge
Wait till the steganographers get in the act...
Don't they need both typewriters and picks and shovels if they're going to write biographies of dinosaurs?
Any links to transcripts or recordings?
maybe YOU can make a Google music store, and pay us a little sumthin sumthin."
Like maybe they could buy adwords from Google when someone searches for music?
Nah, too obvious. Too easy. There's got to be a more complicated and far fetched explanation.