...The second problem is that this is illegal in the US under the DMCA.
Sloppy:
How so? What content's protection is being bypassed?
The DMCA is not about "content" it is about copyright. Here is the lead paragraph from the Wikipedia:
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law which criminalizes production and dissemination of technology that can circumvent measures taken to protect copyright, not merely infringement of copyright itself, and heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet.
The copyrighted material being protected (in the Tivo for example) is the code itself.
If you don't believe me, take a look at the
Trusted
Computer FAQ. Section 15 says:
15. Can't TC be broken?
The early versions will be vulnerable to anyone with the tools and patience to crack the hardware (e.g., get clear data on the bus between the CPU and the Fritz chip). However, in a few years, the Fritz chip may disappear inside the main processor - let's call it the `Hexium' - and things will get a lot harder. Really serious, well funded opponents will still be able to crack it. But it's likely to go on getting more difficult and expensive.
Also, in many countries, cracking Fritz will be illegal. In the USA the Digital Millennium Copyright Act already does this,...
Also, in many products, compatibility control is already being mixed quite deliberately with copyright control. The Sony Playstation's authentication chips also contain the encryption algorithm for DVD, so that reverse engineers can be accused of circumventing a copyright protection mechanism and hounded under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The situation is likely to be messy - and that will favour large firms with big legal budgets.
Um, nothing that Tivo does prevents you from modifying the source for the GPL'd software they ship. You just can't run the modified version on the hardware they sold you. This is no different then if they put the binary on a non-flash chip, or some other read-only media.
Since you have obviously not read either the pertinent sections of the GPLv3 or any of the explanations offered by its proponents, I will try to explain this to you again.
There is a huge difference between the DRM scenario and the non-flash ROM scenario and the GPLv3 is particularly clear about the difference. In a nutshell, the GPLv3 says that if one person can modify and run the code then everyone needs to be able to modify and run the code. So non-flash ROM is fine but DRM controlled computers are not.
I realize that it is a long standing tradition here at Slashdot for posters to state their opinions without RTFA. But I don't understand why there are so many anti-GPLv3 trolls. How can you be against the GPLv3 if you haven't read it and don't have a clue about what it says?
[DRM] prevents you from having the freedom on the hardware. You can still modify the software, distribute it, etc. You just can't run it on that particular hardware, because the hardware has no freedom.
And the GPLv3 simply says that if I can't run modified GPLv3 software on that machine then no one can use my GPLv3 software on that machine.
ac said:
So run the software on some other hardware. The hardware is not covered by software licenses.
Exactly! And if there is a large enough GPLv3 code base then there may be a market for machines that are not controlled by DRM.
I can't imagine a circumstance where I would want my GPLv3'ed software to be used on DRM controlled hardware. There are plenty of licenses that already exist that allow manufacturers to lock down otherwise free code with DRM. What's wrong with having a license that preserves the freedom to modify and run code? No one is forcing you to use it.
If you have the hardware and it matters that much to you that you need to run software with a differnt signature, then change the key in the hardware.
The first problem is that this ranges from being technically very difficult to technically impossible. For example, if the key is built into the CPU chip you can't just pry it open and flip bits. Early versions might be breakable but later versions will be extremely difficult if not impossible to break.
The second problem is that this is illegal in the US under the DMCA.
If I license my software under a license like the GPLv3, I don't want to have to take my damned computer apart in order to modify and run software I wrote.
Nor should other people need to tear apart their computers to modify and run my software.
There are proposals already for US laws that would require all computers to support treacherous computing, and to prohibit connecting old computers to the Internet. The CBDTPA (we call it the Consume But Don't Try Programming Act) is one of them. But even if they don't legally force you to switch to treacherous computing, the pressure to accept it may be enormous. Today people often use Word format for communication, although this causes several sorts of problems (see "We Can Put an End to Word Attachments"). If only a treacherous computing machine can read the latest Word documents, many people will switch to it, if they view the situation only in terms of individual action (take it or leave it). To oppose treacherous computing, we must join together and confront the situation as a collective choice.
The main question in the discussion here seems to be fueled by varying estimates of the amount of market penetration treacherous computing will be able to obtain. If treacherous computing gets 100% market penetration then FOSS is totally locked out from future development (on the latest hardware). So what level of penetration is acceptable to you? 1%? 10%? 50%? 90%?
There are plenty of corporations that see it is in their own best interest to have 100% infiltration of treacherous computing. But treacherous computing works very much against the best interests of the FOSS community and even users in general. The eventual penetration of treacherous computing will be determined by the balance of forces for it and against it. The longer we wait to fight treacherous computing the deeper its final market penetration will become. If we are never able to band together to fight it then the forces that want treacherous computing will eventually win, market penetration will near 100%, and FOSS will die.
In my opinion, the GPLv3 goes too far, into a realm where the software developers shouldn't have any rights whatsoever. Here's what Linus said and I agree 100%:
I literally feel that we do not--as software developers--have the moral right to enforce our rules on hardware manufacturers. We are not crusaders, trying to force people to bow to our superior God. We are trying to show others that cooperation and openness works better.
And:
Side note: the reason GPLv2 is so successful at fighting the root problem of using copyright to fight restrictive copyrights is that it makes "interesting material" available under a license that forbids further restricting it.
Linus misunderstands the DRM clauses in the latest version of the GPLv3. By quoting him like this you are merely propagating that misunderstanding without adding anything new to the discussion.
The whole point of the (now clarified) DRM clauses in the GPLv3 was not to:
enforce our rules on hardware manufacturers
as Linus claims (and you echo) it was instead to do exactly what Linus wants:
to makes "interesting material" available under a license that forbids further restricting it.
Encryption/decryption technology can be and is being used to restrict access to GPLv2 code. Depending on which side of the debate you are on this is called either "trusted" or "treacherous" computing. The technology now exists for "DRM" to be applied to all of the code that runs on a computer. The manufacturers have it in their power to make the next generation of computers such that they have total control over what software we are allowed to run on our own computers. If you change even one bit, the software will no longer run.
That is one hell of a restriction. In fact, if it ever happens that the leading generation of computers all have treacherous computing installed then Linus and every other FOSS developer will be out of business (on those machines) because they won't run modified software. User based development will become impossible.
This fight isn't about Tivos and dvd players as much as it is about preserving our right and ability to continue to develop FOSS on our own computers.
Preventing the people that wrote the software from performing any future modifications (on the latest generation of computers) is one HELL of a restriction. I've got no problem with telling manufacturers that they can't do that with my software.
If OSS doesn't work with DRM, it's not like that forces anyone to not use DRM. It just causes people to choose software under a different licence. Realistically, if someone wants to only run signed software, they can always go with proprietary software.
Let me explain. First of all, the proposed GPLv3 will not prohibit people from using DRM. If people only want to run signed software there is nothing in the GPLv3 that would prevent this as long as it is the computer owner, not the manufacturer who makes this choice.
You are correct in that no FOSS license can force manufacturers to do or not do anything. If manufacturers choose to only make treacherous computers (where they have total control over what software we are allowed to run on our own computers) there is nothing we can put into our licenses that will stop them directly.
The most we can do is make it illegal for them to use our software in these treacherous computers. If there is a substantial body of useful software that is licensed under the GPLv3 by the time treacherous computers are ready to hit the marketplace then manufacturers will at least have some incentive to continue to make non-treacherous computers.
You can make a grid of all the possibilities: GPLv2 vs. GPLv3 and various degrees of treacherous computing market penetration. Even though the DRM provisions in the GPLv3 are not a magic bullet that will force manufacturers to not sell treacherous computers, I see no case where it benefits the FOSS community to choose the GPLv2 over the GPLv3.
I don't understand why any FOSS developer would want our software to run on machines that we can own but not control. Once all computers become treacherous computers, FOSS is dead. I agree with you that our choice of license cannot directly stop them but this is not a good reason to make it easier for them. If they want to take away my ability to choose what software runs on my computer and if they want to prevent me from modifying the software that runs on my computer then I'm going to make it as difficult as possible for them to do this. Why make it easier for them?
I believe Linus is more open towards commercial development then most FLOSS community members are. This makes it understandable why he is so against enforcing freedom through everyones throats. Linus has always been the more practical type.
I've heard over and over again that Linus is taking the practical and/or pragmatic side of this debate. Poppycock! He is not being practical, he is being very short sighted in a way that could come back and bite all of us in the hat someday.
The DRM provisions in the GPLv3 that Linus is complaining about are there to help ensure that FOSS developers like Linus will not be locked out from developing software on future generations of computers.
Furthermore, if we are locked out from developing FOSS on those computers, we can take some comfort in the fact that it will be illegal to run GPLv3 code on them.
I suspect that Linus just wants to make his software while the FSF wants to change the world.
The FSF wants to change the world so that people like Linus will continue to be free to create and modify
their free and open source software.
Without the DRM provisions in the GPLv3 that Linus is complaining about, we could eventually face a situation where it is literally impossible to develop FOSS for the latest generation of computers.
Worse, those computers could be running the GPLv2 software we wrote even though we have lost all of our rights to further modify it and we've lost the right to even choose what software we run on our own
computers.
I've got some anime DVDs (TV rips from before they came overseas, making them legal) that I'd like to back up.
I believe that ripping TV shows is legal under fair use time/space shifting but I don't see how the lack of an authorized US (I presume) version adds to the legality.
If there is no authorized US version being distributed then it makes copying a show/dvd more safe (and perhaps even more moral) because there is no one entity that has a vested interest to come after you but I don't think that has any bearing on whether or not the ripping is legal.
But IANAL nor have I researched this issue. Does anyone know for sure whether or not the existence (or lack thereof) of a authorized version of a show/dvd affects the legality of ripping/copying?
We all agree that learning to Google is important. The original summary asked:
If a determined Google search turns up nothing,...
The post I responded to said:
My guess is then that you're not determined enough!!
Google is good. Google is great. When I was teaching computer classes at college I would insist that my students all learn how to use the search engines. But Google is not the one and only answer to all problems. If it were then we could, for example, disband all institutions of higher learning and tell the students to just Google for the answers (and questions??) instead.
I acknowledged that the Google tips were useful. But to insist that Google is the complete answer is both short sighted and narrow minded.
You provided some great Googling tips but I don't think Google is the answer for a Linux newbie.
The problem isn't that mikeswi wasn't determined enough in his Googling, the problem is that he does not yet know enough about Linux to have the context needed for effective Googling to solve his Linux problems.
Google is free to shop around for a better deal and should only complain, if it has evidence of a trust-like conspiracy to keep prices high.
You seem to continually miss peoples' points. You certainly seem to know very little about how our current form of government is supposed to operate. If Google was suing in a court of law, then certainly, they usually (but not always), they would need to wait until harm occurred before suing.
But the logic behind waiting until actual harm occurs before taking any action eludes me. Wouldn't this same logic dictate that if you a driving a car towards a brick wall that you should wait until after hitting the wall before applying the brakes? Or, better yet, if a car is heading towards you, your logic implies one should wait until you are actually hurt before jumping out of the way or shouting out.
mi said:
I'm yet to see evidence of any abuse, that the existing laws could not preclude.
You seem to be intentionally dim-witted and illogical today, perhaps to goad those with whom you disagree.
The main concern of the advocates of network neutrality is that telcos should not be able to charge for the use of their networks based on content and where that content is coming from. It would be like someone running a toll road charging one trucking company more than another and then getting kickbacks from the company that gets charged less.
I see this as 100% monopolistic and I don't think it should be allowed to happen.
If we agree that this behavior is wrong then let's pass laws to stop it before it happens. On the other hand, if you see nothing wrong with this behavior and don't want it outlawed, then say so directly so we can discuss its merits pro and con.
But to suggest we should delay a discussion of the merits until after the telcos have changed their infrastructure and have started charging based on content, makes no sense whatsoever.
Your nonsensical arguments and reasoning make it appear that you are not confident in the merits of your side of the argument and so you would prefer to just throw a lot of sand in the air in hopes of confusing everyone.
Thank you for the clarification... I still doubt, anyone would want to swap their telco bills with Google with or without net neutrality, their bill is very large anyway.
That was exactly the point. McCurry implied Google was getting free Internet access from the telcos and TechDirt implied that McCurry probably wouldn't want to swap phone bills with Google. If McCurry's claims were literally true and Google wasn't paying anything for Internet access then he would want to switch with them since free is cheaper than whatever he is currently paying.
mi said:
I don't see, why it should be the government's business to decide, who gets to charge whom and how much unless there is a threat of a monopoly breaking anti-trust laws, that is. The law, which are on the books for about a century now. No need for new ones.
The telco's are supposed to already be regulated by the FCC (part of the executive branch of the government) because they are already monopolies. The current administration is trying to dismantle as much regulation as it can get away with. These efforts recently did away with enforcing regulations that had been keep the Net "neutral".
In theory at least, our government is composed of three official branches which are supposed to balance power through a system of checks and balances. If the Legislature feels that the Executive is abusing its power by being way too lax in enforcing the existing laws and regulations then the proper way for them to deal with that situation is to pass new, more explicit, laws even though there are already laws on the books that have been working just great for the past 100 years. This is how our government is supposed to function.
To put it in other words: we didn't have a friggin' Internet 100 years ago so laws that were meant to regulate the steel, gas, and railroad industries may need to be updated in order to be applied correctly to a type of monopoly that wasn't even imagined 100 years ago.
TFA says:
Is TCG creating specifications for just one operating system or type of platform?
No. Specifications are operating system agnostic. Several members have Linux-based software stacks available. In addition to our work on the PC platform, we have a specification for Trusted Servers and are working to finalize specifications for other computing devices, including peripherals, mobile devices, storage and infrastructure.
What's so special about Ubuntu? How is it different then every other Linux distro...
It does a much better job of working right out of the box and
is so simple and easy that even a computer novice can install it and run it.
I don't think there is anything magical about Ubuntu or that it is vastly better than all the others. I think it is more a case of being the right distro at the right time. Linux distros had been evolving in this direction for a long time.
I helped a neighbor of mine install Ubuntu on an older laptop last week. The biggest problem we had was that I burned the wrong cd. I first tried their "desktop" cd which they said was the one most people will want. But it boots into X and has a graphical installer and it ground to a halt on the laptop due to memory issues. I then gave him a copy of the "alternate" cd which has the old fashioned text mode installer and my neighbor was able to install it himself.
Even the wireless card was properly detected and configured.
Why would people choose not to buy Vista if this feature was introduced there? WGA would not affect people choosing to purchase legal copies of Vista [...]
Your logic would also support illegal domestic spying (since the government would never abuse this power) and DRM (since it always functions perfectly and never prevents someone from using media they have legally purchased).
Hell, let's fire up the SONY rootkit again since it too must be perfect and would never compromise a user's system.
It's funny but my first reaction was to tell you that you should have included the fact that you already have a "normal life" in your orignal Ask Slashdot question. How strange that the claim "I already have a normal life" seems so unusual here that it feels like you're sandbagging us by not saying it.
But to answer your question, I suggest that you look into doing some volunteer work on the FOSS project of your choice.
What if I distribute the kernel with instructions on how to add add proprietary module? Would that be OK?
Fine. No problem.
What if I then distribute the kernel with a helper script that downloads the modules when the user runs it?
Also fine. This is what the distro's I've used do.
What if these modules would reside on the same CD as the kernel, and the script simply copies them from a specific directory instead of copying them from a server?
My understanding is that this would be a violation. Maybe you could squeak by if the module were distributed on a separate cd. I think a separate cd would be fine if the end user compiles the "shim" which combines the Linux code with the closed source bits.
What if I also include a helper script that automatically installs the modules when the user runs it?
This is certainly a violation.
And what if this script is a boot script?
Again, a certain violation.
But, oh wait, that sounds an awful lot like what kororaa does already...?
Yes. That's why there is a problem.
Where did I cross the line?
When you distributed the closed source module along with the GPL'ed kernel on the same medium along with a script to install the module.
Also, in most of the distros I've used, the end user has had to actually do the final compilation of the "shim" which combines the closed source and open source code. I think there would be a problem with distributing a binary "shim" without all of the source but I am not certain.
As you have discovered, it is not possible to teach people about abstract concepts in terms of other abstract concepts they don't already understand.
You time will be better spent teaching them the basics of programming that will give them something concrete upon which to build abstractions.
I suggest using an elementary teaching aid such as the
Cardiac Cardboard Computer. You can still buy them or you can download pdf's and make your own. I don't know about the legality of the downloads.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't believe me, take a look at the Trusted Computer FAQ. Section 15 says:
There is a huge difference between the DRM scenario and the non-flash ROM scenario and the GPLv3 is particularly clear about the difference. In a nutshell, the GPLv3 says that if one person can modify and run the code then everyone needs to be able to modify and run the code. So non-flash ROM is fine but DRM controlled computers are not.
I realize that it is a long standing tradition here at Slashdot for posters to state their opinions without RTFA. But I don't understand why there are so many anti-GPLv3 trolls. How can you be against the GPLv3 if you haven't read it and don't have a clue about what it says?
ac said: Exactly! And if there is a large enough GPLv3 code base then there may be a market for machines that are not controlled by DRM.
I can't imagine a circumstance where I would want my GPLv3'ed software to be used on DRM controlled hardware. There are plenty of licenses that already exist that allow manufacturers to lock down otherwise free code with DRM. What's wrong with having a license that preserves the freedom to modify and run code? No one is forcing you to use it.
The second problem is that this is illegal in the US under the DMCA.
If I license my software under a license like the GPLv3, I don't want to have to take my damned computer apart in order to modify and run software I wrote. Nor should other people need to tear apart their computers to modify and run my software.
There are plenty of corporations that see it is in their own best interest to have 100% infiltration of treacherous computing. But treacherous computing works very much against the best interests of the FOSS community and even users in general. The eventual penetration of treacherous computing will be determined by the balance of forces for it and against it. The longer we wait to fight treacherous computing the deeper its final market penetration will become. If we are never able to band together to fight it then the forces that want treacherous computing will eventually win, market penetration will near 100%, and FOSS will die.
The whole point of the (now clarified) DRM clauses in the GPLv3 was not to: as Linus claims (and you echo) it was instead to do exactly what Linus wants: Encryption/decryption technology can be and is being used to restrict access to GPLv2 code. Depending on which side of the debate you are on this is called either "trusted" or "treacherous" computing. The technology now exists for "DRM" to be applied to all of the code that runs on a computer. The manufacturers have it in their power to make the next generation of computers such that they have total control over what software we are allowed to run on our own computers. If you change even one bit, the software will no longer run.
That is one hell of a restriction. In fact, if it ever happens that the leading generation of computers all have treacherous computing installed then Linus and every other FOSS developer will be out of business (on those machines) because they won't run modified software. User based development will become impossible.
This fight isn't about Tivos and dvd players as much as it is about preserving our right and ability to continue to develop FOSS on our own computers.
Preventing the people that wrote the software from performing any future modifications (on the latest generation of computers) is one HELL of a restriction. I've got no problem with telling manufacturers that they can't do that with my software.
You are correct in that no FOSS license can force manufacturers to do or not do anything. If manufacturers choose to only make treacherous computers (where they have total control over what software we are allowed to run on our own computers) there is nothing we can put into our licenses that will stop them directly.
The most we can do is make it illegal for them to use our software in these treacherous computers. If there is a substantial body of useful software that is licensed under the GPLv3 by the time treacherous computers are ready to hit the marketplace then manufacturers will at least have some incentive to continue to make non-treacherous computers.
You can make a grid of all the possibilities: GPLv2 vs. GPLv3 and various degrees of treacherous computing market penetration. Even though the DRM provisions in the GPLv3 are not a magic bullet that will force manufacturers to not sell treacherous computers, I see no case where it benefits the FOSS community to choose the GPLv2 over the GPLv3.
I don't understand why any FOSS developer would want our software to run on machines that we can own but not control. Once all computers become treacherous computers, FOSS is dead. I agree with you that our choice of license cannot directly stop them but this is not a good reason to make it easier for them. If they want to take away my ability to choose what software runs on my computer and if they want to prevent me from modifying the software that runs on my computer then I'm going to make it as difficult as possible for them to do this. Why make it easier for them?
The DRM provisions in the GPLv3 that Linus is complaining about are there to help ensure that FOSS developers like Linus will not be locked out from developing software on future generations of computers.
Furthermore, if we are locked out from developing FOSS on those computers, we can take some comfort in the fact that it will be illegal to run GPLv3 code on them.
Without the DRM provisions in the GPLv3 that Linus is complaining about, we could eventually face a situation where it is literally impossible to develop FOSS for the latest generation of computers. Worse, those computers could be running the GPLv2 software we wrote even though we have lost all of our rights to further modify it and we've lost the right to even choose what software we run on our own computers.
I do not think it is spelled the way you think it is spelled.
If there is no authorized US version being distributed then it makes copying a show/dvd more safe (and perhaps even more moral) because there is no one entity that has a vested interest to come after you but I don't think that has any bearing on whether or not the ripping is legal.
But IANAL nor have I researched this issue. Does anyone know for sure whether or not the existence (or lack thereof) of a authorized version of a show/dvd affects the legality of ripping/copying?
I acknowledged that the Google tips were useful. But to insist that Google is the complete answer is both short sighted and narrow minded.
You provided some great Googling tips but I don't think Google is the answer for a Linux newbie.
The problem isn't that mikeswi wasn't determined enough in his Googling, the problem is that he does not yet know enough about Linux to have the context needed for effective Googling to solve his Linux problems.
But the logic behind waiting until actual harm occurs before taking any action eludes me. Wouldn't this same logic dictate that if you a driving a car towards a brick wall that you should wait until after hitting the wall before applying the brakes? Or, better yet, if a car is heading towards you, your logic implies one should wait until you are actually hurt before jumping out of the way or shouting out.
mi said: You seem to be intentionally dim-witted and illogical today, perhaps to goad those with whom you disagree.
The main concern of the advocates of network neutrality is that telcos should not be able to charge for the use of their networks based on content and where that content is coming from. It would be like someone running a toll road charging one trucking company more than another and then getting kickbacks from the company that gets charged less. I see this as 100% monopolistic and I don't think it should be allowed to happen.
If we agree that this behavior is wrong then let's pass laws to stop it before it happens. On the other hand, if you see nothing wrong with this behavior and don't want it outlawed, then say so directly so we can discuss its merits pro and con.
But to suggest we should delay a discussion of the merits until after the telcos have changed their infrastructure and have started charging based on content, makes no sense whatsoever.
Your nonsensical arguments and reasoning make it appear that you are not confident in the merits of your side of the argument and so you would prefer to just throw a lot of sand in the air in hopes of confusing everyone.
mi said: The telco's are supposed to already be regulated by the FCC (part of the executive branch of the government) because they are already monopolies. The current administration is trying to dismantle as much regulation as it can get away with. These efforts recently did away with enforcing regulations that had been keep the Net "neutral".
In theory at least, our government is composed of three official branches which are supposed to balance power through a system of checks and balances. If the Legislature feels that the Executive is abusing its power by being way too lax in enforcing the existing laws and regulations then the proper way for them to deal with that situation is to pass new, more explicit, laws even though there are already laws on the books that have been working just great for the past 100 years. This is how our government is supposed to function.
To put it in other words: we didn't have a friggin' Internet 100 years ago so laws that were meant to regulate the steel, gas, and railroad industries may need to be updated in order to be applied correctly to a type of monopoly that wasn't even imagined 100 years ago.
Is TCG creating specifications for just one operating system or type of platform?
No. Specifications are operating system agnostic. Several members have Linux-based software stacks available. In addition to our work on the PC platform, we have a specification for Trusted Servers and are working to finalize specifications for other computing devices, including peripherals, mobile devices, storage and infrastructure.
I don't think there is anything magical about Ubuntu or that it is vastly better than all the others. I think it is more a case of being the right distro at the right time. Linux distros had been evolving in this direction for a long time.
I helped a neighbor of mine install Ubuntu on an older laptop last week. The biggest problem we had was that I burned the wrong cd. I first tried their "desktop" cd which they said was the one most people will want. But it boots into X and has a graphical installer and it ground to a halt on the laptop due to memory issues. I then gave him a copy of the "alternate" cd which has the old fashioned text mode installer and my neighbor was able to install it himself.
Even the wireless card was properly detected and configured.
Besides, I think this is the most accurate estimator posted so far.
Your logic would also support illegal domestic spying (since the government would never abuse this power) and DRM (since it always functions perfectly and never prevents someone from using media they have legally purchased).
Hell, let's fire up the SONY rootkit again since it too must be perfect and would never compromise a user's system.
It's funny but my first reaction was to tell you that you should have included the fact that you already have a "normal life" in your orignal Ask Slashdot question. How strange that the claim "I already have a normal life" seems so unusual here that it feels like you're sandbagging us by not saying it.
But to answer your question, I suggest that you look into doing some volunteer work on the FOSS project of your choice.
Also, in most of the distros I've used, the end user has had to actually do the final compilation of the "shim" which combines the closed source and open source code. I think there would be a problem with distributing a binary "shim" without all of the source but I am not certain.
Stupid Science Stories ==> Lucy & the football
You time will be better spent teaching them the basics of programming that will give them something concrete upon which to build abstractions.
I suggest using an elementary teaching aid such as the Cardiac Cardboard Computer. You can still buy them or you can download pdf's and make your own. I don't know about the legality of the downloads.
Touché.
amaroK and MySQL