I am taking a cisco internetworking class and I do not think that it is similar to a DoS attack because a DoS attack involves changing the source address in the packets that are sent to a server. I do not think any students at Duke have found a way to hack the iphone
to allow modified packets to be sent out.
Dude, WTF? A DoS ("Denial of Service") attack is any attack that makes things stop working (or is intended to do that). Nothing to do with changing the source address, that's just to make it easier to not get caught.
... GPLv2, that already does this? (you can't distribute the object code unless you also give the sources under the same license... what you may do is dependent on why you are doing it: if you do not wish to comply then you cannot redistribute the code)
Huh? That sentence doesn't seem to make sense. What does whether you distribute source have to do with why you are distributing at all?
I can also understand that you believe that your TiVo device is TiVo's property, like someone suggested (though I fail to see why you would agree and even support that situation).
I most certainly do not believe that.
What I cannot possibly understand is why someone might think that GPLv2 is free, but GPLv3 isn't because it restricts those who want to restrict you.
The restrictions in GPLv3 are based on intended use.
Of course, if you are one who restricts other's freedom, I can see why you feel restricted...
I am not.
(note: the last two paragraphs are not acusations nor assumptions. If you belive GPLv2 is not free, or if you believe that you don't own the hardware you buy, or if you want to restrict others, then your position would make sense to me. Otherwise... it doesn't)
GPLv3 adds new restrictions on distribution which are based on the intent of that distribution, "you may not use this software for X". That is not Free. The specific nature or intent of those restrictions ("may not be used in DRMed devices") is completely irrelevant.
I actually think that companies generally shouldn't lock things down like that (obviously excepting things like ATMs and smartcards and such), but saying "we don't agree with that purpose, therefore you may not use this software in that kind of device" is not Free, and should not be advertized as such.
You have to admit that "whats not free" is making the code available, but eliminating any possibility of using the code. Thats like saying you have the right to make a phone call, but then restricting your ability to actually speak during said phone call.
So how does preventing that specific hardware from running modified code prevent the modified code from being run elsewhere?
It is because he sees the device as still being owned by the phone company, or the TiVo still being owned by TiVo. Then the GPLv3 restricts their "usage", i.e. running the software in a DRM:ed environment in the hands of the customer.
I don't agree with this interpretation, but it is the one I think he most likely subscribes to.
The most interesting way to use something is to build something with it. GPLv3 says Tivo & friends can't do that.
BSD fanboys use to say the same thing about the GPLv2, compared to their beloved BSD license.
So I'm sure they'd agree with me here.;)
But in this case, there are some generalguidelines that basically say that you can't restrict what people use it for. Restricting what people may distribute it for is effectively the same thing (eg, has effects like "cannot be used as firmware"), although some people obviously disagree with this.
(The "not truly Free" is because there are now restrictions on what you can do with the software, not just how you distribute it.)
People keep saying that... I wonder, have you actually read GPLv3? Can you point where exactly GPLv3 restricts "what can you do with the software, not just how you distribute it"?. The only restriction I manage to find is the clause to provide 'installation information' whenever you distribute the software. And of course, if you don't distribute the software at all, then the licence explicitly says you can do whatever you want with it. How is that non-free? (And where did you get the idea that GPLv3 restricts "what can you do with the software, not just how you distribute it"?)
I'm curious...
Yes, I have read it.
In the Tivo section, permission to redistribute is predicated on the intent of the redistribution ("specifically for use in..."), rather than the mechanics of the redistrubution (must have code available under the right terms, etc).
What you may do is dependent on why you are doing it. That's not Free.
So, for example, if MIT has a patent I want to use, maybe all I have to do is get committer rights to some relevant project, code up something which infringes the patent, get the patch accepted (never mentioning the patent, of course), and it gets distributed to all the mirrors, including MIT's.
IIRC, that only works if the patented part is added by the patent holder.
In your previous comment you said you were going to remove the 'or-later' clause on your software. You do realize that you cannot actually remove that clause if you took the code in question from a v2-or-later licensed project?
How so? "Version X or later" is a *choice*, to be made by whoever does the distributing.
If you do not like the GPLv3, chances are you never liked the GPLv2 either. The GPLv3 is not a revolution of the GPL concept, it is just exactly the same ideas adapted to a world where it has become possible to circumvent version 2 by methods unforeseen when it was written. If you are alright with people taking your code and not contributing back, by all means use BSD instead.
The GPLv3 is at least as different from GPLv2 as GPLv2 is from BSD.
GPLv2 says that the software can't be made non-free. GPLv3 says that the software can't be used in (some) non-free systems. This is a huge difference, and in fact makes the GPLv3 not truly Free.
(The "not truly Free" is because there are now restrictions on what you can do with the software, not just how you distribute it.)
So the answer was given up before you even asked the question. Nice
Or more likely, it was given up *while* he was asking the question. This isn't IRC, there's a bit of a delay between looking for other comments and posting your own.
Some people say the GPL is evil and viral. This is because they either do not understand it properly, or because they disagree with it.
GPLv3 affects any hardware that the software is distributed with. I'm pretty sure that this makes it viral *by definition*. I also consider this to make it evil, but that's a separate issue.
has shown to have made good judgements in the past. Are you talking about some different Linus to the rest of us?
One word: Bitkeeper.
Um, what? I seem to recall hearing that Bitkeeper sped things up quite a bit while it was around, and when things blew up it didn't take that long to replace. And that having such a good replacement was at least partially due to experience from using BK.
Just because things blew up at one point doesn't make the whole thing a net loss.
At the heart of the GPL is the idea that this work is free - if you're going to add on to this work and then redistribute it, you must make your work free as well. The rest is just details that build on that idea.
The new Tivoization rules are just another extension of this idea.
The Tivoization rules aren't about the work *being* free, but about it being *used* in non-free ways.
Did the people who wrote the GPL software used in the Tivo desire for it to be used that way? Did they envision DRM and locked down hardware? Of course not.
Does it matter? If I'm going to exert control over how you are permitted to use my software, then that software is no longer free. If I want my software to be free, I have to let you use it for *anything* no matter how much some particular use may offend me.
...and also the comments on it. In particular the one that points to http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223 , which shows that the article uses selective quotations to make it overly inflammatory.
Because all *our* people who were crazy enough to do that had a fondness for Kool-aid and UFOs.
Why do wealthier people have more male children, and poorer people have more female children?
Because if your family has lots of daughters, you have to pay for lots of weddings and so you never get a chance to become wealthy. (This may apply less as certain traditions become weaker.)
The question I would ask is a different one: why are we using such primitive typography in our text editors? We used to see all these *beautiful* demos of text editors that used proportional fonts, boldfacing, and the like, but you *never* see that in a production system.
Well, in my case it's because I specifically *told* it to use a fixed-width font, because I like being able to line things up properly. And I actually do have "boldfacing, and the like" (called "syntax highlighting").
Re:tivoisation
on
GPLv3 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The irritating part is that the FSF has the business products exception, where Tivoisation is okay for hardware sold for business use. Stallman et. al. recognize that in some cases it's ultimately beneficial to the user to be unable to run modified software (e.g. a business that has to have accountability, or a console gamer who wants to know that no one is running a hacked game in multiplayer), but they think they can somehow figure out where that line is for everyone.
The other irritating part is that this is discriminatory licensing, and I therefore don't see how it can properly be considered "Free".
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
It's always done late in a development cycle, in the rush to get the project out the door.
Why? It doesn't have to be. At least if you use something that isn't horribly broken.
So don't branch, and DON'T allow concurrent checkout of any code - FORCE the DEVELOPERS who need to work on the same code to COORDINATE their work EARLY in the development cycle. Of course they'll bitch.
Yes, they will. Because this is a monumentally stupid idea. Because the entire *purpose* of revision control systems (note: "CVS" stands for "Concurrent Versioning System") is to make it possible for developers to work on things at the same time. The idea is that you can get more benefit from the concurreny than you get difficulties from merging.
If your technical leadership has the spine to show prima donna twits who won't follow development rules the door. Of the entire company.
Rules like "merge early, merge often", perhaps? Fixes the problem, and *doesn't* cripple development horribly like your idea would.
Slashdot Mirror
to allow modified packets to be sent out.
Dude, WTF? A DoS ("Denial of Service") attack is any attack that makes things stop working (or is intended to do that). Nothing to do with changing the source address, that's just to make it easier to not get caught.
Huh? That sentence doesn't seem to make sense. What does whether you distribute source have to do with why you are distributing at all?
I most certainly do not believe that.
The restrictions in GPLv3 are based on intended use.
I am not.
GPLv3 adds new restrictions on distribution which are based on the intent of that distribution, "you may not use this software for X". That is not Free. The specific nature or intent of those restrictions ("may not be used in DRMed devices") is completely irrelevant.
I actually think that companies generally shouldn't lock things down like that (obviously excepting things like ATMs and smartcards and such), but saying "we don't agree with that purpose, therefore you may not use this software in that kind of device" is not Free, and should not be advertized as such.
So how does preventing that specific hardware from running modified code prevent the modified code from being run elsewhere?
It is because he sees the device as still being owned by the phone company, or the TiVo still being owned by TiVo. Then the GPLv3 restricts their "usage", i.e. running the software in a DRM:ed environment in the hands of the customer.
I don't agree with this interpretation, but it is the one I think he most likely subscribes to.
The most interesting way to use something is to build something with it. GPLv3 says Tivo & friends can't do that.
BSD fanboys use to say the same thing about the GPLv2, compared to their beloved BSD license.
So I'm sure they'd agree with me here. ;)
But in this case, there are some general guidelines that basically say that you can't restrict what people use it for. Restricting what people may distribute it for is effectively the same thing (eg, has effects like "cannot be used as firmware"), although some people obviously disagree with this.
People keep saying that... I wonder, have you actually read GPLv3? Can you point where exactly GPLv3 restricts "what can you do with the software, not just how you distribute it"?. The only restriction I manage to find is the clause to provide 'installation information' whenever you distribute the software. And of course, if you don't distribute the software at all, then the licence explicitly says you can do whatever you want with it. How is that non-free? (And where did you get the idea that GPLv3 restricts "what can you do with the software, not just how you distribute it"?)
I'm curious...Yes, I have read it.
In the Tivo section, permission to redistribute is predicated on the intent of the redistribution ("specifically for use in..."), rather than the mechanics of the redistrubution (must have code available under the right terms, etc).
What you may do is dependent on why you are doing it. That's not Free.
IIRC, that only works if the patented part is added by the patent holder.
GPLv3 looks like it was written by lawyers. GPLv2 doesn't.
GPLv3 cares about *why* you're distributing the program. GPLv2 doesn't.
GPLv3 tries to make things like the MS/Novell deal not work.
GPLv3 is more explicit about patents.
And probably more...
Because you have to, in order for the appliance to actually work (like, perhaps, anything that needs an AACS license)?
How so? "Version X or later" is a *choice*, to be made by whoever does the distributing.
The GPLv3 is at least as different from GPLv2 as GPLv2 is from BSD.
GPLv2 says that the software can't be made non-free. GPLv3 says that the software can't be used in (some) non-free systems. This is a huge difference, and in fact makes the GPLv3 not truly Free.
(The "not truly Free" is because there are now restrictions on what you can do with the software, not just how you distribute it.)
Or more likely, it was given up *while* he was asking the question. This isn't IRC, there's a bit of a delay between looking for other comments and posting your own.
GPLv3 affects any hardware that the software is distributed with. I'm pretty sure that this makes it viral *by definition*. I also consider this to make it evil, but that's a separate issue.
One word: Bitkeeper.
Um, what? I seem to recall hearing that Bitkeeper sped things up quite a bit while it was around, and when things blew up it didn't take that long to replace. And that having such a good replacement was at least partially due to experience from using BK.
Just because things blew up at one point doesn't make the whole thing a net loss.
The Tivoization rules aren't about the work *being* free, but about it being *used* in non-free ways.
Does it matter? If I'm going to exert control over how you are permitted to use my software, then that software is no longer free. If I want my software to be free, I have to let you use it for *anything* no matter how much some particular use may offend me.
This was in the comments on the article page: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223
It extends itself to things it should not. The bad behavior of others is completely irrelevant to this.
...and also the comments on it. In particular the one that points to http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223 , which shows that the article uses selective quotations to make it overly inflammatory.
Article needs to be modded "troll"...
The other irritating part is that this is discriminatory licensing, and I therefore don't see how it can properly be considered "Free".
Clearly you're not familiar with CALEA. They not only log your traffic, they store all the packets so the courts can request them later.
Um, how? Even a 10Mbit pipe is 108GB / day. So how much bandwidth does a typical ISP use, and where do they get enough storage to remember it all?
I really am shocked. How in the *world* did an inanimate structure learn to *talk*??
Well, that would depend on whether SuSE et al. decided to put their changes under "GPLv2" or "GPLv2 or any later version".
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Why? It doesn't have to be. At least if you use something that isn't horribly broken.
Yes, they will. Because this is a monumentally stupid idea. Because the entire *purpose* of revision control systems (note: "CVS" stands for "Concurrent Versioning System") is to make it possible for developers to work on things at the same time. The idea is that you can get more benefit from the concurreny than you get difficulties from merging.
Rules like "merge early, merge often", perhaps? Fixes the problem, and *doesn't* cripple development horribly like your idea would.