2) how do they ever plan to tell the difference between infringing and non-infringing use?
That's easy: block everything that doesn't come from their "portal" site (for which they have agreements with the copyright holders). It'd be just like AOL! (And that's exactly what the "I"SPs want, because they could make a lot more money that way, if only they could force customers to put up with it.)
The user can still do whatever they want with the code...
No, they can't, because "whatever they want" includes modifying it and running it on the same hardware! In reality, the GPLv2 means that the user can do some -- but not all -- of what they want with the code, and that's just not acceptable.
...just the simple fact that GPL3 goes into territory that some people don't agree is a pure software/copyright issue.
Well yeah, I'll concede that point; I (hopefully!) never claimed that the GPLv3 wasn't different than the GPLv2.
The GPL is (supposedly) about sharing your changes with the community.
No, it's actually not!
The GPL is a about giving users the freedom to control their tools. No more, no less. In fact, that was the whole fucking point of my previous post!
By the way, "sharing your changes with the community" doesn't make sense as "what the GPL is about" because, for quite a while after the GPL was created, there was no "commmunity!" It was just RMS and GNU, pretty much by itself, making GCC and whatnot. The "community" was invented by Linus, much later. So no, the GPL is not about the community. The community is a side effect. The GPL is about giving users the freedom to control their tools. Period.
...but you shouldn't be doing things the community doesn't approve of.
The community is not important. Freedom is important. Consider an analogy to the "real world:" 60 years ago, the "community" didn't approve of desegregating the American South. Yet it was still important to do, because it increased the freedom of black people. This is the same sort of issue: I don't care if you "approve" of it; it's necessary!
Freedom does not include telling people that they have to follow your moral beliefs, and you do not have the right to make the company help you modify your device as you see fit.
Sure, I completely agree! But the company has the freedom to choose not to use GPLv3 code, and if they don't agree to the terms then they don't have the right to use it. Fair's fair, you know!
Besides, there's a huge fucking difference between trying to force the company to "help you modify your device" and trying to force it to "not prohibit you from modifying your device!" The GPLv3 only tries to accomplish the latter, not the former!
You know what? If you want to make your TiVo run exactly how you want it to, great... but TiVo isn't obligated to help you in that endeavor.
Here's another analogy: Say I'm at the bottom of a pit, and trying to get out. Sure, TiVo isn't obligated to help me get out... except, wait! TiVo is the one who dug the fucking pit in the first place, covered it with leaves, stuck a sign saying something to the effect of "Free candy!" in the middle, and lured me into it! After all that, is TiVo still not responsible for solving the problem it itself created?!
And if you choose, as a punishment, to try to not allow them to benefit from the work you're supposedly giving away as a benefit to all mankind...
Irrelevant, because your supposition is wrong.
... then you don't really believe in that altruism, you're just paying lip-service.
What altruism?! RMS just wanted his fucking printer to work!
We can't have an open source DRM media player even if we want one.
But the idea doesn't even make sense! If you care about it being Free Software, then you also care about it not having DRM; if you don't mind it having DRM, then you shouldn't mind it being closed-source! Either you care about having control over the damn thing, or you don't! Any other opinion is logically inconsistent.
...but consider that the argument is (roughly) equivalent to complaining that some GPLed i386 assembly code wont run on a PPC. You can still do whatever you want with the code...
It's not equivalent at all. It's more like complaining that some GPL'd i386 assembly code won't run on exactly the same i386 it was designed for just because you changed it.
This places requirements on the hardware as well as the software.
No it doesn't; hardware makers can do whatever they want! They can still put all the locks they want in the machine; they just have to give the user the key. It's a social requirement, not a hardware one.
Well sure, but it wouldn't be effective DRM, because (since hardware access is controlled by the kernel) you could always find somewhere to intercept the deencrypted stream. Unless you know something about it I don't (which is certainly likely; you're Bruce Perens!)...?
I'm going to tell you a little story. I'm sure you've already heard it, being a Slashdot reader, but I'll continue anyway:
A couple of decades ago, there was a programmer, working at a college in New England, who had just gotten a new printer. He had a problem, though: the printer didn't do quite what he wanted. But that wasn't a big deal; like any good programmer, he figured he'd simply modify the printer's driver to fix it. In order to do this he'd need the source code, so he emailed the manufacturer to get a copy. Now, back then people -- and especially those working in academia -- shared code all the time; it was normal. So imagine his surprise and dismay when the company refused to give him the code for his own printer! Now remember, he could have just gotten himself a different printer. But he was upset about the principle of the thing. In fact, he was so upset about it that he resolved to dedicate himself to ensuring that users could always control their tools.
So who was the programmer in my story? His name is Richard Stallman, and he created GNU and the GPL. So ask yourself this: considering the reasoning behind the GPL, is having to buy or make different hardware good enough?
No, what he's really saying is that people should be able to use Linux any way they wish...
But people can't -- not on a TiVo, at least, and not "people." The developers of the TiVo are getting to use it the way they wish, yes, but the users of the TiVo aren't! (Given the assumption that they want to do something that the TiVo doesn't already do, anyway.)
So the purpose of GPL 3 is to prevent freedoms that developers previously had, on account that some people don't like it?
Yes, the purpose of the GPL 3 is to preserve freedoms that users previously had, on account that some corporations are trying to infringe upon them.
Both of the above sentences mean the same thing; they are merely two sides of the same coin. The FSF (creator of the GPL) has always been on the side of the user (yes, at the expense of the developer -- preserving perfect freedom for both is impossible). If you value the developer's freedom instead, then the BSD license is more appropriate for you than any version of the GPL.
Actually, Linus isn't really advocating DRM but he has said he sees no reason to forbid it.
I chose my words very carefully in that post, but apparently not carefully enough. I didn't say he was advocating DRM; I said he approves of it (which is the same as seeing no reason to forbid it).
Freedom in software...
Software, hardware, whatever! When you bring DRM into the picture then there's not really a difference, because if you don't have access to the hardware, you can't use the modified software!
...or anything for that matter isn't just the freedom that you want to allow people to have. Even if they use that freedom to restrict yours.
Then why not use the BSD license and be done with it? After all, by the exact same argument it's unreasonable to restrict them from restricting your freedom by making closed-source derivatives, too.
On the contrary, the kernel is exactly where the difference between GPLv2 and v3 matters most. Let's say the device maker wants to implement DRM. This requires kernel support, because if it were attempted solely in userspace somebody could modify the kernel to intercept the stream. If the kernel is GPLv3, then there's no problem doing so. But if the kernel is GPLv2 (as in the TiVo), then the device can prevent the modified kernel from running and thus enforce the DRM.
In other words, the point is not moot at all: GPLv2 kernels support DRM, while GPLv3 kernels wouldn't. By advocating GPLv2 for the kernel, what Linus is really saying is that he approves of DRM.
Now regardless of who's making the machines and what OS, CPU blah blah they have in them...
NO! The software the things have is entirely the point of them! Do you know what the XO has? It has collaborative whiteboarding/IM. It has LOGO. It has Squeak. These are the most important aspects of the entire effort, and the difference between the machines being useful and being useless!
If the Classmate PC had Squeak and LOGO, I'd be okay with it (and Intel). But it doesn't. So it needs to die, period.
But step back into the minister of education role. For a price increase of 1.5% your students can be learning on the same software that powers 100x as many systems as Linux. Which would you choose?
So you're agreeing with me, that they'd pick Windows? Then, uh, what was your point?
To recap, I was explaining that the Classmate PC was inferior to the XO for several reasons, but mostly because it didn't have the XO's special (coincidentally Linux-based) software. You appeared to attempt to refute that by noting that the Classmate PC is capable of running Linux, but now just agreed with me that it would be extremely unlikely to be actually doing so in the wild. So are you conceding my point, or what?
Which is why I used the word "may" rather than "will". The fact that the FSF, or some other copyright holder, has not asked for that remedy does not mean they are unable to do so in the future.
You misunderstand. Copyright holders, including (or especially) the FSF, can and have asked for (or perhaps a better word is "offered") that remedy. However, that's all they can do -- ask or offer. They can not take away the options of injunctions or damages, so the infringer is always free to choose one of those instead. That was my point.
the GPL'd code is viral and may taint your code, making your code GPL'd as well.
No, it doesn't. It makes the code infringing. In cases of copyright infringement (in general), remedies may include payment of monetary damages and injunctions against further distribution of the infringing code. The GPL is exactly the same in this respect, except that copyright holders of GPL'd code tend to offer the additional, optional remedy of coming into compliance with the terms of the license. In no case, ever, has the offender been forced to accept that particular remedy instead of an injunction or damages. Therefore, you're wrong.
Wouldn't Microsoft Hearts be close enough to either be infringing or prior art? It's just the same damn thing (a networked computer card game) with different game rules (which should be irrelevant to the patent).
Slashdot Mirror
That's easy: block everything that doesn't come from their "portal" site (for which they have agreements with the copyright holders). It'd be just like AOL! (And that's exactly what the "I"SPs want, because they could make a lot more money that way, if only they could force customers to put up with it.)
No, they can't, because "whatever they want" includes modifying it and running it on the same hardware! In reality, the GPLv2 means that the user can do some -- but not all -- of what they want with the code, and that's just not acceptable.
Well yeah, I'll concede that point; I (hopefully!) never claimed that the GPLv3 wasn't different than the GPLv2.
It's all Kodos and Kang, buddy.
Or if it didn't, would it open up liability? Could we all immediately sue AT&T for failing to filter out our copyrighted posts?
No, it's actually not!
The GPL is a about giving users the freedom to control their tools. No more, no less. In fact, that was the whole fucking point of my previous post!
By the way, "sharing your changes with the community" doesn't make sense as "what the GPL is about" because, for quite a while after the GPL was created, there was no "commmunity!" It was just RMS and GNU, pretty much by itself, making GCC and whatnot. The "community" was invented by Linus, much later. So no, the GPL is not about the community. The community is a side effect. The GPL is about giving users the freedom to control their tools. Period.
The community is not important. Freedom is important. Consider an analogy to the "real world:" 60 years ago, the "community" didn't approve of desegregating the American South. Yet it was still important to do, because it increased the freedom of black people. This is the same sort of issue: I don't care if you "approve" of it; it's necessary!
Sure, I completely agree! But the company has the freedom to choose not to use GPLv3 code, and if they don't agree to the terms then they don't have the right to use it. Fair's fair, you know!
Besides, there's a huge fucking difference between trying to force the company to "help you modify your device" and trying to force it to "not prohibit you from modifying your device!" The GPLv3 only tries to accomplish the latter, not the former!
Here's another analogy: Say I'm at the bottom of a pit, and trying to get out. Sure, TiVo isn't obligated to help me get out... except, wait! TiVo is the one who dug the fucking pit in the first place, covered it with leaves, stuck a sign saying something to the effect of "Free candy!" in the middle, and lured me into it! After all that, is TiVo still not responsible for solving the problem it itself created?!
Irrelevant, because your supposition is wrong.
What altruism?! RMS just wanted his fucking printer to work!
But the idea doesn't even make sense! If you care about it being Free Software, then you also care about it not having DRM; if you don't mind it having DRM, then you shouldn't mind it being closed-source! Either you care about having control over the damn thing, or you don't! Any other opinion is logically inconsistent.
It's not equivalent at all. It's more like complaining that some GPL'd i386 assembly code won't run on exactly the same i386 it was designed for just because you changed it.
No it doesn't; hardware makers can do whatever they want! They can still put all the locks they want in the machine; they just have to give the user the key. It's a social requirement, not a hardware one.
Well sure, but it wouldn't be effective DRM, because (since hardware access is controlled by the kernel) you could always find somewhere to intercept the deencrypted stream. Unless you know something about it I don't (which is certainly likely; you're Bruce Perens!)...?
I'm going to tell you a little story. I'm sure you've already heard it, being a Slashdot reader, but I'll continue anyway:
A couple of decades ago, there was a programmer, working at a college in New England, who had just gotten a new printer. He had a problem, though: the printer didn't do quite what he wanted. But that wasn't a big deal; like any good programmer, he figured he'd simply modify the printer's driver to fix it. In order to do this he'd need the source code, so he emailed the manufacturer to get a copy. Now, back then people -- and especially those working in academia -- shared code all the time; it was normal. So imagine his surprise and dismay when the company refused to give him the code for his own printer! Now remember, he could have just gotten himself a different printer. But he was upset about the principle of the thing. In fact, he was so upset about it that he resolved to dedicate himself to ensuring that users could always control their tools.
So who was the programmer in my story? His name is Richard Stallman, and he created GNU and the GPL. So ask yourself this: considering the reasoning behind the GPL, is having to buy or make different hardware good enough?
But people can't -- not on a TiVo, at least, and not "people." The developers of the TiVo are getting to use it the way they wish, yes, but the users of the TiVo aren't! (Given the assumption that they want to do something that the TiVo doesn't already do, anyway.)
Yes, the purpose of the GPL 3 is to preserve freedoms that users previously had, on account that some corporations are trying to infringe upon them.
Both of the above sentences mean the same thing; they are merely two sides of the same coin. The FSF (creator of the GPL) has always been on the side of the user (yes, at the expense of the developer -- preserving perfect freedom for both is impossible). If you value the developer's freedom instead, then the BSD license is more appropriate for you than any version of the GPL.
And this is why neither Linus nor you understands the issue! The problem is not software dictating hardware, but rather the other way around!
I chose my words very carefully in that post, but apparently not carefully enough. I didn't say he was advocating DRM; I said he approves of it (which is the same as seeing no reason to forbid it).
Software, hardware, whatever! When you bring DRM into the picture then there's not really a difference, because if you don't have access to the hardware, you can't use the modified software!
Then why not use the BSD license and be done with it? After all, by the exact same argument it's unreasonable to restrict them from restricting your freedom by making closed-source derivatives, too.
Because then the pixels have to be tiny. It's almost certainly much easier to make a 100DPI screen than it would be to make a 1,000 DPI screen!
Incidentally, most HMDs (especially reasonably-priced ones) tend to be VGA resolution. Making one with this many pixels would be super-expensive.
Hookers are cheaper.
Maybe the person who said that used to work for Verizon?
On the contrary, the kernel is exactly where the difference between GPLv2 and v3 matters most. Let's say the device maker wants to implement DRM. This requires kernel support, because if it were attempted solely in userspace somebody could modify the kernel to intercept the stream. If the kernel is GPLv3, then there's no problem doing so. But if the kernel is GPLv2 (as in the TiVo), then the device can prevent the modified kernel from running and thus enforce the DRM.
In other words, the point is not moot at all: GPLv2 kernels support DRM, while GPLv3 kernels wouldn't. By advocating GPLv2 for the kernel, what Linus is really saying is that he approves of DRM.
NO! The software the things have is entirely the point of them! Do you know what the XO has? It has collaborative whiteboarding/IM. It has LOGO. It has Squeak. These are the most important aspects of the entire effort, and the difference between the machines being useful and being useless!
If the Classmate PC had Squeak and LOGO, I'd be okay with it (and Intel). But it doesn't. So it needs to die, period.
Psst... `killall firefox-bin`.
So you're agreeing with me, that they'd pick Windows? Then, uh, what was your point?
To recap, I was explaining that the Classmate PC was inferior to the XO for several reasons, but mostly because it didn't have the XO's special (coincidentally Linux-based) software. You appeared to attempt to refute that by noting that the Classmate PC is capable of running Linux, but now just agreed with me that it would be extremely unlikely to be actually doing so in the wild. So are you conceding my point, or what?
You misunderstand. Copyright holders, including (or especially) the FSF, can and have asked for (or perhaps a better word is "offered") that remedy. However, that's all they can do -- ask or offer. They can not take away the options of injunctions or damages, so the infringer is always free to choose one of those instead. That was my point.
Then they ought to ban her from the courtroom until she gets her hearing checked!
Then he was incompetent, and should be disbarred anyway!
No, it doesn't. It makes the code infringing. In cases of copyright infringement (in general), remedies may include payment of monetary damages and injunctions against further distribution of the infringing code. The GPL is exactly the same in this respect, except that copyright holders of GPL'd code tend to offer the additional, optional remedy of coming into compliance with the terms of the license. In no case, ever, has the offender been forced to accept that particular remedy instead of an injunction or damages. Therefore, you're wrong.
Wouldn't Microsoft Hearts be close enough to either be infringing or prior art? It's just the same damn thing (a networked computer card game) with different game rules (which should be irrelevant to the patent).