I'm guessing from the plummeting birthrates of highly-socialized nations that the system will be in grave danger within two generations. A common error in trying to predict the future of natural events based on the past is to neglect the possibility that the event is a cyclical one. Birth rates may very well turn out to be one of these (especially in a well organised society where you can offer people incentives to raise kids), but of course that remains to be seen.
As long as end users control their software, DRM doesn't stand much of a chance. This comes very close to pointing out exactly why GPLv3 may help the development of truly effective DRM. Effective DRM needs to have all of its sensitive functions hidden away in difficult-to-access hardware but so long as developers can get sort-of-safe-enough solutions by writing sufficiently obfuscated software they will continue to do so. It's the easy solution after all. If GPLv3 helps to do away with this obfuscation, the only real way to go for DRM is by having consumer keys on smartcards, trusted hardware paths throughout the computer system, and access to the plaintext only at the very last link: user presentation. (Obviously, there are many problems to solve in getting there and they are difficult ones - hence why no one has bothered doing it yet.)
Now, it may be that GPLv3 turns out to be entirely irrelevant for DRM since nobody uses it for DRM software anyway. My comments are based on the assumption that GPLv3 will have some effect, and my prediction is that if that happens then the effect will be to move DRM towards more robust solutions.
There is a compelling case to be made that this 'competion' with the free market actually allowed those 'economies' to exist longer than they could have on their own. This is certainly an interesting hypothesis. Thank you.
Now, it doesn't change the fundamental theory since we already know that marxism will burn out at some point. The question rather becomes how long a marxist system can last before it needs to temporarily revert to capitalism. This probably has to be at least one generation (more likely several) or else the constant transitions back and forth will just become too painful and disruptive. Seeing as communism burned out in ~70 years with competition (which we hypothesise to have helped prolong the life of its economic system), this would seem to suggest that a planned economy simply won't last long enough on its own for marxism to be a practicable economic system.
Still too few data points though - too bad it turns out to be so expensive to gather them:-/
People will stop working and throwing money in the common pot if they know that they can get all the public goodies like free healthcare (which wasn't bad at all by the way!), education and housing anyway. These are all offered by the Scandinavian countries, and we tend to be doing quite well. In practice, people aren't quite as selfish as you seem to think, and the system is capable of making adjustments to avoid the worst of the negative effects. If there was a problem in the Soviet Union, it may have been borne from a general dissatisfaction with the system and associated apathy. In such an atmosphere, the proportion of freeloaders is likely to increase drastically. To what extent would highly trained professionals or otherwise very successful people be rewarded in the Soviet Union? If little or not at all, then this would certainly contribute to apathy. Modern social democracies tend to allow highly successful people to have more luxuries than the general population and so there remains an incentive to work hard even if they do pay more taxes.
And then you still have the freeloaders. They are satisfied with little and they're too lazy to bother working to get more luxuries for themselves(*). In practice, they're not too much of a problem and one might consider that if useless people like that were to actually get a job they would probably cause more problems than they solve anyway so they're doing society a favour by not making an effort:-)
You should know your Marx better. Marx predicted that capitalism would develop into socialism/after/ affecting enourmos economic growth. And then he said, more or less, that marxism would eventually squander all this wealth and a new period of capitalism would be necessary to build the wealth necessary for the next period of marxism.
It follows that a marxist system that is forced to compete with a capitalist one will eventually lose out in the finance end of things. It might be hoped that the marxist system would win out on freedom, fairness, general viability, etc., but we'll never know since the few that have tried quickly degenerated into some form of dictatorship that had neither of those qualities.
You can DRM using GPL3 all you want, but the code has to be free. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. This only means that DRM will need to be implemented in the way that DRM should have been implemented all along (to the extent that DRM should exist, anyway): it will need to make use of PKI to ensure that each consumer has his own key with which to unlock his licensed content. This key, not being part of the source code, means that the implementation can be open while the DRM can be bullet proof right up until the final conversion to analog.
Interestingly, therefore, GPLv3 will tend to lead to the development of more robust DRM than we would otherwise have.
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
People who use the GPL are not giving away their work, they're making an agreement to exchange it for the work of others. This isn't entirely accurate either. Rather, it's an agreement to exchange it for the potential work of others. It's not as if most users of GPL products actually make modifications to it and so most of them don't contribute at all.
In fact if you study history you'll find that Soviet Union collapsed because it's economy collapsed. And the economy collapsed in large part because of having to compete with the military developments of the West.
Soviet style communism simply does not work. This isn't really known. All we know is that Soviet style communism appears to fail after a while when competing with free market economies. This effect was predicted by Marx, who well knew that capitalism is considerably more economically effecient than marxism could ever hope to be. This follows from the realisation that marxism was designed to be fair, while capitalism was designed to be effecient. There is nothing new here.
And of course why would you be protecting against Iran when (right now) the Shabab 4/5/6 missiles are theoretical? Considering that the missile defense system is also (right now) theoretical, this somehow seems strangely fitting.
I hate to break it to you, but most retail software doesn't include (meaningful) support. I wasn't referring to most retail software as much as I was referring to most software:-)
I admit that my statement was coloured by my own experiences, which lately involves Ubuntu, OSX and various software packages that update automatically (Firefox, Eclipse, etc.). I also understand that Microsoft is doing this. Is Steam doing it? Those who are still stuck in the 20th century are likely to be driven into more dynamic software updates by this competition before long.
When's the last time you heard of anybody being able to call up (for example) Microsoft and actually get help, as opposed to relying on the Internet, a techie friend, or the Geek Squad? I expect that the Internet will at the forefront of software support strategies for the foreseeable future, simply because it's a very efficient vehicle for delivering it. If Microsoft were to offer access to their knowledge base (e.g. MSDN) via web (which they may already be doing for all I know), then this is probably going to be more helpful to their customers than any number of offshored phone support teams are going to be.
adding a restriction takes away "freedom" not adds to it The GPL isn't about freedom for developers, it's about freedom for users. Therefore, developers lose a freedom so that users can have more of it. It's not much of a surprise, of course, that it can be hard to sell this paradigm to developers:-)
The problem is that we are given such a small selection of people to choose who will rule us from (2 in the US) that it does not actualy count as a democracy according to the strict (original) definition. You seem to put a lot of stock into a pure interpretation of what democracy should be. Western civilization has poured a lot of time, thinking and blood into trying to get democracy to actually work, and it was found pretty early that a pure interpretation simply does not work on a large scale. Therefore, we have indirect democracy, we have representatives (and the associated need for separation of powers), we have non-proportional voting systems (e.g. to protect cultural minorities), we have limitations on what the majority is actually allowed to do (we don't want mob rule), etc.
I do not think that we should throw away all of these refinements and go back to "pure" democracy, unless we want to relive two centuries of bloody revolutions and poorly constructed political systems. (In a pure democracy, the majority could actually vote to have the minority executed en masse - and chances are from time to time they would.)
Right, selling support would still be possible. But that's not the same as selling retail copies of software in a box, which is what I've been talking about the whole time. It seems to me that the distinction is somewhat academic as the two will presumably be tied together, much as we already see most software be delivered today. More likely than not, therefore, you will sell your software in the form of software upgrades. The nice shiny box in the store is little more than advertising for this product. Whether you call it selling software or selling support comes down to the nuances in how you choose to define those terms.
"Consideration" is involved: the licensee has to abide by the GPL too, by making the source available it he redistributes, licensing any patents of his own he implements in the code, etc. For a licensee to abide by a license is not, I expect, "consideration" that is taken to be of benefit to the copyright holder. Rather, it is expected behaviour and even required by law. The licensee would have to offer something above and beyond that - and the copyright holder would have to accept such an offer - for this whole thing to transform into a contract.
They could, but what good would it do them when they can't sell the software? I'm not sure why they couldn't. Would it be illegal?
"Milk it" how? Without copyright, they'll only be able to sell the software exactly once. In that environment, they'd go out of business before being able to "milk" anything. This depends entirely on the nature of the software and the industry it's being sold in. If, for example, your industry is a very niche one and your customers are very strict about being able to place responsibility for software failures on someone then secrecy may be a very good tactic for milking that market. Your competition won't catch on to what you're doing (or how you're doing it) for a while (and they certainly don't want to be selling their customers copies of your software in the meantime) and your customers won't go out and get unpaid-for copies of your software because what you're actually effectively selling them is an insurance policy along the lines of "you can sue us if it doesn't work".
Actually, if they were the owner of the patent, then by releasing GPL3'd code that implements it, they would be granting a patent license to use the patented method in the code or in derivations of the code.
I don't think this is the sort of gift that would be upheld by a court of law. They could say "we won't sue you over these patents" but if they later decided to change their minds, I don't think a judge is going to actually hold them to that promise unless some sort of consideration was involved on part of the receiver of the promise (this would then be a contract).
Of course, this may tend to vary in different jurisdictions.
I don't imagine that the promises given in GPLv3 hold much power unless your company is dependant upon using GPLv3 code from sources outside of your company (in which case you'll be in breach of copyright if you do not comply with the license terms and the promises it requires you to make).
It boils down to all software being BSD-like in its distribution restrictions (i.e: No restrictions). However the situation will be much closer to a GPL world one, because the incentive to create closed software that you cannot sell will approximate nil.
The single most interesting distinction between GPL and BSD (imo) is that with GPL you cannot distribute a modified binary without also offering your modified source. With this in mind, a copyright-free world would be BSD-like in that someone could withhold their source. This would probably see some (possibly niche) use in people adding useful-but-not-obvious algorithms to common software and then milking these proprietary additions for the weeks, months or years it would take open source to catch up.
Freedom is freedom. You can't say "oh, well, this is good freedom, so it's all right. That's bad freedom, so we don't like that."
Unless the above is a call for anarchy, then that is exactly what you have to do. This happens to be why we have developed a system of ethics, so that we can judge "good" and "bad" behaviour in a sensible manner.
I don't particularly want anyone to have the freedom to enslave me, so I will tend to campaign to remove the freedom to enslave people. Many people seem to think like me and so, in a largely democratic society, that's the way we tend to go.
what if the software is designed specifically to perform a piece of CAM in a way that's patented? Would that patent become invalid because of this licence?
No. What would happen would be that the party in question could not legally use the GPLv3 as an excuse to use GPL software and so might be in breach of copyright. This is something they would have to dish out with whoever owns the copyright on the sofware in question (FSF or whoever). The most obvious approach for the infringer (if they're in love with their patents) would be to toss out the GPL software and write/purchase/obtain a replacement.
What is to say the FSF will not add other restrictions on the software you use?
They cannot retroactively add restrictions on their software. It is released under the license it is released under. On the other hand, the usual "GPL v2 or later" wording of the license allows you to adopt later changes should you wish to.
In this case it has mutated to infect unrelated areas of business after entering the host.
No one who is currently using GPLv2 software will see this mutation that you speak of - unless they choose to. People who start to use GPLv3 software will have it marked as GPLv3 when they introduce it so the mutation effect seems somewhat fictional.
Couldn't you choose an incriminating password and plead the 5th?
That would only work if you actually told them the password so the judge would be convinced that it is, indeed, incriminating. If you didn't, they'd just assume you're withholding evidence.
And even if you did manage to convince them, there's all sorts of approaches they could use to have you give them access to the files without them getting to know the actual password (e.g. via a third party who would be sworn to secrecy and could not testify against you using the incriminating info in your password).
Most likely though, the judge would simply get ticked off by your antics and put you in jail for contempt until you decided to pony up the password:-)
It seems to me that the best approach to this problem might be to have a password that self-destructs when it detects that someone is about to physically break into your system. This way, there is no password to give them and whoever it is that is trying to do this (whether it's the Man or bin Laden) there's simply no way for them to succeed. Just watch out for those false positives...
It raises one's self esteem, which raises one's confidence, which increases one's inclination to meet and overcome challenges.
This dodges the issue though, since the same effect could probably be achieved using a rational mechanic rather than irrational altruism. The question is, why was altruism selected for in developing a self-esteem-boosting mechanism?
It also raises one's prestige within a group
But now we're moving away from altruism and towards selfish reasons. We must then ask: is the ingrained human altruism "pure" altruism, or is it some kind of selfish variety? I would guess it must be the former, or the whole thing would hardly be newsworthy.
It is not entirely uncommon for wealthy criminals to donate money to charity in order to boost their prestige, but I would hardly call this altruism. Rather, it is pure-bred cynicism.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, it may be that GPLv3 turns out to be entirely irrelevant for DRM since nobody uses it for DRM software anyway. My comments are based on the assumption that GPLv3 will have some effect, and my prediction is that if that happens then the effect will be to move DRM towards more robust solutions.
Now, it doesn't change the fundamental theory since we already know that marxism will burn out at some point. The question rather becomes how long a marxist system can last before it needs to temporarily revert to capitalism. This probably has to be at least one generation (more likely several) or else the constant transitions back and forth will just become too painful and disruptive. Seeing as communism burned out in ~70 years with competition (which we hypothesise to have helped prolong the life of its economic system), this would seem to suggest that a planned economy simply won't last long enough on its own for marxism to be a practicable economic system.
Still too few data points though - too bad it turns out to be so expensive to gather them
And then you still have the freeloaders. They are satisfied with little and they're too lazy to bother working to get more luxuries for themselves(*). In practice, they're not too much of a problem and one might consider that if useless people like that were to actually get a job they would probably cause more problems than they solve anyway so they're doing society a favour by not making an effort
* - I simplify, of course.
It follows that a marxist system that is forced to compete with a capitalist one will eventually lose out in the finance end of things. It might be hoped that the marxist system would win out on freedom, fairness, general viability, etc., but we'll never know since the few that have tried quickly degenerated into some form of dictatorship that had neither of those qualities.
Interestingly, therefore, GPLv3 will tend to lead to the development of more robust DRM than we would otherwise have.
I admit that my statement was coloured by my own experiences, which lately involves Ubuntu, OSX and various software packages that update automatically (Firefox, Eclipse, etc.). I also understand that Microsoft is doing this. Is Steam doing it? Those who are still stuck in the 20th century are likely to be driven into more dynamic software updates by this competition before long. When's the last time you heard of anybody being able to call up (for example) Microsoft and actually get help, as opposed to relying on the Internet, a techie friend, or the Geek Squad? I expect that the Internet will at the forefront of software support strategies for the foreseeable future, simply because it's a very efficient vehicle for delivering it. If Microsoft were to offer access to their knowledge base (e.g. MSDN) via web (which they may already be doing for all I know), then this is probably going to be more helpful to their customers than any number of offshored phone support teams are going to be.
I do not think that we should throw away all of these refinements and go back to "pure" democracy, unless we want to relive two centuries of bloody revolutions and poorly constructed political systems. (In a pure democracy, the majority could actually vote to have the minority executed en masse - and chances are from time to time they would.)
That, and I have no idea how my safety is affected by such things.
:-)
Obviously, if no one brought a recorder, they won't have to send in the SWAT team with guns blazing in order to eliminate the terrorist
Actually, if they were the owner of the patent, then by releasing GPL3'd code that implements it, they would be granting a patent license to use the patented method in the code or in derivations of the code.
I don't think this is the sort of gift that would be upheld by a court of law. They could say "we won't sue you over these patents" but if they later decided to change their minds, I don't think a judge is going to actually hold them to that promise unless some sort of consideration was involved on part of the receiver of the promise (this would then be a contract).
Of course, this may tend to vary in different jurisdictions.
I don't imagine that the promises given in GPLv3 hold much power unless your company is dependant upon using GPLv3 code from sources outside of your company (in which case you'll be in breach of copyright if you do not comply with the license terms and the promises it requires you to make).
It boils down to all software being BSD-like in its distribution restrictions (i.e: No restrictions). However the situation will be much closer to a GPL world one, because the incentive to create closed software that you cannot sell will approximate nil.
:-)
The single most interesting distinction between GPL and BSD (imo) is that with GPL you cannot distribute a modified binary without also offering your modified source. With this in mind, a copyright-free world would be BSD-like in that someone could withhold their source. This would probably see some (possibly niche) use in people adding useful-but-not-obvious algorithms to common software and then milking these proprietary additions for the weeks, months or years it would take open source to catch up.
Of course, I'm really splitting hairs here
In a politics-free world, BSD is pretty much the 'obvious' license for a FOSS project.
In a politics-free world, there wouldn't be any licenses because there would be no copyright law to make them enforcable.
Which, of course, boils down to a BSD-like situation except it's unclear how much more secrecy this would lead to. I'm guessing not much.
Freedom is freedom. You can't say "oh, well, this is good freedom, so it's all right. That's bad freedom, so we don't like that."
:-)
Unless the above is a call for anarchy, then that is exactly what you have to do. This happens to be why we have developed a system of ethics, so that we can judge "good" and "bad" behaviour in a sensible manner.
I don't particularly want anyone to have the freedom to enslave me, so I will tend to campaign to remove the freedom to enslave people. Many people seem to think like me and so, in a largely democratic society, that's the way we tend to go.
If you don't like it, get into politics
what if the software is designed specifically to perform a piece of CAM in a way that's patented? Would that patent become invalid because of this licence?
No. What would happen would be that the party in question could not legally use the GPLv3 as an excuse to use GPL software and so might be in breach of copyright. This is something they would have to dish out with whoever owns the copyright on the sofware in question (FSF or whoever). The most obvious approach for the infringer (if they're in love with their patents) would be to toss out the GPL software and write/purchase/obtain a replacement.
What is to say the FSF will not add other restrictions on the software you use?
They cannot retroactively add restrictions on their software. It is released under the license it is released under. On the other hand, the usual "GPL v2 or later" wording of the license allows you to adopt later changes should you wish to.
In this case it has mutated to infect unrelated areas of business after entering the host.
No one who is currently using GPLv2 software will see this mutation that you speak of - unless they choose to. People who start to use GPLv3 software will have it marked as GPLv3 when they introduce it so the mutation effect seems somewhat fictional.
I say we take off and nuke the platters from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
Couldn't you choose an incriminating password and plead the 5th?
:-)
...
That would only work if you actually told them the password so the judge would be convinced that it is, indeed, incriminating. If you didn't, they'd just assume you're withholding evidence.
And even if you did manage to convince them, there's all sorts of approaches they could use to have you give them access to the files without them getting to know the actual password (e.g. via a third party who would be sworn to secrecy and could not testify against you using the incriminating info in your password).
Most likely though, the judge would simply get ticked off by your antics and put you in jail for contempt until you decided to pony up the password
It seems to me that the best approach to this problem might be to have a password that self-destructs when it detects that someone is about to physically break into your system. This way, there is no password to give them and whoever it is that is trying to do this (whether it's the Man or bin Laden) there's simply no way for them to succeed. Just watch out for those false positives
It raises one's self esteem, which raises one's confidence, which increases one's inclination to meet and overcome challenges.
This dodges the issue though, since the same effect could probably be achieved using a rational mechanic rather than irrational altruism. The question is, why was altruism selected for in developing a self-esteem-boosting mechanism?
It also raises one's prestige within a group
But now we're moving away from altruism and towards selfish reasons. We must then ask: is the ingrained human altruism "pure" altruism, or is it some kind of selfish variety? I would guess it must be the former, or the whole thing would hardly be newsworthy.
It is not entirely uncommon for wealthy criminals to donate money to charity in order to boost their prestige, but I would hardly call this altruism. Rather, it is pure-bred cynicism.