A lot of people get interested in technologies when they hear it examplained and can ask the developer - and face to face is much easier than by email.
That joke is a big crowd pleaser among software developers. Just listen the to audio recordings of his software patents lecture from the slashdot story earlier today. But he knows when to and when not to bother.
The above should be flagged "sarcastic" for those who happen to lack such a barometer internally
No, it's true actually. A lot of businesses in Northern Ireland were poking at free software but no one wants to be first, so we're organising a big free software conference aimed at businesses. Stallman's name is a big draw. He knows it's a business audience and he'll adapt to that. He'll be including a substantial section about GPLv3, which has gotten a surprising level of interest from public administration bodies.
Interest has been huge and there were many requests for speaking slots that had to be turned down. I guess there will be a FOSS Means Business 2007 too, but one at a time. On Thursday we expect at least 300. The venue can hold up to 1150.
I think events like these, and the networking that happens at them, is more important than increasing efficiency of the software. We'll see.
There's a conference this Thursday, March 16th in Belfast called FOSS Means Business where Stallman and Perens are both doing business-orientated lectures, plus presentations by Google, Open Source Academy, and Oracle.
People trying to encourage IT decision makers to transition to free software have to learn to explain it. Bruce Perens is good at this, but as well as telling people about the value of free software, we have to tell them how to hang on to it - how to not let it slip through their fingers. That's Stallman's angle, as can be read in this transcript of his lecture on GPLv3.
Microsoft isn't top because of their software quality, and free software won't displace them purely based on quality either. We'll win for other reasons.
Stallman will give his rare business speech this Thursday, March 16th, at the FOSS Means Business event in Belfast, Northern Ireland. That should be recorded and made available soon afterward - if the recording goes well.
In the 60s and 70s, all software was free software. It was normal for people to pass on the source code with the binaries. In the 80s, some companies started a new proprietary approach, and they started using technical means (such as only distributing binaries) and legal means (applying copyright) to prevent people from helping themselves and each other.
I bet there was a army of people who posted to usenet with comments similar to your's. "Consumers will never accept that treatment" etc. etc. "there'll be a revolt, just you wait!"
Instead of waiting for everyone else to revolt, Stallman launched GNU - and the free software movement along with it. When freedom is at stake, sitting back and waiting for a revolt is never enough. This problem has to be tackled in every way we can. GPLv3 can't solve the DRM problem completely, but I'm glad that it will do all it can.
The threat of DRM is real, you don't have to wait for it to cuff you before you see that. GPLv3 works to prevent the scenario where DRM is widely implemented. For info from the horse's mouth, see what he said about DRM in his FOSDEM 2006 presentation.
That's only the recording of his second talk, the one on GPLv3. He also gave the opening keynote where he talked about software patents. There are other recordings of his software patents speech given at other events on the GNU project philosophy audio page, but he software patent talk at FOSDEM was particularly interesting because of his comments about EU democracy at the end. From looking at the names of the files, I don't think any of them contain his software patents speech - which is strange since the camera crew did record it.
A camera crew filmed Stallman's opening keynote about software patents, but I can't see it on that page. Is it there (under a name I failed to guess)? Or will it be available at a later time? (if so, in the same place?)
This question was asked in the Q&A session after Richard's presentation. Richard answered that he will consult a lawyer, and he will do everything possible to fix this, and if you have suggestions they are welcome - and in the end he might fail to find a solution within the GPLv3 to this problem.
These transcripts, and other such documents, are collected at the official GPLv3 wiki, on the Reusable texts page. And
there's more info about the draft and how to participate in the public consultation at gplv3.fsf.org.
For instance, the Tivo is designed so that if you modify the program and install it, it won't run. We have written provisions designed to forbid that use of our software. We can't forbid people from making such devices, nasty as it is, but we can, we believe, forbid them to use GPL covered software in that corrupt way.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Linus can change his mind, even after
seemingly painting himself into a corner with an absolute statement. One of
your editor's favorite Linus pronouncements was issued almost exactly seven
years ago. In response to a query on how to set up an i386 box with 4GB of
memory, Linus stated:
Oh, the answer is very simple: it's not going to happen.
EVER.
You need more that 32 bits of address space to handle that kind of
memory. This is not something I'm going to discuss further... This is
not negotiable.
Less than one year later, Ingo Molnar's high memory patch was merged for 2.3.23.
===END EXCERPT---
There are a few things to keep in mind about DRM that have not been
explained in a lot of the articles.
GPLv3 allows DRM that is controlled by the user, it only negates
non-user-controlled-DRM.
non-user-controlled-DRM can take away the freedoms that the GPL is there
to protect. GPL would not be doing it's job if it didn't prohibit
non-user-controlled-DRM.
So it's worth keeping in mind that what Linus calls the GPLv3 is actually
only the first discussion draft - but also, due to point #2 above, while
changes may be made, I'd be pretty sure there will be DRM-combatting
provisions in GPLv3.
No, Tripwire and sniffers have proved insufficient. They are imprecise, and far more difficult to use than it is to read source code. Consider this: how many hundreds of thousands of people leave college each year being able to read source code? And how many of those can use sniffers to learn what data is being sent by an application what wants to keep that data secret? Very, very few.
This is the reason that these methods only find spyware in very mainstream applications: there are very few people who can and do use them.
Sniffers? It's my network? Not when the data's encrypted.
Laws have also not proved effective for stopping abuse of software users. Remember that End User License Agreement? No, of course not, but you agreed to it, and you waived your rights and you said it was ok for Apple, RealNetworks, and Microsoft to run spyware on your computer.
And when you require software developers to disclose what information is being sent, how is that audited? One European country passed such a law about website cookies, now every time you visit a commercial website from that country for the first time, you're asked if it's ok for them to store information about you so that they can provide better service to their customers, etc. etc. etc. (well, actually, most websites have ignored the law, but anyway). KaZaa's agreement said "we can use your computer as remote storage and can use your processor for stuff" - and everyone (with insignificant exceptions) agreed to it.
You cannot get around this problem by bolting piles of numerous ineffective ideas together. There has been no proposed solution that even comes close to free software.
"my code" - I don't want to do anything with your code, I just want to see what the that software I'm using is doing with my personal data, and if there's spyware I want to remove it, or contribute to an effort to have it removed. This will not affect you or any of the software on your computer.
Society having freedom may interfere with some business models, but propping up 20th century business models is not what the law is there for.
I've partly explained how society's freedom is harmed in the comment I posted above, but I'll give an example here. Apple and iTunes. It was recently discovered that iTunes contains spyware which sends your personal data to Apple. Users of iTunes have no choice of whether their data is sent, where it is sent to, or what exactly is sent. The reason is that they don't have the freedoms to study, modify, and redistribute the software. You could say "Then don't use the software" - but members of society can't and shouldn't be expected to boycot everything. If there were no law protecting workers, and workplaces were unsafe, you could say "Then don't work". That's not how societies should be made.
Areas such as labour have far more developed philosophical histories and movements. Software and the ubiquity of digital technology and networks are relatively new fields. Developing standards for liberty in these fields will take time. Right now, society has generally low expectations, and society is being exploited.
> No one is taking away anything, including freedom, by releasing software as closed source.
This is only true in isolation. When you take it on a real-world test-run, as society did in the early 80s, you end up with 99% of the world not having the freedom to study the software they're using, the freedom to help themself by using their brain to fix their own software problems, or the freedom to help or get help from others.
This was no bad luck. The problem is systematic: lack of freedom is a natural by-product of many individuals taking the proprietary approach. The proprietary approach can be profitable, but so can hitting people on the head. Neither should be part of a modern society.
> Freedom also means that you don't have to make your software "open source" or "Free" if you don't want to.
You're calling the power to take away other people's freedom, a "freedom" in itself. Rubbish. When liberty in an inalienable right for everybody, yes, the "Freedom" to own slaves will be lost. No tear shed here.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people get interested in technologies when they hear it examplained and can ask the developer - and face to face is much easier than by email.
To really get the value out of it, try to have your presentation recorded (like these from FOSDEM and other conferences). And if you really want to get picked up by search engines and be accessible to deaf users and others with particular needs, event transcripts make for greppable copies of talks and presentations.
Yes.
That joke is a big crowd pleaser among software developers. Just listen the to audio recordings of his software patents lecture from the slashdot story earlier today. But he knows when to and when not to bother.
For anyone who didn't order alphabet soup, here are the wikipedia articles on about 3G, about WIFI, about GPRS. Not sure about EDGE.
As usual, wikipedia has a great article about the iPod (and of course it has less adds than TFA.
The above should be flagged "sarcastic" for those who happen to lack such a barometer internally
No, it's true actually. A lot of businesses in Northern Ireland were poking at free software but no one wants to be first, so we're organising a big free software conference aimed at businesses. Stallman's name is a big draw. He knows it's a business audience and he'll adapt to that. He'll be including a substantial section about GPLv3, which has gotten a surprising level of interest from public administration bodies.
Interest has been huge and there were many requests for speaking slots that had to be turned down. I guess there will be a FOSS Means Business 2007 too, but one at a time. On Thursday we expect at least 300. The venue can hold up to 1150.
I think events like these, and the networking that happens at them, is more important than increasing efficiency of the software. We'll see.
There's a conference this Thursday, March 16th in Belfast called FOSS Means Business where Stallman and Perens are both doing business-orientated lectures, plus presentations by Google, Open Source Academy, and Oracle.
People trying to encourage IT decision makers to transition to free software have to learn to explain it. Bruce Perens is good at this, but as well as telling people about the value of free software, we have to tell them how to hang on to it - how to not let it slip through their fingers. That's Stallman's angle, as can be read in this transcript of his lecture on GPLv3.
Microsoft isn't top because of their software quality, and free software won't displace them purely based on quality either. We'll win for other reasons.
Not to mention the vicious freedom headlock.
Some of these were mentioned in a slashdot story about the GPLv3 presentation transcripts. The discusssion on that page has links to some other recordings.
See my comment was below about transcripts and recordings.
When Stallman was at FOSDEM recently, I recorded and made a transcript of his GPLv3 talk.
And last time he came to Dublin, Irish Free Software Organisation recorded and made a transcript of his software patents lecture.
More transcripts and recordings can be found on IFSO's transcripts/recordings page, and the GNU philosophy recordings page.
Stallman will give his rare business speech this Thursday, March 16th, at the FOSS Means Business event in Belfast, Northern Ireland. That should be recorded and made available soon afterward - if the recording goes well.
In the 60s and 70s, all software was free software. It was normal for people to pass on the source code with the binaries. In the 80s, some companies started a new proprietary approach, and they started using technical means (such as only distributing binaries) and legal means (applying copyright) to prevent people from helping themselves and each other.
I bet there was a army of people who posted to usenet with comments similar to your's. "Consumers will never accept that treatment" etc. etc. "there'll be a revolt, just you wait!"
Instead of waiting for everyone else to revolt, Stallman launched GNU - and the free software movement along with it. When freedom is at stake, sitting back and waiting for a revolt is never enough. This problem has to be tackled in every way we can. GPLv3 can't solve the DRM problem completely, but I'm glad that it will do all it can.
The threat of DRM is real, you don't have to wait for it to cuff you before you see that. GPLv3 works to prevent the scenario where DRM is widely implemented. For info from the horse's mouth, see what he said about DRM in his FOSDEM 2006 presentation.
Another group have now published other videos from FOSDEM 2006 and their collection includes Stallman's software patents speech: http://free-electrons.com/community/videos/confere nces
Stallman's thoughts on CC are explained in his blog about being on a panel with a CC lawyer.
That's only the recording of his second talk, the one on GPLv3. He also gave the opening keynote where he talked about software patents. There are other recordings of his software patents speech given at other events on the GNU project philosophy audio page, but he software patent talk at FOSDEM was particularly interesting because of his comments about EU democracy at the end. From looking at the names of the files, I don't think any of them contain his software patents speech - which is strange since the camera crew did record it.
A camera crew filmed Stallman's opening keynote about software patents, but I can't see it on that page. Is it there (under a name I failed to guess)? Or will it be available at a later time? (if so, in the same place?)
Thanks.
This question was asked in the Q&A session after Richard's presentation. Richard answered that he will consult a lawyer, and he will do everything possible to fix this, and if you have suggestions they are welcome - and in the end he might fail to find a solution within the GPLv3 to this problem.
These transcripts, and other such documents, are collected at the official GPLv3 wiki, on the Reusable texts page. And there's more info about the draft and how to participate in the public consultation at gplv3.fsf.org.
The Tivo got mentioned a few times in relation to DRM during the launch of the GPLv3 drafting process, and during the post-launch press.
Here's a transcript of the opening presentation of the GPLv3, where Richard mentions Tivo:
For instance, the Tivo is designed so that if you modify the program and install it, it won't run. We have written provisions designed to forbid that use of our software. We can't forbid people from making such devices, nasty as it is, but we can, we believe, forbid them to use GPL covered software in that corrupt way.
Actually, most flamewars are caused by Vim being much worse than Emacs.
There is a good article on LWN.net, but it's subscriber-only until Feb 9th: http://lwn.net/Articles/169797/
Here's an excerpt:
==BEGIN EXCERPT===
Another thing to keep in mind is that Linus can change his mind, even after seemingly painting himself into a corner with an absolute statement. One of your editor's favorite Linus pronouncements was issued almost exactly seven years ago. In response to a query on how to set up an i386 box with 4GB of memory, Linus stated:
Oh, the answer is very simple: it's not going to happen.
EVER.
You need more that 32 bits of address space to handle that kind of memory. This is not something I'm going to discuss further... This is not negotiable.
Less than one year later, Ingo Molnar's high memory patch was merged for 2.3.23.
===END EXCERPT---
There are a few things to keep in mind about DRM that have not been explained in a lot of the articles.
This was debated on ILUG yesterday. Here's the mail that started it: http://www.linux.ie/lists/pipermail/ilug/2006-Febr uary/086087.html
So it's worth keeping in mind that what Linus calls the GPLv3 is actually only the first discussion draft - but also, due to point #2 above, while changes may be made, I'd be pretty sure there will be DRM-combatting provisions in GPLv3.
No, Tripwire and sniffers have proved insufficient. They are imprecise, and far more difficult to use than it is to read source code. Consider this: how many hundreds of thousands of people leave college each year being able to read source code? And how many of those can use sniffers to learn what data is being sent by an application what wants to keep that data secret? Very, very few.
This is the reason that these methods only find spyware in very mainstream applications: there are very few people who can and do use them.
Sniffers? It's my network? Not when the data's encrypted.
Laws have also not proved effective for stopping abuse of software users. Remember that End User License Agreement? No, of course not, but you agreed to it, and you waived your rights and you said it was ok for Apple, RealNetworks, and Microsoft to run spyware on your computer.
And when you require software developers to disclose what information is being sent, how is that audited? One European country passed such a law about website cookies, now every time you visit a commercial website from that country for the first time, you're asked if it's ok for them to store information about you so that they can provide better service to their customers, etc. etc. etc. (well, actually, most websites have ignored the law, but anyway). KaZaa's agreement said "we can use your computer as remote storage and can use your processor for stuff" - and everyone (with insignificant exceptions) agreed to it.
You cannot get around this problem by bolting piles of numerous ineffective ideas together. There has been no proposed solution that even comes close to free software.
"my code" - I don't want to do anything with your code, I just want to see what the that software I'm using is doing with my personal data, and if there's spyware I want to remove it, or contribute to an effort to have it removed. This will not affect you or any of the software on your computer.
Society having freedom may interfere with some business models, but propping up 20th century business models is not what the law is there for.
I've partly explained how society's freedom is harmed in the comment I posted above, but I'll give an example here. Apple and iTunes. It was recently discovered that iTunes contains spyware which sends your personal data to Apple. Users of iTunes have no choice of whether their data is sent, where it is sent to, or what exactly is sent. The reason is that they don't have the freedoms to study, modify, and redistribute the software. You could say "Then don't use the software" - but members of society can't and shouldn't be expected to boycot everything. If there were no law protecting workers, and workplaces were unsafe, you could say "Then don't work". That's not how societies should be made.
Areas such as labour have far more developed philosophical histories and movements. Software and the ubiquity of digital technology and networks are relatively new fields. Developing standards for liberty in these fields will take time. Right now, society has generally low expectations, and society is being exploited.
> No one is taking away anything, including freedom, by releasing software as closed source.
This is only true in isolation. When you take it on a real-world test-run, as society did in the early 80s, you end up with 99% of the world not having the freedom to study the software they're using, the freedom to help themself by using their brain to fix their own software problems, or the freedom to help or get help from others.
This was no bad luck. The problem is systematic: lack of freedom is a natural by-product of many individuals taking the proprietary approach. The proprietary approach can be profitable, but so can hitting people on the head. Neither should be part of a modern society.
> Freedom also means that you don't have to make your software "open source" or "Free" if you don't want to.
You're calling the power to take away other people's freedom, a "freedom" in itself. Rubbish. When liberty in an inalienable right for everybody, yes, the "Freedom" to own slaves will be lost. No tear shed here.