He's thinking about the near future, where most interesting new hardware would have a chain of trust that requires you to have secret keys to get your programs to run on it, and you will never get those secret keys.
You modify that source code to your heart's content, suckers, because it's written against this prison platform (and it's probably not really useful anywhere else) and if you change it, it won't load.
WTF is the point of the GPL then? Where is the freedom?
Leaving aside the fact that DRM itself is nonsense (it is), impossible (it is), and inherently repugnant and evil (it is), DRM is directly incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, that's all.
The GPL itself has a "no secret sauce" provision. You're not really staying free if you can keep to yourself some secret that the code actually needs to work. This is just formally and explicitly extending the same line of reasoning for the most likely way it's being violated.
I really can't understand why people don't get this. The corporate world on a whim thinks it might be more profitable to take away all your freedom to tinker. They're probably not even right about that.
You just all roll over? Sure, I'll help. No, I don't need to get paid.
RMS is saying, look, this is bad shit, and I want no part of building this prison. Anyone who feels like I do, here's a license you can use. Don't be a sucker.
Linus doesn't want to use it, fine. I think he's an idiot for not getting it, but no one is being "pressed." We're all free to do what we want. Stallman can't press anybody. And that's the point. he's fighting so that you can't be "pressed" by others.
"Pressing." LOL! All this hate against RMS and the FSF is so barbarous, and so sadly ironic, frankly...
Not really apropos of this guy or anything covered under NDAs, but yeah, I know what you mean. Even outside the games business itself I've been in really excruciating positions, working for big companies whose policies I despised, for instance.
I usually cope through a combination of anonymity, discretion, and just talking and daring them to do something. There have been a few times (not in the game industry, but with other big corporations) where I basically wanted to get fired for my opinion, and ended up almost trying to do it, but didn't succeed. It all depends on how provocative you are, and how "important" you are at a given time. I probably burned a bridge or two that way. But that's a bit different from what you're talking about.
It's sickening that there's a sense of entitlement to your "loyalty" in some businesses... that there's even a figment on the part of some execs and managers that they own your speech and behavior outside the office. In a way it's a bigger question. In a communist country your loyalty is required by the state. In a capitalist country, it's demanded by the corporation, or more basically, by the dollar. You're usually employed "at will," so your freedom in anything is determined by how much you need the job, and how much the job needs you.
The only reason it's not unlivable is that bosses usually do the decent thing and have some respect. Part of the reason for that, too, is that we all just keep talking, respectfully, honestly, and intelligently, and basically daring them, together... If the law won't protect us, then there's a thin cultural last line of defense - strength in numbers.
Heh. The guy is funny. But notice, I said "this is a 3D artist who obviously doesn't understand...
In other words, I don't think all 3D artists would be unqualified to comment, as this question seems to imply. Just this particular 3D artist. It's more likely you'd get some more informed commentary from a developer or a hardware engineer, and the fact that he's not already should color your expectations a little from the outset, but... let me put it this way:
I've worked with a lot of 3D artists, and it's a tough goddamn job, a really unique blend of skills go into doing it well... some of these guys were totally capable of doing software development, understood most of it already just from being around it, but just enjoyed making art more. Hey, perhaps I would too, if I had their skill...
For that matter I've known a lot of artists even outside 3D who also brought really strong engineering aptitude but just didn't enjoy doing that part of the job. Understanding both sides made them invaluable to work with.
I've worked in the industry. Yeah, you would definitely get fired for that. No question.
There isn't really that much of a "gray area." They give you an NDA that basically just says "SHUT THE FUCK UP." And usually when they give it to you, they narrate that bit for you too. You really aren't supposed to talk about anything to do with the job, ever, ever.
There are few things in the business more secrecy intensive than a platform launch like this.
The guy is a big idiot for thinking he could write this and keep his job, without doing a damn good job of remaining anonymous. For that matter, he's just kind of uninformed; this is a 3D artist who obviously doesn't understand much about the hardware or the engines or the development cycle of either, in general....
Again, I was trying to sound extreme, as I thought you were doing.
I think this a moment for extremity. What we do now sets the tone. Not only human rights and founding principles are at stake, but a basic first-world respect for the law. If this all gets swept under the rug, then this just became a very different country than millions of people fought and died for.
Doesn't it look like you are doing the same thing? You seem to think that all opposition to your idea are Conservatives or Libertarians, presumably supporting all that Bush and Cheney do, and making all Conservatives and Libertarians the enemies of our constitutional liberties.
No, no, my comments are directed at Conservatives who have contradictory and ridiculous ideas, often quite vehemently held forth upon. Not really Libertarians at all. It's harder to pin down what that label means in my experience, but most of my Libertarian friends seem perfectly happy dismantling the FBI as well as the IRS. This is at least consistent, and you can at least have a discussion about it.
I'm afraid ultimately polarization is just a symptom of a general decay. A crumbling educational system, a sense of apathy and entitlement, a profound ignorance of basic facts and rhetorical techniques... problems which feed back into and accellerate each other. We are rejoining the 3rd world, unless we turn it around.
Why is it that so many liberals are willing to completely and lovingly give up their own and others immediate right to enjoy their rights of property (taxes),
A fair enough question.
The answer is, the last several hundred years.
You see, the reason taxes and other forms of collective enterprise and wealth redistribution were written into the constitution, but searches without a warrant and imprisonment without trial were not, is that human beings were basically fucking miserable living in the kind of world Libertarians want to go back to.
I do notice your language seems a little more Libertarian than Conservative. Conservatives want taxes every bit as much as Liberals do. They just want different amounts, and they have different priorities. Missile shields, for instance, or religious education.
I don't want to dismiss this point too casually - you seem like a smart guy and I would certainly enjoy indulging you in a discussion of the finer points of this. But let's not get bogged down just yet.
but fly off the handle when there is any kind of perception of obscure rights-trampling, even in time of war?
So I take it, demanding we obey the constitution is... flying off the handle?
Presidents breaking their oath of office and breaking black-letter law to spy on Americans... "obscure" rights trampling?
You have quite a patriotic gift for language, I must say.
Let me put it this way. You appear to believe the fallacy that you can break these fundamental parts of the law "just for terrorists."
That's absurd, it's juvenile, and frankly, I sense from your genearlly intelligent response that it's beneath you to suggest it.
The worst part is, you know at the outset that you are wrong. If a president wanted to spy on terrorists, then he should have no problem getting it cleared with FISA. He didn't, and you know perfectly well why.
Anyone who has read any history, let alone American history, knows why. Unchecked power is always abused. It's like gravity or the weather. It has always been that way, and it will always be that way.
And this is why it is especially painful to hear Conservatives (who speak about it so much I'd suggest anyone can understand it by now) be so distrustful of the government to run an elementary school, something they did for years, and notably well at one time, but with arm extended in salute, loyally surrender their rights to the FBI, which consistently abused its power for years, getting involved in politics and crime from days gone by, rather notoriously up to the civil rights movement, to Watergate to the day we passed the laws Bush is breaking, and ended it.
Ended it until now, that is.
In your example, you berade the conservatives for mistrusting the government in one way, but not another, when you mistrust the government in one way, but not another.
But this is exactly wrong. I mistrust the government both ways, and you do not.
I am very much skeptical of the government's abilities no matter what it is trying to do. I understand its limitations very well - something your labelling me as "Liberal" seems designed to confuse and obscure. I have no boundless trust in its abilities and desire it to considerably smaller than it is, perhaps almost as small as you do. I am realistic about it, though. You need it, it's important.
This is why I am a firm believer in transparency, checks and balances such as a strong and independent judiciary, a well-educated electorate, a free press... you know, the Bill of Rights. American sorts of things.
Unlike Bush, and do I gather, unlike you?
You would trample (by degrees) the rights of all to their property, while protecting the rights of some (the suspected terrorists) to their due process.
Here I really must congratulate you. You've demonstrated an excellent grasp of Karl Rove's basic theory of American politics.
a) make all opposition Liberals, who are presumably all the same
Actually we do agree - i would say the court is a third party.
The court is not just any third-party.
Courts don't always rule the way we think is right. Results can easily depend on who has most money, for one.
I grant you that, certainly. But don't forget, that this entire exercise is producing a legal document. We are already starting with hefty assumptions about the degree to which courts work.
Where we seem to be is that this licence says that under some circumstances you may have to hand over your signing keys, those circumstances left deliberately vague to be decided by court.
It seems clear enough to me, but...
If the licence said "you are not required to release private keys you have used to sign the work for verification of origin purposes" then that might be ok.
Of course not. Have you been hibernating while "tax and spend liberal" became the watchwords of the right? Do you deny that reducing government, due to distrust for it fulfil its basic duties, is a central tenet of Conservatism?
Do you think it matters to the argument if some of their politicians don't follow their own supposed guiding principles? My point is, those principles are well articulated, and are totally contradictory and hypocritical.
Does it bother you when a party spends years propagandizing with some concept, and then when they change their minds, wish everyone to pretend that they had never been so inconveniently inconsistent?
Conservatives neither support free speech, nor oppose gun control.
This is kind of my point, actually. Conservatives support free speech when Clear Channel or Fox News are threatened with things like the Fairness Doctrine, but are against it when nipples slip out.
Americans probably take a rather balanced view on the matter of gun control. But in the political dialectic in the USA, Conservatives take the role of liberalizing gun laws as opposed to Liberals, who take the role of strengthening them. This is why, for instance, Bush's DOJ produced a document explicitly claiming that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, a highly contentious and even "novel" position (though one that I agree with personally).
During this dialectic while defending gun ownership or the right of Rupert Murdoch to propagandize on TV, a Conservative will consider themselves to be some kind of haughty Constitutional scholar, while 5 minutes later they will pick up the paper, discover that the 4th Amendment has evaporated, and smile and nod, as if it all makes sense.
They have been fooled into thinking that taking instructions from the talking box is the same as actually understanding what it is to understand the Constitution. Or for that matter, understanding what it means to be an American, or to respect or defend our freedom, or meet their responsibilities as a citizen.
The people who oppose censorship, gun control, the warfare state, etc., are libertarians. They often get called "right wing" by the left, but they also get called "Communists" or "left wing" by the right.
I'm not a Leftist, which is a mistake a lot of people from the Right make. But I'll add that Conservatism as a movement attempts heartily to appeal to highly contradictory groups, and has in a large part succeeded in doing so for many years despite the apparent necessity of collision. Libertarians get to pretend the government will shrink, while Fundamentalists get to pretend their church can take over the government, and everybody votes for Bush. For some reason neither worries much about the other. It does seem rather bizarre, I admit. But it is counter-productive to distract from the Contradictions in the Conservative platform by pointing out the rather obvious fact that politicians don't follow their own codes. This is about what many Conservatives, regardless of their background or where they come to it from, actually believe - not about what they get for it.
Seriously, why is it that so many conservatives don't trust that stupid, evil, wasteful government to run a social program (just give me my taxes back!), but trust them completely and lovingly to tap your phone or imprison you without trial?
Why are so many patriots so happy to violate the constitution? You can't burn a flag, but you can listen on my phone calls without due process? Why is everyone a constitutional scholar when it comes to guns or free speech, but starts whistling and looking uncomfortable when it's comes to due process?
Is the world some delicate and beautiful flower that will be crushed by our founding father's foolish "bill of rights?" Are times all that different?
Has everyone forgotten why we have these laws? We saw the consequences of not having them not that long ago. Most people who saw the civil rights movement and Watergate are still alive today. Collective amnesia?
What kind of patriot are you, if want the ten commandments in a courthouse, but not the constitution?
How do you not call yourself a hypocrite, when you impeach a man for lying about his affair, but not a man who admits to violate his oath of office, and the law of the land, and declares he will keep right on doing it?
FISA hardly ever said no. There's only one reason why they would want to hide their spying from FISA... "terrorists" now include their political enemies.
They basically got everything they wanted in FISA, which is already a very creepy process in many respects from a civil rights point of view. It's a secret court where already many questionable things could be swept under the rug.
There is no reason at all not to even go through FISA... unless they want to do something truly immoral and illegal.
This is a heads up to anyone paying attention that Bush's people are off the reservation, and are spying on peolpe other than terrorists - or that their definition of "terrorist" is becoming something that would surprise you.
And anyone who does not believe politicians (even their favorites) capable of doing something wrong when left unsupervised should have both their head (if you're that gullible, stay in your home where it's safe, and don't answer the door) and their American citizenship (we have a country where checks and balances are the law of the land, period), examined.
That's the whole point. Tomorrow, who knows. So these guys are basically drawing a line in the sand and saying, hey, free software developers, if you want no part of a tomorrow like that, come with us. Let them at least pay you a salary if they want you to build your own shackles.
The point is that Linus doesn't make your PC, ergo he is not in control of whether or not his private keys are necessary. Anyone with access to his _public_ key can implement the requirement that code be signed with his _private_ key. If Linus distributed a signed kernel, TIVO could require _his_ signature, then, if you want to modify the code running on your TIVO, Linus has to give up his keys.
I hate to say it, but I don't understand your reasoning at all. Linus doesn't need to make a PC, and it has nothing to do with it. If you write code that works in lots of places and I make a system that's compatible but happens to require your key to work, my system is not the primary intended context. End of story.
"recommended context of use". So who defines that?
The court does, by looking at the facts. In theory, a PC-focused Linux can be easily distinguished from a Tivo-specific image or a router firmware. In practice, it may be another matter, but on the other hand, we rely on the courts to solve far more complex questions of fact and intent every day.
Two choices: author/distributor defines it, or third party / outside events.
So, I don't really agree with this view of it.
So basically I can't see how you can throw out DRM/TCPA without also throwing out other beneficial uses of code signing.
I hope this helps clarify my idea of this a little bit. The license could lay out a particular fixed process for determining the primary context, but they deliberately do not. The result? Is a developer going to sue Linus saying "I want your signing keys?" It'll be laughed out of court. The court is smart enough to understand the distinction - it has to be, since it solves bigger problems all day. If it's not, it doesn't function at all anyway.
But, on the other hand, when someone sues Tivo saying, look, you used my free software in your non-free platform: follow my license and give up the keys so we can modify it, or get rid of my free code and pay someone to write your own jail-ware.... that may succeed.
You're just not paying attention. You haven't understood my arguments, which are that there's reasons why the FSF would ask, that it was caddish of them to do so, that it's fine that Linus refused, that it's exactly the same between BSD Lite (or anyone else) and the FSF; because it's free software no one has to do anything, and none of that has anything in the world to do with Tyranny, unless you're some kind of nut.
For that matter, you haven't made any sensible arguments of your own...
LOL. If you think that's Tyranny, then you're a loon.
But if people insist on wildly misunderstanding you and then consider you a tyrant (and "hammering") when you won't agree to their error, then maybe I can see how these things get started.
This is a nonsense interpretation. It's completely ridiculous. There's no way the FSF intended that.
The fact that you _could_ use the unsigned releases elsewhere is irrelevant [or else TIVO could say that you _could_ run their source unsigned elsewhere].
I don't think so. I think Tivo-specific-Linux has a recommended context of use of... the Tivo only. I think Linux in general does not. That's one reason Tivo would be forced to give up their secret codes while Linus would not. Very simply, Linus's private keys are not "necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work" on my PC.
On the PC, it is precisely optional.
They know the PC is in its twilight and black boxes like xbox360 and ps3 (and their many descendents to come) are on the ascendant. So they're putting out a call; if you care, protect your work from benefitting the people that are trying to make this ugly prison.
The distinction is quite clear to me. Still... since we are disagreeing, and the confusion is apparently common to the highest levels, I do grant you this attempt at making DRM with GPL code difficult has created enough confusion among us that it needs to be clarified, and if it can't work, it should go. But I don't think it's a bad idea in principle, nor do I see the effort as clearly impossible from the outset.
Obviously no one is required to adopt GPLv3 and I really don't care if Linux doesn't - that's their business.
I'm still glad the FSF is trying to do this work. It's a valuable service and plenty of people will come along with them.
My point is that the BSD guys or whoever FSF drew from along the way could claim credit or not. FSF could refuse them or not. It's all free software so nobody is required to do anything, and I wouldn't bother about it, let alone call it "Tyranny" which is just insane, frankly.
I think the idea is to prevent people from using GPLv3 code in devices that require the code to work (i.e. Tivo). In a PC it's simply not an issue. Nor does it matter if we create a large infrastructure where Linus signs his releases and we write software that rejects unsigned releases, since using the software is not a requirement.
I think it also applies if the GPLv3 code produces restricted content for purposes of DRM. I think they're saying whatever obfuscation the GPLv3 code performs must also be reversible for any user, so GPLv3 code that encrypts must provide the decryption key as well. That would make it impossible to create a DRM platform or tools with GPLv3, and it would in no way require Linus to release his signing keys...
Do you think everyone in the world could have collaborated on a big project like this without a free compiler and free libraries that everyone could use?
No, another compiler would have shut off a lot of people on other platforms or who couldn't afford it... The project wouldn't have gotten to where it is today without gcc or something else like it that was free and open and highly portable.
And I don't see where all the userspace stuff was going to come from if not the FSF guys... or how the kernel would have been very useful without it.
I haven't heard about BSD lite before, but obviously the FSF guys bootstrapped off it some other similar thing. Not news.
My point is that the BSD guys or whoever FSF drew from along the way could claim credit or not. FSF could refuse them or not. It's all free software so nobody is required to do anything, and I wouldn't bother about it, let alone call it "Tyranny" which is just insane, frankly.
I know all about it. Why it's called Tyranny I have no idea.
The guy never said we were required to call it anything. He just had an opinion that's what it should be called. It had to be a little frustrating for him, since the kernel couldn't exist without the compiler and libraries FSF did, but Linus got most of the glory in the press... While I think advocating for a name change the way he did was caddish, I also think the gesture succeeded in what it was designed to do: raise awareness of the role of freedom (versus openness) in the community, and raise awareness of the FSF's contribution, and importance, in a media that was celebretizing Linus at the expense of other major contributors to "Linux" (the O.S., not the kernel).
OK, I guess I see where the confusion comes from, but it still seems just like confusion. How on earth could this clause require Linus to release his private keys? There is no DRM in linux. No encryption or authorization codes are required to install and/or execute the work, and no decryption codes are necessary to access or unseal... you get the idea.
And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available, for example. I wouldn't do it.
Private signing keys? I must have missed that in the GPLv3 discussion so far. What on earth is he talking about?
Anyone who'se ever done engineering in a group becomes rapidly familiar with the lack of a line between the social and objective dimensions of problem solving.
Someone makes a mistake, and they feel they need to defend it even though mistakes are an inevitable part of the process and everyone makes them, no matter how ingenious. Someone thinks of a plan, or their friend does, and they feel they need to defend it and advocate it even if they see a better plan, just because we are not only solving a problem, but constantly acting out our instinctive human drama in everything we do.
Political parties and movements and religions especially leverage this trait of human behavior extensively.
Orwell made his career writing about the phenomenon. Doublethink is a popular phrase these days, but many people are still surprised to learn the central concept underpinning it: that people can fervently believe something they know not to be true. They can actually do the work of cleaning up the broken glass while demanding you apologize for suggesting the window is broken... and they can earnestly believe it.
This leads to another great Orwell quote - a prediction of the future: "Imagine a boot stepping on a human face, forever."
Slashdot Mirror
Not.
He's thinking about the near future, where most interesting new hardware would have a chain of trust that requires you to have secret keys to get your programs to run on it, and you will never get those secret keys.
You modify that source code to your heart's content, suckers, because it's written against this prison platform (and it's probably not really useful anywhere else) and if you change it, it won't load.
WTF is the point of the GPL then? Where is the freedom?
Leaving aside the fact that DRM itself is nonsense (it is), impossible (it is), and inherently repugnant and evil (it is), DRM is directly incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, that's all.
The GPL itself has a "no secret sauce" provision. You're not really staying free if you can keep to yourself some secret that the code actually needs to work. This is just formally and explicitly extending the same line of reasoning for the most likely way it's being violated.
I really can't understand why people don't get this. The corporate world on a whim thinks it might be more profitable to take away all your freedom to tinker. They're probably not even right about that.
You just all roll over? Sure, I'll help. No, I don't need to get paid.
RMS is saying, look, this is bad shit, and I want no part of building this prison. Anyone who feels like I do, here's a license you can use. Don't be a sucker.
Linus doesn't want to use it, fine. I think he's an idiot for not getting it, but no one is being "pressed." We're all free to do what we want. Stallman can't press anybody. And that's the point. he's fighting so that you can't be "pressed" by others.
"Pressing." LOL! All this hate against RMS and the FSF is so barbarous, and so sadly ironic, frankly...
Not really apropos of this guy or anything covered under NDAs, but yeah, I know what you mean. Even outside the games business itself I've been in really excruciating positions, working for big companies whose policies I despised, for instance.
I usually cope through a combination of anonymity, discretion, and just talking and daring them to do something. There have been a few times (not in the game industry, but with other big corporations) where I basically wanted to get fired for my opinion, and ended up almost trying to do it, but didn't succeed. It all depends on how provocative you are, and how "important" you are at a given time. I probably burned a bridge or two that way. But that's a bit different from what you're talking about.
It's sickening that there's a sense of entitlement to your "loyalty" in some businesses... that there's even a figment on the part of some execs and managers that they own your speech and behavior outside the office. In a way it's a bigger question. In a communist country your loyalty is required by the state. In a capitalist country, it's demanded by the corporation, or more basically, by the dollar. You're usually employed "at will," so your freedom in anything is determined by how much you need the job, and how much the job needs you.
The only reason it's not unlivable is that bosses usually do the decent thing and have some respect. Part of the reason for that, too, is that we all just keep talking, respectfully, honestly, and intelligently, and basically daring them, together... If the law won't protect us, then there's a thin cultural last line of defense - strength in numbers.
Heh. The guy is funny. But notice, I said "this is a 3D artist who obviously doesn't understand...
In other words, I don't think all 3D artists would be unqualified to comment, as this question seems to imply. Just this particular 3D artist. It's more likely you'd get some more informed commentary from a developer or a hardware engineer, and the fact that he's not already should color your expectations a little from the outset, but... let me put it this way:
I've worked with a lot of 3D artists, and it's a tough goddamn job, a really unique blend of skills go into doing it well... some of these guys were totally capable of doing software development, understood most of it already just from being around it, but just enjoyed making art more. Hey, perhaps I would too, if I had their skill...
For that matter I've known a lot of artists even outside 3D who also brought really strong engineering aptitude but just didn't enjoy doing that part of the job. Understanding both sides made them invaluable to work with.
I've worked in the industry. Yeah, you would definitely get fired for that. No question.
There isn't really that much of a "gray area." They give you an NDA that basically just says "SHUT THE FUCK UP." And usually when they give it to you, they narrate that bit for you too. You really aren't supposed to talk about anything to do with the job, ever, ever.
There are few things in the business more secrecy intensive than a platform launch like this.
The guy is a big idiot for thinking he could write this and keep his job, without doing a damn good job of remaining anonymous. For that matter, he's just kind of uninformed; this is a 3D artist who obviously doesn't understand much about the hardware or the engines or the development cycle of either, in general....
OK, you got your 15 seconds of fame. Bye.
Again, I was trying to sound extreme, as I thought you were doing.
I think this a moment for extremity. What we do now sets the tone. Not only human rights and founding principles are at stake, but a basic first-world respect for the law. If this all gets swept under the rug, then this just became a very different country than millions of people fought and died for.
Doesn't it look like you are doing the same thing? You seem to think that all opposition to your idea are Conservatives or Libertarians, presumably supporting all that Bush and Cheney do, and making all Conservatives and Libertarians the enemies of our constitutional liberties.
No, no, my comments are directed at Conservatives who have contradictory and ridiculous ideas, often quite vehemently held forth upon. Not really Libertarians at all. It's harder to pin down what that label means in my experience, but most of my Libertarian friends seem perfectly happy dismantling the FBI as well as the IRS. This is at least consistent, and you can at least have a discussion about it.
I'm afraid ultimately polarization is just a symptom of a general decay. A crumbling educational system, a sense of apathy and entitlement, a profound ignorance of basic facts and rhetorical techniques... problems which feed back into and accellerate each other. We are rejoining the 3rd world, unless we turn it around.
Why is it that so many liberals are willing to completely and lovingly give up their own and others immediate right to enjoy their rights of property (taxes),
A fair enough question.
The answer is, the last several hundred years.
You see, the reason taxes and other forms of collective enterprise and wealth redistribution were written into the constitution, but searches without a warrant and imprisonment without trial were not, is that human beings were basically fucking miserable living in the kind of world Libertarians want to go back to.
I do notice your language seems a little more Libertarian than Conservative. Conservatives want taxes every bit as much as Liberals do. They just want different amounts, and they have different priorities. Missile shields, for instance, or religious education.
I don't want to dismiss this point too casually - you seem like a smart guy and I would certainly enjoy indulging you in a discussion of the finer points of this. But let's not get bogged down just yet.
but fly off the handle when there is any kind of perception of obscure rights-trampling, even in time of war?
So I take it, demanding we obey the constitution is... flying off the handle?
Presidents breaking their oath of office and breaking black-letter law to spy on Americans... "obscure" rights trampling?
You have quite a patriotic gift for language, I must say.
Let me put it this way. You appear to believe the fallacy that you can break these fundamental parts of the law "just for terrorists."
That's absurd, it's juvenile, and frankly, I sense from your genearlly intelligent response that it's beneath you to suggest it.
The worst part is, you know at the outset that you are wrong. If a president wanted to spy on terrorists, then he should have no problem getting it cleared with FISA. He didn't, and you know perfectly well why.
Anyone who has read any history, let alone American history, knows why. Unchecked power is always abused. It's like gravity or the weather. It has always been that way, and it will always be that way.
And this is why it is especially painful to hear Conservatives (who speak about it so much I'd suggest anyone can understand it by now) be so distrustful of the government to run an elementary school, something they did for years, and notably well at one time, but with arm extended in salute, loyally surrender their rights to the FBI, which consistently abused its power for years, getting involved in politics and crime from days gone by, rather notoriously up to the civil rights movement, to Watergate to the day we passed the laws Bush is breaking, and ended it.
Ended it until now, that is.
In your example, you berade the conservatives for mistrusting the government in one way, but not another, when you mistrust the government in one way, but not another.
But this is exactly wrong. I mistrust the government both ways, and you do not.
I am very much skeptical of the government's abilities no matter what it is trying to do. I understand its limitations very well - something your labelling me as "Liberal" seems designed to confuse and obscure. I have no boundless trust in its abilities and desire it to considerably smaller than it is, perhaps almost as small as you do. I am realistic about it, though. You need it, it's important.
This is why I am a firm believer in transparency, checks and balances such as a strong and independent judiciary, a well-educated electorate, a free press... you know, the Bill of Rights. American sorts of things.
Unlike Bush, and do I gather, unlike you?
You would trample (by degrees) the rights of all to their property, while protecting the rights of some (the suspected terrorists) to their due process.
Here I really must congratulate you. You've demonstrated an excellent grasp of Karl Rove's basic theory of American politics.
a) make all opposition Liberals, who are presumably all the same
Actually we do agree - i would say the court is a third party.
The court is not just any third-party.
Courts don't always rule the way we think is right. Results can easily depend on who has most money, for one.
I grant you that, certainly. But don't forget, that this entire exercise is producing a legal document. We are already starting with hefty assumptions about the degree to which courts work.
Where we seem to be is that this licence says that under some circumstances you may have to hand over your signing keys, those circumstances left deliberately vague to be decided by court.
It seems clear enough to me, but...
If the licence said "you are not required to release private keys you have used to sign the work for verification of origin purposes" then that might be ok.
Now that's a really good idea.
Haha! Go for it.
That is a straw man arguement.
Of course not. Have you been hibernating while "tax and spend liberal" became the watchwords of the right? Do you deny that reducing government, due to distrust for it fulfil its basic duties, is a central tenet of Conservatism?
Do you think it matters to the argument if some of their politicians don't follow their own supposed guiding principles? My point is, those principles are well articulated, and are totally contradictory and hypocritical.
Does it bother you when a party spends years propagandizing with some concept, and then when they change their minds, wish everyone to pretend that they had never been so inconveniently inconsistent?
Conservatives neither support free speech, nor oppose gun control.
This is kind of my point, actually. Conservatives support free speech when Clear Channel or Fox News are threatened with things like the Fairness Doctrine, but are against it when nipples slip out.
Americans probably take a rather balanced view on the matter of gun control. But in the political dialectic in the USA, Conservatives take the role of liberalizing gun laws as opposed to Liberals, who take the role of strengthening them. This is why, for instance, Bush's DOJ produced a document explicitly claiming that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, a highly contentious and even "novel" position (though one that I agree with personally).
During this dialectic while defending gun ownership or the right of Rupert Murdoch to propagandize on TV, a Conservative will consider themselves to be some kind of haughty Constitutional scholar, while 5 minutes later they will pick up the paper, discover that the 4th Amendment has evaporated, and smile and nod, as if it all makes sense.
They have been fooled into thinking that taking instructions from the talking box is the same as actually understanding what it is to understand the Constitution. Or for that matter, understanding what it means to be an American, or to respect or defend our freedom, or meet their responsibilities as a citizen.
The people who oppose censorship, gun control, the warfare state, etc., are libertarians. They often get called "right wing" by the left, but they also get called "Communists" or "left wing" by the right.
I'm not a Leftist, which is a mistake a lot of people from the Right make. But I'll add that Conservatism as a movement attempts heartily to appeal to highly contradictory groups, and has in a large part succeeded in doing so for many years despite the apparent necessity of collision. Libertarians get to pretend the government will shrink, while Fundamentalists get to pretend their church can take over the government, and everybody votes for Bush. For some reason neither worries much about the other. It does seem rather bizarre, I admit. But it is counter-productive to distract from the Contradictions in the Conservative platform by pointing out the rather obvious fact that politicians don't follow their own codes. This is about what many Conservatives, regardless of their background or where they come to it from, actually believe - not about what they get for it.
Seriously, why is it that so many conservatives don't trust that stupid, evil, wasteful government to run a social program (just give me my taxes back!), but trust them completely and lovingly to tap your phone or imprison you without trial?
Why are so many patriots so happy to violate the constitution? You can't burn a flag, but you can listen on my phone calls without due process? Why is everyone a constitutional scholar when it comes to guns or free speech, but starts whistling and looking uncomfortable when it's comes to due process?
Is the world some delicate and beautiful flower that will be crushed by our founding father's foolish "bill of rights?" Are times all that different?
Has everyone forgotten why we have these laws? We saw the consequences of not having them not that long ago. Most people who saw the civil rights movement and Watergate are still alive today. Collective amnesia?
What kind of patriot are you, if want the ten commandments in a courthouse, but not the constitution?
How do you not call yourself a hypocrite, when you impeach a man for lying about his affair, but not a man who admits to violate his oath of office, and the law of the land, and declares he will keep right on doing it?
FISA hardly ever said no. There's only one reason why they would want to hide their spying from FISA... "terrorists" now include their political enemies.
They basically got everything they wanted in FISA, which is already a very creepy process in many respects from a civil rights point of view. It's a secret court where already many questionable things could be swept under the rug.
There is no reason at all not to even go through FISA... unless they want to do something truly immoral and illegal.
This is a heads up to anyone paying attention that Bush's people are off the reservation, and are spying on peolpe other than terrorists - or that their definition of "terrorist" is becoming something that would surprise you.
And anyone who does not believe politicians (even their favorites) capable of doing something wrong when left unsupervised should have both their head (if you're that gullible, stay in your home where it's safe, and don't answer the door) and their American citizenship (we have a country where checks and balances are the law of the land, period), examined.
Tomorrow ? Who knows.
That's the whole point. Tomorrow, who knows. So these guys are basically drawing a line in the sand and saying, hey, free software developers, if you want no part of a tomorrow like that, come with us. Let them at least pay you a salary if they want you to build your own shackles.
The point is that Linus doesn't make your PC, ergo he is not in control of whether or not his private keys are necessary. Anyone with access to his _public_ key can implement the requirement that code be signed with his _private_ key. If Linus distributed a signed kernel, TIVO could require _his_ signature, then, if you want to modify the code running on your TIVO, Linus has to give up his keys.
I hate to say it, but I don't understand your reasoning at all. Linus doesn't need to make a PC, and it has nothing to do with it. If you write code that works in lots of places and I make a system that's compatible but happens to require your key to work, my system is not the primary intended context. End of story.
"recommended context of use". So who defines that?
The court does, by looking at the facts. In theory, a PC-focused Linux can be easily distinguished from a Tivo-specific image or a router firmware. In practice, it may be another matter, but on the other hand, we rely on the courts to solve far more complex questions of fact and intent every day.
Two choices: author/distributor defines it, or third party / outside events.
So, I don't really agree with this view of it.
So basically I can't see how you can throw out DRM/TCPA without also throwing out other beneficial uses of code signing.
I hope this helps clarify my idea of this a little bit. The license could lay out a particular fixed process for determining the primary context, but they deliberately do not. The result? Is a developer going to sue Linus saying "I want your signing keys?" It'll be laughed out of court. The court is smart enough to understand the distinction - it has to be, since it solves bigger problems all day. If it's not, it doesn't function at all anyway.
But, on the other hand, when someone sues Tivo saying, look, you used my free software in your non-free platform: follow my license and give up the keys so we can modify it, or get rid of my free code and pay someone to write your own jail-ware.... that may succeed.
You're just not paying attention. You haven't understood my arguments, which are that there's reasons why the FSF would ask, that it was caddish of them to do so, that it's fine that Linus refused, that it's exactly the same between BSD Lite (or anyone else) and the FSF; because it's free software no one has to do anything, and none of that has anything in the world to do with Tyranny, unless you're some kind of nut.
For that matter, you haven't made any sensible arguments of your own...
LOL. If you think that's Tyranny, then you're a loon.
But if people insist on wildly misunderstanding you and then consider you a tyrant (and "hammering") when you won't agree to their error, then maybe I can see how these things get started.
This is a nonsense interpretation. It's completely ridiculous. There's no way the FSF intended that.
The fact that you _could_ use the unsigned releases elsewhere is irrelevant [or else TIVO could say that you _could_ run their source unsigned elsewhere].
I don't think so. I think Tivo-specific-Linux has a recommended context of use of... the Tivo only. I think Linux in general does not. That's one reason Tivo would be forced to give up their secret codes while Linus would not. Very simply, Linus's private keys are not "necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work" on my PC.
On the PC, it is precisely optional.
They know the PC is in its twilight and black boxes like xbox360 and ps3 (and their many descendents to come) are on the ascendant. So they're putting out a call; if you care, protect your work from benefitting the people that are trying to make this ugly prison.
The distinction is quite clear to me. Still... since we are disagreeing, and the confusion is apparently common to the highest levels, I do grant you this attempt at making DRM with GPL code difficult has created enough confusion among us that it needs to be clarified, and if it can't work, it should go. But I don't think it's a bad idea in principle, nor do I see the effort as clearly impossible from the outset.
Obviously no one is required to adopt GPLv3 and I really don't care if Linux doesn't - that's their business.
I'm still glad the FSF is trying to do this work. It's a valuable service and plenty of people will come along with them.
Again:
My point is that the BSD guys or whoever FSF drew from along the way could claim credit or not. FSF could refuse them or not. It's all free software so nobody is required to do anything, and I wouldn't bother about it, let alone call it "Tyranny" which is just insane, frankly.
I think the idea is to prevent people from using GPLv3 code in devices that require the code to work (i.e. Tivo). In a PC it's simply not an issue. Nor does it matter if we create a large infrastructure where Linus signs his releases and we write software that rejects unsigned releases, since using the software is not a requirement.
I think it also applies if the GPLv3 code produces restricted content for purposes of DRM. I think they're saying whatever obfuscation the GPLv3 code performs must also be reversible for any user, so GPLv3 code that encrypts must provide the decryption key as well. That would make it impossible to create a DRM platform or tools with GPLv3, and it would in no way require Linus to release his signing keys...
Do you think everyone in the world could have collaborated on a big project like this without a free compiler and free libraries that everyone could use?
No, another compiler would have shut off a lot of people on other platforms or who couldn't afford it... The project wouldn't have gotten to where it is today without gcc or something else like it that was free and open and highly portable.
And I don't see where all the userspace stuff was going to come from if not the FSF guys... or how the kernel would have been very useful without it.
I haven't heard about BSD lite before, but obviously the FSF guys bootstrapped off it some other similar thing. Not news.
My point is that the BSD guys or whoever FSF drew from along the way could claim credit or not. FSF could refuse them or not. It's all free software so nobody is required to do anything, and I wouldn't bother about it, let alone call it "Tyranny" which is just insane, frankly.
I know all about it. Why it's called Tyranny I have no idea.
The guy never said we were required to call it anything. He just had an opinion that's what it should be called. It had to be a little frustrating for him, since the kernel couldn't exist without the compiler and libraries FSF did, but Linus got most of the glory in the press... While I think advocating for a name change the way he did was caddish, I also think the gesture succeeded in what it was designed to do: raise awareness of the role of freedom (versus openness) in the community, and raise awareness of the FSF's contribution, and importance, in a media that was celebretizing Linus at the expense of other major contributors to "Linux" (the O.S., not the kernel).
How is it possible to do DRM "right?"
How is it possible to do it at all? On any system, let alone a free software one?
This doesn't make any sense.
Ah... if it does I can't understand why?
So what if he's being indelicate about wanting credit for his role in Linux's success? Is that Tyranny?
Tyranny? The guy doesn't have the greatest social skills around, but then again who does? Can we really say "Tyranny?"
I wasn't aware the FSF was a failure either.
Why on earth loathe the guy? I feel like I missed something.
OK, I guess I see where the confusion comes from, but it still seems just like confusion. How on earth could this clause require Linus to release his private keys? There is no DRM in linux. No encryption or authorization codes are required to install and/or execute the work, and no decryption codes are necessary to access or unseal... you get the idea.
Is Linus on crack?
Linus says:
And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available, for example. I wouldn't do it.
Private signing keys? I must have missed that in the GPLv3 discussion so far. What on earth is he talking about?
Anyone who'se ever done engineering in a group becomes rapidly familiar with the lack of a line between the social and objective dimensions of problem solving.
Someone makes a mistake, and they feel they need to defend it even though mistakes are an inevitable part of the process and everyone makes them, no matter how ingenious. Someone thinks of a plan, or their friend does, and they feel they need to defend it and advocate it even if they see a better plan, just because we are not only solving a problem, but constantly acting out our instinctive human drama in everything we do.
Political parties and movements and religions especially leverage this trait of human behavior extensively.
Orwell made his career writing about the phenomenon. Doublethink is a popular phrase these days, but many people are still surprised to learn the central concept underpinning it: that people can fervently believe something they know not to be true. They can actually do the work of cleaning up the broken glass while demanding you apologize for suggesting the window is broken... and they can earnestly believe it.
This leads to another great Orwell quote - a prediction of the future: "Imagine a boot stepping on a human face, forever."