You don't see it happening, because there is no need. If, as you claim, the need will arise due to TPM or Tivoization or whatever else, need arises.
Again, in the radio world this happens all the time. For example, a simple kit that you can put together in a weekend is the SoftRock SDR a radio that does most of the work in software. I built one recently, it is pretty amazing. Tony put together 1000 kits and sold them out in a few months. People build much more complex stuff reguarly, there are Yahoo groups like "Homebrew transistor radios", "ham radio homebrew", "homebrewqrp", and entire magazines and magazine articles dedicated to fabrication. Like Elektor (not ham specific) and QST, etc.
And the same thing is happening in the aerospace world. Familiar with XCOR, Armadillo Aerospace, Masten Space, etc? All these little companies that are trying to hit LEO, eventually, and open up commercial access to space? A lot of them participate in online forums and share a wealth of information. In the mix are hobbyists with budgets I can only dream of that play with big rockets, motor casting, etc. It isn't electronics but it is the same fundamentals, starting with square 1 and re-constructing what has already been built (we had Saturn, the shuttle, Soyuz, etc) but to the specifications desired.
There are plenty of homebrewers out there. There just needs to be a 'need' for computer homebrewing.
I don't own a TiVo. I'm an old fogie (despite being 25). I use a VCR.
My point was, and you completely missed it, is that you can have freedom without the FSF. More freedom! But it has become completely apparent via all your posts on this thread that you have boughten their philosophy, 'hook, line and sinker', despite any faults. Blind religion.
I don't hold back society. I regularly contribute to several technical groups in areas I consider myself to be well-educated in (particularly aerospace an amateur radio). My contributions are free, no restrictions whatsoever. Source code, designs, documents, whatever. I practice what I preach.
FSF would suffer public humiliation? You bet! They got trounced, and I just read, Perens outlined this **very scenario** prior to the final draft. So apparenly they knew, and either didn't care or didn't think people would figure it out.
Or did you mean the company producing the product would suffer humiliation? Why? Do you think corporate america will humiliate them? No, they were successful in defending their product. Some FSF geeks? Sure. But who really cares, from their point of view?
2. FSF releasing all new versions of its software under GPLv3.1.
Now taking bets on whether or not they get it right this time...
Do you know anybody who appreciates that attitude?
If I had to inform everyone I knew about every 5 minute flash of insight I get, I'd never get any work done:). And I don't even know if I'm right. I could be full of shit.
The HURD doesn't exist in a workable, usable form. It's been around longer than sin, but still can't be used as a functional, modern kernel.
Linux came onto the scene in 1991, right? But Linus and other dev's quickly got backed by corporate sponsors - yes, the code is GPLv2 (mostly) but proprietary/corporate interests backed them up, and look how quickly it matured and usurped HURD.
I think that is telling of the roles of free software vs. corporate/whatever-you-want-to-call-it software.
No, they built what was at-the-time acceptable home computers in their garages. Nowadays we don't because the price of entry is so low, it doesn't make sense. Anyone can get a dell for $300, there is no money to be saved, and the cost to entry is ludicrous.
However, look at the other aspect I mentioned - amateur radio. Amateurs to this day make complex circuits that meet or rival the complexity of a PC motherboard. People have fab shops in their garages to do SMT, not just the big SMT parts but the little ones too. Many people doing this don't even have EE degrees, completely self-taught. They do it for the love. Like this project: here. I think computing could come back this way if things get draconic... not that I think it ever will. If anything, things are opening... when the PS1 came out, did you think they would ever sanction Linux to run on it? yet the PS3 comes with an official Linux distribution (granted, the hypervisor...). If anything things are getting better. But it could happen, and it might be fun.
It only takes 1 valid claim to win a case. By stopping 46 short of the end, you may have missed the moneymaker. Remember, invalidating one claim does not invalidate the entire patent, it invalidates that claim. All the other claims remain valid until each individual claim is struck.
If both of your mom (and dad?) are not 110% into it, then it could be worse than just keeping her in school. Not only that, but your sister needs to be into it too. It takes a lot of hard work not to slack off when you are at home.
My parents got 'homeschooling fever' when I hit high school, my siblings are all a lot younger. I did it through high school, they did it anywhere from first grade all the way through to the end of high school. It works if everyone is on board. At the start, I was not, but that's a long story. As a high schooler I taught myself more than my mom taught me. Which is good, you comprehend a lot more that way.
So long and short: it works, but make sure you are all on the same page and on board with the idea. It ain't cheap. The best math is probably Saxon Math. A lot of home schoolers go with the Abeka system of educational materials but there are others like Bob Jones and such. You may find yourself off better keeping her in school and tutoring her on the side.
No stake whatsoever, except opposing anti-tivoization and GPLv3. I still don't believe 'freedom' can be obtained by imposing restrictions in a software license. If you want free, make it free!
Check and mate, general-purpose personal computer!". Well, I guess you will still be able to import one from China, provided you won't get caught.
Homebrew it. Engineers shall rule the world:) They did it 20 years ago, why not today? Plenty of people build their own (amateur) radios, many from scratch and approaching the complexity of a modern computer. It might bring about a new renaissance... go with the flow man, RMS is no Jesus, and the FSF is no means of salvation. They have their own ambitions and agendas, just like any other organization.
Then your sandbox needs to be large enough to allow for the unmodified program as well. If the unmodified program cannot run correctly when run in the sandbox
OK, here is the distinction: run, and run correctly. What is correct? The full relevant quote is,
"Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made."
So, using my admittedly weak English skillz (I am an engineer), "The information" in sentence 2 is modifying "Installation Information" in sentence 1, which enumerates a number of things required to (1) install and (2) execute modified versions of the GPLv3 work. Sentence 2 then says that the information must be sufficient to ensure continued functioning of the object code. It does **not** say that it has to function identical to its non-modified counterpart, however it does say "continued functioning... no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made." Now again, a program can function without functioning as intended. I see that as a loophole, don't you?
A secondary loophole: "solely because modification has been made"... there are other ways to tell if something has been modified, other than checking the source itself. IE, removing a jumper to connect to a programming interface, SMT fuses that pop on programming, etc. Hardware remedies that don't check for modification. You could be uploading an exact perfect image of the original code - these remedies aren't discriminating 'because modification has been made'. Might be a stretch but again, letter of the law versus spirit of the law. Former wins in court.
Have you submitted your thoughts on this loophole to any official of the Free Software Foundation?
If my 5 minutes of thinking have bested the how-many-months of development of the GPLv3, I'm not sure they deserve to know. That's just my quick read of the text. I could be wrong. But read in context it reads pretty clearly.
You seem to understand the anti-tivoization as that the whole device must be open if GPL3 software is used. This is incorrect.
No shit. You missed my point. I never said anything of the sort. The hypervisor can keep the taint of GPLv3 for spreading to the rest of the device, IE, we can quarrantine a small segment of the OS to do menial tasks like networking and file sharing, and borrow GPLv3 code for that, because who cares if we have to let people mod it? We can then marry that code to DRM code via the hypervisor, circumventing the GPLv3.
The hypervisor can also change the configuration of the hardware if it senses a re-configured GPLv3 version. You can argue this violates the GPLv3, but I'm not sure I see it. Look up a little ways for a discussion. The GPLv3 says it needs the manufacturer to share information to start and execute the application ('functioning'), it does not state that the hardware cannot modify itself, like the PS3 hypervisor disallows direct calls to its graphics subsystem.
No, it doesn't distribute win32 codecs because win32 codecs are part of the Windows distribution/Windows Media Player and are illegal to re-distribute:) They were not coded by the MPlayer team but by Microsoft. Your analogy is flawed.
You omitted the sentance before that, ""Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. " ('The Information' from your quote above is referring to 'Installation Information', enumerated here, and is not any and all information about the hardware... it is this specific information enumerated)... so sure, I can provide you with everything you need to trigger your code, but I can limit what you can do. Your program installs. Your program executes. But it lives in my sandbox. (is my take, and so far as I can tell, fulfills the letter of the law)
What does good faith have to do with it? ISO just wants money for membership, they got their money, and the members followed the rules. Sounds good-faith to me... if the ISO wants participation beforehand, great, they SHOULD!!! and it should be codified so this can't happen.
one of the major bullet points of GPLv3 was anti-tivoization. What else is left? just the patent protection loophole? How long till that's broke?
Also note this effectively provides a DRM work-around: as you can't GPLv3 your DRMing code, you most certainly can interop with DRM via the hypervisor. Probably also fucks over trusted computing... the code can run, but the hypervisor can shut down access to stuff it doesn't want access, or give a null driver, or reduced capabilities (see: PS3)
GPLv3 code can do whatever it wants, but the hypervisor can feel free to say "I'm sorry, there is no spiffy network card", "I'm sorry, there is no TV channel like that"... think of the hypervisor as a virtual machine if you must. Programs can work fine in the virtual machine, but that doesn't mean the virtual machine will look precisely like the actual hardware. Check and mate, RMS!
So far Sony's hypervisor on the PS3 hasn't been cracked. You can joke about a lack of uptake of PS3's but the lack of a crack is not for a lack of trying.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't see it happening, because there is no need. If, as you claim, the need will arise due to TPM or Tivoization or whatever else, need arises.
Again, in the radio world this happens all the time. For example, a simple kit that you can put together in a weekend is the SoftRock SDR a radio that does most of the work in software. I built one recently, it is pretty amazing. Tony put together 1000 kits and sold them out in a few months. People build much more complex stuff reguarly, there are Yahoo groups like "Homebrew transistor radios", "ham radio homebrew", "homebrewqrp", and entire magazines and magazine articles dedicated to fabrication. Like Elektor (not ham specific) and QST, etc.
And the same thing is happening in the aerospace world. Familiar with XCOR, Armadillo Aerospace, Masten Space, etc? All these little companies that are trying to hit LEO, eventually, and open up commercial access to space? A lot of them participate in online forums and share a wealth of information. In the mix are hobbyists with budgets I can only dream of that play with big rockets, motor casting, etc. It isn't electronics but it is the same fundamentals, starting with square 1 and re-constructing what has already been built (we had Saturn, the shuttle, Soyuz, etc) but to the specifications desired.
There are plenty of homebrewers out there. There just needs to be a 'need' for computer homebrewing.
I don't own a TiVo. I'm an old fogie (despite being 25). I use a VCR.
My point was, and you completely missed it, is that you can have freedom without the FSF. More freedom! But it has become completely apparent via all your posts on this thread that you have boughten their philosophy, 'hook, line and sinker', despite any faults. Blind religion.
I don't hold back society. I regularly contribute to several technical groups in areas I consider myself to be well-educated in (particularly aerospace an amateur radio). My contributions are free, no restrictions whatsoever. Source code, designs, documents, whatever. I practice what I preach.
that is all
it would become subject to 1. public humiliation
...
:). And I don't even know if I'm right. I could be full of shit.
FSF would suffer public humiliation? You bet! They got trounced, and I just read, Perens outlined this **very scenario** prior to the final draft. So apparenly they knew, and either didn't care or didn't think people would figure it out.
Or did you mean the company producing the product would suffer humiliation? Why? Do you think corporate america will humiliate them? No, they were successful in defending their product. Some FSF geeks? Sure. But who really cares, from their point of view?
2. FSF releasing all new versions of its software under GPLv3.1.
Now taking bets on whether or not they get it right this time
Do you know anybody who appreciates that attitude?
If I had to inform everyone I knew about every 5 minute flash of insight I get, I'd never get any work done
The ultimate proof, I think, is HURD v. linux.
The HURD doesn't exist in a workable, usable form. It's been around longer than sin, but still can't be used as a functional, modern kernel.
Linux came onto the scene in 1991, right? But Linus and other dev's quickly got backed by corporate sponsors - yes, the code is GPLv2 (mostly) but proprietary/corporate interests backed them up, and look how quickly it matured and usurped HURD.
I think that is telling of the roles of free software vs. corporate/whatever-you-want-to-call-it software.
agreeing with RMS and agreeing with the freedom to do whatever you want with your computer are NOT the same thing
In the tivoization question, it is.
Wow. You bought it. Hook, line, sinker. Do you think independently for yourself about **anything**?
No, they built what was at-the-time acceptable home computers in their garages. Nowadays we don't because the price of entry is so low, it doesn't make sense. Anyone can get a dell for $300, there is no money to be saved, and the cost to entry is ludicrous.
However, look at the other aspect I mentioned - amateur radio. Amateurs to this day make complex circuits that meet or rival the complexity of a PC motherboard. People have fab shops in their garages to do SMT, not just the big SMT parts but the little ones too. Many people doing this don't even have EE degrees, completely self-taught. They do it for the love. Like this project: here. I think computing could come back this way if things get draconic... not that I think it ever will. If anything, things are opening... when the PS1 came out, did you think they would ever sanction Linux to run on it? yet the PS3 comes with an official Linux distribution (granted, the hypervisor...). If anything things are getting better. But it could happen, and it might be fun.
In my world? They'd prefer the Dell, because you can't get serious engineering work done on a Mac Book.
It only takes 1 valid claim to win a case. By stopping 46 short of the end, you may have missed the moneymaker. Remember, invalidating one claim does not invalidate the entire patent, it invalidates that claim. All the other claims remain valid until each individual claim is struck.
If both of your mom (and dad?) are not 110% into it, then it could be worse than just keeping her in school. Not only that, but your sister needs to be into it too. It takes a lot of hard work not to slack off when you are at home.
My parents got 'homeschooling fever' when I hit high school, my siblings are all a lot younger. I did it through high school, they did it anywhere from first grade all the way through to the end of high school. It works if everyone is on board. At the start, I was not, but that's a long story. As a high schooler I taught myself more than my mom taught me. Which is good, you comprehend a lot more that way.
So long and short: it works, but make sure you are all on the same page and on board with the idea. It ain't cheap. The best math is probably Saxon Math. A lot of home schoolers go with the Abeka system of educational materials but there are others like Bob Jones and such. You may find yourself off better keeping her in school and tutoring her on the side.
Not sure I agree. Every Windows user out there has a stake in Windows ... Windows has a greater market penetration than Linux, ergo ...
No stake whatsoever, except opposing anti-tivoization and GPLv3. I still don't believe 'freedom' can be obtained by imposing restrictions in a software license. If you want free, make it free!
:) They did it 20 years ago, why not today? Plenty of people build their own (amateur) radios, many from scratch and approaching the complexity of a modern computer. It might bring about a new renaissance ... go with the flow man, RMS is no Jesus, and the FSF is no means of salvation. They have their own ambitions and agendas, just like any other organization.
Check and mate, general-purpose personal computer!". Well, I guess you will still be able to import one from China, provided you won't get caught.
Homebrew it. Engineers shall rule the world
Then your sandbox needs to be large enough to allow for the unmodified program as well. If the unmodified program cannot run correctly when run in the sandbox
... no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made." Now again, a program can function without functioning as intended. I see that as a loophole, don't you?
... there are other ways to tell if something has been modified, other than checking the source itself. IE, removing a jumper to connect to a programming interface, SMT fuses that pop on programming, etc. Hardware remedies that don't check for modification. You could be uploading an exact perfect image of the original code - these remedies aren't discriminating 'because modification has been made'. Might be a stretch but again, letter of the law versus spirit of the law. Former wins in court.
OK, here is the distinction: run, and run correctly. What is correct? The full relevant quote is,
"Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made."
So, using my admittedly weak English skillz (I am an engineer), "The information" in sentence 2 is modifying "Installation Information" in sentence 1, which enumerates a number of things required to (1) install and (2) execute modified versions of the GPLv3 work. Sentence 2 then says that the information must be sufficient to ensure continued functioning of the object code. It does **not** say that it has to function identical to its non-modified counterpart, however it does say "continued functioning
A secondary loophole: "solely because modification has been made"
Have you submitted your thoughts on this loophole to any official of the Free Software Foundation?
If my 5 minutes of thinking have bested the how-many-months of development of the GPLv3, I'm not sure they deserve to know. That's just my quick read of the text. I could be wrong. But read in context it reads pretty clearly.
You seem to understand the anti-tivoization as that the whole device must be open if GPL3 software is used. This is incorrect.
No shit. You missed my point. I never said anything of the sort. The hypervisor can keep the taint of GPLv3 for spreading to the rest of the device, IE, we can quarrantine a small segment of the OS to do menial tasks like networking and file sharing, and borrow GPLv3 code for that, because who cares if we have to let people mod it? We can then marry that code to DRM code via the hypervisor, circumventing the GPLv3.
The hypervisor can also change the configuration of the hardware if it senses a re-configured GPLv3 version. You can argue this violates the GPLv3, but I'm not sure I see it. Look up a little ways for a discussion. The GPLv3 says it needs the manufacturer to share information to start and execute the application ('functioning'), it does not state that the hardware cannot modify itself, like the PS3 hypervisor disallows direct calls to its graphics subsystem.
No, it doesn't distribute win32 codecs because win32 codecs are part of the Windows distribution/Windows Media Player and are illegal to re-distribute :) They were not coded by the MPlayer team but by Microsoft. Your analogy is flawed.
Sure, but it violates what the FSF was working towards... and the kernel is GPLv2 so it would not apply, this would only apply to GPLv3 code.
You omitted the sentance before that, ""Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. " ('The Information' from your quote above is referring to 'Installation Information', enumerated here, and is not any and all information about the hardware ... it is this specific information enumerated) ... so sure, I can provide you with everything you need to trigger your code, but I can limit what you can do. Your program installs. Your program executes. But it lives in my sandbox. (is my take, and so far as I can tell, fulfills the letter of the law)
What does good faith have to do with it? ISO just wants money for membership, they got their money, and the members followed the rules. Sounds good-faith to me ... if the ISO wants participation beforehand, great, they SHOULD!!! and it should be codified so this can't happen.
one of the major bullet points of GPLv3 was anti-tivoization. What else is left? just the patent protection loophole? How long till that's broke?
Also note this effectively provides a DRM work-around: as you can't GPLv3 your DRMing code, you most certainly can interop with DRM via the hypervisor. Probably also fucks over trusted computing... the code can run, but the hypervisor can shut down access to stuff it doesn't want access, or give a null driver, or reduced capabilities (see: PS3)
anticountertivoestablishmentarianism!
Damn! Doesn't fit on the scrabble board!
So, please, tell me, why did we go through the development of GPLv3 then? I thought this was one of the major tenents of GPLv3?
Sure, go ahead and swap out whats in the VM. The VM is just handling the boring bits. The proprietary shit is behind the hypervisor.
Hardware | hypervisor | GPLv3 code
... think of the hypervisor as a virtual machine if you must. Programs can work fine in the virtual machine, but that doesn't mean the virtual machine will look precisely like the actual hardware. Check and mate, RMS!
GPLv3 code can do whatever it wants, but the hypervisor can feel free to say "I'm sorry, there is no spiffy network card", "I'm sorry, there is no TV channel like that"
So far Sony's hypervisor on the PS3 hasn't been cracked. You can joke about a lack of uptake of PS3's but the lack of a crack is not for a lack of trying.
the more things slip through your fingers.