the whole point was people such as RMS were insisting that Linus had to change to the new licence whether he liked it or not.
RMS can insist all he want about the license for Linux. It is simply not in his power to decide. I still don't see this as the new license being "pushed down anyone's throat", which usually involves force or at least coercion, which this is not. RMS is certainly trying to influence Linus toward changing the license, which he is free to do, but Linus is also free no ignore him.
And by the way it would be very hard to change the license version even if Linus agreed, because of the "GPLv2 only" clause in the Linux license.
However, if I downloaded said code and modified it to suit my tastes, should they then be required to run my version on google.com, so that I can use the code in the same context from which I received it?
No, but google.com is their hardware, not yours. But if I buy a hardware gadget, that is my hardware, not the vendor's (unless I sign a contract with them that says otherwise). It is my hardware regardless of whether their business model is selling underpriced products and overpricing on additions (printer cartridges for underpriced printers, games for underpriced game consoles, etc) to compensate.
How exactly, by which mechanism, does licensing software under the GPLv3 prevent crippled machines taking over the market to the point where it's prohibitively expensive to buy a non-crippled computer?
It won't. However, at least the GPLv3 would prevent the vendors of such crippled machines using the software we wrote against us. They can write their own software, but they would not be able to build upon the mountain of (GPLv3-licensed) free code to further this goal.
you can run DRM-Software on TOP auf your OpenSource-OS that get a "secure" environment for there Content from your Hardware.
This is incorrect. Applications do not interface with hardware directly, it does so through the operating system libraries, which interface with the kernel, which interface with the hardware. Each of these components have to be signed to create a chain of trust, so that the DRM software can be certain that the DRM is not subverted by the system kernel or OS libraries.
So you might be able to run free software applications on a "trusted system", but you cannot use untrusted OS libraries or untrusted kernels if you want (or have to) use some "trusted" application. And when you cannot modify the operating system below the applications, you are no longer really running a free software system.
If the GPL is a place to stop other People from doing stupit things
The GPLv3 isn't there to stop people doing stupid things. Exhibit A: It does not stop people from buying hardware with proprietary software, which Mr Stallman certainly thinks is stupid. No, the added restrictions in the GPLv3 are there to stop vendors from subverting the license. If I write a piece of software and release it under the GPL, I want everyone to have the freedoms granted by the GPL, even if they didn't get the software directly from me. I don't want anyone to benefit from my software while at the same time removing the freedoms I granted to the world when I released said software under the GPL.
If someone want to only allow signed/trusted binaries to run on their hardware, fine. I'm not going to stop them from writing their own code. But they are not allowed to use my code to further this goal. I want all users of my software to have the freedoms granted by the GPL, including those who get it preloaded on an appliance. If the vendor wants to save money by using my code, fine, but then they have to grant their users all the freedoms granted by the GPL. This includes replacing the preloaded software with modified software, and still be able to run it properly.
You will not forced to run a 100% signed System to used DRM-caged-services.
How can the DRM-caged service trust your system if there is no chain of trust from the hardware to the banking application. How can the service know that your untrusted kernel does not subvert the trusted application? This is why unbroken chains of trust are required for "trusted computing". Your kernel needs to be signed (not by you, say goodbye to running modified kernels), your operating system libraries need to be signed (OS libraries are used by applications to interface with the kernel) and the application need to be signed. Only then can the DRM-service owner trust your system to enforce his will (and not yours).
I for one run Ubuntu and Debian and all my binarys are signed. And i would use signed Bankingsoftware to.
Those are not the same types of signatures. The Unbuntu/Debian/whatever package signatures do not require hardware to operate, because they only exist to protect you from getting rogue packages. You decide what repositories to use. A signed banking application would exist to assert to the bank that you are not running unapproved software. In this case, you are left out of the loop, the bank is in charge here. And if the bank does not provide a Linux version, say hello to Windows,
Of course you could change to another bank, if there exists a bank that support your system.
What's unfortunate for those who feel the way I do is that it means it's likely there will not be further developments on DRM-less versions of the license.
Then you can use the GPLv2 as a foundation and make the additions (bar DRM) you want to have. You might even use those parts of GPLv3 that you like and ignore the others. The only thing you cannot do is call your new license "GNU GPL" (or possibly GPL).
DRM is *legitive* way of protecting something, now what, we could not have crypt software in GPLv3? Crypt software in combining with hardware - I see lot of real legal use
DRM uses encryption in many cases, but encryption is NOT DRM. With non-DRM encryption systems (even with crypto hardware) the computer owner determines the restrictions for accessing data, and is used to prevent third parties from accessing your private data on your computer. DRM is about making the computer disobey the computer owner and instead obey some third party, like the media companies or the hardware manufacturer.
The DRM provisions are there to prevent TIVOization, which means that hardware vendors build upon free software, saving a lot of money compared to developing it themselves, but restrict their customers from using modified versions of this software, by making the hardware only accept certain "trusted" versions of the software. This is a violation of the GPL spirit, i.e. that users have the same rights and powers as the developers, and this is the reason these DRM clauses in the GPLv3 were added.
So the answer to your question is: Yes, we can have GPLv3-licensed encryption software without any problems with regard to the DRM clauses.
Where I live, the only way of buying a desktop PC without Windows is by buying the parts and assembling it yourself. And then you are not buying a computer, you are buying computer parts.
Once I buy it, it's mine, and I have no intention whatsoever of going along with any scheme that allows the device makers to pretend otherwise.
Not only that, but they sure should not use my GPL-licensed code, developed in my spare time, to further such an agenda. If they want to do this, then they have the option of staying away from GPL(v3) code.
But so can the script kiddies if the hardware will accept binaries from anywhere.
Why would any reasonable router accept firmware upgrades from the outside network. It could simply restrict updates to coming through the internal network (possibly even restricting it to the wired network).
I cannot see the GPLv3 being pushed on anybody. It is a new version, free to be used by anyone that want to use it. The only ones that might see it as a push are those that currently abuse the DRM (and/or patent) loopholes. They will have the license "pushed down their throats" in the way that certain "must have" projects might change their license from "GPLv2 or later" to "GPLv3 or later" for new versions. They then have to decide whether to strip out the DRM, fork the last version of the GPLv2 licensed code or write or license a proprietary or at least a non-GPLv3-licensed replacement.
disconnecting it from the network before updating it
Why not just restrict router updates to come from the internal network, possibly even eliminating the possibility to upgrade over WLAN? Then you should not have to disconnect the router from the internet during the upgrade.
Somehow users have come to believe that devices with GPL'ed firmware are somehow offering them the inherent right to modify the product. That isn't so. RMS wants to change this by extending the reach of the GPL beyond the scope of the software that is licensed.
In other words, you are saying that it should be fine for hardware companies to use your GPL-licensed code, saving a lot of development cost, but prevent their customers from modifying it and run it on the same device? This violates the spirit of free software, in that the device manufacturer does not pass on its freedoms granted by the GPL to their customers. And if I license my code under the GPL, I choose this license exactly to give the users those freedoms, and I would not want some device manufacturer to use my code but not pass on their freedoms granted by the GPL.
In my view, the DRM provisions in the GPLv3 exist to close a loophole in the GPLv2, not to extend the reach of the license. It is there to protect my intention of user freedoms when I release software licensed under the GPL. If I did not care about those freedoms, I would use another license, like the BSD license. And if I wanted the modifications released, but did not care about the users, I could still use the GPLv2.
If there are people who want to buy drm free hardware, there will be drm free hardware.
What if 1% want to buy DRM-free hardware, and the remaining 99% just accept that DRM is a new fact of life? Don't you think there will be very few choices, if any at all, for those 1% that don't want DRM hardware?
This GPLv3 will make it technicly illegal for someone to write a program making the DRMed IPOD work in linux along with DRMed Itunes and distribute it under the GPLv3
This kind of defeats the purpose of distributing a program under the GPL, since such a program would necessarily have to hinder modifications of the code. So why use GPL for such a program at all?
or it would make it illegal to distribute GPLv3 software to work with computers that have it installed.
Can you expand on why you think this is the case? The DRM provisions in GPLv3 are only there to prevent someone from taking away your right to modify GPLv3 code by making it impossible to run modified versions.
Congratulations, a company has just saved themselves a couple of years of development time to make a video player to help sell their video files, and you can't modify it at all. If you modify it, it reverts to just plain old mplayer without the ability to use the code that was added. That defeats the purpose of the GPL.
my point was that under the current version your software cannot become illegal even if you transfer the copyright. If the new owner releases a proprietary version, the old version is still under the GPL, and you can use and build on that old version.
You are right. In my opinion, I would not want future versions of code containing my GPL-licensed contributions to be taken proprietary, and that's why I resist copyright transfer (for spare-time code).
my point was that under the current version your software cannot become illegal even if you transfer the copyright.
It would be available yes, but it would also be included in a proprietary product, which I would not want for code released under the GPL. This is what retaining of copyright protects me against.
my point was that under the current version your software cannot become illegal even if you transfer the copyright.
Exactly.
Note that I'm not really a GPL zealot, I just don't want code written in my spare time to be taken proprietary. If I would be hired to write proprietary code, that is another matter, since I get a piece of the pie. A third way is releasing code with a BSD license, which I do at my current employer, since I work in a publicly funded university. Taxpayers (including businesses) already payed for my work, so they should be allowed to do what they want with it, including using it in a proprietary product.
Do you mean that he actually requested a name change for the kernel? I would understand the suggestion "LiGnuX" for the entire system, just like GNU/Linux, but IMAO he had no business requesting a name change for the kernel.
As understand the GPL license, even the copyright owner can not change the license.
This is certainly true for the current version, but for upcoming versions the copyright owner can change the license. So users of GPL software does not have to worry that their software suddenly becomes illegal.
But still, if I would refrain from contributing to projects that requested copyright transfers, because they might take my code proprietary in the future. If I wanted to allow that, I would use a BSD (or similar) license instead.
Slashdot Mirror
RMS can insist all he want about the license for Linux. It is simply not in his power to decide. I still don't see this as the new license being "pushed down anyone's throat", which usually involves force or at least coercion, which this is not. RMS is certainly trying to influence Linus toward changing the license, which he is free to do, but Linus is also free no ignore him.
And by the way it would be very hard to change the license version even if Linus agreed, because of the "GPLv2 only" clause in the Linux license.
No, but google.com is their hardware, not yours. But if I buy a hardware gadget, that is my hardware, not the vendor's (unless I sign a contract with them that says otherwise). It is my hardware regardless of whether their business model is selling underpriced products and overpricing on additions (printer cartridges for underpriced printers, games for underpriced game consoles, etc) to compensate.
You can't upgrade to your modified version, but they (the vendor) can't either. This is more equal that "they can, but you can't".
It won't. However, at least the GPLv3 would prevent the vendors of such crippled machines using the software we wrote against us. They can write their own software, but they would not be able to build upon the mountain of (GPLv3-licensed) free code to further this goal.
This is incorrect. Applications do not interface with hardware directly, it does so through the operating system libraries, which interface with the kernel, which interface with the hardware. Each of these components have to be signed to create a chain of trust, so that the DRM software can be certain that the DRM is not subverted by the system kernel or OS libraries.
So you might be able to run free software applications on a "trusted system", but you cannot use untrusted OS libraries or untrusted kernels if you want (or have to) use some "trusted" application. And when you cannot modify the operating system below the applications, you are no longer really running a free software system.
The GPLv3 isn't there to stop people doing stupid things. Exhibit A: It does not stop people from buying hardware with proprietary software, which Mr Stallman certainly thinks is stupid. No, the added restrictions in the GPLv3 are there to stop vendors from subverting the license. If I write a piece of software and release it under the GPL, I want everyone to have the freedoms granted by the GPL, even if they didn't get the software directly from me. I don't want anyone to benefit from my software while at the same time removing the freedoms I granted to the world when I released said software under the GPL.
If someone want to only allow signed/trusted binaries to run on their hardware, fine. I'm not going to stop them from writing their own code. But they are not allowed to use my code to further this goal. I want all users of my software to have the freedoms granted by the GPL, including those who get it preloaded on an appliance. If the vendor wants to save money by using my code, fine, but then they have to grant their users all the freedoms granted by the GPL. This includes replacing the preloaded software with modified software, and still be able to run it properly.
How can the DRM-caged service trust your system if there is no chain of trust from the hardware to the banking application. How can the service know that your untrusted kernel does not subvert the trusted application? This is why unbroken chains of trust are required for "trusted computing". Your kernel needs to be signed (not by you, say goodbye to running modified kernels), your operating system libraries need to be signed (OS libraries are used by applications to interface with the kernel) and the application need to be signed. Only then can the DRM-service owner trust your system to enforce his will (and not yours).
Those are not the same types of signatures. The Unbuntu/Debian/whatever package signatures do not require hardware to operate, because they only exist to protect you from getting rogue packages. You decide what repositories to use. A signed banking application would exist to assert to the bank that you are not running unapproved software. In this case, you are left out of the loop, the bank is in charge here. And if the bank does not provide a Linux version, say hello to Windows,
Of course you could change to another bank, if there exists a bank that support your system.
Then you can use the GPLv2 as a foundation and make the additions (bar DRM) you want to have. You might even use those parts of GPLv3 that you like and ignore the others. The only thing you cannot do is call your new license "GNU GPL" (or possibly GPL).
DRM uses encryption in many cases, but encryption is NOT DRM. With non-DRM encryption systems (even with crypto hardware) the computer owner determines the restrictions for accessing data, and is used to prevent third parties from accessing your private data on your computer. DRM is about making the computer disobey the computer owner and instead obey some third party, like the media companies or the hardware manufacturer.
The DRM provisions are there to prevent TIVOization, which means that hardware vendors build upon free software, saving a lot of money compared to developing it themselves, but restrict their customers from using modified versions of this software, by making the hardware only accept certain "trusted" versions of the software. This is a violation of the GPL spirit, i.e. that users have the same rights and powers as the developers, and this is the reason these DRM clauses in the GPLv3 were added.
So the answer to your question is: Yes, we can have GPLv3-licensed encryption software without any problems with regard to the DRM clauses.
Where I live, the only way of buying a desktop PC without Windows is by buying the parts and assembling it yourself. And then you are not buying a computer, you are buying computer parts.
Well said! I couldn't have put it better myself.
Not only that, but they sure should not use my GPL-licensed code, developed in my spare time, to further such an agenda. If they want to do this, then they have the option of staying away from GPL(v3) code.
I think the parent meant owner of the computer instead of end user.
Why would any reasonable router accept firmware upgrades from the outside network. It could simply restrict updates to coming through the internal network (possibly even restricting it to the wired network).
I cannot see the GPLv3 being pushed on anybody. It is a new version, free to be used by anyone that want to use it. The only ones that might see it as a push are those that currently abuse the DRM (and/or patent) loopholes. They will have the license "pushed down their throats" in the way that certain "must have" projects might change their license from "GPLv2 or later" to "GPLv3 or later" for new versions. They then have to decide whether to strip out the DRM, fork the last version of the GPLv2 licensed code or write or license a proprietary or at least a non-GPLv3-licensed replacement.
Why not just restrict router updates to come from the internal network, possibly even eliminating the possibility to upgrade over WLAN? Then you should not have to disconnect the router from the internet during the upgrade.
In other words, you are saying that it should be fine for hardware companies to use your GPL-licensed code, saving a lot of development cost, but prevent their customers from modifying it and run it on the same device? This violates the spirit of free software, in that the device manufacturer does not pass on its freedoms granted by the GPL to their customers. And if I license my code under the GPL, I choose this license exactly to give the users those freedoms, and I would not want some device manufacturer to use my code but not pass on their freedoms granted by the GPL.
In my view, the DRM provisions in the GPLv3 exist to close a loophole in the GPLv2, not to extend the reach of the license. It is there to protect my intention of user freedoms when I release software licensed under the GPL. If I did not care about those freedoms, I would use another license, like the BSD license. And if I wanted the modifications released, but did not care about the users, I could still use the GPLv2.
They can try to curtail people's freedom all they want, but (with the GPLv3) they sure cannot use my code to help them do it.
What if 1% want to buy DRM-free hardware, and the remaining 99% just accept that DRM is a new fact of life? Don't you think there will be very few choices, if any at all, for those 1% that don't want DRM hardware?
This kind of defeats the purpose of distributing a program under the GPL, since such a program would necessarily have to hinder modifications of the code. So why use GPL for such a program at all?
Can you expand on why you think this is the case? The DRM provisions in GPLv3 are only there to prevent someone from taking away your right to modify GPLv3 code by making it impossible to run modified versions.
You sum up what I think here pretty well.
You are right. In my opinion, I would not want future versions of code containing my GPL-licensed contributions to be taken proprietary, and that's why I resist copyright transfer (for spare-time code).
It would be available yes, but it would also be included in a proprietary product, which I would not want for code released under the GPL. This is what retaining of copyright protects me against.
Exactly.
Note that I'm not really a GPL zealot, I just don't want code written in my spare time to be taken proprietary. If I would be hired to write proprietary code, that is another matter, since I get a piece of the pie. A third way is releasing code with a BSD license, which I do at my current employer, since I work in a publicly funded university. Taxpayers (including businesses) already payed for my work, so they should be allowed to do what they want with it, including using it in a proprietary product.
Do you mean that he actually requested a name change for the kernel? I would understand the suggestion "LiGnuX" for the entire system, just like GNU/Linux, but IMAO he had no business requesting a name change for the kernel.
This is certainly true for the current version, but for upcoming versions the copyright owner can change the license. So users of GPL software does not have to worry that their software suddenly becomes illegal.
But still, if I would refrain from contributing to projects that requested copyright transfers, because they might take my code proprietary in the future. If I wanted to allow that, I would use a BSD (or similar) license instead.