Most people recognize that companies very often need to be able to stop/restrict/limit the distribution of their changes, or will be effectively unable to use the software in the first place.
No. Very few companies actually need to do this. Often managers will claim to "need" to do this, when in reality they're simply being more restrictive because it's slightly cheaper and sometimes less risky to do so than to pay people to do a proper release. These managers will prefer BSD-licensed software to GPL-licensed software when there is a choice, all other things being equal. However, when their options are between using expensive proprietary software, writing something from scratch, and using GPL-licensed software, then the same managers will choose the GPL-licensed software, because complying with the GPL is much more cost-effective and sometimes less risky than the alternatives.
The only companies for whom GPL-licensed software is actually detrimental are the ones who derive significant revenue from mass-market proprietary software that they produce. But competition in any industry always hurts some competitors' bottom lines; It's hardly news.
Though, it's still his eventual goal with the GPL is to change the world, and make all closed software illegal in the end.
Whether or not it's RMS' goal (I don't see it so much as a goal as "ideal world" wishful thinking), the more likely effect is to make mass-market proprietary software irrelevant, rather than illegal.
Besides, I'm hard pressed to think of GTK+ as dominant. You'll notice that KDE has begun its path into the Macintosh and Win32 markets, both places where Gnome doesn't tread.
Give me a break. Firstly, GTK+ is not the same thing as GNOME. Secondly, GTK+ is and has been available free for Win32 for years. I recently wrote a Python program that used GTK and Glade for a project I was working on. The program ran out of the box (with all the dependencies installed, of course) on Debian and Win32, and I chose this Python/Glade/GTK+ technology combination because I needed to get the entire program written in a weekend, I needed it to work on both Windows and Linux, and I knew that the technology was stable enough to Just Work (TM). It did.
How many times is Sony going to try and fail to put forward a proprietary technology as a standard before they figure out that it's not a winning business strategy?
Not really. Maybe C code will usually be turned into binaries before signing it for the purposes of DRM, but that's not the case for, say, Perl code.
That's a fair point.
And in any case, nobody really thinks that Linus would get slapped down by the GPLv3, regardless of what happens.
Agreed.
He's taking a stand on principles, and as long as there are people with good reasons to sign binaries, his points are valid whether he personally does it or not.
Many of Linus' points are irrelevant or based on false premises, as are a lot of his comments about legal issues in general. He's not a lawyer, and unlike the FSF, he doesn't seem to have bothered to consult one before making statements in public forums. I'd be hard pressed to call that a principled stand.
The more I read Linus' comments, the more I become convinced that Linus' objections stem from little more than his (IMHO understandable) personal dislike for RMS. It appears as though Linus wants to take a principled stand against GPLv3, and that's causing him not to be motivated to acquire more than a cursory understanding of the GPLv3 drafts.
Personally, if we're already saying that the courts will know what was meant, and doing handwaving that it only counts if it is in some vague "principal context of use," it doesn't seem to me that the GPLv3 is off to a very auspicious start. Wasn't a large part of the point of this new license to try to tighten down the languange so we didn't have these problems?
What makes you think it's a problem? The entire purpose of any software license (or really any written legal document) is to ensure that the courts will know what was meant. No matter what is written on paper, the license is nothing more than words on paper until one party sues another for copyright infringement, and the other party uses the license as a defence.
Keep in mind that courts have been determining the "principal context of use" of various things for a long time. It's not vague terminology in legalese, although it may look that way to a programmer.
Assuming a GPLv3 Linux, Linus would be the one violating copyright law, and so would anyone downstream who distributes the binaries. However, that would only occur in the event that he didn't provide the "keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use" (emphasis added).
So, if he signs an ordinary, generic binary, he's okay. However, if he signs a binary that is specifically targeted at this hardware platform, knowing that without his signature, the binary will not run, then he could probably be held liable.
Realistically, the courts would sort out these things on a case-by-case basis. Also, as far as I know, Linus doesn't distribute or sign Linux binaries. It's hard to violate the terms of the GPL when you're only distributing source code.
Yes they are. It is saying that i cannot build a device that only runs certified code.
It is saying that you cannot do that and simultaneously distribute GPLv3 code that runs on that device, unless you provide what is "necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use".
This is just a further clarification of what "source code" in GPLv2 already means (that being, the preferred form of a work for making modifications to it).
Sure it is yours, and if you bought something that will only boot to a signed binary program then thats what you own.
And, in that case, if the distributor doesn't give you the signing key, or a mechanism for transparently changing the signing key that the device accepts, then the distributor hasn't given you the Corresponding Source, and is liable to the copyright holder for copyright infringement.
There is nothing in the GPL that stops this.
The definition of "Corresponding Source" in GPLv3draft2 does, and the definition of "source code" in GPLv2 (arguably) does.
They are under no obligation to let your custom linux kernel to boot on your hardware (that you have an honest to god reciept for the hunk of silicon and plastic sitting below your TV).
They are perhaps allowed to restrict you, by legal means, from modifying the software that's on the leased hardware (a claim that I would dispute, but I digress). Regardless, they are required to provide you with the Corresponding Source, which effectively means that they cannot use technical means to prevent you from modifying the software that's on the leased hardware.
From GPL3draft2 (with emphasis added):
The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the same range of circumstances.
Whether or not they place other legal obligations on you, if they do not provide the Corresponding Source, then the copyright holder can sue them for infringement.
Google was created by Hoover back when the interent was just a couple of tubes.
Did you even bother to listen to what Ted Stevens had to say before you started repeating that meme?
His analogy is more-or-less correct. Internet connections have finite capacity, and once they're saturated, you more-or-less have to wait in line to use them (at least when everybody is using TCP).
There are much more deserving points of criticism, namely:
He completely misunderstands how email works, and why email might be delayed ("I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?")
He completely fails to mention that the people on both sides of the "tubes" that are causing the "ten movies [to be] streaming across" the tubes are paying for their use of the tubes. If the backbone providers can't afford to make the tubes big enough, then they should simply be charging more to use the tubes, not messing with Internet architecture.
Making fun of Ted Stevens for the "tubes" analogy just makes you look like a jackass whose understanding of how the Internet works is no better than that of the man you're making fun of.
You seem to be implying a binary opposition exists here, specifically that being "impossible to confirm" and "impossible to refute" are contradictory to "Plenty of contradictory evidence".
That is correct. If evidence exists that contradicts a particular statement, then that statement is refuted. If a statement is refuted, then it cannot at the same time be impossible to refute. Quod erat faciendum.
Your punishment: read Of Grammatology, and learn the error of your ways.
Your link to a long Wikipedia article is no more of an argument than this is a counter-argument. Your punishment: read AboveGod and the Chair of Wisdom, and learn the error of your ways.
So, how do we get it to work? Who trusts ActiveX nowadays?
It works because of who we're targeting. Browser-savvy users already have a non-MSIE browser installed, so we don't have to worry about them. We're targeting the clueless users who are dumb enough to trust ActiveX.
Also, it makes a good business case. If you're a web developer, you tell your customer something like: "We can add native support to MSIE to your site, but because MSIE doesn't follow the standards, it will cost an extra 10-20% to do so. If you prefer, we can use this ActiveX control, so MSIE users will just have to click "Yes" once, like this. See? Oh, and lots of other sites are already using this control, so people might not even have to click anything."
I would love to see an automatically self-updating Gecko ActiveX control. Any IE user who visits my sites (or dozens of other sites that mandate it), would simply have to click "Yes" once (ever), and then the user would be using the newest version of Gecko to render the pages automatically.
GPLv3 prohibits users from using signed binaries on hardware that the FSF deems "bad". Specifically, the user cannot create software with signed binaries for use on Trusted Computing hardware. Apparently the FSF doesn't think users are capable of deciding for themselves what hardware is best for some applications, so it wants to stop them from making a "bad" decision.
Really? Where?
The GPLv3 drafts tell distributors that if they distribute my code, they need to distribute everything necessary to ensure that the recipients have the ability to exercise the four freedoms that the FSF associates with free software, and to ensure that the recipients know that they can do these things. Otherwise, I can sue those distributors for copyright infringement.
The FSF is taking their sweet time with HURD, which includes doing one or two rewrites, because Linux exists. The FSF probably figures that there's no point in building a system that's technically inferior to Linux, since then nobody will bother adopting it anyway.
If Linux didn't exist (and a legally-unencumbered BSD didn't either), the HURD would probably be usable by now.
Slashdot Mirror
No. Very few companies actually need to do this. Often managers will claim to "need" to do this, when in reality they're simply being more restrictive because it's slightly cheaper and sometimes less risky to do so than to pay people to do a proper release. These managers will prefer BSD-licensed software to GPL-licensed software when there is a choice, all other things being equal. However, when their options are between using expensive proprietary software, writing something from scratch, and using GPL-licensed software, then the same managers will choose the GPL-licensed software, because complying with the GPL is much more cost-effective and sometimes less risky than the alternatives.
The only companies for whom GPL-licensed software is actually detrimental are the ones who derive significant revenue from mass-market proprietary software that they produce. But competition in any industry always hurts some competitors' bottom lines; It's hardly news.
Whether or not it's RMS' goal (I don't see it so much as a goal as "ideal world" wishful thinking), the more likely effect is to make mass-market proprietary software irrelevant, rather than illegal.
Give me a break. Firstly, GTK+ is not the same thing as GNOME. Secondly, GTK+ is and has been available free for Win32 for years. I recently wrote a Python program that used GTK and Glade for a project I was working on. The program ran out of the box (with all the dependencies installed, of course) on Debian and Win32, and I chose this Python/Glade/GTK+ technology combination because I needed to get the entire program written in a weekend, I needed it to work on both Windows and Linux, and I knew that the technology was stable enough to Just Work (TM). It did.
How many times is Sony going to try and fail to put forward a proprietary technology as a standard before they figure out that it's not a winning business strategy?
That's a fair point.
Agreed.
Many of Linus' points are irrelevant or based on false premises, as are a lot of his comments about legal issues in general. He's not a lawyer, and unlike the FSF, he doesn't seem to have bothered to consult one before making statements in public forums. I'd be hard pressed to call that a principled stand.
The more I read Linus' comments, the more I become convinced that Linus' objections stem from little more than his (IMHO understandable) personal dislike for RMS. It appears as though Linus wants to take a principled stand against GPLv3, and that's causing him not to be motivated to acquire more than a cursory understanding of the GPLv3 drafts.
What makes you think it's a problem? The entire purpose of any software license (or really any written legal document) is to ensure that the courts will know what was meant. No matter what is written on paper, the license is nothing more than words on paper until one party sues another for copyright infringement, and the other party uses the license as a defence.
Keep in mind that courts have been determining the "principal context of use" of various things for a long time. It's not vague terminology in legalese, although it may look that way to a programmer.
Assuming a GPLv3 Linux, Linus would be the one violating copyright law, and so would anyone downstream who distributes the binaries. However, that would only occur in the event that he didn't provide the "keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use" (emphasis added).
So, if he signs an ordinary, generic binary, he's okay. However, if he signs a binary that is specifically targeted at this hardware platform, knowing that without his signature, the binary will not run, then he could probably be held liable.
Realistically, the courts would sort out these things on a case-by-case basis. Also, as far as I know, Linus doesn't distribute or sign Linux binaries. It's hard to violate the terms of the GPL when you're only distributing source code.
It is saying that you cannot do that and simultaneously distribute GPLv3 code that runs on that device, unless you provide what is "necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use".
This is just a further clarification of what "source code" in GPLv2 already means (that being, the preferred form of a work for making modifications to it).
And, in that case, if the distributor doesn't give you the signing key, or a mechanism for transparently changing the signing key that the device accepts, then the distributor hasn't given you the Corresponding Source, and is liable to the copyright holder for copyright infringement.
The definition of "Corresponding Source" in GPLv3draft2 does, and the definition of "source code" in GPLv2 (arguably) does.
They are perhaps allowed to restrict you, by legal means, from modifying the software that's on the leased hardware (a claim that I would dispute, but I digress). Regardless, they are required to provide you with the Corresponding Source, which effectively means that they cannot use technical means to prevent you from modifying the software that's on the leased hardware.
From GPL3draft2 (with emphasis added):
Whether or not they place other legal obligations on you, if they do not provide the Corresponding Source, then the copyright holder can sue them for infringement.
I assume you're talking about this, which hasn't been updated since June, and which barely has any discussion except about internationalization. Or maybe you're talking about ReWind, the BSD-licenced fork of WINE, which is even more lifeless.
Contrast that with WINE, which is actively developed, discussed, and used enough to justify "weekly" news articles.
That's because you don't give a shit about the long term. Other people do. The comment was directed at them. Deal with it.
Did you even bother to listen to what Ted Stevens had to say before you started repeating that meme?
His analogy is more-or-less correct. Internet connections have finite capacity, and once they're saturated, you more-or-less have to wait in line to use them (at least when everybody is using TCP).
There are much more deserving points of criticism, namely:
Making fun of Ted Stevens for the "tubes" analogy just makes you look like a jackass whose understanding of how the Internet works is no better than that of the man you're making fun of.
... with a tube of confiscated toothpaste?
That is correct. If evidence exists that contradicts a particular statement, then that statement is refuted. If a statement is refuted, then it cannot at the same time be impossible to refute. Quod erat faciendum.
Your link to a long Wikipedia article is no more of an argument than this is a counter-argument. Your punishment: read AboveGod and the Chair of Wisdom, and learn the error of your ways.
[snip]
(x) The items you hage checked contradict each other.
That already exists. It's called "OpenGL" (or libGL.so.1 on Linux-based systems).
Talk to Trading Standards in the UK.
Or Xen. Xen on the desktop would be very handy.
All it takes to "own the linux market" is good documentation. This has been common knowledge for years.
-1, Troll
Read Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt
My guess is that the drivers are broken. I can't imagine anyone shipping an Ethernet NIC that, by design, adds 75-125 ms of latency to each frame.
That's bullshit. Have you ever written a piece of non-trivial software for Windows?
It works because of who we're targeting. Browser-savvy users already have a non-MSIE browser installed, so we don't have to worry about them. We're targeting the clueless users who are dumb enough to trust ActiveX.
Also, it makes a good business case. If you're a web developer, you tell your customer something like: "We can add native support to MSIE to your site, but because MSIE doesn't follow the standards, it will cost an extra 10-20% to do so. If you prefer, we can use this ActiveX control, so MSIE users will just have to click "Yes" once, like this. See? Oh, and lots of other sites are already using this control, so people might not even have to click anything."
I would love to see an automatically self-updating Gecko ActiveX control. Any IE user who visits my sites (or dozens of other sites that mandate it), would simply have to click "Yes" once (ever), and then the user would be using the newest version of Gecko to render the pages automatically.
IE could be effectively marginalized that way.
Really? Where?
The GPLv3 drafts tell distributors that if they distribute my code, they need to distribute everything necessary to ensure that the recipients have the ability to exercise the four freedoms that the FSF associates with free software, and to ensure that the recipients know that they can do these things. Otherwise, I can sue those distributors for copyright infringement.
The FSF is taking their sweet time with HURD, which includes doing one or two rewrites, because Linux exists. The FSF probably figures that there's no point in building a system that's technically inferior to Linux, since then nobody will bother adopting it anyway.
If Linux didn't exist (and a legally-unencumbered BSD didn't either), the HURD would probably be usable by now.