Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On Thursday 19 July 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??': -Original Message- From: Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you don't like the GPLv3, you probably didn't *really* like the GPLv2 and might be more interested in licensing anything you contribute under something like MIT/X11/BSD. Those licenses allow others to take your code, cripple it, and sell it to you (perhaps even on a device) for $100. Oh, and offer you an upgrade to (_the same device_ running) your original code (which still has a few bugs, you might want a support contract) for $1. I can't agree with your statements here. Unless you have no understanding of copyright law, you should realize that YOUR code cannot be crippled regardless of the license that you put it under. Not true. Say you release code into the public domain [1]. Now, evil corporation X takes that code, strips out some features, sign it and put it on a cell phone. They sell you the phone for $300 (free with 2 year contract) or a version with your original software on it (the exact same hardware) for $600 (no discount available). They pull a TiVo can ensure that you can't load modified software on it -- or you can but then the phone refuses to do anything put print This phone needs service. Please take this phone to your local retailer for service. They don't even tell you it's your code -- someone in Turkey found that out and emailed you in broken English. ;) Your code is locked up and you can no longer upgrade it (or even use ALL of the features that YOU wrote) without paying $$$. Sure, you can still upgrade and release your code, but you can't run it on a device YOU PAID for that is ALREADY running YOUR code, UNMODIFIED. You also can't help other people using these phones that THEY paid for, even though your code runs unmodified. The GPL has always been engineered to prevent this behavior. The GPLv1 and GPLv2 both concentrated on the way to prevent this through copyright law. However, this has proven to be not enough. After bring cases to count (and settling because the case was so clear-cut) multiple times, it became fairly clear to all parties that GPLv2 was overly difficult, if not impossible, to be simply attacking with copyright law. So, entities that would rather not contribute, have attacked with technological and patent-law methods to restrict users' freedoms and the GPLv3 meets those attacks head on. I hope RMS and the FSF will act even more quickly (either with aggressive litigation or further license revisions) to future attacks on the freedoms that are meant to be preserved throughout the Free Software ecosystem. The code that YOU write and release under an Open Source or Free Software license will still be available under that license even after someone else uses it in a project of their own. Yes. If you use a license that allows for relicensing or closing of the code and someone does so, then it only effects THEIR Version of the code. Yours is still intact, and unharmed. With the BSD lincese and public domain, we get into case case where the freedom of the code depends on where you take the measurement (see above). RMS witnessed such things happening and preventing the free code from always free. Thus, he wrote the GPLv1 with the goal of making sure Free Software was free everywhere and to everyone. The MIT/BSD/etc licenses have the advantage that a person can if they so desire CHOOSE whether or not they wish to make THEIR code and modifications available. This is a choice. They ALSO get to choose whether they give their users your code and can even prevent users from knowing what code they are running, especially if your are prolific. The GPL also covers (read: places restrictions on) derivative works, something that is your right as a copyright holder. BSD/MIT/X11 don't, and LGPL makes only minimal requirements on derivative works to ensure the original work remains free. Many of us WILL release our own code even under those terms, but it is a choice to do so. I am not saying that the idea of GPL is wrong. Different developers have different desires for their code. I am simply saying that the Open Source route is just as valid as the Free Software route. But the GPL has *always* been about Free Software, not just Open Source. By accepting the terms of the GPLv2, TiVo should have been prepared to honor the Free Software definition and not attempt to restrict their users' freedoms. As a user I wish *every* piece of software I received was under the terms of the GPLv3. As a developer, I understand the allure of the BSD license -- it's great to be able to grab others' stuff with a few strings attached as possible. However, since I'll always end up using more code than I write, I prefer to release under the GPLv3. As for selling it back to you. It is up to every person to take
RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
-Original Message- From: Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 3:00 PM To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3?? I totally agree here. (Of course, I think the Free Software vs. Proprietary Software war is just heating up.) I'm ready to call end of thread if everyone else is. :) I was going to argue a few things, but I think this is probably a better idea. ^_^ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On 17 Jul 2007, at 17:19, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Dienstag, 17. Juli 2007, Stroller wrote: I believe that even Linus - who is noted for his long-standing opposition to v3 - would change his mind were he to experience this. They're using the operating system _I_ wrote to lock me out of _my own_ router?!?!?!? Linus has said it several times that he was ok with the thing Tivo did. And Tivo is the reason for that clause in GPLv3. I've seen no evidence that he said this AFTER spending a big chunk of his own money on hardware, plugging it into his ethernet network and finding himself frustrated by an inability to copy shows recorded in his living room to the Tivo in his den. A problem with having well-paid and financially successful leaders is the risk of them becoming out of touch with the common man. Linux is Linus' baby and he's entitled to license his code however he wishes but he can afford a nice sports car now and I doubt that he has to pay for much hardware. I'm not saying that Linus is wrong, just that he might see things differently if the license he used on his software caused him time, inconvenience, frustration and expense. Say what you like about the lunatic fringe, but RMS has never forgotten that laser printer which he was unable to fix because the code was denied him. Stroller. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On 17 Jul 2007, at 18:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TiVo ... did not allow modified, and therefore potentially Compromised, devices connect to their network. This does not sound like theft of code, it sounds like sound network protocol. If you wish to maintain a secure environment that is stable for thousands of users, and has a lot of money riding on it, you do not allow compromised devices to connect. I'm not familiar with Tivo's network - I'd had the impression that a Tivo merely dialled into their servers obtained a TV schedule. However, this is not the point. The point is that Tivo SOLD people hardware which was locked in such a way that it made restrictions upon the purchasers' use of that hardware. I presume that - although the GPL requires Tivo to inform purchasers of their rights to a copy of the source code - this retriction was not advertised at the point-of-sale. There are lots of valid uses for a low-power computer with a TV-tuner card, a hard-drive and a good TV-compatible video-output aside from hacking Tivo's network. If you want to build a secure network I think it's behoven upon you to bear the cost of that. I just find it the idea objectionable that you should be able to take source code that other people have written - that other people have released publicly with the intent that it should benefit all - and use that in a way detrimental to the majority of users. To bear the cost of a secure environment feel free to rent out the equipment. Require a minimum 12-month contract, if you wish, but do not sell the customer equipment which locks them into your service, equipment which they own but which is worthless scrap should they choose to cancel their subscription with you. That, IMO, is misleading and whilst vendors may be entitled to sell equipment which is locked to their service, I feel they ought to have the good grace to write their own damn code if they're going to do so. Nintendo do this quite successfully with their PS3 Xbox360 consoles, and do not rely on the open-source community to give them a free ride. In the Land Of The Free consumers might not need any protection from entering into any contract that they wish, but over here in Europe we consider this sort of behaviour as petty any anti-competitive. The TiVo thing was completely within the word and spirit of the GPL. It is sad that many zealots seem to interpret the texts otherwise. Whilst it may have been within the _word_ of the GPL your remarks do not explain why the GPL has been specifically rewritten to exclude this behaviour. How do you reconcile this fact with your remarks that the Tivo thing is within the _sprit_ of the GPL? Stroller. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On 17 Jul 2007, at 18:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... The preamble of Version 2 was almost unchanged from the original preamble written for the first GPL license. It was eloquent. It was convincing. It was awe inspiring. ... It is hard to explain my feelings about the new license. ... They took a license that was a work of art that stood as an example to two loosely bound movements, and ran it through the shredder. It is like looking upon the battle flag of your own nation with a moment of pride, only to notice that some vandal has written seditious slurs all over it. I don't agree with you, but your own words are very eloquently written, and do cause me to respect your position. I have read both licenses fully, but sometime I'll have to find the time to do so again and reread your posts. Stroller. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On 18 Jul 2007, at 13:38, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: It was *barely* within the word, and definitely not within the spirit of the GPL. Don't beleive me? Ask anyone at the FSF or RMS himself. They wrote the thing. ... Tivo had no option, their content providers would never have given them a license to redistribute content without the mods they did, and the shareholders would never have approved of Tivo trying to go against the content provider's conditions. Um... isn't a Tivo a device for recording TV programs? In this case Tivo _has_ no content providers of their own. As I understand it Tivo is just a fancy video recorder - a particularly advanced one for its time, but that's all. In these litigation-prone times I can see why Tivo bow to the content providers, but really they have no more right to tell customers how to use their device than LG or Philips would have to say you're allowed to record soap operas with this VHS recorder we sold you, but not full-length movies. As far as I'm concerned the GPL is a license that protects consumers. That is the intent of it, as has been explained by Mike Edenfield so well a couple of times in the last 24 hours. Had Tivo written their own operating system from the ground up it would have cost them a lot more (in time, money, resources), and they could easily have been undercut by a competitor producing a better product based on Linux. Under GPL v3 the competitor's success will at least ensure they have the money to defend against lawsuits from the content providers. The sad thing for Tivo their proponents is that now - what? 5 years later? less? - you can buy a Chinese DVR (digital video recorder) for recording your TV programs for $100 or so. I'll bet the manufacturers of those don't suck it up to the content providers the way Tivo has and I'm sure lots of them will allow you to dump any program you've recorded as DivX to CD-R or as DVD and give it to friends or family. Tivo may have made bucks by being early to the market but the western manufacturing philosophy of treating customers as secondary to the media companies will come back bite us all on the ass when customers choose to shop elsewhere. You can't compete with giving the customer what he wants. Stroller. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On Wednesday 18 July 2007, Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??': On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: The TiVo thing was completely within the word and spirit of the GPL. It was *barely* within the word, and definitely not within the spirit of the GPL. Don't beleive me? Ask anyone at the FSF or RMS himself. They wrote the thing. TiVo did just that and got the A-OK signal and thumbs up from the FSF's lawyers. That's because you *could* swap out the software on early TiVos. Sometime later, someone had a hissy fit, FSF reversed their stated position and suddenly Tivo becomes spawn of satan. Because they started artificially limiting users' freedoms 0, 1, and partially 3. Tivo had no option, their content providers would never have given them a license to redistribute content without the mods they did It's not my (or my community's, or my code's) job to support your business model. If you can't play by the license, then you can't use the software. It's not the software that is crippled, it's the hardware. No, it's the software because they haven't given it all to us. For software to run on the device it was *designed* to run on it's required to be signed; therefore, the signature is part of the binary and a derivative of a GPLv2 work. That work distributed presumably under the GPLv2, which means the source (preferred format for making modifications) must be provided, and TiVo has not yet published the necessary tools for us to generate our own signatures. They are therefore limiting freedom 1, which limits freedom 0, and indirectly freedom 3, because the community cannot benefit. So, in what way have Tivo removed people's freedom as granted by the GPL? Artificially limiting freedoms 0, 1, and 3. The restriction is fundamentally different from a RAM or HD space limit; a binary that does nothing but play pong (well within the hardware capabilities of the TiVo) is still not allowed to run without the signature. Personally, I think TiVo COULD be called out for violating GPLv2, but IANAL and Eben is and declined to file suit against them. Under the GPLv3, users' freedoms are better protected, and it's quite clear that TiVo would/will be in violation of that license. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On Wednesday 18 July 2007, b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??': What should I do, in your opinion? Probably LGPLv3, which will allow GPLv2 (and proprietary) projects to use it without requiring the combined work to be GPLv3. Actually, I'm probably going to take a pen to the LGPLv3 in the future and turn it into something along the lines of GPLv3 or, if your larger work is licenced under any version of the GPL, LGPLv3, but that's for the future and I'll want to run the license by the FSF first before using it. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On Wednesday 18 July 2007, Stroller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??': However, this is not the point. The point is that Tivo SOLD people hardware This is the salient point for me, too. If hardware was still owned by TiVo (in reality, not just in name) I'd have no problem with them deciding what can run on it and taking steps to prevent tampering. I'm not sure Stallman would agree with me -- users may or may not own the device their software runs on, and Stallman is all about users. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On Mittwoch, 18. Juli 2007, Stroller wrote: On 17 Jul 2007, at 17:19, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Dienstag, 17. Juli 2007, Stroller wrote: I believe that even Linus - who is noted for his long-standing opposition to v3 - would change his mind were he to experience this. They're using the operating system _I_ wrote to lock me out of _my own_ router?!?!?!? Linus has said it several times that he was ok with the thing Tivo did. And Tivo is the reason for that clause in GPLv3. I've seen no evidence that he said this AFTER spending a big chunk of his own money on hardware, plugging it into his ethernet network and finding himself frustrated by an inability to copy shows recorded in his living room to the Tivo in his den. A problem with having well-paid and financially successful leaders is the risk of them becoming out of touch with the common man. Linux is Linus' baby and he's entitled to license his code however he wishes but he can afford a nice sports car now and I doubt that he has to pay for much hardware. I'm not saying that Linus is wrong, just that he might see things differently if the license he used on his software caused him time, inconvenience, frustration and expense. Say what you like about the lunatic fringe, but RMS has never forgotten that laser printer which he was unable to fix because the code was denied him. Stroller. a) nobody is forced to buy a tivo. If you don't like it, don't buy it and you don't have problems. b) AFAIR Linus owns a Tivo himself. c) it is morally wrong to try to dictate HARDWARE licence problems with a SOFTWARE licence d) If I can't use the software freely anymore one of the key freedoms is gone. This is the same stupidity like anti-terror law. Lets take away freedom and free speech to protect freedom and free speeach e) Linus is not alone. You should read what Jesper Juhl wrote in one of the lenghty discussions on lkml. Very interessting. http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=118211628209101w=2 you might also read the rest of it. It might open your eyes. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On Wednesday 18 July 2007, Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??': a) nobody is forced to buy a tivo. If you don't like it, don't buy it and you don't have problems. TiVo isn't forced to use GPLv3 licensed code -- if they don't use it, they don't have problems. b) AFAIR Linus owns a Tivo himself. Yes, I believe he does. c) it is morally wrong to try to dictate HARDWARE licence problems with a SOFTWARE licence There's no requirement on the hardware that runs GPLv3 software. You just have to provide the whole source (preferred format for modification) to the full binary (everything that must be in place to run the software on the device it was designed for). d) If I can't use the software freely anymore one of the key freedoms is gone. Yes, which is why the GPL v3 is necessary. This is the same stupidity like anti-terror law. Lets take away freedom and free speech to protect freedom and free speeach Except that the anti-terror laws don't protect freedom or free speech in any way, just life (and it's questionable that they do that). It's more like the laws that say you can be thrown in prison for unlawfully imprisoning others. Your freedom will be restricted (you can't use the software) if you attempt to restrict the freedoms (namely, the four freedoms) of others. e) Linus is not alone. You should read what Jesper Juhl wrote in one of the lenghty discussions on lkml. Very interessting. http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=118211628209101w=2 1) This concerns draft versions, as the final version wasn't available. 2) Mr. Juhl admits there are downsides to allowing tivoization. The question really remains -- do you want your code to be able to be locked up or not? BSD is available for those that don't care if the code is locked up. GPLv3 is available for those that want the maximum level of protection against their code (or derivatives) from being locked up. There are a quite a few other Free Software licenses between those two extremes, including GPLv2. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On 18 Jul 2007, at 18:40, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: ... Linus has said it several times that he was ok with the thing Tivo did. And Tivo is the reason for that clause in GPLv3. I've seen no evidence that he said this AFTER spending a big chunk of his own money on hardware, plugging it into his ethernet network and finding himself frustrated by an inability to copy shows recorded in his living room to the Tivo in his den. a) nobody is forced to buy a tivo. If you don't like it, don't buy it and you don't have problems. b) AFAIR Linus owns a Tivo himself. c) it is morally wrong to try to dictate HARDWARE licence problems with a SOFTWARE licence I'm always amazed at how the internet enables folks to _reply to_ discussion points without actually _answering_ them. But I gather that repeating a point three times is nearly as effective as three people in agreement each making that point once, so maybe that is your intent? a) You ignore all the comments in other posts about the ethical aspects of selling locked hardware: - end-user's ownership of the hardware they purchase; is the locking made clear at time of purchase? - anti-competitive practices. - environmental damage when obsolete locked hardware cannot be re- purposed. It must be disposed of in landfill, lead solder, mercury whatnot leaking dramatically into the water table because the firmware cannot be upgraded to one that actually works. These matters are our concern whether or not we personally buy Product_X. Only if you have never made a casual or uninformed purchase, have never found that a product you have bought does not work _quite_ as advertised will you be unable to appreciate these points. As Mr Boyd Smith Jr. points out so eloquently, it is not our responsibility to support Vendor_X's business model - if I find open- source code running on a device I have purchased I have a reasonable expectation that I should be able to modify that code (as the author intended) and run that on the same hardware I own. Hopefully new European legislation requiring manufacturers to be responsible for disposing of hardware they have sold will have some knock-on effects on hardware locking, but it's hardly a direct way of dealing with the problem. b) I never said Linus didn't own a Tivo himself. What I said was that he might see things differently were Tivotisation to _cost him personally_ time, inconvenience, frustration and expense. I can't determine in what circumstances this might actually occur, but I know I'd be shouting blue murder to the rafters if I wrote thousands of lines of code, gave them away for free for anyone to use and then some bugger sold that software back to me and prevented me from changing it when I needed to. The active part of the last sentence is when needed - we can discuss this forever on the internets, it's all nice and arty farty to talk about morals philosophies of freedom software licensing but I challenge anyone not to feel offended when those ideals have kicked you in the teeth. c) WTF!?!?!? Can you justify this statement? Stroller. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On Donnerstag, 19. Juli 2007, Stroller wrote: On 18 Jul 2007, at 18:40, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: ... Linus has said it several times that he was ok with the thing Tivo did. And Tivo is the reason for that clause in GPLv3. I've seen no evidence that he said this AFTER spending a big chunk of his own money on hardware, plugging it into his ethernet network and finding himself frustrated by an inability to copy shows recorded in his living room to the Tivo in his den. a) nobody is forced to buy a tivo. If you don't like it, don't buy it and you don't have problems. b) AFAIR Linus owns a Tivo himself. c) it is morally wrong to try to dictate HARDWARE licence problems with a SOFTWARE licence I'm always amazed at how the internet enables folks to _reply to_ discussion points without actually _answering_ them. But I gather that repeating a point three times is nearly as effective as three people in agreement each making that point once, so maybe that is your intent? a) You ignore all the comments in other posts about the ethical aspects of selling locked hardware: - end-user's ownership of the hardware they purchase; is the locking made clear at time of purchase? - anti-competitive practices. - environmental damage when obsolete locked hardware cannot be re- purposed. It must be disposed of in landfill, lead solder, mercury whatnot leaking dramatically into the water table because the firmware cannot be upgraded to one that actually works. if somebody buys locked hardware, it is his own freaking fault. Or could ANYBODY claim to be surprised by say Tivo? Plus, people who are discussing 'ethical' problems with locked hardware tend to forget, that there is enough hardware out there that a) needs an update once in a while but b) has to be temper proof by the user! You might want to read up about clinical equipment or FCC rules. Just for fun. Also, the new ROHS rules make pretty sure that hardware does not survive for long - and most hardware - shocking news, is recycled today because of the precious metals used in it. So no landfills, if you dispose the hardware correctly. [removed a lot of preaching] b) I never said Linus didn't own a Tivo himself. What I said was that he might see things differently were Tivotisation to _cost him personally_ time, inconvenience, frustration and expense. if that would be the case he would not have bought a Tivo... and why does a temper proof box cause you 'frustration'? I can't determine in what circumstances this might actually occur, but I know I'd be shouting blue murder to the rafters if I wrote thousands of lines of code, gave them away for free for anyone to use and then some bugger sold that software back to me and prevented me from changing it when I needed to. well, Linus lives the open source. Tivo gave back the modifications they did to the community so he is satisfied. Maybe Linus is just a little bit less self centered than others? The active part of the last sentence is when needed and when do you 'need' to hack a tivo? And why do you buy one when you need to hack it? There are other solutions where the vendor does not lock the users out from tempering - buy them instead of a Tivo and stop whining. - we can discuss this forever on the internets, it's all nice and arty farty to talk about morals philosophies of freedom software licensing but I challenge anyone not to feel offended when those ideals have kicked you in the teeth. who kicked whom? So far most of the kernel people who should be concerned with Tivo were pretty cool about it. Only the FSF and some of its fans, made a lot of noise. c) WTF!?!?!? Can you justify this statement? Stroller. yes. But why should I? Linus' did it several times and he did it a lot better than I can ever do it. Just use google. Some people need to realize that there is a fundamental difference between code and hardware. And telling someone what he can do with HIS hardware is just wrong. You don't like the terms of the hardware vendor? Fine. Don't buy it. But buying it and than complaining is just lame. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On Wednesday 18 July 2007 06:48:38 pm Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Donnerstag, 19. Juli 2007, Stroller wrote: On 18 Jul 2007, at 18:40, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: [C]ould ANYBODY claim to be surprised by say Tivo? Yes they can, since the move to DRM/TPM/etc. devices was unannounced and a change from previous generations of the hardware. There's also the fact that the code the TiVo runs *must have a signature as one of it parts* and like any GPLv2 derivative, distributors (like TiVo) must provide the full and complete source (preferred form for modification) of all the parts, which they have not. This signature requirement is implicit in the GPLv2 and explicit in the GPLv3. So was the patent license stuff. The GPLv3 is just a stronger, more well-specified GPLv2. If you don't like the GPLv3, you probably didn't *really* like the GPLv2 and might be more interested in licensing anything you contribute under something like MIT/X11/BSD. Those licenses allow others to take your code, cripple it, and sell it to you (perhaps even on a device) for $100. Oh, and offer you an upgrade to (_the same device_ running) your original code (which still has a few bugs, you might want a support contract) for $1. Plus, people who are discussing 'ethical' problems with locked hardware tend to forget, that there is enough hardware out there that a) needs an update once in a while but b) has to be temper proof by the user! You might want to read up about clinical equipment or FCC rules. Just for fun. Actually, during the GPLv3 process, both these points (FCC and medical equipment) were brought up and experts were brought in. It was determined that there is no legal requirement to make such devices tamper-proof, if upgrades are allowed at all. Equipment distributors are already protected from lawsuits (and the like) once a device is tampered with as long as they give the tamperer sufficient warning. There is no legal reason why devices must be upgradable by their distributor but not by their owner, including devices under the auspices of the FCC or medical devices. Some people need to realize that there is a fundamental difference between code and hardware. The FSF knows there's a difference between code and hardware. However, there is no difference between code on a HD and code on an EEPROM. (It's all just readable and writable bits.) There's also no difference between code on a CD and code on a ROM chip. (It's all just reabable bits.) And telling someone what he can do with HIS hardware is just wrong. You don't like the terms of the hardware vendor? Fine. Don't buy it. But buying it and than complaining is just lame. If they sell it to me it is no longer their hardware. It's MINE. That's why DRM shouldn't be allowed AT ALL, completely independent of the software distribution requirements (not hardware requirements) that the GPLv3 specifies. If TiVo was renting (really renting, not just in name like $129 lets you rent the device for 99 years) the devices, I would probably be on the other side of this discussion. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
As soon as I saw this thread I knew it was trouble. I was able to resist posting for the first couple of days - I do wish I had maintained this restraint. On 19 Jul 2007, at 00:48, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: if somebody buys locked hardware, it is his own freaking fault. Or could ANYBODY claim to be surprised by say Tivo? Apparently some people legitimately were: On 18 Jul 2007, at 17:15, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: That's because you *could* swap out the software on early TiVos. b) I never said Linus didn't own a Tivo himself. What I said was that he might see things differently were Tivotisation to _cost him personally_ time, inconvenience, frustration and expense. if that would be the case he would not have bought a Tivo... I didn't bring up Tivo, it was someone else who did so in response to me. You're clearly not grasping my point, so I'm sorry for not making it more clearly. I can't imagine you might be ignoring my point just for the sake of arguing. ;) My reference to Linus changing his mind was in reference to him hypothetically going out and with his own money buying some Product_X (not a Tivo!!) which was shipped running Linux, which didn't perform quite as he expected and which he subsequently UNEXPECTEDLY found he was unable to fix because it would only run his software if the binaries were signed with some secret cryptographic key. I imagine him crying They're using the operating system _I_ wrote to lock me out of _my own_ hardware?!?!?!? Discussing Tivos at this stage isn't conducive to constructive discussion because we're all familiar with that particular brand. My own personal experience is with an ADSL modem-router which is locked to a specific internet service provider. At the time I bought this model http://groups.google.com/group/uk.telecom.broadband/msg/ e94af4c1a93bad18 there was very little written on the internet about it being locked to the vendor's network - I guess it was perhaps just a year old and that few owners of the router would have reached the end of their 1-year minimum contract with the ISP (although they could legitimately have sold the router on within that year and used a USB ADSL modem instead). It was only having bought the device that I discovered this problem and I didn't even know it ran Linux until I subsequently started analysing its firmware (I believe the vendor may have breached the keep intact all notices part of clause 4 of the GPL, but that's aside). After I found the device worked at my friends' house using their Wanadoo username password (but not at my own house on my ISP) I searched extensively and found only a couple of references to the locking after some considerable searching. So it clearly was not my expectation that the device would be locked and it's hardly reasonable to assume I might have expected it - the practice of giving away free wireless routers with ISP contracts was far less common in the UK at the time. I'm not trying to blame Wanadoo or you or Linus or anyone for my mistake in this matter - I'm merely trying to illustrate how easily one could find oneself in possession of locked hardware running open- source code. If you retain your opinion on these matters having found yourself in such a position then I'll concede that you're a man considerably more charitable than I. My hypothetical situation of Linus personally expending time, frustration and expense is clearly a mere literary illustration. Considering that his Red Hat and VA Linux stock options bring Linus' net worth to $20 million or so and manufacturers line up to gift him dual-processor G5s it's unlikely that an £80 router is going to cause him the same dismay it would to a single mother on minimum wage who unexpectedly found herself that much out of pocket. and why does a temper proof box cause you 'frustration'? Because I'm unable to use a device I purchased in a way it might reasonably be expected to be used. The active part of the last sentence is when needed and when do you 'need' to hack a tivo? When your subscription expires? I assume that the Tivo subscription is only for the TV schedules and there are now plenty of alternative free sources for those. You might well wish to run MythTV on your set- top box - why shouldn't one do that? The user does, after all, own the hardware. And telling someone what he can do with HIS hardware is just wrong. I hope you appreciate the irony of this statement. Stroller. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On 19 Jul 2007, at 01:41, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: ... If TiVo was renting ... the devices, I would probably be on the other side of this discussion. Oh, absolutely. There's entirely no reason for someone to have the right to install software on a device they don't own. But IMO on a device they do own then that right is paramount. Tivo could easily have made a business model out of renting the hardware - they could simply have adjusted the subscription to cover the cost of the unit. The reason they didn't was marketing, pure simple - to a consumer it's far more compelling to buy a device which you own for life than to consider the on-going cost of the subscription. $350 for the ownership of this great device which comes with a year's FREE subscription is far better than signing up for a $30-a-month contract with nothing to show for it at the end of a year. Perhaps Volker doesn't consider himself the kind of sucker consumer who would fall for such a ploy. I find myself unable to explain his ire at whingers who disagree with him. Stroller. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
-Original Message- From: Stroller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:59 AM To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3?? Routers: The router issue was probably missed by a number of people simply because in the states it is common for the company to either lease out a router, or sell a branded one that is just a standard router with the Yahoo or cable company logo stamped on the side. At the end of the service term it either goes back to the Company or you can keep using it for the next service. I get the impression that it is the same in Japan. YahooBB (Their branding in Japan) has an option to pay two or three hundred yen exta a month to lease a router. From what you are saying, it sounds like it is safe to assume that it is NORMALY that way in the EU countries as well. I could be wrong there. ^^;; The TiVo issue: I previously missunderstood how the TiVo functioned. I have to admit when I am wrong. I was under the impression that the unit worked through a specific network or providers that connected to the network. I have read a little more on the subject, and I have to say that there is a difference between a device designed to connect to a specific network and receive a service, and a device that is advertised as a DVR with a few addons. The DirectTV reciever boxes make a littler more sense that way, but not the standalones. I still believe that a vender has a right to present a service as they intend to use it, as long as they are completely honest with their customers and do so within the terms of any contracts they have with content and software providers. In this case that means the GPL. They were within the word of the GPL at the time. However, they were not totally honest with the way they advertised And hyped their product. :P After reading the Wikipedia article, I see that the VCR+ concept was the same thing without the requirement for network fed TV guide listings. I _THINK_ VCR+ used an encoded time stamp and channel number. :P It never caught on so well though, because it didn't have a lot of hype behind it except for the listing in the TV Guide, and it used VHS tapes instead of a digital format. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
-Original Message- From: Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:42 AM To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3?? If you don't like the GPLv3, you probably didn't *really* like the GPLv2 and might be more interested in licensing anything you contribute under something like MIT/X11/BSD. Those licenses allow others to take your code, cripple it, and sell it to you (perhaps even on a device) for $100. Oh, and offer you an upgrade to (_the same device_ running) your original code (which still has a few bugs, you might want a support contract) for $1. I can't agree with your statements here. Unless you have no understanding of copyright law, you should realize that YOUR code cannot be crippled regardless of the license that you put it under. The code that YOU write and release under an Open Source or Free Software license will still be available under that license even after someone else uses it in a project of their own. If you use a license that allows for relicensing or closing of the code and someone does so, then it only effects THEIR Version of the code. Yours is still intact, and unharmed. The MIT/BSD/etc licenses have the advantage that a person can if they so desire CHOOSE whether or not they wish to make THEIR code and modifications available. This is a choice. Many of us WILL release our own code even under those terms, but it is a choice to do so. I am not saying that the idea of GPL is wrong. Different developers have different desires for their code. I am simply saying that the Open Source route is just as valid as the Free Software route. As for selling it back to you. It is up to every person to take measures to educate themselves on their purchases. It is the responsibility of the vendor, license or no license to make sure that the information is available for the customer to make an educated decision. As long as both hold up their part of the deal, things go well. Both customers and merchants are just as bad about not doing their part though. Merchants sometimes lie about their products, or simply with hold the truth (which is just as bad). Customers often buy things on Impulse with no real clue what they are buying. If one party to the transaction is taking measures to hold up their side of this implied bargain, then they should be able to expect the other side to as well. Failure to do so often times ends up in the faithful party getting screwed. This happens to venders as well as customers. I will admit however, that in today's economy, it is often the vender who has the upper hand. Beyond that, always thinking in terms of worst case scenerios may be good in war time, but otherwise it will just give you ulcers. ^_^ So, like, pick your favorite license, study what you buy before you buy, and relax a bit. ^_^ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
Personally I'm quite happy with both GPLv2 and GPLv3. Frankly, my only real, serious concern is the fact that the two licences are incompatible. The fact compatibility has not explicitly allowed sounds plain crazy to me. This means that GPLv2-only projects won't exchange code anymore with GPLv3-only or GPLv3-and-later projects, thus splitting the ecosystem in half, with benefit for no one. When I tried asking about how to have some degree of compatibility between GPLv2 and GPLv3 in code I write, everyone told me just license it under GPLv2 or any later version. The problem is that in this case I have to blindly trust the FSF about anything that will come out of it. GPLv3 raised serious concerns to many, and I also tried to follow carefully the thing, even if at the end, for all my purposes, I find them more or less equivalent. But how can I know what GPLv4 or v5 will be? Will I still like it? Using the any later version clause puts me in the hands of FSF without chance of coming back. Not using it (and just using v2 and v3) puts me at the stake whenever GPLv4 will be out. What should I do, in your opinion? m. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
-Original Message- From: b.n. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:29 PM To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3?? Personally I'm quite happy with both GPLv2 and GPLv3. Frankly, my only real, serious concern is the fact that the two licences are incompatible. The fact compatibility has not explicitly allowed sounds plain crazy to me. When I tried asking about how to have some degree of compatibility between GPLv2 and GPLv3 in code I write, everyone told me just license it under GPLv2 or any later version. The problem is that in this case I have to blindly trust the FSF about anything that will come out of it. That honestly is the only real way to make them compatible, to use the or any later version clause. Version 3 only allows for very specific modifications to itself. Version 2 was a little more forgiving. Version 3 says Here is a list of optional clauses. There are other options, but they make it into a new license. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
I read a little bit of the new license, and restrictive though it may be and also strange for a pillar of the open source community to suddenly change is directive so drastically, I am still comforted. I believe the essential beauty of this community is that we cannot be governed by software licenses alone. If we do not like the language of a license, we are by no means bound to employ it. So, if GPLv3 is as terrible as some say it is, then other people will not use it. The true judge of GPLv3's merit will be its adoption. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: The TiVo thing was completely within the word and spirit of the GPL. It was *barely* within the word, and definitely not within the spirit of the GPL. Don't beleive me? Ask anyone at the FSF or RMS himself. They wrote the thing. TiVo did just that and got the A-OK signal and thumbs up from the FSF's lawyers. Sometime later, someone had a hissy fit, FSF reversed their stated position and suddenly Tivo becomes spawn of satan. Tivo had no option, their content providers would never have given them a license to redistribute content without the mods they did, and the shareholders would never have approved of Tivo trying to go against the content provider's conditions. So, they obeyed the rules and as a measure of thanks RMS rubs elephant shit all over their faces. It's not the software that is crippled, it's the hardware. I'm not a USian and don't own a Tivo but I imagine it's similar to tv decoder we have here locally - heavily subsidised. It's built to do one thing well - record and display TV shows. If you don't like the business model Tivo came up with, then don't use the Tivo service. After all it's a TV decoder, not a kidney dyalysis machine According to Alan Cox, the thing has a bog-standard IDe drive in it. If you remove it, stick it in a bog-standard pc and power up, it boots just fine. So, in what way have Tivo removed people's freedom as granted by the GPL? alan -- Optimists say the glass is half full, Pessimists say the glass is half empty, Developers say wtf is the glass twice as big as it needs to be? Alan McKinnon alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za +27 82, double three seven, one nine three five -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Henk Boom Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:08 AM To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3?? On 16/07/07, Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: because gplv3 removes freedom? As far as I remember from when I read it, it does not take any freedoms which the previous versions did not intend to. The purpose of the GPL is to protect the 4 freedoms. This instalment just closes loopholes in the previous versions which would allow these freedoms to be infringed upon. Henk Boom -- The four freedoms: Freedom 0: The freedom to run a program for any purpose. Freedom 1: To study the way a program works, and adapt it to your needs. Freedom 2: To redistribute copies so that you can help your neighbors. Freedom 3: Improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. For freedom 1 and 3 to work, the code must be open. Freedom 1 is just as important as the other three. Freedom one is almost eliminated in GPLv3. Freedom One is the freedom that was most whole heartedly expressed in the original manifesto. Freedom 3 is the one that GPLv3 is making most important now. It does so to the detriment of the other three. The old GPL licenses say that if you use the code in a public way, you have to make the code you use available changes and all. That deals with software and only software. Stallman used to be so set on THAT mindset (software vs. hardware), that he was in favor of those groups that didn't want to make the source code of every ROM chip they made open to the world, on the grounds that certain parts of firmware are so tied to the hardware as to be indistinguishable. GPLV3 says, if you want to use code in a public way, you have to crack open your box so that people can play with it however they want, and then that potentially compromised box still has to be able to connect to your network if it connected in it's unmodified form. That very much deals with the hardware. Under the spirit of the GPL, one could take code and use what they could. They still had to have the technical capabilities to use that code, and understand the platform it was on. Under the new version, if you don't understand the code, then something must be wrong with the code. If the code is full of machine dependant features that cannot compile on another type of machine, then something must be wrong with the code. Oh, and these strange assumptions only apply if you are making money off of the machine that the code was written for. Otherwise no one will ever notice so they don't care. Free Software is about Freedom. GPLv3 is about religion. You are free as long as you do things our way. That is why I shy away from the GPL licenses. I like the LGPLv2, but GPLv3 is kind of scary. I want code that I make free to be free. :P I don't want to say, It is free if you are a broke penniless college kid that plans to stay that way. LGPLv2 allows wide use of code, without heavy demands. If I by some miracle produce a chunk of code that propels another entity to the top of their industry, then I have achieved something Whether I get anything in return from them or not. If they are able to take what I have produced and make it useful, then more power too them. If they give back to the community in the form of code, cash, or even morale support, then that is them playing the game by our rules. It is good for us and will help them in the long run. Even if they don't give back code or cash or a pat on the back, if they simply say where the code came from, that will help the community. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Henk Boom Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:08 AM To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3?? On 16/07/07, Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: because gplv3 removes freedom? As far as I remember from when I read it, it does not take any freedoms which the previous versions did not intend to. The purpose of the GPL is to protect the 4 freedoms. This instalment just closes loopholes in the previous versions which would allow these freedoms to be infringed upon. Henk Boom -- The four freedoms: Freedom 0: The freedom to run a program for any purpose. Freedom 1: To study the way a program works, and adapt it to your needs. Freedom 2: To redistribute copies so that you can help your neighbors. Freedom 3: Improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. For freedom 1 and 3 to work, the code must be open. Freedom 1 is just as important as the other three. Freedom one is almost eliminated in GPLv3. Freedom One is the freedom that was most whole heartedly expressed in the original manifesto. Freedom 3 is the one that GPLv3 is making most important now. It does so to the detriment of the other three. I'm not very into licenses and hence my question may seem evident (or even stupid) but still... does not Freedom 3 imply Freedom 1? I mean, how can you improve a program without being able to study it? -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The four freedoms: Freedom 0: The freedom to run a program for any purpose. Freedom 1: To study the way a program works, and adapt it to your needs. Freedom 2: To redistribute copies so that you can help your neighbors. Freedom 3: Improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. For freedom 1 and 3 to work, the code must be open. Freedom 1 is just as important as the other three. Freedom one is almost eliminated in GPLv3. Freedom One is the freedom that was most whole heartedly expressed in the original manifesto. Just how does GPLv3 almost eliminate this? It still requires that if anyone obtains a binary of the program then they must either be given or be able to obtain the source. From this source they can study the program and make any adaptations they require to make it fit their needs. If they then distribute the adapted code, the adapted program must be released under GPLv3 (or optionally a later version). So all recipients of the adapted program must be able to obtain its source and therefore, should they so desire, study the program and make further adaptations themselves. AFAICS GPLv3 adds an additional freedom to such recipients over that offered by GPLv2 in that if the program is received with hardware and the hardware 'verifies' the code before running it then the mechanism for allowing binaries built from any adaptations to also verify must be supplied. So rather than almost eliminating Freedom One, GPLv3 actually enhances it. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
-Original Message- From: Abraham Marín Pérez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:43 PM To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3?? [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Henk Boom Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:08 AM To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3?? The four freedoms: Freedom 0: The freedom to run a program for any purpose. Freedom 1: To study the way a program works, and adapt it to your needs. Freedom 2: To redistribute copies so that you can help your neighbors. Freedom 3: Improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. For freedom 1 and 3 to work, the code must be open. Freedom 1 is just as important as the other three. Freedom one is almost eliminated in GPLv3. Freedom One is the freedom that was most whole heartedly expressed in the original manifesto. Freedom 3 is the one that GPLv3 is making most important now. It does so to the detriment of the other three. I'm not very into licenses and hence my question may seem evident (or even stupid) but still... does not Freedom 3 imply Freedom 1? I mean, how can you improve a program without being able to study it? :) The freedoms were listed before any license was written. They were the credo that the GNU foundation was founded upon. They were still the credo when the name became the Free Software Foundation. ^_^ Now the direction of the organization has apparently changed. They are more interested in slowing down the competition than helping the community. When they first started, the competition was still thought of as a part of the community. :/ I worry. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: -Original Message- From: Abraham Marín Pérez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:43 PM To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3?? [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Henk Boom Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:08 AM To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3?? The four freedoms: Freedom 0: The freedom to run a program for any purpose. Freedom 1: To study the way a program works, and adapt it to your needs. Freedom 2: To redistribute copies so that you can help your neighbors. Freedom 3: Improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. For freedom 1 and 3 to work, the code must be open. Freedom 1 is just as important as the other three. Freedom one is almost eliminated in GPLv3. Freedom One is the freedom that was most whole heartedly expressed in the original manifesto. Freedom 3 is the one that GPLv3 is making most important now. It does so to the detriment of the other three. I'm not very into licenses and hence my question may seem evident (or even stupid) but still... does not Freedom 3 imply Freedom 1? I mean, how can you improve a program without being able to study it? :) The freedoms were listed before any license was written. They were the credo that the GNU foundation was founded upon. They were still the credo when the name became the Free Software Foundation. ^_^ Now the direction of the organization has apparently changed. They are more interested in slowing down the competition than helping the community. When they first started, the competition was still thought of as a part of the community. :/ I worry. Ok, so good intentions are falling apart and being substituted by mercantile minds, but still I can't see how freedom one can be threatened while enhancing freedom three, it just seems contradictory to me. -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On 17 Jul 2007, at 12:01, Graham Murray wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The four freedoms: Freedom 0: The freedom to run a program for any purpose. Freedom 1: To study the way a program works, and adapt it to your needs. Freedom 2: To redistribute copies so that you can help your neighbors. Freedom 3: Improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. For freedom 1 and 3 to work, the code must be open. Freedom 1 is just as important as the other three. Freedom one is almost eliminated in GPLv3. Freedom One is the freedom that was most whole heartedly expressed in the original manifesto. Just how does GPLv3 almost eliminate this? It prevents vendors from (effectively) placing restrictions within their software and running those restricted programs on the hardware they sell us. Obviously this is a quite unreasonable imposition upon the freedoms of those benign corporate entities. If you don't see how unfair this is then you're clearly a subversive^w commie^w pinko^w freedom-hating terrorist!! Seriously, I can't understand people who disapprove of GPLv3. As things stand with GPL v2 it would be quite easy (in the UK) to buy a nice wireless ADSL modem-router as part of a sign-up package with your ISP, suffer a year's poor service and decide to sign up with another internet provider, only to find the the wireless router is locked to the first ISP and is useless if you leave them. I can't guess the number of wireless routers that have been thrown away and ended up in landfill for this reason. I believe that even Linus - who is noted for his long-standing opposition to v3 - would change his mind were he to experience this. They're using the operating system _I_ wrote to lock me out of _my own_ router?!?!?!? In the case I have in mind (the Wanadoo Livebox) the vendor uses proprietary software code - which is only shipped as a binary as part of the firmware - to deny use on other networks. A user can enter any PPPoA username in the router's web-based interface but the pppd will just refuse to work if that username doesn't match the naming conventions used on Wanadoo's networks. Although this particular code is not GPL, and would not come under the provisions of the v3, the manufacturers have made a number of other restrictions to prevent users modifying any part the firmware, including the remaining 98% of the router's software that is OSS code (the router runs a Linux 2.4 kernel and busybox). I remember working on opening up this firmware a little and each time one of the restrictions was overcome we would find the next version of the firmware to be more secure (the new firmware is upgraded automatically to unmodified routers). At the time this particular router was released it was, IIRC, £80 to purchase - about the same as other branded wireless ADSL routers, and perhaps a day-and-a-half's wages for some people, a good chunk of your weekly disposable income if you're on minimum wage. It was not obvious in the sales pitch that it was network-locked to Wanadoo. British Telecom lock their routers similarly. A big FUCK YOU to anyone who thinks they should benefit from economies of manufacturing scale and Free software with no regards the end users or to the environmental and actual cost of replacing hardware which has been rendered useless merely in aid of screwing the competition. I believe that if you mass-produce a product and use other people's GPL code in order to reduce your software development costs then you have an ethical duty to allow purchasers of that product to modify the code that runs on that hardware. You should provide reasonably explicit instructions on how to do so, and at the very least not make strides to hamper people from running software of their choosing on the hardware they've bought. Manufacturers have demonstrated that they don't see things this way and that they don't care how they prevent their customers from fully enjoying the hardware they've purchased. Clearly the rules need rewriting. Stroller. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On Dienstag, 17. Juli 2007, Stroller wrote: I believe that even Linus - who is noted for his long-standing opposition to v3 - would change his mind were he to experience this. They're using the operating system _I_ wrote to lock me out of _my own_ router?!?!?!? Linus has said it several times that he was ok with the thing Tivo did. And Tivo is the reason for that clause in GPLv3. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
-Original Message- From: Volker Armin Hemmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:19 AM To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3?? On Dienstag, 17. Juli 2007, Stroller wrote: I believe that even Linus - who is noted for his long-standing opposition to v3 - would change his mind were he to experience this. They're using the operating system _I_ wrote to lock me out of _my own_ router?!?!?!? Linus has said it several times that he was ok with the thing Tivo did. And Tivo is the reason for that clause in GPLv3. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list TiVo took code, incorporated it into a product, and put the modified sources online so people could see them. The sources were heavily modified for a specialized device, but they were provided. They did not allow modified, and therefore potentially Compromised, devices connect to their network. This does not sound like theft of code, it sounds like sound network protocol. If you wish to maintain a secure environment that is stable for thousands of users, and has a lot of money riding on it, you do not allow compromised devices to connect. It is that simple. The TiVo thing was completely within the word and spirit of the GPL. It is sad that many zealots seem to interpret the texts otherwise. I should not be surprised since many people treat the Free Software movement as a religion for all practical purposes. In every religion you will find interpretations and possible corruptions of the groups texts. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
-Original Message- From: Volker Armin Hemmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:20 AM To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3?? On Dienstag, 17. Juli 2007, Abraham Marín Pérez wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: -Original Message- Ok, so good intentions are falling apart and being substituted by mercantile minds, but still I can't see how freedom one can be threatened while enhancing freedom three, it just seems contradictory to me. -- please tell me, what are these 'four freedoms' and how are they 'enhancend', when they are additional restrictions added about how I can use the software? -- Sounds like three of us agree on something at least. ^^;; The Four Freedoms: 0: The freedom to use software as you wish. 1: The freedom to study the code and modify it to meet your needs. 2: The freedom to copy and distribute the software so that you can help your neighbors. 3: The freedom to improve the program, and be allowed to release those improvements to the public. These four freedoms are core to the Free Software movement, and are shared in many ways by the Open Source movement as well. Many people do not see how the GPLv3 threatens these freedoms. I don't want people to take my word for it. My worries are not just FUD. I encourage people to read the license. In fact, read GPLv2 as well. :) When they are side by side it is even easier to see the differences. Most importantly, read the preambles of both. The preamble of Version 2 was almost unchanged from the original preamble written for the first GPL license. It was eloquent. It was convincing. It was awe inspiring. The new preamble is only changed a little, but those changes make it sound like the words of a scared child holding back the boogie man with nothing more than a security blanket. It is hard to explain my feelings about the new license. I have accused a few people of Zealotry, but I myself do have strong feelings on the subject. When I read the two licenses side by side I feel a sense of sadness, and betrayal. Those who have fought for so long for freedom are now stomping it out in an over reactionary move to try to prevent what they see as a threat. They took a license that was a work of art that stood as an example to two loosely bound movements, and ran it through the shredder. It is like looking upon the battle flag of your own nation with a moment of pride, only to notice that some vandal has written seditious slurs all over it. I suppose that in it's own way, that is it's own form of Zealotry. My cause is freedom in the truest since. The GPL has never been a perfect icon of that freedom, however it was still a proud example of movement towards that ideal. What they have made of it in the last year and a half however, is a mockery of everything that it ever stood for. I won't use version 3 of the license. Any software that I do choose to release under GPL will be released using version 2. The temptation is there to include the optional wording not to allow future versions of the GPL, and only version 2, however that would be the same kind of restrictiveness that I am speaking against, so I would be honor bound to resist such a move. As it stands, I may be more likely to use the MIT or BSD licenses. They have their following, and leave very little to argue when it comes to freedom. ^^; -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On Tuesday 17 July 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??': TiVo did not allow modified, and therefore potentially Compromised, devices connect to their network. More than that -- they don't allow the compromised devices to boot. Of course, that's *required* to lay down the restrictions they want, since one the device is booted from freely modified code, there's no method of remote attestation to guarantee your aren't just pretending to be a genuine device. This does not sound like theft of code, it sounds like sound network protocol. So, sound network protocol validates the data sent, it doesn't require the other end to be arbitrarily trusted. Remember trusted is just DoD speak for allowed to violate security policy. If you wish to maintain a secure environment that is stable for thousands of users, and has a lot of money riding on it, you do not allow compromised devices to connect. It is that simple. BS. Second life allows any client to connect as long as they follow the protocol. There's a wide variety of WoW hacks that modify the running executable (a binary patch applied at runtime) that, while not allowed under the EULA, work quite well on the real servers and have not increased the number of server crashes or scheduled restarts. Securing the network is not done by securing the remote devices. (You don't need to trusted ethernet card to connect to a cisco router, or a cable modem.) It is done by validating the data sent, having a well-defined network protocol, and disconnecting clients that provide bad data. The TiVo thing was completely within the word and spirit of the GPL. It was *barely* within the word, and definitely not within the spirit of the GPL. Don't beleive me? Ask anyone at the FSF or RMS himself. They wrote the thing. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On Tuesday 17 July 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??': -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Henk Boom On 16/07/07, Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: because gplv3 removes freedom? As far as I remember from when I read it, it does not take any freedoms which the previous versions did not intend to. The four freedoms: Freedom 0: The freedom to run a program for any purpose. Freedom 1: To study the way a program works, and adapt it to your needs. Freedom 2: To redistribute copies so that you can help your neighbors. Freedom 3: Improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. For freedom 1 and 3 to work, the code must be open. Freedom 1 is just as important as the other three. Freedom one is almost eliminated in GPLv3. Absolutely not. Freedom 1 is stronger than EVER. The distributor of GPLv3 licensed works is now prevented from using technological, and patent-law means to limit users' freedoms, including freedom 1. Under the GPLv2, technological means (DRM) wasn't covered at all, and patent provisions where not nearly as explicit. Remember that the GPL has always been about all the users NOT just the developers/distributors -- adapt it to your needs is not allowed when it restricts other users' freedoms. Think about RMS' printer incident, where the driver/firmware was crap but locked down so he couldn't fix it. Free software should not be able to be locked down in that way (among other things); in this day and age, that means preventing Free Software from undergoing Tivoization. Stallman used to be so set on THAT mindset (software vs. hardware), that he was in favor of those groups that didn't want to make the source code of every ROM chip they made open to the world, Sure. Stallman, last I heard, is still in the camp that code on read-only memory is part of the hardware, and does not necessarily need to be Free Software -- it might as well be an IC rather than code. HOWEVER, he believes code that *can* upgraded -- such as BIOSes that support flashing, or firmware that is loaded into chip memory by the OS, any bits that execute and CAN be changed -- should be Free Software, especially if it is derived from (in the copyright sense) Free Software. That's what is especially irksome about Tivoization, the distributor of the software (Tivo) has more rights than the users' of the software (us). For a license (GPLv2) whose goal is to protect all users' freedoms, and values users' freedom over developers/distributors to be turned upside-down by technological means is unacceptable -- prompting the development of GPLv3 to correct the situation. GPLV3 says, if you want to use code in a public way, you have to crack open your box so that people can play with it however they want, and then that potentially compromised box still has to be able to connect to your network if it connected in it's unmodified form. That very much deals with the hardware. The GPLv3 says if you covey software to a user under the licence, that user must be able to upgrade the software and use it in the same way they used the software you gave them. That's actually what the GPLv2 says as well, although it doesn't specifically ban technological measures that accomplish that goal. If you want to allow your code to be locked up by someone else, use BSD. If you want to lock your code up yourself, use a proprietary license. If you want all users of your software to have the four freedoms, use GPLv3. Under the spirit of the GPL, one could take code and use what they could. They still had to have the technical capabilities to use that code, and understand the platform it was on. Not quite true. Under the spirit of the GPL, anyone could take code they were provided under the license and use what anyone could, they didn't have to understand the code to benefit from improvements others made. Gentoo (and other distributions) regularly patch code that I don't understand and I end up getting an improved version of KDE/GNOME/X and the entities behind those projects don't (and shouldn't be able to) prevent Gentoo from providing that service. Under the new version, if you don't understand the code, then something must be wrong with the code. Not true. If the code is full of machine dependant features that cannot compile on another type of machine, then something must be wrong with the code. Not true. Even if something *was* wrong with the code, code quality is not enforced by the GPl (any version). Free Software is about Freedom. GPLv3 is about religion. You are free as long as you do things our way. GPLv2 also places a load of restrictions on distributors to ensure that all users get all four freedoms. GPLv3 places more, necessary restrictions since GPLv2 has allowed distributors
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: Remember that the GPL has always been about all the users NOT just the developers/distributors -- adapt it to your needs is not allowed when it restricts other users' freedoms. Very few GPL proponents are willing to make this (rather obviously true) statement; I'm glad some are. But to be more accurate, one should say that the GPL has always been about guaranteeing users freedoms *at the expense of* the developer's freedoms. I'm not sure why that seems to be such a problem for GPL proponents to admit. It's perfectly legitimate for the GPL to explicitly limit developer's freedoms (such as the freedom to DRM their binaries), since the developers explicitly choose to allow the GPL to do so. --Mike -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
-Original Message- From: Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 2:27 AM To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3?? More than that -- they don't allow the compromised devices to boot. Of course, that's *required* to lay down the restrictions they want, since one the device is booted from freely modified code, there's no method of remote attestation to guarantee your aren't just pretending to be a genuine device. I may need to read more. Not allowing it to boot is a bit extreme. I will read more on the subject before I say anything else about the TiVo guys. ^^;; -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
-Original Message- From: Mike Edenfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 4:30 AM To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3?? I'm not sure why that seems to be such a problem for GPL proponents to admit. It's perfectly legitimate for the GPL to explicitly limit developer's freedoms (such as the freedom to DRM their binaries), since the developers explicitly choose to allow the GPL to do so. I can't disagree here. The developer chooses the license. :) I am occasionally irate, but not irrational. :P -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On 7/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Jerry McBride [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 7:11 AM To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3?? Anyone aware of any plans for Gentoo/Portage moving to the gpl3.0 license? I haven't heard anything, but that is a move I hope they never make. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list Why is that? -- - Mark Shields
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On Monday 16 July 2007 08:15:43 am Mark Shields wrote: Personally... reading what I have about the gpl 3.0 , I'd be pretty comfortable having Gentoo/Portage moved to it. It offers a lot of protection that gpl 2. does not. Anyway, if it makes Microsoft catch up then it must be good. -- From the Desk of: Jerome D. McBride -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On Montag, 16. Juli 2007, Mark Shields wrote: On 7/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Jerry McBride [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 7:11 AM To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3?? Anyone aware of any plans for Gentoo/Portage moving to the gpl3.0 license? I haven't heard anything, but that is a move I hope they never make. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list Why is that? because gplv3 removes freedom? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On Montag, 16. Juli 2007, Jerry McBride wrote: On Monday 16 July 2007 08:15:43 am Mark Shields wrote: Personally... reading what I have about the gpl 3.0 , I'd be pretty comfortable having Gentoo/Portage moved to it. It offers a lot of protection that gpl 2. does not. Anyway, if it makes Microsoft catch up then it must be good. it takes away freedom - I am not sold to that 'must be good' aspect. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On Monday 16 July 2007, Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??': On Montag, 16. Juli 2007, Jerry McBride wrote: On Monday 16 July 2007 08:15:43 am Mark Shields wrote: Personally... reading what I have about the gpl 3.0 , I'd be pretty comfortable having Gentoo/Portage moved to it. It offers a lot of protection that gpl 2. does not. Anyway, if it makes Microsoft catch up then it must be good. Actually, we should encourage commercial entities to participate the in Free Software movement, including letting them retain the ability to charge for providing software, as long as they are willing to let users of the software retain their four freedoms. Microsoft has made some movement in this direction... it takes away freedom - I am not sold to that 'must be good' aspect. Okay, this is off-topic, but it only takes away the freedom to take away users' freedoms, something the GPL has always done. BSD doesn't take away any freedoms, but I'm unconvinced that it's a good thing for Free Software to be able to be locked up. *I* think the GPLv3 is better, and that it would be good to move KDE toward GPLv3/LGPLv3 licensing. However, that is a decision that the project will have to make as a group and it would require reimplementing or relicensing all the code licensed to the under the GPLv2. That's a tough sell. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
On 16/07/07, Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: because gplv3 removes freedom? As far as I remember from when I read it, it does not take any freedoms which the previous versions did not intend to. The purpose of the GPL is to protect the 4 freedoms. This instalment just closes loopholes in the previous versions which would allow these freedoms to be infringed upon. Henk Boom -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
