Lets see if I get this quoting thing right. I guess it's more like email,
makes since too I guess since I read on the forum index this is linked with a
mailing list? Anyway, First to andrew:
>> Hey! Are you jsbean on phpBB.com? (I used to frequent there as well).
Yes I was jsbean on phpBB.com. I actually got my name changed to jsebean
since jsbean was a typo. My real name is Jonah Sabean, jsebean (with an e)
was the username my school gave me for the computer network login, this
misspelled my last name and I've used it ever since lol. I use jsabean here
because i registered jsebean but forgot the password and the email address I
used doesn't work at the moment, a long story. Anyway I like reading back on
stuff I posted on phpBB.com, gives me things to remember and shows how much
I've learned since then lol. I haven't been there for a while now due to the
hustle and bustle of life.
Anyway back on track. You mention DVDs and DRM and I think you're still on
topic, it's another good example and makes more sense than some of the
examples I gave haha.
To lloydsmart,
>> I don't buy the argument that CD-ROMs are different to BIOS chips wrt
freedom. Yes, CD-ROMs often contain installers that copy programs to a hard
drive, but they needn't, and don't always. It's entirely possible to run a
binary directly from a CD-ROM. Should we accept proprietary software in this
form simply because it cannot be modified? Of course not, and neither should
we when it is distributed in the form of a ROM chip in a computer. (Also what
about swappable chips?)
This is the exact reason why I don't see the difference between any ROM, be
it CD, on the hardware or swappable. I'll provide an example:
I'm not sure how many here has read the GNU GPL v3 (I have to be honest, I've
never read v2 thoroughly, though I've done my best to read and understand
v3). In section 6, a paragraph reads:
>> If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or
>> specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as
>> part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the
>> User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a
>> fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the
>> Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied
>> by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply
>> if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install
>> modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has
>> been installed in ROM).
Let's say I make a GNU/Linux distro that I burn on a CD or DVD designed to be
used for recovering PCs (such as you screwed up your boot loader, I know I've
done that lots of times lol). It's not an installable distribution, it's
simply intended to be booted live from the CD and used to recover a system,
or any other use you may have to run from a CD rather than install on hard
disk. If I understand correctly then, since I'm just distributing the OS on a
CD-ROM and it's not modifiable by nature like it would be if it were
installed on a disk, I'm not obligated to provide the source code according
to this section of the GPL, since it's a ROM and not modifiable by anyone
once burned. To try to modify it would just render it useless.
Yet some of my software I put into this may be useful for others to use. Even
though it is not possible for you to change the CD-ROM you got from me, you
could make your own if you could obtain the source, or use it in any other
project, not necessarily one similar to mine (that's the point of free
software). For this reason, I think this part in section 6 of the GPL should
be totally removed if it really strives to be a free license, because I think
this is a non-free provision.
