dear me, talk about missing the point
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick2 Jul 14, 2006 3:36 PM EDT |
I think I need to cobble up a canned response to this sort of "I think RMS and Free software advocates are loons and extremists, but I sure love using the fruits of their labors" viewpoint. Tired now, don't feel like typing it all over again. |
| jimf Jul 14, 2006 4:04 PM EDT |
You're doing better than I am Carla. I'm having problems coming up with a commentary on that article that isn't just a string of expletives... |
| Libervis Jul 14, 2006 4:10 PM EDT |
Funny thing I was just discussing the threat of TCPA, DRM and DMCA pushing Free Software underground, on IRC, and then I read someone advocating the adoption of these things on GNU/Linux? What the heck?! DRM can't efficiently get to Free Software code because it is.. well Free Software and you can simply remove the offending code. Even further it is illegal for the GPLed code to interfere with four freedoms. And what do TurboLinux folks do? Well of course, they add proprietary code (which CAN be DRM infected) that allows legal playing of DVDs on GNU/Linux per DMCA. Great, now we'll let them infect us too, not only with proprietary software (as some distros are so willing to), but with TCPA and DRM as well. And I'm supposed to be happy about that? There is really no other choice here but the following. Either we start killing off what Free Software and GNU/Linux is all about by slowly and surely letting these leeches of culture in (TCPA, DRM, DMCA), or we fight them off. The only third option is going underground. But I'll never accept this infection as a good thing. Talk about missing the point indeed.. Talk about *clueless*! I doubt Caitlyn (the author of the article) even knows what kind of a threat TCPA, DRM and DMCA really are. These are the building parts of a "machine" that is to impose a new cultural order upon us, making us submit to the corporate rule over all culture spanning everything and everyone from our privacy at home (since fair use rights are even being erased) to concert halls (since recording an event is getting illegal too). Soon, we'll have to pay a special fee when entering a caffe that plays the music, in order to have the right to hear it. And she supports making GNU/Linux more compatible with that kind of regime?! Sigh. |
| dinotrac Jul 14, 2006 4:18 PM EDT |
This may shock you guys, but I (mostly) agree with you. I don't really have any problem with somebody making a legal DVD player for Linux, closed source/open source/running in firmware on bare metal. Not a big problem for me. What I can't stomach is this notion of it being some revolutionary thing. It's a product people are offering. The freedom in free software allows you to do that. So long as you don't take code that is licensed in a way to forbid it, it also allows you to keep your code closed and to offer binary-only proprietary products that run on the platform. Let's see...nvidia drivers, acrobat reader, flash player, Opera, Oracle, etc, etc, etc. Those who do not wish to taint their machines with the stuff will pass it up. Those who can live with it will use it but lament its closed-source, proprietary nature. The rest won't care. Yes. OK. Nice. Somebody's made a legal and licensed DVD player. You wanna say " Good!" ? Great. Say "Good!". Just don't say "Revolutionary". It ain't nothin' of the sort. |
| Libervis Jul 14, 2006 4:22 PM EDT |
You might infact end up being wrong about that dinotrac. ;) If this practice starts spreading it may as well become "revolutionary", just not in a positive way. In that case TurboLinux just made the first step towards complying with the imposition of all around proprietary culture instead of fighting it. I can't even see it as *good* in any sense of the word. |
| dinotrac Jul 14, 2006 4:28 PM EDT |
>I can't even see it as *good* in any sense of the word. I didn't think you would. The case of DVDs sucks out loud because there is that little problem with the law. Personally, I have no problem with decss. I even wrote a a rather tongue in cheek story about it ( I want my DVD, your honor) 5-6 years ago that got a lot of reads around the world. OTOH, I understand the dilemma of people who want to be within the law, even when the law is so bad, so counter to the intentions of the Founders, as the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. So, to me, this is a little different from, say, nvidia drivers. Still won't use it, however, because I've got perfectly good alternatives that don't break any law consistent with the Constitution. |
| sbergman27 Jul 14, 2006 4:29 PM EDT |
I would suggest considering that she is interested in the success of Linux and has been under-exposed to the ideological rational, and likely over-exposed to emails from the actual certified loons that we, like any other community, include. She's Rah! Rah! on the success of Linux. And that's good. She could use some coaching and some context. These journalists who are happy about wordly advances while seeming oblivious to the ideological aspects are *opportunities* and not adversaries. |
| Libervis Jul 14, 2006 4:33 PM EDT |
I understand the legality case. Sure, having this available puts on a safe side with the law, especially if you are one susceptible to being "caught" of not following it. But do I see that fact as something that makes this *good*? No. How can I? I don't see it as *good* to comply with a bad law. I see it as capitulation instead. I'm not ready to capitulate. I hope I never will. |
| Libervis Jul 14, 2006 4:34 PM EDT |
Quoting:These journalists who are happy about wordly advances while seeming oblivious to the ideological aspects are *opportunities* and not adversaries. A very good point sbergman27. |
| tuxchick2 Jul 14, 2006 4:35 PM EDT |
sbergman27, Caitlyn is a friend, and pretty darn smart. I'm going to write my own blog entry in response. raah, blog wars! ka booom! The fallacy that propels her whole premise is that widespread linux adoption at any cost is a good thing, and that Linux needs to cater to the windoze crowd. I don't agree with that at all. |
| dinotrac Jul 14, 2006 4:36 PM EDT |
tuxchick -- Just make sure she doesn't drone on and sink your ship! |
| Libervis Jul 14, 2006 4:38 PM EDT |
Kudos Carla! :) I already started thinking of mailing her myself..., but as a friend you might have better impact. |
| sbergman27 Jul 14, 2006 4:44 PM EDT |
> Caitlyn is a friend, and pretty darn smart. I'm going to write my own blog entry in response. Sounds good to me! :-) |
| dcparris Jul 14, 2006 4:49 PM EDT |
She definitely doesn't get it:
"Finally, I am not missing any point. I am not a Stallman-esque "Free Software" advocate by any means. Nobody should be forced to give away their software freely. It needs to be a free choice." She says she is not missing any point, yet her very next statement misses the point. Sigh. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 14, 2006 5:02 PM EDT |
"And what do TurboLinux folks do? Well of course, they add proprietary code (which CAN be DRM infected) that allows legal playing of DVDs on GNU/Linux per DMCA. Great, now we'll let them infect us too, not only with proprietary software (as some distros are so willing to), but with TCPA and DRM as well." This is exactly why "Linux" needs to be kept in its proper perspective as nothing more than a very successful Free Software project. There is a bigger goal here than to simply to see this alternative to Windows/Mac gain buyin from the market. |
| Libervis Jul 14, 2006 5:04 PM EDT |
dcparris: Maybe the second part of her statement there is a bit of our fault, that is of the Free Software advocates. How often and how easy it can happen for our insistance that choosing proprietary software is wrong is misinterpreted as saying that choosing Free Software must be forced. Sometimes you gotta be an artist to word things just right to avoid all misconceptions. EDIT: Or maybe they just need to READ and listen what we have to say! See the post below. |
| Libervis Jul 14, 2006 5:09 PM EDT |
wind0wsr3fund, Indeed there is a bigger goal. Maybe just calling it GNU/Linux would help, for a start, at least enciting curiosity about that weird "GNU" part. Maybe more people would then get lucky enough to be exposed to what http://www.gnu.org has to say about the whole thing. Not being exposed to that results in articles like this, missing the point badly and not having much of a clue either. |
| jimf Jul 14, 2006 5:16 PM EDT |
> Sometimes you gotta be an artist Don't tell them you're an artist, or the DMCA will screw you over. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 14, 2006 5:17 PM EDT |
"Nobody should be forced to give away their software freely. It needs to be a free choice" I just want to take a moment to discuss this common misunderstanding of what Free Software means. Nobody (not even RMS himself) has ever said that any code must be given away. However, it is believed that when developers *choose* to distribute their software, the greater good is served when the software is distributed under a freedom-granting license such as the GPL. I'm not explaining this to anyone here but thought it might help newcomers who stumble upon the original quote. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 14, 2006 5:19 PM EDT |
Libervis, I was just making a point with the reference to "Linux"; an all too abused blanket statement. |
| dcparris Jul 14, 2006 5:20 PM EDT |
> Or maybe they just need to READ and listen what we have to say! I think they do read - they just twist it. That sucks. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 14, 2006 5:21 PM EDT |
apt-get install libdvdcss |
| Libervis Jul 14, 2006 5:27 PM EDT |
windowsrefund:Quoting:I was just making a point with the reference to "Linux"; an all too abused blanket statement. Yes I got that. I was just expanding on it. Saying "Linux" is mentioning just that one project: the kernel. Saying GNU/Linux is refering to an operating system that the two (GNU and Linux) essentially form AND gets people more curious about the GNU part of the picture. |
| sbergman27 Jul 14, 2006 6:08 PM EDT |
> I was just making a point with the reference to "Linux"; an all too abused blanket statement. And one not lost on even the more pragmatic members of our community. A few, wisely chosen "GNU/Linuxes" here and there on my part might do a small amount of good. And they can't do much harm. Lord knows my customers only listen when I'm talking about the practical stuff anyway! Cheers, Steve |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 14, 2006 6:45 PM EDT |
RMS has said that he believes it is wrong to release binary code without the source code available, that doing so should not be allowed. That is pretty much my only disagreement with his position. I agree on principle, I agree with the pragmatic ESR level of the discussion that having source available is more efficient. For the same reason I don't like to be told that this DVD I may watch because it is region 1, and this DVD I may not watch because it is region 6, I do not like to be told that I may not release binaries without source. RMS is not writing the law, so it's still just his opinion. That is a very good thing. No matter how much it may seem like freedom for him, it is still a restriction on me. And the reason that I will not utilize a "fully licensed" DVD player for Linux is that I do in fact own DVDs from different regions, and I would like to view them thank you very much. |
| grouch Jul 14, 2006 7:59 PM EDT |
I am ~really~ late to this party. sbergman27: >"I would suggest considering that she is interested in the success of Linux and has been under-exposed to the ideological rational, and likely over-exposed to emails from the actual certified loons that we, like any other community, include." Excellent points, IMO. (Your whole post was, but Libervis got the other :). This actually supports RMS's insistence on the difference between OSI and FSF, as well as (at least some of) his insistence on "GNU/Linux". tuxchick2: >"The fallacy that propels her whole premise is that widespread linux adoption at any cost is a good thing, and that Linux needs to cater to the windoze crowd. I don't agree with that at all." Shades of Linspire promotion! I posted a mild comment after her article, but it was in the middle of an all-nighter working the LXer queues. The promotion of a binary blob to spur GNU/Linux adoption hadn't even popped into my dulled brain at that time. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 15, 2006 12:41 AM EDT |
"RMS has said that he believes it is wrong to release binary code without the source code available, that doing so should not be allowed." Amen! |
| r_a_trip Jul 15, 2006 10:16 AM EDT |
RMS has said that he believes it is wrong to release binary code without the source code available, that doing so should not be allowed. This is not what RMS says. RMS says it is morally wrong to withhold source from your recipients, but in no way has he ever said that it shouldn't be allowed. Everybody has the freedom to release closed source software. The other side of the medal is that everybody is free to shun closed source software on ideological grounds. Closed source might be the best fit technically sometimes, but its restrictions make it a very anti-social piece of code. Using copyright and proprietary information as a weapon to create vendor lockin is sleezy. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 17, 2006 8:51 AM EDT |
R_A, then you haven't read the same papers of his that I have. |
| dcparris Jul 17, 2006 9:36 AM EDT |
RMS believes people have a legal right, under current copyright law, to withhold source code. He can't deny that. It certainly seems he would want this changed. He has sought to fight the battle, not in Congress, but by appealing to the public at large. >Closed source might be the best fit technically sometimes, but its restrictions make it a very anti-social piece of code. This is the kind of thinking propagated by the Open Source Initiative. RMS believes there is no situation in which code released to the public should not be free. The FSF position is most likely to the effect of: "if you develop software for in-house use, it's a "special case" of proprietary software. However, if you release your software to the public, you should include the source or access to the source. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 17, 2006 11:05 AM EDT |
I have no problems at all with "should", except when it's a law which means "must". That's one of the reasons I try hard to avoid the word "should". It's a personal judgement as applied to others, and I have no wish to tell others what to do. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 17, 2006 11:47 AM EDT |
but the problem with "should" is that it places the burden of responsibility on the individual. Most of the time, due to flaws in our human nature, greed wins out and information that would benefit the masses, is withheld. Personally, I believe this issue needs to be addressed in a legal sense. However, I don't see that happening due to the same flaws in human nature. The battle for freedom continues... |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 17, 2006 11:52 AM EDT |
Bob_Robertson, "and I have no wish to tell others what to do" I don't think you fully understand what's at stake here. When people are trying to deny your freedom, you are well within your right to stand up and demand justice. Going further, I'd also suggest you have a responsibility to stand up for my freedom; just as I do for you. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 17, 2006 12:45 PM EDT |
Wind0, I do fully understand what is at stake. Pray tell, how does "I do not wish to tell others how to live" translate to "I don't mind if others tell me how to live"? My standing up for your liberties has nothing to do with telling you what to do either. Indeed, by respecting your liberties I am doing the exact opposite of telling you how you should live your own life. It is the polypragmatoi, the busybodies, who tell others what they should and should not do and follow up with laws like alcohol and drug and gun and flag burning prohibitions, driver and doctor and lawyer and electrician and plumber and hotdog vendor and soon I expect to see programmer licenses. The core of the problem is addressing anything in the "legal" sense, since the "legal" sense is always coercive. Just as I do not wish others to use force against me, I do not wish to use force against others. That specifically rules out "legal" remedies. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 17, 2006 1:25 PM EDT |
There is nothing respectable about using your freedom to protect the rights of those who seek to destroy freedom. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 18, 2006 10:44 AM EDT |
Wind0, I respect everyones liberty, even yours. Would you prefer that I laud the actions of the Jack Booted Thugs as they break down doors in the middle of the night, merely because I personally disapprove of the lifestyle of the individual against whom those thugs are acting at the moment? "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." -- Louis Dembitz Brandeis |
| SFN Jul 18, 2006 10:57 AM EDT |
"Now the light, she fades, and darkness settles in. But I will find strength. I will find pride within. Because although I die, our freedom will be won. Though I die, La Resistance... lives... on." |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!