good clear summary
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick2 Aug 10, 2006 7:17 AM EDT |
I think I'm starting to get it. |
| jimf Aug 10, 2006 8:33 AM EDT |
Yes, I'm glad he gave creative commons as an example. I recently started releasing under that for exactly those reasons. |
| dek Aug 10, 2006 8:47 AM EDT |
I think I am starting to get it as well. However, couldn't the FSF go after TIVO in court because of the following? "The product's DRM enforcement prevents users from running modified versions of the code on their systems. This conflicts with the freedoms and provisions of the GPL. The DRM in this regard acts as a restriction; users are restricted from exercising the right to run the modified source code." Seems to me that it would be simpler to go after a company for violating freedom 3 than to specify how DRM must be handled. At minimum the four freedoms should be specified in a preamble (the first three are laid out pretty well but it is difficult to find a coherent mention of the last -- the freedom to run the modified source.) How about specifying that if the original source comes with specific hardware, a modified source compilation must be allowed to replace the original source compilation functions and run on the same hardware? That would effectively eliminate any misunderstanding and there would be no need for a specific DRM provision (on hardware at least) because it's covered by that clause. To me, this would be a simpler and more effective way of governing those restrictions because you are not trying to specify what people must do to be in compliance. Rather, you are simply laying the groundwork for the elimination of those restrictions. The more you can eliminate specifying technologies like DRM, the better off the license is because down the road it may be something different that threatens this freedom. JMNSHO! Don K. |
| SFN Aug 10, 2006 8:52 AM EDT |
Wow. That was actually quite good. Here's one point I'm hung up on:Quoting:Linus has repeatedly claimed that it is not for a license to decide how a manufacturer uses digital keys. He says the key are firmware, and therefore a software license has no scope or reason for controlling this. Since when is firmware not software? Sure, it controls different things than what most people consider software does but it is still in fact software. Or am I missing something? |
| SFN Aug 10, 2006 8:55 AM EDT |
Quoting:Seems to me that it would be simpler to go after a company for violating freedom 3 than to specify how DRM must be handled. I would think they should do both. If the GPL is violated, the violators should be held responsible. Additionally, they should look at the GPL to see if the language could be more clearly stated to prevent such future violations. Because, of course, any such violation would be purely accidental and only the fault of a poorly worded agreement. ;-) |
| jimf Aug 10, 2006 9:04 AM EDT |
> of course, any such violation would be purely accidental and only the fault of a poorly worded agreement. ;-) Given the proclivity of certain Corporations to do this, I'd say that clearly stated language is necessary. > Since when is firmware not software? excellent point. |
| dinotrac Aug 10, 2006 9:10 AM EDT |
Um-- You don't sue anybody for violating "freedom this" or "freedom that". You must have a case (when dealing with copyrighted material) where: 1. Somebody is using copyrighted material, and 2. does not have a legal right to use he material in that manner. In the case of software, rights are granted in the form of licenses and their provisions. So, any suit would have to be based a specific infringement of copyrighted material and on specific provisions of the GPL. A further wrinkle comes in a requirement that the contract provisions themselves must be legally enforcable. |
| dinotrac Aug 10, 2006 9:12 AM EDT |
Once question I have - Is it Stallman's intent to eliminate the use of free software in embedded devices? Embedded devices may not provide any means whatsoever to modify the embedded software. That would seem to violate the principles he is talking about. |
| dek Aug 10, 2006 9:25 AM EDT |
Jimf: >Given the proclivity of certain Corporations to do this, I'd say that clearly stated language is necessary.
Granted this is true but I'm still a little uncomfortable with specifying DRM itself rather than the effects that DRM has. To me, that is leaving the door open to another monster. How about something like this. We want to have restrictions on what the user can do regardless of the GPL but we can't call it DRM. Now we'll have to call it something else. How about User Freedom Management (UFM)? We'll get some laws passed so we can implement that in place of DRM Whereas, if you specify the effects of DRM rather than DRM itself, you eliminate that possibility. Does this make sense? Don K. |
| jimf Aug 10, 2006 9:30 AM EDT |
> Is it Stallman's intent to eliminate the use of free software in embedded devices? Of course not. > Embedded devices may not provide any means whatsoever to modify the embedded software. That would seem to violate the principles he is talking about. If you mean that embedded software might viloate GPL3, I supose that could be the senario. |
| dinotrac Aug 10, 2006 9:44 AM EDT |
jimf - If GPLV3 is intended to prevent embedding of GPL'd software, shouldn't they just come out and say so? That would, at least, eliminate any controversy with regard to Linux by establishing that GPLV3 is not entended for Linux. |
| jimf Aug 10, 2006 9:46 AM EDT |
> I'm still a little uncomfortable with specifying DRM itself rather than the effects that DRM has. Yes, it makes sense. I'd call that even clearer language. |
| SFN Aug 10, 2006 10:30 AM EDT |
Is it just me or is everyone who posting here making more sense than the people we are reading about? |
| jdixon Aug 10, 2006 10:32 AM EDT |
> Embedded devices may not provide any means whatsoever to modify the embedded software. That would seem to violate the principles he is talking about. Not providing the means to change the software is not the same as preventing the changing of the software. For an example of the first, if the software is in ROM then the only way you can modify it by burning a new ROM. I don't think RMS would have a problem with that. But if the hardware won't let a modified ROM boot, that's an example of the second, and he would definitely take exception. |
| jimf Aug 10, 2006 10:40 AM EDT |
> Is it just me or is everyone who posting here making more sense than the people we are reading about? Well, my first tendency is to think that the 'professionals' know more than we do, but, we have a pretty smart and diverse group here with a lot of expertise, so, maybe we do make more sense... |
| dinotrac Aug 10, 2006 11:01 AM EDT |
jdixon - OK...for the sake of clarification... What if the hardware were, say, an automotive or aeronautic device, embedded in epoxy or some such stuff that made it pretty much impossible to change out the ROM without destroying the device? |
| jimf Aug 10, 2006 11:04 AM EDT |
Ok, let's be clear on this. What GPL3 should be looking for is a clear and open path to the hardware. DRM or whatever blocks that path. Most of us don't believe it ethical or in the users interests that access should be limited by proprietary software (including firmware). Let them figure out another method of 'securing' your digital media (I'm sure the media moguls will). That said, we put ourselves in a very precarious position (as usual). To we make the hard (ethical) choice, and take the chance that we may be isolating ourselves from the use of media, and even some hardware altogether? Or, do we accede to the demands of the media moguls and become their whores? Ethically, this is a no brainer. |
| jdixon Aug 10, 2006 12:17 PM EDT |
> What if the hardware were, say, an automotive or aeronautic device, embedded in epoxy or some such stuff that made it pretty much impossible to change out the ROM without destroying the device? Well, remember that WRT the law, intent matters. If the device requires such construction to do its job (which it very well may in aeronautics or even shipboard use. automotive use might be more iffy), then I doubt there would be a problem. If it doesn't, then such construction would be an attempt to prevent modification, and would probably infringe. Don't you love these crystal clear situations? :) As a general rule, I'd say the manufacturer would get the benefit of a doubt, but that's common sense, and such doesn't always apply to legal matters. |
| jimf Aug 10, 2006 12:32 PM EDT |
> but that's common sense, and such doesn't always apply to legal matters. Damn shame huh ;-) |
| dinotrac Aug 10, 2006 12:34 PM EDT |
jdixon - >WRT the law, intent matters What if the intent is simply to keep people from gumming up the works? In an airplane -- or even a car's anti-lock braking system -- I suspect a judge would find a public policy exception to any license that forbade that. |
| jdixon Aug 10, 2006 12:54 PM EDT |
> What if the intent is simply to keep people from gumming up the works? Well, unfortunately, the GPLv3 as currently written would seem to preclude that. If that's the desire, then GPLv3'ed code is not the way to do it. The GPL (both 2 and 3) are designed to allow people to gum up the works if they want. > I suspect a judge would find a public policy exception to any license that forbade that. If there were no alternatives, yes. Since there are readily available alternatives, I doubt a judge would do so, and if he did, I expect it would be overturned on appeal. IANAL, of course. A car's anti-lock braking system is a perfect example of a system where one might wish to modify the programming to better fit local conditions. A braking system which works fine in Southern California may not be as effective in Nome, Alaska. |
| jimf Aug 10, 2006 12:58 PM EDT |
> to keep people from gumming up the works I could come up with a couple of great engineering arguments as to why that judge's decision would be bogus, especially in an automotive context. Overall, all of this firmware, and embeded stuff is better off in being open source. |
| dinotrac Aug 10, 2006 4:56 PM EDT |
>A car's anti-lock braking system is a perfect example of a system where one might wish to modify the programming to better fit local conditions. Which is precisely why it's a perfect example of a system that you wouldn't want anyone touching. Never mind the liability -- brakes are, after all, life or death -- but very few people are actually capable of improving on the work done by the folks making the brakes. Most who might think they are, aren't. |
| tuxchick2 Aug 10, 2006 5:48 PM EDT |
dino, people have been messing with their vehicles since vehicles were invented, for good and for ill. Sorry, but that's just not a valid argument to lock people out of their own possessions. |
| jimf Aug 10, 2006 6:03 PM EDT |
Got to agree with tuxchick on this one. |
| dinotrac Aug 10, 2006 6:31 PM EDT |
tc - Sure it is. You are free to take the opposite position, but it is a valid concern. Besides, it doesn't eliminate the more traditional way to modify your car: replace the parts with something you like better. That makes everybody happy. You get your customized braking and the car maker can disclaim any failures you might cause. |
| tuxchick2 Aug 10, 2006 6:47 PM EDT |
Mmm nahh, still don't buy it. It's no more of a concern than it's ever been- unskilled mechanics, whether of the shade-tree variety or officially certificicifated are a hazard whether it's a modern computerized vehicle, or an old completely mechanical vehicle. Makes no difference if it's electrons or steel parts. |
| grouch Aug 10, 2006 6:54 PM EDT |
Quoting: "There has never been such a time, when a small number of entities control culture," warned Lessig. "We must not allow the debate to be reframed to their sole benefit. Creativity always builds on the past. Creativity comes from a balance of the public and the private, the controlled versus the commons." [...] "'You' must change this. You must require the freedom to tinker, to 'Walt Disnify' previous creations. The increasing losses faced in court over the past few years, mean that your silence is destroying the environment for future development." To a standing ovation, he concluded, "You cannot allow the innovation to stop." -- Lawrence Lessig http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT8253217318 Quoting: Modern cars and light trucks contain advanced technology that monitors or controls virtually every function of the vehicle including: brakes, steering, air bags, fuel delivery, ignition, lubrication, theft prevention, emission controls and in some cases, tire pressure. Car owners and independent shops must have full access to the information and tools necessary to accurately diagnose, repair, or re-program these systems. This information and equipment is necessary to ensure vehicle safety, performance, and environmental compliance. Vehicle manufacturers are making access to such vital information increasingly difficult and costly to obtain for the independent aftermarket and its customers. -- Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association, in support of The Motor Vehicle Owner's Right to Repair Act http://www.aftermarket.org/Government/Grassroots_Activities/... |
| dinotrac Aug 10, 2006 7:01 PM EDT |
> Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association Ahem -- Come on grouch. You wouldn't hesitate to denounce a Microsoft-sponsored study that shows Windows beating Linux. |
| jimf Aug 10, 2006 7:43 PM EDT |
> You wouldn't hesitate to denounce a Microsoft-sponsored study that shows Windows beating Linux. No, but this ain't MS... |
| grouch Aug 10, 2006 8:31 PM EDT |
Quoting: Automakers say they have to keep some things - the stuff that keeps them competitive - secret. Plus, they insist they are giving mechanics the information they need. -- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/21/eveningnews/consum... Looks like a familiar excuse to me. Quoting: The National Federation of Indepen-dent Business (NFIB), a major small-business advocacy group, strongly supports the Right to Repair Act on behalf of its members - 4,000 of whom are small and independent repair shops across the country. |
| dinotrac Aug 11, 2006 1:55 AM EDT |
grouch - Goodness gracious, sounds like you've never been near a garage. I agree -- repair information must be made broadly available. My brother in law owns a garage and I know he couldn't make a living without it. But that's different from having the source code for embedded electronics. Mechanics are not programmers. To repair a malfunctioning ABS system YOU REPLACE THE PARTS!!! It doesn't take an Einstein to figure that out, either: 1. Liability, liability, liability. Small businesses need to protect themselves, too 2. Mechanics tend to work from a flat-rate book. That's pretty much parts swap territory, not take it apart and jiggle with the code. 3. Besides, most customers want their car working the way it worked when they bought it, which is not programming land. The issue is different for hot-rodders and customizers, but the quotes you are throwing out (presumably without reading any context) have nothing to do with that. |
| jimf Aug 11, 2006 2:59 AM EDT |
dino, I think you got two groups here. The aftermarket people would like to produce aftermarket (read drop in) parts. The hot rodders (and us MC people would like the ability to tune and/or mod. Both of these are of benefit to the end user and would have little to do with safety or liability. The aftermarket manufactures have to take liability anyway, and the customerizers... well.. we'll take the risk :D. In any case, this isn't affecting your Joe average. |
| dinotrac Aug 11, 2006 3:35 AM EDT |
>ould have little to do with safety or liability. I beg to differ when you're talking about screwing around with ABS modules... but, yes...two groups. |
| jdixon Aug 11, 2006 6:27 AM EDT |
> Never mind the liability -- brakes are, after all, life or death -- but very few people are actually capable of improving on the work done by the folks making the brakes. Most who might think they are, aren't. Valid point, but the GPLv3 would still give them the right to do so. So if the manufacturer wants to lock down the hardware so they can't, he shouldn't use GPLv3'ed software. It's also, despite continuous attempts by governments to do so, proven impossible to outlaw or even significantly reduce stupidity. So trying to make it impossible to modify braking systems is probably a futile endeavor. |
| grouch Aug 11, 2006 7:13 AM EDT |
dinotrac: >"Goodness gracious, sounds like you've never been near a garage." Nice of you to make such an unfounded presumption. Any time you want to have a race at disassembling and reassembling any vehicle on the road, bring it on, otherwise, I will assume you are again playing the arm-chair theorist. |
| tuxchick2 Aug 11, 2006 7:21 AM EDT |
Grouch, I'll take that challenge! My first real job was auto mechanic, both gas and diesel. I got out when microchips started appearing because that made it too expensive to run my own shop, and working for other people has always been itchy and galling. Tell ya what- let's each bring the 60s vehicle of our choice and a sack of tools, and the race is on. :D Hey, who remembers how to tweak twin carburetors? wahahaaa, I do! |
| tuxchick2 Aug 11, 2006 7:26 AM EDT |
ps- that business with the big automakers refusing to release trouble codes and technical data is all true. They want to shut out independent repair shops. Which doesn't even pertain to the source code, but simply capturing and reading program output, and having current specs. Lovely little world we live in. |
| grouch Aug 11, 2006 7:30 AM EDT |
tuxchick2: Don't be wimping out on me. Let's do a real challenge: Just about any post-2000 GM vehicle. '60s vehicles actually have room around the mechanical parts, and they don't have to be retrained just to be able to idle. |
| SFN Aug 11, 2006 7:32 AM EDT |
Quoting:Tell ya what- let's each bring the 60s vehicle of our choice and a sack of tools, and the race is on. -begin subliminal suggestion- pink t-shirt that says "I got beat by a girl" -end subliminal suggestion>- |
| tuxchick2 Aug 11, 2006 7:39 AM EDT |
grouch, that is just plain sadistic. SFN, you are now my favorite LXer person. |
| dinotrac Aug 11, 2006 7:50 AM EDT |
txchick - Yes ma'am. Let's keep apples with apples and oranges with oranges. |
| jimf Aug 11, 2006 8:06 AM EDT |
> who remembers how to tweak twin carburetors? You auto people are such whimps, try balancing 4 kehins by ear on an early cb750... |
| SFN Aug 11, 2006 8:14 AM EDT |
Quoting:try balancing 4 kehins by ear on an early cb750 Try tuning a Bosendorfer 200 Conservatory Grand by ear. It's hell, I tell you. |
| SFN Aug 11, 2006 8:16 AM EDT |
Quoting:SFN, you are now my favorite LXer person. -begin channeling Rowan Atkinson- It's a race! I'm winning! -end channeling Rowan Atkinson- |
| jimf Aug 11, 2006 9:04 AM EDT |
> Try tuning a Bosendorfer 200 Conservatory Grand by ear. It's hell, I tell you. Hell I'm sure, but hardly automotive :D |
| dinotrac Aug 11, 2006 9:10 AM EDT |
jimf - Hey... It's about as big and heavy, and moves about as fast without gas... |
| tuxchick2 Aug 11, 2006 9:12 AM EDT |
eeee Rowan Atkinson is creepy. If he ever got an elevator with me, I would push him out. |
| jdixon Aug 11, 2006 9:13 AM EDT |
> Try tuning a Bosendorfer 200 Conservatory Grand by ear. It's hell, I tell you. Unless you're completely tone deaf, in which case it's a piece of cake. The results may be less than desired, however. :) |
| dinotrac Aug 11, 2006 9:23 AM EDT |
>If he ever got an elevator with me, I would push him out. With or without the turkey head? |
| jimf Aug 11, 2006 10:00 AM EDT |
> It's about as big and heavy, and moves about as fast without gas... So dino, we'll consider that equal in another 20 years or so. |
| SFN Aug 11, 2006 10:33 AM EDT |
Quoting:Rowan Atkinson is creepy My mom says the same thing. I got a Mr. Bean T-Shirt just to annoy her. |
| r_a_trip Aug 11, 2006 11:55 AM EDT |
That would, at least, eliminate any controversy with regard to Linux by establishing that GPLV3 is not entended for Linux. The GPL was never a Linux kernel license. It has always been a license designed to uphold the ideals about software freedom espoused by the FSF. The GPL is an FSF license intended mostly for GNU. Torvalds just happened to choose the GPLv2 when he released the Linux kernel in 1991. The FSF will write any future updates with the most rigorous protections possible to safeguard the four freedoms. Torvalds can take it or leave it, but Torvalds can rest assured that a very big chunk of "his OS" will go GPLv3, whether any outsider likes it or not. All GNU software will adopt the "or later version" and will effectively become GPLv3 after the first GPLv3 patches enter the tree. If GPLv2 is a must for distributors and Torvalds, then they better start forking the whole software base of the GNU project. GNU will become GPLv3. It will be interesting to see if the GNU projects infrastructure and developer-base can be successfully replicated by the groups wanting to keep a "pure" GPLv2 environment. Disclaimer: The reason I'm not all riled up about this, is because I am not opposed to the proposed changes. They make sense to me. As with any license, you can accept or reject it, but rejection means foregoing the covered software. |
| grouch Aug 11, 2006 2:00 PM EDT |
A bit of background may be in order:
Quoting: [From http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/09/22/gpl3.html?page... ] |
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!