| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Interesting statement from Eben MoglenInteresting statement from Eben MoglenPosted Sep 1, 2006 19:07 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)In reply to: Interesting statement from Eben Moglen by khim Parent article: Transcript of Richard Stallman at the 4th international GPLv3 conference
I'm just pointing out the new language. I don't believe I have before see them say that the GPL is insisting on the right to change the device, as opposed to the software.
I'd say the companies making embedded devices feel that giving you the code represents a very big deal - they're giving you (or anyone) the means to compete with them without having to create all that software functionality yourself. They have a very real legal and contractual problem, however, with the idea that your modified software has to be able to pretend to be the original software in dealing with outside services, services that they generally don't own or control and are just providing clients for.
The manufacturers would, generally, be perfectly happy to let you modify the functionality of the device, so long as you take responsibility for it and recognize that they no longer owe you any support or warranty. But when you talk about outside services, whether it's the cellphone network or a content-distribution system, you're outside the device manufacturer's control and in a space where they are bound by contracts that they had to agree to in order to get access to the external functionality that is the reason you bought the device.
As it is, you get the software and the opportunity to use that software, modified as you like, on other hardware. If if the license language is hardened so that device manufacturers can't get access to the needed services if they use GPL software, then they'll have to move to BSD or other OSes with less onerous requirements and you'll lose access to the software, too. You get to choose what conditions to put on your software, they get to choose whether to accept those conditions.
(Log in to post comments)
Interesting statement from Eben Moglen Posted Sep 1, 2006 21:29 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I don't believe I have before see them say that the GPL is insisting on the right to change the device, as opposed to the software.I see your point. However, modifying the software without the opportunity to install it is just pointless -- only manufacturers would have a use for the modified versions. Given that the aim of the GPL includes to make every "user" or "consumer" a potential developer, I would think that the device-installable point is only logical. If if the license language is hardened so that device manufacturers can't get access to the needed services if they use GPL software, then they'll have to move to BSD or other OSes with less onerous requirements and you'll lose access to the software, too.Why would service providers disallow GPL software access to their networks? DRM? Well, that is a bad thing to support. Closed networks? Another bad thing. You will probably say that this is how things are now; but the FSF has a long history of dealing with how things are, and changing them. Remember when the web was just a lot of walled gardens (Apple's, Microsoft's, etc.)? If we want to support change to open networks and open content, this is the moment to do it.
How does this benefit freedom? Posted Sep 1, 2006 23:57 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] "Why would service providers disallow GPL software access to their networks? DRM? Well, that is a bad thing to support. Closed networks? Another bad thing. You will probably say that this is how things are now; but the FSF has a long history of dealing with how things are, and changing them. Remember when the web was just a lot of walled gardens (Apple's, Microsoft's, etc.)? If we want to support change to open networks and open content, this is the moment to do it."
Well, most of the things Stallman complains about are really service things, not device things - Tivo loses most of its interesting features without the service, cellphones lose most of their interesting features without the network. Music players are less service-bound, unless you want to use commercial downloads in addition to your own ripped music, but the mass market buyers tend to at least think they do want to use those services. It would be interesting to know what percentage of iPod owners use the iTunes store.
The companies that own the services and the content want to be sure that clients using the services will play by their rules. You can say "Well, that's a bad thing to support", but the simple fact is that manufacturers build the devices to access controlled services and content because customers want them, despite the restrictions. And the huge majority of those users could care less about the ability to update their devices. Giving customers what you think they should want, as opposed to what they do want, is a good way to go out of business.
How do you think pushing manufacturers away from GPLed software is going to strike a blow for open services and content? Linux simply isn't THAT much better than the many available alternatives. The manufacturers aren't conspiring with the content and service owners, they're just trying to make money by serving the people who want to be customers of those services and users of that content. The most you can hope to do is drive the manufacturers away from Linux, which doesn't win anything for freedom, but removes significant numbers of people and significant amounts of funded development out of the community.
That's OK, if the community thinks it's important to follow Stallman's line that all proprietary software is unethical, but I hope that there's a significant sub-community that is less ideological.
"because customers want them" Posted Sep 2, 2006 0:56 UTC (Sat) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] It's a mistake to think that the public easily control companies via purchase preferences.
Companies that are trying to gain control over the public will offer you a choice of colours, but they won't offer a choice of how much lock-in you want, and they won't offer you a non-bundled option in a treat+addictivesubstance package.
How does this benefit freedom? Posted Sep 2, 2006 3:30 UTC (Sat) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] but I hope that there's a significant sub-community that is less ideological. Sounds to me like you actually hope they're less practical.
|
|
||||||||||||