LWN.net Logo

FSF is creating a problem that never existed!

FSF is creating a problem that never existed!

Posted Oct 2, 2006 19:26 UTC (Mon) by landley (guest, #6789)
In reply to: FSF is creating a problem that never existed! by mingo
Parent article: Busy busy busybox

> I'm also worried that RMS justifies the closed decision-making process
> of the GPLv3 because: "Most of our community does not appreciate
> freedom" .

While I remain as amused as ever by those who would impose democracy at
gunpoint, spread by the sword the philosophy of turning the other cheek,
or otherwise force people to be free against their will, I'd like to point
out that the argument being covered here wasn't really about the contents
of GPLv3. It's about GPLv2 being "good enough", and a dual license being
extra work to maintain.

Some people consider a BSD license to be "good enough". I disagree
because a BSD/MIT style license seems to encourage forking by having your
developers hired away to work on a proprietary version (ala the history of
BSD: Bill Joy leaving Berkeley for Sun in 1982, the CSRG going to BSDI a
decade later, Jordan Hubbard going from FreeBSD to MacOS X a few years
ago...) GPLv2 prevents that; the forks can converge because you always
get the patches back, and Linus or Andrew can change employers freely
without jeopardizing their ability to contribute to the project. This is
pragmatically useful.

With GPLv3 the FSF is off on an ideological kick trying to open up the
Xbox, which has _NOTHING_ to do with the purpose of GPLv2. I see the
purpose of GPLv2 as to keep open source projects from forking off closed
source proprietary versions that suck away seasoned developers every time
they develop enough momentum to become commercially interesting. GPLv2
keeps code commodity, and prevents anybody from trying to corner the
market by throwing money at developers. (Maybe this is bad for some
individual developers, but it's very good for the _project_ and thus
better for _most_ developers. And Linus hasn't exactly gone hungry.)

GPLv2 has an excellent pragmatic effect, good for the project's
development. And when shooting for this effect, GPLv2 nails it. Thus I
continue to want to use GPLv2, no matter what the FSF says. Now the FSF
seem to be pissed that Google won't let users run arbitrary code on its
servers, and are trying to draft me into this new fight over Tivo and the
Xbox (I own neither), and I'm just not _interested_. That's not what I
thought this "or later" clause was for, I dislike being coerced, and I'm
not giving them any more blank checks.

But fundamentally, the central issue for me is that GPLv2 is good enough,
it still works fine for me, I don't need other licenses, and I never asked
for more than GPLv2 provides. There didn't used to _be_ a GPLv3, and I
still don't see the need for it. Using "but what if it goes away"
fearmongering to leverage a whole new agenda is kind of slimy, and despite
the chicken little act GPLv2 is NOT going away as long as the Linux kernel
uses it. And if I have to make a choice between throwing in my lot with
the Linux kernel developers, or throwing in my lot with the FSF? It's no
contest.


(Log in to post comments)

FSF is trying to solve our coming problems

Posted Oct 2, 2006 20:28 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

And people still wonder why Stallman tells the printer driver story all the time.

GPLv2 was not about forking, gainful employment or development at all; it was about replacing the darn printer driver in the 90's. GPLv3 is about replacing it in the 21st century. Once the printer server runs a TPM chip it's back to square one. With the GPLv3 Stallman is just saying: "you can do it, but not with my code". It's simple, really.

FSF is making the Tivo situation worse

Posted Oct 2, 2006 21:05 UTC (Mon) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link]

GPLv2 was not about forking, gainful employment or development at all; it was about replacing the darn printer driver in the 90's.

The printer driver situation was materially different from the Tivo situation. The printer driver was closed-source and he could not get the source code to fix obvious bugs in it.

Today most of the printers have free drivers. Why? Not because the printing industry symphatises with RMS's desire to hack his printer driver, but because they saw an economic necessity to serve a growing market. (Linux servers and Linux desktops)

In other words: the printing industry reacted to people's desire to run Linux, and to use their printers under Linux. Please remember: the key to having open printer drivers was people wanting Linux.

But the Tivo situation is completely different.

The Tivo was DRM-ed because it plays content from an industry that required its copyrighted works to be protected. There were people (besides honest tweakers) who were "hacking" not to fix bugs in the Tivo but to avoid having to pay for "pay per view" content. So replying to content industry pressure Tivo closed it down more than they have originally done (being an appliance, they never anticipated it being modifiable), and added this crypto based virtual-ROM technology that restricts the hardware to run only certain kernels that match a given hash. As far as the user is concerned it behaves like old-fashioned ROM, in practice it is not modifiable. (but the manufacturer can come and can flip in an upgraded ROM - just like with old-fashioned ROMs)

If Tivo couldnt use Linux they'd be using LynxWorks or some other embedded OS, because people are not interested in the Linux in the Tivo, people are interested in Tivo's userspace app and in the content the Tivo is offering.

Please think about it. By trying to go "eye for eye" with Tivo we only hurt Linux and help Hollywood's monopolization efforts, because one more small player would exit their market - and that small player does it all voluntarily, via a licensing change. We'd also further isolate Linux from a market that people are interested in. Whoah, Microsoft's dreams come true!

So what we are doing via the anti-Tivo language is that we hurt Linux and help Hollywood. It will not result in free Tivos. It results in no DVD playing hardware or software being associated with Linux at all! The reason again: people are not interested in the Linux aspect of these players.

And if the Tivo case is completely inapposite, if it achieves precisely the opposite effect, then why is the GPL trying to "address" it? Why are we doing all that anti-DRM stuff in the license to begin with, if it only hurts the little guy and helps big corp, even for the case that was singled out by RMS himself: Tivo?

Tivo sucks

Posted Oct 2, 2006 21:41 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Ingo, do not let those Hollywood arguments drive you. Just imagine that the Tivo player, apart from recording movies and replaying them, has an attached printer and you want to print a screen capture. Or a program listing, whatever. Then you discover that the printer is not working for you, since the driver is broken. Then you, who are an excellent kernel programmer and knows that the thing runs Linux, want to repair the driver. Then you find out about the TPM and how it won't let you upgrade the device you legally bought, because the guys who took your money are treating you like a thief. Then... déja vu.
And if the Tivo case is completely inapposite [...]
My goodness, inapposite is a word! Anyway, I would gladly leave that bastard market to Microsoft. It would save Linux from the creepy associations that DRM brings, and would be one more reason to see DRM crumble. But then it's not my code in there.

Tivo sucks

Posted Oct 3, 2006 15:46 UTC (Tue) by southey (subscriber, #9466) [Link]

I don't see your point. What I understand, as I don't have Tivo, is that they provide the source code so you can fix your issues. So it is incorrect to say that it won't let you upgrade the device you legally bought.

The real issue for you is that you still want to run Tivo when you have modifed your Tivo system. However, Tivo is the combined package of hardware, software and content, so you can not have one without the others. Also, you are not clear on what you actually brought and under what terms when getting a Tivo system. By modifying your software and/or hardware you have appeared to violated the terms of sale and/or contract with Tivo in that you can use the hardware and software just not with Tivo. If MythTV and other similar software got easy to install and competitive then current Tivo situation probably would become disappear.

In your argument you seem to be forgetting the rights of the people that are involved. If Tivo did not use TPM it would have to find some other method of control to protect the rights of itself and the content providers. The real answer is not DRM or GPLv3 but working with the likes of Tivo and other content providers to protect everyone's rights.

Tivo sucks

Posted Oct 3, 2006 23:27 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

What I understand, as I don't have Tivo, is that they provide the source code so you can fix your issues.
Except that you can't. You can't run modified software so source code is useless.
In your argument you seem to be forgetting the rights of the people that are involved.
I forget them for a reason. Imagine that I tell you that the U.S. Constitution must "balance" the rights of the people and those of the Government: you would probably laugh at me. The government doesn't need rights, since it has the power. Or suppose we are talking about slavery and I tell you that we need to "balance" the rights of the slave with those of the master. The imbalance is so strong to begin with that it is ludicrous.

The right to copy (or copyright) was called that way because it expressed the rights of the author to be paid by a publisher. Here the powerful party was the publisher; no rights of his were "balanced" against those of the author. Now the "author" has become so powerful that you, the reader, have nothing to bargain with -- except your money, and money can hardly be called "a right". There is no way I can balance e.g. my rights of fair use with anything else; the publisher just locks the work of art and I'm screwed. Yes, Tivo can "balance" their contract with content providers, but I'm left out of the loop: I lose every time. The "rights" in "Digital Rights Management" are farcical. So I prefer to forget them to avoid cronic depression.

Tivo sucks

Posted Oct 20, 2006 10:52 UTC (Fri) by blujay (guest, #39961) [Link]

I know this is an old thread, but...

The answer is: Don't buy the Tivo! You keep using an argument
of, "Imagine if *your* Tivo...." If that was an issue for me, I would
simply not buy the Tivo! Vote with your wallet and give your money to
those that make better (and perhaps more open) products.

Imagine a situation where Linux went GPLv3. Can you force Tivo to start
using Linux/GPLv3? Or will they A) continue using Linux/GPLv2, or B)
switch to something not licensed under GPLvx, perhaps even a BSD?

I read a comment earlier that basically said, "I think we're important
enough now that we should flex our muscle." That strikes me as a bit
arrogant. Those that feel this way about GPL-ed software may be in for a
surprise when they find out that these device manufacturers they're
trying to coerce don't really care about Free Software at all; they're
interested in practicality, much like the kernel devs, and will quickly
ignore any GPLv3 software, and even switch to proprietary software. Then
what have you accomplished? Well, "your" Tivo will be no more hackable
than it is now, and probably less so. Free Software will become less
relevant in these industries (which I'm not sure matters anyway; again,
vote with your wallet). Microsoft will probably be happy and you might
even see some "Powered by Windows Vista technology" stickers on "your"
Tivo.

Linux and Free Software are getting some pull in enterprise systems, it
seems, but I think some people overestimate their value in these kinds of
embedded systems.

Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds