LWN.net Logo

Stallman's quote in real context

Stallman's quote in real context

Posted Oct 6, 2006 14:27 UTC (Fri) by cventers (subscriber, #31465)
In reply to: 4 points by mingo
Parent article: Similar in spirit?

Ingo,

I hesitate to reply to you here because you still haven't addressed any
of my points elsewhere. To the best of my knowledge, I've addressed each
of your points, and I'm hoping you'll do me the same favor.

It's interesting that you quote Stallman here, and so has Jonathan. I
regret that upon reading the interview Jonathan /did/ thankfully link as
the source of the quote, it seems that too much context may have been
removed to discuss Stallman's position with absolute fidelity. I would
thus encourage you to click the Wayback link and read at least the last
question on the page (the one in which the quote you address is
included).

To quote Stallman further:

> But I don't think that's where the social and political issues arise.
> Those arise where the computers are visible to the user as computers.
> We can load software into them. We have thus the possibility of sharing
> and changing software. And then it becomes a significant question
> whether we are allowed to do so or whether we are blocked from doing
> so.

The Tivo is a good deal different from a microwave oven because its
software is not burned into ROM. In fact, in many ways, it is a personal
computer - it has a hard drive, USB port, some models have an ethernet
controller... and so it should be no shock or surprise that the many
hackers who have managed to defeat Tivo's fortunately broken attempt at
violating Freedom #1 have organized into the same hacker communities that
make free software possible:

- http://www.tivotechies.com/

is one of countless sites on the subject that Google presents when
queried.

I don't think a microwave oven would be likely to ever fall into this
category. For one thing, its software will probably be in ROM for a while
further; for another, it doesn't have much need for a computer aside from
presenting a very trivial user interface. Additionally, there isn't much
interesting work you can make a microwave do aside from cooking food, and
there doesn't seem to be much opportunity to improve that behavior
through software anyway.

But it's not just Tivo we should be worried about. Think about another
example where this issue of the difference between embedded systems and
computers is quickly getting blurred:

- http://www.rockbox.org/

This project is a GPL-licensed firmware replacement for MP3 players from
a number of manufacturers. It has substantially more features, and to
some, the more important property of _freedom_ (which includes the
ability to play free codecs) than the manufacturer-provided firmware on
various devices. It even has the amazing property of being portable to a
number of different devices in an area of the market where product
similarity is incidental rather than a system like PCs where
compatibility is essential and thusly documented and practiced.

I hope I'm not the first free software developer to ask this question,
but what of Rockbox? I can't seem to find any substantial references to
GPLv3 in the context of what the Rockbox developers think, but given that
they are deliberately targeted at embedded devices only, I have a
sneaking suspicion that the GPLv3 is about to become absolutely essential
for the continued freedom of their project.

How long before the manufacturers of MP3 players realize they can take
Rockbox, port it, sprinkle on their _music_ DRM layer and then stamp on
their _software_ DRM layer to prevent anyone but them from changing the
license? They can then proceed to stamp out millions of these bastardized
players using the hard work of the Rockbox developers that were fighting
to make _FREEDOM_ and they can stamp that property of the market out
right out in short order.

I know you're not a Rockbox developer. Neither am I. But since you argue
very strongly that the FSF needs to stop what it is doing with the
license that you have a choice of _not using_, I think you ought to tell
us what you think these Rockbox guys should do about their little
problem.

Despite Stallman's great crystal ball, it seems the world still changes
in surprising new ways that are often good for society. Free software is
definitely a driving force in that movement. But given the fidelity of
what Mr. Stallman's crystal ball has shown us in the past, we'd be
complete fools to shatter it while busy arguing about how many bones we
saw through the grim reaper's robe.

And I further hope that you won't drop the other thread of discussion we
have going. I did spend a great deal of time thinking about what you had
to say, and I tried to do my best in fairly addressing your argument.


(Log in to post comments)

Stallman's quote in real context

Posted Oct 6, 2006 14:32 UTC (Fri) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]

Ah, I made a goof. When I said:

> How long before the manufacturers of MP3 players realize they can take
> Rockbox, port it, sprinkle on their _music_ DRM layer and then stamp on
> their _software_ DRM layer to prevent anyone but them from changing the
> license?

I should have said 'changing the software.'

But the goof may raise an interesting counter-argument, 'the GPLv3 cannot
control other (proprietary) software on future MP3 players that might
include a crypto bootloader'. True, but at least in that world the
Rockbox developers still have the option of voting with their code.
Without the provision of "Don't destroy freedom #1 through technological
means" in GPLv3, any greedy manufacturer could freely take Rockbox's code
and use it not only to vote against Rockbox but to incidentally harm the
entire free society in that process.

Stallman's quote in real context

Posted Oct 7, 2006 3:01 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]

Just to give you some credibility, could you please post a link to some code which you have released under GPLv2 which will be automatically colicensed under GPLv3 when it is released?

Or are you simply in this to push your politics?

Could you pass the red herring please?

Posted Oct 7, 2006 7:10 UTC (Sat) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]

I will not participate in any attempts to turn what is hopefully an
insightful discussion into a pissing match.

And I almost did. I was in the process of tarballing up some unreleased
(as in prealpha) stuff I've been hacking on for months, but I realized
that it would be a poor waste of my time to divert in order to satisfy
this red herring you are now attempting to serve.

Incidentally it appears that the GPLv3 will be ready by the time I issue
an alpha release of my server software and its supporting 'C' library. And
I fully intend to skip the relicensing step and move straight to version
3, especially because I think the new anti-DRM provisions might be
specifically relevant to some things I'm currently doing. I promise of
course that I would have fully appreciated the opportunity to
automatically relicense had that been a necessity.

I argue now because Ingo proposes to deny me the chance to vote with this
new code of mine at all. He seems to want this license development
stopped. I don't think Ingo would succeed in stopping the process, but I
speak as someone who cares deeply about that process and as someone who
will absolutely engage in code release under GPLv3, and who would rather
do that release under GPLv3 than the less good (but still quite good)
GPLv2. Notice that I'm specifically avoiding telling him what I think he
ought to do with his stuff, or you with yours, because I have no stake in
that.

I have no doubt in my mind that your next reply will criticize me on the
grounds of not having published code about to undergo relicensing. Since
that is surely your intent, fire away and enjoy.

Credibility is a funny thing - it is the first and last thing people like
to attack when they can find absolutely no other argumentative point of
substance. You accuse me of politics when attacks on credibility rather
than reasoned analysis are most often performed by the dirtiest of
politicians. So I'll ask you to pardon me if I roll my eyes while you are
busy adding your two cents to this conversation. But I promise that I
won't do that if you instead decide to say something of substance.

Stallman's quote in real context

Posted Oct 7, 2006 8:23 UTC (Sat) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link]

That is a very poor diversion. Ad hominem. Now for your arguments please.

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