| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedomGPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedomPosted Oct 25, 2006 23:37 UTC (Wed) by bignose (subscriber, #40)In reply to: GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom by bojan Parent article: Linux: GPLv3, DRM, and Exceptions (KernelTrap.org)
> So, you remove all Tivo patches from Linux before you compile and run it, right?
Non sequitur. We're talking about preventing abuse of GPL software in the future.
(Log in to post comments)
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 25, 2006 23:54 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Yeah, so much for the "GPL spirit"... How very convenient.
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 26, 2006 0:25 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] You've lost me.
We've been discussing how the GPLv3 is an attempt to address problems found with the existing GPLv2. One of those problems, we both seem to agree, is the potential to revoke freedoms that the GPL tries to guarantee for recipients of the work.
The existing code isn't the problem; the GPLv2 still does what it does. The problem is the distribution of that code to recipients in such a way that they can't exercise the freedoms enjoyed by the distributor. The GPLv3 is being designed to guarantee that can't happen.
Then you suddenly talk about removing code outside that context. That's a non sequitur. In the absence of anything new, I'm getting weary of this exchange.
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 26, 2006 1:21 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > You've lost me.
You mentioned the "GPL spirit", according to which, Tivo are in violation (of whatever that may be). Since you seem to be so keen on it (the spirit), why not live by your own principles now, instead of waiting until a GPLv3 licensed kernel is released? Wouldn't that be a moral thing to do? You may sense a bit of sarcasm there - it's not unintentional. And yes, this part is all rhetorical.
As for "getting weary of this exchange", that would be because you think that I have some kind of "crystal ball" of predicting outcomes. I do not. Instead, I try to present the arguments that would seem logical (at least to me):
- GPLv3 requires that keys be distributed with software (fact)
- device manufacturers, content and service providers find locked devices useful, therefore they will keep manufactuing them (fact)
- device manufacturers find free software option useful, as it reduces the cost of manufacturing the device (fact)
- giving keys away would make the devices unlocked again (fact)
- therefore, not many are going to have a locked yet unlocked devices, as it would be just silly (my conclusion)
- therefore, not many are going to get a chance to exercise GPLv3 freedoms on any of those devices, because not many are going to ship that combination of hardware/software (my conclusion)
- therefore, attempts to increase freedom through the use of GPLv3, would only have the effect of reducing the free software developer community, by forcing many embedded developers into proprietary software (my conclusion)
- by not introducing the anti-DRM clauses into GPLv3, people would at least have a chance to get the source for use on other devices or to start their own free software based business, while increasing free software licence compatiblity and therefore bringing more free software communites together (my conclusion)
You seem to be talking about some kind of theoretical possibility that GPLv3 will bring more freedom to users, without pointing to any real world mechanisms or forces that would make that happen. What good is this theoretical freedom, when nobody is going to write software to take advantage of it? How are users going to enjoy more freedom by not running free software?
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 26, 2006 1:50 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > GPLv3 requires that keys be distributed with software
Or that no keys be required at all.
> device manufacturers, content and service providers find locked devices useful, therefore they will keep manufactuing them
The "therefore" is true only to the extent that it continues to be profitable to do so. DRM is gaining widespread dissatisfaction as its ramifications become known. I find the idea that such devices are inevitably going to become ubiquitous to be a very defeatist position.
> device manufacturers find free software option useful, as it reduces the cost of manufacturing the device
This is completely at odds with restricting the freedoms of the recipient. If you mean "device manufacturers find zero-cost software [...] useful", that's irrelevant here.
> therefore, not many are going to get a chance to exercise GPLv3 freedoms on any of those devices
That's true under *any* free software license. The devices you describe are explicitly designed to restrict the freedoms of the recipient, so that they cannot exercise the freedom to modify and run the software.
Since such distribution doesn't allow exercise of the freedoms in the GPL, the GPLv3 is being designed so that those who would distribute in that way can't pretend to offer those freedoms.
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 26, 2006 2:20 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > The "therefore" is true only to the extent that it continues to be profitable to do so.
Oh, you better believe that part. Content and service providers are making sure that's the case. Why do you think we have DMCA?
> DRM is gaining widespread dissatisfaction as its ramifications become known.
Widespread? Wouldn't be so sure about that. What seems widespread on LWN, may not be even known in the real world. I reckon upward of 90% of Tivo users neither know nor would care if they found out that their system has DRM enabled hardware. And I think I'm being generous to the people that know and care here.
> This is completely at odds with restricting the freedoms of the recipient. If you mean "device manufacturers find zero-cost software [...] useful", that's irrelevant here.
No, I mean free software. Especially copyleft free software, as they can enjoy the benefits of sharing the development cost with other companies (i.e. other members of the community). Or are we saying now the GPLv2 software is not copyleft free software, because GPLv2 is violating the spirit of GPL (the mind boggles :-)? I certainly hope not.
> That's true under *any* free software license. The devices you describe are explicitly designed to restrict the freedoms of the recipient, so that they cannot exercise the freedom to modify and run the software.
My point exactly. So, the devices are the problem here - and one that GPLv3 isn't going to solve. At least with GPLv2 you get to have developers that keep hacking the software (therefore making it relevant) and let other people have access to such source (to run on other devices). With GPLv3, however, those communities die and the software soon becomes irrelevant in that area.
Which gives? Less free software, not more. Surely, less free software is not better than more free software. Except, of course, if GPLv2 software doesn't count as free software any more.
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 26, 2006 2:35 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > > The devices you describe are explicitly designed to restrict the freedoms of the recipient, so that they cannot exercise the freedom to modify and run the software.
> My point exactly. So, the devices are the problem here - and one that GPLv3 isn't going to solve.
No copyright license can solve that problem, and the GPLv3 isn't designed to do so.
The problem GPLv3 is addressing, in this case, is the unwilling contribution by free software developers to explicitly non-free distribution.
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 26, 2006 2:44 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > The problem GPLv3 is addressing, in this case, is the unwilling contribution by free software developers to explicitly non-free distribution.
A noble goal, for sure (I'm not being sarcastic here, I promise).
However, in the case of Linux (or other similar software) this would have a side effect of killing the development efforts of many of those developers. So, instead of just killing "non-free distribution", communities and a lot of contributions useful elsewhere would be killed with it as well. All of which is just collateral damage to FSF, I guess.
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 26, 2006 2:54 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > this would have a side effect of killing the development efforts of many of those developers. So, instead of just killing "non-free distribution", communities and a lot of contributions useful elsewhere would be killed with it as well.
I guess our crystal balls must be tuned to different futures. I plan to keep working toward the future I see in mine.
Thanks for the discussion, I'm stopping here.
GPLv3 is designed to ensure the software user's freedom Posted Oct 26, 2006 3:00 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > Thanks for the discussion, I'm stopping here.
Thanks for your time. I enjoyed the discussion.
|
|
||||||||||||