Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
Posted Sep 27, 2006 19:44 UTC (Wed) by b3timmons (guest, #40286)In reply to: Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com) by tjc
Parent article: Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
The fact that RMS attempts to show moral superiority does not in itself make his morality superior. His moral standard is just as relative to his own personal beliefs as is yours or mine.At least he is trying, complete with initial assumption and application of logic until conclusions. If there is no flaw found in his reasoning, then fault should be found in his assumptions. Indeed, too many counterarguments out there seem to rely on conflicting assumptions which are mistakenly portrayed as more than that.
It is entirely possible that his reasoning is incomplete, but the right thing to do would be to show how. Otherwise, it would be better if those conflicting assumptions were spelled out plainly. It seems that such assumptions are that freedom and cooperation are, at best, means to an end. Plainly disagreeing on such assumptions elevates the discussion beyond moral relativism IMHO and would be better for all concerned.
Posted Sep 27, 2006 20:23 UTC (Wed)
by tjc (guest, #137)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Sep 27, 2006 20:48 UTC (Wed)
by b3timmons (guest, #40286)
[Link] (6 responses)
You know--technological progress. Now we are getting into the territory that deeply divides people! No other end is ever claimed by open source advocates. Not being a social movement, they do not concern themselves with the social condition.
I suspect they feel such concern is misguided, perhaps because the social condition is less controllable than technology. Being less controllable does not justify ignoring it IMO.
Posted Sep 27, 2006 21:53 UTC (Wed)
by sepreece (guest, #19270)
[Link] (5 responses)
It's like the old saw, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
The only tool available here is the license language, so it's tempting to try to use it to solve whatever issus you think are important. When the issue is "I want to make my code available, but I want to be able to see what changes other people make to it" that hammer works fine; when the issue is "DRM is evil", that hammer has nothing to pound on.
Posted Sep 27, 2006 23:25 UTC (Wed)
by b3timmons (guest, #40286)
[Link] (4 responses)
The very same concern for scope of a license has been repeatedly leveled at GPLv2 over the years; scope in and of itself does not seem to be that compelling. Again, we are brought back to the "user". One side argues for the manufacturer, the other the end owner. With Tivoization, the undeniable fact is that freedoms granted to the manufacturer are not granted to the end owner. You may be arguing that it is in line with the intentions that produced the GPLv2. If you are right here, then we must correct the FSF. However, I think your argument is that the reduction of freedoms is OK, regardless of the intentions.
Computers--embedded or not--are universal tools that embody exceptionally strong notions of freedoms. Moreover, propagation of digital information is ridiculously easy and cheap. Few other examples scenarios show the kind of artificial imbalance of freedom that we see between Tivo and a Tivo user. That few Tivo users might benefit does not subtract from the principle.
Posted Sep 28, 2006 3:53 UTC (Thu)
by AJWM (guest, #15888)
[Link] (3 responses)
It is perfectly deniable, because it is not a fact.
With regards to the software, the end user has _exactly_ the same rights as the manufacturer -- he is perfectly free to take and modify that software, develop some unique hardware, and to manufacture and sell that hardware along with the modified software.
The original manufacturer's right to create a box that will only run software that he approves has _nothing_ to do with software, it's inherent in his right to design the hardware any way he wants to, and sell that hardware if he so chooses and if anyone else is stupid enough to buy it. (So long as he meets the license terms of any included software).
The fact that Moglen and RMS don't seem to have a problem with distributing GPL software embedded in ROM indicates that they fundamentally agree with this position, but they're trying to pretend that "Tivoization" is something different, to the detriment of the v3 license.
Posted Sep 28, 2006 4:48 UTC (Thu)
by b3timmons (guest, #40286)
[Link] (2 responses)
It is too a fact, because you know very well that the freedoms under
discussion are the four freedoms. Tivo has freedom one--the
freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to their
needs--and you don't, since it is impossible to run any possible
modified version of yours.
The issue is that is that this right should not damage the four
freedoms. GPLv3 restores protection for them, and a manufacturer,
unable to exercise his right to Tivoize with software under the GPLv3, should choose software under a license permitting Tivoization. The FSF has the same right as anyone else to set their own terms for their license. GPLv3 looks more like a bug-fix than anything else.
There is no pretending at all: with ROM freedom one is moot.
Posted Sep 28, 2006 22:07 UTC (Thu)
by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
[Link] (1 responses)
How is it impossible? Modified it won't run on your TiVo, but it runs here on my PC just fine.
And what about the same TiVo, just with the software in ROM? That is OK under GPLv3, but is the same situation from the user's point.
Posted Sep 29, 2006 0:34 UTC (Fri)
by b3timmons (guest, #40286)
[Link]
Modified it must be possible to run it on my Tivo because
that is what this whole thing is about: my ability to implement the
same functionality in the same range of circumstances as what Tivo
does by exploiting GPLed code for the device that I bought from them and now own. Fortunately, the GPLv3
restores my ability lost from Tivo exploiting a loophole.
No--not the same situation, because now Tivo and I are now on an equal
footing--Freedom One applying to neither of us, unlike the
Tivoization case above.
Posted Sep 27, 2006 22:52 UTC (Wed)
by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989)
[Link] (1 responses)
I agree with you here. RMS is an archetype. We need that 'crazy uncle' figure to keep us from complacency.
I start to taper off from the gentleman when he asserts that his neat logical conclusions preclude the possibility of other conclusions. Only a Supreme Being would tote such potency. The FSF's goals are one set of legitimate goals among many. Labeling other goals 'unethical' does not, of itself, render them so.
Posted Sep 27, 2006 23:33 UTC (Wed)
by b3timmons (guest, #40286)
[Link]
Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
It seems that such assumptions are that freedom and cooperation are, at best, means to an end.
What exactly do you mean by this? If freedom and cooperation are but means to an end, then what is the end?
Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
What exactly do you mean by this? If freedom and cooperation are but means to an end, then what is the end?
Or, perhaps they [we] feel that, at least in this case, technology is not the solution to the social condition in question.Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
The only tool available here is the license language, so it's tempting to try to use it to solve whatever issus you think are important. When the issue is "I want to make my code available, but I want to be able to see what changes other people make to it" that hammer works fine; when the issue is "DRM is evil", that hammer has nothing to pound on.
> With Tivoization, the undeniable fact is that freedoms granted to the manufacturer are not granted to the end owner.Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
It is perfectly deniable, because it is not a fact.
The original manufacturer's right to create a box that will only run software that he approves has _nothing_ to do with software, it's
inherent in his right to design the hardware any way he wants to, and
sell that hardware if he so chooses and if anyone else is stupid
enough to buy it. (So long as he meets the license terms of any
included software).
The fact that Moglen and RMS don't seem to have a problem with
distributing GPL software embedded in ROM indicates that they
fundamentally agree with this position, but they're trying to pretend
that "Tivoization" is something different, to the detriment of the v3
license.
Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
It is too a fact, because you know very well that the freedoms under discussion are the four freedoms. Tivo has freedom one--the freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to their needs--and you don't, since it is impossible to run any possible modified version of yours.
Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
How is it impossible? Modified it won't run on your TiVo,
but it runs here on my PC just fine.
And what about the same TiVo, just with the software in
ROM? That is OK under GPLv3, but is the same situation from the user's
point.
>At least he is trying, complete with initial assumption and application of logic until conclusions.Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
I seem to have the most trouble with some of his assumptions. If you could offer an alternative conclusion given his assumptions, that would be quite notable and noble IMO.Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)