RMS Explains GPLv3 Draft 3 139
H4x0r Jim Duggan writes "A transcript is now online of a talk Richard Stallman gave in Brussels earlier this week about the discussion draft 3 of GPLv3. Among other things, he explained how it will address the Novell-MS deal, from Novell's point of view and from Microsoft's, and he explained how the tivoisation clause was narrowed to make it more acceptable in the hope that it will be used by more people. After the talk he also gave an interview, and yesterday, draft 2 of LGPLv3 was released."
I wish for a ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, telling me that the GPL is obvious and that I'm stupid for not understanding it won't save me if I run into legal problems associated with the GPL. And I will have to spend money on an IP attorney to help me. It would be stupid to think that, without legal training and a license in my state, I know the law and can interpret a contract accordingly.
Yeah, it would be nice if it were so easy that I didn't need a lawyer. Then again, if laws and contracts were so obvious, why are there courts?
Incorrect answer (most of the time): Because everyone is dishonest and trying to screw the other guy.
Re:I wish for a ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a contract, it's a software licence, which isn't the same thing in law.
And it is stupid to have such things as EULA's which only a lawyer could possibly understand the full meaning and implications of - but haven't all the millions of computer users the world over "agreed" to them without such an understanding? Or has everyone else received their classes in understanding the licences for Microsoft Windows and Office, Adobe Acrobat Reader, Sun Java, Macromedia Flash and everything else that is loaded on their PCs as part of their basic education, on a day I was off school?
The question is whether the GPL (any version) is harder to understand than any other licence. If not, then you don't need a lawyer just for the GPL v3.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For bonus points, can you please tell us in correct plain English what a "software licence" is in law (and in what jurisdictions)?
I rather doubt that. In most places, you can't enter
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is whether the GPL (any version) is harder to understand than any other licence. If not, then you don't need a lawyer just for the GPL v3.No, you are wrong. All of us who agree to those contracts (EULAs) are crossing our fingers and hoping it all works out or are ignorant of the law. As individual users we do not, so far(we'll see), have much to worry about when we blindly agree to those EULAs.
But as a developer or corporate user, I have much to worry about.
No sir, I like to have my ducks in a
Yes it must be by a lawyer. (Score:2, Insightful)
RMS often says what he wants GPL to mean. That is very different from what the leg
Re:Yes it must be by a lawyer. (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL but as far as I understand it this is not actually true. Public statement from the author(s) of a license will affect the decision a judge makes if it ever comes to a trial. IBM lawyers used newletters published by AT&T where they clarified certain points in their license in the SCO case to show that SCO's interpretation of the license was not the same as AT&T's. So if it ever comes down to the question "what does this sentence here actually mean?" a judge will definitely look at any statements made by the FSF.
Where the law and the text of the license are clear there won't be much discussion, but both law and licenses are not science and open for many interpretations, that's why we need judges.
Re:Yes it must be by a lawyer. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a good point. When the intent of something is in doubt, it is common for judges to look to the context of things to determine what makes sense. Where things really get hairy is if I use the GPL to license my own work. In that case, am I bound by RMS's interpretation of the license? I may interpret the license differently (and provide my own FAQ about what I think it means). The reality is that in many cases, the FSF view of the license won't matter since the FSF is neither issuing or receiving the license.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I think you would be hard pressed to offer a different interpretation from the one profferred by Eben Moglen and company. And you can't give an interpretation that is directly contrary to the language of the license, as you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of AT&T I th
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but it seems to me that if a decision *must* be made, and cannot be unambiguosly deduced from the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
lawyers speaking plain english? (Score:2)
Is that even possible? Wouldn't they get disbarred (or defrocked or whatever its called) for talking in plain english?
I suppose that a lawyer could *pretend* to speak so as to be intelligible to a laymen, for several thousand $$$ per hour... but would that count?
Compatibility with patent-nullification licenses (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a lot of software out there being developed under licenses which aren't compatible with the GPL, because the GPL doesn't allow patent nullification clauses -- this is dangerous, because the purpose of these clauses is to keep someone from slipping code into a major project that they have a patent for, and then torpedoing the whole thing later on when it's crept into wider use. I don't know if this issue just wasn't foreseen when GPL2 was written up, but I can't think of a more pressing issue at the moment.
Yeah, "Tivo-ization" and web services may keep some software out of the hands of the public, but they're not nearly as downright dangerous as submarine patents are.
[1] Examples: IBM Public License 1.0, Common Public License 1.0, Apache License v2, or any of the other licenses where the FSF cheerfully comments "We don't think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL."
Re:Compatibility with patent-nullification license (Score:5, Informative)
As it is currently drafted, the GPL v3 has a patent-nullification clause itself: section 11. Furthermore, it allows under section 7 that derivative works have "Additional Terms" that are not in the GPL, but not incompatible with the idea of Free Software. The goal of section is to have less free software licenses that are GPL-incompatible; which directly addresses your question
Sadly, the Apache License v2 will probably remain incompatible with the GPL, even GPL v3. As desribed in the Rationale document [fsf.org], section 4.4, not because of the patent termination clause; but because Apache License v2's section 9 states that downstream redistributors must agree to indemnify upstream licensors under certain conditions.In any case, if you have comments on the latest(L)GPL v3 draft, the FSF's comment page [fsf.org] is the best place to do it. The reason this whole GPL v3 thing takes so much time (the first draft for GPL v3 was published Monday, January 16, 2006!) is that the FSF takes serious comments seriously (and of course, because of certain vendors' deals as well).
Re: (Score:2)
It appears the GPlv3 does the same so unless they have some specific clause allowing it, it could be in the same boat.
About Apache compatibility (Score:3, Informative)
FSF have tried all along to achieve compatibility with the Apache licence. The current status is that the patent language is now similar enough for the two licences to be compatible in that respect, but a new problem has been found which would make them incompatible. I expect a solution is being looked for.
This is discussed in the transcript in the section Patent retalisation and the Apache licence [fsfeurope.org] (the transcript is split into sections and there is a menu for easy navigation and linking).
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not Apache are willing to drop their patent terms remains to be seen tho'.
Not patents, indemnity (Score:4, Informative)
GPLv3 has been made compatible with Apache's patent clause.
Why is Apache compatibility important? (Score:2)
Re:Why is Apache compatibility important? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
AFAICT there is no such thing a license compatibility.
Re:Compatibility with patent-nullification license (Score:2)
IANAL, but I seem to remember reading some time long ago that if a person or company were to do that then they would, in the US at least, end up fscking up any patent case they'd make. Probably the worst they could manage would be to require the project to stop using the patented code.
Complexity (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Complexity (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the legal landscape is what's too complicated here. A certain level of complexity is necessary in anything intended to be functional on that landscape.
Re:Complexity (Score:5, Informative)
The GPLv2 is one of the simplest, straightforward software licenses I've ever seen. It uses plain English, virtually no legal jargon, and even includes a summary. And I always see people talking about GPL-this and GPL-that who don't appear to have even read it, much less understood it.
Now the GPLv3 is more complicated than the GPLv2, but the main reason for it having to be explained is because so many people already have misconceptions about it from the rumour mill and because of its novelty. I wouldn't say that the necessity for an explanation is inherently a cause for concern.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
That doesn't mean it isn't too complicated. It only means most of the *other* software licenses you've seen are even worse.
I do consider the GPL v2 to be really too complicated, driven by the complicated goals it's trying to achieve. The GPL v3 is still trying to achieve (more or less) those same goals, but it's trying to do it more robustly in the face of various complicated situations. So it's still *more* compl
Try explaining copyright law (Score:3, Insightful)
In that case, you might want to try complaining about copyright law. Though what copyright tries to achieve (chopping ideas into discreet units and assigning ownership[1]) is so different from how ideas otherwise exist I can't imagine the law every being simple.
In many cases, the GPL makes dealing with copyright less complicated - because it's a de facto standard, because you can focus on the four freedoms instead of the minutiae
Re:Complexity (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe. But legalese is what you get when you take English and try to make it into an exact language, like say a programming. Unfortunately general conversation is absolutely horrible at this, so it is a lot like putting a square peg in a round hole.
That leads to a very odd style with a lot of defintions, not just in the front but through-out the document. Further, unlike say source code where the code is the actual execution, you need to spell everything in detail so that a court can narrow its way down to a detail and say true or false, or hopefully be so clear it never gets there. It certainly tends to get wordy, and information density is very low. Most people fail to see the nuances and see repetition without meaning and react with "All that to say so little?"
Third, you have to assume bad faith on the other party. Some of the paragraphs are specificly there to prevent circumvention attempts, for example legally subdividing yourself deliver signed software with one hand and DRM hardware with the other. Unless you exaplin the whole scenario, that part is almost impossible to understand.
So well, even when you try to make it simple it gets complicated. For example, let me summarize chapter 15: "No warranty and absolute waiver of liability". It is simple, perfectly understandable and would probably get torn apart in court. So you get this blurb:
"THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MER- CHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/ OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms, reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a copy of the Program in return for a fee."
Now, did it honestly say more than the one line above?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Third, you have to assume bad faith on the other party. Some of the paragraphs are specificly there to prevent circumvention attempts, for example legally subdividing yourself deliver signed software with one hand and DRM hardware with the other. Unless you exaplin the whole scenario, that part is almost impossible to understand.
Good point. It strikes me that a very similar situation occurs in code as well. Most code is not very careful about error conditions, especially things that almost never happen. Most code basically just gives up and aborts if something goes wrong. That's why exceptions are a popular error-handling mechanism, they allow most code to simply ignore errors, safe in the knowledge that if something goes wrong, the whole operation will simply be failed and handled at a very high level somewhere high up the c
Re: (Score:2)
There are things which are actually difficult to understand, but which can't both be made simpler and also remain accurate.
It is a reasonable **GOAL** to have a really simple license. This doesn't mean that this goal can be achieved without sacrificeing other goals. Thing of it as an exercise in Linear Programming. It's an optimization problem: How to achieve a minimax in n dimensions over an m-dimensional space with a complicted metric. T
Re: (Score:1)
Why GPL3? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
blah, blah, patents are evil, blah, so is DRM.
Re:Why GPL3? (Score:5, Informative)
I disagree completely.
Yes, the GPLv2 was/is a great license, but it isn't perfect. The FSF's main concern is that certain companies start to distribute software/devices that is in accordance with the letter of the GPLv2, but not with its spirit (specifically freedoms 2 and 3: the freedom to change the program to your own needs, and distribute changes). Example: Tivo.
Also, GPLv2 was written at a time where software patents weren't considered possible, even in the worst nightmares. Today, they are a reality in many parts of the world.
Besides Tivoisation and patents, there are some other good things in the GPL v3, as it is currently drafted. It will be no longer necessary to provide source code via snail mail if you distribute binaries without source. This is the 21st century, providing access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge will be sufficient.
Yes, there is resistance to the GPL v3, especially to the earlier drafts (drafts 1 and 2). That's what this long comment period is about. The FSF is taking serious comments seriously. Also, there was opposition in 1991 about GPL v2 as well. Some resistance doesn't mean the whole thing sucks.
And if the GPL v2 continues to be fine by you, you are free to continue to use GPL v2 for your own software. Or dual license "GPL v2 or v3" if you want to stay compatible with GNU software. The FSF would argue that "GPL v2, or at the user's option, any later version" is even better.
Re: (Score:1)
The GPL v2 allows that already. In section 3a, it states that to distribute you must accompany the work "with the complete corresponding machine-readable source
Re: (Score:2)
I am 100% against the DMCA, using TPM in my PCs to allow manufacturers to force only signed code (that only THEY can sign).
Yet at the same time, I myself, envision business models where I think it is both legitimate, fair, and even RIGHT, to do just that.
For example, suppose I were to write a mmorpg, I'd frankly be happy to GPL the client and server apps. But I'd like to hold back a big chunk of the database CONTENT, and even some plug-in modules im
Re:Why GPL3? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oligopoly (Score:2)
Tivo has made their software no less free, they're made their hardware less free. Hardware's physical resources, software is information. If a company creates open and free software and also creates hardware that isn't open and free, I don't think there's a problem there.
In an ideal free market, if someone sold closed hardware, someone else would enter the market and compete on an other-than-price basis by selling open hardware. In the real world, TiVo and the cable/dish companies have an oligopoly on set-top hard drive video recording hardware, and Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo have an oligopoly on set-top video game hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called defensive licensing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I recall correctly, I first came across open source in 1993, when I read some fairly persuasive essays about it by RMS. I was initially sceptical of the GPLs share-alike restricitons. I recall RMS arguing that the nascent open-source movement didn't have the resources, code base, or more-or-less "head start" that proprietary software had, and they must give themselves a leg up by creating software that was only available ot themselves. This was pa
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand RMS and the FSF completely. RMS does not and has never stood for Open Source software. RMS does not advocate the technical superiority of an Open development model. In fact, he doesn't even necessarily believe it is technically superior—read his essay on why Open Source misses the point of Free Software [gnu.org].
RMS is however avidly aga
Re: (Score:2)
I beleive I correctly understood the position of RMS when he wrote the essays I found so persuasive (sometime before 1993, when I read them), but that his position has drifted and/or hardened since then. That's his right, but I liked the kinder, gentler RMS better
Frankly, I think that in this RMS is somewhat a victim of his own success. He was instumental in convincing me, and quite a number of my contemporaries, that open was (technically) better. He may have seen that as only a side point to his mai
CLEAR! (Score:5, Funny)
RMS: Any response?
(EMS takes pulse of GPL3, shakes his head)
RMS: Alright, let's try watering down some of the shriller provisions. CLEAR! (RMS applies paddles to GPL3's chest again. It twitches, then lays still)
RMS: Anything?
EMS (peering into GPL's eyes) I'm sorry, I'm not seeing any Linus signs whatsoever.
Crow T. Trollbot
No Linus signs? (Score:2)
No Linus signs? Didn't Linus say that draft 2 was enough better than draft 1 that he was actually considering using it?
Like last Thursday [slashdot.org] or so?
Re: (Score:2)
Novell - MS Deal Great for GPL v3 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You're point is perfectly valid but my point is that it's not happening, and it probably should be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The switch to using GPL v3 is the best thing that could have happened to closed source because it will blow the OSS community apart into incompatibly licenced pieces.
A sad day indeed.
Unlikely, in my humble opinion. Let's go for worst case... about half of the software projects out there currently under GPLv2 gets relicensed to GPLv3, and likewise for LGPL. Then there are 2 potential problems:
Ah, Richard, you're beautiful (Score:5, Funny)
"there is no possible ethical way you could use [a game console]"
Fantastic. Absolutely fantastic. I haven't laughed so hard in my life.
Re: (Score:1)
According to RMS, using a non-free software is ethical only if you use it to make a Free Software replacement. Game consoles does not run code that is not signed by manufacturer, thus making it impossible to ever run Free Software.
GPL for games? (Score:2)
According to RMS, using a non-free software is ethical only if you use it to make a Free Software replacement.
Let's see if I understand his logic right. Is he saying that using Tetris [wikipedia.org] is ethical only if I use it to make LOCKJAW [pineight.com]? So what about songs or movies? How would one make a free replacement for one of those?
Game consoles does not run code that is not signed by manufacturer, thus making it impossible to ever run Free Software.
What free hardware is designed to sit on top of a television, receive input from four USB or Bluetooth gamepads, and play interactive video games? Do enough Free games support this play method?
Another thing to ponder: Given the incompatibility between Creative Commons licenses and GNU licenses d
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty easily. Software is not anything special, really. Like all creative works, there is an idea and an expression of that idea. Copyright only protects expressions, and never protects ideas. So the idea of tetris -- the rules -- are not protected by copyright. Only the implementation is. So long as you
Re: (Score:1)
Songs and movies have underlying ideas too. The trick is getting as much of the idea as you want without going too far and getting into the expression. It's considered to be a continuum, lest pirates take an entire work, tweak it only very slightly, and claim to have not infringed since there is that slight difference in the expression. The line is very fuzzy. But you could certainly make a movie about a 1930's archeologist adventurer who fights Nazis without infringing on the Indiana Jones copyrights. You would just need to be cautious.
You appear right about movies. So what would be the "underlying idea" behind an instrumental musical work?
Re: (Score:2)
backward persective. (Score:4, Funny)
heinousjay thinks this is funny:
"there is no possible ethical way you could use [a game console]"
What's not funny is how the console may use you. The point of software freedom is to avoid malicious use by the software's owner of the type seen in cell phone tapping. If the software is not free, you can't know what the device is doing. Giving your money to people who abuse you is a bad idea. The viewpoint is extreme, but consistent and sensible.
Now, something that is funny is Steve-o's iPod and Google "brainwash". [slashdot.org] The only reason he does not like either is because they represent another company's product. His language is just as disrespectful as his company and the picture drawn is simple bully.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:backward persective. (Score:4, Interesting)
I hate to be the devil's advocate on this argument, because I really like free software (though I can't bring myself to whole-kool-aid on the morality argument)...
The software being open-source doesn't give me the ability to know what the device is doing any more than the law being published and accessible gives me the ability to be my own lawyer. It merely allows lawyers (or independent software developers) to exist. Hundreds of thousands of lines of code go into modern working software, and a bit of trust on the part of the average end-consumer is strictly necessary regardless of the visibility nature. The average end-consumer simply doesn't have the time to learn enough computer science to eye-verify every line of code in every piece of software they run.
I trust open-source because many eyes have seen it, and my experience has been that those eyes are not in heads that are actively engaged in the business of doing evil. I trust much closed-source from big companies because the situations where actively lying to the customer is long-term profitable are more rare than many think they are. It's true that only one of these avenues has even the potential for exploitation, but if we always kept to the safe paths we'd miss out on half the fun, eh?
It's not a morality question. It's a risk-reward question.
Verification is possible. Morality is advisable. (Score:2)
The average end-consumer simply doesn't have the time to learn enough computer science to eye-verify every line of code in every piece of software they run. ... It's not a morality question. It's a risk-reward question.
None of us has the time to verify everything, but it's much easier in the free software world. Distributions like Debian do a lot of the work for you, but the same auditing community that exists for non free software also works on free software. People are constantly monitoring their netw
Re:Verification is possible. Morality is advisable (Score:2, Insightful)
Not if you want to play games, which you might recall was the subject of this thread.
Now that's really funny. (Score:2)
Hmmm, you and Steve can go be "productive" with Xbox, yet another second rate thing. Don't tell him I said that, or he'll smash you with something heavy.
I'll dream about Playstation 3 and ID Games while I slave away on other things without time, money or inclination to shop. Tuxcart, PlanetPenguin, Quake2 and other toys do it for
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW (and to supply only a little bit of context) when he said that he was so sleepy that he had to remain standing so that he wouldn't go to sleep during the interview. In such a case one can generally only respond properly with previously thought-out responses, and one doesn't notice even rather blatant consequences of what one says or does. (I once crossed a street with my eyes closed in such a state. Only later did I realize *THAT* I had been foolish, and it was the next day
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Patent expansion? (Score:3)
But does it also prevent them from suing somebody downstream who inserts (or uses/distributes code where some middle-man inserted) additional code that infringes on OTHER patents than the ones covering what they themselves inserted?
IMHO it SHOULD do the former and not the latter. Otherwise distributing GPLv3ed code would effectively wipe out a company's entire patent portfolio - which would inhibit companies who have and value such a patent collection (if only for defense against others) from using GPLv3.
But IANAL - and haven't even studied the draft. Can someone who understands law AND has studied the draft tell us if this pitfall was avoided?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And they do. No problem there.
My issue is with OTHER people taking the stuff they modified (which thus carries a license to the patents they intended to license) and inserting MORE code in a way that infringes OTHER of their patents that they DIDN'T intend to license. They should still be able to sue over THOSE infringements.
If they can't, releasing GPLed code woul
Tricky section (Score:4, Interesting)
This actually has a few more conditions because we were trying to avoid covering certain other things, for instance, consider a patent parasite, one of those companies that has only one business which is to go around threatening people with patent law suits and making them pay. When this happens, the businesses that are attacked often have no choice but to pay them off. We don't want to put them in a position of being GPL violators as a result. So we put in a condition: "this paragraph applies only if the patent holder makes a business of distributing software". Patent parasites don't. As a result, the victim of the patent parasites is not put in violation by this paragraph.
Really if one company is attacked for patent infringement on a piece of GPL'd software than every user is vulnerable and it's only a matter of time before the parasite makes the rounds through all the companies. I think the old form was better since it didn't allow a distributor to back down and pay them off, perhaps giving the community to gather and fight back. Of course the old version also allows an unscrupulous competitor to give their patents to a shell company with the understanding that the shell company will put the competition out of business...
Damn, patents suck.
RMS? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously, RMS is a Microsoft technology (Score:2)
Welcome to the World of Nuclear Regulation (Score:2, Interesting)
Even with a seemingly simple set of conditions (i.e., the license terms), someone will figure out a nuance or caveat that will challenge the conventional interpretation, and gum up the works for everyone else. Regulations (or licenses) are principally legal matters, and as such, precedents and case studies are key to u
So tell me, RMS... (Score:2)
YET ...
we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products.
So which way is it? Are you giving or just not giving for everyone?
Re: (Score:2)
With the GPLv2, people can use patents to avoid giving back. They can use signed binaries to avoid giving back. These are the people we don't want to give to anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have freedom, you have to take the bad with the good.
Ya' know, kinda like the First Ammendment.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to take the bad with the good, use BSD.
Re: (Score:2)
Tivoisation (Score:2, Insightful)
With my semi-informed viewpoint, I can see why TiVo did what they did.
TiVo wasn't really ever in the hardware business, they provide subscription services. If I can modify the kernel I can intercept the low level calls that retrieve the unit number and steal the service by providing a different one.
Then the next step is to let you run a modified kernel, but not let you use the ser
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, here is a link to your freedom files [tivo.com]. Also, regarding the GPL the agreement is the agreement. I think it is important to keep a careful balance between the GPL and private busine
Overload! (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
I guess it's more to do with the fact that his entire world is some insane version of reality where computers are the most important thing than anything else.
Re:more acceptable (Score:5, Funny)
KUDOS!
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, the guy took a cheap shot at you, but you were wide open to it by not having any files available to download.
By the way, good luck with your project, but you *may* wish to consider the benefits of the 'release early, release often' philosophy. Once you have a working version, get it online so interested folks can hack on it - there are l