×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RMS on Proposed GPLv3 changes

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the this-will-be-good dept.

222

H4x0r Jim Duggan writes "Last Saturday - the first day of FOSDEM, Richard Stallman gave what seems to have been his first public talk about the draft GPLv3. Ciaran O'Riordan of Free Software Foundation Europe was there and, after recording with his digital camera, has published a transcript of RMS's GPLv3 talk. O'Riordan previously made a transcript of the January 16th first presentation on the GPLv3 which consists of 70 minutes of Eben Moglen, with 20 minutes worth of interruptions from Stallman."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

222 comments

A request (1)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817402)

For those of us who don't feel like wading a 100 page discussion transcript in legalese, can someone link to a concise summary of the changes being made?

Re:A request (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817499)

TFA is only the Stallman excerpts. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes to read.

Re:A request (2, Informative)

LordNightwalker (256873) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818158)

We recorded all the speeches this year and the movies can be found here [belnet.be] . Not everything is up yet, and they're still working on ogg/theora versions, and the filenames may not be too descriptive if you weren't there, but whatever... I already sent some feedback and those issues will probably be fixed soon.

Disclaimer: I was but a humble volunteer; don't spam me with any questions 'coz this is about all I know about the movies. ;)

Re:A request (3, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817548)

> For those of us who don't feel like wading a 100 page discussion transcript in legalese, can someone link to a concise summary of the changes being made?

"Please stop calling it the GPLv3. It's GNU/PLv3!"

/sorry RMS, I couldn't resist.

Re:A request (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817607)

Actually, it's not. GPL stands for General Public License, not GNU Public License. But GNU/GPLv3 would be fine. :)

Re:A request (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818267)

Any chance we could get a "-1: obligatory bad joke" mod button?

Re:A request (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14817627)

The GPL will be turned into something like the Microsoft Shared Source license.

Better stay with BSD/MIT-license if you want your code to be free.

Re:A request (2, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817769)

There's a few updates. Other than clarifications (for example, over GPLing something you have an exclusive or semi-exclusive patent license for that you can't transfer to licencees), the major changes I saw are:

1. A manufacturer who takes GPL'd code, signs it, and then sells hardware that only runs code signed with their key, which they don't redistribute, is in violation of the license. This is relatively narrowly defined, despite Torvalds throwing a hissy fit about this part of the license a few weeks ago, thinking it outlawed all forms of DRM (it doesn't.)

2. The license isn't automatically revoked upon it being breached. Instead the copyright holders have to give the breacher 30 days notice to allow them back into compliance.

3. To make it more compatable with similar licenses, there's a whole bunch of optional terms and conditions that can be added. For example, you can say "If you sue us for patent infringement, you can't use any patents our code relies upon that we own, effectively ending your ability to use our software." The notable feature is that this is an optional condition.

HTH. Anyone notice anything else that was major (ie not a clarification of something we largely knew anyway?)

RMS Interruptions (1)

merc (115854) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817413)

O'Riordan previously made a transcript of the January 16th first presentation on the GPLv3 which consists of 70 minutes of Eben Moglen, with 20 minutes worth of interruptions from Stallman.

Is that meant to sound like a bad thing? I hope not, if you're touching the GPL, I'd hope it's progenitor would interrupt you if you make a potential error ;-)

Re:RMS Interruptions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14817437)

Yes, but 17 of those 20 minutes were Stallman shouting "GNU/Linux" after every mention of Linux.

Re:RMS Interruptions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14817468)

Yes, but 17 of those 20 minutes were Stallman shouting "GNU/Linux" after every mention of Linux.

You mean: ...after every mention of GNU/Linux.

Re:RMS Interruptions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14817538)

I think he meant GNU/Stallman.

Re:RMS Interruptions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14817817)

GNU/I GNU/think GNU/he GNU/meant GNU/GNU/Stallman

Well said. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14817999)

I was worried about the unnecessarily critical tone of that too. Stallman gets a pretty bad rap, considering he singlehandedly started a revolution that most of us /. people now reap the benefits of.

RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817420)

Is it just me or does it seem like RMS created a new verion of the GPL because people stopped listening to him about the old one.
It seems to me that RMS views are no longer connected with where Open Source should go, and will just lead Open Source to be too socially libral for wide use.

I disagree with RMS so my Mod points will negitivly reflect it.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14817446)

It's just you.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (2)

timster (32400) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817458)

I'm sorry, but saying that RMS is no longer connected with Open Source is like saying that Hillary Clinton is no longer a Republican.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

bwthomas (796211) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817625)

... by which he means to say (i believe) that Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and author of the GPL, was never connected to "Open Source" by anything but the licenses he has authored. Those who lump open source and free software together and then comment on the idealogy as though it's one homogenous crowd are making a logical error.

references:

open source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_software [wikipedia.org]
free software: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software [wikipedia.org]

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

Jacek Poplawski (223457) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817919)

I'm sorry, but saying that RMS is no longer connected with Open Source is like saying

He never was. He was always against it. RMS is connected to Free Software, not to Open Source.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818263)

In the same sense, it's much like saying that RMS is no longer connected with reality.

Is something to the effect of "If you use my software, you have to prepend GNU/ to the name of your product" in the license yet?

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

Tweekster (949766) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817485)

but why is your opinion of where OSS should go (i dont know how it "can go" anywhere but that is besides the point) is anymore valid than RMS.... he has done a lot, people will listen to his opinions, you are a poster on a forum, why would anyone take your opinions at face value when you havent backed them up

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817528)

but why is your opinion of where OSS should go ... anymore valid than RMS....

      Surely the only valid opinion is that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is why you must pray to Him every day.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817588)

It isn't nessarly. But with the blind followers of RMS really scare me. I feel RMS is a force of lack of compramize which will lead to more problems in the future. But it feels like he Jams every one of his views in the GNU license, which makes it more and more inflexible. I tend to follow the notion that it is up to the developer to decide what license to use. And using Licenses like the GPL, BSD, LGPL, etc... are tools like choosing a library. It saves you time in writting a good legal license agreement. RMS stance GPL or Nothing and all the people who follow him on that really scare me.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1, Redundant)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817710)

Wait you're complaning that his license reflects his views?!?! SHOCK HORROR!

You whole post is nonsense.

* You don't like blind followers of X (well who says they do like blind followers of anything?)
* RMS lacks compramize(sic) - So he sticks to his principles.
* He puts his views in his license... duh
* "I tend to follow the notion that it is up to the developer to decide which license to use" - duh again - who said that we should force someone who writes new code to chose a particular license?

Did you make a single useful point at all?

Even worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14817978)

Is the GPP trying to say RMS gois around with a 50 calibre magnum and FORCES people at gunpoint to use the GPL?

Man, he must get a lot of air miles....

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (3, Interesting)

codehead78 (452976) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818805)

No, RMS does not force anyone to use GPL. But he has tried to leverage someone else's more successful project to give the GPL3 more steam. Linus didn't like it, so RMS tried to subvert his control by saying Linus can't make other Linux developers not use the GPL3.

But no, he doesn't force anyone.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

bwthomas (796211) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817713)

keep in mind that the GPL really is just a template and that you can add or subtract clauses as you like. Many software packages do this, yielding licenses that are GPL compatible but either allow more permissive use or restrict certain uses.

The GPL is not, and never has been, a boilerplate that you must either accept or reject.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818235)

the GPL really is just a template and that you can add or subtract clauses as you like

This would be an incredibly stupid practice since it would create an inpenetrabel jungle of licenses. There are so many FOSS licenses already that it's hard to imagine that someone needs something that hasn't been done before or can't be done by licensing under more than one license simultaneously. Fortunately nearly noone actually does this.

Many software packages do this, yielding licenses that are GPL compatible but either allow more permissive use or restrict certain uses

They surely can not create licenses that are "GPL compatible but ... restrict certain uses" that way. From GPL, Terms and Conditions [gnu.org] , point 6,
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
Therefore combining code under GPL and code under GPL-derived but more restrictive licenses would violate the GPL.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817597)

RMS is still pushing forward, and there are a lot of people who are happy with the state of open source now. The thing is, with the competition (from a legal standpoint) of DRM, trusted computing, and etc, the GPL must make changes to counter these new ideas.

Some people are afraid that the changes in gpl3 will keep people from embracing open source, but it is essential to have a licence that will be of use in the years to come.

RMS has liberal views, but at this point he's the only one addressing the problem. Btw... RMS isn't that popular around here, you're more likely to get modded down for incorrect spelling.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

crawling_chaos (23007) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817782)

Classically, liberals have great respect for property rights. I think it would be far more accurate to describe RMS' positions as socialist or communitarian, with a fair amout of anarchism thrown in. Not that that makes his views necessarily wrong, it only describes them more accurately.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

pinky0x51 (951042) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818190)

>Classically, liberals have great respect for property rights.

As far as i know RMS, i would say that he has a great respect for property rights too. But software like music, novels, etc. aren't property! They are works for which society gives in some cases some monopoly rights (copyright, patent law, trademark,..). But society should hand out this monopoly rights only as long as it gain an advantage for everyone (author and society as a whole). This was given at the beginning of copyright. Today copyright is extremely overplayed. It harms the society more than it offers advantages and it harms most artist and authors too. Today there is no balance at all, it harms the majority for the advantage of few (mostly publishers).

At the beginning of copyright the society had good arguments to give away these exclusive rights, it was a win for everyone. Today society would have good arguments to reorganize this exclusive rights, but the few which still profit from this rights at the expense of the rest of the society have too much power.

This has absolutely nothing to do with property rights.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

crawling_chaos (23007) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818623)

Property is what we define it to be. While my definition is much closer to your (and RMS') than to the RIAA's, classic liberals were amongst the biggest proponents of the ideas of copyright and patents, which is where the entire idea of "intellectual property" flows from. One notable exception was Thomas Jefferson, but I have trouble calling a slave-holding rapist a true "liberal."

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818752)

Copyrights arent property rights. They are state protected monopoly rights and are in their essense incompatible with a liberal market view. Calling it 'intellectual property' is simply a misnomer intented to cause exactly the kind of confusion you've fallen victim to.

Intellectual monopoly rights restrict what the owner of a piece of property is allowed to do with that property. The GPL essentially restores those rights to the owner of any copy, and prevents further re-restriction. That fundamentally supports the essense of the free market and competition, and cannot be described as either socialist or communitarian except in their broadest egalitarian aspect.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818179)

The thing is, with the competition (from a legal standpoint) of DRM, trusted computing, and etc, the GPL must make changes to counter these new ideas.
Some people are afraid that the changes in gpl3 will keep people from embracing open source, but it is essential to have a licence that will be of use in the years to come.
RMS has liberal views, but at this point he's the only one addressing the problem.
True. Binary drivers are a huge problem, as well, most acutely in the wireless and video subsystems. Ultimately, software is better when it's like chess, rather than poker.
GPL3 is relatively unrevolutionary WRT GPL2. http://lwn.net/ [lwn.net] has good coverage. GPL3 pretty much refines 2.
I don't see why one would have to be liberal to agree with the GPL itself. I've always thought of it as essentially saying that software knowledge is like academic knowledge. Then there is the point where we step off the paper and into an ideology, asserting that
!GPL == unethical
Now we've crossed the political Rubicon, so to speak.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817763)

Well, first RMS was never associated with "Open Source", but "Free Software" (which, as I'm sure you know, have different aims, but similar outcomes).

As far as GPL v3 being too socially liberal, if people do not like the license they will not use it. Furthermore, most people can still use GPL v2. Its not like RMS will somehow revoke the GPL v2 license. There is nothing to stop you from releasing the Jellomizer Public License and creating terms exactly as you'd want them. Many people might not like your terms, many might, but simply releasing a new license won't do anything to the adoption of free/open source software.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817802)

I'll say. RMS zealotry is the main thing that I hate about Linux (which I use exclusively, for what it's worth). Every time he makes a noise, I go and check up on FreeBSD's hardware compatibility.
The GPL is lame in my opinion too. If it's open source, why should it limit how one can use that source? Such a thing seems as unrealistic to me as the proprietary lock-in method, or trying to Manage peoples' Digital Rights.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

rpdillon (715137) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818234)

I wouldn't describe myself as a blind RMS follower (who would?), though I do agree with him.

I see where you're coming from with respect to the GPL (many people express the idea you mentioned by saying the GPL is "viral"). I understand this, and don't think the GPL is always appropriate.

However, if the developer's goal is to ensure that his or her software will always be available to the public in a human readable form (i.e. source code), then the GPL is what you're looking for. This can be useful in several scenarios:

1) You release MythTV (or the Linux kernel). Someone else modifies it, puts in spyware, and re-releases it with a modicum of new features to entice people to download, saying things like "Based on MythTV!" or "Based on Linux!". You now have a problem, since a product that is largely your code is now on the market, but it's users cannot verify that it isn't doing "evil" things.

2) You establish a community of companies that are providing competing products. They decide on certain core functionality that has become a commodity, but other features are the differentiators in the market. They choose to GPL the commodity code, reserving their seperate "feature rich" code internally. This forces changes made to the commodity code to be released back into the community pool by the members of the group. If they do not, then there are actual possible legal ramifications. With other licenses (MIT, BSD) this would not be the case.

3) You wish your program to have a chance for growth even in your absence. With GPL'd code, projects' maintainers can come and go, but the project is free for any motivated person to pick up and work with. This is useful for the project, since it ensures that even dead projects can be resurrected if they are deemed useful, but it is also useful for younger developers, since it provides them with vast bodies of source code to learn from. Other licenses may offer source code, but none guarantee it in the absence of the code's original author the way the GPL does.

This last is a difficult point for me to express, but I'm essentially trying to say that if the original author goes bankrupt (for example) and stops maintaining the code, there could occur a case where all surviving developers of that code simply don't wish to have their code be seen by others (these would be the authors of "derivative works"). In this case, the source would effectively be lost to the community.

All that said, I think there is a place for both MIT/BSD licenses as well as the GPL (as well as, (gasp), proprietary software, on occasion!) I recognize RMS as the zealot he is, but I also believe in a lot of what he believes. Mostly, I believe that the owners of the computers (the users of the code!) should have the option to control their computers and modify the code that runs on them if they choose. This option is only ever made available through a license like the GPL.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

Dionysus (12737) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818579)

2) You establish a community of companies that are providing competing products. They decide on certain core functionality that has become a commodity, but other features are the differentiators in the market. They choose to GPL the commodity code, reserving their seperate "feature rich" code internally. This forces changes made to the commodity code to be released back into the community pool by the members of the group. If they do not, then there are actual possible legal ramifications.

When you GPL your "commodity" code, then all your "feature rich" code also become GPL if you link it in.

Which is why I personally prefer the Mozilla/Apache license (keep the commodity free, do whatever you want with the linked in libraries). Of course, RMS doesn't believe you as the developer should have a say in what license you choose.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

Skreems (598317) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818755)

That's what the LGPL is for... Conversely, if the common code is a web service, an application hooked into your own through pipes, or something else less tightly coupled than a binary library, the GPL will work just fine.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

MarkJenkins (902580) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818402)

If it's open source, why should it limit how one can use that source?

There are very good reasons. We don't just care about your freedoms, we care about the freedom of every subsequent person who gets a copy.

Why would you like the power to give another person a copy, but with less freedom and power then you received? Are they less important? Are they less deserving of freedom?

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

aurelian (551052) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818430)

If it's open source, why should it limit how one can use that source?

Congratulations: you've identified one of the reasons why 'open source' is not necessarily the same as 'free' - which is what RMS advocates.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14817936)

How dare you spread such slander. RMS has been the center of progress for OSS since the beginning. We are not "socially libral" in our ways and Stallman our leader, with faith in the people, inspired us to build up the FSM that we love.

Bill? Is that you? (2, Informative)

PetriBORG (518266) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818251)

Is it just me or does it seem like RMS created a new verion of the GPL because people stopped listening to him about the old one. It seems to me that RMS views are no longer connected with where Open Source should go, and will just lead Open Source to be too socially libral for wide use. OSS socially libral? We're all a bunch of commies is that it?

The GPL3 is trying to address a great number of current problems with the GPL2 including things like use of web-scripts, patents, and other holes. It has nothing to do with th lime-light or some BS like that.

The GPL functions the only possible way it could, by forcing the source code be given away for free. That is the entire goal of the GPL and it does it wonderfully. Patents threaten the GPL because someone could in thoery give away the source code with some patent hiden in and then turn around and try and charge you for making use of that source code.

Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818484)

Is it just me or does it seem like RMS created a new verion of the GPL because people stopped listening to him about the old one.

I don't think so. I'm a more BSD fan than anyone else, but I can see where he is coming from. He is simply trying to make it so GPL can't be used to restrict the rights of others.

People don't have to use it if they don't want to for things they want to write from scratch, but he is giving the option for authors who want to use a GPL license but don't want their works to be used down the line by someone else for DRM and other freedom restricting type of software.

No one has to change over to GPL3 if they don't want to. So either do or don't. No need to complain.

You don't understand well enough to criticize. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818908)

Is it just me or does it seem like RMS created a new verion[sic] of the GPL because people stopped listening to him about the old one.

Since most Free Software is licensed under the GPL, including the most famous programs this community has, I'd say it's just your misperception.

It seems to me that RMS views are no longer connected with where Open Source should go, and will just lead Open Source to be too socially libral[sic] for wide use.

You probably don't understand the GPL or RMS well enough to have an informed perspective on the matter.

I disagree with RMS so my Mod points will negitivly[sic] reflect it.

Your short post reveals multiple misunderstandings including citing the wrong movement—Open Source—which RMS takes pains to show why he's not now nor has he ever been a member of the Open Source movement [fsf.org] . I would also add that the GPL is not properly called an "Open Source" license except in the most narrow way: it happens to qualify as an OSI-approved license. In more important ways, the GPL is the preeminent Free Software license; here are a couple reasons:

  • The GNU GPL was written by Stallman and the FSF years before the Open Source Initiative (which started the Open Source movement) existed.
  • The GNU GPL is a strong copylefted license, written to preserve precisely what the Open Source movement doesn't want to talk about—software freedom (the essay I pointed to clearly illustrates how the Open Source movement eschews software freedom).

More info at gplv3.fsf.org (4, Informative)

H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817427)

These transcripts, and other such documents, are collected at the official GPLv3 wiki [fsf.org] , on the Reusable texts page [fsf.org] . And there's more info about the draft and how to participate in the public consultation at gplv3.fsf.org [fsf.org] .

Re:More info at gplv3.fsf.org (1)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817819)


Summaries of the transcripts, including explanations of the terms and the implications of the ideas, are for sale fo me. This is in accordance with terms of the old and new GPL, although I offer no indemnity against a SCO subpoena. Sorry! ;)

Re:More info at gplv3.fsf.org (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817986)

Right now the draft's webservices portion is effectively useless. You can wrap your GPLed webservice with another webservice which passes every function call except the one which requests the source. If they fix it by being even more strict, they could easily requiring exposure to DDoS attacks.

Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL v3 (3, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817512)

What about Man-in-the-Middle attacks? That is, MonopolySoft builds a machine that will only run binaries signed by Red Hat. Red Hat is not required under GPLv3 to give its signature key, but the machine maker is, except, he's decided to verify only against Red Hat's key and he doesn't have Red Hat's private key (just the public key, which is used to validate that the binary came from Red Hat, which is all he needs). So I can still be prevented from modifying my GPL software and running it on my box, right? And no one's violated GPLv3, right? GPLv3 doesn't cover this type of attack at all.

Re:Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL (1)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817542)

What about Man-in-the-Middle attacks? That is, MonopolySoft builds a machine that will only run binaries signed by Red Hat. Red Hat is not required under GPLv3 to give its signature key, but the machine maker is, except, he's decided to verify only against Red Hat's key and he doesn't have Red Hat's private key (just the public key, which is used to validate that the binary came from Red Hat, which is all he needs). So I can still be prevented from modifying my GPL software and running it on my box, right? And no one's violated GPLv3, right? GPLv3 doesn't cover this type of attack at all.

Come again please?

Re:Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL (2, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817587)

Then you don't buy MonopolySoft's machine.

If it is not possible for other machines that run Red Hat code to exist, then it's clear that Red Hat is designing the code for a specific architecture that requires signing, and therefore is required to distribute the key so that you can sign modified binaries yourself.

Re:Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818193)

The point of the key is to guarentee the that the code came from Red Hat, and giving away that key is idiotic. Giving away that key will let any wanker say that his code has been signed and certifies by Redhat.

If you choose to run a machine that only runs signed binaries, that's your problem, not the GPL.

In trying to protect itself, the FSF is going to shoot itself in the foot and remove the leg.

Re:Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL (1)

phoenix.bam! (642635) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817609)

Wrong.

The key is a signature. All it does is verify that the file came from somewhere. If Redhat distributes to a third party and the third party wants to modify the software and distribute it they are free to. And you are free to take the modified version and modify it further. No where though are you given the rights to impersonate Redhat. All they need to do is release the source code.

Re:Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL (1)

i23098 (723616) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817624)

What about Man-in-the-Middle attacks? That is, MonopolySoft builds a machine that will only run binaries signed by Red Hat. Red Hat is not required under GPLv3 to give its signature key, but the machine maker is, except, he's decided to verify only against Red Hat's key and he doesn't have Red Hat's private key (just the public key, which is used to validate that the binary came from Red Hat, which is all he needs). So I can still be prevented from modifying my GPL software and running it on my box, right? And no one's violated GPLv3, right? GPLv3 doesn't cover this type of attack at all.

What attack?!?!? If you run the software on MonopolySoft machine that is GPL you can change the software to allow other binaries...

The issue would came only if the MonopolySoft machine run only software that was signed by them. It the software is GPL then under v3 they must also provide the keys (I guess) so that people can run modified versions of the software...

This is a good question: he's thinking about it (1)

H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817632)

This question was asked in the Q&A session after Richard's presentation. Richard answered that he will consult a lawyer, and he will do everything possible to fix this, and if you have suggestions they are welcome - and in the end he might fail to find a solution within the GPLv3 to this problem.

Re:This is a good question: he's thinking about it (3, Interesting)

0xABADC0DA (867955) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818043)

Summary:

1) Red Hat creates a binary linux distro based on GPLv3.
2) Dell makes hardware that only runs *specific, known binaries*.
3) You buy machine and compile linux from source, but it won't run.

How does GPL v3 help?

Dell can't distribute RH linux without making it possible for you to run your compiled version (whether the actual hardware that only loads the signed binaries is theirs or not), since they also have to accept GPLv3 in order to distribute software that is licensed with GPLv3.

What's the loophole?

Dell could just ship blank machines that you have to load yourself, that only run Red Hat. Dell may not even have agreed to GPLv3 for anything (by running completely commercial , bsd-like, or GPL-2 software).

What's the solution?

The GPLv3 can include a clause that if you accept the license you cannot distribute *any* product that prevents a user from using any of their own modified GPL-covered software. This means for Dell to ship a computer that only runs Red Hat Linux, they have to use *no* GPL3 software of any kind in their entire company. That's about the best you could do, legally, and even still it may not be enforceable.

Personally I don't care how far-reaching the GPLv3 is. The idea that Dell could take my work and actively use it to take away people's rights is so wrong that there's pretty much nothing the license could do that would be worse. I'll be releasing my code as GPLv3 as soon as it comes out.

Re:This is a good question: he's thinking about it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818248)

"Dell can't distribute RH linux without making it possible for you to run your compiled version (whether the actual hardware that only loads the signed binaries is theirs or not), since they also have to accept GPLv3 in order to distribute software that is licensed with GPLv3.
"

If Dell hasn't modified Red Hat's software, it's not their problem.

Re:This is a good question: he's thinking about it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818725)

Nobody can redistribute copyright works without permission, so if Dell does not accept the GPL they cannot redistribute the software. Nothing else gives them the right to do so. It doesn't matter if they modify the original or not.

MOD PARENT UP (1)

Darkforge (28199) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818167)

This question was asked in the Q&A session after Richard's presentation. Richard answered that he will consult a lawyer, and he will do everything possible to fix this, and if you have suggestions they are welcome - and in the end he might fail to find a solution within the GPLv3 to this problem.
This is the primary issue preventing Linus from accepting GPL3. Linus writes:
Notice how the current GPLv3 draft pretty clearly says that Red Hat would have to distribute their private keys so that anybody sign their own versions of the modules they recompile, in order to re-create their own versions of the signed binaries that Red Hat creates. That's INSANE.
The FSF has in turn claimed that Linus has "misread" the license [theregister.com] , but it's not at all obvious to me that he has. The GPL3 states:
Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use[...].
If DRM'd hardware is the "recommended or principal context of use", then you apparently do have to distribute your private key. If non-DRM'd hardware is the principal context, but the software happens to be used on a DRM'd machine, then you get the Man-in-the-middle attack that the grandparent complains about. The FSF really needs to go back and think about this more carefully.

Re:MOD PARENT UP (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818630)

No, in the situation you describe, RedHat (who probably wouldn't do this anyway - I add this in case anyone reads this thinking "My god! RedHat's going to try to violate the GPL!") has to rethink the situation more clearly.

If RedHat (or whomsever) is signing its binaries purely so they will run on specific machines that have been locked to those distributions (the only case in which the keys are relevant, remember the wording "in the recommended or principal context of use"), in such a way that users of those machines cannot compile their own versions, then RedHat is violating the principle (and probably the letter) of GPLv2 and definitely the letter of GPLv3. It is absolutely right that under those circumstances, RedHat either not sign the distribution (and not produce a version for DRM'd computers), or they distribute keys allowing others to do so.

This is about using DRM to bypass the GPL completely. And remember, the current clause 3 of GPL2 (the clause that mandates source code disclosure) reads, in part:

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
It isn't at all clear to me right now that refusing to distribute a key that's necessary to compile code in order to make it run on a specific device is compatible with the above terms and conditions. Clearly without the key, you do not have a viable, let alone "preferred", form for making modifications.

In any case, the clause in GPLv3 clarifies this and removes this loophole. There will be those that will throw a tantrum. Nothing, of course, prevents Torvalds, if he's so gung-ho about allowing manufacturers to lock their hardware to specific operating systems from specific suppliers, from adding a postscript to the license to relieve licensees from that duty. He hasn't with GPLv2, and if he so believes that that's a great thing to do, then he probably should.

If DRM'd hardware is the "recommended or principal context of use", then you apparently do have to distribute your private key. If non-DRM'd hardware is the principal context, but the software happens to be used on a DRM'd machine, then you get the Man-in-the-middle attack that the grandparent complains about.
And nobody considers it a bug, with the possible exception of Torvalds, that if DRM'd hardware is the "recommended or principle context of use", that you have to distribute a private key. That's not a bug, that's a feature.

The GGP's comment about MitM attacks really only highlights the difficulty of putting together a license that catches every violation. What this, at least, does is make it obviously difficult for a hardware manufacturer to distribute GPLv3'd software with hardware that prevents that software from being changed. It doesn't make it impossible, but then, if they want it to be impossible, they can burn the entire thing into a ROM on an integrated chip. Putting up barriers though isn't a bad thing even if, for a minority, there are still benefits to be had from hopping over them.

Re:Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818186)

Since 4 out of 5 replies don't understand what you're trying to say, let me try to make it clearer.

Bromskloss (750445) didn't understand it at all.
Qzukk (229616) doesn't understand that the software could run on other hardware, but the hardware can not run other software.
phoenix.bam! (642635) doesn't understand that the modified binary won't run.
i23098 (723616)
ainst GPL (Score:1)
by i23098 (723616) doesn't understand that "MonopolySoft" doesn't *have* the key, nor to they distribute software.

Basicly, you create two companies, "HardCorp" and "SoftCorp" which makes hardware and software, respectively. SoftCorp creates and signs software. HardCorp produces hardware which will only run SoftCorp-signed binaries. Then you make a third company to actually sell them, like a webshop with two products. SoftCorp will refuse to release their key since in theory they haven't limited you to any specific hardware - HardCorp did. Even if they use special hardware which means you won't find another machine to run it on without major modification, you don't technically require the signing key. This would be sort of like finding OS X-compatible hardware before the x86 switch. HardCorp doesn't have the key, nor do they distribute software. That way neither company falls under the GPLv3, yet you sell a hardware/software combo that is locked by DRM and where changing the binary means it won't run, and getting the software to work on anything else is impractical at best.

Re:Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818345)

Well, you're closest. You've described how to get around having to give out the private key.

The OP is incorrect in that there is no way to force SoftCorp to hand out their private keys. They're complying with the GPLv3 just by handing out the source. It's HardCorp that made it so that you can't run the software without SoftCorp's keys.

So what'll happen is that HardCorp therefore can't distribute the software that SoftCorp creates, since the GPLv3 states that if you can't meet the license agreement you can't distribute the software at all. (And they can't, 'cause they don't have the key.)

But there's no reason SoftCorp can't continue to release their signed binaries - after all, they aren't requiring you to use HardCorp's hardware. And HardCorp has no legal reason to remove the restriction that you can only use SoftCorp's software on their machine - they're not distributing SoftCorp's software, so they're not under the GPLv3.

Presto: vendor lockin with the GPLv3, no private keys made public required.

The only way RMS can get away with his little DRM hissy-fit is to do exactly what Mr. Torvalds thinks he already has: require everyone using the GPLv3 to hand out all their private keys. Gee - maybe Torvalds really does know what he's talking about...

Re:Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818994)

You got almost all right. But the WebShop can't sell both the hardware and software, because it must distribute the SoftCorp's keys.

That means that it is hard to get a sucessfull lock-in this way. Lots of companies won't be able to do so. But this protection against DRM isn't absolute, the same way that DRM isn't also absolute (even in hardware).

Re:Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL (1)

MarkJenkins (902580) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818463)

Actually, MonopolySoft has violated the license. The problem for them is that they put themselves in a position where they could not possibly come into compliance. After the copyright holder complains, and after the 60 days are up, MonoplySoft will have to recall their product from the market. If they fail to do so the copyright holder can sue them.

The Zonk (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14817520)

When Michael left Rob, he forgot his trunk in taco's basement. He had been living there since his mother threw him out of her own basement after Seth contacted her.

Rob opened the trunk. A humanoid figure, completely clad in back leather and sporting silver zippers at various places, immediately raised itself. Shocked, Taco unzipped the mouth and the plaything let out a single word: Zonk.

On eating chalk (2, Funny)

doomy (7461) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817550)

Richard Stallman: By the way, I don't think we were using any chalk. We were using computers to write things down.

Eben Moglen: Yes, I was using the chalk after you went home at night. Sometimes I had ...chew it.

Richard Stallman: Did you eat it?

Eben Moglen: You see how it is. There was chalk involved, he just wasn't around for it. Yeh, it was curing my indigestion actually.

Come on, man (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817584)

I like RMS, his ideas, and his work on GNU, but when he starts spouting off about "Treacherous Computing" and "Digital Restrictions Management" instead of using the traditonally accepted names (trusted computing and digital rights management, respectively), he just marginalizes himself and his positions.

Yes, I agree that TP and DRM are more apropriately called what Stallman calls them, but your average Joe who wants to learn more about FOSS, GNU, etc. hears this and thinks the guy is just some conspiracy loon. Its the same thing with the "there is no such thing as IP" deal. We understand the phrase "intellectual property" is a far from perfect term to describe what it represents. Going off on some tirade about how IP is an imperfect term doesn't answer the questions that people will have about how the changes in copyright law and software patents impact them and their rights. It only seeks to alienate people.

Re:Come on, man (1)

ArghBlarg (79067) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817676)

But he who controls the terms of discussion, often controls the discussion. RMS is using his alternative acronym expansions to de-construct the euphemisms the big media cartels are planting in everyone's minds.

Just like how the government wants to call anyone who's a dissident 'unpatriotic', etc. Think about it.

Re:Come on, man (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817816)

Yeah, I know why he's doing it. I just think he should be a bit more diplomatic about it. Something along the lines of "I don't like X, which I like to call Y, because what it really is about is ..." would be fine.

Re:Come on, man (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818187)

Diplomacy??

The media/software companies don't say "Preventing end-users from using the files they have in the way they want, which we like to call Digital Rights Management...."

If they are going to throw around buzzwords, you can't call Stallman out for doing the same thing.

Language is a virus from outer space... (1)

C10H14N2 (640033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817722)

"...That's why I'd rather hear your name than see your face"
--Laurie Anderson, respect to Wm. Burroughs

He may alienate people on the topic in question, but if he succeeds in waking them up to the importance of recognizing this kind of language, he's succeeded in something, IMHO, far more important.

Re:Come on, man (2, Insightful)

aug24 (38229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817725)

Fuck that - why should the bad guys (biased statement, I know) get to name things?

Why should any of us accept the phrase "Trusted Computing"? It's intended to be doublespeak, we should applaud RMS him for pointing it out.

J.

Re:Come on, man (1)

RazzleDazzle (442937) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818076)

Amen.

Raise your hand if you think the USA PATRIOT ACT is patriotic (for those that live in the USA). I sure don't think it is. Controlling language comes close to controlling individuals. Just look at religion. With out incessant repitition of what is "truth" since childhood most people would never have bought into almost any religion. Yes, there are exceptions to every rule of course. As it applies to this, well if you give something a nice and good and SAFE sounding name and only talk about all of the wonderful things it will bring, then anyone who actually analyzes your "something" and finds and wants to address the flaws or cons can is labeled evil, or a social enemny, or a loon, or a conspiracy nut, etc. Why is that person bashing the PATRIOT ACT?!?! They must be UNpatriotic!!!

So I agree on the principle that continuing to misguide people by using their given names of disguise is wrong. Maybe we should not even have special names for laws and they should all just be called Statute XYZ or generic names/terms that will help prevent bias from an uninformed people.

Re:Come on, man (1)

VP (32928) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817881)

As others are pointing out, George Orwell made it very clear in "1984" how the power of language can be misused to exercise control over the minds of the population. It is important to call things with their real names, so that there is no doubt about the purpose of DRM and TP.

Re:Come on, man (1)

geekee (591277) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818768)

"As others are pointing out, George Orwell made it very clear in "1984" how the power of language can be misused to exercise control over the minds of the population. It is important to call things with their real names, so that there is no doubt about the purpose of DRM and TP."

Yes, Like RMS calling his software "free software". If it's free software, why are there all the restrictions?

Re:Come on, man (1)

Fezzick (913356) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817922)

The terms "Trusted Computing" and "Digital Rights Management" were coined by the MPAA/RIAA and their agents specifically to be misleading and to put a positive spin on generally consumer unfriendly technologies. It's been proven time and time again that the masses can easily be persuaded by such propaganda. By using the terms "Treacherous Computing" and "Digital Restrictions Management", he shines light on what the big content industry is attempting to do in an effort to counter what threatens his (and many others) core beliefs.

Re:O RLY? (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818649)

I like RMS, his ideas, and his work on GNU, but when he starts spouting off about "Treacherous Computing" and "Digital Restrictions Management" instead of using the traditonally accepted names (trusted computing and digital rights management, respectively), he just marginalizes himself and his positions.

Traditionally accepted names? What is this tradition you speak of?

I don't think we were talking about DRM back in the 1800's. Heck I didn't hear about DRM until the late 1990's and then I don't think society came up with it.

But seriously, what he says is basically true. Trusted computing and Digital Rights Managment are phrases created to bias wording in someones favor (say the coporations). He is simply pointing out his bias.

We do it every day:

Insurgent or Freedom Fighter
Revolutionary or Patriot
Theft or Copyright Infringment

Many phrases in the Englsih language mean the same thing, but each phrase has a different connotation that has a bias.

There is nothing wrong of him to do so and I don't think he is marginalizing anyone. I would have to agree that DRM could mean Digital Restrictions Managment. It is obviously restricting me from doing what I want with content on my computer. I am of course not stating that this is right or wrong or that I agree or disagree with DRM, but it is obviously restricting use on my computer.

Bias showing (0, Flamebait)

amightywind (691887) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817611)

which consists of 70 minutes of Eben Moglen, with 20 minutes worth of interruptions from Stallman.

You address Eben Moglen by his full name and then addresses Richard Stallman with much less respect. In my book both men are due some respect. This biasness should have been edited out by the Slashdot priesthood.

Re:Bias showing (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817699)

You address Eben Moglen by his full name and then addresses Richard Stallman with much less respect.

Um, it's called an antecedent. (OK, not exactly, but that's the idea.)

The summary referred to Stallman before with his full name. There's no reason to repeat it; "Stallman" is sufficient.

Re:Bias showing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14817723)

Stallman's name was already given fully above, this was the first instance of Moglen's name .. Standard practice is to only list someones full name one time, thereafter using the last to refer to the person.

Re:Bias showing (3, Funny)

Brunellus (875635) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817778)

you have neglected to address Richard M. Stallman with the proper respect. Don't you know you must now say Richard M. Stallman, Peace be upon Him, or, in abbreviated form, RMS(PBUH)

Re:Bias showing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818542)

Insightful?

Slashdot moderation at its finest.

Re:Bias showing (2, Informative)

omeg (907329) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817787)

Nonsense. RMS's name has already been mentioned a few times in the summary, and it's thus not necessary to give his full name again. The author might also have concluded that RMS is most likely more well-known than Eben Moglen, and that he could, for that reason, leave out his full name at that point.

Seems to me like you're either very paranoid or just made a really bad joke.

Re:Bias showing (3, Informative)

eobanb (823187) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817793)

Wrong. Just about every manual of style and usage says that the first time you mention someone's name in a news piece, you use their full name, and after that, their last name only (or use Mr/Mrs/Ms/Dr/etc).

Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Bias showing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14817887)

You address Eben Moglen by his full name and then addresses Richard Stallman with much less respect. In my book both men are due some respect. This biasness should have been edited out by the Slashdot priesthood.

Or perhaps they are just following standard journalistic practices, such as referring to a person by their last name after their full name has been used once.

Re:Bias showing - depends on point of view (1)

deeLo57 (641046) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817909)

What if it was out of convince and notoriety like "Madonna" or "Sting" certainly you don't believe people are being disrespectful to Madonna when they mention only her first name in the same sentence as Britney Spears, do you? Who's bias do you think is shown by the way you phrase your own question?

Re:Bias showing (1)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817937)

>>which consists of 70 minutes of Eben Moglen, with 20 minutes worth of interruptions from Stallman.

>You address Eben Moglen by his full name and then addresses Richard Stallman with much less respect.

Although I agree on respecting people, I must say that apart from that, full name followed by surname only sounds better.

PS: Also, the word RESPECT is nowadays often abused by small-minded bums that interpret it as "You surrender to me. Absolutely. No tedious questions asked. Onece, you might become almost just as cool as I am. And don't make jokes about my slang 'cause I'll waste you. That's a good fella." That deteriorates the word in modern language.

Fundamental flaw (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817766)

The fundamental flaw in his statements comes early on, and the flaw in the GPL and the rest of his thoughts on it follow. Here it is:
"DRM is an example of a malicious feature"
DRM is not a malicious feature any more than CD writers are a malicious feature (though the RIAA might claim they are in much the same way Stallman wants to claim that DRM is). The reality is that DRM is a tool, and it's not the tool that's malicious, but some of its potential uses. We should be pushing hard, as a community that commands the attention of some of the most important IT groups in the world, to make sure that DRM can be used wisely as well as foolishly. I honestly don't care if Windows won't let you play a song without putting a quarter in your floppy drive. What I care about is that there are valid alternatives; that shipping a general purpose box that only allows one OS to be run on it is seen as anti-competitive, no matter what boogeyman we use to scare Congress (or whatever your local law-making body is called).

On the other hand, I don't see why we should begrudge someone shipping a GPLed game on the XBox/360 or a GPLed version of an open format document reader on a phone. Personally, I'll take the software and modify it to run on platforms that I want to use, but the folks who want to run the DRM-platform versions shouldn't be left in the cold.

Re:Fundamental flaw (1)

j00bar (895519) | more than 8 years ago | (#14817943)

I think RMS ends up agreeing with you. DRM is kewl with *you* have the keys to your own computer to regulate it's function. It's bad with somebody else has the keys to restrict your freedom. In that the DRM clauses of GPLv3 only prohibit the latter, I think it's a good compromise.

-jag

Re:Fundamental flaw (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 8 years ago | (#14818303)

No, I'm not sure that I agree with that at all. It's like the old welded hood argument for Open Source, but turned around. We're saying that we won't let you run our software on a system with the hood welded shut instead of telling people that they can run it there, and letting them make the call.

It's not as if people won't write software for these platforms, but now software written for other platforms under the GPLv3 won't be used by such people. That means that there is a strong market pressure to select non-GPLv3 software because it leaves your options open later and lets you interoperate across all platforms (regardless of how you manage your keys). This is a huge win for the BSDs which try to avoid GPLed software in the first place, but it probably means that any remaining GNU software that the BSDs use and which is re-licensed under the GPLv3 will have to be forked or re-implemented by the BSDs. This kind of colateral damage is unacceptable to me, and I will likely start running the forked/re-implemented software on my Linux systems as well, so that I can contribute to an effort which values the "open" part of "open source".

Re:Fundamental flaw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818009)

It is a malicious feature when every known version of DRM violates the rights of at least one party in the transaction (most often the consumer). Every consumer has the right to fair use and the right of first sale (among other things). Violation of rights is a malicious act hence DRM = malware.

Re:Fundamental flaw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818231)

[blockquote]The reality is that DRM is a tool, and it's not the tool that's malicious[/blockquote]

ah ah, incorrect. as the riaa and mpaa (and the judge in the napster case) say;if the tool is used for infringing use only, or a majority of infringing use, then the tool is malicious. napster and grokster both fell pray to this.

drm does nothing but prevent rights. and it uses your own resources to do so. its doing something you do not want it to (malicious) aka malware.

Re:Fundamental flaw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818289)

DRM means control of what applications you can run. This is in fundamental conflict with the GPL v2 -- it just didn't specify it explicitly and that is a problem with stuff like Trusted Computing nearly here. The GPL v3 does specify it explicitly.

90% of the problems here come from the fact that when people hear the term "DRM", they immediately think "music and video". DRM is about controlling applications and preventing untrusted applications from running and accessing data... you do not get to decide what your application does and does not do, you can't even recompile it with no changes. Stallman and the FSF doesn't really give a flying fuck about people file sharing the latest boy band drivel... he wants to ensure that you always have the ability to modify the code you are using. His position has never changed.

Stallman and the FSF have cut right to the point of the argument, while you and most of the rest of the snipers, are still pissing around arguing about trivia and the MPAA, RIAA. I'm hoping the discussion over the GPL v3 will flush out more of you clueless drones who still don't understand what DRM really means and give you a much needed education.

RMS was not interrupting at the GPLv3 launch. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14818757)

[...] with 20 minutes worth of interruptions from Stallman

It's a difficult case to make that the author of the GPL is "interrupt[ing]" someone about his work when the speaker asks for comments from the author and shares the presentation with the author. Perhaps you could write a summary of the story and leave your projections for the comments so they can be appropriately moderated down.

—J.B. Nicholson-Owens (jbn@forestfield.org [mailto] )

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...