Beta
×

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!

Eben Moglen — GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the having-to-restate-the-obvious dept.

Software 163

Linux.com's Joe Barr was recently able to sit down with Professor Eben Moglen at the San Diego Red Hat Summit and discuss the GPLv3 and what it means beyond the Microsoft/Novell deal on video. "Professor Moglen explains briefly about GPLv3's work on globalization of the software license, preventing harm to others by members of the community, and the most contentious in earlier drafts, DRM."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Heh, here comes Slashdot's reaction: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19300863)

O RLY?

they're right (0, Troll)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#19300895)

It's really about bitching like crazy until finally you get a version of it where people can...you know...write software and give it out for free without anyone messing with it and copying it and stuff. In fact, it could be a one line license that just says that.

Re:they're right (1, Troll)

iago-vL (760581) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301183)

That's fine and dandy until somebody takes your markets your application and sells it for millions, while you're slaving away. Perhaps you could argue that selling it is "messing with it" -- but that's not necessarily true. And then comes the legal-speak...

Re:they're right (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19301281)

If it was that valuable then you're an idiot for giving it away.

Re:they're right (1)

iago-vL (760581) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301325)

The value might not be immediately recognized. Plus, by not giving away something like MySQL or Apache, you're hurting the community. All to avoid some extra text at the top of a file? Totally not worth it.

Re:they're right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19301379)

Well, you still have the source, so what's to stop you making millions out of it yourself? You seem more bitter that someone else makes the money, than that you don't.
No-one can hurt your community by inaction. And avoiding extra text at the top of a file? Is that what you think it's all about?

Re:they're right (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301593)

Well, you still have the source, so what's to stop you making millions out of it yourself? You seem more bitter that someone else makes the money, than that you don't.
Producers of proprietary works worry that other entities will reduce the producer's potential market share by taking too much of the market to themselves.

Re:they're right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19301679)

Why are you worrying about producers of proprietary works? They're happy to just not give their stuff away for free . But you're clearly not interested in your market share, because you gave your stuff away for free. You thought your stuff was worthless, someone else disagreed. They made money from it and now you're bitter because you didn't. Well, them's the breaks. People don't get rich by making dumb business decisions.

Re:they're right (3, Interesting)

Teun (17872) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302997)

People don't get rich by making dumb business decisions.
What makes you think Getting Rich is the (ultimate) goal in life?
Most that I know who write their code under the GPL just want to have a good life and share with like minded.
Sharing != giving away.

Re:they're right (1)

crAckZ (1098479) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302083)

what usually stops someone is money. it takes money to advertise and push a marketing plan. yes there are free ads and internet space but to push something it usually takes money. where as if you give it away and the community adopts it everything is great, but if someone makes millions you feel like crap and pissed off. just my 2 cents

Re:they're right (1)

Tickletaint (1088359) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301987)

Presumably, you'd be OK with that, since you deliberately chose a license knowing that could happen. GPL fanatics always came across as spiteful and greedy to me; BSD licensors, on the other hand, have achieved a state of Zen where they're happy to know others are benefiting from their code. And really, isn't that the real spirit of sharing?

Re:they're right (2, Interesting)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301231)

That's far too complicated. My "license" simply says, "Go nuts." I won't let anybody prohibit me from using and copying and distributing anything that contains any code that I wrote. You can't steal the sun from me...or something like that.

Re:they're right (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301457)

So, you're using the BSD licence.

Re:they're right (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301633)

I suppose so, but I grant no exclusivity.. Whatever has a piece of me is mine also.

Joe Barr ? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19300925)

From: Joe Barr [joe AT pjprimer.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 8:02 AM
To: sales AT mindcraft.com
Subject: Industry Scum

Hey, Mindcraft

I am writing an article about asslicking whores in the industry.

You know the sort, they bend over for folks like Bill Gates by
producing totally false "benchmarks" based on liess, mistests,
biased hardware and software, and scores of other unethical,
deceiptful, dishonest, duplicitous means.

Like your reviews of NT vs Novell and Linux. Classic cases of
professional prostitution.

Cock sucking the geeks in Redmond.

The question for you maggots, whores, whatever you prefer to be
called, is: how much does it cost to buy one of your benchmarks?

tHANKS,

Joe Barr The Dweebspeak Primer

GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell (3, Insightful)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 7 years ago | (#19300977)

I should hope not... I expected it to be about open-source software and Linux...

It was also being drafted long before the MS/Novell agreement IIRC

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell (5, Insightful)

Tovok7 (948510) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301205)

I should hope not... I expected it to be about open-source software and Linux...
The GPL isn't about "Open Source" and Linux either. It is about securing people's freedom. Unfortunately, most people are not aware of this important issue.

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell (1, Informative)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301235)

"Open Source" is about securing people's freedom...

And pretty much the only difference between GPL and proprietary licenses is that it's open source...

You can still charge for the use or purchase of a program made with it, however the source must be available at the same price as the binary.

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell (1)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301321)

Ok by "pretty much the only difference" I meant "the most relevant difference to this topic", Slashdot needs and "Edit" button

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302651)

You're correct. s/and/an/

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell (5, Insightful)

Tovok7 (948510) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301393)

I said that the GPL is not about Open Source, because most people I know (also many non-computer guys) think of Open Source as having the source code available somewhere. They mostly don't care whether that's the case or not. They do not know that the trademark "Open Source" meant originally Free/Libre Software. They do not know that it is their freedom which is at stake here. Even Bruce Perens one of the founders of the Open Source movement said that It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again [debian.org] . We should listen to him!

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell (5, Insightful)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301835)

"Open Source" is about securing people's freedom...

No, "open source" is not about software freedom and it never was [gnu.org] . The open source development methodology has to do with writing more reliable software, more quickly, and at lower cost. To understand why this misses the point the free software movement raises, consider this excerpt from "Why "Open Source" misses the point of Free Software":

"The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program which is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom. How will free software activists and open source enthusiasts react to that?

A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, "I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?" This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.

The free software activist will say, "Your program is very attractive, but not at the price of my freedom. So I have to do without it. Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement." If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it."

I'm glad open source proponents use the GNU GPL and help secure software freedom for the users of those programs, I'm also glad open source proponents work together with free software activists on a variety of issues. I'm even glad that people go into depth on how to make money and license software under free software licenses (most notably: the GPL and LGPL). But these business-oriented discussions are not the most critical issues—human rights for software users and building community are more substantial issues. The open source movement was defined in part to get away from the "freedom talk" free software activists engage in, thus it's no surprise that when some people talk about "open source" they're not calling attention to freedom very much. Some open source proponents, such as Eric Raymond, want to talk about what the two groups have in common which means often talking about only the open source movement's values. The organization founded to champion open source's values, the Open Source Initiative, has considerable work to do to reframe the debate such that software freedom is an important part of that movement, assuming they want to make that a goal in the first place [digitalcitizen.info] .

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell (4, Insightful)

JimDaGeek (983925) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302859)

Huh? Even if MS gave away their code with a purchase of MS Windows, you couldn't change the code and distribute it. With GPL, I could download your code that you charge for, and then give it to everyone I want without fee. You cannot do that with proprietary code. Heck, end-users are not even allowed to OWN the code/software they buy from a proprietary vendor. They just get to use/license it.

Everyone keeps thinking the GPL is about developers. However it is not. The GPL is about users and their freedom with the software. Say it over and over in your heads people... The GPL is about users.

BSD-style licenses basically say I don't care about what you do and I don't care if you restrict users of derivatives works of this code.
GPL-style licenses basically say you can create derivative works, you can distribute those works. However, you cannot restrict the rights of the users of this work from doing the same. BSD does NOT provide for that when it comes to derivative works.

So, in a nut shell, if you don't care who does what with the code, BSD or (even better IMO) LGPL can help you there. However, if you care about the users of your work the GPL is a good bet.

Me personally, I write code for users not developers. I enjoy writing code and having someone say that it came in handy and helped them. Those are the people I want to see have rights that copyright just doesn't provide.

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell (0)

kinglink (195330) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302059)

I gotta amend this too, it's about securing freedom according to one person or one group. Any law or license will restrict the freedoms of one person to hopefully give freedom to another. A lot of the stuff over the last year that Linux users have done has hurt Linux's reputation and Linux itself rather then help it.

Allow me to point out one issue, one of the biggest problem Linux has is it's not a true corporation or doesn't present itself like that, and it has no true corporation backing. GPLv3 is scaring off corporations interested in working with it, the response from the Novell deal has done the same.

Let me swap this up a little why is Windows so popular. Because IBM picked Dos, Dos lead to Windows, and everyone offers Window's options. Scaring off those who might offer Linux options (not Microsoft and Novell, but others) can only hurt linux as a whole.

It's great that some people are keeping "Linux as it was", an underground market, but then bitching about how Microsoft wins the market share has nothing to do with their tactics, it's more about the outreach of the group, or lack of it. Linux's growth was really strong at a point when it was really easy to get involved in it, With the new GPLs, the new distros, and the infighting it's never been harder, and that's what's currently choking Linux.

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell (0, Redundant)

samkass (174571) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302207)

Dangit, and my mod points just expired. One of the more "Insightful" posts. At this point the FSF seems to be intent on destroying FOSS quicker than Microsoft could possibly accomplish it.

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell (1)

chromatic (9471) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302643)

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell (1, Interesting)

kinglink (195330) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302857)

See there's the exact problem. People think working with corporations are a bad thing and a contradiction. And that's why Linux will die. Because you can't see any benefits from working with corporations. Not every corporation is Microsoft. They want to do business and make money. That doesn't mean they don't want you to make money also, but their goals are their own company's growth. What Linux needs to do is work with companies that are willing to build up Linux as well. The doesn't mean open it up for someone to make a product for it, it means working with them.

If Linux users want Linux to be any more popular they have to open it up a little more and make the system work. OpenOffice is a great step, but let's be honest. It's still not acceptable for corporations because Microsoft is willing to cut deals to get THEIR OS, THEIR office suite, and THEIR mail program as well as IE, and all the other bells and whistles. It still costs them a bit but a license gives them instant technical support and it's friendly and welcoming in it's UI. That's what matters to business, not the fact it's open and expendable.

Linux as a whole will never win against the big M with out getting some help and that help will be in the form of corporations or Linux will continue to spin it's wheels, and the fact the market share's stagnation is what's slowing new development. But instead of trying to work with corporations GPL v3, as well as the general consensuse is "fuck corporations" and I still can't find a way to see that work when you're dealing with an OS that needs programs on it. Why are we pushing aways corporations who might be willing to support us with those programs?

Or are we just going to assume Windows emulation is going to get us through the day? Oh yeah because running Linux and emulating windows is really different than just running windows? That's what we do while gaining support to run all sorts of programs, that's not a viable end game.

Linux itself can continue to be free and open while programs are running on it that are closed. People CAN make money off programs for Linux. Linux doesn't have to be all about free to use, or else we're just going to keep running into the same hurdles we have been. These aren't contradictions, these are possible alliances and ways to open up Linux to a larger group.

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell (1)

chromatic (9471) | more than 7 years ago | (#19303125)

People think working with corporations are a bad thing and a contradiction. And that's why Linux will die. Because you can't see any benefits from working with corporations.

Strawman much?

I have no problem working with corporations. I don't care if they're one-person LLCs or multinational public behemoths.

I also don't lose sleep over corporations, or partnerships, or single-owner businesses, or non-profits who look at "share and share alike" copyleft licenses and say "We can't use that software because ______". Their goals are different from my goals.

My goal is to create and promote free software. I don't see how either promoting proprietary software or coddling proprietary software models helps that goal.

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell (1)

JimDaGeek (983925) | more than 7 years ago | (#19303167)

See there's the exact problem. People think working with corporations are a bad thing and a contradiction. And that's why Linux will die.
This is just silly. Linux will never "die". It may never be mainstream, however it won't die. It is a robust OS with tons of devs interested in developing for it. Sure, it might not come in a pretty box like Vista; it might not have 7 different versions like vista and it probably won't be priced anything like vista, but it will never die.

Working with Corps. WRT Free software can be a little hard. At the end of the day, any for-profit corp. only cares about one thing. Profits. If making more profits means taking away users rights to the software, well so be it. Some exec will make that choice and sign the papers. That right there would kill the Free software to corp. relationship. So exactly how can Free software (not "open source") have a trusting relationship with a corp. (which is just a legal entity that is separate from its owners), if at every opportunity the corp. would drop the ideals of Free software for profit?

I see so many people stuck on this idea that Free software is about competition. No it is not. It is about giving end-users far more rights to the work than they get with copyright alone, and especially with proprietary license agreements.

I believe Free software and corps can exist just fine, as long as each entity knows the limit of the other. Corps. can put a bunch of cash into a project generally not available to most Free software projects. That cash can really help a project go from some "kiddy fun-toy" to something like tomcat or Apache or KDE or Gnome or ...

Free software can give the corps a very great swath of code to use to differentiate their products and not have to "reinvent the wheel". By using Free software, a corp can expand its products and lower dev costs by not having to rewrite libraries that have been done and debugged and proven to be stable. This is where the LGPL is really great IMO. If a company wants to write a closed source proprietary app that handles CD/DVD burners, they can. They can get a head start by using Free software libs. Heck, even Microsoft uses GPL covered software in its Windows Services for UNIX product.

There is a lot of potential for both sides to co-exist. However, most people on either side seems to want it to be one or the other to "win". To me, that is not a real-world-solution. I think the best solution is to meet in the middle and for each "side" to see the limitations of the other.

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell (1)

goaty_the_flying_sho (861224) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302463)

What fucking planet do you live on? This is slashdot and we know the difference between free and open source.

Opensource software sucks. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19301029)

Go to hell, communists. You democrats are trying to destroy the United States' only hold over China: They need Microsoft software. When they can get crappy free solutions to do the same, the United States will just continue to become indebted to China and other countries. And it will be all your fault, you Hillary fanboys. For the sake of national security, free software efforts must become against the law. Besides, free software destroys our free market, creating monopolies, by selling at excessively low prices. Would Microsoft get away with giving away free products to take competitors' market share away? No. Neither should these ****ing tree-hugging, Prius-driving free software zealots. The captcha is appropriately "planking."

Re:Opensource software sucks. (3, Funny)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301109)

Is it just me or is "Anonymous Coward" a very hateful person?

He/she seems to be the only user here to ever go on a freedom-bashing/flaming/hate-filled rant.

Re:Opensource software sucks. (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301165)

I see it as sarcasm, and that's the way I'm going to take it. I certainly cannot take it seriously. That's for sure.

Re:Opensource software sucks. (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301299)

I suppose that's why it's rated as flamebait. He's more than likely just trying to get a reaction (no matter what his/her actual beliefs are). It's a lame form of sarcasm if that's what it was intended to be. BTW I HAVE read about US politicians saying they wanted laws against FOSS because it supposedly hearts the US capitalist economy.

Re:Opensource software sucks. (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301511)

On second thought. I do see the humour and irony in that piece. I can only presume this person has probably read some of the same anti-FOSS BS that I remember reading. Otherwise, I wander what US politician could have posted under "Anonymous Coward" :)

Re:Opensource software sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19302999)

I've been here since the very beginning, unlike you. I'm one of the most prolific posters here. I speak my mind, which you refer to as "ranting".

You got a problem with that?

Flamebait!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19301237)

Mod parent +5 funny. That's the funniest thing I've read all week. Learn to detect sarcasm, mods.

Re:Flamebait!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19301327)

What you commie? I was not being sarcastic! Really!

Re:Flamebait!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19301453)

What you commie? I was not being sarcastic! Really!

Hey, just because you've got the same name as me doesn't mean you can speak for me! I'm anonymous coward and I was being sarcastic damnit!

Re:Opensource software sucks. (2, Insightful)

Valtor (34080) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301279)

...Neither should these ****ing tree-hugging, Prius-driving free software zealots...
Wow. I wonder what OSS has done to you, for you to hate it so much? I hope you are not loosing sleep over this...

Re:Opensource software sucks. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19301287)

horse penis

Re:Opensource software sucks. (3, Informative)

jeevesbond (1066726) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301377)

This is such a hilarious troll, normally I wouldn't feed but the parent post is so ridiculous that it's gone beyond trolling into some random fantasy land.

Go to hell, communists.

The GPL is not Communist in nature, in fact when I distribute software under the GPL it's all about me and my choice to share work with others. In a Communist scenario all the sofware would belong to the state, the choice of sharing would not be mine. Secondly, nowhere in the GPL does it say you cannot charge for your work, Studio to Go [ferventsoftware.com] is a good example of this.

You democrats are trying to destroy the United States' only hold over China: They need Microsoft software. When they can get crappy free solutions to do the same, the United States will just continue to become indebted to China and other countries. And it will be all your fault, you Hillary fanboys.

Right, because Free software is all a conspiracy to ruin the US. Of course most of the people who answered the survey in this MIT study [mit.edu] , when asked what their motivation is, said: 'I'm a Hillary fanboy and want to ruin the US!' Or could it be that FLOSS developers enjoy coding and want to share stuff they like? Which do you think is more likely?

I like FLOSS but am not a Hillary fanboy. In fact am not really interested in your elections, suprise: there are people who live outside the US!

For the sake of national security, free software efforts must become against the law.

This is the funniest thing I've read for a long time. It would be interesting to see this happen, my hypothesis is that this would ruin software development in the US. Am pretty certain your country would suffer rather badly if it outlawed FLOSS but the rest of the world continued developing it. Think of all those savings your corporations would be missing out on! What about the US corporations who're distributing FLOSS, e.g. IBM, Sun, HP, Dell, RedHat et al?

Besides, free software destroys our free market, creating monopolies, by selling at excessively low prices. Would Microsoft get away with giving away free products to take competitors' market share away? No. Neither should these ****ing tree-hugging, Prius-driving free software zealots. The captcha is appropriately "planking."

Oh dear, that's funny. Free software does not destroy the free market, but encourages it. With FLOSS there's much less possibility for vendor lock-in (since everything is out in the open and I can't imagine the many volunteers working on FLOSS projects being happy with creating proprietary file formats etc.). Theoretically Microsoft would not get away with giving away software for free, yet that's exactly how they gained their monopoly: by turning a blind eye [arstechnica.com] to piracy. Your point is invalid in another respect: Microsoft is a company whereas Free software is an ecosystem/licensing model. If all proprietary software disappeared tomorrow there would still be plenty of competition, this is one of the things people complain about with GNU/Linux: there's too much choice!

I'd almost like to see your post modded up as 'Funny', just because it's so stupid and full of hilarious vitriol. Also I feel it's important to debunk rubbish like this sometimes, just in case someone else read your post and thinks that you've got a point (a scary prospect).

Re:Opensource software sucks. (3, Informative)

lixee (863589) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301697)

In a Communist scenario all the sofware would belong to the state, the choice of sharing would not be mine.
Communism, as preached by Mark, has never been implemented. What you're thinking of, is some kind of Bolshevism.

Re:Opensource software sucks. (2)

jeevesbond (1066726) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301949)

Communism, as preached by Mark, has never been implemented. What you're thinking of, is some kind of Bolshevism.

You're absolutely right of course, I was 'dumbing down' the issues somewhat. The average westerner's definition of 'Communism' is that totalitarian state I was referring to: Soviet Russia under Stalin typifies Communism for most people.

My apologies for continuing to perpetuate mis-information.

Re:Opensource software sucks. (-1, Troll)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301757)

In a Communist scenario all the sofware would belong to the state, the choice of sharing would not be mine.

Right now it's still voluntary, yes...but if you know anything about Stallman and/or Bradley Kuhn, then you also know that they are very adamant in their belief that the GPL is the only license with the right to exist. You can be very sure that if Stallman had any ability whatsoever to dictate that the GPL were the only scenario under which software could be distributed or used at all, he would exercise it with great enthusiasm.

Hence, the GPL can be called Communist due to Stallman's intent, rather than the end result. Attempted murder is considered a crime even if the murderer is not successful in killing the victim, if the intent to kill can be clearly legally shown. Stallman's intentions with the GPL are most certainly Communist; the only reason why he is not able to realise those intentions fully is because he does not have as much control over the world as he would like.

Free software does not destroy the free market, but encourages it.

This would be true if a plurality of licenses were accepted and encouraged. However, a GPL monoculture has been seen time and again to be the end goal. Stallman's ideal scenario would be every bit as much a monoculture as Microsoft's; the only difference is that in Stallman's case, the hunger for controlled monoculture would be, and is, explicit.

I'd almost like to see your post modded up as 'Funny', just because it's so stupid and full of hilarious vitriol.

Yes, and so the readership of this site remains divided into two groups. Those of us who are able to see Richard Stallman for what he truly is, and despite the continual abuse we receive for doing so, are unafraid of writing about it, and those of us who continue to worship him blindly, and hold members of the first group in contempt, as well as continuing to demand our silence.

You may continue to demand our silence, but you will not obtain it.

Re:Opensource software sucks. (1)

Cius (918707) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301953)

"You may continue to demand our silence, but you will not obtain it." Where did jeevesbond demand silence?

Re:Opensource software sucks. (1)

Freed (2178) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301979)

Right now it's still voluntary, yes...but if you know anything about Stallman and/or Bradley Kuhn, then you also know that they are very adamant in their belief that the GPL is the only license with the right to exist. You can be very sure that if Stallman had any ability whatsoever to dictate that the GPL were the only scenario under which software could be distributed or used at all, he would exercise it with great enthusiasm.


Where did Stallman or Kuhn ever say that the GPL is the only license with a right to exist?

Is there ever a moment when you are _not_ talking out of your ass?

Re:Opensource software sucks. (3, Interesting)

Dionysus (12737) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302941)

Where did Stallman or Kuhn ever say that the GPL is the only license with a right to exist?
Guess you haven't read Why Software Should Be Free [gnu.org] or Kuhn's response to the Slashdot interview [slashdot.org] . Both men believes the choice of license is not something the developer should be allowed to decide.

To quote Kuhn:

Today, some argue that the "right to choose your own software license" is the greatest software freedom. By contrast, I think that, like slavery, it is an inappropriate power, not a freedom. The two situations both cause harm, and they differ only in the degree of harm that each causes.

Re:Opensource software sucks. (2, Insightful)

frogstar_robot (926792) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302015)

Right now it's still voluntary, yes...but if you know anything about Stallman and/or Bradley Kuhn, then you also know that they are very adamant in their belief that the GPL is the only license with the right to exist. You can be very sure that if Stallman had any ability whatsoever to dictate that the GPL were the only scenario under which software could be distributed or used at all, he would exercise it with great enthusiasm.

What's so great about a world where Bill Gates and Co. are basically entitled to my money because that is the only legal way to use a computer? FOSS doesn't put them out of business but it sure forces a degree of honesty out of them. Bottom line is that he who writes the code chooses the license. That is TRUE freedom whether apparent fascists such as yourself like it or not.

Freedom vs. Power (1)

Freed (2178) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302169)

Bottom line is that he who writes the code chooses the license. That is TRUE freedom whether apparent fascists such as yourself like it or not.

If we take freedom to be the ability to make decisions that mainly affect you, and power to be the ability to make decisions that mainly affect others, then we could say that the choice of license is an exercise of power. For more on this opinion, see
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.htm l [gnu.org]

Re:Freedom vs. Power (1)

frogstar_robot (926792) | more than 7 years ago | (#19303283)

I'm still free to choose or create code not covered by abusive licenses. I mostly avoid MS' products because of the onerous and abusive terms under which I'm permitted to use them (no negative reviews of MS products for instance). If the terms of abusive licenses are enforced by various forms of Fritz chips then I'll allow that the FSF comes off as being more sane on the issue than a freeper like petrus4. As things stand, licenses are tools and the FSF has created useful ones which I am grateful for. If you think some of the things in EULAs are completely over the top, I'd agree with you but I don't think any developer is obligated to buy into the FSF take on things lock, stock, and barrel. Openness is a feature that matters to me quite a lot but if I have a problem that has to be solved right now and something proprietary is the best solution then guess what? I'm professionally answerable to others and can't be a Stallman-bot all the time. (And yes, I use quite bit of FOSS code as well. My employers don't care about movement ideology; all they care about is whether or not what I deploy works. Where FOSS code works acceptably, I happily deploy it.)

Re:Opensource software sucks. (1)

Dionysus (12737) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302989)

FOSS doesn't put them out of business but it sure forces a degree of honesty out of them. Bottom line is that he who writes the code chooses the license.
You do realize that's a choice FSF doesn't believe you as a developer, have a right to make? Just read what Freed wrote in reply to your message, or some of the quotes from Kuhn or Stallman.

Re:Opensource software sucks. (1)

frogstar_robot (926792) | more than 7 years ago | (#19303187)

The FSF isn't ever going to be in a position to dictate over code they didn't write unless it links to their code. Even if the words of FSF proponents can be twisted into some sort of impending dystopia, it ain't gonna happen. The words of the FSF in no way detract from the validity of mine (Torvalds' actually): He who writes the code chooses the license.

Re:Opensource software sucks. (1)

jeevesbond (1066726) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302019)

However, a GPL monoculture has been seen time and again to be the end goal. Stallman's ideal scenario would be every bit as much a monoculture as Microsoft's

A license monoculture is not the same as a software monoculture under the control of one company. As for the rest of your post: weird and reality-twisting. Richard Stallman would like everyone to use the GPL? That's hardly a suprise. Yet you make it appear that promoting the GPL is the same as threatening to shoot anyone who doesn't. Only Microsoft would go that far! :)

Methinks you are a BSD user with a chip on their shoulder. That you actually agree with what is probably a joke is particularly astounding.

Re:Opensource software sucks. (1)

bagofbeans (567926) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302023)

There are a plurality of licenses, and GPL is simply one of them. No-one is forced to use GPL. If you like a program released under GPL and want to include its functionality in your own program (for sale of not), you can always re-write it.

Until GPL, re-write was the only option, and if every program in teh world was GPL, that still remains an option.

Re:Opensource software sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19302319)

>> You democrats are trying to destroy the United
>> States' only hold over China: They need Microsoft
>> software. When they can get crappy free solutions
>> to do the same, the United States will just continue
>> to become indebted to China and other countries. And
>> it will be all your fault, you Hillary fanboys.

> I like FLOSS but am not a Hillary
> fanboy. In fact am not really
> interested in your elections,
> suprise: there are people who live
> outside the US!

Oh, I get it now -- you're Chinese, aren't you?

Re:Opensource software sucks. (1)

JimDaGeek (983925) | more than 7 years ago | (#19303281)

You know the post you are replying to is meant as sarcasm [wikipedia.org] . :-)

Re:Opensource software sucks. (1)

mudshark (19714) | more than 7 years ago | (#19303383)

This is such a hilarious troll, normally I wouldn't feed but the parent post is so ridiculous that it's gone beyond trolling into some random fantasy land.

Indeed.

YHBT. HAND.

Re:Opensource software sucks. (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301665)

sure, and when is microsoft actually going to build a secure and stable operating system that is opensource so i can rebuild the kernel and any other part of the OS by editing the sourcecode & rebuilding, i want an OS that is literally bulletproof against viruses because i dont want to spend money on crappy third party anti-virus software, i want a firewall built in to the kernel, i want to choose how i want my kernel rebuilt leaving out completely what is unwanted and unneeded, i want an OS that does not call home to the mother ship giving them personal information, i want an OS that does not keep a registry i prefer to keep individual config files within the application's directory as this is much more safer against system wide failure in the event of file corruption...

since microsoft is not going to produce what i want i refuse to buy or use their products, Linux gives me what i want and just because it is free does not mean it is of less value = to me Linux has more value than ms-windows...

Linux communist? dont make me laugh, Linux is more democratic in nature than anything else, microsoft is run by a corporate entity that is run more like a totalitarian dictatorship than anything else = users have no say in what can be done to the OS they have to accept what microsoft dictates if they want to use microsoft's kludgeware...

Re:Opensource software sucks. (2, Interesting)

multisync (218450) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302095)

Go to hell, communists


I love how whenever you start talking about "freedom" with certain types of people you get called a "communist."

I know the AC is just trolling (or he's a total ass-hat), but I've actually encountered this in real life with otherwise intelligent people. You start talking about openness and choice and they feel threatened by that for some reason. I guess the only freedom they care about is their freedom to amass wealth.

Re:Opensource software sucks. (2, Interesting)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302369)

If freedom is a communist idea, what does that make the United States, in your opinion?

A fascist dictatorship?

Yes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19302569)

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps [guardian.co.uk]


Written by an American, published in a UK newspaper (good luck finding one to print it over here).

Nice but (2, Interesting)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301103)

I'd like someone at linux.com to explain the rationale behind publishing one brief clip per day over the course of the week, instead of just publishing the interview. I'm not saying its a horrible thing to do.. just can't figure out why.

Re:Nice but (4, Interesting)

otomo_1001 (22925) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301181)

I am guessing the theory was that if they broke it up that more people would come back to read it. More pageviews = more ad revenue?

God I hope not, the "news" with 5 pages of 2 paragraphs each is bad enough as it is. Now if the news sources think that spacing the article out over time will help, we can pretty much kiss the usefulness of the web goodbye.

This pretty much guarantees I will not be reading anything from linux.com now.

Re:Nice but (2, Interesting)

alexgieg (948359) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301361)

I think it's about time for someone to develop a "MergeNews" Firefox addon. You load an article in a known news source that suffers from multiple-page syndrome, it loads all the pages in the background, constructs a single, merged one, without the useless things of the original, presenting you the result.

Who's up to the task? ;)

Re:Nice but (3, Funny)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301517)

I don't have much spare time to offer, but I'll give you a cooler name:

Call it "Y'know, Web 1.0 was, overall, working pretty well for me, thanks."

Or YW1.0WOWPWFMT, for short

Re:Nice but (1)

dosius (230542) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301739)

We could always start a "Web 1.x Movement" ... No flash, no javascript, bring the Web back to its original purpose...

-uso.

Re:Nice but (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19302245)

Firefox Repagination [mozilla.org]

Not very elegant(it simply mashes pages together, so you don't get a one page layout, but you do get only one page), but it works pretty well.

Re:Nice but (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301591)

The main problem with internet news, is that you cannot wrap fish in old news, so stuff tends to hang around until someone eventually forgets to renew his domain name.

Re:Nice but (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19301215)

I'd like someone at linux.com to explain the rationale behind publishing one brief clip per day over the course of the week, instead of just publishing the interview. I'm not saying its a horrible thing to do.. just can't figure out why.
Well let's see...
  1. ...because nobody visits Linux.com , it's about as much of a thundering success as sendmail.net was (archive link [archive.org] ) at being a "tech news portal"
  2. because the only property keeping VA Software afloat these days is Slashdot (especially after their "buy proprietary sourceforge as a way to efficiently fire your American employees and farm work out to India!" campaign fell on its ass)
  3. and because making content on a regular basis is hard, and the ten-little-pieces technique seems to be working for the "gaming news" properties they're trying desperately to emulate in hopes of turning enough ad-revenue hits out to justify their continued employment.
That enough explanation? :-)

Re:Nice but (1)

qortra (591818) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301313)

I'm not at linux.com, but I'll give it a go. You're right that this seems a little short, but the Serial [wikipedia.org] has a long and venerable tradition in western literature and journalism. Especially in this case, most people are not inclined to sit down with a tub of popcorn and watch an ogg of Eben Moglen for 10 minutes. On the other hand, 1.5 minute segments are much more digestible. And, if it's good, it's something to look forward to for a few days.

Re:Nice but (2, Insightful)

Roblimo (357) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302365)

The real reason for publishing these five videos separately is so that they are searchable separately by topic.

This makes them more useful, long-run, for people who are just learning about free software -- or about Eben Moglen, for that matter.

- Robin

Maybe not profit (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301879)

Maybe they want the story present for multiple days without appearing to have stale news so that more people will become aware of the information.

Maybe they want search engines to return more hits for solid GPL3 related info, so they will pepper the sight with multi-part articles for a while... if a casual browser hits one they will see links to the others w/out having to use more searching.

Maybe they are more concerned about casual users educating themselves on this issue as the hardcore ones are already involved... and they fear a casual user's buffer will fill up half way through the full interview.

Just saying maybe it isn't about profit, which is what a lot of other posters seem to attribute this behavior.

Regards.

Re:Maybe not profit (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302575)

Increasing search engine exposure, increasing page views, and increasing profits are indistinguishable when there are ads on the page.

Novell may have big problems (5, Insightful)

PoliTech (998983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301263)

Novell views GPLv3 as a danger to its agreement with MS to resell SUSE Linux certificates. Novell comments that if "the Free Software Foundation releases a new version of the GNU General Public License with certain currently proposed terms, our business may suffer harm." That verbiage is from the annual report's risk factors section.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/758004/0000 95013407012375/0000950134-07-012375.txt [sec.gov]

The FSF has as much as said that they will target the Microsoft-Novell deal. http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale [fsf.org] , and since it's not a matter of "if" GPLv3 becomes more than a draft, as much as it is "when"...

The current draft of GPLv3 can affect Novell's biggest source of cash - Microsoft. (and may also affect SUSE gaining more market share in the enterprise) If the final GPLv3 impacts the patent agreement between Microsoft and Novell, Novell has big problems. And (IMHO) increasing SUSE acceptance among enterprise customers suffers a setback.

Re:Novell may have big problems (5, Insightful)

sharperguy (1065162) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301519)

The entire aim of the GPLv3 is to baisically fix "bugs" and loopholes present in the GPLv2 in order to make sure that the four software freedoms are always present in GPL-licenced software.

Any company that claims their business may suffer harm should either point out why certain points in the licence are unfair, or accept that the reason they will "suffer harm" is because they were exploiting the errors within the GPL for their own means and therefor going against the spirit of Free Software.

The FSF may be specifically targeting the M$-Novell deal in some areas, but it is not the only rational, because the creation was already underway before it was apparent the deal had even been agreed apon. Also if they target this deal then it is because of areas of the agreement which are not in the spirit of Free Software, and should only affect these areas.

Re:Novell may have big problems (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19301913)

Dear PC users,

It's no secret iTunes turned to shit as soon as Apple had to start catering to PC users. It was version 4.1, if memory serves, around the time they let you cavedwellers into our music store. The demand for PC compatibility is the major reason iTunes is still a Carbon app, according to insiders, when every other iApp has since been rewritten in Cocoa to behave like a decent Mac application.

Frankly, we think Apple should revoke PC compatibility from the iPod. Only when the last PC user is forced from our platform shall we enjoy freedom, again and at last, from your tasteless, backwards demands.

Love,
Mac users

Re:Novell may have big problems (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#19303421)

Any company that claims their business may suffer harm should either point out why certain points in the licence are unfair, or accept that the reason they will "suffer harm" is because they were exploiting the errors within the GPL for their own means and therefor going against the spirit of Free Software.

Yes, because RMS is such a compromising, cautious and pragmatic man that he'd never accept any colleteral damage in the name of Free Software.

Novell Should Inform Shareholders Then? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19301527)

- i hope any SEC filing/statement mentions potential harm due to changes in software licensing...

- i wouldn't buy Novell anyway...

- GPL3 is a *good* thing, btw...

Re:Novell Should Inform Shareholders Then? (1)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302071)

i hope any SEC filing/statement mentions potential harm due to changes in software licensing...

I'm sure that you're pleased to hear that they do [groklaw.net] .

LOL (0, Troll)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301631)

Novell comments that if "the Free Software Foundation releases a new version of the GNU General Public License with certain currently proposed terms, our business may suffer harm."

Someone needs to sit a few people from Novell down at some point and explain to them that a desire to ensure that businesses suffer harm was arguably one of the main motivations behind the GPL having been written at all.

For once, I wish someone could actually give me a reasoned rebuttal on why they believe that I'm wrong in believing that (at least the intention behind) the GPL is largely anticapitalist, instead of simply calling me names (an idiot, a troll, "disingenous" etc) for making the statement. Continuing to only do that strongly implies that you don't actually have a rebuttal for that assertion, and so simply attempting to bury me in ad hominem is the best way to divert attention from that.

It's a shame I also can't run a betting pool about how likely I am to be told verbatim to again "shut the fuck up," in response to this as well. I suspect I'd end up making rather a large sum of money. ;-)

Maybe Stallman's drones here genuinely are beginning to get desperate, if simply attempting to demand my silence is becoming the preferred way of answering rather than even regurgitating the usual rhetoric in response to me.

Re:LOL (1)

PoliTech (998983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301781)

I was only trying to discuss the GPLv3 and what it means beyond the Microsoft/Novell deal, and the effect it may have on wider usage of SUSE in particular.

I'll stay out of the capitalist vs. anti capitalist argument if you please. (because not all "Capitalists" are "free marketers" and not all "Anti Capitalists" are "anti market", and generally discussions of which is which and when can get heated and quickly go off topic)

No Flame here...

Re:LOL (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19301825)

Maybe someone should sit _you_ down and explain to you why you are an idiot. Novell and all the other companies use Free software to make a profit. In exchange, they are asked only to maintain the Freedoms granted by the GPL. That is the _cost_ of using Free software. As long as they maintain the Freedom, no one is after their business. Could you explain to me why commercial entities think you can take GPLed software and use it as you please without obeying the license, or trying to find loopholes?

Re:LOL (0, Flamebait)

PoliTech (998983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301911)

LAMO ... you said, "It's a shame I also can't run a betting pool about how likely I am to be told verbatim to again "shut the fuck up," in response to this as well."

Then I respond to you reasonably...and yet you think it's good to reply thusly;

"Maybe someone should sit _you_ down and explain to you why you are an idiot."

Ok, that's a reasonable way to continue a discussion...in opposite world.

Re:LOL (1)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301943)

That wasn't my response...that was an AC. ;)

Re:LOL (3, Interesting)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302035)

The GPL is not anti-bussiness nor anti-capitalist. It is just against one kind of business, that is selling the same software again and again for huge profits at each copy. A business plan that can not be sucessfull on a free society.

Re:LOL (2, Interesting)

sharperguy (1065162) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302121)

No, no it is not It is against people putting restrictions on the use of software once it has been obtained. These rescrictions can include restriction to modify, redistribute, or even just use in a way other than originally intended. They are against this because they feel it directly affects the freedoms of you and me. Most people in the modern world use computers, many on a daily basis. They say that if restrictions are placed on how the computers are used, then restrictions are placed on how people live their lives.

Re:LOL (3, Interesting)

beyondkaoru (1008447) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302105)

you bring up a decent view. you shouldn't be modded down or given stupid answers so i'll try to give a good one. i can definitely understand the feeling of wanting money for selling one's work.

i can try to give a rebuttal, but to do so requires primarily me giving an anti-intellectual-property speech. well, here it is. the argument here is that having a world of all free software is _more_ according to capitalist ideals than having a world that is all or mostly proprietary software. the capitalist ideal involves a lot of different things, but a large part of it is that the government should stay out of the workings of things and keep order. second, a big part of capitalism is having people invest in something then get a benefit later because they invested wisely in some corporation.

if we get rid of software (or other stuff) patents or copyrights or whatever, there will be fewer laws. this means that people are, literally, freer to do stuff. since copyright and patent involve governments stepping in and telling people not to do stuff (much like with real property), a person who desires smaller government would prefer property laws be there only for situations that disrupt the system (in other words, it primarily depends on whether you think an idea can be property).

a big thing about capitalism that separates it from the simple ideals anarchy or libertarianism is the concept of capital-- that is, one invests in a way that he wishes to see returns. this spirit would live on in a world without sofware patents and software copyright, and we already see the beginnings of it. many corporations hire people to work on open source stuff (probably the biggest example is ibm, though they're not the best example since they have a huge stake in keeping z/os and aix proprietary). basically, if someone wants some software, he and others who want software to do something would invest in some group of coders who would then produce the software. the benefit to the investors is not as obvious as investing in stocks and bonds, but it would produce the same net effect; if the investors were wise in their choice and thus the software is useful to them, they benefit.

at the same time, software or information freedom has all the benefits of communism without the downsides. if i and some friends want a program, we can code it or hire people to code it. then, if we give it away, we are not made worse off, while the world can benefit from it. communism didn't work because the efforts of a person weren't seen by that person.

basically, it's got the best elements of laissez-faire and communism. it's pretty compelling if you look at it that way. businesses that have built up on intellectual property would be harmed, and significantly so. but the practice of coding would definitely not die, or even diminish (most coding and/or computer science is done for in-house stuff, not for sale of a software product).

ok, that got kind of disorganized, but anyway, my 2 cents.

Re:LOL (2, Informative)

bnenning (58349) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302531)

Someone needs to sit a few people from Novell down at some point and explain to them that a desire to ensure that businesses suffer harm was arguably one of the main motivations behind the GPL having been written at all.

Tell that to the thousands of companies saving billions of dollars by using GPL software.

For once, I wish someone could actually give me a reasoned rebuttal on why they believe that I'm wrong in believing that (at least the intention behind) the GPL is largely anticapitalist

The GPL is neither capitalist nor socialist. Capitalism and socialism are systems for allocating scarce resources. Free software attempts to bypass that issue by removing scarcity altogether, specifically the artificial scarcity imposed by copyright.

Re:LOL (3, Informative)

multisync (218450) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302599)

Someone needs to sit a few people from Novell down at some point and explain to them that a desire to ensure that businesses suffer harm was arguably one of the main motivations behind the GPL having been written at all. For once, I wish someone could actually give me a reasoned rebuttal on why they believe that I'm wrong in believing that (at least the intention behind) the GPL is largely anticapitalist


Please explain to me how a developer choosing to license software with the GPL is "anti-capitalist?" All the GPL does is grant additional rights to the user, provided they abide by the terms of the license. If they don't abide by those terms, they are not entitled to those additional rights.

How is this different from commercial software? It comes with a license as well, outlining the terms under which you may use it. If you do not wish to abide by the terms of the license, you are free to try another product with a different license (BSD, for example). Nobody is forcing you to use this particular software. And nobody is preventing another business from releasing software under the license of their choice.

What is "anti-capitalist" about users and developers having choice?

Re:LOL (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302645)

I think there is a good argument to be made that software is generally so cheap(one guy can write an app in a month or two that doubles the productivity of thousands of people for years, that's cheap), that the market for software is mediated by factors other than price. For commodity software(Operating systems, web servers, most other servers), the cheapest way to obtain value may well be to share code with other consumers. In that situation, the GPL is equivalent to a fairly simple contract - "I'll help you, but you have to help me too".

Re:LOL (2, Interesting)

honkycat (249849) | more than 7 years ago | (#19303429)

Others have said it, probably better, but the GPL is not really aligned with either socialism or capitalism, merely with the idea that software (and perhaps more generally information, but it only deals with software) should not have artificial restrictions placed on its duplication. This embraces aspects of socialism ("share the wealth") and capitalism (only scarce commodities have value, and information by its nature is not scarce). You can argue about whether it's beneficial to an economy to enforce artificial scarcity through patents and copyrights, but that's really not a question of capitalism vs socialism.

Now, many people argue that the FSF is hypocritical because in a very real sense, GPLed software is less free than, say, Berkeley or MIT Licensed software. However, IMO this is consistent with their aim not merely to create free software, but to rid the world of non-free software. Basically, you can embrace their view that software should be free (as in freedom) and reap the benefits of their efforts. If they did not choose a license that required you to join the movement by making your derived software free, then they'd merely be aiding those who use their software and give nothing back to the community.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. As a proprietary developer, you lose nothing due to the existence of GPLed software. You're not free to use that code in your product, but in your view you had no right to expect anyone to license you software that would do what you needed anyway. I frankly don't understand the argument that the GPL somehow takes something away from would-be proprietary developers. Sure, it's harder to sell your program when someone can download a GPL competitor for free (neglecting support costs), but hey... that's capitalism at its finest. If someone is willing to sell for $0, only a broken market would allow you to sell at >$0.

It'll get worked out (-1, Troll)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301385)

Isn't that the whole purpose of the process? You have an original draft and several revisions until you get it the way you want it.

LK

GPLv3 vs. the DRM lockdown (2, Insightful)

Freed (2178) | more than 7 years ago | (#19301505)

As long as...great great tinkerers need to worry about the freedom to tinker, http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ [freedom-to-tinker.com] ;
...the powerful such as Bill Gates keep investing in long-term research on how to lock people down;
...we leave it to the U.S. government to following the Constitution, including recovering the real purpose of copyright and patents by, e.g., repealing the DMCA;
We will need the likes of the GPL3 to give an option to reduce the inevitable temptation of vested interests to use DRM to subjugate people.

Isnt it unfair (0)

Sammy Loo (996666) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302045)

that Novell would have to suffer though? Sure they earned money from m$ but is that so bad? they shouldnt have gpl3 hurt novell imho.

Re:Isnt it unfair (1)

Freed (2178) | more than 7 years ago | (#19302341)

>that Novell would have to suffer though? Sure they earned money from m$ but is that so bad? they shouldnt have gpl3 hurt novell imho.

Money from MS in itself has nothing to do with it. Indeed, of the three parts of the deal--business, technical, and patent, it is just the patent agreement that is the problem. Fixing the loophole that it exploited is far more important than the fates of corporations, particularly ones that have shown willingness to exploit find and exploit such loopholes.

If you are unconvinced about the badness of the patent agreement, just do a search--microsoft novell patent agreement--to find links of outrage about it.

To explain (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19301921)

First, I am NOT the hate-filled idiotic Annomynous Coward. While I am from the good ol' US of A, (Still the most free country in the world despite what Bush Jr has done to try not to make it so) I believe that Open Source through the GPL is the only way to get a REAL competitor to Windows. Despite how important Microsoft was to the OS Revolution (I won't deny MS's contributions to getting a 'computer in every home'), Microsoft will easily help a competitor to make a standard (i.e. Embrace), adding new stuff that the competitor doesn't have (i.e. Extend), and then preventing said competitor from using their stuff when it becomes a defacto standard (i.e. Extinguish). Of course, the GPL prevents this because if you modify the code and publish the product, you accept the conditions of the GPL, which includes having to share the source code with the user, including the modified parts. However companies like Tivo and Novell have created ways to short-circuit GPL v2, by using DRM and Patents... thus GPL v3 closes these two loopholes. Novell and Tivo can gladly stick with GPL v2, but they will have to fork to avoid GPL v3. Meanwhile, most end-users would not care about GPL v2 or v3, just that it is free as in beer, rather as in freedom.

Re:To explain (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 7 years ago | (#19303197)

(Still the most free country in the world despite what Bush Jr has done to try not to make it so)

Most free in what way? Freedom to own guns? Perhaps (Iraqis might be freer there, though). Freedom of anything else? Nope.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?