[gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Jerry McBride]

Anyone aware of any plans for Gentoo/Portage moving to the gpl3.0 license?




-- 


From the Desk of: Jerome D. McBride
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 382 bytes --]

On Saturday 14 July 2007 00:11:27 Jerry McBride wrote:
> Anyone aware of any plans for Gentoo/Portage moving to the gpl3.0 license?

There's been some discussion of it in the subthread titled: "Watch out for 
license changes to GPL-3" on the gentoo-dev mailing list (it's pretty 
boring). The answer most definitely seems to be that no such plans exist...

-- 
Bo Andresen

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[burlingk]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry McBride [mailto:mcbrides9@comcast.net] 
> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 7:11 AM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
> Anyone aware of any plans for Gentoo/Portage moving to the 
> gpl3.0 license?

I haven't heard anything, but that is a move I hope they never make.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Mark Shields]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 510 bytes --]

On 7/15/07, burlingk@cv63.navy.mil <burlingk@cv63.navy.mil> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerry McBride [mailto:mcbrides9@comcast.net]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 7:11 AM
> > To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> > Subject: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
> > Anyone aware of any plans for Gentoo/Portage moving to the
> > gpl3.0 license?
>
> I haven't heard anything, but that is a move I hope they never make.
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
Why is that?

-- 
- Mark Shields

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1026 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Jerry McBride]

On Monday 16 July 2007 08:15:43 am Mark Shields wrote:


Personally... reading what I have about the gpl 3.0 , I'd be pretty 
comfortable having Gentoo/Portage moved to it.

It offers a lot of protection that gpl 2. does not. 

Anyway, if it makes Microsoft "catch up" then it must be good.






-- 


From the Desk of: Jerome D. McBride
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Montag, 16. Juli 2007, Mark Shields wrote:
> On 7/15/07, burlingk@cv63.navy.mil <burlingk@cv63.navy.mil> wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jerry McBride [mailto:mcbrides9@comcast.net]
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 7:11 AM
> > > To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> > > Subject: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
> > > Anyone aware of any plans for Gentoo/Portage moving to the
> > > gpl3.0 license?
> >
> > I haven't heard anything, but that is a move I hope they never make.
> > --
> > gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> Why is that?

because gplv3 removes freedom?
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Montag, 16. Juli 2007, Jerry McBride wrote:
> On Monday 16 July 2007 08:15:43 am Mark Shields wrote:
>
>
> Personally... reading what I have about the gpl 3.0 , I'd be pretty
> comfortable having Gentoo/Portage moved to it.
>
> It offers a lot of protection that gpl 2. does not.
>
> Anyway, if it makes Microsoft "catch up" then it must be good.

it takes away freedom - I am not sold to that 'must be good' aspect.


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1697 bytes --]

On Monday 16 July 2007, Volker Armin Hemmann 
<volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 
3??':
> On Montag, 16. Juli 2007, Jerry McBride wrote:
> > On Monday 16 July 2007 08:15:43 am Mark Shields wrote:
> > Personally... reading what I have about the gpl 3.0 , I'd be pretty
> > comfortable having Gentoo/Portage moved to it.
> >
> > It offers a lot of protection that gpl 2. does not.
> >
> > Anyway, if it makes Microsoft "catch up" then it must be good.

Actually, we should encourage commercial entities to participate the in 
Free Software movement, including letting them retain the ability to 
charge for providing software, as long as they are willing to let users of 
the software retain their four freedoms.  Microsoft has made some movement 
in this direction...

> it takes away freedom - I am not sold to that 'must be good' aspect.

Okay, this is off-topic, but it only takes away the freedom to take away 
users' freedoms, something the GPL has always done.  BSD doesn't take away 
any freedoms, but I'm unconvinced that it's a good thing for Free Software 
to be able to be "locked up".

*I* think the GPLv3 is better, and that it would be good to move KDE toward 
GPLv3/LGPLv3 licensing. However, that is a decision that the project will 
have to make as a group and it would require reimplementing or relicensing 
all the code licensed to the under the GPLv2.  That's a tough sell.

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Henk Boom]

On 16/07/07, Volker Armin Hemmann <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:
> because gplv3 removes freedom?

As far as I remember from when I read it, it does not take any
freedoms which the previous versions did not intend to. The purpose of
the GPL is to protect the 4 freedoms. This instalment just closes
loopholes in the previous versions which would allow these freedoms to
be infringed upon.

    Henk Boom
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[burlingk]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lunarcrisis@gmail.com [mailto:lunarcrisis@gmail.com] On 
> Behalf Of Henk Boom
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:08 AM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
> 
> 
> On 16/07/07, Volker Armin Hemmann 
> <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:
> > because gplv3 removes freedom?
> 
> As far as I remember from when I read it, it does not take 
> any freedoms which the previous versions did not intend to. 
> The purpose of the GPL is to protect the 4 freedoms. This 
> instalment just closes loopholes in the previous versions 
> which would allow these freedoms to be infringed upon.
> 
>     Henk Boom
> -- 

The four freedoms:
Freedom 0: The freedom to run a program for any purpose.
Freedom 1: To study the way a program works, and adapt it to your needs.
Freedom 2: To redistribute copies so that you can help your neighbors.
Freedom 3: Improve the program, and release your improvements to 
           the public, so that the whole community benefits. 
For freedom 1 and 3 to work, the code must be open.

Freedom 1 is just as important as the other three. Freedom one is 
almost eliminated in GPLv3.  Freedom One is the freedom that was
most whole heartedly expressed in the original manifesto.

Freedom 3 is the one that GPLv3 is making most important now.
It does so to the detriment of the other three.

The old GPL licenses say that if you use the code in a public way,
you have to make the code you use available changes and all.  That
deals with software and only software.  Stallman used to be so set
on THAT mindset (software vs. hardware), that he was in favor of
those groups that didn't want to make the source code of every ROM
chip they made open to the world, on the grounds that certain parts
of firmware are so tied to the hardware as to be indistinguishable.

GPLV3 says, if you want to use code in a public way, you have 
to crack open your box so that people can play with it however
they want, and then that potentially compromised box still has
to be able to connect to your network if it connected in it's
unmodified form.  That very much deals with the hardware.

Under the spirit of the GPL, one could take code and use what
they could.  They still had to have the technical capabilities
to use that code, and understand the platform it was on.

Under the new version, if you don't understand the code, then
something must be wrong with the code.  If the code is full of
machine dependant features that cannot compile on another type
of machine, then something must be wrong with the code.  Oh, and
these strange assumptions only apply if you are making money off
of the machine that the code was written for.  Otherwise no one
will ever notice so they don't care.

Free Software is about Freedom.  GPLv3 is about religion.  You
are free as long as you do things our way.

That is why I shy away from the GPL licenses.  I like the
LGPLv2, but GPLv3 is kind of scary.  I want code that I make
free to be free.  :P  I don't want to say, "It is free if you
are a broke penniless college kid that plans to stay that way."

LGPLv2 allows wide use of code, without heavy demands.

If I by some miracle produce a chunk of code that propels another
entity to the top of their industry, then I have achieved something
Whether I get anything in return from them or not.  If they
are able to take what I have produced and make it useful, then
more power too them.  If they give back to the community in the
form of code, cash, or even morale support, then that is them
playing the game by our rules.  It is good for us and will help
them in the long run.

Even if they don't give back code or cash or a pat on the back,
if they simply say where the code came from, that will help the
community.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Abraham Marín Pérez]

burlingk@cv63.navy.mil escribió:
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: lunarcrisis@gmail.com [mailto:lunarcrisis@gmail.com] On 
>> Behalf Of Henk Boom
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:08 AM
>> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
>> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
>>
>>
>> On 16/07/07, Volker Armin Hemmann 
>> <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:
>>     
>>> because gplv3 removes freedom?
>>>       
>> As far as I remember from when I read it, it does not take 
>> any freedoms which the previous versions did not intend to. 
>> The purpose of the GPL is to protect the 4 freedoms. This 
>> instalment just closes loopholes in the previous versions 
>> which would allow these freedoms to be infringed upon.
>>
>>     Henk Boom
>> -- 
>>     
>
> The four freedoms:
> Freedom 0: The freedom to run a program for any purpose.
> Freedom 1: To study the way a program works, and adapt it to your needs.
> Freedom 2: To redistribute copies so that you can help your neighbors.
> Freedom 3: Improve the program, and release your improvements to 
>            the public, so that the whole community benefits. 
> For freedom 1 and 3 to work, the code must be open.
>
> Freedom 1 is just as important as the other three. Freedom one is 
> almost eliminated in GPLv3.  Freedom One is the freedom that was
> most whole heartedly expressed in the original manifesto.
>
> Freedom 3 is the one that GPLv3 is making most important now.
> It does so to the detriment of the other three.
>
>   

I'm not very into licenses and hence my question may seem evident (or 
even stupid) but still... does not Freedom 3 imply Freedom 1? I mean, 
how can you improve a program without being able to study it?

-- 
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Graham Murray]

<burlingk@cv63.navy.mil> writes:

> The four freedoms:
> Freedom 0: The freedom to run a program for any purpose.
> Freedom 1: To study the way a program works, and adapt it to your needs.
> Freedom 2: To redistribute copies so that you can help your neighbors.
> Freedom 3: Improve the program, and release your improvements to 
>            the public, so that the whole community benefits. 
> For freedom 1 and 3 to work, the code must be open.
>
> Freedom 1 is just as important as the other three. Freedom one is 
> almost eliminated in GPLv3.  Freedom One is the freedom that was
> most whole heartedly expressed in the original manifesto.

Just how does GPLv3 almost eliminate this? It still requires that if
anyone obtains a binary of the program then they must either be given or
be able to obtain the source. From this source they can study the
program and make any adaptations they require to make it fit their
needs. If they then distribute the adapted code, the adapted program
must be released under GPLv3 (or optionally a later version). So all
recipients of the adapted program must be able to obtain its source and
therefore, should they so desire, study the program and make further
adaptations themselves. AFAICS GPLv3 adds an additional freedom to such
recipients over that offered by GPLv2 in that if the program is received
with hardware and the hardware 'verifies' the code before running it
then the mechanism for allowing binaries built from any adaptations to
also verify must be supplied. So rather than almost eliminating Freedom
One, GPLv3 actually enhances it.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Abraham Marín Pérez]

burlingk@cv63.navy.mil escribió:
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Abraham Marín Pérez [mailto:tecnic5@silvanoc.com] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:43 PM
>> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
>> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
>>
>>
>> burlingk@cv63.navy.mil escribió:
>>     
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: lunarcrisis@gmail.com [mailto:lunarcrisis@gmail.com] On
>>>> Behalf Of Henk Boom
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:08 AM
>>>> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
>>>>         
>   
>   
>>> The four freedoms:
>>> Freedom 0: The freedom to run a program for any purpose. 
>>>       
>> Freedom 1: To 
>>     
>>> study the way a program works, and adapt it to your needs. 
>>>       
>> Freedom 2: 
>>     
>>> To redistribute copies so that you can help your neighbors. 
>>>       
>> Freedom 3: 
>>     
>>> Improve the program, and release your improvements to
>>>            the public, so that the whole community benefits.
>>> For freedom 1 and 3 to work, the code must be open.
>>>
>>> Freedom 1 is just as important as the other three. Freedom one is
>>> almost eliminated in GPLv3.  Freedom One is the freedom that was
>>> most whole heartedly expressed in the original manifesto.
>>>
>>> Freedom 3 is the one that GPLv3 is making most important 
>>>       
>> now. It does 
>>     
>>> so to the detriment of the other three.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> I'm not very into licenses and hence my question may seem evident (or 
>> even stupid) but still... does not Freedom 3 imply Freedom 1? I mean, 
>> how can you improve a program without being able to study it?
>>     
>
> :)
> The freedoms were listed before any license was written.
> They were the credo that the GNU foundation was founded upon.
> They were still the credo when the name became the Free Software Foundation.
> ^_^
>
> Now the direction of the organization has apparently changed.
> They are more interested in slowing down the competition than
> helping the community.  When they first started, the competition
> was still thought of as a part of the community.  :/
>
> I worry.
>   

Ok, so good intentions are falling apart and being substituted by 
mercantile minds, but still I can't see how freedom one can be 
threatened while enhancing freedom three, it just seems contradictory to me.

-- 
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[burlingk]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Abraham Marín Pérez [mailto:tecnic5@silvanoc.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:43 PM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
> 
> 
> burlingk@cv63.navy.mil escribió:
> >   
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: lunarcrisis@gmail.com [mailto:lunarcrisis@gmail.com] On
> >> Behalf Of Henk Boom
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:08 AM
> >> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> >> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
  
> >
> > The four freedoms:
> > Freedom 0: The freedom to run a program for any purpose. 
> Freedom 1: To 
> > study the way a program works, and adapt it to your needs. 
> Freedom 2: 
> > To redistribute copies so that you can help your neighbors. 
> Freedom 3: 
> > Improve the program, and release your improvements to
> >            the public, so that the whole community benefits.
> > For freedom 1 and 3 to work, the code must be open.
> >
> > Freedom 1 is just as important as the other three. Freedom one is
> > almost eliminated in GPLv3.  Freedom One is the freedom that was
> > most whole heartedly expressed in the original manifesto.
> >
> > Freedom 3 is the one that GPLv3 is making most important 
> now. It does 
> > so to the detriment of the other three.
> >
> >   
> 
> I'm not very into licenses and hence my question may seem evident (or 
> even stupid) but still... does not Freedom 3 imply Freedom 1? I mean, 
> how can you improve a program without being able to study it?

:)
The freedoms were listed before any license was written.
They were the credo that the GNU foundation was founded upon.
They were still the credo when the name became the Free Software Foundation.
^_^

Now the direction of the organization has apparently changed.
They are more interested in slowing down the competition than
helping the community.  When they first started, the competition
was still thought of as a part of the community.  :/

I worry.



--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Stroller]

On 17 Jul 2007, at 12:01, Graham Murray wrote:

> <burlingk@cv63.navy.mil> writes:
>
>> The four freedoms:
>> Freedom 0: The freedom to run a program for any purpose.
>> Freedom 1: To study the way a program works, and adapt it to your  
>> needs.
>> Freedom 2: To redistribute copies so that you can help your  
>> neighbors.
>> Freedom 3: Improve the program, and release your improvements to
>>            the public, so that the whole community benefits.
>> For freedom 1 and 3 to work, the code must be open.
>>
>> Freedom 1 is just as important as the other three. Freedom one is
>> almost eliminated in GPLv3.  Freedom One is the freedom that was
>> most whole heartedly expressed in the original manifesto.
>
> Just how does GPLv3 almost eliminate this?

It prevents vendors from (effectively) placing restrictions within  
their software and running those restricted programs on the hardware  
they sell us. Obviously this is a quite unreasonable imposition upon  
the freedoms of those benign corporate entities. If you don't see how  
unfair this is then you're clearly a subversive^w commie^w pinko^w  
freedom-hating terrorist!!

Seriously, I can't understand people who disapprove of GPLv3. As  
things stand with GPL v2 it would be quite easy (in the UK) to buy a  
nice wireless ADSL modem-router as part of a sign-up package with  
your ISP, suffer a year's poor service and decide to sign up with  
another internet provider, only to find the the wireless router is  
locked to the first ISP and is useless if you leave them. I can't  
guess the number of wireless routers that have been thrown away and  
ended up in landfill for this reason.

I believe that even Linus - who is noted for his long-standing  
opposition to v3 - would change his mind were he to experience this.  
"They're using the operating system _I_ wrote to lock me out of _my  
own_ router?!?!?!?"

In the case I have in mind (the Wanadoo Livebox) the vendor uses  
proprietary software code - which is only shipped as a binary as part  
of the firmware - to deny use on other networks. A user can enter any  
PPPoA username in the router's web-based interface but the pppd will  
just refuse to work if that username doesn't match the naming  
conventions used on Wanadoo's networks.

Although this particular code is not GPL, and would not come under  
the provisions of the v3, the manufacturers have made a number of  
other restrictions to prevent users modifying any part the firmware,  
including the remaining 98% of the router's software that is OSS code  
(the router runs a Linux 2.4 kernel and busybox). I remember working  
on opening up this firmware a little and each time one of the  
restrictions was overcome we would find the next version of the  
firmware to be more secure (the new firmware is upgraded  
automatically to unmodified routers).

At the time this particular router was released it was, IIRC, £80 to  
purchase - about the same as other branded wireless ADSL routers, and  
perhaps a day-and-a-half's wages for some people, a good chunk of  
your weekly disposable income if you're on minimum wage. It was not  
obvious in the sales pitch that it was network-locked to Wanadoo.  
British Telecom lock their routers similarly. A big FUCK YOU to  
anyone who thinks they should benefit from economies of manufacturing  
scale and Free software with no regards the end users or to the  
environmental and actual cost of replacing hardware which has been  
rendered useless merely in aid of screwing the competition.

I believe that if you mass-produce a product and use other people's  
GPL code in order to reduce your software development costs then you  
have an ethical duty to allow purchasers of that product to modify  
the code that runs on that hardware. You should provide reasonably  
explicit instructions on how to do so, and at the very least not make  
strides to hamper people from running software of their choosing on  
the hardware they've bought. Manufacturers have demonstrated that  
they don't see things this way and that they don't care how they  
prevent their customers from fully enjoying the hardware they've  
purchased. Clearly the rules need rewriting.

Stroller.

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Dienstag, 17. Juli 2007, Stroller wrote:

> I believe that even Linus - who is noted for his long-standing
> opposition to v3 - would change his mind were he to experience this.
> "They're using the operating system _I_ wrote to lock me out of _my
> own_ router?!?!?!?"

Linus has said it several times that he was ok with the thing Tivo did.

And Tivo is the reason for that clause in GPLv3.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7320 bytes --]

On Tuesday 17 July 2007, burlingk@cv63.navy.mil wrote about 'RE: 
[gentoo-user] 2 to 3??':
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lunarcrisis@gmail.com [mailto:lunarcrisis@gmail.com] On
> > Behalf Of Henk Boom
> > On 16/07/07, Volker Armin Hemmann
> > <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:
> > > because gplv3 removes freedom?
> >
> > As far as I remember from when I read it, it does not take
> > any freedoms which the previous versions did not intend to.
>
> The four freedoms:
> Freedom 0: The freedom to run a program for any purpose.
> Freedom 1: To study the way a program works, and adapt it to your needs.
> Freedom 2: To redistribute copies so that you can help your neighbors.
> Freedom 3: Improve the program, and release your improvements to
>            the public, so that the whole community benefits.
> For freedom 1 and 3 to work, the code must be open.
>
> Freedom 1 is just as important as the other three. Freedom one is
> almost eliminated in GPLv3.

Absolutely not.  Freedom 1 is stronger than EVER.  The distributor of GPLv3 
licensed works is now prevented from using technological, and patent-law 
means to limit users' freedoms, including freedom 1.  Under the GPLv2, 
technological means (DRM) wasn't covered at all, and patent provisions 
where not nearly as explicit.

Remember that the GPL has always been about all the users NOT just the 
developers/distributors -- "adapt it to your needs" is not allowed when it 
restricts other users' freedoms.

Think about RMS' printer incident, where the driver/firmware was crap but 
locked down so he couldn't fix it.  Free software should not be able to be 
locked down in that way (among other things); in this day and age, that 
means preventing Free Software from undergoing "Tivoization".

> Stallman used to be so set
> on THAT mindset (software vs. hardware), that he was in favor of
> those groups that didn't want to make the source code of every ROM
> chip they made open to the world,

Sure.  Stallman, last I heard, is still in the camp that code on read-only 
memory is part of the hardware, and does not necessarily need to be Free 
Software -- it might as well be an IC rather than code.  HOWEVER, he 
believes code that *can* upgraded -- such as BIOSes that support flashing, 
or firmware that is loaded into chip memory by the OS, any bits that 
execute and CAN be changed -- should be Free Software, especially if it is 
derived from (in the copyright sense) Free Software.  

That's what is especially irksome about "Tivoization", the distributor of 
the software (Tivo) has more rights than the users' of the software (us).  
For a license (GPLv2) whose goal is to protect all users' freedoms, and 
values users' freedom over developers/distributors to be turned 
upside-down by technological means is unacceptable -- prompting the 
development of GPLv3 to correct the situation.

> GPLV3 says, if you want to use code in a public way, you have
> to crack open your box so that people can play with it however
> they want, and then that potentially compromised box still has
> to be able to connect to your network if it connected in it's
> unmodified form.  That very much deals with the hardware.

The GPLv3 says if you covey software to a user under the licence, that user 
must be able to upgrade the software and use it in the same way they used 
the software you gave them.  That's actually what the GPLv2 says as well, 
although it doesn't specifically ban technological measures that 
accomplish that goal.

If you want to allow your code to be locked up by someone else, use BSD.
If you want to lock your code up yourself, use a proprietary license.
If you want all users of your software to have the four freedoms, use 
GPLv3.

> Under the spirit of the GPL, one could take code and use what
> they could.  They still had to have the technical capabilities
> to use that code, and understand the platform it was on.

Not quite true.  Under the spirit of the GPL, anyone could take code they 
were provided under the license and use what anyone could, they didn't 
have to understand the code to benefit from improvements others made.  
Gentoo (and other distributions) regularly patch code that I don't 
understand and I end up getting an improved version of KDE/GNOME/X and the 
entities behind those projects don't (and shouldn't be able to) prevent 
Gentoo from providing that service.

> Under the new version, if you don't understand the code, then
> something must be wrong with the code.

Not true.

> If the code is full of 
> machine dependant features that cannot compile on another type
> of machine, then something must be wrong with the code.

Not true.  Even if something *was* wrong with the code, code quality is not 
enforced by the GPl (any version).

> Free Software is about Freedom.  GPLv3 is about religion.  You
> are free as long as you do things our way.

GPLv2 also places a load of restrictions on distributors to ensure that all 
users get all four freedoms.  GPLv3 places more, necessary restrictions 
since GPLv2 has allowed distributors to effectively remove users' 
freedoms.  The GPLv3 is all about freedom -- but freedom is only realized 
by restricting the ability to limit freedom.  ("Your freedom to swing your 
fist ends an inch from my face.")

> That is why I shy away from the GPL licenses.  I like the
> LGPLv2, but GPLv3 is kind of scary.  I want code that I make
> free to be free.  :P  I don't want to say, "It is free if you
> are a broke penniless college kid that plans to stay that way."

Sounds like you want the GPL then -- since it explicitly allows commercial 
use as long as the four freedoms are preserved to all users.

> LGPLv2 allows wide use of code, without heavy demands.

LGPL does do one thing that can be nice, and it prevents the viral nature 
of copyright law from affecting your code -- that is it allows others the 
freedom to license their original work under whatever license they choose 
(as you did), combine it with your work, and distribute the whole as long 
as they follow your license for your stuff.

It's a very good license, and I think that it is normally the better 
license to choose *unless* your goal is to have all software be Free 
Software.

> If I by some miracle produce a chunk of code that propels another
> entity to the top of their industry, then I have achieved something
> Whether I get anything in return from them or not.  If they
> are able to take what I have produced and make it useful, then
> more power too them.  If they give back to the community in the
> form of code, cash, or even morale support, then that is them
> playing the game by our rules.

Not if you follow the GPLv2 or the spirit of the GPL.  That *requires* the 
code to remain in the community.  The GPLv3 strengthens this requirement.  
If you want other to be able to lock away your code (or derivative works 
of your code) you should use the BSD license.

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2138 bytes --]

On Tuesday 17 July 2007, burlingk@cv63.navy.mil wrote about 'RE: 
[gentoo-user] 2 to 3??':
> TiVo did not allow modified, and therefore potentially
> Compromised, devices connect to their network.

More than that -- they don't allow the "compromised" devices to boot.  Of 
course, that's *required* to lay down the restrictions they want, since 
one the device is booted from freely modified code, there's no method of 
remote attestation to guarantee your aren't just pretending to be 
a "genuine" device.

> This does not sound like theft of code, it sounds like sound network
> protocol.

So, sound network protocol validates the data sent, it doesn't require the 
other end to be arbitrarily "trusted".  Remember "trusted" is just DoD 
speak for "allowed to violate security policy".

> If you wish to maintain a secure environment that is stable 
> for thousands of users, and has a lot of money riding on it, you do
> not allow compromised devices to connect.  It is that simple.

BS.

Second life allows any client to connect as long as they follow the 
protocol.  There's a wide variety of WoW hacks that modify the running 
executable (a binary patch applied at runtime) that, while not allowed 
under the EULA, work quite well on the real servers and have not increased 
the number of server crashes or scheduled restarts.

Securing the network is not done by securing the remote devices.  (You 
don't need to trusted ethernet card to connect to a cisco router, or a 
cable modem.)  It is done by validating the data sent, having a 
well-defined network protocol, and disconnecting clients that provide bad 
data.

> The TiVo thing was completely within the word and spirit of the GPL.

It was *barely* within the word, and definitely not within the spirit of 
the GPL.  Don't beleive me?  Ask anyone at the FSF or RMS himself.  They 
wrote the thing.

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[burlingk]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Volker Armin Hemmann 
> [mailto:volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:19 AM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
> 
> 
> On Dienstag, 17. Juli 2007, Stroller wrote:
> 
> > I believe that even Linus - who is noted for his long-standing 
> > opposition to v3 - would change his mind were he to 
> experience this. 
> > "They're using the operating system _I_ wrote to lock me out of _my 
> > own_ router?!?!?!?"
> 
> Linus has said it several times that he was ok with the thing 
> Tivo did.
> 
> And Tivo is the reason for that clause in GPLv3.
> -- 
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

TiVo took code, incorporated it into a product, and put the
modified sources online so people could see them.  The sources
were heavily modified for a specialized device, but they were
provided.  They did not allow modified, and therefore potentially
Compromised, devices connect to their network.

This does not sound like theft of code, it sounds like sound network
protocol.  If you wish to maintain a secure environment that is stable
for thousands of users, and has a lot of money riding on it, you do
not allow compromised devices to connect.  It is that simple.

The TiVo thing was completely within the word and spirit of the GPL.
It is sad that many zealots seem to interpret the texts otherwise.

I should not be surprised since many people treat the Free Software
movement as a religion for all practical purposes.  In every religion
you will find interpretations and possible corruptions of the groups
texts.

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[burlingk]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Volker Armin Hemmann 
> [mailto:volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:20 AM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
> 
> 
> On Dienstag, 17. Juli 2007, Abraham Marín Pérez wrote:
> > burlingk@cv63.navy.mil escribió:
> > >> -----Original Message-----

> > Ok, so good intentions are falling apart and being substituted by 
> > mercantile minds, but still I can't see how freedom one can be 
> > threatened while enhancing freedom three, it just seems 
> contradictory 
> > to me.
> >
> > --
> 
> please tell me, what are these 'four freedoms' and how are 
> they 'enhancend', 
> when they are additional restrictions added about how I can 
> use the software?
> -- 


Sounds like three of us agree on something at least.  ^^;;
The Four Freedoms:

0:  The freedom to use software as you wish.
1:  The freedom to study the code and modify it to meet your needs.
2:  The freedom to copy and distribute the software so that you can help your neighbors.
3:  The freedom to improve the program, and be allowed to release those improvements to the public.

These four freedoms are core to the Free Software movement, and are shared in
many ways by the Open Source movement as well.

Many people do not see how the GPLv3 threatens these freedoms.

I don't want people to take my word for it.  My worries are not just FUD.
I encourage people to read the license.  In fact, read GPLv2 as well. :)

When they are side by side it is even easier to see the differences.

Most importantly, read the preambles of both.

The preamble of Version 2 was almost unchanged from the original preamble written for the first GPL license.  It was eloquent.  It was convincing.  It was awe inspiring.

The new preamble is only changed a little, but those changes make it sound like the words of a scared child holding back the boogie man with nothing more than a security blanket.

It is hard to explain my feelings about the new license.

I have accused a few people of Zealotry, but I myself do have strong feelings on the subject.  When I read the two licenses side by side I feel a sense of sadness, and betrayal.  Those who have fought for so long for freedom are now stomping it out in an over reactionary move to try to prevent what they see as a threat.

They took a license that was a work of art that stood as an example to two loosely bound movements, and ran it through the shredder.  It is like looking upon the battle flag of your own nation with a moment of pride, only to notice that some vandal has written seditious slurs all over it.

I suppose that in it's own way, that is it's own form of Zealotry.  My cause is freedom in the truest since.  The GPL has never been a perfect icon of that freedom, however it was still a proud example of movement towards that ideal.  What they have made of it in the last year and a half however, is a mockery of everything that it ever stood for.  I won't use version 3 of the license.  Any software that I do choose to release under GPL will be released using version 2.

The temptation is there to include the optional wording not to allow future versions of the GPL, and only version 2, however that would be the same kind of restrictiveness that I am speaking against, so I would be honor bound to resist such a move.

As it stands, I may be more likely to use the MIT or BSD licenses.  They have their following, and leave very little to argue when it comes to freedom. ^^;




--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Mike Edenfield]

Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:

> Remember that the GPL has always been about all the users NOT just the 
> developers/distributors -- "adapt it to your needs" is not allowed when it 
> restricts other users' freedoms.

Very few GPL proponents are willing to make this (rather obviously true) 
statement; I'm glad some are.  But to be more accurate, one should say 
that the GPL has always been about guaranteeing users freedoms *at the 
expense of* the developer's freedoms.

I'm not sure why that seems to be such a problem for GPL proponents to 
admit.  It's perfectly legitimate for the GPL to explicitly limit 
developer's freedoms (such as the freedom to DRM their binaries), since 
the developers explicitly choose to allow the GPL to do so.

--Mike

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[burlingk]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [mailto:bss03@volumehost.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 2:27 AM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
> 
> 
> More than that -- they don't allow the "compromised" devices 
> to boot.  Of course, that's *required* to lay down the 
> restrictions they want, since one the device is booted from 
> freely modified code, there's no method of remote attestation
> to guarantee your aren't just pretending to be a "genuine" device.
> 

I may need to read more.  Not allowing it to boot is a bit
extreme.  I will read more on the subject before I say
anything else about the TiVo guys. ^^;;




--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[burlingk]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Edenfield [mailto:kutulu@kutulu.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 4:30 AM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
> 
> I'm not sure why that seems to be such a problem for GPL 
> proponents to 
> admit.  It's perfectly legitimate for the GPL to explicitly limit 
> developer's freedoms (such as the freedom to DRM their 
> binaries), since 
> the developers explicitly choose to allow the GPL to do so.

I can't disagree here.  The developer chooses the license.  :)
I am occasionally irate, but not irrational. :P
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[b.n.]

Personally I'm quite happy with both GPLv2 and GPLv3. Frankly, my only 
real, serious concern is the fact that the two licences are incompatible.

The fact compatibility has not explicitly allowed sounds plain crazy to 
me. This means that GPLv2-only projects won't exchange code anymore with 
GPLv3-only or GPLv3-and-later projects, thus splitting the ecosystem in 
half, with benefit for no one.

When I tried asking about how to have some degree of compatibility 
between GPLv2 and GPLv3 in code I write, everyone told me "just license 
it under GPLv2 or any later version". The problem is that in this case I 
have to blindly trust the FSF about anything that will come out of it. 
GPLv3 raised serious concerns to many, and I also tried to follow 
carefully the thing, even if at the end, for all my purposes, I find 
them more or less equivalent. But how can I know what GPLv4 or v5 will 
be? Will I still like it? Using the "any later version" clause puts me 
in the hands of FSF without chance of coming back. Not using it (and 
just using "v2 and v3") puts me at the stake whenever GPLv4 will be out. 
What should I do, in your opinion?

m.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[burlingk]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: b.n. [mailto:brullonulla@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:29 PM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
> 
> 
> Personally I'm quite happy with both GPLv2 and GPLv3. 
> Frankly, my only 
> real, serious concern is the fact that the two licences are 
> incompatible.
> 
> The fact compatibility has not explicitly allowed sounds 
> plain crazy to 
> me. 
>
> When I tried asking about how to have some degree of compatibility 
> between GPLv2 and GPLv3 in code I write, everyone told me 
> "just license it under GPLv2 or any later version". The problem 
> is that in this case I have to blindly trust the FSF about anything 
> that will come out of it. 
>

That honestly is the only real way to make them compatible,
to use the "or any later version" clause.

Version 3 only allows for very specific modifications to itself.
Version 2 was a little more forgiving.

Version 3 says "Here is a list of optional clauses."

There are other options, but they make it into a new license.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Dan Cowsill]

I read a little bit of the new license, and restrictive though it may
be and also strange for a pillar of the open source community to
suddenly change is directive so drastically, I am still comforted.  I
believe the essential beauty of this community is that we cannot be
governed by software licenses alone.  If we do not like the language
of a license, we are by no means bound to employ it.  So, if GPLv3 is
as terrible as some say it is, then other people will not use it.

The true judge of GPLv3's merit will be its adoption.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Alan McKinnon]

On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > The TiVo thing was completely within the word and spirit of the
> > GPL.
>
> It was *barely* within the word, and definitely not within the spirit
> of the GPL.  Don't beleive me?  Ask anyone at the FSF or RMS himself.
>  They wrote the thing.

TiVo did just that and got the A-OK signal and thumbs up from the FSF's 
lawyers. Sometime later, someone had a hissy fit, FSF reversed their 
stated position and suddenly Tivo becomes spawn of satan.

Tivo had no option, their content providers would never have given them 
a license to redistribute content without the mods they did, and the 
shareholders would never have approved of Tivo trying to go against the 
content provider's conditions. So, they obeyed the rules and as a 
measure of thanks RMS rubs elephant shit all over their faces.

It's not the software that is crippled, it's the hardware. I'm not a 
USian and don't own a Tivo but I imagine it's similar to tv decoder we 
have here locally - heavily subsidised. It's built to do one thing 
well - record and display TV shows. If you don't like the business 
model Tivo came up with, then don't use the Tivo service. After all 
it's a TV decoder, not a kidney dyalysis machine....

According to Alan Cox, the thing has a bog-standard IDe drive in it. If 
you remove it, stick it in a bog-standard pc and power up, it boots 
just fine. So, in what way have Tivo removed people's freedom as 
granted by the GPL?

alan

-- 
Optimists say the glass is half full,
Pessimists say the glass is half empty,
Developers say wtf is the glass twice as big as it needs to be?

Alan McKinnon
alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za
+27 82, double three seven, one nine three five
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Stroller]

On 17 Jul 2007, at 17:19, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> On Dienstag, 17. Juli 2007, Stroller wrote:
>
>> I believe that even Linus - who is noted for his long-standing
>> opposition to v3 - would change his mind were he to experience this.
>> "They're using the operating system _I_ wrote to lock me out of _my
>> own_ router?!?!?!?"
>
> Linus has said it several times that he was ok with the thing Tivo  
> did.
>
> And Tivo is the reason for that clause in GPLv3.

I've seen no evidence that he said this AFTER spending a big chunk of  
his own money on hardware, plugging it into his ethernet network and  
finding himself frustrated by an inability to copy shows recorded in  
his living room to the Tivo in his den.

A problem with having well-paid and financially successful "leaders"  
is the risk of them becoming out of touch with "the common man".  
Linux is Linus' baby and he's entitled to license his code however he  
wishes but he can afford a nice sports car now and I doubt that he  
has to pay for much hardware.

I'm not saying that Linus is wrong, just that he might see things  
differently if the license he used on his software caused him time,  
inconvenience, frustration and expense. Say what you like about the  
lunatic fringe, but RMS has never forgotten that laser printer which  
he was unable to fix because the code was denied him.

Stroller.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Stroller]

On 17 Jul 2007, at 18:38, <burlingk@cv63.navy.mil>  
<burlingk@cv63.navy.mil> wrote:
>
> TiVo ... did not allow modified, and therefore potentially
> Compromised, devices connect to their network.
>
> This does not sound like theft of code, it sounds like sound network
> protocol.  If you wish to maintain a secure environment that is stable
> for thousands of users, and has a lot of money riding on it, you do
> not allow compromised devices to connect.

I'm not familiar with Tivo's "network" - I'd had the impression that  
a Tivo merely dialled into their servers & obtained a TV schedule.

However, this is not the point.

The point is that Tivo SOLD people hardware which was locked in such  
a way that it made restrictions upon the purchasers' use of that  
hardware. I presume that - although the GPL requires Tivo to inform  
purchasers of their rights to a copy of the source code - this  
retriction was not advertised at the point-of-sale.

There are lots of valid uses for a low-power computer with a TV-tuner  
card, a hard-drive and a good TV-compatible video-output aside from  
"hacking" Tivo's network.

If you want to build a secure network I think it's behoven upon you  
to bear the cost of that. I just find it the idea objectionable that  
you should be able to take source code that other people have written  
- that other people have released publicly with the intent that it  
should benefit all - and use that in a way detrimental to the  
majority of users.

To bear the cost of a "secure environment" feel free to rent out the  
equipment. Require a minimum 12-month contract, if you wish, but do  
not "sell" the customer equipment which locks them into your service,  
equipment which they "own" but which is worthless scrap should they  
choose to cancel their subscription with you. That, IMO, is  
misleading and whilst vendors may be entitled to sell equipment which  
is locked to their service, I feel they ought to have the good grace  
to write their own damn code if they're going to do so. Nintendo do  
this quite successfully with their PS3 & Xbox360 consoles, and do not  
rely on the open-source community to give them a free ride.

In the Land Of The Free consumers might not need any "protection"  
from entering into any contract that they wish, but over here in  
Europe we consider this sort of behaviour as petty any anti-competitive.

> The TiVo thing was completely within the word and spirit of the GPL.
> It is sad that many zealots seem to interpret the texts otherwise.

Whilst it may have been within the _word_ of the GPL your remarks do  
not explain why the GPL has been specifically rewritten to exclude  
this behaviour. How do you reconcile this fact with your remarks that  
the Tivo thing is within the _sprit_ of the GPL?

Stroller.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Stroller]

On 17 Jul 2007, at 18:57, <burlingk@cv63.navy.mil>  
<burlingk@cv63.navy.mil> wrote:
> ...
> The preamble of Version 2 was almost unchanged from the original  
> preamble written for the first GPL license.  It was eloquent.  It  
> was convincing.  It was awe inspiring.
> ...
> It is hard to explain my feelings about the new license.
> ...
> They took a license that was a work of art that stood as an example  
> to two loosely bound movements, and ran it through the shredder.   
> It is like looking upon the battle flag of your own nation with a  
> moment of pride, only to notice that some vandal has written  
> seditious slurs all over it.

I don't agree with you, but your own words are very eloquently  
written, and do cause me to respect your position. I have read both  
licenses fully, but sometime I'll have to find the time to do so  
again and reread your posts.

Stroller.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Stroller]

On 18 Jul 2007, at 13:38, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>>
>> It was *barely* within the word, and definitely not within the spirit
>> of the GPL.  Don't beleive me?  Ask anyone at the FSF or RMS himself.
>>  They wrote the thing.
>
> ...
> Tivo had no option, their content providers would never have given  
> them
> a license to redistribute content without the mods they did, and the
> shareholders would never have approved of Tivo trying to go against  
> the
> content provider's conditions.

Um... isn't a Tivo a device for recording TV programs?
In this case Tivo _has_ no content providers of their own.

As I understand it Tivo is just a fancy video recorder - a  
particularly advanced one for its time, but that's all.

In these litigation-prone times I can see why Tivo bow to the content  
providers, but really they have no more right to tell customers how  
to use their device than LG or Philips would have to say "you're  
allowed to record soap operas with this VHS recorder we sold you, but  
not full-length movies".

As far as I'm concerned the GPL is a license that protects consumers.  
That is the intent of it, as has been explained by Mike Edenfield so  
well a couple of times in the last 24 hours. Had Tivo written their  
own operating system from the ground up it would have cost them a lot  
more (in time, money, resources), and they could easily have been  
undercut by a competitor producing a better product based on Linux.  
Under GPL v3 the competitor's success will at least ensure they have  
the money to defend against lawsuits from the content providers.

The sad thing for Tivo & their proponents is that now - what? 5 years  
later? less? - you can buy a Chinese DVR (digital video recorder) for  
recording your TV programs for $100 or so. I'll bet the manufacturers  
of those don't suck it up to "the content providers" the way Tivo has  
and I'm sure lots of them will allow you to dump any program you've  
recorded as DivX to CD-R or as DVD and give it to friends or family.

Tivo may have made bucks by being early to the market but the western  
manufacturing philosophy of treating customers as secondary to the  
media companies will come back & bite us all on the ass when  
customers choose to shop elsewhere. You can't compete with giving the  
customer what he wants.

Stroller.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2634 bytes --]

On Wednesday 18 July 2007, Alan McKinnon <alan@linuxholdings.co.za> wrote 
about 'Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??':
> On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > > The TiVo thing was completely within the word and spirit of the
> > > GPL.
> >
> > It was *barely* within the word, and definitely not within the spirit
> > of the GPL.  Don't beleive me?  Ask anyone at the FSF or RMS himself.
> >  They wrote the thing.
>
> TiVo did just that and got the A-OK signal and thumbs up from the FSF's
> lawyers.

That's because you *could* swap out the software on early TiVos.

> Sometime later, someone had a hissy fit, FSF reversed their 
> stated position and suddenly Tivo becomes spawn of satan.

Because they started artificially limiting users' freedoms 0, 1, and 
partially 3.

> Tivo had no option, their content providers would never have given them
> a license to redistribute content without the mods they did

It's not my (or my community's, or my code's) job to support your business 
model.  If you can't play by the license, then you can't use the software.

> It's not the software that is crippled, it's the hardware.

No, it's the software because they haven't given it all to us.  For 
software to run on the device it was *designed* to run on it's required to 
be signed; therefore, the signature is part of the binary and a derivative 
of a GPLv2 work.  That work distributed presumably under the GPLv2, which 
means the source ("preferred format for making modifications") must be 
provided, and TiVo has not yet published the necessary tools for us to 
generate our own signatures.

They are therefore limiting freedom 1, which limits freedom 0, and 
indirectly freedom 3, because the community cannot benefit.

> So, in what way have Tivo removed people's freedom as
> granted by the GPL?

Artificially limiting freedoms 0, 1, and 3.  The restriction is 
fundamentally different from a RAM or HD space limit; a binary that does 
nothing but play pong (well within the hardware capabilities of the TiVo) 
is still not allowed to run without the signature.

Personally, I think TiVo COULD be called out for violating GPLv2, but IANAL 
and Eben is and declined to file suit against them.  Under the GPLv3, 
users' freedoms are better protected, and it's quite clear that TiVo 
would/will be in violation of that license.

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 808 bytes --]

On Wednesday 18 July 2007, "b.n." <brullonulla@gmail.com> wrote about 'Re: 
[gentoo-user] 2 to 3??':
> What should I do, in your opinion?

Probably LGPLv3, which will allow GPLv2 (and proprietary) projects to use 
it without requiring the combined work to be GPLv3.

Actually, I'm probably going to take a pen to the LGPLv3 in the future and 
turn it into something along the lines of "GPLv3 or, if your larger work 
is licenced under any version of the GPL, LGPLv3", but that's for the 
future and I'll want to run the license by the FSF first before using it.

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 788 bytes --]

On Wednesday 18 July 2007, Stroller <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> wrote 
about 'Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??':
> However, this is not the point.
>
> The point is that Tivo SOLD people hardware

This is the salient point for me, too.  If hardware was still owned by TiVo 
(in reality, not just in name) I'd have no problem with them deciding what 
can run on it and taking steps to prevent tampering.

I'm not sure Stallman would agree with me -- users may or may not own the 
device their software runs on, and Stallman is all about users.

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Mittwoch, 18. Juli 2007, Stroller wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2007, at 17:19, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > On Dienstag, 17. Juli 2007, Stroller wrote:
> >> I believe that even Linus - who is noted for his long-standing
> >> opposition to v3 - would change his mind were he to experience this.
> >> "They're using the operating system _I_ wrote to lock me out of _my
> >> own_ router?!?!?!?"
> >
> > Linus has said it several times that he was ok with the thing Tivo
> > did.
> >
> > And Tivo is the reason for that clause in GPLv3.
>
> I've seen no evidence that he said this AFTER spending a big chunk of
> his own money on hardware, plugging it into his ethernet network and
> finding himself frustrated by an inability to copy shows recorded in
> his living room to the Tivo in his den.
>
> A problem with having well-paid and financially successful "leaders"
> is the risk of them becoming out of touch with "the common man".
> Linux is Linus' baby and he's entitled to license his code however he
> wishes but he can afford a nice sports car now and I doubt that he
> has to pay for much hardware.
>
> I'm not saying that Linus is wrong, just that he might see things
> differently if the license he used on his software caused him time,
> inconvenience, frustration and expense. Say what you like about the
> lunatic fringe, but RMS has never forgotten that laser printer which
> he was unable to fix because the code was denied him.
>
> Stroller.

a) nobody is forced to buy a tivo. If you don't like it, don't buy it and you 
don't have problems.

b) AFAIR Linus owns a Tivo himself.

c) it is morally wrong to try to dictate HARDWARE licence problems with a 
SOFTWARE licence

d) If I can't use the software freely anymore one of the key freedoms is gone.

This is the same stupidity like anti-terror law. Lets take away freedom and 
free speech to protect freedom and free speeach 

e) Linus is not alone. You should read what Jesper Juhl wrote in one of the 
lenghty discussions on lkml. Very interessting.
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118211628209101&w=2

you might also read the rest of it. It might open your eyes.


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2385 bytes --]

On Wednesday 18 July 2007, Volker Armin Hemmann 
<volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 
3??':
> a) nobody is forced to buy a tivo. If you don't like it, don't buy it
> and you don't have problems.

TiVo isn't forced to use GPLv3 licensed code -- if they don't use it, they 
don't have problems.

> b) AFAIR Linus owns a Tivo himself.

Yes, I believe he does.

> c) it is morally wrong to try to dictate HARDWARE licence problems with
> a SOFTWARE licence

There's no requirement on the hardware that runs GPLv3 software.  You just 
have to provide the whole source ("preferred format for modification") to 
the full binary (everything that must be in place to run the software on 
the device it was designed for).

> d) If I can't use the software freely anymore one of the key freedoms is
> gone.

Yes, which is why the GPL v3 is necessary.

> This is the same stupidity like anti-terror law. Lets take away freedom
> and free speech to protect freedom and free speeach

Except that the anti-terror laws don't protect freedom or free speech in 
any way, just life (and it's questionable that they do that).  It's more 
like the laws that say you can be thrown in prison for unlawfully 
imprisoning others.  Your freedom will be restricted (you can't use the 
software) if you attempt to restrict the freedoms (namely, the four 
freedoms) of others.

> e) Linus is not alone. You should read what Jesper Juhl wrote in one of
> the lenghty discussions on lkml. Very interessting.
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118211628209101&w=2

1) This concerns draft versions, as the final version wasn't available.
2) Mr. Juhl admits there are downsides to allowing tivoization.

The question really remains -- do you want your code to be able to be 
locked up or not?

BSD is available for those that don't care if the code is locked up.
GPLv3 is available for those that want the maximum level of protection 
against their code (or derivatives) from being locked up.
There are a quite a few other Free Software licenses between those two 
extremes, including GPLv2.

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Stroller]

On 18 Jul 2007, at 18:40, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Linus has said it several times that he was ok with the thing Tivo
>>> did.
>>>
>>> And Tivo is the reason for that clause in GPLv3.
>>
>> I've seen no evidence that he said this AFTER spending a big chunk of
>> his own money on hardware, plugging it into his ethernet network and
>> finding himself frustrated by an inability to copy shows recorded in
>> his living room to the Tivo in his den.
>
> a) nobody is forced to buy a tivo. If you don't like it, don't buy  
> it and you
> don't have problems.
>
> b) AFAIR Linus owns a Tivo himself.
>
> c) it is morally wrong to try to dictate HARDWARE licence problems  
> with a
> SOFTWARE licence

I'm always amazed at how the internet enables folks to _reply to_  
discussion points without actually _answering_ them. But I gather  
that repeating a point three times is nearly as effective as three  
people in agreement each making that point once, so maybe that is  
your intent?


a) You ignore all the comments in other posts about the ethical  
aspects of selling locked hardware:
- end-user's ownership of the hardware they purchase; is the locking  
made clear at time of purchase?
- anti-competitive practices.
- environmental damage when obsolete locked hardware cannot be re- 
purposed. It must be disposed of in landfill, lead solder, mercury &  
whatnot leaking dramatically into the water table because the  
firmware cannot be upgraded to one that actually works.

These matters are our concern whether or not we personally buy  
Product_X. Only if you have never made a casual or uninformed  
purchase, have never found that a product you have bought does not  
work _quite_ as advertised will you be unable to appreciate these  
points. As Mr Boyd Smith Jr. points out so eloquently, it is not our  
responsibility to support Vendor_X's business model - if I find open- 
source code running on a device I have purchased I have a reasonable  
expectation that I should be able to modify that code (as the author  
intended) and run that on the same hardware I own. Hopefully new  
European legislation requiring manufacturers to be responsible for  
disposing of hardware they have sold will have some knock-on effects  
on hardware locking, but it's hardly a direct way of dealing with the  
problem.


b) I never said Linus didn't own a Tivo himself.
What I said was that he might see things differently were  
"Tivotisation" to _cost him personally_ time, inconvenience,  
frustration and expense.

I can't determine in what circumstances this might actually occur,  
but I know I'd be shouting blue murder to the rafters if I wrote  
thousands of lines of code, gave them away for free for anyone to use  
and then some bugger sold that software back to me and prevented me  
from changing it when I needed to.

The active part of the last sentence is "when needed" - we can  
discuss this forever on the internets, it's all nice and arty & farty  
to talk about morals & philosophies of freedom & software licensing  
but I challenge anyone not to feel offended when those ideals have  
kicked you in the teeth.


c) WTF!?!?!? Can you justify this statement?

Stroller.








-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Donnerstag, 19. Juli 2007, Stroller wrote:
> On 18 Jul 2007, at 18:40, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> Linus has said it several times that he was ok with the thing Tivo
> >>> did.
> >>>
> >>> And Tivo is the reason for that clause in GPLv3.
> >>
> >> I've seen no evidence that he said this AFTER spending a big chunk of
> >> his own money on hardware, plugging it into his ethernet network and
> >> finding himself frustrated by an inability to copy shows recorded in
> >> his living room to the Tivo in his den.
> >
> > a) nobody is forced to buy a tivo. If you don't like it, don't buy
> > it and you
> > don't have problems.
> >
> > b) AFAIR Linus owns a Tivo himself.
> >
> > c) it is morally wrong to try to dictate HARDWARE licence problems
> > with a
> > SOFTWARE licence
>
> I'm always amazed at how the internet enables folks to _reply to_
> discussion points without actually _answering_ them. But I gather
> that repeating a point three times is nearly as effective as three
> people in agreement each making that point once, so maybe that is
> your intent?
>
>
> a) You ignore all the comments in other posts about the ethical
> aspects of selling locked hardware:
> - end-user's ownership of the hardware they purchase; is the locking
> made clear at time of purchase?
> - anti-competitive practices.
> - environmental damage when obsolete locked hardware cannot be re-
> purposed. It must be disposed of in landfill, lead solder, mercury &
> whatnot leaking dramatically into the water table because the
> firmware cannot be upgraded to one that actually works.
>

if somebody buys locked hardware, it is his own freaking fault. Or could 
ANYBODY claim to be surprised by say Tivo?

Plus, people who are discussing 'ethical' problems with locked hardware tend 
to forget, that there is enough hardware out there that a) needs an update 
once in a while but b) has to be temper proof by the user! You might want to 
read up about clinical equipment or FCC rules. Just for fun.

Also, the new ROHS rules make pretty sure that hardware does not survive for 
long - and most hardware - shocking news, is recycled today because of the 
precious metals used in it. So no landfills, if you dispose the hardware 
correctly.

[removed a lot of preaching]

>
>
> b) I never said Linus didn't own a Tivo himself.
> What I said was that he might see things differently were
> "Tivotisation" to _cost him personally_ time, inconvenience,
> frustration and expense.

if that would be the case he would not have bought a Tivo... 

and why does a temper proof box cause you 'frustration'?

>
> I can't determine in what circumstances this might actually occur,
> but I know I'd be shouting blue murder to the rafters if I wrote
> thousands of lines of code, gave them away for free for anyone to use
> and then some bugger sold that software back to me and prevented me
> from changing it when I needed to.

well, Linus lives the open source. Tivo gave back the modifications they did 
to the community so he is satisfied. Maybe Linus is just a little bit less 
self centered than others?

>
> The active part of the last sentence is "when needed"

and when do you 'need' to hack a tivo? And why do you buy one when you need to 
hack it?
There are other solutions where the vendor does not lock the users out from 
tempering - buy them instead of a Tivo and stop whining.


> - we can 
> discuss this forever on the internets, it's all nice and arty & farty
> to talk about morals & philosophies of freedom & software licensing
> but I challenge anyone not to feel offended when those ideals have
> kicked you in the teeth.

who kicked whom? So far most of the kernel people who should be concerned with 
Tivo were pretty cool about it. Only the FSF and some of its fans, made a lot 
of noise.


>
>
> c) WTF!?!?!? Can you justify this statement?
>
> Stroller.

yes. But why should I? Linus' did it several times and he did it a lot better 
than I can ever do it. Just use google.

Some people need to realize that there is a fundamental difference between 
code and hardware. And telling someone what he can do with HIS hardware is 
just wrong. You don't like the terms of the hardware vendor? Fine. Don't buy 
it. But buying it and than complaining is just lame.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3436 bytes --]

On Wednesday 18 July 2007 06:48:38 pm Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 19. Juli 2007, Stroller wrote:
> > On 18 Jul 2007, at 18:40, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> [C]ould
> ANYBODY claim to be surprised by say Tivo?

Yes they can, since the move to DRM/TPM/etc. devices was unannounced and a 
change from previous generations of the hardware.  There's also the fact that 
the code the TiVo runs *must have a signature as one of it parts* and like 
any GPLv2 derivative, distributors (like TiVo) must provide the full and 
complete source ("preferred form for modification") of all the parts, which 
they have not.

This "signature requirement" is implicit in the GPLv2 and explicit in the 
GPLv3.  So was the patent license stuff.  The GPLv3 is just a stronger, more 
well-specified GPLv2.  If you don't like the GPLv3, you probably didn't 
*really* like the GPLv2 and might be more interested in licensing anything 
you contribute under something like MIT/X11/BSD.

Those licenses allow others to take your code, cripple it, and sell it to you 
(perhaps even on a device) for $100.  Oh, and offer you an "upgrade" to (_the 
same device_ running) your original code (which still has a few bugs, you 
might want a support contract) for $10000.

> Plus, people who are discussing 'ethical' problems with locked hardware
> tend to forget, that there is enough hardware out there that a) needs an
> update once in a while but b) has to be temper proof by the user! You might
> want to read up about clinical equipment or FCC rules. Just for fun.

Actually, during the GPLv3 process, both these points (FCC and medical 
equipment) were brought up and experts were brought in.  It was determined 
that there is no legal requirement to make such devices tamper-proof, if 
upgrades are allowed at all.

Equipment distributors are already protected from lawsuits (and the like) once 
a device is tampered with as long as they give the tamperer sufficient 
warning.

There is no legal reason why devices must be upgradable by their distributor 
but not by their owner, including devices under the auspices of the FCC or 
medical devices.

> Some people need to realize that there is a fundamental difference between
> code and hardware.

The FSF knows there's a difference between code and hardware.  However, there 
is no difference between code on a HD and code on an EEPROM.  (It's all just 
readable and writable bits.)  There's also no difference between code on a CD 
and code on a ROM chip. (It's all just reabable bits.)

> And telling someone what he can do with HIS hardware is 
> just wrong. You don't like the terms of the hardware vendor? Fine. Don't
> buy it. But buying it and than complaining is just lame.

If they sell it to me it is no longer their hardware.  It's MINE.  That's why 
DRM shouldn't be allowed AT ALL, completely independent of the software 
distribution requirements (not hardware requirements) that the GPLv3 
specifies.

If TiVo was renting (really renting, not just "in name" like "$129 lets you 
rent the device for 99 years") the devices, I would probably be on the other 
side of this discussion.

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Stroller]

As soon as I saw this thread I knew it was trouble. I was able to  
resist posting for the first couple of days - I do wish I had  
maintained this restraint.


On 19 Jul 2007, at 00:48, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> if somebody buys locked hardware, it is his own freaking fault. Or  
> could
> ANYBODY claim to be surprised by say Tivo?

Apparently some people legitimately were:

      On 18 Jul 2007, at 17:15, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
      > That's because you *could* swap out the software on early TiVos.

>> b) I never said Linus didn't own a Tivo himself.
>> What I said was that he might see things differently were
>> "Tivotisation" to _cost him personally_ time, inconvenience,
>> frustration and expense.
>
> if that would be the case he would not have bought a Tivo...

I didn't bring up Tivo, it was someone else who did so in response to  
me.

You're clearly not grasping my point, so I'm sorry for not making it  
more clearly.
I can't imagine you might be ignoring my point just for the sake of  
arguing. ;)

My reference to Linus changing his mind was in reference to him  
hypothetically going out and with his own money buying some Product_X  
(not a Tivo!!) which was shipped running Linux, which didn't perform  
quite as he expected and which he subsequently & UNEXPECTEDLY found  
he was unable to fix because it would only run his software if the  
binaries were signed with some secret cryptographic key.
I imagine him crying "They're using the operating system _I_ wrote to  
lock me out of _my own_ hardware?!?!?!?"

Discussing Tivos at this stage isn't conducive to constructive  
discussion because we're all familiar with that particular brand.

My own personal experience is with an ADSL modem-router which is  
locked to a specific internet service provider. At the time I bought  
this model <http://groups.google.com/group/uk.telecom.broadband/msg/ 
e94af4c1a93bad18> there was very little written on the internet about  
it being locked to the vendor's network - I guess it was perhaps just  
a year old and that few owners of the router would have reached the  
end of their 1-year minimum contract with the ISP (although they  
could legitimately have sold the router on within that year and used  
a USB ADSL modem instead).

It was only having bought the device that I discovered this problem  
and I didn't even know it ran Linux until I subsequently started  
analysing its firmware (I believe the vendor may have breached the  
"keep intact all notices" part of clause 4 of the GPL, but that's  
aside). After I found the device worked at my friends' house using  
their Wanadoo username & password (but not at my own house on my ISP)  
I searched extensively and found only a couple of references to the  
locking after some considerable searching. So it clearly was not my  
expectation that the device would be locked and it's hardly  
reasonable to assume I might have expected it - the practice of  
giving away "free" wireless routers with ISP contracts was far less  
common in the UK at the time.

I'm not trying to blame Wanadoo or you or Linus or anyone for my  
mistake in this matter - I'm merely trying to illustrate how easily  
one could find oneself in possession of locked hardware running open- 
source code.

If you retain your opinion on these matters having found yourself in  
such a position then I'll concede that you're a man considerably more  
charitable than I.

My hypothetical situation of Linus personally expending time,  
frustration and expense is clearly a mere literary illustration.  
Considering that his Red Hat and VA Linux stock options bring Linus'  
net worth to $20 million or so and manufacturers line up to gift him  
dual-processor G5s it's unlikely that an £80 router is going to cause  
him the same dismay it would to a single mother on minimum wage who  
unexpectedly found herself that much out of pocket.

> and why does a temper proof box cause you 'frustration'?

Because I'm unable to use a device I purchased in a way it might  
reasonably be expected to be used.

>> The active part of the last sentence is "when needed"
>
> and when do you 'need' to hack a tivo?

When your subscription expires? I assume that the Tivo subscription  
is only for the TV schedules and there are now plenty of alternative  
free sources for those. You might well wish to run MythTV on your set- 
top box - why shouldn't one do that? The user does, after all, own  
the hardware.

> And telling someone what he can do with HIS hardware is
> just wrong.

I hope you appreciate the irony of this statement.

Stroller.

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Stroller]

On 19 Jul 2007, at 01:41, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> ...
> If TiVo was renting ... the devices, I would probably be on the other
> side of this discussion.

Oh, absolutely. There's entirely no reason for someone to have the  
right to install software on a device they don't own. But IMO on a  
device they do own then that right is paramount.

Tivo could easily have made a business model out of renting the  
hardware - they could simply have adjusted the subscription to cover  
the cost of the unit. The reason they didn't was marketing, pure &  
simple - to a consumer it's far more compelling to buy a device which  
you "own" for life than to consider the on-going cost of the  
subscription. $350 for the ownership of this great device which comes  
with a year's FREE subscription is far better than signing up for a  
$30-a-month contract with nothing to show for it at the end of a year.

Perhaps Volker doesn't consider himself the kind of sucker consumer  
who would fall for such a ploy. I find myself unable to explain his  
ire at "whingers" who disagree with him.

Stroller.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[burlingk]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stroller [mailto:stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:59 AM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
> 
> 


> Routers:
The router issue was probably missed by a number of
people simply because in the states it is common for
the company to either lease out a router, or sell a
branded one that is just a standard router with the
Yahoo or cable company logo stamped on the side.  At
the end of the service term it either goes back to the
Company or you can keep using it for the next service.

I get the impression that it is the same in Japan.

YahooBB (Their branding in Japan) has an option to pay
two or three hundred yen exta a month to lease a router.

>From what you are saying, it sounds like it is safe to
assume that it is NORMALY that way in the EU countries
as well.  I could be wrong there. ^^;;

> The TiVo issue:
I previously missunderstood how the TiVo functioned. I
have to admit when I am wrong.  I was under the impression
that the unit worked through a specific network or
providers that connected to the network.  I have read
a little more on the subject, and I have to say that
there is a difference between a device designed to connect
to a specific network and receive a service, and a device
that is advertised as a DVR with a few addons.

The DirectTV reciever boxes make a littler more sense that
way, but not the standalones.

I still believe that a vender has a right to present a
service as they intend to use it, as long as they are
completely honest with their customers and do so within
the terms of any contracts they have with content and
software providers.  In this case that means the GPL.

They were within the word of the GPL at the time.  However,
they were not totally honest with the way they advertised
And hyped their product.

:P

After reading the Wikipedia article, I see that the VCR+
concept was the same thing without the requirement for
network fed TV guide listings.  I _THINK_ VCR+ used an
encoded time stamp and channel number. :P

It never caught on so well though, because it didn't have
a lot of hype behind it except for the listing in the 
TV Guide, and it used VHS tapes instead of a digital format.

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6681 bytes --]

On Thursday 19 July 2007, burlingk@cv63.navy.mil wrote about 'RE: 
[gentoo-user] 2 to 3??':
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [mailto:bss03@volumehost.net]
> > If you don't like the GPLv3, you probably didn't
> > *really* like the GPLv2 and might be more interested
> > in licensing anything you contribute under something
> > like MIT/X11/BSD.
> >
> > Those licenses allow others to take your code, cripple
> > it, and sell it to you (perhaps even on a device) for
> > $100.  Oh, and offer you an "upgrade" to (_the same device_
> > running) your original code (which still has a few bugs, you
> > might want a support contract) for $10000.
>
> I can't agree with your statements here.  Unless you have
> no understanding of copyright law, you should realize that
> YOUR code cannot be crippled regardless of the license that
> you put it under.

Not true.  Say you release code into the public domain [1].  Now, evil 
corporation X takes that code, strips out some features, sign it and put 
it on a cell phone.  They sell you the phone for $300 (free with 2 year 
contract) or a version with your original software on it (the exact same 
hardware) for $600 (no discount available).  They pull a "TiVo" can ensure 
that you can't load modified software on it -- or you can but then the 
phone refuses to do anything put print "This phone needs service.  Please 
take this phone to your local retailer for service."  They don't even tell 
you it's your code -- someone in Turkey found that out and emailed you in 
broken English. ;)

Your code is locked up and you can no longer upgrade it (or even use ALL of 
the features that YOU wrote) without paying $$$.

Sure, you can still upgrade and release your code, but you can't run it on 
a device YOU PAID for that is ALREADY running YOUR code, UNMODIFIED.  You 
also can't help other people using these phones that THEY paid for, even 
though your code runs unmodified.

The GPL has always been engineered to prevent this behavior.  The GPLv1 and 
GPLv2 both concentrated on the way to prevent this through copyright law.  
However, this has proven to be not enough.  After bring cases to count 
(and settling because the case was so clear-cut) multiple times, it became 
fairly clear to all parties that GPLv2 was overly difficult, if not 
impossible, to be simply "attacking" with copyright law.  So, entities 
that would rather not contribute, have attacked with technological and 
patent-law methods to restrict users' freedoms and the GPLv3 meets those 
attacks head on.  I hope RMS and the FSF will act even more quickly 
(either with aggressive litigation or further license revisions) to future 
attacks on the freedoms that are meant to be preserved throughout the Free 
Software ecosystem.

> The code that YOU write and release under an Open Source or
> Free Software license will still be available under that
> license even after someone else uses it in a project of their own.

Yes.

> If you use a license that allows for relicensing or closing
> of the code and someone does so, then it only effects THEIR
> Version of the code.  Yours is still intact, and unharmed.

With the BSD lincese and public domain, we get into case case where the 
freedom of the code depends on where you take the measurement (see above).  
RMS witnessed such things happening and preventing the free code from 
always free.  Thus, he wrote the GPLv1 with the goal of making sure Free 
Software was free everywhere and to everyone.

> The MIT/BSD/etc licenses have the advantage that a person
> can if they so desire CHOOSE whether or not they wish to
> make THEIR code and modifications available.  This is a choice.

They ALSO get to choose whether they give their users your code and can 
even prevent users from knowing what code they are running, especially if 
your are prolific.

The GPL also covers (read: places restrictions on) derivative works, 
something that is your right as a copyright holder.  BSD/MIT/X11 don't, 
and LGPL makes only minimal requirements on derivative works to ensure the 
original work remains free.

> Many of us WILL release our own code even under those terms,
> but it is a choice to do so.  I am not saying that the idea
> of GPL is wrong.  Different developers have different desires
> for their code.  I am simply saying that the Open Source route
> is just as valid as the Free Software route.

But the GPL has *always* been about Free Software, not "just" Open Source.  
By accepting the terms of the GPLv2, TiVo should have been prepared to 
honor the Free Software definition and not attempt to restrict their 
users' freedoms.

As a user I wish *every* piece of software I received was under the terms 
of the GPLv3.  As a developer, I understand the allure of the BSD 
license -- it's great to be able to grab others' stuff with a few strings 
attached as possible.  However, since I'll always end up using more code 
than I write, I prefer to release under the GPLv3.

> As for selling it back to you.  It is up to every person to
> take measures to educate themselves on their purchases.

I agree, but when given binaries under the GPLv2, you *should have* been 
able to use modified versions.  That *was* and *is* one of the goals of 
the GPL.  From the point of view of the authors of the GPL and those Free 
Software developers that took care in choosing their license, what TiVo 
did was *undesired* to say the least, and that's why we needed the GPLv3 
to *fix* things.

> As long as both hold up their part of the deal, things
> go well.

I contend that TiVo hasn't really held up there part of the deal, but if 
Eben thought the case could be won on the wording of the GPLv2, we 
probably wouldn't even have a GPLv3 right now.

> Beyond that, always thinking in terms of worst case
> scenerios may be good in war time, but otherwise it
> will just give you ulcers.  ^_^  So, like, pick your
> favorite license, study what you buy before you buy,
> and relax a bit. ^_^

I totally agree here.  (Of course, I think the Free Software vs. 
Proprietary Software "war" is just heating up.)

I'm ready to call end of thread if everyone else is. :)

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     

[1] BSD/X11/MIT licenses allow this behavior to, but it can be a *bit* more 
obvious in that case wince they do have to retain copyright notices.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[burlingk]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [mailto:bss03@volumehost.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:42 AM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

> 
> If you don't like the GPLv3, you probably didn't 
> *really* like the GPLv2 and might be more interested
> in licensing anything you contribute under something
> like MIT/X11/BSD.
> 
> Those licenses allow others to take your code, cripple
> it, and sell it to you (perhaps even on a device) for 
> $100.  Oh, and offer you an "upgrade" to (_the same device_ 
> running) your original code (which still has a few bugs, you 
> might want a support contract) for $10000.
>

I can't agree with your statements here.  Unless you have
no understanding of copyright law, you should realize that
YOUR code cannot be crippled regardless of the license that
you put it under.

The code that YOU write and release under an Open Source or
Free Software license will still be available under that 
license even after someone else uses it in a project of their own.

If you use a license that allows for relicensing or closing
of the code and someone does so, then it only effects THEIR
Version of the code.  Yours is still intact, and unharmed.

The MIT/BSD/etc licenses have the advantage that a person
can if they so desire CHOOSE whether or not they wish to
make THEIR code and modifications available.  This is a choice.

Many of us WILL release our own code even under those terms,
but it is a choice to do so.  I am not saying that the idea
of GPL is wrong.  Different developers have different desires
for their code.  I am simply saying that the Open Source route
is just as valid as the Free Software route.  

As for selling it back to you.  It is up to every person to
take measures to educate themselves on their purchases.  It
is the responsibility of the vendor, license or no license 
to make sure that the information is available for the
customer to make an educated decision.

As long as both hold up their part of the deal, things
go well.  Both customers and merchants are just as bad
about not doing their part though.  Merchants sometimes
lie about their products, or simply with hold the truth 
(which is just as bad).  Customers often buy things on
Impulse with no real clue what they are buying.  If one
party to the transaction is taking measures to hold up
their side of this implied bargain, then they should be
able to expect the other side to as well.  Failure to do
so often times ends up in the faithful party getting
screwed.  This happens to venders as well as customers.
I will admit however, that in today's economy, it is often
the vender who has the upper hand.

Beyond that, always thinking in terms of worst case
scenerios may be good in war time, but otherwise it
will just give you ulcers.  ^_^  So, like, pick your
favorite license, study what you buy before you buy,
and relax a bit. ^_^


--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[burlingk]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [mailto:bss03@volumehost.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 3:00 PM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
>
> I totally agree here.  (Of course, I think the Free Software vs. 
> Proprietary Software "war" is just heating up.)
> 
> I'm ready to call end of thread if everyone else is. :)
> 

I was going to argue a few things, but I think this
is probably a better idea. ^_^

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list