From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1IArBU-00012C-LZ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:50:05 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l6HHmBV5003530; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:48:11 GMT Received: from ender.volumehost.net (adsl-69-154-123-202.dsl.fyvlar.swbell.net [69.154.123.202]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l6HHhE6Z030177 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:43:14 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ender.volumehost.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AD23207D1 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:14:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at volumehost.net Received: from ender.volumehost.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ender.volumehost.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id c0+2aAdcEuoV for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:14:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from adsl-69-154-123-205.dsl.fyvlar.swbell.net (adsl-69-154-123-205.dsl.fyvlar.swbell.net [69.154.123.205]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ender.volumehost.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 706E71D7EB for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:14:45 +0000 (UTC) From: "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3?? Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:14:25 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <14178ED3A898524FB036966D696494FB138F1B@messenger.cv63.navy.mil> In-Reply-To: <14178ED3A898524FB036966D696494FB138F1B@messenger.cv63.navy.mil> X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart7656012.QOohad8akx"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200707171214.30923.bss03@volumehost.net> X-Archives-Salt: fe6d80f9-46e7-46fd-8d80-0922bc5d17c5 X-Archives-Hash: 66325f5c5eb22bfab5fc2b3105f88c79 --nextPart7656012.QOohad8akx Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 17 July 2007, burlingk@cv63.navy.mil wrote about 'RE:=20 [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 > > 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= =20 licensed works is now prevented from using technological, and patent-law=20 means to limit users' freedoms, including freedom 1. Under the GPLv2,=20 technological means (DRM) wasn't covered at all, and patent provisions=20 where not nearly as explicit. Remember that the GPL has always been about all the users NOT just the=20 developers/distributors -- "adapt it to your needs" is not allowed when it= =20 restricts other users' freedoms. Think about RMS' printer incident, where the driver/firmware was crap but=20 locked down so he couldn't fix it. Free software should not be able to be= =20 locked down in that way (among other things); in this day and age, that=20 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= =20 memory is part of the hardware, and does not necessarily need to be Free=20 Software -- it might as well be an IC rather than code. HOWEVER, he=20 believes code that *can* upgraded -- such as BIOSes that support flashing,= =20 or firmware that is loaded into chip memory by the OS, any bits that=20 execute and CAN be changed -- should be Free Software, especially if it is= =20 derived from (in the copyright sense) Free Software. =20 That's what is especially irksome about "Tivoization", the distributor of=20 the software (Tivo) has more rights than the users' of the software (us). = =20 =46or a license (GPLv2) whose goal is to protect all users' freedoms, and=20 values users' freedom over developers/distributors to be turned=20 upside-down by technological means is unacceptable -- prompting the=20 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= =20 must be able to upgrade the software and use it in the same way they used=20 the software you gave them. That's actually what the GPLv2 says as well,=20 although it doesn't specifically ban technological measures that=20 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=20 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=20 were provided under the license and use what anyone could, they didn't=20 have to understand the code to benefit from improvements others made. =20 Gentoo (and other distributions) regularly patch code that I don't=20 understand and I end up getting an improved version of KDE/GNOME/X and the= =20 entities behind those projects don't (and shouldn't be able to) prevent=20 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=20 > 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= =20 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= =20 users get all four freedoms. GPLv3 places more, necessary restrictions=20 since GPLv2 has allowed distributors to effectively remove users'=20 freedoms. The GPLv3 is all about freedom -- but freedom is only realized=20 by restricting the ability to limit freedom. ("Your freedom to swing your= =20 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= =20 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=20 of copyright law from affecting your code -- that is it allows others the=20 freedom to license their original work under whatever license they choose=20 (as you did), combine it with your work, and distribute the whole as long=20 as they follow your license for your stuff. It's a very good license, and I think that it is normally the better=20 license to choose *unless* your goal is to have all software be Free=20 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= =20 code to remain in the community. The GPLv3 strengthens this requirement. = =20 If you want other to be able to lock away your code (or derivative works=20 of your code) you should use the BSD license. =2D-=20 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,=3D ,-_-. =3D.=20 bss03@volumehost.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'=20 http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ =20 --nextPart7656012.QOohad8akx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGnPj255pqL7G1QFkRAtvaAJ9uzjtgVN6HBokWb80ACAv8Sl9mkwCfb/mv ozEsQhHT6aZQ4EvALwbA/DE= =ZNmN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart7656012.QOohad8akx-- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list