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

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??

[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??

[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??

[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]

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??

[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??

[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??

[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

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

[»Q«]

In <news:469D18A7.9090001@kutulu.org>,
Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:

>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.

Perhaps you mean downstream developers who accept the GPL granted by
upstream?  The original developers can do whatever they like with their
code, since they don't need to license it from anyone.

-- 
»Q«

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

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

[Mike Edenfield]

»Q« wrote:
> In <news:469D18A7.9090001@kutulu.org>,
> Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Perhaps you mean downstream developers who accept the GPL granted by
> upstream?  The original developers can do whatever they like with their
> code, since they don't need to license it from anyone.

Yes, I wasn't very clear in my original statement.  I was 
referring to developers who choose to use code licensed 
under a GPL or similar license.  The GPL removes their
freedoms, in order to guarantee other freedoms for the bulk 
of the public.  I've spoken with many people who balk at 
stating things this way, but it's simple truth.  It's really 
a reasonable compromise, IMO.  The "downstream" developers 
are making the choice to give up their freedoms by 
using/modifying the code to begin with.


-- 
-- Mike

Still using IE? Get Firefox!
http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=6492&t=1
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list