RMS on Proposed GPLv3 changes 222
H4x0r Jim Duggan writes "Last Saturday - the first day of FOSDEM, Richard Stallman gave what seems to have been his first public talk about the draft GPLv3. Ciaran O'Riordan of Free Software Foundation Europe was there and, after recording with his digital camera, has published a transcript of RMS's GPLv3 talk. O'Riordan previously made a transcript of the January 16th first presentation on the GPLv3 which consists of 70 minutes of Eben Moglen, with 20 minutes worth of interruptions from Stallman."
A request (Score:2)
Re:A request (Score:2)
Re:A request (Score:2)
Re:A request (Score:2)
Re:A request (Score:3, Informative)
We recorded all the speeches this year and the movies can be found here [belnet.be]. Not everything is up yet, and they're still working on ogg/theora versions, and the filenames may not be too descriptive if you weren't there, but whatever... I already sent some feedback and those issues will probably be fixed soon.
Disclaimer: I was but a humble volunteer; don't spam me with any questions 'coz this is about all I know about the movies. ;)
Is Stallman's software patents talk published? (Score:2)
Thanks.
Re:Is Stallman's software patents talk published? (Score:2)
Hmm, I see something with Stallman talking, titled "GPL"... It's this one [belnet.be].
If you run Linux, start downloading it with wget, and when you get a couple hundred KB, watch the file with mplayer while it's rolling in... This way you can check out if it's the one you need, and stop the wget process + delete the file if it isn't.
Re:A request (Score:4, Funny)
"Please stop calling it the GPLv3. It's GNU/PLv3!"
Re:A request (Score:2)
not enough (Score:2)
hawk
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A request (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait, what?
Didn't RMS blow a gasket a few weeks ago, talking about how Creative Commons sucks eggs because it includes optional clauses [slashdot.org]?
How is this dif
Re:A request (Score:2)
No he did not.
His complaint had nothing to do with "optional clauses."
It was all about entirely different licenses being grouped under a single name.
Re:A request (Score:2)
1. A manufacturer who takes GPL'd code, signs it, and then sells hardware that only runs code signed with their key, which they don't redistribute, is in violation of the license. This is relatively narrowly defined, despite Torvalds throwing a hissy fit about this part of the license a few weeks ago, thinking it outlawed all forms of DRM (it doesn't.)
Perhaps, for those who haven't read it, you could quote the clause which refers to "hardware", or "manufacturer" or that the software distributer also has to
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A request (Score:2)
Example:
The drink drive laws are narrowly defined.
It
Re:A request (Score:2)
We're talking RMS here. I believe 100 pages is considered a concise summary.
Re:A request (Score:2)
How free is the BSD code when it is trapped inside a Microsoft or Apple's proprietary binary?
Can you add their improvements to your original code and released the improved versin under the BSD? Of course not, and you know it.
The biggest freedom the BSD license grants is the freedom of proprietary software houses to exploit the work of BSD coders without the necessity of returning anything back to the community except a restrictive EULA and an IP patent.
I'll take the GPL any day, even v3.
Re:A request (Score:2)
Exactly as free as it what when it was released. You can still download the original, modify it, and release it (or not). Just because Microsoft or Apple don't release their changes doesn't make the BSD code any less free.
If software freedom is valuable to you, then the BSD-licensed version of the software will be more valuable to you than the closed version, even if the closed version has a few more feature
RMS Interruptions (Score:2)
Is that meant to sound like a bad thing? I hope not, if you're touching the GPL, I'd hope it's progenitor would interrupt you if you make a potential error
RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
It seems to me that RMS views are no longer connected with where Open Source should go, and will just lead Open Source to be too socially libral for wide use.
I disagree with RMS so my Mod points will negitivly reflect it.
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:3)
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
He never was. He was always against it. RMS is connected to Free Software, not to Open Source.
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
That's the real d
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
Is something to the effect of "If you use my software, you have to prepend GNU/ to the name of your product" in the license yet?
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
When you run the Linux kernel, you're typically running the GNU operating system with it. GNU and Linux. GNU with Linux. GNU plus Linux... It's not 'GNU' or 'Linux' or 'GNU Linux'
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
Some people are afraid that the changes in gpl3 will keep people from embracing open source, but it is essential to have a licence that will be of use in the years to come.
RMS has liberal views, but at this point he's the only one addressing the proble
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
Intellectual monopoly rights restrict what the owner of a piece of property is allowed to do with that property. The GPL essentially restores those rights to the owner of any copy, and prevents further re-restriction. That fundamentally suppor
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
True. Binary drivers are a huge problem, as well, most acutely in the wireless and video subsystems. U
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
As far as GPL v3 being too socially liberal, if people do not like the license they will not use it. Furthermore, most people can still use GPL v2. Its not like RMS will somehow revoke the GPL v2 license. There is nothing to stop you from releasing the Jellomizer Public License and creating terms exactly as you'd want them. Many people might not like your
Bill? Is that you? (Score:2, Informative)
The GPL3 is trying to address a great number of current problems with the GPL2 including things like use of web-scripts, patents, and other holes. It has nothi
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
I don't think so. I'm a more BSD fan than anyone else, but I can see where he is coming from. He is simply trying to make it so GPL can't be used to restrict the rights of others.
People don't have to use it if they don't want to for things they want to write from scratch, but he is giving the option for authors who want to use a GPL license but don't want their works to be used do
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
And where, pray tell, is that? Last time I checked, freedom meant letting people make their own decisions about where to go. By that estimation, "where OS should go" isn't one direction - it's the myriad directions that individuals resolve to go, given their freedom.
I don't know what you've been reading, but I sure do see a lot of people (eg, Slashdot, and... well YOU) listening to what RMS has to say. How that qualif
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
Surely the only valid opinion is that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is why you must pray to Him every day.
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2, Redundant)
You whole post is nonsense.
* You don't like blind followers of X (well who says they do like blind followers of anything?)
* RMS lacks compramize(sic) - So he sticks to his principles.
* He puts his views in his license... duh
* "I tend to follow the notion that it is up to the developer to decide which license to use" - duh again - who said that we should force someone who writes new code to chose a particular license?
Did you make
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:3, Interesting)
But no, he doesn't force anyone.
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
Even if he was heavy handed and rude in the way he did it, all you are showing is that he's lacks any grace. He's still not forcing anyway. And btw, Linus lacks grace as well. It's a trait of being geek I think
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
This would be an incredibly stupid practice since it would create an inpenetrabel jungle of licenses. There are so many FOSS licenses already that it's hard to imagine that someone needs something that hasn't been done before or can't be done by licensing under more than one license simultaneously. Fortunately nearly noone actually does this.
Many software packages do this, yielding licenses that are GPL compatible but eith
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
I see where you're coming from with respect to the GPL (many people express the idea you mentioned by saying the GPL is "viral"). I understand this, and don't think the GPL is always appropriate.
However, if the developer's goal is to ensure that his or her software will always be available to the public in a human readable form (i.e. source code), then the GPL is what you're looking for. This can be useful in sever
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
Congratulations: you've identified one of the reasons why 'open source' is not necessarily the same as 'free' - which is what RMS advocates.
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
RMS didn't write linux, and had far less involvement it the tools used top write linux than most people think.
He didn't even write emacs, he "invented" it - others wrote a program to act the same way as his macros used in an earlier text editor. He did a lot of good things, like the GPL, early versions of gcc and starting off the hurd - but he has never had much to do with linux apart from the silly LiGnuX renaming thing and the current gnu pr
Re:RMS likes to talk doesn't he. (Score:2)
Look at the history of emacs and you'll see who the authors were. Look at the story about the fork and you'll see that RMS was not the developer of it on either branch even then - he just told someone else to work on a fork of it when he disliked features that would not help the hurd (eg. X windows support). He's done a lot of good things (early versions of gcc and a pile of other applications), but apart from the original text macros in
More info at gplv3.fsf.org (Score:5, Informative)
These transcripts, and other such documents, are collected at the official GPLv3 wiki [fsf.org], on the Reusable texts page [fsf.org]. And there's more info about the draft and how to participate in the public consultation at gplv3.fsf.org [fsf.org].
Re:More info at gplv3.fsf.org (Score:2)
Summaries of the transcripts, including explanations of the terms and the implications of the ideas, are for sale fo me. This is in accordance with terms of the old and new GPL, although I offer no indemnity against a SCO subpoena. Sorry!
Re:More info at gplv3.fsf.org (Score:2)
Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL v3 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
If it is not possible for other machines that run Red Hat code to exist, then it's clear that Red Hat is designing the code for a specific architecture that requires signing, and therefore is required to distribute the key so that you can sign modified binaries yourself.
Re:Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL (Score:2)
The point of the key is to guarentee the that the code came from Red Hat, and giving away that key is idiotic. Giving away that key will let any wanker say that his code has been signed and certifies by Redhat.
If you choose to run a machine that only runs signed binaries, that's your problem, not the GPL.
In trying to protect itself, the FSF is going to shoot itself in the foot and remove the leg.
Re:Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL (Score:2)
The key is a signature. All it does is verify that the file came from somewhere. If Redhat distributes to a third party and the third party wants to modify the software and distribute it they are free to. And you are free to take the modified version and modify it further. No where though are you given the rights to impersonate Redhat. All they need to do is release the source code.
This is a good question: he's thinking about it (Score:2)
Re:This is a good question: he's thinking about it (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Red Hat creates a binary linux distro based on GPLv3.
2) Dell makes hardware that only runs *specific, known binaries*.
3) You buy machine and compile linux from source, but it won't run.
How does GPL v3 help?
Dell can't distribute RH linux without making it possible for you to run your compiled version (whether the actual hardware that only loads the signed binaries is theirs or not), since they also have to accept GPLv3 in order to distribute software that is licensed with GPLv3.
What's the loophole?
Dell could just ship blank machines that you have to load yourself, that only run Red Hat. Dell may not even have agreed to GPLv3 for anything (by running completely commercial , bsd-like, or GPL-2 software).
What's the solution?
The GPLv3 can include a clause that if you accept the license you cannot distribute *any* product that prevents a user from using any of their own modified GPL-covered software. This means for Dell to ship a computer that only runs Red Hat Linux, they have to use *no* GPL3 software of any kind in their entire company. That's about the best you could do, legally, and even still it may not be enforceable.
Personally I don't care how far-reaching the GPLv3 is. The idea that Dell could take my work and actively use it to take away people's rights is so wrong that there's pretty much nothing the license could do that would be worse. I'll be releasing my code as GPLv3 as soon as it comes out.
Re:This is a good question: he's thinking about it (Score:2)
That may be the most insightfull poster on the thread. You should post your solution to FSF.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
This is the primary issue preventing Linus from accepting GPL3. Linus writes:
Re: (Score:2)
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
If DRM'd hardware is the "recommended or principal context of use", then you apparently do have to distribute your private key.
It is worse than that, context of use says nothing about limiting to hardware - ie. it could be software - and nothing about DRM - it could be (say) a trusted software update application.
In fact, in general terms, the "recommended or principal context of use" for a signed binary can only be a context in which a signed (with the right key) binary will behave differently to an unsigne
Re:Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL (Score:2)
Bromskloss (750445) didn't understand it at all.
Qzukk (229616) doesn't understand that the software could run on other hardware, but the hardware can not run other software.
phoenix.bam! (642635) doesn't understand that the modified binary won't run.
i23098 (723616)
ainst GPL (Score:1)
by i23098 (723616) doesn't understand that "MonopolySoft" doesn't *have* the key, nor to they distribute software.
Basicly, you cre
Re:Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL (Score:2)
You got almost all right. But the WebShop can't sell both the hardware and software, because it must distribute the SoftCorp's keys.
That means that it is hard to get a sucessfull lock-in this way. Lots of companies won't be able to do so. But this protection against DRM isn't absolute, the same way that DRM isn't also absolute (even in hardware).
Re:Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL (Score:2)
Its no different from selling DVD burners and blank DVDs. it could be used for illegal things (and often is), but its not up to Webshop to prevent people from doing illegal things with the stuff they b
Re:Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL (Score:2)
GPL triger on the moment that you pass some GPLed software to another person. That means that if WebStore sells the program, it must agree to the GPL, so it can't sell the piece of hardware.
The only way to put the two (hardware and software) toghether without violating the GPL is by the end user doing so.
Re:Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL (Score:2)
I don't really think this situation is even a minor threat. The thing is that "you" can't legally sell the hardware/software combo- no one can. Just because SoftCorp doesn't make the keys available, doesn't mean that anyone else who gets the source from them is relieved of that responsibility. If you distribute SoftCorp's software, you are under all of the same obligations they are. If you were to
Re:Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL (Score:2)
This is not an attack.
MonopolySoft is not violating the GPL. They are not preventing you from building the software, they are not preventing you from distributing the software. They are restricting which software you are allowed to run on the machine, which is etirely different.
In short you're SOL, and should have not purchased that box.
RMS is subverting the spirit of his own GPL, by not just placing restrictions on distribution, but restrictions on usage and modification of GPL software.
Re:Man-in-the-Middle Signature Attacks against GPL (Score:2)
On eating chalk (Score:3, Funny)
Eben Moglen: Yes, I was using the chalk after you went home at night. Sometimes I had
Richard Stallman: Did you eat it?
Eben Moglen: You see how it is. There was chalk involved, he just wasn't around for it. Yeh, it was curing my indigestion actually.
Re:On eating chalk (Score:2)
Come on, man (Score:2)
Yes, I agree that TP and DRM are more apropriately called what Stallman calls them, but your average Joe who wants to learn more about FOSS, GNU, etc. hears this and thinks the guy is just some conspiracy lo
Re:Come on, man (Score:2)
Just like how the government wants to call anyone who's a dissident 'unpatriotic', etc. Think about it.
Re:Come on, man (Score:2)
Re:Come on, man (Score:2)
The problem is, the Geek isn't in control. In the larger world, I have yet to see coinages like "copyleft" and "treacherous computing" gain any traction whatever.
Language is a virus from outer space... (Score:2)
--Laurie Anderson, respect to Wm. Burroughs
He may alienate people on the topic in question, but if he succeeds in waking them up to the importance of recognizing this kind of language, he's succeeded in something, IMHO, far more important.
Re:Come on, man (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should any of us accept the phrase "Trusted Computing"? It's intended to be doublespeak, we should applaud RMS him for pointing it out.
J.
Re:Come on, man (Score:2)
Raise your hand if you think the USA PATRIOT ACT is patriotic (for those that live in the USA). I sure don't think it is. Controlling language comes close to controlling individuals. Just look at religion. With out incessant repitition of what is "truth" since childhood most people would never have bought into almost any religion. Yes, there are exceptions to every rule of course. As it applies to this, well if you give something a nice and good and SAFE sounding name and only talk about all of the won
Re:Come on, man (Score:2)
Re:Come on, man (Score:2)
Yes, Like RMS calling his software "free software". If it's free software, why are there all the restrictions?
Re:Come on, man (Score:2)
The restrictions on free software are there to keep it free.
Re:O RLY? (Score:2)
Traditionally accepted names? What is this tradition you speak of?
I don't think we were talking about DRM back in the 1800's. Heck I didn't hear about DRM until the late 1990's and then I don't think society
Re:O RLY? (Score:2)
Tradition doesn't define what's ethical. (Score:2)
All of these terms are new. There is no more "tradition" behind the monopolist's nomenclature than there is behind RMS' user-centric nomenclature. Nor should "tradition" define what is right and proper for a society. Did it ever occur to you that an "average Joe who wants to learn more about FOSS, GNU, etc." might want the ethical take on the matter that RMS presents and that it is the dog-eat-dog business-speak which alienates people? Since when did the business language become unquestioningly correct
Re:Come on, man (Score:2)
Then use them. Let them be the first definitions that people ever hear, so that when they hear the *AA-coined versions they'll recognize them as doublespeak.
Re:Come on, man (Score:2)
If you don't like the names, prefix them with "so-called", or something like that, so that you distance yourself from them
Re:Come on, man (Score:2)
He's always been there - for instance his opinion that we shouldn't have to use any sort of authentication to use computers, go to conferences etc. I disagree with him and use passwords on computers, but agree with him that a good licence such as the GPL is a good thing, but once again disagree that there can be no licence but his. Listen to him once on each issue (not worth hearing the repeats), consider what he says, and then decide what you think. We don't
Fundamental flaw (Score:2)
DRM is not a malicious feature any more than CD writers are a malicious feature (though the RIAA might claim they are in much the same way Stallman wants to claim that DRM is). The reality is that DRM is a tool, and it's not the tool that's malicious, but some of its potential uses. We should be pushing hard, as a community that comm
Re:Fundamental flaw (Score:2)
Do you care that you won't be able to use your box for media at all? That you won't be able to read any website using TCPA to "secure their copyrights" (which may mean the literal text on the webpage)? That you might not be able to connect to the Internet wuth a residential conne
Re:Fundamental flaw (Score:2)
It's not as if people won't write software for these platforms, but now software written for other platforms under the GPLv3 won't be used by such people. That means that there is a strong market pressure to select
Re:Fundamental flaw (Score:2)
No. The GPL only covers distribution, not personal use. If you can get the software installed, then you can use it all you want, but you can't redistribute the software to others unless you also provide the ability to get the software (including modified versions) installed. This is fully in the spirit of the GPLv2. The whole point is, and always has been, that the users should have the ability to fix bugs/add
Re:Fundamental flaw (Score:2)
Ah, but there's the rub! If I go to the hardware vendor, get myself a key and port gcc (if there is eventually a gcc with GPLv3 licensing terms) to it, then I CANNOT give my version to anyone else! That's just silly, and yet unless I am allowed to release that key (which I probably am not allowed to do under my agreement with the hardware company), I can't give you a working compi
IBM ? (Score:2)
Re:Bias showing (Score:4, Funny)
you have neglected to address Richard M. Stallman with the proper respect. Don't you know you must now say Richard M. Stallman, Peace be upon Him, or, in abbreviated form, RMS(PBUH)
Re:Bias showing (Score:2)
Re:Bias showing (Score:2)
And you have to make the gesture of the holy beard.
Re:Bias showing (Score:2)
Re:Bias showing (Score:2, Informative)
Seems to me like you're either very paranoid or just made a really bad joke.
Re:Bias showing (Score:4, Informative)
Nothing to see here, move along.
Re:Bias showing (Score:2)
Re:You can't fight Trusted Computing with a Licens (Score:2)
Completely wrong. This fight cannot be won with wallets, because the difference between DRM and non-DRM hardware can be as simple as not loading a key into the DRM thus disabling it. So every dollar you spend on non-DRM hardware also supports DRM-hardware. It's the same hardware.
Unless you think anti-DRM purchasers are going to be more than half the market, they are perpetually being marginalized by the faster-growing market of DRM-enabled hardware. And even if